Manitoba Committee Hansard — Agriculture and Food Committee, Sitting 4 (39th Legislature, 2nd Session)

39-2-ag4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food Chairperson Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff Constituency of Interlake Vol. LX No. 4 – 6 p.m., Monday, June 9, 2008 ISSN 1708-6647

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

DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St.

Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARCELINO, Flor Wellington N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin Southdale N.D.P.

SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

347 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD Monday, June 9, 2008 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Nevakshonoff (Interlake) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Brick (St. Norbert) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Lemieux, Struthers, Hon. Mses. Allan, McGifford. Messrs. Borotsik, Briese , Eichler, Jennissen, Nevakshonoff, Pedersen, Ms. Brick. APPEARING: Hon. Ms. Wowchuk, MLA for Swan River Mr. Derkach, MLA for Russell Mrs. Stefanson, MLA for Tuxedo Mr. Graydon, MLA for Emerson Mrs. Taillieu, MLA for Morris Mr.

Faurschou, MLA for Portage la Prairie Hon. Mr. Gerrard, ML A for River Heights Mr. Maguire, MLA for Arthur-Virden WITNESSES: Mr. Dave Hunter, Private Citizen Mr. John Allen, Private Citizen Mr. Dennis Thiessen, Private Citizen Mr. James Hofer, Private Citizen Mr. Olayinka Brimoh, Private Citizen, Mr. Nathan Baer, Airport Colony Mr. Lyle Peters, Private Citizen Mr. Glen Koroluk, Beyond Factory Farming Mr. Arian deBekker, Morris Piglets Ltd. Mr. Garry Verhoog, Private Citizen Mr. Joel Grenier, Private Citizen Mr. Gordon Siemens, Castlewood Farms Mr. Stan Siemens, Private Citizen Mr.

Bennett Hofer, Private Citizen Mr. Steve Hofer, Private Citizen Mr. Ken Rempel, Private Citizen Mr. Leonard Maendel, Private Citizen Mr. Ron Johnston, Paradigm Farms Ltd. Mr. Lyle Loewen, Private Citizen Mr. Henry Holtman, Private Citizen Ms. Christine Waddell, Private Citizen Ms. Lara Forchuk, Private Citizen Mr. Harvey Dann, Private Citizen Mr. Dennis Stevenson, Private Citizen Mr. Ted Neufeld, Private Citizen Mr. Brendan Penner, Border Rock Farms Mr. Paul Wurtz, Private Citizen Mr. David Hofer, Private Citizen Ms. Rena Hop, Private Citizen Mr. Marinus Hop, Private Citizen Mr. Don Winnicky, Private Citizen Mr.

Rickey Maendel, Private Citizen Ms. Kathy Neufeld, Private Citizen Mr. Dwayne Friesen, Private Citizen Mr. Peter de Jong, Private Citizen Mr. Shane Sadorski, Private Citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 17–The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities) Mr. Randy Tkachyk, Private Citizen Mr. Mack Waldner, Private Citizen Mr. Peter de Jong, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 17–The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities) * * * Mr. Chairperson: Order. Good evening.

Will the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food please come to order. Our first item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I nominate Ms. Marilyn Brick. Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, Ms. Brick, you are the duly elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 17, The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban

348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities). We have a number of presenters registered to speak to this bill, as noted on the lists before you on the table and posted at the entrance of the room. As was previously announced, this committee will sit again tomorrow night, Tuesday, June 10, at 6 p.m., as well as this Wednesday, June 11, at 6 p.m. How late does the committee wish to sit tonight? An Honourable Member: No time limit. Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr.

Chairperson, I think, in fairness to those people that have travelled so far and fuel at a $1.30 a litre, we should sit until such time all the presenters who are here and have registered be heard. Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): I would suggest that we sit until midnight and, at that time, we review to see where we are. I th ink that would be a great way to proceed. Mr. Chairperson: Counter proposal. Mr. Eichler: In all fairness, I think it's a great suggestion, but people have travelled from quite afar and they need some sense of direction.

To wait till midnight and then be turned away would be unfair, in my opinion. I think the committee should hear anybody that wants to make a presentation, whether it's midnight or after. They need a clear indication where they want to go. An Honourable Member: Agreed. Ms. Brick: Our committee would agree to that, keeping in mind that it's also on Friday night. We decided not to see the clock and that we did have an extra two or three–I think it was three presenters we heard beyond midnight.

So I think we've been very flexible and I just wanted to make sure that that's noted, that we've been very flexible on this committee. An Honourable Member: You've been very flexible, thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we will sit to midnight. That goes without saying, as long as there are people here. I think it's only fair that, if there are still people here after midnight that have travelled afar and still want to present, then it's incumbent upon us, as the committee, to hear them out. That's the purpose here.

This is a public hearing and we're here to hear the people so, if they're willing to sit past midnight, so are we. Is that agreed? [Agreed] I think that was a compromise. Order. I have a request for the committee's consideration. Presenter No. 91, Mr. Dave Hunter, is here tonight with his wife and young children. He has asked for the committee's permission to speak first tonight, rather than having to wait or come back to another meeting. What is the will of the committee? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. * (18:10) Mr.

Chairperson: Agreed to that? [Agreed] Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with staff at the entrance of the room. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompa ny your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak to our staff.

As well, I would like to inform presenters that in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. Also, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters list. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public about speaking in committee.

Our meetings are recorded to provide a transcript. Each time anyone wishes to speak, I have to say that person's name to signal Hansard recorders to turn microphones on and off. Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations. Mr. Eichler: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the World Pork Congress has been on for the past week. I got a call this morning from a presenter that did not know Bill 17 had been called. He was calling to see how things were going. I told him that committee had

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 349 been called and he had not even received notice yet because he was not in town. I would seek leave of the committee not to move presenters that are not here to the bottom of the list for one more night in order to allow for those that are travelling in order to receive proper notice. I know the Clerk has done an outstanding job in trying to attempt to reach each of those presenters, but when they're not home, at a function that's so important as the World Pork Congress, and through no fault of their own, they haven't been able to be notified.

So I'd ask leave of the committee that presenters called tonight not be moved to the bottom of the list for one more night. Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): I appreciate the comments that the member is making but I think that we agreed when we first started on Friday night, that we would maintain people's names on the lists for Friday and Saturday because it was on the weekend. Now there will be one more round and then they will start dropping to the bottom of the list. That doesn't mean they can't present tomorrow because they are still on the list.

They are not being removed from the list. I think by still being maintained on the list, they will have that opportunity. So I think we should proceed as has been the practice. Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been denied. Mr. Eichler: Mr. Chairman, in all due respect to the minister, some of these people may be from her very area and may not even be back into the Swan River area, then to be expected to turn around, be back in Winnipeg in such short notice. I mean, for heaven's sakes, this is a bill that is a family bill; it affects each and every Manitoban within the province of Manitoba.

I think the minister should reconsider and make sure that every voice is heard, make sure that every presenter has that opportunity. To deny that opportunity for the sake of a day is not a big deal. We are here to serve the people the best way that we can and one more day, one more day out of our lives–we're talking about a bill that is so significant as Bill 17–to deny that request, I believe is shameful. Hon. Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Well, in actual fact, this could have been the rule we had in place as of Friday night or Saturday night.

We've co-operated to make sure we get as many people heard as we can. All we're doing is returning to the normal rules and normal practices of this committee. I think it has worked very well to get as many people as we can here and help with that. I believe the time has come that we have to revert to the normal rules of this committee so that we can ensure people who are here in the audience tonight will have a chance to speak with us and give us advice on Bill 17. I do not think, Mr. Chairperson, that we can agree to the request. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. On that basis, I call Mr. Dave Hunter. Good evening, Mr.

