Manitoba Committee Hansard — Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 5 (41st Legislature, 3rd Session)

41-3-sed5

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. 5 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, May 15, 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

85 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tuesday, May 15, 2018 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Dennis Smook (La Verendrye) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Len Isleifson (Brandon East) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Clarke, Hon. Messrs. Eichler, Gerrard, Wharton Messrs. Ewasko, Isleifson, Lagassé, Lindsey, Mrs. Smith, Messrs. Smook, Swan PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Ms. Ruth Pryzner, private citizen Mr. Joe Dolecki, private citizen Mr. Mike Teillet, private citizen Mr. George Matheson, Manitoba Pork Council Mr.

Andrew Dickson, private citizen Ms. Elisabeth Saftiuk, Manitoba Professional Planners Institute Ms. Accalia Robertson, private citizen Ms. Lindy Clubb, Mixedwood Forest Society Mr. Bill Massey, private citizen Mr. David Nickarz, Green Party of Manitoba Mr. Evan Rodgers, Maple Leaf Foods Ms. Frances Smee, RM of Rosser Mr. Matt Reimer, HyLife Foods Ms. Catherine King, private citizen Ms. Vicki Burns, Hog Watch Manitoba WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Curtis Struth, private citizen 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 Development please come to order. Our first business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Wayne Ewasko (Lac du Bonnet): I nominate Mr. Isleifson. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Isleifson has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Isleifson is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 19, The Planning Amendment Act (Improvi ng Efficiency in Planning).

As per an agreement between the House leaders, a set number of presenters were scheduled to present at each of the committee meetings called to consider this bill. Tonight, we will hear from the remaining presenters previously registered to speak on Bill 19. You have the list of these presenters before you. Presenters will be called in the order 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 must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause by clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of the committee. As per agreement between the House leaders, the committee will agree to sit past midnight if that is necessary to hear all scheduled presenters. Written submissions. A written submission on Bill 19 has been received from Curtis Struth , and copies have been distributed to committee members.

Does the commi ttee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider.

86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 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. As well, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another five minutes allowed for questions 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 also like to remind the 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 recording 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 in our –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 the 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 Ruth Pryzner. Ruth Pryzner? [interjection] Ms. Pryzner, as soon as your material is distributed to the committee, you will be able to start your presentation. [interjection] I think we may have enough–I'm not a hundred per cent sure, but what we'll do, we will start your presentation as soon as the copies that you did have are distributed, and then we can distribute the rest later. You may proceed with your presentation. Ms.

Ruth Pryzner (Private Citizen ): Bill 19 has nothing to do with improving the planning process for rural people and munic ipal councils who truly care about the quality of life and health of their communities, existing livelihoods and the environment. It is clear that the primary intent of Bill 19 is to remove the ability for rural people to influence municipal decision makers to reject and protect against the further industrialization of Agro-Manitoba livestock production.

It attempts to seduce municipalities into eliminating the conditional-use approval process for livestock operations over 300 animal units in siz e from development plans and zoning bylaws and all the accompanying local control and public protection provisions contained in The Planning Act. Bill 19 is designed to placate and promote the industrial livestock industry, in particular the hog industr y. The 2017 Manitoba Agriculture Department's internal advisory note 4(c)(1) provided to Cabinet leaves no doubt. The note identifies public conflict and public pressure as barriers to hog industry expansion. What to do?

Well, invite municipalities to give up the processes that provide local control and give the public a say in how they want their areas to develop. Why? Because the–as the advisory note says, 285 new barns to finish 1.8 million more hogs are needed to, quote, ensure an adequate supply of hogs to the Maple Leaf and HyLife Foods slaughter facilities, unquote. Why prop up an industry where finishing hog producers have lost money in seven out of the last nine years, according to the Manitoba Pork Council? The real intent of Bill 19 is not abo ut giving municipalities a fair say.

Once conditional -use approval authority is eliminated from development plans and zoning bylaws, the technical review process–such as it is –is also eliminated. Municipal authorities will have access to no information on the particulars of a proposed livestock operation. The y will make no decisions at all. To suggest that this gives municipalities a fair say and empowers them is disingenuous and false. I have yet to meet a person who wants to live next to a pig factory or industrial feed lot, other than industry proponents. E ven municipal councillors don't want them in their back yard.

Unfortunately, too many are willing to sacrifice the quality of life of others because they believe that

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 87 industrialization of agriculture is inevitable and they won't be negatively affected. * (18:10) Government is counting on municipalities to give up control, to meet the needs of Maple Leaf and HyLife food corporations. The public, too, will have no access to any information about a proposed industrial livestock operation, and will be denied the opportunity to evaluate the particulars of a proposal in light of local conditions and potential negative impacts on the environment, their quality of life, their farms, their source of water, and the law.

With conditional use eliminated, the pig industry, large livestock operations will no longer have to prove that a proposed operation will not harm the community, environment, ground and surface water quality, the land and natural ecosystems. This i s unacceptable. The conditional-use approval process for livestock operations provides a vital level of insight and oversight at the local level. It is a public process that enables rural residents and existing farmers to assess the compatibility of a proposed livestock factory, within the context of local conditions.

Most development plans and zoning bylaws contain general agricultural zone provisions. Few create zones that guarantee upfront that groundwater sensitive areas will be protected and surface water will be protected; that existing farms an d residential properties will not be negatively impacted; that natural areas, vital for wildlife and the protection of biodiversity will be maintained. They were designed to give municipal authorities too much discretion, predicated on the assumption tha t they would, in fact, be making decisions through a conditional -use process, on a case-by-case basis.

With the removal of this authority, rural areas are wide open for unfettered and locally unregulated industrial livestock expansion. The RM of Oakview council that was specifically mentioned in the Manitoba Agriculture's advisory note, found out how important public participation is. It was a member of the public, not provincial officials, who noticed and proved that the proposed site, suggested and defended by the engineer for the manure storage, was illegal. The livestock manure and mortality management's regulation prohibited the siting of manure storages on surface water courses.

Because Oakview followed the law and rejected the proposal, government changed this regulation last year. This site is now considered to be suitable and legal. The Province is handing over more control to engineers by reducing provincial oversight in the construction of manure storages. A scary red tape reduction model indee d. When I serve my community as a municipal councillor, I understood my responsibility to be as informed as possible and that good decisions in the public interest, not the interest of a particular industry or development, required public participation and solid evidence.

Bill 19 invites public –invites municipalities to abandon their duty to act in and protect the public interest. If municipalities buy into the Bill 19 plan, the only authority that the hog industry has to deal will be the Province. As hog industry promoters, provincial bureaucrats will continue to ensure that manure storage permits and water licences are granted in inappropriate locations. The secrecy of these processes serves the interest of the industry applicant, the engineers who work for them and the government.

All can escape public scrutiny and accountability, as application information is protected, as proprietorial business information under The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. During the last round of expansion, permits to build storages were issued in areas with high water tables, flood plains, and groundwater-sensitive areas. Marshes, wood lots, and native pastures were approved as manure spread lands.

Our community, only through persistence, was able to convince a provincial official to require an above ground manure storage, instead of a cheap earthen manure storage at a location rejected by our council. Approval of the cheap storage meant it would've been built into the water table. In another instance, of which I have personal knowledge, in the Killarney area, an earthen manure storage permit was approved in an area by the same official, where the water table was only two feet below ground on a dry year, because public participation wasn't as forceful.

With recent changes to the regulations, this will get worse. The pictures I've provided for you are spread lands, considered suitable in my municipality by provincial officials. Can you see the spread lands under the flood waters? The other page of aer ial photographs show operations approved in southeast Manitoba. Notice the flooded barns, overflowing manure storages, an

88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 obvious potential for nutrients to move off the sites into surface water. Provincial environmental regulations and manure management plans will not protect surface water contamination from intensive 'livetot' operations of all types. The over -application of phosphorus will continue. Science shows when soil levels approach 276 pounds per acre of soil-test-measurable phosphorus, it leaks out into the environment at exponential rates. Current regulations allow phosphorous loading to 828 pounds per acre.

To put this in perspective, the average annual use by Manitoba crops is 20.47 pounds per acre. Once loaded to the top- end of the regulat ion, it will take 400 years, if no more manure is added, for crops to deplete the spread lands of phosphorus. What happens in the meantime? Phosphorus leaks into surface waters that drain into Lake Winnipeg. This regulation has always been a recipe for sho rt- and long-term environmental problems, recognized by the Clean Environment Commission. It has to be changed.

Further operations can and have been approved when there aren't enough spread acres for crops to utilize phosphorus on an annual basis. Bill 1 9 makes it impossible for individuals to object to any changes to zoning bylaws by requiring 25 people to object instead of one person. And all must be eligible to election to a municipal council. The proposed 50 per cent rule is meaningless given the 100- metre notice requirement.

It deliberately excludes and violates the Charter rights of recent immigrants and permanent residents from objecting to any type of future development that may negatively affect their homes, farms and investments in their communit ies. Indigenous Charter and treaty rights are ignored. The bill erodes democratic rights, supplanting human rights with corporate interests and significantly impedes the ability to dissent. The municipal board are government appointees who rarely rule against the wishes of a municipal council or planning district, and Bill 19 gives– Mr. Chairperson: Ms.

Pryzner, unfortunately, your 10 minutes for your presentation has expired. I'll just let the audience know as well, whoever is up to present, that this is a one -minute warning, which I will flash to you when there's one minute left. So, basically, you know, that you'll know that you need to start wrapping up, so. We will now move on to the questions for this presenter. Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): First off, let me thank you for taking time out to come here and present on something that, clearly, you are passionate about, and, clearly, you have a lot of knowledge about.

Is there anything that you see in this bill that's worth saving, or should the whole thing just be withdrawn? [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Pryzner– Ms. Pryzner: Oh, sorry. Mr. Chairperson: I have to recognize you first. So, Ms. Pryzner. Ms. Pryzner: Absolutely nothing in this bill is salvageable, because it is a complete package designed to remove local control and silence rural people for the sake of the hog industry. Hon. Jeff Wharton (Minister of Municipal Relations): Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Pryzner. Good to see you again.

We met in Brandon during our consultation process a few months back, so it's nice to have you back here and, of course, presenting your concerns. Regarding your comments on environmental concerns, you are aware that the bill does not weaken any of the current existing environmental requirements, going forward. Ms. Pryzner: Well, for the record, when I met you at the, quote, consultation, I just happened to find out about it because it was for municipal councillors, not the publ ic. But somebody told me about it, so I decided to show up.

Secondly, this government keeps saying that the environmental protections that the provinces admit – the Province administers are adequate. They aren't. And I have a whole garage full of evidence to prove that point, at home. And so what this bill does is take–if municipal councils give up their local control, then the only thing that the hog industry or livestock operations are required to do is to get a manure-storage permit and water rights lice nce, and then file manure management plans under a phosphorus regulation that is polluting, and it's a licence to pollute for the hog industry.

