Manitoba Committee Hansard — 9 May 2018 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 3, 41st Legislature, 3rd Session)

41-3-sed3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Dennis Smook Constituency of La Verendrye Vol. LXXI No. 3 - 6 p.m., Wednesday, May 9, 2018 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Forty-First Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLUM, James Fort Garry-Riverview NDP ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley NDP BINDLE, Kelly Thompson PC CLARKE, Eileen, Hon. Agassiz PC COX, Cathy, Hon. River East PC CULLEN, Cliff, Hon. Spruce Woods PC CURRY, Nic Kildonan PC DRIEDGER, Myrna, Hon. Charleswood PC EICHLER, Ralph, Hon. Lakeside PC EWASKO, Wayne Lac du Bonnet PC FIELDING, Scott, Hon. Kirkfield Park PC FLETCHER, Steven, Hon. Assiniboia Ind. FONTAINE, Nahanni St. Johns NDP FRIESEN, Cameron, Hon. Morden-Winkler PC GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib.

GOERTZEN, Kelvin, Hon. Steinbach PC GRAYDON, Clifford Emerson PC GUILLEMARD, Sarah Fort Richmond PC HELWER, Reg Brandon West PC ISLEIFSON, Len Brandon East PC JOHNSON, Derek Interlake PC JOHNSTON, Scott St. James PC KINEW, Wab Fort Rouge NDP KLASSEN, Judy Kewatinook Lib. LAGASSÉ, Bob Dawson Trail PC LAGIMODIERE, Alan Selkirk PC LAMOUREUX, Cindy Burrows Lib. LATHLIN, Amanda The Pas NDP LINDSEY, Tom Flin Flon NDP MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood NDP MARCELINO, Flor Logan NDP MARCELINO, Ted Tyndall Park NDP MARTIN, Shannon Morris PC MAYER, Colleen St.

Vital PC MICHALESKI, Brad Dauphin PC MICKLEFIELD, Andrew Rossmere PC MORLEY-LECOMTE, Janice Seine River PC NESBITT, Greg Riding Mountain PC PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Fort Whyte PC PEDERSEN, Blaine, Hon. Midland PC PIWNIUK, Doyle Arthur-Virden PC REYES, Jon St. Norbert PC SARAN, Mohinder The Maples Ind. SCHULER, Ron, Hon. St. Paul PC SMITH, Andrew Southdale PC SMITH, Bernadette Point Douglas NDP SMOOK, Dennis La Verendrye PC SQUIRES, Rochelle, Hon. Riel PC STEFANSON, Heather, Hon. Tuxedo PC SWAN, Andrew Minto NDP TEITSMA, James Radisson PC WHARTON, Jeff, Hon. Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian, Hon.

Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC Vacant St. Boniface

31 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Wednesday, May 9, 2018 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Eichler, Gerrard, Wharton Messrs. Allum, Lagassé, Lindsey, Ms. Marcelino, Messrs. Martin, Michaleski, Micklefield, Smook PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Mr. Chris Goertzen, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Ms. Kim MacAulay, Manitoba Community Newspapers Association Mr.

Chris Lorenc, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association Mr. Charles Chappell, private citizen Mr. Ken Waddell, private citizen Ms. Christine Waddell, private citizen Ms. Jill Verwey, Keystone Agricultural Producers Mr. Brent Wright, private citizen Mr. Mark Buss, Clipper Publishing Mr. John Kendle, Canstar Community News Mr. Jim Mihaly, Brandon Sun Mr.

Jay Struth, The Killarney Guide WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Don Piett and Brenda Piett, Southeast Journal Harold Froese and Cory Rybuck, Manitoba Egg Farmers Nancy Johnson, Melita New Era John Fefchak, private citizen Lynn Taylor, Thompson Citizen Gail Halldorson, private citizen Darryl Holyk, Minnedosa Tribune Andrea Geary, private citizen Shirley Hiebert, private citizen Sheldon Birnie, private citizen Betty Turner, private citizen Darren Ridgley, private citizen Ligia Braidotti, The Times Wilma J.

Struth, private citizen Brian Gilroy, Swan Valley Star and Times MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 19 –The Planning Amendment Act (Improving Efficiency in Planning) * * * Mr. Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic De velopment please come to order. Our first item of business is the e lection of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Agriculture): I nominate Andrew Micklefield. Mr. Chairperson: Andrew Micklefield has been nominated. Are there any other nominations?

Hearing no other nominations, Andrew Micklefield is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 19, The Planning Amendment Act (Improving Efficiency in Planning). I would like to remind the committee that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet again on Monday, May 14th, and Tuesday, May 15th, at 6 p.m., to continue consideration of Bill 19. As per our –as per an agreement between the House leaders, a set number of presenters were scheduled to present at tonight's committee meeting, so we will hear from 19 of the presenters registered to speak on Bill 19.

And you have a list of those presenters before you. Presenters will be called in the order that they registered and appear on the list. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. A standing committee meeting to consider a bill mu st not sit past midnight to hear public representation or to consider clause by clause of a bill, except by unanimous consent of the committee. As per agreement between the House

32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 leaders, the committee will agree to sit past midnight if that is necessary to hear all scheduled presenters. Written submissions. A number of written submissions on Bill 19 have been received and distributed for the committee's consideration. A list of the individuals providing these submissions has also been distributed to committee members.

To save the Chair having to read these names out, does the committee agree that the list of individuals providing submissions appear in Hansard? [Agreed] Don Piett and Brenda Piett, Southeast Journal; Harold Froese and Cory Rybuck, Manitoba Egg Farmers; Nancy Johnson, Melita Era; John Fefchak; Lynn Taylor, Thompson Citizen; Gail Halldorson; Darryl Holyk, Minnedosa Tribune; Andrea Geary; Shirley Hiebert; Sheldon Birnie; Betty Turner; Darren Ridgley; Ligia Braidotti, Times Newspaper; Wilma J.

Struth; Brian Gilroy, Swan Valley Star and Times And does the committee further agree to have these submissions appear in the Hansard transcript of the meeting? [Agreed] Public presentation guidelines. Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. For the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff at the back.

As well, in accordance with rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another five minutes allowed for que stions from committee members. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. I would like to advise members of the public who are observing the committee meeting to please not disturb the committee proceedings by applauding or commenting from the audience.

Taking of photographs are not permitted from the public gallery as well as any audio -video recordings. And please ensure that your phones are in the silent mode. Speaking in committee: Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for Hansard recorder to turn the mics on and off.

Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 19–The Planning Amendment Act (Improving Efficiency in Planning) Mr. Chairperson: I will now call on Chris Goertzen. Mr. Goertzen, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Chris Goertzen (Association of Manitoba Municipalities): Yes, we do. Mr. Chairperson: As soon as the staff distributes them to the committee, you may proceed with your presentation. Okay, Mr. Goertzen, you may proceed. Mr. Chris Goertzen: All right.

On behalf of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present –or the – present municipal priorities and concerns related to Bill 19, The Planning Amendment Act. I'll begin my pr esentation today by providing a brief overview of AMM, then discuss specific sections of Bill 19 and offer recommendations regarding the various proposed amendments. AMM was formed in 1999 as a result of a merger between the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities.

Our organization is independ- ent and non- partisan, and our mission is to identify and address the needs and concerns of our members in order to achieve strong and effective municipal government. Our membership consists of 137 municipalities, which also includes the city of Winnipeg. In regards to the proposed amendments related to the zoning bylaws, AMM supports the increasing of the objector threshold to 25 eligible persons at 50–or 50 per cent of the total number of owners of property located within 100 metres of the affected property.

Currently, one person can object to the adoption or amendments of a zoning bylaw,

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 33 and this individual may or may not even live in our municipality. Moreover, if a local council receives a second objection following the initial public hearing, it must refer the objection to the planning district board, or, if the municipality is not part of a planning district, to the Municipal Board. If a second objection is received in respect to a district -wide zoning bylaw, the objection must also be referred to the Municipal Board again.

As you can imagine, one individual can significantly delay the zoning process and development of land and buildi ngs within a municipality. The increasing of the threshold to 25 people is a very positive and long overdue change. In addition, AMM supports the increasing of the variance of a zoning bylaw –of our zoning bylaws that can be approved by a designated munic ipal employee from not more than 10 per cent to the not more than 15 per cent. In regards to livestock operations, AMM supports the amendment to no longer require large - scale livestock operations to be designated as conditional use in zoning bylaws.

Munic ipalities can determine this based on local conditions and the needs of their community. * (18:10) As you may be aware, several communities around Manitoba are currently interested in expanding hog barn operations and removing the 300-animal unit threshol d should–and this removing of that threshold should provide municipalities more flexibility and greater ability to capitalize on growth and economic development opportunities.

For example, Manitoba Pork processing company HyLife has just completed a 106–$176 -million expansion and modernization of the Neepawa processing plant, while the Municipality of Killarney-Turtle Mountain is also pursuing a multi-million dollar expansion opportunities as well. Reducing red tape in this regard is certainly welcome si nce Manitoba pork industry contributes over $1.7 billion to the provincial economy annually while over 13,000 Manitobans rely on the pork industry for jobs directly.

However, as you also are all aware, the prov - incial government has committed to providing municipalities with more say and autonomy in their affairs. We believe municipalities are mature, responsible governments accountable first and foremost to the citizens and the electorate. Bill 19 proposes to allow applicants to appeal a rejection of a conditional use application or the imposition of conditional use on an approval directly to the municipality–Municipal Board. This process is also proposed for aggregate quarry operations.

AMM does not support those proposed amendments since the option to directly appeal to the Municipal Board undermines the decisions of local councils who know their communities best. This is not fair say. In fact, these amendments should be removed from the bill. The bill also requires municipalities to provide a 60-day notice to the minister regarding a hearing on an application to approve an aggregate conditional use. This time frame provides the opportunity for an interdepartmental technical review of the proposal and to provide a report to the local council on the application.

It is essential that technical reviews be completed in a reasonable and standardized time frame to ensure local councils are fully equipped to assess the aggregate conditional use application. In fact, the Pits and Quarries Advisory Committee consisting of municipal and industry stakeholders, namely, the Manitoba Heavy Construction Asso- ciation, as well as provincial government representatives, reached consensus on this issue and has jointly recommended modelling the technical review process wh en a new or existing aggregate operation requires a conditional use hearing.

Lastly, in regards to advertising municipal notices, AMM recognizes the vital and invaluable role– valuable work of local community newspapers. Based on recent media reports, we will welcome the provincial government's decision to not enact sections of the bill that would eliminate mandatory newspaper notices as per the comments made by Minister Cox. We encourage our members to communicate public notices and council decisions t o the residents through community newsletters, social media, as well as advertising in their local newspaper.

In closing, thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments, and if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer any of them. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Goertzen.

34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): Mayor Goertzen, it's always good to see you at committee, both in your capacity as mayor of Steinbach as well as president of the AMM, so welcome here tonight. This bill jumbles together lots of moving pieces, some of which you're on record here as supporting, some of which you're on record as not supporting, and others which you are willing to live with so long as the government doesn't actually enact the public notices provision of the bill.