Hunter. Do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. David Hunter (Private Citizen): I do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay. The Clerk will distribute them. You may begin when you are ready. Mr. Hunter: There are 15,000 Manitobans employed in the hog industry and I am one of them. I'm not going to ramble on about scientific research or recite statistics. That has already been presented. What I am going to do is tell you my story and what the future of agriculture means to us and show you that I'm not just a number. The Hunter family has a long history of farming in Manitoba.

In 1876, my great grandfather homesteaded at Green Ridge in the R.M. of Franklin. Today my parents, Cliff and Irene Hunter, are still farming the original homestead. It is a 1,320-acre mixed farm with 80 head cow- calf operation. Although no longer large enough to support multiple families, it has afforded three generations of the Hunter family a reasonable standard of living. Leaving the farm in 1989 to pursue an adequate income for my family, I have always been employed in agriculture. In 1996 I received a diploma in agriculture from the University of Manitoba.

Currently I am about 10 months away from completing a CPP designation with the Purchasing Management Association of Canada. I am the store manager for East-Man Feeds in Winnipeg, where I combine my education and professional experience to tackle global supply chain management. The early focus of my career was crop inputs during which time I was employed as an agronomist with TerraFlex, based in Niverville and Steinbach. One of the main crop production challenges is nutrient management on land where manure has been deposited.

TerraFlex has been at the forefront of adopting and developing innovative agricultural practices. In the late '90s, they were involved in developing variable rate fertilizer application technology using grid soil samples to

350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 generate a cross

section of nutrient requirements for a field combined with nutrient profiles and application rates to determine remaining macro nutrient requirements whic h were then variably applied on each

section of the field. Now I see the other side of the nutrient cycle, working in the feed industry. I find it interesting to see that the same nutrients we focussed on to produce good crops are the same ones to raise good animals. The building blocks of life are the same. I see how hog producers are managing their manure and the procedures and regulations they have to follow to apply it in a safe manner. I also see others who voluntarily exceed regulations. A large percentage of our customer bases are independent producers and Hutterite colonies.

These people have an even greater vested interest in protecting the land. They live on the same land where the barns are and farm the land where the manure is applied. These people are good agronomists and good stewards of the land. In order for Hutterites to maintain their way of life and religion, they must work where they live and cannot send their children elsewhere for schooling or jobs. It is imperative that they are able to grow at the locations in which they live. It is my understanding that a lot of this issue is surrounding surface water quality.

This is a complex issue concerning all levels of government and land users, from the homeowner to the municipalities to the farmer feeding the world. The hog producer is only one of the players. Hog manure application has been a point of controversy because it is seen as a toxic waste by the general public. They do not understand its benefits to the soil when properly applied. This is not a manure management issue. It's a nutrient issue. The nutrients in hog manure are no different than from those of other animals, plants or artificial fertilizers.

We need to adopt nutrient management practices, balancing plant nutrient requirements and applications with crop nutrient removal rates. We should encourage farmers to use manure as a primary source of fertilizer. Most artificial fertilizer requires a large amount of petrochemicals to manufacture and transport. * (18:20) Technological improvements are being made in livestock production reducing the amount of nutrients contained in manure. Developments in nutritional science enable feeding of rations specific to the requirements of animals' genetics and stage of life.

Enzymes are being used which improve the utilization of feed and genetic improvements of animals are resulting in better feed conversions. Over the last 20 years the agriculture industry has taken a proactive approach to the environmental issues, significantly improving the management of manure, and has developed sophisticated technologies to manage and capture its nutrient value to optimize crop production. In my opinion, the best way to ensure that producers increase nutrient management practices is to stop treating it as a by-product and give it economic value as a fertilizer source.

I believe that the statistics are that agriculture only contributes about 14 percent of the phosphates found in Lake Winnipeg, of which the hog industry only generates 1.5 percent. An Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, developed the 80-20 rule to analyse economic problems. For example, 80 percent of the wealth is held by 20 percent of the people. When we apply Pareto's law to this situation, if 14 percent of the phosphates originate from agriculture, then we have a larger issue to focus on: the other 86 percent. Where is it coming from?

Development of regulatory framework must be on the basis of scientific consensus and not one of public perception. We can trust the integrity and judgement of the Clean Environment Commission, and their recommendations are reasonable and based on factual merit. Our government is made up of elected officials from urban or northern ridings who do not represent agricultural regions of the province. They are being influenced by a small, vocal minority who philosophically oppose the hog industry. Unfortunately, most Manitobans are generations removed from the family farm.

Ask most people where their Sunday morning breakfast came from, and often you will hear the answer, Safeway. The average consumer does not know where their food comes from or how it is produced. When they venture outside the city limits, they are annoyed by the farmer on the road with his tractor, or they gasp in disgust of the smell of a hog barn they pass. Are these issues of agriculture? Yes, but they are only symptoms which can be treated. They don't need to be eradicated. Are environmental concerns

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 351 legitimate? Absolutely. Did these issues happen overnight? No. The hog industry is subject to more public scrutiny, media attention and environmental monitoring and enforcement than any other land use in Manitoba. The Environment Act already includes a mandatory review of the manure regulations every five years and enforcement is being done as required. What we need is time to deal with all the new rules and regulations just introduced and time to develop sustainable innovative solutions, not further regulations.

The hog industry has a billion-dollar impact on our provincial economy. We have huge investment in facilities which will provide strong economic growth, activity and stimulated growth in rural communities for many years. A moratorium is not sustainable, preventing innovation and replacement of old facilities. It threatens our economic viability, encouraging producers to build facilities elsewhere, resulting in the loss of value-added processing, jobs and eliminates potential tax revenues. Forty-six percent of all the meat consumed in the world is pork.

Our hog industry is recognized worldwide for its quality of product and competitive price. World demand for pork is growing by two percent each year and there are only a few countries capable of providing this additional pork. Manitoba has a world-class industry, the land base and the sow herd to take advantage of this increase in demand. We should be proud of our success and encourage grow th and development of our hog industry for the benefit of all Manitobans. Today, it's a moratorium on hog barns. What's next? You can only buy a John Deere tractor? Farmers should have the right to farm.

When the government decides who can farm and who cannot, there is no future left in farming. See my kids, they are the future of farming. Do you want to tell them that this is Manitoba and that there is no future for farming here? I don't have the heart. We're more than just a number. On behalf of my family, the Manitoba hog industry and all of Manitoba's agriculture sectors, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak about Bill 17. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hunter. I open the floor to questions. Mr. Eichler: Thank you, David, for your presentation.

We've heard it from a number of farm families throughout the province of Manitoba, and it is a serious question about the future and the next generation. My question to you is if Bill 17 passes, will you be looking to move outside the area in order to see that your family would have an opportunity to take on a new venture or expand your venture into another province? Mr. Hunter: If my employment is affected enough that our incomes are reduced, we would have to look at alternative opportunities. I certainly want to stay in the agriculture sector and would most likely be looking outside the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): I'm wondering whether the Minister of Ag riculture (Ms. Wowchuk) would like to hear the presentation again since she's been very busy on her BlackBerry. Mr. Chair, I have to tell you that this is the kind of presentation that we need to hear more often, and I thank the presenter for his presentation and for his thoughtfulness in presenting it. But I'd like to ask the presenter, with regard to the bill that's before us, the Premier (Mr.

Doer) of our province said in the House that his party was interested in cleaning up Lake Winnipeg; our party, that is, the opposition, was interested in hog barns in hog alley. I'd like to know how you feel about that kind of a comment, and whether or not the moratorium on hog production in Manitoba is going to do anything to improve the quality of Lake Winnipeg. Mr. Hunter: In its present form, I don't feel it will accommodate the goal of cleaning up Lake Winnipeg. The issue at hand, I believe, is nutrient management. Putting a ban on future barns or expansion doesn't do anything to address nutrient management.

