Manitoba Committee Hansard — 13 June 2011 (Social and Economic Development Committee, Sitting 6, 39th Legislature, 5th Session)

39-5-sed6

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development Chairperson Mr. Daryl Reid Constituency of Transcona Vol. LXIII No. 6 - 6 p.m., Monday, June 13, 2011 ISSN 1708-6698

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Ninth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BLAIKIE, Bill, Hon. Elmwood N.D.P. BOROTSIK, Rick Brandon West P.C. BRAUN, Erna Rossmere N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. BRIESE, Stuart Ste. Rose P.C. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P.

DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MARCELINO, Flor, Hon. Wellington N.D.P.

MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin, Hon. Southdale N.D.P. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon.

Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas N.D.P. WIEBE, Matt Concordia N.D.P. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P. Vacant Inkster Vacant Lac du Bonnet

119 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Monday, June 13, 2011 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Blaikie, Chomiak, Hon. Ms. Melnick, Hon. Messrs. Rondeau, Struthers Messrs. Cullen, Gr aydon, Maguire, Nevakshonoff, Reid, Schuler Substitutions: Mr. Wiebe for Hon. Mr. Chomiak at 10:37 p.m. APPEARING: Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Mr.

Doug Chorney, Keystone Agricultural Producers Mr. Peter Marykuca, private citizen Mr. Cam Dahl, Manitoba Beef Producers Mr. Weldon Newton, private citizen Mr. Greg Bruce, Ducks Unlimited Canada Mr. Robert T. Kristjanson, private citizen Ms. Lois Wales, Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union Mr. Kristian Stephens, Canadian Fertilizer Institute Mr. Allan Kristofferson, Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium Ms. Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles, private citizen Ms. Eva Pip, private citizen Ms. Vicki Burns, private citizen Mr. Josh Brandon, Green Action Centre Mr. Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr.

Don Flaten, National Centre for Livestock and the Environment, University of Manitoba Mr. Scott Fielding, City of Winnipeg Mr. James Beddome, Green Party of Manitoba Ms. Caitlin McIntyre, private citizen Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns, Manitoba Wildlands Mr. David Mackay, private citizen Mr. Greg McIvor, private citizen Mr. Ross Eadie, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Donald Cobb, Lake Winnipeg Foundation F.

Phillip Abrary, Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies Gail Kreutzer, private citizen John Fefchak, private citizen Henry David Venema, International Institute for Sustainable Development Karl Kynoch, Manitoba Pork Council Roger Ritsema, private citizen Joe Leschyshyn, private citizen Ruth Pryzner, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 46–The Save Lake Winnipeg Act * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Monique Grenier): Good Evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with its business before it, it must elect a new Chairperson.

Are there any nominations? Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Healthy Living, Youth and Seniors): I would like to nominate Mr. Reid as Chair. Clerk Assistant: Mr. Reid has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Reid, will you please take the Chair? Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, folks. Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations for Vice-Chairperson? Mr. Rondeau: I would like to nominate Mr. Nevakshonoff, please, as Vice-Chair.

120 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Nevakshonoff has been nominated as Vice-Chairperson. Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Nevakshonoff is elected as the Vice-Chairperson of this committee. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 46, the save Winnipeg act. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment.

Except by unanimous consent, a standing committee meeting to consider a bill in the evening must not sit past midnight to hear presentations unless fewer than 20 presenters are registered to speak to all bills being considered when the committee meets at 6 p.m. As of this evening, 6 p.m. this evening, there were 92 presenters registered to speak to this bill, and therefore, according to our rules, the committee may not sit past midnight to hear presentations.

I would also like to add that it is previously announced that the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development will meet again, if necessary, Tuesday, June 14th at 6 p.m. to consider Bill 46. How late does the committee wish to sit this evening? Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): I think if you canvass the table, you would find that there's agreement to not see the clock at 12 midnight and hear more presentations after 12 midnight. It's–I think our House leaders have spoken on this and have agreed to the request. Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Agreed. Mr.

Chairperson: It's agreed that this committee will continue to hear all the presentations from those folks that are with us here this evening? [Agreed] That would include sitting past midnight. Okay, thank you. As you will see from the list of presenters before each of the committee members here, we have quite a number of people registered to speak this evening, some who are listed as out-of-town presenters, and these individuals are indicat ed by an asterisk on the sheet before you. In what order does the committee wish to hear presentations? Mr. Maguire: Out-of-town first. Mr.

Struthers: I'd recommend we hear from out-of- town presenters first. Mr. Chairperson: It's been recommended that we hear out-of-town presentations first. Mr. Maguire: I would agree. * (18:10) Mr. Chairperson: Is it agreed the committee will hear out-of-town presentations first? [Agreed] Okay. Thank you. Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information for the committee to consider.

First of all, if there is anyone else in attendance in the audience here this evening who would like to make a presentation, please register with the staff at the entrance to this committee room and we'll add your name to the list. Also, for the information of presenters here with us this evening, while written presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written material, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need assistance with photocopying, see our staff at the entrance to this room and we'll assist you in that regard.

As well, I would like to inform the presenters with us this evening that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for our presentations with an additional five minutes for questions from the various committee members here this evening. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, their name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, their name will be removed from the list of presenters.

We have a number of written submissions for the committee to consider for Bill 46, and we have received written submissions from the following persons and have already previously been, I believe, distributed to committee members here this evening: Donald Cobb, Lake Winnipeg Foundation; F. Phillip Abrary, Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies; Gail Kreutzer, private citizen; John Fefchak, private citizen; Henry David Venema, International Institute for Sustainable Development; Karl Kynoch,

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 121 Manitoba Pork Council; Roger Ritsema, private citizen; and Joe Leschyshyn, private citizen. Does the committee agree to have these presentations included in the Hansard transcript of these meetings this evening? [Agreed] Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in the committee here this evening. These proceedings of this meeting are recorded verbatim and the transcript will be a part of these proceedings.

Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA on either side of the table, or a presenter at the podium here this evening, I have to first, as Chairperson, indicate the name of the person wishing to speak and that's a signal for the good folks sitting behind me to turn your microphones on and off. Thank you for your patience and we'll now proceed with public presentations. Bill 46–The Save Lake Winnipeg Act Mr. Chairperson: First out-of-town presenter I have listed to speak is Doug Chorney, Keystone Agricultural Producers. Good evening, Mr. Chorney. Mr.

Doug Chorney (Keystone Agricultural Producers): Good evening. Mr. Chairperson: Welcome. Do you have a written presentation, sir? Mr. Chorney: I do. Mr. Chairperson: Just give us a moment to distribute, then I'll give you the signal to proceed. Please proceed, Mr. Chorney, when you're ready, sir. Mr. Chorney: Good evening. My name is Doug Chorney. I am president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, Manitoba's largest general farm policy organization, representing over 7,000 farm families across the province and 22 commodity groups.

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present Bill 46, The Save Lake Winnipeg Act. We all know that water quality and water management are serious and complex issues for Manitoba. There are substantial benefits from our water resources, such as hydroelectric power generation, but we must first deal with excess moisture and flooding. This year we have seen the devastating impact water can have on the landscape, including farm families and their operations.

Nearly 40 per cent of the province's cropland is likely to go unseeded this year due to excess moisture and the impact of flooding on cattle and other livestock sectors is well documented. We are here this evening to talk about the health of Lake Winnipeg and we believe that all the watershed issues are intimately connected. My concern is that Bill 46 will likely fail to save Lake Winnipeg, because of attempts to single out issues and offer solutions based on incomplete scientific information. I also fear that Bill 46 will, unintentionally, impede the Province's ability to clean up the lake.

If it is true that we are at the tipping point for the health of Lake Winnipeg, what we need is an extensive water strategy involving all stakeholders and addresses all of the in terconnected challenges that we face in the watershed. We cannot look at our water problems, including the management of volumes during the spring and the overall quality of independent issues. It will take a tremendous amount of planning, research and commitment by government, industry and the general public to achieve the goal of developing and implementing a water strategy.

There's a significant landscape issue that contributes to the eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg. We know that runoff from the spring snow melt moves off the land too quickly. We need a system in place to slow the flow of water and store it in appropriate places so the nutrients are kept out of larger watershed–out of the larger watershed until vegetation is no longer dormant and able to utilise them. Wetlands accomplish just this. Bill 46 makes changes to The Crown Lands Act to allow for regulations pertaining to wetlands. However, what is needed is a comprehensive plan to produce positive results.

We fear that when the Province designates a wetland as a provincially significant wetland, it will simply ban any activity involving that area. For example, we know that when cattle producers have incentives to manage wetlands, they can actually remove more nutrients from the

122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 surrounding area by harvesting the grasses that capture them from the water. We urge the government to take the time necessary to review the extensive amount of work that has gone on in Manitoba regarding wetlands and ecological goods and services. To move forward, we need to develop a comprehensive EG and S program for Manitoba, that government has put on the back burner for years. Included in that program, we must consider the opportunity for utilizing natural wetlands and strategic water retention areas where landowners are compensated for water storage.

Many ecological services can be provided in the watershed that would serve to protect our natural resources. After the hastily planned breach at the Hoop and Holler Bend, it should be clear to government that putting in place a policy that plans for water storage throughout the watershed is a good idea. We would also like you to consider the damage that moving forward with Bill 46, as written, may cause our provincial agricultural sector, family farms and Lake Winnipeg.

We recommend to committee that at minimum, part two, dealing with the changes subsection 40.1(1) to The Environment Act, prohibiting confined livestock areas and manure storage facilities for pigs, be removed entirely from this bill. This amendment effectively extends the entire–effectively extends the entire province–the moratorium on the hog sector expansion that was passed in 2008 through Bill 17, The Environment Amendment Act. It is likely that this amendment will actually damage the health of Lake Winnipeg more than it will help.

It is no secret that over the past five years the Province of Manitoba has become increasingly inhospitable to the pork and other livestock sectors. As Manitoba Pork Council can confirm, any expansion of the hog industry will likely occur outside of Manitoba, but still within our watershed. As explained in the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board's report in 2006, the health of Lake Winnipeg– close to 50 per cent of the total phosphorus entering the lake comes from outside of Manitoba. What we risk by banning pork production is losing control over the fate of our lake.

Producers and governments from other provinces and states do not have the same vested interest in reducing nutrient movement as we do. We know that Manitoba livestock producers are continually working at improving their nutrient management through the adoption of beneficial management practices and adherence to science- based regulations and nutrient managements plans. Only three months ago, Manitoba Pork Council announced a comprehensive plan to improve the environmental sustainability of their sector in Manitoba.

MPC hasn't been given the opportunity to implement the recommendations in that report and now, by way of this bill, they are once again tagged as being the polluters of Lake Winnipeg. Manitoba must become a regional leader in sustainable livestock industry development from a social, economic and environmental position. This current bill does not allow that. Rather than foster actions that will help Lake Winnipeg, the regulations will be forthcoming, will be–will stifle development.

