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 29, 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.(np) ) 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. ) Canadian Union of 8 SANDRA G. MITCHELL, Ms. (np) ) 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-98 Report of meeting, Public Works Waste Management 4 Committee dated Tuesday, February 13, 2001 127 5 C-99 Report of a meeting of the Public Works/Waste 6 Management Department, dated November 21st, 2000 7 A Request for Proposal, Monitoring and Control 8 for Water and Water/Wastewater Systems 130 9 C-100 Wage Rates Being paid in Other Cities in 10 Saskatchewan 161 11 C-101 The Wardrop Report 171 12 C-102 The Stantech Report 171 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


1 --- Upon commencing at 9:30 a.m. 2 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, well good morning. 4 We're about to resume the Hearings and as many of you are 5 aware, it looks possible that we will finish the Hearing 6 portion of this towards the end of next week; that's not 7 certain at this point and it could go into a day or two (2) 8 of the following week. But in any event, we're on schedule, 9 which is good news. 10 And that raises -- my reason for raising it is 11 the whole issue of submissions by the various parties to the 12 Commission. There's been a number of inquiries about that, 13 and let me say at the outset that from my perspective, I 14 don't anticipate anybody summarizing the evidence in any 15 broad sense of the word. 16 The last thing I need is eight (8) different 17 versions of the evidence coming forward. I will be reviewing 18 the evidence obviously. 19 And so what I would expect in final 20 submissions is you all have the terms of reference and you 21 can address the Commission on those points that you wish to 22 make with respect to those items contained in the terms of 23 reference. 24 Some parties may wish to make submissions with 25 respect to all points and others may simply wish to address


1 certain parts of the mandate. 2 That's your choice. But -- and I'm not saying 3 you don't have to refer to any evidence, but basically I'm 4 more interested in your position, your perspective, what you 5 think the evidence disclosed. And possibly any 6 recommendations that you think or feel should be considered 7 by the Commission in the end result. 8 So, that I don't visualize it as a mammoth 9 task for any counsel, and I'm saying that do what you have to 10 do, but I'm not expecting anything more than what I've really 11 outlined just now. 12 And Commission Counsel, as I earlier 13 indicated, will not be making any submissions to -- to the 14 Commission, it'll simply be the parties. 15 And presumably we would go with the City of 16 North Battleford being last, the Government of Saskatchewan 17 being second last and I'd leave the rest of the order to 18 counsel to sort out for the moment. 19 So, with that in mind that raises the question 20 of the date for submissions. To the extent that we may be 21 finished by December the 10th, or if we have to go into the 22 following week, December 13th/14th, I'm reluctant to put it 23 off for a month, but at the same time I recognize there's the 24 Christmas period in between. 25 What I am going to invite counsel to do is see


1 if you couldn't perhaps make submissions if you have ten (10) 2 or twelve (12) days from December the 10th, I wouldn't 3 visualize it would take more than two (2) days either, 4 assuming everybody puts in a written brief, and then you 5 could supplement that orally when we do resume for final 6 submissions. 7 So, the choices seem to be -- one (1) of the 8 counsel in particular has indicated that it would be a great 9 inconvenience if we went the week I proposed to go, which was 10 the second week in January, which is really only a week and a 11 half in, given New Years is on Tuesday, I believe. 12 And that raised the possibility of January 13 14th and 15th as -- as -- as times for the dates for 14 submission. The only other choice is to try and put it into 15 early Dec -- week of December the 20th. That is a week, or 16 is it, let me think. 17 December the 10th is a Friday, the 17th is a 18 Friday, it would be you know, yes, December the -- it's 19 2002 -- oh, 2001. Actually we would finish up on December 20 the 7th if we finish next Friday and that would leave two (2) 21 full weeks if we went to December the 20th and 21st, for 22 example, that's two (2) weeks. 23 Anyway I'll -- having raised it, I'll leave it 24 to counsel to discuss the matter and make it known to Mr. 25 Russell in general terms, if there's any consensus, if there


1 isn't, I suppose based on whatever comments Mr. Russell 2 receives will decide whether it's January 14th/15th or the -- 3 the earlier December period, but they seem to be the two (2) 4 choices. 5 Thank you. And that's -- unless there's any 6 questions arising out of that? Does anyone have any 7 questions? 8 All right, well then we'll resume the 9 Hearings, and Mr. McEwen you can come forward and Mr. Russ -- 10 or no, Mr. Priel I guess will be the questioner. 11 12 DOUGLAS GEORGE MCEWEN, Resumes: 13 14 MR. TED PRIEL: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 15 16 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TED PRIEL: 17 Q: Good morning, Mr. McEwen. 18 A: Good morning. 19 Q: I only have just a very few questions for 20 you, sir. 21 When -- near -- near the beginning of your 22 testimony yesterday, sir, you made a comment that -- that 23 characterized the -- the financial resources of -- of the 24 City of North Battleford and the -- the characterization you 25 put on it was that the City of North Battleford was wealthy.


1 Would you explain what you were meaning by 2 that, sir? 3 A: I guess it's perhaps misplaced pride that 4 we were successful over a period of years, some fifteen (15) 5 years of building the city's reserves. 6 Part of it has to do with both the history 7 that began before I arrived on the scene, but the policy 8 desire of the city that normally we try to accumulate at 9 least as much, if not all of the revenues that are necessary 10 for a project before we actually undertake it. 11 That's not the issue then of putting it off, 12 but the -- the belief being that it actually saves the 13 taxpayer money from the point of view that there may be some 14 accrued interest while that process is occurring, and then 15 there's not the cost of interest on debt. 16 So, that that was the ambition. We certainly 17 probably could be criticized for not having done a better 18 job, given the fact that there were a number of projects and 19 expenditures that were necessary through the process. 20 The things we tend to forget very quickly when 21 we've made a capital investment in a project is that that 22 change is made. There were two (2) capital projects that 23 occurred at the Number 2 Water Treatment Plant while I was 24 the commissioner. 25 Part -- the first one (1) was in about '86,


1 '87 and there had been major projects before that to expand 2 that plant, largely with funding support from PFRA and there 3 was a later project as well in which we, among other things, 4 both renewed the intake in the river and I believe installed 5 the raw water well and so on. 6 So, there had been continuing projects in some 7 of those plants. Are we behind; yes. Is there more that 8 needs to be done on those plants; of course, there is. 9 The issue becomes one, I think, of trying to 10 plan somewhat in advance so, when I spoke of wells, I think 11 the issue was that we were -- the city was not in debt, the 12 city tries hard to make the best use financially with the 13 resources that the taxpayer entrusts with it and normally the 14 timing, I think, on capital projects has been reasonably good 15 in our track record. 16 Q: Do you recall, sir, that beginning in 17 about 1997, perhaps a year or so before that, in the -- the 18 budget of the -- the sewage utility there was an item that 19 would see a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) a year go to 20 the reserves each year; was that your recollection of it? 21 A: The -- the figure eludes me for the 22 moment, but it would be in that order, yes -- 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: -- because we -- we knew there were -- 25 the time would come; we didn't know the details at that


1 point. 2 Q: And you knew that -- that a time would be 3 coming when there would be some rather significant capital 4 expenditures and you were -- 5 A: No question. 6 Q: -- trying to be a -- trying to be 7 provident in terms of -- of putting money away to -- to spend 8 in the future on these capital expenditures? 9 A: As best we could. We -- I think there 10 was some understanding that that -- the work that would need 11 to be done there would be in the excess of -- of five (5) or 12 six (6) million dollars. We certainly would not have that 13 readily available in our coffers and so there would be some 14 necessity for debt financing, but you try to get along as far 15 as you can. 16 Q: Now, with respect to the question of 17 financing of a new wastewater treatment plant, my 18 understanding, sir, and you -- you correct me if I'm wrong 19 here, my understanding is that -- that financing for a 20 project such as that can come from reserves, can come from 21 grants and can come from borrowing -- 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: -- and those are your -- your -- those or 24 a combination of them are your choices; is that correct? 25 A: Pretty well, I think you've characterized


1 it well. 2 Q: Okay. And surely -- well, did the city 3 take the view, when you were at the helm, sir, that there was 4 going to be no borrowing for this project? 5 A: No. 6 Q: You recognized that you would have to 7 borrow money for the project? 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: And, had the City increased the utility 10 rates in 1997 or 1998, that simply would have increased the 11 reserves and lowered a little bit the amount that you would 12 have to have borrowed? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: And it -- it wouldn't have increased the 15 speed with which the -- the construction of a new wastewater 16 treatment plant would have proceeded? 17 A: I would think not. 18 Q: Now, sir, I'd like you, if you would, to 19 turn to tab A-28 in your binder. 20 A: That's the city's? 21 Q: Yes, sir. 22 A: Yeah. 23 Q: The -- the large binder, that's -- that's 24 the one. And this... 25 A: This concerns Peter Allen?


1 Q: Right. And I don't want to -- to beat 2 this issue to death, sir, but I'd like you to -- to refer to 3 the second piece of paper in there, the third page, the 4 document entitled Release and Indemnity. 5 A: Yes. 6 Q: And the last paragraph of that. I'll 7 just give you a chance to -- to read it so that you can 8 familiarize yourself with it. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 A: Hmm-hmm. 13 Q: Okay. Now, sir, what was the purpose 14 of -- of the city putting that clause into the Release and 15 Indemnity document that it presented to Mr. Allen? 16 A: Well, I think it was incorporated at the 17 advice of our City Solicitor, number one (1). Number two 18 (2), as I understood it, it was a standard type of clause in 19 this sort of agreement and the issue, I guess, for my 20 personal motivation was, is that unfortunately Mr. Allen had 21 the tendency to try to make political points on whatever 22 might occur. So we were just trying to make sure that wasn't 23 going to happen. 24 Q: Now, sir, in -- in giving his evidence, 25 Mr. Allen rather dramatically told us that this was a bribe


1 and that he was being paid to say nothing. Can you comment 2 on that, sir? 3 A: No, the nature, of course, of what we 4 were trying to achieve with Mr. Allen at that point had 5 nothing to do with either trying to spend our time shutting 6 him up or anything else. And unless I mistake Peter Allen, 7 not very much is going to shut him up anyways. 8 Q: Now, sir, I'd like you to -- to now refer 9 to one (1) other document and them I'll -- I'll be finished. 10 A: Hmm-hmm. 11 Q: And I'd like you to refer -- could the 12 witness, Mr. Doell, have Binder C-41? 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: And the name of that one 14 (1), Mr. Priel? 15 MR. TED PRIEL: That -- that is Mr. Meekma's 16 binder. 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 18 19 (BRIEF PAUSE) 20 21 THE WITNESS: What tab? 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. TED PRIEL: 24 Q: We'll come to that in just a moment, sir. 25 What -- what I'd like to do is I'd like to have you cast your


1 mind back to the -- the Reid Crowther Report and the receipt 2 of that. There has been evidence before the Commission, I'll 3 not sort of refer back to -- to the actual Reid Crowther 4 Report, but it appears that the city got the final report in 5 February of 1997. 6 Now, sir, were you aware of the fact that a 7 copy of that report went to the regulator, that is to SERM? 8 A: I -- not directly but I have no reason to 9 believe why it wouldn't. That's correct, yeah. 10 Q: Now, what I'd like you to do, sir, is 11 refer to tab 13 of Exhibit C-41, that is the -- Mr. Meekma's 12 binder. 13 A: A -- sorry. 14 Q: Tab 13, one (1), three (3)? 15 A: Yes. Of section A? 16 Q: Yes. 17 A: Thank you. 18 Q: I believe that's section A. Is that a -- 19 an e-mail? 20 A: It appears to be. From Gord Will? 21 Q: Right. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: Now this -- this is a -- an e-mail from 24 Mr. Will to Mr. Cooper with a copy to Mr. Meekma and Mr. 25 Getzlaf. And the subject, according to the e-mail is the


1 North Battleford Sewage Treatment Study. And the date is 2 February 11th of 1997. 3 And what I want to do, sir, is I want to take 4 you to the -- the third last paragraph in the e-mail. And 5 I'll read it to you: 6 "The report is the final leg in the 7 upgrading plans for the city. The city is 8 aware that a sewage treatment problem 9 exists. Our concerns -- our concern is to 10 establish a time table for the selected 11 option to ensure that construction will 12 begin in a reasonable time frame, say two 13 (2) to six (6) years." 14 Now, sir, in the questions that were put to 15 you last day, you were being asked, why didn't the city move 16 ahead more quickly with the Reid Crowther Report? And of 17 course we're looking at -- at that issue with a great deal of 18 benefit from hindsight. 19 And what I'd like to ask you, sir, is -- is 20 whether you were aware that the position of SERM in 1997 was 21 that the commencement of construction in a time frame of two 22 (2) to six (6) years was reasonable for them? Were you told 23 that? 24 A: Not specifically, no. 25 MR. TED PRIEL: Thank you, sir. I have no


1 further questions of the witness, Mr. Commissioner. 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Any re-exam, 3 Mr. Russell? 4 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Just one (1) point of 5 clarification, Mr. Commissioner. Good morning, Mr. McEwen. 6 THE WITNESS: Good morning. 7 8 RE-DIRECT BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 9 Q: In your discussion yesterday with Ms. 10 Mitchell, she was raising with you the concerns raised by Mr. 11 Katzell in his evidence over staffing needs at the plants, 12 and his attempts to communicate a sense of urgency about what 13 he perceived to be staffing problems. 14 And I think Ms. Mitchell had asked you your 15 awareness of -- of that sense of urgency and how you felt 16 about it. And reading from the transcript, I believe your 17 answer was that: 18 "In discuss -- in discussions I had, it 19 appeared to be adequate." 20 A: Hmm-hmm. 21 Q: That was your assessment of the staffing 22 needs at the plants? 23 A: That's correct. 24 Q: Okay. Ms. Mitchell also yesterday 25 introduced a document to evidence, which is C-97, which is a


1 copy of a letter from Lori Henderson, the Senior Labour 2 Relations Officer, to Mr. Bill Humeney and Mr. Andy Iwanchuk, 3 concerning the -- the CUPE/City negotiations, this is the 4 letter dated October 22nd -- 5 A: Yeah. 6 Q: -- 1999. And if you turn to paragraph 5 7 of that letter: 8 "We're told that council and the city 9 commissioner are cognizant of the staffing 10 level concern that employees have, 11 specifically in the Works Department. 12 They agree to review this situation and try 13 to address it if possible with parties, 14 recognizing the financial situation at 15 present." 16 Now we're told here -- you're -- you're not a 17 party to this letter or anything, but we're told that the 18 city commissioner, who I'm assuming would have been you at 19 that time -- 20 A: That's correct. 21 Q: -- that you are cognizant of the staffing 22 level concern; is that correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. And when it says: 25 "Specifically in the Works Department."


1 I'm -- is that the -- is that the Public Works 2 Department? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: And would that include the Plants 5 Department? 6 A: It would include the Plants Department, 7 yes. 8 Q: Okay, so when those concerns were raised, 9 to your knowledge, were those concerns all directed at the 10 Works Department as a whole, or were Plants Department 11 concerns raised? 12 A: Yeah, in fairness to the Union, probably 13 they included -- included both. I have to admit my focus at 14 that point was more heavily on some of our needs within 15 quotes, "the Works Department," if you were to offset it by 16 the Plants Department. And -- and they are one (1), I'm not 17 trying to make that separation. 18 But it would have to do more I think with some 19 of our crews in the road -- streets and roads and/or the 20 other. At least you know, that would -- that was my judgment 21 at the time. It would be wrong of course though, to infer 22 that, you know, we were not aware that our employees were 23 saying, hey, we'd like to have more staffing in the Plants 24 Department, I'm not arguing that. 25 Q: Okay, so you were aware of that at least.


1 And we're told that the parties, they agree to review the 2 situation and try to address it. Now this is towards the end 3 of your tenure, so were you -- 4 A: Hmm-hmm. 5 Q: -- were you able to do anything following 6 this letter to review that situation? 7 A: That's what I'm trying to recall whether 8 you know, there were some subsequent meetings with the Union 9 in that regard. 10 I -- I don't recall subsequent meetings, but I 11 think the purpose -- because this was a good faith -- 12 Q: Right. 13 A: -- conclusion to a discussion that the -- 14 our union representatives, their negotiating committee and 15 our city representatives had together. 16 So, I think at that point, and I -- the risk 17 is I put an interpretation on it, but I think it was a 18 sincere issue that say, hey, the city as we're able, and you 19 remember there's a component here that had to do with our 20 financial needs, would try to improve and increase the 21 staffing in the Works Department; I think that was sincere. 22 Did we make big process before I left? 23 Unfortunately, no, we didn't. 24 Q: Okay. When -- when the clause says that 25 recognizing the financial situation at present, what were


1 the -- the specifics of the financial situation that impacted 2 upon this particular issue? 3 A: Well if you will, we were just at a point 4 where some of the financial pressures we had been facing, in 5 terms of you know, like continual downloading kind of 6 activity was ceasing and we were starting to get a bit ahead 7 again. 8 I think by that time we had already managed to 9 get back to a full time staffing position in the Plants 10 Department, which I appreciate is your primary focus, but 11 certainly there were other things that we wanted to achieve 12 together in that regard. 13 I can't recall some of the specific, but we 14 may have added a position or so by the time I left, but 15 frankly I think all of us were seeking to be a little bit 16 more significant than that. 17 Q: Okay, so your feeling was that the 18 financial situation had not sufficiently turned around to 19 enable you to put some -- 20 A: It's the kind of thing where you're 21 trying to do -- 22 Q: -- in the Plants Department? 23 A: -- things gradually as you're able 24 without simply boosting the tax rate. 25 Q: Okay, thank you, Mr. McEwen.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you, Mr. 2 McEwen, that's -- 3 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- you're free to step 5 down and free to go. 6 7 (WITNESS STANDS DOWN) 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: With your permission, Mr. 12 Commissioner, I'd like to call our next witness, Mr. Jim 13 Toye. 14 15 JAMES VICTOR TOYE, Sworn: 16 17 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 18 Q: Good morning, Mr. Toye. 19 A: Good morning. 20 Q: For the purposes of our discussion, the 21 likelihood is we're going to be referring to three (3) 22 binders in particular, C-64, C-65 and C-93. So, I just want 23 to make sure you have them before you because we'll have to 24 do a little bit of binder hopping. 25 A: Yeah, I've got them all here.


1 Q: Thanks. Mr. Toye, I understand that you 2 have been City Commissioner for the City of North Battleford 3 since January 1st of the year 2000; is that correct? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And, prior to that, you were the Town 6 Administrator at Kindersley, I understand? 7 A: Yes, that's right. 8 Q: Your educational background, I 9 understand, is that you've attended the University of 10 Saskatchewan where you did two (2) years in the College of 11 Commerce? 12 A: That's right. 13 Q: You then left, I believe, to go into 14 business on your own with your brother; is that correct? 15 A: That's correct. 16 Q: You've also taken course work at the 17 University of Regina in local government and administration; 18 is that correct? 19 A: That's true. 20 Q: Did that result in any kind of formal 21 diploma? 22 A: Yes, they call it a Local Government 23 Administration Certificate. 24 Q: Okay. And I believe you've also attended 25 at the University of Waterloo where you achieved a


1 certificate in economic development; is that the case? 2 A: Yes, that's true. 3 Q: Okay. And I understand that you were the 4 immediate successor to Mr. McEwen as the City Commissioner in 5 North Battleford; is that true? 6 A: Yes, that's true. 7 Q: And I'm assuming Mr. McEwen was very 8 articulate in describing the -- the duties of the city 9 commissioner to us yesterday, I'm assuming that they haven't 10 changed since you arrived? 11 A: No, Mr. McEwen did a fine job -- 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: -- of that description. 14 Q: Okay. Now, as a fairly recent arrival at 15 the City of North Battleford, Mr. Toye, what do you know of 16 some of the matters we have been referring to and some of the 17 documentation we've been focussing upon, for instance, are 18 you aware of the Pommen Report we've been talking about, the 19 the r -- the report dealing with the Public Works department 20 that appear, I believe, in 1996? 21 A: I was made aware that there was a report. 22 One (1) of the tasks that I was given when I was first given 23 this position -- or offered the position, was they wanted to 24 do a big of a reorg of the city, they wanted me to have a 25 look at different departments, if the complement of workers


1 that we had in each department was what we required for 2 the -- the jobs that had to be done so one (1) of the first 3 duties that I did is I -- I undertook such a review. 4 Q: Okay. And I'll -- I'll come to a moment 5 in what conclusions you came to with these various things, 6 but what about the Reid Crowther Report; was that something 7 else you reviewed? 8 A: The Reid Crowther report was -- I was 9 given an overview by Mr. Strelioff, I also had been given 10 a -- within the first two (2) weeks I was here, did a tour of 11 all the facilities of the city and -- and, as we were going 12 through the different areas with the different directors, 13 they kind of gave me some background information of different 14 reports that had been done, physically viewed the plant so, I 15 mean, I -- I certainly understood the fact that some of our 16 infrastructure was old, that it had appeared to me, in -- in 17 the tour that I had taken, that it was failing and that we 18 needed to spend some major dollars in -- in some areas. 19 Q: Right. And -- and I believe you probably 20 heard some of -- at least some of Mr. Katzell's testimony -- 21 A: Hmm-hmm. 22 Q: -- where he -- he had -- had expressed 23 his concerns about staffing needs and the state of 24 infrastructure -- 25 A: Right.


1 Q: -- and even some safety issues. You were 2 aware of those issues, too? 3 A: Well, I -- I certainly was aware of -- of 4 some of those issues. I think as far as the -- the staffing 5 issues, when we did the reorg, I asked each one (1) of my 6 director's to get to me a plan of what they felt was 7 necessary in order for us to do a -- a very good job and 8 provide good service to the citizens of North Battleford. 9 When Mr. Strelioff did his review, what we did 10 is we did hire some additional personnel but they actually 11 weren't out at the plants area. I did meet with Mr. Katzell, 12 however, in July of 2000 -- July or August of 2000, where he 13 did -- we had a fairly lengthy conversation where he said 14 that he was probably going to retire. 15 And he explained to me some of the challenges 16 that he faced. And he went through with me the -- the detail 17 of the shifts and -- and how that was very stressful and how 18 that was very difficult to -- to make sure that he had enough 19 staff to cover all the shifts. 20 Now he did say, also, that -- and it seemed to 21 me that his big thrust, though, was the fact of 1986 when he 22 assumed this position, that the other out of scope position 23 was never rehired. And in recalling the conversation, I -- I 24 took it that he -- he felt that he required an out of scope 25 person more to help him with some of the duties.


1 And -- and as far as the -- the in scope, at 2 that time, the main time frame that he had serious concerns 3 were during the high use months, from April, May to -- to 4 about August. 5 And since then, I can say that the city has 6 made some steps in that direction. For instance, we did hire 7 two (2) people this summer. One (1) was a former employee 8 who's retired. And another was a former employee who has -- 9 he's a farmer, actually. 10 And -- and so, you know, I've talked to Mr. 11 Strelioff about that, trying to maintain the fact that we can 12 get these people back on a regular basis, in the high use 13 periods. And actually one (1) of those persons is taking the 14 course that we've talked about next week, where the operators 15 are going to be going. So he -- the city's paying for him to 16 become certified. 17 So -- 18 Q: This is the mandatory certification 19 course? 20 A: Yes, that's right. So one (1) of the 21 people that we're going to bring back on -- on the high use 22 areas and -- and we -- although we don't have anything in 23 writing with him. I mean, we've got a verbal agreement that 24 says, look, if you're short, I'm willing to -- to come in and 25 give you a hand.


1 So, I mean, we've tried to address those 2 situations. 3 Q: Okay. Now I believe you would have been 4 City Commissioner when Mr. Katzell resigned -- 5 A: Right. 6 Q: -- in 2000? 7 A: Hmm-hmm. 8 Q: And, you know, the -- the circumstances 9 of his resignation -- certainly his resignation letter seems 10 to be somewhat regretful of the situation he's leaving 11 behind. Did Mr. -- it was given to Mr. Strelioff. Did Mr. 12 Strelioff raise that letter with you? 13 A: Yes, he -- he sent it up to me and -- and 14 I think he -- he put a -- a bit of a note on it. And we 15 talked about it. And I -- I actually did talk to -- to Mr. 16 Katzell and Mr. Strelioff about that. 17 And -- and my -- my philosophy on that is, 18 anytime I get a -- a resignation from any employee who I 19 believe is retiring before their -- their time, which I would 20 consider, then I would want to know, you know, what's the 21 background for this? Is there something that we can do for 22 you, in order to try to maintain you as a employee of the 23 city for a certain amount of time? 24 And -- and -- and I did pose that to Mr. 25 Katzell and he said, no, that it -- it was just his time. It


1 was his time because he felt that it was -- his job may have 2 been affecting his health. And there was a number of 3 different reasons why that was coming to -- that he had made 4 that decision. 5 And as far as Mr. Strelioff, the -- the note 6 that he said -- he sent up to me said something to the effect 7 that it was -- 8 Q: Bittersweet? 9 A: Bittersweet, yes. And -- and -- and, you 10 know, I -- I think what he meant by that is, happy for Mr. 11 Katzell that he, you know, was able to retire and -- and -- 12 and -- and bitter for the city because we were losing an 13 employee who was very loyal and very -- very dedicated to the 14 city. 15 Q: In terms, though, of the strength of the 16 language contained in that resignation, did you go through 17 any kind of debriefing with Mr. Katzell to try and ascertain, 18 in detail, what his concerns were? 19 A: Well, like I said earlier, I did -- I did 20 talk to him and -- and said, is there anything that we can do 21 for you? I mean, is there -- is there help that you need? 22 Is there -- like is this a money issue, is this, you know? 23 I mean, so I wanted to make sure that, if it 24 was possible to change his mind, you know, that we could talk 25 about that. I just didn't want to say, okay, thank you very


1 much; you're very loyal and dedicated and shut the door on 2 him. Is there something we can do to see if you can -- if we 3 can extend this employment. And -- and he didn't really want 4 to do that. 5 So, I -- I didn't think it was proper for him 6 to push it. So, I offer it but if they don't take it, 7 then -- 8 Q: No, I wasn't thinking particularly in 9 terms of -- of persuading Mr. Katzell to remain. In terms 10 of, the language is so strong of ascertaining in some detail 11 why he felt that way and specifically what his concerns were. 12 Did you -- did you have an inventory or a list 13 of what those concerns were for you? 14 A: I -- I didn't have a list, but I had a -- 15 a sense that -- that he was frustrated on -- on two (2) 16 fronts I think. 17 One (1) was he felt that there was a -- a 18 distance between the plants and -- and city hall, like out of 19 sight out of mind type of thing. 20 Q: Yes. 21 A: And -- and some of the issues that 22 perhaps he felt were important, he didn't feel were given the 23 same consideration by city hall. Now by city hall it could 24 mean a number of different people, all the way from council 25 to myself to the director, so he didn't really reiterate on


1 that. 2 And also the fact that he -- he expressed the 3 fact that there was some labour management issues that were 4 causing him certain stress. 5 Q: Right. Okay, so you arrive and you're 6 made aware of certain things, you do your own tours, you -- 7 you're alerted to the Pommen Report, the Reid Crowther 8 Report, you know of at least certain other things that Mr. 9 Katzell has raised. 10 When you'd had the chance to step back and 11 take a look at this situation in the Plants, what was your 12 assessment, what did you see going on there? 13 A: Well I -- I certainly knew that we had to 14 be more proactive as far as the spending of dollars. I mean 15 when we did the budget process that year, we started spending 16 a lot more money on our maintenance budgets, I mean we 17 doubled our maintenance budgets in the Plants areas. 18 We -- it was the first year, 2000, that we 19 actually put the sum of twelve million dollars ($12,000,000) 20 in the budget for a new plant. 21 So, I mean Randy and I sat down and recognized 22 the fact that a retrofit wasn't it, I mean even you know, if 23 we're going to spend -- one (1) of the retrofits was up to I 24 think ten million dollars ($10,000,000). 25 And we thought ten million dollars


1 ($10,000,000), you do a retrofit but we still have an old 2 plant. I mean let's -- for another two (2) or three million 3 dollars ($3,000,000) and is that wise. 4 So, Randy said he felt it was wise that we go 5 to Council with this, and I agreed with it, and especially 6 after touring the plants. I mean it was -- you know, I mean 7 some of the conditions that -- that the workers had to work 8 in. And what you try to do is put yourself in those 9 situations, and say well what would this be like for me. 10 And -- and, you know, so we -- we said this is 11 very, very important to us, and we wanted to make the case to 12 council and we thought we had a very strong case, and -- and 13 that was the first year that it was put in the budget, in a 14 bit time way. 15 Q: Right. 16 A: The previous councils and previous 17 administration I think had about five million dollars 18 ($5,000,000) in total, starting in 1998 I think. 19 But we -- we felt that it was a big enough 20 issue. And -- and the site of it too, I mean -- I mean I 21 remember going on the tour and -- and you know, they took to 22 Number 1 Plant, they took me to the sewage plant, and then 23 they took me to Number 2, and I said, well you know, let me 24 understand this; this is the surface water plant and it's 25 downstream from the sewage treatment plant. And I was right


1 in that assumption and then you know, and I -- and I think 2 we -- we had some work to do. 3 Q: Right. Now you say the spending of big 4 dollars and you mentioned specifically what council began to 5 do in addressing the situation at the -- at the sewage plant. 6 But what about in relation to the -- the two 7 (2) water plants, and the sort of the infrastructure concerns 8 that we're told, for some people at least, existed there; was 9 that your assessment of those places too? 10 I mean Mr. Katzell has said and in some of his 11 memos to Mr. Berry and so forth, that even with the Number 2 12 Plant he regarded as being fairly sort of obsolete -- 13 A: Right. 14 Q: -- some of the equipment. 15 A: When -- when I did the tours, it wasn't 16 as apparent that the two (2) water treatment plants and 17 sewage treatment plant that there was something that was more 18 pressing. 19 But I can say in 2000 in Water Treatment Plant 20 Number 1 and Water Treatment Plant Number 2, in those budgets 21 the -- the maintenance costs for those two (2) facilities 22 increased 100 percent. Like we went from forty thousand 23 (40,000) to eighty thousand (80,000) in both those 24 facilities. 25 In 2001, I know that the amount of -- of


1 chemical for instance, because of the September 2000 2 incident, was bumped up considerably. 3 I mean so because we didn't put money away for 4 the future use of those, or -- or the replacement of those, I 5 mean we're -- we're still what we thought taking a proactive 6 approach to recognize the fact that the facilities were old, 7 and we're going to have to put more money into maintenance. 8 Q: Right. And I -- I think we can come to 9 those figures in a moment and show where you did that. 10 From talking to Mr. McEwen yesterday, our 11 understanding is that the -- the budget process, that the 12 city does take some time, and is only formally concluded by 13 city council when it passes the bylaw that sets the -- the 14 mill rate or the -- the particular levy that's going to be 15 for the utilities -- for each utility for the coming years -- 16 A: That's correct. 17 Q: -- is that -- is that correct? 18 A: Yes, it is. 19 Q: And, in 2001, I understand that, from 20 information I think you've -- you've previously provided to 21 me, that the -- the budget was presented to council April 22 23rd and that the -- the bylaw -- the levy bylaw was 23 eventually passed around June 11th of 2001; is that correct? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: That -- that -- let me say that's 2 atypical of what would happen in any other year, that's 3 unusual, usually it's about a month period, but -- 4 Q: Yeah. 5 A: -- of course, we had this issue that was 6 going on, plus we had -- 7 Q: Sure. 8 A: -- it was a reassessment year and -- and, 9 with that, brings some other issues that we needed to discuss 10 with council, mill rate factors and -- and tax tools that we 11 wanted to try to implement. 12 Q: Right. No, and I'm -- I'm -- I was -- 13 that was going to be next question. Obviously those dates 14 are very significant for this Inquiry because quite a lot 15 seemed to happen between then and I'm assuming that, by the 16 time you got around to considering the full budget, the 17 whole -- the full weight of the contamination would have -- 18 would have been known to city council; I'm assuming that. 19 A: Yes, certainly it was. 20 Q: Okay. Now, in terms of our discussion on 21 the figures, what I'd -- what I'd like to do with you, Mr. 22 Toye, is to first of all, in the budget information in binder 23 C-93, you and your staff have been very helpful and kind in 24 providing us with the -- the -- at tab 1, the -- the sort of 25 summary picture of the actual expenditures in relation to