We've see n what's happened in La Broquerie, Hanover; they're already overloaded with phosphorus under the current regulations. And a lot of the current–and a lot

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 89 of the regulations were amended last fall and weakened last fall. So, while this bill might not weaken them further, they were weakened last year and that is of great concern. * (18:20) Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you for coming and presenting and sharing the photos. My question relates to the photos on the first page, which show their spread acres, which, I think, is not far from where you live. It's two parts: You know, is this an area whi ch floods, you know, once in 200 years, or is that fairly regular–[interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Ms.

Pryzner, you must wait 'til I'm finished–the questions. Are you finished, Mr. Gerrard? [interjection] Mr. Gerrard, are you continuing with your– Mr. Gerrard: Yes. Thank you. In terms of an area which is flooded, what would be your recommendation in terms of which–where farmers should be allowed to spread? Ms. Pryzner: Sorry, I'm not good at following rules. So, anyway, those photographs are from an area in our municipality.

I was on the municipal council when all but –all of the council but myself approved the conditional use and those areas flood almost every two or three years, but they were approved by the province. The rules haven't changed and considered to be suitable by the technical review committee. Those areas absolutely must not be allowed to be used as spread acres in the future and we've, you know, we've got a problem. We've got hog alley in the Red River Valley flood zone.

We've got hog barns in the Interlake and there's all kinds of sensitive areas in my area which are not sufficiently protected in our development plans and zoning bylaws because it leaves it up to the council to decide whether or not they're going to require geotechnical investigation before a livestock operation could be sited on groundwater sensitive areas, for example. And, like I said before, there's ample examples of the provincial officials who issue manure storage permits, that they issue them in very bad locations because the regulations– Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your presentation, Ms.

Pryzner, but , unfortunately, time has expired for questions as well. We want to thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Joe Dolecki. Joe Dolecki, private citizen? Mr. Dolecki, once your presentation has been distributed to the committee, you may proceed with your presentation. Mr. Dolecki, you may proceed. Mr. Joe Dolecki (Private Citizen): Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Joe Dolecki and in real life I'm an associate professor and chair of the Economics Department at Brandon University.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you regarding Bill 19, a bill I encourage you in the strongest terms possible to withdraw. I formally request that the stuff that I handed out here, the written submission and the appendices be entered into the public record of these proceedings. In reviewing the provisions of this bill and the compressed timelines for its consideration, I was reminded of one of Ben Franklin's most profound aphorisms–quote: Fraud and deceit are always in a hurry. End quote.

There are, in my view, many things that are fraudulent and deceitful in Bill 19, but given my limited time constraint I will briefly discuss three of them. First, the bill is styled as, quote, the improving efficiency in planning act, end quote. The question here is: Who's planning? Certainly not rural municipalities and rural Manitobans served by the municipal governments. This is because Bill 19 seeks to eliminate local control over land use and planning decisions, particularly as they relate to intensive livestock operations and swine.

It seeks to have this control turned over to the provincial government, a government that is and has consistently been a promoter of the hog industry while masquerading as a regulator of that industry. In fact, Bill 19 is more accurately described as the pig factory proliferation act.

Its clear objective is to remove what is left of what the Manitoba Pork Council and its provincial government perceive as existing impediments to the accelerated construction of hundreds of new hog factories, which the industry claims are needed to service the planned slaughter requirements of two corporations, M aple Leaf and HyLife Foods.

90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 Obviously, if these so- called impediments are removed, the efficiency of the private planning process undertaken by these corporations for their own pecuniary benefit will be improved at the expense of planning in the public interest. Secondly, the sponsoring minister at second reading described Bill 19 as enhancing the government's, quote, commitment to fair say so as to, quote, better serve municipalities and industry. This characterization is both fraudulent and deceitful.

It is clear that when the minister says fair say, he actually means fair say for the hog industry and no say for the public, particularly those rural Manitobans who oppose pig factory expansion in their communities on environmental health and animal welfare grounds. In my view, Bill 19 is anti- democratic and extreme, particularly because it invites and incentivizes municipal governments to eliminate the conditional-use process in livestock operations and, consequently, extinguish the long-standing matrix of associated public rights under The Planning Act.

The conditional -use process allows munici - palities to exercise local control over land usage within their jurisdictions, and, in principle, it's a democratic and locally controlled public assessment and review process that, if all parties, and that includes the provincial government, act in good faith, leads to council decisions that conform to the requirements of efficient, sustainable and locally self-determined development planning in the public interest. If conditional use disappears, all of this would be lost.

There will be no public hearings; there'll be no local regulation and enforcement of hog factory performance, and, most importantly, it will no longer be possible for municipal governments to say no to hog barn proposals. In other words, fair say for the hog industry and no say for the public. Moreover, if a municipality decides to retain the conditional-use process, Bill 19 eliminates the requirement that hearing notices be published in local newspapers.

As the community newspapers association puts it, such a notice provides the opportunity for the public to influence governing bodies and allows the public to be an active participant in a democratic society. Bill 19 will erase this fundamental feature of democracy. In addition, if a municipality does say no to a hog factory proposal, the proponent is given a new right of appeal to the provincially appointed Municipal Board. No such right of appeal is given to the public, under Bill 19, shoul d a council approve a conditional-use application. So, once again, fair say for the industry and no say for the public.

Finally, and unconscionably, Bill 19 disen - franchises permanent residents such as me and rate - paying, landowning immigrants such as man y of my neighbours from making any objections to zoning bylaw changes. Notwithstanding the fact that I have resided in what is now called Riverdale municipality for over half of my life, under Bill 19, I am banned from objecting to any zoning bylaw c hange that may have a negative effect on the value of my property, the quality of my life or the well- being of my community.

Not only is this provision blatantly discriminatory and anti-democratic, in my view, it is a violation of the Charter. When combined with Bill 19's new requirements that 25 so- called eligible persons are necessary to advance zoning bylaw objections to a municipal board hearing, this means, once again, fair say for the hog industry and no say for the public.

In this context, I w ould note parenthetically that almost 80 years ago now, the government of the United States of America took my father, who just turned 100 in December, by the way –took my father from his home, put him in a uniform, sent him thousands of miles away from his family and his friends, gave him a Thompson submachine gun and paid him to kill people who, in my view, had a better understanding and appreciation of democracy than the authors and supporters of this bill.

Third, and finally, Bill 19 is based on the fa lse premise that hog factory expansion, which is desired to service the requirements of two corporations, is being constrained by excessive regulation and red tape. Question is: Why aren't there enough finished hogs currently being produced in the province to serve these–service these requirements?

The answer is suggested by the Manitoba Pork Council's own modelling data, which show that the industrial production of finished hogs is and has been money–a money-losing proposition with finisher producers having negative net revenues in seven of the last nine and eight of the last 10 years. Bill 19 is based on the fraudulent notion that by deregulating the hog industry –read: allowing it to further evade by cost shifting the full environmental and social costs of their operations –that their ledger

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 91 costs of production will fall to the point where finisher operations will magically become economically sustainable. This is a deception. * (18:30) The basic problem faced by hog finishers is that since the elimination of the pork marketing board by the Filmon government, they are facing a non-competitive market made up of two buyers. In economics, we call this a duopsony, and in Manitoba, it's arguably a collusive duopsony, since the two buyers, Maple Leaf and HyLife Foods sit on the board of the Manitoba Pork Council.

In this duopsony, the producers of finished hogs are price- takers. They are obliged to accept prices, and hence, revenues that are set by the duopsonists who control the market. The exercis e of their market power allows Maple Leaf and HyLife Foods to extract unearned economic rents, or what are sometimes called economic profits, at the expense of those who sell finishers to them. In a duopsony, the two buyers typically capture any reduction in the sellers' costs of production.

This means that the government's focus on permitting finisher producers to further shift a significant amount of their full cost of production onto the environment, the people who utilize the environment, and ultima tely the taxpayers of Manitoba, will not economically benefit finishers. Rather, it will benefit Maple Leaf and HyLife Foods, who will capture this benefit in the form of increased, unearned economic rent because they have the market power to do so. In fact, that's what Bill 19 is promoting.

The tragedy of this is that present and future Manitobans will be forced to bear this industry-shifted, avoided costs, most notably through land, air and water pollution and the attendant deterioration of health and quantity of life in rural Manitoba. All this in order to service the narrow, short -run, private pecuniary priorities of that coterie of special-interest stakeholders in the hog industry who inspired this bill.

In closing, I would simply say that, should you proceed with this bill, future generations of Manitoba will look upon those now assembled in this place who, by their support of this bill, would condemn Manitoba's environments, its lands, its waters, its people to the destructive vagaries of the s wine industry, and they will say, quote, yes indeed. Fraud and deceit are always in a hurry. Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Dolecki. Mr. Lindsey: Thank you very much for your presentation, and thank you for taking time to come here and share your thoughts.

I believe that we'll have to have a motion to adopt the appendices to his report as part of Hansard. Is there leave to do that? Mr. Chairperson : We have in front of us, from Mr. Lindsey, whether there's leave to enter this presentation into Hansard? [Agreed] Appendix A Extract from: Dolecki, J.F.

"On the Sustainability of the Bog Industry in Manitoba." Submission to the Clean Environment Commission, May 7, 2007. 4.1.1 Changes to the Planning Act In January of 2002, the Keystone Agricultural Producers in conjunction with various livestock producer groups submitted a document to the provincial government entitled "Joint Position Paper: On the Pos sible Implementation of Livestock Manure A.U. Recommendations. " i Peter Mah (Manitoba Pork Council) co-authored this document, ostensibly as a response to a proposal to alter the way Animal Units were estimated for the purposes of the LMMMR regulation.

However, the document went further than this. At page five, it summarizes the Pork Council's criticism of the Planning Act and provides an outline of the changes to this Act that the Pork Council desired: "The current conditional use ILO approval process allows for unreasonable pressure and influence from outside interest groups and persons who are not direct stakeholders in an ILO application. . . .

Many producers wishing to expand their farms or establish a new ILO f ind themselves having to invest significant amounts of monies to prepare a proposal, only to be subject to a long and public flogging, with uncertain outcomes that are based on political whims. . . . [T]here should be changes to provide more "certainty" in the ILO review and approval process. Detailed site specifications and zoning requirements should be established to enable intensive livestock to be a legitimate and "permitted" use in agricultural areas. ILOs that meet land use requirements and specifications should be able to be

92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 developed as a matter of right, subject only to meeting environmental resource conservation regulations. . . ." (Emphasis mine] Objectively, the Pork Council sought changes to the Planning Act that would allow, as a matter of right, virtually unfettered swine ILO development in rural Manitoba. It must be understood that under the then existing Planning Act, conditional use was a privilege, not a right. The Act was based on the (correct) premise that certain activities (such as ILOs) are, prima facie, incompatible with the existing pattern of municipal land use.

