Manitoba Committee Hansard — Agriculture and Food Committee, Sitting 1 (36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-ag1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Agriculture Chairperson Mr. Jack Penner Constituency of Emerson Vol. XLVI No. 1- 7 p.m., Tuesday, October 1, 1996

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HELWER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosano MANI TOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The M�ples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Nialcwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirlcfield Parle Dauphin La Verendrye Rossmere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River &rt)' N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRIC ULTURE Tuesday, October 1, 1996 TIME- 7 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson ) ATTENDANCE- 11 -Q UORUM- 6 Members of the Committee present: Honourable Mr. Enns Messrs. Dyck, Helwer, Martindale, Penner, Radcliffe, Santos, Struthers, Sveinson, Tweed, Ms. Wowchuk Substitutions: Mr. Mervin Tweed for Mr. Frank Pitura WITNESSES: Bill 24- The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act Mr. Ken Fegol, Private Citizen Bill 31-The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act Mr.

Ronald Mentz, Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association Mr. Douglas Abra, Q.C., Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association Ms. Vicki Burns, The Winnipeg Humane Society Ms. Tracy Hughes, Private Citizen Mr. James Pearson, People Acting for Animal Liberation Mr. Gary Stott, Manitoba Elk Growers' Association Mr. Brion Whitford, Keeseekoowenin First Nation Mr. Kelly Taylor, Private Citizen Mr.

John Rutley, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 24-The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act Bill 31-The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act Bill 5-The Horticultural Society Repeal Act Bill 6- The Veterinary Science Scholarship Fund Amendment Act Bill23-The GRIP and Related Programs Termination and Consequential Amendments Act Bill 30-The Dairy Act *** Mr. Chairperson: Could the committee please come to order. I have before me, ladies and gentlemen, the resignation of Mr. Frank Pitura who is a member of the standing committee. He is also the Vice-Chairman.

He has submitted his resignation, so I therefore would ask for nominations to replace Mr. Pitura on the committee. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Mr. Chairman, I would like to nominate the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Mr. Chairperson: The member for Turtle Mountain has been nominated, Mr. Tweed. Any further nominations? I see no further nominations. I declare Mr. Tweed elected as Vice-Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. We have before us six bills to consider. The first bill for consideration is Bill 5, The Horticultural Society Repeal Act.

What I am going to do is ask whether there are any presentations on all these bills, and the first biii

2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1 , 1996 that comes up with presentations, we will deal with that bill and then continue on from there. The Horticultural Society Repeal Act, are there any presenters in the audience? I see none. We will leave that bill then, if it is the wish of the committee for further consideration later on. Bill 6, The Vete rinary Science Scholarship Fund Amendment Act, are there any presenters out in the audience? I see none . Bill23, The GRIP and Related Programs Termination and Consequential Amendments Act, are there any presenters in the audience? I see none.

Bill 24, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act, are there any presenters in the audience? Yes, we have one. If it is the wish of the committee , we will deal then with The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act first. Then Bill 30, The Dairy Act, are there any presenters there in the audience? No. The last one is Bill 31, The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act. Are there any presenters on that one? Yes, I see a number.

We will deal then, if it is the wish of the commi ttee, with Bill 24, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act, and I will ask the Page to distribute copies of the act if you have not got those. Raise your hands for those that wish a copy of the act. All have them? Mr. Edward Hdwer (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, I be lieve we should possibly hear all the presenters first and then go clause by clause, all the bills together. I would also suggest that we have a time limit on the presen ters, perhaps 10 minutes for the presenter and five minutes for questions. Mr.

Chairperson: Are we agreed to that suggestion? [agreed ] We will then hear all the presenters on all the acts first, and we will deal with clause-by-clause considerations after we have heard all the presenters, and we will put a time limit of 15 minutes, I 0 and five, I 0 for the presentation and five for the questions to the presenters. Ms. Rosano Wow chuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I would just like clarification. I believe it has been traditional to have 15 minutes for presenters. I am not wanting to see us try to restrict the presenters or the questions to such a great de gree.

If it has been traditional that we have 15 minutes for presenters, then I would say that as long as we are not moving to restrict-we do not have that many presenters tonight. We have seen that we have several bills that will move along fairly quickly, and I can tell you that we do not have amendments, so I do not think we should try to restrict too much. Mr. Chairpenon: I have no problem in allowing 15 minutes for presenters if that is the wish of the committee. Ms. Wow chuk: And then questions following. Mr. Chairperson: And questions following. Agreed? [agreed] Mr. Helwer: Mr.

Chairman, I thought we had just agreed oo a process, and that was the same as we did last week. We had a committee hearing last week and we went through a process, and we established a I 0-minute presentation and a five-minute question period, and I thought we had agreed with that. Don. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman and committee members, I am more than disposed to go along with the general liberal tenden cies of our Chair to decide whether I 0 or 15 minutes have elapsed. Mr. Chairpenon: What is the will of the committee?

Is it the will of the committee, the suggestion that was made, that there be 15 minutes for presentations and then questions after? Mr. Helwer: Mr. Chairman, if you would like to ama lgamate the I 0 and five together and make it 15 minutes altogether, but if they are longer than 10, if the questions are less, that is less than the five, that is fine, but 15 minutes in total is what we did last week, and I think we should try to keep the same rules as we had last week. They went very well.

October 1 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3 Mr. Chairperson: Okay, if you allow the Chair a bit of discretion in this matter, I think it will work well. Agreed to that? [agreed] Ms. Wowch uk: Mr. Chairman, as you know, if it is the wish of the committee that has the majority of membership to decide that it is 15 minutes that we are going to allow for each presenter, then you have the power to do so, but I would just like to put on the record that I do not want this committee to appear that they are trying to restrict input.

I think that we should have some flexibility, if there is interest, that we should be allowed to continue our questioning. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Wowchuk. I will use my discretion and I hope I use it honourably. :llr

(1910) Bill 24- The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: Bill 24, The Agricultural Credit Corporation Amendment Act, we have one presenter, and his name is Mr. Ken Fegol. Ken, would you come forward, please? Have you got a written presentation for distribution? Mr. Ken Fegol (Private Citizen): I have just a brief covering letter and I have some exhibits. Mr. Chairperson: Copies? Would you distribute them, please?

Before you start on the other bill, there are a number of presenters on Bill 31, and I would ask the committee for indulgence and ask whether they would wish to hear the out-of-town presenters first before the in town. That is normal practice of the committee. Are we agreed to that? [agreed] So we will ask out -of-town presenters on Bill 31, after this presentation, to make their presentations first. Will you proceed, please. Mr. Fegol: I am Ken Fegol. I am a farmer and land scape contractor and gardener just north of the city near Lockport.

We had a mortgage; my father and I got a mortgage with MACC back in 1971. In 1984, actually two years after 1984, we found out that our mortgage was sold. MACC sold our mortgage without giving us notice. My dad passed away; the trustees were not notified. It has never been done in the history of MACC. It has never been done in Canada. We had our trust with MACC; we relinquished loans with the Bank of Commerce to put our trust in with MACC, then they aband oned us, sold it to a third party. I lost my house; the rest is history. So now Bill 24 comes up, and in the covering letter there, and 31 (

h) there is one place in the MACC act where it says, as the mortgagor directs. That is the only place where notice has to be given to the mortgagor. Now you want to strike that out. I do not know why. It is the only protection the mortgagor has. I asked-the first letter was our letter to MACC requesting that the homestead be discharged from the mortgage as the man that bought the mortgage did not have any registered interest in the homestead. Mr. Victor replies, that is in my second letter, that in order to protect Mr. Tilley's interests he sold the mortgage.

You have $3 million for bad loans per year approximately, it varies, and Mr. Gill Shaw states that they had to protect their mandate, and that the only way they can protect their mandate was to sell my mortgage-a breach of the Constitution, a breach of the bill of rights, many breaches of the Charter, as I say. Now you want to eliminate the notice requirement in Bill24, in the MACC act, probably now you would be clear that you can privatize MACC like you are doing with the telephone system because the mortgagor has no say in it at all now.

If this clause is removed, there is no place where the mortgagor has any feed into what is done with the act with his money. I asked for an Order-in-Council ruling in one of my exhibits to the Minister of Agriculture, our MLA, Mr. Findlay, and the Premier. They beat around the bush, did not answer the question, would not give me an Order-in Council ruling, and, following the reply to that letter, they say it is covered under The Real Property Act.

There is nothing in The Real Property Act that says you can or cannot sell a mortgage whether there is a registered encumbrance on it or not, but that is the answer I got, see that, see your lawyer. I took it to court, 20 cases I have had, two systems. I sue them; they say, see, Mr. Tilley sued me. It has been in the court 20 times trying to stop them from removing my homestead and abandoning it. There are permits now to wreck my house and everything.

4 LE GISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA October I , 1996 The time will come in the Supreme Court, it is not before the courts right now, I have just applied for leave, the big hydrogen bomb will go off I wonder why you want to eliminate all this. You do all these little things in Bill 24 to cover up the main one on

Section 31 (h). The other ones, the amendments that you ask for changes are just to put something in there. They are not necessary at all; it is covered in the other act, but 31 (

h) has the mortgagor direct on there, you are striking it out. Ten thousand farmers are affected by your decision. The court has ruled now, the appeal court has upheld the ruling that MACC can sell any mortgage they want without notice to the farmer. There are 8,500 farmers, and all the fishermen, you could sell their mortgage without letting them know, abandoning them whether they are in arrears or not. It was sold by one person, Mr. Victor, counsel for MACC. In his private office, I asked for a copy of the minutes of the board meeting, the board decision, to foreclose or to sell the mortgage-none exists.

Of course, none exists. Three people, three lawyers, three people met in the office; your representative, Mr. Victor, took on the powers of the board himself in a small little office, he carried out. We had to have the board decision to get a mortgage, but to sell it, one man, one person, can do it. This is a big scandal, Mr. Enns, that will come out. Somebody will pick it up. Nobody wants to pick it up in Manitoba, but it is big-O.J. Simpson's is almost as big as mine-but I just wanted to bring this up on Bill 24, and that is all I have. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Fegol.

Are there any questions? Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Fegol has raised a serious matter, something that he has brought to our attention and to many people's attention over the last while. I wonder if it might be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, if at this time-and if it is not appropriate you can advise me, too-to ask for some clarification on behalf of Mr. Fegol as to why that Clause 3l(

h) has been taken out, struck out. Is it right to ask that question at this time, or would that be something that we would deal with at a later time? Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I would be more than prepared to respond to that question from the honourable member for Swan River. I have Mr. Gill Shaw, general manager and president of MACC, with us this evening, and I will give the committee assurance that I will have an explanation for the reason the amendments that are being presented to the committee in the form that they are when we deal with the bill clause by clause. Mr.