1 both the sewage facility and the water facility between the 2 years 1996 and 2001 and I'd -- I'd like to use that as a 3 general picture. But I think what we're going to be doing 4 is -- is jumping back and forth to various other pieces of 5 documentation just to fill out that picture to see what's 6 going on so we should -- and we'll be referring -- we'll be 7 coming back to it, it's kind of home base. 8 A: Sure. 9 Q: If that's okay with you. Now, first of 10 all, this -- this summary we have of actuals here, can you -- 11 can you tell us how it was prepared and who prepared it? 12 A: Yes, it was prepared by the Director of 13 Finance, Edna Logan, I requested it from her; it's for the 14 Inquiry purposes. 15 Q: Right, specifically to assist us -- 16 A: Yes, just -- just something -- yes. 17 Q: -- is my understanding? 18 A: It's something we generally wouldn't do 19 every year. 20 Q: Right. So what kind of -- and what basic 21 data lies behind this, what kind of financial documentation 22 would your director of finance have -- have consulted in 23 order to compile this summary? 24 A: She would have went through the year 25 financial statements, year-end statements --


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: -- to -- to get the numbers and then use 3 a spreadsheet format to kind of fill in the blanks. 4 Q: Okay. Now, if we look -- if we look at 5 the -- the water utility, first of all, on the first page and 6 the first line item is the Number 1 Water Treatment Plant new 7 well. 8 It appears here that nothing is spent until 9 2001 when the figure of four hundred and sixty-five thousand 10 dollars ($465,000) is budgeted and then we're told that three 11 hundred and sixty-five one fifty-five (365,155) is spent by 12 October of 2001; now what was that money spent on? 13 A: That would have been the four (4) new 14 wells at -- in close proximity to Water Treatment Plant 15 Number 1. 16 Q: Okay. And those wells would have been 17 approved, I guess, finally, in the 2001 budget? 18 A: Yes, that's correct. 19 Q: Okay. Although you were -- you were 20 looking at doing those wells long before that? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: Right. If we'd look at the project 23 budget binder, which is binder 'A', tab 15. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 Section Roman numerals IX, it's the first page 2 of Section IX. Under the -- the Number 1 Water Plant, we're 3 given -- we're given three (3) items, one (1) is a systems 4 control upgrade of fifty-five thousand (55,000), the other is 5 a site suitability study for the well field evaluation and 6 the other is the new well construction so I'm assuming that 7 that is where the figure of four hundred and sixty-five 8 thousand (465,000) comes from, it's those three (3) items; is 9 that correct? 10 A: That's correct. 11 Q: Okay. Now, of the four hundred and 12 sixty-five thousand (465,000), how -- how is it going to be 13 financed? Or how has it been financed? 14 A: Actually there's a Canada/Saskatchewan 15 Infrastructure Grant that we were successful with. And 16 through a tripartite type agreement with the federal 17 government, the provincial government. And that's going to 18 cover the new well, partial payment for the new wells. I 19 think we've billed about two hundred and fifty-five thousand 20 ($255,000) dollars to help cover the well projects. 21 The -- the other two (2) would be covered 22 through -- through just reserves. 23 Q: Straight from reserves? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: And then I believe in relation to that


1 Canada/Saskatchewan Infrastructure Program, if you look at 2 tab 20 of your binder -- 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: -- which will show when you're really 5 getting around to do doing this, there's an application dated 6 February 22nd of 2001, long before the budget is approved, in 7 relation, I believe, to your -- the financing for this 8 particular well project. 9 Is that the case? 10 A: Yes, that's correct. 11 Q: Okay. And the application shows a -- a 12 total project cost of three hundred and ninety-four (394,00) 13 thousand. And then I believe it breaks it down between 14 federal, one twenty-seven, four eighty-five (127,485), 15 province, one twenty-seven, four eighty-five (127,485) and 16 the -- the city will be financing one thirty-nine, thirty 17 (139,030) from that. And I'm assuming that would just come 18 out of the water reserve, is that correct? 19 A: That's correct, yes. 20 Q: And has this financing actually been 21 obtained? 22 A: We actually don't get the money until the 23 project's complete. 24 Q: Okay. And when will the project be 25 complete?


1 A: I think the only thing left is to 2 actually put -- we've got -- the wells have been dug and I 3 think there's some mechanical be done regarding the pumps, to 4 be put in. 5 Q: Okay -- 6 A: They've been ordered. And it's just a 7 matter of getting them here and -- and getting them set up. 8 Q: Okay. Now I think this application was 9 an alteration of an application you made back in January of 10 2001, which is at tab 19? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: Where, under the same program, you had 13 initially applied for grant monies in relation to the 14 repaving of Territorial Drive. Is that correct? 15 A: That's right. 16 Q: And then I think you changed your mind 17 and decided, well, as the -- as tab 20 shows us, you're -- 18 you changed the application because you wanted to do the -- 19 the wells. So, what happened between that January 20 application and February 22nd to make you switch from paving 21 to wells? 22 A: Well, actually what had happened is, 23 through that period of time, after we put this grant 24 application, it came to my knowledge that there was other 25 money, grant monies available, through the paving -- for the


1 paving program. 2 So, what we wanted to do, as an 3 administration, is try to maximize the amount of funding that 4 we can get when it's available. So, we had a -- a very good 5 possibility of getting a different grant. It was called, 6 Prairie, Grain, Road Infrastructure Program, I believe. And 7 it -- that grant was for surfaces where there was high hauls 8 of -- of grain handling or any type of handling due to farm 9 operations. 10 And when we initially put this grant in, the 11 Canada Sask Infrastructure, we weren't aware of that -- that 12 grant. 13 Q: Okay -- 14 A: So, what we though is if we get 15 permission to switch this grant over to our wells, then we 16 would make application for the paving program, under another 17 program. And ended up, we were successfully got four hundred 18 thousand ($400,000) dollars under that program. 19 Q: Okay -- 20 A: And so what we're trying to do, again, is 21 maximize the amount of funds that were available to us. 22 Q: Okay. No, I was wondering if it had 23 anything to do with the -- the retreat that was held in 24 January -- 25 A: No.


1 Q: -- and your decision to -- okay. 2 A: No, it was a -- it was an administration 3 function and one (1) of our functions is, again, to maximize 4 the amount of -- of government grants that we can obtain. 5 Q: Okay. If you would, Mr. Toye, if you 6 jump back to our general picture, again, at tab 1, the 1996 - 7 2001 actuals and if we move down a line to the F.E. Holliday 8 Water Plant. 9 In terms of actual capital and special 10 expenditures there, we see that there was a figure spent in 11 1996 of thirty thousand three hundred and twenty-two 12 (30,322). Have you ever been able to identify what that was 13 spent on and what it was for? 14 15 (BRIEF PAUSE) 16 17 I believe the figure does appear at tab 8, if 18 that's where your looking for, in the departmental report. 19 A: Yeah. 20 Q: Tab 8, page 179. The figure is 21 identified there but it doesn't quite -- there's no real 22 indication as to -- 23 A: Yeah, I don't have that number here right 24 in front of me right now. I could get the information for 25 you.


1 Q: Okay -- 2 A: That was, of course, prior to my time. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Does it matter if -- in 4 the big -- 5 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: I don't think so, I don't 6 think that -- I mean my feeling is that that -- 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, what's -- so thirty- 8 two (32) -- thirty thousand (30,000) was spent in 1996 -- 9 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: I think that's all we 10 need to -- 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- and it was spent on -- 12 fair enough. 13 14 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 15 Q: However, then if we move ahead to the 16 year 2000, we see that sixteen thousand five eighty-six 17 (16,586) was spent. Now this is your year, so what was that 18 spent on, do you recall? 19 A: The only thing I could do is go back to 20 the budget and -- and -- and have a look and see what was 21 budgeted for that year. 22 Q: Well I think you'll see that the -- the 23 Departmental Report for February 19th of 2001, which is tab 24 16 at page 5. 25 And the -- there's a -- the project budget for


1 2000, which is Binder A, tab 14, section 10, shows us that 2 various upgrades were contemplated, budged for, one (1) fifty 3 thousand (50,000) and one (1) ten thousand (10,000) for a 4 total of sixty thousand (60,000). 5 Obviously that isn't the amount that was 6 actually spent, but I'm wondering if it was a portion of 7 those upgrades that appear in that project budget for 2000? 8 A: No, I -- I don't think -- I think the 9 system controls upgrade was a -- a larger project, where we 10 were trying to put dollars away every year in successive 11 years to try to get the monitoring of the plants more 12 automated and -- and bring the -- the system more up to date 13 than what was there. 14 Q: Okay. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Well if we look to -- just while we're on the 19 issue of those upgrades, if you could take a look at the 20 project budget for 2001, which is at tab A-15 in the city 21 binder. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Under the section 9, the Water Utility


1 Section, in relation to the F.E. Holliday Water Treatment 2 Plant, we're referred to a systems control upgrade of fifty- 3 five thousand (55,000) and a control valves upgrade of -- of 4 ten thousand (10,000), which are in the budget for that year. 5 But if we go to the -- back to the actuals at 6 tab 1 in the budget binder, we can see that the amounts spent 7 to day is one eighty-six thousand six seventy-one (186,671), 8 obviously you were spending well in excess of what you'd 9 budgeted on projects for that year. 10 So -- so what happened to make you move so far 11 away from your project budget in that particular year? 12 A: In 2001? 13 Q: Yes -- 14 A: Well we had a -- 15 Q: -- the obvious -- 16 A: -- significant event in April, so -- 17 Q: -- right. 18 A: The -- the -- the direction that we had 19 from council was it doesn't matter what it costs, let's get 20 it fixed type thing. I mean we -- Randy -- you know, we gave 21 regular reports to council as to what was going on, keep them 22 apprised of the situation. 23 Q: Yeah. 24 A: It wasn't unusual for Randy to give 25 regular updates at every council meeting, here's what's going


1 on -- 2 Q: Right. 3 A: -- and basically the -- we had -- we had 4 like carte blanche from council, if you need something, get 5 it fixed. 6 Q: But in terms of what these -- these two 7 (2) upgrades that are budgeted for, the systems control 8 upgrade and the control valve upgrade, did they just get lost 9 in the general chaos of 2001, or were they actually -- 10 A: Yeah, I would -- 11 Q: -- or was that money actually spent on 12 those things? 13 A: -- no, I -- I'm -- I'm pretty sure it 14 wasn't spent. I mean this -- the -- the control valves 15 upgrade and the systems control upgrade, again were -- were 16 more something that we were trying to bring -- 17 Q: Right. 18 A: -- the plants more up to the state of the 19 art technology. We have to do a lot of the -- the valve 20 upgrades. The reason for that is we have to do a lot of that 21 by hand. We were trying to look at doing some things by 22 automation -- 23 Q: Right. 24 A: -- we have to actually go out to the 25 field to do a lot of these things, that perhaps we could have


1 a central location where we could do these from. 2 Q: Okay, so the project budget is -- is no 3 guide for us in this particular instance, we have to look at 4 the -- the actuals for 2001? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: Okay, if we move down to the -- to the 7 next line, I see that in 2001 under the satellite stations 8 you've spent twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). 9 Is that the systems control upgrade for the 10 satellite stations referred to in the 2001 project budget? 11 A: Well for the -- we did some work on the 12 reservoirs this year regarding chlorination and the fact that 13 we couldn't -- we weren't using our reservoirs properly, I 14 guess that would be the way to put it. We weren't -- there 15 was no change of the water, the water would go there and sit 16 for days. There was no water exchange. 17 Q: Right. 18 A: So, with the contamination and with the 19 problem that we had in 2000 with -- on the north end of the 20 city, we -- we had a look at our total system and then we had 21 a hydrology study done and it brought some of these to our 22 attention that you just can't leave the water there and 23 expect it to sit there so they had to -- we had to turn it so 24 that would have been some of the work that we would have done 25 in -- in the reservoirs.


1 Q: I see you -- you actually spent twelve 2 thousand -- 3 A: Yeah. 4 Q: -- one thirty-nine (12,139) on that 5 particular problem? Okay. 6 As we saw yesterday when we were talking to 7 Mr. McEwen, of course, we see that significant figures seem 8 to be spent each year on the distribution system -- 9 A: Right. 10 Q: -- is that a fair assessment? Now, how 11 was -- how were those expenditures financed for the -- the 12 expenditures on the -- the capital expenditures on the 13 distribution system from year to year? 14 A: Those would be through reserves. 15 Q: Though -- they -- that's probably pure 16 reserve financing from year to year? 17 A: Right. 18 Q: Right. Why is it that so much is spent 19 on the distribution system from year to year? 20 A: Well, I think that's -- that would be a 21 philosophy of -- of administration that would have been 22 adopted by council that, in any particular year, we have to 23 realize that our infrastructure in the ground is -- is old 24 and there's different areas where we may have water breaks 25 and, when we dig up that pipe, it's very indicative of the


1 fact that that -- that particular part of the infrastructure 2 also is failing. So, there was a plan on a yearly basis to 3 do so many blocks of water and sewer replacement each year 4 and they would be highlighted by -- triggered by different 5 things, like how many water breaks did we have in that area, 6 when we did the previous block, we knew that a certain number 7 of blocks were put in at the same time in 1972 or 1958 or 8 whatever and would that be indicative of, you know, the rest 9 of the pipe in the ground. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: So, there was a movement to have a look 12 at replacing water and sewer mains where there was high 13 maintenance problems. I mean, if it's forty (40) below and 14 you've got three (3) water breaks, I mean -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- it's just very onerous. 17 Q: Yeah. I'm -- I'm assuming that, in the 18 case of the distribution system, it's something which cannot 19 be out of sight, out of mind because it's right in your face 20 most of the time? 21 A: Oh, absolutely, I mean, there's nothing 22 worse for a business or for two (2) blocks or three (3) 23 blocks of people to have their water shut off for an extended 24 period of time, to have our crews to go and -- and fix water 25 breaks on a continuous basis, like not just once a year, but


1 in some areas it would be more frequent than that. 2 Q: Okay. Now, in terms of the -- the water 3 utility and the capital grants picture, you're showing in 4 your actual summary here that nothing is really spent from 5 capital grants, except for the two hundred and fifty-four 6 thousand nine hundred and seventy (265,970) figure in 2001, 7 that's the figure we've just been discussing in relation to 8 the wells; is that correct? 9 A: Oh, two -- yeah, that's right. 10 Q: Okay. So would that mean then that all 11 of the -- all of the other financing, in relation to that 12 utility for previous years, then must have been done out of 13 reserves? 14 A: It would have been through reserves and 15 general levy, but generally it's through reserves. 16 Q: And -- and the city was able to do that 17 without significantly raising the utility rates for those 18 years? 19 A: When I look back at the record, that 20 looks correct. 21 Q: Good. Now, in addition to those capital 22 expenditures, each year shows that a significant contribution 23 is made to reserves, I think we've -- we've talked about why 24 those sums are set aside principally and we've been told by 25 Mr. McEwen that those reserve funds all, in fact, come out of


1 the water utility revenue; is that the case? 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: And they stay within that revenue and 4 there is no subsidization of other areas of city business 5 from the water utility revenues; is that the case? 6 A: Traditionally, that's the way it's been 7 done. 8 Q: Okay. Now, you haven't been here that 9 long and Mr. McEwen told us yesterday what his plan was in 10 terms of -- of building up those reserves, I guess it's a 11 sort of a fund for the future. Has -- has your plan changed 12 somewhat for the use of those reserves? 13 A: Well, you know, I mean, I'm -- I'm 14 cognizant of the fact that -- that we have some significant 15 challenges today and in the future regarding our 16 infrastructure and I would say that any urban municipality in 17 Canada would be facing the same challenges so it's very nice 18 that we do have reserves and -- but I think the time has come 19 where we're -- you know, we -- we have to make some difficult 20 decisions at -- facilities are going to have to be replaced, 21 we're going to have -- and, if we're not going to replace 22 them, we have to make still significant impacts by doing 23 retrofits or whatever. 24 So, I'm cognizant of the fact that we do have 25 reserves, but I think that -- that the philosophy that we


1 continue to build those, I mean, we're going to have to draw 2 down those reserves and we're also going to have to do some 3 debt financing. 4 Q: All right. In relation to the years, for 5 instance on debt repayment, we see in '96 and '97 that two 6 (2) figures are actually entered for debt repayment there. 7 Do you recall, from your knowledge of city records, what 8 those would be repayment on? 9 A: Yeah, that -- there was a -- a reservoir 10 installed in Fairview Subdivision. And -- and the last 11 payment was in 1997. 12 Q: So the -- so the city, in fact, has, in 13 the past, engaged in debenture financing and to -- 14 A: Yeah. 15 Q: -- finance this kind of capital project? 16 A: Yes, absolutely. 17 Q: And I'm assuming that what happened after 18 this debt was paid off that the utility rates did not fall 19 but remained the same, to enable you to build your reserve 20 up? 21 A: Yeah, that's what -- the records indicate 22 that there was no reduction in the rates, however, I think 23 you will see that the amount that was then transferred to -- 24 to reserves was increased. 25 Q: Okay.


1 A: Substantially. 2 Q: Okay. Now in relation to the -- this is 3 a figure you, yourself, have touched on and I think it's an 4 important one (1) for us in the Inquiry. In relation to 5 the -- the net operating costs line on that first page, we -- 6 we see a significant increase in the year 2000, is that 7 correct? 8 A: Yes, that's correct. 9 Q: Sixteen point five nine (16.59) percent. 10 And I think you've -- I think you've mentioned earlier that 11 there was a -- possibly a reason why that jump occurred in 12 the year 2000. And I wonder if we could actually look at a 13 couple of figures to illustrate what it was you were talking 14 about? 15 If you look at tab 13 in that same binder, 16 we're shown the -- I'm looking at the budget figure here -- 17 on the fourth page I believe we get the figure for the Number 18 2 Plant, the -- the total spent on -- budgeted for, at least, 19 for equipment maintenance was twenty thousand six hundred 20 (20,600) in that year, in 1999? 21 A: Are we on tab 13? 22 Q: Yes, in that same binder. I'm looking at 23 the '99 budget? 24 A: Okay. 25 Q: Just at the bottom of the page there, the


1 fourth page, we're given the equipment maintenance figure of 2 twenty thousand six hundred ($20,600) dollars? The 3 recommended amount? 4 A: I'm not seeing that. At Water Treatment 5 Plant Number 1? 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Fourth page in from the 7 front of -- 8 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes, the fourth page in, 9 Mr. Toye, on Plant -- on, sorry, tab 13, in the budget 10 binder? 11 THE WITNESS: Okay, I got you. 12 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Right on the bottom. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: It says, subtotal 14 equipment maintenance, twenty thousand, six hundred (20,600). 15 Right? 16 THE WITNESS: Okay, yeah. I got you. Sorry. 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 19 Q: And I think that's Plant Number 2 because 20 if you -- if you flip back a page -- or, sorry, flip a page 21 forward to the third page, the Number 1 -- the Number 1 Plant 22 is there where the figure is forty one thousand, eight 23 hundred (41,800), for that year? 24 A: Okay, yeah. That's correct. 25 Q: And then if we jump to tab 15, which is


1 the 2000 year, on the third page, the equivalent figures for, 2 first of all Number 1, we go to eighty-one thousand, five 3 hundred (81,500)? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: And for Number 2, which appears on the 6 fourth page, we go to thirty-seven thousand, three hundred 7 (37,300)? 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: Just a minute, you're 9 going too quickly for me. 10 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, Mr. Commissioner. 11 It's at tab 15 -- 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes? Third line in -- 13 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Third page in, it's just 14 about half way down the page you'll see a sub total for 15 equipment maintenance? 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, I see it now. 17 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: The eighty-one thousand, 18 five hundred (81,500) figure? And on the next page, roughly 19 at the bottom of the column, there's a subtotal for the Plant 20 Number 2 of thirty-seven thousand, three hundred (37,300). 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: Hmm-hmm. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 24 Q: And I think if you go to your 25 departmental reports, the actuals for those figures would be,


1 first of all in relation to the eighty-one thousand five 2 hundred (81,500), the actuals you spent were sixty-one 3 thousand, seven sixty-five (61,765). And for the thirty 4 (30) -- thirty-seven thousand, three hundred (37,300) 5 budgeted, you actually spent thirty thousand, eight sixty- 6 seven (30,867) on those -- on that equipment and maintenance 7 issues down at those two (2) plants. 8 Now earlier you were referring to significant 9 expenditures which you had made in relation to operations 10 down at those two (2) plants. Are those the figures you're 11 referring to? 12 A: Yes, that's correct. 13 Q: Okay. And those are the figures which 14 account for that increase in 16 -- 16.59 percent in the 15 operating expenses for the year 2000? 16 A: Yeah, that's part of it, certainly. 17 Q: Are there any other significant items 18 which went into that increase? 19 A: It -- it -- it looks like we spent a 20 considerable large sum on the capital projects for that year 21 also. 22 Q: Okay. Okay. 23 24 (BRIEF PAUSE) 25


1 And those are -- that -- that increase occurs 2 as you said I think earlier, upon your arrival at the city 3 and your discussions with Mr. Strelioff over what needed to 4 be done at those plants? 5 A: That's right. 6 Q: Okay. If we jump back to tab 1 or master 7 sheet in the -- in the budget binder. 8 9 (BRIEF PAUSE) 10 11 Just to fill out the information, if we look 12 at the -- the utility rate line, we see that in effect you've 13 listed here no -- no increase in utility rates until 2001, 14 the 6.98 percent. 15 A: Right. 16 Q: So that confirms I think what you and Mr. 17 McEwen have basically told us, that utility rates kind of 18 held steady during this period; is that correct? 19 A: That's correct. 20 Q: And the actual rates themselves appear in 21 this binder, I believe, the information you were kind enough 22 to provide at tabs 4 and 5? 23 A: Yeah, that's a history going back to 24 1990. 25 Q: 1990, of what the utility rates are. Now


1 in terms of actually billing people, how -- how often are -- 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: When you're referring to 3 the utility rates on this summary, are you referring to 4 the -- the line that says: 5 "Rate increase projected." 6 Is that the line you're referring to? 7 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes, that's the line I'm 8 referring to, Mr. Commissioner. 9 10 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 11 Q: But we're talk -- although we use the 12 word project there, we're talking actuals on that particular 13 line, Mr. Toye? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Yes. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: I don't know if this is a 17 reasonable point to ask the question, but how does -- how do 18 the utility rates charged by North Battleford, compare to 19 your knowledge of utility rates in comparable sized 20 communities in Saskatchewan; do you have any knowledge on 21 that -- 22 THE WITNESS: Yeah -- 23 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: We have a -- we have a 24 specific tab on that, Mr. Commissioner -- 25 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, okay.


1 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- we do have some 2 written documentation for you. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 5 Q: So in -- in terms of these rates, how -- 6 how -- how often are they actually billed? 7 A: The city is broke down into different 8 areas, then -- and every resident and business is -- is 9 billed quarterly. 10 Q: Quarterly? 11 A: Quarterly -- 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: -- correct. 14 Q: Do you have any figures on, for instance, 15 what the -- what the utility rate is or what the -- the total 16 sum is for -- for an average household in North Battleford -- 17 A: Yeah -- 18 Q: -- quarterly? 19 A: -- it's in that tab, do you want me to go 20 to that? 21 Q: If you would, yes, please. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 This is tab 4?


1 A: This is tab 6. 2 Q: Oh, tab 6, okay. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 A: So, the -- the city has a number of 7 different things on that invoice, there's water, sewer, then 8 we've got an infrastructure fee. 9 And so we -- we've broken it down just by 10 water, if you'd like the water utility? But if you want the 11 combined -- 12 Q: Yeah. 13 A: -- you can see that it kind of rates by 14 the other cities in the province, and you can see by that, 15 that if you're a minimum user, in the City of North 16 Battleford it would twenty-seven dollars and twenty-two cents 17 ($27.22). 18 An average user, which would use seventy-seven 19 (77) square metres, and one (1) square metre is two hundred 20 and twenty (220) imperial gallons. 21 Q: Right. 22 A: In the City of North Battleford, that 23 average quarterly billing would be ninety-nine dollars and 24 seventy-nine cents ($99.79). 25 Q: Right.


1 A: And then we've got a high user one (1), 2 and then you'd run into these mostly in the summer time when 3 people are watering outside. So, that would be a hundred and 4 eighty (180) square metres, and that average quarterly bill 5 would be two hundred and one dollars and ninety-one cents 6 ($201.91). 7 And there's a ranking here of how we rank -- 8 Q: Yes. 9 A: -- throughout the province. 10 Q: Right, and my understanding of that 11 ranking, first of all, in relation to a minimum user is that 12 North Battleford does pretty well, it's -- it has the lowest 13 rate; is that the case? 14 A: Yeah, the ranking is -- is -- is ranked 15 lowest to highest, so yeah, we're -- 16 Q: You're number one (1) -- 17 A: -- number one (1). 18 Q: -- for the minimum. 19 A: For the minimum. 20 Q: Yeah. 21 A: Just with water, yeah. 22 Q: And you're basically number -- number 23 four (4) for the average -- 24 Q: For the average -- 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: And for the high you're -- 2 A: Number four (4). 3 Q: Number four (4) again? 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: Now, if you -- if you put in the sewage 6 rate there, does -- would those rankings change 7 significantly? 8 A: Not significantly, but maybe one (1) or 9 two (2) rankings so they -- they do change a little bit. 10 Q: Okay. But overall, you do pretty well, 11 you're -- you're high up on the list, as far as the consumer 12 is concerned? 13 A: Overall, our rates are -- are better than 14 average -- 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: -- I can say, as far as what we charge 17 our -- our utility users. 18 Q: Now, if we could jump back to tab 1 19 again, Mr. Toye, there is a line there which seems a much -- 20 a much more extraordinary item, the infrastructure fee of one 21 dollar ($1) per month. 22 Now, of course, that's a projected figure 23 because it's -- it doesn't come up until 2002, but perhaps it 24 would be useful to explain to the Commissioner what that 25 infrastructure fee is and how it's going to be used.


1 A: Okay. Did you want me to go into the 2 next page too in sewer or just strictly -- 3 Q: Yeah, they appear on both pages -- 4 A: Okay. 5 Q: -- there's a 5 percent on the sewer page 6 I understand. 7 A: Okay. Administration has recognized the 8 fact and the director of finance has put together a package 9 for council within the last few months to indicate that we 10 certainly -- we recognize that we are going to face some 11 challenges regarding infrastructure in the water and sewer 12 utilities. 13 Took a report to council to tell them 14 approximately if we had infrastructure fees or increasing 15 fees here to about how many dollars we could create through 16 different scenarios. 17 In the one dollar ($1) per month 18 infrastructure fee for water, in any particular year it's 19 going to create sixty-three thousand six hundred dollars 20 ($63,600). 21 Q: Yes. 22 A: There is also a five dollar ($5) 23 infrastructure fee for sewer. That will have about three 24 hundred and eighteen thousand dollars ($318,000) it will 25 produce; that'll be in 2002, '03 and '04, and 2005, it's


1 proposed that that would increase from five dollars ($5) to 2 eight dollars ($8) and then we would increase our revenues to 3 about five hundred and eighteen thousand dollars ($518,000). 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: So, I mean, we're -- we're looking at an 6 approach where we know that there's going to be some 7 borrowing and we're trying to address that in a proactive way 8 to ensure that we're going to have some more reserves to 9 limit the amount that we're going to have to borrow, yet 10 we're going to have money there to service the debt. 11 Q: Okay. Now, perhaps one (1) other line 12 you could explain for us, somewhere down towards the -- the 13 bottom of the page; you were given a figure for the utility 14 fund surplus? This in relation to water. 15 A: Okay, hmm-hmm. 16 Q: So what is this -- what is this surplus 17 fund and, you know, how do we distinguish that from the 18 reserve fund and how is the surplus fund used? 19 A: Any -- in any particular year, we budget 20 certain revenues and certain expenditures. When the amount 21 of revenues exceed expenditures, that money is just 22 transferred -- kept there as a surplus. 23 If there's a deficit then, in -- in that 24 utility, any particular year, the money from that surplus 25 would be -- because a municipal government can't -- we can't


1 have deficit budgets so we have to make that up, either -- 2 well, the most we can do is do it the next year, but what we 3 are able to do in the City of North Battleford, because we do 4 have a surplus of some two hundred and sixty thousand 5 (260,000) approximately, up until this year, you can see this 6 year it's dropping dramatically due to some unforeseen 7 expenses, I guess, that we're going through right today. 8 Q: Right -- right. And, once again, now my 9 understanding is that that -- that surplus remains within 10 that particular utility -- 11 A: That's true. 12 Q: -- it's not used to subsidize any other 13 area of -- of city business? 14 A: That's correct. 15 Q: Okay. Now, I think there's a fairly 16 similar picture in relation to the -- the sewer utility, 17 if -- on the next page. I think -- would it be fair to say 18 that, apart from the -- the expenditures on the -- capital 19 expenditures on the collection system, there are no 20 significant sums spent, on capital at least, within this -- 21 capital improvements within this facility until the year 22 2001? 23 A: Yes, that's correct. At the same time, 24 though, I think that it's been recognized and said before 25 that the city was putting considerable sums away into


1 reserves for future expansion or retrofit or a new plant 2 during those years; I think that started in about 1992. 3 Q: Right. And of that two hundred and fifty 4 thousand (250,000), at least this year, you've -- you've 5 spent the twenty-five thousand and twenty-one ($25,021) 6 dollars to October of 2001. What did you spend that twenty- 7 five thousand ($25,000) dollars on? 8 A: That's on the site selection for the new 9 sewage treatment plant, on that particular project. 10 Q: Okay. 11 A: Consulting engineer. 12 Q: Right. Because if we look at the -- the 13 project budget for that particular year, Binder A, tab 15, 14 it's Binder A, tab 15, section roman numerals IX, page 2, I 15 see budgeted there, under 2A, under Sewer, is a figure of two 16 hundred thousand ($200,000) dollars for the preliminary 17 design, to engage the consultant to provide the preliminary 18 design -- 19 A: Right. 20 Q: -- based on the site selection study. So 21 you say you've spent the twenty-five thousand ($25,000) 22 dollars on the site selection study? 23 A: So far. 24 Q: Okay. And how -- is that progressing? 25 Where are you with that site selection study?