All it does is put a cap on expansion of the industry. Now, with proper development and new technology, we should be able to sustainably expand the industry. We've made huge changes in the way manure is managed in the last 20 years. I don't believe that there's any of the boil-water advisories that are coming from hog barns, and 1.5 percent of the pollution found in Lake Winnipeg coming from hogs, where's the rest of it come from? What's coming over the border? What's coming from the cities? The landowner that's watering his grass? Hogs, yes, we contribute a little bit. Can we do better? Yes.

Give us the opportunity. Don't put

352 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 regulations and tell us we can't do it. We'll find ways to work around it. Show us a way to make some money and protect the economy and we're going to run with it. Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Thank you very much for your presentation. I just noted one part of your presentation, where it says: if 14 percent of the phosphates originate from agriculture, then we have larger issues to focus on. The other 86 percent, where is it coming from?

Certainly we know some of that is coming from the need for an upgrade to the waste-water treatment facilities in the city of Winnipeg. Certainly the government has not yet agreed to put their full one- third funding up towards that, but do you feel, based on everything that's going on here with this moratorium, that this NDP government is unfairly singling out the hog industry, given the fact that there's 86 percent of the problem elsewhere out there? Mr. Hunter: Yes, I do.

I've taken various accounting classes and inventory management, et cetera, and it's always been part of case study and problem analysis that when you have a problem that you need to solve, you focus on the big picture of the problem. The 80 percent, not the little 20 percent. You're going to get the biggest bang for your buck focussing on that. The number is 14 percent fro m agriculture. The hog industry is only 1.5 percent, so we're wasting our time working on that. Do we need to improve? Yes.

We can find some ways to improve it and make it better, but there's a lot bigger fish to fry in the pan there before we look at the hog industry. * (18:30) Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation, sir. For the information of all in attendance, this committee had previously agreed to hear out-of-town presenters first. Accordingly, I will now call Mr. George Wipf, No. 7 on the list. Mr. Wipf? George Wipf? Mr. Wipf's name to the bottom of the list. George Wipf. His name will now be dropped to the bottom of the list. John Allen. Mr.

Allen, do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. John Allen (Private Citizen): I do. Mr. Chairperson: Okay, the Clerk will take them. You may begin when ready. Mr. Allen: Good evening. My name is John Allen. I live at 107 Clarke Road in the R.M. of St. Clements, about 20 kilometres north of Winnipeg and about a kilometre east of the Red River. I am here today as a private citizen to speak in opposition to the proposed Bill 17, and I thank you for that opportunity. As I have learned and thought about Bill 17, I've considered how it might affect some of my personal values if it were passed into law.

I concluded that there are a number of importa nt parts of my identity which are, in one or several ways, offended by this proposed legislation. Those include my identity as a capitalist, an agriculturalist, an environmentalist, an optimist and an opportunist, an ethical person and a citizen. So, I'd like for you to join me in thinking about the ways that I am puzzled and put off by my government introducing Bill 17.

First and foremost, as an ethical democratic citizen, I find it outrageous that our Conservation Minister chose to hand out the conclusions of our Clean Environment Commission report on environmental sustainability and hog production in Manitoba on the same day as he announced the permanent moratorium on hog development in all or parts of 35 municipalities, seemingly linking them.

I submit that this was a disingenuous move by the minister to say in paragraph three of his news release of March 3 that he accepted in principle the CEC report and its 48 recommendations, and then one sentence later to say that he would now halt industry expansion in three regions of the province. The clear message to the casual listener, which I was on that day, was that the CEC report concluded this was necessary. Upon thoughtful reading and rereading, I have found no such connection.

Indeed, I found the conclusions of the CEC report to be positive and forward looking, offering, in their words, that environmental sustainability is achievable and then, also in their words, the challenge for the government will be to develop an implementation strategy that works with producers and other members of society to ensure the industry's social and economic sustainability. I found the CEC work to be thorough, thoughtful and balanced. I found the government's conclusions incomprehensible. The commission report said essentially, yes, we, together, can make this work.

We can have a healthy sustainable pork production sector and a robust livable environment in Manitoba.

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 353 and I heard the government instead concluding essentially, no, we're not even going to try. The commission gave us the blueprint of a win-win situation, one from which some improvements to our water quality might be expected and in which we could continue to develop the very successful pork production industry which has built up in Manitoba. The government, instead, seems to be saying, no. No win-win for us.

They seem to be saying, we need someone to lose, someone we can blame for our environmental misfortunes, and we choose as our losers, the hog farmers of Manitoba and their neighbours. I don't see this as an honest, forthright conclusion by the government. I don't see their decision as making any common sense contrasted to the CEC report which they commissioned to guide them. My sense of fair play is frankly prickled by the choice to put hog farmers at disadvantage, but to ignore all others who contribute to the nutrient load in Lake Winnipeg and region.

They're making it look like something big is being done for the environment by putting the boots to hog farmers while ignoring the vastly larger impact of others including the city of Winnipeg, other kinds of farmers, the many villages and towns, commercial enterprises, homes and cottages sitting alongside the waterways of this catchment. Recall that I'm also an optimist and an opportunist.

I believe we can secure the advantages of value-added pork production in Manitoba to hog farmers, their employees, suppliers and neighbours, to the packing industry and its myriad of business associates and so on, and I believe crop farmers can continue to achieve cost savings and enhanced field performance from accessing and properly using this wonderful fertilizer called manure rather than buying additional huge tonnage of very expensive and often imported chemical fertilizers. I know the government holds to similar points of view.

When I googled for recent Manitoba government news releases in support of these beliefs, I found a long list. Now, as the University of Manitoba research report , which formed a major input to the CEC report, revealed, there are excellent options available to use hog and other manures responsibly, effectively, and efficiently for the good of all. As the CEC report itself concluded, there is considerable evidence that the parties affected can come up with reasonable en vironmental information, plans, and actions to protect our waterways even as we utilize hog manure on our farms.

The opportunist in me agrees that we can win economically and environmentally at the same time, and the optimist in me abhors the notion that we must have losers here. The optimist in me thinks that this move by the government to permanently ban the expansion of hog farms in much of southern Manitoba is misguided and abhorrent to our spirit and history of balanced achievement here. Indeed, having voted NDP in a recent provincial election because of the government's balanced approach to many thorny issues, the optimist in me is now confused and disappointed.

My optimist wonders why are we not seeking to make losers of hog farmers and why hog farmers and their families and neighbours alone. Now, recall that I am an agriculturalist and a capitalist. The pioneers who opened up Manitoba were mostly the same. They came here, took risks, achieved great successes, had failures, rebounded from them, made this a gr eat place of opportunity. I daresay none of them had in mind to make a business that wrecks the environment for me and my family or my fellow citizens.

From talking to lots of farmers recently, I have found that most of them are willing to comply with even tough environmental standards knowing that their success cannot be bought at the expense of our land, water, and air, which is also their land, water, and air. The capitalist in me is also concerned that in this case the government proposes to win a small battle in a great environmental war by use of tools tantamount to a nuclear bomb. Start by taking the word "moratorium," a word which usually means delay.

Recall that the pork industry was told by government several times in recent months that the moratorium was indeed a delay, one which would soon be removed. Now, in the minister's word of March 3, a halt has been proposed to any pork production expansion in parts or all of 35 municipalities. "Halt" is a word which rather certainly means stop. The weapons of the battle got enriched, and I see by the decision to make what could have been a regulatory change into

an act to amend our environment act, that the government intends to make this halt as permanent as can possibly be assured. They're saying to hog farmers, the way I see it, that without much data to support their position, you're at fault for much of our environmental woe in Lake Winnipeg and surrounding waters so we're going to nuke you. We're going to stop you cold from adding to that damage.

