1 2 3 4 THE NORTH BATTLEFORD WATER INQUIRY 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 * * * * * 13 14 BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Robert D. Laing 15 16 17 HELD AT: Tropical Inn, 18 North Battleford, Saskatchewan 19 20 * * * * * 21 22 23 24 November 28, 2001 25


1 APPEARANCES: 2 JAMES RUSSELL, Esq. ) 3 CHRISTOPHER BOYCHUK, Esq. (np) ) Commission Counsel 4 BLAIR BLEAKNEY, Esq. ) 5 6 WARREN E. BICKFORD ) Executive Director 7 NORM DOELL ) Registrar 8 9 L. TED PRIEL, Q.C., Esq. ) The City of North 10 K.A. STEVENSON, Q.C., Esq. ) Battleford 11 GARY D. YOUNG, Q.C., Esq. ) The Battlefords 12 MARK VANSTONE, Esq. (np) District Health 13 ROBERT McDONALD, Esq. ) Association of 14 Professional Engineers 15 & Geoscientists of 16 Saskatchewan 17 MICHAEL TOCHOR ) Department of Justice 18 L. M. SCHWANN (np) ) Saskatchewan 19 ) Environment and 20 Resource Management 21 R. G. HISCHEBETT (np) ) Saskatchewan Health 22 R. E. PETRICH (np) ) Saskatchewan Municipal 23 Affairs and Housing 24 T. MICHEAL McDOUGALL (np) ) Saskatchewan Water 25 Corporation


1 SCOTT HOPLEY, Esq. ) Saskatchewan 2 MS. LESLIE BELLOC-PINDER (np) Environment Society and 3 Nature Saskatchewan 4 N.G. GABRIELSON, Q.C., Esq. (np)) Dr. L. Gerharde Benade 5 Dr. David Butler-Jones 6 and Dr. Eric Young 7 R.W. MITCHELL, Q.C., Esq. (np) ) Canadian Union of 8 SANDRA G. MITCHELL, Ms. ) Public Employees, 9 Local 287 10 G.J. SCHARFSTEIN, Esq. ) On behalf of 427 11 individuals and 12 corporations affected 13 by the contaminated 14 potable water in North 15 Battleford 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25




1 LIST OF EXHIBITS 2 EXHIBIT NO. DESCRIPTION PAGE 3 C-91 Submission made by Canadian Union of Public 4 Employees to the British Columbia's 5 Independent Drinking Water Review Panel 37 6 C-92 Protocol for Boil Water Orders in the 7 license of EPCOR in Edmonton 68 8 C-93 Binder entitled 'Budget Information' 70 9 C-94 Note authored by Douglas McEwen dated 10 November 4th, 1996 to Mayor Glenn Hornick 11 and members of City Council relating to 12 the Pommen Report 221 13 C-95 Memorandum to Douglas McEwen from Mr. 14 Berry dated June 4th, 1998, subject, F.E. 15 Holliday Water Treatment Plant, disruption of 16 services, media report of Wednesday, June 4th, 17 1998 236 18 C-96 Audited Financial Statements of the City of 19 North Battleford for the years 1997, 1998 20 and 1999 241 21 C-97 Correspondence dated October the 22nd of 22 1999, addressed to Mr. Andy Iwanchuk, the 23 CUPE representative, and Mr. Bill Humeny 266 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:30 a.m. 2 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, well good morning, 4 counsel. Well perhaps we'll -- perhaps we'll continue the 5 Hearings and as Dr. Stanley is on the stand and has counsel 6 decided how or what order cross-examination will take place, 7 of those of you who have not already indicated? 8 Well let's say -- 9 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Mr. Commissioner, I would 10 prefer to go last with this witness, I think for obvious 11 reasons. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, I kind of assumed 13 that, Mr. Stevenson. Mr. Young, do you have any questions? 14 MR. GARY YOUNG: No questions, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Hopley...? 17 MR. SCOTT HOPLEY: I have a few. 18 19 STEPHEN STANLEY, Resumes: 20 21 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. SCOTT HOPLEY: 22 Q: Dr. Stanley I'll start -- I have 23 basically three (3) areas that I have a few questions to ask 24 you, and with reference to -- now I'm referring to the North 25 Battleford Sewage Treatment Plant, and basically I'm just


1 asking you a hypothetical. 2 If a decision was made to begin chlorinating 3 in the system there at a point before the chlorine contact 4 chamber, such that the -- a concern arose that this earlier 5 chlorination was interfering with the biological digestion 6 processes, would you call this earlier chlorination in the 7 process an alteration to the plant's operation? 8 A: An alteration to the plant's operation? 9 Q: Is it an alteration to the system? 10 A: I guess it would depend a lot on what 11 that details with that are, and -- and where they moved the 12 chlorine, okay, and -- and -- and you know, it's difficult I 13 guess on a hypothetical case to -- to state whether I guess 14 it's an alteration to the process. 15 And then I guess by what definition. I mean 16 any -- any change in the process is an alteration at some 17 point, and -- and depending on -- on the regulatory 18 requirements, we've -- I know in Alberta we've got you know, 19 relatively specific terms that -- that dictate an alteration 20 where we have to go and get a -- a change to our -- our 21 approval. 22 Certain small things, although are an 23 alteration aren't considered significant that you have to go 24 in and -- and change it. 25 It's really if there's a change in the


1 function of the process, so -- 2 Q: Okay, and if the concern was that the -- 3 the digestion processes were no longer working, that's an 4 alteration isn't it? 5 A: Well I guess it could be an alteration, I 6 guess the concern probably would be more related to the -- 7 the functioning of the plant, so that -- that typically the 8 regulators are worried about two (2) things, how -- how the 9 plant functions and -- and so the measurements and so on, on 10 how that works. 11 And then typically there's also some 12 requirement to get approvals for -- for changes in processes 13 to make sure that it meets the criteria that's been set by 14 your regulator. 15 In -- in any event, if -- if something's not 16 functioning, typically you're going to have some difficulties 17 meeting your -- your requirements. 18 Q: Okay, and -- and really that's the point 19 that I -- I want to get at here. 20 In Alberta, if you were going to change things 21 around, shorten the chlorine contact chamber and chlorinate 22 in a different spot in the process, you'd have to get ahold 23 of your regulator beforehand wouldn't you? 24 A: Well if it was a significant change, 25 okay. You know, really what they're worried about mostly


1 is -- is -- does the process function and meet the 2 requirements that were set by the regulator. 3 So, you know, we -- we will go through and you 4 know, change the exact point of -- of chlorine feed. So, 5 our -- our licenses or our approvals don't exactly specify 6 down to those details of you know, what's required on that. 7 But they do have some requirements in terms of 8 you know, coliform criteria that you have to meet or -- or 9 some other criteria that you have to meet, and -- and 10 typically if you're proposing a significant change, that -- 11 that -- that could impact that, you know, the normal process 12 would be talk to your regulator and -- and determine whether 13 they thought this was feasible. 14 Q: Okay, now moving to a different area, I 15 understand that your company has an employee named Cindy 16 Shepel? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And what's her position? 19 A: She's a watershed -- I don't know if it's 20 an engineer or coordinator. She's an engineer, but I'm not 21 sure of her exact title. But anyways, her job is to deal 22 with watershed issues. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: For the company. 25 Q: And does she have people working under


1 her? 2 A: Not directly under her, she's a -- in a 3 management position, and so it's -- what we do have is we 4 have in the process services group, that she's -- she's 5 there, there's a number of -- of resources available, and 6 depending on the projects and so on, she'll have different 7 people working for her. 8 But I don't think there's anyone that directly 9 reports to her, no. 10 Q: Okay. Now you mentioned she was an 11 engineer. Actually she has a -- a -- a Masters doesn't she, 12 in Environmental Engineering? 13 A: Yeah, she actually did her graduate 14 degree with me when I was at the University of Alberta. 15 Q: Okay, and her Masters thesis, if I'm -- I 16 understand that her thesis work was entitled 'An Overview of 17 Protozoans in the North Saskatchewan River Basin'? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay. And can you provide for the 20 Commission a little more information, what does her job 21 entail, what does she do? 22 A: Well, she really -- I guess, we see is -- 23 is the first barrier in our multi-barrier approach is -- is 24 watershed protection. So, really, her -- her job is to 25 coordinate watershed programs, not only on the North


1 Saskatchewan River, but other facilities that we operate and 2 I guess work on different types of projects that -- that are 3 related to watershed protection. 4 One (1) of the things -- it's very much -- 5 more coordination, we don't have any regulatory authority, 6 okay, in -- in the watershed. So, it's working with 7 stakeholders in -- in the watershed, groups like Alberta 8 Agriculture, Alberta Environment to make sure that they 9 understand our concerns with -- with protection of -- of, you 10 know, the waters that we're -- we're using for treatment, 11 dealing with other stakeholder groups, so there's -- there's 12 a number of -- there's the North Saskatchewan -- what's the 13 title of the -- anyways, it's the watershed group that's -- 14 that's made up of -- it's more of a public group so she -- 15 she's involved with them, you know, deals with -- with issues 16 that come up on, you know, upstream if there's -- there's 17 people applying for discharge permits and so on, she kind of 18 reviews those and -- and, if we have comments or -- or so on 19 related to that, then she'll -- she'll be involved in that 20 process. 21 Q: Does she -- and so in doing that, first 22 of all, does she run your monitoring programs or -- or is 23 that -- 24 A: She's involved in the watershed 25 monitoring program and coordinates, I guess, what samples


1 need to be taken and what we really move towards in the 2 watershed is actually a cooperative program with -- with 3 Alberta Environment and Alberta Agriculture and so we kind of 4 share resources and we've actually come up with what we call 5 a common river database. 6 So, different groups that are sampling out 7 there, we put it all into a common database to try to I guess 8 maximize the information that's out there and so there's not, 9 you know, repetitive sampling going on by a whole bunch of 10 different groups and different groups then can use that to 11 make decisions. 12 And then our laboratories, we've got a quality 13 assurance laboratory and so they do most of the sampling, 14 actually, and Cindy's more there to coordinate what sampling 15 is required and what that -- that's used for. 16 Q: Okay. Now, I understand she used to work 17 with Alberta Environment? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And is it fair to say, what you've 20 described, she not only works fairly closely with a 21 regulator, but with other sort of stakeholders, including a 22 variety of other government -- 23 A: Yeah -- yeah, it's actually some 24 government organizations where actually the -- the study that 25 she did as her graduate program was a cosponsored study by


1 Alberta Agriculture, Alberta Environment, EPCOR and actually 2 a lot of funding came from the Alberta Cattle Commission so 3 it was actually the -- the cattle -- you know, the farmers 4 that -- that funded much of the study. 5 Q: Okay. And, just to get the full picture 6 here, there are other -- other involved -- 7 A: Oh, there's -- there's many, many groups 8 and studies -- 9 Q: There's -- 10 A: -- so -- so she actually -- I mean, 11 they -- we coordinate meetings and -- and, you know, deal 12 with our stakeholders and find out issues and -- and so on, 13 so. 14 Q: Okay. And -- and I just want to -- to 15 get it out here, I mean, there's many, many, there's -- 16 A: Oh, yes -- yes. 17 Q: -- there's agriculture, there's forestry, 18 there's mining -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- there's industry, there are other 21 water users, there are other municipalities? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: And she sort of interfaces and


1 coordinates with all of those groups? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Okay. And now I take it that that's one 4 (1) of the real challenges in water source protection, isn't 5 it, is -- is trying to deal with this fractured management 6 situation where there are so many different organizations, 7 including a variety of government departments that have some 8 sort of not only dealing with -- with water, but also 9 responsibility and power in -- in relation to water -- 10 A: Yeah, I mean, there's many different 11 groups that are involved in -- in various water quality and 12 water quantity issues. 13 Q: Okay. And, in Alberta, I take it that 14 your regulator, Alberta Environment, they take a pretty 15 active role, don't they? 16 A: Yes, I'd say so. 17 Q: Okay. And both in terms of consulting 18 and intervening if there's a -- if they develop some sort of 19 concern? 20 A: I -- I'd say so. They -- I mean, they're 21 involved, they -- they do numbers of studies, you know, 22 reports, assessments and so on. You know, they're involved 23 in this group as -- as one (1) of the stakeholders. 24 Q: Now, what about in sort of more 25 traditional activities as -- as a regulator, in terms of


1 inspection and -- and enforcement? Is Alberta Environment 2 pretty active? 3 A: I -- well, I -- I think so, that 4 they're -- they're pretty active. 5 Q: Okay -- 6 A: Yes, we -- 7 Q: Now, we had, I think, marked as an 8 exhibit yesterday the license that relates to the Edmonton 9 facilities? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: You -- EPCOR also operates systems of a 12 similar size to -- to the one (1) here in North Battleford, 13 right? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Okay. Now what would your license be 16 like for one (1) of those facilities? Would it be a page or 17 two (2)? 18 A: It's pretty much the same -- no, no. 19 It's -- it's -- if you look at it, many of the clauses are 20 exactly the same and -- in all the licenses that are given. 21 And then there's more specifics, you know, on treatment 22 facilities and -- and so on. 23 And somewhat different criteria for -- for 24 different facilities, depending on where they are and what -- 25 what the issues are associated with it. But I'd say,


1 probably, you know, 70 percent of -- of the material there is 2 common across all the licenses that we -- we have. 3 Q: Okay. And so, in one (1) of the plants 4 that -- that your company operates, what -- what sort of 5 problem would -- would attract the attention of -- of your 6 regulator? Any violation, would they show up and say, what's 7 going on? 8 A: Well, we -- we have to report any 9 violation to them, okay, so it's -- it's immediate reporting 10 requirement. So, any violation of -- of any of the license 11 issues. There's, I guess, unscheduled inspections of the 12 facilities. 13 Q: How often would they be? 14 A: Well, they -- I don't -- I'd say every 15 six (6) months to a year -- like, I'd say yearly at least. 16 Q: Okay. Now in one (1) of these 17 inspections, would it be -- if, for instance, the inspection 18 was at a plant where there was a solids contact unit, and it 19 had been effectively getting 0 percent settling for a period 20 of -- of six (6) or eight (8) weeks and for some reason that 21 wasn't reported otherwise, would the inspectors, looking at 22 the records, would they -- would they pick something like 23 that up and say, gee, you've got a problem here? 24 A: I guess they -- they comment not only on 25 requirements for the license, like, most licenses, if you


1 look at ours, don't specify, they'll say individual unit 2 processes. I mean, they're -- they're more worried about 3 making sure that our overall water quality is -- is meeting 4 the criteria. 5 However, they will typically comment on, you 6 know, housekeeping issues and -- and a bunch of other 7 concerns if they have any concerns when they visit a 8 facility. 9 Q: Would the inspectors have the knowledge, 10 if it came to their attention, if they were looking at the 11 records and said that there was a four (4) -- period of four 12 (4) or five (5) weeks, 0 percent settling in a solids contact 13 unit -- 14 A: I -- 15 Q: -- would -- would that trigger for 16 them -- 17 A: Well, I -- I think it would get back -- 18 we -- there's two (2) groups. So, there -- there's kind of 19 our -- our regional engineer that we deal with on an ongoing 20 basis. And -- and my experience with them is their very well 21 qualified and knowledgeable about water and waste water 22 treatment issues. 23 The inspection group is actually through the 24 Enforcement and Monitoring Branch. And often what will be 25 done is there's some, I guess, liaison. So if an inspector


1 went out and had questions on it, there would be some 2 involvement with the regional engineer that -- that's quite 3 familiar with -- with our system. 4 Now it doesn't happen in -- in all locations 5 but we, you know, we deal very closely with -- with the 6 regional engineers that govern it and -- and to the point 7 where we're going through and -- and trying to design or 8 change systems. They'll come in and -- and be parts of our 9 meetings and so on just to make sure that they're online with 10 what we're trying to do. 11 And -- and if they have any comments -- I'd 12 say it's more like a partnership in trying to come up with -- 13 with -- both on a regulatory side and -- and what we're 14 trying to do to meet that. 15 Q: Okay. So you work together? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Now if there was a positive 18 bacteriological test in -- in one -- in the distribution 19 system in one (1) of your operations, would that lead to 20 an -- likely lead to an on site visit and -- 21 A: No, no, not necessarily. It -- it 22 would -- what -- what we have to do is report that, okay, and 23 then within seven (7) days we have to have a report to 24 Alberta Environment, talking about what happened. 25 So, I guess for example, we -- we -- if anyone


1 calls and has any concern about water quality, we actually 2 send a customer service representative to their -- their 3 house and we take a sample. 4 What we do now is we actually take a sample 5 at -- at their house and -- and at least one (1) or two (2) 6 neighbours in the area, because we do find that sometimes 7 internal plumbing there's -- there's some issues with that. 8 If we came out and -- and had a positive 9 coliform test and we immediately resample to see if there was 10 an issue with -- with the sample, because they can be 11 contaminated at times. 12 And then depending on -- in any of the cases 13 that we've dealt with in the last few years, the ones on 14 either side would be fine, and so it's probably more of an 15 internal plumbing problem, and our customer service people 16 would then work with the homeowner and say, well maybe 17 there's some -- some issues with your internal plumbing. 18 But really it's more the action that we take. 19 So we have to report what we've done, let's say if it was a 20 low chlorine we might flush the system, and you know, within 21 an hour we had the chlorine levels back to -- to where they 22 were supposed to be. 23 And if Alberta Environment's happy with 24 that -- that decision, then -- then that's kind of the end of 25 it, although it is reported as a violation, and so they track


1 these. 2 I guess if -- if they weren't happy with -- 3 with what we did or whether they didn't think it was 4 resolved, then I'm sure we'd get a visit from them. 5 Q: Okay, now and in relation to those steps 6 you'd take, I mean you'd take those steps whether it was in 7 Edmonton or Canmore; right? 8 A: We're -- we're required to through our 9 license -- 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: -- so if -- if we don't do that, then 12 we're in violation of the license, and -- and those 13 violations are much more strictly dealt with then -- then 14 let's say a positive coliform test, that is a violation, but 15 as long as we take appropriate action, we're -- 16 Q: And if the resampling was showing 17 persistent sort of positive -- 18 A: Well then -- then we -- then we have to 19 deal with -- with the issue. So in that case we'd either -- 20 if it's isolated to a household, we then have to make sure 21 that -- and have proof that we informed that house that they 22 should be using alternate water sources, or -- or boiling the 23 water. 24 If it was an area, then you know, it could 25 expand right out to a full blown water notice in that case,


1 if it was seen to be a -- a chronic and a problem across the 2 system. 3 Q: And if there's a problem then the 4 regulator gets involve? 5 A: Yes, yes. 6 Q: Okay. And now what if for some reason 7 there was a failure to submit the required samples. Is that 8 going to attract your regulator's interest in Alberta? 9 A: Yeah, so we -- we have to have monthly 10 reports that we -- we submit to them. 11 And I guess I'm assuming that if -- if we 12 didn't submit our reports and they didn't have the samples 13 that they required we'd -- we'd -- again we'd -- basically 14 the enforcement part of that then -- then kicks into play. 15 Q: And we're not -- 16 A: Well like -- 17 Q: -- what do they do, do they -- 18 A: -- well basically -- 19 Q: -- they don't mess around do they? 20 A: -- they come out -- well they -- there -- 21 there's two (2) processes, there's an administrative penalty 22 process. 23 Okay, so if they -- if it's a minor 24 infraction, it -- it's actually can be given directly from 25 Alberta Environment, and I think there's -- the fines up to


1 five thousand dollars ($5,000) for these administrative 2 penalties. 3 And then if it's a more serious issue and -- 4 and failure to notify is considered a very serious issue, 5 it -- it can actually lead to criminal -- can go through the 6 Criminal Court, so -- 7 Q: Okay. Now I'll move to my -- to the 8 final area that I want to just touch on with you. 9 Yesterday I took -- I took you to -- to 10 testify that in your view the introduction of a -- of the UV 11 systems in -- where you're trying to do that in -- in your 12 plants, is a project which will -- is fairly difficult, it's 13 going to increase the demands both in your supervisors, your 14 managers and your operators? 15 A: Well, I -- I wouldn't say that, I mean 16 there's going to be some increase, this is another process 17 that you've got to monitor, okay, and make sure that it's 18 working properly. It is a relatively low maintenance item, 19 okay, and it doesn't take much process control. 20 I think the issue that I -- I was discussing 21 more is -- is that it is a new process and the regulatory 22 requirements regarding the operation of it, what kind of 23 monitoring are required is -- is new, okay. 24 So, there's not a set of existing guidelines 25 or regulatory requirements that -- that were there a year ago


1 and so we've been working with -- with our regulator to 2 determine what -- what those regulatory requirements are. 3 Q: Okay. And that's what I want to get into 4 with you and can you just give us a little more detail on 5 what you've been doing with your regulator in relation to -- 6 what's the relationship between you and the regulator in 7 terms of developing the new sort of operational guidelines, 8 the -- the standards, are you both providing expertise, is -- 9 what's the regulator doing, what's EPCOR doing and -- and how 10 are you working -- are you working together -- 11 A: Well -- 12 Q: -- to develop this or what? 13 A: -- I -- I guess, when I talked about the 14 UV, it was about -- I mean, it's only about two (2) years ago 15 that -- that UV disinfection -- the information came out that 16 it was going to be, you know, very useful for water treatment 17 and very effective against giardia and crypto. 18 In -- in learning about that information, 19 we -- we actually went down and visited a few of the 20 manufacturers of these units and -- and looked at, I guess, 21 the information on them and I guess we determined that this 22 was a very useful treatment technique and -- and really 23 the -- the only real cost effective technique, especially for 24 large treatment plants for dealing -- or getting additional 25 treatment in terms of cryptosporidium.


1 So, we -- we talked a lot that -- that, you 2 know, a traditional treatment plant, we're really relying on 3 particulate removal up to this point and UV shows a lot of 4 promise with that so I guess at that point we -- we started 5 talking to the regulator that we were interested in -- in 6 looking at UV disinfection. 7 We've also got a criteria for giardia and it 8 was being increased from a three (3) log requirement to a 9 four (4) log requirement and at the one (1) plant we'd gone 10 through and just increased our -- our chlorine contact times 11 because chlorine is effective at -- at giardia and, yeah, 12 that was quite expensive to do in modification of reservoirs 13 and so on. 14 And at the other plant, at the same time, this 15 information came out on UV, that it was very effective 16 against giardia, plus it was effective -- very effective 17 against cryptosporidium. 18 I guess, with that, we said well, gee, should 19 we be spending a lot more money on the other plant just to 20 increase our -- our chlorine contact time, which we know is 21 not very effective against crypto, so that's when we started 22 dealing with our -- our regulator say well, we'd like to use 23 UV because it's effective against giardia, effective against 24 cryptosporidium. 25 The difficulty was that there's no regulatory


1 requirements at the time both saying that it -- it works 2 and -- and how well it works and what are the requirements 3 for the system. 4 So, we talked to them, you know, what kind of 5 requirements do you need to give us approval to use this and 6 at that time, because it was a relatively new technology, we 7 determined that we wanted a pilot test so we actually got a 8 unit in, did some pilot testing on -- on it at our 9 facilities. 10 We were also interested in maintenance issues 11 so we ran this thing for almost a year and looked at 12 maintenance histories and bulbs and all these type of issues 13 and this information then was passed on to our regulator, 14 okay, to show that it was effective, worked on our water, 15 discussed some of the maintenance issues and -- and issues 16 associated with it and together now we've developed a 17 criteria, okay, for putting the unit in, getting some credit 18 for giardia, which -- 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: -- which we are required about, and I 21 guess the other thing is we know -- and Alberta Environment, 22 in discussions with us, has -- has told us that they're going 23 to, in the near future, come out with cryptosporidium 24 guidelines or -- or requirements and so we also wanted to 25 make sure we're spending at the one (1) plant close to $9


1 million putting this in so we want to make sure that this is 2 going to be effective for cryptosporidium when they do 3 regulate it for us. 4 So, we -- we worked with them and -- and came 5 up with sampling requirements, operational considerations 6 and -- and so on to determine what's required to design the 7 system and put it in so it'll work. 8 Q: Okay. So -- and -- and just to sort of 9 wrap up here and I'm sure that -- that someone from SERM 10 will -- will later testify to talk about all the help they've 11 been giving the city, but what I'm interested in is just -- 12 you've mentioned that you've worked with -- worked with 13 Alberta Environment in developing these standards; what sort 14 of contribution did they make? Have they actually provided 15 knowledgeable people in the area to -- to work with you? 16 Or -- or do they just sort of -- is their participation more 17 passive? 18 A: No, no. I'd -- I'd say they're a partner 19 in -- in developing this. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: They've -- they've got some very 22 knowledgeable people and they've got certain concerns that 23 they want to make sure are addressed in -- in -- in putting 24 this out. 25 And -- and they also deal with issues that --


1 that -- in -- in coming up with criteria, they want to make 2 sure it fits for the -- the whole province, too. So, not 3 just our situation in Edmonton, you know, whatever the 4 criteria are have to be useful for let's say smaller 5 communities to be able to implement them and -- and so on. 6 So -- 7 Q: Okay, so -- 8 A: -- we work with them, I guess in -- in 9 developing -- there's actually a standards guideline that 10 Alberta Environment put together and I guess the last version 11 was in -- in the mid '90's. And they actually had a 12 committee that was made up of people from Alberta Environment 13 as well as some people from the University and -- and 14 representatives from actually treatment facilities. 15 So, we had two (2) members on -- on that 16 committee. And worked with them on -- on developing the 17 guidelines. 18 MR. SCOTT HOPLEY: Good. Okay, thank you. 19 Those are the questions I have. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Mr. Tochor? 21 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: I'll be fairly brief, 22 Dr. Stanley. 23 THE WITNESS: Okay. 24 25 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR:


1 Q: You've indicated yesterday that the 2 national guideline for turbidity standards is one (1) NTU? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And I think you've also indicated that it 5 was never designed or recognized as being designed to remove 6 protozoans like cryptosporidium and giardia? 7 A: When it was set, no, it wasn't originally 8 ever developed with -- with that in mind. 9 Q: And I think you've also indicated, if not 10 in your testimony, in your paper that it's known or well 11 known in the industry that lower values are necessary to 12 prevent a better barrier against giardia and cryptosporidium. 13 Is that fair? 14 A: Well, I think the information's been out 15 there. The -- I guess the surface water treatment rule in 16 the US was first put in in 1989 that lowered it to point five 17 (.5) NTU. 18 Q: And I think you've indicated that point 19 five (.5) NTU, generally in the industry, is -- is 20 acknowledged as something that's going to be a barrier 21 against giardia -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- and point three (.3) NTU is 24 acknowledged in the industry as something that'll be a 25 barrier against cryptosporidium?


1 A: Yes, and the -- the point three (.3), I'd 2 say, I mean that's -- that's at the later date. So, you 3 know, I'd say through the -- the early '90's the concern was 4 mostly with giardia. And I think in '98 the enhanced -- 5 interim enhanced surface water treatment rule came out 6 with --- with a point three (.3) turbidity requirement. 7 And so that's been, you know, out there for -- 8 for awhile and -- and I think I've also talked about that 9 there's actually a -- a safe water partnership that's 10 actually operated through the AWWA, that -- that is a 11 voluntary type membership. And that's -- the criteria there 12 is point one (.1). So -- 13 Q: I don't think you've used this word but I 14 think it's come through in your testimony. The standards for 15 turbidity have been evolving over time, is that fair? 16 A: Yes, yes. 17 Q: In the late '80's the national guideline 18 or standard for turbidity was five (5) NTU's. Is that fair? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: And then if I'm not mistaken it would 21 have been in the early '90's it was then reduced to one (1) 22 NTU? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And in general terms, a -- a goal or a 25 guideline is now being considered of point three (.3) NTU,


1 nationally? 2 A: Yes. Yes. 3 Q: So I'd just like to discuss, very, very 4 briefly, the Alberta Certification Program for Operators. 5 A: Okay. 6 Q: You've had that program in Alberta for 7 some time, to your knowledge? 8 A: Yes, yeah. It predates I guess my 9 involvement with EPCOR so it -- it's been around for quite 10 awhile. 11 Q: Would it be fair to estimate that it's 12 been around -- or the Certification Program in Alberta has 13 been around for fifteen (15), perhaps twenty (20) years, or 14 thereabouts? 15 A: In -- in some form. It's -- it's -- it's 16 changed but it's been around for a long time, yes. 17 Q: With regard to specific continuing legal 18 education -- or not legal ed -- but continuing education 19 requirements, are you aware that Alberta Certification 20 Program has no specific continuing education requirements? 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 A: I'm not quite sure exactly what the -- 25 the requirements are.