Wouldn't it be better for the government to withdraw the bill in its entirety, go back to the drawing board, and start over again? Mr. Chris Goertzen: I think there's a lot of positive elements in this bill that specifically do give municipalities a fair say when it comes to decision-making, and in that way we certainly see this bill as moving forward, certainly pieces of it, moving forward in a positive way for municipalities, so we would like to see pieces of this –certainly a majority of what's going on here enacted. Mr.

Allum: I thank you for that, although I'm not sure that I quite understand the logic of that if there are parts that you oppose, part s that you are willing to live with, and other parts that you support. It seems to me it would make more sense for the minister, government members here are listening to you today to sort of say, well, I think we need to go back to the drawing board here a nd get this right for the provisions that seem to have public support and just simply withdraw the bill so that other parts don't have support.

I want to ask you, one of the changes has to deal with increasing the threshold from one to 25 people. How oft en can you expect 25 people in any of the municipalities associated with AMM to actually oppose the restriction? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Goertzen. Mr. Chris Goertzen : Sorry, thank you. The provision states that it's 25 people or 50 per cent of the people who have been notified, and so that can mean less than 25. But, certainly, I have been at many a public hearing myself, where there's been many, many, many more than 25 people.

And so, obviously councils have to make decisions, tough decisions when they have people in front of this, and it's important that municipal councils have a fair say and aren't impeded by only one or two individuals but certainly listen to the public, but, at the same time, balance that with the reality of growth. Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Municipal Relations): Thank you, Mr. Goertzen, for coming and presenting tonight, and certainly appreciate the hard work you do, not only with the AMM as president but also as a mayor in Steinbach and, of course, a head of council .

And, of course, we respect–we one hundred per cent respect the hard work that councils do as –at your level of government. Being a former councillor myself, I can appreciate the grassroots-level of work that you need to, and I commend you and your organiz ation for that. So thank you. Just a question on, what was AMM's working relationship in developing this bill, in general, as far as your consultations with–through the process? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Goertzen. Mr. Chris Goertzen: Sorry.

Certainly, what I think, AMM can certainly say that we have been having ongoing discussion with the department for quite a number of months. We've certainly identified ways that we can find efficiencies; some of them are actually, as part of this bill, such as the change in the number of objectors. We've had a good working relationship and, obviously, every one of our wishes is not in this bill but certainly some of them are. And we think that that's appropriate. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Just a minute , here. I am watching this. I am keeping note of who's having their hands up.

If you wish to argue, that'll be fine. But I am watching what's going on. Mr. Eichler had his hand up before you did. I am watching both sides. When you're facing that way, you c an't see anybody else. So, please. I'm the Chair; I will do as what is proper to do. The Honourable Mr. Eichler. Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Agriculture): We know that the livestock operation's a large part of Manitoba's rural economy. Would you care to elaborate and show at the committee what a normal barn for tax dollars and economic growth would provide for municipalities in rural Manitoba? Mr. Chris Goertzen: All right.

Well, it's good to see you have dialogue just like we do at our council meetings, here. The reality is, is livestock industry is

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 significant, not only in rural Manitoba but in urban Manitoba as well. As the mayor of the third largest city, I can attest to the incredible value that the agricultural industry, whether it's hog industry, cattle industry, poultry and others, has the effect –the positive effect it has on municipalities, not only with tax dollars but with jobs that are available for our citizens.

And the jobs –the secondary jobs that come with it and the –and so, certainly, we can attest to –if there's growth in agricultural industry, it's good, not only for rural Manitoba but all of Manitoba. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your answers. The five minutes for question period has expired. We will now call on the next presenter. Thank you, Mr. Goertzen. The next presenter is Kim MacAulay for the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association. Kim MacAulay? You have written materials for presentation, Ms. MacAulay? Ms. Kim MacAulay (Manitoba Community Newspapers Association): Yes. Mr.

Chairperson: Okay, when–once the materials have been distributed, you're free to proceed with your presentation. Yes, everybody has their copies. You may proceed, Ms. MacAulay. * (18:20) Ms. MacAulay: Perfect. Good evening, everyone. My name is Kim MacAulay. I am the chairperson of the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association, and I speak to you this –I'm speaking to you this evening on behalf of Manitoba's community newspapers and in respect to clause 25 of Bill 19, the removal of the re quirement to publish public notices in newspapers.

The Manitoba Community Newspapers Association would like to formally acknowledge and express its appreciation of this government's position of not proclaiming clause 25 of Bill 19 until Internet connectivity in the North is improved. However, we do feel connectivity in the North is only part of the issue with this particular clause. Of equal concern is the assumption that providing public access to information online is somehow adequate notice. The MCNA a damantly maintains that public access to information is not the same as providing public notice.

The argument has been made that notice will still be given, as requirements will now be to post such information on government websites. MCNA does not believe posting information on a government website to be sufficient notice. Even if every Manitoban had reliable, high- speed Internet, under these new rules, they may still be denied proper notice of significant changes or activities that will affect their daily lives because they did not know when and where to look for it.

If our residents have to bear the responsibility of seeking out information they do not even know exists, how can they possibly be considered to have received proper notice? Some may dismiss o ur argument as self -serving since Manitoba newspapers can earn revenue publishing public notices as we do. There's no denying that we do receive revenue from such advertisements, and that is a service we do and always have provided, not unlike any other fe e-for- service industry employed by every level of government.

But that argument cannot be made without acknowledging the role our industry plays in the democratic process. The legislated requirement to publish public notices in newspapers was created by o ur elected forefathers to ensure open, transparent and accountable governing. It was made law, as it is a fundamental component of our democracy. That has not changed. The Internet is not a fundamental component of our democracy, and certainly not government-controlled websites–at least not yet and not for the foreseeable future.

Self-serving or not, it is the firm belief of the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association that clause 25 of Bill 19 will prove detrimental to all Manitobans, whether that be by way of a less-informed public, a divisiveness between elected officials and their constituents, or perhaps ultimately through the loss of community newspapers, the very ties that bind our communities and provide us with our sense of identity. Having such wording on the books, proclaimed or not, is a formal decry –is to formally decry the value and significance of community newspapers.

Such a public discounting of the role we play within our communities will resonate through our entire society. The messag e this sends, that our own government is so drastically minimizing the value of community newspapers, will be immensely harmful to our industry and ultimately our democracy.

36 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 Yet this action sits entirely juxtaposed to the reality that newspapers are often the first option utilized by elected officials who have an important message to share, most recently when Premier Pallister wrote to every newspaper in Manitoba with his personal response to the Manitoba Hydro board resignations. Our residents–all of th em, including our municipally elected officials –look to our newspapers, just as you do, to keep them informed of activities within their communities and within their council chambers.

They have been doing so for over 100 years in some cases –135 years in one case in particular. That has also not changed. I have taken the liberty of providing copies of a very recent readership study conducted by TOTEM Research–it's in your package there –which shows 79.6 per cent of Manitobans living in communities with populations less than 50,000 received a printed community newspaper every week in their house, while 79.2 per cent of respondents stated they personally read or looked into that printed newspaper. Those results remain virtually unchanged since the last similar study was conducted in 2005.

Of even greater significance may be the revelation that printed newspapers are, by far, the preferred source for information about local government programs and initiatives, leading all other forms of media, including websites and social media, radio and television by over 100 per cent. That information is also in the survey data. Another reason our residents have relied on our printed product for over a century is because they know they can trust what they read. Once a paper is printed, it is the official record of the day. We are the recorders of history.

Our papers provide irrefutable evidence of such things like public notice postings. What rules are being enacted with this legislation for posting online? How can residents be assured the public information in question was posted, unaltered, for the required 27- day period? How will one be able to provide proof of posting after the fact? In a digital world, things can go awry, things can be altered, things can be relocated or inadvertently obscured.

Newspapers provide indisputable proof of posting, proof the information was not altered, proof the information was delivered to Manitobans in a format and structure entirely suited for the purpose. High-speed Internet connection or not, there will be Manitobans –where will Manitobans be expected to find public postings online? There are municipalities in Manitoba that have websites with over 400 Google -indexed pages. Manitoba's first municipality, the RM of Springfield, has 419 Google-indexed pages. That is a lot of hay in which to place a needle.

Aspects of this bill also alter procedural time frames, tightening deadlines at the same time. It may be more difficult for citizens to know what is happening; is a recipe for disaster, and one that will fall squarely at the feet of our municipal officials and their staff. This government has emphatically stated its rational for changing mandatory public notice requirements is to enhance communication. Re - placing one requirement with another is not enhancement. Mr. Wharton, you have also stated that this is part of the red tape reduction strategy.

We at MCNA find it hard to conceive that providing proper public notice via community newspapers is considered excessive red tape that needs to be eliminated. Or, you may be referring to the off -loading of responsibility to determine the best method of communicating with residents onto our municipally elected officials. But we have heard, as I know you have, from several municipal councils who do not agree with clause 25. They have expressed concern over the potential backslash –backlash, I'm sorry, they may receive should residents feel they were not afforded due notice. You don't have to take my word for it.

I have also included copies of letters of support and resolutions passed by various municipal councils, including a resolution of support for our amendment passed by the North Eastman Municipal Forum, which represents 9 municipalities, the Sunrise School Division and Community Futures Winnipeg River. Those are all in your package as well. The changes this clause will bring about diminishes our municipal officials' ability to defend themselves agai nst accusations of obscuring importing information, regardless of whether they intended to do so or not. A duly informed public should not be left up to chance.

Government's obligation to inform and notify its citizens of important changes and initiatives should not be optional.

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 37 The Manitoba Community Newspapers Association is not against progress. We are not against hog barns or new condominiums. We are rural folk, many of us born and raised on livestock and grain farms, some who choose to live in condominiums now, and some who are still on the farm. We are simply trying to ensure the process of informing Manitobans and their right to be part of that process through adequate consultation is sustained, even through this new digital age. Clause 25 is a st ep in the wrong direction, at least in this point in history.

If your government does in fact wish to enhance communication as it has been repeatedly stated, please consider amending these bills to maintain the current requirement to publish notices in newspapers, and add the requirement to post such information online as well. That is true enhancement of communication, and that is the only way to ensure open, transparent and accountable government. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Allum: Ms. MacAulay, welcome to committee tonight. Thank you for your presentation.

We recognize that the way the bill is now, and the government's commitment to say, well, they're not going to proclaim the bill. That can be done with the stroke of a pen. Of course, I think we all understand that, and we find both in this bill and in Bill 8 that transparency, accountability, democracy, itself, is treated as, kind of, red tape. Was the MCNA consulted prior to the development of this bill, and have you had a chance to speak with the government since then, and what has been the reaction to the observations and objections that your organization has made? * (18:30) Ms.

MacAulay: There was no prior consultation whatsoever. We knew nothing of this until it hit the floor–first reading. Since then, we have had several meetings. We've had a meeting with Mr. Wharton, a meeting with Minister Cox. Very productive, but, I mean, we are, as I said, very pleased that the government has recognized that maybe this is moving a bit quick, and they need to slow down somewhat on it. But we still maintain having the wording on the books that can be enacted at any time is foreboding, to say the least. Mr. Wharton : Thank you, Ms. MacAula y, again, for coming tonight.