1 A: Well, I -- the -- I think Mr. Strelioff 2 testified on that, that there's been some different scenarios 3 provided to the city. There's been an open house for the 4 public to view the different areas. And I think, right now, 5 the fact that we still have to make a presentation to 6 council, I believe. 7 So, it's very close. I mean, there's -- 8 there's a site, obviously it's downstream from Water 9 Treatment Plant Number 2. I believe there's even been some 10 geotechnical tests being done. Before we can ensure that 11 that's a site we have to make sure that it's going to be 12 environmentally friendly and the geotechnical work states 13 that it's going to hold that type of facility in that area. 14 So -- 15 Q: Right -- 16 A: -- that's kind of where that's at. 17 Q: Okay, that's where you're at. So, you're 18 not at the stage yet of -- of beginning to spend the two 19 hundred thousand (200,000) on the -- on the preliminary 20 design? Has anyone been engaged yet to -- to do the 21 preliminary design? 22 A: No. The director is putting together an 23 RFP. What we talked about is -- and we've talked to some 24 different engineering consulting firms about this, is we're 25 going to look at taking the preliminary design and detail


1 design and making that one (1) project. 2 Because what had happened is when we talked to 3 some of the consulting engineers they said, if you take one 4 (1) firm and they do the preliminary and another firm does 5 the detail, there could be some problems. So, we -- we 6 thought it -- it best that we had the same firm do the 7 complete work on the -- on the total design. 8 Q: Has anyone been engaged to do that yet? 9 The -- 10 A: No. The RP is being prepared. I mean, 11 obviously it's been a very unique year for the city and -- 12 and some of the capital projects we've found that are in our 13 budget, especially in the area of Mr. Strelioff, we haven't 14 been able to get done because there's a time that -- that 15 he's had to put to -- towards this issue -- water issue. 16 Q: Okay. When does the city want that 17 complete design done by? Do you have a -- do you have a 18 date? 19 A: Well, no, we hope that we're going to 20 have it next year. We want to -- the way the budget's 21 working now is, the preliminary detailed design will be done 22 in 2002 and we'll start construction of the new plant in 23 2003, complete in 2004. And that's when it will be 24 commissioned and we'll obviously have training to do with 25 our -- our employees. And so we hope to have it up and


1 running in 2004. 2 Q: Okay. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Now in terms of financing that preliminary 7 design, is that coming out of reserves, or -- ? 8 A: Yes, we've got a little over a million 9 (1,000,000) in reserves. So, we hope that total design, 10 we're going to be able to pay for through reserves. And then 11 when we reach the point of construction, that we've made some 12 significant grant applications. And we hope that those come 13 to fruition. 14 Council's had the opportunity to meet with 15 federal and provincial officials to tell them about the 16 unique circumstances we've gone through. They believe 17 they've received some commitment from politicians at both 18 those levels and now we've got a grant application in that 19 indicates the type of support that we -- we require. 20 Q: Okay. And once again in relation to the 21 sewer utility, I think we've -- we've confirmed that there 22 was no rate increase until 2001. And I'm assuming, of 23 course, that's for the -- the obvious reason that you now 24 need -- you now need the funds, you now need to build 25 reserves --


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: -- to direct financing. And I'm 3 assuming, here, that the -- you've already explained the 4 infrastructure fee for this utility. And I'm assuming, also, 5 that the -- this sewage surplus fund also functions in the 6 same way as the water surplus fund functions? 7 A: Yes, that's correct. 8 Q: It's purely intended for this u -- this 9 utility? 10 A: This utility only. 11 Q: Okay. Now just in terms of other pieces 12 of information that I think may be helpful to the 13 Commissioner to complete the picture. 14 You have given us, once again thanks for the 15 work, at tab 2 in the budget binder, a capital works summary 16 of the city on amounts -- the significant capital 17 expenditures on the -- on the plants. 18 Q: And for instance if we look at the -- the 19 Number 2 Plant, well I guess the last figure would have been 20 the 1992, the twenty-six thousand seven hundred and thirty- 21 give (26,735). Were we -- were you ever able to identify 22 what that was -- what that was spent on down at Number 2? 23 A: In 1992? 24 Q: Yes. 25 A: No, I -- I just think that would have


1 been general work, I don't have a -- I wasn't able to locate 2 that information, sorry. 3 Q: Okay, that's fine. But then I guess 4 prior to that it would have been the 1988/1990 plant 5 expansion for eight seven six five o three (876,503), and I'm 6 assuming that was the time when the building was -- was 7 expanded and the -- and the solids contact unit was actually 8 put in there; is that correct? 9 A: Yeah, that's correct. Construction of 10 the raw water river intake pump in the building, pumps and 11 the required piping, solid contact, and refurbish under the 12 drains on Filters 1 and 2, yes. 13 Q: Okay, and that was all done in 1988/1990? 14 A: Yeah, that's the -- 15 Q: Yes. 16 A: -- that three (3) year period. 17 Q: Okay. And I'm trying to identify in 18 relation to the sewage plant, if there is anything of note on 19 that list that you can direct us to? 20 We have a study in 1995, but I'm assuming 21 that's the commencement of Reid Crowther? 22 A: Reid Crowther, yeah. In 1991 I think the 23 sewage treatment plant -- 24 Q: Oh, yes. 25 A: -- see a hundred and twelve thousand


1 (112,000). 2 Q: Yes, right. 3 A: Yeah. That was construction of the 4 clarifier and detention basin -- 5 Q: Yeah. 6 A: -- and related piping. 7 Q: Right, and we've -- we've had other 8 witnesses discuss that with us. 9 Now, on tab 3 you've also provided us with a 10 useful summary in terms of capital grants applied for and 11 received by the city, and some -- some history of that. And 12 we've also inserted in the binder of course at tabs -- in 13 binder A at tabs 16 to 22, individual grant applications. 14 But perhaps we can begin by discussion of 15 the -- of the actual granting facilities that the city has 16 access to. I mean from the -- from the -- the granting 17 applications that we have at tabs 16 to 22, they appear to be 18 under two (2) particular facilities. One (1) is the -- the 19 Canada/Saskatchewan Infrastructure Program. 20 A: Right. 21 Q: And the other is the Provincial/Municipal 22 Program; is that correct? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. Now can you tell us roughly how 25 those two (2) programs work for you and how you use them?


1 A: Sure. Well the -- the programs are -- 2 are a little bit different. I think that in '94, '95 and 3 '96, '97, those were -- that was the -- that was the 4 tripartite agreement between the provinces, the federal 5 government and municipalities. In 1999 and 2000 it was just 6 the province and the municipalities. 7 And then in 2001 there was another five (5) 8 year program between -- it was a tripartite again between the 9 federal government, the provincial government and the 10 municipalities. And now it's a tripartite where the 11 municipalities portion is matched by the federal and 12 provincial governments. 13 Q: Right. 14 A: When we look at the grant programs, what 15 we try to do is get a project where we're going to maximize 16 the amount of dollars that we're going to get. 17 So, because we don't apply for a grant for a 18 certain program doesn't mean that it's different priority 19 than a project that we've applied for. What we're trying to 20 do is maximize the amount of dollars that we're going to get 21 for the city. 22 So, if for instance we didn't apply for a 23 grant for a water utility or the sewage treatment plant, that 24 doesn't mean that's not a high priority for the city. 25 But another capital work that we had in any


1 particular year we thought that we had a better chance of 2 perhaps getting a grant under that program. 3 So, this year the grant went towards the water 4 wells. And there's an agreement now with the other thirteen 5 (13) cities that we have, where the amount of dollars that we 6 have for the four (4) remaining years of the project, has 7 all -- all been allocated. And the city's portion of that is 8 about nine hundred and two thousand dollars ($902,000) 9 starting next year. 10 Q: Now, I think you've provided us with some 11 information in that regard -- 12 A: Right. 13 Q: -- in the -- the pages which accompany 14 that summary. Can you show us that amount on the -- on the 15 pages which follow and where the North Battleford allocation 16 comes from? 17 A: Okay, what tab? Sorry. 18 Q: Sorry, tab number 3 is where you provide 19 us with a summary and, following the summary, we have some 20 details concerning the Canada/Saskatchewan Infrastructure 21 Program per capita allocation and then, following that, the 22 Municipal Infrastructure Program city allocation -- 23 A: Okay, yeah, there it is. 24 Q: -- in 1999 so I was wondering if you 25 could refer us to those --


1 A: Okay. So, in 2001, we'll get two hundred 2 and fifty-four thousand nine hundred and seventy (254,970) 3 and the next four (4) years of the program, each year we'll 4 get two hundred and thirty three thousand six hundred and 5 seven (233,607). 6 Q: Right. So, in 2001, that two fifty-four 7 nine seventy (254,970), of course, that went to the wells 8 so -- 9 A: The wells. 10 Q: -- you maxed out on that program on your 11 allocation for that year? 12 A: That's right. 13 Q: Yes. And then, in relation to the -- 14 A: So, 2002 on, just by the way the numbers 15 worked out, you can see every municipality would be receiving 16 less and what we wanted to do, the cities wanted to allocate 17 what particular project they were going to have in any 18 particular year so our's -- the nine hundred and some 19 thousand we'll be getting is allocated to the sewage 20 treatment plant project. 21 Q: Okay. 22 A: We don't have official recognition from 23 the government levels on that yet, but, I mean, that's -- 24 Q: That's your plan. 25 A: -- it's -- it's been approved in


1 principle, but we don't have anything in writing. 2 Q: Okay. And I see, in relation to the 3 summary, I mean, apart from the wells in 2001, I mean, most 4 of the grant applications have been in relation to the -- the 5 distribution system or the collection system, that's where 6 your concentration has been -- 7 A: That's right. 8 Q: -- in your calculations -- 9 A: Yeah, except for the year 2000. 10 Q: Except for the year 2000. 11 A: All the other years have been spent on -- 12 on water and sewer. There's -- a couple of the years where 13 we spent smaller amounts in other areas, but generally it was 14 to water and sewer projects. 15 Q: Okay. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: Is this a good point to 17 have the morning break? 18 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: I think -- 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: We'll adjourn for fifteen 20 (15) minutes. 21 22 --- Upon recessing at 10:55 a.m. 23 --- Upon resuming at 11:15 a.m. 24 25 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, perhaps we'll


1 resume the Hearings. Mr. Russell, proceed when you're ready. 2 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 3 Commissioner. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 6 Q: Mr. Toye, just a few more areas where I 7 think you might be able to give us some significant direction 8 in relation to issues that have been raised by other 9 witnesses. 10 We've -- we've been concerned somewhat about 11 the -- the availability of -- of education for the operators 12 down at the plants and I'm wondering if you could help us to 13 identify in the departmental reports for 2000 and 2001 where 14 we would find the expenditures for that. 15 I think if you begin at tab 16 in the budget 16 binder on page 2, this seems to be broken down between 17 plants. I -- I don't know why it's done that way in the 18 departmental report. But, if we begin on page 2 with Water 19 Plant Number 1, I see a line item there called Staff Training 20 Water Plant Number 1 with a year-to-date figure of seven 21 hundred and eighty-five dollars ($785) on it; is -- is that 22 the line item we're talking about here when we're talking 23 about operator training? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: Okay. And then, in relation to the F.E.


1 Holliday plant, I see there's a similar line item with a 2 similar figure of seven eighty-five (785) and then a few 3 pages later, when we get to the sewer plant, it's actually 4 the next-to-last page, we have a figure of roughly the same 5 of seven hundred and fifty-two sixty-three (752.63). 6 Now, I'm not sure, first of all, why those 7 educational figures are -- are broken down between the 8 separate plants; can you explain that for us? 9 A: There -- there may be courses that are -- 10 are relevant just to that particular portion of the utility, 11 for instance, if they went to take a course on surface water, 12 we would charge that to the Number 2 Plant -- 13 Q: Okay. 14 A: -- and, if they had -- took a course on 15 iron removal, it would be Number 1 Plant so, specifically, if 16 related to that plant. I'm guessing that, in the Number -- 17 Plant Number 1 and 2 for this particular year, because the 18 amounts are both seven hundred and eighty-five dollars 19 ($785), that would have been a course or class that was 20 relevant to both so we just divided by two (2) and split it 21 up that way. 22 Q: Right, that's what it would look like to 23 me too. So would those three (3) figures added together 24 represent the -- represent the sum total that was spent on 25 education in which year because this departmental report is


1 for February 19th, 2001. So, what year is that covering? 2 A: In the top left hand corner, you'll see, 3 the year is 2000. 4 Q: Year 2000, yes. 5 A: So that would be for -- for last year. 6 Q: Okay. For the whole of last year. Now, 7 can you -- can you recollect who went on those courses? 8 A: No, I -- I don't have that information. 9 But what I can say is, I do know that in -- of March of 2000, 10 Mr. Strelioff, Mr. Katzell and I met with some members of the 11 union, including some of the operators. They were concerned 12 about education. 13 And at that meeting we, you know, I guess 14 stated the fact that continuing education for all of our 15 employees was very important to us. I mean, we saw that not 16 only as an investment for that particular person in their 17 professional development, but also it helps the city if 18 whatever they learned at that particular course or class they 19 could take back and -- and we could use it to help us provide 20 a better service. 21 So, the question, at that particular meeting, 22 was posed to us. Who -- who would pay for this? And we told 23 them the city would pay. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: And -- and they were a little bit


1 surprised by that, I think. But, I mean, it was always -- I 2 mean I don't -- I don't recall, at all, any union or non 3 union person making a request to go to a particular 4 conference or take a particular class and it was denied. I 5 mean, at council the other night, we're paying fifteen 6 hundred ($1,500) dollars to educate another one (1) of our 7 employees. 8 It's not an operator but it's an in scope 9 person who needs to take a course to help benefit himself 10 professionally, and also help the city in the job that we 11 expect him to perform -- while performing his duties. So 12 it's not unusual for us to -- to send people to conferences 13 or seminars. 14 Q: I think when we first discussed this, 15 though, I think your feeling was that these courses were 16 perhaps -- workshops and courses were perhaps more available 17 to out of scope people than in scope people, traditionally? 18 A: I think that's the way it traditionally 19 was done. But I think, at that -- and it's somewhere in my 20 binder, I think, there's minutes of a meeting that -- there 21 were minutes of that meeting, or notes, at least, indicate it 22 was quite clear that if there was a course that they wanted 23 to attend that they felt was going to benefit them. 24 Of course, we would take into consideration -- 25 we would want to make sure that we agreed that it was going


1 to benefit the city somehow. So if -- if someone is 2 operating the plants and they want to go take some course 3 that's not related to their particular job, then, of course, 4 we're, you know, it's not a carte blanche thing that they can 5 go to anything. 6 But if it's related to their job and we 7 consider the price and how much money we have in the budget, 8 then I don't think there's any reason why we would not deny. 9 Q: Okay. But you can't give us a figure, 10 for instance, of how many operators were sent on courses 11 in -- in 2000 and would have been covered by this combined 12 figure that we've just identified here? 13 A: No, I'm sorry. I don't -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: -- have that information. 16 Q: If we -- if we jumped ahead to 2001, tab 17 18, if we look at Plant Number 1, we seem to have a -- 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Which page are you on? 19 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, tab 18, Mr. 20 Commissioner. Page 2. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 24 Q: For tab number 1, on the same light -- 25 line item, reads fifteen ninety-six (15,096)?


1 A: That's correct. 2 Q: Down at number 2, we've only got forty- 3 eight (48). And at the sewage plant, on page -- 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: Five forty-eight (548)? 5 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, forty-eight (48) 6 -- forty-eight ninety (4890). 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: Staff training, F.E. 8 Holliday? 9 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes, you're -- oh, sorry. 10 I'm looking at the year to date figure. 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: Isn't this five forty- 12 eight (5 48)? 13 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry. 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: Five forty-eight ninety. 15 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, the -- the -- my 16 reading, Mr. Commissioner, is the five forty-eight (5 48) is 17 the opening balance and the year to date is forty-eight 18 ninety (4890)? 19 THE WITNESS: No. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: No. 21 THE WITNESS: Five forty-eight ninety, I 22 think. 23 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Five forty-eight ninety? 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 25 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, what's happened


1 here is I've squiggled through it and missed out the -- I've 2 crossed the five (5) out. My apologies, Mr. Toye. 3 And on the sewage plant it's one thousand, two 4 thirty-five (1,235)? 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: Where do you find the 6 sewage plant? 7 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, page 7 -- page 7, 8 Mr. Commissioner. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 Line item 26. Staff training and sewage 13 treatment. Staff training. Is that correct, Mr. Toye? 14 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 17 Q: So, it looks to me as though there's a -- 18 there's quite a -- there's some increase in the amount of 19 money at least you've spent on education in the -- in that 20 particular year? 21 A: Yes. I -- I -- it's recognized I think 22 by -- by administration and by I guess concerns that have 23 been put by the operators that they required more training. 24 So, we put additional dollars in the budget to allow for 25 that.


1 Q: Right. And one (1) of the areas brought 2 up by Mr. Strelioff that he couldn't quite put his finger on, 3 and perhaps we can sort of complete his testimony here 4 somewhat, is in -- at that same tab 18, the amount of -- the 5 amount of overtime that seems to have gone in at the -- at 6 the plants. 7 On page 2 under water problem, you have an 8 overtime water problem figure of eight thousand five hundred 9 and ten (8,510). Now does that -- does that figure represent 10 anything -- any work that was put in by the operators down at 11 the plants, or is that other people? 12 A: No, I -- I believe that would be other 13 people -- 14 Q: Yeah. 15 A: -- I'm -- that would have been I'm sure 16 what happened when we were flushing the total distribution 17 system. 18 Q: Right. 19 A: We had to do that, time was of the 20 essence to try to ensure clean potable water. And we -- 21 although we had engaged the services of an engineering firm 22 to oversee that, we had our staff with them all the time to 23 open and close valves, hydrants -- 24 Q: Right. 25 A: -- that type of thing.


1 Q: Yes, because if we move down to the next 2 section with Water Plant Number 1 in the second line there, 3 overtime salaries, Water Plant, we have a figure of three 4 thousand and twelve (3,012). 5 And similarly if you move down again to the 6 F.E. Holliday Plant, second line, there's a figure there of 7 ten thousand three hundred and sixteen (10,316). And I think 8 if you turn to the sewage figures on page 7 again, another 9 significant figure of nine thousand three hundred and eighty- 10 seven (9,387). 11 So, they would be the -- the 2000 year to date 12 figures, 2001 year to date figures on overtime? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Thank you, for the operators? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: Now if we just jump -- jump ahead here 17 I'm trying to see where we would go for instance, to give 18 some estimate of the -- of the cost of the contamination. 19 And at that same tab -- tab 18, the year date 20 November 2001, you do have some provisions dealing with that. 21 We won't go into the -- the water litigation section, which 22 is -- has its own separate figure of a hundred and eight 23 thousand and eight (108,008). 24 But you have a water problem section there, 25 this is on page 2, where to November 6th of 2001, the -- the


1 cost seems to be two hundred and ninety-three thousand seven 2 hundred and four dollars ($293,704); correct? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Now can you tell us what is included in 5 that figure, if we look at the line -- 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Sorry, I've lost you, 7 Mr. -- 8 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Oh -- 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- what page are we on? 10 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- sorry, Mr. 11 Commissioner, I'm -- it's at tab 18 -- 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 13 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- page -- page 2. 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 15 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: And the -- the second 16 section down, water -- there's two (2) sections at the top, 17 there's water litigation and -- 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 19 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- which has its own 20 separate figure, but water problem there's a figure of -- 21 year to date figure of two ninety-three seven oh four 22 (293,704). 23 24 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 25 Q: I can see what most of those line items


1 refer to, Mr. Toye, but I don't know what, for instance, 2 equipment water problem would be covered there, or supplies 3 water problem. Now do these figures include any of the 4 infrastructure and process changes that are being made down 5 at the Number 2 Water Plant, as a result of Mr. McDonald's 6 work, or is this a separate category of expenditures related 7 to the water problem? 8 A: It does include some of the upgrades. I 9 think if I can just give a quick overview. 10 The upgrades at the plant are about seventy 11 thousand dollars ($70,000), lab tests, water tests, that type 12 of thing, is fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). A hundred and 13 thirty-five thousand dollars ($135,000) was used on flushing 14 the system. 15 We supplied some water to the city residents, 16 that was about ten thousand dollars ($10,000). And then we 17 had a number of different announcements through local radio, 18 newspaper, and that's about fifteen thousand dollars 19 ($15,000). 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: So, that's a basic breakdown. 22 Q: Of the -- of the two ninety-three seven o 23 four (293,704)? 24 A: Right. 25 Q: Do you have -- do you in fact have a


1 written form of that breakdown that we could perhaps -- 2 A: Yes, I can share that with you -- 3 Q: -- if you could provide us -- 4 A: -- if you'd like. 5 Q: -- with that, I think that -- 6 A: Yeah. 7 Q: -- would be of some assistance to the 8 Commissioner. 9 So, in terms of the remediation process that 10 was described for us by Mr. McDonald down at the -- first of 11 all, down at the Number 2 Plant. What's -- what is the 12 status of remediation there, what are -- do you have a budget 13 for that, do you have -- do you have a plan in mind as to 14 what needs to be spent and when it needs to be spent and how 15 much it will cost? 16 A: Okay. Our estimates are -- are a million 17 dollars ($1,000,000). We did meet with the Premier and 18 Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing once the outbreak 19 had started; we felt that we had a commitment from them to 20 provide us with some dollars. 21 Subsequent to that, we met with -- or I met 22 and one (1) member of council met with officials from SERM, 23 the ADM, I think, Mr. Ruggles, Tim Macaulay from Sask Health, 24 Brij Mathur, Assistant Deputy Minister at that time, he's now 25 Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs Housing, Russ Krywulak,


1 who is the Grant Administrator from Municipal Affairs Housing 2 on the Canada/Sask Infrastructure and we proposed to them 3 that -- you know, we were in need of some Provincial/Federal 4 funding in order to address the situation at Water Treatment 5 Plant Number 2. 6 After the meeting, I was given a form to say 7 well, fill out this and we'll see what we can do. At that 8 time, I went through a number of different situations at the 9 plant or issues that we needed addressing such as the solid 10 contact unit to waste, the turbidimeters, the particle 11 counters, flash mixing, a lot of the things that Mr. 12 Strelioff, Mr. McDonald had talked about in a -- in a -- we 13 had to turn that budget around fairly quickly, they wanted it 14 by the next day, so we didn't have the opportunity to engage 15 a consultant to say what is this all going to cost. So, 16 between Mr. Strelioff and Mr. McDonald, they put together an 17 estimate of what they thought it was going to cost. 18 We had provided, when I met with the different 19 officials, basically what we felt was needed with some 20 ballpark figures, then we had to tweak those a little bit to 21 make sure that, you know, what we have is close to being 22 correct and it -- it ended up being pretty close. 23 So, we estimate the total cost would be a 24 million dollars ($1,000,000). We put in a grant application 25 where the City would put up five hundred thousand dollars


1 ($500,000) and the provincial government and the federal 2 government would each put in two hundred and fifty thousand 3 dollars ($250,000) so the total work we're estimating is 4 going to be $1 million that we have to do so we're successful 5 in -- in getting some funding from the two (2) other levels 6 of government. 7 So we -- we hope that's -- oh, I'm sorry, that 8 also includes the ultraviolet disinfection, which is a big 9 part of that. 10 So, to -- to date, we're not sure we're going 11 to spend a total of $1 million, but that's what our budget 12 forecast is and, when everything is done and all the smoke 13 clears, we'll see what it is. We don't believe it's going to 14 be over that to get to the different areas that we had 15 specified. 16 Q: Okay. In your binder at -- let's say the 17 first city binder at B-5, there's a preliminary budget there 18 and I'm wondering how accurate that is and whether we can -- 19 this is a -- it's accompanied by a letter of May 10th, 2001 20 from Mayor Ray to the premier of the province and attached to 21 that is a preliminary budget in relation to the Number 2 22 Water Plant and a breakdown of at least some of the changes 23 and the possible cost of those changes. 24 Now, in terms of being up-to-date, this is May 25 the 10th, I realize it's very, very early in the --


1 A: Hmm-hmm. 2 Q: -- in the year to -- is -- how close is 3 this budget to what you actually have to do and the actual 4 cost of what you have to do? 5 A: Yeah, I -- I think this letter is what 6 triggered the meeting with the government officials. 7 Q: Okay. 8 A: And these numbers had to be changed a 9 little bit, like I said, we had to put it together very 10 quickly, but this is close, I believe, so there -- there -- 11 you know, we may have to take from one (1) project and put it 12 to the other, but I think -- all in all, I think Mr. 13 McDonald's provided us with information to say it's -- it's 14 going to be right around the $1 million. 15 Q: Okay -- okay. And what about in relation 16 to the -- the Number 1 Plant, is -- is anything planned there 17 in terms of changes? 18 A: Well, the Number 1 Plant I think, in 19 talking to Mr. McDonald, has some limitations regarding 20 the -- not quantity -- or quality of water, but the quantity 21 of water that it can put through in its present state. 22 So, we're bringing more wells onstream, but 23 it's -- it's in the auspices of Mr. McDonald's contract with 24 the City that he's not only looking at the Number 2 Plant, 25 surface water plant, but he's looking at the sewage plant and


1 also Number 1 Plant so, when he has his complete -- his 2 report completed for council, we're sure that he's going to 3 include some recommendations of how perhaps we can use that 4 particular plant, either more efficiently or give us some 5 recommendations as to what we may have to do as far as future 6 expansions in order to be able to use that water perhaps a 7 little bit more than we do right now and comparison and ratio 8 to Number 2 Plant. 9 Q: So you're not yet at the stage where Mr. 10 McDonald's recommendations are available to you. So I'm 11 assuming that you haven't been able to devise any kind of 12 budget to meet those recommendations, as yet? 13 A: That's right. Well, we've put the one 14 ($1.00) dollar in knowing that we're going to have to spend 15 some money in -- in water infrastructure; as far as the 16 facilities are concerned, the work we're doing this year 17 is -- at Number 2 Plant is kind of covered and we hope -- 18 Q: Right - 19 A: -- by the time that's done, then we have 20 a look at some of the safety issues there that have been 21 brought up -- brought to our attention. But we think 22 everything's going to be addressed. And it's going to leave 23 Number 1 Plant and , again, that's correct, we'll wait for 24 Mr. McDonald's recommendations. 25 And then if we have to make adjustments


1 regarding future expenditures, then we can start to prepare 2 for those. 3 Q: Okay. Now I think you've told us in 4 relation to the sewage plant, what is -- what is planned 5 there is the definite decision has been made to -- to -- to 6 relocate? You're going through the site selection process 7 and you've -- you've done some budgeting as regards the costs 8 of actually completing that project -- 9 A: Right. 10 Q: -- and the overall -- the overall cost of 11 that relocation and reconstruction of the sewage plant, 12 what's -- what's it going to be? 13 A: We're estimating thirteen point eight 14 ($13.8) million. 15 Q: Okay. And that will have to be spent by 16 the year 2004? 17 A: 2004. 18 Q: Okay. In the interim, however, are there 19 any changes to that plant planned, at the present planned, as 20 a stop gap measure, until the new plant can be built? 21 A: Mr. McDonald is looking at some different 22 issues that the plant operators have brought to our 23 attention. Again, I guess we have to come to the realization 24 that this particular plant -- what it's use is going to be in 25 the future. Like, the -- the plan that we're talking about


1 right now, is because all the lines in the city regarding 2 sanitary sewer lead there, it would be very costly to take 3 care of all the piping and just ensure that it goes somewhere 4 else. 5 So, preliminary talks that I've had with some 6 of -- some of the consultants and with Randy say that perhaps 7 we could use this as a lift station. So all the sewage still 8 would go to that particular facility but there would be no 9 discharge. It would then be force mained to the new 10 facility, treated properly, UV, whatever it takes. Then 11 discharged into the river system. 12 So, if this particular plant is going to be 13 used for that type of use, then certainly we're going to have 14 to do some retrofitting for that. But I don't think that 15 we've at all ruled out some of the safety issues that have 16 been brought to our attention. 17 We're in the process now of -- well, we will 18 be going through the capital budgets and I, to be honest, I 19 haven't seen Mr. Strelioff's budget yet, to see if that's 20 included. But -- 21 Q: Okay. But so far, to date at least, 22 there have been no -- no capital expenditures on the -- on 23 the sewage treatment plant, following the contamination of 24 2001? 25 A: That's correct. Maintenance issues, like


1 the stack and things like that, we've spent some dollars 2 there. 3 Q: Right -- 4 A: I think if you look at the maintenance 5 part of it, that you brought about earlier, that we've spent 6 more money than budgeted this year. So we are continuing to 7 spend money. It might not be in the capital side. 8 Q: Yes -- 9 A: But in the maintenance side, you will see 10 that we're over budget this year. So we are trying to 11 address situations brought to our attention. 12 Q: Okay. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 You will -- I believe that you were present at 17 the -- at the city council retreat that was held in January 18 of -- 19 A: Yes, I was. 20 Q: -- 2001? 21 A: Yes. 22 Q: And I believe that the -- the -- the 23 state of the -- the water and -- and the sewage utility were 24 a topic on the agenda, at least? And Mr. Strelioff has told 25 us about that. And that agenda appears at tab B-18 in your


1 first city binder. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 And on -- we've been through this with Mr. 6 Strelioff, but one (1) issue which was never clear to me. On 7 the third page, we have a topic called main concerns, under 8 which we have identified a surplus and the user fees. Now 9 can you explain to us what those items refer to? 10 A: If I recall correctly, that whole 11 conversation was based on the fact that in the last number of 12 years the City of North Battleford in their regular operating 13 budget had been drawing down from surplus to balance the 14 budget. 15 So, if we -- we do our -- our regular budget, 16 and say it -- oops, sorry -- at the end of the day, we were a 17 hundred and fifteen thousand dollars ($115,000) short. 18 So, rather than go to the taxpayer to say, you 19 know, we're going to put up your taxes X amount of percent to 20 make up for this shortfall, there was a transfer from the 21 surplus to balance the budget. 22 Q: Right. 23 A: Now some members of council didn't feel 24 that was appropriate to do, and they -- they said well it's 25 not a true indic -- indication of the costs of any particular


1 year. So, they wanted to not do that anymore and said, well 2 we need some scenarios then of what the percentage increase 3 in the budget was going to be or the mill rate, in order for 4 us not to make that transfer. 5 Q: Okay. And those how the user fees came 6 into it as well? 7 A: Well, no, user fees we -- we talked about 8 the fact of -- and more municipalities are going to that. 9 For instance, Aquatic Centre fees -- 10 Q: I see. 11 A: -- skating fees, that type of thing -- 12 Q: I see. 13 A: -- because it is subsidized usually 50 14 percent by the taxpayer -- 15 Q: Right. 16 A: -- they thought maybe the user should be 17 paying a higher percentage of that. 18 Q: Yes, so we're not talking anything to do 19 with the plants, that's all -- 20 A: No, no -- 21 Q: -- I needed to know, thank you. 22 A: -- that had nothing to do with that. 23 Q: Okay. In Mr. Fluney's binder, if I can 24 just find it. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Sorry, Mr. Commissioner, 4 I'm just having -- 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: That's fine, take your 6 time. 7 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- trouble identifying 8 the tab here. I should have had that, I thought I had it. 9 10 (BRIEF PAUSE) 11 12 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 13 Q: Sorry, Mr. Toye, in Mr. Fluney's binder, 14 first of all at tab number 8 you will see there a letter of 15 January 12th, 2001, which is addressed to city council and it 16 comes from the Plants Department staff. 17 And you will see that one (1) of the people 18 copied on that letter was yourself. It's come up in our 19 discussions with several witnesses. 20 A: Hmm-hmm. 21 Q: But did you yourself ever receive a copy 22 of this letter? 23 A: I did. 24 Q: Okay. And having received it, what did 25 you do?