1 Q: Are you aware that it's something that's 2 being discussed and considered right now but there are no 3 formal requirements for -- 4 A: Okay -- 5 Q: -- continuing education? Are you aware 6 of that? 7 A: No, I'm not, no. 8 Q: Just the last item I want to take you to, 9 is your Exhibit C-90. And that's the terms and conditions of 10 approval for Edmonton? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: I'll just get you to refer to page 10, 13 it's -- it's page 10 of 17 of Exhibit C-90? Yes, and that's 14 table 5-1, and that sets out limits for waterworks? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And just the very last line entry there 17 it regards: 18 "Turbidity of treated water from random 19 locations within the distribution system." 20 That's at the very bottom -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- of the page? And it appears that the 23 limits set by Alberta Environment for turbidity in the 24 distribution system is less than five (5) NTU; is that right? 25 A: Yes, in the distribution system, that's


1 right. 2 Q: Right, and tho -- and that's been the 3 standard that's been enforced for some time? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Those are my questions, thank you. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, Mr. McDonald. 10 MR. ROBERT MCDONALD: Thank you, Mr. 11 Commissioner. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBERT MCDONALD: 14 Q: Dr. Stanley, I think you indicated 15 that -- that EPCOR on a for profit basis operates water 16 treatment plants in centres other than the City of Edmonton? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: And I think you said as an example, one 19 that might similarly be the size of -- of North Battleford or 20 as close, might be Canmore, Alberta? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And does the plant there -- what would 23 the population of Canmore or population served out of that 24 plant be? 25 A: Well the -- the population is about -- I


1 think the town population is less -- a little less than ten 2 thousand (10,000), although with the tourist, on weekends, 3 we -- it actually has -- you have to have facilities, I think 4 it's about sixteen thousand (16,000) is kind of the 5 equivalence in terms of -- of water treatment and -- and 6 wastewater facilities that are there. 7 Q: And is the water source there groundwater 8 or surface water? 9 A: It has a combination of both, so it -- we 10 treat water from Spray Lakes, is one (1) plant, and then 11 there's a groundwater facility. So, that it's much the same 12 as here, there's two (2) -- two (2) facilities. 13 But -- 14 Q: And what ongoing technical support would 15 the operators have at the -- in the Canmore operation, for 16 example? 17 A: Well there -- there -- there's I guess 18 certified operators. We also have a service manager, okay, 19 that runs the Canmore facility and -- and she's an engineer, 20 actually has a Masters Degree in -- in Environmental 21 Engineering, and so she's the service manager for Canmore. 22 So, she -- she oversees the day to day 23 operations of it. And then I guess it reports up through -- 24 through me in Edmonton, so -- 25 Q: And what would her responsibilities be as


1 far as -- would it be only for the water treatment, or would 2 it include sewage treatment or distribution -- 3 A: Well she -- 4 Q: -- systems? 5 A: -- she's in charge of -- of our contract 6 with Canmore that includes water and sewage treatment. 7 Q: And she is on site in Canmore? 8 A: Yes, she lives in Canmore and -- 9 Q: And I note that -- I note that since the 10 problem arised in North Battleford, they've been utilizing 11 the technical expertise of Mr. McDonald and -- and his 12 company. 13 On an ongoing basis what do you see as the 14 need for ex -- expertise before problems arise, ongoing 15 operational issues? 16 A: Well I -- I -- I think the -- you know 17 the reality is that the water and -- and wastewater field is 18 getting more and more complex. 19 And you know, there -- there's going to be a 20 need to have either through a -- I guess a consulting type 21 agreement or -- or in house, some professional member that 22 has some understanding of -- of water treatment. 23 Q: And looking at Section 5 of your report, 24 Exhibit C-80, and talking about operations, and it's just a 25 couple short excerpts:


1 "The performance of water treatment plant 2 is largely dependent on the skill and 3 experience of the operators." 4 And then I think you suggest that the 5 operators try to produce the best water possible from the 6 treatment plant, but perhaps some lack of understanding, and 7 I think probably in the conclusion of that section it 8 suggests the evidence indicates there was little or -- little 9 commitment or demand from senior management in the city to 10 produce high quality water and the operators were left to 11 look after the matters themselves. 12 Do you feel that the supervision of somebody 13 with a particular technical expertise would -- would have 14 assisted in -- or would assist in the future in the operation 15 of the plant? 16 A: Yeah, I think that -- that's required. 17 You -- I guess there's -- there's a need for someone to set 18 the criteria and goals that -- that the treatment facility 19 needs to be operated to. 20 And I think, you know, Rodger McDonald has 21 come in and set many of those for that, but there -- there is 22 a need for someone to look at those issues and set criteria 23 and -- and the reality is that it's an ever changing criteria 24 that -- that we're going to. As -- as new information comes 25 out, that information needs to be assessed and -- and


1 addressed and determine what changes need to be made. 2 MR. SCOTT HOPLEY: Okay. Thank you, I have 3 no further questions. 4 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: I have no questions, 5 sir. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Scharfstein, no 7 questions. Is that Ms. Mitchell...? 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 15 Q: Dr. Stanley, I have provided you with a 16 copy of a submission made by the Canadian Union of Public 17 Employees to the British Columbia's Independent Drinking 18 Water Review Panel and I understand that you are -- you have 19 some working knowledge at least of that review panel, that 20 it's been established and -- and you're aware of that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: I wonder if I might just ask you a couple 23 of questions with respect to this submission. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: At page 6, there is --


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: Do you want this marked -- 2 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Yes, Mr. -- I realize 3 that this is a panel and not -- you know, not a water inquiry 4 such as we're participating in here, but it seems to me that 5 it would be beneficial for the Commission and indeed legal 6 counsel to see what some of the concerns are with respect to 7 water in other jurisdictions. 8 This review panel is to report on an interim 9 basis on December 1st, you'll see the submission is dated 10 November of this year and -- and the final report is due the 11 middle of January, so. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, well, as I understand 13 it, this is CUPE submission to that particular review panel. 14 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Yes, sir. 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well, to the extent 16 you've presented the document, I'm just asking the question 17 if you'd like it marked as an exhibit or not so -- 18 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: And I would, sir. 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: You would, all right. And 20 I take it there's no objections? 21 Fine, and just for the record, C-91. 22 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thank you. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. C-91: Submission made by Canadian Union 25 of Public Employees to the


1 British Columbia's Independent 2 Drinking Water Review Panel 3 4 CONTINUED BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 5 Q: Dr. Stanley, at page 6 in recommendation 6 2, the last half of the page, reference is made to the 7 Auditor General's report and, in particular, the final 8 paragraph recommends a multi-barrier approach and, as I 9 understand your evidence earlier in these proceedings and 10 again yesterday, you would agree that the -- with respect to 11 the importance of a multi-barrier approach? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And, in particular, the sound -- bullet 3 14 here speaks to a sound and well-maintained water distribution 15 system operated by well-trained staff? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Mr. Tochor has asked you about Alberta 18 training provisions and I understand that you're not -- 19 you're not just sure of what they are, but my instructions 20 are that, in Ontario, forty (40) hours of continuing 21 education per year is required from operators; do you have 22 any knowledge of that? 23 A: I'm understanding that they've just gone 24 through changes there, I'm not sure of all the details in -- 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: -- in the Ontario situation though. 2 Q: All right, thank you. At page 11, Dr. 3 Stanley, reference is made to the importance of provincial 4 laboratories conducting proper water testing and it states -- 5 it says the final piece in this integrated multi-barrier 6 system and, again, I'm assuming that you would agree with 7 that part of the submission? 8 A: I -- I would agree that the testing is 9 required. 10 Q: Yes. 11 A: And there's -- there is probably a need 12 for -- for some involvement with public laboratories. We do 13 go through and -- and get accreditation from the government 14 that allows water utilities actually to do some of the 15 testing on their own. 16 Q: And your firm, in fact, conducts -- 17 A: Yes -- yes. 18 Q: -- some of that testing, doesn't it? 19 Yes. But you send some samples away to the provincial 20 government in Alberta? 21 A: Yes -- yes, and -- and that's the 22 provincial government, also even to private labs as -- as 23 part of a quality assurance/quality control program to make 24 sure that -- that you actually do some split samples and so 25 on to make sure that -- that, you know, our laboratory is


1 measuring the same thing as -- as other accredited 2 laboratories are. 3 Q: Lastly, at page 25, Dr. Stanley, 4 reference is made to infrastructure issues and I wonder if I 5 could ask you to read the first two (2) paragraphs and then 6 just comment on your position with respect to the comments 7 made by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities in October 8 of last year? 9 A: Just the -- the first two paragraphs? 10 Q: Yes. This sustainable community -- 11 A: 12 "This sustainable community is require a 13 backbone of sound physical infrastructure, 14 a commitment to a permanent national 15 municipal infrastructure program with 16 increased funding is needed to strengthen 17 that backbone. That insightful quote came 18 from publication of the Federal of Canadian 19 Municipalities and it's ten (10) point 20 action plan for sustainable communities 21 published last October. We could not agree 22 more." 23 Q: I -- I wonder if I can just ask your 24 opinion with respect to this need for increased national 25 municipal infrastructure program?


1 A: Well I -- I think there's a -- definitely 2 a -- a need to make sure that that infrastructure is kept up 3 to date and -- and improved. There are many issues and, you 4 know, many communities that -- that we have an aging 5 infrastructure. 6 A lot of development was -- was done in -- in 7 probably the '40's or '50's where growth occurred in -- in 8 many communities and -- and that stuff's now probably 9 reaching close to it's -- it's -- it's life and -- and needs 10 to be replaced. 11 I'm not sure how I -- 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: I'm not sure, Ms. Mitchell 13 whether -- 14 THE WITNESS: -- feel with where the funding 15 comes from but -- 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think that's the 17 point. The witness agrees that infrastructure funding is 18 required and -- but whether it's at the national level or 19 some other level, I don't think this witness is 20 particularly -- it's not within his expertise, put it that 21 way. 22 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. 23 Commissioner. Thank you, Dr. Stanley. 24 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 25 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: I have no further


1 questions. 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Stevenson? 3 4 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 5 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner and good 6 morning Dr. Stanley. 7 Dr. Stanley, you told us yesterday of 8 similarities which effect North Battleford and -- and the 9 Edmonton plant. And as I understand it, the similarities are 10 that they're on the same river and the public is the public. 11 Are there any other similarities between the 12 Edmonton operation and the North Battleford operation? 13 A: Well I -- I guess if you look at -- at 14 the general treatment train that is used. Basically, 15 they're -- they're -- they're very similar. You know, the 16 particular unit processes that are in both plants, we're not 17 using different processes than what -- what's being used here 18 in North Battleford. 19 Q: Right. And including moving -- you're 20 moving to UV for -- 21 A: Yes -- 22 Q: -- crypto and giardia -- 23 A: Yes -- 24 Q: -- and North Battleford's moving -- 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: -- to UV for crypto and giardia? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And what -- what about the differences 4 between the plants? 5 A: I - -I'd say the major difference is 6 size. 7 Q: Okay. Resources available to operate the 8 plants? 9 A: Yes. And -- and I guess the other 10 difference is -- is the combination of the groundwater 11 facilities here. We -- we don't have any groundwater 12 facilities in Edmonton. 13 Q: Sure. And the regulatory regime also 14 would be -- 15 A: Yes -- 16 Q: -- different? 17 A: -- quite different, yes. 18 Q: And in your evidence you've given us the 19 statistics and particulars of the Edmonton plant. And of 20 course size wise it serves roughly about eight hundred 21 thousand (800,000) people. Is that -- 22 A: Yeah, there's two (2) plants that serve 23 around, yeah, a -- a little bit more than that. It's -- 24 it's -- 'cause we -- we serve all the way out to Vegreville, 25 so. But in that range, I think it's closer to nine hundred


1 thousand (900,000) now. 2 Q: Okay. So, getting close to the entire 3 population of the entire Province of Saskatchewan -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- that you serve? Okay. Did you do any 6 comparison with other facilities in the Province of 7 Saskatchewan, in locations of similar size to North 8 Battleford? 9 A: I -- I didn't, no. 10 Q: Okay. So your comparisons are drawn upon 11 your operation in Edmonton versus -- 12 A: Well, I -- 13 Q: -- North Battleford? 14 A: -- I guess expand that to our 15 operations in -- in Port Hardy, B.C., Canmore and in -- in 16 Strathmore. 17 Q: But your evidence, of course, here didn't 18 touch upon those plants? 19 A: Well, we -- we -- I mean, in Canmore 20 we're in the process of -- of putting a UV unit in -- in the 21 surface water treatment facility there. And in Port Hardy we 22 just built a new treatment facility, I guess it was 23 operational about a year ago. It -- it's a little different 24 type of system but it's -- it's with filtration and we've 25 actually set much the same criteria in terms of turbidity.


1 We have particle counts and so on, there, too. 2 Q: You gave us measurements of the presence 3 of crypto and giardia in the North Saskatchewan River at 4 Edmonton, and I take it that those measurements were made 5 upstream of the water intakes -- 6 A: Those -- those measurements that I showed 7 there were actually at our water intake. 8 Q: Okay, and do you know anything about the 9 discharges of giardia and crypto from the sewage effluent in 10 Edmonton? 11 A: Well there -- there's been some tests 12 done and you know, there's relatively -- like any sewage, 13 there's -- there's relatively high numbers of giardia and 14 crypto in -- in -- in that discharge. 15 It's -- it's part of this larger study that 16 was discussed -- it was one (1) of the sewage facilities that 17 were sampled. 18 And it's pretty typical of -- of any one, 19 other than it's -- it's a relatively large facility that's 20 discharged into the river. 21 Q: Right, and it's discharge of course is 22 downstream -- 23 A: It's downstream -- 24 Q: -- from your intakes? 25 A: -- yes.


1 Q: Right. 2 A: So if anything, the numbers that I 3 showed, they may be somewhat lower, it -- 4 Q: Right. 5 A: -- it's hard to say without having a lot 6 of data here. 7 Q: No, and I -- I appreciate that, but -- 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: -- but and nonetheless, it's upstream 10 from the North Battleford intake? 11 A: Yes, yes. 12 Q: Yeah. And is it your understanding that 13 crypto oocysts could survive that journey from Edmonton to -- 14 A: Yes, that's -- 15 Q: -- North Battleford? 16 A: -- it's information that's there that -- 17 that especially when it's in water can survive an awful long 18 time, so -- 19 Q: Okay. And Mr. Hopley asked you a number 20 of questions about the -- Ms. Shepel I believe it was -- 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: -- in your branch. One (1) follow up on 23 that, are you familiar with any type of similar studies which 24 she's involved in, involving Alberta Agriculture and Alberta 25 Environment and your municipality and others, are ongoing or


1 take place in the Province of Saskatchewan? 2 A: I'm not familiar with any that -- that 3 have been done. I'm not sure that that means that there's -- 4 Q: Okay, and -- and would -- would such 5 studies be useful to -- in connection with protection of the 6 water source? 7 A: Well I think -- yeah, I think it's 8 critical to have -- I mean the idea in treatment, and you 9 look at where the regulatory requirements are going in the US 10 and -- and different locations, is you -- you have to have an 11 idea what's in your raw water source to come up with some 12 measure of what kind of treatment's required to be able to -- 13 to reduce the risk. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: You spoke yesterday about particle counts 18 and in relation to your permit in Edmonton, and is it my 19 understanding that the particle counts must be under two 20 hundred (200) at all times, that they must not exceed two 21 hundred (200)? 22 A: Yeah, so that's -- so if you look at the 23 requirement, there -- and you have to have an average of less 24 than fifty (50). 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: And never to exceed two thousand (2,000). 2 One thing -- 3 Q: Two thousand (2,000)? 4 A: -- I mean two hundred (200), sorry. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: And -- and with particle counts one thing 7 that is there is they're very, very sensitive and so small 8 little spikes, it's difficult even to get the filter turned 9 off quickly enough to -- to try to do that. 10 So, our average has to be less than fifty (50) 11 and -- and never to exceed two hundred (200). 12 Q: Okay, and if you exceed two hundred (200) 13 you then go to waste; is that -- 14 A: Well, yeah, I -- I guess, if they 15 actually exceed fifty (50) we go to waste, because that's -- 16 that's what our long term -- we can't continually operate the 17 facility at that value. 18 You'll also note in there there's a 19 requirement that -- I'm not sure where it's stated, but 20 basically there's a date I think by 2004, we have to submit a 21 plan -- yes, I guess 3.2.2. 22 Q: Hmm-hmm. 23 A: "The approval holder must -- shall submit 24 a study to the director by January 1st, 25 2004 of the necessary upgrading that would


1 be required to achieve filter performance 2 that meets fifty (50) particle counts at 3 all times for the individual filters." 4 So -- 5 Q: Right, okay. 6 A: -- we're on notice that -- that -- that 7 two hundred (200) will be dropped. 8 Q: Okay. And that is something that was 9 negotiated or developed with the regulator, in terms -- 10 A: Yes -- 11 Q: -- of what your obligations could be and 12 when you could meet them, and -- 13 A: -- yes, yes. 14 Q: Okay. So it's -- it's a negotiated 15 aspect of the -- 16 A: Well, negotiated -- 17 Q: -- process -- 18 A: -- to a -- a point, there -- 19 Q: No, a consultative -- 20 A: -- it's -- 21 Q: -- process? 22 A: -- yes, yes. It's very much so that way. 23 Q: Okay, and what you were describing to Mr. 24 Hopley, it sounds like what exists in -- in Alberta, you used 25 the word partnership, it seems to be a real effective and


1 operat -- operable partnership between the regulator and -- 2 and your municipality at least? 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: And is that similar with other 5 municipalities also, do they have that, as you understand 6 that relation also? 7 A: I -- I think in -- in many cases, 8 we've -- I guess we've found, in -- in dealing with different 9 groups too, because we deal with -- with -- down in Canmore 10 and Strathmore with the Calgary office, that that's a similar 11 type of relationship that we have there and -- and I think 12 they're quite willing to work on that type of relationship if 13 the municipality wants to -- to go along. 14 Q: You said something yesterday that -- and 15 I think you'd said it in your earlier evidence and I want to 16 touch on it briefly and, as I understood it, your evidence 17 was that the regulators it appeared weren't able to keep up 18 with the state of the knowledge in the -- in the industry and 19 that you feel that your group has to keep abreast and in 20 effect be ahead of the regulators in terms of knowledge and 21 action; is that what I understood you to say? 22 A: I -- I'd say there's some requirements 23 for that. I think the one (1) thing that's quite far behind 24 is the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines and partly it's 25 just the way it's structured, okay, it's a consultive process


1 which basically all provinces must agree to move forward on 2 it. 3 If I look at the -- the difference, I guess, 4 with our regulations in Alberta, you know, we being 5 required -- you know, we're now at the point three (0.3) NTU 6 value that -- that's actually just being proposed in the -- 7 in the US and it, you know, is in the process of going 8 through. 9 So, in that case, our -- our regulator is -- 10 you know, has -- has dropped the turbidity, I guess, twice 11 since -- since the Canadian Drinking Water Guidelines have -- 12 have first set one (1) NTU. 13 Q: And on that point, the point three (0.3) 14 is a province-wide requirement for turbidity, is it, in 15 Alberta? 16 A: Well, no. 17 Q: Or is it a site specific -- 18 A: We just got the point three (0.3). What 19 tends to happen is -- is the province comes up with standards 20 and so the standard across the province at this point is 21 still zero point five (0.5), however, they've -- they're the 22 ones, I think, that -- that mostly proposed this point three 23 (0.3) for the Canadian Drinking Water Guideline or one (1) of 24 the partners on that so they know that it -- that's where 25 it's going and so, as your licenses come up, then they kind


1 of tend to reduce the criteria so we just got the point three 2 (0.3) actually this -- this last year so we were point five 3 (0.5) before that. 4 Q: Provincially it's point five (0.5)? 5 A: Point five (0.5) is what the standards 6 are and then they can go through -- that's kind of their 7 minimum standards. So, every license should be a point five 8 (0.5) and then, as these renew, they -- they tend to decrease 9 and -- and so now they'll go forward to point three (0.3). 10 Let's say, for example, our -- our license is 11 valid to 2004 and we'd been at the point five (0.5), they may 12 not come to us and say that we got to meet the point three 13 (0.3) immediately, but they -- when our license comes up, 14 we'll have to then go through and reduce that down again. 15 Q: Okay. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 A: I mean, part of it, again, is that 20 consultation process so they might come to you and say can 21 you meet this lower requirement now with your existing system 22 and in our case we could so it was easy to put in the 23 license. 24 If we would have come back and said, you know, 25 to do that, we're going to have to upgrade all our filters,


1 it's going to take us a year to do that, as long as we're 2 working towards that, then typically they'll -- they'll work 3 with us on that because, you know, there's no use putting 4 something in that we can't -- 5 Q: And you used the -- the word standards 6 and I take it that that's actually what they are, they're not 7 objectives or guidelines, they are regulated standards? 8 A: Yes, so what's in here is our -- we're in 9 violation if we don't meet any of these. 10 Q: And, in terms of it moving downward, as I 11 understand it, the subcommittee of Canadian Drinking Water 12 Guidelines just issued a new release in March of this year, 13 they still did not reduce it to point three (0.3), even 14 though it's under discussion -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- is that your understanding also? 17 A: Yes -- yeah. 18 Q: So in Alberta, as I understand your 19 evidence, you wouldn't anticipate that the regulator would 20 not have visited the plant for ten (10) years, done an 21 inspection on it? 22 A: I guess the history in Alberta is that 23 wouldn't have occurred, no. 24 Q: Okay. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 If I might just refer briefly to page 7 of 4 your presentation. 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: What's the number of that? 6 Do you have it there? 7 THE WITNESS: That one (1) or -- 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes. I have it here. 9 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Yeah, this is the one 10 (1), the contributing factors and I -- 11 THE WITNESS: Okay. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, the -- I see. You're 13 referring to page 7 of the -- 14 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Of the PowerPoint 15 presentation, yes. And they're aren't numbered but it's the 16 contributing factors page that I wanted to -- 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay. 18 MR. KEN STEVENSON: -- refer to. 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. Well it's up on the 20 screen anyway -- 21 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Yes. 22 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- so. 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. KEN STEVENSON: 25 Q: And I wan to -- we've touched and I think


1 Mr. Hopley re -- reviewed with you the raw water source as 2 a -- as an issue. I want to go to the last one (1), the 3 regulated performance requirements. And I don't recall that 4 I heard much about that in your testimony or maybe perhaps 5 I've missed it. 6 In what sense do you see the regulated 7 performance requirements being contributing factors to the -- 8 your review of the situation here in North Battleford? 9 A: Well I -- I guess what I was getting at, 10 and I -- I forget, the second last slide or third last slide, 11 is that comment that -- that the one (1) NTU requirement was 12 never meant to protect against cryptosporidium. 13 So, if a challenge came through the raw water 14 source to the plant and, you know, the plant was close to one 15 (1) NTU, you know, there's a probability that the event 16 occurred. And -- and whether that -- that one (1) was met 17 or -- or not and -- and -- and it's quite, you know -- the 18 research and so on has shown us that -- that an event can 19 occur at -- at that value. 20 Q: Sure. And so that -- in that sense, 21 if -- if the regulatory guideline had been set at point three 22 (.3) as you've discussed, which, as I understand your 23 evidence, point three (.3) is designed to be effective 24 against giardia and cryptosporidium, is -- is that your 25 evidence?


1 A: Yes, yes. So it's, basically the lower 2 the turbidity is the -- the more particles you're going to 3 catch. And it's not even -- I -- I think we've shown that 4 turbidity isn't even linearly related to the amount of 5 particles going through. 6 So if you have a small increase of turbidity 7 of -- of point two (.2) or point three (.3), you actually 8 look at the number of particles going through your filters. 9 That -- that can be a several fold increase of -- of actual 10 particles. 11 Q: And as I understand it, particle 12 counters, of course, are not regulated or not set in 13 objectives or guidelines in the Province of Saskatchewan -- 14 A: No. 15 Q: -- and weren't in April of 01? 16 A: No. 17 Q: Okay. In -- in relation to the regulated 18 performance, was there any aspect of the Health -- and the 19 role of Health in relation to this, that you considered? 20 A: I -- in what sense? Of -- of setting the 21 guidelines or -- 22 Q: Well, or -- or reacting or sharing 23 information. I think there's, you know, about sharing 24 information back and forth of gastroenteritis shows up in the 25 community, there should be some immediate response or some


1 monitoring if some relationship between the regulators -- 2 A: I -- I'd say -- 3 Q: -- help? 4 A: -- I mean that's very important. So 5 we've -- we've come up -- and you look at our licenses, the 6 number of issues that -- that talk about in consultation with 7 the regional engineer. It says, if this, you know, if 8 turbidity's go higher, you know, we'll react in consultation 9 with the regional engineer. 10 One (1) of the things that we've done is try 11 to look at a number of -- of scenarios that could happen. 12 And rather than waiting for the time when -- when you've got 13 the problem, we've looked at these scenarios with Capital 14 Health Region, which is our regional health unit, and our 15 regulator, Alberta Environment, and actually discussed what 16 actions should be taken on a number of fronts. 17 And that does include, you know, when to issue 18 a Boil Water Advisory that's dependant both on the quality of 19 the water, so there's certain things that we're responsible 20 to inform them. But also, on the other side, if there's, you 21 know, there begins to become some evidence that there's 22 something going on there, that they contact us to -- to look 23 to see if there's some issues with the water. 24 Q: Sure. So at the front end, you have 25 actually entered into an agreement as to when you would issue


1 a Boil Water Advisory -- 2 A: Yes, yes, yes. 3 Q: -- and the Health people are a part of 4 that -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- process? 7 A: So they've basically got a -- I guess a 8 Boil Water Advisory process, that we've -- we've all three 9 (3) agreed to. 10 Q: Okay. As an example on that then, in 11 terms of your agreement, are there varying levels of giardia 12 or -- well of crypto let's deal with, where you might react 13 differently? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And what would those be? 16 A: Let's see, I think I've got the -- I 17 don't know if it would be of interest to -- it's kind of a 18 large document, but anyways there's a -- these are technical 19 guidelines, okay, for our Boiled Water Advisory. 20 What we have discussed here is -- is 21 there's -- I guess two (2) things that happen, so number one 22 (1) is -- is there is a need that we will inform and discuss 23 with Capital Health, and ourselves and Alberta Environment 24 when issues occur, to see how significant it is. 25 But we've also set some numerical


1 requirements, let's see coliforms -- so basically if we find 2 any protozoa, we're going to contact you know -- and -- and 3 our detection limits is -- is one (1) in a thousand (1,000) 4 litres, we're going to contact Health and Alberta Environment 5 to discuss this issue. 6 And I think an action level for -- for a 7 Boiled Water -- we -- we set at five (5) per hundred (100) 8 litres. 9 Q: Okay. So that's when you would move to a 10 Boil Water Order under your protocol or your -- 11 A: Well that's automatically would be there. 12 Q: Sure. 13 A: There -- there may be cases that are 14 below that, that we're going to discuss and -- and look at 15 the significance of it. 16 One (1) of the things that would be done at 17 that time, even if we find one (1) per thousand (1,000) 18 litres, is -- is a discussion. We may look at how the 19 treatment plant performed and said, well gee everything -- we 20 haven't had any turbidity spikes, the particle counts have 21 looked great and we found a couple cysts. 22 The reality is, is we've always been talking 23 about log removals, and so if you finally do the 24 probabilities, there are chances that you're going to find 25 these cysts once in a while.


1 It's not like we remove a 100 percent of them. 2 Q: Sure. I -- I guess the -- the point was 3 that there are predetermined levels at which a Boil Water 4 Order would come on, and that's five (5) in one hundred (100) 5 litres, is it? 6 A: That -- that's the one that -- that 7 automatically goes on -- 8 Q: Sure. 9 A: -- and then there's -- below that there's 10 actually levels which -- which may do it. We actually -- 11 there may be some advisories that go out at -- at much lower 12 levels, they may go out to immuno compromised people, saying 13 okay, well there -- there's been a single giardia or crypto 14 found in our system. 15 And so that it's an advisory that goes out 16 that's at a lower level. 17 Q: Sure. And I wonder if I might turn to 18 page 11 of your PowerPoint presentation. 19 A: Eight (8), and -- 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 Q: No, it will be the one focussing on the 24 assessment. Right there, thank you. And it's headed, the 25 Holliday Water Treatment Plant. And then you have a first


1 bullet: 2 "The focus of assessment is on the removal 3 of small particulates, as it is the only 4 method of cryptosporidium treatment." 5 Do I understand that in your review and your 6 evidence that you've given, that was the focus of your 7 presentation? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. And so it was directed to the 10 cryptosporidium and the treatment and the processes to remove 11 crypto? 12 A: I'd say that -- yeah, that's the major 13 focus of what I -- I talked about. 14 I guess I didn't get into issues like 15 disinfection by-products and -- and other issues that -- 16 that -- that may be there. The focus was more on -- on -- 17 Q: And we've also covered that with the 18 point three (.3), the -- the risk factor for crypto is -- is 19 substantially reduced, and it's an operable level; is that 20 correct? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And do you understand that under the 23 operating procedures of the City of North Battleford, they 24 have a point three (.3) limit on the turbidity now, and -- 25 and --


1 A: Oh, yes, yes -- 2 Q: -- operate? 3 A: -- yes. 4 Q: And also then the extra barrier is being 5 installed by the City of North Battleford, the UV barrier? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: And of course that would be an 8 enhancement on the treatment? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: And while we don't deal with log 11 reductions in Saskatchewan, it certainly would be an 12 enhancement to after the point three (.3) level, you've now 13 also -- if something did get through, the UV is likely to be 14 effective? 15 A: Yes, yes, yes. 16 Q: So, in -- in part then, I guess the -- 17 the installation would be a -- an optimization, of North 18 Battleford's process by adding a new barrier? 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: Okay. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 There's been some evidence, I -- I think, that 25 there's been -- and Ms. McDonald has given it, that there's


1 been a number of changes which have been made in the North 2 Battleford plants, particular the Number 2 Water Treatment 3 Plant -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- and you understand that evidence and 6 you're familiar with the changes, at least in a broad sense? 7 A: Yes -- yes. 8 Q: And would you agree that there's been 9 good progress made and things have been done appropriately to 10 reduce the risk and to improve the operations of the plant? 11 A: I think, in -- in many respects, there's 12 been a number of things done, okay, so in -- in -- as I 13 discussed yesterday, I think there -- there's been a lot of 14 progress done. 15 I guess my -- my one (1) concern related to 16 that is somewhat related to the optimization of -- of the 17 actual processes that are there to meet this point three 18 (0.3) turbidity. 19 I think, by setting the point three (0.3) 20 turbidity and -- and the commitment that the plant's going to 21 be run to waste and so on, it's going to avoid a 22 contamination event. 23 I guess my concern is more if -- is -- are 24 they going to be able to produce the quantity of the water 25 that's out there and -- and --


1 Q: Right. 2 A: -- maybe just as a -- where is the -- I 3 just want to go to one (1) slide here and, if we look at -- I 4 guess the real changes to the process, okay, the -- the -- 5 some of the most significant things is the filter to waste, 6 okay, and that handles this -- this front end part of the 7 filter run. 8 Now, I guess the question I -- I have a little 9 bit of concern about, especially as we move forward, and it's 10 going to be a big challenge and -- and I'm not -- it's just 11 going to be a real challenge that's going to be required, is 12 we still got to be able to get out -- the filter to waste 13 only works, you know, to -- for that ripening period, we 14 still got to make sure that that plant, under tough 15 conditions, is going to be able to produce that point three 16 (0.3) NTU water -- 17 Q: Sure. And -- 18 A: -- under those -- and -- and history has 19 kind of shown that, during certain times of the year, with 20 the filters that are there and the coagulation and 21 flocculation processes are there, that that's going to be 22 very challenging for the operators to do. 23 Q: Right. But there have been changes on 24 history, of course -- 25 A: Well, have there been changes --


1 Q: And -- and we're looking for -- 2 A: -- on point three (0.3) and there's been 3 changes on going to waste, I -- there's been no changes to 4 the filters themselves and there's been very little changes 5 to the coagulation and flocculation and -- and SCU process. 6 So, that there's some issues still with -- 7 with high pH in the SCU, which, you know, may be able to 8 handle by changing the pH somewhat or maybe using another 9 coagulant. 10 There's been a little bit of change on the 11 mixing, but I'm not sure -- it's hard to talk about if that's 12 significant or not -- 13 Q: Yeah, and -- and there are, of course, 14 professional differences sometimes that might occur as to 15 whether this would be appropriate or adequate -- 16 A: Well, it's just going to be a 17 challenge -- 18 Q: Sure. 19 A: -- okay, for -- for them to meet this 20 lower requirement. 21 Q: But the challenge will be a challenge for 22 quantity of water, not for quality of water? 23 A: Well, long as they keep -- 24 Q: If they run to point three (0.3). 25 A: -- point three (0.3) and they run --


1 run -- you know, they have the UV system in place and -- and 2 they hold at that -- that point three (0.3), it's -- it's 3 going to be the quantity of water that's going to be the real 4 issue then. 5 Q: Sure. And -- but you would agree, of 6 course, that the -- the risk level has certainly been 7 materially reduced here in North Battleford? 8 A: Well, I -- I'd say that, yes -- yeah, the 9 risk has been reduced. 10 Q: And, as part of that, it appears that 11 the -- the interested parties, the regulator, the District 12 Health, Sask Health, the Medical Health Officer, all of those 13 people entered into a protocol which they determined, if met, 14 would produce safe water and that was necessary to remove the 15 Boil Water Order; you're aware of those conditions? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: I guess the question on that is -- is, as 19 we move forward, I guess what -- what the status of that is, 20 but -- 21 Q: Yeah. In -- in terms of the pH, I 22 understand it to be a general rule that coagulation, 23 flocculation occurs better at lower levels; is that fair to 24 say? 25 A: Generally, yes, yes.


1 Q: Okay. Are you able to achieve the pH 2 reduction by the addition of alum to -- at your plant in 3 Edmonton? 4 A: Well definitely under tough raw water 5 conditions. So, we will -- we almost have the problem 6 sometimes that -- that our pH goes too low. So, I -- I'd say 7 the majority of time, we're -- we're well below, let's say a 8 seven point five (7.5) pH and -- and normally in that seven 9 (7) range in our clarifiers. 10 Q: And what's the normal pH in the North 11 Saskatchewan River in Edmonton? 12 A: It's the same as here, about eight point 13 three (8.3). 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: But I'd think you'd see -- we -- we feed 16 quite a bit more alum. So even in winter conditions, we're 17 feeding close to forty (40) milligrams per litre of alum, 18 which is weak acid, so -- 19 MR. KEN STEVENSON: Okay. Those are the 20 questions that I have. Thank you, Dr. Stanley. 21 THE WITNESS: Okay, thank you. 22 MR. COMMISSIONER: Any re-examination, Mr. 23 Russell? 24 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: No re-examination, Mr. 25 Commissioner. But I wonder if I might suggest that the --


1 the protocol that Dr. Stanley referred to for the imposition 2 of the Boil Water Order, which Mr. Stevenson referred to 3 could be entered as an exhibit? I think it might be helpful 4 to us for comparative purposes. 5 And I was going to suggest if, during the 6 break, we could make copies of that and -- and enter it as 7 our next exhibit? 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Is it all right with you, 9 Dr. Stanley? 10 THE WITNESS: Yes, yes. 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: Does anyone out there have 12 any objections to that occurring? Well, all right, then I 13 guess we'll give it a number. It'll be C-92, the protocol 14 for Boil Water Advisory or Orders in the license of EPCOR in 15 Edmonton, I guess. 16 17 ---EXHIBIT NO. C-92: Protocol for Boil Water Orders in 18 the license of EPCOR in Edmonton 19 20 And otherwise it's a good time to take our 21 fifteen (15) morning break. And thank you, Dr. Stanley, for 22 your evidence. 23 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 24 25 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN)


1 --- Upon recessing at 10:45 a.m. 2 --- Upon resuming at 11:02 a.m. 3 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Perhaps we'll 5 resume the Hearings if we could, please? 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Yes, all right, Mr. Russell? 10 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 11 Commissioner. I would now like to call our next witness, Mr. 12 Doug McEwen and I ask that he be sworn, please? 13 14 DOUGLAS GEORGE McEWEN, Sworn; 15 16 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Good morning, Mr. McEwen. 17 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 18 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Mr. Commissioner, in 19 relation to the testimony that Mr. McEwen will be offering, 20 I'm going to have to do a little bit of binder hopping, I 21 think, because of the way the information has come in. 22 We have already entered two (2) previous 23 exhibits for city witnesses, including Mr. McEwen. And I 24 believe they are now Exhibits C-64 and C-65. And Mr. McEwen 25 will -- will need those exhibits before him.