The purpose of the Conditional Use process–particularly the public hearing component of it –is to assess whether or no t a proposed activity actually is compatible (using the mandatory tests outlined in the Act), ii or can be made to be compatible (through the imposition of conditions). If the answer to these questions is no, then the privilege is not extended. It is useful to note that, under the Act, the burden of proof in this matter lies solely (and properly) on the applicant seeking the privilege of a conditional land use.

The applicant must prove that its activities will be--or can be made, through conditions, to be – compatible with the existing pattern of land use. The community does not have to prove that the applicant's activities aren't compatible.

In short, as noted in a document published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the then- existing conditional use process was, in principle: ". . . a democratic and locally controlled project assessment and review process which, if all participants act in good faith, leads to council decisions that conform to the requirements of efficient, sustainable, and locally self-determined development planning." iii -17- By 2002, the problem confronting the Pork Council was that communities in rural Manitoba actually began to approach the conditional use process involving swine ILOs in precisely the manner contemplated by the Planning Act, with the result that swine IW applications were being denied. iv Hence, the campaign to change the Act itself, which was subsequently intensified after a number of widely publicized hog barn rejections, including the KPA proposal in the R.M. of Daly.v In the spring of 2004, the provincial government introduced Bill 40, the Planning Amendment Act, which dealt exclusively with the ILO issue.

The stated purpose of Bill 40 was to provide the livestock industry with "certainty and predictability" in the ILO approval process. Even the most casual examination of the provisions of this Bill reveals that the government was seeking to alter the Planning Act in precisely the manner outlined in the Joint Position Paper. vi Bill 40 was subsequently withdraw n, as a result of province-wide citizen opposition.

However, shortly thereafter the government introduced and quickly passed Bill 33, the Planning Act, whose provisions are virtually the same as those in Bill 40, in respect of ILOs.vii Under the provisions of the new Act, almost all of the discretionary powers Council had enjoyed under the old Act have been substantially reduced, constrained and/or eliminated in relation to decisions involving Conditional Use Applications for livestock operations.

At the same time, the role of the provincial government, through for example the Technical Review Committee and its report/recommendations, and the courts, has been enhanced. There is a provision for mandatory 'up- front' planning and Livestock Operations Policies and so on.

Thus, the current Planning Act is nearly isomorphic with the alterations the Pork Council advanced in the "Joint Position Paper." Indeed, about the only discretion Councils now have under the new Act is the unfettered authority to reject an ILO conditional use application.viii It is important to note that it is precisely this remaining discretionary power that the Pork Council, at these CEC hearings, has been vigorously attacking, because it is the only remaining barrier to the unfettered development of swine ILOs, 'as a matter of right.'ix As suggested in the "Joint Position Paper," these changes covey significant economic benefits to the Hog industry.

This benefit takes two forms: risk minimization and siting/operating cost reductions. x While the importance to the industry of the former is obvious, the latter is actually more significant in the long run. This is because the imperative of the new Planning Act is to reduce the conditions municipally imposable upon ILO operations (the 'rele vant and reasonable' restriction) to those of the lowest common denominator --provincial standards and regulations. This represents a substantial regulatory subsidy to the industry, as it facilitates cost shifting to the communities wherein ILOs are sited. . . .

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 93 Appendix B January 2017 Manitoba Pork Council website Appendix B MPC website April 2018 Appendix C Extract from: Dolecki, J. F. :On the sustainability of the Bog Industry in Manitoba.: Submission to the Clean Environment Commission. May 7, 2007. 2.2 Sustainability and the Sustainable Development Act In Manitoba, the principles of, and guidelines for, sustainability are set out in Schedules A and B of the Sustainable Development Act.

Schedule A, which sets out a set of Principles of Sustainable Dev elopment, gives the "Preventative Principle" special emphasis: 4. Manitobans should anticipate, and prevent or mitigate, significant adverse economic, environmental human health and social effects of decisions and actions, having particular careful regard to decisions whose impacts are not entirely certain but which, on reasonable and well informed grounds, appear to pose serious threats to the economy, the environment, human health and social well-being.

Clearly, there is an implicit imperative here which, the Legislature has proclaimed, ought to form the basis of the approach to questions of 'development.' In particular, prevention of harm is to be the general organizing principle.

Schedule B provides a set of guidelines for the realization of the principl es articulated in

Schedule A. For the present purpose, Clause 1 of

Schedule B ("Efficient Use of Resources") is particularly important. It defines the legislative meaning of efficiency as: 1(

a) encouraging and facilitating the development and application of systems for proper resource pricing, demand management and resource allocation together with incentives to encourage efficient use of resources; and 1(

b) employing full cost accounting to provide better information for decision makers. Notice that in Cla use 1(

b) full cost accounting is required in order to determine whether or not an activity (here, ILO hog production) is efficient within the meaning of the Act. Clearly, the concept of 'efficiency' enshrined in the Sustainable Development Act is much broader than the popular concept, which is anchored in the notion of profitability, economies of scale, and so on. What the Act directs us to examine is whether or not an activity is "efficient" when the totality of the real costs of production are taken into account.

This question is fundamental, since the desirability and wisdom of having resources allocated to this industry and, indeed the desirability of the industry itself, depends on the answer. ******* 4.3 Hog Industry Cost Shifting As noted in 3.0 above, in market economies, if negative 'spillover' effects are present, the full costs of production activity will not be revealed to, and hence not borne by, those who engage in it. Rather, they are "avoided" or "shifted" away from the spillover generator, and borne by someone else.

This "socialization" of costs represents nothing less than a subsidy, whose magnitude is captured by

94 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 perpetrating agents in the form of lower ledger costs of operation. Some of these shifted costs are tangible, and others are intangible. However, they are all very real and must be considered when assessing sustainability, using the 'full-cost accounting' principle. It is my submission that cost avoidance and cost shifting are a necessary, ingredient, and defining feature of hog production in Manitoba. Indeed, in my view, without cost avoidance and cost shifting, swine ILO production would not be economically viable.

With it, the industry is not efficient within the meaning of the Sustainable Development Act. ************* 4.3.1.1 Emissions from hog production facilities: Odour Impacts It has long been recognized that emissions from hog production facilities have been a serious concern among residents in rural Manitoba. In

Chapter 10 of its submission to the CEC, t he Manitoba Pork Council considers this issue to be limited to the problem of odour: The expansion in the Manitoba hog industry over the past 20 years has been both rapid and dramatic. While this industry has brought significant economic benefits to Manito ba, some rural residents have expressed concerns regarding odours emanating from those facilities. The experience in Manitoba has been that complaints regarding hog operations have been extremely limited . . .

The most vociferous concerns regarding hog ope ration odours occur long before the facilities are ever built at public hearings held by municipalities as part of the process to grant or deny a development permit. Often the claims made regarding hog operation odours are overstated and are not consistent with the experience of rural residents. iii Thus, from the perspective of the Pork Council, hog facility emissions are a minor issue, something that rural residents ought to tolerate, given the economic significance of the industry. iv At worst, it is a problem of false perception, one that dissipates over time.

In economics, odour emissions represent an example of a 'spillover' or 'externality' cv, which arises because the process of production and consumption are interrelated. It is considered to be a negative externality since the capacity of an individual (the rural resident) to obtain expected (or previously achieved) levels of "well -being" through consumption activity (quality of life and enjoyment of property) is impaired by, and inversely related to, the activity scale of the odour emitter (the hog barn operator). Odour abatement would add ledger costs to the operator.

In the absence of abatement, these costs are shifted to, and borne by, the community resident. The economic value of this spillover cos t, i.e. the reduction in the 'enjoyment of property', is partially reflected in rural residential property values. One would expect that odour emissions from hog production facilities would decrease these values, as reflected either in sale price, vending turnaround time, or property tax assessment, with the magnitude of the decrease being related to distance and frequency of odour experiences. In fact, this is what is found in various jurisdictions in the U.S. and in Canada.

Thus, Weida v reports rural prop erty tax assessment reductions ranging from five to forty percent in five states for farms located around ILOs. Such reductions are significant, in dollar terms: [A] University of Missouri study released in May 1999 found that rural property in Saline County, Mo was devalued by $2.68 million dollars, or an average of $112 per acre for 99 property owners within three miles of CAFOs, or concentrated animal feeding operations.

They are also reflected in land sale prices: A study of 75 rural transactions near P remium Standard's hog operations in Putnam County [Missouri] indicated an average $58 per acre loss of value within 3.2 kilometers (1.5 miles) of the facilities. Similar outcomes have appeared in Canada.

Thus, in 2001, the Alberta Government Property Tax A ppeal Board reduced property assessments by 50 per cent for homes located within two miles of an ILO, and by 15 to 25 per cent for homes within a distance of three and one half miles. vi As noted, these reductions only partially capture the magnitude of the cost shifted to rural residents living in proximity to ILOs. Other aspects of "well- being" lost, such as the depreciation of social interactions in the community, are not reflected in these amounts. ************* 4.3.2 Environmental Cost Shifting

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 95 For the purpose of the CEC, the subsidy which is most connected with environmental sustainability is the pollution subsidy the hog industry receives, whose cost is absorbed by the environment and the people of Manitoba who utilize the environment. This subsidy arises out of the very nature of the swine ILO production process itself and, indeed, is one of the fundamental features that distinguish industrial operations from agricultural ones. The issue can be most succinctly defined in the following way. All livestock production units generate manure.

In agriculture, the livestock/land base ratio is sufficiently small to permit animal waste to be completely utilized as a crop fertilizer. Indeed, in agricultural livestock operations, the amount of manure generated is generally insufficient to cover the requirements of available cropland. Manure application in agricultural operations tends to be consistent with agronomic rates, i.e. applied in amounts consistent with what crops can use. Thus, in agriculture, manure is a soil amendment.

If applied at agronomic rates; manure serves to replenish soil fertility, which is required for any system of sustainable crop production. The situation is fundamentally different in industrial livestock production. Here, the livest ock/land base ratio is so large as to prevent manure from being completely utilized as a crop fertilizer. Indeed, the volume of manure generated presents industrial livestock producers with a waste disposal problem, arguably a toxic waste disposal problem. Consequently, these producers systematically over - apply manure relative to crop requirements.

Among other things, livestock waste applied in excess of agronomic rates becomes available for transport to surface waterways, with deleterious consequences. In heavy industry, utilization of the environment for the disposal of waste has long been recognized as a polluting practice, one that results in the degradation of environmental resources.