Fegol: Could I just add one thing? This is an opportune time. I would ask the committee, put in the MACC act in your amendment now. The Law Reform Committee had full knowledge for the last two or three years of what is going on I am surprised they did not put that in the bill. Put it in, make it clear to I 0,000 farmers that they can or cannot sell the mortgage. Do not beat around the bush, put it in there, make it a law-they can or they cannot. It is simple. That is all I ask. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Fegol, would it be satisfactory to you that when we get to the stage where we are having an explanation for why these happen, if you were here, you will hear that explanation, and if there is need, then amendments can be brought forward? Mr. Fegol: Yes, put in the amendments. Clarify every thing, clarify the Order-in-Council ruling. This is your opportune time. Make it clear. It is not clear now. There is no policy. Mr. Shaw states in his letters in my exhibit. We have no policy. Mr. Victor said, we have no policy. Mr. Shaw says we have no policy. Let us put a policy down. What is your policy?

There are members of this committee-it is not just one person-and I think that can be accomplished. Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Fegol. Mr. Fegol: Thank you. *

(1920) Bill 31- The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Chairperson: We will move then to Bill31, and we have eight presenters. We have three people, as I

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5 understand it, who are out-of-town people, and if it is the wish of the committee, we will hear those first. Maybe, I should ask, were there are any others? There is Mr. Stott, Mr. Whitford and Mr. Taylor, are currently identified as being out of town. Are there any others? Seeing none, we will then ask Mr. Stott to come forw ard. Mr. Stott, have you a written presentation for distribution? Mr. Gary Stott (Manitoba Elk Growers' Associa tion): No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson: You do not. Okay. Would you proceed then, please. Mr. Stott: Mr.

Chairman, honourable minister, committee members, before I start, I would just like to let the committee know that Mr. Taylor had called and was unable to attend this evening due to the weather conditions that persist out west, so he will not be here this evening. My name is Gary Stott. I am a director on the Manitoba Elk Growers' Association, commonly referred to as MEGA. MEGA was established under the leadership of our present president, the renowned Dr. Hudson from Hamiota, Manitoba. Unfortunately, he was unable to make it this evening, too. He had some prior commitments.

He also worked at establishing the Canadian Venison Council. Presently, our board consists of five directors, as well as a president, a vice-president and a secretary treasurer. So there is a total of eight of us. We presently have 40 paid-up members, and we have had, I guess, over the last six months or so, probably in excess of 200 calls inquiring about memberships and interested in getting involved in the industry. I come to represent MEGA in support of the Manitoba government proposed health farming legislation.

We see it as an excellent diversificati on opportunity, and we need to only look at a couple of the recent things that have happened that affect western Canadian agriculture, one of the most recent, the abolition of the Crow. As you well know, that will dramatically increase the cost of moving grain to export markets. Manitoba, being the farthest from the export markets and certainly the farthest from the ocean ports, is effectively going to have a higher freight cost than any of its other prairie provinces in western Canada.

Since we are quickly becoming encompassed in a global nuuketplace, I think it is prudent to realize that we have to abide by global rulings as far as the GA Tf agreements and what have you go, and I believe there is some sense that possibly the fact that we do not have game farming in Manitoba could be construed as a nontariff trade barrier. The only two provinces in Canada that do not presently have game farming, of course, are Manitoba and Newfoundland.

I also see some other things that possibly could happen in the future, possibly declining global grain trade, and basically economics are going to continue to force our agricultuml farmers to diversifY. I believe that the impact on areas with marginal farmland, they are on the periphery, will even be further disadvantaged simply because they are further from the rail lines that are so quickly being abandoned in this country, and they commonly suffer from lower yields and also some poor quality crops, as well.

It might not be that profitable to continue growing traditional cereal crops in those areas in the future, and we may very well see a return to native pastures and grasslands, of which elk will thrive on those. Elk have a lot of natural advantages. As you well know, Manitoba elk is a unique subspecies, unique to the province of Manitoba and is in extremely high demand worldwide as breeding stock. Elk traditionally and historically were native to the plains and did, in fact, roam our wide-open plains before we put the plow to them and started growing crops.

It is kind of interesting to see that if we go back years ago, when they were laying the transcontinental railroad, for example, we worked diligently to get rid of the buffalo, and now it is interesting to see we are building back the buffalo herds and getting rid of the railroads. So that seems like kind of an irony to me. It is also interesting to see that elk thrive in the parkland areas that they have been driven back to. So they are a very resilient animal. They are very efficient converters of marginal forage and browse, and their nutritional requirements are matched seasonally with cyclical productivity.

Their peak requirements, of course,

6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 being dwing lactation, which occurs in June, July and the summer months, at a time when our pastures are very lush and abundant. Then in winter the metabolic rates slow down, and they do not require as adequate browse and what have you. That bodes well with what our Manitoba winters offer. They can simply thrive where I think a lot of beef cattle could not even survive. They are very resilient animals, as I mentioned before, when it comes to weather, the cold, the heat and the snow, the rain, the sleet, like we are having this evening.

They are very resilient to that as well as insects. They have some natural immunities to many diseases. They also fare very well against the predators, the coyotes and the foxes and the wolves and what have you, a trait that the domesticated animals do not have. They require minimal shelter. It is interesting to see they thrive in the wild, but they thrive equally as well in confmement from our observations. As I mentioned, this subspecies that is native to Manitoba cannot be replicated anywhere else in the world.

So the only way the rest of the world has access to it is through breeding stock sales, certainly a niche market for Manitoba farmers, truly a Manitoba advantage. This is sustainable agriculture, in our opinion. It will strengthen farm economic viability. It will give family farms the opportunity to maintain their rural lifestyle, to give their children and their families a quality of life that they so much cherish. That is why they are living in rural communities.

It will do a lot to revitalize the rural towns and villages that are so quickly drying up and blowing away in areas that do not have these type of opportunities. I think it is prudent to remember that in the future it is going to be economics and not subsidies that will dictate the trends of agriculture in the future. We take a look at the industry, how it has been structured and designed, and we take a look to the West where game farming has been carried on for many years now.

In Saskatchewan, for example, in excess of 150 elk producers; Alberta, in excess of 200; and we certainly have the advantage of drawing from their expertise and, in fact, not stepping in all the pitfalls that they may have setting up their industries. So we have an advantage coming in at this late stage, I believe, to do it very right. It is also very nice to see that the Natural Resources department, for example, will continue administering The Wildlife Act, so that part of it will not change.

Everything on the outside of the fence is going to be controlled with the present government body and on the inside, of course, will go to Manitoba Agriculture. So the focus and expertise can go where the professionalism lies. Manitoba, I believe, can and is starting with a state-of the-art system with, to mention a few, DNA testing for purity and the profiles, very important registration and tagging of all the animals.

There are minimum requi rements set out for fencing and handling facilities, and there is inspection of facilities prior to issuing of a licence , so if they do not come up to snuff, you do not get a licence. This will weed out people who may want to take some shortcuts that may not be to the benefit of the animals or the industry. There will also be random future checks on facilities as far as how they are being kept up and the density of the animals and also as far as the animal welfare and husbandry. *

(1930) If we go to the velveting process, I am pleased to see that it is spelled out that that will only be done under veterinary supervision. The animals will be held in confmement and also the state-of-the-art physical restraints will be used. I understand they will be using local anesthesia. I think this assures optimum consideration for the animal. I think it is prudent to note that farmers are in the business of farming because they like it. I have been farming all my life, and it certainly is not the money that keeps you there a lot of the time; you like what you are doing.

Having said that, I think it is a fair statement to say that farmers do a good job of looking after their animals, first of all, because they like those animals, but they also realize the importance of giving the animals their every requirement They have the highest regard for the animals' welfare and consequently that shows in the superior production that a lot of Manitoba and western Canadian farmers achieve. In conclusion, game farming is nothing that is new. It is new to Manitoba, but it is not new to the world.

Game farming has been going on for centuries around the world by early Europeans, Asians and the aboriginal

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 7 comm unities over there, but like I said, it is a new, exciting opportunity for Manitoba farmers at this point. We have the opportunity for breeding stock sales within our province, within our country, to our big neighbour to the south of us, as well as overseas. Coun tries like New Zealand realize the benefits of Manitoba elk. We have the benefit of velveting. The tips of the antler, as you all well know, are used for growth tonics for children. The base is very calcium rich and used in the treatment of osteoporosis in seniors.

The balance of the antlers is generally powdered and can be used several ways either in tea or soup and is for the prevention and treatment of arthritic conditions in people. I also see in future that we can develop the industry for meat sales. I think that is many, many years down the road, though. And the meat, as you well know, is very, very high in protein, low in fats and low in cholesterol. In ending, I would like to say that elk is one of the only animals in the world that offers these diversities and, in fact, these opportunities. We offer our support for this exciting new farming opportunity.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Stott. Are there any questions of Mr. Stott? Ms. Rosano Wow chuk (Swan River): Mr. Stott, you raised several points that I would just like to ask clarifi cation on. At the begi nning of your presentation, you said that there is a possibility of trade barriers, and the fact that we do not have elk ranching in this province could be considered as a trade barrier. Have you had any discussions and can you give us a little bit more detail as tcrhave you had any contact or discussion with people that have actually said that this is a trade barrier?

Where are you getting that information? Mr. Stott: That is a very good question. In my involvement in agriculture over the years and in my involvement with exporting some other commodities, I realize how fmicky our trade partners are throughout the world, and I think it is a balance of a perception versus realism or realism versus perception in these cases. I think, just by default, the fact that Manitoba is one of two provinces in the great country of Canada that does not allow game farming, we have to support that position from a scientific basis.

I would hazard a guess that we cannot do that, and by virtue of that it could be defmed as a nontariff trade barrier. I would suggest that would be to the detriment of agricultural industries throughout the province and a lot of other industries if Manitoba gets the distinction of setting up those types of tariffs or barriers. Ms. W owchuk: So this is something that you are just anticipating that could happen. There has not been any actual evidence that Manitoba could be cited as putting up trade barriers. Are you anticipating within Canada or within international trade? Mr.

Stott: I am certainly hoping it does not happen. I think there are other people that are in a lot better position to comment on that, but I think it is a possibility. We need only look at other commodities and some of the barriers set up in other parts of the world, and I do not think you have to be rocket scientist to determine that that threat is a real one. I think we should take it seriously. Ms. Wowchuk: It is just hypothetical that you are assuming that there could be trade barriers. The second question I have is, you said that we can anticip ate a declining global grain trade.

I found that quite surprising because as world population grows there is a need for grain around the world. I have not seen any statistics that will show me that there will be a declining amount of grain trade going on. I just wonder where that information, where that would come from. Mr.

Stott: I guess we have to look at the efficiencies of moving grain as well, too, so that will play into the equation, whether Manitoba, taking into consideration the geographic location in the centre of the continent, if we can compete with other grain-producing areas, and as I did mention in my presentation, I felt very strongly that economics would drive most of our moves in the future, and not just with respect to agriculture either, in many different industries, as well.

I think it is interesting to note, if we look throughout the globe at some of the countries that are becoming grain export ers, countries that I guess I never thought in the past would-maybe countries like India, for example, are getting very big in grain production. We need only look down to South America, where they are cleaning tropical

8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October I, 1996 forests off, I think , at the rate of about 50 acres-is it a minute or an hour? It is a big, big figure anyway, but they are getting big into grain production, com, soybeans and what have you, so I think traditional global grain trade is going to change. Ms. Wo wchuk: Well, I think it will be a long time before Canada is not in the grain trade or we will see it declining, but another question that I have, just moving on, you talked about that this industry would be good for the use of marginal farmland.