This raises another area of concern that is regulations will be developed in silos, this will not allow for input from the affected stakeholders. If it is the Province's intention to save Lake Winnipeg, you are heading in the wrong direction. It's time to show leadership and work with other stakeholders to develop and implement a water strategy for the province. This approach is long overdue. We need commitment from our government for incentives as opposed to a heavy stick approach that this bill, and the impending regulations, will force upon us.

Bill 46 illustrates that government cannot take the time, or make a commitment, to the citizens of Manitoba to take a fair approach. In closing, I would like to say that Keystone Agricultural Producers is in full support of saving Lake Winnipeg. However, we do not support Bill 46 because we believe it will have little impact on attaining that goal. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Chorney, for your presentation. Questions for the presenter? * (18:20) Hon. Bill Blaikie (Minister of Conservation): Actually, just a word of thanks to Mr.

Chorney and to the Keystone Agricultural Producers for giving us your views tonight. I'm sure there might be other members of the committee who may want to ask you a question or discuss your presentation with you, so I'll cede the floor at this time, but thanks very much. Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Yes, thank you very much, Doug, for your presentation tonight and the leadership that you show in the agricultural

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 123 community. I appreciate the advice that you've given to me in my stint, at least, as being Agriculture Minister. So thank you very much. I was interested when you said that you described this, at least part of this bill, as an extension of the moratorium that was contained in Bill 17. As you know, at the time, the–our friends across the aisle from me here voted against Bill 17, voted against that water protection measure. You're aware that they voted in favour of Bill 46 last week at second reading. Why would they do that? Mr.

Chorney: Well, that's certainly their free will to vote as they see fit. Our concern is if you take a ban on expanded production, Manitoba will only have so much killing capacity in the province and access to feed grains and distillers' grains, with the big ethanol production that's going on in the US, our weanlings will be exported to jurisdictions that are just adjacent to our province. Hogs will be finished in those jurisdictions, and we'll have no way to regulate that industry in the future. So that's the reason we're focusing on the expansion of the moratorium. Mr.

Struthers: Well, what you're telling me is that if a pig produces manure in Manitoba, it's just as bad if a pig produces manure in North Dakota or Saskatchewan. And at that–those nutrients eventually all get into Lake Winnipeg, whether–from wherever it's from. The–why, then, wouldn't we, within the jurisdiction that we have, why, then, wouldn't we extend that moratorium from where it is, as was placed in Bill 17, which my friends across the way voted against, why wouldn't we take the benefits of that and extend it to a bigger area if, as you've suggested, hog manure is a problem? Mr.

Chorney: Interesting you should point that out. Actually, since Bill 17 was implemented, there has been a deterioration in the quality of Lake Winnipeg, and one could make the case that there's been absolutely nothing accomplished with the moratorium. Best management practices have been adopted by Manitoba farmers for decades. It's the only way they can be competitive. Nutrients are valuable, whether they be manure or synthetic fertilizers, and producers have spent millions of dollars on precision application equipment, GPS guidance equipment to reduce any chance of overlapping, direct injection.

The hog farmers in my community spread manure with injection and use manure management plans which are government approved, and I, you know, have to say, I don't think we have a problem with hog manure. Mr. Struthers: Yes, would it be your expectation, then, that my friends across the table vote–continue to vote, well, which way? I mean, they voted both ways on this. They voted against Bill 17, they voted in favour of Bill 46. Would it be your hope that they would continue to vote in favour of Bill 46? Mr.

Chorney: Well, I certainly don't speak for your–for the opposition, but I think, and, as I stated, Keystone Agricultural Producers are in favour of saving Lake Winnipeg, and I suspect they are as well. So it's very difficult, perhaps, for MLAs to vote against this bill the way it's written. Regulations that could come forward in the future which are not known to us, because this bill really does not have the specifics included in it, but the potential to regulate it in the future is the big unknown and the fear that farmers have that we've brought forward. Mr.

Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chorney, Doug, for your presentation tonight and for your very clear enunciation of where farmers stand on this particular bill to save Lake Winnipeg in–throughout the province of Manitoba. Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Chorney: Thank you. Mr. Struthers: I was very interested in what you said. The–you–and I understand your–I understand your point. You said that how could anybody vote against saving Lake Winnipeg. You imply that my colleagues across the way have voted the way they did on Bill 46 because of the title of the act.

Are you concerned, then, that their vote would be one way and then they would move towards changing the content or would that be your hope that they would change the content of the bill? Is it your hope that maybe, by some struck of luck, they become government and then not follow through with their vote that they make tonight? I was interested. It–you made it sound like a pretty superficial vote on the part of my opposition. Mr. Chorney: Well, I don't mean to speak for the opposition, and I wouldn't want to infer that I know why they vote the way they do. I'm only drawing conclusions from my own speculation.

The idea of saving Lake Winnipeg is, I said, is something that all of us, as Manitobans, should strive for. Nobody's against that.

124 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 Farmers have been managing the landscape for all of modern agricultural history. It's been something that's really been neglected. If farmers hadn't been the stewar ds they've been, the environment would be in much worse condition today than it is, and we should thank our farmers for the work that they do and not look at ways of stifling their industry and stopping them from advancing and moving forward to be efficient and productive and competitive in the world market. Mr. Chairperson: Further questions?

Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Chorney. Thank you for coming out this evening. Next out-of-town presenter I have listed is Chris Howorth, Ostara Nutrient Recovery Technologies. Chris Howorth. Seeing that Chris Howorth is not with us this evening, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. It's my understanding, though, that he's also agreed to sign up to speak, Mr. Maguire, in addition to the written presentation that was handed out to committee members. Next out-of-town presenter I have is Peter Marykuca, private citizen. Good evening, sir.

Peter Marykuca (Private Citizen): Good evening. Mr. Chairperson: Welcome. Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Marykuca: I certainly do. Mr. Chairperson: Just give us a few moments to help you distribute it to committee members, and I'll give you the signal to proceed. Please proceed, sir, when you're ready. Mr. Marykuca: My name is Peter Marykuca, and again, I'd like to take this opportunity to address you. I want to reiterate some things that have gone on in the past because now is the time to bring them out, and I'd like to start.

The following words were printed in the Interlake Spectator , May the 9th, 1994. I quote the late author, Don Zarow Sr.: Is the day coming that we will stand on a beautiful sand beach on Lake Winnipeg and dare not go in the water? Well, it seems the answer to Don's letter–question is yes. Years ago, about 1965, 1966, a report by Manitoba Environment, Mr. David Green, stated the Icelandic River basin was in toxic overload. It made front-page news in the Interlake Spectator as well. So what has changed in the past 17 years?

Time and time again I see water filled ditches carrying algae and runoff from a cattle grazing and pasture that is being used by a hog operation as spread field as well. Just how many nutrients can this land absorb? Quarter

section of land, 100, maybe 150 head of cattle on there, also used as a spread field for the hog operation across the road. The lake is not polluting itself. The hog industry is a contributing factor. Most Manitobans are grateful that the NDP had the foresight and the courage to put in place the moratorium. Now what needs to be done is to stop all contributing factors that are occurring in the Interlake and other areas as well. We need to restrict the hog industry further by shutting some down completely for allowing manure to run off inadequate spre ad fields.

If they made a mistake in their land-use selection, that's their problem. Why should the public and the environment suffer? Why should the public pay for their dumb mistakes? Cattle farmers need to be restricted from fencing their cattle in and near all waterways.

The former Conservative government neglected to give hog industry permission–was neglectful in giving the hog industry permission to use non-arable marginal lands and cattle pastures, bush, at times, and Crown lands in the Interlake, so they can off- load their untreated sewage. * (18:30) Considering that the In terlake is one of the several–one of several large areas in the world that is a groundwater charge area, has many artesian and flowing wells because of soil structures and its porosity, it needs and should be protected by law.

Billions of gallons of potable water are used in the hog industry because they want cheap flush toilets for their pigs to go along with their primitive liquid manure handling systems. The slurry is a toxic concoction that should be regulated under The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act. It should be dealt with as such. Every gallon should be accounted for. To allow the spreading of this filth is inconsistent with the public Health Act of Canada.

Liquid hog slurry contains known pathogens, viruses, bacterias, parasites, and who knows how many other known hog diseases, trace elements, including residue from hormones, antibiotics, detergents and disinfectants. It can and does contain E. coli. The stuff is passed off as a fertilizer. It is a

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 125 known pollutant worldwide. It has ruined countries, including waterways and land areas in North America. The stuff is not organic. It should–it could contain–contaminate–pardon me–it could contam- inate soils for years to come. A letter from a provincial engineer, dated back in 1994, stated that lagoons are not meant to treat the sewage. It's just raw sewage . Keep it in for a year and put it on the land. So it's untreated sewage.

How many other barns in Manitoba are allowed to spread their waste on lands' surface and just leave it there exposed to both nature and wildlife? As we should all know, to make things more disgusting, the Conservative government of the day allowed them to blend in the untreated human sewage from the barn workers because it would be expensive to have separate systems. How dumb is that? What kind of bacteria mutations could be brewing in the lagoons? Because of the past and current events involving various diseases and the death of many from E. coli, this must be stopped immediately.

As much as I hate to say this, I want to remind you all we've already had the unfortunate death of a toddler in Arborg from E. coli. They could not treat it nor figure out where it came from. How did this all happen and why? The Municipality of Gimli put into action a bylaw, No. 1096, that was consistent with the public Health Act of Canada, prohibiting the importation and spreading of hog manure from outside its boundary to inside its boundary. That's why there's no pig barns in the RM of Gimli. That really bothered the Conservatives.

Is that why the late Harry Enns said, don't let those people kick you out of the Interlake? I don't like to be referred to as those people. My sword's not bent. The Municipality of Bifrost also imposed a restriction on the importation of hog manure from outside its boundaries because a Mrs. Kay Bergman presented council with a letter from her doctors stating that the stench from the hog waste contributed to her medical condition. Could it be that they got a whiff of something legal could drift their way?

The next time we have a related illness or death, the public should demand there be a full inquiry to find out how just what and who is responsible. A court of law should decide on the punishment. We need not any guidelines or regulations that are full of loopholes. Unless the Farm Practices Board, if it's still involved, can't help protect the public or the environment, get rid of it. I have not recently noticed any rendering trucks on the highways. You should investigate how the hog industry is getting rid of their mortalities, and is it being done in a safe, friendly manner? Thank you for your time. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Marykuca, for your presentation here this evening. Questions of the presenter. Mr. Blaikie: I just wanted to thank Mr. Marykuca for his presentation. He's communicated with me on occasion by email, and it's nice to be able to put a face to the messages. Mr. Marykuca: Well, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any–Mr. Maguire? Mr. Maguire: Just like to thank you for your presentation as well, Mr. Marykuca. Floor Comment: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any further comments or questions for the presenter? Seeing none, thank you very much, Mr.

Marykuca, for coming out this evening and for your presentation, sir. For the information of committee members, we received information from Ruth Pryzner, a private citizen, who has left a written presentation for committee members, and her name–she wishes that her name is struck from the list of presenters. And is it agreed by that committee that Ruth Pryzner's submission will be entered in the record for this committee proceedings? [Agreed] Thank you. Next out-of-town presenter we have listed is Rick Bergmann, private citizen. Rick Bergmann?