It has also been long recognized that such practice, if permitted, conveys a considerable economic benefit to the polluter, reducing (in most cases, substantially) the ledger costs of production. vii North American jurisdictions have attempted to address the problem through the development and aggressive enforcement of an ex tensive regulatory regime, from which traditional agriculture has been excluded.

I submit that the hog industry's utilization of the environment for the disposal of livestock waste is an industrial polluting practice, one that results in the degradation of our environmental resources, notably land and water.

I further submit this practice conveys a considerable economic benefit to the industry, substantially reducing the ledger costs of production. ********** Appendix D Research – Analysis – Solutions, CCPA Review Economic & Social Trends in Manitoba Fall 2007 A Pig in a Poke: The George Morris Center Final Report To Manitoba's Clean Environment Commission One of the more disturbing aspects in the evolution of environmental policy in Manitoba is the increasing reliance by public bodies on Industry Advocacy Research (IAR), rather than objective analysis, as the basis for decision- making. 1 A recent case in point involves the George Morris Centre (GMC), an industry -funded agri -food 'think -tank' based in Guelph, Ontario.2 Earlier this year, Manitoba's Clean Environment Commission (CEC) contracted the GMC as 'independent experts' in order ". . . to provide the latest research findings and advice to the panel. . ." in its ongoing Hog industry review. 3 The GMC has a history of IAR contracts with the Canadian Pork Council.

The specific issue tasked to the GMC was an analysis of the ". . . economic background against which the environmental sustainability of the Manitoba hog production industry can be measured"(p. 1). 4 In fact, the GMC narrows its analysis to the question of the "sustainability" of the alleged 'economic viability' of Manitoba's hog industry,5 relying heavily on a data- base supplied by industry promoters and interviews of " . . . industry leaders and gov ernment personnel in Manitoba . . ."(p. 1). The GMC begins with an overview of the evolution of Manitoba's hog production system.

There has been an accelerated growth of hog output, almost exclusively oriented to exportation, along with a dramatic decline in producer numbers. Intensive livestock operations (ILOs) dot the Manitoba landscape, particularly in the Southeast. After noting that "hog producers in integration has not only proceeded from the end product processors (packers) downward in the stages of production, but also from input suppliers (feed co mpanies) upward.

96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 An essential component of this has been the generalization of the "all -in, all -out" model, which shifts the bulk of the risk attending hog production to those hog production units under contract (p. 11). 6 These developments are celebrated by the GMC as being a quintessential cost -effective business model (p. 12). The transformation of the industry, the GMC observes, was the direct and deliberate result of federal and provincial government policy (pp. 12- 13).

Thus, the federal removal of the Crow entitlement, which significantly reduced hog production costs, was as a major 'catalyst to growth,' as was the hog price -boosting depreciation of the Canadian dollar, arguably a result of federal stabilization policies in concert with the actions of the Bank of Canada. At the provincial level, the elimination of single desk selling played a major role.

Here, the GMC makes the remarkable (and self-contradictory) claim (p. 12) that this action " . . . resulted in a more efficient and competitive industry . . ." characterized by ". . . larger and more specialized vertical supply chains or loops" (read: vertically integrated oligopoly).

In subsequent years, the government of Manitoba has provided ". . . ov ert support for the hog industry." This was crucial because ". . . it provided the simple message to the public of Manitoba that the hog industry is competitive and sustainable," and". . . it signaled to the hog industry players to get it done." This overt support, the GMC contends, was ". . . paramount to sustaining the growth achieved in Manitoba during the 90's and early 2000's" (p. 13).

As a result of expansion, the GMC notes that the economic impact of the industry considered as a whole (hog production plus packing) is now roughly $2 billion. However, only $.85 billion of this is attributed to hog production itself (packing is responsible for the remainder), since half of Manitoba's hog output is exported to extra- provincial packing operations and, as a consequence, the associated secondary multiplier effects (spin -offs) obtain outside the province, notably in the US (p. 16).

Moreover, the GMC estimates that a total of only 1382 direct, and 3394 indirect, jobs are attributable to hog production, with another 3713 direct and indirect jobs created in the packing component. The industry total (8488) represents about 57% of the number (15,000) claimed in recent Manitoba Pork Council (MPC) advertising (p. 15-16). The clear, yet unmentioned, implication is that job creation from hog production is minimal, and is hardly sufficient to inspire the re -population of rural Manitoba, as the industry claims.

Section 3 consists of the reproduction of one of the GMC's studies, commissioned by the Canadian Pork Council (p. 18). Here, a number of barriers to hog production expansion in Manitoba are considered. Chief among these are: (

a) US farm subsidy programs (which account for the decline in Canadian barley acreage relative to American corn acreage); (

b) the subsidy- driven initiative to develop corn-based ethanol production in the US; and (

c) the prospect of America's Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) requirements, viewed as a non- tariff trade barrier (pp. 19-23, 31). But, by far, the most significant barrier involves the protracted collapse of the US dollar, and the consequent appreciation of Canada's currency. The resultant decline in Canadian hog producers' gross revenue is described as "severe". According to the GMC, with a $.90 dollar, Canadian hog producers were losing $10/head (pp. 24- 25). Most recent estimates of producer losses, issued by the MPC (prior to the dollar's rise to $105 US), have ranged from $30-$50 dollars/head.

All this notwithstanding, the GMC advances the remarkable conclusion that the economic prospects for hog production expansion in Manitoba are "moderately positive" (p. v), and ". . . when the difficulties pass, Manitoba's model has proven it to be the best place to grow and move forward" (p. xviii). Apparently, this is because the source of future industry growth is through export market development, a suggestion that is reinforced by the manifest decline in Canadian domestic per capita pork consumption (p. 36).

To the GMC, this implies that "Canada has a greater stake . . . in export market competitiveness, by which is meant 'cost -competitiveness' (read: cost shifting/avoidance maximization). 7 In this context, the GMC identifies Brazil as an increasingly significant rival for pork export markets. Indeed, from a 'cost -competitive' perspective, ". . . Brazil's long term prospects are good," because of its ". . . improvement in productivity . . ., favorable domestic policies . . ., and a weakening currency" (pp. 32 -35). It also has a virtually non- existent environmental regulatory regime.

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 97 The mes sage in all of this is that the future of Manitoba pork production requires the maintenance of 'export market cost -competitiveness,' in which "environmental Legislation" is a 'key issue.' Hence, the GMC's fundamental piece of advice to the CEC: the Manitoba government, in designing a regulatory regime, must not " . . . unfairly burden the industry relative to other jurisdictions" (p. viii), such as Brazil. This advice is reiterated, albeit obliquely, in the GMC's discussion of the known negative environmental and health impacts ingredient in industrial hog production in

Section 6. These impacts are characterized as mere 'concerns,' to which, happily, both industry and government ". . . have responded with initiatives to reduce the risk" (p. 55).

After observing that "legislation and regulation have often been the principal policy tools used by Canada and its trading partners to achieve environmental objectives . . .," the GMC opines that ". . . as the challenges of the transition to sustainable production have become better understood and the limitations of regulations more apparent, the major stakeholders (government, industry and society) in environmental protection have begun to experiment with other mechanisms . . . ." 8 Of these, the GMC clearly prefers ". . . market based instruments, fiscal instruments, and a range of voluntary and non-regulatory initiatives . . .,"such as Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) [pp. 55-56].

The reason for such a preference is clear enough. Government regulation, when environmental protection is the actual and paramount objective, has (at least) the potential to prohibit, eliminate and/or seriously constrain environmentally unsustainable developments, such as ILO hog production. On the other hand, market -based, f iscal, and/or voluntary non-regulatory initiatives, wherein expansion and growth are the actual and paramount objectives, ensure the proliferation of environmentally unsustainable developments, while propagating the illusion of environmental protection.

The case of BMP's illustrates the point. According to the GMC, swine ILO operators . . ."have been using BMP to manage risk . . . for years." The question is, how many? The GMC cites a Manitoba Government survey, with a sample of 131 respondents, which indicates that" . . . 48.9% of hog producers surveyed . . . had partially or fully implemented manure management BMPs" (p. 56). Yet, three pages later, the GMC reports that BMP adoption by Manitoba hog producers under the Canada- Manitoba Farm Stewardship (CMFS) program was 178, out of a total of 1670, or roughly 10% (p. 59).

This is hardly an encouraging participation rate, particularly given the fact that the CMFS provided funding for the implementation of BMPs. Moreover, when adopted, the concrete effectivenes s, feasibility, and affordability of BMPs are speculative, as the GMC notes (p. 60).

Section 6 concludes with a comparative review of environmental regulation relating to hog production in various jurisdictions. This review is guided by the proposition that ". . . the number and strength of environmental regulations in a particular jurisdiction may be a reflection of the intensity of agriculture in the region and the resulting environmental problems that may occur'' (p. 63). Here, the GMC falsely identifies swine ILO production as an agricultural activity, not unlike traditional family farming.

The clear and manifestly false suggestion is that the environmental problems specific to ILO production are problems ingredient in agricultural activity generally. 19 The GMC linkage between regulatory intensity and hog densities (p. 63, p. 51) conveys the further suggestion that expansion of swine ILO's in low density areas (such as Western Manitoba) need not be accompanied by increased regulation (voluntary initiatives will suffice).

Objectively, such a suggestion is a corollary of the absurd proposition, advanced in various formulations by industry promoters at the CEC public hearings, that 'polluting industries can become environmentally sustainable simply by changing location.' Whether or not the CEC will rely on the advice offered in this latest example of Industry Advocacy Research is, at this point, an empirical question. However, one thing is clear. The degree to which it is relied upon will be a measure of the degree to which a special interest group, the hog industry, has succeeded in hijacking a public review process, by stealth.

Endnotes 1. Among other things, this has contributed to the subordination of the public interest to the special interests of industry stakeholder groups in Manitoba. For a succinct discussion, see Ruth Pryzner's Stakeholder Democracy (May, 2007) submission to the CEC. Available on the Beyond Factory Farming website.

98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 2. See description on the Canada Beef Export Federation's website. 3. See CEC website. 4. All references are to George Morris Centre. Final Report, Economic Analysis of the Hog Production Industry in Manitoba. (September 7, 2007). Available on the CEC website. 5. Among other things, the meaning of 'environmental sustainability' is nowhere specified in the GMC's Final Report, nor is there any reference to the provisions of Manitoba's Sustainable Development Act. 6. Maple Leafs "Signature Pork Program" serves as a classic example. 7.

For a succinct discussion of cost avoidance/ shifting and the meaning of 'efficiency', see my submission to the CEC, On the Sustainability of the Hog Industry in Manitoba (May 2007). Available on the Beyond Factory Farming Website, 8. It is useful to note that the 'challenges of the transition to sus tainable production' which have 'become better understood' are unspecified, rendering this construction incoherent. 9. The fact is that hog ILOs are industries that masquerade as agriculture.