Most of the marginal farmland is next to forests, and if you are saying that we should be using this land for elk ranching, do you have any concerns about elk escaping from ranches and the risk of disease spreading from the elk in captivity to wild elk or inbreeding when you bring in different species? Do you have any of those concerns when you talk about the use of marginal land to establish elk ranching? Mr.

Stott: Certainly, it is a concern, and it is a concern that I believe has been adequately addressed by the minimal requirements that I see set out in stipulating a minimum fence height of eight feet, for example, with posts no farther than 25 feet apart, with a barbed wire to be put along the perimeter of the fence on the outside to help prevent all types of predators from digging under there, as well as white-tailed deer and so on and so forth. So, no, I think that concern has been very adequately addressed. Ms.

Wo wchuk: In the interest of time, I will not pursue that, but I have one other that I want to ask, and that is, you said that Manitoba has a unique species. We all know that we have some of the best elk in the world. Do you see a risk of losing that genetic pool by inbreeding, because the legislation does not completely cut out the risk of other elk from other areas corning into Manitoba, because as we read the act, the elk could come from the States into another province, and then they could come into Manitoba. So I would like to ask you whether you have any concern about our unique subspecies being lost. Mr.

Stott: No, I think that concern has been very well addressed, as well. It is my understanding that any elk movements within the province require a permit, and when that permit is taken out, I believe the animals' IDs and their origin is designated on that permit. *

(1940) Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Would the Manitoba Elk Growers' Association be in favour of expanding further than just elk and, say, legalizing the capture and farming of bear? Mr. Stott: That issue has never come up, so I cannot comment on it. We have never discussed that. Mr. Struthers: The legislation provides a definition of animal that is broad enough to include not just elk but bear. We know that we have a problem with poaching with elk antlers and different parts of the elk, and we also know that we have a problem with people shooting bear and removing the gall.

I was wondering if you thought if it was good enough for your group to domesticate elk, increasing the chances of poaching, whether you thought that other groups should be allowed to do the same to other animals. Mr. Stott: I take it from your remarks you are suggesting that by implementing an elk farming program in the province, you are telling me that you feel that will cut down on poaching, so if you do feel that way about elk, I would suggest we should pursue doing the same thing with bear. It will cut down on the poaching of bear. Mr.

Struthers: I take it then that you are in favour of going fiuther and providing this for bear just as with elk. Can you describe for me a test that \\ith I 00 percent accuracy would determine whether an elk has tuberculosis? Mr. Stott: What exactly is the question, please? Mr. Struthers: Can you describe to me a test that with I 00 percent accuracy can describe an elk with tuberculosis? Mr. Stott: No, I cannot describe that test. Maybe there are some people in the room that can, but I do not have those qualifications.

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 9 Mr. Struthers: I have been asking a lot of people to describe that test to me, and it seems that there is not one out there and that we cannot give the people of Manitoba a guarantee, 100 percent, that any disease, whether it be brucellosis or tuberculosis or blue jung or indeed mad cow disease, the elk version of it, cannot be kept out of our province once we go into this concept of elk ranching. So I was hoping you would be able to tell me of a test that would give me, as a Manitoba citizen, that guarantee. Mr. Stott : No, I am sorry, I cannot.

I wish I could, and maybe there is somebody out there, but I know of very few things in our real world that is 100 percent. As a matter offact, I do not know of any. Mr. Struthers: If it is 100 percent guaranteed that cocaine is not good for your health, then we have laws that restrict the use of cocaine. I think it might be wise to think that the same theory would apply to that. Mr.

Stott, are you aware of or do you support the idea of what is called canned hunts, where an elk is released out into a large fenced-in encampment, and the great white hunters from wherever are brought in to track down this elk and shoot it and then take the head and put it over their fireplace, I presume? Are you aware of that practice, and do favour it? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Struthers, I am going to intervene as Chair.

I thought before, when you had approached the question-! am saying this with tongue-in cheek somewhat, but I had thought before, when you approached the question of hunting bear, that you might want to talk about the requirements for being dressed properly when you were hunting elk. However, this one, I think you are going beyond the issue that we are discussing here, and I am not sure whether Mr. Stott has the expertise to answer those kinds of questions. So I am going to ask Mr.

Stott whether he is willing to answer the question, but I am going to ask also the committee's indulgence that we speed this up because we have a number of other presenters, and we have gone significantly beyond the 15 minutes that we were talking about before. Mr. Stott: Ifl understand correctly, the question is, do I agree with hunting these animals that are in confinement? No, I do not and I do not think that is necessary. I am happy to say that we have a lot of wide open spaces in our fair province with abundance of wild elk on there.

We have a hunting system that allows us the opportunity every two years to put in for a draw, and I would think that I can speak for myself, and I think the people I am representing would feel the same way, that they will do their hunting up in the Duck Mountain Park or Turtle Mountain, wherever there is elk. Mr. Chairperson: I am going to allow one more question. Mr. Struthers: Thank you for your generous flexibility, Mr. Chairman.

The reason that I was talking about the canned hunt is that in several other jurisdictions where they have gone to elk ranching and made it legal, that has been the natural progression of events. I know you have said that you see in several years the meat side of it becoming something and in other jurisdictions it has been that progression. I mean that is why I asked the question. Mr. Stott, is there any guarantee that you see in this legislation that would prevent an elk rancher from simply using an electric current to stun the elk while the antlers are being removed? Mr.

Stott: In my recollection, it seems to me that the electric immobilization was not certainly one of the preferred ways of doing it. I do not recall that being one of the options for immobilizing them. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Stott, for your presentation. We are going to move to the next presenter. I understand Mr. Taylor is not here. Has he since arrived? No. We will then ask Mr. Brion Whitford to come forward. Mr. Whitford, have you a written presentation? Mr. Brion Whitford (Keeseekoowe nin First Nation): No, I do not. Mr. Chairperson: You do not. Would you proceed then, please. Mr.

Whitford: Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Minister, committee members, this is the first time I have ever done this, so you will have to sort of bear with me, but-

10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October I, 1996 Mr. Chairperson: Feel quite at home. Some of us were here for the first time at one point in time too. Mr. Whitford: First of all, my name is Brion Whitford, and I am a member of the Keeseekoowenin First Nation, and I would like to sort of do maybe just a very brief history of how I am sort of involved in this, along with my band. In 1986 or '87, I was fortunate enough to be a director on the IMAX film that was made for North Portage that was sponsored by the government of Manitoba, and I was responsible for getting the elk shot in the film.

That was my frrst encounter with elk ranching. Now, I did not know very much at that time what was going on, but I know that they were seriously looking at it, and this is how I acquired that shot, was through the Swan River elk ranch that was going at the time. After that I had basically nothing to do with it. In 1991 , I returned back to my reserve to work as a land claims co-ordinator for my band in negotiation with the Government of Canada for the return of a portion of Clear Lake Indian Reserve.

I worked for a couple of years in that community on the land claim and at the same time getting involved in the community. The one thing that I noticed was there were a few band members who were trying to get involved in agriculture. As you know, this is one of the only viable, I think, economic development initiatives that can work. A lot of the economic development and the free enterprise system that we think of is a very, very difficult concept on the First Nation, but I think that agriculture is something that has been passed down through the generations. *

(1950) But these young farmers are 80 years behind the times. You know, they are working small pieces of land. They have second-, third-rate pieces of equipment. They can get small loans and that is it. It is a small operation. It was during, I think, the spring of '92 or '93, and occasio nally they go out, they get some meat for the summer, whatever, usually do this in May and June, and sometimes they shoot elk cows. I knew that they were leaving behind elk cows in the bush, and I remembered at that moment that, you know, there was this elk ranch up in Swan River.

I did not really know what was going on at the time, but I told them why not go back and capture these cows, try and raise them, and we can look at talking to Natural Resources or whatever in holding these animals, and that is what we did. So the first year, I think, we captured seven or eight cows, and we bottle-fed them and raised them. At the same time we attended the elk breeders' annual meeting in Saskatchewan, and we have since been to two of them. We learned about nutrition, feeding them, taking care of them.

Then we carne to the, I think it was in December of '94, we met with the minister, told him that we would like to start elk ranching and where does it sit. They said that there was a moratooum on elk ranching. To make a long story short, we said that we were determined to go on with elk ranching and we would endeavour to use whatever we had within our power to do that. One of those things was to enact a by-law which would be signed by the Minister of Indian Affairs enabling the chief and council to have jurisdiction over wildlife on reserv e lands.

I would like to say honestly that was, you know, like a sort of a scare tactic. What our intention was was to get elk ranching going, do whatever we had to do to do it, and then get it on. I think that in the last couple of years we have done what we have had to do. We have built excellent facilities, I think. We have a 200-acre pasture. We have numerous animals in there now. We have been meeting on and off with the government, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns).

We have had people come down from Wildlife to inspect our facilities, to see our animals, to show them our plans for the future, and the reason that we are doing it is for economic development. I mean, there is a principle there that this is the com mercialization of sane thing that is wild and free, and that is fine. Working out there, I have sort of taken the attitude that something has to be more practical, and these guys that I am representing are very much interested in elk ranching, very much interested in working with the government. Well, we just want to say that we are in support of elk ranching.

We do not really see any reason why it is not here. You had some questions for Mr. Stott on the disease aspect. We leave that entirely up to Agriculture Canada. I mean, they are doing a great job as it is on everything

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 that they do, and they are working on elk across the country. There does not seem to be any problems. I do not think there is going to be any problems here. You know, I cannot give you a 100 percent guarantee, but I just think this is one of the ways for First Nations to actually do something on their own, and I think they can do it. We have a council right now where we have a couple of bands that are genuinely interested, and we are having a meeting Thursday and Friday. We have other bands coming down and taking

part in the meeting, and we are all interested in this whole concept. You know, we are willing to work at it. There is a great deal of interest and knowledge in these communities for raising these animals and just being around them. I mean, I do not want to go on and on, but basically that is it. Basically, it is economic development, and we are in support of elk ranching. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you vety much, Mr. Whitford. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Whitford, for your presentation. Mr. Whitford, have you looked at the le gislation, or has your band looked at the legislation?

Do you feel that the legislation will meet your needs and that you will have the protection or the assurances that First Nations will be able to have elk ranching under this legislation? You talked about capturing elk. Do you think that under this legislation you will be able to continue to capture elk, or will you have to buy them? Have you dealt with those things with the government? Mr. Whitford: We are currently now working with Natuml Resources on a capture contract, where we would be more involved in this process than we have been, and we would like to be more involved .

There are certain questions raised about this that I am not really prepared to answer at this time. It is more of something that would be done probably by the chiefs, because there are certain chiefs who are sort of leading this concept and bringing it together. We are working on a capture contract with the province where we would hopefully take over the capture of the animals. What you are talking about is something that would probably discontinue once the legislation was passed, because, I mean, we are looking to work with the government on this. Ms.

Wowchuk: I raise the issue because it was one of my colleagues, and I think it might be somebody whom you know, the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), who said that First Nations people have to be very careful becau se many times they think that there will be something in the legislation that will ensure that they have the opportunities and then it might not be there. So that was why I was asking whether your council had looked at the legislation and felt you had the protection.