Seeing that Rick Bergmann is not here with us this evening, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next out-of-town presenter we have listed is Wendy Friesen, private citizen. Wendy Friesen? Seeing that Wendy Friesen is not with us this evening, her name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. George Matheson, private citizen. George Matheson? Seeing that George Matheson is not with

126 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 us this evening, his name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next name is James Hofer, private citizen. James Hofer? Seeing that James Hofer is not with us this evening, name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Arian DeBekker. Arian DeBekker? Seeing that Arian DeBekker is not with us this evening, name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next person–next name we have listed as out-of- town presenter is Claude Vielfaure, private citizen. Claude Vielfaure?

Seeing that Claude Vielfaure is not with us this evening, name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next name is Andrew Dickson, Manitoba Pork Council. Andrew Dickson, Manitoba Pork Council? Seeing that Andrew Dickson is not with us this evening, name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next out-of-town presenter listed is Julie Baird, private citizen. Julie Baird? Seeing that Julie Baird is not here this evening, name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next name is Miles Beaudin, private citizen. Miles Beaudin? Miles Beaudin's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

Next names I have listed is Cam Dahl and Lauren Stone, Manitoba Beef Producers. Good evening, sir. Mr. Cam Dahl (Manitoba Beef Producers): Good evening. Mr. Chairperson: Welcome. Will you be making a sole presentation? Mr. Dahl: I will. I do need some help in answering questions, so the smart one will sit back there and answer the questions. Mr. Chairperson: That's fine. Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Dahl: I do. Mr. Chairperson: Give us a moment to distribute, then I'll give you the signal to proceed. Please proceed when you're ready, Mr. Dahl. Mr. Dahl: Thank you, Chair, and members of the committee.

I am here today on–with my colleague Lauren Stone, representing the views of the Manitoba Beef Producers. My name is Cam Dahl and I am the general manager of the organization. Before I begin to talk about Bill 46, let me give you some background on the importance of agriculture to Manitoba's economy and the impact of the beef industry, in particular. It is undeniable that agriculture is an economic driver in Manitoba. The industry makes up about 28 per cent of the province's GDP and is Manitoba's single largest wealth- generating activity. Manitoba is home to the third largest beef herd in Canada.

We have approximately 12 per cent of the national herd. While 98 per cent of the individual commercial beef cattle operations in Manitoba are cow-calf producers, feedlots make up the remaining 2 per cent of beef operations. * (18:40) The impact of Manitoba's beef producers is large. On an annual basis, Manitoba's beef cattle industry purchase over $300 million worth in feed. Beyond feed, beef producers purchase $225 million in operating inputs each and every year. The value of goods and services demanded by Manitoba's beef operations is about $635 million annually.

Beef production represent Manitoba's single largest agriculture sector in terms of number of individual farm operations. Our industry plays a vital role in Manitoba's overall economy and is an essential component of maintaining rural economic sustainability. Our industry's demand-creation power of $635 million per year means that not only can our rural communities continue to survive, but also that Winnipeg, Brandon and other major urban centres can continue to receive the extensive economic derivatives of our industry's wealth creation.

Our industry's economic spinoffs help lead the growth of the rest of the province's business community. We are one of Manitoba's leading industries. Beef producers matter to the Manitoba's economy. The impact of legislation on our industry should also matter to all members of this Legislature. Bill 46 presents some grave concerns for Manitoba's beef industry. Fundamentally, Manitoba producers feel that agriculture is being unnecessarily singled out and targeted by this legislation. This is not productive, nor will this help address concerns over the health of Lake Winnipeg.

There is a perception within our membership that this bill is about the coming election. The health

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 127 of Manitoba's economy and our natural environment are simply too important to be subject to political gamesmanship.

Before going through the details of the bill, I would like to begin a little bit by telling you what we do support: No. 1, Manitoba Beef Producers support strong, science-based initiatives that are designed to ensure the preservation of our land and water; No. 2, Manitoba Beef Producers strongly support producers and governments working together to develop environmental initiatives that can be embraced by all sectors of our industry without harming producers' ability to earn a living; and No. 3, Manitoba Beef Producers strongly believe that co-operation between producers and government, as opposed to excessive regulation, will always lead to more effective results and programs that are flexible enough to meet the challenges and changes over time.

Does Bill 46 meet these three basic criteria? The simple answer to that question is no. In fact, the legislation fails on all three of these counts. Manitoba Beef Producers do not oppose saving Lake Winnipeg. The livelihoods of beef producers depend on healthy land and water. So when we say we strongly oppose Bill 46, please do not be confused and somehow think that we impose improving the health of one of our largest natural resources, Lake Winnipeg. Quite the opposite, in fact: we oppose this bill because it will not accomplish what it has proposed to do. Bill 46 will not save Lake Winnipeg.

Manitoba Beef Producers believe that this bill has been introduced: No. 1, without an adequate scientific base; No. 2, without the necessary consultations with Manitobans who will be impacted by the bill; and No. 3, with legislative and regulatory hammers rather than working co-operatively with agriculture to effectively accomplish the environmental objectives of every Manitoban. Let me deal with each of these points individually. The review from Saskatchewan that led to this bill is built on a number of faulty premises.

First, this review does not differentiate between nutrients moving into our watershed from outside our province and nutrients that are introduced at home. Targeting Manitoba's livestock production will simply drive this economic activity out of the province but almost certainly still within our watershed. What is required is a comprehensive strategy that deals with al l connected issues across the watershed and not simply targeting one sector of Manitoba's economy.

Just as importantly, the study does not present a scientific basis for cause -and-effect relationship between agriculture activity, increases in phosphorus levels and algae blooms in Lake Winnipeg. Taken a lot of statistics in my life, and I'll never forget an example about the dangers of implying cause-and-effect relati onship from simple correlations. Do you know that it's possible to effectively predict Manitoba wheat yields from June mosquito counts? High mosquito counts are highly correlated with high wheat yields.

But does anybody around this table want to stand up and state that mosquitoes cause wheat yields? Yet that is exactly what is being done in this review. They have assumed that correlations are the same as cause and effect. This is bad science, or, more accurately, it is incomplete science and should not be used for the basis of legislation. More scientific work needs to be done before legislation is considered by this body. Further, we have no idea if past legislation has had any impact on the health of Lake Winnipeg. In 2008, this House passed Bill 17 which severely restricted hog production in Manitoba.

We do know that this has had an impact on hog production in the province. But do we know if there has been any impact on the health of the lake? Anecdotal evidence would seem to suggest that the past Bill 17 has had no positive environmental impact on the lake. Why is the Legislature considering expanding legislation that we know has had negative economic impacts without having any idea if there have been environmental benefits? At the very least, the government of Manitoba should have peer-reviewed scientific work detailing the environmental impacts, if any, of former Bill 17.

Again, more scientific work is needed. Efforts to preserve our watershed are the responsibility of every Manitoban. In order to be effective, measures to preserve Lake Winnipeg must have the co-operation of every sector of the economy. Yet this legislation has been introduced without any consultation with any sector of the economy. Why is this? Why is this bill being rushed through the Manitoba Legislature without any prior discussion with Manitobans? Some might be excused from wondering if there's a hidden agenda behind the rush to pass this bill.

128 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair It is for this reason that the Manitoba Beef Producers request a pause in the process. We ask that the government of Manitoba set up a series of consultative sessions to be held in every region of the province. Not only will the consultative process allow the Province of Manitoba to explain its reasons behind Bill 46, it will allow legislatures–legislators to hear directly from producers on the measures that are already being undertaken to limit potential for nutrient loading.

Further, direct consultation will allow producers to outline any new co-operative approaches that do not require legislative or regulatory measures. This leads me directly to my last critical point. This legislation is not only unnecessary, but it is ineffective. Producers are th e natural stewards of the land. Our members do not need to be forced to be environmentally conscious. This is their natural state.

This is why Manitoba Beef Producers are especially disappointed that the government of Manitoba has chosen to move directly towards rigid legislation and regulation, rather than working with Manitoba producers to enhance volu ntary measures that will effectively meet the needs of each region of the province and each part of the watershed. In this case, one size does not fit all. Measures that are effective in the southwest corner of the province may not be appropriate for application in the Interlake.

Yet legislation and regulation is exactly that–a single rigid approach that will not be appropriate for each region and location. Producers know and understand the needs of their local environment, which is why the government should be talking to them. The right approach is consultation and co- operation with producers. Further, the rigid legislative and regulatory route that has been embarked upon does not have the flexibility to meet the needs of changing weather and environmental conditions.

Today, Manitoba is being hit with floods and excessive moisture, but we all remember times of water shortages and droughts. Are the same nutrient management approaches appropriate for each situation? The answer is no, but the legislative approach assumes this to be the case. Chair, members of the committee, I'd like to summarize by asking you to reconsider your approach. The path that you are on today is the wrong one. Your approach will drive agriculture activity out of the province without addressing the health of Lake Winnipeg.

Manitoba Beef Producers calls on the government of Manitoba to pause and allow time necessary to complete the scientific study that should form the basis of any environmental legislation. We ask that you pause to allow for adequate consultation with producers in every region, as well as with the urban centres throughout the province. Failure in this regard will drive wedges between the different economic drivers of our economy to the detriment of every Manitoban.

Finally, Manitoba Beef Producers calls upon the government of Manitoba to pause and engage in a co-operative and voluntary approach that is flexible enough to effectively address needs of every region of the province in all weather and climatic conditions. Rigid legislation and excessive regulation will not accomplish our common goals. Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Dahl. Open the floor to questions. * (18:50) Mr. Blaikie: Just a word of thanks to Mr. Dahl for bringing forward the views of the Manitoba Beef Producers.

Nice to see the beef producers sticking up for the hog producers, vice versa. Mr. Dahl: We're in this together as a province. Mr. Blaikie: You're in this together, but I think it's also the case, perhaps, that, in the legislation itself, to the extent that it deals with producers at all, deals primarily, in fact, almost exclusively with hog producers. It's a wide-ranging bill. It doesn't just–it doesn't single out the hog industry. It talks about the City of Winnipeg sewage treatment plant. It talks about peatlands, about wetlands, a number of things. It's a comprehensive approach.

I wondered if–so, what is it in the bill that would actually affect beef producers? Because as far as I can tell, there's nothing in the bill that actually addresses beef producers at all. Mr. Dahl: I think there are a number of items that have concern, and for example, the broad, sweeping authority that

section 7 gives the minister on authorities over Crown lands. And, again, what impacts one sector of Manitoba's agriculture economy in one sector of the economy impacts us

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 129 all. And, again, farmers are the natural stewards of the land and do feel that there is a target on agriculture for this and is a target on nutrients that, you know, is not appropriate. And that can as easily be applied to Manitoba's beef producers as it is currently being applied to Manitoba hog producers. Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much, Cam, for your presentation.

I certainly want you to pass on to Major Jay Fox and the rest of the Manitoba Beef Producers our appreciation for your presentation and all the advice that you've given to me as Agriculture Minister. I do enjoy working with your group, and I think we have to look at some things that your group has done positively in this area in terms of working with conservation districts to get cattle up out of rivers and those sorts of things. I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. I do note that you, as a previous presenter did, you talked about the extension of the moratorium that was contained in Bill 17.