As I mentioned to you when I saw you this evening, this is a great part of our democratic process, and I really appreciate you taking the time, of course, to express your concerns. And, again, thank you for the meeting that we had just approximately two weeks ago; appreciate that and your input at that time. You mentioned in your

preamble that the RMs were concerned about potential backlash they may receive by not being able to publish in local newspapers. Does Bill 19 actually take away that right for them not –to publish in public newspapers? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. MacAuley. Ms. MacAuley: Sorry. No, it certainly doesn't. It makes it optional, which is our concern. Mr. Allum: So the organization has suggested that the bill should be amended. And I think you've probably provided wording about what the amendment could actually look like.

But from our perspective–and I said this to Mayor Goertzen a moment ago, that the bill itself consists of such a jumble of different parts, and they're all moving parts. We think, and I'm asking you, whether it wouldn't be better for the government to simply withdraw the bill and start over. Ms. MacAuley: Well, I would never argue against that, necessarily, if–being a part of the process from the beginning would obviously be more preferable to us, but there are a lot of aspects of the bills that I am not speaking on this evening and I don't feel qualified to speak on. Mr.

Allum: And therein lies the dilemma that we have with –and this happened in last session with a bill, that omnibus bill that contained many moving parts, and it's –kind of suggests, you know, we're going to–the government's not prepared to be transparent and accountable about what they’re doing, but they throw these things together. And so I think, from our point of view, there are many elements that need to be rethought. And maybe the best thing to do would be for the minister to sit down with MCNA and get the kind of advice tha t

38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 they should have had to begin with. Would you agree with that? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. MacAuley. Ms. MacAuley: Sorry. We would very much welcome the opportunity to be a part of the process from the beginning, absolutely. Mr. Allum: I jus t wanted to thank you again for coming tonight. Thank you so much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. MacAuley, and we will now move on to the next presenter. The next presenter is Chris Lorenc from the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association. Mr. Lorenc, you have written material as well?

Mr. Chris Lorenc (Manitoba Heavy Construction Association): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: As soon as they get distributed, you may proceed with your presentation. I think you may proceed now, Mr. Lorenc. Mr. Lorenc: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, ministers, members of the committee.

I'm pleased to be here this evening to present on behalf of the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, which has worked constructively for many, many years to improve the protection of Manitoba's finite, valuable aggregate resources, to protect access to the rich deposits of gravel, sand and rock that are absolutely fundamental to the construction of virtually all infrastructure, whether that be roads, highways or buildings in our communities right across this province.

This engagement has included, most recently, working as part of a collaborative provincial advisory committee composed of provincial and municipal officials and industry representatives. That committee emerged from MHCA suggestions. The core intent was to propose changes to legislation regulation and process to support clear, evidenced-based consideration of applications to municipalities for establishing pits and quarries, many of which are foun d in the Capital Region.

Its mandate was also to consider review of the quarry rehabilitation program and the standards for quarry rehabilitation; the levy amount aggregate producers pay to fully fund the rehabilitation of spent quarries; review the fees t hat aggregate producers pay to municipalities to transport and also to extract aggregates that are within their jurisdictions; an ongoing volunteer advisory committee of provincial, municipal and industry stakeholders to advise the minister going forward on these and related matters– this committee would be at no cost to government.

The heavy construction industry recognizes that pits and quarries are intensively intrusive on–into the landscape, that they require careful and environmentally responsible dev elopment that is sensitive to local concerns. Often they are located near or alongside communities. But it was also clear to all members of the noted advisory group that access to our province's rich aggregate resources in close proximity to where most of public infrastructure projects are located must be protected. Pushing such pits and quarries farther from the C apital Region will have profound effects on our environment.

Driving huge tonnages of gravel for greater distances will dramatically increase both greenhouse gas emissions and associated transportation costs. In addition, the cost of commercial, residential and core infrastructure budgets, including highways, many of which are publicly funded, will increase with no accompanying value added.

Bill 19 makes amendments to The Planning Act that go some distance to bringing into better balance and perspective the con cerns weighed now by rural municipalities, the affected communities and proponents when reviewing applications to establish pits and quarries in zones designated to protect aggregate resources. The industry, while seeing that there was more progress that can be done, is comforted by the fact that Bill 19 does provide for some improvement.

While Bill 19 does not require municipal development plans to follow provincial land use legislation, regulation and land use policies, there is an understood and relie d upon commitment to assert provincial interest in reviewing municipal development plans and, in particular, to be vigilant to protect access to and extraction of aggregates as a matter of provincial priority.

We read and understand the provisions of the existing Planning Act to provide the minister with full authority to reject or alter proposed development plan bylaws, if the minister's of the view that proposed policy and mapping in the bylaw do not satisfactorily reflect the applicable provincial land

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 39 use policies for the geographic area proposed to be covered by any such development plan bylaw. We rely on representations that the Province considers the protection of aggregate deposits as a key provincial interest and that it will ensure that development bylaws being prepared in areas where unmined aggregate resources exist, both map and protect those resources during its reviews of proposed municipal development plans. And we assume, unless otherwise advi sed, that we are correct in relying on the above assessments and representations.

Reading the March 19 release and the accompanying technical presentation, the Technical Review Committee reports –TRC reports–will now be required upon any conditional use a pplication to establish a quarry operation. This obligation flows from the operation of

section 169 and does not require any further explicit legislative language. We understand the change proposed under Bill 19 would build in a requirement that the Province undertake a technical review of an aggregate proposal and provide the municipality with a TRC report on the proposal. The TRC review will take place each time a conditional use application to establish a quarry is put forward, and this will ensure a n evidence-based approach to support municipalities and the communities in decision making.

This is not optional. * (18:40) The department intentionally avoided pre - scribing the technical review process and product in the legislation to avoid creating an overly regulated process that is difficult to change without further legislative or regulatory amendments. And, again, we assume, unless advised otherwise tonight that we are correct, and relying on that understanding and assessment in representations. With respect to the rights to appeal, those are created in

section 118. That

section states that an applicant may appeal when a council rejects an application for a conditional use for a quarry or when council imposes conditions on the approval of a conditional use to establish an aggregate quarry. We understand it is now the government's intention to proclaim–we hope it is the government's intention to proclaim the appeal provisions at the same time that the bill itself is proclaimed. This is absolutely fundamental–fundamental to ensuring structure, responsibility and accountability to an evidence - based process.

If our assessments are accurate and correct, then we are very happy, indeed, to celebrate really good progress towards ensuring a transparent, ope n, accountable and evidence- based framework within which councils, the public and industry participate in considering applications and making decisions with a clearly spelled-out resource and recourse to appeal. We do thank you for the opportunity of presenting and would be very pleased to take questions. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Lorenc. Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Mr. Lorenc, for coming out tonight and, again, taking

part in this democratic process. And, as maybe so me of my colleagues don't know around the table, Mr. Lorenc and I go back about 22 years, when I was on municipal council, and Mr. Lorenc helped us in some of our road issues in our local community. And it was the start of a relationship that we've continu ed on for many years. So, thank you. And, I guess, too– as well, I'd also like to comment, too, that we've had a number of consultations. And, as a matter of fact, I recall three meetings in a week and a half. So we appreciate the time and effort it took for you to come out, too, and address your concerns.

As you know, our government has inherited a mess from the previous government, and we're doing the hard work to move forward with some of those issues in bending the curve. Provided all environmental and zoning obligations are met, what would be an additional aggregate quarry mean in the Capital Region to the City of Winnipeg as far as road renewal? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lorenc. Mr. Lorenc: I should know better. Minister, thank you for the question.

I think what should be apparent based on clear evidence and clear history that there are literally tens of millions of dollars of lost investment because we have not had the clarity of, nor fact or evidence- based decision

40 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 making procedures upon which the public could assess the merits of an application, upon which the council could assess the merits of an application, and upon which a proponent could make an application. There are many instances within the C apital Region where applications for pits and quarries have simply been denied for the sake of having the right to deny, as distinct from considering them openly and based on evidence.

And when you consider that, in some instances, those pits over a period of about 15 years in transporta tion costs alone would save costs to budget in excess of $15 million, you can see why having structure, why having appeal provisions, why having hearings which are evidence-based, upon which people can sink their teeth into and come to rational conclusions –as distinct from, you know, I heard that or did you know this –without any evidence–why this bill and why its provisions are so very important to the economy, to job creation, to investment and to revenues, not just to municipalities but the provincial government, as well.

Mr. Allum: Mr. Lorenc, welcome, and thank you for coming tonight. You've been around politics for a long time. Elected official yourself and playing a very important role with MHCA. And I think I'm going to run out of time really quickly. I know that your organization, despite what the minister just said, has had some indigestion with their infrastructure program over the last couple of years.

But I'm wondering if you have any observations about the public notice as part of this bill, and whether you regard that as a particularly open and a transparent form of government, given your long history in politics in the province. And I also have to ask you, if you could just quickly do this for me as well, to tell us where does the public fit in on the appeal process. Mr. Lorenc: Well, Mr. Allum, you make me feel so old. I mean, I've been around, but I don't think for that many decades.

I'm really not schooled today, nor did I anticipate being asked questions about provisions that, honestl y, I haven't studied, so I'd rather not comment on that. And your second question was on the role of public in appeals? Well, again, I think that as long as the process is one that is evidence- based, which promotes the notion that people in responsible positions make decisions responsibly, the entire system becomes stronger and better. And the entire notion of sharing information upon which there is public discourse, which is informed, improves.

And I think the change to The Planning Act and the representations made in terms of due diligence are so very important to a far more productive process than currently exists. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Allum, you do have about half a minute. Mr. Allum: Okay, well, you can see our –Mr. Lorenc, our dilemma that the bill contains a variety of things we might persuaded by your particular argument. But the re are other groups here, who, by the way, weren't consulted, MCNA, prior to this provision of the bill. You can see our dilemma in how we're supposed to do it.

At a minimum, wouldn't it be better to separate these parts out? Have your element of the bill that you support as one stand-alone bill? Wouldn't that have been a better process for the government to undertake? Mr. Chairperson: My apologies, but times for questions has expired. [interjection] Mr. Lorenc, now you can say no. Thank you. Mr. Lorenc: Oh, sorry. Mr. Chairperson: For the benefit of the presenters and the questioners, what I'll do, when there's a minute left in either presentation or questions, I will wave this.

So, if there's only about 15 seconds left, I mean, I'll give the question seven or eight seconds, enough time for the presenter to answer, so that'll be fair for everybody. If that's all right with everybody? [Agreed] Thank you. Mr. Lorenc, sorry, I have to call you back for a second, because I didn't recognize you, so your answer to the question is not on record. So, Mr. Lorenc. Mr. Lorenc: Yes. In answer to the question, the answer is no. Perfection is the enemy of better. What we have before us is better. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Lorenc. I will now call on the next presenter, Charles Chapell.

And, if I'm not pronouncing your name properly, please correct me. Mr. Charles Chappell (Private Citizen): I anglicize it a bit, Mr. Chairman. Chappell will do. Mr. Chairperson: Chappell. Okay, you have some written presentation for the committee?