The other question I ask is, when you talk about capturing elk, do you feel that there should be a protected area where elk should not be captured? There was a lot of controversy last year about where elk were captured. There was the whole issue of the Swan River Valley where they could not capture because the farmers disagreed with it so much, and then they moved over. People feel that the national park should be natural habitat. So do you have any concerns as to where elk should be captured? *

(2000) Mr. Whitford: The only area where they can be captured, that is the Riding Mountain area and the Duck Mountain area. The Interlake does not have enough animals to be able to capture from there-and the Manitoban elk is the biggest, big in body size and in antler size, of the four different subspecies of elk in North America. Now, there are a lot of questions that you are asking there that really cannot be answered, like this canned hunt. This is a natural progression.

After you have used all your big bulls for breeding, they get to a certain age where all they do is they just produce a massive set of antlers; and, if you do not harvest them as a green antler, then they are used as a trophy hunt. I do not know where that is going. That is certainly the progression of the way things have gone, especially in the U.S., and I think it is starting in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Bear farms are starting to appear in China and Korea, and they are attaching something to the gall that drains the liquid in there, and it keeps the animal alive.

I mean, there are all kinds of crazy things going on. I do not think that we would ever go in that direction here. There would be too much public opposition to that, and it is not someth ing that I would look favourably upon. White-

12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1 , 1996 tails are being farmed in Alberta and Saskatchewan. That is something that I think the people who are involved in the industry are going to have to determine. Right now we are looking to work with the government. When we first sat down, we said that we were interested in the export market only, not bringing in any other animals, because then you would have a very unfair advantage for the guy who wants to start off who did not have very much money.

I mean, this looks like right now that it is going to be a small hobby farm to start off with, but if big money is allowed to come in, then a lot of foreign animals will come in. We were in favour of an export market only, and that is what we said, but elk ranching at this level, you know, I do not know if you can restrict people from coming in from other prov inces. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Whitford, thank you for your presentation. I enjoyed listening to you very much. I am interested in the remarks that you just made in terms of a natural progression.

It seemed to me, you were saying that you saw this evolving from an antler industry to a meat industry, and then it would be natural that there would be canned hunts once you had no further use for the bulls that you were taking the antlers from. I am interested to know if Keesee has actually talked in terms of planning for that event uality, for that natural progression that you have correctly identified has occurred in other jurisdictions that have gone to elk ranching. Mr.

Whitfo rd: I do not think that we would be interested in going in that direction, and I do not think it would be realistically realized in the future. There would be too much opposition to it. Mr. Struthers: There was a lot of opposition to the GST, and we have that too. I want to know if there is anything in the legislation that gives you any kind of hope at all that this government, through its legislation, would be able to prevent eventually going on to either canned hunts or prevent the setting up of bear farms, as you also pointed out.

Is there anything in this legislation that says that that will not happen, or are we simply going to depend on people's anger and public pressure on the government of the day, whoever it is, to not go into these kind of crazy practices, as you and I agree? Mr. Whitford: All I can say is that my personal experience over the last year and a half is that this government has been taking its time to make sure that it does it right. It does not really want to offend anybody, and at the same time, you know, it wants to bring elk ranching and it wants to do it right.

I mean, they spent, I think, two years, three years studying the whole concept of elk ranching and tried to take the best of Alberta's experience. Mr. Chairperson: I am going to allow one more question. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Whitford, the Province of Manitoba has signed a lot of agreements and treaties over the years, and as you well know, the record of provincial and federal governments is not that good in the area of keeping their word when it comes to treaties.

This provincial government, a couple of years ago, has signed a biodiversity agreement, which is a world-scale agreement, that I am just reminded the Minister of Agricu lture present today put his name to. Within that biodiv ersity agreement, our province has committed to guaranteeing the biodiversity of the animals, which includes the subspecies of elk that we are dealing with today.

There is a whole body of literature out there that says that if we move to elk ranching, we will end up with an elimination of this subspecies of elk, and I am wondering what your thoughts are in tem1s of the eventua lity that the elk that we have right now are going to be a different elk down the road and whether your band at Keesee has thought that out. Mr. Whitford: This is one of the things that we have thought out, and we arrived at the conclusion that in the last 125 years, from where the animals did roam and where they are restricted to now, what is going to happen in another 125 years?

There could be none left in these areas, and if you have these farms dotted around the area, with protection, you can- Floor Comment: Guarantee the preservation of the spectes. Mr. Whitford: That is right. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Whitford, for your presentation.

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 13 I will call now Barbara King from the Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Before we hear the next presenter I think, Mr. Chairman, that you should tell the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) that their line of questioning is unfair. There is a time for debate in the House on this issue, and I think if they want to question the presenters, that is fme, but this is not a time for debate. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Helwer. I am going to ask- Mr.

Ronald Mentz (Manitoba Veterinary Medical Associa tion): I am Dr. Ronald Mentz. I am the president of the Veterinary Medical Association of Manitoba, on behalf of Ms. King. Mr. Chairperson: I am going to ask Mr. Struthers, have you a question or a comment? Mr. Struthers: I think a response to what the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) has just put forward needs to be solicited from this side of the table. I think what Mr. Helwer is saying is that it is yours to invoke closure on my ability to ask questions of the presenters, and that is something that I have as a right as an MLA.

If I am going to do my job here on behalf of my constituents and the people of the province of Manitoba, then I cannot sit here quietly and listen while, essentially, a motion of censure is put forward. You, as the chairman, Mr. Chairman, have the right and have the responsibility to make sure that we in the opposition get our say and be able to ask our questions on behalf of the people of Manitoba and not have to put up with the kind of intimidation that is coming from the other side of the table. Mr.

Chairperson: I asked before whether I could have the indulgence of the committee to use my discretion as to when we would start and end the debates. I am doing , that, and I would intend to continue doing that. Thank you. I respect the advice of the committee members, and I will ask Mr. King now-what did you say your name was? Mr. Mentz: Ron Mentz. Mr. Chairperson: Ron Mentz, to continue on behalf of the Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association. Have you a written presentation? Mr. Mentz: No, Mr. Chairman. Unfortunately, we only heard about this meeting last night, so I do not have any written presentation.

We can let the committee have it by tomorrow if they want. Mr. Chairperson: Would you continue, please. *

(2010) Mr. Mentz: My name is Dr. Ronald Mentz. I am the president of the Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association, and I am representing the veterinarians in the province of Manitoba here tonight. The Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association represents 270 veterinarians in the province of Manitoba, and the association governs the veterinarians of Manitoba. We also attempt to protect the health and the welfare of animals in Manitoba. That does not only pertain to domesticated animals but also to wildlife.

We are the primary health givers of domesticated animals in this province, as well as wildlife, and as president of the association, I am here tonight. I am here tonight to present our concerns re Bill 31, The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act. We are very concerned as an association that the bill does not place the primary focus on the concern and the welfare of animals. w ·e have gone through this bill in the time permitted, and, Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Enns, ladies and gentlemen, there is more emphasis put on whether the prospective rancher is a landowner than on to the welfare of the animals that this person is intending to ranch with. So we are very concerned that these welfare issues should be put in the act and not in subsequent amendments and regulations. The welfare of the animals that we intend to ranch with comes first. We strongly believe, secondly, that the bill would allow nonveterinarians to harvest elk antlers. Harv esting of elk antlers, ladies and gentlemen, is a veterinary procedure.

The injection of local anesthetic is a veterin ary act and, if performed by nonveterinarians, could place the animal in danger. Removing the antlers of elk and from game is not cutting the horns off your

14 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1 , 1996 cattle. You can put yourself in the position that you put yourself in a squeeze in such a position that you cannot move, and one of your limbs is removed. At present, The Veterinary Medical Act makes provision for the removal of horns in cattle. It does not allow anybody but a veterinarian to remove antlers from game. The innervation of antlers is very different from the innervation or the way that the nerves go into horns in cattle. It is a different thing altogether.

We feel that the people that are going to ranch with wildlife should be licensed, and the licensing procedure should be put out clearly in the act and not in regulations, amendments or whatever later on. The licensing procedure should be put out in the act to what form of inspection, what form of examination that person is going to have to comply with to be able to ranch with wildlife. Also, we feel that wildlife ranchers should be subjected to regular checks to see whether they do comply with the regulations.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am not here tonight to be giving bad vibes to the whole concept of wildlife ranching. Tile question was asked earlier tonight whether there is anybody with experience in wildlife ranching. I think, if there is anybody in this room-I am a bloody foreigner. I come from Africa. I have been involved in wildlife ranching for the biggest part of my life. So has New Zealand been. Other countries in the world have done it. If we want to do this, we should do it right. We should place the emphasis where it belongs. We should place the emphasis on the animals first.

This is a good gain for the province. We should go for it, but let us do it right. My feeling is that we can all gain from this diversification, but if you people think tonight that the storm around the PMU industry in this province has been bad, I can guarantee you, it is going to be a picnic, according to what is going to happen around the wildlife industry. So let us try and do this right from the beginning. I thank you for this opportunity to talk to you tonight. If there are any questions, I would like to try and answer. I am not the legal person; I am not here in a legal capacity.

I have a lawyer here who represents my association. If there are any questions about the law, you might be able to help him out. We have concerns about this course, and we would really like to, as an ass ociation, the veterinary association, be consulted on this act and on the regulations. Our feeling is that these things are very important to the province, and we would like to see it being done right. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you very much, Mr. Mentz. Hon. Harry Eons (Minister of Agriculture): Dr.

Mentz, I appreciate very much you taking the time to appear before the committee, and I just want to understand Tile serious concern that you have expressed on behalf of your organization, the Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association, is that you would like to see the more specific clauses dealing with the animal welfare in the bill itself, rather than left to regulation. Is that a fair representation of your comments? Mr. Mentz: Yes, Mr. Minister. As far as the welfare of the animals is concerned, I think, first and foremost, that we should put this in the act itself and not in regulations.

I do not want to talk politics here. Changing the political field and changing regulations and changing amendments and whatever is far easier than changing the actual act So we would like to see, as an association, the welfare of the animals addressed in the act itself, so it cannot be changed as easily. Mr. Enos: Mr. Chairman and Dr. Mentz, I do not take particular issue with you, but it has and continues to be the Canadian style to have the legislation essentially represent the principle, and left to the regulatory role the specific regulations.

I remind you that the regulations carry the full force of any clause in any legislation. I suspect if I examined, for instance , health legislation that my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) has that deals with human welfare, human health, that much the same situation exists. It would be that you would find most of the actual description of how the Pharmacare program is run or how particular health programs are run in the body of regulations, not in something called the Canada Health Act, for instance. But that is for another day, we will take it.

I do also want to understand and have it clearly on the record that as an association-and I appreciate very much

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 15 your opening comments that indicated that while we think of the veterinarian association essentially as dealing with domestic animals, the companion animals, the pet animals, your organization also sees itself as having a particular responsibility to the animals in the wild. I just make that ref erence to the point that I am asking you to confirm. With those reservations that you have commented upon, the Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association supports game fa rming and elk ranching in Manitoba. Mr. Mentz: Mr.