1 In addition, we would now like to enter, for 2 the same group of witnesses, a binder of materials dealing 3 with budget information. And with your permission I would 4 like to mark that as our next exhibit and Mr. McEwen will 5 need that before him as well. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. So the new 7 binder entitled, 'Budget Information' will be C-93. 8 9 --- EXHIBIT NO. C-93: Binder entitled 'Budget 10 Information' 11 12 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: And just to help Mr. 13 McEwen, he will -- will probably be referring to Mr. 14 Katzell's binder which I believe is C-38 for a number of 15 issues. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: I think I am absent of Mr. 20 Katzell's binder for the moment but that's fine, carry on. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, I have it upstairs, 25 yes.


1 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 2 Commissioner. 3 4 EXAMINATION IN-CHIEF BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 5 Q: Mr. McEwen, I understand that you were 6 the City Commissioner for North Battleford from May of 1986 7 until your year of retirement in December of 1999. Is that 8 correct? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: And prior to that I understand that you 11 were the City Manager in Thompson, Manitoba from 1981 until 12 1985? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And I also understand that you are a 15 graduate of the University of Manitoba with a Bachelor of 16 Arts Degree which I believe you received in 1961? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Now apart from your Bachelor of Arts 19 Degree and apart from your experience in Thompson and North 20 Battleford, do you have any other kind of business or 21 administrative education or experience or qualifications? 22 A: Well certainly prior to anything -- 23 entering municipal government, I worked for twenty (20) years 24 managing YMCA's. I certainly also have my certificate in 25 Municipal Administration obtained through the -- the


1 University of Manitoba on a cooperative program with Manitoba 2 Municipalities which I achieved with distinction. 3 And so that those were the standard courses 4 related to municipal management in Manitoba. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: They're very similar in Saskatchewan, and 7 of course were accepted here as adequate in qualifications. 8 At the city level we don't go as much by the certificates as 9 they do in -- in Saskatchewan related to smaller cities. 10 But certainly most of the sewer managers in 11 cities have that background or experience either in towns or 12 villages or the -- at the University level in terms of 13 academic qualifications. 14 Q: Okay. Now in a general way let -- could 15 you -- could we start by your describing for us what the City 16 Commissioner's job encompasses, or at least in your time, in 17 your tenure with the city, what does the City Commissioner 18 do? 19 A: Well I've frequently joked about the 20 nature of my task being whatever needs to be done when it -- 21 when it has to be done. 22 But obviously the responsibility is to advise 23 council on policy matters, then implement policies 24 established by council, but most particularly to simply 25 oversee the day to day operations of the -- the -- of the


1 city through its various staff and -- and personnel, and 2 report to council through there. 3 Q: Okay, so in affect you're the -- the 4 Chief Administrative Officer for the city? 5 A: Administrative Officer, yes. 6 Q: Yeah. And that would involve you, I'm 7 assuming, dealing with all departmental heads, including the 8 Director of Public Works and Engineering, they would -- 9 A: Of course -- 10 Q: -- report to you? 11 A: -- yes. 12 Q: Okay. All of the other city 13 administration, and people who work within that, they would 14 report to you as well? 15 A: The department heads report, generally 16 speaking, the structure is such that employees in a 17 particular department would report to their supervisors or 18 the -- or the department head. 19 Q: Right, okay, but it's the department head 20 who you would deal with? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: Okay. And I'm assuming that you would 23 interact on a fairly regular basis with the mayor? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Okay. And also what about your


1 interaction with city council, do you appear at all city 2 council meetings, or did you appear at all city council 3 meetings? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: And what would be your role there, 6 what -- what would you be required to do? 7 A: The nature of the function I had, because 8 in addition to being the commissioner I was also the city 9 clerk, I had responsibility for the recording of minutes, 10 although generally speaking, one of our employees actually 11 did that work, I oversaw the process. 12 So that, yes, I was present in that capacity 13 under the requirements of the Municipal Act. But also then 14 to advise them I guess, if you will, to listen carefully 15 enough to receive instruction from council. 16 Q: Right. So you would both give and 17 receive, as they say? 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: And no doubt you would be from time to 20 time called upon to answer questions, follow up on queries -- 21 A: Hmm-hmm. 22 Q: -- to do with the regular business of the 23 city? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: And just in a general way, what would be


1 your -- what would be your involvement with the -- with the 2 budgeting process? 3 A: In the years certainly that I was there, 4 I was the key leader of that process. 5 Q: And -- and could you generally describe 6 for us how the -- how the budgeting process worked. What was 7 the -- what was the procedure from year to year, and -- and 8 how did you oversee it? 9 A: You know, very quickly. We'd usually 10 start in about September or October, I'm talking about a 11 budget process. 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: In which our department heads would focus 14 first on our longer term planning activity in the way of 15 financial planning, focussing towards what we call the five 16 (5) year capital plan. 17 This would be followed up with -- at the same 18 time, if you will, work on the specifics related to the 19 capital activity for the coming year. But most of the time 20 we would try to get that material both as to the current 21 year's capital plan and the five (5) year operating plan, 22 into council's hands prior to Christmas time. 23 That review then would start early in the New 24 Year usually, people would like to have started in December. 25 Q: Right.


1 A: And during that time we were also then 2 preparing the final material for the operational budget, that 3 is the overall or encompassing, but which would line out of 4 course the normal operatal -- operating costs. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: The -- usually because we had to wait for 7 the School Boards to set their mill rate, it would be into 8 April by the time we passed the mill rate of the city. 9 So that there was those several weeks in which 10 we would normally have a number of study sessions with 11 council, so we had a full understanding of what at least 12 their administration was proposing. But the administration 13 put forward those proposals. 14 The department heads would prepare that 15 material on behalf of their departments, usually of course 16 with the assistance of particularly in the Works and 17 Utilities Department, of some of their administrative 18 assistant personnel, but that would then be reviewed by 19 myself and our Director of Finance or City Treasurer as to 20 simply putting the thing to a balance, in fairness to our 21 department heads, at least in the time I was there, nobody 22 was dreaming dreams, we were struggling to keep our costs 23 down -- 24 Q: Right. 25 A: -- and so that the -- the issue there was


1 more a matter of simply trying to balance priorities, make 2 sure, if you will, to some extent the numbers added up and 3 that things matched so that we were clear, well-informed 4 and -- and hopefully helpful to council from the point of 5 view of finalizing the budget determination. 6 Q: Okay. So when, for instance, council 7 would eventually set the mill rate in April of the -- of any 8 particular year, that in effect would be the -- the 9 conclusion of that round of budget considerations, that's 10 what brought it to a -- 11 A: A policy level, that's correct. 12 Q: -- the setting of the mill rate. And 13 when that was done, by that time, council had considered 14 the -- the capital plan, the project budget and the 15 operations budget and that all went into the setting of the 16 mill rate I'm assuming? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: Okay. And you said, of course, you -- as 19 part of this process, you would have discussions with -- with 20 department heads, I'm assuming that what you would review 21 then would -- would be what their -- what they saw as being 22 their needs for the coming year to operate their respective 23 departments and you've already indicated that sometimes there 24 was a considerable amount of -- of dreaming going on because 25 of the amount of --


1 A: No, on the contrary, I indicated we were 2 not into a time of -- it was a lot of dreaming. 3 Q: I see. 4 A: It was really just a status quo type of 5 activity. 6 Q: Okay. So, before -- before any materials 7 would be placed before council, I'm assuming you would have 8 had some significant discussions with your department heads 9 on -- on what, in fact, the city could afford in terms of any 10 budget increases? 11 A: Yes, and had that been necessary, 12 probably a great deal more than we did. I guess the point I 13 was making is -- is that our department heads were fairly 14 consistent in the -- in their requests at least and so that 15 what you're dealing with from year to year were rather minor 16 adjustments of levels. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: Occasionally there would be a special 19 project that would be coming through, but what we tried to do 20 was to make sure that some of that money had been saved up 21 first so that -- 22 Q: Yeah. 23 A: -- it didn't have an immediate impact on 24 the mill rate for the -- for the resident. 25 Q: So you're feeling was that the department


1 heads fully understood the situation in any event that there 2 wasn't a lot of money available or the -- the kind of money 3 that might be necessary to make significant capital 4 improvements was not available; did they understand that? 5 A: In any given year, but remember North 6 Battleford is one (1) of the wealthiest cities in the 7 province from the point of view of the ability that it has 8 established its reserves and -- and plan and establishes 9 plans for its use. 10 So that, while certainly we went through some 11 pretty tough times during the period of, oh, I'd say 1991 12 through '95, where you'll recall it was a time when the 13 province was struggling to balance its budget. 14 Generally speaking you must recall that that 15 was done by removing assistance or support to cities and, 16 quite frankly, just as an example, in the area of the urban 17 assistance kind of a program, that drop was in the order of 18 $1 million in a fairly short span. 19 Our council were quite proud of the fact we 20 came through that period with no real increase in the mill 21 rate. 22 Q: Hmm-hmm. 23 A: So it meant that we were dipping, if you 24 will, more fully into the reserves during that period, but, 25 you know, it didn't stop the ability for us to continue to


1 operate and manage the city. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: It was not a matter of -- where we could, 4 we looked at each replacement position, for example, and 5 didn't replace where that was the case. 6 Q: Right. 7 A: We ended up coming through it all, 8 that --- that's not to say we -- we weren't caught a couple 9 of times having to look at the hard reality of layoffs, but 10 by other -- I felt, for any creative activities, as people 11 retired, in a few cases we did not replace positions, but we 12 maintained a stability that I think served the city well. 13 Q: Okay. Okay, and I'll come in a moment to 14 some -- some budgetary material, but I just wanted that 15 general picture from you to start with. 16 As -- as part of your job and the -- and the 17 people you would interact with at the city and, of course, as 18 you know, in this Inquiry we're particularly concerned about 19 the Plants Department. What kind of interaction would you 20 personally have, say with the -- the Plants Foreman, Mr. 21 Katzell who would have been Plants Foreman for just about all 22 of your tenure? 23 A: Hmm-hmm. 24 Q: Is he someone you would interact with on 25 a regular basis?


1 A: Yes and no. Remember his primary 2 supervisor would be the Director of Public Works and 3 Utilities. Certainly, as for example, we were preparing for 4 negotiations or something of that nature, I would meet with 5 him. 6 During my tenure there was an effort to try 7 and improve some of the training issues for our operators. 8 And so that I counted on his assistance as we put proposals 9 to our union in that regard. So, it was that kind of thing 10 that I would meet with, but normally Mr. Katzell had the 11 confidence of our, you know, each of our Director's that 12 works in Utilities. And so I had no particular needs in that 13 regard. 14 So that while I, you know, knew Ivan, would 15 chat with him, occasionally when I sat it on meetings of 16 Foremen with the Director of -- of Public Works and 17 Utilities, there might be exchange, et cetera. But in terms 18 of operational activities, no. 19 Q: No. Okay. So your -- your main 20 knowledge of what was going in the Plants Department would 21 have come from the Director of Public Works ? 22 A: That's true. 23 Q: Right. And during your time I think 24 there were probably three (3), I would -- and we'll come to 25 those in a minute.


1 And I'm assuming also that you, yourself, 2 would not have opportunity to interact with any of the 3 operators at the plants? 4 A: Again, not usually or directly. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: Obviously the senior manager always likes 7 to know who people are but we try to do it without either 8 spending time or snooping. 9 I did -- we did have one (1) incident, if you 10 will, that would go back to about 1987 or '88, in which, you 11 know, our operators stepped forward and did an absolutely 12 superb job of dealing with the situation when we had some 13 flooding on the river. And so that the groundwater plants 14 were knocked out. 15 And I simply dropped in at one (1) time and 16 observed, you know, an operator working in the -- the Number 17 2 Plant or the F.E. Holliday plant, if you will. Dealing 18 actually with -- because of -- of the heavy movement of 19 water, we were trying to produce most of our city water out 20 of that plant at that time. 21 Q: Right -- 22 A: Some of these things about turber -- 23 turbidity, et cetera, of which I know nothing about numbers 24 or anything else, but I simply sat and observed for an hour. 25 And that was a very hard working employee.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: That was my total involvement. 3 Q: Okay. So I'm assuming that during the 4 time of your tenure, I mean, you -- you wouldn't have had any 5 occasion to visit the plants, except for exceptional 6 circumstances -- 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: -- along the time? You didn't -- you 9 didn't visit the plants on any kind of a regular basis? 10 A: Not on a regular basis or for inspection 11 purposes. Certainly, when I first came to the city, the -- 12 the Director's, et cetera, toured me to the various 13 facilities. It's a little easier when you've seen them, at 14 least. 15 Q: Right. I think during your time as city 16 commissioner, you would have probably worked, then, with 17 three (3) Directors of Public Works and Utilities. There 18 would have been Mr. Derrek Plummer, would there? 19 A: No, I don't -- 20 Q: Mr. -- 21 A: Sorry -- 22 Q: Sorry. Mr. -- Mr. Robert Berry and then 23 of course Mr. Strelioff -- 24 A: Hmm-hmm. 25 Q: -- in your sort of final year?


1 A: Certainly I guess it would be five (5). 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: When I first came to the city, Mr Louis 4 Vilim, a long time Director, was still in place. He retired 5 at the same time, if you will, as my predecessor. 6 That was followed by Ray Thompson. Ray had 7 been the Superintendent of Plants prior to my arrival. As 8 Mr. Vilim retired we did some reorganization in that 9 department. And Mr. Thompson became our Director of Works 10 and Utilities and actually was the first Director of Works 11 and Utilities, the combined operation. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: And he served really as the Administrator 14 in that process. We hired, about the same time, Mr. Derrek 15 Plummer who was a qualified engineer and worked then under 16 Mr. Thompson's supervision until Mr. Thompson retired and 17 then applied for the position and took that on. 18 At that time, we did not replace the City 19 Engineer's position because that's the way Mr. Plummer had 20 first been hired. And he took on the broader position. Most 21 of our engineering, remember, is not done in house. It's 22 done by the use of consultants. 23 Q: Right. 24 A: When Mr. Plummer moved on, Mr. Berry came 25 in. And, of course, then when he left, it was followed by


1 Mr. Strelioff. So those are the five (5). 2 Q: Right. Now in his evidence, Mr. Katzell 3 identified what he regarded, I think, as a significant event 4 in the management and supervision of the -- the treatment 5 plants. And I think this was when Mr. Thompson's office was 6 moved from the sewage treatment plant to city hall. 7 And Mr. Katzell was left as the only 8 supervising officer on site -- 9 A: Hmm-hmm. 10 Q: -- and I believe that occurred some time 11 in 1986. 12 Now were you part of the administration when 13 that move was made? 14 A: Yes, I was. 15 Q: Okay, and what were the reasons for 16 making that move? 17 A: I guess it was the desire of the city at 18 the time to add to our engineering expertise in house, 19 because what happened was that rather than continuing with 20 two (2) distinctive, I think they were called Superintendents 21 of Plants and Superintendent of the Works. 22 We combined that position in Mr. Thompson, who 23 of course had gone from the plants then to the senior 24 management position of -- of the department. 25 And we then employed Mr. Plummer to serve as


1 an engineering support to him. Certainly anything I received 2 from Mr. Thompson, it was his view that -- that Ivan was 3 certainly capable of providing that supervision, in the same 4 way as it would be with a roads crew or something of that 5 nature under a foreman. 6 So -- and you must remember of course, Mr. 7 Thompson had the certain expertise in that area himself. So, 8 that I think he did receive the continuing support from, if 9 you will, his change in office location. 10 Q: Right. 11 A: So, that that was the -- the way in which 12 I observed those changes as they occurred at that time. 13 Q: Yeah. I think Mr. Katzell's concern, at 14 least as I understand he's indicating it, was that move sort 15 of opened up a gap, you know, between city hall and the 16 Plants Department, there was no one on site to who he 17 answered, who sort of fully understood what was occurring 18 down in the plants. 19 And I'm wondering if when that administrative 20 move was -- was made, whether that issue came up for 21 discussion and was addressed in any way. Do you recall that? 22 A: Your -- my testimony a moment ago 23 indicated it was not a matter of real concern, and I guess as 24 I saw it from the point of view as a -- a -- the senior 25 administrator, Mr. Katzell had excellent support directly


1 from Mr. Thompson. 2 If Mr. Katzell began to feel more distant, it 3 would have been as Mr. Thompson retired, and I suspect that 4 was just -- that was actually only two (2) or three (3) -- 5 no, pardon me, it was four (4) or five (5) years later before 6 he retired. 7 So, that while certainly there would be other 8 pressures then building on Mr. Thompson, the matter never 9 came to my attention in particular at that time, no. 10 Q: Okay. As regards Mr. Plummer, Mr. Berry 11 and Mr. Strelioff and the way that you interacted with them 12 in terms of the kinds of things you would discuss, and I mean 13 this in a sort of generic sense. 14 Were -- were there any -- were there any 15 changes that came about as a result of those three (3) 16 successive Directors of Public Works coming to the city, and 17 in the way they interacted with you. 18 Or in essence, did -- did the relationship 19 remain the same, notwithstanding we have different 20 personalities involved? 21 A: I would think largely, except for the 22 differences in personality, the nature of the job 23 expectancies or the tasks were quite similar. 24 Q: Okay. And in terms of those individuals 25 then, how often would you meet? Did you meet on a routine


1 basis, was there some set procedure for getting together, or 2 was it just a matter of sharing kind of office floors and 3 interacting. 4 How -- how -- how formal was that 5 relationship? 6 A: You're talking now about the relationship 7 let's say with a particular department head? 8 Q: Yes, with the Director of Public Works -- 9 A: Yeah -- 10 Q: -- with those three (3) gentlemen. 11 A: -- right. Certainly there was a formal 12 relationship in the sense of usually weekly department head 13 meetings, in which there was a fair amount of interchange and 14 so on, and part of it had to do of course with updating 15 ourselves to keep current on the broader city base. 16 The -- and then there were I would say 17 meetings regularly, on an as needed basis. If there was an 18 issue that a department head had and needed to review it with 19 me, they would approach me. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: If I had a concern or -- or something 22 that had been raised with me, I would approach them. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: And I would have to say that occurred 25 very regularly throughout the fifteen (15) years, pardon me,


1 fourteen (14) years that I was in place. 2 Q: Okay, so there would be -- there would be 3 an opportunity and a regular exchange with those gentlemen 4 on -- 5 A: Of course -- 6 Q: -- any of the problems that they might be 7 experiencing and any of the -- the various departments -- 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: -- within Public Works? That was a -- an 10 open exchange and they brought their problems and discussed 11 them with you? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Okay. And I'm assuming that would 14 include not only budgeting issues, but any labour issues -- 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: -- any operational problems that they 17 might be experiencing? 18 A: Certainly that would characterize the 19 range of things I would hear about over time, yeah. 20 Q: Okay. Perhaps we could, if you would, 21 Mr. McEwen, if you could look in Mr. Katzell's binder at tab 22 3? 23 A: Is this referred to as C-38? 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 25 THE WITNESS: Okay. And, I'm sorry, what tab


1 number? 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 4 Q: Tab number 3, if you would. 5 This is a piece of evidence that came forward 6 in -- during the course of Mr. Katzell's testimony, a letter 7 which he wrote to Mr. Ray Thompson -- 8 A: Hmm-hmm. 9 Q: -- dated July 6th, 1988, it's in his 10 handwriting; do you see that? 11 A: Yes, I see it. 12 Q: Okay. Now, if you'll -- you'll see that 13 the -- I'm not going to read it all to you, but there's just 14 one (1) or two (2) issues I'd like to identify. 15 If you'll -- on the first page, under the 16 paragraph numbered 3, 'Expanded Operator Duties', you'll see, 17 for instance, in the final paragraph of that section he says: 18 "STP more regular maintenance work has to 19 be done to keep the old equipment operating 20 properly." 21 At the end of the next paragraph -- section -- 22 sorry, Section 4, the bottom paragraph on that page, all the 23 place -- in relation to future responsibilities for Plants 24 department: 25 "All these places, to be properly


1 operational and maintained, will require 2 more operator time, experience and 3 training." 4 And then, if you'll turn over, he mentions the 5 need for closer -- closer hands-on supervision of staff: 6 "Many maintenance jobs require a management 7 member present to make immediate decisions 8 so that the work can be -- can continue 9 without delay." 10 And, under the next paragraph 2, for instance, 11 he says: 12 "Number 2 Water Treatment Plant needs 13 management present more often and longer to 14 ensure critical tests and procedures are 15 being followed." 16 And then, finally, his conclusions are, in 17 paragraph 4, he says, unless he can -- you know, unless he 18 can get the assistance he's looking for here, he's saying 19 this can only lead to poor departmental operation and poor 20 staff morale. 21 Now, this letter is written to Mr. Thompson 22 whom I believe you work with. 23 A: Hmm-hmm. 24 Q: Have you ever seen this letter before, 25 yourself?


1 A: No, I haven't. 2 Q: Okay. The -- the issues raised in this 3 letter by Mr. Katzell with Mr. Thompson, were they ever 4 brought to your attention? 5 A: Not directly, no. 6 Q: Were they brought to your attention 7 indirectly? 8 A: Only in the sense that Mr. Thompson -- 9 but then most of my other departments heads as well were, you 10 know, continually looking at the issues related to the need 11 for additional employees or the best use of employees. I was 12 conscious of the process, encouraged it regularly and it 13 was -- it would be, quite frankly, rare for me to deal 14 directly with this kind of an issue. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: Mr. Thompson certainly would be highly 17 familiar with the nature of Mr. Katzell's interests or needs 18 at that point. So, that I'm sure he felt confident in 19 dealing with it in whatever way he did. I obviously -- I 20 recall no discussion in that regard. 21 Q: Okay. So Mr. Thompson never came to you 22 and said, in effect, our long term plants foreman, Mr. 23 Katzell, thinks we're -- we're short staffed and we really 24 need to do something about it? 25 A: No, he did not -- we did not.


1 Q: And did anyone else ever raise those 2 issues with you? 3 A: I'm sorry? 4 Q: Did anyone else ever raise those issues 5 with you, the ones I've referred to in this -- and in your 6 letter? 7 A: And then you're speaking about this 8 particular letter? 9 Q: Yeah. 10 A: No. 11 Q: Okay. If you wouldn't mind looking at 12 tab 4 in Mr. Katzell's binder. You'll see there, I believe, 13 Mr. McEwen, a letter dated Wednesday, January 10th, 1989 to 14 Mr. Nestor Brunwald with a cc to Mr. Ray Thompson and Mr. 15 Derrek Plummer. 16 And, once again, in 1989, I mean this is a 17 short time later, in effect, Mr. Katzell is raising the same 18 issues, again. He says in that middle paragraph that: 19 "Since 1986 when Ray Thompson was removed 20 from the sewage plant location, the 21 department has, in effect, been short one 22 (1) person. This extra workload over the 23 long term has caused me much frustration in 24 not being able to get work done in a more 25 reasonable time and manner."


1 Now, have you ever seen that letter before? 2 A: No, I haven't. 3 Q: Okay. You'll see, cc'd to Mr. Thompson 4 and Mr. Plummer, did Mr. Brunwald or Mr. Thompson or Mr. 5 Plummer ever bring this matter to your attention? 6 A: Not specifically this communication, no. 7 Q: No? 8 A: It's a question -- this old guys 9 memory -- 10 Q: Yes, we -- 11 A: -- we had various discussions obviously 12 about personnel over the years and, you know, the issue of 13 adding personnel, in our plants operation, did come up from 14 time to time. Quite bluntly, I can't recall what some of 15 those were, the only one (1) that, if my memory serves me 16 right, now, was a reduction in the issue of the volume of our 17 operators that occurred, I believe, in the early '90's when, 18 under budget constraints, when it came time to replace an 19 operator, we did not replace that person with a full time 20 person. We replaced them with a -- with what you might call 21 a seasonal person. 22 In other words, during the summer time we were 23 trying to do the added maintenance and -- or project activity 24 within the plants. We added that person but the pressure 25 stayed on, if you will, the individual operators, during that


1 period. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: There was not a change in the -- the 4 number of managers or out of scope employees during that 5 period, no. 6 Q: Okay. But it -- it wasn't emphasized to 7 you by any of these gentlemen that Mr. Katzell seemed to be 8 suffering particular frustrations down at the Plants 9 Department and had particular worries about his ability to 10 carry on and maintain the plants as he thought the ought to 11 be maintained? 12 A: No. That would have been dealt directly 13 by Mr. Thompson and his staff, Mr. Brunwald and Mr. Plummer 14 both reported to him. 15 Q: Okay. If you take a look at tab 9 in Mr. 16 Katzell's binder, please? You'll -- you'll see here, Mr. 17 McEwen, a report prepared August 9th, 1993 by Mr. Katzell. 18 And I believe in accordance with his testimony, he indicated 19 that he'd prepared this for Mr. -- Mr. Berry -- 20 A: Hmm-hmm. 21 Q: -- on his arrival because he wanted to 22 bring him up to date with what he saw as being the issues. 23 And there's a couple of issues here that have kind of 24 resurfaced during the course of this Inquiry. 25 If you'll look, for instance, at the -- the


1 sixth paragraph on the first page, we're told that: 2 "When maintenance work must be done on the 3 Aero accelerator or final clarifier or 4 chlorine contact chamber, the flow to that 5 tank must be discharged straight to the 6 river. This is most undesirable because of 7 the pollution fact that does affect Number 8 2 Water Treatment Plant." 9 A: Hm-hmm. 10 Q: And then in the eighth paragraph he says: 11 "By the test results of river water samples 12 sent for analysis, our sewage treatment 13 process is adversely effecting our finished 14 water quality coming out of Number 2 Water 15 Treatment Plant." 16 Now, this particular report, it seems to me, 17 raises serious issues concerning health, if nothing else, 18 because of the possible effect of the sewage effluent upon 19 the Number 2 Water Plant. 20 Were those issues and concerns ever raised 21 with you, by anyone? 22 A: No. 23 Q: So you have -- Mr. -- assuming this-- 24 this did go to Mr. Berry, Mr. Berry did not discuss the fact 25 that Mr. Katzell had raised with him issues about the way the


1 sewage effluent was effecting the quality of water at the 2 Number 2 Plant? 3 A: No, he did not. 4 Q: That did not come to your attention in 5 any other way? 6 A: No. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 Q: If you would turn to tab 11 now, Mr. 11 McEwen? Once again we have here a report which I believe 12 when he gave evidence, Mr. Katzell identified as a report he 13 produced, I think it was something he updated from previous 14 reports for Mr. Strelioff's benefit when he arrived. 15 And if you would kindly turn to the third page 16 of that report, this is the second page dealing with the -- 17 the F.E. Holliday Water Plant Number 2. 18 You'll see in that second paragraph there, he 19 indicates that: 20 "This plant also suffers from old age, old 21 technology and poor design." 22 Were those issues ever raised with you? 23 A: Not directly the age issue, that fifty 24 (50) horse power pump we budgeted for that year to replace. 25 Q: Okay. But I think he's referring to


1 the -- the plant generally when he says these words, and he's 2 bringing to Mr. Strelioff's attention, look, this is a -- 3 this is an old plant with old technology and poor design. 4 These issues were never raised and addressed 5 with you by Mr. Strelioff or Mr. Berry or anyone? 6 A: No. 7 Q: And on the final page of this report, 8 he -- he deals with the -- the Sewage Treatment Plant. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 And in the second paragraph he says that: 13 "Without exception this plant operates as 14 good as it does because of the operating 15 staff. This plant is obsolete, potentially 16 hazardous and will cost millions of dollars 17 just to make it operate to meet the 18 guidelines, which under normal 19 circumstances by today's standards of plant 20 design, it should have been able to do." 21 And then the final sentence of that paragraph: 22 "Under the operating budgets, this plant is 23 only receiving patchwork repairs that do 24 not help to improve the quality of its 25 effluent, but simply maintain the best --"


1 I think is the word: 2 "-- we can do with what we have." 3 Once again, very sort of serious concerns 4 obviously Mr. Katzell had about the ability of the sewage 5 plant to meet the effluent obligations. 6 Once again, was -- were these concerns brought 7 to your attention by anyone? 8 A: Not specifically or directly, but by that 9 time if this was to orient Mr. Strelioff, the city had been 10 addressing this particular matter in the Reid Crowther study. 11 Q: Okay. 12 A: So, that I'm sure this particular 13 communication to Mr. Strelioff, he would not have felt 14 necessary to bring forward. It certainly helped -- 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: -- him to reinforce the strength with 17 which he would put stuff over to council in proceeding with 18 the -- the matter. 19 Q: So, by this time, the kind of -- the kind 20 of concern that Mr. Katzell was raising here as regards to 21 the sewage treatment plant -- 22 A: Hmm-hmm. 23 Q: -- because of the Reid Crowther Study it 24 would have been common knowledge as far as city 25 administration was concerned?


1 A: My understanding is that the Reid 2 Crowther Study was to address some of the issues about the 3 aging plant situation, most particularly the sewage treatment 4 plant, yes. 5 Q: Yeah, but in terms not only of addressing 6 those issues, but identifying what the problems and issues 7 were, and that's what he's doing here to a certain extent, 8 and I believe Reid Crowther does that as well does it not? 9 A: Yes, it does. 10 Q: It does. 11 A: Moreover, the -- you know the point he's 12 making here if I'm reading it correctly, and I've just read 13 it now myself for the first time, is that the issue of -- you 14 know, under our normal operating budget, he was -- he was 15 struggling with maintaining -- his concern is certainly 16 for -- in the longer term, for the design issue, and -- and I 17 think that was the part that was common knowledge. 18 The issue of operating under the -- the 19 standard budget components at that point, was never drawn to 20 my attention, no. 21 Q: What about the issue though of the plant 22 being obsolete, potentially hazardous -- and potentially 23 hazardous. Was that drawn to your attention? 24 A: No, not -- not anything like that. I was 25 aware and I honestly can't recall when or how, it would have


1 been several years before, our license had come up for 2 renewal and, in discussions with SERM, there had been some 3 agreements as to the nature of what would be done to assure 4 that things -- changes and so on were being made in the 5 plant; I was vaguely aware of that type of information, but 6 not from a piece of paper like this, no. 7 Q: Okay. So the kind of urgency that is 8 being communicated in this report, that was not communicated 9 to you? 10 A: No. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 My only concern here is, yes, there's urgency 15 from this and, respectfully, urgency like this would not be 16 unique to the water and sewer plant issues, whether it had to 17 do with deteriorating conditions on roads or other issues 18 would probably appear in reports, were they written, with 19 other departments so that -- and I would expect my employees 20 to do that, in other words, to put forward as -- as firmly 21 and fairly as possible with their supervisors what they felt 22 some of the issues were. 23 I'm sure these would have been discussed 24 between them and I would hope and trust resolved because they 25 were not brought directly to my attention.