In the final analysis, this is the fundamental (and intellectual ly honest) distinction that the GMC wishes to obscure. - Joe Dolecki Joe Dolecki is an Associate Professor and Chair of the Economics Department at Brandon University. Mr. Lindsey: So, thanks everybody for that. You've talked about the expansion of the hog industry. One of the things I want to ask you specifically was how would you as a citizen become aware that somebody is suggesting that they're going to expand their hog barn operation or start a new operation?

Or for that matter, how would you become aware that they are going to open a gravel pit in an area that may affect you? Mr. Dolecki: Well, typically, and this is the case in– because I've lived in a rural municipality –it's the local newspaper that publishes public notices on everything. And in my community, and for myself, that is the single most used type of method of communicating from the governments, from both federal, provincial and local governments of developments that impact –that will have an impact on the municipality and its people. So it's newspapers, local newspapers, weekly newspapers. Hon.

Ralph Eichler (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you for your presentation. You said in your presentation that you live in Riverdale municipality, and most municipalities have designated livestock areas. You focused a lot on the hog sector in your presentation. Is it all livestock sectors that you're opposed to or is it just the hog sector? Because I know in this past year we've had 12 new poultry barns built, we've had nine new dairy barns built and the municipalities have a right to designate those livestock areas. If the presenter would answer those two questions. Mr.

Dolecki: Under our zoning bylaw, they –there are designated zones for agriculture, for seasonal, recreational and rural residential and stuff like that, right. The difficulty that is experienced in –under our bylaw is that it permits, if you will, the citing of livestock operations, be it pigs, be it cattle, in areas that are –that may be and are to be –and can be determined to be water sensitive.

The purpose of a conditional-use hearing and the purpose of the conditional -use process is to, in fact, discern whether or not something is compatible with a particular area, given the– given its characteristics, given its requirements. And we have to keep that in mind when having any discussions about any possibility of eliminating that, because local–it's the– it's a local input into the process, the public input into the process that is crucial to making proper decisions. Mr.

Gerrard: Yes, the–you raise the concern, and I think rightly so, about permanent residents not being able to present at public meetings. Is there any precedent for this? This seems odd to me. Mr. Dolecki: What I said was, in the legislation, if you look at the

section that this is under, it's under objections, first and

section –second objections to zoning bylaws–changes in the zoning bylaws. I have, as well as number of people have, made numerous first and second objections to zoning bylaws in the past, because of an honest belief that they will have a negative impact on components of our existence. Here, I, personally, would be denied having the right to do that, to have it count for anything, because I am excluded because of my status of

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 99 permanent residency. I know of no other situation where that –in my knowledge and experience –no other situation, at least in this country where that's the case. There was that sort of thing in South Africa, but not here. And it's objectionable and I think it will not–it would not survive a Charter challenge. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dolecki, our time for questions has expired. We'd like to thank you for your presentation, and I will now call on the next presenter. Our next presenter is Nicole Kapusta from the Stonewall Teulon Tribune. Nicole? Is Nicole here? No?

We will move Nicole to the bottom of the list. Mike Teillet, private citizen. Mike? And could you tell me if I'm pronouncing your name properly, or could you please let me know what your –the proper pronunciation for your name is? Mr. Mike Teillet (Private Citizen): Go tell it on the mountain. No, it's actually pronounced Teillet. It's like Byfuglien. It's got too many syllables in– Mr. Chairperson: Teillet. Mr. Teillet, yes, thank you very much. Do you have written–then you may proceed with your presentation. Mr.

Teillet: So there is an anticipation by the industry that there will be growth in the hog sector, over the next five to 10 years, despite the number that's been bandied, about 285 barns. That is completely–I can't imagine how we could get a number like that where the Manitoba Pork Council is estimating somewhere between 50 and 100. Now, the changes to The Planning Act proposed in Bill 19 as they impact the hog industry are actually relatively minor.

They –there will be some removal of unnecessary restrictions that have caused some unreasonable delays and problems at the municipal level, but it is not removing any environmental restrictions and it isn't removing anyone's rights to do anything. I'm sure you're aware that it was always the processes in The Pla nning Act that were the main causes of delays in getting barn approvals.

Current planning process approvals can take more than a year, and Bill 19 actually won't reduce this time frame, but we understand that there are a number of actions underway that will assist in reducing some of those time frames. * (18:40) We are also aware that the government is working to streamline the TRC conditional use process system.

Manitoba Pork, I know, is fully committed to environmentally sound and sustainable growth and development of the pork sector, and while Bill 19 will introduce some improvements, we would like to continue to work with the government to introduce some additional, sustainable improvements into the system. We have met with both ministers in the past and we know we are anticipating some additional work to be done.

I would mention, just for clarification, that the provision for 25 residents or 50 per cent of neighbouring residents not being able to object, they actually will still be able to object, but they won't be able to trigger a hearing. And that does not apply to conditional uses and it doesn't apply to variances. So it only applies to zoning measures. So it really won't impact the hog sector since hog applications almost never require zoning amendments or development plan amendments. They're almost always conditional uses or variances. And in those cases, the same rules are going to apply.

I should also mention, there are –there's been discussion about over -application of phosphorus. The reality is in Manitoba that virtually every municipality in Manitoba is actually phosphorus deficient. There's been a study done on this which shows this quite clearly. The municipalities –I think there's only two municipalities in the entire province that actually have an excess of phosphorus. The conditional-use process under this bill will remain the same with the provisions of this bill. The only thing that's happening is that the 300 animal unit provision or threshold is being removed from the act.

And that probably should never have been in the act in the first place. It's an arbitrary number and it really makes no scientific sense. This allows municipalities–there was discussion from some that this is taking away authority from municipalities. This is actually giving authority to municipalities because they'll actually be able to set their own threshold with this. And I know the pork industry is actually a little bit nervous that the thresholds may actually get set lower by some municipalities. Already about a third of them have this threshold set at below 300.

And now that they will all be reviewing the thresholds, it is possible that they will continue–that some may actually lower them further. Our anticipation is actually most of them are going to leave it alone, that most of them will just say it's

100 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 good where it is, we're going to leave it a lone. So, in other words, nothing is going to change. The issue about groundwater protection which comes up over and over again –water protection and groundwater protection is well protected through the TRC and conditional-use process. This is a gruelling process. I've been to–just in the last week and a half, I've been to about five hearings, conditional -use hearings. These things take up to a year. The application alone is something like 28 pages long.

By the time they submit their application, it's over 100 pages in length. They have to get engineers, they have to get soil tests. They have to do a whole bunch of different things in order to get approval. And that's just to get to the point of getting conditional -use approval, just to get to the point of getting that local approval. After that, they still have to go through the permitting process and the licensing process through the Department of Sustainable Development, which is another whole series of processes that they have to go through, which is why it takes so long for a farmer to get approval.

And the–it is simply –it would not be permitted for anyone to propose a barn if –it wouldn't get even anywhere through the system if there was any threat of groundwater or surface water contamination or pollution. So just–my final point is that no environmental regulations are being changed in this bill. In fact, even the previous changes that were made by this government actually had very little impact on the environmental regulations.

The main thing done w as to remove the –what was referred to as the moratorium, but, other than that, the regulations are still the toughest, strictest, highest regulations – environmental regulations in North America. And, with that, I'm done. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your presentation, Mr. Teillet. Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Mike, for your presentation. Your comments in regards to the previous legislation was brought forward last year, in regards to anaerobic digesters.

Would you explain to the committee, in your words, how you feel about the anaerobic digesters and why it was brought forward by the previous government? Mr. Teillet: Yes, the anaerobic digester provision was–you know, I think there's sometimes a misunderstanding about what pig manure really is, what we're talking about. People equate it to be like human sewage, and it's not; it's completely different. Human sewage has–I mean, people pour paint down their sinks. They –there's all sorts of stuff in human sewage, so it's all kinds of chemicals and things. And so there's a totally different product.

The fact is manure does not need treatment –period. As long as you have enough land, spread acres, to put it in– to put it on in environmental and agronomic rates, you do not need to have treatment of manure; it's a myth. So the idea of bringing in an anaerobic –the requirement for an anaerobic digester, which costs – well, we were initially saying they were about $1 million each, but the –actually, it turns out they were quite a bit more than that.

But the $1- million version would actually be some kind of sale price or something, because it turns out that the ones that were installed were more expensive than that.

The–in places like Quebec, for example, where there was a requirement for anaerobic digesters as well, I believe seven of them were put on hog barns, six of them are no longer operating, and the reason is is because they get an initial government subsidy to put the anaerobic digester in, 'thence' they run them for a year or two, something breaks, it's a $100,000 part; there's no subsidy for that, so the farmer just shuts it off, because it's costing him money and they don't really need it in the first place.

So the requirement for anaerobic digesters were– was just not saleable, and that's why everyone referred to it as the moratorium, because it meant that no one could build barns. Mr. Lindsey: Thank you for coming tonight and thank you for your presentation. Now, you've said a couple of things that I want to explore a little bit more with you.

One is you've said this bill doesn't remove anyone's rights, but wouldn't it be fair to suggest that if people don't know that something is going to happen, that their right to object or support has, in fact, been removed– and this bill in particular does take away the ability for people to become informed, so, in fact, people's rights have been removed. And the other part of the question I have for you is you've said tha t, well, anybody can still object, but they don't get a hearing.

So, then, that would seem to be rather a waste of everyone's time if you can object but nobody cares, because you're not going to get a hearing out of it. Your comments on those two points.

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 101 Mr. Teillet: So let me answer the first question –or the second question first. The–on the part about objections, again, that's only on zoning bylaws. Hog operations almost never require a zoning amendment or a –some kind of change in zoning. They go through the conditional-use process and the variance process. That process is not changing. So the part about objectors, first of all, they do get a hearing because they can go–come to the initial hearing like this and get their initial hearing.

And my understanding is is that's only that second appeal hearing that is removed, and, actually, the Manitoba Pork Council doesn't really have much of –it doesn't have an opinion on that. We're not –we're kind of neutral on that proposal. * (18:50) Now, the other pr ovision you were referring to was–now I've already forgotten –it was the newspaper ads. Again, my–the only comment I have on that is that it's fairly well known that the ads in newspapers are mostly missed by people. It –they just–it's just a fact.

If you are looking for a legal notice for the Red River Planning District, for example, and it's on page 37 in the Free Press in a little corner like this, very few people see those and react to them. Now, having said that, again, the Manitoba Pork Council doesn't really have an opinion on this. We're kind of neutral on this provision. Mr. Chairperson: Our time for questions has expired, but I will allow Mr. Gerrard, because we've been sort of dragging–have a quick question and a quick response. Mr. Gerrard: On–Mr.