Enos, honourable minister, just two fa cts: The association is not privy to the regulations and amendments done to the act. We have only had the act to revise. That is the only fa ctor that I am commenting on here tonight, and the association fe els so strongly about the welfare ofthf '" imals that we fee l it should be put in the act. As far as the specifics on how the regulation of animal welf are is going to be done, we have no problem with it being put in the regulations.

We would like to see also, to have some consultation on this act because it is ftrst and fo remost on the association's agenda, the welf are of animals, being domestic or livestock. "( 2020) Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you fo r your presentation. I just want to say that I think you have raised a very good point and that this should be outlined more clearly in the act. The minister says that in most cases this is dictated through regulation, but regulation does not have to come to a committee.

Regulation, as I understand it, is at the minister's discretion and would not have the discussion or be spelled out the way it is in the act. So I think you have raised a very good point. You have said that you have legal counsel here, and I wonder whether your association has looked at which sections of the act should be amended to address the concerns that you have within this act. Mr. Mentz: We are actually having a council meeting tomorrow on this issue, but if the group wants to, I could call on Mr. Abra to try and answer your question. Mr. Chairperson: Would you call him, please.

I am sorry, I did not get your name. Mr. Douglas Abra, Q.C. (Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association): My name is Douglas Abra. I am a lawyer fo r the Manitoba Veterinary Medical Association. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Abra, would you proceed, please. Mr. Abra: As I understand it, the question that has been raised is whether or not any of the sections should be amended as they presently stand. The concern that the association has is that there is really no provision in the present statute relating to the saf ety, the welf are of the animals. That is the concern that Dr. Mentz is attempting to express to you.

There is ref erence in the regulations or the authority of the minister under the regulation to make regulations respecting the humane care of game production, animals and the control of animal diseases on game production far ms. There is no question that the authority is in the minister in regulation, but the concern that the association has, as Dr. Mentz has ably expressed, is that it should be in a statute. Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much fo r bringing those concerns to us this evening.

I wonder if you could tell me, in some jurisdictions they actually have a ban on the use of electric shock to remove the antlers from an animal. In some jurisdictions, they do have that. Would your association support a ban in this province on the use of electric shock to stun the animal to remove the antlers? Mr. Mentz: Yes, very much so. We are part of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association has spoken as very much against the use of electric mobilization as a totally inhumane way of immobilizing animals.

As to answer some of your previous questions to some of the previous speakers here, there are tests in place to test fo r tuberculosis, to test fo r brucellosis and most of those diseases. I believe today there is even a fteld test to do for BSE, so we can ensure the saf ety as fa r as humanly possible of anyt hing to the public. Mr. Struthers: As fa r as humanly possible and 10 0 percent are two diff erent things, though. Are you saying there is still, even with the best of -

16 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 Mr. Chai rperson: I am going to intervene here, Mr. Struthers. I am not going to allow the argumentative process that you have embarked upon previously. I am asking you to direct your questions for information, not debate. Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairman, I was looking for information.

I want to know if the tests that are out there right now can indicate to the people of Manitoba that a disease like BSE can be detected, and can you tell me that no case ofBSE will be imported from other jurisdictions like Saskatchewan or Wyoming into Manitoba and then infect either the ranched herd that we will have or the wild herd that will be left throughout the province? Mr. Mentz: Mr. Chairman, to answer the question, at this stage, the systems used are of Europe. The concern in Europe, as everybody is aware, is being about the safety of cattle being imported or carcass being imported into the country.

There was no test to be done on live animals until very, very recently to confirm whether the animal had BSE or not. It is my information that as of about 10 days ago, the scientists have come up with a test that can be done on live animals to determine before death whether the animal has BSE or not. As far as the accuracy of the test or anything else, it is out of my scope to comment on that. Mr. Struthers: Can BSE or tuberculosis be transf erred to humans from a diseased elk? Mr. Mentz: Very much so; there is a very great possibility. Mr.

Struthers: And we do know that Saskatchewan does have a case where BSE has been detected, and so we do know that the disease is out there and ready to be imported into Manitoba, should we go into elk ranching. Mr. Chai rperson: That was a statement. Is there a question? Mr. Struthers: Do you agree with that statement? Mr. Mentz: I am not aware of the exact incidence or the accuracy of what you are saying, so I cannot comment on it. Whether it is possible, and, as I say, this test on testing animals is very, very new in the field, we will have to look into this for sure. Mr. Struthers: One more question. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you. Mr. Struthers: You sound relieved. Mr. Chairperson: We have others who want to ask questions. Mr. Struthers: Was your association consulted before the capture of the elk began or any time from the capture of the elk till now? Has this government approached you for any advice, any consultation at all? Mr. Mentz: Not to my knowledge, sir. The directorate ofNatuml Resowce s was consulted in the issue, because game in Manitoba belongs to the Crown and not to the Veterinary Aassociation. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr.

Mentz mentioned that he came from South Africa, and he is famil iar with other countries' practices. I would like to ask him whether or not South Africa's standard is laid out in the statute, or is it locked in the regulation? Mr. Mentz: The questioo is whether the standard is laid out in regulations or in the act? Mr. Santos: Yes. You are saying that the standard by which the welfare of the animal shall be protected should be written dmw in the statute itself rather than left to the regulations.

I am asking you whether in those countries you are familiar with, with all their practices and experi ence, whether or not such a standard had been written down into the statute itself rather than left in the regulation. Mr. Mentz: The answer to the question is that it is very much left to regulations in those countries. I would like to point out to you, in those countries, we raise wild animals as venison. We do not harvest velvet from those animals. There is a big difference. If these animals are going to get killed or whether their horns are going to get cut off, there is a big difference in that.

So in those countries-I do not know what the situation is exactly, legally, in New Zealand. South Africa, very

October 1, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 17 much so these animals are raised either as venison or for hunting trophies. Mr. Santos: You are saying then that the fact that the purpose for gaming is only for venison justifies the fact that there is no such protection for the welfare of the animal written into the statute. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Mentz: Can you just repeat that, please? *

(2030) Mr. Santos: There is no harvesting of antlers in New Zealand or in South Africa, and therefore there is no danger or risk of the safety and welfare of the animal being in danger. Therefore, the regulation itself is sufficient to contain the standards by which the behaviour of people who will obtain the licences will be regulated. Mr. Mentz: That is exactly what I am saying, Mr. Chairman. In those countries, when animals go to slaughter, those standards by regulation are sufficient.

Wherever you are going to keep animals in captivity to harvest a product of the bodies, we should be very specific about the welfure and the conditions under which we are going to keep these animals. Mr. Santos: Since we will be harvesting some parts of the animal and keeping the animal alive in Canada, you are suggesting then that the standard of welfare and safety of the animal should be written into the statutory provision itself, rather than left to the regulation.

Otherwise, the regulation will have no guide, no criteria, and it will be purely arbitrary, whoever is the minister who might be writing the regulation. Is that what you are saying? Mr. Mentz: That is correct, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Santos: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Mentz. I understand the minister has a question. Mr. Enns: I am sorry, just a very brief question to the presenter and information to the committee. The committee should be aware, of course, that we are dealing with another entire piece of legislation that deals specifically with animal welfare.

My question to Dr. Mentz is, would he not conclude or concede that animal welfare is animal welfare? I think that the point that he is trying to make is that there ought to be in this day and age legislation that concerns itself specifically with the welfare of animals. Would he not view the amendments, the changes, the new act that is being brought in with specific focus on animal welfare as not covering off some of his concerns that he has expressed to the committee this evening? Mr. Mentz: Mr. Enos, I would like to comment on that.

I am not privy to the animal welfare act or The Animal Care Act, as it is called. It is a new act. What I am trying to say tonight is just, let us cover our backsides. Let us put these things in perspective and get this act as complete as we can for the welfare of the animals and for the betterment of the livestock diversification in this province. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Mentz. I call Vicki Bums of the Winnipeg Humane Society. Ms. Bums, would you come forward, please. Have you a written presentation for distribution? Ms. Vicki Burns (The Winnipeg Humane Society): Yes, I do. Mr.

Chairperson: Would you distribute, please. I remind members of the committee that we had tentatively a gentleman's agreement or a gentleperson's agreement, I should say, that we would limit our presentations, and we would also limit ourselves and our question time. I ask for your indulgence. Ms. Bums, would you continue, please. Ms. Burns: Mr. Chairman, honourable minister, and committee members, thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak to you tonight. My name is Vicki Bums, and I am the executive director of The Winnipeg Humane Society.

Just as a very quick background, The Winnipeg Humane Society is really the primary animal welfare

18 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA October 1, 19 96 organization in the province of Manitoba. So even though our name is Winnipeg, we really do concern ourselves with animals all over the province, in case you are wondering why we are speaking here tonight. The Winnipeg Humane Society is opposed to Bill 31 because it will allow for the capture and sale of wild animals indigenous to Manitoba that were previously protected under The Wildlife Act. Our opposition is based primarily on the following humane concerns.

The initial one is a very basic belief that wild animals should be free to live naturally in the wild. The process of the capture and conf mement of these animals to restricted areas causes them immeasurable stress. It is well recognized that the actual process of capturing the animals may cause them a physiological response that is called capture myopathy, which act ually causes them to die. Basically, it causes a buildup of lactic acid in the muscles.

This I am not sure whether it occ wred in the animals that were captured this past winter, but a great deal of care has to be taken so that it does not cause a lot ofloss. As well, the transport of the animals is extremely difficult. There was at least one case that we know of, an elk that was actually trampled to death in the truck during the process of transporting from one area to the other. But essentially just the stress of conf mement we feel is cruel in itself.

The second major humane concern we have is the de antlering process, which will be required to harvest the main product that we are intending to get out of these elk. Basically, it involves cutting off the antlers of restrained male elk every year. Would it be all right if I just circulate this picture around? I did not want to make copies, but I want to make sure that you all understand exactly what is going to be involved here.

That picture was taken on an Alberta elk ranch, and you probably will not see any other pictures, because it is rather conc erning, and I am sure you probably will not want the public to see that. Basically, the antlers at the velvet stage, which is when they are cons idered valuable, consist of living tissue. That means they have a dense concentration of blood vessels and highly sensitive nerves.

We understand that it is being proposed that anesthetic be used here, but still there is no doubt that the process of manipulating these animals, restraining them and then cutting off the antlers even with anesthetic is going to cause substantial stress to the animal. This mutilation of living tissue from a live animal will occur every year, because that is what the product is, so as well as the basic cruelty that we believe is involved in that cutting off of living tissue every year, there is also the deprivation of basic ethological needs and normal sensory stimulatioo which occurs with antler removal.

In other words, the antlers are an important part-in the natural state the animals are using these for something important and we are depriving them of that. The Winnipeg Humane Society believes that the humane con cerns outlined above are justification for opposing The Livestock Diversification Act. We are concentrating right now on elk ranch ing because that is what you are intending to bring in, but, of course, there are the other concerns that it could be expanded to, for instance, eventually ranching of bear and so on.