1 Q: Yes. No, my concern here, of course, is 2 for the -- you know, there's a potential health hazard that 3 lies behind these concerns. 4 A: Well, of course. 5 Q: And I'm just wondering the extent to 6 which you were made aware of that and were given the 7 opportunity to deal with it? 8 A: Yeah, and it was not brought to my 9 attention, to answer the question simply. 10 Q: Okay. 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: Just on that point, Mr. 12 McEwen, you've mentioned a couple of times that the urgency 13 or requests from the Plants department would be the same as 14 from the Roads department -- 15 THE WITNESS: Hmm-hmm. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- on two (2) occasions 17 now. I think what Commission Counsel has been trying to 18 point out is that the Plants Department, dealing with a 19 rather significant public health responsibility, mainly 20 clean, potable water, I think in terms of many of the 21 witnesses who have testified would suggest that they're not 22 necessarily on an equal par in terms of urgency. 23 So, I'm mentioning that simply so you can 24 respond because I'm just wondering if at any time in your 25 tenure there was even a discussion about the health


1 implications of, if we don't do something, whether something 2 health-wise might happen? 3 THE WITNESS: Yes, and I -- 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: You know, that's the focus 5 of the Inquiry. 6 THE WITNESS: -- and I appreciate your point, 7 Mr. Commissioner. I -- I certainly -- by addressing both, 8 didn't mean to equate them, but the -- the matters of concern 9 about both water treatment and sewage treatment, I was quite 10 confident were foremost in the minds of each of our 11 successive directors and obviously their foremen. 12 Quite frankly, I think this would probably be 13 shared by our direct operational staff as well so that the 14 issue of addressing them, my expectancy is that it was 15 ongoing and that the reason we didn't have extensive 16 discussions is that my understanding is that it was being 17 dealt with. 18 And, when I raised questions, certainly with 19 our department heads or -- or meetings with foremen and so 20 on, I was quite satisfied that they were on top of those 21 issues and were concerned about safety; I would have expected 22 no less. 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL:


1 Q: Mr. McEwen, if you could just turn to tab 2 15 in Mr. Katzell's binder, you'll see there what we've come 3 to refer to as the Pommen report -- 4 A: Hmm-hmm. 5 Q: -- during the course of this Inquiry and, 6 if you look at appendix 3 to that report, you'll see that 7 there is -- which appears on page 55 of the report, you'll 8 see that we're provided with a list of those persons who were 9 interviewed for the information given in the report and Mr. 10 Berry is there and -- 11 A: Hmm-hmm. 12 Q: -- then Mayor Hornick is there, of 13 course, and -- and you're on there too -- 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: -- Doug McEwen as the Commissioner, so 16 I'm assuming that you played a role in the sort of the 17 background interviewing and the providing of information for 18 the Pommen report and you were involved -- 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: -- in the process? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. Now, in terms of the information 23 you provided for this report, I mean, I realize '96 is a way 24 back. Can you -- can you recall what you did -- what kind of 25 information you did provide and what kind of a role he


1 played? 2 A: Certainly I worked fairly closely with 3 Mr. Pommen and reviewed his plans as to the interviews and so 4 on he conducted, some of the information he felt he needed, 5 tried to make sure that he had it. Because, you know, we 6 were struggling with the issue of simply reorganizing, for a 7 further time, that department -- 8 Q: Yes -- 9 A: -- to make it as effective as possible. 10 Q: Yes. And there is, throughout here, 11 considerable information, first of all, on -- on financial 12 matters which we'll come to in a moment. I'm assuming that 13 you would have been the principal source of that information, 14 for instance? 15 A: Probably in terms of the specifics on 16 that occasion, Mr. Pommen would have got most of that 17 directly from Edna Logan our Treasurer and Controller. 18 Q: Okay, okay. But in terms of the way 19 this -- sorry, Mr. Commissioner? 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: I'm just wondering, could 21 we just touch on how this report came into existence? 22 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes. I'm -- I'm -- I'm 23 going back to that, now. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL:


1 Q: The -- the process and the reasons for 2 the production of this report, I'm assuming that there would 3 been -- there would have been discussion at city hall about 4 the need for this report. 5 So, can you tell us, what was the -- what was 6 the rationale for producing it in the first place? 7 A: It arose from discussions that I had with 8 council simply concerning the operations of that department. 9 And trying to make it more effective from the point of view, 10 particularly I think, as re -- I think it -- council saw 11 certain symptoms, the information that they might or might 12 not have, provided to them on a regular basis. 13 And, you know, certainly had concerns about, 14 then, the nature of the structure and organization and how 15 well, if you will, our -- our management were doing, directly 16 in that supervisory activity. And more particularly, I guess 17 we were all trying to cast about for the most effective way, 18 given, remember, that some pretty severe financial 19 limitations were still in place, as to utilization of 20 supervisory staff. 21 So, the focus was very heavily on the director 22 and, if you will, his assistants I think at that time, for 23 example, Mr. Brunwald and for the moment the name escapes me 24 so to speak. It's not as if I don't know my employees. But 25 the question then of what functions and tasks those kind of


1 people would need to do as we went forward. 2 And so with council's direction, I employed 3 Pommen Associates to do this particular report and what 4 you're looking at is the results of his examination. 5 Q: So, were the concerns that drove the 6 production of the report essentially financial concerns and 7 the -- and the need to rationalize that department because of 8 financial -- 9 A: I certainly don't think so, exclusively, 10 no. 11 Q: Okay -- 12 A: Obviously there would have been concerns 13 about the nature of, you know, the performance of individual 14 employees, to a certain extent. But it was, in fairness to 15 council, it was a -- it was a broader based interest that 16 they had at that point. 17 We were all concerned about trying to 18 establish the most effective department we could. So, this 19 was seen as the opportunity to get at some of that detail and 20 have some of the suggestions that were necessary to make the 21 changes. 22 Q: Okay. And of course I see from the list 23 of people who were interviewed, that certainly -- 24 A: Hmm-hmm. 25 Q: -- the mayor at that time, Mr. Hornick,


1 and other council members participated in the process. 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And I'm assuming, also, that -- did 4 this -- was this -- was this report eventually presented to 5 council and debated? 6 A: Of course. 7 Q: Okay. So it -- it came before them and 8 they were made fully aware of it's findings and 9 recommendations? 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: Okay. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: I don't want to belabour 13 it but this particular department was singled out by city 14 council for review. And I guess my question is, was the -- 15 apart from what you've indicated of, you know, performance of 16 certain employees or perhaps overall efficiency in the 17 department, are you saying those were the only concerns at 18 the time and that no part of this re -- investigation was 19 directed at the recognition that there was, perhaps, aging 20 infrastructure in the water plants and the sewage treatment 21 plants and the whole physical plant issue? 22 In other words, I guess I'm asking -- 23 THE WITNESS: This particular study, no, 24 would have no bearing on the issue of the age of plants or 25 things of that nature.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: No. But I'm asking you if 2 it arose at the time? 3 THE WITNESS: It would -- my memory might -- 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well -- 5 THE WITNESS: -- fail me Mr. Commissioner, 6 but I believe the Reid Crowther Report -- 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: Hmm-hmm. 8 THE WITNESS: -- has been commissioned by 9 this time and so on. 10 This was a -- a report addressing specifically 11 the pers -- some of the personnel and organizational issues 12 in -- 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you, 14 so -- 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 17 Q: I wonder if we could just take a look at 18 page 2 of the report, Mr. McEwen, under heading number 2, 19 Management, and some of the observations that were made at 20 that time. 21 I'd like to look at the -- the second 22 paragraph to begin with, it says that: 23 "Concern exists about reduced Government 24 funding, shrinking resources and the need 25 for economic growth. A concern shared and


1 in agreement with city council." 2 So, I'm taking that it was generally accepted 3 at that time that that concern existed both for yourself and 4 for City Council? 5 A: Very much so. I -- you know, some of 6 that would be my specific input, but certainly from members 7 of council, Mr. Pullman would have heard those things, yes. 8 Q: Okay. We're also told in the next 9 paragraph that: 10 "Leadership, communication, innovation and 11 technical skills are expected from the 12 Public Works and Utilities Director." 13 Why -- why was that an issue, what was the 14 concern there? 15 A: Unless I'm mistaken, these are 16 conclusions that Mr. Pullman was drawing simply from the 17 various interviews he'd had. 18 So he's got them condensed to -- 19 Q: All right. 20 A: -- what appear to be about four (4) 21 statements here. But he's stating simply what was expected 22 of the Public Works Director, yes. 23 Q: Okay, but -- 24 A: It was more a fact than a question of 25 criticism at that location.


1 Q: Sure, so -- so they -- those -- those 2 observations were accepted by yourself, and as far as you 3 know, by city council at that time -- 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: -- there was no argument over that? 6 A: No. 7 Q: Okay. And we're told in the next 8 paragraph that: 9 "Minimal growth, aging infrastructure and 10 the three (3) Es are significant issues for 11 senior management to address." 12 A: Right. 13 Q: Now when we're talking about aging 14 infrastructure there -- 15 A: Hmm-hmm. 16 Q: -- I'm assuming that the Plants 17 Department would be included in that? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: Okay, so that at that time there was a 20 general feeling that infrastructure had to be addressed, and 21 that you understood that and council understood that? 22 A: There's no question about that, and 23 you'll see that in a number of my introductions to the -- of 24 the budget to council, we've -- we've been concerned, I would 25 think, from probably before my arrival in '86 until now, that


1 we face in common with most urban municipalities, the problem 2 with aging infrastructure and its replacement. 3 It's remarkable what I think Canadian 4 municipalities are doing, given the problems of -- of 5 finances and so on, that we've faced through the last ten 6 (10) years. 7 Q: Right. And I think that's echoed, just 8 to complete the picture on the next page, page 3 under 9 Section 3, Service Delivery and Operations under the -- the 10 fourth paragraph of 3(a). 11 I mean there are many observations there, but 12 once again we're told that infrastructure and physical plant 13 analysis and evaluations require attention. 14 A: Hmm-hmm. 15 Q: And I'm assuming once again you would 16 have had no problem with that -- 17 A: Not at all. 18 Q: -- that was generally understood? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 On page 18 and 19, specific observations are 23 made about the plants themselves, if you kindly turn there, I 24 just want to make sure that we're in agreement on this. 25 If you'll see under C.3.5, Plants, in the


1 second paragraph, we're told that: 2 "Planning for plant modifications to 3 address capacity issues or quality issues 4 involves complex technical issues. As the 5 focal individual in the ongoing operations 6 of the plants, and their mechanical, 7 chemical and biological processes, the 8 plants foreman is required to have a 9 technical understanding." 10 A: Hmm-hmm. 11 Q: That's perfectly -- your -- you -- you 12 agree with that finding? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. And we're also told about the 15 plants in the next paragraph: 16 "That there are limited automated alarms 17 and controls which regulate the mechanical, 18 chemical and biological processes within 19 the two (2) water production plants and the 20 sewage treatment plant. 21 And that without the benefit of 22 automated process controls to maintain 23 quality of potable water or discharge 24 effluent, the plants foreman and the staff 25 must know the expected outcome of the


1 treatment processes at critical stages to 2 be able to adjust and modify mechanical 3 functioning, chemical dosages and 4 biological processes." 5 Now, I know you've told us that you're not 6 someone involved in operations, but in terms of someone who 7 participated in this report, I'm assuming you would have read 8 it and that -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: -- that was perfectly in accordance with 11 your understanding at the time? 12 A: Certainly in accordance with what my 13 expectancies were -- 14 Q: Sure. 15 A: -- in that department, yes. 16 Q: And at the top of the next page, I think 17 the conclusion comes that the -- we're told the plants have 18 not been upgraded in recent years, the technology in the 19 plants is typically older technology and et cetera, et 20 cetera -- 21 A: Hmm-hmm. 22 Q: -- and ingenuity and skill of the plant 23 staff are required to keep these three (3) facilities 24 functioning and complying with provincial standards. 25 So the report itself, I mean, I realize it's


1 not as alarmist as some of the material that we've seen that 2 Mr. Katzell was sending, but at least there's a general 3 recognition here that, you know, upgrading is -- is required 4 and that -- 5 A: Hmm-hmm. 6 Q: -- people are having a struggle running 7 these plants? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. These -- this report provides us 10 with some statistical information which I've raised with you 11 before; if you could turn to page 22. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 We're given some conclusions about Public 16 Works and Utilities department expenditures and we're told 17 that, overall, those expenditures have increased 2 percent 18 over 1992. So I'm assuming this is 1992 to 1996. 19 A: Hmm-hmm. 20 Q: And then, of course, we're given the 21 information that the city's population has not increased and 22 building permit values are down on average 42 percent since 23 1990 and generally municipalities have been reducing 24 operating costs in the last three (3) to five (5) years so is 25 this information that you would have provided and/or


1 discussed in terms of what those -- the increase in 2 expenditures had been between '92 and '96 or would that have 3 been your Director of Finance? 4 A: Yeah, the information probably would have 5 come specifically, obviously it's this type of, you know, 6 analysis and so on that would have interested me. I did not 7 provide this particular analysis, no -- 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: -- that would have been done by the 10 consultant by having, if you will, the results of those four 11 (4) or five (5) years. 12 Q: Okay. But is it an analysis which 13 accords with your understanding of the -- of what had 14 happened at the city during those years in terms of 15 expenditures? 16 A: I'm not arguing that the numbers are 17 probably very accurate. 18 Q: Yes, because, if you'll turn the page, 19 we're given a -- we're given a breakdown on that between 20 various -- various areas of Public Works and the -- the two 21 (2) utilities, the water and the -- and the sewage utility. 22 I think the figure for both of them, over that period of 23 time, is an expenditure increase of 2 percent for both of 24 the -- for both of the facilities so I'm just -- does that -- 25 does that accord with your recollection of what happened


1 during that period of time? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: Okay. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 I think, from the way you -- you operate these 8 plants, these figures show that, of course, your -- your 9 revenues matched the increase in expenditures; all you did 10 was revenues increased by 2 percent to cover those 11 expenditures? 12 A: Yes -- no, there would have been whatever 13 effects either in a given year of volumes or of rate 14 changes -- 15 Q: Right. 16 A: -- at the moment I don't recall them. 17 The -- the issues, again, though is that our desire would not 18 be to penalize anyone, if we happen to have a particularly 19 wet year and very little water use, for example, that that 20 wouldn't mean we'd have to cut back on plant operations, the 21 issue would be on the longer term. 22 Q: Yeah. 23 A: I guess, while I certainly saw these 24 numbers before, I'm pleased and impressed when I look at them 25 that, during that period, at least in this department, we


1 managed to achieve 2 percent of growth. 2 Q: Right. 3 A: Unfortunately, that was not true of all 4 our departments. 5 Q: Okay. Okay. And then just finally on 6 this report, at page that's numbered 45. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 This is the Recommendations Section, Mr. 11 McEwen, and this is the -- the section dealing with plants 12 operation and you'll -- you'll see at 2.2, under the Purpose 13 Section, we're told, you know, that instrumentation alarms to 14 monitor the process, volumes and current conditions within 15 the plants and remote sites be given priority over plant 16 modifications. And you'll see that the purpose that's 17 mentioned there is the -- the quality of drinking water and 18 discharge effluent must meet Sask Environment's standards. 19 Drinking water not meeting standards affects the health of 20 the entire community. 21 Was that something that you agreed with at the 22 time? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: And -- and in relation to that, the -- 25 the instrumentation and alarms to monitor the processes, was


1 that something that was attended to, do you recall? 2 A: I'm going only on vague memory of the 3 fact that if not at that time, then before, or subsequently, 4 there was regular budgeting of adding particular kinds of 5 measurement -- 6 Q: Okay -- 7 A: -- that there was -- you'll recall, I 8 think in some of the stuff you were showing me earlier, there 9 was some reference to, was it, the voltage regulation type of 10 thing, for example. Although that's unrelated directly to 11 water. 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: It was -- the issue trying to save us 14 some costs related to energy. But some of this type of 15 testing equipment was certainly a part of that continuing and 16 ongoing budget area which I'm not re -- aware was at any time 17 reduced and point in fact, probably increased at a greater 18 rate. 19 You'd have to check that against the -- 20 Q: Sure, we will. And we'll -- we'll look 21 at some actual budget figures later, both with yourself and 22 with Mr. Toye. But I -- I'm just trying to establish that, 23 at least at the time of this particular report in 1996, that 24 this need had been identified. And that as far as your -- 25 you were concerned, it's something that needed to be attended


1 to. 2 A: When I looked at it, you know, my 3 assumption, I think, was that, clearly, this was reinforcing 4 things that we were trying to work on, sure. 5 Q: Right. And in paragraph 2.3 we're told, 6 as regards to plant functionality, that technical 7 understanding of the plant's limitations and capabilities be 8 acquired by the Public Works and Utilities Director for 9 presentation to senior administration and elected officials. 10 Now as someone who, I think, you've indicated 11 to us, you were somewhat depended upon to communicate with 12 you and city council over technical operations matters. I'm 13 assuming that the Director of Public Works and Utilities was 14 an important figure in the Plants Department. 15 And we see the recommendation here that 16 technical understanding is required in order to communicate 17 what needs to be done there. Is that something that you and 18 city council were in agreement with? 19 A: To the best of my knowledge, yes. 20 Q: Okay. And we're given the purpose for 21 that, just underneath, that due diligence by staff requires 22 that the plant limitations are understood by senior 23 administration and elected officials. 24 And I'm assuming you would need to know that 25 because you would need to respond to any problems. Is that


1 the case? 2 A: Yes. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: If you turn to your -- in Mr. Katzell's 7 binder, to tab 16 you will see there reproduced -- 8 A: I'm sorry, tab 16? Or 60? 9 Q: Sixteen (16), sorry. 10 A: Sorry, thank you. 11 Q: An optimization study which was done at 12 the Number 2 Plant. It looks as though it was initiated by 13 Mr. Katzell. And we're told on the -- on the face of the 14 report that the contents are -- are prepared for the 15 exclusive and expressed use of the City of North Battleford, 16 namely Mr. Ivan Katzell, Superintendent, and other employees 17 at the city designated by Mr. Katzell. 18 Now, this is a -- a somewhat technical report 19 concerning the -- the state and the performance of the filter 20 banks down at the Number 2 Plant. I don't know if a report 21 of this nature would have ever come to your attention or if 22 the matters raised in that report would ever have come to 23 your attention. 24 Are you aware, 25 a. Of this report. Or,


1 b. Of any of the -- the filter -- the 2 technical filter problems? Were you made aware, sorry, of 3 any of the technical filter problems addressed in this? 4 A: Not that I recall. 5 Q: Okay. And I think most importantly, the 6 report you've already mentioned, the sort of the lead in to 7 the Reid Crowther situation. 8 Tab -- tab 18 in Mr. Katzell's binder -- 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: Just before we do that, 10 Mr. Russell, is there some reason why -- I guess you've 11 indicated, Mr. McEwen, that you didn't have any particular 12 knowledge of this report called the Holliday Water Plant 13 Optimization Study, but is there some reason why it's 14 directed at Mr. Katzell, as opposed to the Public Utilities 15 Director? 16 In other words, he's the -- I guess it's Mr. 17 Berry at the time, would that be -- 18 THE WITNESS: As far as I recall, yes. 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- I just recall -- I'm 20 just asking the question, because it seems to be out of sync 21 with what you've indicated the organizational structure to 22 be? 23 THE WITNESS: The difficulty, Mr. 24 Commissioner, it's quite like I speculate, but my expectancy 25 would have been that certainly Mr. Katzell would have been


1 the prime person involved with whoever it was that did the 2 study. And the material I was just looking at didn't appear 3 to identify who that was. 4 But I'm quite confident he would not have 5 obtained that information, or -- or if you will, had that 6 analysis done for him, had it not been without the full 7 knowledge, consent and support of his supervisor. 8 And I'm sure that the information at the end 9 of the day was probably shared with the Director. But those 10 are speculations, the matter was never discussed -- 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, that's understood. 12 And then you go on to say, but it never reached your level at 13 this point, the results of this particular study didn't -- 14 THE WITNESS: No, and the nature of that type 15 of a study I would hope and trust is effectively dealt with 16 by the personnel involved. 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: Who would have had to find 18 the money in his regular budget to do such a study? 19 THE WITNESS: I expect in that particular 20 case, yeah. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay. 22 THE WITNESS: And may well have appeared. 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: Pardon me? 24 THE WITNESS: And may well have appeared as a 25 part of the plan, yes.


1 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 2 Q: The -- I just want to look at the -- the 3 lead in to the -- to the Reid Crowther Study, Mr. McEwen, if 4 you'd turn to page 18, we -- we have what appears to be 5 the -- the minutes of a -- a sort of preliminary meeting held 6 in November of 1995 -- 7 A: Hmm-hmm. 8 Q: -- with the officials of Reid Crowther, 9 a meeting attended by Mr. Bob Berry and Mr. Ivan Katzell. 10 A: Right. 11 Q: And the only reason I'm drawing it to 12 your attention is because once again, if you'll take a look 13 on the page -- page 5 out of the six (6) pages, it's the -- 14 there's a -- there's a master plan, that there seems to be 15 forming at this stage, a general approach as to how these 16 problems should be dealt with. 17 And we're told that the -- in the -- in the 18 first bullet under Master Plan, I'm sorry: 19 "After Master Plan for the Wastewater 20 Treatment Plant, would be a valuable 21 document. 22 And we're told that: 23 "Using words that softens the addressing of 24 iss -- of issues, it could express the site 25 as being vintage 19 blank. And out of


1 necessity the plant has grown, expanded, 2 and while outdated and unconventional by 3 today's standards, probably met the needs 4 at the time. 5 It is however, time to face the music." 6 And this is in 1995. Now the kind of 7 sentiment that is expressed here, the -- the need to face the 8 music as regards to the wastewater treatment plant, is that 9 something that you shared? 10 A: Yes, I have -- the risk here again is 11 speculation, but the nature of the kind of issue that I think 12 was being raised here is there seemed to be, at least I was 13 aware of discussions, which if you will, our Director was 14 occasionally having to referee between what essentially were 15 conflicting types of information they were getting from their 16 engineering consultants. 17 And by this time, well obviously we were 18 dealing with Reid Crowther. For many years we had used a 19 different firm, and while obviously we made a conscious move, 20 I suspect -- and this is purely speculation on my part, that 21 there may have been some comments in some of the initial 22 material from this report that went to work on the previous 23 engineer design issues, rather than anything else. 24 Now again that's a guess, and I'm not trying 25 to either lead us astray or anything else. But these type of


1 discussions were probably the case, it wasn't a matter of 2 certainly of any of our personnel wanting to bury anything, 3 it would have to do with the issue of engineer design so. 4 Q: Yes, I'm just wondering though did -- 5 that the kind of sentiment that is expressed here, I mean, 6 it's fairly forceful, "It's time to face the music," was that 7 a sentiment that was generally accepted within your office 8 and by city council in 1995 -- 9 A: Yes -- 10 Q: -- when this review -- 11 A: -- we wanted to get on with getting -- 12 Q: Right. 13 A: -- appropriate improvements in our 14 system. 15 Q: And, finally, the report itself at tab 19 16 in the binder, if you could take a look at that please. 17 Now, the covering letter on this report is 18 made out for the attention -- from Reid Crowther of January 19 8th, 1997 is made out for the attention of Mr. -- Mr. Berry, 20 but did you receive and review this report? 21 A: Whether I received and reviewed it in 22 January of 1997, I don't recall, but I was certainly aware 23 when we had received the report, it was certainly available 24 to me -- 25 Q: Yeah.


1 A: -- and I can't recall extensive time I 2 took directly on this report. My concern more particularly 3 was was it doing what we needed, my -- my director assured me 4 it was and point in fact, this would help us to get on with 5 doing what we need to do. 6 Q: But I'm -- I'm assuming from the -- the 7 history of the documents we've looked at, the discussions 8 with Reid Crowther, for instance, going back to 1995 -- 9 A: Right. 10 Q: -- this report had been some time in the 11 making -- 12 A: Oh, yes -- yes. 13 Q: -- and was probably quite an event in 14 the -- in the history of this department? 15 A: In -- in terms of the significant report 16 of credibility, it would have to have been, yes, I'm 17 certainly not arguing that. The issue, however, of -- you 18 know, our holding social activities or tea parties as a 19 result, no, I mean, nothing like that occurred. 20 Q: No, no, I'm sure you didn't, I'm just 21 wanting to make sure that, as city commissioner, that's 22 something that probably cost quite a -- quite a bit of money 23 that you would have -- you would have been presented with 24 this report and that you would have taken a look at it. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And was it also presented to city council 2 and debated by city council? 3 A: In due course, yes, and you'll notice, 4 for example, the transmittal letter identifies fifteen (15) 5 copies -- 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: -- presumably seven (7) of which at least 8 would have been directly for council, the -- the other eight 9 (8) would be essentially made available to our personnel. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: And that would have been an agreement 12 between our director and -- and Reid Crowther; saved us 13 copying costs, if you -- 14 Q: Right. But do you remember the report 15 coming up for debate at any particular council meeting? 16 A: At a regular council meeting, no. 17 Q: Or -- well, at any irregular council 18 meeting -- 19 A: Well -- 20 Q: -- any -- any meeting convened -- 21 A: With a report like this, you see, it 22 triggers a set of studies and discussions -- 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: -- so that we held, for example, I think 25 a full day discussion with council at the Don Ross Centre;


1 now, the exact date, I don't recall, it certainly would have 2 been into 1998 or later. And to not so much review the 3 findings of the report, as to begin to identify some of the 4 things we needed to do and more particularly to plan for 5 financially, but certainly council were alerted to the needs 6 and so on. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: And we -- for that matter, we were 9 looking at the process related to our -- our waste management 10 facility at the same time so that -- 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: -- that -- and that was also a very major 13 report, costing probably a little bit more than this one (1). 14 Q: Right. 15 A: That council was most supportive on both 16 of them, by the way. 17 Q: Okay -- okay. And the -- the actual 18 conclusions to this report, I -- I won't -- I'm not going to 19 drag you through them, I just want to make sure on page 3-29, 20 3-29, we're given audit conclusions, of particular interest 21 to this Inquiry, of course, once again. 22 A: 3-29? 23 Q: Yes -- 24 A: Thank you. 25 Q: -- 3-29, the audit conclusions. In terms


1 of the themes we've been studying, you'll -- I just wanted to 2 make sure that you were aware of them. In paragraph 3, once 3 again, of course, we're told that many of the plants' 4 processes suffer from outdated technology and unconventional 5 process configuration and in the final sentence there: 6 "They -- they have made it difficult for 7 the plant operators to run the plant in a 8 stable manner." 9 Once again, a theme that you would agree with? 10 A: Yes, and I think there were some 11 specifics elsewhere in this report that address some of 12 things, weren't there? 13 Q: Yes. So, in paragraph 4, we're told 14 there exists significant health and safety concerns and, in 15 the final sentence of paragraph 4: 16 "The health and safety risks associated 17 with the headworks area should be addressed 18 in some manner." 19 Were -- were those health and safety concerns 20 something you were aware of and understood? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Okay. And in paragraph 5, we're told 23 that: 24 "Instrumentation and controls are primitive 25 by today's standards and installing


1 appropriate instrumentation and controls 2 will reduce labour requirements 3 significantly and reduce operator exposure 4 to some of the health and safety risks at 5 the plant." 6 Once again, you were -- you were in agreement 7 with that? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Okay. We're told in paragraph 6 that: 10 "Retrofitting the existing facility to meet 11 new effluent regulations will be difficult 12 on the existing site." 13 And I'm sure that this raised quite a problem 14 for yourself and the city. And we're told a serious look at 15 the benefits afforded in relocating the plant to a -- a new 16 site should be made. 17 Now, I -- there's a clear enough statement I 18 think, of the dilemma that the city faced at that time. 19 Retrofit or relocate. And during your time as City 20 Commissioner, was the -- was the choice between those two (2) 21 options ever made? 22 A: The only thing that was made with 23 finality that were actually three (3) types of things that we 24 were asking to be addressed. One (1) had to do with 25 "retrofit" if you will, of the existing plant facility.


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: The other, I think, had to do with rather 3 substantial redevelopment of the plant on site. And the 4 third -- and/or some addition to it, perhaps not on site. 5 Or, the relocation. And I think that was a matter of 6 subsequent study which was directed by council, because these 7 were issued we raised with them. 8 And that -- the conclusions from that data, I 9 think, have occurred since I left. 10 Q: Okay. Okay. So, but, no final conclu -- 11 while you were city commissioner, no final -- no final 12 conclusion on which way to go eventually was ever made? 13 A: I don't recall so. Although there was 14 very strong support for the issue of redevelopment of the 15 plant. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: It was just a question of in situ or 18 elsewhere. 19 Q: Okay. Okay. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Mr. Commissioner, I 24 don't -- I'm about to go into a fairly detailed, extensive 25 section on financial matters and I don't know whether you


1 would like to break at this time for lunch? 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. I guess we'll 3 adjourn now, Mr. McEwen, 'til 2:00 p.m. If you could return 4 at that time, please? 5 THE WITNESS: Yes. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. 7 8 --- Upon recessing at 12:20 p.m. 9 --- Upon resuming at 2:00 p.m. 10 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Good 12 afternoon. Perhaps we'll resume the Hearings. Mr. McEwen's 13 on the stand and turn it over to Mr. Russell. 14 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 15 Commissioner. Good afternoon, Mr. McEwen. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 18 Q: I think we left off by taking a look at 19 some of the conclusions in the -- in the Reid Crowther 20 Report. And I just want to look at a few of the city records 21 that have been brought to our attention in terms of what kind 22 of response was mounted, if you like, in relation to those 23 concerns. 24 And I wonder if we could look at what is 25 tab -- Exhibit C-64, I believe you'll probably have that


1 before you now. 2 It's the Binder A for the -- for the city with 3 your -- one of your -- your name is -- is on the front there 4 along with Mr. Toye, Mr. Ray -- 5 A: Hmm-hmm. 6 Q: -- and Mr. Strelioff. And I'm thinking 7 if you could turn to tab -- 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 -- on A-11, which contains the project budget 12 for the year 1997. And I think we discussed earlier how the 13 project budget was approved in any particular year. And I 14 think you've told us it's part of the general -- the general 15 budgeting process, one of the things considered by council. 16 But if you'll turn to the final page of that 17 tab I think you'll find there that portion of the project 18 budget which deals with the sewer utility. 19 And I think what we have here is a direct 20 acknowledgment in the budget, in the project budget of Reid 21 Crowther, and a deliberate response to it: 22 "We're told that the treatment study 23 undertaken in 1996 is now complete and 24 contains both short term and long term 25 recommendations. And that two (2) steps


1 are required now, we're told. 2 The first is to undertake geotechnical 3 investigations to determine the ability of 4 the current site to accommodate long term 5 facility upgrading, and the second is to 6 install immediately, some necessary 7 protective railings to prevent accidental 8 injury to plant operators, intruders or 9 guests." 10 A: Hmm-hmm. 11 Q: And so we arrive at a figure of sixty- 12 five thousand dollars ($65,000) as budgeted for the 13 geotechnical investigation and forty-five (45) for the 14 protective railings. Now do you -- do you remember dealing 15 with this particular project budget in '97? 16 A: Not in depth but I'm certainly familiar 17 with the items, yes. 18 Q: With the items, okay. So, that looks to 19 me as though it's -- it's an attempt by city council to begin 20 addressing those matters; would that be fair? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Now if we could turn to tab -- the next 23 tab, tab 12, the project budget for 1998. And the final page 24 of that in the same section, dealing with the sewer utility. 25 Once again in that project budget, basically


1 the same -- we're told the same things in 1998 and the same 2 figures are -- are given -- 3 A: Hmm-hmm. 4 Q: -- to cover the work. So, I -- I'm 5 assuming that what happened during that budget year that 6 those figures were not spent and were budgeted again in the 7 next year; is that -- would that be fair? 8 A: That's what I understood -- recall, yes. 9 Q: Okay. And then if we go to tab 13, which 10 is the 1999 project budget. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 It's the -- it's now called Section 10, the 15 Water and Sewer Utility Section. It's on the third page from 16 the back, page 2, the sewer utility is again dealt with in 17 '99. And we're -- we're once again referred back to, I think 18 it's Reid Crowther: 19 "The sewage treatment study initiated by 20 request from Saskatchewan Environment and 21 Resource Management is now complete." 22 The same words are used again in 1999: 23 "The next phase involves conducting a site 24 suitability study." 25 Et cetera. And we're given estimated costs


1 again of sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000) and this time 2 on the next page we're -- we're referred to an effluent ditch 3 outfall. 4 So I'm assuming once again, that in the 5 interim the -- the site suit -- suitability study was not 6 completed in the year 1998 either; is that a fair conclusion? 7 A: That would be a logical conclusion. 8 Q: And then, in relation to the protective 9 railings, they seem to have disappeared; are you aware of 10 whether those protective railings were ever -- 11 A: To the best of my knowledge, they were, 12 yes. 13 Q: Okay. But we -- we may -- we'll take a 14 look at some other, but there's -- there's nothing in -- in 15 this budgetary material, I believe, which would tell us what, 16 in fact, happened to those amounts, we have to look 17 elsewhere. 18 But, in any event, the -- the site suitability 19 investigation figure is there and that would probably be the 20 last project budget you would have been involved with, I'm 21 assuming, in the 1999 budget? 22 A: Yes, the process for the 2000 budget was 23 underway by the time I left. 24 Q: Right. Because, if you look at the -- at 25 the next tab, tab 14, the project budget for 2000, at the