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 41 When the –once it's distributed you are free to start your presentation. Mr. Chappell: I'm here with my– Mr. Chairperson: Just hang on for a second, we'll wait 'til everybody has their copy. Okay, Mr. Chappell, you may now proceed. Mr. Chap pell: Mr. Chairman, I'm here with my client, Colleen Munro from Hugh Munro Construction Ltd., and I'm appearing in as an individual capacity before the committee. I'm a practising lawyer. Over the past ap proximate 50 years, and I practise in the area of municipal law and planning law. I strongly support the proposed legislation under Bill 19, particularly division 3, which is the appeal

section we're talking about, Mr. Chairman. * (18:50) And it's with some interest that I hear the objection that Mr. Goertzen made on behalf of the AMM, saying, these are local concerns, leave them with the local authorities. With the greatest respect, I disagree. And I think this is a perfect example of a balanced piece of legislation. Having said that, I'll now explain why, Mr. Chairman. I've acted on behalf of municipalities, applicants and objectors on many occasions with respect to conditional -use approvals under The Planning Act and prior legislation. The present pr ovisions of The Planning Act provide as follows in

section 106(1): The council can reject the application or approve the application if the conditional use proposed in the application meets three criteria. The first: it's compatible with the general nature of the surrounding area. Secondly, it will not be detrimental to the health or general welfare of the people living or working in the surrounding area or negatively affect other properties or potential developments in the surrounding area. And, lastly, thirdly, is generally consistent with the applicable provisions of the development plan bylaw, the zoning bylaw and any secondary plan bylaw.

This places the onus on the hearing body that, prior to the conditional use being approved, it must be found to be compatible to the general nature of the surrounding area. This is a very, very difficult onus for the board or council to make in a finding where the constituents are opposed to the applicant. In fact, the members of the public opposed to the approval are most often the very same electors who vote council into office. Notwithstanding any provincial concern, the local concern often prevails because of local objections.

With respect, I do not feel that this is in the provincial economic interest or a proper way to deal with conditional uses. It causes significant distress in the community because of the perceived, and perhaps unfounded, detrimental impacts of the land use. In the past, it's been my experience that NIMBY, not in my backyard, prevails over provincial concern. I would bring to the committee's attention the provisions of

section 33 of The Municipal Board Act, which provides as follows: "Where a local authority deems that the interests of the public in the territory over which the local authority exercises power, or in a considerable part thereof, are sufficiently concerned, it may, when authorized by resolution, become a complainant or intervenant in any matter within the jurisdiction of the board , and, for that purpose, the local authority may t ake any steps and incur any expense and take any proceedings necessary to submit the question in dispute to the decision of the board, and, if necessary, may become a party to any appeal therefrom." This permits municipalities or local authorities to inte rvene in any matter appearing before the Municipal Board.

Now, the local concern is addressed, and you're also addressing the provincial concern, Mr. Chairman, when you grant the appeal provisions. Hear the parties out; have an evidentiary record. In my respectful opinion, this

section permits the local council to participate with their constituents to bring forward local concerns with any application. As a result, all parties can be heard by a neutral hearing body. That is the Municipal Board. I was also involved in the Lilyfield Quarry application with the RM of Rosser, which led in part to the legislation now being proposed. In addition, I can advise that I support the endeavours of the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association with respect to Bill 19. The proposed legislation under Bill 19–and I'm talking about division 3, Mr.

Chairman–applies to both the aggregate industry and the livestock industry, and both are significant provincial concerns, economic concerns. For the above reasons, and with all due respect to local council and hearing bodies, these two categories of provincial concern

42 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 should have access to appeal scrutiny. The decision of the municipal board of Manitoba, like all other Municipal Board decisions, will be well reasoned and based on ev idence presented at the appeal and serve both the provincial and the local interest. The terms and conditions of granting the conditional use are part of any approval process by way of appeal. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you most strongly that it is a very balanced approach to the appeal provisions for those two interests–very balanced. Thank you, Sir. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Chappell. Mr. Allum: Mr. Chappell, thank you for coming tonight. Again, I–we've had three organizations appear before us tonight. The AMM supports some provisions of the bill but not others. MCNA supports a provision–does not wish to comment on most of the bill, but doesn't support one provision of the bill. MHCA supports elements of the bill, doesn't want to talk about any else–other parts of the bill.

You can see, as an official opposition, we're left in an impossible position here, because there are –is not consistent consensus about the entirety of the bill in and of itself as a whole. I'm asking you, as a lawyer and as a citizen of the–of this province, whether you regard that as an appropriate and proper way to govern. Mr. Chappell: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, in this respect. I've limited my comments to division 3 –just the appeal position. And, with the greatest respect to this government and the previous governments, this is an issue that's long been overdue for –to provide an appeal mechanism.

Long overdue. And we've –we haven't done it for 20 years. Mr. Eichler: Not really a question, but I just –on to thank you for your presentation and coming here tonight. Mr. Allum: So let's –if you could just help us to understand this appeal provision properly. An applicant who doesn't succeed at the municipal level can take it to the M unicipal Board. Can a–but a citizen who is not happy with the bill – or, under –the decision made by municipal council, under this legislation, cannot take it to the M unicipal Board. Am I correct in that assessment? Mr. Chappell: No.

My understanding is, under this legislation, anyone can take it to the M unicipal Board, whether it be the applicant or an objector. There's an appeal provision provided. It should be balanced. An obje ctor has his viewpoint; an applicant has their viewpoint. And they both go forward to the municipal board for a hearing. Mr. Allum: Okay, so we have a different understanding of the bill, and I appreciate that.

I would think, as a citizen of Manitoba –and you're talking about one small element of it –that you would bring your considerable expertise to understanding legislation as a lawyer, writ large, and would find and support our view that would be better for the government to withdraw the bill and to ca rve it up into the pieces that have public consensus and those that don't, and leave them back at the drawing board. Wouldn't that be a more appropriate way to govern? Mr. Chappell: Mr. Chairman, that's something I can't comment on.

I have enough troubl e just getting an understanding of whatever legislation is passed at the process. And that's why I get turfed out in court all the time. Mr. Allum: Thank you very much for coming tonight. Much appreciation for your answers. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Chappell. And we will now move on to the next presenter, presenter No. 5, Ken Waddell. Do you have any written presentation for the committee, Mr. Waddell? Mr. Ken Waddell (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may –oh. Are you having your wife present as well? Mr.

Waddell: I would if you so permit, because we basically don't want to make a second trip to Winnipeg next week, and our presentations are short. She does have a copy–copies of her presentation.

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 43 Mr. Chairperson: Is there agreement from the committee to allow them both to share the 10 minutes? [Agreed] So should we–we'll do–bring her up as well. And we can get her stuff presented, then you can present yours, or she can present he rs–whichever would work fine for you. We'll give you the total 10 minutes–and. * (19:00) Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Mrs. Waddell. You may proceed. Ms. Christine Waddell (Private Citizen) : Thank you for your indulgence and for the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chair, members of the committee and all present.

First, I applaud our government in all their effort to bring efficiency and fiscal soundness to all levels of government decision making. Secondly, the fact that many are protesting and complaining means your diligence, although not always appreciated, is being noticed and must be having effect. Now my reason for appearing tonight: as the owner of two commercial buildings in Neepawa, two homes in Neepawa and one commercial building in Rivers, Manitoba, I am well aware of the extreme pressure that communities are under when it comes to development and regulations that are part of our planning districts.

At present, notices of changes in zoning and conditional use of properties is sent to those who have property in close location where these changes are proposed. And notice is given so that the general public are aware of these changes through the municipal website and also by notices to the local newspapers.

However, with the proposed changes, the general pu blic would not realize a development or change is happening in the community until the local government has passed the motion given in council, or they hear about it in the local coffee shops, where accuracy of information may be compromised, and murmuring and complaints, although seemingly innocuous, can grow and affect the goodwill that our esteemed members of the legislature have worked so diligently to earn. I am aware that it has been suggested that this Bill 19 be passed as written but that

section 25 not be enacted. This would appear to be deceptive and unparliamentary. Why pass a bill and

section and not enact it? Our Westminster system allows for amendment. Please amend the bill to retain the public notice through local publications. Please prove you are a government that not only hears but one that listens and responds. Please act on your integrity, and for those who form the majority of the House, prove that democracy can still be responsive and effective. There is no shame in making amendments t o allow for more open communication. Please prove you are here to serve the people of Manitoba. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mrs. Waddell. We'll now allow Mr.

Waddell to make his, and then we'll have the question period, where the committee will be able to ask either or of you. Please proceed, Mr. Waddell. Mr. Waddell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Ken Waddell. I'm a publisher of the Neepawa Banner and Press. Been 30 years in the newspaper busine ss, and I've been writing for over 50 years. Been involved in public life, business and politics at various levels since I was a teenager in the 1960s.

Overall, Bill 19 is a good bill, as it provides for a number of things that have been requested by municipal governments, by businesses and by the AMM. As I served twice as mayor of Neepawa, I have a special appreciation for what AMM does for our province. There is, however, a fatal flaw in Bill 19, and that is

section 25, that eliminates the requirement for notice of planning district changes to be posted in the local newspapers. I agree that the planning district should put their changes on their website, but when you think about it, websites have their limitations: (1) some people don't have access to the internet; (2) some people don't use the Internet; (3) websites are like a silo of information. People don't go to the website to find information that they don't know exists. On the other hand, 80 per cent of Manitobans read their local paper every week, looking for all kinds of information and news. I doubt that 1 per cent of people regularly check their planning districts website.

44 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 Notices on the website can easily be subject to dispute, as proving the notice was there for a set period of time is almost impossible to prove, unlike the printed page of a newspaper. Disputes about notice will generate expensive and embarrassing litigation that will actually hamper development, and the net result of

section 25 is that valuable information may never g et in to the people who need to know and who deserve to know before a decision is taken. If a planning district is to follow its mandate of transparency and proper notice, the newspaper is the way to go. Our two family -owned newspapers go to 8,200 homes and 2,000 homes, respectively. They cover every home in the planning districts. A public notice cannot be truly a notice if it is not out there in full view so it can be noticed, be read, be discussed ahead of time so an informed decision can be made.

I want to briefly address the cost aspect, first from a newspaper point of view. Neepawa area planning district last year spent about $2,000 with our newspaper. In a good year, we make 10 per cent profit, so that $2,000 worth of gross income made us about $200 profit. So it isn't about the money from the newspaper point of view; it's about informing the public about decisions that may affect their lifestyle, their livelihood and their property values. It's not about the money at the planning district either, as most often the costs are billed back to the developers, and that's the way it should be.

Please pass our suggested amendment, and, when I say suggested, I am president of Manitoba Community New spapers Association, and we were very ably represented by Kim MacAulay, our chairman tonight. But the proposed amendment, we ask that you pass it. The government has offered to hold off enacting

section 25. That is simply not satisfactory, as that move a llows the

section to become law without discussion or notice. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Waddell. Mr. Wharton : Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Waddell, for coming out tonight as well. And I guess this is directed to you, Mr. Waddell and, again, thank you for your time serving as mayor of Neepawa. I, too, served on council and deputy mayor, and I appreciate the time and eff ort it takes to do that, and, again, of course, in the private sector as well. So you definitely have your plate full, and keep up that hard work.