There is a growing concern amongst many members of society around the traditional ethic that any suff ering inflicted on animals for necessary reasons such as economic benefit, food production, pursuit of scientific knowledge, etcetera, is accep table. We feel that society's attitudes are moving beyond this simplistic notion to a desire to develop a more adequate set of moral standards for guiding and constraining our treatment of animals.

We are often asked, why are you so concerned about something like removing the antlers from elk when you are not speaking up about a number of other practices that we do accept in our treatment of farm animals, such as dehorning of cattle and so on? Our answer to that is, we do not believe that cond oning and legalizing a new practice in which animals must suffer routinely should be justified by the existence of traditionally accepted practices which inflict suffering. Our goal is to work towards a time when animals used by humans will not suffer at our hands.

I want to make it clear that The Winnipeg Humane Society is a fairly middle of the road animal welfare organization. We do not oppose the use of animals by

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 human beings, but we are very definitely working towards limiting the ammmt of suffering that they have to put up with. *

(2040) So those are really the essential and primary concerns of The Winnipeg Humane Society, but there are a number of other issues which we really feel have not received adequate public attention and, therefore, I am going to spend a couple of minutes just highlighting those for you. They have been mentioned briefly in the previous questions. First of all, the incidence of tuberculosis in elk and the potential for infecting humans-Or.

Anne Fanning, a director of tuberculosis services in Alberta, has published a paper in The Lancet, which is a well-known medical publication, in which she documents one specific case of M. bovis infection in a veterinarian. He was likely infected through contact with a diseased elk. She also describes a number of other individuals working in the field who actually had more than one positive TB test. They were not actually ill at the time, but there was some cause for concern.

She has recommended that control measures to prevent human infection be undertaken for anybody who is working in this particular industry, but when I have asked the questions of people who are involved, I have been told that this has not been, there has not been any discussion of putting this into place, and I think that you should discuss that. The second concern is the incidence of TSE, transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. That is the version of spongiform encephalopathy which is similar to what you know as mad cow disease in cattle.

We are concerned about the known existence of this and questions around the potential health hazard to humans consuming infected products. There have been at least 10 confirmed cases in elk in Wyoming and Colorado in the last few years, and this past winter there was one confirmed case from an elk on a ranch in Saskatchewan. Now, the news about a new test in the last 10 days, I am not familiar with.

Prior to that news, I have been told that this disease can only be definitively diagnosed through a brain biopsy which, of course, can only be done post mortem, in other words, after the animal is dead, and the animals that die of TSE look as though they have starved to death. The reason I am bringing up these points is that in Canada we really have not been looking for this disease and I think people are being a little naive if they think we have been .

The veterinary pathologist who actually found this disease in the elk in Saskatchewan had to send a slide to the pathologist down in Colorado or Wyoming who specializes in this because she had never seen a case before and because she did not know what she was looking for.

So we have to be very clear that the recent increased attention to this disease due to the mad cow crisis in Britain is causing our specialists now to look at it, but there are many, many unanswered questions about this, and the difficulty of diagnosis as well as the lack of knowledge regarding how the disease is transmitted raises concerns about the possibility that this disease may indeed be present in our wild elk population. Mr.

Enns, I hope you do not mind me quoting you, but in a letter that you sent to the Winnipeg Humane Society in June of this year, you said: There is no concrete evidence to indicate that these diseases, TSE and BSE, can be transmitted directly from one species to another under field conditions. Based on the above factors, we are convinced that TSE is not a risk within the wild elk that will be used to stock Manitoba elk farms. For the same reasons, we believe that there are no health hazards associated with consumption of elk products. Those are your words.

With all due respect, I think this assertion seems somewhat simplistic and naive given the recent crisis in Britain. Mr. Enns: Vicki, I do not mind you quoting me, but I do mind you calling me naive. Ms. Burns: Okay, I apologize for that. I just want to refer to the fact that the W odd Health Organization in a press release in May of 19 96 recommended very strongly that they ensure worldwide surveillance of TSE in all animals, and the possible link between the human disease CJD, Creutzfeld-Jacob disease, and BSE in cattle can only be proven by continued research to fully characterize

20 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 19 96 the agent causing the disease in humans, so that it can be compared to TSE in other animals. As well, we had here in Winnipeg in May a presentation by a Dr. Susan Priola from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Montana at Grand Rounds at the Health Sciences Centre in which she explained that the research that they are doing at their institute to determine how TSE is transmitted, it crosses the species barrier. In other word s, how does it go from one type of animal to another?

So there is obviously very serious concern in the scientific community that that is a real possibility. There is no scientific proof yet, but there is enough concern that it is causing a lot of research to be done. We feel that it would appear to be far too early to make any assumptions about whether TSE may be present in any of our Manitoba elk and about whether there are any potential health hazards in the consumption of elk product s.

Another point that we have learned a little more about in our researc h of this industry in other jurisdictions is the potential increase in poac hing activities, which has been experienced significantly in some of the other areas where elk ranching has been going on fo r a number of years. Specifically in Montana there have been several prosecutions lately involving elk ranchers who captured wild elk to replenish their herds. We know that the intent here is to not allow that to happen; however, the identification system that we are using with these animals is not tamper-proof.

I do not think anybody can guarantee that it is. It is possible to remove the ear tags from a dead animal and place them on a living animal that you have just captured. So in order to prevent the illegal capture and poaching of wild elk, we have to have a really well-developed mo nitoring and enforcement system. Again, we have heard no plans about this, nor any discussion about who is going to pay fo r it.

Finally, we think there ought to be more attention and more discussion paid to the additional cost, potential cost to the taxpayer fo r reimbursement to elk farmers whose herds have had to be destroyed due to TB or TSE or possibly some other disease . I hope that you are all aware that over $16 million was paid to Alberta ranchers whose herds had to be destroyed due to tuberc ulosis. These were elk who had been tested, had a TB test, so it was thought that they were clear ofTB, and subsequently it was determined that that test was faulty. Now there is a TB test that is being used now.

Once again we are presuming that it is accurate, but there is not any 10 0 percent certainty about that, and we are aware that there is research going on in New Zealand to use a different type of test that is supposed to be much better. As well, as recently as just within the last couple of months, over $50,000 was paid to one elk rancher in Saskatchewan because his whole herd had to be destroyed due to the one case ofTSE that was conf irmed.

Now, at this point in time we are not aware that there is any test that can tell whether other animals have TSE and therefore, if there is another case or suspicion of it, that means the whole herd has to be destroyed. These are substantial costs and I do not think we can be assured that similar situations will not occur in the future. So, in conclusion, the Winnipeg Humane Society urges the Manitoba government to halt their plans to legalize the capture and sale of our indi genous wildlif e.

We believe that the humane concerns around the cruelty and suffering which is inherent to the capture and confinement of wild animals and to the de-antlering of velvet antlers are justification enough fo r not condoning this practice. Our ethic fo r the treatment of animals must include a conscientious assessment of whether the end justifies the means. In this case, we believe that the ecoo cmic benefit does not justifY the cruelty and suffering which will be inflicted on these animals. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Bums. Are there any questions? Mr. Santos: Ms.

Bums, you lamented the fact that $16 million had been paid to some Alberta rancher which was heard to be destroyed due to TB. Should there be a scheme of private insurance where ranchers should insure their herds against such eventuality, so that the government will not need to come up with the cash and pay fo r the destruction of this risky herd in case they are inf ected? Ms. Burns: Well, actually, I do not feel that is our jurisdiction to canmen t oo, because I want to remind you that we are actually opposed to this in its entirety. So I am not the person to ask about that. I am sorry. Mr.

Santos: May I direct the question to the minister? Should you allow an insurance scheme to protect the

October 1, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 health of the captured herd so that the insurance company will pay rather than the government? Mr. Enos: Mr. Chairman, it is quite conceivable that a priv ate insurance company may wish to enter into that kind of arrangement with the newly formed Manitoba Health Association. I am not aware of any such initiative . There would have to be specific action taken by Agriculture Canada as to whether or not the animals would come under any compensation programs for disease prevention as the presenter alluded in several instances in other jurisdictions. Mr.

Santos: If there is such a remedy, then therefore if the rancher takes the risk that some of the herd may be infected and he did not insure, that is the risk of the business. Why should the government pay? Mr. Chairperson: These are questions, I remind committee members, that are directed and should be directed for the clarification of the bill. I do not believe that we are dealing with an insurance bill. We are dealing with The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act, and therefore I would ask Mr.

Santos, if he has any questions for clarification in regard to the bill, then I would allow the question. If not, I will ask that we proceed with the questions pertaining to the bill. Mr. Struthers: I enjoyed listening to your presentation, Ms. Burns. The one statement you made though was that the end justifies the means, and I am trying to get a pi cture in my mind of just what the end is. Could you describe, if you can, what the elk antlers are eventually used for? Ms.

Burns: I do not have full knowledge of that, although my understanding is that they are being sent to Asian countries for use in a variety of medicinal purposes. My understanding, at this point, is that there is not really any scientific evidence to support the value of that, but I am really not expert to comment on it. As far as I know, it is not going to be used in Canada, which would make you wonder about that. *

(2050) Mr. Eons: I want to simply indicate to Ms. Burns and ask a question at the conclusion, and to the committee members, no, the world is not perfect. Canada's health and food safety regulations are not perfect or offer 10 0 percent guarantees, but we have come a long, long way in this country. Canada is one of the few brucellosis-free nations in the world. Canada is one of the few, for trading purposes, tuberculosis-free nations in the world.

When you have had the opportunities I have had in travelling to different parts of the world, you realize what a tremendous advantage and what a tremendous job our veterinary services, our health inspection systems, principally at the federal level in co-operation with our provincial laboratories, have done in this case. I am concerned when I hear the words "mad cow disease" used loosely, for whatever purposes opponents of this bill may have. I want to assure you that you do no service to a very significant, important industry and to the meat processors of Manitoba when we do that.

The very examples, Vicki, that you use with respect to what great lengths the treasuries of either Alberta or Saskatchewan, or Ottawa for that matter, went to eradicating a single disease out in Saskatchewan, $50, 000 I believe your statement was, $16 million in Alberta, indicates to you how serious those in government, departments of agriculture, provincial and Ottawa, take this question of food safety. I would think, and this is the question, ought that not to give us as consumers of food some comfort level that while-no, to repeat Mr. Struthers' often question, nothing is 1 00 percent in this world.

I am not 10 0 percent guaranteed that I will get home tonight. Probably down to about 70 percent if the weather keeps up like this. Let us not sell ourselves short nor our meat industry short or our capacity of caring for it. The question is certainly not the will on the parts of governments, when alerted to it, to be shy in expending significant resources to control it. Ms. Burns: Well, that is a good point, and I certainly did not mean to infer that our governments are not concerned about that.

However, in the case ofTSE, it is a disease that you only can find out after the fact, so si gnificant amounts of money are spent compensating farmers. At this point in time, I do not hear about signi ficant amounts of money that are being spent in research to determine, in fact, whether there is the possibility of any of this disease in our wild elk

22 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October l, 1996 population, because there are many animals that you would have to agree that would die in the wild that none of us would ever see. In the case of the wild elk, someone would have had to have concern enough to have taken a brain biopsy from the animal in order to determine whether there was anything beyond starving to death. I am not aware that that has happened here.