1 A: I -- I don't -- I don't honestly recall, 2 but what I could say is what probably happened, and -- and 3 traditionally this is what I would do, if I got a letter like 4 this I would either attach a memo from myself to the manager 5 to say we need to talk about this, or you know, what's -- 6 what's with this, like what are these concerns. 7 And you know, I don't -- I don't recall a 100 8 percent talking to Randy about it, but I -- I think what 9 happened -- again there's a little bit of speculation here, 10 that -- that we would have talked about this, and -- and but 11 I don't call -- recall directly. 12 And -- and -- because I don't 100 percent 13 remember talking to him, but I -- I speculate. I could 14 speculate the -- 15 Q: All right -- 16 A: -- fact that I know that I would have 17 sent something to him on this. 18 Q: -- no, unless -- unless there's something 19 definitely, I mean our concern is here it does seem something 20 of a -- an extraordinary letter to write -- 21 A: Yeah. 22 Q: -- to city council, and our feeling is 23 that it was received by yourself and other administration, it 24 should have alerted someone to something. But if you have no 25 recollection of responding to this, then you have no


1 recollection. 2 A: But I do know -- I do know that I did get 3 it, like that I can say for sure. 4 Q: Yeah. 5 A: And it would be unusual for me not to 6 either send a memo or talk to the particular manager about 7 it. 8 Q: Right. And at the next tab, at tab 9, 9 there's a draft letter of February 2nd, 2001 to Mr. 10 Strelioff, which is once again copied to yourself, the city 11 commissioner. 12 Do you recall receiving that letter? 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 Our concern here has been on the second page 17 in relation to the issue of competent supervision which has 18 arisen from time to time, it seems to be the -- one (1) of 19 the main grounds of complaint in the letter; do you -- do you 20 recall receiving this? 21 A: Well, it's got my name on it so I must 22 have seen it and I would have -- again, one (1) of those 23 situations where I would have talked to Randy about it. 24 Q: But nothing -- nothing jumps out to you 25 as --


1 A: Well, I -- 2 Q: -- being extraordinary? 3 A: -- they were dealing with -- in -- in the 4 aspect of having a competent person in charge. I know at the 5 time that we were doing an active search and I know in 6 this -- I think the third week of January we made an offer to 7 an individual on it and Randy and I had talked about that and 8 said, well, we've got somebody coming onboard, he looks 9 pretty qualified. 10 Q: Right. 11 A: The difficulty we were facing at that 12 time is I believe that SERM was doing some executive -- 13 Q: Right, yes. 14 A: -- searches and a lot of these people 15 felt they were qualified for some of those positions that 16 were open. 17 Q: Yes. So, in other words, I think what 18 you're telling us is that you were aware of the -- 19 A: Yes -- yes, I can say -- 20 Q: -- the type of concern that's raised in 21 this letter anyway -- 22 A: Yeah. 23 Q: -- and you were actively seeking a Plants 24 foreman? 25 A: Usually if it involved labour management


1 issues -- 2 Q: Right. 3 A: -- somewhere in that piece, I would be 4 contacted. 5 Q: Okay. Just one (1) more area, I think, 6 here. In relation to -- in your -- the city binder at tab 7 A-4, you have provided us with some comparative figures on 8 operator salaries, we have some 2001 figures for the City of 9 North Battleford and I believe you've also provided us with 10 comparative figures for Lloydminster and Swift Current. 11 A: Right. 12 Q: So, when you're -- when you're assessing 13 appropriate plant salaries for your operators, do you -- do 14 you have these other centres in mind, are these places that 15 you contact to find out what's happening there? 16 A: It's not unusual for municipalities to 17 share information like this, especially when they're going 18 into a year of collective bargaining, we share contracts, we 19 network regularly, city commissioners and mayors meet two (2) 20 times a year. 21 A lot of the contracts that we have expire at 22 the same time, we talk about a lot of different issues and 23 sometimes labour issues are -- are one (1) of the things that 24 we might talk about. 25 Q: Right. Under the -- if we look at the --


1 the hourly wage schedule for April 1st, 2001 to March 31st, 2 2002 for -- for North Battleford, under Treatment Plants, we 3 have a line for Assistant Plants Operator and Plants Operator 4 so -- 5 A: Hmm-hmm. 6 Q: -- are they the only distinctions that 7 are made in terms of setting the -- the hourly rate Assistant 8 and Plants -- 9 A: Yes. 10 Q: Is there no distinction, for instance, 11 between a level 1 operator or a level 3 operator? 12 A: Not in the City of North Battleford. 13 Q: Okay. Do you know if that is the case in 14 any of the other centres you've drawn to our attention? 15 A: I know that the City of Yorkton does 16 that -- 17 Q: Hmm-hmm. 18 A: -- that salary is -- there's a scale 19 based on it if you have certain certification and a high 20 salary is based on the highest level of certification. 21 Q: Okay. But your understanding is that 22 that isn't the case in Lloydminster? 23 A: I've got the Lloydminster contract, I 24 could check into that. In Swift Current, you know, they talk 25 about so many years of service --


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: -- but I know for sure that the Yorkton 3 plant has that. 4 Q: Okay. So, in terms of -- of comparisons 5 between these centres for equivalent operators, what 6 conclusions have you come to when you've done this kind of 7 study, are you -- is the City of North Battleford playing -- 8 paying equivalent salaries? 9 A: Well, if you look at the top of the 10 level, North Battleford, I think, for the period ending March 11 31st, 2002 is sixteen fifteen (16.15), Lloydminster is 12 fifteen eighty-nine (15.89) and, when you work out Swift 13 Current's, the top of their plant operator 1, which is their 14 top position, when you work that out to per hour, is fifteen 15 eighteen (15.18). 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: So, of these -- of the comparisons we've 18 done, North Battleford's the highest. 19 Q: Okay. Mr. Toye, I know that you were -- 20 you were involved in some of the meetings that -- or at least 21 many of the meetings that took place during the course of the 22 contaminations that arose in 2000 -- 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: -- and in 2001. I'm not going to lead 25 you through those meetings, but just for purposes of


1 assisting the Commissioner, we do have in your binder, at tab 2 A-2 and at tab A-3, if you could just identify this, your 3 handwritten notes of all those meetings, for both the 2000 4 contamination and the 2001 contamination? Is that what those 5 notes cover? 6 A: Yes. 7 Q: So you were at basically all of the 8 meetings, making notes as to what people were saying and what 9 was going on? 10 A: Well, you can see the September issue, 11 that weren't very good notes but I was there. 12 Q: Yes. Okay. 13 A: And then in the -- the other one (1) I 14 took a little bit more detailed but those are the meetings I 15 attended. I usually did take some notes. They weren't 16 verbatim. 17 Q: Yes. 18 A: Obviously I missed things but -- 19 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Okay, but they are there. 20 Mr. Commissioner, I have no further questions of Mr. Toye. 21 Thank you, Mr. Toye. 22 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 All right. Counsel, have you agreed on any 2 particular order? Let me ask Mr. Young, do you have any 3 questions. 4 MR. GARY YOUNG: No questions, Mr. 5 Commissioner. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Gabrielson? 7 MR. Neil Gabrielson: No questions, Mr. 8 Commissioner. 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Hopley? 10 MR. SCOTT HOPLEY: No questions. 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: No questions. Mr. 12 McDonald? 13 MR. ROBERT McDONALD: No questions, thank 14 you, Mr. Commissioner. 15 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well I guess perhaps we're 16 at Mr. Scharfstein. 17 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Mr. Commissioner, 18 I -- I need about two (2) minutes because Mr. Ryan is copying 19 the -- 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 21 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: -- for me. It should 22 be about two (2), three (3) minutes if somebody else has 23 something really short. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Mitchell, you're still 25 consulting as well, are you?


1 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: Yes. 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well, all right. Then 3 perhaps we'll take a -- we'll break for ten (10) minutes and 4 then we'll resume with the questioning. Thank you. 5 6 --- Upon recessing at 11:50 a.m. 7 --- Upon resuming at 12:00 p.m. 8 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Perhaps we'll 10 resume the Hearings. And Mr. Scharfstein, proceed when 11 you're ready, please. 12 13 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 14 Q: Good morning, Mr. Toye. I hope to be -- 15 A: Good morning. 16 Q: -- relatively brief. I had asked Mr. 17 McDonald this question and I'll ask you this question. In 18 the findings of Health Canada, they had indicated that in 19 their opinion, there was a contamination here in April of 20 2001 caused by the failure of the SCU unit at Surface Water 21 Treatment Plant Number 2. 22 I'm wondering if, in your opinion, you concur 23 with that at this point in time or if you have any 24 information that says it might have been something else? 25 A: Well, I think that the tests that we've


1 taken through the distribution system only show one (1) 2 crypto was found in one (1) area. So, certainly there was -- 3 there was people who were ill in the City of North 4 Battleford. Was that contamination from our distribution 5 system? I'm -- I'm not sure that that, you know, our -- the 6 tests that were taken within our system and we did a number 7 of tests, we had one (1) active crypto. And that's all 8 they -- they showed up. So, I -- I'm -- I'm not 100 percent 9 convinced of that. 10 Q: And those were tests that were done after 11 April 25th, correct? 12 A: That's correct. 13 Q: Do you have any other explanation for 14 the -- the outbreak that was caused? 15 A: No. That would be speculation. 16 Q: When you took over, I think, January 1st, 17 2000, did you get any kind of briefing from your predecessor, 18 Mr. McEwen, about how things operated, any -- any detailed 19 briefing? Or even summary briefing of what to look for in 20 your job? 21 A: Yeah. I -- I met with Mr. McEwen on a 22 couple of occasions where he gave overviews of -- of ceratin 23 issues. But after we met a couple of times and I got to know 24 some of the staff, I felt that there should be a -- a clean 25 break in the administration. And that I needed to bring my


1 own ideas to a new job. 2 And I didn't want -- I guess people to look 3 upon me as someone -- I needed someone else to kind of give 4 me the information. But I think that I had a very strong 5 core of individuals who reported directly to me, seven (7) of 6 them, and I had a lot of confidence in them. 7 So I said to Mr. McEwen, thank you very much 8 for this offer. And I had met him a couple of times but I 9 said I think it's something that I kind of have to get my own 10 feet wet with. 11 Q: In -- in the brief meetings you did have 12 with Mr. McEwen, were any issues of significance raised about 13 the plants or the sewage treatment plant or water treatment 14 plants, that you recall? 15 A: No. 16 Q: Okay. We've certainly heard a lot of 17 evidence that Mr. Katzell had serious concerns going back to 18 1988 and on about staffing and about the -- the old age of 19 the plants -- 20 A: Right. 21 Q: -- and -- and certainly the 22 correspondence we've seen in his binder, we don't need to go 23 to it, I think indicates that he thought it was a serious 24 problem through his tenure, would that be fair to say? 25 A: From the correspondence that I've seen,


1 yes, I would -- 2 Q: Yeah. 3 A: -- I would concur. 4 Q: Did he convey any of that to you in -- in 5 the year 2000, when -- when -- while he was still here and 6 you were here? 7 A: The only time is when we met the one (1) 8 time, it was July or -- or August and -- and he talked 9 about -- he -- I remember him being -- I took some notes 10 of -- of -- and he was telling me the -- the shifting of the 11 workers, how -- you know, how he had eight (8) workers and 12 one (1) summer student, and here's what the shifts were. 13 And -- and during this busy period he had 14 difficulty fit -- fitting this in. Traditionally they've 15 been able to do it, but it was some cause of concern, and the 16 other cause of concern was the fact that when he was moved up 17 to this position, the city did not replace the -- it wasn't a 18 sub foreman, but like an assistant to the manager position. 19 And I think that the message that he was 20 trying to give to me was that was more important than 21 additional operators, because the operators position when 22 they were really in dire straits, I would put it, would be 23 the April or May to August situation. And again, I testified 24 this morning how we've tried to address that. 25 And -- and to be honest, Randy and I have


1 talked about an additional person. What that is going to be, 2 is it going to be an out of scope. I mean Randy's talked 3 about the fact of getting a person who's a millwright and 4 being able to do a lot of the maintenance. 5 And we've talked to the current manager and -- 6 and even talked to some of the employees about the fact, like 7 is it -- is it what you need, is another out of scope person. 8 So, I've -- I've had these discussions with the operators and 9 with the manager and with Mr. Strelioff. 10 Q: Are there plans at the present time to 11 hire any more operators in the near future, full time? 12 A: Well -- 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think he's just 14 answered the question, Mr. Scharfstein, they're not sure, 15 they're talking about -- 16 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Okay. 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- possibly one (1) extra 18 person, but whether it's in scope -- 19 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: But no decision -- 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- or out of scope or a 21 millwright or an operator or -- 22 23 CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 24 Q: And no decision's yet be made; would that 25 be fair to say?


1 A: Not on that, but -- but I can say for the 2 operators, we do have two (2) individuals who are -- who are 3 committed to help us when we need them. 4 Q: Okay. 5 A: And one (1) -- one (1) is a former 6 employee who is taking a certification course next week, who 7 is a farmer. And he came this summer and -- and helped us 8 out. So, those would be during the high peak times, or when 9 we have someone who needs to take holidays, that type of 10 situation, if it doesn't interfere with his other operation. 11 Q: So, that certainly addresses Mr. 12 Katzell's concern and what he expressed to you about the 13 staffing. What about the -- the age of the plants and his 14 concerns that for example, the sewage treatment plant was 15 pumping out effluent that wasn't meeting guidelines, 16 regulations -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- was that conveyed to you by either Mr. 19 Strelioff, Mr. McEwen, when he took over, or Mr. Katzell? 20 Those kinds of infrastructure concerns at the plants? 21 A: Well I think when I went for my tour of 22 the facilities, I mean I could see those aspects of it. The 23 fact that if there was events where there was rainfall and -- 24 and we had times when water was going into the river, 25 somewhere along the piece I -- I learned about that.


1 But I don't think, you know, in -- in my tour, 2 I could see the condition of the plants, and -- and you know, 3 I certainly understood why there would have been concerns. 4 Q: Okay. I want to look at C-93, which is I 5 think the budget information items in tab 1, the -- the 6 general overview summary. 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: That's the budget binder? 8 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Yeah, that's the 9 budget information binder. 10 THE WITNESS: Okay. 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: What tab, Mr. Scharfstein? 12 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Tab -- tab 1, the -- 13 the general overview. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 16 Q: Do you have that with you? 17 A: Yes, I do. 18 Q: Just for clarification under the -- the 19 category of capital and special maintenance, what would that 20 entail, capital and special maintenance as a category, what 21 types of things? 22 A: The -- the capital budget would be 23 anything that's usually going to last longer than one (1) 24 year. So, otherwise it would be in a regular operating 25 budget -- budget under maintenance, so it would be a capital


1 purchase of putting in railings, or doing expansion to a -- 2 to a -- to a room in a facility, that type of thing. 3 Q: Okay. And I think that we see it in the 4 actual to October 2001 on the Number 1 Treatment Plant, there 5 was three hundred and sixty-five thousand (365,000) spent., 6 that includes, I understand, the new wells that were put in 7 for -- I think it was two hundred and fifty-five thousand 8 (255,000); correct? 9 A: Yeah, that's correct. 10 Q: Okay. And on the F.E. Holliday Water 11 Treatment Plant, was there a breakdown of that hundred and 12 eighty-six six seventy-one (186,671) for the year in the 13 binders, I couldn't find it? 14 A: No, it's not in the binder -- a lot of 15 that work would have been work to do with -- with what's 16 happening with the water litigation issues -- 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: -- some of those situations. 19 Q: And -- 20 A: I can get you a breakdown. 21 Q: -- that's fine. But the money used for 22 that wasn't -- that was taken from the utility reserves I 23 expect? 24 A: Yeah, see the -- we budgeted sixty-five 25 (65,000) and spent one eighty-six (186). The sixty-five


1 thousand (65,000) would have come from reserves so we're 2 going to have to draw down an additional hundred and thirty 3 thousand (130,000). 4 Q: Right. You don't -- the point is, you 5 don't have to borrow for that, the money is available to do 6 that? 7 A: Yes, it's -- although it's on budget, 8 what it does is draw down our reserves quicker than we would 9 have thought. Generally when we do a five (5) year budget, 10 we've got a plant of what we're going to be required and 11 usually that's been funded through -- through reserves so 12 there might be projects in the future, from 2002 to 2005, 13 that we may have to borrow in the future though for those 14 projects. 15 Q: Okay. 16 A: So, it does have some future 17 ramifications. 18 Q: Now, I want to look at tab C-64, tab 9, 19 that's your binder -- the City's binder, binder 'A', tab 9. 20 A: C-9? 21 Q: No, tab A-9, which I think is the -- 22 A: Oh, A-9, okay, yeah. 23 Q: -- capital budget -- 24 A: Sure. 25 Q: -- 2000 --


1 A: Yeah. 2 Q: -- to 2004 and I notice that, under -- on 3 the second page of that document, they have indicated for the 4 year 2000 expenditures budgeted for total water and total 5 sewer of six hundred and eighty thousand (680,000); is that 6 correct? 7 A: Yes, that's what it says. 8 Q: And I think on one (1) of the documents 9 I've found that, in fact, what was spent in 2000 was two 10 hundred and ninety-six seven twenty-eight (296,728); do you 11 recall that? 12 A: I don't have that number in front of 13 me -- 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: -- but, if that's what you say that... 16 Q: And I think that was on the -- going back 17 to the budget information, if I recall, on tab 1 of the 18 budget -- the -- where it says Actual 2000. 19 A: Right. 20 Q: It shows it -- a total there, I think, of 21 two hundred and ninety-six seven twenty-eight (296,728) -- 22 A: Oh, yeah. 23 Q: -- correct? 24 A: Yeah, that's right. 25 Q: Okay. And I guess my question is, 2000


1 was budgeted for six hundred and eighty thousand (680,000), I 2 suppose the simple question is why wasn't that spent? 3 A: Well, that's -- that includes water and 4 sewer so you'd have to add the water amount of two thousand 5 two hundred and ninety-six (2,296), plus the sewer amount on 6 the next page of two hundred and seventeen thousand 7 (217,000). 8 Q: Okay. So that came up to the figure -- 9 A: It's not -- 10 Q: Well, it's actually spent? 11 A: It's not it bang on, but it's -- you 12 know, it's five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) so 13 there's still a hundred and eighty thousand (180,000) that 14 wasn't spent so I'd gather to say, in 2000, we had sixty-five 15 thousand dollars ($65,000) to the site suitability study and 16 that -- that's being spent this year. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: If you go to the previous page -- no, 19 it's not there, but it says project that we carried forward 20 from the previous year. 21 Q: Now, on your budgeting process, would you 22 annually -- or annually -- for the year 2000, would Mr. 23 Strelioff given you a document that said here's the needs for 24 the year 2000 and again for 2001 for the Plants Department? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: Okay. I -- I haven't seen that document 2 and -- and I think it would be important if there's any 3 opportunity to see it as to what it is Mr. Strelioff was 4 saying was needed in the Plants Department for the year 2000 5 and 2001? 6 A: Well, what -- what we would have done in 7 any particular year is we go over the total five (5) year 8 plan. 9 Q: Hmm-hmm. 10 A: In the first year, I think it's been 11 already given in evidence by someone that the first year of 12 that is the upcoming year so, for this upcoming year, the 13 five (5) year plan will be 2002 to 2006, 2002 will be our 14 capital budget for any particular year so he would present 15 that. He'd give me a copy, generally, but he would give it 16 to the director of finance then, who consolidates those 17 budgets for -- for all of the departments. And -- 18 Q: Right. 19 A: -- if you would like that information -- 20 Q: Yeah, and what I would like -- is -- is 21 there a sheet that says, okay, for 2000, as head of the 22 Plants department, I think we need to spend this much on item 23 'A', this much on item 'B' -- 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: -- and show what -- what he felt for both


1 2000 and 2001 was needed at those plants; there would be a 2 document like that? 3 A: He -- I'm sorry, Mr. Strelioff would have 4 provided that to the director of finance so I'll -- I'll have 5 her look through her records to provide those for you. 6 Q: It may be of assistance. I don't know 7 what's in it so it might not be -- 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: -- but if you could provide that, I would 10 appreciate it. 11 I want to talk a bit about the memberships and 12 subscriptions and education and -- and you indicated, I 13 think, for 2000 you weren't sure what was spent or who it was 14 spent on and I'm looking at, again, C-93 of the budget 15 information under tab 15. 16 And I don't know if this is going to assist, 17 but, if you look at tab 15 under that C-93 -- 18 A: Okay, yes. 19 Q: -- it talks about it being the 2000 20 budget detail and go to the second page, partway down there's 21 an item Memberships and Subscriptions. 22 A: Yeah. 23 Q: And it says, a. American Waterworks 24 Association a hundred and ten ($110) dollars. 25 And then it has some other entries there I


1 want to talk about for just a minute. 2 But the last column, REC'md. What does that 3 mean? Is that what was actually spent? 4 A: No. That was recommended to go to 5 budget. 6 Q: Okay. I notice -- 7 A: That's recommend. 8 Q: I notice that in the waterworks, there's 9 a budget for Ivan Katzell, Randy Strelioff and J.C. who I 10 think was an individual named Jules Cote. But I don't see 11 any expenditures there for memberships, subscriptions, 12 conventions or seminars for any of the operators for the year 13 2000. Would that be fair to say? On the water utility 14 budget? 15 A: That's what that looks like. 16 Q: Okay. 17 A: I can -- if I could add to that, though. 18 Q: Yes? 19 A: I can say since then. I know that 20 operators have attended conferences, they've attended them 21 this year, for sure. 22 Q: In 2001? 23 A: Yes. 24 Q: Okay. And then again, I think if you go 25 just to the fourth last page, it's the sewer utility budget.


1 And -- and it's a similar situation where the budgeted items 2 for memberships, subscriptions, conventions and seminars 3 relate to Randy Strelioff, Ivan Katzell and Jules Cote, only. 4 Would that be fair to say? 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: What page are you on, Mr. 6 Scharfstein? 7 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: I don't know if the 8 page numbers are on these. It's the fourth last page in that 9 tab. 10 THE WITNESS: Oh, yeah. I've got it. 11 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Under sewer utility 12 and part way down it shows memberships, subscription 13 memberships and then convention seminars. 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: I haven't found it. 15 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: The very top of the 16 page, it says sewer utility, under account number. And then 17 part way down, number -- 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, I see it. 19 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: -- one (1), three 20 (3), yeah. 21 And again, it appears as though on the 22 budgeting process, there were no operators budgeted for -- 23 for 2000, anyway? 24 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 2 Q: And to your knowledge, did the city 3 provide funding for any of the operators for the year 2000, 4 for memberships, subscriptions or conventions? 5 A: I -- I don't know that. But I do know 6 that if we were approached for our staff to partake in 7 professional development or be a member of associations, that 8 we certainly tried to oblige where we could. 9 Q: Okay. Now you were referred, in Mr. 10 Fluney's binder and I don't think we need to turn to it, to a 11 couple of letters. One (1) I think in January to city 12 council that you indicated you had a -- a familiarity with to 13 some degree. 14 I noticed also in your SAE that you indicated, 15 in paragraph 51, I'll just quote it to refresh memory: 16 "All council members recall discussions 17 with respect to Plants Department issues at 18 the January 13th and 14th, 2001 City 19 Council Retreat." 20 Do you recall the nature of those discussions 21 at the City Council Retreat about the Plants Department? 22 A: Well, my job there, at that retreat, was 23 a -- a facilitator. I mean I didn't, you know, get involved 24 with a lot of discussion. My job was to kind of pull out all 25 the information and get the ideas on the boards and some


1 staff help with that. 2 But I -- I do know at least one (1) member of 3 council said the number one (1) priority for him was -- was 4 the infrastructure at the water and sewer treatment plant. 5 And it did get considerable discussion. And it also was the 6 number one (1) ranking from all the topics that were 7 discussed. 8 So, it was -- it was -- it was discussed in a 9 considerable amount of time. A lot of time. 10 Q: Sure. And in particular that letter that 11 outlined the concerns of the operators of a couple days 12 earlier was that specifically addressed, do you recall? And 13 people saying -- 14 A: No, I -- I don't recall that -- 15 Q: -- what's that all about? 16 A: No. I don't recall that being addressed 17 or handed out there or anything like that. 18 Q: I have a document I'm going to show you. 19 It's -- it hasn't been submitted before and I just want to 20 identify it. It's a report of meeting, Public Works Waste 21 Management Committee dated Tuesday, February 13, 2001. 22 23 (BRIEF PAUSE) 24 25 Now would there be a -- my understanding is


1 there's probably monthly meetings of a Public Works 2 Department. Is that correct? Or -- 3 A: Traditionally that's the way it's held 4 but if there's unusual circumstances that arise, then we 5 don't have a meeting. 6 Q: Okay. And you attend those meetings? I 7 think certainly in this one (1), you're at -- and you attend 8 most of them? 9 A: Most of them I do, yes. 10 Q: And I notice on this one (1), February 11 13th, 2001 which was prior to the contamination event, item 7 12 says: 13 "Plant issues. The committed was apprized 14 of a number of sewer and water issues, 15 including wells, solid contact unit and 16 chlorinators." 17 Do you recall the nature of that discussion 18 and the issues and concerns that were raised at that meeting? 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 I mean specifically maybe just the solids 23 contact unit, because it's listed here, I assume there was -- 24 A: Yeah. 25 Q: -- some debate or discussion about that.


1 Do you recall what that was? 2 A: I -- I know that it was -- it was a 3 budget item in 2001 to fix it. It would just be pure 4 speculation that Randy probably said that we were probably 5 going to take it down and -- and have a look. There was a 6 crack in it, so that was why we were taking it down in 2001. 7 As the last time it was taken out of service, there was a 8 crack in it, and the idea of it was to take it out of 9 service, have a look at the crack, see if it had to be 10 repaired, see if it had gotten worse. 11 And I -- I don't recall specifically, but he 12 was probably just keeping the committee apprised that there 13 was this item that he wanted to put forward in the budget and 14 here's why they were doing it. 15 Q: Okay, and that's -- that's -- you think 16 that's what it was -- 17 A: Yeah, I -- I -- 18 Q: -- okay. Do you recall any other issues 19 that stuck out in your mind that -- that were problems at the 20 plants, that were discussed at this February 13th meeting? 21 A: No. 22 Q: Okay, nothing significant? 23 A: No, I don't. 24 Q: Okay. 25 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Could I have this


1 entered as Exhibit C -- 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: C-98. 3 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: -- 98. 4 5 EXHIBIT NO. C-98: Report of meeting, Public Works 6 Waste Management Committee dated 7 Tuesday, February 13, 2001 8 9 CONTINUED BY MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: 10 Q: Finally I have just two (2) more 11 documents I'll give you at the same time. 12 One (1) is a report of a meeting again of the 13 Public Works/Waste Management Department, dated November 14 21st, 2000, and the other is a Request for Proposal, 15 Monitoring and Control for Water and Water/Waste Water 16 Systems. And I -- I'm going to show them to you, I have a 17 couple of questions on them. 18 A: Okay. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 Q: Now again the first document is the 23 report of the meeting of the Public Works Committee that you 24 attended on November 21st, 2000; correct? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And on the second page talking about 2 water and wastewater plants, there -- there's a few items 3 that were discussed at that meeting, including site selection 4 for the sewage treatment plant, and that there were five (5) 5 proposals received to do that site selection; is that 6 correct? 7 A: Yes, that's what the record shows. 8 Q: Yeah, and ultimately those were reviewed 9 and one (1) was selected and then that's undergo -- underway 10 now; correct? 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And the second item is Monitoring and 13 Controls Modernization, and that an RFP is being prepared. 14 And the second document I gave you is an RFP 15 for that, I just want you to confirm that that is in fact the 16 Request for Proposal for that Monitoring and Control for 17 Water and Waste Water Systems referred to; would that be 18 correct? 19 A: It -- it appears to be, yes. 20 Q: Okay. And that was in November of 2000. 21 I'm wondering, I know that in the Pommen Report back in '96, 22 they had talked about a -- a monitoring and control system 23 being a priority. 24 Is that the same monitoring and control system 25 they identified as a priority in '96, that's now being


1 addressed in late 2000? 2 A: I wasn't here in '96. 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: I -- I was briefed on the report, but 5 that may -- may be correct. 6 Q: To your knowledge, no other assessment or 7 Request for Proposals on the -- the monitoring and control 8 system had been done prior to this 200 document -- 9 A: Not -- 10 Q: -- and sent out? 11 A: -- not while I was employed by the city. 12 Q: Right. And has anybody responded to 13 this, has somebody been selected? Where does that sit right 14 now, the issue of the -- the monitoring and control system? 15 A: No, I -- I don't think that this -- this 16 was let for -- I'm not sure why, but I don't think this 17 tender was let. I don't -- I don't recall us engaging the 18 services of someone to do this. 19 Q: Okay, so to your knowledge no steps yet 20 have been taken for -- for a new monitoring and control 21 system at the plants? 22 A: To the best of my recollection. 23 Q: Okay. 24 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: I have no further 25 questions, Mr. Commissioner, thank you.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: Do you want that marked 2 as -- 3 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Oh, yeah, we should 4 mark those two (2) documents either separately or together, 5 they relate to each other, it's however you want to do it. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, well we'll keep 7 them together as C-99. 8 MR. GRANT SCHARFSTEIN: Thank you. 9 10 --- EXHIBIT NO. C-99: Report of a meeting of the Public 11 Works/Waste Management Department, 12 dated November 21st, 2000. A 13 Request for Proposal, Monitoring 14 and Control for Water and 15 Water/Wastewater Systems 16 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mr. Tochor, do you have -- 18 I don't want to interrupt you, I see we're at twenty-five 19 (25) past. Do you have any idea how long you're going to be 20 or -- 21 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: I hope I can be finished 22 by 12:30. 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 2 Q: Mr. Toye, you were the city commissioner 3 in September of 2000? 4 A: Yes, I was. 5 Q: And you would have been aware of the -- 6 not necessarily all the details, but aware of the 7 contamination problem in September of 2000? 8 A: Yes, I attended a number of those 9 meetings. 10 Q: And would have been present when the 11 Precautionary Drinking Water Order was -- I'm sorry, the 12 Precautionary Drinking Water Advisory was ordered from 13 September 15th to 19th? 14 A: Yes. 15 Q: And you're of course aware, in very 16 general terms, of the difficulties a Drinking Water Advisory 17 poses for citizens and residents of the community? 18 A: Yes. 19 Q: And it's also fair to say that that same 20 Advisory would pose some difficulties and challenges for the 21 city? 22 A: Yes. 23 Q: Actually I don't -- I don't intend to go 24 into any great detail, but there's -- there's some 25 embarrassment to the city when a Drinking Water Advisory is


1 in place? 2 A: I'm not sure if embarrassment's what it 3 is, but I mean we're concerned about trying to get the 4 message out. I think in all the meetings that we attended, 5 the individuals who were there decided to err on the side of 6 caution more than anything, I don't -- I -- embarrassment 7 never really came -- that doesn't come to my mind. 8 Q: Right, was -- was there any criticism 9 that you were aware of, of the city administration as a 10 result of this Precautionary Drinking Water Advisory in 11 September 2000? 12 A: The administration being myself and Mr. 13 Strelioff or -- 14 Q: Or the city -- 15 A: -- council or -- 16 Q: -- in general. 17 A: -- the city in general? 18 Q: Were -- were -- were you aware of any 19 complaints from residents about the city in general, because 20 this Drinking Water Advisory was in place for four (4) days 21 in September of 2000? 22 A: I -- hmm, let me think about that. I 23 didn't get any direct complaints from citizens myself 24 personally. I think citizens were concerned. Some -- some 25 of the citizens didn't understand.