1 back in the same section, under the Section 10, Water 2 Utility, in relation to the sewer, once again, under 2A1, we 3 still have site suitability investigation sixty-five thousand 4 dollars ($65,000). 5 A: Hmm-hmm. 6 Q: Once again, I'm assuming that that would 7 mean it just was not spent in '99 either; would that be a 8 fair conclusion? 9 A: That would be a reasonable conclusion. 10 Q: And the fifteen thousand dollars 11 ($15,000) for the effluent ditch outfall is there again and 12 I'm assuming that would not have been spent? 13 A: That's hard to say, the effluent ditch 14 was done in stages so this may have been a second stage, but 15 I can't recall the detail. 16 Q: Okay. So at least one (1) of the -- one 17 (1) of the ways that council chose to respond to Reid 18 Crowther, i.e., the site suitability study, the sixty-five 19 thousand dollar ($65,000) allocation in 1997 during your time 20 at the city, was -- was not spent? Was not -- 21 A: No, it wasn't, I mean, that's a fact. 22 Q: Yeah, that's a fact, okay. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well, are you going to ask 2 him if he has any knowledge of why it wasn't spent? 3 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Oh, yes, Mr. 4 Commissioner, I'm going to -- I'm going to -- going to 5 elaborate somewhat. 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 8 Q: But, first of all, what I would like to 9 ask you is then what knowledge do you have, if -- if that 10 figure was not spent on the site suitability study, what 11 knowledge do you have of any monies which city -- the city 12 did spend in relation to the Reid Crowther report and -- and 13 ways that it reacted to the -- the problems identified there 14 in terms of aging infrastructure and -- and safety issues; do 15 you -- do you -- 16 A: In terms of major projects, the budget 17 would reflect what happened or didn't happen -- 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: -- and the technical reasons as to why 20 that study didn't go ahead, I don't recall at the moment. 21 Q: Okay -- okay. So you have -- you 22 basically have nothing -- no more knowledge to bring to what 23 we can see in this picture, as shown in the -- in the project 24 -- the sewer project budget -- 25 A: Not really, obviously whatever issues


1 were interfering with the getting of an engineering firm to 2 get that job done occurred -- 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: -- I -- I can't recall at this point. 5 Q: Okay. So do you -- 6 A: So, far as I know, council approved those 7 budget requests on each occasion. 8 Q: Right. But you have -- you have no light 9 to shed on the issue of how -- how the figure just kept -- 10 kept appearing each year and why it was constantly postponed? 11 A: Yeah. No, I mean, it -- it kept 12 appearing because the money hadn't been spent and it isn't 13 just a matter of spending the money, the issue obviously in 14 each case was a sincere attempt to get on with it -- 15 Q: Right. 16 A: -- there were other things interfering. 17 Q: Okay. But -- but you -- you can't give 18 us in any -- any detail what was interfering and what was 19 stopping that process going ahead? 20 A: Not that I recall at this time. 21 Q: Okay. Excuse me, I just need to grab a 22 glass of water. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 If you would please, Mr. McEwen, if you could 2 turn back to Mr. Katzell's binder at tab 15, page 8. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 We're dealing here, once again, with the -- 7 with the Pommen and Associates Report. And you'll see in the 8 third paragraph on that page that you are referred to and 9 some of the concerns you had at that time are referred to. 10 The Commissioner is concerned about reduced 11 government funding, economic growth and the need to continue 12 to address ageing infrastructure. These concerns are 13 complimentary to some of council's views as well and there is 14 an obvious synergy relative to these issues. 15 The question is, how does the city continue to 16 provide the levels of existing services while addressing 17 capital and economic issues? 18 A: Hmm-hmm. 19 Q: And it seems to me that from what you've 20 told us that fairly well encapsulates the problem that you 21 were facing in 1996, whenever -- whenever this -- this report 22 was done. 23 So, specifically then, if that was your 24 dilemma, if that was your essential problem, in relation to 25 the -- to the treatment plants, how did you go about solving


1 that problem? What did you do? 2 A: The interesting thing, of course, is the 3 consultant doesn't answer the question either, so, I'm not 4 trying to avoid the question. But the -- the issue seemed to 5 me was we were in a period in which we were struggling along, 6 doing as could with what we had. 7 Because it's one (1) thing to express 8 frustration in that regard, the issue at the same time, 9 though, is to develop a kind of plan that, as resources 10 permit, you get the job done. And I -- I think that was the 11 nature of the energy that was being spent. 12 You know, I could go into detail, I guess, for 13 days on it in the sense of the, you know, the specific kind 14 of steps we were -- we were trying to address in some of 15 these things. And this particular area, what we went on to 16 address, of course, were some of the personnel and -- and 17 function kind of issues and reporting with council and so on. 18 Because this report was very specific to that particular 19 aspect of the function -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- of the city. 22 Q: Well maybe if I could put just a couple 23 of specific questions to you that perhaps, dealing with 24 things that you might have done. During the period of time, 25 I mean, following this and following the Reid Crowther


1 Report, I mean, did you increase utility rates for either 2 the -- the sewage utility or the water utility, to your 3 recollection? 4 A: Where we did undertake rate changes, they 5 were graduated. We tried to work a year or so ahead in terms 6 of laying out that plan or -- or rate changes. We did go 7 through a period in the mid '90's, I think, where we managed 8 to hold the rates about the same. 9 Q: So generally speaking, the pattern was 10 that you -- you held the rates even for most of the mid '90's 11 onwards? 12 A: In -- in the general sense, as I recall 13 it, yes. 14 Q: Yes. Yeah. 15 A: Hmm-hmm. 16 Q: So that stayed the same. Did you -- did 17 you go about trying to raise any other kind of financing, to 18 address these problems? Did you -- did you enter into any 19 debt financing, issue any debentures, that you recall? 20 A: No. We would issue debentures where we 21 were undertaking a major expenditure. 22 Q: Right. 23 A: And for example if we had proceeded with 24 the issue of the sewage treatment plant at that time, I'm 25 sure that would have required that kind of financing.


1 We -- we were managing with what we had. 2 You'll notice a big part of our annual infrastructure renewal 3 activity has to do with the replacement of aging water and 4 sewer mains. 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: Some -- when you're dealing with 7 something like the plants and so on, the issue then is, it's 8 a fairly major undertaking. And, you know, we were trying to 9 get, I think, the plan laid out for that in the future. 10 And gradually accumulate the monies that we 11 required. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: The -- while certainly there -- there's 14 no question about acknowledging the fact that the -- our 15 system was getting older and -- and as a result, it was 16 taking added energies and -- and if you will, manpower costs 17 to, you know, to maintain the status quo. 18 The issue, though, is to plan for when you can 19 relieve that or improve the situation. And that's the kind 20 of process which was being entered into, both through the 21 kinds of things that are inferred in the Pommen Report, but 22 also, of course, in the Reid Crowther Report. 23 The issue in the Reid Crowther Report, as 24 you'll recall, was not so much immediate as it was the 25 effectiveness of what was going to work and -- and where you


1 put it. Okay? The -- there was a threshold dealt with in 2 the Reid Crowther Report that dealt with population more than 3 the issue of last year versus next year. 4 The -- the issue to improve the quality was 5 certainly foremost in council's and its administration's 6 mind. But it was not as we viewed it at that point at least, 7 an instant requirement. 8 Q: Okay. So your recollection is then at 9 least during these years between 1996, 1997 and the time of 10 your retirement -- 11 A: Hmm-hmm. 12 Q: -- that basically council was getting 13 ready to face these issues, but there were no significant 14 capital expenditures in relation to the problems identified 15 either in the Pommen Report or in the Reid Crowther Report; 16 would that be fair? 17 A: In terms of major expenditures, no, there 18 were not. 19 Q: Okay. Did you make any effort during 20 that time for instance, to -- to apply for grant monies that 21 may have assisted you in making the infrastructure changes 22 required, that you recall? 23 A: Certainly it was more a matter of -- of 24 joining in a lobby to make those kind of funds available. 25 Q: Right.


1 A: You may recall two (2) succeeding 2 governments had implied great desires to assist 3 municipalities, and not only that, but to provide capital 4 support which we could count on, but it never materialized. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: So that while the desire to apply or to 7 seek that kind of support was certainly very much there, the 8 funds were not available, okay. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Q: So, then was it -- was it a general 13 feeling and understanding that somehow the city had to, 14 during those years, pull the line on expenditures on the 15 plants until the economic situation improved? 16 A: Not viciously nor deliberately. You'll 17 notice -- you pointed out very clearly, the issue of our 18 struggle over a three (3) year period there concerning a 19 simple amount of sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000), which 20 was really simply for a -- an engineering study. 21 The point is it was and I'm not trying to 22 minimize that. It didn't get spent, it wasn't council's lack 23 of desire to expend the funds or anything of that nature, 24 it -- as I recall it had things to do more with the -- the 25 technical matter of getting engineers in place and getting


1 the job done. 2 So, that you know, the issue of a desire to 3 move ahead was not being hindered, but no, it would not have 4 been a matter I presume, had the report been prepared during 5 '96/7 or whatever, that probably would not have sped up 6 the -- the construction that much quicker. 7 The issue would be once we knew where we were 8 going or what we were doing, would then be to start to plan 9 and put the money in place, and that was probably over a five 10 (5) year threshold. 11 Q: Yes, and I think you'd -- you'd said 12 earlier that during your time at least, council didn't really 13 make a decision on whether they were going retrofit or -- or 14 new site. That decision itself was never made; is that 15 correct? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: So I mean those are sig -- I mean it 18 seems to me that if we look at the -- at the Reid Pommen 19 Report, sorry, the Reid Crowther Report, and certainly the -- 20 the '97 capital budget and the need to make certain immediate 21 expenditures. 22 I mean they are identified even in the budget 23 as certain -- certain things that are immediately necessary. 24 A: Right. 25 Q: The sixty-five thousand (65,000) for the


1 site suitability study, and the actual words are that there 2 is a need for an immediate response. 3 A: Hmm-hmm. 4 Q: I'm just trying to get at the reason why 5 council having identified a need for an immediate response in 6 '97, as you say, nothing -- nothing really transpired during 7 that time, at least you know, while you had tenure as 8 commissioner. 9 There were just -- there was a problem finding 10 someone to do the actual study? 11 A: I expect so, and/or the availability of 12 the geotechnical engineers who could do the work. 13 Q: But are you -- are you -- you say you'd 14 expect so, but are you -- are you speculating here? Do you 15 have any knowledge that there was any kind of problem? 16 A: I did not meet directly with the 17 engineering firms or anything of that nature. The project, 18 albeit approved, did not go ahead. The specifics as to why 19 that was the case, I actually don't recall. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: I think what Commission 21 Counsel is getting at, Mr. McEwen, is Council reviews the 22 budgets, approves the budget -- 23 THE WITNESS: Right. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- fair enough, and at the 25 end of the year, it may not be yourself, but would the Public


1 Utilities Director or not somebody be making some comment to 2 council -- 3 THE WITNESS: Yes. 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- or would no one from 5 council be saying, hey, how come we didn't spend this sixty- 6 five thousand dollars ($65,000). In other words, what we're 7 trying to do is get a sense of what's happening -- 8 THE WITNESS: Yeah, and I'm sorry, because I 9 don't mean to be obtrusive or defensive -- 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, in other words, but 11 there's got to be some discussion going on about this problem 12 throughout and you're one (1) of the few people that was 13 around at the time so we're -- 14 THE WITNESS: Yeah -- yeah -- 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- trying to find out what 16 the sense was -- 17 THE WITNESS: Yeah -- yeah. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- without, other than 19 in -- so anyway, having said that, I'll leave it with you, 20 but if you have any thoughts about what happened when the new 21 budget time came up in '98 and it was noticed it was sixty- 22 five thousand (65,000) wasn't spent in '97, surely somebody 23 would say why not and, if it's happened a second year and a 24 third year, at some point somebody should be asking some 25 questions, at least that's what I would expect in everyday


1 life, that's all I'm saying. 2 THE WITNESS: No, and you're quite correct 3 and, you know, I'm sure those conversations occurred, but you 4 were asking specifically what do I recall as to those 5 specifics and I don't. So that, unhelpful as that may be, in 6 some areas I guess my memory is simply lax, okay; I -- I 7 could speculate, but that's not what you're asking. 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 10 Q: Now, in terms of some of the 11 documentation we will be looking at, I'd just like to 12 establish some terminology with you. I mean, we've already 13 referred to, I think, in your previous testimony to the -- 14 the city's five (5) year plan and I think you will see in 15 your -- in your binder 'A', at tabs A-6 to A-7 the city's 16 five (5) year plans for -- 17 A: Hmm-hmm. 18 Q: -- for '97 to 2001 and, before we look at 19 that kind of documentation in any detail, can you -- 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: Which binder are you in, 21 Mr. Russell, I'm sorry? 22 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, Mr. Commissioner, 23 it's binder -- binder 'A'. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes. 25 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Of the city's binders.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: And it's C? 2 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: A-6. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: A-6, okay, thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 6 Q: Perhaps we could establish a little more 7 clearly what the five (5) year plan is and the role it plays 8 in the city's planning and budgeting process. 9 A: Yes, there's -- there's always 10 speculation or different kinds of beliefs about a five (5) 11 year plan, there are those who think it's the 12 administration's dream world or something of that nature, 13 there are those who recognize it for what I hope it is and 14 that is a responsible effort to start to look at what kind of 15 monies we need to spend and -- and, while often the numbers 16 are somewhat global, the intent is, as much as anything else, 17 to start to look at what the future financing requirements 18 are. 19 And the administration, when Council said, 20 yeah, that looks like a reasonable plan, their difficulty 21 often is to feel that, if they're adopting it, that somehow 22 they're committing councils down the road and -- and that's 23 the awkward political measure it seems to be and that's 24 reflection in terms of what I was hearing as Commissioner. 25 Nevertheless, when council had received these


1 plans, we would pursue the issues more from the point of view 2 of how we would either have funds in reserves, as is implied, 3 because there's a section here on financing those things -- 4 Q: Right. 5 A: -- and/or monies that we would raise by 6 debenture or amounts that we would need to, in the case of 7 our regular operations, tax for or, in this case of the -- 8 the water/sewer operation, we operate as a utility and, 9 therefore, we'd seek that kind of recovery through the -- the 10 water rates. 11 Q: So, I mean, my understand -- sorry, Mr. 12 Commissioner. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: No. 14 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Oh, sorry. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 17 Q: My understanding is that the -- that the 18 five (5) year -- the five (5) year plan is a kind of wish 19 list, it's -- it's an attempt to look into the future and, as 20 you say, I mean, council is -- is not necessarily bound by 21 any of the sums that are budgeted there -- 22 A: Hmm-hmm. 23 Q: -- but it's an attempt to sort of plan 24 ahead and see -- 25 A: Yeah.


1 Q: -- see what -- see what lies ahead. And 2 I think you've told us that it's considered basically at the 3 same time as the -- the normal budget is considered in the -- 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: -- in the fiscal year? 6 A: Usually we try to get it done -- 7 Q: First. 8 A: -- earlier, yes. 9 Q: Yes, because that's where the -- the long 10 term vision lies? 11 A: In part, now it also has to do, of 12 course, with the results then of our trying to incorporate 13 that and spread the issue of our -- our capital planning 14 and -- and reserves planning. 15 Q: Right. And then in terms of the -- of 16 the project budget that we've just been looking at, at tabs 17 A-11 to A-15, where we've been looking at the sections 18 dealing with the sewer utility, how does the project budget 19 relate to the five (5) year plan? What is the role of the 20 project budget? 21 A: Oh, the project budget is actually a term 22 of mine. It's what, in most municipalities, you call the 23 capital budget. Okay? 24 Q: Right. 25 A: The reason we call it slightly different,


1 it has to do with some of the discretionary projects within 2 operations that we would bring forward at the same time, to 3 save council, at the point which we were dealing with the 4 full budget picture, having to spend a lot of time querying 5 particular lines in which some discretionary choices were 6 available. 7 Q: Right. Now as we deal with these 8 documents and look at them in some more detail, with yourself 9 and with other witnesses, I'm assuming from what we've said 10 so far, both about the capital plan and the five (5) year 11 budget, that, of course, these figures, as you've warned, are 12 not written in stone at all. Right? 13 A: Hmm-hmm. 14 Q: They're -- they're an attempt to look 15 into the future. And certainly even in the case of the 16 project budget, the -- so the capital -- the capital project 17 budget or whatever you -- you think the correct term for it 18 is, which I understand is basically the first year of a five 19 (5) year plan -- 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: That's correct? Even that doesn't 22 necessarily mean that that money's going to be spent. 23 Because as we've seen in relation to the sewage facility, 24 something budgeted in 1997, has not been spent even by 2000. 25 A: In some cases that's the case, yes.


1 Q: Okay. Now once a -- once a project 2 budget was approved for -- for -- for the year, -- 3 A: Hmm-hmm. 4 Q: -- and say a particular department wanted 5 to actually make an expenditure, did they then have to come 6 back to council or to you for any particular -- for any 7 particular sum of money that needed to be spent? Or once 8 the -- once the budget was approved, who then made the 9 decision about whether the money was actually spent, under 10 the capital projects? 11 A: Usually it fell to the department head in 12 the sense that, you know, they -- this was a project they put 13 forward and planned to get -- to continue or get at. It was 14 usually not a matter of trying to hold my staff back from the 15 point of view of once they had the -- the approval to get the 16 job done, in some cases, council also supported the issue of 17 a what we call a pre -- a budget preapproval, in a sense that 18 it was a project simply because in -- this morning I alluded 19 to the fact it takes often until April before we actually do 20 the levy bylaw that some of that work could be done in 21 advance of that time, once council, of course, had reviewed 22 the -- the specifics. And approved that particular project. 23 Q: Right. So, for instance, in relation to 24 the site suitability figure of sixty-five thousand 25 (65,000) --


1 A: Right -- 2 Q: -- identified in 1997, if, during the 3 course of that year, the department head had wished to 4 actually enter into the contract with the engineer, to do 5 that study, that person would have been free to do so? 6 Without -- prior -- without any further approval? 7 A: There would be no reason why it would 8 take a long or messy delay with council or anyone else. 9 Certainly we had a practice for the way in which we reviewed 10 proposals of engineering firms and so on. It might well mean 11 that the final approval would come from council but the work 12 would have been done and it would be a recommendation from 13 the administration to council. 14 At best it would delay anything by two (2) 15 weeks. So the issues of those delays had nothing to do with 16 council holding things up. 17 Q: Okay. But in -- in any event, if -- if 18 the head of the department had wanted to expend the sixty- 19 five thousand (65,000), I realize there wouldn't have been 20 significant delay, but it would have required council 21 approval? Further council approval? 22 A: Specific project -- the specific 23 contract? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Yes. Just in terms of basic concepts for 2 understanding how the city goes -- goes about thinking about 3 these things and financing them, I understand that the -- the 4 basic approach to the -- to the utilities within the city is 5 that they are treated as separate aspects of city business 6 and are made self financing. Is that the -- is that the 7 general philosophy behind it? 8 A: That's a reasonable -- 9 Q: In this regard, I understand that the 10 water utility is treated separately from the sewage utility, 11 is that correct? 12 A: In the accounting sense, yes. 13 Q: Yes. 14 A: Certainly it's the point of view of 15 planning and work on the issue, no. 16 Q: But in terms -- sorry, you -- I didn't 17 quite catch what you said at the end there? 18 A: Oh, for accounting purposes, the two (2) 19 utilities are recorded separately -- 20 Q: Right? 21 A: -- yes. 22 Q: But in terms of, for instance, financing, 23 future capital expenditures and the like, are they not -- are 24 they treated separately or -- 25 A: Separately in the sense of making


1 separation of funds between let's say your operating budget 2 and your -- and your -- your utility budget. The -- but, 3 yeah, there was separate accounting for both the -- the water 4 and for the sewer. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: So, those records would be kept 7 separately, but obviously they're -- first of all they're a 8 part of the city operation and -- 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: -- secondly, they would be -- 11 particularly in the utilities -- both of them were under the 12 same administrative structure. 13 Q: Right. Right. And I'll come to that in 14 a moment. But when we're talking about the water utility and 15 the way it's identified -- 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: -- in the financial records, I -- I'm 18 assuming that that includes both water treatment plants, as 19 well as the other components of the -- the water delivery 20 system, the reservoirs, the booster station, the water tower 21 and the distribution system? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: That's -- we're talking about the whole 24 water system? 25 A: Yes, we are.


1 Q: And in fact all of the infrastructure 2 required to treat and distribute water -- 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: -- in North Battleford? 5 And similarly, my understanding is that when 6 we're talking about the sewage system that would include not 7 only the sewage treatment plant, but also all of the 8 infrastructure required to -- to gather and treat and then 9 disburse that sewage. 10 A: Collection means, the lift stations -- 11 Q: That's right. 12 A: -- and the contract we have with the 13 Saskatchewan Hospital, concerning the use of the lagoons. 14 Q: Right. 15 A: Which they operate. 16 Q: Right. And during your tenure, in terms 17 of affixing revenues and collecting revenues and spending 18 them in relation to these two (2) utilities, did the -- did 19 the city run its water and sewage utilities at a profit? 20 A: I chuckle only from the point of view 21 that I've never seen a city operation offer -- operate at a 22 profit, regrettably. But I'm thinking of that in business 23 terms, so that I -- I'm cautioned about the term. 24 Were we able from time to time to put 25 additional funds into reserve for future expenditures? Yes,


1 and that was part of a plan. 2 But a kind of an issue of a profit, which then 3 if you will, would be distributed to other aspects of the 4 organization, or as a rebate to tax payers or something of 5 that nature, in the business sense, no, there was never a 6 profit. 7 Q: Okay, and perhaps to help us understand 8 that if we could take a look at tab A-5. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 In the C-64, first -- the first city binder. 13 The city's been kind enough to provide us with a -- a reserve 14 analysis. 15 A: Hmm-hmm. 16 Q: Which covers 1999 and 2000. So it's just 17 at the end of your tenure -- 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: -- and on the -- on the third page, 20 the -- the actual utilities are dealt with in terms of the 21 reserve analysis. 22 And if we look at -- if we look at 1999 in 23 terms of the -- of the sewer utility, we're given the -- 24 we're given the closing balance. But first of all the sewer 25 utility seems to be broken down into three (3) separate


1 reserves. The one is the sewage main replacement reserve, 2 one is the sewage tax reserve and the other is the sewage 3 plant reserve. 4 Is that your recollection? 5 A: Yes, those are -- 6 Q: Okay. Now -- 7 A: -- names in which we referred to them, 8 yes. 9 Q: -- in terms of monies placed in those 10 reserves, first of all, where would those monies come from? 11 A: For example, that addition of a hundred 12 thousand (100,000) for the sewage plant reserve in the year 13 2000 would have come from, if you will, budgeted from 14 revenues received in the operation of the water utility. 15 Q: Now the water utility or the sewage 16 utility? 17 A: I'm sorry, in this case the sewage 18 utility. 19 Q: Right. So that where we have separate 20 reserves established in this way, I'm wondering first of all, 21 all of that reserve money would come from the revenues 22 garnered from the sewage utility during the course of the 23 previous year; is that correct? 24 A: Those revenues attributed to sewage, yes. 25 Q: Okay. And the -- the three (3) reserve


1 funds that we have established there, the main replacement 2 and the tax reserve and the plant reserve. How -- how was 3 the money then allocated between those separate reserve 4 funds? 5 A: Okay. Presumably when you look at the 6 1999 close -- closing balance on that particular sheet you've 7 got the three (3) figures you've alluded to. 8 Those would be funds that would have been 9 accumulated for those purposes from prior budgets, or if you 10 will, from prior years of operation, yes. 11 Q: Okay. And so the decision to allocate a 12 specific sum from sewage revenues into one of those reserve 13 funds is a -- is a decision by council, I'm assuming with 14 your recommendation, to just put a certain sum in reserve for 15 a specific purpose? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: In some cases we were able to put 19 additional funds from what -- that might have exceeded budget 20 by virtue of the fact that we either had not proceeded with a 21 capital project, or had -- had savings in other locations. 22 Our attempt here, particularly during these -- 23 the latter four (4), five (5) years when we knew we had major 24 expenses coming would be, of course, to build the reserves as 25 much we could -- as we could.


1 Q: Okay. And I notice, for instance, that 2 in 1999 in relation to the sewer plant reserve, there's an 3 additional figure of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000)? 4 A: Hmm-hmm, yes. 5 Q: And I'm assuming that that would have 6 come from sewage revenues during the course of that year? 7 A: I expect so. 8 Q: Okay. And, in the year 2000, we then -- 9 we then have a series of deletions, first of all sewage main 10 replacement. I'm assuming that what would happen here is 11 that, if this is a self-contained system, that deletion would 12 go towards sewage main replacement? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Okay. Now, and of course we can see 15 similar things happening within the -- the water utility and 16 I'm assuming there would be no difference there as to how 17 the -- the actual reserves are collected and how they're 18 spent, they're collected from revenues within that utility -- 19 A: Yes. 20 Q: -- and they're spent on capital projects 21 within that utility; is that correct? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Now, for -- if we look at the additions 24 and deletions section, for instance, might reserve monies be 25 taken out of a utility reserve and spent anywhere else in any


1 other department within the city; could that occur? 2 A: Not without a full council approval. I'm 3 not aware of it having occurred during the time I was there. 4 Q: Right. So, generally speaking, as I 5 said -- that's what I was getting at earlier that the utility 6 is a -- is a self-contained entity -- 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: -- the revenues are gathered and reserves 9 are established and capital projects are, in part at least, 10 are financed from within the -- from -- from the reserves 11 contained within that utility? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: And similarly, I'm assuming, in the 14 additions column that monies coming into that reserve would 15 not come from other areas of city business -- 16 A: No. 17 Q: -- they would come purely from the... 18 A: That's correct. 19 Q: At the bottom of the -- at the bottom of 20 that page, we're given some general totals. I'm not entirely 21 sure under the 1999 that general reserves total of three 22 million two sixty five point eight (3,265.80), I'm not sure 23 if that's entirely correct, but I'm not -- I'm not looking at 24 that for now, but I see that further down there -- we -- 25 reference is made to a surplus utility fund. Can you see


1 that's -- there -- there are two (2) surplus funds at the 2 bottom of the -- towards the bottom -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- of the page. 5 A: Yes, I'm sorry, I see that, yes. 6 Q: One (1) is a surplus general fund and one 7 (1) is a surplus utility fund. 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: Now, in terms of the surplus utility 10 fund, can you tell us where those monies come from and how 11 they are used? 12 A: Okay. Those would be monies that, in 13 most cases, by the way, were somewhat historic. They would 14 have to do with funds that, at year end, were certainly 15 surplus in the utility, okay, but were not assigned, if you 16 will, to a -- to a reserve so that they represented what you 17 might call a true surplus. 18 Q: Right. 19 A: You'll notice, for example, in the year 20 2000, some forty-nine hundred dollars ($4,900) was used from 21 that particular I guess you'd have to call it fund, 22 presumably to balance some of the operating costs. 23 Q: Okay. But, once again, in terms of the 24 surplus figure, it's only gathered from within that 25 particular utility and it's only spent within that utility;


1 is that correct? 2 A: Yes, and in that particular case, you'll 3 notice we refer to the utility fund so that might have been 4 sewer or water or both. 5 Q: Okay. So that could be a total fund for 6 both utilities? 7 A: That's correct. 8 Q: Okay. Now, I realize that you probably 9 haven't had a chance to review some of the more detailed 10 financial information we have here, but perhaps, in terms of 11 establishing a general picture, we could take a -- we could 12 take a look at -- in the new C-93 Budget Information item, 13 tab 1. 14 A: Sorry, help me a little bit. We're -- 15 we're talking about the same book we were just in? 16 Q: No, it's -- it's the -- 17 A: Oh, I'm sorry. Tab 1, yeah. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, it's C-93, tab 1. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL:


1 Q: This is information provided to us, very 2 helpfully, by -- by the city, Mr. McEwen, which provides us 3 with a -- a summary of actual expenditures in relation to the 4 sewer and water utilities, between the years 1996 and 2001. 5 Now, you may or may not have had a chance to 6 review this material. Are you -- are you familiar with this 7 particular summary? 8 A: No, this is something -- a spreadsheet 9 that would have been prepared subsequent to my leaving. 10 Q: Okay -- 11 A: I've no reason to doubt the figures. 12 It's a question of what you want to get at. 13 Q: Sure. So you may have not had a chance 14 to examine this and we may have to take it up in some detail 15 with Mr. Toye. The only reason I bring it to your attention, 16 of course, is that Mr. Toye's a fairly recent arrival -- 17 A: Hmm-hmm. 18 Q: -- in the city and may find it difficult 19 to speak to the -- to the historical context here. 20 A: Sure. 21 Q: If, for instance, we look at the -- the 22 second page in relation to the -- the sewage utility actuals 23 for '96 to 2001. 24 A: Sorry, the second page? 25 Q: Yes, it's the second page. This is in


1 relation to -- And I'm just trying to establish one (1) or 2 two (2) general patterns with you here. 3 About half way down there you'll see the -- 4 the lie -- the line item, projected net operated costs? 5 A: Oh, yes. Okay. Project -- 6 Q: Yes. 7 A: -- projected operating costs, yes. 8 Q: And then we're given a -- we're given, in 9 the next line, the -- the percentage increase for each year 10 in operating costs. And if you'll look along that line, 11 between '96 and -- and the year 2000, operating costs either, 12 in relation to the sewage utility, either decrease or are 13 fairly modest. Except for the year 1997 when we appear to 14 have an increase of 15.58 percent over the previous year's 15 operating costs. 16 And this may be a difficult question for you 17 to answer here, without going into the specifics of the 18 budgets for that year, but have you -- have you any 19 recollection as to why there should have been such a jump in 20 1997? 21 A: Not as to the specifics. You'll notice, 22 this is where I'm taking my clue, is that on the lines that 23 deal with reserves and capital grants, there were certain 24 monies. So, there would have been some different or -- or 25 larger cost projects that occurred that year, that's all.