I am aware that in Colorado and Wyoming, the reason they have had so many confirmed cases is because they made the discovery there, the link between an animal that had starved to death and the fact that they actually had this condition, TSE, and theref ore they started to more routinely do that kind of testing. I am just referr ing to the fact that I do not think that degree of alertness about this particular condition existed in our province up until now. Maybe it will start to happen now, I am not sure. I hope so.

I think it is a real enough concern that we should not deceive ourselves that we are absolutely safe here because we may not be. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Burns. I am going to ask the next presenter then, Tracy Hughes, private citizen, to come forward. Ms. Hughes, have you a presentation to distribute? Ms. Tracy Hughes (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Would you distribute, please. Would you continue, Ms. Hughes. Ms. Hughes: Yes, my name is Tracy Hughes. I am speaking as a private citizen of Manitoba, and I strongly oppose Bill 31. Capture and confinement of wild animals is inhuman e.

While governme nts around the world are becoming more sensitive to environmental issue s-for examp le, the government of B.C. has decided to stop the whale exh ibits in Stanley Park-the government of Manitoba is proposing to farm elk for profit. The process of removing the velvet antlers is very painful to the animals. I do not see how this auelty can be justified for econo mic gain. Indeed, the entire project could foreseeab ly cost taxpayers money, as it did in Saskatchewan . The Department ofNatural Resources presently has an advert on TV. It states, Manitoba will not tolerate the poaching of wild animals.

Poachers are stealing our wildlife. Manitoba will not tolerate trafficking in animal parts. It is time to get tough, tum in poachers. Bill 31 is in direct conflict with these sentiments and these policies . In tact, Bill 31 legalizes dealing in animal parts. It will also encourage more illeg al hunting and poaching. Our governm ent cannot condemn the poaching of bears for gall bladders while itself selling elk antlers . I believe that as Manitobans and Canadians we should be openly discouraging the use of bear gall bladders , elk antlers and tiger bones in the use of potions and lotions.

It is totally irrespons ible to perpetuate these myths at the expense of our wildlife. If Bill 31 is allowed to go ahead, how long will it be before bears and cougars are sold for parts to the highest bidder? Of course, endangered species fe tch higher prices. Will they be further exposed to risk if the price is right? I fee l it is time to do the right thing, right for Manitobans and their environment. Manitoba already received aD rating by the World Wildlife Fund. How much worse does our record have to become? The seal hunts have blackened Canada's reputation around the world.

I fee l this elk farming will further worsen our image internati onally. That is the presentation that I prepared, and I had very short notice . I would like to add a couple of things that I picked up from the other presentations here. We are saying that because other provinces have elk farming, we should as well, but I fee l that it is time for society to move ahead. For examp le, slavery has been abolished and so has child labour. We should not continue with these archaic ideas. I do not believe any consultation was done on this bill with the World Wildlife Fund or, it appears, with the Veterinary Association.

It does not appear any serious expertise was solicited. The minister referred to the health care act, that different things were in regulation rather than in the act, and used Pharmacare as an exam ple. I would like to point out that Pharmacare has been seriously diminished over the last couple of years so, obviously, the regulations do not protect anything. Another idea that was brought forward earlier was that ranches would preserve the species in the future, and I think it is widely accepted now that zoos and ranches do not preserve a species, rather they just enslave it.

October l, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 23 There was another point brought up about tariffs and free trade. I believe that we should in Manitoba ban the import of these types of products, let alone start exporting these products. Also, another point that was brought up was that these elk are easily adapted and easy to keep in captivity, but that Manitoba had an advantage keeping elk, which is a directly conflicting statement.

If the animals are easy to keep in captivity, then any country can also adapt this practice and we will have no advantage. * (210 0) Anot her gentleman was talking about the capture of bears in China and about the bile extraction that is done on the moon bears in China. I would like to point out that the Chinese government recently banned that practice. In fuct, they are moving forward in this area and have freed all the moon bears that were in captivity in that country, so I would just like to point that out. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Hughes. Are there any questions? Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Ms. Hughes.

We have heard a lot tonight about having to be very precise and very accurate, so there is one part of your presentation that I do want to correct. The Manitoba government did not get a "D" from the World Wildlife Federation, it got a D-minus. I just wanted to make sure you knew that. Ms. Hughes: Okay, I apologize. Mr. Struthers: They also got an "F" from the Sierra Club, so you might want to add that to your presentation. Ms. Hughes: Yes, I am aware ofthat also. Mr. Struthers: The question that I have for you is that I want- Floor Comment: Who cares? Ms. Hughes: I care, sir. I am sorry, but I do care. Mr.

Struthers: Ms. Hughes, I am going to put you in a tough spot here. I have some constituents who are farmers in the Dauphin area. We hear a lot these days about agricultural diversification and we as legislators feel a great need to help these people out because the world in rural Mani toba sometimes can be a pretty tough place. We are subject to a lot ofthings that are just out of our control, like the weather and the grasshoppers going through the wheat and that sort of thing.

How can we go into rural Manitoba and say to farmers who have their hopes up to get into elk ranching, thinking that they are going to make a lot of money at it, and tell them that they cannot do that? What alternatives do you foresee that can help us in rural Manitoba without going into elk ranching? Ms. Hughes: I believe there are lots of alternatives and I believe that profitability is not the only guiding factor. I think that agriculture could make huge amounts of money growing marijuana, and I am sure that everyone would agree.

That does not mean the government will legalize it and it should not in this case either. Mr. Struthers: Your proposition is that there are other things we can be doing rather than domesticating an elk, which is a beautiful creature out in the wild. Is that your main premise? Ms. Hughes: I certainly think that money is not the only concern. In the world today, we should really be looking at preserving our integrity as Canadians, as well as our wildlife. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions? If not, thank you, Ms. Hughes, for your presentation. I call next Mr.

James Pearson, People Acting for Animal Liberation. Have you a presentation to distribute? Will you please distribute it? You may proceed, Mr. Pearson. Mr. James Pearson (People Acting fo r Animal Liber ation): Thank you. I would like to wish good evening to the Chairperson, to Mr. Enns, if he is present, and the other committee members.

I would like to start my response to the bill by taking a quotation from a respected wildlife biologist, Valerius Geist, who was recently in Manitoba : Game ranching is a self -defeating enterprise that will, in the long run, reduce public interest in wildlife, encourage poaching, pollute gene pools and spread disease to wild animals.

24 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 There is good reason why Professor Geist, among dozens of other scientific authorities, is fundamentally opposed to game fanning. Geist was responsible for helping to introduce the practice of game ranching to Canada, but within five years becam e a staunch opponent. To quote him: "This whole concept of game ranching was an ill-conceived, badly thought-out endeavour that was likely to destroy our North American system of wildlife conservation." Nothing has changed.

The Manitoba government has reversed a long-standing policy of protecting wild elk from the international trade in animal parts. Although elk captures and ranching do not serve the interests of elk, do not serve the interests of Manitobans, and have been vigorously opposed for decades by the citizens of this province, both urban and rural, the present government has inexplicably and stubbornly decided to pursue this industry. Previous governments have explicitly stated that the capture of wildlife for comm ercial purposes is not in the public interest.

Business interests, at the expense of the Manitoba taxpayer, are pushing for the legalization of large scale ranching of elk for breeding and for antler velvet. Wild males and females have been captured for private interests-prior to enactment of any legislation that would allow this activity-with the hope of introducing legislation to make this type of fanning legal.

Despite the fact that its actions ignore present law, and the fact that many of its own biologists, to whom I have spoken but who will not come forward for fear of recrimination, oppose game ranching on well-documented scientific grounds, the government has gone ahead with its plans. It is time that this "chamber-of-commerce uber alles" mentality with profit-building plans, coming at the expense of environmental diversity and animal welfare, be abandoned. Bill 31 allows a dangerous and frightening degree of ministerial discretion to be carried out at the expense of Manitoba's wildlife.

There are a number of crucial issues raised by the dangerous prospect of game ranching in Manitoba. Each issue in this report is presented in a "Myth and Fact" format. Myth: Elk are overpopulated and humans must step in to mana ge their numbers. This was one of the pretexts I heard early on for beginning the capture of these elk. Fact: There is no substantial proof that elk have become overpopulated. "Overpopulation" is a con venient term used by those who exploit elk or the elk's habitat in order that they may "step in" and "solve the problem" for their own benefit.

If too many elk subsist in the Swan Valley/Duck Mountain region, the causes lie in human activity such as loss of habitat due to logging, farming, and road building, and destruction of natural predators such as cougar and wolf Myth: There are nearly 10,000 wild elk on the Prairies. Capturing and ranching them won't threaten any species. Fact: Manitoba and Saskatchewan are home to a subspecies of elk known as Cervus elaphus manitobensis, which is unique to this region of the world. This is the subspecies of elk being rounded up by the Tory government.

Not only are the captures depleting an already jeopardized elk population whose habitat is dwindling, the risks of escaped animals displacing their wild counterparts or passing on captive-born diseases like tuberculosis, hereafter referred to as TB, and meningeal worm to wild animals, altering unique gene pools or upsetting predator-prey relationships, are very high. Hunters aaoss North America are shooting increasing numbers of wapiti-type North American silkies and other red deer , sika deer and elk hybrids due to open-ended and permissive legislation that allows rampant import of nonindigenous wildlife.

The Livestock Industry Diversification Act proposed by Manitoba's government is just such legislation, in that it does not specifically forbid the importation of exotic species. Game farmers will begin selectively breeding domestic elk with other species to enhance so-<:alled desirable characteristics from a narrow econanic point of view. As well, wild-born Manitobensis elk can be recorded as farm-born with ease by an elk fanner. To assume across the-board adherence to even permissive legislation is naive at best.

The increased poaching of elk that will result will also help spell the demise of Cervus elaphus manitobensis. Similar agricultures in Europe have left the landscape scarred. Professor Geist, to whom I previously referred, says that Germany, quote, is de facto, one big game ranch

October 1, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 25 with predators exterminated, wildlif e fe d in winter and genetically manipulated to fulfill the hunters' fa ncies. * (211 0) Dr. William Pruitt, another proponent of game ranching, turned opponent, speaks of the game ranching si tuation in northern Scandinavia as one of, quote, a biol ogical desert. No Canadian or North American biologist could be anything but horrified to see what has happened there, and it could very well happen here. This vision is borne out in

Section 9(l )(

c) ofBill 31 , which allows Manitoba ranchers to buy out-of-province animals. Here the regulations may allow even greater latitude fo r the source of animals game ranchers in Manitoba wish to purchase. There is no protection allowed here fo r the genetic integrity of indigenous species, especially when the third-party procurement of nonnative species from a broker are fa ctored in. This act is a free-f or-all at the province's expense.

Section 24( 1) defines nothing regarding the criteria by which, quote, genetics can or may be tested, only ref erring to a mysterious, quote, genetic test that is, as is customary with this hazy, incompetent bill, left to, quote, the regulations. Myth: Capturing elk and ranching them is a harmless process. The animals are not hurt during capture, transportation or incarceration. Fact: The capture and transportation is highly stressful and dangerous to wild elk. To place wild animals in such crowded, unnatural circumstances is asking fo r stress induced illness and death.