1 We did go door to door with flyers alerting 2 our citizens, but I don't think when you have something like 3 that there is going to be -- when you've got a city of 4 fifteen thousand (15,000) people, certainly some of them 5 might advise how we might have handled things differently. 6 Q: The point I'm trying to make is, even 7 in -- in any level of government when there's a problem, 8 you're going to get blamed for some of it; is that fair? 9 A: Absolutely. 10 Q: I just want to flash forward very briefly 11 to April of 2001, you were present at the first meeting with 12 Dr. Benade when some of these issues are being -- 13 A: Yes. 14 Q: -- discussed, things like -- 15 A: Yes, I was. 16 Q: -- another Drinking Water Advisory in 17 late April -- 18 A: Right. 19 Q: -- 2001? 20 A: Right. 21 Q: And at the first meeting with Dr. Benade, 22 Mayor Wayne Ray was present? 23 A: He was. 24 Q: And Mr. Ray was reluctant to move to a 25 Precautionary Drinking Water Advisory during that first


1 meeting? 2 A: Well I think that, again, at that first 3 meeting we didn't have all the facts, we didn't think that we 4 had all the facts. And until the facts were out, I don't 5 think that we wanted to take steps so -- you know, we didn't 6 think maybe were necessary. 7 Q: Yes, you wouldn't want to alarm the 8 public unnecessarily; is that fair? 9 A: I think that's a fair statement. 10 Q: It's also fair that you observed that the 11 mayor was particularly sensitive about a Drinking Water 12 Advisory, because of the contamination in September 2000; is 13 that fair? 14 A: I -- I don't think he related to the 2000 15 contamination. But I think that he was very clear that he 16 wanted to have some evidence that such would be necessary, 17 such an act would be necessary. 18 Q: Did you make the observation that the 19 mayor was particularly sensitive on this matter, because of 20 the contamination in 2000? Did you make that observation? 21 A: I think that the mayor in his duties as 22 mayor, watches out for the citizens of North Battleford, and 23 he wanted to ensure again, that -- that before they took any 24 steps that we had some evidence to show that we should go 25 that far.


1 Q: I'm asking you about the observation you 2 made about the mayor being -- maybe what I'll do is I have 3 just a single page of your SAE, only because I didn't want to 4 bring -- 5 A: Sure -- 6 Q: -- it up. 7 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: I'll show that to the 8 witness, if I may? 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 10 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 11 MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: That's -- for the 12 record, Mr. Commissioner, that's paragraph 72 of the SAE of 13 Mr. Toye. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. MICHAEL TOCHOR: 16 Q: Have you had a chance to -- to read that 17 paragraph? 18 A: Do you want me to read it? 19 Q: No, no, I don't -- 20 A: Oh, sure -- 21 Q: -- I don't ask you to read it again. 22 A: Yeah. 23 Q: -- we all can read it here. And you'll 24 notice that I've got it highlighted -- 25 A: Yeah.


1 Q: -- and underlined actually. 2 A: Yeah. 3 Q: You'll note that in that particular 4 paragraph of your SAE, you make the observation that the 5 mayor was particularly sensitive about the contamination in 6 2000; is that correct? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: Okay, and that is listed in that 9 particular paragraph as one (1) of the reasons why the mayor 10 was reluctant at the first meeting, to move to a 11 Precautionary Drinking Water Advisory; is that fair? 12 A: I think -- yeah, that's -- that was my 13 evidence when I talked to Mr. Russell. 14 Q: That's all I need, thank you very much. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Oh, you're finished. All 19 right. All right, do you have any questions, Mr. Priel? 20 MR. TED PRIEL: Yes, I do, sir. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well -- 22 MR. TED PRIEL: But it will be a little 23 while. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, then we'll 25 adjourn at this time and resume at 2:00 p.m., thank you.


1 --- Upon recessing at 12:30 p.m. 2 --- Upon resuming at 2:00 p.m. 3 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Perhaps we'll 5 resume the hearings and Mr. Mitchell, proceed as you're 6 ready, please. 7 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr 8 Commissioner. Mr. Toye, good afternoon. 9 THE WITNESS: Good afternoon. 10 11 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: 12 Q: I want to begin by talking about the 13 subject of education. And I first observe that if you divide 14 your -- your current budgetary figures by the number of 15 operators, you come up with a pretty small figure per -- per 16 operator for -- for the education for that particular 17 budgetary year. 18 You'd agree with that, wouldn't you? 19 A: Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that. 20 Q: Yes -- 21 A: I -- 22 Q: Something over a hundred and fifty ($150) 23 dollars per Operator or something like that? 24 A: I'm not sure of the exact numbers but I 25 think we recognize that it needs some -- we have to put more


1 resources there. 2 Q: Yes. I -- I notice that the training 3 that they have been taking over the last couple of years, has 4 been occupational health training. And I -- you'd agree with 5 that? 6 A: Yes, I think that's what the record 7 indicates. 8 Q: Yes. And while that's very, very 9 important, it doesn't really have anything to do with the 10 quality of the water being produced. I think you'd agree 11 with that, too? 12 A: Yes, I do. 13 Q: Yes. One (1) thing that struck me about 14 the evidence that you gave this morning about this subject, 15 is that you -- you regard it as being employee driven. That 16 is to say, the employee is expected to seek out the training 17 opportunities and then come forward with a proposal that 18 their training in that respect be funded. 19 Did I hear you correctly? 20 A: Well I -- I think it could be a 21 combination. I think that if -- if a manager recognizes the 22 possibility of some course that may be beneficial, it could 23 be taken in that context also. But so it's -- it can be 24 either way. I mean it could be from the employer or from the 25 employee.


1 Q: Yes. I would think that when you're 2 dealing with something as important as water quality or the 3 effectiveness of the treatment process, that -- that a city 4 should -- should seek out how -- how operators and others can 5 be trained to do their jobs better and kept up with 6 developments in the field. 7 Would you agree with that, Mr. Toye? 8 A: I do. I think that training and 9 certification has been an issue and as I testified earlier, 10 in -- in March of 2000 when I -- when I did meet with some of 11 the members of -- of the operators and of the union, we 12 basically offered that. 13 That if there was courses that were com -- 14 upcoming, that would be of some interest or benefit to them, 15 that we certainly would pay for those costs. 16 Q: Yes. And we -- we appreciate that. I'm 17 suggesting the city's got to go further and that is to -- 18 to -- to give some serious thought to what kind of ongoing 19 training should be made available to the operators -- 20 A: Yeah, I -- 21 Q: -- and en -- and ensure that they have 22 access to that training. And that they are properly funded 23 to take it. 24 A: Yes. I agree. And I think we're taking 25 a big -- big step next week when, you know, we have a


1 consultant coming in and doing some in class training so they 2 can write their exams. So, I think we've started in the 3 right direction. 4 Q: Hmm-hmm. Now there has been a fair 5 amount of talk -- a lot of talk, really, by witnesses that 6 preceded you about the stress under which the operators -- 7 the plant operators worked -- 8 A: Hmm-hmm. 9 Q: -- particularly during the -- the whole 10 of the year 2001. 11 A: Right. 12 Q: And you'd agree with that? 13 A: I agree. 14 Q: One (1) thing that struck me is that Ivan 15 Katzell's reason for reason. The first one (1) he advanced 16 to you is the -- the difficulty to manage shifts. You -- 17 you've said that a couple of times this morning. 18 A: He -- when -- when I had the meeting, 19 he -- I took some notes and -- and he was telling me, here's 20 the different shifts we have, here's the personnel I have to 21 fill them. During these periods it -- it's difficult. 22 They've been making do but certainly it's something that the 23 city should be looking at. 24 Q: Yes. It's very complex, isn't it? 25 A: Yeah. There was a number of shifts.


1 Q: Yes. Now after -- after Ivan had 2 resigned and left the job -- 3 A: Right. 4 Q: -- the facts of the matter are that -- 5 that that shift was managed by the operators themselves. You 6 know that, don't you? 7 A: My understanding was there was a -- there 8 was a rotational shift that they would fill their names in 9 and that would rotate on a monthly basis or however frequent 10 they had to do that. 11 But -- 12 Q: Yes -- 13 A: -- it was something that was -- I don't 14 think the previous manager would put the names in. I'm -- 15 I'm not aware of that or if Mr. Katzell did that. But I do 16 know that there was a rotating shift that -- that was filled 17 out on a regular basis. And I think there was some type of 18 mutual consent or agreement from the operators, who would 19 fill what. 20 Q: Yes. And but of course the difficult 21 part of it is that a shift just doesn't work that smoothly. 22 People take vacations, they take days off, they get stressed 23 and take stress leave, they -- 24 A: Hmm-hmm. 25 Q: -- they get ill and so on and so forth.


1 So there's a lot of management around the -- the working of 2 that shirt schedule, isn't there? 3 A: That's very possible. 4 Q: Yes. And the operators had to do that 5 themselves, after Mr. Katzell left? 6 A: Well I know that Mr. Strelioff made a 7 number of attempts to be down there on a regular basis. Now 8 if he was doing the scheduling or not, I -- I'm sorry, I 9 don't know that or not. 10 Q: Well as I understood his -- his evidence, 11 he more or less said, you guys work it out, whatever you do 12 is all right with me. Does that ring a bell with you, Jim? 13 A: Well he didn't -- I mean I don't remember 14 discussing that with Mr. Strelioff -- 15 Q: Yeah. 16 A: -- and saying exactly the guys are 17 running their own show down there, they're doing all their 18 scheduling. I mean he did tell me that -- that he was going 19 down there on a regular basis -- 20 Q: Yeah. 21 A: -- and I -- I took that as to he was you 22 know, taking some effort to lead or manage out there, where 23 there was some management required. 24 Q: Well that -- that's certainly not the 25 impression that he gave me on reading the transcript of his


1 evidence. 2 Now I wasn't here while he was giving 3 evidence, but I did read his transcript. And of course we 4 heard from the three (3) operators themselves -- 5 A: Hmm-hmm. 6 Q: And it wasn't only the -- the operation 7 of the -- the scheduling of work that was left up to them to 8 work out, it was practically every problem that arose in 9 connection with the operation of the three (3) plants, where 10 they were told to work it out. 11 And so as a sort of a committee, they -- they 12 worked for eight (8) months doing precisely that, doing Ivan 13 Katzell's job. 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: I guess at some point, Mr. 15 Mitchell, I'm going to have to ask you if there's a question 16 in there? 17 18 CONTINUED BY MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: 19 Q: And the question -- and the question is 20 now, is that news to you, is that not your impression of the 21 evidence that you've heard during this Inquiry? 22 A: Well I -- I think my understanding was 23 that I know that while Mr. Cote was still employed by the 24 city, that he kind of oversaw things out there and stopped 25 out there and did some ordering. Mr. Hauk did the same


1 thing. 2 Now how much they delved into the everyday 3 workings other than that, I'm not sure. But I do know that 4 Randy did say that -- that Jules was stopping out there and 5 that Fred was ordering supplies, and if they needed something 6 like that. 7 Now, the everyday scheduling, I -- I'm not 8 sure if they were doing that or not -- 9 Q: So you're -- 10 A: -- but I mean the evidence that I've 11 heard obviously indicates they weren't. 12 A: -- so you're -- are -- are you -- are you 13 or are you not prepared to admit that the way I characterize 14 it is fair, the -- the -- the operators have been -- have 15 been doing most of Mr. Katzell's job, as well as their own, 16 during the eight (8) or so months in which they didn't have a 17 foreman? 18 A: Well I would say that they may have had 19 larger roles -- 20 Q: Yeah. 21 A: -- but -- 22 Q: Well that's fine, I'll leave it at that. 23 With respect to the question of overtime, you 24 gave evidence this morning as to the amount that had been 25 paid up to November 6th of this year. And I think the -- the


1 total of the three (3) plants is about twenty-three thousand 2 dollars ($23,000) that has been paid in overtime premiums? 3 A: I think that's what it indicates. 4 Q: Yes. That's -- that's -- that's large 5 isn't it, relative to other years? 6 A: Relative to other years, yes. 7 Q: Yes. And I'm -- I'm -- I'm advised 8 that -- that there's actually a lot more overtime than that 9 worked, but that the operators take time off in lieu of the 10 overtime that they work very frequently, are you aware of 11 that? 12 A: There's an option. 13 Q: Yeah, and are you aware that in fact they 14 do that to the extent probably of 75 percent of the overtime 15 hours they work, is taken in lieu of overtime pay? 16 A: No, I'm not aware of that number. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: But I -- I know that the option is 19 available to them, much -- 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: -- like it is to all of our staff. 22 Q: Yeah, were you -- would you be surprised 23 if it was 75 percent? 24 A: Yes. 25 Q: Would you? What would you guess it to


1 be, or guess -- I don't want you to guess anything, but what 2 would you estimate it to be? 3 A: I have no idea. 4 Q: Okay. I have in my hand a questionnaire 5 dated July 4th, 2001 that was sent out over your signature. 6 And I -- I should show this to you. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 A: Thank you. 11 12 (BRIEF PAUSE) 13 14 Q: I'm going to have to take it back, Mr. 15 Toye -- 16 A: Okay. 17 Q: -- because I can't find my other copy, I 18 made copies of it, and I don't know where they are. 19 20 (BRIEF PAUSE) 21 22 I want to ask you some questions about this 23 questionnaire and I don't know whether it has to be filed as 24 an exhibit or not, Mr. Commissioner. 25 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well, that's up to you.


1 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: We'll see -- we'll -- 2 we'll see, yeah. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: 5 Q: Now, this -- this questionnaire was sent 6 out by you to a number of people, certainly to all the 7 operators -- 8 A: Hmm-hmm. 9 Q: -- and to others. 10 A: Right. 11 Q: Who -- who were the others? 12 A: I think it went to all staff, tell you 13 the truth. 14 Q: All -- all staff of the city? 15 A: All city staff, I believe. 16 Q: Yeah. It -- it says: 17 "As you are aware, the Government of 18 Saskatchewan will be holding a Commission 19 of Inquiry into the safety of the public 20 drinking water in the City of North 21 Battleford. 22 We're requesting all City of North 23 Battleford elected officials, management 24 and water treatment plant employees to 25 assist in this Inquiry by responding to the


1 following questions." 2 And then there are four (4) of them. 3 A: Hmm-hmm. 4 Q: And these are the questions that I want 5 to ask you questions about. 6 A: Sure. 7 Q: The first is, were you aware that there 8 was a drinking water contamination issue or a possible 9 drinking water contamination issue prior to the water 10 advisory of April 25th? First of all, what was the purpose 11 for asking for that information? 12 A: Well, this questionnaire survey was put 13 together by one (1) of the investigators that was hired by 14 our solicitors -- 15 Q: I see. 16 A: -- Mr. Tony Crutcher, I believe, wanted 17 to know some information in order to do his investigation and 18 I believe they though it would be best that it come under the 19 signature of the city commissioner just so there would be 20 more cooperation, rather than coming from someone that they 21 didn't know so that was the crux of the whole thing so they 22 could get information. 23 If there was information perhaps that someone 24 did have some information, then at least the solicitors 25 and -- and the investigator would know that and they might


1 have to look into that in more detail. 2 Q: So these are the investigator's 3 questions -- 4 A: That's right. 5 Q: -- rather than -- 6 A: Yeah. 7 Q: -- than Jim Toye's questions? 8 A: Yes. 9 Q: Yeah. What was -- what was the response 10 to that question? 11 A: You know, I -- I didn't even see the 12 responses, they came to my executive assistant and she put 13 them in a file and forwarded them to the investigator. So, I 14 didn't even peruse them, to tell you the truth. 15 Q: Okay. And that would apply then to all 16 of the questions? 17 A: Yeah. 18 Q: Yeah. Were you aware that one (1) of the 19 questions was, have you been interviewed by anyone regarding 20 this upcoming Inquiry and, if so, by whom? 21 A: Yes, I did. 22 Q: And what was the purpose of that 23 question? 24 A: Well, then again, I mean, those questions 25 I didn't put together, I mean, it was more or less to get


1 information and cooperation from our staff, I mean, as part 2 of their investigation, they must have thought there may have 3 been information there that was relevant to their -- to our 4 particular case and how it might help them in their 5 investigation of the case. 6 Q: To know that they may be interviewed by 7 someone else? 8 A: Well, that would appear as the question 9 was. 10 Q: Yeah. So you -- you saw the question, 11 but you didn't think to ask why that question would be asked 12 or why it would be relevant or why the employees would have 13 to answer it? 14 A: No, I think the direction that I had was 15 to try to accommodate the -- our investigators to the best 16 way I could and -- and by them requesting me to put 17 something -- pen something under my name so they could get 18 better cooperation, I thought that I was trying to help them 19 in their process. 20 Q: Sure, okay. Now, we've -- we've heard a 21 lot of -- of evidence about the -- the time that it took to 22 fill the foreman's position -- 23 A: Right. 24 Q: -- and that's quite a complex history and 25 we've heard it here and I won't rehash it, but was it any --


1 would it be fair to say that the -- that the city wasn't in 2 a -- didn't regard the filling as an urgent matter? 3 A: No, I don't agree with that. 4 Q: That's not fair? 5 A: No. 6 Q: Yeah. It seems extraordinary to have 7 taken as long as it did, even having regard to the 8 explanations that have been given by -- by Randy Strelioff in 9 particular; it seems to be an extraordinary length of time. 10 I want to ask you this question. Did the fact 11 that the -- that because the position was vacant, it -- that 12 salary didn't have to be paid. Is that any part of the 13 reason for it taking as long as it did? 14 A: No. Never came into the -- never once 15 thought of that. I didn't, personally, but -- 16 Q: Yeah. The -- the reason -- the reason 17 why I ask the question is that I have had handed to me, just 18 this morning, a -- an article that appeared in the local 19 newspaper on October 31st of the year, I think it's 2001. 20 And it is a report of a -- of an interview 21 with the Finance Director, Edna Logan -- 22 A: Hmm-hmm. 23 Q: -- and has to do with the city 24 anticipating a year end deficit. 25 A: Right.


1 Q: Yeah. That -- that -- I had the date 2 right, eh? It's a recent article. 3 A: The date of the article? 4 Q: Yes, October -- it says, October 31, 2001 5 in handwriting on this copy that I have. But it -- you -- 6 you've read the article, have you? 7 A: I mean, I know the report went to 8 council, that -- that said that we were predicting a deficit, 9 by Ms. Logan. Thank you. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: That's okay. We just need 14 one (1) between us. 15 16 CONTINUED BY MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: 17 Q: Well the -- the -- the part of the 18 article that caught my eye, Mr. Toye, was -- was this. 19 After -- after talking about the various expenditure items 20 that were -- that had been encountered and supplemental 21 billings that had been received and -- on -- on the expense 22 side. Down at the bottom of the second column in what I've 23 handed you there, this -- this statement appears: 24 "In addition, the city could save some 25 staffing costs because some vacant


1 positions weren't filled immediately." 2 A: Right. 3 Q: Now that -- that caught my eye and that 4 led to the question that I asked you. Is that, to your 5 knowledge, done in North Battleford? 6 A: Well, I -- I've only been with the city 7 since January of 2000. I know that generally, when we fill a 8 position, we try to do it as expeditiously as we can. We've 9 just hired another senior administration position, the fire 10 chief, and actually we were without a fire chief, we had an 11 acting fire chief for a period of two (2) months. 12 So it's not unusual for the city to run into 13 those circumstances. Since I've been here, it's happened on 14 one (1) occasions. Two (2) occasions, one (1) would be Mr. 15 Katzell -- 16 Q: Hmm-hmm. 17 A: -- and one (1) had been with the fire 18 chief. I mean we like to be a little bit more proactive than 19 that. And that may seem like a fairly large lull without 20 having someone but I think what we are confident in other 21 staff that we have that they're able to carry on those 22 duties. I mean, senior officials go on holidays for periods 23 of time, they're ill and, you know, they don't they fill 24 those positions. 25 But I don't think, as a general rule, we try


1 to save money by not filling a position. I'm not aware that 2 I would -- I would do that on a regular basis. 3 Q: Hmm-hmm. Well, it's -- the -- the 4 paragraph that I read you, the paragraph just consists of 5 that one (1) sentence. And it's not in quotation marks. But 6 it's in an article which contains a number of direct quotes 7 from Ms. Logan -- 8 A: Hmm-hmm. 9 Q: -- and it's written as though the -- the 10 author of the article, Doug Colley (phonetic) is -- 11 MR. TED PRIEL: Mr. Commissioner, if I may at 12 this point -- I have some -- some real problems with counsel 13 cross-examining the witness on a newspaper article and not 14 only that, a newspaper article containing quotes by someone 15 other than the witness. I don't think it's appropriate, sir. 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well I think Mr. Priel is 17 right, Mr. Mitchell. And you know, the article has got 18 nothing to do with Mr. Toye. And to the extent you've been 19 trying to explore with him whether the city does this from 20 time to time, he's answered it. 21 So I think that's pretty much the end of it. 22 I mean -- 23 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: Well -- 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- answered it from his 25 point of view and --


1 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: Let me tell you what 2 my -- what my next question was going to be. I mean, keep in 3 mind that this -- this person -- the finance director is a -- 4 an employee of the city who answers to Mr. Toye. He's her 5 boss and she is quoted in this article, extensively. And 6 this paragraph does appear. 7 I was going to ask him to -- if he could 8 explain why apparently Ms. Logan is -- is setting this 9 forward as one (1) of the ways in which the city are going to 10 attack their budgetary problem. 11 MR. TED PRIEL: I have the same objection to 12 that question as I did to the other one (1), Mr. Chairman. 13 That's where I -- 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: The thing, Mr. Mitchell, 15 the problem is that to the extent, and as you -- someone has 16 pointed out, it's not in quotes, but the city could save 17 money, whether they have saved money in the past or will save 18 money in the future or whether they're doing it now, is 19 simply an option, and it's not particularly meaningful to me, 20 put it that way. 21 I can't draw any conclusions from -- 22 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: Then I'll stop asking 23 questions about it right now, thank you. 24 25 CONTINUED BY MR. ROBERT MITCHELL:


1 Q: Mr. Toye, when you were taken on a tour 2 of the plants, were you -- were you by yourself, or were you 3 accompanied by other city officials? 4 A: No, Mr. Strelioff -- the -- I've taken a 5 number of tours of the facilities. The first one (1) I took 6 when I was first in North Battleford the first couple of 7 weeks I went out to the plants with Mr. Strelioff and I think 8 Mr. Katzell kind of guided us on the tours. 9 There was some -- 10 Q: Hmm-hmm. 11 A: -- operators there when I went. 12 Q: Hmm-hmm. 13 A: Subsequent to that I'd been on other 14 tours, we started a process where we will take members of 15 Council on the tours if we have budget items, we can explain 16 to them what we're doing, here is what -- where we're going 17 to be spending some money. 18 It'd mean that we'd get a -- a van and take 19 them around different facilities and show them where we, you 20 know, want to spend fifty thousand (50,000) or eighty 21 thousand (80,000) or a hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) 22 and saying here's -- 23 Q: Sure. 24 A: -- the condition of this and here's what 25 we want to do.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: So we've done that on a number of -- 3 Q: That -- 4 A: -- different occasions. 5 Q: -- that sounds like a good idea. Have 6 all members of council taken this tour? 7 A: No, it -- it's an option. We tell them 8 when it's set up, some -- some of them come and some don't. 9 Some members of council have been on there for a number of 10 years, so they understand the infrastructure and they know 11 the infrastructure. 12 After we had the last municipal election, some 13 of those members of council did come along on the tours, and 14 some of them like to tour some facilities and not others. 15 Q: Hmm-hmm. Okay, I just have one (1) more 16 question, Mr. Toye, and that is concerning the -- the working 17 group that was set up after the events of March and April. 18 Are -- are you aware of this, Mr. Strelioff 19 described a working group that had been set up, consisting of 20 himself and a representative from SERM, and a representative 21 from Health. 22 And my partner, Sandra Mitchell, asked him 23 about that, and asked him whether -- why it was that the 24 operators weren't represented on this working group, 25 considering --


1 A: Hmm-hmm. 2 Q: -- particularly that Mr. Strelioff had 3 told the Commission that he himself has very little technical 4 knowledge about the plants and how they work. 5 A: Right. 6 Q: Are -- are you able to enlighten us on 7 why an operator was not included on the group, or is not now 8 included as part of the working group? 9 A: Well I think Mr. Strelioff is head of 10 that department and I would leave that up to his call. I 11 mean in a tripartite situation, I think SERM, Health and the 12 city agreed that there should be a group to look at issues 13 and develop protocol. 14 In hindsight though -- 15 Q: A very good idea. 16 A: -- I -- I think that -- and I think that 17 Ms. Szuch has possibly attended some of those meetings. I'm 18 not 100 percent sure, but I think that they've used her as a 19 resource on some of the different meetings. 20 But certainly in hindsight it would be a good 21 idea to have one (1) of the operators present to, you know, 22 have the working person's knowledge as to what some of the 23 concerns there regarding this group, and how they -- 24 Q: Yeah. 25 A: -- you know, may have an impact on what's


1 going to be done in -- in further progress in that, in the 2 Plants Department and with water issues. 3 Q: Yeah, right. I said I just had one (1) 4 more question, but I -- I lied. I actually have another one 5 (1). 6 A: Sure. 7 Q: It concerns comparative wage rates. 8 A: Hmm-hmm. 9 Q: And you -- you mentioned Lloydminster and 10 Swift Current, and indeed in one (1) -- in one (1) of the -- 11 in your -- in your book, in your binder -- 12 A: Right. 13 Q: -- you -- you actually produce the 14 numbers for -- 15 A: Yeah. 16 Q: -- North Battleford and for those two (2) 17 other cities. It's really a mixed bag when you look across 18 the province isn't it? 19 A: Yes -- 20 Q: The wage rates there are -- there are 21 wage rates that are remarkably higher than those that you pay 22 in North Battleford? 23 A: When we do a comparison we would compare 24 cities of similar size. So if we do comparisons, I -- I 25 wouldn't compare to Saskatoon, Prince Albert. We would do


1 comparisons with Swift Current, Yorkton, Lloydminster, about 2 you know, the fifteen (15) to twenty thousand (20,000) range. 3 Q: Yeah. I have a -- done a comparison, 4 I -- I've had this done. 5 A: Sure. 6 Q: That covers all of the cities in 7 Saskatchewan, and I -- I would like it to go before the 8 Commission as an exhibit, and I'm going to -- I think ask 9 this witness if you will accept this as being the -- the wage 10 rates that are being paid for operators in other cities in 11 Saskatchewan, knowing that you haven't studied this 12 particular subject -- 13 A: No. 14 Q: -- but you're generally familiar with it 15 because you have collective bargaining responsibilities and 16 you've probably seen these rates at one (1) time or another. 17 So, I want to show them to you and ask you 18 whether you would accept them as being the wage rates being 19 paid in other cities. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: I guess, Mr. Mitchell, I'd 21 have to ask you how is that relevant to the terms of 22 reference, in other words, where does it come into -- I 23 mean -- 24 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: I -- I, frankly, don't 25 know, but when I see the wage rates set out as a -- as a part


1 of his binder and referred to specifically in the oral 2 evidence that he gave, I think the obligation is on me to 3 broaden the point, you know. 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Well, on that 5 basis, all right, fair enough. 6 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 7 8 (BRIEF PAUSE) 9 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: You happened to hit the 11 100, C-100. 12 13 --- EXHIBIT NO. 100: Wage Rates Being paid in Other 14 Cities in Saskatchewan 15 16 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: 100, I wanted that very 17 badly, Mr. Commissioner, so I'm going to get one (1) of these 18 documents in. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: 21 Q: Now, I -- I'm not being entirely fair to 22 place that before you and -- and ask you the question I did, 23 but I can assure you that these -- this information was put 24 together by a person with some expertise in this field and 25 they -- and they are the rates and I'm just going to ask you


1 if you would accept that those are the rates being paid 2 elsewhere? 3 A: Well, we are -- we're just prepared to 4 enter into negotiations for collective agreement so this will 5 come in handy down the road. 6 Q: I'm sure it will. 7 A: That's good, I appreciate it. 8 Q: So you'll accept it? 9 A: Sure. 10 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: Yeah, with thanks. 11 Well, I thank you, Mr. Toye. 12 THE WITNESS: Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, Mr. Priel. 17 MR. TED PRIEL: Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, 18 I'll -- I'll not be very long. 19 20 CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. TED PRIEL: 21 Q: Mr. Toye, I just want to deal with a 22 minor matter. Could I get you to refer to tab A-20 of binder 23 'A'. That, I believe, related to your -- your application 24 for a grant for two (2) new -- two (2) new wells? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: I gather that what happened was that, 2 between the time that you made an application for funding for 3 two (2) new wells and the time that the wells were actually 4 drilled, you found out that you could drill four (4) wells 5 for about the cost of the two (2)? 6 A: That's right, we proposed using existing 7 infrastructure -- 8 Q: Right. 9 A: -- that we used from -- had some 10 abandoned wells so it made it a little bit more cost 11 efficient. So, we were able to drill four (4) wells instead. 12 Q: So, in the final analysis, it wasn't just 13 two (2) wells that were -- wells that were drilled, there was 14 four (4)? 15 A: Four (4), that's correct. 16 Q: Okay. Now, in the course of your -- of 17 your evidence, you -- you spoke of a need to better manage 18 the reservoir system here in the city -- 19 A: Hmm-hmm. 20 Q: -- so that there is -- there's movement 21 of water in and out of the reservoirs -- 22 A: Right. 23 Q: -- on a more consistent basis? 24 A: Hmm-hmm. 25 Q: Now, I gather that the system that had


1 been in place before April of the year 2001 had seen water 2 sitting in these reservoirs for rather lengthy periods of 3 time? 4 A: That's what I understand, yes. 5 Q: And this would have been during periods 6 of time when engineers had been filling the position of the 7 Director of Public Works and Utilities? 8 A: Yes, absolutely. 9 Q: And that, in the spring of the -- well, 10 after the contamination period, would it be fair to say that 11 Mr. Strelioff initiated a scheme to better manage the -- the 12 reservoir system? 13 A: Actually I think it -- that process 14 started in the fall of 2000, even. It came to our attention 15 that there was some low chlorine levels and -- and we started 16 to have a look at the total system. And I think that process 17 started at that time. 18 Q: Okay. And it was Mr. Strelioff that 19 initiated it, was it? 20 A: He was the staff member but there was 21 some consultation with Public Health and with SERM. 22 Q: Right. Now there was -- there was a 23 great deal of -- of -- well, not a great deal, but some 24 evidence that was led, sir, with respect to Mr. Strelioff's 25 knowledge and his ability and the -- the comments that were


1 made by him in the resume that he presented on his 2 application for the position of Director of Public Works. 3 A: Right. 4 Q: And my question to you, sir, is this. Is 5 there any concern on the city's part with respect to the 6 ability of Mr. Strelioff to perform his job in an appropriate 7 manner? 8 A: That has never been brought to my 9 attention by any member of council. But I'd like to just add 10 to that that after the problem that we had in the fall of 11 2000, Mr. Katzell came to me and -- and, you know, we -- we 12 had a bit of a debrief and asked how things went after 13 everything had been flushed. And he basically said that he 14 was -- said with some assurance that no other person that we 15 had in that position would have done the same things that 16 Randy had done. 17 Like, he had a -- an action plan. He went out 18 with the guys, made sure it was done. And followed through. 19 I mean, he was out there with the guys on that weekend, 20 ensuring that everything was being flushed. And -- and Mr. 21 Katzell made a point of coming to my office and saying, Jim, 22 he did a good job and I just want to make sure you're aware 23 of that. 24 That he said -- and he was confident when he 25 said that he didn't believe that anyone else who had been --


1 been in those positions previously would have handled the 2 situation the same way. And -- and they needed some strong 3 leadership through that event and Mr. Strelioff provided it. 4 Q: And at this point in time, most of the 5 way through this Inquiry process, the city still has 6 confidence in the ability of Mr. Strelioff? 7 A: Certainly I do and -- and council hasn't 8 pointed any shortcomings out to me in that regard. 9 Q: Now, sir, if I could get you to -- to 10 turn to Exhibit -- or tab A-25 in the -- the main binder? 11 That is the -- the list of training items or training courses 12 taken by plant operators. 13 A: Right. 14 Q: And if you flip to the second page there, 15 there was -- there was a question put to you this morning, I 16 believe, that -- that asked you if you knew what courses were 17 taken by operators, I believe, during the year 2000. 18 And this -- this paper here, the second page, 19 was prepared by Mr. Strelioff and it would indicate that Mr. 20 Allen took some courses during the year 2000. Are you 21 familiar with that? Do you have any knowledge of that, sir? 22 A: Well I know it's in here. 23 Q: Okay. But you don't have any personal 24 knowledge of it? 25 A: No.