You spoke of a hidden agenda. You even used the word "pause," which caught my ear because that reminded me that the first time my friends across the way voted against a water protection measure was the pause that we brought in which preceded Bill 17. Then my friends across the way voted against Bill 17. Now when we take that same concept, that same moratorium and extend it further, all of a sudden, Bill 46, my friends across the way have changed their vote. Now, let's talk about hidden agendas. We've been up front.

You may disagree with us, but this government has been up front and we've said what we're going to do all along the way. Which position from my friends across the way do you think is the real position? Mr. Dahl: Minister, I appreciate your comments about co-operation, and as an organization we will always, always favour co-operation because, again, as I said in my presentation, that is always the best and most effective approach. As to the comments about, you know, which position on the floor of the Legislature is right or wrong, I–you know, from my position here today, I'm colour-blind.

I'm not speaking to you as New Democrats, I'm not speaking to you as Liberals, I'm not speaking to you as Progressive Conservatives. I'm speaking to you as me mbers of the Legislative Assembly, and we have concerns with the approach, and those apply to all members of this House, and we would ask all members of this House, regardless of political affiliation, to consider a pause, again, for more scientific review, for a broader consultative process with all sectors in Manitoba economy and to allow us to together develop those co-operative measures that we talked about. Mr.

Maguire: Thank you very much for your presentation tonight, Mr. Dahl, on behalf of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, and to Lauren that's with you as well. I appreciate the fact that I spent most of my life trying to work co- operatively with urban and rural folk to try and bring common ground in those areas to find–search this out. This bill is certainly not just about one sector, it's about many, and I appreciate your presentation in regards to the sector that you represent. And so thank you very much for putting forth your forthright views from your industry in regards to this matter. Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Comment, Mr. Dahl? Okay, time for this presentation has expired. I thank you for your presentation. Call Mr. Dan Klippenstein, private citizen. Mr. Dan Klippenstein, whose name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Call Mr. Weldon Newton, private citizen. Hello, Mr. Newton. Do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. Weldon Newton (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Our Clerk's assistant will distribute them. You may begin. Mr. Newton. You may proceed. Mr.

Newton: I guess, to start with, I would like to suggest that a more appropriate name for this act would be, the complete destruction of the hog industry act. I guess I'm somewhat disgusted that again we are here. I have seen the tabling of legislation that is designed to complete the destruction of the hog industry in Manitoba. And I guess I would ask where our current Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Struthers) and our previous minister of Agriculture, is now the Minister of Finance (Ms. Wowchuk), has been sitting and what they think the hog industry is going to look like down the road.

Our family was a small hog producer until last November when we completed the shutdown of our barns. We ran about an 80 sow farrow-to-finish operation and employed one person to help us run our barns. We also grow approximately 2,300 acres of cereal grains, grass seed, canola and peas. We currently have only about 40 per cent of our land seeded this spring and the odds of seeding more this

130 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 spring I would say are zero. We got 1.3 inches of rain last night. The last time we were not able to seed our entire crop was in 1999 and we had hogs at that time to help provide us with some income to carry us through. Obviously we don't have that option this year, and even in that year we only had 150 acres we didn't seed. We have raised hogs at our current location for over 50 years. It was the hogs that allowed myself to start farming with my dad and also, later, allowed another brother to join our operation. My brother and I now own and operate the farm.

And incidentally, we are in the process of preparing for the third generation to be part of the farm. My nephew has some interest in being part of it. Certainly shutting down the hog operation is certainly going to jeopardize that transfer in the near future and whether we can successfully do it down the road remains to be seen. In February of 2010 we started to close our hog operation and terminated the employment of our hired man who had worked for us for 20 years. He had done a lot of the work in the barns and that's why we had hired him. He also did some work in the field.

While as a small operation by today's standards, it did provide a significant source of income for us. It certainly would have been nice to have that extra income this year. We shut down because the ban on winter spreading is to come into effect in 2013. I know all the science around winter spreading of manure and the small risk that this practice entails. However, unlike your government, I have to pay my bills. We simply could not cash-flow the costs of a lagoon for an operation the size of ours, and that is why the exemption was originally in the legislation for small operations.

When we shut down, there were no programs to help us finance the cost of these additional storage structures and we saw no point in continuing to invest money in the replacement and maintenance of our barns knowing that in 2013 we were going to have to shut down anyway. I believe the Province later put a program in place, which, as usual for Manitoba, was only provided after the federal government agreed to pay 60 per cent of the costs. It was also too late for many other small producers in the province, because I know very well many others shut down at the same time that we did and for exactly the same reason.

The real frustrating part for me was, as many of you know, I was part of the phosphorus expert committee that looked at the nutrient loading in Manitoba. It was seven years after the phosphorus expert committee recognized the costs of this proposed change of banning winter spreading was beyond the financial capabilities of small operations.

In fact, I believe it was in February of 2004 that the concern was first forwarded to the Minister of Conservation at that time by the phosphorus expert committee. * (19:00) Seven years to make a decision and, in the meantime, we are faced with a two-year moratorium on the construction of barns and manure storage structures with the Clean Environment Commission examined the industry. Then you have the Auditor General take a run at the hog industry, and she decided that since Ontario and Québec don't allow winter spreading, then Manitoba should not as well.

She did not acknowledge the large amounts of government funding provided to achieve that status. None of these studies have provided you with a magic bullet to shut down the industry, but you decided that there should be a moratorium on the east side of the province anyway. Since our barns were emptied, I have appealed the building assessment. I appealed the building assessment last year, and the assessment was reduced for this year and it'll be further reduced in 2012. With this legislation in place, I intend to appeal again this year for 2013 in–and I'm going to start–I want it written down to zero.

As a result, obviously, the municipality is out of some fairly significant tax revenue from our–even from our small operation. In order to justify the costs and have any hope of paying for the 400-day storage structure of operation, we would now lead an operation at least three times the size of what we were previously. So now if we want to expand to restart our operation, building a lagoon is apparently no longer good enough. We must now use advanced bio–advanced environmental practices to protect the water. I'm told this means we must now also use a biodigester or solid-liquid separation.

When I asked the gentleman from Manitoba Conservation on Friday, I believe it was, what this would actually accomplish, since the technology does not reduce the nutrient content, his

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 131 reply was, well, it concentrates the nutrients and it's less expensive to transport. To be very blunt, that's another stupid answer that did not apply to our operation. We either own or rent 12 of the 16 quarter sections of land in a one-mile radius of our barns, so transportation costs can't be reduced to any less than what we would face now to move the–to move and apply the manure as a fertilizer on our fields. For the arithmetic for you, that's over 1,600 acres of cultivated land on these 12 quarter sections.

I don't have a problem of land availability to spread the manure. Incidentally, on those 16 quarter sections of land, we routinely apply inorganic fertilizer at rates recommended by soil testing. This past year we applied approximately 96,000 pounds or 43.5 metric tonnes of 1151 on that land. So the phosphorus is going to get there one way or the other. So now we have the phosphorus from our grain that's being shipped all over the world instead of some of it being recycled and used as plant nutrients on our farm.

It appears that this regulation change is being driven by an impending provincial election, whereby the current government is intent on demonizing the hog industry in order to maintain support of those in Winnipeg who are ignorant and uninformed about the financial and environmental realities of agriculture today. Also the Premier (Mr. Selinger) is using a report by Dr. Leavitt and others in which he attempts to correlate the increase in hog production in Manitoba in the 1990s to the increased levels of phosphorus in the Lake Winnipeg sediment.

He certainly did not provide any cause and effect for his conclusions. I suspect he could have got the same result if he had correlated the phosphorus levels to the number of people over age 40 in Manitoba in the same time frame. I suspect that the number of significant flood events in the Red River Valley in the last 40 years and the subsequent move of–movement of dissolved phosphorus from crop and forage land as well as sewage discharges from Winnipeg and other human population centres are the real sources of most of this phosphorus.

As long as there is green plant material being produced on the landscape, there will be significant movement of phosphorus off the landscape during spring runoff, and, certainly, this was well illustrated in a report by the phosphorus expert committee on how phosphorus actually moves in Manitoba. It's not in rainfall events like it is in the corn belt; it's in spring runoff in Manitoba. And, as I've mentioned, this has been documented in peer- reviewed research and this has been verified as occurring in Manitoba by researchers at the University of Manitoba.

I would hope that you would familiarize yourself with these studies, as well, before you continue your demonization of the hog industry. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: One minute, Mr. Newton, sorry. Mr. Newton: Agriculture cannot achieve a zero discharge of nutrients off the landscape. I ask you to withdraw this draconian legislation, initiate some rational discussion with your staff– some of them have actually considerable knowledge on this subject–and start a rational dialogue with producers and their organizations. You might be surprised what you might accomplish.

Find out what beneficial management practices have potential to reduce nutrient movement off the landscape that already are not widely used and are affordable. Continuing trying to drive a wedge between the urban residents and agricultural producers will not solve the problem. That only serves the interests of your political PR people and doesn't solve the problems of the landscape. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Newton. Open the floor to questions. Mr. Blaikie: Yes, I just want to thank Mr. Newton for his presentation and assure him that there's no intention to demonize any industry or sector.

The bill is somewhat comprehensive and tries to address a number of the problems that relate to saving Lake Winnipeg, and it's not a bill that deals only with one particular industry. And even in the– where it does deal with the hog industry, there's certainly no intention to demonize the hog industry. Mr. Newton: Well, I appreciate the–that's your opinion. I guess it's needless to say I disagree with it, but we'll agree to disagree tonight. Mr.

Struthers: Thank you very much for your presentation, Weldon, and I do appreciate the time that you've spent with me discussing your own challenges that you're up against in your farm site. I appreciate that. You did mention, though, that–you did mention the next provincial election and that your view would be that this is being done for political purposes. I

132 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 think you've heard me a couple times earlier this evening talk about our consistency as a government when it comes to dealing with these water protection measures. We've consistently–whether we agree with you or not, we've been consistent in that. It seems to me we're up against a little bit more of a problem now because the bill was passed unanimously the other day. The Conservative Party voted in favour of Bill 46. Isn't that playing politics? Mr.

Newton: Well, I'm not even going to try to understand the banter and the procedures that go on within the Legislative Assembly in this province. I'm–you know, I'm not even going to try to understand that. Mr. Struthers: Well, I understand, but I would ask you to be fair. You've told me that as Agriculture Minister I should think more than just the politics of this. It was in your presentation, and that's fair ball. I don't mind that. But now don't bail out and say you're not going to attempt to understand all of the politics.

When the Conservative Party voted against the pause, voted against Bill 17, and now a bill that's based on the–it's based on the moratorium that we've already passed in this Legislature, that they voted against, now they've switched their vote. My question is what you, as a Manitoban–which of their positions are you going to assume they're going to carry forward after this debate is over? Mr. Newton: Well, I guess I'll leave that up to them to make that decision.