Two and possibly more elk have already died during the government's capture program. Captivity also poses severe problems fo r wild animals. Bulls and does are kept in unnatural proximity to one another. Elk often manif est aggression toward other captive elk as a result of the stresses ofhandling, transport and confinement, according to such authorities as Dr. P.R. Wilson, Department of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, Massey University. Myth: Elk shed their antlers anyway. Sawing velvet antlers off is painless. Fact: Ungulate antlers are highly vascular and innervated tissue during the velvet stage of growth.

Veins, arteries and nerves flow through the live antlers as they do through one's leg or neck tissue. When elk drop their antlers in fall, the veins and nerves have died up and cease to be functional. During velvet, hacking antlers off results in extreme pain and blood loss, even if the animal is anesthetized. The chances of subsequent inf ection, illness, and death are increased. Antlering during this stage of development is nothing more than surgical mutilation of healthy tissue, an unacceptable practice.

Velvet antler removal is banned by law in several U.S. states such as Calif ornia, in many European countries, and in Britain, where Sir Kenneth Blaxter, fo rmer Director of the Rowett Research Institute, called the practice barbaric. In any case,

Section 16 of Bill 31 does not even define the animal parts that may be traded, bought, or sold, an unacceptable vagueness. Myth: Elk ranching poses no disease risk to domesticated animals or to wildlif e. Fact: Bill 31 provides no protection to indigenous species but allows

Section 10 to pass this offto the act regulations yet again.

Section 11 of Bill 31 suggests that only healthy animals be allowed into the province, when the process of ascertaining that health is itself in question. Further, escapes from game fa rms are inevit able and common. Wildlif e biologist, Luigi Morgantini of the University of Alberta became a staunch opponent of game ranching after having been involved in the futile attempt to round up 25 elk who had escaped from a fa rm carrying unknown parasitic and biological dangers to surrounding wildlif e.

Elk ranches across the Prairies, including Manitoba, have seen the escapes of large numbers of animals including the disappearance of more than 20 elk from Alberta and Saskatchewan TB quarantines. These elk remain missing, but even those who are recaptured may already have had the opportunity to spread virulent disease or parasites to wild animals. TB has been diagnosed on fa rms in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario. According to Dr. Allen T. Rutland, as of the fa ll of 19 91, 80 percent of Alberta's 4,200 ranched elk had been exposed to or contracted bovine TB and would have to be killed.

The risk of disease is particularly high on fa rms in which diff erent species come into contact with foo d, water troughs and even the fur or pastures of an inf ected animal. Even worse is the fa ct that wild elk in captivity are to a fa r greater degree susceptible to diseases that would be

26 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October l, 1996 entirely fo rei gn to them in the wild. Domestic ungulates manif est TB as a respiratory�riented disease, but when passed on to elk the disease assumes a lymph�riented fo rm. As confirmed by Dr. P. G. Livingstone, New Zealand's national TB adviser, once these animals escape or otherw ise come into contact with wild elk, diseases and parasites may be passed on through saliva, urine, fec es, pus, food , or the very ground on which the animals walk and graze.

In the case of meningeal worm and tissue worm, both of which are lethal, the larvae can be transmitted even by slugs who come into contact with the fe ces of fa rmed elk. The price of tracing, testing and diagnosing dangerous diseases and killing the thousands of ranch-oonfined animals who harbour them is ultimately paid by the taxpayer and by the elk themselves who pay with their lives fo r the greed that drives humans to fa rm them. This data suggests that it is conservative to estimate that the consequences of disease transmission to wild elk and other wild animals will be catastroph ic.

Myth: Elk ranching will protect habitat fo r wildlif e because it will remain in its natural state. Fact: The fe ncing�ff of wildlif e habitat fo r game ranching and other agriculture is one of the single greatest threats to the survival of species in North America, according to such author ities as Dr. Allen T. Rutland, whom I have mentioned bef ore, scientific adviser fo r the Humane Society of the United States. So-called marginal agricultural land is habitat of prime importance fo r wildlif e, and this is the land that is most commonly fe nced off fo r game ranch es.

Wildlif e corrido rs, through which wild animals migrate, are irrevocably cut off by ranch fe nces. Wild elk, particularly males in rut, are consist ently drawn into areas in which elk are captive . Inevitably, captive elk escape to mate or socialize, or the intruding males are shot in order to prevent property damage. The data suggests that elk ranches are highly harmful to the health and viability of surro unding wildlif e. Myth: Elk ranching will benefit Manitobans econo mically.

Fact: The government is using taxpayers' money to capture , house and transport the elk in order that private interests may reap the rewards. Estimates have surfaced that the capture of elk during February 1996 cost taxpayers from $300,000 to $400,000. Subsidies hold up game ranching at every lev el. Captures , escapes, recaptur es, veterinary tests, quarantine and even compensation fo r losses will come out of Manitoba taxpayers' pockets. Only a handful of Manitobans, those who have a close relationship with the industry and the go vernm ent will benefit.

However, even those who will benefit in the short term, like the newly struck Manitoba Venison Coun cil, will lose in the long term. The velvet antler market is bottoming out worldwi de. Prices fo r antler velvet in a glutted market have dropped by more than 50 percent in recent yea rs. In addition, many of the animals will be shipped to bidders in other parts of the world and will not remain in Manitoba. For instance , 14 ,000 Canadian elk presently are being held in Korea and many more in the United States and elsewhere.

Not only is the government unethical fo r becoming involved in the international animal parts trade, it is fiscally irresponsible. Daryl Rowledge of the All iance fo r Public Wildlif e in Alberta suggests that Alberta game ranches have consumed $17 million to $18 million in compensation alone fo r losses incurred by disease transmission alone. Myth: Manitobans want to diversifY agriculture and see elk fa rming as the way to do it.

Fact: Few Manitobans, beyond the Conservative government and its industry allies who believe they stand to gain from the international trade in animal parts, support the capture or ranch ing of wild elk. The opposit ion to game far ming in the Swan River area consisted not only of urban activists but of a large number of Swan Valley far mers, townspeople and wildlif e ent husiasts of all types. In 1986, public cons ultation revealed that elk ranching was overwhelmingly opposed by Manitobans . Nothing has changed. Why then has the mora tori um been lifted with a vengeance?

Myth: Elk ranching will deter poach ing of the animals fo r their antlers and flesh. Fact: As authorities such as Dr. Geist and Dr. William Pruitt-the eminent University of Manitoba zoologist -have concluded in numerous studies, the ranching of elk and other wild animals will not only fa il

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 27 to deter poaching of these animals fo r their body parts, ranching will encourage poaching. When a previous illegal market is opened up fo r antler velvet, wildlif e officials and traders will be unable to distinguish between the product of a ranched animal and that of an animal who has been gunned down by a poacher. As with trade in ivory, a legal trade will disguise the illegal trade and sign a death warrant fo r the species in question. Dr. Geist has said, quote, that a market in wildli fe is a gold plated gift to organized poachers.

Law enf orcement is presently not up to the task of policing the fo rests of this province. Controlling and reducing poaching will become an impossible task with the advent of commercial ranching as spelled out, or rather not spelled out, in Bill 31. * (212 0) Myth : Government regulation of elk ranching will ensure that wildl if e is protected. Fact: The short history of elk ranching in Manitoba demonstrated conclusively that both elk ranchers and government offici als, whether through incompetence or intent, routinely allowed ranches to operate with improperly designated permits or without permits at all.

The supervision of elk ranching in Manitoba has been haphazard at best. The health of ranched elk, the ease with which wild newborns may be captured by fa rmers to swell fa rm stock without authorization, the question of removing antlers without veterinary supervision and many other problems which have not and cannot be adequately regulated are grounds on their own to oppose elk ranching. The Livestock Industry Diversification Act does not even designate which species of wildlif e will be aff ected leaving this important definition to the regulations.

This vague and open-ended fo rm of legislation intentionally leaves the door open to exploit other species at the inappropriate discretion of the minister or committee.

Section 17 ofBill 31 allows an unacceptable degree of discretion on the part of the minister in designating regulatory inspectors. In no place are qualifications even suggested.

Section 18 , like

Section 17 , is virtually a nepotist's paradise. In essence, the minister may choose anyone to protect the integrity of Manitoba's wildlif e. This is completely unacceptable. Elk ranching stands to become one of the most environmentally catastrophic activities in Manitoba's history. Manitoba's governm ent is readyi ng itself to trade with the same animal-parts market that is decimating the world's tiger, bear, rhinoceros and panda populations. Plans fo r the ranching of elk and other presently wild species must be scrapped in Manitoba immediately.

The suff ering of wildlif e, the bacteriological eff ects on the environment and on human beings, the cost to taxpayers of captures, escapes, recaptures, veterinary tests and quarantine, and the risks of subspecies dilution and disintegration are each reason enough to abandon poorly conceived, vague and dangerous legislation that is in the interests of an elite fe w. The Livestock Industry Diversification and Consequential Amendments Act appears intentionally impossible to assess, because its most important components are left to be defined by as yet nonexistent regulations. Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much fo r your presentation. I want to indicate to the committee that I was very indulgent in allowing the overrun of time, and I would ask whether there are any questions. A fe w quick questions or comments? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Pearson, I want to thank you fo r your presentation. You have covered off a lot of issues that we have raised concerns with and, in particular, you raised concerns that have been expressed in the Swan River Valley, and certainly there was a tremendous amount of opposition to the capture that took place.

You talked about the 1986 consultation that took place which revealed that there was an overwhelming opposition. In our opinion, we do not believe that there has been adequate consultation on this bill or this idea to proceed with elk ranching. We, in fa ct, have suggested that the government go back to the drawing board and consult with Manitobans more bef ore they proceed with this. Do you fee l that this would be a worthwhile endeavour to take fo rward, to consult further with Manitobans?

28 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October I , 19 96 Mr. Pearsoo: I feel the act as it stands now is lacking in substance. I have very great difficulty in finding

definitions to any of my questions as to the disposition of wildlif e after it is captured, the eventual use of wildlif e, and what has been touched on earlier, the eventual uses of wildlif e on game farms. As we touched on earlier, on many American game farms canned hunts are, of course, one of the things that have come up. I think that is also a possibili ty here with the very loose and vague parameters of the legislation. But in getting directly to your question, I feel that it would be very important to actually consult with Manitoba ns.

When the elk were actually captured I was stunned because it seemed like we had everything in reverse. Rather than consulting with Manitobans, rather than having a public consultation proc ess, we simply went out amidst great public furor, captured elk, had them in storage with the supposition that this legisla tion will go through, and I fo und that most inappropriate and undemocmtic . I think that it is time that we got back and spoke to the public as we have in past years and appreciated the opposition that is out there.

As a bit of an empirical end note to that, since I was in the Swan River Valley in February, I have gone around the pro vince, and everywhere I go, I sometimes bring up the question, what do you think about elk ranching? This is, of cour se, only my own personal anecdotal evidence, but I have not spoken to one single person, and that is the honest truth, who has been in favour of this. This includes farmers, a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-ag1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf ag1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	882e89a688fd2c2b4a7461d0b40185ad9057ce2f

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