354 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 The capitalist in me knows that as soon as hog farmers or any other group of business people get told by the government, we prohibit you changing your business in a way that might make it even 1 percent larger, then those owners will become discouraged. Over time, they will move on. They will find other ways to make a living here or elsewhere costing us made-in-Manitoba hogs and manure and hams and pork chops and all the benefits that go with making those products.

I wonder how the people who build new neighbourhoods in Winnipeg would feel if they were prohibited from expanding the city. After all, the environmental impact of the big city by the Red River is quite large, or what about our crop farmers? How would they take prohibiting the use of additional fertilizer on their lands, irrespective of weather, soil conditions, crop plans, and so on. I submit that neither our city builders nor our farmers fail to appreciate the impact of their actions on our environment. Neither do th ey stand in the way of reasonable regulations to protect our natural heritage.

Instead, they generally seek to be partners in planning to find win-win solutions for their well- being in their enterprises and for the greater good of our environment. * (18:40) I'm distressed that our hog farmers are being stonewalled instead of consulted, that they're confronted with a government that has seemingly left the balanced solutions I voted for behind, intent instead in making one small group of farmers today's losers.

I wonder how many other Manitobans are thinking, if they can stifle hog farming, with their record of high achievement and regulatory compliance and with their modest environmental impact, who will our government choose to stifle next? The environmentalist in me finally asks: If this kind of response is what is needed to protect our waterways from a very small percentage of the nutrient load affecting them, then what can we do with the very large percent that remains? Will the city, which contributes so much to pollution of our waters, be advised that growth is now forbidden?

How about the dairy farmers or the Canola growers or anybody else in the country? Must all of our agriculturists– Mr. Chairperson: You're at 10 minutes now, sir. You have an option. You can continue, and we'll take the time off your Q & A time. Mr. Allen: I'd like to do that, please. Mr. Chairperson: We can have your presentation completed or inserted into Hansard in its entirety. It's up to you. Mr. Allen: I would like to conclude, if I may. Mr. Chairperson: Please do so. Mr. Allen: Let me go on to the last page.

You, in government, have a clear opportunity to follow the advice of the report from CEC to secure the best of both worlds, to have a dynamic, sustainable, value- added, pork-production sector in Manitoba and to enjoy improved outcomes in our physical environment. As I see it, you're on the wrong track.

Instead of finding win-win conditions, you appear to have developed a strategy, with the proposal of Bill 17, which is anti-farm and -rural community, making losers of many folks in the countryside; anti- business, sending a chilling message about the impact of capricious government intrusion to creative entrepreneurs, managers and investors; unfair to hog farmers, which is a terrible label for an NDP government ostensibly committed to justice and fair dealing; close-minded and, in my view, slippery. You, in government, promised consultation; then you broke that promise.

The minister, in bringing this bill proposal forward, turned spin-doctoring into something many of us see as obfuscation at best, deception at worst. I expect better of my government. From all this carnage, all these losers, named or anticipated, what gain will come to our environment, I ask? You propose to fix a small manageable problem with a large blunt attack, leaving us to wonder what you will do to fix the larger less- manageable aspects of the same problem.

I beseech you, as members of my government, to rise above your proposed lose-lose solution and find the win-win path recommended by the CEC and many people and organizations who contributed to their work. I urge you to be wise, responsive and courageous enough to withdraw Bill 17 now. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Allen. I open the floor to questions. Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Allen. As you may or may not know, we, on the opposition side of the House, have made it very clear

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 355 that, if this bill passes, we will veto this bill in the next election if we form government. I do want to ask a question of you, though, Mr. Allen, in regard to the disconnect between this government and what's happening. Do you feel that Bill 17 has had an opportunity to actually be seen by the other populous, rather than just the people that are in tune with it? Do you think there's been enough information out there, in order for the government really to make a decision on this Bill 17? Mr.

Allen: It's hard for me to answer for sure, because I became interested as a result of other people making me aware of it early on, and I followed it closely. But I am certainly disappointed in the communications that I have seen because, as I said in my presentation, it appears that there is a clear connection that has been established, or attempted to be established, between what the CEC report said and this action. For all of us who have looked at this, I don't see it. It's not there. Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon West): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, through you to Mr. Allen.

First of all, thank you for that very articulate presentation. I do thank you for it, and I know a lot of energy and a lot effort went into it. You talk about a number of things. You talk about being a capitalist. Today, in question, the Premier (Mr. Doer) had indicated that this was only a small part of the industry that was being affected. It was only some 35 municipalities. There are other municipalities, he said, that, in fact, can expand their hog operations.

As a businessman or capitalist or entrepreneur, do you see other businesses investing substantial millions of dollars in the industry with the understanding that, at the stroke of a pen and certainly no science behind it, that the government could, in fact, at some point in time, pick on other areas in the province. Do you think people would be investing into this industry in other areas of the province? Mr. Allen: No, in a word. I used the word "capricious" at one point because that's the way it looks to me.

There was a lot of talk about how we're going to work together and fix things and solve problems and so on. Then one day, bolt out of the blue, slam the door goes. If people in any business were looking at that risk to their enterprise, I doubt they'd invest anything, I doubt they would hire anybody new. Mr. Borotsik: One further question, if I can. You also had indicated that the hog industry particularly is being put upon somewhat unfairly. There are other industries–you mentioned other agriculture, you mentioned cattle, you mentioned poultry and also you mentioned the city of Winnipeg. Are you aware, Mr.

Allen, that today, the City of Winnipeg actually dumped raw sewage into the Red River? I don't see any moratorium being placed on the citizens of the city of Winnipeg with respect to that kind of effluent discharge into the river. Do you have any suggestions to the government as to how maybe they could deal with those issues as well, that perhaps a greater part of the problem than simply 1.5 percent being put into the river by agriculture and certainly by the hog industry? Mr.

Allen: I think the last speaker was quite effective when he said, if you got a problem with nutrient loads in Lake Winnipeg or in our waterways, why do we attack it by goin g after the tiniest morsel that we can get our hands on? Is it because people don't like the smell of hog barns, or what? The real issue here should be attacked where the real problem is coming from. If the City of Winnipeg is a major offender, then whatever needs to be done to help them to overcome that should happen. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Allen. Time for this presentation has expired. I call Clarence Froese.

Clarence Froese, private citizen. Mr. Froese's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Dennis Thiessen, private citizen. Dennis Thiessen, do you have any written materials for the committee, sir? Mr. Dennis Thiessen (Private Citizen): Yes Mr. Chairperson: You do. The Clerk will take them and distribute them. You may begin when ready. Mr. Thiessen: Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. Good day, my name is Dennis Thiessen. I own a hog and grain farm just east of the city of Steinbach in the R.M. of Hanover. I'll give you a little bit of brief information about my self.

I graduated from the diploma of agriculture in 1976. In 1978, I joined my

356 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 father on the farm full time. For 30 years I've been farming there. My dad has long since retired. My wife and I, we've raised three sons on the farm. My oldest graduated from university and he is presently employed in Alberta. The middle one graduated from university with a degree in agriculture and is employed in the hog industry. Our youngest is entering engineering this fall. Thank you for the opportunity to present my position on a number of topics.

I will give a brief history of the hog industry in Manitoba and how it has evolved to this point, my opinion on a sustainable, environmental and economic model for hog farming, how animal agriculture and people are successfully co-existing and also how the moratorium will affect agriculture and the economy. The history of the hog industry. The hog industry, up to the 1980s, consisted primarily of varying sizes of family hog farms. In the early 1990s, agriculture in Manitoba had a bit of a crisis.

The federal subsidy, the Crow benefit on grain transportation was removed and feed grain could not be transported from Manitoba economically because of the distance to ocean ports and the cost of transporting that grain. The solution, add value. Get farmers to build barns to convert the feed grain into pork and export the pork. This proved to be tremendously successful. A recent rise in the Canadian dollar and sharp increases in feed costs due to, in part, the increased ethanol production has caused significant losses to occur in the hog industry. * (18:50) Next, economic and environmental model.