Dolecki raised the concern that permanent residents might not be able to participate as they have in the past, in certain areas. I wonder if you'd comment on that. Mr. Teillet: I guess I'm not really sure what he was referring to. The bill, as I understand it, says that you need to have people –25 per cent of area residents, which is residents within the municipality, I believe. So I don't –that doesn't have any impact on whether you're a permanent resident or not.

So residents within the municipalit y or 50 per cent of the immediate neighbours, so that means people that would actually border on the site, 50 per cent of those. Now, in rural areas, that can sometimes only be three or four neighbours, so it is –I guess I don't know why that would have a ny impact on permanence. Mr. Chairperson: We thank you for your presentation, Mr. Teillet, but we're running a little bit too far. Thank you very much. We will now call the next presenter: George Matheson, Manitoba Pork Council. George Matheson, do you have any written submissions for the committee? Mr.

George Matheson (Manitoba Pork Council ): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: We will–as soon as they get distributed, you may proceed with your presentation. From our first presenter, Ms. Pryzner, we have a–she didn't have enough copy, so we have made copies. So she has presented, so everybody would get a copy, and she was wondering if this could be presented in–or placed in Hansard. Is it agreement of the committee to put this? [Agreed] It shall be in Hansard.

Bill 19 has nothing to do with improving the planning process for rural people and municipal councils who truly care about the quality of life and health of their communities, existing livelihoods and the environment. It is clear that the primary intent of Bill 19 is to remove the ability for rural people to influence municipal decision- makers to reject and protect against the further industrialization of agro-Manitoba livestock production.

It attempts to seduce municipalities into eliminating the conditional use approval process for livestock operations over 300 Animal Units in size from Development Plans and Zoning By -laws and all the accompanying local control and public protection provisions contained in The Planning Act. Bill 19 is designed to placate and promote the industrial livestock industry, in particular the hog industry. The 2017 Manitoba Agriculture Department's internal Advisory Note 4C -1 provided to Cabinet leaves no doubt. The note identifies "public conflict'' and "public pressure" as barriers to hog industry expansion.

What to do? Invite municipalities to give up the processes that provide local control and give the public a say in how they want their areas to develop. Why? Because as the advisory note says 285 new barns to finish 1.8 million more hogs are needed "to ensure an

102 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 adequate supply of hogs to the Maple Leaf and Hy-Life Foods slaughter facilities." Why prop up an industry where finishing hog producers have lost money in 7 out of the last 9 years? The real inte nt of Bill 19 is not about giving municipalities a fair say. Once conditional use approval authority is eliminated from Development Plans and Zoning By -Laws, the technical review process, such as it is, is also elimi nated. Municipal authorities will have access to no information on the particulars of a proposed livestock operation. They will make no decisions at all.

To suggest that this gives municipalities a fair say and empowers them is disingenuous and false. I have yet to meet a person who wants to live next to a pig factory or industrial feedlot–other than industry proponents. Even municipal councilors don't want them in their backyard. Unfortunately, too many are willing to sacrifice the quality of life of other s because they believe that industrialization of agriculture is inevitable and they won't be negatively affected. Government is counting on municipalities to give up control to meet the needs of Maple Leaf and Hy -Life Food corporations.

The public too will have no access to any information about a proposed industrial livestock operation and will be denied the opportunity to evaluate the particulars of a proposal in light of local conditions and potential negative impacts on the environment, their quality of life, their farms, their source of water and the law. With conditional use eliminated, the pig industry, large livestock operations, will no longer have to prove that a proposed operation will not harm the community, environment, ground and surface water quality, the land and natural ecosystems. This is unacceptable.

The Conditional Use approval process for livestock operations provides a vital level of insight and oversight at the local level. It is a public process that enables rural residents and existi ng farmers to assess the compatibility of a proposed livestock factory within the context of local conditions. Most Development Plans and Zoning By -Laws contain general agricultural zones provisions.

Few create zones that guarantee upfront that groundwater sensitive areas will be protected, that surface water will be protected, that existing farms and residential properties will not be negatively impacted, that natural areas–vital for wildlife and the protection of biodiversity–will be maintained. They were designed to give municipal authorities too much discretion, predicated on the assumption that they would in fact be making decisions through a conditional use approval process on a case -by-case basis.

With the removal of this authority, rural areas are wi de open for unfettered and locally unregulated industrial livestock expansion. The RM of Oakview Council, that was specifically mentioned in Manitoba Agriculture's Advisory note, found out how important public participation is. It was a member of the public, not provincial officials, who noticed and proved that the proposed site suggested and defended by the engineer for the manure storage was illegal. The Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation prohibited the siting of manure storages on sur face watercourses.

Because Oakview followed the law and rejected the proposal, government changed this regulation. This site is now considered to be suitable and legal. The province is handing over more control to engineers by reducing provincial oversight in the construction of manure storages. A scary "red tape reduction" model indeed. When I served my community as a municipal councilor, I understood my responsibility to be as informed as possible and that good decisions in the public interest, not th e interests of a particular industry or development, required public participation and solid evidence.

Bill 19 invites municipalities to abandon their duty to act in and protect the public interest. If municipalities buy in to the Bill 19 plan, the only authority that the hog industry has to deal with will be the Province. As hog industry promoters, provincial bureaucrats will continue to ensure that manure storage permits and water licences are granted in inappropriate locations. The secrecy of these processes serves the interests of the industry applicant, the engineers who work for them, and the government.

All can escape public scrutiny and accountability as application information is protected as proprietorial business information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. During the last round of expansion, permits to build storages were issued in areas with high water tables, flood plains and groundwater sensitive areas. Marshes woodlots and native pastures were approved as manure spread lands.

Our community, only through persistence, was able to convince a provincial official to require an above- ground manure storage instead of a cheap earthen manure storage at a location rejected by our council. Approval of the cheap storage me ant it would have

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 103 been built into the water table. In another instance of which I have personal knowledge, in the Killar ney area, an earthen manure storage permit was approved in an area by the same official where the water table was only 2 feet below ground on a dry year because public participation wasn't as forceful. With recent changes to the regulations, this will get worse. The pictures I've provided for you are spread lands considered suitable in my municipality by provincial officials. Can you see the spread lands under the flood waters?

The other page of aerial photographs show operations approved in South East Manitoba. Notice the flooded barns, overflowing manure storages and obvious potential for nutrients to move off the sites in surface water. Provincial environmental regulations and manure management plans will not protect surface water contamination from intensive livestock operations of all types. The over -application of phosphorus will continue. Science shows when soil levels approach 276 lbs/acre of soil test measurable phosphorus it leaks out into the environment at exponential rates.

Current regulations allow phosphorus loading to 828 lbs/acre (180 ppm). To put this in perspective, the average annual use by Manitoba crops is 20.47lbs/acre. Once loaded to the top end of the regulation, it will take 400 years, if no more manure is added, for crops to deplete the spread lands of phosphorus. What happens in the meantime? Phosphorus leaks into surface waters that drain into Lake Winnipeg. This regulation has always been a recipe for short and long- term environmental problems recognized by the Clean Environment Commission. It has to be changed.

Further, operations can and have been approved when there aren't enough spread acres for crops to utili ze phosphorus on an annual basis. Bill 19 makes it impossible for individuals to object to any changes to Zoning By -laws by requiring 25 people to object instead of one person and all must be eligible to election to a municipal council. The proposed 50% rule is meaningless given the 100m notice requirement.

It deliberately excludes and violates the Charter rights of recent immigrants and permanent residents from objecting to any type of future development that may negatively affect their homes, farms and investments in their communities. Indigenous Charter and treaty rights are ignored. The Bill erodes democratic rights, supplanting human rights with corporate interests and significantly impedes the ability to dissent. The Municipal Board are government appointees who rarely rule against the wishes of a municipal council or planning district board.

Before drafting the bill, government had private meetings with industry and the Association of Manitoba Municipalities whose president and two vice-presidents hera ld from Steinbach and Morris – hog alley. It's not surprising they would support livestock industry expansion and not listen to the public like my niece who lived near Steinbach and as an 8 year old wrote a letter to government telling them about how smelly it was to live in the area and that it wasn't safe to drink the local water. No public consultations were held prior to the drafting of the Bill.

Nor were environmental or animal welfare groups asked what they think about expanding industrial livestock production. If this isn't enough, Bill 19 removes

section 1.1 of The Planning Act where multiple barns within 800 metres of each other and are sharing a manure storage are deemed to be a single operation. Why? Just in case some responsible municipalities and Planning Districts retain these conditional use provisions the industry can slip under the conditional use radar by building a series of factories under 300 Animal Units in size like they were doing before the Act was amended to prevent this. Another base covered. Indeed Bill 19 has covered most of the eventualities.

If municipalities choose to eliminate the approval process for industrial livestock proposals they will be admitting they don't care about what rural people truly want. Over the past 20 years, I've spoken with dozens of rural victims of the hog industry, many of whom wept as they told their story. It's undeniable that living next to factories and feedlots is not desirable. Most are stuck as they can't sell their homes and afford to move. One con versation sticks out. My daughter's 10 year old classmate was spending the weekend at our farm. All of a sudden, the play and laughter stopped. What's wrong? I asked.

Through her sobs she told me that she was so happy to be able to play outside without hav ing to smell hog manure. She told me how she was teased at school because, even when her Mom mechanically dried her clothes they smelled like hog feces. Smell for yourself she said, putting out her covered arm.

104 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 Indeed, her clothes smelled. No child should be forced to endure that. Two families were driven from that area. The hog factory was situated further than the minimum separation distances in the Provincial Land Use Regulation from her home. The livestock industry and government continually chants the mantra of leveling the playing field. Your government talks about transparency, accountability and reducing costs to the taxpayer.

Yet Bill 19 removes newspaper notice, invites the elimination of public and municipal scrutiny of livestock operation proposals and provincial technical reviews. It provides an appeal for the industry on a municipal authority's outright rejection of a proposal or the imposition of conditions and development agreements that require the livestock operation to absorb the true ope rating costs instead of making taxpayers subsidize the operation in the event municipalities keep the conditional use approval process. Bill 19 is pure hypocrisy and must be withdrawn. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Matheson, you may proceed. Mr.

Matheson: Thank you to the committee chair and to all MLAs for allowing me to make this contribution to the legislative process. My name is George Matheson. I am the chair of the Manitoba Pork Council. I am here today to speak in favour of Bill 19. Manitoba Pork represents the province's hog producers and the hog sector. The pork sector brings in approximately $1.7 billion into Manitoba. It employs about 13,000 people. The pork processing industry represents almost 80 per cent of the entire food and beverage proc essing industry in Manitoba and is vital to the province's economic well -being.