Given your unique experience, of course, as a publisher and a mayor, during your time as councillor–as mayo r, was there ever any point or time or –given an opportunity, your municipality would have hidden or obscured any information pertinent to your ratepayers? Mr. Waddell: No, of course not, but they are also– were under the requirement, obviously, to publish all notices in the paper. That said, my integrity would have not allowed anything to be hidden from –by council from the public, as long as I was in the chair and as long as I was publisher. But the legislation is there for the protection of the public.

Mr. Allum: Mr. and Mrs. Waddell, thank you both for coming today. You–Mr. Waddell, you talked about your career dating back many years. I know that you have been a member of the government party for–or have been associated with the government party. The mini ster just indicated that you and he have a very long- standing relationship going back a couple of decades or more. And so I'm wondering whether the minister actually called you up at any one point and said, Ken, this is the minister calling. Would you–did he give you any prior notice that this was happening? Any previous consultation? Mr. Waddell: No, sir.

He did not. Mr. Allum: Thank you. And, then, Mrs. Waddell, you described–I thought it was an ingenious way of putting it, that this stuff gets talked about in the local coffee shop and sometimes accuracy isn't quite there, as rumour mills begin to fly around, and I thought that was a very effective characterization of what could happen in the absence of simply having the requirement to publish the notice s in newspapers where there can be no dispute. Would it be your contention that it would be satisfactory simply to amend it, or would you prefer that they withdraw it and start over? Ms. Waddell: Mr.

Chair and Mr. Allum, that is a parliamentary question that there are powers that are much more experienced and fundamentally educated in the process of how much amendment–my personal concern was that this was being left in to tear –there has been a tremendous amount of work going into this bill, and we recognize –we recognize–that it is

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 not necessarily the members of the House that write all these paragraphs and sections and words. You have staff that do these things, and you are dependent on their integrity and their ability, and I would ask that you go back a nd look–if there is–if it is within the Westminster system, within our parliamentary system to amend this section. * (19:10) I know that is–what you're working towards is to set it aside and start again.

And I have to –I think it was our gentleman from th e–from construction that said that–well, my expression is done is better than perfect, perfect is the enemy of progress and whatever it takes. But don't be afraid –don't feel your integrity will be compromised by listening. I have stood in front of this –a committee in this room. I have stood in front of a committee down the hall and I applaud all of you in this room because I realize this is the first night of your meetings. However, I can remember seeing a large number of the people present at the committ ees that I spoke before, several years ago.

And they were not listening, let alone hearing. And I applaud the fact that the members present tonight appear to be not only listening, but hearing. And I applaud you for that– Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your response, Mrs. Waddell, but the time for questions has expired. We thank you very much for your presentations and your answers to the questions. We will now call on the next presenter, Jill Werwey [phonetic], Keystone Agricultural Producers. I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly. If I'm not, please correct me. Ms.

Jill Verwey (Keystone Agricultural Producers): Your pronunciation was almost correct, but I'm used to every pronunciation, so I'll let you off the hook. Mr. Chairperson: Werwey? [phonetic] Ms. Verwey: Verwey. Mr. Chairperson: Verwey. Ms. Verwey: Yes. Good– Mr. Chairperson: Okay, Ms. Verwey, you may proceed as soon as the rest of this –your presentation is distributed. You may proceed, Ms. Verwey. Ms. Verwey: Good evening, honourable members of the legislate assembly, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Jill Verwey, and I am vice-president of the keystone 'agpocultural' producers, commonly known as KAP.

I farm alongside my husband and his three brothers and their families in Portage la Prairie, where we have grain, oilseeds, beef and we also operate a dairy. KAP is Manitoba's general farm policy organization, representing and promoting the interest of thousands of agricultural producers in Manitoba. Our membership consists of farmers and commodity groups throughout the province, who set our organization's policy through a grassroots governance structure. On behalf of KAP, I would like to share our organization's position and support for Bill 19, The Planning Amendment Act.

In Manitoba, agriculture is a key economic driver. According to Statistics Canada, farmers generate more than 5 and one half billion dollars in farm cash receipts, or 4.5 per cent of Manitoba's GDP each year. When considering the additional and 'connick'–'conteck'–connected contributions of the sector creates, agriculture represents more than 10 per cent of all economic activity in our province. The provincial government acknowledged the importance of agriculture in Manitoba in both the 2018 Manitoba budget address and the 2018 Speech from the Throne.

The government is committed to growing the livestock industry while protecting the environment. Reducing red tape and increasing efficiency through legislation like Bill 19 will greatly contribute to the farme rs' ability to grow food and grow the provincial economy. KAP is supportive of removal of the 300 animal unit conditional use threshold for livestock approvals under The Planning Act. It is our contention that this number was 'arbitarily' placed in legis lation and was never based on sound science and does not reflect current farming practices.

Our industry's perspective is that the conditional use thresholds should be elevated to allow for small- and medium -size operations to develop and expand their operations. Manitoba Pork Council, MPC, has presented information to the province outlining their strategy for 'substainly' increasing hog 'produshion' in Manitoba. They have recommended raising the conditional use threshold to 600 animal units, noting that all livestock operation expansions

46 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 would still have to meet all setbacks, manure - and nutrient-management regulations and all other 'revetalent' laws and bylaws. Increasing conditional use thresholds could pay a significant role in local development then –it would ease the process of expansion of smaller producers who would be better served to grow their operations. If municipalities could make conditional use thresholds too low, it would be a disincentive for local producers to diversify their operations and for independent farmers to expand.

Municipalities and general public must be made aware that any expansion of livestock operations can only be achieved if the spread acres, which are the acres that farmers can apply manure nutrients to grow a crop, are available. The number of acres available for manure spreading is already a barrier for many producers to expand their operations. Municipalities do not need to create more impediments for local producers to expand or grow.

KAP recommends that the government of Manitoba provide technical resources for municipalities to help them understand issues specific to the livestock production, like nutrient management, so that they make informed decisions around conditional use thresholds. We understand that the 300- animal-unit threshold is embedded in municipal bylaw s throughout the province and that public meetings will have to be held as per the transitional provisions within the bill.

We have some concerns that forcing such a process will create a situation wh erein municipalities would be reluctant to argue for an increase in their conditional use, animal -unit thresholds. Government is requesting that municipalities review these thresholds, but there is no requirement to raise it. It is quite conceivable that municipalities will opt for the least controversial action, which would be to maintain the status quo, which, of course, would not enable growth in the livestock industry, and farmers would still face the same challenges.

Bill 19 also proposed to allow for a 15 per cent expansion in farm buildings, which conform to applicable zoning bylaw s without the need for renewal–renewed approval. We are supportive of this proposed change, in that the 15 per cent allowable increase would provide the means for a farmer to be consistent with modern environmental and animal welfare practices. Farmers may need to be 'incentisized' to expand their existing infrastructure if they can do it with minimum regulatory burdens to overcome –again, noting that all farmers still must meet the nutrient - management regulatory requirements.

KAP is supportive of the concept of the appeals process for applicants whose applications are denied or whose have conditions imposed at a municipal level. The current system, within which there are n o appeals mechanism, is problematic for farmers in that they have no recourse. The municipal councils may make decisions based on misinformation and lack of background knowledge. We understand that the intention of using the Municipal Board to hear appeals is to ensure that decisions are based on evidence and sound science, which parallels KAP's policy on land use decisions.

We do have some concerns, however, that the appeals process will add to the length of time and cost to producers to go through the application process, and, ultimately, they still may have their applications denied. We also have some concerns around the pr oposed changes of notification requirements. Government is proposing that the notice of a hearing be posted on the municipal websites without the requirement that the information be –also be published in a newspaper. We feel that this is insufficient.

The system should be developed to ensure that every farmer and rural residents who should be made aware of potential hearings has access or the means of notification. Some of the issues highlighted by those opposed to the bill surround the potential environ mental impact on expanded livestock operations that they might have.

KAP encourages the government to deliver messaging that is consistent with our own and our commodity association's, with emphasis placed on the fact that, regardless of proposed changes u nder Bill 19, Manitoba farmers are still required to meet all environmental regulations outlined in the nutrient management act, The Environment Act and the Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation. * (19:20) Manitoba farmers must submit annual manure - management plans to the Department of Sustainable Development. These plans contain information on manure nutrient content, storage, field application and spreading.

Farmers are also required to complete

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 47 annual soil testing and manure analysis and share their records with the government of Manitoba. There are also restrictions on the place when – where they may apply manure to their fields, and where farmers–when they can apply the manure. These procedures will remain unchanged when Bill 19 passes, and the public should be made aware of this. As well, the Technical Review Committee process will remain unchanged.

Once the conditional use threshold is met, farmers will be required to complete site assessments, water monitoring analysis reports, manure storage permits, and develop manure management plans. Farmers will still follow rigorous requirements to ensure that their operations are sustainable, and that they comply with all regulations. We encourage government to reassure the public that farmer s in Manitoba are doing their part to ensure the sustainability of the industry and to protect the environment. In conclusion, we are in support of the efforts put forward by reducing red tape for livestock expansions.

We encourage the government to continue working to grow the livestock sector for the benefit of all Manitobans. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mrs. Verwey. Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. I know you're trying to get a crop in, and I'm sure the cow probably got milked without you being there tonight, but I want to thank you for that. You talked a lot about managing manure, and according to the way the legislation's currently written, we–you've made it very clear that we're not changing any of those. Do you feel that they're too strict at this point in time? Ms.

Verwey: Which regulations are you –are– specifically referring to? Mr. Eichler: The manure management regulations. Floor Comment: Well, personally, I guess, we have to fill out those– Mr. Chairperson : Ms. Verwey. I guess I'm not paying attention. Ms. Verwey: I think, from KAP's standpoint, is to ensure the public that we have regulations in place, and that farmers are doing their best in looking after the environment, and to, I guess, portray that, a nd that this, by expanding or changing bill–with Bill 19, that none of that is going to change. Mr. Allum: Ms.

Verwey, thank you for coming, and for your presentation. And listen, we have no doubt that farmers, for –in their own self -interest, are interested in environmental protection, let alone for all of our community interest. So I wanted to put that on the table and assure you of that. Having said that, your presentation says that the 300-animal was–limit was arbitrary, never based on sound science. Can you provide the scientific evidence that tells us that 600 is better? Ms. Verwey: I guess–I'm not here really to –I don't have that specific information. I'm just dealing particular with the issues that are specific.

So I don't have what number that would be. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Two points perhaps you can help me with or clarify. One is, how many spread acres would be required for 600-animal units? And second, currently , I think about 80 per cent of the hog wastes are injected as opposed to being spread on the surface. Would you support all new or expanded operations having to inject their manure as a positive environmental approach? Ms. Verwey: Unfortunately, I guess, I'm only here to make comments on the particular issues that I had that are specific to our KAP policy at this point. Mr.