1 May well have been in how it was attributed to 2 in the way of the -- the replacement of mains and so on. 3 Q: Right. 4 A: Which, you know, might -- might overlap 5 or a job being picked up and finished from a year prior. 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: Those could affect the numbers. 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: In any given year. 10 Q: Okay. So there's nothing that -- I mean, 11 for instance, if we do turn to the actual -- to the actual 12 budget, which I believe is at tab 10, for that year. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 A: We're talking, again, about sewer? 17 Q: Yes. I'm looking at the -- tab 10, 18 the -- the departmental report, sorry, not the -- not the 19 budget for that year. The pages may be difficult to read at 20 the top but there is a page 80 which is about the third 21 page -- the third page from the end. 22 And if you look at the -- at the sewer -- at 23 the sewage lift station, the lift station at the industrial 24 park, there's a -- there's a figure of forty-three thousand, 25 two ninety-three (43,293) identified for lift station


1 industrial park total. 2 I'm wondering if that was a significant 3 expenditure in that year which would account for the 4 significant increase? Do you recall? 5 A: Yeah, I -- I just haven't located it at 6 the moment. Can you help me a bit to -- 7 Q: Yes. In the departmental report, I 8 understand that the departmental report is a -- is a record 9 of the actual expenditures made? 10 A: Yes, that's correct. This would be a 11 financial statement that identifies period 12, in other 12 words, at year end. 13 Q: Right? 14 A: In 1997. I'm just trying to discern the 15 page or -- 16 Q: So if you -- 17 A: -- because I'm looking at one -- 18 Q: -- it's about halfway down -- 19 A: -- it talks about sewage lift stations -- 20 Q: -- yeah -- 21 A: -- then it's true. 22 Q: -- sewage lift stations, and then we have 23 in about the -- 24 A: And you said the -- 25 Q: -- yeah, there's a full --


1 A: -- figure of expenditure was forty-three 2 two ninety-three (43,293)? 3 Q: Yes. 4 A: Yes, okay, I'm -- I'm in the -- 5 Q: I mean does that -- 6 A: -- right -- 7 Q: -- does that jump out as being a 8 significant expenditure in that year that might account 9 for -- 10 A: Strangely enough, no. First of all the 11 budget amount was sixty-six thousand two hundred (66,200). 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: The -- is it -- there is a larger single 14 line expenditure there which is forty thousand one twenty- 15 four (40,124), and that would have to do with the -- the cost 16 that we would pay to the Sask. Hospital for the operation of 17 that lagoon. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: At the risk of speaking politically, 20 that's the most expensive lagoon in the province. 21 Q: Okay. But certainly that would not have 22 accounted for any kind of significant increase in operations 23 during the course of that year? 24 A: That number, as I recall at least, was 25 not an exceptional number for what we were spending in that


1 period of time. 2 Q: All right, okay, okay. Then we may -- 3 it's the only one I've been possibly able to identify. I may 4 have to take that up with Mr. Toye to see if there's anything 5 else in that actual departmental report which could help us 6 to identify -- 7 A: Yeah. 8 Q: -- that particular figure. 9 A: And I would only suggest to you, you 10 explore some of the issues of the capital expenditures in 11 that period. 12 Q: Okay. If we go back to tab 1 again and 13 look at the general picture. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 The sewage page again, these -- these are the 18 actuals between 1996 and 2001. If we look at the capital and 19 special maintenance expenditures in relation to the sewage 20 plant, I think we see that it -- it would appear to me that 21 significant sums of money are spent on the collection system, 22 but that until the year 2001, there are no significant 23 capital expenditures within the sewage utility? 24 A: Through that period you're quite correct. 25 Q: And so that would represent your


1 understanding of what happened during that time? 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: And if you -- if you go down for instance 4 to the -- to the rate increase, it's about two thirds of the 5 way down, the rate increase line between '96 and 2001, it 6 indicates there's no -- there's no rate increase in the 7 sewage utility until 2001, when we get a bump up to 9 -- 9.48 8 percent. 9 A: That's probably true. The sewage rate 10 issue is set as a percentage of the water rate. 11 Q: Yes. 12 A: So, unless that rate changed as a 13 percentage of the whole, I expect it was probably not 14 projected here. 15 Q: Okay. And I think we've been given a 16 more detailed breakdown on those -- on those rate changes at 17 tabs 5 and 6 of that same binder. 18 Sorry, at tabs -- tab 5. Oh, it's 4 and 5. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Where the city has -- 23 A: That's right, the -- 24 Q: -- provided to us, for instance, between 25 the years 1990 and 2001, we see an overall rate increase for


1 the water and sewer of 6.67 percent. But as you've already 2 indicated, between the years '96 and -- and 2000 at least, 3 there's very -- very little change in those rates? 4 A: That's true, there were -- you see during 5 the period of 1992 through 19 -- or through 2000, the sewage 6 rate as a percentage was fixed at 60 percent of the water 7 rate. 8 Q: Right. 9 A: The water rates in that period changed, 10 as you say, not substantially. But there were small 11 increases spread over, one (1), two (2), three (3), four (4), 12 five (5) years at least during that period of the roughly 13 eight (8) years that are involved. 14 Q: Right. 15 A: So there was regular rate increases. 16 Fortunately we were able to keep them small -- 17 Q: Yeah. 18 A: -- okay. And remember when those rate 19 increases occurred in the water system, that would add some 20 revenues to the sewer system as well. 21 Q: Right, and I think -- 22 A: But -- 23 Q: -- I think we're given the calculation at 24 the bottom of the -- the page on tab 4, as to what an 25 increase of one cent ($.01) per a cubic metre actually would


1 yield to the city. 2 A: Right. 3 Q: Can you see those figures at the bottom 4 there? 5 A: Not off hand, where are they? 6 Q: They -- right -- right at the bottom of 7 tab 4, the -- the water/sewer rates, we're told that a -- a 8 one cent ($.01) per cubic metre increase in the rates would 9 yield basically twenty thousand nine hundred and fifty-six 10 dollars ($20,956) per year water revenue -- 11 A: Right. 12 Q: -- and twelve thousand nine hundred and 13 ninety-three (12,993) -- 14 A: So that reflects that -- 15 Q: -- so that reflects that issue? 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 And then, if we jump once again for the 20 general picture to -- to tab 1, and the -- at the least the 21 sewage -- the sewage plant. Once again, about halfway down 22 the page, we're given the figures for the contributions made 23 during those years to the -- the sewage reserves, it's always 24 in excess of a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), some 25 years it is a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), but they


1 seem to be -- there seems to be a substantial addition to 2 sewage reserves in each of those years; is that correct? 3 A: Yes, but, if I might point out, in 1996 4 the actual contribution to the reserve was about thirty-eight 5 thousand (38,000), in 1997 it was ninety-eight thousand 6 (98,000) and then it jumped in 1998 to two hundred and ninety 7 thousand (290,000). 8 1997 was the year we became debt-free in 9 the -- in the utility reserves and we paid off the last of 10 the debenture on the -- what had been the reservoir in 11 Fairview Heights. 12 We did not change the rates so we were able to 13 attribute from there and obviously subsequently added 14 revenues to the -- 15 Q: Right. 16 A: -- to the reserves. 17 Q: I think you may have been looking at the 18 water -- 19 A: I'm sorry -- 20 Q: -- water figures there. 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: If you'll flip over to the -- to the 23 sewer, the contribution to reserves on the sewer. 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: You'll see that, in 1996, the


1 contribution was one hundred and forty thousand (140,000) -- 2 A: Right. 3 Q: -- and it never drops below a hundred 4 thousand (100,000). 5 A: You're quite correct and those were 6 fairly constant then through the period. 7 Q: Yes. 8 A: The debenture we had, of course, was in 9 the water system, yes. 10 Q: Was in the water system. So we have -- 11 we have a substantial sum of money each year going into 12 the -- into the sewage reserve and -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- accumulating there so what was your -- 15 what was your plan in -- in having the -- that substantial 16 accumulation going on during those years? 17 A: Well, particularly because we were trying 18 to accumulate towards the day when we would undertake the 19 major renewals or replacement of plants in the system -- 20 Q: Right. 21 A: -- water and sewer both. 22 Q: And so your plan -- it looks to me as 23 though your plan was to save up for it? 24 A: As best we could do. 25 Q: Rather than -- rather than deciding to go


1 the financing route, at least -- 2 A: Well, it was not a matter of an 3 alternative, it was an issue of trying to get as far along as 4 we -- we could before we actually did the construction. 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: I don't think there was any doubt from 7 probably 1997 or 1998 on that we would also have to find 8 additional financing. 9 It was part of the reason we were very active 10 with other cities in seeking planned assistance from various 11 levels of government -- 12 Q: Right. 13 A: -- and it was very frustrating that that 14 was not forthcoming either so that tended to slow our plans 15 up somewhat too. 16 Q: Right. So, while that search was going 17 on, you -- you would accumulate a fund which would eventually 18 be used in conjunction with whatever financing -- 19 A: Oh, of course. 20 Q: -- you were able to obtain? That's 21 right. Now, during these years we're talking about, between 22 '96 and your retirement, did you ever yourself or did anyone 23 else within council ever suggest an increase in utility rates 24 during this time? Was there any reason that you ever pushed 25 for an increase in utility rates?


1 A: Well, we increased utility rates 2 regularly, I'm not quite sure what you mean. 3 Q: Well, if you look at the years -- if you 4 look at the -- the sewer -- the sewer rates -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- I mean, we're told, at least in the -- 7 in the actual and -- and the summary that the rate increase 8 projected from 1996 to 2001, well nothing really occurs until 9 2001 and, if you go to the -- the actual rates at tab 4, the 10 rate in '95 is -- is seventy-four cents ($.74) per cubic 11 metre, '96 it's seventy-four (.74), '97 it's seventy-five 12 (.75), '98 it's seventy-five (.75), '99 it's seventy-five 13 (.75) and in 2000 it's seventy-five (.75) so -- 14 A: Hmm-hmm. 15 Q: -- I mean, there are a number of years in 16 there where, you know, it -- it remains the same. 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Okay. So, during that time when you're 19 trying to accumulate a reserve fund in order to -- in order 20 to carry out various capital projects, was there never any 21 discussion of increasing the utility rate in order to achieve 22 more revenues? 23 A: Certainly I'm sure there were 24 discussions, I'm trying to recall now -- well and, frankly, 25 as to council, when we requested water rate increases, they


1 provided them, it's not -- so between Edna and I, obviously 2 it was a matter of analysing what we were accumulating. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: As you can see, in the utilities we were 5 doing reasonably well. We certainly knew and were planning 6 towards the day when the big bulk of the needed capital we 7 would have to raise, would be raised by debenture. 8 The issue of all of that reflecting in these 9 particular spreadsheets doesn't appear, of course, which -- 10 which is regrettable because it wasn't as if the matter 11 wasn't being discussed. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: But I guess it was -- strangely, 14 sometimes, you know, administratively as well as at the 15 political level, we don't seek to increase people's costs 16 unless it's necessary. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: And so during that period, I'm quite 19 confident we did not take rate requests forward to council. 20 Council therefore did not deny them. And I think we have a 21 fairly proud record that when we need them, we ask for them 22 and we get them. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: And during that period, there were some 25 increases, largely because we were facing increased costs in


1 the operations side. I guess, frankly, my view during that 2 period is is that we were doing as best as we could or 3 should, under the circumstances, in terms of the accumulation 4 of what would be future capital funds. 5 Q: Okay. So, by in large, that would have 6 been a decision which you would have made? I mean, the 7 decision not to ask for any significant rate increase during 8 this period of time -- 9 A: Yes, that's absolutely correct. 10 Q: Okay. And during this period of time, 11 did you ever -- I mean, did you ever ask for any -- any 12 substantial increase in the operating budget or in the -- the 13 capital projects budget, in relation to the plants, from city 14 council? Where there -- where there any times when you went 15 to city council and asked for increases in those particular 16 aspects, that you were -- that you were refused? 17 A: Not that I can think of. 18 Q: Okay. So you don't -- you didn't feel 19 frustrated in any way in the way that you wanted to run these 20 utilities? It was basically running the way you wanted? 21 A: Every administrator wants more money. 22 Q: Yes. 23 A: And I'm certainly not trying to deny 24 that. But on the other hand, too, we did not find it simply 25 necessary to go forward with those kinds of requests. And


1 that was a judgment call. 2 Q: Now, in the -- very quickly, I mean, 3 we've been looking at the -- at the -- the sewer -- whoops, 4 at the -- the sewer system. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: I wonder if we could just go to the 7 actuals at tab 1 and take a look at the water situation and 8 what was happening there? 9 A: Sure. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 Q: So if we look at the -- at the 14 operational trends between '96 and 2001, the projected 15 operating costs, there seem to be increases, once again, in 16 the -- in '96, in '98 and in 2000. 17 Now, I'm assuming you weren't around in 2000 18 but we get decreases in '97 and -- and in '99. So, is the -- 19 is the feeling we get here that operating costs, once again, 20 are -- are pretty steady over the general -- the general span 21 of this period? Until the year 2000, of course. 22 A: Yeah, I would think you could say that in 23 the sense that what you're looking at, the actuals of '96 24 through '99 inclusive, is slightly over a million 25 ($1,000,000) dollars.


1 Q: Yeah. 2 A: And give or take what essentially is a 3 million and sixty-two thousand (l,062,000) in '96 and a 4 million and fifty thousand (1,050,000) in '99. 5 Q: Right. 6 A: So that it would appear as if most of our 7 costs were relatively constant. 8 Q: Constant. Yeah, for that whole period. 9 And if we take a look at the capital and special maintenance 10 picture, once again, it would seem to me, as under the sewage 11 utility, we do get significant sums of money spent on the 12 distribution system. Is that correct? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: But pretty well not much spent anywhere 15 else within the -- within the water system? 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: Okay. And just to top it off, if we look 18 at the -- we're given a line on the water rates here and, I 19 mean, it's pretty well the same picture that we've -- we've 20 just looked at with the real increase coming in 2001. 21 And that -- that confirms your understanding 22 of what happened during that period? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: During the same period, and I think this 25 is what you were discussing before, if we look at the


1 contributions that were made to the -- the water reserve, 2 beginning in 1996 with thirty-eight thousand (38,000) and the 3 sum gradually increasing up to '98 and then sort of steadying 4 off and declining slightly in -- in 2000. 5 Now in deciding how much of the money was 6 going into the water reserves, what was your -- what was your 7 plan in building up that reserve? 8 A: The -- the various water reserves? 9 Q: Yes. 10 A: The same sort of things. You know, 11 certainly we know that there are improvements needed to our 12 water treatment plants as time goes along, then I would say 13 especially the F.E. Holliday -- 14 Q: Right. 15 A: -- Plant. We did do some fairly major 16 work there in '87 I believe it was or '86. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: But that was to expand the plant at that 19 point -- 20 Q: Right. 21 A: -- the issue of improvements in the 22 system we knew were necessary and pointed out to us, so that 23 we were trying to do what we could to get the funds -- 24 Q: Yeah. 25 A: -- ready.


1 Q: But I'm just wondering in view of the -- 2 of the amount of money during this period that is being spent 3 on the distribution system, that your -- your think in 4 relation -- your thinking in relation to the reserves is that 5 of course you -- you need those reserves to address changes 6 in the distribution system. 7 I mean no significant sums are spent on the 8 plants themselves; correct? 9 A: That's correct. I'm sorry, I -- I'm 10 trying to follow your point. 11 Q: You're saying you were -- if we look at 12 the contribution to reserves that's made during the 13 general -- the period from '96 to -- to 2000. 14 A: Hmm-hmm. 15 Q: We're building up a reserve fund there, 16 but not -- money is not being spent either at the Number 1 17 Plant or significantly at least, at either the Number 1 Plant 18 or the F.E. Holliday Plant on any kind of capital projects or 19 special maintenance projects. 20 A: During that period -- 21 Q: No, it's being -- most of that money is 22 being spent within the distribution system and upgrades to 23 the distribution system? 24 A: We had -- we had fairly constant 25 expenditures in the distribution system --


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- yes. 3 Q: Yeah. 4 A: Yeah. 5 Q: So that looks -- it's the same as on the 6 sewage side, there are -- there are constant expenditures 7 within the distribution system that have to be addressed? 8 A: Yes, yes. And it's -- it's a much easier 9 set of projects to do that with. 10 Q: Right. 11 A: It's pretty tough on the tax payer when 12 you say well we'll hold off and do nothing on the water and 13 sewer pipes for a number of years and then we'll spend a very 14 large amount of money. 15 You can do that, spread over a period of time, 16 because you'd also be ripping up half the streets in the 17 city, that's a little difficult for the residents. 18 In the case certainly of plants, you're going 19 to have to go at the particular plant or process, and shall 20 we say at one (1) time. 21 Q: Right. 22 A: And so that you know, up will pop a 23 fairly significant expenditure, either all in one (1) year or 24 over a couple of years. 25 Q: Okay, okay.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 In looking at the -- the Pommen Report 4 earlier, there's no need to turn to this, Mr. -- Mr. McEwen, 5 I can read that, we've already looked at these sections. 6 I believe that I read out one (1) of the 7 observations made by Pommen and Associates in relation to 8 the -- the position of the -- the Public Works and Utilities 9 Director, that leadership, communication, innovation and 10 technical skills are expected of the Public Works and 11 Utilities Director. 12 And I think you've said that you certainly had 13 agreed with that at the time. 14 A: Hmm-hmm. 15 Q: That that report was put together. And I 16 think we'd also concluded when we'd looked at the Pommen 17 Report on page 45 -- 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 -- at 2.3, where the report had been fairly 22 clear that technical understanding of the plant's limitations 23 and capabilities be acquired by the Public Works and 24 Utilities Director, for presentation to senior administration 25 and elected officials.


1 In other words, it was necessary to have a 2 Public Works and Utilities Director who was capable of 3 explaining technical issues -- 4 A: Hmm-hmm. 5 Q: -- to people like yourself and other 6 people at city hall; is that correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: You would agree on that? 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Casting your mind back now to the time 11 when Mr. Strelioff was -- was hired by the city, I believe 12 that you played a significant role in the interview and the 13 hiring process; is that correct? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Okay. 16 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: And I wonder if Mr. 17 McEwen could be given the -- the collection of materials that 18 were submitted yesterday by Ms. Mitchell in relation to Mr. 19 Strelioff's appointment and the -- the Pommen and Associates 20 advertisement for that position. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 I wonder if we could look, first of all, Mr. 25 McEwen, at the actual letter of -- of offer of September


1 17th, 1999; it's probably at the back of your materials. 2 A: This be from C-7 -- no, that's a 3 memorandum. 4 Q: Yes, it was a letter of September 17th, 5 1999, it's -- 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: There's a letter at the 7 back of that -- 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 10 Q: At the back of the tab. 11 A: Oh, I'm sorry -- no, in this particular 12 package right here? 13 Q: Maybe it's not there in that package. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 A: Dated September 17th? 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: Yes, okay. 20 Q: And the reason I'm looking at that, in 21 your case, is if you turn to page 2, it looks as though -- I 22 think you signed that letter on September -- 23 A: Yes, I did. 24 Q: -- 23rd, so I understand that this is 25 the -- the letter of offer that was made to Mr. Strelioff


1 following the interview process. 2 And two (2) things -- two (2) things of note 3 I'd like you to -- in the -- under the application criteria, 4 you say that -- you say in here that: 5 "Your application and resume submission 6 forms part of the employment conditions and 7 the city's expectation of your performance 8 outcomes for the position. The current 9 position description and organizational 10 structure have been provided to you." 11 And I believe, as part of this package, 12 certainly the -- the description of the position and the sort 13 of key function and activities, as well as the -- as well as 14 the advertisement for the job are actually -- are actually 15 attached. 16 Now, I want to jump back -- we're going to 17 move forward to that contract, but I'd like to jump back 18 first of all to the actual advertisement for the job, which 19 was put out by Pommen and Associates, it's dated 6 of '99 and 20 it's the document which says at the top, "Come join our way 21 of life, North Battleford." 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Do you have that --


1 A: Yes, I have it. 2 Q: -- in front of you? Now, I'm assuming 3 that, as you were the one who signed this contract and you 4 worked with Pommen and Associates on filling this position, 5 did you? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: And you would have -- you would have 8 worked with them in preparing this advertisement for the job 9 and establishing what the criteria for the job were, would 10 you? 11 A: Yeah, I certainly take some 12 responsibility for it -- 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: -- I didn't draft it -- 15 Q: No. 16 A: -- and I would have seen it though before 17 placement, yes. 18 Q: You would have approved it? 19 A: In that sense, yes. 20 Q: Okay. Now, one (1) of the things which 21 comes out of it is the -- the actual title of the job 22 you're -- you're advertising for here. If you look in the 23 middle of that page, it says, "Director of Operational 24 Services - City Engineer." 25 A: Hmm-hmm.


1 Q: Now, why was the job -- I mean, our 2 understanding from Mr. Strelioff is that he's the Director of 3 Public Works and Utilities, I'm wondering why you're 4 beginning an advertisement process here -- were you looking 5 for a City Engineer at this time, rather than a Director of 6 Public Works or why -- why the difference in terminology? 7 A: Okay. The -- the terminology was 8 actually suggested to us by Mr. Pommen -- Dennis Pommen. By 9 virtue of what I was informed was an understanding within the 10 professional sector, if you will, concerning -- I gather, in 11 a number of municipalities, the issue of public works and 12 utilities director is often so to speak one (1) stage below 13 the -- whatever the senior officer would be so that it was on 14 Mr. Pommen's advice that, for purposes of making this 15 position known, it was referred to as director of operation 16 services with what is also a reasonably understood 17 terminology within the municipal sector having to do with 18 city engineer so it was a combined kind of a function. 19 The issue, of course, of whether or not an 20 engineer would be required is identified in the section that 21 identifies the skills. 22 Q: Okay. Well, if we move -- if we move 23 just further down the front page of that, we're actually told 24 that the kind of people that the search is -- is concerned 25 with.


1 A: Right. 2 Q: 3 "Experienced people with strong management 4 skills in progressively responsible 5 positions in municipal sectors, along with 6 professional civil engineering designations 7 or equivalencies in engineering technology 8 and public works vocations will be ideal 9 candidates." 10 A: Right. 11 Q: So, was that very much a -- a criteria 12 for this position that you thought was necessary? 13 A: Certainly background and -- and skills in 14 the -- the functioning of departments of the Works and 15 Utilities, yes. 16 Q: But were you looking for someone with a 17 professional civil engineering designation? 18 A: We re -- we remained hopeful, I think, at 19 this point. We went through a couple of stages in that 20 regard that we might be able to find, in an engineer, skills 21 we were looking for. But quite frankly, what we were 22 focussing on as much as those kind of skills were management 23 capabilities, in that department. 24 Q: Okay. If you will then turn to the -- 25 the position description, which is another of the documents


1 attached to that exhibit. If you'll look at the position 2 summary, I mean once again, the position title is called, 3 'Director of Operational Services, City Engineer'. 4 And the position summary says, 5 "Provides senior management leadership for 6 planning, developing, directing and 7 coordinating the delivery of engineering, 8 planning, building, license activities, 9 public works and operational types of 10 services for the city." 11 But then on the following page, at 'Required 12 Qualifications', once again, we have emphasis upon a 13 professional engineering degree or equivalency, in Civil 14 Engineering and Public Works vocations supplemented with 15 management, development and education. 16 Significant, to someone like myself reading 17 this, of course, is the way that the professional engineering 18 degree or equivalency, i.e., the technical expertise, is -- 19 is placed foremost there, under 'Required Qualifications' and 20 is something which is supplemented by management development 21 and education. 22 So, from these -- these documents, it would 23 appear to someone like myself reading them that you are very 24 much concerned with that technical capacity that comes with 25 qualified engineer or someone with an equivalency?


1 A: Yes. We'd been used to that. We were 2 hopeful that that might occur. 3 Q: Okay. Now, during the course of his 4 testimony, Mr. Strelioff provided us with the -- the summary 5 and the resume that he suffered -- submitted as part of his 6 application, pardon me, for this job. 7 A: Freudian slip? 8 Q: As part of this job. And I wonder if you 9 could take a look at that. I, once again, I don't know the 10 exhibit number of this -- I think it's C-79. 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: C-79. 12 13 (BRIEF PAUSE) 14 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, okay. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 18 Q: And I believe from the contract which you 19 signed with Mr. Strelioff on September 17th, 1999, this 20 resume becomes part of the conditions of employment. Is that 21 correct? 22 A: If the resume has bearing in that regard, 23 what I think our focus was there is the parts that follow had 24 to do with the -- the commitments he was making -- his 25 specific position skills where he outlines then what he would


1 do. 2 Q: Sure. 3 A: Because he's answering essentially a 4 questionnaire that was supplied to him by our -- 5 Q: Right. 6 A: -- personnel consultant. 7 Q: But I think in his employment contract, 8 you do say, your application and resume submission forms part 9 of the employment conditions? 10 A: Sure. 11 Q: And that was certainly the understanding, 12 was that not the case? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: So if we look at what you're told in this 15 resume on the 1st page -- 16 A: Hmm-hmm. 17 Q: -- in the summary section at the second 18 bullet, we're told that he possesses a strong technical 19 understanding of engineering principles and processes related 20 to public works, civil engineering and fleet management? 21 A: Right. 22 Q: And then under 'Professional Knowledge 23 and Expertise', under the fourth bullet, you were told that 24 he has extensive experience and knowledge of water and 25 wastewater treatment facilities. Extensive experience and


1 knowledge. 2 And these were sufficiently important to you 3 that you made these part of his contract of employment? 4 A: Sure. 5 Q: Were those two (2) issues of importance 6 to you when you hired Mr. Strelioff? 7 A: I would think the answer is yes, but I'm 8 not quite sure what the context is. 9 Q: Well I'm -- I'm -- I'm asking you to take 10 a look at those representations which were made, and would 11 the fact that Mr. Strelioff representing that he has 12 extensive ex -- experience and knowledge of water and 13 wastewater treatment facilities have influenced you in 14 hiring -- 15 A: Oh, I see -- 16 Q: -- is that why you hired him? 17 A: -- you're asking essentially whether 18 these would be like the deciding factor or whatever else? 19 Q: Yeah, was this -- 20 A: Yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't -- I just 21 missed the context -- 22 Q: Sure -- 23 A: -- of your question. Certainly those 24 would be components to it. This particular document that I'm 25 looking at the first page here --


1 Q: Right. 2 A: -- would certainly be a part of what got 3 him the interview, yes. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: So that -- but you know, the -- the issue 6 certainly in which we would make a final decision, and he was 7 interviewed by council in this regard, was you know, his 8 overall balance, particularly in relationship to other 9 candidates at whom we were looking, who also stated various 10 things about their skills and qualifications -- 11 Q: Okay -- 12 A: -- that make that decision, sure. 13 Q: Yeah. So you say this would have got him 14 the interview, but my understanding is that this is also part 15 of his contract of employment? 16 A: That's correct, yeah. 17 Q: Okay. And that when you entered into 18 this contract -- 19 A: We -- 20 Q: -- of employment -- 21 A: -- understood him to have these, yes. 22 Q: -- you understood him to have these 23 qualifications? 24 A: Yeah, no, no question, yes. 25 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Mr. Commissioner, I only


1 have one (1) more sort of significant section left, but you 2 may wish to -- I don't know if you wish to take the -- the 3 first break -- 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: Sure -- 5 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- before we do that? 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- yes, it's 3:20, we'll 7 take a fifteen (15) minute adjournment and resume after that. 8 9 --- Upon recessing at 3:20 p.m. 10 --- Upon resuming at 3:40 p.m. 11 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, sorry for the delay, 13 I guess, Mr. Russell, we're ready to resume, thanks. 14 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 15 Commissioner. 16 17 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 18 Q: Just one (1) more area that I'd like to 19 touch on, I know you've told us that you didn't have much 20 occasion to -- to deal with operators from the plants. 21 But I was wondering if during the course of 22 your career with the city you'd ever had the opportunity to 23 deal with Mr. Peter Allen? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Can you tell us how that came about and


1 when was that? 2 A: Hmm, '88 or -- pardon me, '98 or '99, on 3 a particular occasion unannounced, Mr. Allen appeared at my 4 office, indicating he wanted to speak to me and I had no 5 reason to send him away, sat and listened to him talk for a 6 while, yes. 7 Q: Okay. And -- 8 A: And that occurred actually on two (2) 9 occasions, I believe. 10 Q: -- okay, sometime in '98 or '99? 11 A: Yeah -- yes. 12 Q: Okay, and he wanted to speak to you, what 13 did he -- what did he say to you when you sat him down? 14 A: He -- on both occasions he appeared, you 15 know, somewhat upset and distraught. Mostly having to do 16 with his colleagues, his needs as I interpreted them, for 17 authority, control, power and presumably his frustration with 18 somehow feeling that that was lacking for him. 19 Those were the things that were on his mind 20 most. 21 Q: Okay. Did he ever during the course of 22 those conversations, mention cryptosporidium to you? 23 A: On one (1) occasion, certainly along with 24 a long litany of other things, an indication that did I know 25 that there might be cryptosporidium, because it was certainly


1 in the river. You know, that could get into our system, and 2 I admitted to limited information about cryptosporidium, but 3 I inquired as to what the issues were. 4 At that point of course, again his needs for 5 demonstration of his knowledge and so on, inferred that he 6 certainly knew how to care for all of these matters. 7 That -- and he -- the reason he was raising it 8 was because he had the power to make that kind of 9 announcement, not based on anything, because of course the 10 city didn't test for that. 11 More importantly, if he did do that though, 12 you see, it would cost the city a lot of money because 13 testing for crypto is very expensive and so I was trying to 14 get things then behind what -- you know, or what the issues 15 were that were in his mind, obviously, but certainly anything 16 he was saying about crypto at that point, I took as 17 symptomatic of some of the nature of the things he was 18 dealing with personally. 19 Q: Okay. Did he mention that he'd raised 20 his concerns with cryptosporidium with anyone else to you? 21 A: Well, he had had a discussion, quite 22 apparently, with the foreman about it and -- and part of his 23 reason in raising it was his belief that, again, because he 24 knew a great deal more about this than anyone else, that 25 obviously his foreman did not know.


1 And he had needs at that point because he was 2 a little upset about his union and about his colleagues, 3 to -- to talk about their limits and how these people didn't 4 know anything either, but, yes, he was concerned about the 5 fact that his -- in his view, his supervisor was not aware 6 that chlorine would not handle cryptosporidium. Now, again, 7 I had no basis to argue, I didn't know one (1) way or another 8 myself. 9 Q: Okay. So his -- his supervisor here 10 would have been Mr. Katzell? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: Okay. And he was indicating to you that 13 he felt Mr. Katzell was unaware that chlorine would not deal 14 with cryptosporidium? 15 A: Yes, he -- he said that. 16 Q: Okay. Did he mention that he'd raised 17 the issue with anyone else, Mr. Bob Berry for instance? 18 A: I don't recall specifically. It's quite 19 possible that he'd had the discussion simultaneously with 20 both of them or whatever. There have been a couple of 21 occasions, I think, on which he and I believe other 22 employees, along with Ivan and Bob, had met together. So, 23 the context escapes me for the moment. 24 Q: Yes. I think when we'd last spoken, as 25 you had mentioned to me, you felt that he'd had this


1 confrontation with both Mr. Katzell and Mr. -- and Mr. Berry 2 and had raised the issue of cryptosporidium with them. 3 A: Mr. Allen had confrontations with a 4 number of people over different issues -- 5 Q: Okay. 6 A: -- so, whether this had anything to do 7 with crypto, I can't recall. 8 Q: Okay. But at least he'd mentioned to you 9 he'd raised it with -- with Mr. Katzell. So, what was his 10 purpose in raising this matter with you, what was he trying 11 to ask you to do? 12 A: I guess there was an element to which I 13 was asking myself the same question as we concluded our 14 conversations and -- and the risk is I'm -- I'm acting as if 15 the kinds of things that Mr. Allen was dealing with were 16 trite and they're not. But, respectfully, I think Mr. Allen 17 was dealing with some issues of his own that were difficult 18 personal ones for him and I guess, to be blunt, my concern 19 was more for his mental health than anything that he was 20 raising with me. 21 Q: Okay. Did you -- did you yourself raise 22 the -- the issues that he'd brought to you with anyone else? 23 A: I certainly followed up the conversation, 24 as I would in any case where I've got an employee who, if you 25 will, jumps the -- the normal dialogue that occurs in a


1 system with Bob Berry initially and, on other occasions, had 2 conversation with Ivan because, shortly thereafter, Bob Berry 3 left our staff and so I was working much more closely then 4 for that period with Mr. Katzell personally -- 5 Q: So did -- did you -- 6 A: -- so -- 7 Q: Sorry, go ahead. 8 A: -- I -- I passed on to him the content, 9 if you will, of the conversation from Mr. Allen on both 10 occasions. Moreover, surprisingly at one (1) point, I 11 started to receive and I think this was over time I had 12 received three (3) e-mails that -- copies of e-mails at my 13 home that Mr. Allen had sent to various people and so I 14 certainly passed those on as well, asking that either Mr. 15 Berry or Mr. Katzell, as the situation occurred, you know, 16 look into it and -- and make sure the matters were resolved. 17 Q: Can you recall the content of any of 18 those d-mails? 19 A: Off the top, I don't, I think actually 20 I've -- I mean I've seen them and I -- I had them at the 21 time -- 22 Q: Yes. Just generally speaking, their 23 general import? 24 A: There was -- there was one (1) -- 25 something about some concern for water quality or whatever


1 else -- 2 Q: Yeah. 3 A: -- and I guess that was the one (1) that 4 concerned me most, made -- passed on and said, you know, what 5 is behind this. 6 Q: Okay. 7 A: I didn't receive a specific report back. 8 Q: Okay. So you -- you passed Mr. -- Mr. 9 Allen's conversation -- the cryptosporidium aspect, plus 10 the -- the water safety aspect mentioned in the e-mail, you 11 passed that on to Mr. Berry? 12 A: Yes. 13 Q: Okay. And did you yourself do anything 14 further in relation to the matter? 15 A: Not directly personally, no. 16 Q: Okay. So did anyone report back to you, 17 did Mr. Berry offer any explanation, did he -- did he tell 18 you that he conducted any kind of follow up on those matters? 19 A: I expect he did. It's just not 20 registering at the moment. 21 Q: You don't recall whether he did or not? 22 A: So far as I know, he -- he followed up 23 and got back to me. I know on the -- subsequently I was 24 privy to some of this discussion about the question of 25 cryptospordium. I -- you know, I had vaguely heard of it, I


1 think, when Peter Allen first raised it. 2 And Mr. Berry got back to me to report on the 3 nature of the follow up he'd done with Ivan and Peter on the 4 issue of the cryptosporidium. And if I recall correctly, the 5 matter had largely dissolved because Mr. Allen was not 6 contending that there was cryptosporidium in the city's 7 water. That he was indicating the kinds of things he could 8 do with his authority, if he chose to. So -- 9 Q: But nevertheless, he expressed to you 10 that he did have some knowledge of cryptosporidium? 11 A: That's correct. Mr. Allen did, yes. 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: Okay. And you say you were party to 15 discussions about cryptosporidium? When would that have 16 been? 17 A: No, I wasn't -- 18 Q: Okay -- 19 A: -- party to those discussions. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: Mr. -- you asked if Mr. Berry had 22 reported back to me -- 23 Q: Yes -- 24 A: -- and as I recall, he did on that 25 particular area or issue, yes.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: But you must remember, Mr. Allen also 3 raised a large number of other issues -- 4 Q: Sure -- 5 A: -- most of which we were able to follow 6 up and -- 7 Q: Right. 8 A: -- resolve. 9 Q: But when Mr. Berry reported back to you 10 on -- on cryptosporidium, what was the -- what was the nature 11 of that report? How did he -- how did he satisfy you that 12 that had been dealt with? 13 A: Well, I think he was able to confirm, 14 with Peter, that -- that Peter had no special knowledge that 15 cryptosporidium, number 1, was in the water, which, of course 16 was our immediate angst, if you will. 17 And that it was simply confirmed that that was 18 a part of what he was upset about in terms of his 19 personality, not the issue -- 20 Q: Okay -- 21 A: -- of whether there was cryptosporidium 22 or not. 23 Q: Well, when he raised -- 24 A: It was the kind of things he had the 25 authority or the ability, he felt --


1 Q: Right. 2 A: -- to do to the city. 3 Q: When Mr. Allen raised the issue of 4 cryptosporidium with you in the water, was he referring to 5 the raw water in the river or to the treated water in the 6 city's water system? 7 A: It would probably be in the raw water of 8 the -- of the river. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: Because, you know, he -- that's what he 11 assumed would be there. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: The issue, of course, I was most 14 concerned about is was there -- what were the chances of it 15 getting into our system? Because we were, you know, 16 obviously his expertise or skill is in the issue of treatment 17 of water. 18 Q: Right. 19 A: And, you know, any number of things, you 20 know, we're fairly conscious, can come downstream in the 21 river. He certainly inferred nothing in terms of water from 22 the ground, as to whether it would have crypto or anything 23 like that. 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: But -- because his specific comment was


1 more to the effect, well, I'm sure there's cryptosporidium in 2 the river, anyway. So it was that source that -- 3 Q: Right. 4 A: -- his statement referred to. 5 Q: Yes. So your concern being that you -- 6 you wanted to be sure that cryptosporidium could not get into 7 the -- the city's treated water, correct? 8 A: Yes. I guess so. Although from what I 9 knew about cryptosporidium wasn't as much that as a question 10 of whether it was in the water. 11 Q: Yes. But was Mr. Berry able to assure 12 you that cryptosporidium couldn't get into the city's water? 13 A: He indicated that the, you know, the -- 14 the system was designed to deal with it. The issue, you see, 15 of testing was more the question that was raised, okay? And 16 it wasn't as to whether or not Mr. Allen, using his 17 professional skills, was saying it should be done. It was 18 more the fact that that was a very expensive test. And if he 19 chose to use his knowledge and background, he could force the 20 city to make these very large expenditures that he inferred. 21 So, it wasn't in the context of water quality, 22 in my view. It was the nature, more of his particular needs 23 on a particular subject. 24 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Okay. Thank you very 25 much, Mr. McEwen.