We export to over 35 countries around the world. Pork from Manitoba is considered to be among the best in the world. We therefore believe it is vital to Manitoba's future to ensure that our industry not only survives, but that it thrives and is allowed to sustainably grow. Since we anticipate that there will be growth in the industry over the next five -plus years, at least, it is important that unnecessary impediments restricting normal business practices are removed.

While the changes to The Planning Act proposed in Bill 19 are relatively minor, we nonetheless believe that they, along with some previous actions by this govern - ment, will go some way in removing some unnecessary restrictions that have caused unreasonable delays and problems at the municipal level. I am sure that you are aware that it was always the processes in The Planning Act that were the main causes of delays in getting barns approved. Current planning appr ovals can take up to a year or more.

Bill 19 will not reduce this time frame but will allow for some potential situations where local approval may not be required under certain, limited circumstances. We are also aware that the government is working to s treamline the process of the technical review, a conditional -use system. Manitoba P ork is fully committed to the environmentally sound and sustainable growth and development of the pork sector. While Bill 19 will introduce some improve - ments, we would like to continue to work with the government to introduce some additional, sustainable improvements into the system. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Matheson. Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. And we've heard so me concerns here tonight about the environment. Would you care to talk about what your industry's doing to protect the environment and to make sure that it's there and viable for the next generation coming forward? Mr. Matheson: Well, we've always felt, Mr. Eichler, that Manitoba hog process –or hog producers have had the strictest environmental regulations of any producers in North America.

Of course, anyone with over 300 animal units has to submit a manure-planning submission to government. There's only so much phosphorus we're allowed to put on per acre. There's only certain times of the year – November 10th to April 10th–that we can –or, I should say, during the summer, April 10th to November 10th, that we can apply. We can't apply during the winter months where the ground is frozen and there could be runoff, so we are protecting environment. Mr. Lindsey: I thank you for coming out tonight and sharing your thoughts with us.

Some of the things that we've heard tonight aren't necessarily specifically that this bill will change environmental laws or regulations, but what it does do is limits people's ability to have their voice heard when it

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 105 comes to some of these planning amendment changes. So, for example, it used to be that if one person was impacted by a change, they had the right to appeal, but now they have to round up 25 other people to support them before their voice can ever be heard that they might object to something. So, really, that begins to trample on their rights to the democratic process. That is part of what this bill puts forward. The other thing that it does is it takes away some of the notice provisions that presently exist.

It would require someone to actively now go searching for any notice. They would have to know what website to look and would have to go there every day to see if there's been anything proposed, as opposed to it being published in a newspaper. So your thoughts on those two provisions that affect people's rights, as opposed to just talking strictly about environmental rules here, if you'd be so kind. Mr. Matheson: Well, I don't think their rights should be restricted at all.

I would think that if the conditional-use threshold is turned over to the municipal governments, I would hope that the municipal government in tha t area give those people ample opportunity and ample time to prepare for these meetings. As far as the percentages and numbers, I'll defer to what the previous speaker said, and I agree with his stand on it. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, thank you for coming to present. We heard earlier on from Ruth Pryzner concern about spreading hog manure on land which is in a flood plain and regularly floods. Just wondering what the Pork Council's position on this is. [interjection] Mr.

Chairperson: Mr. Matheson. Mr. Matheson: If there's any danger to the environment in that area, then the manure should not be spread in that area–period. Mr. Lindsey: I just want to thank you for coming out tonight and making your presentation. I don't have any further questions for you, just thank you for coming out. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Matheson, and we will now call on the next presenter. * (19:00) Our next presenter is Andrew Dickson, private citizen. Once your presentation has been distributed to the committee, you may proceed with your presentation. You may proceed, Mr.

Dickson. Mr. Andrew Dickson (Private Citizen): I'm going to read the presentation and then I'll add some comments as I go along. So thank you to the committee Chair and to all MLAs for allowing me to make this contribution to the legislative process. This open hearing that you hold for legislative reviews is pretty important. Very few legislative assemblies in Canada do this. In fact, in the Houses of Parliament, actually –you're actually invited by invitation to make presentations, and so it's a real selective process. This is unique in Manitoba and we need to preserve it.

It's unfortunate the last two hearings we didn't –very few people actually showed up. My name is Andrew Dickson, I'm the general manager of the Manitoba Pork Council. I'm here today to speak in favour of Bill 19 and provide some additional c omments to those just shared by Mr. Matheson. We appreciate the efforts of the provincial government to bring a more balanced and fair system for approving livestock developments while still ensuring local control over the process within very strict provincial environmental regulations.

A key part of Bill 19 is the repeal of subsection 72(2) in the part of the act dealing with zoning bylaws. Essentially, the amendment removes the provincial requirement that livestock developments be treated as conditi onal uses within the zoning bylaws for areas designated for livestock operations. I want to emphasize this: the municipalities still retain the authority to prescribe and permit–or, to prescribe permitted and conditional uses for land and buildings in liv estock zones.

There are specific provisions in the act for different sizes of operations, depending on what the municipality decides to set as the con ditional-use threshold of animal units for which they will require a public hearing and a technical review by the provincial government. Planning districts will be asked to review the current bylaws and make appropriate changes to be approved by the Province in the next year.

106 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 The big question from our perspective is whether the municipalities will actually r aise the current threshold of 300 animal units. To do so would require a local public hearing, which could be controversial in many areas. It is likely that most will simply stay with the status quo. To provide you as members of the Legislature some context, a 300-animal unit pig finishing barn is about 212 feet long and about 88 feet wide. A 600-animal unit barn is only another 160 feet longer and 7 feet wider.

This is a more modern barn design and allows our producers to be competitive with similar barn s in Iowa and Minnesota. Most people would not notice the difference of another 160 feet if the barn is set off in the distance in a rural area surrounded by open fields or behind some bush. We hope municipalities will share our view on this matter. The proposed amendments do not change the conditions which could be used by a municipality to deny a conditional-use application.

The municipality can refuse an application if the council decided the proposal was not, and I quote, compatible with the general n ature of the surrounding area. This is

section 116 in the act. Now, I've worked with municipal councils since 1975 on different issues. I've attended and pr esented at over 200 conditional -use hearings on livestock developments. I've seen the RCMP brought in to restore order at public meetings, listened to councillors talk about death threats against them and their families, watched people hurl verbal threats from the back of halls, and so forth. But aside from all of that, I've never understood what is meant by general nature and I don't feel most councillors have a hard sense of what is meant by the term. So I looked up the dictionary.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines nature as the phenomena of the physical world, including plants, animals, the landscape and other features and products of the Earth, as 'topposed' to humans or human creations. This is in the act, this concept of general nature. I suggest to you that this clause essentially permits a council to deny an application for whatever opinion inspires them at that moment in time. Do we really think municipal councillors will ponder the meaning of the phenomena of the physical world while weighing the pros and cons of a hog barn in their community?

I think it is asking a lot from people who could be doing something else on a dark, wintery night. This is not the path to a rational, planned approach to economic development. My personal view is that it's time to look at a more comprehensive look at The Planning Act and provide some better clarity and what is expected of municipal councils in the decision- making processes. We can't continue to rely on some form of forlorn hope that sanity will provide–prevail, sorry. And those are my personal remarks. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Dickson. Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Mr.

Dickson, for your presentation. I want to follow up a bit on the environmental side of things again. That seems to be the –one of the controversial issues that we've heard here tonight in regards to the regulations. Of course, we know as a government we have the strongest regulations for spreading manure in all of the provinces in Canada. Would you be prepared to tell the committee tonight your views on the environmental impacts of growing–the livestock sector in general and what your organization's done to make sure the environment is protected? Mr.

Dickson: This is one of my favourite topics, as you've probably realized. There's a number of things that we do. There's three imp acts on the environment. So one is the actual physical structure of the barn and it's –where it's located in a community. So we have setback distances in this province. We have them actually–we've embodied them into municipal planning and so on so that se ts these things and put them in the appropriate places designated by the local community for livestock operations.

In terms of the–we've set up in this province a review panel that citizens can go to and talk about odours and those sorts of things because it's so problematic to deal with it in nuisance law and it's usually not addressed in environmental legislation. So we have a series of what were accepted farm practices that will reduce the potential for odour and its impact and dust and so on and its impact on the local community.

In terms of groundwater protection and surface water protection, the industry has –currently, we inject something like 85 per cent of all the manure in the province into the land, cover it up with soil. Once it's incorporated i n the soil, the phosphorus binds very quickly to the soil particles and becomes immobile within the soil. In fact, 99 per cent of

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 107 phosphorus becomes immobile within a year in the soil. So the issue is nitrogen. So we put nitrogen on at the key rates that are expected by a crop to be able to grow in one year and then we'd rotate the fields from–every third year the fields get rotated because we don't want to build up the level of phosphorus in the soils.

We have a surface water problem in this province w here we have a certain amount of phosphorus that leaches out of the soil naturally into the surface water in springtime and because the huge area of the Lake Winnipeg watershed –it goes all the way to Calgary–a certain amount of phosphorus will end up from time to time in the lake , and in fresh water phosphorus is a problem. In very low rates you can create great algal blooms. No one denies this. So there's a major effort going on in agriculture in try to figure out how to hold back the surface water on th e land through different ways of –in the springtime.

And we will play a key role in that as an industry. So we've supported all kinds of organizations. We support, for example, the boat that goes out into Lake Winnipeg that takes water samples and so on. We've supported all kinds of other organizations at the university and at the national level through research to try and come up with even better techniques to reduce our impact on the environment. And, of course, the next big one is our carbon footprint. So we're doing things like we're reducing the amount of feed that we need to produce a pound of grain.

We're relocating our operations closer to where the grain is grown so we use less fuel and the new barns will be properly insulated so that we use less heat so we can use the animal heat to generate– keep them warm and so on in their environment. So we are doing major activities. We think we're a leader in this area in terms of our impact on the environment. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for coming in and presenting and providing advice to us. One of the concerns that was raised by Mr.

Dolecki had to do with people who are permanent residents and I think that he was referring to the fact that it appears that the permanent residents can't be a part of the 25 people who would raise an objection. They have–they would be excluded, and I just wondered whether–has this historically been the case or is this a new approach? Mr. Dickson: I am not familiar with this part of the legislation. Like, my understanding was permanent residence is a form of citizenship , so I don't understand what the issue is. * (19:10) Mr. Lindsey: Thank you for coming in and making your presentation tonight.