We are losing producers and some of production has shifted to producing more weanlings to ship to the U.S. to finish to market. This is increasing our dependence on the U.S. markets to finish our hogs, and most of you will have heard or read the current repercussions with COOL, country of origin labelling. I fear the combined effect of the financial hit and permanent moratorium will, in time, result in much of the industry to be lost. While the industry probably grew too quickly, it deserves a better fate than this.

Future barn construction, provided new regulations are met, is needed to ensure that the industry is able to survive. Priority should be given to existing hog producers to ensure that what has been established can be protected and used as a base to expand. While I introduce my own personal bias here, I feel this deserves consideration. I believe a 500-sow farrow-to-finish operation, or multiples of it, with sufficient land base to use the manure as fertilizer that, in turn, produces feed grain to feed the hogs is economical, and also an environmental model for sustainable hog production.

This would provide sufficient production to fill a large semi load to Brandon each week and employment for three people in the barn. With the rising cost of transportation and fertilizer, this model has environmental and economic merit. How animal agriculture and people are successfully co-existing. When I see how the R.M.s of Hanover, La Broquerie and the city of Steinbach have grown in population while seeing the animal agriculture–not just hog farming–grown in the area in the last 20 years, I marvel at the success.

People know farming is occurring around them and yet they continue to move in the area in droves. Schools are overflowing and related people services are stretched to the limit. Compare that with rural Saskatchewan where communities have died off or are dying because they rely only on grain farming. I know animal agriculture is only one of the many drivers of the economy in the southeast part of Manitoba, but it's part of it, and it works. How the moratorium will affect–oh, pardon me, a little on the side: I was here this morning and there was a comment made about R.M. of Hanover having a moratorium of their own.

I checked with my councillor and he says that there are certain areas where no further production is allowed, but there are areas in the municipality where hog barns can be built. If the moratorium becomes permanent, more farms will be shut down over time. Small family farms will have difficulty adjusting and be forced to close. The next generation will abandon hog farming; other parts of the industry will pull up stakes and move on. The whole region will eventually note the loss. This does not need to be this way.

Our economy requires the industry to pay for health care, education, roads, highways, recreation, et cetera. The hog industry has added value to grain produced by farmers to create many jobs–vets, trucks, feed mill workers, hydro workers, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, accountants, packing plant employees, bankers, et cetera–and created wealth for Manitoba. Hog prices are expected to return to more profitable prices within the next 12 months with the supply of hogs having shrunk. Others will tell you

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 357 that Manitoba is the best province in Canada to produce pork. Placing a permanent moratorium on the industry will undo the positives that have resulted. We, as a province, will all be worse off if you do. I want to make a little comment on the side, and that is, within six miles of my place some years ago, 3,000 cattle were finished every year and we had a thriving beef processing industry in our province. In the Howard Pawley administration, for some reason, that whole industry left . I sympathize with our current Minister of Agriculture (Ms.

Wowchuk) how hard she worked to try and get a cow slaughter plant built in Dauphin. It is so hard to do something and so easy to undo. Thank you for your time and consider this a matter of importance to all Manitobans, not just farmers. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Thiessen. Questions? Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Dennis, for your presentation. You make some really interesting points. The thing that I'm concerned about, we've heard a number of different presentations.

One is you referred to in yours and that's on the country-of- origin labelling that will be coming into effect in September. We're not exactly sure how that will impact us here in Manitoba in particular. But we have heard that a number of the operations may have to change the way they do their business. With Bill 17 you won't be allowed to make those necessary changes. How is th at going to impact your operation, Mr. Thiessen? Mr. Thiessen: Well, my operation is a small farrow- to-finish operation. I'm not here really to speak about my farm in particular. I'm concerned about the industry, ladies and gentlemen.

This is not just about me. This is about Hutterite colonies that rely heavily on agriculture. This is about farms of all sizes, and it's not about me. This is about everybody. It will affect the business community, and it will affect the city eventually too. When you lose an industry, the economy will feel it, and we need all the industry in this province we can possibly muster to pay for all the programs, the health care, the schools and everything. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Mr. Thiessen, for your presentation today.

You mentioned you have one son who's living in Alberta now and another who's working in the hog industry here with you, I believe, and another who is entering engineering, I guess here in Manitoba. I know there's lots of other families who are affected by this type of a decision out there. Are you concerned, with this type of legislation going through, that not only maybe your sons will have to consider moving to other provinces, but there will be many other families affected by this as well in such a negative way? Mr. Thiessen: Yes, I agree with that. Mr.

Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Thank you for your presentation tonight, Mr. Thiessen. You brought up a good point about the Pawley government and the slaughter industry in Manitoba back in the day when it left here and went to Alberta. Also, the current Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) worked real hard at trying to get a slaughter plant established in Dauphin. I would venture to say the reason that she had no support is because the cattle people remembered the Pawley days. They remembered those very clearly, and they weren't about to put their money in something that could just be yanked away from them.

However, Mr. Thiessen, do you hear the Minister of Agriculture saying, look, I'm there for you guys. I'm going to throw this moratorium out. Do you hear her saying that? Mr. Thiessen: No, I don't, and what dismays me is, even if this bill doesn't get passed, the fact that it was considered is sending such a lack of confidence in agriculture, not just hog fa rmers. It's grain farmers, everybody is shaking in their boots. Who's next? How is this going to affect me? It's serious. That's all I can say. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Pedersen. Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): No, I'll defer. Mr. Borotsik: Thank you.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Mr. Thiessen. Thank you very much for your presentation. My question here is that if they can do this to the hog industry–and they can do it with the stroke of a pen, with Bill 17, the man at the end of the table can put forward a piece of legislation without even thinking about the ramifications and with the CEC not supporting this, but he can do it with the stroke of a pen. My question is, what is the feeling in the industry? What's the feeling with the cattle industry

358 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 right now and the feedlot operators. What's the feeling with, and I'll say factory operation, poultry operations at the present time. What is next? What do you see as being next and when? If they get away with this and using the excuse of cleaning up Lake Winnipeg, is it going to be Canola producers next because they're putting too much input or fertilizer into the crop? In your opinion, what do you see as being next, Mr. Thiessen? * (19:00) Mr.

Thiessen: I'm afraid for the cropping people because if the hog industry is shut down, if we lose a lot of our hog farmers, we're going to have feed grain in our province that will have no place to go again. I mean, this is history; this is history. If we have no place to go, with the cost of freight, ladies and gentlemen, it will affect all of agriculture with time. So that would be my biggest worry. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Pedersen, there are still a few moments remaining if you still want to put your question. Mr. Pedersen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'm just going to refer back.

You mentioned you had a son in Alberta. What is the message in Alberta? You must be talking to him. Is there any incentive? Are you telling him to stay there? How would you encourage him to come back to Manitoba right now? What would it take? We know what it would take, but what could you use right now to encourage him to come back to Manitoba? Mr. Thiessen: My son, in Alberta, he graduated with a computer science degree. He went to work in the oil industry. He worked in R&D for five or six years. He has presently changed jobs. He's going to work for Siemens in business development for western Canada.

He will not need to come back to farm. Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation, sir. I call Hugh Arklie, Springfield Hogwatch. Hugh Arklie? Mr. Arklie's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. James Hofer, private ci tizen. Mr. Hofer, do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. James Hofer: No, sir. Mr. Chairperson: No? You may proceed. Mr. James Hofer: Good afternoon or good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, committee members.

I want to express my thanks for your indulgence that you've had with working around the scheduling of hearing the presenters and making concessions to accommodate us. Thank you very much. I was one of the people that was at World Pork Expo and couldn't be here when my name was called the first time. The first question that I would pose is: Why are we here? Well, the reason that I am here is I'm desperate.