Allum: Okay, so let me see if I can try and get one here that helps you along here and helps our dialogue a little bit. As you've heard from other organizations, M – AMM appears to have been consulted about parts of the bill they like, MHCA appears to be –have been consulted about parts of the bill they like. I'm assuming KAP was al so consulted prior to the bill being proposed, yet MCNA, the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association, was not consulted prior to this bill being proposed and put forward in the Legislature.

You said you're in support of red tape elimination, and yet we 've heard submissions from members of the MCNA saying that this provision of the bill is –we shouldn't treat democracy and public notices and public information as red tape. Would you agree with that contention?

48 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 Ms. Verwey: I guess I'm not here to, I gue ss, comment on the process of the government –only here to give, I guess, our organization's support and perceptive–perspective to this bill. Mr. Wharton : Thank you, Mrs. Verwey, for your presentation tonight and taking the time out. As the – Minister Eichle r mentioned, I'm sure you're busy with many other aspects of your life, and certainly it's–we're looking forward to a good growing season if we get a little bit of rain.

Just in respect to the member opposite asking about the 600-animal unit, I think I can set the record straight saying that there is no mention, in Bill 19, about a 600-animal unit. The threshold would be sent by–be set by municipalities in fair say. Ms. Verwey: That was my understanding too. That it's up to the municipalities. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you very much for your presentation, but our five minutes allotted for questions is expired. So we thank you very much, and I will now call on the next presenter. Brent Wright? Is Brent Wright in the room? Mr.

Wright, do you have any written material for distribution? Mr. Brent Wright (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, once the –they have been distributed, we will allow you to do your presentation. Point of Order Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Allum, on a point of order. Mr. Allum: I'd–just for clarification, Mr. Wright is identified here as being from the University of Winnipeg Students' Association, and his submission seems to show him being from Dauphin. Not that that couldn't put him on the U of W students' association, but is–just asking for clarification. Mr.

Chairperson: According to what the Clerk is informing me, there was a mistake in that, and Mr. Wright is presenting as a private citizen. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Wright, you may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Wright: I'm Brent Wright, from Dauphin, Manitoba. I come here today as a concerned citizen of Manitoba, as well as an individual with over 38 years' experience in the newspaper industry. This is–experience has included 24 years on the advertising and promotion side of the business.

I work with six different publications out of five locations in Dauphin, Roblin, Russell, Swan River and The Pas, and this experience has given me some insight into how people receive and accept information. If there i s one thing I've learned in those 38 years, it is that community newspapers are a trusted source of information. As the newspaper goes, if you do not have your credibility, you have nothing. And that is why people regularly turn to their local paper when t hey want to know what is really happening.

Removing public notice from newspapers will hinder public awareness and be a detriment to our society. Websites and the Internet are in a continual state of change, and what is there today may or may not be there tomorrow. Information can come and go from the Internet, but that –but information that is published in a newspaper is there to be referred to later and can be verified at any time. If there does happen to be incorrect information in a newspaper, it can be corrected. And, again, that correction can be verified.

On the Internet, the incorrect information can simply be pulled down and it is gone. * (19:30) Posting on websites cannot be verified as to when the posting was done or for how long and, in many cases, by whom. Not all Manitobans have access to computers and Internet due to many factors, such as low income. This is often combined with mobility issues, so going to a public accessible computers may not be an option either. I would suggest that very few people would use the Internet to check if any development plans are happening in their community.

If proper public notice is given through local community newspapers and posting in public places, as well as municipal websites, based on that proper publ ic notice, citizens will then determine if the particular public notice is of concern to them, and at this point, they can possibly go to the Internet or contact local representatives to learn more on the issue at hand. Just making information available to the public does not equal public notice.

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 49 If they do not know that the information is there, something–if they do not know there is something to look for, they won't look for it. Placing public notice on a website in conjunction with published and poste d public notice will resort – result in well -informed public. This will be an enhancement to public notice. Websites can then be used as a tool. They are there to provide valuable background information regarding an issue, again resulting in more information to the public.

I understand there is cost concerns involved as well, but in many cases the developer may –has to pay the involved fees. Further to this, what is the cost of an informed public? At what point do citizens lose confidence in elected official s and the process in place? Soon they start to question what is actually happening or what is being hidden. On any given issue a lack of information causes ignorance and ignorance creates dissention. I respectfully suggest that there be an amendment to B ill 19 to leave the requirement to publish public notice and add in a requirement to post on appropriate websites.

Just not enacting clause 25 leaves the door open for it to be enacted further down the road and I believe this would not be in the best interests of our democratic society. Respectfully, Brent Wright. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Wright. Mr. Allum: Thank you, Mr. Wright, for coming today. I was kind of hoping you were with the University of Winnipeg Students' Association. Both my colleague and I from Flin Flon were thinking there was hope for us for a life after politics after all if you were. You're from Dauphin.

Have you had a chance to talk to your MLA about this particular matter and what kind–if so, have you had a–what was the nature of that conversation and did he give –he or she give you any indication that they would consider the amendment? Mr. Wright: I did have a conversation with my local MLA earlier on in –several weeks back. Mr. Michaleski had informed me that he wasn't fully up to speed with the bill, although he was more familiar with Bill 19 than he was with Bill 8. At the time I had spoke to him about both bills and the publication clause in both of those bills.

He indicated to me that he would–the bills would probably pass, but that's–we're–he wasn't steadfast on that, I guess. Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Mr. Wright, for coming down from Dauphin today. And I just had a question for you as well. You made light, of course, if there wasn't any newspaper publishment on a land development, that the public would not be informed, is that correct? Floor Comment: I'm sorry? Mr. Chairperson: Mr.–oh, Mr. Wharton, could you– Mr.

Wharton : You had mentioned in your presentation that you were concerned that if a public notice wasn't put in the newspaper that the public would not be informed, because they wouldn't default to a website? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright: I'm sorry. I don't believe they would. I've had numerous conversations with acquaintances of mine, long- term friends –some farmers, railroaders, quite a cross -section of people –and they all recognize that I work for the newspaper. I've readily admitted that there is some minor financial considerations on this issue.

But I asked them, as citizens, what they thought of the process and it being eliminated from public notice. And, to put it quite bluntly, most of them replied there isn' t a chance in Hades I'm going to a website to look for a public notice. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. Yes, a number of us are trying to figure out how, if a public notice was put up on a municipal site, whether it's in Dauphin area or in Wi nnipeg or somewhere else–I use the Internet a lot, but I've never gone to a public site to look for a notice of some public meeting.

So, without prior awareness that such a meeting might be happening–so I'm puzzled about why people would even consider rely ing on the Internet. Mr. Wright: I would respond to that –like, on my own personal experience, I use the Internet. I use it as a tool to research stuff that I probably already have a pretty good idea what it is I'm trying to know and what I'm trying to lea rn. I don't get up in the morning, flip–hit the power switch on the laptop and say, gee, I wonder what I'll search today? No, I go there with a purpose. And, if people are not going to

50 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 go to a website just on the off chance that there may be something ther e of interest –it–I don't believe it's human nature for people to function like that. Mr. Chairperson: The honourable Mr. Wharton, and you have one half minute. Mr. Wharton: I'll be quick, then. I've never been to Haiti, Mr. Wright, but I'm sure it'd be a nice place to visit. But I can tell you that, in the bill, there's no changing the fact that properties under development will have to be posted at site, and, of course, any affected properties would have to be notified, too, within 100 metres.

So, just f or point, at this point, of course, I'm just clarifying that there will be public notices however the committee decides to move forward at a later date. But there still is opportunity for public notice outside of websites. Mr. Chairperson: The time has ex pired. I'll allow Mr. Wright to 10 seconds to respond to that. Mr. Wright: All I can say is I truly do believe, as a citizen of this democratic country, that removing this is a mistake. I think it is counterproductive. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Wright.

We will now move on to the next presenter, Mark Buss, Clipper Publishing. Mr. Buss, do you have any written presentation for the committee? Mr. Mark Buss (Clipper Publishing) : I did, but I've had to make some revisions to it. So it's being recorded, so, hopefully, that will suffice. Mr. Chairperson: Absolutely. You may proceed with your presentation, Mr. Buss. Mr. Buss: Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight in regards to Bill 19, The Planning Amendment Act, and, more specifically, the need to amend

section 25 of that bill. * (19:40) My name is Mark Buss. I am the vice -president of Clipper Publishing, based out of Beausejour, and the editor of both the Clipper Weekly newspaper and the Lac du Bonnet Clipper. We serve the North Eastman region in its entirety from Highway 1 in the south to Powerview-Pine Falls in the North and from Birds Hill park and Highway 59 in the west all the way east to the Ontario boarder, publishing more than 13,000 copies and covering 10 municipalities along the way.

We do have an active website and a Facebook page, both of those created to enhance our coverage of news, local politics, sports and community events in North Eastman. I use the word e nhance here in its proper context –to intensify, increase or further improve the quality, value or extent of –as enhancing something is to provide an added value to whatever the base subject or product is.

Section 25 states: " Notice of a hearing is not required to be published in a newspaper or posted in any location if the notice (

a) is posted on a publicly accessible website of the applicable planning district or municipality and (

b) remains posted on the website throughout the 27- day period before the hearing." Despite the claims from the provincial government that

section 25 of Bill 19 enhances service by removing the mandatory notice requirement from community newspapers, it is simply not the case. What

section 25 does is –in its current form is to repla ce one form of mandatory notice, in a tried and tested format involving community newspapers, with another form of mandatory notice that is at this time not as effective regardless of how good the Internet connection is or isn't in some areas in the province. In April, the Province announced the expansion of the national public alerting system, Alert Ready. So compatible wireless devices such as cellphones and smart phones in Manitoba could receive emergency alert messages.

The Province stated that, at the time, the government of Manitoba has been preparing to expand the emergency public alerting system to the wireless world, enhancing the effectiveness to rapidly warn citizens of imminent or unfolding threats to life or safety if they are in the geographic broadcast area. Up to that point, Canada's existing Alert Ready system warned the public of emergency or disaster events via radio, cable, satellite TV broadcasters and web feeds. Unlike

section 25 of Bill 19, however, none of those existing alert options were taken out of service or replaced, meaning that it, indeed, is an enhancement of service, and it was added on to what had already existed. By removing the requirement of mandatory public notices in local newspapers, Minister Wharton has stated the m ove will let municipalities decide how best to communicate to their community. But what if the government in question does not want their business known? The public would like to

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 presume that every elected official will act fairly and in the best interest of the constituents, just as the public would like to presume that newspapers will act fairly and provide unbiased coverage. Unfortunately, we all know of instances, especially in today's world of personal agendas and special interest groups, where this hasn't been the case. A municipal council and a community news - paper may occasionally find themselves at odds for a variety of reasons.

Should that be the case, and a council decides to forego utilizing its local newspaper as a result of whatever bad blood may be between them, would not be in the best interest of residents. For me, the May 7th resolution from the North Eastman Municipal Forum that was presented here earlier today by Ms. MacAulay exemplifies this. Of the nine municipalities in attendance, only one voted against supporting the resolution, saying they had a new website and they felt posting the –their notifications there would be sufficient in their view.