1 Q: Okay. 2 A: I did provide -- Mr. Scharfstein had a 3 question this morning and I've provided Mr. Russell with a 4 little more detail I think than this for 2000 and 2001 and 5 I'm sure he'll be sharing that with everyone. 6 Q: All right. Well, we'll -- we'll allow 7 Mr. Russell to do that, then. I won't pursue that any 8 further. 9 A: Thank you. 10 Q: Now there was also -- there were also 11 some questions raised, sir, with respect to how far along the 12 city moved with respect to various projects during the year 13 2001. 14 A: Right. 15 Q: And would it be fair to say, sir, that -- 16 that from the -- the end of April until about the end of July 17 when the Boil Water Order was lifted, there wasn't much time 18 around here to do anything other than to work to get that 19 Boil Water Order lifted? 20 A: Yes. I mean, there was a lot of 21 energies -- a lot of resources put to that. But I think it 22 might be an opportune time, now, to correct myself this 23 morning. 24 Q: Sure. 25 A: Mr. Scharfstein made a comment about the


1 monitoring and control system for the water and wastewater 2 systems. There was some reference to it and I was erroneous 3 in saying that that tender wasn't let, at the March 19th, 4 2001 council meeting, there was a resolution of council: 5 "Be it resolved that the tender for the 6 water and waste water system controls 7 upgraded be awarded to Wardrop Engineering 8 Inc., of Saskatoon in the amount of forty- 9 four thousand eight hundred dollars 10 ($44,800), plus taxes, that was moved by 11 Councillor Taylor and seconded by 12 Councillor Pattison, and it was carried." 13 So I apologize for not having the correct 14 information. 15 I've got a draft copy of the report here, that 16 was sent to the city or received by the city on the 15th of 17 May, and because it's a draft I wouldn't have received it, 18 but I should have known that the resolution was on the books, 19 so I -- 20 Q: Well -- 21 A: -- stand corrected. 22 Q: -- a copy of -- of that report actually 23 had been provided to Mr. Russell by Mr. Strelioff a few days 24 ago. 25 A: Okay.


1 MR. TED PRIEL: And, Mr. Commissioner, given 2 the fact that this morning some of these things were referred 3 to, I'd like to, with your leave, enter a copy of the draft 4 report of Wardrop, which is the -- the -- the engineering 5 firm who -- who gave the report with respect to the 6 instrumentation and controls. 7 As well as the Stantech Report, which is the 8 site suitability study done with respect to the new 9 wastewater treatment plant. 10 I'll just have the witness identify them and 11 then ask to -- to enter them. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 13 14 (BRIEF PAUSE) 15 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, those -- those are correct 17 documents. 18 19 CONTINUED BY MR. TED PRIEL: 20 Q: The -- the Wardrop Report is the draft 21 report you got with respect to the instrumentation, and the 22 Stantech is the report with respect to the site suitability 23 study, is it, sir? 24 A: That's correct. 25 MR. TED PRIEL: If I might have them then


1 marked, sir, as the next exhibit. I don't have copies for 2 all counsel, I'm told by Mr. Russell that in due course we'll 3 get copies to everyone. 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: Does the instrumentation 5 one (1) deal with -- well include some aspect of either the 6 water treatment plant or the sewage treatment plant? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, it does. 8 MR. TED PRIEL: Yes, I believe they do, sir. 9 It's -- it's -- 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: It's not instrumentation 11 with respect to -- 12 MR. TED PRIEL: No, it -- what it is -- 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- in other words. 14 MR. TED PRIEL: -- what it is, is it's -- 15 it's a -- it's a move toward -- 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yeah, I understand that 17 that -- 18 MR. TED PRIEL: -- a central monitoring. 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: I just wondered if the 20 specific work being done by Mr. McDonald might have overtaken 21 that, but -- 22 MR. TED PRIEL: No, no, I don't believe so. 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, well, yes, I 24 guess the Wardrop Report will be 101, C-101. And the 25 Stantech Report will be C-102.


1 --- EXHIBIT NO. C-101: The Wardrop Report 2 3 --- EXHIBIT NO. C-102: The Stantech Report 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: If any counsel wishes to 8 look at these before a copy's available, they're available up 9 here obviously. 10 11 (BRIEF PAUSE) 12 13 CONTINUED BY MR. TED PRIEL: 14 Q: Now, Mr. Toye, I'm -- I'm going to -- to 15 lead you with respect to this next bit of evidence, and 16 because it has to do with the -- the letter of January 12th, 17 and which of the city councillors received and did not 18 receive copies of it, in view of the -- the -- the question 19 that there may be in the Commissioner's mind about that. 20 And I'm -- I'm going to be referring to 21 paragraph 51 in your Statement of Anticipated Evidence. And 22 I gather, sir, that it's correct that Councillor Fransoo and 23 Councillor Salie received copies of the January 12th letter; 24 is that right, sir? 25 A: Yes.


1 Q: And Councillor Friedman, Councillor 2 Taylor and Councillor Pattison do not recall receiving a copy 3 of that letter? 4 A: That's correct. 5 Q: But they did indicate that they were 6 familiar with the issues contained in the letter? 7 A: Yes. 8 Q: And Councillor Campbell recalls being 9 visited by a plants department employee at a time -- at -- at 10 some point in time, and that the plants department employee 11 discussed the letter briefly and was -- did not leave a copy 12 with Councillor Campbell? 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: And that all council members recall 15 discussions with respect to plants department issues at the 16 retreat on the 14 -- 13th and 14th of January? 17 A: Yes. 18 Q: Now I'd like you, if you would, sir, 19 to -- to cast your mind back to the -- to the September 2000 20 contamination period, if you would, that's the -- beginning 21 about mid-September. 22 A: Okay. 23 Q: And perhaps what I could do is -- is to 24 ask you to cast your mind back to the first meeting and would 25 it be fair to say, sir, that SERM did not wish to take a lead


1 role in the issuing of a Precautionary Drinking Water 2 Advisory at that meeting? 3 A: I think that's a fair statement. 4 Q: And was there discussion, by your 5 recollection, at that meeting with respect to the question of 6 who should or should not take it? 7 A: From what I recall, there was some 8 discussions regarding a protocol and this is what the 9 protocol said and, if it was a Precautionary Water Advisory, 10 that it was -- the protocol says it was SERM and, if it was a 11 Boil Water issue -- Order, then that's something that Health 12 would take care of. 13 Q: So, when there was discussion about the 14 protocol, did you refer to your copy of the protocol to see 15 whether you could follow along or did you have a copy? 16 A: No, I -- I -- they -- I never saw any 17 protocol, but they -- the two (2) -- Health and SERM referred 18 to that regularly and -- 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: -- you know, in hindsight, I should -- 21 what is this or could I have a copy. I -- I never was 22 presented with a copy or said, you know, here's where this 23 protocol is coming from because, from my recollection, I 24 don't remember the city ever being at a table where we were 25 invited to discuss this protocol so it was new to me, but,


1 you know, because were going through a difficult issue and 2 they were mentioning protocol, well, you know, we want to 3 cooperate and -- and try to follow the protocol. 4 Q: And was there any -- from your 5 perspective, sir, was the -- was the city reluctant to have a 6 Drinking Water Advisory issued or was the city simply saying 7 we have to be able to justify it before we do it? 8 A: No, that was more it. I think we all 9 said we wanted to err on the side of caution and -- but I 10 think that we needed some evidence to state that, you know, 11 there is some -- public health is in danger, there is some -- 12 some problems. 13 And I think, you know, we talked about issues 14 like E.coli and if this was E.coli, I mean it was a lot worse 15 than coliforms and was it prevalent throughout the system, 16 no, it was in the very dead end -- north end of the system, 17 it seemed to be isolated so those were what the talks kind 18 of, you know, the deliberations went kind of like that. 19 Q: Okay. Now, sir, I'd like to -- to take 20 you back to a period of time that I believe an incident that 21 occurred the month before, August of the year 2000 -- 22 A: Hmm-hmm. 23 Q: -- and did you in -- in August of the 24 year 2000, about the time that you were getting ready to go 25 on holidays, did you have occasion to speak with someone from


1 SERM about a coliform test? 2 A: Well, that was actually August of 2001 -- 3 Q: Okay. 4 A: -- that's what you're referring to. 5 Q: All right. Well, let's talk about that, 6 the August of 2001. Did you -- were you contacted by 7 someone? 8 A: Yeah, we -- 9 Q: And what -- what were you told? 10 A: Dale Bonke called me and said that they 11 had -- he didn't call them a couple of hits, but we had a 12 couple readings where background colonies were greater than 13 two hundred (200) and -- 14 Q: I don't want to go into where it was -- 15 A: Okay, sure. 16 Q: -- because I don't think that would be 17 necessarily appropriate, but there were -- there were a 18 couple of positive tests? 19 A: Well, they weren't positive tests, they 20 were greater than two hundred (200), which is a little bit 21 different. Greater than two hundred (200), my understanding 22 of that is there is no actual E.coli or coliforms there, but 23 the problem with greater than two hundred (200) is the 24 background colonies could mask if there was some type of 25 bacteria there. So, it kind of raised a red flag and said,


1 you know, Jim, we've got a couple of -- we've got a couple of 2 tests that show that you've got background greater than two 3 hundred (200) in one (1) area, that you better take a serious 4 look at this and -- and it's kind of your call. 5 Q: So what did you do? 6 A: Well, I -- I checked with their staff to 7 see what the situation was and they assured me that there 8 was -- tests indicated that we did have some background 9 colonies greater than two hundred (200) in one (1) particular 10 area. So I implemented a Boil Water Order for -- it ended up 11 being two (2) buildings that were -- it wasn't -- close to a 12 dead end of a line. 13 The hydrology study shows us that the northern 14 part of the city has to -- water has to go to a booster 15 station in order to keep the pressures up in that area. If 16 we open up too many valves for the water to run to the south 17 side of the city, then the south side of the city would have 18 a lot of pressure and the north side would have none. 19 So we have to do -- do a series of opening and 20 closing valves. The valve closest to these particular 21 buildings was shut. So, it meant that for a period of time 22 that was on a dead end system. So, immediately I put them 23 in a Boil Water Order. I delivered some water there and had 24 our crews go out and -- and flush that area. 25 We had taken some tests above -- or, I could


1 say, upstream of that area and downstream from that area. 2 And those tests were clear. So, we implemented a flushing 3 system. I've been in contact with Rodger McDonald, our 4 consultant, and he made certain recommendations of what we 5 should do. 6 These two (2) buildings kept their taps 7 running to ensure that water from the distribution line was 8 getting through. And within a couple of days -- and then we 9 had to have a couple successive tests that were free and 10 clear. And we -- we accomplished that. So it was -- there 11 was never any E.coli or never any actual bacteria that was 12 tested. 13 But we, I guess, took a proactive approach and 14 said, again, err on the side of caution. Let's do what we 15 have to do and have an action plan. And get consistent tests 16 in and we -- we have done that and we've, to my 17 understanding, not had a problem in that area again. 18 Q: There was no reluctance on the part of 19 the city to take that action? 20 A: No. I mean, basically, I -- I talked to 21 Dale a couple of times. And he said, what do you guys think? 22 He said, it's your call, Jim. And I said, well -- I talked 23 to our staff and I said, I -- I -- I didn't feel comfortable 24 with just leaving it. So I said I'm going to put those two 25 (2) on a Boil Water Order.


1 I did phone members of council, personally, 2 and let them know what I had done. And I just -- Randy was 3 gone on holidays. There was one (1) other management staff, 4 Mr. Dan Maloney, an engineering -- Engineering Assistant, per 5 se, runs the department. And I was consulting with him and 6 Mr. McDonald and Mr. Bonke. And -- and I decided, this is 7 what we have to do. So, that's what I did. 8 Q: Okay. Now, what I'd like you to do, sir, 9 is then bring your mind to the -- the period of time in April 10 of 2001 -- 11 A: Hmm-hmm. 12 Q: -- when we have the -- the crypto 13 problem. And I'd like you to cast your mind back to the 14 first meeting. 15 A: Right. 16 Q: And at the first meeting, was a 17 representative of SERM -- 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: This is the evening of 19 April 24th? 20 MR. TED PRIEL: Evening of April 24th, yes, 21 sir. Was a -- was a representative of SERM present, sir? 22 THE WITNESS: No, I don't think there was, at 23 that particular meeting. I -- I didn't keep who was present 24 my first couple of meetings. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. TED PRIEL: 2 Q: Okay -- 3 A: I -- I don't -- my notes don't indicate 4 that -- the next meeting that we had, there was. 5 Q: By that point in time, that is, by the -- 6 the 24th of April, were you -- were you well enough versed in 7 the -- the protocol to know that -- that the -- the 8 obligation or the jurisdiction to -- to issue a Precautionary 9 Drinking Water Advisory rested with SERM? 10 A: That's my understanding. 11 Q: Okay. And no one from SERM was present 12 that night? 13 A: I -- I don't recall anyone from SERM 14 being there. 15 Q: Okay. Now, there was -- there was a 16 question, sir, of the -- the view taken by Mayor Ray that 17 evening? 18 A: Hmm-hmm. 19 Q: Was -- was the -- the information that 20 the city received that evening, the first notification that 21 the city had that there was any potential problem? 22 A: That's the first indication I had. And 23 I -- I don't think that any of my staff had that been a -- 24 that's something that serious been put to them, I'm sure that 25 they would have discussed it with me.


1 Q: So although, perhaps, people from the -- 2 the District Health Board may have had this information for 3 two (2) or three (3) weeks, it hadn't been shared with the 4 city? 5 A: That's -- no, I hadn't gotten any 6 information. Absolutely not. 7 Q: And nobody from your staff had told you 8 that they got the information? 9 A: That's correct. 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well I think you'll just 11 have to keep that -- I can't remember the details, Mr. Priel, 12 but there certainly is evidence of -- of one (1) or more of 13 the Health Inspectors discussing the possibilities of water 14 problem with Mr. Strelioff, but I forget -- 15 MR. TED PRIEL: That was -- there was -- 16 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- which date that is. 17 MR. TED PRIEL: -- there was a -- there was 18 evidence that Mr. Startup had apparently talked to Mr. 19 Strelioff earlier on the 24th, and when it was put to Mr. 20 Strelioff, Mr. Strelioff said he didn't recall that, sir. 21 That's -- that's my recollection of the 22 evidence. 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: Okay. 24 MR. TED PRIEL: And I -- I'm sorry if I -- if 25 I --


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, no, I think it's 2 just -- 3 MR. TED PRIEL: -- put it -- 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- it's just risky to 5 summarize, you know, we've heard as much evidence as we 6 have -- 7 MR. TED PRIEL: And I -- 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- to try and -- 9 MR. TED PRIEL: -- to try to -- 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- summarize it all in one 11 (1) sentence. 12 MR. TED PRIEL: -- and I -- I appreciate 13 that, and I'll -- I'll take care about that, sir. 14 15 CONTINUED BY MR. TED PRIEL: 16 Q: Would it be fair to say, Mr. Toye, that 17 the -- the attitude of the city taken on the 24th of April 18 was we need more information before we issue any Advisory? 19 A: I think that's fair. 20 Q: And at that point in time, would it also 21 be fair to say that no one from the District Health Board was 22 able to point to the water system or the City of North 23 Battleford as being the problem? 24 A: No, that's -- no, yeah, that's true, 25 because I think at that time we talked a little bit about


1 maybe where some of the people who had cryptosporidiosis were 2 from, and -- and it seemed like they were -- a number of them 3 were from Battleford, and that's why the town was at the 4 meeting. 5 Q: Now during the -- the next few days, sir, 6 I gather -- well the following day SERM became involved; is 7 that your recollection? 8 A: Yeah. 9 Q: And would it be fair to say that among 10 the parties, the City, SERM, Health, Health Board, there 11 was -- there was a lot of talk about embarking upon a 12 collaborative team effort? 13 A: That's right. 14 Q: In dealing with this problem? 15 A: Yes. 16 Q: And did -- did -- did you see that 17 collaborative team effort manifest itself when the meetings 18 were had with the press? 19 A: Well I think -- like we had -- we had 20 meetings every day once -- you know, I mean we found out what 21 the problem was and -- and we all would gather, and it would 22 always be a very positive meeting, they were in this 23 together, let's get to the end of it. 24 But to me, my perception is when we got then 25 to -- out to the public, that certainly there were a lot of


1 arrows that were pointed at the city, which you know, I mean 2 we're talking one (1) thing and -- and doing another, which 3 it was -- you know, I personally was a bit frustrated. 4 But -- 5 Q: Okay, was it -- was it the -- the city's 6 clear view during this period of time, that the turbidity 7 levels at -- in the finished water at the Water Treatment 8 Plant Number 2 had always been under one point zero (1.0)? 9 A: Well that -- that's what the guideline 10 was it was under one (1). But I mean it came up at a couple 11 of meetings of what it should be and what some people's 12 opinion of that was so -- 13 Q: But was it the city's position that it 14 had always met the guidelines? 15 A: Yeah, the one (1) guideline. 16 Q: And was -- was SERM made aware of that 17 fact by the city? 18 A: Yeah, I mean that's what the records 19 indicated. 20 Q: And did they ever -- were they ever 21 prepared to publicly ack -- acknowledge that? 22 A: Well I think they more went to the fact 23 of saying like, you know, as a responsible plant operator you 24 should shet goals -- set -- excuse me, set goals, you know, 25 your standards higher than what the regulations are.


1 And you know, I mean we're saying the 2 regulations were this, I mean we -- we just thought that a 3 general comment of that were within the confines of what the 4 regulations are would have been nice, but we didn't seem to 5 get that type of publicity at that time. 6 Q: Now, sir, there -- there -- there came a 7 point in time when the city was attempting to satisfy the 8 regulators and Health and everyone else in terms of relieving 9 itself of the Boil Water Order. 10 A: Hmm-hmm. 11 Q: Is that correct? 12 A: That's right. 13 Q: And did it happen that near the -- the 14 time when the Boil Water -- when was the Boil Water Order 15 actually lifted, sir? 16 A: The dates not at the tip of my tongue, 17 I'm sorry. 18 Q: Around the end of July? 19 A: Yes, that's right. 20 Q: Okay. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: The date has been July 22 25th, so it has been mentioned. 23 MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: I couldn't remember it 24 off-hand, sir. 25


1 CONTINUED BY MR. ROBERT MITCHELL: 2 Q: Well, if we assume that it was July the 3 25th, then, sir, sometime shortly before the 25th of July, 4 did the -- did the city experience some concern that the 5 regulator, SERM, was now demanding things of it that were not 6 contained in the protocol for the removal of the Boil Water 7 Order? 8 A: We certainly felt that was the case. 9 Q: Okay. 10 A: The city did. 11 Q: At -- at a point in time shortly before 12 the Boil Water Order was removed, was a request made by SERM 13 for turbidity information for periods preceding the crypto 14 outbreak and then you were questioned about the proper 15 recording and validity of that data? 16 A: Right. Yeah, they went -- they wanted 17 turbidity back, I think, years and -- I mean, it's not that 18 we didn't mind providing them with that, but, I mean, our 19 question was, I mean, we're here to cooperate, but what does 20 this really have to do, years ago, with what we were trying 21 to accomplish and get this Boil Water Order off now. 22 It was very inconvenient for a lot of our 23 citizens, I mean, we had done all the tests required, we 24 thought that we were following the -- the protocol as per the 25 lifting of the Boil Water Order and it seemed late in the


1 game that there was some more demands in order to -- to have 2 it lifted. 3 Q: Okay. Was -- was there a demand for a 4 commitment to contact SERM when certain events occurred, for 5 example a spike in turbidity at Number 2 Water Plant? 6 A: Yes, they wanted to -- they wanted to 7 know immediately if anything like that occurred. 8 Q: And was that included -- had that been 9 included in the protocol -- 10 A: No. 11 Q: -- for removal of the Boil Water Order? 12 A: No, it wasn't in the actual protocol. 13 Now, I've got to be honest to say that Mr. Strelioff, Mr. 14 McDonald acted on behalf of the city in developing the 15 protocol. I knew what was in it and I wasn't part of the 16 everyday -- because I think there was like five (5) or six 17 (6) drafts of that before it actually was signed, but -- 18 Q: Yes. 19 A: -- although I didn't take place in those 20 deliberations, I mean, I certainly know about the protocol 21 and had an understanding of what we had to do in order to 22 have it lifted. 23 Q: Okay. And, in addition, sir, did SERM 24 require a completion schedule with respect to the 25 implementation of new improvements and studies and


1 assessments? 2 A: Yes, some of the work that we were doing 3 on Treatment Plant Number 2 and they were very well aware of 4 what we are -- were planning to do, but there was some time 5 constraints and limitations that we weren't able to get some 6 of the work done in a timely manner, such as the UV system 7 had to be -- it had to be manufactured, the monitoring for 8 the whole system had to be manufactured so it was -- just 9 wasn't something that would happen overnight, but they 10 wanted, you know, so when is this going to be done, like 11 what -- give us some time lines for all this work and -- and, 12 because a lot of it was work in progress, it was difficult to 13 do. 14 Q: And had a completion schedule been a 15 requirement of the protocol for removal of the Boil Water 16 Order? 17 A: No, that wasn't included in the document. 18 Q: Now, did SERM also make a request for a 19 commitment to provide all outstanding spill or bypass reports 20 from the wastewater treatment plant? 21 A: Yes, they requested that information from 22 the city. 23 Q: And was that included in the protocol for 24 removal of the Boil Water Order? 25 A: No, it was not.


1 Q: And did SERM also make a request for a 2 commitment to provide information with respect to the new 3 wells that were being drilled? 4 A: Yeah, they wanted updates as to, you 5 know, how that was going, a kind of a status report and when 6 they might be operational. 7 Q: And was that part of the protocol for 8 removal of the Boil Water Order? 9 A: No, was not. 10 Q: Now, I gather, sir, that -- that there 11 did come a point in time when the city representatives got 12 somewhat frustrated? 13 A: Yeah, we were frustrated. 14 Q: Okay. 15 A: We were looking -- we were looking for 16 this to come to an end, obviously. 17 Q: So what did you do about it? 18 A: Well, it -- it got to a point where -- 19 and we were regularly meeting and -- and we were being as -- 20 as cooperative as we could and we -- we -- I personally 21 believe we -- through the whole piece we were, but I -- I 22 made a -- after one (1) of the phone calls, it was a 23 teleconference in my office and there was a couple of people 24 from SERM present and Mr. Muldoon was on the speaker phone, 25 and I think Health was there. And -- and, you know, we were


1 talking about the protocol and they had made some requests. 2 And I'm -- after the meeting, you know, I -- I made a phone 3 call to Assistant Deputy Minister, to Bob Ruggles, and said, 4 look, I want you to be aware that we're very concerned that, 5 you know, we were very much looking forward to getting this 6 Boil Water Order withdrawn. And that we believe that your 7 staff is adding to the protocol. 8 We're here to work with you but you have to 9 understand our situation, too. Our people, our citizens, 10 are -- are telling us that they're tired of boiling water. 11 And -- and so he said, no, you know I mean I'll check into 12 it. And I made a subsequent phone call to Mr. Muldoon to 13 tell him what I'd done and said, look, I'm not trying to pull 14 rank here or anything. I want to make you know that I've 15 made a call to Mr. Ruggles and I understood that he was 16 Mr. -- Joe Muldoon's boss. And I want to make him aware that 17 I'd made a call to Bob to tell him that we feel we're being, 18 you know, some things are being added to the protocol which 19 we don't think are fair and have nothing to do with the 20 actual situation. 21 And so he said, no, that's fair. So I, you 22 know, I just thought it was common courtesy I would phone Mr. 23 Muldoon to tell him that I'd phoned his boss. If that had 24 any impact it seemed that things seemed to go along a little 25 bit better after that. And so it went well after that. So,


1 I mean -- 2 Q: Okay. Now, sir, I just have one (1) more 3 question to ask you and I'm not like Mr. Mitchell, when I say 4 one (1) more, I mean just one (1). 5 A: Thank you. 6 Q: And my question is, whether the city is 7 firmly committed to the relocation and construction of a new 8 wastewater treatment plant? 9 A: Absolutely. 10 MR. TED PRIEL: Thank you, sir. I have no 11 more questions. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Thank you. 13 Mr. Russell, is there any re-exam? 14 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Just a couple of points 15 of clarification, Mr. Commissioner. 16 17 RE-DIRECT BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 18 Q: Mr. Toye, in going over the September, 19 2000 incident with Mr. Priel and we've -- we've had a 20 considerable amount of toing and froing on the issue of who 21 should or should not have issued the Precautionary Drinking 22 Water Advisory back in September of 2000. 23 And I think you've said to Mr. Priel that you 24 felt SERM should have been issuing that order. And my 25 understand is, at the end of the day, the -- it was the city


1 who issued the order. And of course we've heard -- we've 2 heard prior evidence from other people who were present at 3 those meetings in September, that there were -- there were 4 some good reasons for the city to issue the order. 5 A: Hmm-hmm. 6 Q: You know, the city would look better, it 7 would look as though the city were in control of health 8 issues if there's a whole bunch of panic. And, you know, 9 this has become the so called SERM Gonad Incident. 10 From your perspective, now, looking back on 11 those meetings, I mean, although you think SERM should have 12 issued it, do you feel -- was there some disadvantage to the 13 city for -- to have the city issue it? Do you feel the city 14 was prejudiced in some way by having to issue that order? 15 A: No. But I -- I just want to clarify. 16 I -- I didn't think, personally, that SERM was supposed to 17 issue the advisory. But they told us that's what the 18 protocol was. 19 Q: Yes? 20 A: So that's what Health -- I mean, Dr. 21 Benade was there and said, according to the protocol, here's 22 what it is. And here's how they should roll out. And, no, I 23 don't think there was any disadvantage for the city to do it, 24 but we were being advised that here's what the protocol was. 25 So, we just anticipated that that's the way it would roll


1 out. And because it didn't, I mean, Mr. Meekma provided us 2 with a letter that said that SERM strongly advises that the 3 city should issue a water -- Precautionary Water Advisory and 4 we did. 5 Q: Yes. 6 A: So -- so I -- no, I -- there was no huge 7 disadvantage to the city. 8 Q: Okay. So at the end of the day, the city 9 accepted that position? 10 A: Sure, absolutely. 11 Q: Okay. Also -- 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Just on that point, are -- 13 is it -- do I understand your evidence to say that you would 14 have preferred had SERM simply issued it? Is that what 15 you're saying? 16 THE WITNESS: No. I'm saying that that's 17 what the protocol -- we were -- 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, I understand that. 19 THE WITNESS: Right. Oh. 20 MR. COMMISSIONER: So, I'm still not clear. 21 I mean, I understand the protocol says SERM shall issue it. 22 THE WITNESS: Right. 23 MR. COMMISSIONER: And apparently there was 24 discussion or persuasion or however you wish to describe 25 former evidence introduced, that perhaps it was to the


1 advantage of the city to issue it. 2 THE WITNESS: Hmm-hmm. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: And I'm not saying -- and 4 I guess what I'm not clear on from your evidence right now is 5 whether the city reluctantly said, all right, I'll do it. Or 6 they said, positively, okay, I'll do it. Or, I mean -- 7 THE WITNESS: Right -- 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- I'm sure if your 9 objecting because -- 10 THE WITNESS: Sure, no. 11 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- everyone agrees that 12 SERM should do it, and I -- 13 THE WITNESS: Okay. 14 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- what I'm wanting to 15 know is, would you have preferred SERM to do it, or -- and 16 you were reluctantly issuing it yourselves -- 17 THE WITNESS: Right. 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- just explain that to 19 me. 20 THE WITNESS: Personally it was immaterial to 21 me who -- who did it, just as long as it got done. So, I 22 mean as -- once we had the letter from SERM stating that they 23 strongly advised it, the city did it, the mayor said, we're 24 going to do this then. So, once we had the letter from SERM, 25 it was not a problem.


1 That it -- it wasn't clear in the let -- well 2 it was clear in the letter they weren't going to issue the 3 Advisory, so the city said we'll do it then. Does that help 4 you? 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: So your impression is SERM 6 would not have issued it if the City had said no? 7 THE WITNESS: No, I'm not sure -- that's not 8 what I'm saying. 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well you know, this is a 10 very muddled area, we've heard a lot of evidence on it and 11 I'm still not sure what the significance of this whole debate 12 is. 13 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I -- to be honest I don't 14 think it -- to the city it wasn't significant of the fact who 15 did issue it, to be perfectly honest. 16 That was my take on it. I'm sure there'll be 17 other people getting up after me that might be able to answer 18 that question. 19 20 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 21 Q: I see, I see. Also in -- in relation to 22 this incident about the delay in lifting the Boil Water -- 23 the Boil Water Order, later in 2001 and Mr. Priel went 24 through a list of demands which SERM made upon the city, 25 which apparently did not appear in the protocol.