Now, some of the things that we've talked about earlier were the fact that some of the provisions in this particular bill may, in fact, impact individuals ' and people's ability to voice their concerns, one of which is the provision in the act that allows notices to no longer be published in newspapers, just online somewhere. The other thing that really will impact individuals is that they have to round up 25 people now to support them,

whereas whoever's suggesting to expand the hog barn or put a new hog barn doesn't have to meet that same requirement. And the other thing that impacts pe ople's ability is, in the appeal process, that if the individual loses or is not successful– Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lindsey, we are over the five minutes. I've asked you to kind of speed it up, so we can quickly get it done. Mr. Lindsey: Certainly. So they' re not allowed to appeal,

whereas, if the person making the submission is not successful, they are allowed to appeal. So I'd like your comments on how you think this bill fairly allows people to have their democratic say in the process. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dickson, I'll allow you to do a quick answer, because we are at over six minutes. Mr. Dickson: There is three questions asked, I think. So one is on the notification.

It should be pointed out that within a –I'm going to say five - kilometre radius, eve ry household has to be notified at a conditional-use hearing by mail, and so that they know that this event will–there's going to be a public hearing that something will affect them directly; (2) on the appeal –well, the 25 per cent thing is to deal with z oning by -law amendments. It's nothing to do with conditional use. Any individual can show up at a conditional -use hearing and state their issues. Whether they're listened to or not by the council is up to the council.

A nd, thirdly, in terms of representation at the appeal hearing, I would suspect that the municipal council would want to be at the appeal hearing, because they're the ones

108 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 who made the decision as to why the appeal is coming to the appeal body, and I always thought municipal councils we re the democratically elected representatives of the people, and, if the council doesn't show up to support their decision at the appeal hearing, then, obviously, it's not fair. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Dickson, for your presentation and your answers to the questions. We will now call on Kim Langen. Is Kim Langen present? Kim Langen will be moved to the bottom of the list. Debra Brezden? Would Debra Brezden be present?

Debra Brezden will be moved to the bottom of the list. Elisabeth Saftiuk? Elisabeth? You may proceed with your presentation, Ms. Saftiuk. Ms. Elisabeth Saftiuk (Manitoba Professional Planners Institute): Thank you. Mr. Chairperson and committee members, good evening and thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Bill 19, The Planning Amendment Act.

My name is Elisabeth Saftiuk , and I am the executive director of the Brandon Downtown Development Corporation, but I am also a planner, having gone through the graduate program at the University of Manitoba, and I also serve on the council of the Manitoba Professional Planners Institute, and it is in that capacity that I am before the committee this evening. My presentation is made on behalf of the Manitoba Professional Planners Institute, also known as MPPI, whic h is the governing body mandated under The Registered Professional Planners Act to regulate and represent professional planners in Manitoba.

Acknowledging that MPPI is not exactly a household name, I would like to begin with a brief description of the prof essional practitioners that MPPI represents and their role in planning and development in our province.

To earn the designation of a registered professional planner, which is abbreviated as RPP, and to become a full member of the Manitoba Professional Pl anners Institute, a candidate must: complete an accredited university program in planning; acquire at least two years of supervised, documented professional experience; and pass a national examination that tests understanding of planning principles and pr ofessional ethics and standards of conduct. To maintain the RPP designation, our members must complete at least 18 hours of documented, continuous professional learning every year.

RPPs are involved in planning in Manitoba in a wide variety of roles. Some work in staff positions in municipalities or with the provincial government; preparing development plans and zoning bylaw amendments; reviewing subdivision rezoning and development applications as well. Some work for non- profit organizations, such a s downtown development corporations. Some work for the private sector in consulting firms.

Those planners who work in the private sector undertake a wide range of planning projects, including subdivision rezoning and development applications for developers, policy studies and public consultations for municipalities, and land selection studies and resource -management plans for First Nations communities. Moreover, registered professional planners are also faculty members in the city planning program at the University of Manitoba, one of the longest established accredited planning programs in the country.

All of our members, regardless of their specific roles, are committed to improving planning processes and outcomes in Manitoba for all concerned, and MP PI is pleased to have the opportunity to provide input on the proposed amendments related to improving efficiency and planning as outlined in Bill 19. The comments that we are presenting this evening on behalf of MPPI have been approved by the institute's council, and we believe they represent a consensus view that would be shared by the great majority of the institute's members in all their varied roles.

In our comments, we have largely refrained from recommending whether a specific provision should be adopted, amended or rejected, and have focused instead on providing general comments that we hope will help to inform the committee's deliberations on the bill. Our comments fall under three main headings: the role of professional planners in preparing development plans; the proposed changes with

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 109 respect to public hearings; and finally, the legislative review process in general. Dealing firstly with the role of registered professional planners in preparing development plans, we note that

section 4 of the bill would amend the existing requirement that a board or council preparing a development plan consult with a qualified land-use planner to specify instead that the council must consult with a registered professional planner or an RPP. This change supports Manitoba's recently adopted Registered Professional Planners Act, and aligns with the standards in neighbouring jurisdictions, which also recognize the RPP designation. It ensures that communities will have appropriately qualified professionals to support their planning processes.

MPPI applauds this very positive step, which truly will modernize planning, legislation and practice in our province. Turning now to the changes proposed in the bill regarding public hearings, we note that the bill would introduce a numerical threshold for second hearings on zoning bylaw amendments, and would repeal the requirements to provide notice of public hearings in newspapers and on posted signs.

Regarding second hearings on rezoning bylaws, the bill specifies that a second hearing would only occur if at least 25 voters or 50 per cent of property owners within 100 metres of the subject property objected at the initial public hearing and filed a second objection. While we recognize the need to prevent frivolous or vexatious objections, the Manitoba Professional Planners Institute has some concern about relying solely on hard quantitative cut -off. Perhaps quality should be cons idered as well as quantity.

For example, should thoughtful individual objections from 24 people carry less weight than 25 signatures on a petition? Similarly, should the concerns of immediately abutting property owners not carry more weight? The propose d numerical threshold could also raise some practical problems of

interpretation. For example, would a petition with 25 signatures count as one objection, or would it count as 25? Would 25 separate but identically worded letters be considered as one objection or would it count as 25? Implementation details like these could presumably be resolved through regulations under The Planning Act. However, it is our recommendation that issues such as these be addressed before the proposed bill becomes law. Regarding the requirements for notice of public hearings in newspapers and on posted signs,

section 25 of the bill specifies that neither a newspaper notice nor any posted signs would be required if a notice of hearing were posted on the municipality's website for at least 27 days. While recognizing the reach of electronic communications, we would note that relying solely on a website notice imposes an onus on the public to initiate a search for an event they do not yet know about.

Removing the requirement to post signs on site could particularly have a negative effect, as they are an effective and inexpensive means of notifying the public of site-specific proposals. * (19:20) MPPI would recommend that the committee carefully consider the implications of changes proposed in Bill 19, with respect to public hearings and weigh the risk of unintended consequences in terms of curtailing the rights of the public to receive adequate notice and have a reasonable opportunity to provide comments on developments that concern them.

In addition, regardless of whether the changes outlined in Bill 19 are adopted as currently drafted, or in some modified form, we would recommend that a review be conducted after a year or two to assess how well the new provisions are working, to address any unintended consequences and to develop further refinements as deemed appropriate.

Finally, turning to the legislative review process in general, the Manitoba Professional Planners Institute feels, as the body governing and representing professional planners in Manitoba, that we can and should be more actively engaged in the process whenever changes to the legislative framework and governing planning in our province is being contemplated.

Going forward, MPPI would very much like to esta blish a protocol or even possibly a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Municipal Relations to provide for ongoing dialogue between our institute and the department regarding future legislative changes. With the experience that our members have working as professional advisers to all participants and stakeholders in the planning and development process in Manitoba, we can make constructive

110 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 15, 2018 contributions to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of planning in our province. In closing, Mr. Chairperson, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development for their time this evening and for the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of the Manitoba Professional Planners Institute. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Saftiuk. Mr. Lindsey: First off, let me thank you for taking time to come and present to us this evening.

Certainly, you've presented some different takes on some of the concepts that we've talked about earlier, with the requirements for 25 voters to be required before somebody could mount a challenge to some of these things and the absence of the requirement to post things on newspapers. All of these things, it's been suggested, by myself, I guess, but by other presenters on other nights, that this will really impact people's a bility to oppose or speak or have their democratic rights heard.

Would you, then, suggest or think that perhaps maybe the government should just hold off on this legislation and really consult with your group, or listen to some of the things that have be en proposed here, before going ahead with this legislation? Would it be a good idea to try and further explore some of the things that you've talked about there, before proceeding? Ms. Saftiuk: Representing the Manitoba Professional Planners Institute this evening, surely, the institute would welcome the opportunity to have some dialogue with the government, as it relates to the items that impact public interest.

Specifically, as planners, we have an overarching responsibility to serve the public interest. It's right in our CIP code of conduct, and there are two items that identify the minimum standards that planners must face. One is members shall practice in a manner that respects the diversity, needs, values and aspirations of the public and encourages discussion on these matters. Another item is that members shall provide opportunities for meaningful participation and education in planning– in the planning process to all interested parties.

And the reason I raise those is, as I mentioned, although we unde rstand that there is a need to improve efficiency in planning and perhaps avoid frivolous objections, that it is very important that we respect the right of the public to be heard on development issues that impact them–whether it's directly, through an adjacent property, or for issues that impact them in their municipalities. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, we heard Mr.

Dolecki earlier on talk about the fact that people who are residents , landowners, but are permanent residents rather than citizens, would not be able to be included in the 25 people who would be able to bring forward an objection. I'm just wondering if there's precedent for that approach in planning–making planning decisions in other areas? Ms. Saftiuk: I'm certainly not aware of any precedent. I don't believe I necessarily qualify to answer that question.

However, with further dialogue with our institute, surely, we have planners with tremendous experience in land- use planning that might be able to provide some insight in that regard. But, at the end of the day, if that is an 'undetendin' consequence of this legislation, that there are people who might be impacted by proposed changes who are not given an opportunity to be heard, that w ould be a serious concern of the institute. Mr. Wharton : Thank you, Ms.

Saftiuk, for your presentation tonight and the effort that has gone into this presentation, I really appreciate, and I know the board appreciates, the effort that you put into this proposal tonight. Again, and even in my municipal days when I served on council, I had the opportunity to work with our planner, our local planner, in our community, and I can appreciate the hard work that they do, going from site to site and ensuring that things are done appropriately –when somebody engages, moves into somebody's yard by two feet and how much work that can cause not only the planner but the community.

So I really appreciate that. More so a comment, that I'm also looking forward to hopefully hooking up with the planners this July and coming out and meeting more of you folks as well and engaging more on that. So, again, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Saftiuk, do you have a response to that, or? Ms. Saftiuk: Look forward to having you at the conference as well. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. We will now call on the next presenter, Accalia Robertson. Accalia?

May 15, 2018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 111 Do you have any written material for the committee? Ms. Accalia Robertson (Private Citizen): I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Then you may proceed with your

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-3-sed5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 3rd hansardpdf sed5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3ce515eb6b5c82b60ff46c2823557e7be57cbdd2

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