If I was to answer, sitting in the government's shoes, I would say we're here because of Lake Winnipeg, and the question that really begs an answer is: Does governm ent really think that it has accomplished or solved the issues of Lake Winnipeg by putting a moratorium on the hog industry? That is a question that has been repeated and is still not answered. There are two ways of hitting a target. There was a king, many years ago, walking through the woods, and he spotted a tree with an arrow in it hitting the bull's-eye dead centre, and he was amazed. He says, how does one shoot so accurately?

He walked along the path and there was another tree with another arrow right in the bull's-eye. He says, this is amazing. I have never seen this before. He instructed his troops to seek out the individual that has the ability to hit the bull's-eye time after time. So the person was found. It was a young lad, 12 years old. The king asked him, how do you do it at such a young age to master an art that allows you to hit the bull's-eye every time? He says, that is easy. I go to a tree and I stick in the arrow and I paint the bull's-eye around it. Mr.

Chairman, committee members, I hope that is not what government did with Bill 17. On the desperate side, what makes us desperate? When we're pressured, we become desperate. Randy Travis, I'll quote one of his songs: There's a point when you cannot walk away. / When you have to stand up straight and tall and mean the words you say. / There is a point you must decide to do it 'cuz it's right. / That is when you become the point of light. Government is always accountable; they're accountable to, first, the people that have paid for their campaigns to run in an election.

Then they are accountable to the people that actually vote them in. Then they're accountable to themselves to lead, to govern in such a way that will take the country down a road of prosperity or growth. Then, last but not least, each and every one of us, committee members, the ministers, the Premier, we are all accountable to

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 359 God. Our actions some day are going to be scrutinized and we will have to answer why we did the things we did. Another story I'm going to share with you is, in 1960, there was a person by the name of Percy Moggey. He was a convict; he was a feared man. He was jailed in Stony Mountain Penitentiary. He was a smart person too and what his desire was was to be the first man to physically escape Stony Mountain. The walls of Stony Mountain Penitentiary are over 30 feet high. Other people had escaped, but nobody had physically scaled the walls.

So he formulated a plan to escape. He had to go through three doors that were locked. He did escape. The first night, he spent in a culvert. The next day, he made his way into a bush. The search was on; helicopters were out. The police were out. He's sitting in the bush. He looks up and he says, why are they doing this? Do they think that I would be out here, in the middle of a field, where they could see me? The conclusion that he came to was it is government; it is the police. They have to be seen as they're doing something, even though they know it will not make a difference.

He also watched a roadblock on No. 6 highway. He says, do they think I'd be in a car? I think we can learn something from that analogy. On a production site, when one asks the question: why do we need to build barns? Why do we need to expand? If we turn back the time of 10, 20 years, people were achieving less than 20 pigs per sow per year. Production units were built according to those standards. Now, some farms are exceeding 30. The sow crates are there; the farro wing house is there, but they can't finish the pigs because they can't add onto the barn.

Another quick quote from a song by Conway Twitty: We can make it legal, but we can't make it right. That is one question that I hope government is always asking themselves. Is it right? If one asks the question, what are we doing to conserve the water in Manitoba? The question might be, what aren't we doing? What we're not doing is, we're not dumping any sewage, any raw manure into any river and into any lake. We live right on the La Salle River.

I go there fishing with my sons, and we eat the fish that we catch. * (19:10) If government wants answers, I've had the privilege to be on the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium's research vessel, the Namao, and the people on that boat have a huge amount of information that does not support what government is saying in terms of who is jeopardizing Lake Winnipeg. Another quote, Johann Goethe: If we all clean in front of our own doors, we would have a cleaner world, and I'll add to this quote, and not just a cleaner Lake Winnipeg.

We are all involved in this game here, rural and urban, and I do not know or understand why government appears to me to be driving the wedge between urban and rural deeper and deeper. In the Free Press, a few weeks ago, there was a letter to the editor, and as one person quoted Waylon Jennings, he says, you can burn down the cities and leave the farms, and the cities will grow again, but if you burn down the farms, grass will grow on the streets of the city. I would encourage the government to rethink its position on Bill 17. The Canadian Hutterites came to Canada in 1918– Mr.

Chairperson: You're at 10 minutes, sir. Just for your information. Mr. James Hofer: Yes, I'll make a few more comments. They left Russia in 1874. In the last century and a half, we have moved twice, and Russia is calling us back. If we look at what happened to Russia, when 50-some thousand Hutterite and Mennonite people left, in my mind, they still have not recovered. We have always trusted God to lead us into a land where we can practise our religious freedoms and our right to farm agriculture. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hofer. I open the floor to questions. Mrs.

Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Thank you, James, for a very moving presentation. I know we spoke earlier, but I just wanted to say that this morning at seven o'clock, your father, Jacob, called me, and he asked me if I would read th e Hutterite church prayer for government in the House today. I did that this afternoon. As well, he said to me: Why is it that the people that sit on the south side of the table, which is that side, don't ask any questions? Only your side asks questions. I explained, and I want to explain again that it's the government side that has brought in this

360 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 piece of legislation, and I don't think they want to hear any more from people like yourself. We, on this side, are the opposition, and we do want to hear what you have to say, and we do ask you questions. I want to ask you the question: If this takes away your livelihood and you are forced to move away, where will you go? How many colonies will leave the province? What will it do to the communities that you support that are nearby, and what will it do to the greater economy of our province? Mr. James Hofer: Good question, Mavis.

As I stated earlier, Russia has still not recovered. They are a country with the largest land mass in the world and yet cannot produce enough food to feed themselves. We are a net exporting province, and I think we should take advantage of what we can do and what we do best. To answer your question, where will we go? I don't know at this point. Russia, Brazil, but one thing I know is that if we cannot practise our fundamental rights and freedoms here, then we are forced to leave. Let me be clear. We didn't move in the last century and a half just to move. Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Thank you, James.

That was a very good presentation. I want to go a little different direction. A conversation I had with you a couple of weeks ago was about you trying to do what was best for the environment with a cover for your lagoon system, and there was about a $10,000-permit fee to install it from the Province when you're doing the best environmental practices. Would you expand on that a little bit? Mr. James Hofer: At the colony, we've spent large amounts of money to accommodate regulations and legislation, starting with we had manure storages that were meeting our needs. The government decided we needed to go to 400 days.

We accommodated government in doing so. We have earthen manure storages. We have redone them once. The first cell is not just an earthen storage; it's a cement-lined manure storage. Neighbours are, at times, smelling our facilities and we have tried to accommodate their needs in reducing the smell or eliminating it. So now we want to put a synthetic cover on that storage, and we're being stonewalled by Conservation saying that we need a $10,000-engineering permit to do so. The question we ask is why. Mr. Chairperson: Well, the time for this presentation has expired so regrets to people who are still on the list.

We're at over 15 minutes. On that note, Mr. Hofer, I do thank you for your presentation. We have to move on. Mr. Jacob Waldner, Private Citizen. Jacob Waldner. Mr. Waldner's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Olayinka Brimoh. Good evening, Mr. Brimoh. Is that the correct pronunciation of your name? Mr. Olayinka Brimoh (Private Citizen): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. Brimoh: No. Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed, sir. Mr. Brimoh: Good evening everyone. As you may tell, I'm not originally from this country.

I emigrated here because I thought it's a land of opportunity. When I first came to Ma nitoba, I came with two masters degrees from my country of origin. When I came here, I realized that I can't speak English and I'm not even speaking English now. I realized that I have accents. I realize that I cannot find the kind of employment that I had back at home and that made me to work in the hog i ndustry. After working for like a year, I had to move out of this province and I moved to Edmonton, Alberta.