For those unaware, the council in question has taken great lengths to combat The Clipper f ollowing our–a four -year term where they have found themselves in conflict with local volunteer groups, community and recreation organizations, business owners, the arts community, churches and their municipal neighbours, all of which was reported in our publication without fear or favour, which is our responsibility.

Feeling they were not getting a fair shake, the council, in 2016, created a new website, got onto Facebook and Twitter and hired a communications consultant to the tune of over $142,000 over a four-year term so they could, as one councillor said, have good news stories written about them. Two years later, their Facebook page has just over 330 followers, and from numbers provided by the administrator, they have 40 people following them–following the community on Twitter. The Clipper, by comparison, goes to every mailbox in the area and has an 80 per cent readership, according to the last surveys done.

While all other municipalities in our coverage area have had their share of negative and posi tive stories written about them in The Clipper, as per the situation, those municipalities wholeheartedly agree that mandatory notice should remain in community newspapers, as they are the essential form of communication in those communities. If

section 2 5 is not amended, it begs the question: Is this a situation of the provincial government looking to punish Manitoba's print news industry for doing its job? My final comments on this issue are of a personal nature. I became politically aware at the knee of my father. He was well known in the provincial and federal circles as an ardent PC supporter and campaign worker. And, as a child, I spent many hours bouncing around the countryside in a truck, as he put up signs for successful candidates, like Jake Epp, and unsuccessful provincial candidates, like John Vogsburg Trainer [phonetic] , and others.

As a teenager, I went do or to door handing out pamphlets for Darren Praznik, who eventually turned the NDP stronghold of Lac du Bonnet into a blue riding. He did so by listening to people and taking their concerns to heart, eventually winning over those who initially opposed him as someone who was willing to provide good government, regardless of the political stripe. At the age of 91, my father is, thankfully, still very sharp, and we often discuss politics and the day's events.

The actions of the Manitoba PC Party of today regarding bills 8 a nd 19 are disheartening for him, however, as he is a firm believer in the public's right to information and to know what their elected officials are doing. As he often has said, those who hold public office often forget it is the public they serve. The requirement to publish notice through independent media is the best way to ensure the interests of residents are protected and upheld at all times, regardless of dispute or personal preference. Denying our citizens that basic assurance does not serve the best interests of Manitobans. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Buss. Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Mr. Buss, for coming out tonight and, again, taking

part in this democratic process. And, to your point about, you know, obviously, local governments–being a former councillor , I can appreciate your comments, but, you know, there is accountability, as the former government –the NDP found in 2016. They were held accountable for their actions of 17 years by getting booted out of office.

52 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 So, certainly, municipal governments have to, obviously, be very aware that they have to act in the best interests of their communities. To that point, when do you feel, Mr. Buss, that we –I personally read online –my local papers, you know, and, certainly, on the record, the express weekly, the spectator, the journal, the record, a number of papers that we have in our community, which certainly we enjoy reading. I read them online every week when they come out on Wednesdays and Thursdays.

When do you see the industry maybe moving even more towards that in as far as years, in your opinion? Mr. Buss: I can't really say in regards to that. I know–I think there certainly has been a lot of discussion in regards to that issue, about the Internet, really, you know, taking over the industry. But, I mean, I know –it's–for me, it's very similar to the situation where books, how many years ago–20 years ago, everybody said there's not going to be any books anymore.

Everyone's got a Kindle and, you know –and I have a friend who owns a publishing industry down in the United States, and he's said 97 per cent of his work still is with printed books. So the argument that, you know, it's going to swallow it up–not in my lifetime, so. Mr. Allum: Thank you, Mr. Buss, for coming tonight, and for your very good presentation. It's been mentioned a few times tonight that –and it's been certainly mentioned in our discussions with government that, really, the newspaper industry, writ large, is acting out of their own self -interest; they're only interested in the money.

Could you tell us just what this is worth to you, so that we can put that particular critique of –aside and get on with actually defending democracy in our communities across Manitoba? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Buss. Mr. Buss: I'm sorry. Mr. Chairperson: You may now proceed. Mr. Buss: I think you used the word democracy, and I think that that is a word that is –a lot of people take for granted. You know, I'm –my family came to Manitoba at the turn of the 20th century to get away from, you know, bad situations in Europe, like a lot of folks around here.

But I think, over time, I think a lot of people have–they've taken that for granted, and they don't quite understand what that –what words like that mean. But freedom of the press, democracy and those sorts of things, but –I don't know. It's tough to say, I'm sorry. Mr. Gerrard: You've obviously talked to quite a number of people in your area about this issue.

People scan online newspapers or articles of interest, but I don't know of people who regularly go to municipal websites looking for information on hearings that are coming up. * (19:50) I mean, have you found such people around that would search municipal websites? Yes. Mr. Buss: Usually for us, I mean, again, in regards to this topic, we've had a number of people, you know, everybody comes in to pick up the paper Wednesday, Thursday.

They come in the office and just the –traction is probably the wrong word, but I mean the amount of people that have come into the office and have broached this topic and said I saw what you had in the paper, whether that's online or not, and t hey're concerned. A lot of people are concerned, so it's –but in regards to the amount of people that go online, I can't really say, so. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing as no further questions, thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Buss. We will call the next presenter, Traci Klimchuk. Traci Klimchuk? Is Traci Klimchuk in the room?

We will move Traci Klimchuk to the bottom of the list. We will move on to the next presenter, John Kendle. John Kendle? Do you have a written presentation for the committee? Mr. John Kendl e (Canstar Community News): No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your presentation, Mr. Kendle. Mr. Kendl e: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity, members of the committee, to speak here tonight.

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 53 My name is John Kendle. I am the managing editor of Canstar Community News, which is the publisher of six community newspapers in Winnipeg and area. We publish 202,000 copies of weekly community newspapers that–every Wednesday. They are The Headliner, T he Herald, The Lance, The Metro, The Sou'wester and The Times and, indeed, looking at the faces around the table I recognize several of our columnists, and thank you for your submissions to our papers.

A brief statement: On Saturday, April 14th, at the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association's 99th annual dinner, Cathy Cox, the provincial Minister of Sport, Culture and Heritage –I believe she's here this evening; she was here this evening– assured publishers and staff of the province's 48 community newspapers that public notices required of provincial and municipal governments will remain in newspapers.

Despite clauses in Bill 8 and Bill 19, which we are discussing here tonight, which strike require - ments that notices be placed in newspapers, Minister Cox said that the government of Manitoba will pass the bills in their current form but will not proclaim into law the sections that pertain to public notices. While I'm sure that Minister Cox meant well, I would submit respectfully that she did not go far enough. The notion of passing something but not proclaiming it into law does not sit well.

In fact, to do so would, indeed, enable this government or a future government to proclaim the non- proclaimed clauses at any time, without consultation. If the government truly wants to change the meaning of bills 8 and 19 as they are written, then it should do so. In the case of Bill 19, which is the bill discussed this evening, I'm here to encourage this committee to amend

section 25 of the bill. As it is written,

section 25 of Bill 19 proposes that the requirement to advertise public notices in a local newspaper be changed to simply posting notice on a municipality's or planning department's website for 27 days prior to any public hearing. I would like this committee to amend Bill 19 so that it maintains the current requirement to place municipal public notices in newspapers and so that it adds the requirement to also post them on a municipality's or planning department's website.

With 30 years' experience in the newspaper business–sorry–14 of those with community weeklies, I can emphatically and confidently state that the province's community newspapers are and will remain the surest way of informing the public on the activities and business of provincial and municipal governments. More than 400,000 copies of Manitoba's community newspapers are printed each week. A readership study which has been referred to by other presenters conducted in March, 2018 by TOTEM Research showed that readership of those newspapers is close to 80 per cent in the province.

Can you honestly say that you believe that that many people will actually go to a municipality's website to determine whether or not there is going to be a public hearing? I can't. I think that making municipal notices required only online as proposed not only assumes that people will actively seek them out, which is highly unlikely, it ignores those Manitobans with poor or no Internet service.

I would also like to point out that when the Minister for Municipal Relations, Jeff Whar ton, called for second reading of Bill 19 in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly on April 19th, he was asked by several opposition MLAs how the government would deal with the public notice requirement. According to Hansard, Minister Wharton stated, and I quote: The government will seek to amend the bill to ensure newspaper notice requirements is preserved. I would like to ask Minister Wharton to keep his word. I would like this committee to consider amending

section 25 of Bill 19. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Allum: Thank you, Mr. Kendle. Thank you for your presentation and coming here tonight. I asked Mr. Buss the same question. It's been suggested to us, in our discussions with our friends across the table and others, that this is really about the money for the industry in Manitoba. So could you put on record what this is actually worth to you, and whether that's the primary consideration at work here, from the industry's point of view, or if there's another principle at stake? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Kendle. Mr. Kendle: Sorry. I swore I wouldn't do that either.

54 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 According to information that was provided to the chairperson of the Manitoba Community Newspapers Association, Kim MacAuley, who was a previous presenter, by government services, in 2017, $103,000 was spent on advertising public notices in the 48 community newspapers in the province. It's not a significant amount of money. Mr. Wharton: Thank you, Mr. Kendle, for coming out tonight. I appreciate the time you took to present to the committee. Mr.

Wright had come up earlier and mentioned that this could have an effect on his business financially, and being a small-business owner myself for 30 years, I can appreciate the challenges that not only all small businesses–newspaper business as well, will go through during times of challenges and times of change, and as we evolve in our day -to-day businesses. What percentage do you feel would be affected or is affected by the mandatory advertising by municipalities currently in your business? Mr. Kendle: Well, as I just mentioned, $103,000 worth of public notice advertising across 48 newspapers works out to–what?

Two thousand dollars per paper? It's not a significant percentage whatsoever. Mr. Allum: You mentioned the announcement made by a different minister, in relation, I guess, to Bill 8, but happening at a banquet for your –the MCNA. I saw that, heard about it, thought –immediately tweeted out, congratulated you folks, Free Press, for your advocacy in turning t he government around on this issue, only to find out that in fact, this isn't quite exactly as –they weren't withdrawing, they were simply not going to enact. Is that an acceptable position, from your point of view? [interjection] Mr.

Chairperson: You ha ve to wait a second, Mr. Kendle, 'til I recognize you. Mr. Kendle: Of course. As I stated, it would be preferable to me and preferable, probably, to all the newspaper publishers in the province, that

section 25 of Bill 19 be amended so that the requirement to publish public notices in newspapers be maintained. Mr. Gerrard: You make a very strong point about the–passing this bill, and–but not proclaiming that section. It doesn't make a lot of sense, to me, to do that, and you certainly would leave, sort of a sword of Damocles hanging over democracy in this province if you were to do that. So I just want to give you one more chance to emphasize why that's so critical, in terms of this province, to get rid of this clause, instead of just promising not to proclaim it. Mr.

Kendle: I can't understand why, if the government has stated that it does not wish to enact the language which pertains to public notice, that it would simply do away with the language all together. Do what you're going to say to do. * (20:00) Mr. Andrew Micklefield (Rossmere): I just want to make a comment on this whole thing of not proclaiming certain sections of the bill. I know that I've come across this more than once in other bills that I've had the pleasure of examining and finding out that it's not –certainly not unheard of to find sections of bills that are not proclaimed.