I've put my point forward on what I think of the legislation, and I think there's a far better way of doing that, and if it's done appropriately, some of the small operations might actually even come back in business. I think–I know Maple Leaf is significantly short of hogs. Hytek, they've probably got enough to look after themselves. My operation happens to be six miles from Hytek; it's 45 miles from Maple Leaf. Still–and we held a contract with Maple Leaf from day one until we closed down our operation because they gave us a guaranteed market. I'd still go back to them, and it's within that.

But under this, there's absolutely no way I can afford to open my barn again unless I get significant government help, and it's not there. That's the simple reality for us. Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Newton, tonight to the Minister of Conservation (Mr.

Blaikie) in regards to this bill, and I appreciate the fact that you have some expertise in this, having spent some time on the Phosphorus Expert Committee. * (19:10) And when you speak of consistency, my honourable friend across the way forgets that they were the ones that wanted to take nitrates out of the waste-water treatment plant in north Winnipeg for about four years, and then they eliminated it from this bill. So I think that the situation that we're faced with here is one that I appreciate the fact that there are so many people signed up to come and make presentations.

It's obviously a concern to this bill. I know there's people speaking for and against, and that's why we are here tonight is to hear those issues and from those speakers across the province of Manitoba that are–that can give us views and ideas on how a bill like this could be improved, if they see their way clear to do that from the government's perspective. And so I appreciate your forthright presentation on how this impacts not only your farm but many of the size of your farm across the province. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Newton, any response to that? Mr.

Newton: Well, I think that lays out why I came to present tonight. The hog industry has been part of my life ever since I came back to farm, and as I said, that's how I got started to farm. We built a barn in 1972. We’re still using that barn, by the way; it's still in pretty good shape. And we expanded again when my other–when my brother came back, you know, to be able to finance this because grain operations simply could not. Also, with the hogs, we were able to expand at our own pace and at a reasonable cost.

We're not competing with our neighbours for our rent, and we're in a very competitive area, as almost every area of the province is, for grain land. We can't expand that forever, and this was an operation–ability for us to manage our own operation within our own financial capabilities. And I guess, just as a point of interest, when we renegotiated our line of credit with our bank this spring, in February, I believe it was, at that point, obviously, we had shut our operation down, and I just–I made the comment to the bank manager, to the gentleman that we were dealing with. I said, if I

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 133 came to you yesterday or tomorrow and asked for sufficient money to build a lagoon for our hog operation, I suspect you would probably just laugh at me, wouldn't you? He kind of looked at me and he says, yes, I think I probably would. And I can assure you, we have a very good credit rating at that bank. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Okay, time for this presentation has expired. Thank you, Mr. Newton. Call Mr. Greg Bruce, Ducks Unlimited Canada. Good evening, Mr. Bruce. Do you have any written materials for the committee? You do.

Our Clerk's assistant will distribute them. You may begin when ready. Mr. Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Greg Bruce (Ducks Unlimited Canada): Good evening. Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, sir. Please proceed when you're ready. Mr. Bruce: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Greg Bruce. I work for Ducks Unlim ited Canada, and I'm presenting on DU's behalf this evening. Ducks Unlimited Canada is a private, non-profit organization that conserves, restores, and manages wetlands and associated habitats for waterfowl. These habitats also benefit other wildlife and people.

In Manitoba, the best waterfowl habitat is located in landscapes dominated by agricultural use, and as a result, Ducks Unlimited Canada works closely with producers to develop and promote management practices that benefit waterfowl as well as agricultural operations. We've presented to legislative committees in the past on various other bills, and if this committee would like additional information on DU, I'd certainly be glad to provide that. DU is pleased that Bill 46 recognizes that action must be taken now if we wish to arrest the deterioration of the 10th largest freshwater lake in the world.

Since the release of the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board's 2006 report entitled Reducing Nutrient Loading to Lake Winnipeg and its Watershed, Manitobans have known that we need to demonstrate leadership in solving the eutrophication problems of Lake Winnipeg. Not only do we have a vested interest as the benefactors of this great resource in Manitoba, but as identified in the report, a significant proportion of the nutrients entering the lake come from Manitoba. This further underscores the responsibility of Manitobans to be part of the solution.

The study by Peter Leavitt recommends a 50 per cent reduction in phosphorus levels to reverse chronic algae blooms and return Lake Winnipeg to healthier, pre-1990 levels. DU's science has confirmed that wetland drainage is a significant contributor to Manitoba's widespread eutrophication problems, and, as such, any meaningful reduction in nutrients will be extremely difficult to attain unless we arrest wetland drainage in agro-Manitoba. The reason is that wetland drainage facilitates the leakage of nutrients from agricultural operations.

Bill 46 outlines a series of steps intended to move us towards that goal, including the recognition that wetlands contribute to water quality improvement and are areas in need of pr otection. And specifically, on Bill 46, it refers to Crown lands. While this is a positive first step, the bill in its present form fails to address the important wetlands in agro-Manitoba on private lands and the vital watershed function they play in nutrient removal and flood reduction, and this role had been referenced earlier by other speakers. In fact, it is these wetlands on private lands that are in most need of protection.

Ducks Unlimited Canada estimates that we've lost over 100,000 hectares, almost a quarter of a million acres, of wetland ecosystems in southwestern Manitoba alone over the last 40 to 60 years. Most disturbing is the fact that this loss continues in the absence of a comprehensive wetland protection policy. DU further conservatively estimates that we continue to lose approximately 2,000 hectares of wetlands every year, again in southwestern Manitoba alone.

As such, the benefits of many government-led and private environmental initiative have already been and will continue to be offset until wetland drainage is stopped. Wetlands filter nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, the same nutrients that add to algae blooms on Lake Winnipeg and many other water bodies in Manitoba every summer. Early results of work done by Dr. Pascal Badiou, a research scientist with Ducks Unlimited's Institute for Wetland and Waterfowl Research, suggests that the majority of discharge occurs early in the spring, prior to the end of April, when the ground is still largely frozen.

This early discharge carries the vast majority of the annual nutrient loading which is transported to downstream water bodies. One of the reasons that nutrients are so mobile at this time of the year is

134 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 because phosphorus and nitrogen are in soluble form. So drainage channels designed to facilitate the water–the movement of water off the landscape thus also facilitate the movement of nutrients off the landscape and into Lake Winnipeg and other receiving water bodies. Our research has shown that wetland drainage since 1968 has increased annual phosphorus loading in downstream flows by 32 per cent, annual nitrogen loading by 57 per cent, and annual sediment loading by 85 per cent.

Wetland drainage increases the amount of nutrients exported to dow nstream surface waters for two reasons or in two ways. First, drainage allows the water to move more quickly through the wetland, thus diminishing residence time in the wetland that would otherwise assimilate and break down nutrients and other contaminants. And secondly, the ditches built to drain wetlands not only drain the water or the wetlands themselves, they also drain the surrounding land around the wetlands.

So on average, for every acre of wetland drained, four additional acres of surrounding lands also drain downstream, carrying nutrients, sediment and chemicals that may have leached off the adjacent uplands. This increase in contributing area also adds more water to downstream flows and allows it to flow faster, which also makes flooding and flood damages worse. Some will argue that the combination of high fall moisture levels and abnormally high snowfall across the Prairies and all the rain that we're getting were the sole ingredients to the flooding problems we're having this year.

However, our manipulations of the land also contribute to water movement as well. Wetland drainage increases the risk of flooding and associated damages by reducing water storage capacity, which results in rapid transportation of water and increases in peak flow. Ducks Unlimited Canada's most recent research in a watershed in southwestern Manitoba estimates that wetland drainage has increased peak flows by 37 per cent, which is quite significant when you consider the Red River Basin Commission's goal is to reduce peak flows by 20 per cent.

The flood storage capacity lost due to wetland drainage activity in southwestern Manitoba is more than double the flood storage capacity of the Shellmouth Reservoir. That's not to diminish the importance of the reservoir itself, but rather to highlight the effectiveness in flood mitigation is significantly offset as we continue to allow wetlands to be destroyed. And while not a goal of Bill 46, wetland drainage also has a staggering effect on greenhouse gas emissions.

As an example, annual greenhouse gas emissions given off when wetlands are drained are more than six times the CO 2 equivalent of emission reductions that will be achieved by the recently announced Brady Landfill gas-collection system. * (19:20) Some might argue we're on the road to recovery with programs like the Wetland Restoration Incentive Program, which we are a partner of, and it is a very good program and it's a great first step and can be lauded as probably one of the most attractive wetland restoration programs in the Prairies. And we have some experience with that.

However, the reality is that we continue to lose 10 times more wetland acres than this program is able to restore on any given year. Natural ecosystems such as wetlands are our best defence to the impacts of weather extremes, our fight against climate change, and to help clean up our precious water resources, and the sooner we find ways to protect these natural assets, the better off we will all be in the long term.

Lake Winnipeg is symbolic of the declining health of many of Manitoba's water bodies–and, on that note, I come from Killarney, so I know what I'm speaking of–and any actions to work with producers to find solutions to protect wetlands on private land will not only help to clean up Lake Winnipeg, but also help to improve the quality of the countless other lakes and rivers across Manitoba. Not only will we improve water quality, but these actions will also help to reduce future flooding and flood damages, and we've got some science to show that.

Investments in wetland protection on private lands will also help to contribute to our greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation objectives and provide habitat for over 600 species of plants and animals, help make watersheds and agriculture more resilient to weather extremes, provide ecotourism opportunities, and the list goes on. The bottom line is that wetland protection is one of the best investments that government can make.

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 135 In closing, it makes eminent sense to protect the wetlands for Lake Winnipeg's sake alone, but when you tally up all the other costs of allowing wetlands to be destroyed, wetland protection on private land should be a top public and government priority. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Bruce, for your presentation. Questions of committee members? Mr. Blaikie: Thanks to Mr.

Bruce for the presentation from Ducks Unlimited and, of course, I think thanks on behalf of all of us for the work that Ducks Unlimited does and has done for so many decades. I think–I just wanted to take special notice of the point that you make about–frankly, it's something that the bill doesn't do which you would like it to do, which is to address the question of wetlands on private lands, particularly agricultural lands, and, obviously, I think the point that you make about having to deal with that in an appropriate way at some point in the near future is a good one.

Otherwise, a lot of the other programs that we work in co-operation with Ducks Unlimited and others on, if we're gaining ground here, but losing it over there in terms of wetlands, then, you know, that's obviously a significant concern, and I'm glad that you made that point before the committee and before everyone here assembled, so to speak. So thank you for that. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Bruce, did you wish to comment? Mr. Bruce: No, I appreciate the fact that that point's getting across and we are in the process of developing science. It continues to do that.

We try to do that in a way that doesn't diminish the importance of the good work that is being done. That is not our intent, but our intent is more than anything to underscore that we do need to address this problem because all those good initiatives are not getting us to where we want to be as we continue to allow wetlands to be lost. So I appreciate that that point's been taken. Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much, Mr. Bruce, for your presentation tonight from Ducks Unlimited. I note with interest many of the points that you've made and we've had discussions with before.