I was there for about two years, and I was able to raise enough money to buy a hog barn. * (19:20) Looking at the price of a hog barn in Alberta, I thought it was reasonable for me to locate back to Manitoba where the price of land is cheaper. I bought a barn in Manitoba, in Aubigny, Manitoba, so actually I'm from Aubigny. It's about 25 minutes south of Winnipeg in the R.M. of Morris. After buying this barn, we are still weathering the storm of the economic reality in the industry, and coupled with that, Bill 17 came into focus.

I just have some couple of questions that kind of boggling my mind and I need to ask those questions. I kind of looked at it like people have pets in the city. Family, we kind of know about pets we have in the city. It may be more than the number of hogs. I'm talking per head. These pets go to the riverside. They play in the parks. They defecate everywhere. Hog controls. Hog control. We have cattle farmers and their cattle, they defecate right there on the surface, but we, as hog farmers, we have our manure stored away for a year and spread at a time the Province allows to spread.

Why are we the ones who are losing the river? About two years ago it was in the

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 361 news. I was out of this province then, but it was in the news that a state in the U.S. is going to open their lake, whatever, into Lake Winnipeg. Pollution and stuff like that comes from this lake. What would the government do to that? Would they place a moratorium on that? Why ar e we being targeted for this unfair moratorium? That is my question. I just want to appeal to the government to please stand by justice and mercy. To please consider ourselves business people first and foremost. To please consider that our means of life we would eat from the farm.

We live out there at night to be able to sustain our family and to be able to have a voice in this community without going on welfare. I want to appeal to the government to treat us like they treat the people in the whole industry. We have times and times where we have pollution in the whole industry. The government did not place a moratorium on the whole sector. All the industries, too, discharge from time to time into the river. There has never been a moratorium of this nature in this land. Also, I want the government to please treat each farm individually, not to lump us together.

There are some farms that are so small, say, my own farm now. I have less than 300 farrowing hogs. How may we be allowed to expand up to certain capacity? Depending on the land size, we are out to spread my manure. I'm the only hog farmer right now in Aubigny. I have enough land for expansion. Some other farmers are in my position. Why some places when we have too many hogs in the jurisdiction?

I want the government to please treat us as individuals, and also I would just want the government to realize the facts that placing the moratorium, ruining us, it's killing the industry, and to clean the industry, it's affecting our lives. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Brimoh. I open the floor to questions. I have Mr. Graydon. Mr. Graydon: Welcome to our country, Mr. Brimoh, and your English is fine. We're thankful that you chose Manitoba over Alberta.

However, the pork industry–and my question, I'll lead into it–the pork industry has developed a lot of new technology to deal with the natural fertilizer from the hogs. We've heard repeatedly at this hearing now from over 100 people that it needs time to show that that technology is working in favour of lowering the phosphate levels, lowering the nitrates levels and that it's being managed properly. Would you say to the Minister of Conservation (Mr.

Struthers), would he better use his energy and his finances to harvest the algae from the lake in the form of a biomass instead of killing an industry that's already booming? Would he start another industry? Mr. Brimoh: Thank you very much. I would like to, if I may say, I would like the minister to respond to this, please, to the last question, because the question was–it was to him, not to me. Why are we here? Mr. Chairperson: Sir, this committee is structured in a way that people make presentations to the committee, and then it's up to the committee to ask questions of the presenters.

So there was a question or comment put by Mr. Graydon to you. Mr. Brimoh: Okay, if the minister will not say anything, I have to talk. The truth is, I would like to advise the minister and the government generally, to please focus their energy on the ways and manner we can all work together; as stakeholders of the lake, as stakeholders of our environment, and develop some policies and technology that will secure the future of these resources. But banning or placing a moratorium on our industry, I think is unfair. We can all stick together and work out a good solution to this issue. Mr.

Eichler: Thank you for your presentation and, again, welcome to Manitoba and thank you for picking Manitoba to come. I'm sure you're probably second-guessing yourself right now as you look into Bill 17. The Minister of Conservation is the lead man on this bill. The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) is also involved in this and not doing a great job standing up for Manitoba farmers. We have the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Lemieux) at the table, the Member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick), the Member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), the Advanced Education Minister (Ms. Mc Gifford), Flin Flon (Mr.

Jennissen), and also the Minister of Labour (Ms. Allan). We feel that there hasn't been enough consultation on this. We've had the Manitoba Pork Council tell us they're more than prepared to meet with the government; talk about consultation, talk about the regulations, talk about the CEC report. Yet, that hasn't been done. What's your advice to this government? Mr. Brimoh: I actually regret my move back to Manitoba. If I had a way of turning the hand of the clock back, I would like to revise that decision.

If I could sell my barn today, I would leave this province today because there is no future for my family in this

362 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 place. I'm not wanted; I've been told in different ways but this is final. Like I said earlier, I appeal to the government to please work with the Manitoba Pork Council and other stakeholders. They invest in Winnipeg, they invest in Manitoba especially. We have the CEC, too, coming out with a report. They should please consider the CEC report. They should look at the science behind this action and not the politics behind it. Thank you, sir. Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you very much for your presentation.

It's very sad that the government may be forcing you to move away from Manitoba and Aubigny. I noted from your presentation that you felt that this should be an individual basis. It sort of reminds me, I think, that if there was one car speeding down the road, would the government then stop all traffic on that road for ever and ever? It really doesn't make sense.

I'm just going to ask you, do you think that with the present regulations in place–and I know that you all have to adhere to those–that using those regulations and guidelines to work with, on an individual basis would not be achievable and sustainable for your industry? Mr. Brimoh: I believe it should be achievable. I believe with the government's assistance and help, we can process our manure further and make it more useful. Like people before me said, we know the advantage of hog manure as fertilizer over the inorganic fertilizer. The people producing inorganic fertilizer, they burn so much of greenhouse gases.

We're talking about going green. If we have to reduce the amount of inorganic fertilizer we use and choose organic fertilizer over inorganic fertilizer, it will improve the structure of our soil. It will improve not only the structure, even the chemistry of the soil. We all know this. Nutrients are more readily available even to the plants for use. People in the rural area will benefit, even from the processing, further processing of the organic fertilizer. So I would just, like, as I've been saying, appeal to the government to please, not only treat each case as individual, but treat it as people in business.

Like last month or so, I think Suncor–that's an oil company in Alberta, in the oil sands–they killed some birds, because it discharged something into the lake and some birds died. There was so much noise on this, and the government did not say they are placing a moratorium on the entire oil industry over there. Never did the government say that. * (19:30) We heard what the Prime Minister said; it was on the news. They asked to talk to the company in question. In case people are not complying with the regulations that we have in place, I think they can be talked to and probably charged, brought to book. Mr.

Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation. I call Mr. Menno Bergen, private citizen. Menno Bergen? Mr. Bergen's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Nathan Baer, Airport Colony. Mr. Baer, do you have any written materials for the committee? No? You may proceed. Mr. Nathan Baer (Airport Colony): Good evening, honourable members of this committee. My name is Nathan Baer. I am a member of the Airport Hutterite Colony. I am 28 years old and have been married for three years; my wife and I have one boy, aged two.

As I start here today, I ask you to consider that it is the future of this little boy. You guys here, with this bill, are trying, are damaging–it is his future. It is not mine. This bill might not impact the industry soon enough for me to see it, but it most certainly will for him. Also, the other 87 people at Airport Colony, ranging from two months to 88 years of age–it also impacts their future. These are real people; they're not just numbers. We are hog producers but that is not the only industry we have. We are a mixed farm, both grain and livestock, across various other industries: chickens, turkeys, dairy.