1 And I think you said after you'd made your 2 telephone conversation to Mr. Ruggles, things seemed to go a 3 lot better. 4 But in terms of that list of five (5) things 5 you gave us, the -- the -- you know, the history of the 6 turbidity readings, the commitment to contact SERM when the 7 spikes occurred, the turbidity spikes occurred, the request 8 for a completion schedule for the implementation of the new 9 improvements, treatments and assessments, and the -- the 10 commitment to provide all outstanding bypass reports for the 11 sewage plant and information on the new wells. 12 Were you ever required to provide any of those 13 things prior to the lifting of the Boil Water Order, or I 14 mean have they just gone into limbo, or how did you -- 15 A: No, no. 16 Q: -- how did you work that out, did you 17 provide some of them, or? 18 A: No, we provided them. 19 Q: You provided all of them? 20 A: Yeah. For -- all the information we had 21 we provided, now I'm not sure that we had all the information 22 on all of the spills. 23 I think it's been -- there's been testimony 24 that says that some of the spills, if it happened in the 25 middle of the night we didn't know about --


1 Q: Yes. 2 A: -- but I think that all of the 3 information that we have that they requested, we provided. 4 Q: Okay, so you -- you satisfied that 5 additional list? 6 A: I believe we did. 7 Q: So, that's probably why things went much 8 better after the phone call, you gave them what they were 9 asking for? 10 A: We were there to try to help. 11 Q: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Toye, no further 12 questions. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. 14 Yes, Mr. Toye, thank you, you're free to stand down. 15 16 WITNESS STANDS DOWN 17 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well perhaps we'll take a 19 fifteen (15) minute adjournment before the next witness. 20 21 --- Upon recessing at 3:05 p.m. 22 --- Upon resuming at 3:25 p.m. 23 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, perhaps we'll 25 resume the Hearings. And, Mr. Russell...?


1 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 2 Commissioner, I'd like to call Mayor Wayne Ray to the stand 3 and ask that he be sworn please. 4 5 WAYNE VERNON RAY, Sworn: 6 7 MR. COMMISSIONER: Mayor, you're being 8 photographed, but I guess that's all right with you? 9 THE WITNESS: That's -- that's fine if it 10 doesn't bother the Commissioner. 11 I'm not even bringing out a budget. 12 MR. COMMISSIONER: Or raising taxes. 13 Okay, Mr. Russell, proceed as you see fit, 14 please. 15 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 16 Commissioner. 17 18 EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 19 Q: Good afternoon, Mr. Ray. 20 A: Good afternoon, Mr. Russell. 21 Q: Mr. Ray, I understand that you have a 22 long history serving the city and that you became an alderman 23 for the City of North Battleford as early as 1988? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And I believe that you were first elected


1 mayor in 1997 and then you were re-elected in the year 2000; 2 is that the case? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: Now I understand that in addition to 5 these onerous obligations that you also have another life, as 6 a businessman, and I wonder if you could tell us what it is 7 you do in your other life when you're not being the mayor? 8 A: Well I run a business consulting service 9 in the City of North Battleford, and within that service I 10 provide business planning, income tax preparation, tax 11 consulting, insurance and investments and estate planning. 12 Q: And -- and how long have you been in -- 13 in that business? 14 A: It's going on just about six (6) years 15 full time, prior to that it was part time since 1976. 16 Q: Right. And I understand that although 17 you may not be a professional accountant, you've certainly 18 been involved in devising accounting systems for various 19 organizations, including the Battleford Regional Care Centre, 20 and the Battlefords Union Hospital; is that the case? 21 A: That's correct. 22 Q: And I believe between 1993 and 1995 you 23 were also Director of Finance for the Battlefords Health 24 District? 25 A: That's correct, I supervised about twenty


1 (20) people. 2 Q: Okay. Now in your long history with the 3 city, in addition to being alderman and twice mayor, are 4 there any other roles in which you've served the city of 5 North Battleford? 6 A: I've been involved in a number of 7 different organizations within the committee -- within the 8 community I should say. Sporting activities, basically I was 9 born and raised in the area, moved into the city in 1970, and 10 have been involved in sports most of my life, you'd never 11 know by looking at me today, but I was quite active in it. 12 And also participated in some community 13 service organizations in the -- in the community. 14 Q: Right. But within the -- the life and 15 the -- the business of city hall, have you -- have you 16 assumed any roles besides that of alderman and mayor? 17 A: I'm not sure because, when you're a 18 councillor in the City of North Battleford or the mayor and 19 the positions are part-time -- 20 Q: Right. 21 A: -- it's not a full-time position in 22 either case, even though what's happened this last while, 23 it's pretty much full-time. 24 Q: Right. I'm wondering, for instance, if 25 you've ever, you know, served on any committees for the city?


1 A: Oh, yes. 2 Q: Okay. 3 A: Yes, there was a number of committees 4 that I was involved in as a councillor and I've even taken an 5 active role as the mayor, Economic Development Committee of 6 the community through city council as a councillor. 7 For my full tenure of nine (9) years as a 8 councillor, Negotiations Committee, Chair as well; those are 9 the primary two (2) ones that I can think of offhand. 10 Q: Okay. And I understand that you were 11 very instrumental in organizing the -- the retreat which 12 occurred in January of 2001; is that the case? 13 A: That's true, I started the process 14 actually back in 1998, just shortly after I became the Mayor 15 in '97. It was a process that was -- I intended to -- to try 16 to enact, with the support of council, so that we had the 17 opportunity to discuss where we wanted to go in the next 18 three (3) years as a council, at the same time have 19 administration fully inform us of what they felt the needs 20 and the direction of the city might take in that next three 21 (3) years. 22 Q: So that first retreat occurred back in 23 '98? 24 A: The first retreat was back in '98, it was 25 rather informal because members of council were coming and


1 going throughout that process and, as I say, it was fairly 2 informal. The one in 2000 was a lot more formalized and 3 which we identified some clear direction that we wanted to 4 proceed in. 5 Q: Okay. When you say 2000, did you mean 6 2001, January 2001? 7 A: I could be stand corrected, it may be 8 2001. 9 Q: Yeah, I think we've -- 10 A: Just recently. 11 Q: -- we've -- yes, we've heard -- 12 A: Yeah. 13 Q: -- we've heard about that retreat. In- 14 between that time, I mean, besides meeting for regular 15 council meetings, are there any other ways in which members 16 of city council get together to discuss city business? 17 A: There are different committee structures, 18 not full committee structure as such though, but back in 19 1998, also we began the process of a public works committee 20 with -- and I think that would be of an interest to the 21 Commission -- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- in which it allowed administration and 24 councillors to talk about issues more of a capital nature on 25 a regular basis, rather than just bringing them and, lack of


1 a better term, springing it on council and raising a lot of 2 questions at the council level. 3 Q: Okay. Did you ever participate in that 4 committee? 5 A: I did initially in the (sic) order to -- 6 to ensure that it was getting off on what I felt would be the 7 right foot and moved away very quickly though because the 8 councillors and the administration were doing a fine job. 9 Q: Okay. And so who sits on that committee 10 now? 11 A: Basically it's the Commissioner, the head 12 of the Public Works and Utilities, Mr. Strelioff, and two (2) 13 councillors, Councillor Friedman and Councillor Pattison. 14 Q: And I'm assuming that the deliberations 15 of that committee, do they -- are they brought to your 16 attention? 17 A: They're brought forward to council for 18 either more or less an information and, in some cases, some 19 recommendations. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: So, there's a formal document that comes 22 forward. 23 Q: Okay. Now, as -- as mayor, as someone 24 who also has to lead another life, besides attending council 25 meetings, how do you interact with members of your


1 administration, such as Mr. Toye or Mr. Strelioff? 2 A: My primary interaction though, up until 3 the recent events, has been with Mr. Toye and as well as some 4 of the other administration, but primarily with Mr. Toye. 5 I make a personal effort when I'm in City Hall 6 to touch base with all the department heads that I can that 7 are available, that includes the Director of Finance, the 8 Public Works, Mr. Strelioff if he's around, the City Clerk, 9 just basically -- the Economic Development Officer; I make a 10 personal point of trying to liaison with those people. 11 Q: And for what purposes, do they bring to 12 your attention concerns that they have -- that they have 13 discovered as part of their lives at the city as well or is 14 there -- is there a formal meeting when you meet once a week 15 or is it -- is it a little more casual than that? 16 A: It's a casual meeting, the purpose is 17 more or less just to keep me informed because it's not a 18 full-time position -- 19 Q: Yeah. 20 A: -- so that, if something is coming down 21 through Economic Development, our Economic Development 22 Officer is fully aware of the stages it's at and I'd like to 23 be apprised of that and at some point I may have to get 24 involved, I may not get involved. 25 Q: All right. And I'll come to that in a


1 little more detail in a moment, but first, in order to sort 2 of tell the tale, I'd like to have your account of the 3 principal events that are of concern to this Inquiry. 4 I'd like to go back to Mr. Meekma's binder, if 5 we could, which is Exhibit C-41 at tab A-20. 6 A: I'm sorry, which tab? 7 Q: A-20, if you would please? 8 A: Yes. The June 13th letter? 9 Q: Yes. The -- the letter. This letter has 10 come up in -- in previous evidence. And I understand that it 11 is a -- a letter which you wrote in response to a letter I 12 believe the city had received from Mr. Mark Getzlaf dated 13 June the 20th, 2000. You don't need to look at that, I'm 14 sure you're familiar with it because you responded to it, 15 which appears at tab 19 in Mr. Meekma's binder. 16 Now, I think -- besides the fact that this 17 letter takes us back to the -- the situation immediately 18 prior to -- not immediately but somewhat prior to the events 19 of -- of September of 2000, and I think it's probably a good 20 place to start. I think also because it's a very forceful 21 and unequivocal letter and a statement, in relation to 22 several matters. 23 And most of the people, I'm sure in this room, 24 have read this letter in several ways. But just to summarize 25 it and just let me know if this is fair, I think what


1 you're -- what you're doing in this letter to Mr. Getzlaf, is 2 you're saying that -- that you and the city do understand 3 your responsibility to provide safe drinking water to the 4 citizens of North Battleford. I think that's certainly one 5 (1) of the things you're saying, is it not? 6 A: Hmm-hmm. That's correct. 7 Q: And I think that you're saying that the 8 city regularly tests it's water and has professional and 9 diligent staff to handle the necessary procedures for doing 10 that. Is that fair? 11 A: That's correct. 12 Q: And I think, also, you are somewhat 13 dismayed and I believe somewhat indignant that SERM is not 14 aware of the precautions and care the City of North 15 Battleford takes to ensure safe drinking water. Would that 16 be a fair summary of what you're saying? 17 A: This -- this letter was drafted, excuse 18 me, under the direction of council from, as you indicated, 19 Mr. Russell, to a letter reminding us of our duty for safe 20 water, potable water in the community. 21 Our council received that letter and had 22 comments in regards to it was more of a -- after the 23 Walkerton incident, more of a CYA type of letter. And cover 24 your butt, CYB, I guess, letter that was coming from SERM. 25 At that same time, we were trying to establish


1 a regional waste management facility in our community. And 2 we know that the government and SERM had had a significant 3 investment in the Humboldt project. And in fairness, they 4 were requesting the City of North Battleford to take a 5 leadership role in regional waste management. To bring other 6 communities in to use our facility. 7 And at the same time, we were requesting 8 assistance from them, financially as well as invoking 9 their -- what we thought their responsibility of closing down 10 some none conforming regional dumps. And even at one (1) of 11 our meetings, one (1) individual said we won't do that. 12 So, the purpose of the letter was to focus 13 more on the aspect, we understand our role as far as potable 14 water is concerned. But we're not too sure if you're 15 understanding your role as far as regional waste management. 16 Q: Right. And I believe that the final 17 paragraph of that letter speaks to the issue of the regional 18 waste management concern that you had. 19 But certainly, I think at this time, you 20 believed that your role in providing safe water was pretty 21 clear and that you were looking after it. You had no doubts 22 about that. This letter is unequivocal on those issues, is 23 it not? 24 A: Oh absolutely. 25 Q: Okay. Now you say this letter was a --


1 was approved and authorized by -- 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: I just wonder, Mr. 3 Russell, is -- was there any consultation with any particular 4 employees or otherwise, prior to writing the letter? In 5 other words, just background wise? 6 7 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 8 Q: Right, right. I understand that the 9 letter was authorized by -- by city council, right? 10 A: It was under the direction of city 11 council. 12 Q: Right. Now before city council 13 authorized you to write this letter, what -- what inquiries 14 did you make concerning the state of the city's water system, 15 before you made these unequivocal statements, who did you 16 speak with? 17 A: I'm not too sure specifically who I spoke 18 to. I can remember us discussing at the council level a -- a 19 general discussion in around the area of -- of -- that we do 20 tests, there are guidelines that we have to meet. 21 We have a certificate of operation that we 22 have to meet, we're doing the tests. And I -- I'm -- just I 23 can't recall who I talked to about that, it may have been Mr. 24 Strelioff directly through council. 25 But in fairness it was council that said that


1 you know, we want a response to this, and this is the gist of 2 what we want into that letter, and that's what I did. 3 And it's my understanding, Mr. Russell, of all 4 the letters in the province that SERM had sent these out to, 5 we were the only ones that replied. 6 Q: Right. 7 A: Now that's unusual. 8 Q: Right. 9 A: And so -- and if -- 10 Q: But in -- 11 A: -- and if I can -- if I can just add to 12 one (1) thing, it's my understanding that when I say we know 13 our responsibility towards providing potable water, that's in 14 conjunction with the guidelines that are established with 15 SERM and that we -- we rely on. As well as, I see them as a 16 partner within the -- the whole complex of providing safe 17 water in the province. 18 Q: Right. And I can understand you're 19 saying that now, but this letter doesn't say that? 20 A: No, not specifically, no. 21 Q: Right. Now the discussion over the 22 letter you say on the -- before you -- before you sent it 23 out, it took place within the context of a -- of a regular 24 council meeting? 25 A: I'm not sure if it was regular council,


1 or if it was a standing committee meeting. 2 Q: Okay. And before -- 3 A: But it was public, because I can remember 4 the media reporting on it. 5 Q: Okay. And so at that meeting you say 6 you -- you -- did you ask for a report from anyone? Did you 7 ask for an investigation to be done? 8 A: No, sir. 9 Q: Okay, so this was basically a statement 10 of your faith in the -- in the water system in North 11 Battleford, rather than the result of any inquiry that you 12 made? 13 A: That's correct. 14 Q: Okay. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Now in order to just see the role that you do 19 play in -- particularly in relation to the plants, and it may 20 not be that significant. 21 As an alderman since 1988, and of course 22 since -- since 1997 you've -- you've been mayor, what kind of 23 personal contact have you had with the -- the water and 24 sewage treatment plants and the people who work there? 25 Are they places you have visited?


1 A: I think Mr. Toye spoke to that, but I can 2 speak to that as well, in that it -- administration had 3 established a bit of a protocol that when new members of 4 council came on, did a facility wide tour and offered that to 5 the new councillors as well as the present councillors. 6 And I had the -- the opportunity to visit that 7 I know for sure, once was as a councillor to the sewage 8 treatment plant and the water treatment plants, and once as 9 the mayor. 10 And I know that in our present council 11 situation I'm pretty sure that five (5) out of the six (6) 12 councillors have visited the plants. 13 Q: Right, but they weren't places that you 14 would go to regularly for any reason? 15 A: No, it's not something that I would 16 normally take my children to, no. 17 Q: Okay. And what kind of communication or 18 contact would you have with any of the plants operators? 19 A: Very little. I did on one (1) occasion, 20 I'm trying to remember if it was last year, when we did run 21 into a situation at the F.E. Holliday Plant when a pipe had 22 sprung a leak, and I went down because there were some people 23 who were away and I just wanted to see what was happening. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: But on a normal day to day, rarely would


1 I run into them. 2 Q: Okay. And what about the -- Mr. Katzell, 3 the long -- the long serving plants foreman from the city, 4 did -- was he someone that you would have had contact with? 5 A: The only time that really I would have 6 contact with Ivan would be at our Christmas functions, or our 7 socials that were with the city. Other than that really I 8 didn't have any strong relationship with Ivan in any way. 9 Q: Okay, and on those occasions when you did 10 meet him, did he discuss city business with you, did he 11 discuss any concerns that he may have had about the plants, 12 or -- 13 A: Rarely. Just prior to his retirement 14 though, which was the -- he did discuss very briefly with me 15 about losing his foreman, I think that was the term he used, 16 back when he became head of the plants there. And he felt 17 that the city should maybe reconsider that aspect after he 18 left -- 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: -- and that there should be two (2) 21 people in place, rather than one (1). 22 Q: Okay. So -- but, apart from that 23 conversation, did he -- did he ever express any other 24 concerns to you that he had about the plants? 25 A: No.


1 Q: If we move a little further up the chain, 2 what about the -- the Director of Public Works and Utilities, 3 now Mr. Strelioff, formerly Mr. Berry; what kind of contact 4 would you have with someone occupying that office? 5 A: Well, as you're aware, Mr. Berry attends 6 all council meetings so we would have our contact there and 7 in-between the meetings we usually may have an informal 8 discussion about things. 9 I do meet, I can't say on a regular basis, 10 like a day-to-day basis with Mr. Strelioff, but we do have 11 contact within city hall at -- on different occasions. 12 Q: Okay. So, when the Director of Public 13 Works, let's take Mr. Strelioff, attends the council meeting, 14 what's -- what's his role there, what does he do? 15 A: Mr. Strelioff, as well as any 16 administration, I see their role as advising council on some 17 of the issues that are coming forward. We usually receive 18 our information package of what is on the agenda on the 19 Friday and we have the opportunity, as councillors and -- and 20 myself, to review what's on the agenda with additional 21 information that may be provided. 22 Primarily administration are there to assist 23 us in making some decisions and to speak to the issues that 24 are on the agenda. 25 Q: Okay. I'm assuming though, that they --


1 they're there to answer any questions that city -- city 2 councillors may have? 3 A: That's correct. 4 Q: All right. 5 A: Or the public at times. 6 Q: Right. Do they -- do they also bring 7 forward reports and information from time to time and report 8 to city council on the -- on the status of the various 9 departments? 10 A: I'm not too sure exactly. Various 11 reports on various issues will come forward -- 12 Q: Yes. 13 A: -- but, as far as a specific -- let's say 14 a quarterly report on -- on the financial situation of the 15 department or whether there's -- they're online with a 16 certain project, no. 17 Q: Okay. 18 A: I believe council is -- is a policy- 19 making body rather than a day-to-day type of entity. 20 Q: Okay. So council wouldn't normally 21 concern itself too much with operations unless there was some 22 kind of specific issue that would be brought to council's 23 attention? 24 A: That's correct. 25 Q: And that -- that might come through Mr.


1 Toye or...? 2 A: Primarily through Mr. Toye or previous to 3 Mr. Toye would have been the city commissioner, Doug McEwen. 4 Q: Okay. Now, has Mr. Strelioff, in the -- 5 the contact you have had with him, has he ever discussed with 6 you or in the context of a city council meeting, prior to the 7 contamination events of 2001, any concerns that he may have 8 had about the Plants Department, the state of the plants -- 9 A: The physical state? 10 Q: That -- that's one (1) of the things, the 11 infrastructure, the -- the personnel requirements, whether 12 they're sufficient, safety features concerning the -- you 13 know, the -- the obvious concern that many people have 14 expressed between the -- the possible -- the closeness 15 between the sewage effluent and the water intake; have 16 those -- have those issues been raised with you personally or 17 at city council meetings prior to 2001? 18 A: Prior to 2001, because we had a retreat 19 in 2001 -- 20 Q: Right. 21 A: -- that's why I ask. 22 Q: Right. Prior to the contamination events 23 of 2001 so prior to April. 24 A: Okay. Well, in 2001, as I indicated, we 25 had our retreat and at that retreat Mr. Strelioff had


1 indicated a need to look at the infrastructure -- 2 Q: Yes. 3 A: -- and, when we talk about 4 infrastructure, it goes beyond just the plants, but in 5 relationship to the plants, that they were old and that they 6 were looking at updating some of the instrumentation and I 7 think that was one (1) of the reasons why he also took us on 8 the tour back with new council, so we would be aware of that 9 and, at the same time, he clearly identified the need for 10 additional capacity for the water wells, that was high on his 11 priority list, to meet the demands of the city. 12 And, as far as the sewage treatment plant, I 13 know that he was firmly in the belief that a new sewage 14 treatment plant had to be planned for, he made that aware and 15 we had to discuss a number of issues around how we're going 16 to finance that. 17 But, prior to that in -- as far as staffing 18 and that, not particularly. He was very frustrated about the 19 aspect of not being able to fill the -- the plants foreman's 20 job, Mr. Katzell's former job, and frustrated in that he -- 21 on a number of occasions, he thought he had somebody -- 22 Q: Right. 23 A: -- and, for some reason or another, it 24 fell through. 25 Q: Okay. So the -- the level of the


1 information that was being provided to you by Mr. Strelioff, 2 was that infrastructure was old and something needed to be 3 done about it but did he raise any safety concerns? 4 A: As far as the aspect of creating safe, 5 potable water to the community? No. 6 Q: No. Any -- the -- the issue of staffing, 7 of course, has come up and, you know, the -- the issue of 8 whether the plants are adequately staffed. Was -- was that 9 ever raised with you or at a council meeting, where you were 10 present? 11 A: I'm sorry, just repeat that again? 12 Q: Sorry. The issue of adequate staffing 13 for the plants, whether there are sufficient operators there 14 to -- to, you know, to wrassle with what I think has been 15 acknowledged by Mr. McDonald and other people we've heard 16 of -- from, as being a -- a difficult plant to manage, 17 particularly during the -- the peak season. There are 18 difficult times down at that plant. 19 Mr. Katzell, himself, had given evidence when 20 he appears here that he had a long standing concern about the 21 adequacy of the -- the staffing there and at least the -- the 22 need for at least one (1) more operator. And he certainly 23 seemed to feel a great deal of frustration about that. 24 Was that raised with you, by anyone? 25 A: No. Not specifically at all. I know


1 that in our budget deliberations, we talked about other 2 staffing that was required within the Public Works 3 Department. The -- the technicians that were hired is one 4 (1) and I think there's still one (1) technician to be hired, 5 if I'm correct. I could be wrong on that. But as far as the 6 actual operators, no. 7 Q: Okay. In your time as an alderman, a 8 significant period of service, has that issue ever come up at 9 a city council meeting, that you're aware of? 10 A: Not that I can recall. 11 Q: Okay. So if we go back to Mr. Berry, 12 certainly that's something he didn't raise with you either? 13 A: No. 14 Q: Okay. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 So from what you're telling us, would it be 19 fair to say that any real knowledge you may have acquired 20 about the Plants Department has come from, I suppose, things 21 you may have heard from Mr. Strelioff and the former Director 22 of Public Works, during council meetings and during the 23 retreat, and through your dealings with the city 24 commissioner? 25 A: Primarily. I -- I do remember when we


1 did do the tours that there was some plant operators there 2 who assisted the management staff as far as touring us 3 through the facility. But there was no major issue that was 4 raised or concern that was raised. 5 Q: Okay. So in terms of actual reports 6 about the plants, you receive, of course budget information 7 about that particular department. And it would be part of 8 your budget deliberations, I would think? 9 A: That's correct. 10 Q: Is that correct? And any -- any queries 11 that council may have, I'm assuming, that would have been 12 answered from time to time. But you've seen, then, little of 13 the plants and the way they actually operate? 14 A: Well, as I said, -- 15 Q: Apart from your -- your visit, your tour. 16 A: Well, I've had two (2) visits. 17 Q: Yes? 18 A: So through that process, it's been 19 explained to me of how the process works. 20 Q: Okay. 21 A: And -- and there's diagrams on some of 22 the walls there and maps and so on that show how the process 23 works. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: Other than that, I certainly want to --


1 would not be one to try to run one (1) of those plants. 2 Q: Right. And I think you've said that your 3 general concern is with -- with policy, general policy and 4 budget issues. And that operational concerns you feel are 5 the responsibility of other people within city hall? 6 A: That's correct. I don't think I was 7 elected to run a grader or operate the sewage treatment 8 plant. We pay people for that. 9 Q: Right. And in relation to the 10 responsibilities we've talked about at the beginning, as 11 expressed in your letter of July 13th of -- of 2000, back to 12 Mr. Getzlaf and your acknowledgement that the city does know 13 what it's obligations are. 14 Within the city administration, I mean, who do 15 you see as being responsible for ensuring that that, in fact, 16 is true? 17 A: Well my direct line of communication is 18 with Mr. Toye. So, Mr. Toye would have to ensure that the, 19 in this case, the Director of Public Works would ensure that 20 the water is safe and potable through the -- the technical 21 people that work within the plant. 22 Q: Right. So -- 23 A: My direct link is with Mr. Toye. 24 Q: Right. But you don't -- you don't feel 25 that Mr. Toye has any understanding of what goes on at those


1 plants in terms of day to day operations or how to produce 2 potable water, do you? 3 A: No -- 4 Q: Okay -- 5 A: -- I -- I wouldn't expect him to. 6 Q: Right. So within -- within your mind, 7 and within the mind possibly of city council, who is the 8 person who does look after those issues? 9 A: Oh primarily, as I said, Mr. Strelioff 10 does come to council and answer questions that may be queries 11 from members of council, or even in some cases the media. 12 So, Mr. Strelioff was ultimately responsible for that -- that 13 department. 14 Q: Right. 15 16 (BRIEF PAUSE) 17 18 Q: And I understand that Mr. Strelioff 19 became the -- I believe -- I'm not quite sure what his 20 official title is anymore, but Director of Public Works and 21 Utilities in November of 1999; is that correct? 22 A: That's correct. 23 Q: And that he replaced Mr. -- Mr. Bob 24 Berry? 25 A: That's correct.


1 Q: Okay. Before Mr. Strelioff was hired, 2 did you either with other people who worked at city hall or 3 in the context of city council, did -- was there any kind of 4 committee struck to identify what you were looking for in 5 terms of someone to replace Mr. Berry? 6 How did that process work when it came time to 7 look for a replacement for Mr. Berry? 8 A: If -- if I recall correctly, Mr. Berry 9 had tendered his resignation and he had some holidays, so he 10 was going to be basically vacating the position relatively 11 quickly. 12 And we felt as a council, along with at that 13 time Mr. -- it was Mr. McEwen then, that we needed to replace 14 the position fairly quickly. 15 So, the quickest way we -- we -- the things 16 that we talked about, the quickest way was to basically hire 17 a consultant, which was Pommen and Associates to its full 18 opportunity of who people would be out there that would be 19 interested in moving to North Battleford to fulfill that 20 duty. 21 Q: Right. 22 A: And we did that. 23 Q: And but besides having a consultant 24 available to you, was there also a hiring committee who was 25 going to interact with the consultant?


1 A: That is an administrative job, it's not 2 up to council. 3 Q: Okay, so -- 4 A: But we didn't direct them to create one 5 (1), no. 6 Q: Okay. So that would have been the task 7 for Mr. McEwen to interact with the consultant to -- 8 A: That's correct. 9 Q: -- ensure that all did well? 10 Were there any deliberation then within city 11 council as to what -- what the qualities were needed -- what 12 qualities were needed for that position? 13 A: There was the discussion in around the 14 aspect of whether we needed an engineer, or whether or not we 15 needed somebody of more a managerial background. 16 I can say that the consensus of council was 17 that we -- we would lean more directly towards someone who 18 had strong managerial background. 19 Q: Right. 20 A: And that was primarily because we had 21 some difficulties in -- in what we felt as a council, of the 22 management of that department, of engineers in the past. 23 And not saying that they weren't doing a good 24 job, it might have been our lack of understanding of some of 25 the technical aspects that they would refer to council for


1 us, and it was hard for us to make decisions in that regards. 2 Even if you had a -- a report come to you, no 3 disrespect, but it's like lawyers, and I thought for a while 4 there that maybe engineers got paid by the -- the word, but 5 if you asked for a report to come back to council what would 6 happen in -- in some of the cases the report would be so 7 lengthy that you weren't too sure what was coming out of the 8 report, what is the recommendation. 9 And so we found it very frustrating as a 10 council to deal with that, and we also knew at the same time 11 though that there was problems at the plant with some of the 12 staff, interaction between some of even the operators. 13 And so we needed somebody who had -- we felt 14 would have strong managerial background to deal with those 15 issues. 16 Q: Okay, can you go into a little more 17 detail about your awareness of problems at the plant? 18 What -- what were the nature of those problems? 19 A: All I can say to that is that one (1) of 20 the councillors and -- well I shouldn't say one (1), a couple 21 of the councillors had information that -- bickering might 22 not be the right word, but there was conflicts -- 23 Q: Hmm-hmm. 24 A: -- between operators. 25 And the operators weren't getting along that


1 well themselves, so that came from other councillors, not 2 myself. 3 Q: Okay. So council came -- did then come 4 to some conclusions about what they were looking for, as you 5 say, it was a matter of emphasis perhap -- perhaps but you 6 were -- you were looking for a communicator, a manager of 7 people? 8 A: A manager of people, but I think if there 9 was a manager of people that -- you know, if somebody -- one 10 (1) of the applicants was a strong applicant that had the 11 engineering background plus the managerial side, that would 12 have spoke well to whoever that candidate might have been. 13 Q: Okay. And Mr. McEwen was given the job 14 of ensuring that the consultant went about his business and 15 hired the kind of person you were looking for? 16 A: Primarily, Mr. Pommen did come to an in- 17 camera council meeting to ask some questions about what we 18 were looking for, and just what I relayed to you now is what 19 we relayed to him. 20 Q: Okay, so that's what I was going to come 21 to, Mr. Pommen and Mr. McEwen. 22 The -- the needs that council saw in the -- 23 for that job, were they communicated clearly to Mr. Pommen 24 and to Mr. McEwen? 25 A: I believe so.


1 Q: Okay. And then, as the process 2 proceeded, was there any reporting back to you and council as 3 to how it was going or whether they'd found candidates or 4 what the calibre of applicant was? 5 A: My recollection was that Mr. Pommen had, 6 through the commissioner, had identified that they had 7 received a number of applications and I don't remember how 8 many, but there was a significant number and that he was 9 going to go through a process of short-listing them down to 10 anywhere from three (3) to five (5), based on the 11 qualifications and the criteria. And we did receive a report 12 shortly after that that it was short-listed to I think it was 13 five (5) candidates and we interviewed those people. 14 Q: Now, who -- who conducted the -- the 15 short list of five (5) -- who -- who interviewed the short 16 list? 17 A: Well, the short list was created through 18 Mr. Pommen -- 19 Q: Yes. 20 A: -- the interview was done by all members 21 of council and I don't know if everyone was there, that I can 22 recall, but the intent was council was to ask -- ask them 23 very specific questions more around the managerial side of 24 things -- 25 Q: Yes.


1 A: -- and how he dealt with people; Mr. 2 McEwen participated as well. 3 Q: Now, we've -- I think we've heard 4 previous evidence that that cast of -- of candidates did 5 include people who had -- who were certified engineers and 6 some who were not. So, I'm -- I'm assuming that the council 7 and the -- and the consultant and the group who were 8 considering these people had a range of abilities to -- to 9 choose from; is that the case? 10 A: That's true, we also had an internal 11 applicant, Mr. Jules Cote. 12 Q: Right -- right. So when the decision 13 was -- was made to hire Mr. -- Mr. Strelioff, what -- what 14 was it that you identified in Mr. Strelioff as being 15 important for what you were looking for? 16 A: During the interview process, we asked a 17 number of questions in which we rated all the candidates and 18 through basically council looking at all the ratings of each 19 individual councillor and the commissioner, the -- the major 20 component that stood out of what we were looking for as a 21 council was we felt Randy had come across in the interview 22 very clearly as a strong manager and that's what we were 23 looking for. 24 Q: Okay. So, in hiring Mr. Strelioff, 25 Council got what it was looking for?