I certainly appreciate the work that you're doing with your organization, and looking at providing positive mechanisms on how we can clean up some of Lake Winnipeg and save Lake Winnipeg for the future can be well gleaned from some of the presentations, many of the points that you've made tonight.

And I wanted to discuss, as well, just get an opinion from you or see if you've done any work in regards to the removal of nitrogen from the waste- water treatment plant, as opposed to, I believe I said earlier, nitrates, but it's nitrogen that the government was proposing to remove and has taken that part out of the bill. Do you have any thoughts on that as well? Mr. Bruce: No specific comments related to that portion of the bill. The one point I would like to drive home, given that you're setting me up with that, is the important role that wetlands have in terms of removing nitrogen as well.

So regardless of what our objectives are or what percentage of nitrogen and phosphorus we want to take out, I'm here to tell you wetlands do both, and they do a lot more than that. So, again, it just underscores the need and the role of wetlands and conserving them on the landscape. Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much and I appreciate your time taken to make your presentation to us tonight, Greg. Thanks. Hon. Christine Melnic k (Minister of Water Stewardship): Thank you for coming to present tonight.

Just on a point of clarification, in fact, the removal of nitrogen is something this government still is committed to, and I was glad to hear your answer which talked about the removal of both and the necessity of removal of both. So, thank you for your presentation this evening. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Bruce, did you wish to comment further, sir? Thank you very much for coming out this evening and for making a presentation. Mr. Bruce: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Next out-of-town presenter I have listed is Garry Tolton, private citizen. Garry Tolton?

Seeing that Garry Tolton is not with us this evening, the name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next out-of-town presenter we have is David Kraut, private citizen. Da vid Kraut? Seeing that

136 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 David Kraut is not with us, the name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next out-of-town presenter, Matt Reimer, private citizen. Matt Reimer? Seeing that Matt Reimer is not with us, the name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next out-of-town presenter is Robert T. Kristjanson, private citizen. Welcome. Thank you for your patience. Good evening, sir. How are you? Mr. Robert T. Kristjanson (Private Citizen): Good evening to you all. I'm not going to speak very quietly. My name is Robert T. Kristjanson.

We have been in the fishing industry for 121 years. I'll talk to that big guy who's got the whiskers on there so he hears it all. We've been here an awful long time. I came–and this is the first time that I've had–be able to speak in this great House. And in this great House, for all of Manitoba here around us, is the laws of Manitoba, the greatest province in Canada. And I'm very proud of that. Here we put the smartest people that we could put together, and we send them here, whatever they lean one way or the other, for the benefit of Manitobans all around us.

By being all around us, that means the water rights, the air we breathe and the land we–and what we sow it and how we do it. No one has the right to pollute–what we call pollute– anyone else under our law. Here amongst me, as I look around, I see every walk of life–I don't see many fishermen–many walk of life. I'm very proud to stand here because I think that it is time that we woke up. Read Canadian national geographic this month. Anybody read it? It's time you did. We're right on the front page. Is that what you want?

Do you want–here, the smartest people that we can put together, and put them together and we can't understand what's on the front page. I am firmly behind the Province of Manitoba, what they are doing. Thank goodness somebody is. From 1992–I could have brought you all these pictures and you guys would have gone oh, ah, oh, ah, but it is true, it has to be done. Somewheres along the line here, we have to be– stand up and be counted, regardless of what we like and how we don't like it. No one here–I don't care who you are–can walk out of here and say, I'm against cleaning up the waters in Manitoba.

If you are, I don't want to know you. Now it is time that we have to. Do we want Lake Winnipeg out there to be a garbage dump? Tell me, is that what we elect people to understand? When I– last time I was in Iceland and a lot of people came to me and said, you're having trouble on Lake Winnipeg. He says, don't you have a government that regulates the water? I had to turn around and walk away. What could I say? Now we have a government, and all governments have to realize our greatest resource, and I will stand on anywheres you want, the greatest resource is going to be our water.

Right now, I feel sorry for people who are being flooded, water in their homes and having–I feel terrible about it. But I want Lake Winnipeg– tomorrow morning at four o'clock, I'll give you a call, anybody want? That's where I'll be, with two other generations with me, three generations, regardless, taking the fish that we want with nothing in them, perfect to eat. We want to keep it that way. That's why I stand in front of you, to do the biggest thing that we have is to look after Lake Winnipeg or make it a garbage dump.

Which do you want? * (19:30) I can't stand, every time I go around the city, here is another line of another 10,000 houses. There's another line of another 10,000 houses. I hear the mayor, or whatever he is, stand up and say, oh, we don't have to take this out because we can save some money. I don't give a shit what it cost him. It is time that we did what is supposed to be done, whatever it costs and how we do it. If them 700 little piggies leave here then they have to be treated as that, and that's how they have to look after what they're doing.

I could go on here for hours and hours and you don't want hear that. I want every Manitoban here to stand up and be counted, but I'm looking at them right here. This is the time now. Do you want to be on the page of every single–every book. Wherever I've gone and say, this is Manitoba but I'm–we're not doing anything about it. It is time right now that this great House put into line what should be done a long time ago. I have a great partner, Kristofferson. This man's worked tirelessly. There's Pip's over here–worked tirelessly.

You've got people in here who've spent their lifetime trying to put and say what is right and what is wrong. Now is the time. There is no other way to do it. I can't harp at you any more or any stronger than what I am saying.

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 137 Tomorrow morning I have to go and fight with sticks, fight with current, fight with algae. But a lot of people that are being flooded out all over–I just say I have to live with what I've got, and I'll put up with the best I've got. But I will not put up, from end to end, with algae. I will not, because people say, well, we can do it a cheaper way. We can't do it a cheaper way. We have to do it the right way. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Kristjanson. Questions for the presenter? Mr.

Blaikie: I'll try and speak loud so that both of us with the grey beard can h ear each other. Well, it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with our hearing, as far as I know. But I just wanted to thank Mr. Kristjanson for his presentation and to say that, you know, the government agrees that it is time, probably the time was even earlier than now. But we've had a long- standing debate with the City of Winnipeg about whether or not to remove nitrogen as well as phosphorus and ammonia.

And what we are saying now is, it is time, and what we're asking of the City is that they build a state-of-the-art sewage treatment plant, based on biological nutrient removal technology that will be able to remove ammonia and phosphorus and recycle phosphorus. Remove it and in such a way as it's available for reuse for agricultural purposes. And the question of nitrogen, we still believe it would be a good idea to be able to remove nitrogen. But to some degree we're saying, let's–the lake is more important than the argument.

We need to save the lake and, therefore, all we're asking of the City of Winnipeg is that it build a state-of-the-art BNR plant, which at some point will be able to deal with nitrogen but very soon–as soon as it's built, will be able to deal with phosphorus and ammonia in an appropriate way. And the point that you made, which I want to emphasize, is the city is growing. You know, you talked about 10,000 houses here and 10,000 houses there. We need to build a plant that can deal with a growing Winnipeg, with a growing population. We can't cut corners.

We need to do it right, and I think–I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think I'm saying– Floor Comment: Exactly what I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, if I can. Mr. Blaikie: Fair enough. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Kristjanson. Mr. Kristjanson: Can I say something more? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, please. Mr. Kristjanson: Right here, the ri ver is right down here. The bottom of the river, right down to so many miles out of–where it flows into Lake Winnipeg, is solid rock. How many people know that? The biggest pipe you've got here is what's coming out of the city of Winnipeg 365 days a year.

If the creeks dry up, water still flows out of Winnipeg here for 365 days a year with nitrogen and phosphorus and ammonia and everything else. Winter and all, it doesn't matter how hard it's frozen; the toilets never stop. Try it and see what happens–it keeps on going. That's why I've asked that the nitrogen and ammonia be taken out. I don't care what it costs. You put it there, you take it out. Somewheres down the line here, somebody has to say, you did it, you take it out. Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much, Mr. Kristjanson, for your presentation tonight as well, and–very passionate in your beliefs.

So thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Kristjanson, did you wish to comment, sir? Mr. Kristjanson: No, I think I've–I think I've said enough. I covered everything–only a one part of it, and I'm really, really, really privileged to be able to stand here as straight as I can to this group and hope it goes someplace. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions or comments for the presenter? Seeing none, thank you very much, Mr. Kristjanson, for your colourful presentation this evening. Good to see you, sir. Next out-of-town presenter we have is Lois Wales. Good evening, Ms. Wales, welcome.

Do you have a written presentation? Ms. Lois Wales (Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Just give us a moment, please, to distribute. Please proceed when you're ready, Ms. Wales.

138 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 Ms. Wales: My name is Lois Wales, and I would like to thank the speaker in front of me. It's kind of a hard act to follow after all that. Anyhow, again, my name is Lois Wales and I am speaking today in my role as president of the Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union, as a citizen concerned about the state of Lake Winnipeg, and also as a resident of Selkirk, Manitoba, one of many communities across our province that depends on Lake Winnipeg for jobs, business opportunities and recreational amenities.

I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to present today. It's incumbent upon me to state clearly at the outset that I am not a scientist nor have I personally conducted research into the science of what's required to return Lake Winnipeg's health and well-being to pre-1990 levels. But, like thousands of Manitobans, I am passionate about doing all we can to ensure we are acting in the best interests of the lake's health. I know, as do most Manitobans, that there needs to be swift and decisive action on this file. There is simply too much at risk for us not to act.

So I'm here to speak in favour of this legislation and I want to strongly encourage members of all political parties represented here today to act outside of their normal ideological constraints and work co- operatively to enact this legislation as soon as possible. Like all of you, no doubt, I was shocked to learn that levels of phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg are currently three times higher than what they were in Lake Erie when people were talking about that body of water as dead. Those are harsh realities requiring strong action.

I mentioned at the outset that I am not a scientist, but I do trust the advice of experts like Dr. Greg McCullough who are advocating for us to proceed in the direction that this legislation will take us. I want to take this opportunity to commend those in the scientific community who've done so much already to chart a course forward recognizing the stakes for what they are and lending their collaborative expertise and experience in helping us meet this daunting challenge.

I trust these experts and the individuals on the Clean Environment Commission when they tell us that we need to act in three key areas: keeping hog manure out of the lake, building better sewage treatment facilities and enhancing Manitoba's wetlands like the Libau-Netley marsh which is just a few minutes drive from my home. I recognize the parameters of this legislation will require difficult changes in sectors that have, no doubt, contributed to our growing economy, particularly in the livestock industry. I know many of the industry's representatives are here today.

I would humbly suggest that most Manitobans understand the challenges these industries will be tasked with going forward, but they are changes that must be met. I believe most Manitobans support the need for tougher environmental practices and a ban on spreading manure in winter, but coupling these requirements with new funding, tax credits, will offset some of the challenges in the industry. It's the responsible, common-sense way forward.

In my role as president of the Manitoba Government Employees' Union, Manitoba's largest union, I have heard regularly from many of my members whose jobs are directly tied to the lake– from conservation officers to campground attendants–that they have seen the hurtful effects of the past 20 years and what that has meant to the people who use our parks and waterways. They've seen the disappointment on faces of families who come out to use the lake only to be met with posted warnings about safety of swimming and swallowing water. * (19:40) We used to take for granted that this resource would be there.