So, in case there's a feeling that this is some –this would be sort of a, you know, an anomaly, or, how could they do this; these things happen not infrequently, and this is a standard mechanism to get this kind of result, often in response to public consultation, so. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Micklefield, we have–time has expired, but I'll allow Mr. Kendle to answer whatever he may have answered for 10 seconds. Mr. Kendle: I didn't actually hear a question, but– Mr. Chairperson: Well, in that case, we thank you very much for your presentation, and we will move on to the next presenter.

We will now call on Candice McLauchlan. Is Candice McLauchlan in the room? Seeing as Candice McLauchlan is not in the room, she will be moved to the bottom of the list and called once everybody else has been called. We will now call on Shawna Andrew. Shawna Andrew? Shawna Andrew is not in the room. Shawna Andrew will be moved to the bottom of the list and called once we have completed the list. The next person on the list is Jim Mihaly, Mihaly? If you could correct my pronunciation. Mr. Jim Mihaly (Brandon Sun) : Mihaly. Very close. Mihaly, yes. Thank you.

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 55 Mr. Chairperson: Do you have a written submission for the committee? Mr. Mihaly: No, I don't, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your presentation, Mr. Mihaly. Mr. Mihaly: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: –haly. Mr. Mihaly: Mihaly. Mr. Chairperson: –haly. Mr. Mihaly: Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak with regard–regarding Bill 19, The Planning Amendment Act. Specifically, I would like to address

section 25, which deals with public notice of planning changes under the act. My name is Jim Mihaly, and I'm publisher of the Brandon Sun, Westman This Week, and Carberry News Express. I've been in the industry full time for 30-plus years and was nine years old when my parents started on newspapers in northern Alberta. They are still in the family and ARE in operation today. When I was younger, one of my jobs was to deliver the newsstands at the–for–to the businesses. I was always impressed with the number of people waiting to pick up the paper.

That hasn't changed, and when you–when the paper is late, we hear about it. Newspapers serve an important role. They provide a sense of community and reflect that in our news coverage. Government should be transparent with the people they work for known as the taxpayer. It's important to remember that. Flying under t he radar by not publishing key public notices will only frustrate the taxpayer that much more. Here are a few points you should know re - garding the importance and the role of a newspaper – plays in southwestern Manitoba.

First, it is well read, and I must brag about this, that the readership is on the rise. The Sun has probably served Brandon and the Westman area since 1882, and I haven't been there with the full time, so it's a portion of that. When print and digital are combined, 83 per cent of adults in Brandon said they read the Sun weekly. The 83 per cent are referred to, or 39,000, does not include a substantial rural readership. Ninety -four per cent of our weekday print readers are exclusive to the Sun. Thirty-five per cent of our weekly digital readers are hard -to-reach millennials.

It's all about local content and keeping readers engaged with the product. We have a newsroom of 18 people. As long as we continue to provide local news, we will continue to be relevant and continue to grow our readership. It's all about presentation and making the product attractive to read and accessibility. Proposing to post notices via government websites exclusively will see less readership as a product that's not widely available and is not conducive to a structure d and clear design. Plus, newspapers are trusted, impartial and credible sources for Manitoba residents.

Revenue lost for newspapers will provide fewer jobs and fewer journalists, as an example, who will build content to sustain readership. We've always –we've already observed a decline in the past two years relative to provincial government advertising in newspapers in this province, and more cutbacks will cause financial loss in this industry, indirectly or directly. Some use social media as a tool, which it is, but it should be – complement traditional media, not replace it We focus on local coverage.

Along with closely listening to what our readers and advertisers want, we have conducted two readership surveys in the last year and commissioned a focus group which operate at arm's -length of the newspaper. The focus group included 15 individuals from 20 years of age to 65-plus who were readers and non-readers alike. They were tasked to let us know the good, the bad and, well, the ugly, relative to our product. We heard and implemented some suggestions relative to those conclusions, and to a person, the paper served an important and vital role in the community.

You may also want to consider the Brandon Sun, as an example, is the best read newspaper in Canada with 79 per cent of adults reading the print edition each week. Compare this daily paper in centres such as Regina, 45 per cent; Medicine Hat, 56 per cent; and Lethbridge, 52 per cent. Southwest Manitoba is no longer served by local television, and then–and there are minimal new sources in the area. We are the primary source of news and notices. Corporate Canada continues to recognize the reach and relevance of our product. Giants like Bell, TELUS, GM and CN continue to utilize us to convey their message.

I could go on, but I think you get the point. In conclusion, I suggest to this committee that Bill 19 be amended to preserve the requirement to

56 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 publish proposed planning changes in newspapers. It is fine also have these proposals posted on municipal websites, but they only –but that only is not an effective way of informing the public about matters that may want to be aware of. Thank you for providing the time and listening to the various presentations this evening. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Mihaly. Mr. Wharton : Thank you for coming out, Mr. Mihaly. I appreciate the time you took this evening. And thank you for your social media updates.

I follow the Brandon Sun on social media, so it's interesting when I get tha t social media message come through. It's kind of interesting to keep on top of what's going on in Brandon, so I appreciate that work as well. Readership online –do you track readership online currently at the Brandon Sun? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mihaly. Mr. Mihaly: Yes–I promised myself I wouldn't do that either–but, yes. Yes, we do. Mr. Allum: Mr. Mihaly, thank you so much for coming tonight, and I assume you've come from Brandon, so I appreciate you making the trip down here.

You have two government MLAs in Brandon, so I want to ask you, were you consulted by government on this particular provision of the bill? And, secondly, have you had the chance to talk to your local MLAs and what their response has been to your objections about the provision in the bill. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mihaly. Mr. Mihaly: There again, twice, and I'll do it on the third time. Actually, not directly in terms of the government in your first part.

The second part, we have a coffee at our community newspaper–at the newspaper every Wednesday and that conversation came up, and we do have our MLAs attend to it. Mr. Gerrard: It seems to me that putting notices in municipal websites where few people are going to see them is a stupid move because it's a r ecipe for problems because people will just get upset when they find out after the fact that something's happening that they thought they should have known about and wanted to protest about. Do you want to comment? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mihaly. Mr. Mihaly: I waited, thank you.

Actually, you need a platform in terms of, you know, even social media or websites. You need a platform to build, to launch people onto that, and that would be a newspaper, so, and basically they need to find out that inf ormation that's there, but through your newspaper, they–if they, so willing, they can go to that website and learn more if they so wish, but they need a platform. Mr. Wharton : Back to my first qu estion, just to follow up, Mr. Haly [phonetic]. So, in readership online, what –the percentage you're tracking, what percentage of readership do you hav e online currently? * (20:10) Mr.

Mihaly: Actually, percentage- wise, that, you know, we've got, I would say, about 15, 20 per cent, 15 per cent, in that area. We're audited, so our online and our print is audited, as well as our free distribution weekly newspaper as well, so. Mr. Allum: The other part that's been quite contentious was, as I mentioned earlier, and has been stated quite a few times tonight, was th e contention by the government that they were simply not going to enact or proclaim these provisions of the bill. Is that an acceptable procedure from your point of view? Mr.

Mihaly: Clearly, through my presentation, that we're saying, just to –as I sugg ested in my presentation was that that's a portion that we're concerned about, there's–definitely. Mr. Wharton: Mr. Haly [phonetic], in your opinion, and of course, you're pretty aware of clause 25, does this take away the ability for RMs to continue to post notices online–or, in the paper? Mr. Mihaly: I would say–suggest it does, yes. Mr. Wharton : So further to that then, Mr. Haly [phonetic], what would stop the local municipalities, in their view, not to post in your local papers? Mr. Mihaly: What would stop them?

An Honourable Member: Yes.

May 9, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 57 Mr. Mihaly: This legislation. Mr. Wharton: Can you explain that further? Mr. Mihaly: Suggesting that they no longer have to post them in their local newspaper. That would be a suggestion of that municipality not to–if given the option not to do it. Mr. Wharton: So it is safe to say that we do respect the local municipal governments in our province. We respect the fact that they are elected by their local constituents. Certainly, they would be –they would obviously feel obligated to make sure they get the best message out to their community. Would that be correct?

Mr. Mihaly: I would hope so. Mr. Chairperson: Time for questions has expired. We will now move on. We thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Mihaly, and we will move on to the next presenter. Darwin Miller. Is Darwin Miller in the room? Darwin Miller will be moved to the bottom of the list, and called once the rest of the presenters have been called. We will now call on Ryan Nesbitt. Would Ryan Nesbitt be in the room? Ryan Nesbitt is not in the room. He will be moved to the bottom of the list, and called once the rest of the presenters have been called. Curtis Strut [phonetic] .

Would Curtis Strut [phonetic] be in the room? Curtis Strut [phonetic] is not in the room. He will be moved to the bottom of the list and called once the rest of the presenters have been called. Is Jay Strut [phonetic] in the room? Do you have written presentation for the committee? Mr. Jay Struth (The Killarney Guide ): I do. It's very brief, but. Mr. Chairperson: As soon as it gets distributed to the committee, we will ask you to proceed. Mr. Strut [phonetic], you may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Struth: Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members.

My name is Jay Struth, and I am the editor of the Killarney Guide in Killarney, Manitoba. I am here to state my opposition to the proposed changes to public notices in Bill 19, and to ask that you consider an amendment to

section 25 of Bill 19 to maintain the current requirement to publis h mandatory public notices in newspapers. If this government's actual goal is to enhance communication, as it states, then they're totally missing the mark. Manitoba's community newspapers are read by 80 per cent of Manitobans living in rural communities. And across all community sizes, printed newspapers are the preferred source for information about issues important to the community, including local government programs and initiatives.

If the government wishes to enhance com - munication then, yes, by all means, add the website component to public notices. However, removing the newspaper component will quite obviously not enhance communication, but negatively affect the public's ability to be informed. Thanks for your time. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your presentation. Mr. Allum: Thank you, Mr. Struth, for coming here tonight and for such a succinct and to- the-point presentation. I can see you're in the newspaper industry.

I was once a editor of a community newspaper myself, and I was the editor an d the reporter and the photographer and the layout. And so you're right. So you're pointing at yourself. I can tell you in that circumstance, my own–the editor was often very upset with the guy doing the photography and the writing, so I thank you for coming down. One of the things it seems clear to us tonight in listening to the presentations as well as to the minister's reaction is that he was quoted as saying that he would amend the bill, but it doesn't sound like that's actually going to happen.

Would you like to leave here tonight with an answer to that question? Mr. Struth: Yes, I would. What's the point of leaving that wording in there? I don't understand that. I don't understand why that wording was put in to begin with. It doesn't –it will not enha nce communication at all. I don't understand. Mr. Gerrard: Welcome here to the Legislature. I know you do a fine job of raising local issues,

58 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 9, 2018 including issues around Killarney Lake, so thank you for that. The point you make I think is a very good one, of the importance of awareness as a result of what's put in community newspapers. You probably provide some examples from your time in –with the community newspapers in Killarney where this has

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-3-sed3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 3rd hansardpdf sed3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0d33bb52031427df26c5ca8d48ab73c8eb151f6b

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).