1 THE WITNESS: Okay. 2 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: No more further 3 questions, Mr. Commissioner. 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. All right, 5 counsel. Mr. Young, do you have any questions? 6 MR. GARY YOUNG: No questions, Mr. 7 Commissioner. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Hopley? 9 MR. SCOTT HOPLEY: I have no questions. 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. Mr. McDonald? 11 MR. ROBERT McDONALD: Thank you, Mr. 12 Commissioner and good afternoon Mr. McEwen. 13 14 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBERT McDONALD: 15 Q: My name is Bob McDonald and I'm 16 representing the Association of Professional Engineers and 17 Geoscientists of Saskatchewan Order, APEG. 18 Just a couple of questions that -- that I 19 guess garnered my attention. 20 And with regard to the position of city 21 engineer and -- and I guess one (1) question would be, was 22 the city engineer or is the city engineer in your mind 23 expected to do any engineering work, whatever that might be? 24 A: My expectancy has always been, and we've 25 had both professional engineers and a few non-professional


1 people in our senior leadership position in our Works and 2 Utilities Department. 3 The skill or capacity that probably is needed 4 most, as I perceived it, and I'm not unsure that it wasn't 5 communicated also by those who were professional engineers, 6 that the value of having a professional engineer as your 7 senior manager in that regard, had more to do with the fact 8 that the city of course contracts out most of its 9 professional engineering requirements to contracted firms. 10 On that basis then the issue is more to 11 understand the jargon and to coordinate the endeavours of the 12 engineers. 13 As a matter of fact, if you were to look at 14 the resumes of the -- the two (2) engineers we had or 15 directors, if you will, who had engineering degrees, both of 16 them had come from, and as a matter of fact returned to, the 17 private consulting sector. 18 So, they brought a particular skill we felt we 19 needed at the time, the issue in our view is not the matter 20 that an engineer has to reside on our staff, it's more a 21 matter of how do you -- you know, how does that person, in 22 addition of course to the straight other management tasks, 23 relate effectively with professional engineers, because we 24 need those skills and have regularly used those skills 25 historically in the city.


1 Q: And did you view it necessary to have 2 professional engineering input to your operations, as well 3 as -- I mean it -- it seems to me where the engineering input 4 has come is in the view of capital things, like the Reid 5 Crowther Report and so on, as opposed to any ongoing 6 technical expertise on the -- on the operations side? 7 A: I would think with our size of -- of 8 municipality, it was deemed that no, we didn't need that 9 resident on our staff. 10 I appreciate you're getting -- let me get 11 though to the -- the question that you particularly want -- 12 want answered. 13 The issue then becomes one of you know, 14 drawing expertise as we require it. Generally speaking, yes, 15 we -- we require that engineering support at the time we're 16 doing anything related to capital type of activity. 17 For operating purposes, in many cases we -- if 18 you will, we have on the ground experience. Our problem 19 obviously, like any small city is to keep up to the change 20 which occurs, and I think that's where one would best use 21 professional consultants in that regard. 22 Now the risk is I'm -- I'm -- I'm speculating 23 on that kind of thing, but the point becomes one of to what 24 extent it would be useful, and -- and I raise this question, 25 to have a professional engineering firm providing, if you


1 will, supervision of a -- you know, a particular aspect of 2 our operation. 3 You know, traffic engineers supervising our 4 snow plow operators, you know. The question becomes one, I 5 think, that a number of these things can be done very well by 6 our very capable employees and their supervisors, who have 7 cons -- considerable experience on the ground. 8 The issue becomes one of at the point at which 9 one needs the kind of input that professional engineers can 10 do and do very, very well and we're not denying that for a 11 moment. 12 And that's a judgment that I left with my 13 directors as to when they would call on that resource and -- 14 and -- and those kinds of skill. 15 And from time to time we've drawn on that the 16 same way as clearly the city drew on Mr. Pullman, and not in 17 the engineering cycle, but for specific kinds of need in 18 terms of that operation. 19 So, as needs arose, we would use professional 20 consultants and the city council have been quite supportive 21 of that over the years, as is necessary, rather than trying 22 to put resident expertise on site. 23 Q: I guess going and looking at the -- away 24 from the capital side, but to the operations side and the 25 ongoing operations side, can you recall instances where you


1 have even let's take it to the plants, and said we have 2 brought in some engineering consultants to optimize our 3 processes or to review our processes? 4 A: To the best of my knowledge, and 5 particularly when we were using, was it Catteral & Wright, 6 which would be prior to '95 or 6. 7 And there was some considerable consultation 8 in that regard, part of the view at that period was is that 9 perhaps that firm were a little slow on delivery and the 10 nature of what we had constructed over time was not serving 11 our best interests and that's part of the reason, I think, 12 there was some change in engineering firms. 13 Q: And in looking at -- looking at the job 14 posting that came up, the one (1) that -- on Exhibit C-74 -- 15 A: Yeah. 16 Q: -- and in the last paragraph and it talks 17 of professional civil engineering designations or 18 equivalencies and what in your mind would be equivalencies or 19 who would be -- who would be judging the equivalencies? 20 A: The only thing it says, of course, would 21 be -- would make an ideal candidate -- 22 Q: Correct. 23 A: -- certainly there was never any time, 24 for example, that Mr. Strelioff purported to be an engineer, 25 he certainly was clear in terms of his educational issues


1 that that was not the case, his -- he had experience and had 2 certain kinds of technical skills he picked up, but that he 3 in point of fact was a manager and that's frankly what we 4 were looking for, as much as the specific engineering skills. 5 We -- we interviewed, of course, professional 6 engineers at the time that we hired Mr. Strelioff as well and 7 were making, I think, our judgment based not only on the 8 individual's depth of professional skill as it was in the 9 ability to handle that organization. 10 One (1) of the things that I think we found in 11 the two (2) prior professional engineers we had was that -- 12 wasn't so much the issue of their management skills, although 13 those were components were frustrating to us in the sense 14 that they're limited simply ability to work effectively 15 with -- with -- of the bulk of our personnel. 16 The issue of engineers in both cases, they 17 were fully qualified and capable people, but some of them had 18 slightly different skills. The issue of -- of a fairly major 19 skill in water/sewer, as opposed to streets and roads or 20 something of that nature, appears, you know, say it would be 21 a flair of an individual engineer; both of them were civil 22 engineers and, therefore, they have the broad base of all of 23 them. 24 But to what extent, for example, either one 25 (1) of those persons were highly professional in the area of


1 water/sewer, I'm sure could be -- we could spend a lot of 2 time in debate as to whether that was the case. 3 The issue obviously is they -- they certainly 4 had that and -- and I'm no denier of professional education, 5 having some -- some of my own, although in a very different 6 field, but the -- the issue there is, because I have an arts 7 degree, for example, that doesn't make me an expert in doing 8 some -- you know, esoteric form of financial management, you 9 know, it gives me certain skills in -- in a broad basis in a 10 discipline of education. 11 I think that's the value as one looks at an 12 engineer is that, in addition to other things, he has a 13 fairly comprehensive, and that's what I understand the civil 14 engineering degree is, understanding of the -- if you will, 15 the physics and techniques and professional skills needed 16 that fit well to a works and utilities department and that's 17 why, generally speaking, in cities much larger than 18 ourselves, that's -- they hire those people and in some cases 19 create a whole department utilizing specialized engineering 20 people to do similar things, where we, if you will, contract 21 service as we require it. 22 Q: And when you hired your selected 23 candidate for this position, you were satisfied that the 24 technical skills were equivalent or satisfactory for the -- 25 for the position?


1 A: Yeah, I wouldn't say equivalent because 2 we weren't trying to make that comparison, but they were 3 satisfactory for the -- what the city deemed it needed, yes. 4 Q: Okay. And on a completely different 5 note, are you aware that there is protection over the title 6 engineer and that, in fact, it's a contrary to provincial 7 statute to -- to use the title engineer when -- when, in 8 fact, you're not? 9 A: Yes, my former director -- matter of 10 fact, both of them, I think, were on the EAPS committee -- 11 Q: Member -- 12 A: -- Saskatchewan member. 13 Q: Yeah. 14 A: They were members, but -- 15 Q: But voluntary -- 16 A: -- I think Derek was -- was a -- 17 Q: He may have been a council -- 18 A: -- member on the executive, yes. 19 Q: And Mr. -- and Mr. Berry, for your 20 information, is also a volunteer within our association. 21 A: Yes. So that, you know, they were active 22 professional engineers, I understood that and, not only that, 23 but I gather you have a stamp or something like that and 24 documents that you approve are stamped, et cetera. 25 Q: That's --


1 A: So we were aware of those kinds of things 2 and we're knowledgeable that, when we don't -- that person 3 who we employed does not have that designation, he is not the 4 person who does those things. 5 MR. ROBERT McDONALD: Okay, thank you. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Scharfstein, do you 7 have any questions? 8 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: I have a few. 9 10 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 11 Q: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Good 12 afternoon Mr. McEwen. My name is Grant Scharfstein. I 13 represent about four hundred and sixty (460) individuals who 14 became ill over the contamination event here in North 15 Battleford recently. 16 Many of them are from North Battleford and -- 17 and I wanted to share with you a comment -- comments I've 18 received and get you to comment on it because it relates to 19 yourself, about -- many of the people that have contacted us 20 and talked to us volunteered. 21 And -- and I don't mean this is any 22 disparaging way but I want your comment on it. That when you 23 were the Commissioner of the City of North Battleford, you 24 ruled the city with an iron hand and not a penny was spent 25 without your knowledge and approval. And that's a perception


1 some people have had. 2 Do you perceive that? Were -- were you -- 3 A: Well, in a way I find it flattering. 4 Q: Well, I think it may have been even meant 5 that way, I don't know. 6 A: It seems to me that any effective 7 commissioner is working as a team with his council. And of 8 course I was expected to be responsible and to manage the 9 city affairs well. 10 I wish I could claim that every penny that was 11 ever spent went through my hands first. It didn't. Did we 12 make many mistakes in the management of -- of funds or waste 13 much money? I'm pleased to say we didn't. 14 Q: I want to talk for a second about the 15 Pommen Report, in 1996, I forget what tab it's in, you don't 16 need to refer to it. But it -- it was a study that was 17 commissioned, obviously, by the city relating specifically to 18 the Public Works and Utilities Department. 19 And I wasn't quite sure if you'd given an 20 answer to the question of, was there any specific problems or 21 concerns with that department, that caused the report to be 22 commissioned? Were there some obvious failings of that 23 department? 24 A: I think I characterized it as a, you 25 know, as a general malaise, you know, in council. And had


1 more to do with, you know, were we structured right. There 2 were some personality issues involved in the sense of the 3 senior members of the department, from their perceptions by 4 council, that was a motivating factor. 5 I think our primary purpose, though, and value 6 that came out of it was simply, what's the nature or 7 structure of the department which will best serve the city 8 now and in the future? And that was the basic underlying 9 question why we used Mr. Pommen. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: And which I understand, at least he was 12 trying to address. And we did make some personnel changes as 13 a result. More particularly, too, though, we also made some 14 changes in job assignment without necessarily having to add 15 to the, if you will, the -- the total volume of our 16 management staff. That was not the purpose of the exercise. 17 Q: Okay. I want to show to you a document 18 that the city has disclosed in this process. It's not one 19 (1) of the documents here, yet. But it's -- all counsel have 20 it on the discs that were delivered. 21 And it's a -- a note from yourself dated 22 November 4th, 1996 to Mayor Glenn Hornick and members of City 23 Council, relating to the Pommen Report. And I just want to 24 ask you a quick question about it? 25 A: Sure.


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: Now this was a report that you had 4 authored, is that correct? Do you -- 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: -- recall? You recall this? 7 A: Yeah. Not quickly -- 8 Q: No. 9 A: -- but if you gave me five (5) or ten 10 (10) minutes, I could -- 11 Q: But you recognize it as a document you 12 authored in relation -- 13 A: No question, I recognize some of the 14 style of writing, yes. 15 Q: -- to the Pommen Report. Sure. I wonder 16 if I could have this entered at this stage as Exhibit C- 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: C-94. 18 19 ---EXHIBIT C-94: Note authored by Douglas McEwen 20 dated November 4th, 1996 to Mayor 21 Glenn Hornick and members of City 22 Council relating to the Pommen 23 Report 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN:


1 Q: Now we don't need to go through the whole 2 thing and -- and certainly I -- I -- you can take a quick 3 look at it but in particular I wanted to focus at the bottom 4 of page 1. You had made some recommendations as a result of 5 the Pommen Report. 6 And I quote section B that says, 7 "With effect from January --" 8 This is what you would recommend, the 9 following, B: 10 "With effect from January 1st, 1997, the 11 positions held by the Operations Manager 12 and the Public Works Foreman should be 13 discontinued. A new position of 14 Engineering Assistant filled by a qualified 15 and experienced engineering technologist 16 should be hired." 17 It then goes on to talk about the functions of 18 the Building and License Inspector. I'm just curious as to 19 what kind of changes that would -- would invoke in -- in 20 relation to the Plants Department and -- and this department 21 and how it operated? 22 It looks as though there was a public -- who 23 would the Public Works Foreman have been? 24 A: He was what you might call the senior 25 foreman at that point --


1 Q: Of public -- 2 A: -- and that was not related to the plants 3 operation, no, it would -- 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: -- it was more having to do with streets 6 and roads and I think some of the -- the water sewer service 7 systems -- 8 Q: Okay. 9 A: -- would have come under him. 10 Q: And how about the operations manager, who 11 would that have been, it says -- 12 A: The operations manager at that point was 13 Nester Brunwald -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: Okay. 16 Q: And so your recommend -- and -- and he 17 would have dealings in -- in -- with the plants? 18 A: He -- he would have dealings with plants, 19 yes -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- because in a number of aspects he 22 would have directly supervised, for example, Ivan. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: So I guess my question with respect to


1 Section B is what -- what were the problems you saw with the 2 current system that caused you to recommend these changes. 3 What were you trying to address? 4 A: Part of it was levelling it up, part of 5 it was then to move and -- and the -- the net result of 6 course was that at that point it was Mr. Berry at the time 7 who was the City Works and Utilities Director, would have a 8 more direct supervisory responsibility with Ivan, as an 9 example. 10 And not only that, but by utilization of 11 certain engineering assistance, if you will, it was the 12 position we were suggesting creating and so on, that we could 13 make sure of some of the technological kinds of things, keep 14 up with some of the advances and provide that resource to 15 people like Ivan. 16 Q: Okay, so was it felt at that time by 17 yourself and others that Ivan wasn't keeping up with the 18 technological changes that were occurring -- 19 A: No, that was not a -- 20 Q: -- in the industry? 21 A: -- discussion specifically about Ivan at 22 all, it had to do with the issue of maintaining that kind of 23 capacity, not just to Ivan, but to other parts of the system 24 as well. 25 Q: Okay, so just so I understand, prior to


1 January 1st, '97 then, if -- if -- 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: -- Mr. Katzell had a concern, he wouldn't 4 go directly to Mr. Berry, there was someone in between that 5 would be the operations manager that you would generally talk 6 to? 7 A: There would certainly be nothing to 8 prevent Mr. Berry from going directly to a foreman and I'm 9 sure that would have occurred regularly. 10 In terms of some of the operational supports 11 and you know, backup and -- and so on, Mr. Brunwald would 12 have been the -- the primary person referring, and you're 13 referring specifically to this change, so it was in that 14 context I was trying to answer it. 15 You know, the -- the bottom line was, yes, the 16 in the -- in -- previously and after this, Mr. Berry would 17 have been or now Mr. Strelioff, would have been the direct 18 supervisor to the -- to the foremen in the situation. 19 The issue however, is the question of how some 20 of those technical supports and so on would come through the 21 operations manager, or through an engineering technologist. 22 And it was this kind of shift. 23 Mr. Brunwald had the old CET designation, and 24 that's not to say that that wasn't appropriate, you know, but 25 some of the issues as to how we utilized those resources,


1 particularly with computers and so on, is why we were looking 2 at technologists at that point. 3 Q: Okay, so -- and -- and the recommendation 4 you're making here, was it implemented? 5 A: Yes, we made the changes at that point. 6 It so happened that Mr. Brunwald was looking forward and 7 willing to retire. The same was true with the Public Works 8 foreman by the way, and so we restructured and employed 9 technologists very shortly thereafter, after the report. 10 Q: Okay, so was there a position -- you say 11 a new position of engineering assistant filled by a qualified 12 and experienced engineering technologist, was that -- was 13 that position filled? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: Do you recall by who? 16 A: Danny Maloney I believe. 17 Q: And he -- he -- was he an engineer or an 18 engineer -- 19 A: He's an engineering technologist. 20 Q: Okay. And did he have -- 21 A: He's not -- he's not a qualified or a 22 degreed engineer, no. 23 Q: Okay, did he have any dealings then with 24 the Plants Department during the time that he was there? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Okay. And then Ivan would discuss issues 2 with him as well -- 3 A: Yes. 4 Q: -- to your knowledge? 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: So there were two (2) people that Mr. 7 Katzell could go talk to, Mr. Berry or this -- 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: -- individual you just mentioned -- 10 A: Yes. 11 Q: -- is that correct? 12 A: Hmm-hmm. 13 Q: Okay. And I think you indicated in your 14 evidence this morning that -- and I appreciate that in the 15 position of the Commissioner of the City of North Battleford, 16 you weren't involved certainly in the day to day operations 17 of the -- of the water utilities or the sewage treatment 18 plant. 19 But I was a bit surprised to hear that you 20 really didn't have an understanding of perhaps the -- I'll 21 call it deplorable shape that the plant -- that the sewage 22 treatment plant was in during that time period, or -- or the 23 nature of some of the issues and concerns that existed at 24 these treatment plants. 25 I think you were referred to some documents


1 that Mr. Katzell had written and said you had not seen them 2 before -- 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: -- and not heard that -- that these -- 5 these issues or problems existed; is that correct? 6 A: Against question of -- you're suggesting 7 that you know, everything's gone to hell in a hand cart in 8 terms of the operation of the city's water or sewer systems. 9 They're antiquated, I don't think anybody's denied that, and 10 as a result, they've tended to require, you know, additional 11 care and attention that one would, you know, prefer not to 12 have to do if the system were more automated. 13 You heard that referred to essentially 14 through -- well, both the Reid Crowther, but also the Pommen 15 report as he gathered data from people like Ivan, okay. 16 So, that were we conscious that there are 17 room -- that there's room for improvement? Of course. Okay. 18 You know, did it all happen overnight in terms of either the 19 deterioration or its miraculous recovery? No. And so we've 20 got a system glued together in some corners, but it's 21 working. 22 Q: Now, I take it from that and I think you 23 also indicated earlier that you certainly didn't see any 24 urgency in spending money on fixing up the plants or -- or 25 doing any capital type of improvements in '96, '97, '98,


1 '99 -- 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: -- so there was no sense of urgency that 4 was given to you; is that correct? By anybody that, gee, 5 things are going to hell in a hand basket and we better fix 6 something quick? 7 A: Not in that sense, not in a -- in the 8 kind of thing that said we've got disastersville here. We 9 made improvements as time went along, what we were 10 recognizing, particularly with the Reid Crowther Report in 11 the issue of the sewage treatment process and remember 12 there's the whole water treatment things too, that I don't 13 think we were as far advanced on, if you will, in terms of 14 planning for their replacement as we were with sewer, that, 15 you know, we needed to put some pretty serious money 16 together. So, that the -- the issue of getting what would 17 likely be whole new plants in place could be done. 18 And that's not something we planned to do 19 overnight, but certainly the issue then also became, at the 20 same time, to what extent you spend two hundred (200), three 21 hundred (300), five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) on 22 the existing plant when, in point of fact, you're starting to 23 look at replacing it. 24 Certainly that's not to deny that we would 25 have to do what had to be done. There were no specific


1 recommendations in the short term in terms of any kind of 2 significant modification that would serve us for a long time. 3 Q: So my understanding on the Reid Crowther 4 Report was they -- they came up with certain recommendations 5 and -- and said here are some problems, things that need to 6 be fixed, as well as you need to look at long term what 7 you're going to do. And I don't have the report in front of 8 me, but certainly one (1) of the recommendations indicated 9 that, and they called a must-do list, there was a must-do 10 list -- 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: -- of items that they felt, regardless of 13 what happened in the future, needed to be done to bring this 14 plant up to regulations and standard that totalled about 15 three point two million dollars($3.2 million); now that was 16 the figure in the report. 17 Are you aware of, specifically after that 18 report came out, looking with your Plants Department at what 19 those must-do items were and which ones you would put in 20 effect and which ones you wouldn't; did you have any 21 involvement in that at all? 22 A: No, I did not. With the -- 23 MR. TED PRIEL: Mr. Commissioner, to be fair 24 to the witness, as -- as I read the Reid Crowther Report, 25 it's not quite as put to the witness by counsel. The -- the


1 must-do and should-do items are prefaced by the words, if the 2 existing plant is to be upgraded with the long term in mind, 3 then both must-do and should-do items should be implemented, 4 not must-do and should-do items should be implemented in any 5 event. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 9 Q: Yes, your sense was that nobody came to 10 you and said, look, there's things we got to do here no 11 matter what happens and spend some money on upgrading this 12 plant in any significant way? 13 A: Not in the issue of an extensive list, 14 no. There were some -- a couple good things pointed out to 15 us in which we -- we felt we should act right away and that 16 certainly had to with the safety issues that were -- were 17 addressed and certainly our employees and guests and so on, 18 regarding protective railings and things of that nature. 19 I know there were a couple projects which I 20 think were being reinforced by them, they were relatively 21 minor, that frankly were already on our list and either -- 22 either done during the period of the development of the 23 report or, you know, we -- we set into a longer term plan. 24 But, no, at that point, they did not total 25 three point two (3.2) million in the sense of anything was


1 reported to me as to they had to be done within the next two 2 (2) to three (3) years, no. 3 Q: So railings, I think, is about the only 4 thing that I think we -- we noticed on information we 5 received earlier today -- 6 A: You betcha because that's what was 7 raised. 8 Q: -- was done? 9 A: Yeah. 10 Q: And that eventually got done? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: To your knowledge. 13 A: Yes -- yes, as curious as it missed one 14 (1) year. 15 Q: There are certain other items on -- on 16 the Reid -- or maybe we should take a quick look just for one 17 (1) more minute, at the Reid Crowther Report? It's in Mr. 18 Katzell's binder, at tab 19. 19 A: There it is, yes. 20 Q: Yeah. And specifically, go to the very 21 last three (3) pages of the report. They have, summary of 22 modifications required, and mount railings is -- is listed 23 there a few times on various areas. 24 But there's other matters listed there as 25 well, under 'Health and Safety' and 'Process and Permit'.


1 And I think the only thing that was addressed, of course, was 2 the mount railings. I'm just wondering whether you recall 3 any discussion about the other items they're talking about. 4 For example, under 'Aeration', tank under 5 reprocess and permit it says, 6 "A retrofit Aero accelerator volume, add 7 fine bubble diffusers -- " 8 And -- and it goes on, it speaks for itself. 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: You don't recall those specifically being 11 addressed, as items -- 12 A: We didn't feel -- 13 Q: -- that needed to be done quickly. 14 A: -- we didn't address this specifically 15 but -- and I'm just looking at this now, because obviously I 16 have read the report back at the time of it's publication. 17 But one (1) of the things, for example, under 'Health and 18 Safety, Must Do Item', was in the chlorination room, to 19 install proper ventilation, et cetera. 20 To the best of my knowledge, that was done. 21 It wouldn't appear as a major capital project or anything 22 like that. You know, that would be done under simply 23 'Operations'. It was probably done immediately or within the 24 timeframe this report was being circulated. 25 Q: Okay. I have one (1) more document here,


1 at this stage, I want to show you. It's a memo to yourself 2 from Mr. Berry dated June 4th, 1998. Subject, F.E. Holliday 3 Water Treatment Plant disruption of services, media report of 4 Wednesday, June 4th, 1998. 5 And I'm going to show it to you and -- and 6 have a couple of questions in that regard. 7 A: Sure. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Q: Now this report, I think, deals with an 12 issue that arose about some disruption in water services on 13 June 4th, 1998 here in the city and some low pressures that 14 were reported by the media. And obviously a concern was 15 raised at city hall about this. 16 Do you recall the incident around this -- this 17 memo to you? 18 A: Off the top I don't, no. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: But this -- you're quite right. This 21 would have been a report that Mr. Berry presumably in 22 regard -- in relationship to a question that had been raised 23 by council, presume -- and would appear as -- as results of a 24 media report of a particular date, produced in order to line 25 out exactly what the situation was, yes.


1 Q: Okay. That -- that was one (1) of my 2 questions is, how is it this was addressed to you? I was 3 wondering whether you had specifically requested this report 4 from him? 5 A: No. 6 Q: And if so, why? 7 A: No, it was simply a means by which we 8 transmit to -- to council. Memoranda from myself are usually 9 addressed to mayor and council. Memoranda to, you know, from 10 our department heads -- and this certainly would have gone on 11 to council, would be addressed to me. And in that sense, I 12 would pass it on, as you can see, unaltered -- 13 Q: Right. 14 A: -- to council. 15 Q: The very last page, the very last 16 paragraph says: 17 "New operational procedures have been put 18 in place to mitigate against further 19 discharge line plugging. However, long 20 term solutions may be required to better 21 manage these problems." 22 Do you recall ever having a discussion further 23 on this topic with Mr. Berry about what those long term 24 solutions might be? Or the cost of them? Or how to 25 implement them?


1 A: No. And as I said, for the moment, the 2 specific issue hasn't jumped out at me so depending on what 3 that was, the issue then becomes one (1) of how you address 4 it long term. This obviously was following the -- the Reid 5 Crowther Report, although this is water treatment. 6 So -- 7 Q: Right -- 8 A: -- the issue then of long term plans 9 would proceed from there. This was mid '98 -- 10 Q: Okay -- 11 A: -- and certainly within the year, Bob had 12 resigned. 13 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: I wonder if I could 14 have this entered as the next exhibit, C- 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: Ninety-six (96). 16 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Ninety-six (96)? 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: Ninety-five (95). 18 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Ninety-five (95). 19 Thank you. 20 21 ---EXHIBIT NO. C-95: Memorandum to Douglas McEwen from 22 Mr. Berry dated June 4th, 1998, 23 subject, F.E. Holliday Water 24 Treatment Plant, disruption of 25 services, media report of


1 Wednesday, June 4th, 1998 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 4 Q: Now, Mr. McEwen, we've seen documents and 5 heard talk recently or this morning about Mr. Katzell's 6 requests as far back as 1988 for additional manpower at 7 the -- at the plants. And that was certainly during the 8 tenure that you were here. 9 However, I think we also have been led to 10 believe that from 1988, when his first request appears in 11 writing at city hall, up to certainly the incident of April, 12 2001, no additional staff or operators had been hired at the 13 plant; is that correct? 14 A: In terms of total number, as far as I 15 know, no. 16 Q: And you recall during that entire period 17 of time, the ten/twelve (10/12) years, any concerns or 18 discussion about shortage of work -- workers at the plant and 19 problems that it may be causing? 20 A: Yes and no. In the sense that was I ever 21 approached for a significant increase in our staff? No. I 22 certainly gave testimony earlier that the -- at one (1) 23 point, unfortunately it went below this -- you know, the -- 24 the complement, I believe it was eight (8) operators, if my 25 memory serves me.