Now we have to check websites for both weather and the environmental warnings before heading to the beach. I spoke with a friend recently who last summer had to explain to his three-year-old why he could not go in the water at Grand Beach. What struck me, of course, was what I imagined to be the child's bewilderment and disappointment. There was no way to explain the many aspects of this problem to him. He just knew that he couldn't cool off in the water. We know this problem is bigger than recreation, of course.

We know livelihoods are at stake, ecosystems for fish and other aquatic life hang in the balance, as well as investment in businesses supported by the lake and its surrounding areas. This is tough stuff, but it is up to all of us to show some leadership. So I am here as well as a citizen to ask all those citizens who have a stake in this challenge to take individual responsibility. As has been stated repeatedly by many in the

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 139 environmental community, it's vitally important that we use lake-friendly products. This is something all Manitobans should be conscious of. It's something the government has put some teeth into by banning phosphates in dishwashing liquid. I want to issue a challenge to those in th e corporate community to take responsibility as well. Recently, the Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union announced a scholarship fund for graduate students.

The scholarship is available to those who choose the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium's research vessel Namao and Lake Winnipeg as their field of area of study. I know many of our friends in the labour community have also made commitments to becoming partners in important work being done by groups like the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium and other advocacy groups. Perhaps some of the advo cacy groups within the business sector could also find their way to stepping up to make the lake a priority as well. Sometimes commerce must take a back seat to common sense when something like Lake Winnipeg is at risk.

As the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Blaikie) was quoted recently as saying, we brought back the Jets; now let's bring back the lake. There's also no shortage of people who want season tickets to Lake Winnipeg. And to a large degree, they'll be looking for many of the people in this room and on this committee to show the leader ship necessary to make that happen. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Wales, for your presentation. Questions for the presenter? Mr. Blaikie: Thank you very much, Ms. Wales.

And just apropos of the comment attributed to me, I think I said that on CJOB, actually, but in saying we brought back the Jets, now let's bring back the lake, I think the point was that we brought the Jets back by making the kinds of investments that we needed to make in building the MTS Centre and that it's the same–it would be same kind of short-sightedness, if you like– [interjection] I'm being heckled by my own–it would be the same kind of short-sightedness that prevailed in some quarters at the time that said, let's not build the MTS Centre.

Well, if we'd have listened to that sort of thing or if we'd have cut corners and we said, well, let's not–let's just build half an MTS Centre or let's just not have as many seats or let's not do this or let's not do that, we wouldn't have the state of art–the state-of-the-art arena and we wouldn't have been able to bring back the Jets. It's–I think the parallel is–it's not a stretch. It's a good metaphor. What we need to do is to have a state-of-the-art sewage treatment plant.

We need to have biological nutrient removal that can do the appropriate thing when it comes to phosphorus, both in terms of removing it and recycling it. We need to have biological nutrient 'removials'–removal, sorry, so that we can do the right thing by ammonia in terms of the increasing population of Winnipeg and also what's expected to be even stricter standards for ammonia in the coming years, and we need to have biological nutrient removal so that at some point if there's a complete agreement or a consensus on the need to remove nitrogen that we'll have the technology in place to do that.

So all–these are all the ways of making the kind of investment that will help us bring back the lake in the same way that, you know, we laid the groundwork for bringing back the Jets. So thanks for, you know, taking note of that metaphor. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Wales, did you wish to comment? Ms. Wales: No, I think that there's a number of factors here. Like I said, I am not a scientist. I would just like to comment. My father was a grader operator for the RM of Hamiota, and–for 40 years–and he said, people are doing damage in my RM by draining their sloughs.

And, as the Ducks Unlimited pointed out, we need those sloughs. And we used to be a province of potholes where those sloughs sucked up that–all that stuff, and now we've become more and more without that, which has probably led to some of the mess we're in today. Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Wales. I appreciate it, having been at Grand Beach myself just last fall and seeing the devastation of the–you know, I agree. There was nobody in the water that day when I was there because of the conditions of the water.

I didn't know that the minister was such an avid hockey fan, but I'd certainly like to say that, you know, infrastructure needs are somewhat a responsibility of government, that's for sure. And if it hadn't been for the foresight of the floodway being built by Duff Roblin in those days and some of the expansions, the projects that we've got throughout

140 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 Manitoba that have helped us, we would have a much more devastating impact here in Winnipeg than we have today as well. So I think it's very important that we look at this overall. Certainly, there isn't anybody that doesn't want to clean up Lake Winnipeg and make it better so future generations can use it, and I appreciate very much your presentation, taking the time to be here tonight to give us your views. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Wales, did you wish to comment? Ms. Wales: Just thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions, comments?

Thank you, Ms. Wales, for coming out this evening and for your presentation. Next presenter I have listed, out of town, is Kristian Stephens, Canadian Fertilizer Institute. Kristian Stephens? Good evening, sir. Welcome. Mr. Kristian Stephens (Canadian Fertilizer Institute): Good evening. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your patience. Mr. Stephens: No problem. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Do you have a written presentation? Mr. Stephens: I do. Mr. Chairperson: Just give us a moment to distribute. Mr. Stephens: Sure. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed when you're ready, sir. Mr. Stephens: Okay. Thank you, Mr.

Chairperson. Good evening, members of the committee. My name is Kristian Stephens and I'm the senior manager of technical affairs for the Canadian Fertilizer Institute. The Canadian Fertilizer Institute represents manufacturers, w holesalers, retailers of nitrogen, potash, phosphate and sulphur fertilizers. Simply put, fertilizer is food for plants. Fertilizer is responsible for nearly half of the world's food supply and is the most important crop nutrient used by Canadian farmers. The Canadian fertilizer industry is committed to being part of the solution to Lake Winnipeg.

Our members recognize the importance of environmental stewardship and our role in ensuring the proper use of fertilizers. The Canadian Fertilizer Institute is working with International Plant Nutrition Institute scientists, the United States industry, crop advisers, agri-retailers and farmers to improve fertilizer efficiency to improve crop yields and to protect the environment. This work has produced the 4R nutrient stewardship initiative. The fertilizer industry believes this is the best way to protect the environment while at the same time improving farm profitability.

Four-R nutrient stewardship is an innovative best management practice system with four key pillars for fertilizer application, and that is applying at the right source, the right rate, right time, right place. This science-based approach helps farmers and the public understand how right management practices for fertilizer or manure can improve farm profitability while reducing losses of crop nutrients to the environment. It helps any farmer improve the use of fertilizer on their land, create greater yields, and do it in an environmentally sustainable way.

The right source means ensuring a balanced supply of essential plant nutrients, including granular or liquid fertilizers or manures. The right rate is applying just enough fertilizer to meet the needs of the crop while accounting for the nutrients already in the soil. Farmers can use soil tests to identify nutrient shortfalls and then GPS systems to apply fertilizer at variable rates throughout a field. * (19:50) The right time means applying fertilizer when the crop will get the most benefit and avoiding times when fertilizer can be lost to the environment.

In the fall, for example, soil needs to be the right temperature to minimize losses into the atmosphere, to maximize crop nutrient efficiency. The right place is where the plants can easily use it and where it is less likely to be lost to the water or air. A great example would be subsurface banding in the soil near the seed rather than surface application. In other cases, farmers may need to establish buffer strips near waterways. Four-R nutrient stewardship is a flexible, unified approach with all the four Rs working together in a nutrient management plan.

Our industry recognizes that every farm and every field is different. That's

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 141 why the 4R nutrient stewardship initiative promotes the use of experts such as certified crop advisers. They help farmers to assess soils and environmental conditions on their individual farms and develop a customized nutrient management plan that is most suitable to their site-specific needs. Four-R nutrient stewardship clearly promotes sustainable development as it provides economic, social, and environmental benefits.

Four-R nutrient stewardship increases crop yields, sparing land for other uses, and increases or maintains the organic carbon sequestered in soil, thus playing a critical role in helping to protect the environment. Proper nutrient management ensures that the farmland and the surrounding environment will remain healthy for the generations into the future. The Canadian fertilizer industry has been working on these issues co-operatively with the Manitoba government as well as the Canadian Association of Agri-Retailers and the Keystone Ag Producers and their members.

Canadian Fertilizer Institute was a participant in the development of a series of five learned articles on 4R nutrient stewardship, is developing training courses for farmers and certified crop advisers, and is sponsoring field trials in Manitoba and in other provinces on four Rs for greenhouse gas reduction. Farmers have always known the importance of limiting their impact on the environment but more can always be done. Manitoba has been a leader in encouraging farmers to use nutrient management plans in crop production.

We believe that 4R nutrient stewardship is an important tool to meet the province's agricultural and environmental goals. Manitoba's crop producers have a critical role in meeting world food demand, and fertilizer is a key ingredient in making that possible. So with that, I'd like to thank you, and I look forward to the discussion. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Stephens, for your presentation. Questions from committee members? Comments? Mr. Blaikie: Well, just a word of thanks for the presentation by Mr. Stephens.

I mean you don't address the bill specifically, but I think you provided us a lot of–with a lot of information about the use of fertilizers and phosphorus, and we appreciate that because the more we know, the better we'll be able to protect the lake and have thriving agriculture all at the same time. So thank you very much for that. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Stephens, do you wish to comment, sir? Mr. Stephens: I thank you, Mr. Blaikie. Mr. Maguire: Yes, I note with interest–Mr. Stephens, thank you very much for your presentation.

In your first, virtually your first paragraph, you've indicated that fertilizer is food for plants and responsible for nearly half the world's food supply. I appreciate your comments on that and the package that you put together.

I note that it says that you are working co-operatively with the Manitoba government on this, and I appreciate anything that can be done then to enhance the education around the product that you're using because we need responsible product of all of the–or responsible use of all of these products, and so I just wonder if you could elaborate on that relationship, and I thank you–outside of that, I thank you very much for taking the time to be here to make your presentation tonight. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Stephens, did you wish to comment, sir? Mr. Stephens: Thank you. Again, I'd like to reiterate.

Canadian fertilizer industry is prepared to continue work with the Manitoba government, agri- retailers, environmentalists, farmers, and other key stakeholders and to ensure nutrient management does not hinder water quality in Lake Winnipeg or in other water bodies in the province. Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much for your presentation, and indeed we do–I think people from our department do think that we have a good relationship. I think working with the department and anyone from the private sector on these sorts of things can lead to some good decisions being made out on the land surface.

I was very interested in the four Rs you talked about, especially the two Rs having to do with rate– doing it at the right rate and the right time. Is there any advice you can give to this committee in terms of other measures that we could be doing to deal with the excess of phosphorus, excess of nutrients that can be applied to the land? Are there other things that we can be looking forward to working together on? Mr. Stephens: Thank you for your question, Mr. Struthers. Again, my advice is to, again, adopt the 4R stewardship in your–in the province's extension materials, you know, continue working with the

142 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 industry and, you know, help maintain that relationship so we can get some really good data. Mr. Struthers: Yes, thank you very much. Members opposite have tried to make the case that it's not a problem that we should be dealing with, that we can– that anyone out there who's using these fertilizers, we can trust them to make the right decisions.