1 A: I believe so, I don't think we were 2 looking for a technical aspect because he -- he did have some 3 exposure to waste and water plants in the past, not a great 4 deal, but our primary focus was dealing with people. 5 Q: Right. Now, in reaching that decision, 6 we've -- we've had previous evidence appear before the 7 Commission, I mean, for instance, going back to the Pommen 8 Report and some of the observations made there to the effect 9 that it would be a good idea, for instance, if the -- if the 10 Director of Public Utilities had some technical knowledge 11 because of the need for that person to be able to explain to 12 people like yourself and city council technical matters that 13 may be taking place and you, yourself, have mentioned the 14 need for communications and that's someone you were looking 15 for. 16 We've also seen in the previous evidence 17 that's been introduced, in particular, for instance, the -- 18 the advertisement of the position that went out and was put 19 out by Pommen that there is some emphasis in that upon a 20 technical capability, in fact, the advertisement itself 21 refers to a Director of Operational Services and City 22 Engineer; did you ever see that documentation before it went 23 out? 24 Perhaps we could place it before you, I 25 forget --


1 A: Well, I have seen it in the binder -- 2 Q: Oh, you have, it's there, okay. 3 A: -- but I can't say that I -- I recall 4 actually seeing the advertisement. I do remember one (1) 5 aspect of this and -- and I -- I think you referred to it the 6 other day and with the headline, 'Come join our way of 7 life' -- 8 Q: Right. 9 A: -- because members of council didn't see 10 the package from Pommen that identified what he was doing 11 and -- and I do believe that this was part of it. 12 Q: Right. 13 A: So I would have to say that I did see it. 14 Q: And these materials do lay some emphasis 15 upon the -- the sort of technical capacity, the 'Come join 16 our way of life' circular or whatever it is, in the final 17 paragraph talks about strong managerial skills, but also 18 along with professional civil engineering designations or 19 equivalencies in engineering technology. 20 And then in the -- in the position 21 description, as well, under the required qualifications, the 22 first bullet, we're also told what is required is a 23 professional engineering degree or equivalency, in civil 24 engineering and public works vocations, supplemented with 25 management, development and education.


1 And almost, there, it seems as though the 2 engineering qualification is -- is placed foremost. So, do 3 these materials correspond with the direction that was given 4 to Pommen and Associates and Mr. McEwen by city council? 5 A: Well I think, Mr. Russell, first of all I 6 think you have to realize that this position, in this case, 7 is called Director of Operational Services (City Engineer). 8 We did change it after and primarily because Mr. Strelioff, 9 at the time, said, I'm not an engineer so I can't use the 10 name, engineer. And I think that was referred to in one (1) 11 of the questions by some of the other people. 12 But Mr. Strelioff's position, or this position 13 that we were looking for, goes well beyond just Public Works. 14 I mean, they go into the airport, streets and roads, many 15 different aspects of the city operation. So, it's not just 16 that there -- we're looking for engin -- an engineering 17 that's -- like, my understanding of engineers is that there's 18 many different classifications of engineers. 19 So, it doesn't say specifically we want a -- 20 somebody who has a technical background in water or 21 wastewater or those type of things. So, I do believe that 22 the -- the document that's before me here does reflect what 23 we were looking for. And as I said, if we had a different 24 candidate that showed that he had a strong engineering 25 background in one (1) of the other areas, or any area, who


1 showed us a strong managerial background, they might have 2 been successful. 3 Q: Right. I think one (1) of the things the 4 materials, of course, does refer to, the 'Come join our way 5 of life' document, sets out the -- the range, as you say, of 6 -- of responsibilities -- 7 A: Hmm-hmm. 8 Q: -- that such a person has. And of 9 course, one (1) of those responsibilities actually designated 10 there is for water and wastewater treatment. 11 And of course the curious thing is that in Mr. 12 Strelioff's resume submission, which is Exhibit C-79, he does 13 stress there that he has extensive experience and knowledge 14 of water and waste -- 15 A: Sorry, Mr. Russell, I don't have C-79. 16 Q: Oh, my apologies. I thought -- 17 MR. COMMISSIONER: I don't know if we have to 18 go through this. Well, anyway -- 19 THE WITNESS: Mr. Commissioner, if you want, 20 I'm not too sure if your headed in the direction of -- 21 22 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 23 Q: No, my -- my only question is, that that 24 seems to be a requirement of the job. It's something that 25 Mr. Strelioff stresses. When you hired him, was that


1 something you hired him because of? Was that an important 2 feature of the qualities he was bringing to the job? 3 A: The technical background? 4 Q: Well, the extensive experience in water 5 and wastewater? 6 A: It would have been a consideration but it 7 wasn't the main one, no. 8 Q: Okay. But -- but when you hired him, did 9 you know that, in fact, accordance with the evidence he's 10 given, he doesn't have a lot of experience with water and 11 wastewater. Did you know that when you hired him? 12 A: I knew at the time and so did council, 13 that he had been involved in energy audit and what his 14 background was in regards to the City of Regina, yes. 15 Q: Okay. Okay, so -- 16 A: But if you're trying to say that maybe he 17 maybe misled us, no. 18 Q: Okay. So -- no, and that's -- that is my 19 point. That I -- I wanted to make sure that you felt you 20 hadn't been misled -- 21 A: Absolutely not. 22 Q: -- and that by the time you hired him you 23 knew that he did not have experience in water and wastewater. 24 Would that be fair? 25 A: It wasn't our primary focus.


1 Q: Right. So that didn't matter to you? 2 A: No. 3 4 (BRIEF PAUSE) 5 6 Q: Now you've told us that, though, you were 7 looking for someone, for instance, who -- who could explain 8 in simple language some of the technical things that were 9 going on within the department to you. You'd said you'd had 10 a bit of a problem in the past because you tended to get as 11 much paper work as lawyers churn out. You wanted a 12 communicator. 13 My concern here would be, okay, if you knew 14 that Mr. Strelioff was not strong in the technical side, how 15 would he be able to communicate technical difficulties to 16 city council, if he did not have some strength in that 17 regard? 18 A: Well I'm not too sure what type of 19 technical difficulties that would come to council, 20 specifically. I can tell you that the previous engineer's 21 talked in very technical terms. 22 One (1) other aspect that you have to realize 23 of all department managers in the City of North Battleford, 24 and I'm sure in many other cities our size, they deal very 25 extensively with the general public.


1 And if you can't talk to the general public in 2 a level that the general public can understand, you know who 3 gets called, and it's a councillor or the mayor. 4 And I can say that the rapport of Mr. 5 Strelioff, that I'm aware of is very strong in that aspect 6 and it was one (1) of the considerations as well, because the 7 rapport of the other people with the general public that was 8 in those positions was not good. 9 Q: Right, but I think you -- you have said 10 that he was the person you place primary responsibility on 11 for the safety of the water supply in the City of North 12 Battleford? 13 A: Sure. 14 Q: In deciding to choose Mr. Strelioff out 15 of the -- the list of candidates for that position, did -- 16 did you or council place any emphasis or any -- give any 17 consideration to the fact that you -- there was at least I 18 believe at the time when Mr. Strelioff was hired, Mr. Katzell 19 was still there, that you had a long time plants foreman; did 20 that come up in any way? 21 A: I don't recall specifically it coming up, 22 no. 23 Q: Okay. 24 A: It may have, but I don't recall it. 25


1 (BRIEF PAUSE) 2 3 Q: And I'm assuming that, for instance, in 4 terms of ensuring that whatever is going on in the plant is 5 in conformity with whatever laws, rules and regulations are 6 applicable, once again, that would be a matter of -- of 7 responsibility for Mr. Strelioff, as being the primary person 8 who ran those plants? 9 A: I would say that the ultimate 10 responsibility is there. He's going to rely definitely on 11 the people that are in the direct operation, as well as 12 the -- the plant manager. 13 Q: Okay. Now who is it who supervised Mr. 14 Strelioff, to make sure he does his job? 15 A: Mr. Toye. 16 Q: Okay, and of course Mr. Toye I don't 17 believe would pretend that he had any knowledge of -- of 18 water and wastewater matters? 19 A: No. 20 Q: No, so -- 21 A: Nor would he have a chartered accountancy 22 to deal with the director of financing. 23 Q: Right, so he would rely upon Mr. 24 Strelioff to ensure that water and wastewater matters were 25 being taken care of?


1 A: Or he would rely on him having the people 2 in place to deal with it, yes. 3 Q: Right. 4 5 (BRIEF PAUSE) 6 7 So, at the time when Mr. Katzell retired at 8 the end of 2000, in December of 2000, in terms of the kind of 9 technical capability you had in place to look after matters 10 at the plant, did it become a concern for -- for you, that 11 Mr. -- Mr. Katzell had retired at that time, and there was 12 some difficulty in finding a -- a replacement foreman down 13 there? 14 A: I think it was a concern not only of 15 myself, but our memb -- our council, as well as the 16 administration. It was very frustrating that they were 17 unable to get a successful candidate in a fairly timely 18 manner. 19 It was a very unusual process that went 20 through there as we -- has been witnessed through other 21 evidence, but in most cases you're probably going to be able 22 to fill a -- a management position probably within maybe one 23 (1) to two (2) months. 24 Q: Right. 25 A: That wasn't the case.


1 Q: Okay. But did it give rise to any 2 concerns over the safety of the water supply? 3 A: No, because we -- we believed that we had 4 very competent operators that were working there day to day, 5 long term operators. 6 Q: Right. Now we've had referred to a 7 number of documents dealing with the -- the state of affairs 8 at the plants, and I don't want to go through the whole range 9 of them with you, but I do want to refer to a couple of them 10 just to -- just to get your -- your understanding of -- of 11 what they were about and why they were produced. 12 We've looked in some detail at the -- the 13 Pommen Report, which I understand was produced by Pommen and 14 Associates for the city back in 1996; is that correct? 15 A: I believe so, yeah. 16 Q: Okay, so how -- how familiar are -- are 17 you with that report? 18 A: Well back in 1996 I was a councillor and 19 I'd have had a brief overview of it. Probably read the 20 Executive Summary at that time. I've become quite familiar 21 with it in the last while. 22 Q: Okay, do you remember with -- do you 23 remember what -- what gave rise to the Pommen Report, what -- 24 what drove its production? 25 A: If I -- if I recall correctly, we were


1 looking at -- I'm just -- just bear with me for a second, 2 because as some people know, I've got old in the last while. 3 But I believe that it came to council that there was some 4 concerns in -- in -- as far as the makeup, if you want to 5 call it that, of -- of the Plants Departments, and that we 6 wanted an outside -- rather than us trying to determine with 7 our limited knowledge and maybe some rumours on the street 8 type of scenarios, it'd be better to have a consultant 9 actually do a complete review of that asp -- of that whole 10 area. 11 And he was dealing with the possibility of 12 restructuring and making sure that we had the proper number 13 of people in place, the proper management in place and those 14 things, if I recall correctly. 15 Q: Okay, but were there concerns in deciding 16 whether or not to hire a consultant. Were there concerns 17 over efficiency, or were there also concerns over safety? 18 A: My understanding that the primary reason 19 was dealing with not the safety of the -- of the 20 establishment of potable water in the community. It may have 21 been some discussion around the safety or occupational health 22 and safety of some of the plants operations and the physical 23 state of them, because we knew they were old. But it was 24 primarily focussed on whether or not we were efficient in -- 25 Q: Right.


1 A: -- in staffing complements and things of 2 that nature. 3 Q: Okay. And was that report something that 4 was received and discussed by city council? 5 A: I remember us receiving it, I don't think 6 there was a likely discussion behind it. 7 Q: Okay. So what -- after it was received, 8 what was done with it? 9 A: I can't speak to that, as a councillor at 10 that point in time, I don't recall if anything was 11 specifically done with it as per se. 12 I can tell you that in 1997 after my election, 13 one (1) of the recommendations that was in there, and if I 14 recall correctly, was to establish more or less a Public 15 Works Committee, and that has been done. Other 16 recommendations I think are still maybe still outstanding. 17 Q: Right. I mean that -- that -- although 18 you say the report is concerned with, you know, reorganizing 19 of that department, I mean there was some significant issues 20 which are actually raised in the report about the state of 21 the plants. 22 I mean the -- not just the infrastructure, but 23 the staffing issue is -- is raised there, and I believe you 24 know, words are used that it's -- it's to the credit of the 25 operators that they're sort of keeping the places going or


1 whatever. 2 And also issues are raised there concerning 3 the qualifications of the people who should be responsible 4 for the plants, the -- the Director of Public Works is 5 identified as someone who should have sort of technical 6 skills. 7 So, this looks like a fairly significant 8 report for me and one (1), which as you say, was received by 9 city council. I don't -- I'm just trying to -- I'm -- I'm 10 just trying to get at what was actually done with it after it 11 was received? How was it acted upon? Who was supposed to do 12 anything about that, anyone? 13 A: Well as I said, I'm not too sure if 14 anything was specifically done as per se, within 15 administration. It would have been referred back to 16 administration to review and implement if that was the case 17 or bring forward costs in relationship to some of the 18 upgrades that may be identified, through a budget -- normal 19 budgetary process. 20 But, you're quite correct in saying that the 21 report does give credit to the operators in being able to 22 manage and operate that plant. We know that the plant is 23 old, and that's why in many cases the -- the process was 24 started in starting to put money away for the -- the day that 25 we'd have to be able to do either upgrades or -- or new


1 plants and those things. 2 And I think that's been reflected if you look 3 within the financial information, there was a significant 4 increase in funding to reserves, in order to deal with those 5 issues over time. 6 Q: Well that's -- that's what I wanted to 7 sort of come around to, was did -- did council at that time 8 make a -- have a debate about this issue and come to a -- a 9 deliberate decision that something had to be done about it as 10 early as 1996, and that the funding needed to be put in place 11 to -- to deal with those matters at that time? 12 A: I think through administration and their 13 recommendation, council supported their -- their aspect of 14 ensuring that the funds were starting to be put away for that 15 day, yes. There was no lengthy discussion as per se, no. 16 Q: Okay. But was there -- was there any 17 directive given by council as to -- for the remediation of 18 any of the immediate remed -- remediation of any of the 19 issues identified in that report? 20 I realize it's some time ago now, '96, but 21 it's one (1) of the few pieces of documentation we have. 22 A: I don't recall anything specific, no. 23 Q: Okay. 24 25 (BRIEF PAUSE)


1 2 Q: The other significant document we've seen 3 quite a bit of, of course, is the Reid Crowther Report which 4 appears in Mr. Katzell's binder at tab 19. And I think 5 you'll -- you'll agree with me -- agree with me, sorry, when 6 I say that this is a fairly comprehensive review and report 7 of the sewage treatment plant that was, I believe, delivered 8 to the city January of 1997. 9 Is that correct? 10 A: Yes, that's correct. 11 Q: Okay. And how familiar are you with -- 12 with that -- that particular report? 13 A: I would say I'm reasonably familiar with 14 it. 15 Q: Now this was the year, I believe, you 16 became mayor, I guess, in 1997? 17 A: That's correct, yes. The report was 18 commissioned before that, though. 19 Q: Yes. Yes, I realize that. Now, that's 20 what I'd like to get at. What was the purpose of -- of that 21 report? How did -- how did that report get underway? 22 A: Again, through administration, that they 23 had seen that the sewage treatment plant in North Battleford 24 is old. The city was not growing significantly but we had 25 the potential for some capacity problems in the future. So,


1 you start planning for that day. And that's why they 2 commissioned the report, that I recall. 3 Q: Now, was there any prompting by SERM to 4 get this report done, that you recall? 5 A: Not that I recall. There may have been 6 because I know there was a lot of consultation between 7 different levels. But -- 8 Q: Okay -- 9 A: -- as far as knowing specifically, no. 10 Q: All right. So, to your knowledge back 11 then, what did you know about the sewage plant that would 12 prompt the need for a report such as this? 13 A: Back then it would have been very 14 limited. It was not something that was on a regular agenda 15 of council to deal with. The only identification would be 16 anything that would surface through our normal budgetary 17 process and capital projects. 18 And there wasn't a whole lot at that time, 19 until about 1996/97. 20 Q: Okay. And once the -- sorry, Mr. 21 Commissioner. Once the report had been produced and 22 delivered, was it something that was received by council and 23 debated? Or -- 24 A: Well I've really wracked my brain on that 25 and I don't remember specifically it actually coming to


1 council for receipt or adoption as -- as per se. And I know 2 I've -- I received a copy of it because I can remember the 3 blue binder it was in. But as far as council receiving it, 4 specifically at a council meeting or a -- I don't recall 5 that. 6 I think we had some discussions in a -- in an 7 informal get together of council at the Don Ross Center on 8 aspects of the report in -- in a couple of areas. One (1) 9 was the need for planning to do that within the next two (2) 10 to six (6) or seven (7) years. 11 And one (1) of the major issues, because at 12 that time I think the dollars that they were equating to was 13 about twelve (12) million dollars for a new plant. There was 14 discussion around whether or not there should be a new plant, 15 or retrofit or an upgrade at the present location. 16 And if I recall correctly in the report, it 17 does talk about different scenarios. One (1) of the 18 scenarios is, if there was a significant growth within the 19 City of North Battleford, the present site would not be 20 suitable. You'd have to look at a new location. 21 So that there's nothing from the report that 22 had a definitive recommendation as per se. But council did 23 discuss it, as I say, at a very informal meeting, financing 24 debt versus do we put money away so it's fully paid for. So, 25 nothing more than that, though.


1 Q: But -- 2 MR. COMMISSIONER: At this point in time, I 3 guess one (1) of the issues that surfaced in the Inquiry is, 4 of course, that the sewage treatment plant is upstream from 5 the water -- fresh water intake at the Water Treatment Plant 6 Number 2. 7 I suppose the administrative aspects of the 8 report aren't of much interest, you know, in terms of various 9 options. But was council aware, was anybody making council 10 aware of the fact that this -- at least in the minds of some 11 people, could be a problem for your water intake? The fact 12 that the plant was upstream at that point? 13 THE WITNESS: Mr. Commissioner, I don't 14 recall specifically anybody saying that this could create a 15 problem. The sewage treatment plant was -- has been there 16 from pretty much day one (1) of the City of North Battleford. 17 The water plant that we're talking about, as you said, is 18 downstream. It was built by the Saskatchewan Government for 19 Sask. Hospital back in, I believe, the '50's. 20 So, the person who would be fully aware of 21 where the sewage -- sewage plant would be, would be the 22 Government of Saskatchewan, and yet they -- obviously they 23 didn't have any concerns at that point in time. And I guess 24 council took it over, I believe, in about 1961. So, they 25 didn't have any concerns of having any effect.


1 I'm aware, Mr. Commissioner, also that there 2 was a plume test I believe done in about 1994, that indicated 3 that the -- the flow of the water or the sewage effluent 4 didn't even come close to the intake. 5 So as far as council knowing it was 6 downstream, sure we knew it was downstream, but there was 7 nothing that definitely gave us concern. 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, my question was you're 9 saying that it wasn't even a topic at council at the time of 10 the Reid Crowther Report, that this was one (1) reason for 11 voting for one (1) option, namely moving the plant, as 12 opposed to retrofitting it. 13 Science had -- had -- had progressed quite a 14 bit from 1950 to 1995, if you wish, in terms of knowledge of 15 what can be in the water systems, et cetera. 16 And I guess my question is just a factual one 17 (1), to the best of your knowledge was anyone pointing out 18 that one (1) option should be chosen over the other because, 19 in blunt terms, there was an increased health risk if the 20 sewage treatment plant was upstream from the water treatment 21 intake? 22 THE WITNESS: Not at the time of the Reid 23 Crowther, no. 24 Mr. Strelioff has since been very 25 categorically that it couldn't be, even prior to this event.


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: So that's all I'm asking 2 is that up until Mr. Strelioff's arrival then, no one was 3 talking about that fact being in favour of an option that 4 would move the plant? 5 THE WITNESS: No. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. 7 8 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 9 Q: So, in terms of the findings of such a 10 substantial report, I mean from where you were sitting at 11 this time, mayor, how were the issues identified going to be 12 carried forward. 13 What was -- what was going to be done in 14 response to this report and -- and who had the responsibility 15 for doing that? 16 A: The responsibility of reviewing that 17 report and making any type of recommendations would have come 18 through the public works director. 19 Q: Okay. 20 A: Public works -- the director of public 21 works and utilities, I guess is the term. 22 Q: Right. 23 A: So that would come back to administration 24 or through administration to council, or it would show up as 25 a capital project in planning in the five (5) year capital


1 program for the day, of dealing with some of those issues. 2 Q: Right. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: Now I think we've been 4 through that process, Mr. Russell, in terms of Mr. McEwen and 5 Mr. Toye, I don't think we need to bother the mayor with -- 6 unless there's a specific question about what -- 7 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: No -- 8 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- council had on any one 9 (1) of these review periods. 10 11 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 12 Q: No, I -- well I -- I think from the -- 13 the evidence that Mr. McEwen presented, for instance, we took 14 a look at the 1997 project budget for that year, which there 15 was -- there was an immediate response, it identified that 16 the report had now come in -- 17 A: Right. 18 Q: -- certain things needed to be done and 19 some monies were immediately budgeted, at least sixty-five 20 thousand dollars ($65,000) for a site study, forty-five 21 thousand dollars ($45,000) or something for protective 22 railings. 23 So, it looked as though council had said, yes, 24 something does need to be done here. We -- we should start, 25 you know, putting some -- putting some money here.


1 But what appears to occur, if we follow the 2 project budgets through is, that money doesn't get -- the 3 sixty-five thousand (65,000) at least, doesn't seem to get 4 spent. It -- you know, the day of actually doing something 5 about it seems to be postponed. 6 And I'm wondering -- what I'm coming to, is 7 that you know, the actual postponement between the time the 8 issues are identified, council acknowledges there are issues, 9 because it -- it has a project budget the same year, which 10 says, yes, we've got to respond. And then not a great deal 11 seems to happen it seems to me, until as you say, Mr. 12 Strelioff arrives. There is a gap there; is there any reason 13 for that? 14 A: I can't speak specifically to that. As 15 you've indicated though in the -- the one (1) budget in the 16 future projects, and I think if I remember the numbers, there 17 was about three point five million dollars ($3.5 million) 18 identified as well. 19 So, council, as a policy maker, said it is an 20 important project, it's a huge project for a city of fifteen 21 thousand (15,000) people roughly. At that time a thousand 22 dollars ($1,000) per head, per capita. We have to plan into 23 the future. 24 And why some of that stuff didn't proceed, 25 I -- I can't say, and it's -- that would be up to


1 administration to try to answer to that. 2 3 (BRIEF PAUSE) 4 5 MR. COMMISSIONER: It seems a question I 6 asked of Mr. McEwen yesterday, there was sixty-five thousand 7 (65,000) allocated for a site investigation -- 8 THE WITNESS: Hmm-hmm. 9 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- following the Reid 10 Crowther Report that was carried forward in this five (5) 11 year budget for about four (4) years in a row. 12 He didn't recall why no action was taken in 13 that four (4) year period of time, and I suppose I'll ask you 14 if you have any recollection of why no particular action was 15 taken on that initial sixty-five thousand (65,000) in that 16 period of time? 17 THE WITNESS: Mr. Commissioner, I don't have 18 any -- anything to add -- 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: No. 20 THE WITNESS: -- anything to add to that. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, all right. 22 THE WITNESS: All I know that is -- that 23 our -- the Reid Crowther Report did talk about a -- a -- a 24 number of issues and we did discuss that with SERM apparently 25 through administration, and it wasn't unusual to plan for


1 that over two (2) to six (6) years the starting of that 2 process. But why it wasn't done, I have nothing to add. 3 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right, thank you. 4 5 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 6 Q: In terms of other matters which may have 7 been brought to your attention, Mr. Ray, in Mr. Fluney's 8 binder at tab 8, we have some correspondence which has 9 surfaced many times in this Inquiry to date, a letter from 10 the operators dated January the 12th, 2001, to city council 11 and the supervisory staff from the Plants Department, and 12 certainly your name is one (1) of the people listed as -- 13 this is -- this is copied to at least. 14 Did you ever receive a copy of this letter? 15 A: Mr. Russell, I know that there's been a 16 lot of emphasis upon those letters to the city in this 17 Inquiry, and I -- I can honestly say to you that I have never 18 received this letter until you showed it to me during your -- 19 your interview. 20 Q: Okay. So -- and as well as not seeing it 21 until I produced it for you, no one else reported to you on 22 its contents? 23 A: The only thing I can say to that is that 24 I believe at our retreat in January right after this, 25 Councillor Salie indicated that he had received some


1 correspondence and if I remember correctly, he sort of waved 2 it in the -- in the meeting that we had, and -- but he didn't 3 carry it any further, so we didn't discuss it. 4 Q: Okay. Now bearing in mind the -- the so 5 called abbreviated list of concerns that's given here by the 6 operators, and some of them appear to be quite emphatic. If 7 you had of received a copy of this letter, if it had been 8 given to you, would this have been a matter of concern to you 9 and city council? 10 MR. TED PRIEL: Mr. Commissioner, I'm not 11 sure that the witness should be required to answer a 12 speculative question. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes, I think that's fair, 14 Mr. Russell. I think the mayor can't be asked questions on 15 matters that he says he didn't see. If you want to put a 16 question to him if you had known this unrelated to the 17 letter, then you're at liberty to do that. 18 But we have been insisting that we not ask 19 questions of witnesses who have not personal knowledge of the 20 matters they're being asked about, that's all. 21 In other words, you can ask him if unrelated 22 to that letter, if you have any particular -- if you had 23 knowledge of this, would this be of concern -- 24 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Well that -- that is -- 25 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- unrelated to the


1 letter. 2 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- sir, that's -- 3 that's -- that is the nature -- I'm sorry, I put that 4 question wrongly, Mr. Commissioner. 5 That's entirely what I intended. 6 MR. COMMISSIONER: Yes. 7 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: I mean if these concerns 8 had been brought to your attention, quite apart from this 9 letter -- 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well what I'm 11 understanding, Mr. Russell, is that the mayor is saying he 12 had no knowledge of anything other than some labour problems 13 and the like, prior to the retreat. The retreat spoke about 14 this topic, he's saying that the -- no knowledge of the 15 sewage plant being upstream being a problem of any 16 description, and now whether -- so I don't know there's much 17 point in going back in this -- 18 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Okay. 19 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- covering off these -- 20 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Okay. 21 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- points when he's pretty 22 well stated what -- that he has no knowledge of that issue. 23 So -- 24 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you, Mr. 25 Commissioner --


1 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- on those points, 2 thanks. 3 4 CONTINUED BY MR. JAMES RUSSELL: 5 Q: The -- I take it also from what you've 6 told us then, Mr. Ray, that the -- the other letter that 7 we've seen in Mr. Fluney's binder at -- at tab 9, dated 8 February 2nd, 2001 which was to Mr. Strelioff, which is also 9 copied to you, did you -- did you ever see a copy of that 10 letter? 11 A: Not that I recall. 12 Q: Okay. And the issues there were never 13 brought to your attention? 14 A: No, sir. 15 Q: Okay. Now apart from -- apart from those 16 two (2) pieces of correspondence, have you received 17 communications from anyone else, down at the plants or 18 elsewhere, concerning the -- any concerns that the 19 communicators might have about the plants? Is there any 20 other communication you may or may not have -- you may have 21 received concerning the state of the plants? 22 A: The only thing that I can recall is, 23 excuse me, at one (1) of our meetings with the union, when we 24 were trying to adopt a -- go through a process of a 25 harassment policy, Mr. Peter Allen, which I didn't even know


1 who Peter Allen was at that point in time but he certainly 2 made aware of his presence in the -- in the meeting, did, 3 after the meeting, said -- said to me something to the effect 4 that I have some concerns of the operation of the plants or 5 how the plants are being operated in the City of North 6 Battleford. 7 And I remember call -- replying to him, have 8 you raised this with your -- with this -- this with your 9 supervisor? And he said he had. And I said, Peter, you have 10 to go through your supervisor in order to try and get these 11 things resolved. And I never heard back from Peter. 12 Q: Okay. 13 A: That's the only other communication as 14 far as -- about that specific issue. 15 Q: Yes. And did you raise that conversation 16 or that discussion with anyone else? 17 A: I think I did mention it to Mr. Toye. 18 Q: Okay. 19 A: The city commissioner. 20 Q: Okay. And did Mr. Toye -- 21 A: I'm sorry, I don't know if it was Mr. 22 Toye or Mr. -- I don't think Mr. Toye was there yet. It was 23 Mr. McEwen. 24 Q: Okay. 25 A: Get the year's straight.


1 Q: All right. And was there any followup 2 from that? Any -- 3 A: Not that I'm aware of. 4 Q: Okay. Have you ever had any 5 communication from city residents with concerns about the 6 plants? 7 A: I had a telephone call -- I'm trying to 8 remember the year again -- from a -- an owner of a hotel in 9 the City of North Battleford and I probably shouldn't name 10 him but -- and I won't. He phoned me at a -- at a different 11 location expressing concern about some -- some issues not 12 related to the -- the sewage plant. But at the same time, he 13 was -- he said, I know that there's problems down at the 14 plant and the operation of that plant. And I know some of 15 the people that work there and there's some concerns about 16 the operation of that plant and we should get together some 17 day to discuss those issues. 18 And I left it up to the individual, I said, 19 you let me know when you would like to get together. And we 20 never got together, he never phoned back. 21 Q: Okay -- 22 A: And I've actually talked to him since and 23 he doesn't even recall the conversation. So -- 24 Q: I see. 25 A: -- it couldn't have been very important.


1 Q: Okay. So -- and roughly, when did that 2 occur? 3 A: I believe it was in January of 2001, 4 someplace in there. 5 Q: Okay. And -- okay. 6 7 (BRIEF PAUSE) 8 9 Sorry, Mr. Commissioner. 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: No, I was just wondering 11 if -- if you're going to go into a -- another area, or -- ? 12 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes. 13 MR. COMMISSIONER: I know we've been going 14 for about an hour and a half which tends to be the outside 15 limit of what I normally impose on any witness for -- 16 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes, I'm looking for odd 17 topics. I mean, I better get it into some -- 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Well I got the impression 19 that that's what you were doing. 20 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Yes, so before I went 21 into the sort of extended -- extended topic that I -- I have 22 here. So it -- it would take quite awhile if I started on 23 this, I think. 24 MR. COMMISSIONER: All right. Well then 25 perhaps -- it looks like you'd be coming back tomorrow


1 morning in any event Mr. Ray. So that -- I'm leaving it up 2 to you. Is it reasonable that we adjourn for today, then -- 3 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: I -- 4 MR. COMMISSIONER: -- take it up tomorrow 5 morning? 6 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: -- I think it would be, 7 Mr. Commissioner, in terms of the -- the -- the issues I have 8 to cover. I think -- I think a break would be useful and 9 we'd probably much more efficient tomorrow morning. 10 MR. COMMISSIONER: Sure. Is that -- well 11 then on that basis, then, we'll adjourn 'til 9:30 a.m. 12 tomorrow morning? 13 MR. JAMES RUSSELL: Thank you. 14 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 15 16 (WAYNE VERNON RAY; Retires) 17 18 MR. COMMISSIONER: Thank you. 19 20 --- Upon adjourning at 4:35 p.m. 21 22 23 24 25