1 And if you will, we ended up with one (1) 2 joining us only for the summer I think, quotes, "casual 3 basis." 4 The -- that was certainly frustrating for all 5 of us. We did it for a period of time in response to, number 6 one (1), a council direction, but number two (2), to do what 7 we could around the economies. 8 Certainly though whenever a position came 9 vacant during that period, I -- you know, I required that a 10 review be undertaken as to whether it needed to be filled. 11 I can say without doubt that I was convinced 12 consistently that our complement not go below what it had, 13 and when -- certainly increasing that back to the full eight 14 (8) was one (1) of the first things that we -- we did as some 15 of the pressures, financial pressures, started to come off in 16 '88/89. 17 So, that that -- you know, that's what 18 happened in terms of the staffing. In discussions I had it 19 appeared to be adequate. 20 Did it mean that our operators had to perform 21 fairly frequently and fully? Yes. Partly too because we 22 were operating with a system that wasn't as fully automated 23 as we would like over time. 24 Q: Certainly, I guess what surprises me that 25 Mr. Katzell's memos of -- of 1988 and '89 and his evidence


1 indicated that -- that his pleas for an additional staff 2 member, be out of scope or in scope were rather desperate 3 pleas. He felt that it was needed desperately in '88 and 4 '89, based on the wording of his -- of his memos. 5 And I'm assuming that what happened is that 6 those desperate pleas never got past the -- the people he 7 spoke to and up to you, because if I read you correctly, you 8 certainly didn't understand that there was a desperate need 9 for more staffing at the plants? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Okay. The final area I want to look at 12 briefly relates to a little bit of financial information. 13 And in that regard I have copies of the 1997, 14 1998 and 1999 Auditors Financial Statements for the City of 15 North Battleford, that I will show you a copy of here. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 They just finished getting copied so I have to 20 sort them here in a second. 21 22 (BRIEF PAUSE) 23 24 Now these -- these reports are the Audited 25 Financial Statements done by the City of North Battleford's


1 auditors, at that time Downie, Johnson, Svenkeson -- 2 A: Yes. 3 Q: -- is that correct? And are they a local 4 firm? 5 A: Yes, they are. 6 Q: They are? And they've been the auditors 7 for many years, I expect, for -- for the City, to your 8 recollection? 9 A: Yes, or if you will, their successor, as 10 a matter of fact, Mr. Svenkeson at one (1) point directly did 11 the audits, in the most recent years when I was there Bob 12 Johnson, the second name on the masthead did the direct 13 audit -- 14 Q: Okay. I -- I received these from Mr. 15 Priel, I had asked -- I think even last week or sometime, and 16 he was kind enough to deliver them. 17 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: And I -- I assume 18 that there's no objection to them, I'd ask maybe as one (1) 19 package they get entered as an exhibit? 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: Any objection? All right, 21 the three (3) financial statements for the years '97, '98 and 22 '99 will become C-96. 23 24 --- EXHIBIT NO. C-96: Audited Financial Statements of 25 the City of North Battleford for


1 the years 1997, 1998 and 1999 2 3 CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 4 Q: Now I just have a couple of brief 5 questions about it to make sure that I understand them. If 6 you turn on -- and it's the same for all three (3), but 7 looking at December 31st, 1997, if you turn to page 10 and I 8 think they are two-sided copies, if I'm not mistaken, page 10 9 of that statement. There's a separate reporting for the 10 water supply system; is that correct? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: Of revenue and expenses? 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: And the page -- and that goes on to page 15 11 and then on page 12 is a separate reporting of the utility 16 for the sewage system; correct? 17 A: That's correct. 18 Q: And, if I read the 1997 statement 19 accurately, there was a excess of revenues over expenses in 20 1997 of ninety-eight thousand two hundred and thirty-one 21 dollars ($98,231) on the water utility? It says excess of 22 revenues over expenditures. 23 A: Yes, that's correct. 24 Q: Okay. Simply put, you brought in more -- 25 that much more revenue than you spent on the water utility in


1 that year; correct? 2 A: And therefore made the appropriation into 3 funded reserves, yes. 4 Q: Right. And then on the sewage side, 5 there was a surplus -- I call it a surplus, it's an excess of 6 revenues over expenditures for '97 of fifty-seven thousand 7 five hundred and forty-six dollars ($57,546); correct? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And, if you look at the 1998 statement on 10 page 11, you'll find again the excess of revenue over 11 expenditures on the water utility for that year was three 12 hundred and eleven thousand two hundred and seventy-two 13 dollars ($311,272); is that correct? 14 A: The way in which statement shows, that's 15 correct. 16 Q: Okay. And on the sewage disposal system, 17 the excess of revenue over expenditures was a hundred and 18 fifty-seven thousand and eighty-five dollars ($157,085); 19 correct? 20 A: The way in which it's shown, correct. 21 Q: And, finally, for 1999, I think those 22 same statements show at page 11 the utility water supply the 23 excess of revenue over expenditure was two hundred and 24 twenty-seven thousand two hundred and five dollars 25 ($227,205)?


1 A: The way in which the figures are shown, 2 that's correct. 3 Q: And on the sewage utility on page 12, the 4 excess was eighty-three thousand seven hundred and ninety 5 dollars ($83,790); correct? 6 A: That's correct. 7 Q: Now, I've added those up and in the three 8 (3) years, '97, '98, '99, there was a total, if it was a 9 business, I'd call it a profit, but it's not, it's a surplus 10 of income in those utilities over the expenses of nine 11 hundred and thirty-five thousand one hundred and twenty-nine 12 dollars ($935,129) -- 13 A: In the given year of operations, that's 14 what the issue is. You'll notice in all of these statements 15 that they identify a surplus for the year of nil. Point of 16 fact, those funds that you were talking about as revenues 17 over expenditures were, if you will, appropriate -- were 18 appropriated to the funded reserves. 19 Q: Absolutely. 20 A: Yeah. 21 Q: And the reserves went, if I recall the 22 statements correctly, in 1997 from one million five hundred 23 and forty-one thousand nine hundred and forty-four dollars 24 ($1,541,944) to two million five hundred and twenty-two 25 thousand eight hundred and nineteen dollars ($2,522,819) in


1 that same period -- 2 A: That's correct. 3 Q: -- right? 4 A: Yes. 5 Q: Which is about the same along as that 6 nine hundred and thirty-five thousand -- 7 A: Or, pardon me, I -- I believe they would 8 be, I'm not disputing the number. 9 Q: Yeah. Now, there was close to $1 million 10 revenue in those three (3) years and, if you want to turn to 11 finally the budget information binder C-93. 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: Tab 1. When I look at the expenditures 14 on those two (2) utilities, the sewer utility and the water 15 for capital and special maintenance for '97, '98, '99, I get 16 a total being spent of three thousand four hundred and 17 twenty-two dollars ($3,422); is that correct? 18 A: On the sewer utility -- 19 Q: Correct. 20 A: -- those five (5) years outside of the 21 collection system -- 22 Q: Right. I'm -- I'm just -- 23 A: -- of thirty-four twenty-two (3,422). 24 Q: Right, capital and special maintenance, 25 three thousand four hundred and twenty-two dollars ($3,422)


1 was spent in the three (3) years I'm looking at, '97, '98, 2 '99; correct? 3 A: Yeah, and -- 4 Q: Right. 5 A: -- I'm curious as to why that small a 6 figure would show. 7 Q: And on the capital and special 8 maintenance for water utility, nothing was spent; is that 9 correct? 10 A: And, I'm sorry, for -- for which, water? 11 Q: Yes, for '97, '98 and '99. 12 A: You're asking if I could read the page 13 and I'm trying to do that, just a minute. 14 For '97, '98 and '99, that's correct, that's 15 the way it appears. 16 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: I have no further 17 questions, Mr. Commissioner, thank you. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Who is next, Mr. Tochor? 19 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: No questions. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: No questions. 21 Ms. Mitchell...? 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr.


1 Commissioner. Mr. Commissioner, I'm going to be referring to 2 binders C-38, C-13 and C-64. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay, what were they again 4 please? 5 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 13, 38 and 64. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Sixty-four (64). Now do 7 you have a name to go with those? 8 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thirteen (13) is Peter 9 Allen's and Judy Szuch's and Frank Hollmann's. Thirty-eight 10 (38) is Ivan Katzell's and sixty-four (64) is James Toye 11 and -- 12 THE WITNESS: Okay. Thirteen (13) I'm not 13 sure. Ah, thank you. 14 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 16 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. McEwen. My name is 17 Sandra Mitchell. I act on behalf of the Canadian Union of 18 Public Employees, Local 287. 19 I want to ask you a number of questions this 20 afternoon. And I want to begin with your answers to some of 21 the questions posed to you by the counsel for Commission, 22 in -- in-chief. 23 And beginning with some of the material that 24 is contained in Mr. Katzell's binder. I don't think it's 25 necessary for you to look at it. But at tabs 3 and 4 and 9


1 and 11, are different reports made by Mr. Katzell, to Mr. 2 Berry, to Mr. Strelioff, a letter to Mr. Thompson, requesting 3 additional staff and talking about some of the deficiencies 4 in the Plants Department. 5 And your answers to Mr. Russell, with respect 6 to all of those communications, were that either you have 7 never seen it directly or you weren't specifically aware of 8 it or those issues were never raised with you. And I wonder 9 what that says about your style of management as City 10 Commissioner? 11 A: The issue becomes one (1), I think, Ms. 12 Mitchell, of the particular documents and the context in 13 which they may have appeared. And I -- I don't know at this 14 point. 15 You know, did any of us have concern about the 16 issue of the number of employees we might have or not have? 17 The answer would be categorically that we were concerned on 18 an ongoing basis that we have sufficient employees. 19 The question, too, becomes one (1) of, how one 20 characterizes whatever was said in those particular memos as 21 to whether, you know, they were cries of panic or whether in 22 point of fact, they were documentation to discussions that 23 were already being held between Mr. Katzell and his 24 supervisor. 25 And those are the things I really can't


1 speculate on or at least if I were to speculate, I would say, 2 that's probably what they were. So, that in a way, it makes 3 me pleased to know that my department heads were working 4 closely with Mr. Katzell, as to the nature of his needs. And 5 the fact that at least, you know, yes, some of it goes back 6 to '98 but because a memo is written once at that time, and 7 pardon me, was it '88? Or '87? 8 Q: Yes, they began in '88 and -- 9 A: Yeah -- 10 Q: -- went up to Mr. Strelioff's 11 appointment. 12 A: -- some thirteen (13) years later that 13 the, you know, either that somehow the issue fester or 14 because it was written once, you know, somehow was not 15 subsequently resolved, you know, at that particular point in 16 time. 17 So, I'm not arguing any of those things but I 18 appreciate what you were coming to was the question of, you 19 know, what that might say about my particular style of 20 management. And I guess I have to leave that to the judgment 21 of others. 22 But nevertheless, the issue and the style 23 which I have used is that my department heads are normally in 24 control and manage those situations. When they have a 25 problem, they raise it with me.


1 Obviously, these particular memorandum were 2 either considered simply documentary enough that the -- the 3 director was dealing with them personally on his -- on his 4 own. Or he felt, were not substantive from the point of view 5 of the necessity for me to see it anymore than other reports 6 of accidents or other kinds of issues that might occur within 7 the department. 8 Q: Mr. Scharfstein has raised with you, in 9 connection with his clients, that he has heard that nobody 10 spent a penny without your kind of direct approval. And in 11 my capacity, I have heard that your managers and directors 12 and so on and staff at city hall were absolutely terrified of 13 you while you served as city commissioner. 14 Would you respond to that? 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, no. I'm sorry, Ms. 16 Mitchell, I think we're going to have to draw the line here 17 on -- 18 I was a little concerned, in fact, about a 19 couple of the names that were surfaced earlier but we're not 20 going into review the labour relations of the city hall 21 unless it has some relevance to what our terms of reference 22 are. 23 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thank you. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL:


1 Q: With respect to the Pommen Report dated 2 1996, Mr. McEwen, at tab 15, page 55, there is a list of the 3 people who were interviewed by Mr. Pommen and his associates 4 in preparing the report. 5 And I note that none of the people that were 6 consulted were in scope employees, is there a reason for 7 that? 8 A: I would guess so, in the sense that the 9 purpose of the report primarily had to do with out of scope 10 management organization. 11 Q: And so it's your evidence that it 12 didn't -- it did not involve a need for people who actually 13 worked in the jobs to have any input into it? 14 A: I think that's -- 15 Q: Who had sort of hands on experience -- 16 A: -- I think that's what the conclusion of 17 the -- of the consultant was. I do recall I raised the 18 question as to, you know, whether there was a perceived need 19 and I'm trying to recall who in the meeting I -- I raised the 20 question with. 21 They felt they didn't want to be involved in 22 management and therefore anything they might have said -- 23 issues against them, was their feel I think. And so it was 24 not pursuable. 25 Q: Okay. With respect to again Mr.


1 Katzell's binder at tab 18, there is the lead into the Reid 2 Crowther Report, and at page 5 it refers to the master plan 3 and the use of softer words, and you were asked about this in 4 examination-for-chief, if you'll recall. 5 And your evidence was that the director in 6 many ways needed to referee between the different advice they 7 received from different engineering consultants. 8 Do you remember giving that evidence? 9 A: I remember the evidence -- 10 Q: Yeah. 11 A: -- although I'm not sure I used the exact 12 words you're referring to, but go ahead, yes. 13 Q: Perhaps I'm paraphrasing, but that's what 14 I heard and I tried to write them down accurately. My 15 question, Mr. McEwen, is I don't really understand why the 16 city would not have engineering expertise in house. 17 In particular it seems to me to be a rather 18 time consuming, if not kind of an exercise in futility to 19 have the Director of Public Works refereeing, if you will, 20 between different consulting firms of engineers. 21 Can you comment on that? 22 A: Okay, and please remember, and I think 23 this was clear when I was being examined, this particular 24 document is a -- is minutes of a meeting in which Mr. Berry 25 was -- and now one (1) of our employees, was meeting with the


1 authors, if you will, of the report. And it had to do with, 2 you know, the reviewing of the contents of that report before 3 it was finally published, okay. 4 So that obviously there's some kind of a 5 request here, I have to admit I speculated on it being 6 related to what could be competing images by engineers, as to 7 what our needs were. 8 That may or may not have been true. It -- I 9 suppose in hindsight, and I was thinking of it only after I'd 10 given that testimony, that it may have had to do with 11 whatever language may have been used by professional 12 engineers to -- to lay out the nature of our problem. 13 And it was the advice of our Director of Works 14 and Utilities, that we certainly had to fact the music, but 15 the issue of imagery that might be used and words in the 16 report might or might not be useful in whatever that draft 17 was. 18 And I have no idea of the specifics of 19 course -- 20 Q: I wonder if I -- 21 A: -- I hope that helps. 22 Q: -- could ask you, sir, to speak more 23 directly to my question, which has to do with -- 24 A: Right. 25 Q: -- why no in -- in house engineering, why


1 you didn't see a need for that -- 2 A: Oh, I'm -- 3 Q: -- as Commissioner? 4 A: -- I'm sorry, because I took more from 5 your inference on the matter of -- of his refereeing. 6 The issue becomes one (1) of a City of our 7 size, it becomes a question of how much you need the -- of 8 the various specialized engineering skills at particular 9 points in time. 10 Obviously for our capital purposes, we've 11 deemed fairly clearly that the utilization of consultants 12 provides us in -- as at least has been painfully pointed out, 13 in that those times when we actually do something. 14 There were three (3) years obviously in which 15 we weren't designing major new plants, okay. 16 But the issue that's very real, and one (1) 17 that we struggled with through the period is the question 18 that was raised concerning what you use in the way of in 19 house engineering for the purposes of operational issues, not 20 just capital issues. 21 And that's where I think some of that focus of 22 change, because not necessarily in terms of technical 23 capacity occurred as we looked in -- in the Pommen Report at 24 the -- the kinds of resources we needed to have available 25 within the department itself.


1 And, generally speaking, we viewed that the 2 utilization of technologists, particularly -- and I -- and 3 I -- and let me draw a couple of examples -- 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: I think we've been over 5 this -- 6 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, that's fair enough, I 8 mean, I don't know if you have a more specific question, but 9 you have explained your position on this point earlier. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 12 Q: The Reid Crowther report at tab 19 of C- 13 38, you -- you indicated that you received fifteen (15) 14 copies of it and that seven (7) of them would have gone to 15 council and another eight (8) would have been for I think you 16 said our personnel and I'm not sure what you meant by our 17 personnel and, in particular, my question is did a copy of 18 that go down to the plants or did any of the operators see 19 that? 20 A: Oh, to the very best of my knowledge, 21 certainly Mr. Katzell would get a copy and probably had it in 22 his office at the sewage treatment plant -- or, pardon me, in 23 the work area at the plant. 24 Q: You indicated in your evidence in-chief 25 that you don't recall at the moment, with respect to the


1 technical reasons, I think were your -- was your evidence, 2 the technical reasons why the recommendations of the Reid 3 Crowther Report did not go ahead and earlier in your evidence 4 you described your job as to implement policy at the city so 5 I guess my question is didn't the buck stop with you, like 6 why -- why were some of the recommendations not followed? 7 They were made in 1997, you were there for another two (2) 8 years -- 9 A: You'd have to be specific about the 10 recommendations, the -- the issue or concern around the 11 matter, for example, of getting onto the -- the geotechnical 12 issue, is what I think I was responding to at that point. 13 The -- some of the other recommendations or 14 issues, you know, were dealt with and, because they were 15 relatively minor, directly in the operative kind of issues. 16 But the -- the issue that -- you know, as to where does the 17 buck stop, it stopped with me, there's no question about 18 that, okay. 19 And I -- I guess one can lay that at my 20 doorstep, why didn't I jump on our department's head as to 21 why the -- that engineering study, you know, didn't get done 22 sooner and, quite bluntly, I'm at a bit of a loss because 23 I -- you know, it -- obviously it was postponed, not just 24 once, not just twice, but three (3) times and there must have 25 been good reason for it. The fact I'm not recalling it at


1 the moment, is not the issue of the urgency, it's the issue 2 of my poor memory. 3 Q: I've noticed my own memory failing, 4 perhaps it's the water, Mr. McEwen. 5 A: Either that or age, Ms. Mitchell. 6 Q: Is it correct that Bob Berry left in June 7 of 1999? 8 A: Yes, June or was it the end of May, I 9 can't recall exactly. 10 Q: I thought it was June, but it could be 11 the end of May. 12 A: I'm not arguing. 13 Q: I'd like you to check this binder, it's 14 number 13 and the -- I'm referring to the e-mails that you 15 received carbon copies of -- 16 A: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, okay. 17 Q: -- binder 13 and they are located at tabs 18 16 and 17. 19 A: Hmm-hmm. 20 21 (BRIEF PAUSE) 22 23 I appear to be looking in the wrong place. 24 Oh, I'm sorry. 25 Q: Tabs 16 and 17, Mr. McEwen.


1 A: Yes. 2 Q: So the first e-mail is carbon copied to 3 you, as you can see, and it is concerned with eye wash 4 stations. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And refers to one (1) of the operators 7 being hospitalized, you'll see on August the 7th. I think 8 this eye wash station had been a concern for some time; were 9 you aware of that, sir? 10 A: In advance of the e-mail, I don't think 11 so and the matter was resolved subsequently though. By -- 12 I'm sure by that time it was an agenda item, if you will, of 13 the Occupational Health and Safety Committee. 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 Q: Would it surprise you if I told you that 18 the President of the Union went down to Mr. Katzell to say 19 Mr. Hillson has a phone call in to me, don't make me tell him 20 that you won't spend thirty dollars ($30) on eye wash 21 stations? Did you have any knowledge of that? 22 A: No, but I -- to the best of my knowledge, 23 that -- by that time I think had already been spent, had it 24 not? 25 Q: I don't know. I'm asking you.


1 A: I mean, eye wash stations at that point 2 consisted of, I think, what amounted to sort of the 3 squeezable plastic bottles? 4 Q: Yes. 5 A: So -- yeah. 6 Q: The next e-mail at tab number 17 again is 7 carbon copied to you. And Mr. Allen says in here, you'll see 8 at line 3 that he has talked to his supervisor, the city 9 engineer, the city commissioner, the mayor, a councillor, my 10 union, O.H. Ness (phonetic), and even my local member of the 11 legislature. 12 Do you see that? 13 A: Yes, hm-hmm. 14 Q: Now, your evidence, I think said that you 15 had discussed these with Bob Berry, or passed them on to him. 16 And you didn't get a reply back. 17 But I guess my question is, these are dated 18 September the 20th and September 23rd, respectively. And if 19 Mr. Berry left in June -- 20 A: Quite correct. So that it then it must 21 have been his successor. And that -- at that point, that was 22 either Mr. Katzell or -- with whom I'd be working directly, 23 or -- because I think it was -- it was probably still in 24 advance of when -- yes, because I think Mr. Strelioff did not 25 begin with us until October or November.


1 Q: November 15th -- 2 A: So -- 3 Q: -- I think he said, wasn't it? 4 A: I'm sorry? 5 Q: November 15th -- 6 A: Yes, yes. I stand corrected. That would 7 have been Mr. Katzell. 8 Q: Okay. With respect to Mr. Strelioff 9 joining the City of North Battleford, your evidence is that 10 you were in on the interviewing committee? 11 A: Yes. 12 Q: And I note at your Statements of 13 Anticipated Evidence that it was your recommendation to 14 council that the hire a manager rather than an engineer. Is 15 that correct? 16 A: Yes. 17 Q: And would that have been made before or 18 after you went through the interviews with Pommen and 19 Associates? 20 A: That would have been before. 21 Q: How many applications did you get for the 22 position, sir? 23 A: They did not come directly to me. They 24 came to Mr. Pommen. I'm going from memory, he may have had 25 fifteen (15) or sixteen (16) applications. He short listed


1 those for us, I think, to five (5). 2 Q: Do you -- 3 A: And it was those five (5) that we 4 interviewed. 5 Q: Do you recall, Mr. McEwen, whether or not 6 any of the five (5) were professional engineers? 7 A: Oh, yes. And we interviewed -- and I 8 couldn't recall the exact balance, certainly Mr. Strelioff 9 was not the only, shall we say, non engineer. And I'm 10 talking about the designation and the iron ring and the -- 11 the P.Eng. issue. 12 The -- but probably three (3) of them were. 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: And I say probably, I could be wrong by 15 one (1). It was more than one (1) professional engineer 16 applied. 17 Q: Was there any emphasis put upon the 18 technical knowledge required for the position, during the 19 interviewing process? 20 A: Quite frankly, I , you know, it was 21 relatively new. Certainly council and remember it was city 22 council and I was with them in the interview process, guided 23 and assisted by Mr. Pommen, as we interviewed each of these 24 five (5) candidates. 25 You'll note from Mr. Strelioff's application


1 that there has been a fairly extensive process in which Mr. 2 Pommen had asked them to speak to the deliverables, if you 3 will, that each of these people would put forward. 4 And I think it's reasonable to presume from, 5 at least the understanding I had with council, that the issue 6 was not a matter of professional qualification. We were 7 looking as much for, now it's not to deny the issue of the 8 need for professional competence, but the need for managerial 9 skills. 10 So that, you know, the -- it was not focused 11 simply on what letters they might have by their name but what 12 we felt they possessed in the -- in the issue of skills, 13 interests and abilities that would meet the needs, as we saw 14 them, from the city. 15 And so that on that basis, no disservice 16 should be done neither to professional engineers nor to 17 people who, if you will, live in that environment and work 18 very effectively with engineers. 19 Q: I note in Mr. Strelioff's CV, which I 20 think is C-79, that under his accomplishments, there are a 21 number of references made to things that he has done at the 22 City of Regina in order to effect cost saving measures. 23 And there are a number of dollar figures given 24 there, a half million ($500,000) and a million ($1,000,000) 25 and so on dollars.


1 A: Hmm-hmm. 2 Q: Was that kind of information persuasive 3 for council or you or the interviewing committee as you made 4 your deliberations? 5 A: Okay, certainly the -- the nature of the 6 question earlier was similar as to the matter of a specific 7 sentence or whatever, in the resume, that might have been 8 distinctive. 9 No, I don't think there were any one (1) of 10 those lines, and I -- and I can't speak for all members of 11 council, but the general feel I think we all had was one (1) 12 of, you know, how did the -- whether the person had a -- a 13 particular experience, and in this instance you refer to a 14 particular money saving issue. 15 Desirable as that is, I think you know, one 16 can only consider it in the context at which it may have 17 occurred in Regina. And you know, it's certainly nice to 18 know that that was the case. 19 The issue I think that they were more 20 concerned with was getting at the kinds of deliverables that 21 he was offering, and what it was that council perceived that 22 they needed. And that's always the difficult thing when 23 you're making that fit. 24 Q: Was there any discussion during your 25 deliberations as an employer, when you caucused to talked


1 about who you were going to hire, with respect to the Pommen 2 Report -- 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: I guess, Ms. Mitchell, 4 again I don't mean to -- but I mean Mr. Strelioff, we know 5 what his qualifications are and whether they're the right 6 qualifications or the wrong qualifications, people can 7 subsequently argue if you wish. 8 But the thought processes of a dozen or seven 9 (7), not a dozen, seven (7) councillors as to why they hired 10 the man, is -- is not really of very much help to me, I must 11 say. 12 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thank you. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. SANDRA MITCHELL: 17 Q: I want to turn to the issue of plants 18 foreman, Mr. McEwen -- 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: Are you going to go on, or 20 do you have a few more questions, or -- it's just a question 21 of whether we want to adjourn now or whether we want to -- 22 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: How about if I try and 23 talk fast, Mr. Commissioner -- 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, no, I'm not trying to 25 rush you --


1 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: No -- 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- but if we -- 3 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: -- but I'm not going to 4 be here -- 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- go a minute or two (2) 6 over that's fine, I just thought if you were going to start 7 into a new topic that I'd raise it with you at this time. 8 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: The difficulty with it 9 is, is that my partner will be here tomorrow -- 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, yes. 11 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: -- and he hasn't had 12 benefit of any of the -- 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, understood. 14 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: -- in-chief. 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: So please proceed. 16 17 (BRIEF PAUSE) 18 19 CONTINUED BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 20 Q: I -- I show you now, Mr. McEwen, a 21 correspondence dated October the 22nd of 1999, addressed to 22 Mr. Andy Iwanchuk, the CUPE representative, and Mr. Bill 23 Humeny who was the consultant for the City of North 24 Battleford. 25 Do you recognize this correspondence, and is


1 that your signature at the bottom of the page, the fancy D? 2 A: Yes, along with a large number of others. 3 Q: Okay. The only thing I want to draw to 4 your attention here is with respect to the plants foreman, I 5 und -- it's my understanding that in 1999 the parties went 6 into conciliation, and one (1) of the agreements that they 7 made is contained in the handwriting at the end of paragraph 8 1, which says that: 9 "In the Plants Department, the out of scope 10 work will be carried out by city 11 management." 12 It's the last sentence under paragraph 1, 13 numbered 1? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And so, I take it from that, that that 16 was an issue at that time, and it was agreed by the parties 17 that managerial duties would be carried out by out of scope 18 people? 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: Yes, okay. 21 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: I wonder if I might 22 have that marked as an exhibit, Mr. Commissioner? 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, it's C-97. 24 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thank you. 25


1 --- EXHIBIT NO. C-97: Correspondence dated October the 2 22nd of 1999, addressed to Mr. 3 Andy Iwanchuk, the CUPE 4 representative, and Mr. Bill 5 Humeny 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 CONTINUED BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 10 Q: The job descriptions of the plants 11 foreman dated after your time, but I think your -- they 12 haven't changed significantly, are contained in Mr. Katzell's 13 binder, that's C-38, at B-12 and B-13. 14 They're dated -- I think you probably don't 15 have to look at them, Mr. McEwen, to get -- 16 A: Sure. 17 Q: -- to my question. They're dated 18 November the 28th of 2000 and March the 26th of 2001. 19 A: Hmm-hmm. 20 Q: The only significant difference in them 21 we've heard evidence with respect to this, is the title. The 22 first one (1) is a foreman, the second one's called a 23 manager. The title was changed in the re-advertisement. 24 A: Yeah, hmm-hmm. 25 Q: And secondly, the salary was changed, so


1 that at the top of the range the manager is now paid five 2 hundred and forty-five dollars ($545) more than he was in the 3 first posting. 4 My question to you, sir, is would it be 5 customary under your stewardship for department heads to have 6 to go to city council to get approval for that kind of an 7 increment? 8 A: The issue of -- 9 Q: Of the five -- the five four -- 10 A: -- wage increments for the out of scope 11 employees would be dealt with -- 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: -- by council, yes. 14 Q: So there would be a need to go to council 15 to get approval for this change for the increment of five 16 hundred and forty-five dollars ($545) more a month? 17 A: To change the -- the wage range? 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: It would have been when I was there, yes. 20 Q: Okay. Now, given the -- you may want to 21 check them, although I think you're probably familiar with -- 22 and you were there for a long time, but you may want to check 23 at least the Exhibits B-12 and B-13 that I have just referred 24 to and feel free if you want to do that. 25 But the duties in here are fairly onerous and


1 the responsibilities are large with respect to the position 2 of the manager of the plants and I wonder, sir -- 3 A: Excuse me, I'm -- I'm probably looking at 4 the wrong one. 5 6 (BRIEF PAUSE) 7 8 Okay, sorry, go ahead, I'll catch up. 9 Q: I wonder if during your tenure you may -- 10 you would have perceived it to be a problem if the plants 11 were required to operate without a foreman who performed 12 those duties -- 13 A: Yeah, unfortunately obviously I've still 14 not got the right document, I -- 12 and 13 where the -- 15 Q: Let me help you. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: We have Mr. Katzell's 17 binder, but I couldn't -- there's no 'B' in Mr. Katzell's 18 binder, I don't believe, so. 19 THE WITNESS: Sorry. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: Pardon me, that is. 21 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I recognize the nature 22 and format so thank you for your assistance. 23 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: C-64. 24 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: C-64, I'm sorry. 25 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right.


1 CONTINUED BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 2 Q: My question to you, Mr. McEwen, is, given 3 the nature of the duties and the responsibilities for the 4 position, if you would provide the Commission with your 5 opinion as to how difficult it would be to operate without a 6 person in that position for even a short period of time? 7 A: Okay. I'm not trying to dodge the 8 question, but obviously it says to do with advertisements for 9 Mr. Katzell's successor, I'm pleased to identify that I 10 didn't go through that process. 11 While certainly we had a job description for 12 Mr. Katzell while I was there and back when it was written, 13 you know, I had a hand in writing it, but without, you know, 14 some fairly careful examination of what are the requirements 15 here, I'd be speculating and -- and, again, not trying to 16 dodge it, but I think this would be a good question for Mr. 17 Toye; it's not one that I feel myself well-qualified to 18 respond to. 19 Q: I just have one (1) last area of 20 questioning and it has to do with the training of operators 21 and at C-64, which is Mr. Katzell's -- no, I'm sorry, that's 22 your binder, at tab 25. 23 A: I'm sorry, was that in a section beyond 24 the number? A-25 was it or? 25 MR. COMMISSIONER: A-25.


1 CONTINUED BY MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: 2 Q: Yes, A-25. 3 A: I found it, Plants department, April, 4 yes. 5 Q: This -- this is training given to plant 6 operators? 7 A: Oh, okay, yes. 8 Q: And, according to my calculations, I -- 9 there are eight (8) operators here, but I've left out Mr. 10 Dunn because he doesn't have any training and I've left out 11 the vaccinations column because that's not really training, 12 it's the second from the right. 13 But, based on my calculations, during your 14 tenure, this training goes back to 1976 so it's about a 15 twenty-five (25) year period, it works out to one (1) class 16 for every operator every three and a half (3-1/2) years; 17 do -- I mean, could you comment on that, to the -- the need 18 for training in a plants operator? 19 A: Yes, certainly. I haven't seen it laid 20 out this way before, but the issue too, of course, of what -- 21 and -- and, you know, from the point of view of city policy, 22 the key would be that the operators obtain their level 1 and 23 2 operator kind of things. 24 Obviously there are a number of opportunities 25 that come along from time to time and particularly when you


1 can conduct them in-house, then you want to get as many of 2 your personnel involved as possible. 3 The -- the issue certainly though of how many 4 courses or what that averages out to was not an issue that I 5 spent a great deal of time on during my tenure there. That's 6 not to say that training is not important or anything else, 7 you're drawing conclusion. You're putting it to me and I 8 presume asking you -- or asking me to comment as to whether 9 that's sufficient or whatever else. 10 And, again, it's a question -- particularly 11 when we group them that way, and saying, well, you know, if a 12 person gets a particular event once every three (3) years, is 13 that enough, you know? Again, I don't know. 14 You see, one (1) of the interesting things and 15 one would have to look at in detail here is there's a column 16 for iron and manganese removal as a training particular 17 opportunity, of which, at least on the sheet I'm looking at, 18 nobody took, at any time. 19 Now, does that mean that whoever has put this 20 together has felt this to be a vital, you know, kind of thing 21 which should be trained and/or that there were regular 22 opportunities which our employees might have had, but 23 didn't -- weren't availed of or permitted the opportunity by 24 their supervisors. 25 I have none of that information to make an


1 intelligent comment in response. 2 MS. SANDRA MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. McEwen. 3 I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. All right. I 5 gather Mr. Priel or Stevenson, do you have some questions for 6 Mr. McEwen tomorrow? 7 MR. TED PRIEL: Yes, sir. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Well then you 9 can blame them for the fact that you have to come back 10 tomorrow morning, Mr. McEwen. 11 12 --- Upon adjourning at 5:05 p.m. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25