And I guess that's partly based on, you know, if you have to pay a bunch of money–I'm not saying you're overpriced or anything, but maybe some of my farmers would tell me to tell you you are, but they say that the cost of it would be a natural restriction on overapplying and taking too much fertilizer and leaving it out on the fields to have it wash off and eventually end up in Lake Winnipeg. It's been suggested to me that that's not a natural restriction on hog manure, that, in terms of hog manure, you want to get rid of the stuff as quickly as you can, and that's when we have problems.

Does your institute have any thoughts on the difference between fertilizer being applied out on grain land as opposed to fertilizer from hog barns being cleaned out and applied out on the surface of fields from hog barns? Mr. Stephens: Interesting point you raised, Mr. Struthers. Again, I would agree that every farm and fuel is different. Each farmer's specific needs can be different.

You know, again, if the farmer would implement R4 nutrient stewardship, then they could assess what is, you know, based–take a soil test, what is their nutrient pool in the soil, figure out what options exist for me or for her, and you use which product, again, the other four, the other of the four Rs, to decide which action to take. Mr. Struthers: Yes, I think that's excellent. Part of what we want to do here is put in place a different approach to handling the nutrients.

We think that agriculture can grow, we think agriculture can prosper, we think it has a bright future in Manitoba, but we do think that there's some things that we can do to make sure that the excess fertilizer that we're dealing with doesn't end up in our lakes. Is it your contention that if we don't handle it properly, that it could form part of the base upon which the green algae and other algaes grow in Lake Manitoba–sorry, Lake Winnipeg. I've got Lake Manitoba on my brain. Mr. Stephens: Good question, Mr. Struthers.

Again, if farmers implement four Rs, that would help reduce nutrient–you know, potential nutrient losses into the environment and further enhance crop yields. Crops do need a certain amount of nutrients to grow, to withstand stresses on them if they encounter any, and I think on implementing 4R nutrient stewardship definitely goes a long ways. Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions. Seeing none, thank you very much for coming out this evening, Mr. Stephens. Mr. Stephens: Thank you very much for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Next out-of-town presenter I have is Sheldon Stott, private citizen. Sheldon Stott.

Calling Sheldon Stott. Seeing that Sheldon Stott is not with us, the name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next out-of-town presenter is Jeremy Janzen. Jeremy Janzen, private citizen. Jeremy Janzen's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next out-of-town is Clayton Block, private citizen. Clayton Block. Clayton Block's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next presenter is Sam Gross, private citizen. Sam Gross. Sam Gross's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Next out-of-town is Allan Kristofferson, managing director, Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium. Good evening, sir.

Thank you for your patience. Do you have a written presentation? * (20:00) Mr. Allan Kristoffers on (Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium): I do not. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed when you're ready. Mr. Kristofferson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening to the committee. My name is Allan Kristofferson. I'm the managing director of the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium, and I have to take this opportunity to say that I am genuinely proud to be a close associate of Mr. Robert T. Kristjanson.

In my opinion, he is the sole individual who, through his own initiative, raised the red flag on Lake Winnipeg 15 years ago when the rest of us had no idea what was going on. I think he's–and I have to drive him home to get enough sleep–so he can get on the–then he can get on the–it'll be an interesting conversation on the way back, and we had a good one on the way in.

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 143 The Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium, as perhaps all of you know , is a not-for-profit organization that was funded in 1998, and it's a partnership, and it's a partnership that includes everybody, deliberately–all those who have stake or a responsibility or an interest in Lake Winnipeg. And it consists of government, many different levels of government–federal, provincial, municipal, First Nations, Crown corporations, cottage owners and commercial fishers and private citizens.

And our primary goal is to facilitate or make happen research that wasn't taking place on the lake for many different reasons. We need multidisciplinary research on Lake Winnipeg because it's a very complex body of water. We do this, we accomplish this in a number of different ways, not the least of which is that we own and operate a research vessel, the motor vessel Namao. It's a dedicated and capable vessel that allows us to reach every part of Lake Winnipeg effectively, and we host an annual science forum whereby research– we invite researchers, actually, to build capacity. We discuss research results.

We identify research gaps and we help to set priorities on research. And our activities can be divided, basically, up into two main categories. And the first one is monitoring. It's not a very exciting thing, but it's a very necessary thing. And essentially what it is, is we go to the same place at the same time year after year and look at the same things to see if, in fact, the lake is changing. We have 65 locations, GPS locations over the lake that we visit e ach year in the spring, in the summer and in the fall.

It's very necessary to do that because we have to get an understanding of the seasonal changes in the lake, and we have to do it year after year to get an understanding of the natural–annual variation in the lake as well. And at each station we monitor chemical, biological and physical parameters, and we've been doing this every year since 2002. Now, I wish I could say differently, but the results of that monitoring tell us that the lake isn't getting any better; it's, in fact, getting worse. We've seen significant increases in the concentration of both phosphorus and nitrogen since we started.

And if we compare it to baseline information that was collected in 1969, it is, indeed, a significant increase. So it's very clear to all and having listened to the presentations previously, I think there's a general consensus in this room that Lake Winnipeg is under stress from excessive nutrient concentrations. So the initiative to–and it's generally recognized and accepted that there needs to be very, very soon a significant reduction in the concentration, particularly of phosphorus.

The lake's algal community is dominated by cyanobacteria, 90 per cent now, compared to, say, 30 per cent in 1969, and one of the most effective ways of dealing with that in a short period of time, and this comes from experience on Lake Erie and other lakes around the world, is to significantly reduce phosphorus. And I certainly applaud the efforts of the government in moving in that direction. Algal blooms continue to proliferate on the lake.

Indeed, they foul swimming beaches, they clog fisherman's nets, but they've also been damaging the lake, and we have documented evidence that a large area of the north basin of the lake has suffered from oxygen depletion. When these large masses of algae die, they sink to the bo ttom, they decompose and they use up oxygen. And our researchers, particularly from the University of Manitoba, have seen a significant change in the composition of the benthos, the creatures that live on the mud.

From those that– very important fish food, particularly for whitefish, the Diporeia brevicornis , a little scud, benthic amphipod, has been reduced in abundance and is being replaced by Oligochaete worms, which can survive depleted oxygen conditions. So even though we don't see that, we certainly know that something's going on. Not a lot has happened in terms of positive things on Lake Winnipeg, but the damage is being done slowly, and that's why it's very, very important that we recognize that time is of the essence and something be done as quickly and as effectively as possible.

The other area of activity, of course, that we're involved in is research. This is a lake that we know very little about, and our research is–and many different aspects of research that need to be understood, but we're focusing on the nutrient issue and we're trying to get an understanding of how the lake processes these nutrients. From the time they enter the system, they are incorporated into the primary produces and they move their way up the food web to the top predators, which Mr. Kristjanson is going to be trying to catch tomorrow, the pickerel and the sauger and the whitefish.

The objectives are clear, then, and it isn't just one. The objectives are, certainly, we have to reduce the mass–biomass of blue-greens and this an important step forward in doing that, but we also

144 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 13, 2011 have to maintain a productive fishery. And when you start manipulating key nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, you can, in fact, have detrimental effects if you're not careful. So what we're trying to do there is to model the lake. We're using two robust models that have been used effectively in other lakes.

Indeed, there are similarities between lakes and we can take advantage of the knowledge we have on that, and one of the similarities is lakes have water, amongst other things, but there are very, very pa rticular aspects of Lake Winnipeg that are unique to it: its morphology, its geochemistry, its thermal regimes, and so on and so forth.

So we have to gather–and this is what we're doing as we speak, the ship is up the lake as I'm speaking–gather lake-specific information from Lake Winnipeg that we can plug into these models and hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, we can use these models to help us predict optimum levels of nutrient reduction. Indeed, we have to reduce the nutrient levels right now as quickly as we possibly can, but we also want to settle on where–what we call the sweet spots are.

So, on the one hand, we can get rid of the blue-greens or at least reduce them significantly, you won't ever get rid of them, but we can maintain a productive fishery. And that work is in progress. So that's what we're working on. Now the other role that the consortium has assumed and has been doing as effectively as it possibly can–is the role of education. We actually have an onboard program where we take classes of students out on the lake and they go through a hands- on field program, and the last couple of years we've taken over 500 students out for this issue. But it has to be far more reaching than this.

The Lake Winnipeg watershed is almost a million square kilometres, 6.6 million people live in that watershed, five and a half in Canada and 1.1 just south of the border. I was disturbed over the last little while that although a lot of people are aware there's a problem in Lake Winnipeg, they didn't understand the nature of the problem. The media was reporting the lake was dead or dying or polluted or contaminated or sick, [inaudible] maybe the lake is lost. What should we do? So the first step is awareness. That seems to be widespread. The next step is understanding.

The third step is individual acceptance of responsibility. And the fourth step, of course, is the willingness of all individuals, including myself, to do the right thing. But you have to understand what the right thing is. And we've been involved in the production of a number of media productions, including most lately, the David Suzuki Nature of Things program called, Save My Lake . Manitoba Moments, A Blooming Crisis, a locally produced documentary called the Fat Lake and another one, by Jim Byrne out of Lethbridge called Choking Lake Winnipeg.

And I think those have reached a lot of people and they've helped people to understand the nature of the lake. And we're hoping through government action and individual understanding and acceptance of responsibility and willingness to do the right thing, we can turn the lake around. Indeed, the solutions are obvious: which treatment, best management practices, restoration of wetlands, holding back runoff, individual things as simple as conserving water, not over fertilizing your lawns, and there's a whole host of them, we have them on our website.

And I feel that if we all, regardless of our backgrounds and our–whatever it is that we're concerned with, are willing to accept responsibility and turn things around. I have no doubt, in the foreseeable future, that we can restore Lake Winnipeg to good health. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Kristoffe rson. Questions for the presenter? Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Yes, you say that–two points that the lake is getting worse. What's been the change in phosphorus levels over the last 10 years? And you made the observation about zones of oxygen depletion.

Are those zones or areas of oxygen depletion in the north of the lake increasing, decreasing or staying the same over the last 10 years? Mr. Kristofferson: First question, phosphorus levels–average phosphorus levels in 1969 were about 37 micrograms per litre. My understanding is they're now in access of 55 micr ograms per litre. There's been a significant increase there. And the trend indicates no apparent reduction at this point in time.

Very likely, well, guaranteed, the lake is going to get a huge influx of phosphorus because of the runoff this spring. * (20:10) Now, the second question is the extent of the oxygen depleted area. It has to do with thermal stratification in the lake. Lake Winnipeg is a very

June 13, 2011 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 145 shallow lake and, normally, shallow lakes don't thermally stratify. They're cold in the wintertime; in the springtime, the surface warms up and the bottom stays cold and it doesn't mix. And we didn't see that until 2003 when, in fact, we found a very well established thermal stratification. It was due to a low water year, warm temperatu

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-5-sed6
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 5th hansardpdf sed6.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8082cb3ca8df97ba893d33a2ec6e76be882998d4

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