The hog industry has sustained our way of life and seen us through the last 30 years, since the establis hment of the colony in 1971. Bill 17 will affect our colony, because it will devastate the industry. While we are not inside the restricted zone, the industry will take such a beating that it would be not economically viable to stay in hog production. As companies leave the province and this industry and go elsewhere, it will add to the cost of production. Sure, some will argue that Maple Leaf Foods is here and they won't leave, so the industry will stay viable, but this bill does not even allow for

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 363 renovation or replacement in the restricted area which, by the way, contains two-thirds of Manitoba hog production. As a number of producers shrink, so will Maple Leaf Foods' desire to stay here. As our colony grows, so do our needs. We have to be able to expand all our operations in order to stay profitable and viable. This includes our hog operation. As a colony grows and exceeds 120 to 150 people, we usually split off. The building of a new place to this day is estimated about $20 million.

Honourable members of this committee, we need to put food on our tables; we need to pay bills, and this bill is making this so much harder. It is the future of our children. It is the future of real people we are talking about, the freedoms and choices to sustain and provide for our children as we grow. It is my personal opinion that Bill 17 is illegal. Why, you ask. Because it violates certain rights granted to every Canadian citizen under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. First and foremost, it discriminates against us. Under

section 15(1), every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. We, as hog farmers, are being discriminated against.

Section 6(2) states, every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of permanent resident of Canada has the right to move and take up residence in any province and to pursue the gaining of livelihood in any province. I also believe that that point is being violated. This bill is discriminatory against hog farmers and unfairly singles them out as the cause of too high pollution in our rivers, lakes and waterways when, in fact, we have a proven number of instances from a number of experts that we contributed only 1.5 percent of the problem. What is the government doing to fix the other 99? Not enough.

This is another one of this government's Band- Aid fixes. This will fix the phosphate and nutrient loading problems into the lakes exactly like this governing party has fixed hallway medicine. It won't happen and it hasn't happened. Also, this bill infringes on our right, as I have said earlier, to pursue the gaining of livelihood as it takes away our right to be hog farmers and does so unfairly and unjustly. As a vast majority of people affected by this bill are Hutterite and Mennonite, we could also argue that we're being discriminated against based on religious beliefs or ethnic origin.

This bill will do nothing to fix the issues at hand as long as the City of Winnipeg and other jurisdictions are allowed to dump raw sewage into the river. There is a major problem that this government should address if it is concerned about the environment. In an

article that I will now quote that I found at CBC.ca/Manitoba which is entitled, "A Sea of Trouble: Lake Winnipeg in Crisis," I do not remember the exact date, but it was on around May 12 that I found this on their Web site–this interview, the City waste-water manager for the City of Winnipeg told this CBC interview, I quote him now, Bill Borlase, manager of waste-water services for the City of Winnipeg admits that the treatment process doesn't remove the nitrogen or phosphate that is causing the algae problems in Lake Winnipeg. Excuse me.

If the City is not taking out phos or nitrogen, what exactly ar e they doing at these treatment plants? If we, the hog industry were caught admitting this to you, the government, the media and the government would be in a tremendous uproar. We as hog farmers are not polluters that this government makes us out to be. We have families just like you. We like clean water just like you. We do not want our families and our children to get sick, just like you.

Furthermore, in the article, they quote a Winnipeg city councillor saying that Winnipeg is only 6 percent of the problem and that they don't see the need to spend $300 million just to fix that 6 percent. Excuse me, again. Why is Winnipeg being left to ignore its contribution to the problem and the hog industry is being threatened to be shut down over 1.5 percent of its problem? Where exactly did this government go to school? Six is bigger than 1.5. Shutting us down will do nothing for Lake Winnipeg. It will not fix anything.

Honourable members of this government, you, along with the rest of Manitobans are being bamboozled by this bill. It has nothing to do with the environment. If it would, the government will be tackling the City of Winnipeg. I plead with you that if at all possible, do not let this bill pass out of this room. For the sake of the future of Manitoba, for our sake, for your sake,

364 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 please, if you can, shut it down right here. This government needs to work with farmers and producers to clean up their practices if they think that is the case. If the government expects us to have this done yesterday, they are going to have to kick in funding to help. * (19:40) The City of Winnipeg has been given until 2013 to clean up its act. Why are we being treated different? Why the blatant discrimination when human waste is so much more toxic and deadly than any animal manure?

You can get sick from another infected person's bodily fluids, but, though it is possible from another species, it doesn't happen too much in Canada. I am a member of the hog production team at Airport. Do I look sick to you? I ask you. I work in and around hog manure every day. It is not toxic. Yet it seems that the City of Winnipeg and other jurisdictions handling human waste are by far not under regulations the hog industry is. This government and province could have a chance to be at the forefront of green practices. Farmers and producers are willing to work with you.

There are so many options from producing heat to electricity to powering cars and vehicles on methane gas. The options are endless, gentlemen. The options are endless. If you are truly serious about being environmentally friendly, let's work down that option and that road. It can be used to replace synthetic fertilizers. We at Airport Colony are doing just that. The fields we apply are not fertilized the next spring, replacing the synthetic fertilizers. We normally apply in late summer when it is very dry so there will be no run- off into ditches and for ease of application.

This is considered an organic approach. The hog industry is able to put its waste products into an environmentally friendly use which a lot of other industries– Mr. Chairperson: Ten minutes, sir. You're at 10 minutes. Mr. Baer: Can I quickly finish? Mr. Chairperson: Yes, and for the information of all the people in the audience, as I said at the beginning, you have 10 minutes for presentation, five minutes for Q and A. But if people wish to continue, I am allowing them to continue to speak into the additional five minutes, but that time is subtracted from the question and answer period.

Whoever goes beyond 10 minutes, they are free to do so, bearing in mind the impact on the Q and A session. Continue. Mr. Baer: The hog industry contributes $2 billion to the economy of this province per year, not a million, not $500 million but $2 billion and this is out of the CEC report. That is more than any of the Crown corporations. Pass Bill 17 into law and this will hurt our provincial economy, and this will hurt this government in votes in the next election as people will most assuredly lose their jobs over this hit. We are a world food supplier of pork. We don't just supply Manitoba or Canada.

We literally supply the world with pork. Food is in the news so much these days. Not a day goes by when we do not hear of the food crisis in the rest of the world. If you pass this bill you will be contributing to that crisis. You will be guilty of starving some poor little child. If that is what you want on your conscience, then go ahead. If we run short on food in this province, you know what? It will be the cities that starve. The farmers won't starve because they'll keep food back for themselves. We are in a precarious situation right now.

These crop emergencies in Canada and the U.S. are the slowest it's ever been. If we take any kind of natural disaster hit over a substantial amount of acres in North America, a lot of people are going to go hungry. In closing, I ask this committee to drop this bill. There is no reason for it. Frankly, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) assured the farmers this would not happen. I stand before you today and say that they both lied to the public and to hog producers. A promise is a promis e, Mr. Premier.

You promised that once the CEC delivered its report, the pause would be lifted. That has not happened. That is not a misrepresentation of the truth. That is a lie, Mr. Premier. Thank you for your time, and I ask you to seriously consider the request and information I have presented here today. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Baer. Questions? I have Mr. Derkach. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Baer, thank you for a very compelling and somewhat heart-wrenching presentation this evening. I am a farmer. We produce livestock.

I'm well aware of some of the regulations that have come down by this government since it's taken office. As a matter of fact, I'm one of those people who, if I spill a five-gallon pail of manure

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 365 when I'm hauling my cattle manure to the field and I spill it on the road, I could be fined $5,000 for an environmental spill. I understand what your industry is going through today. I have been angered by this bill because of what it's doing to an industry that has been, in my view, one of the cleaner agricultural industries in our province.

When the Premier was questioned in the House regarding the hog industry and Bill 17, he accused us in the opposition of being in favour of hogs while his government was in favour of cleaning up Lake Winnipeg, and that our party was in favour of hog alley. I stand before you today to say– [interjection] He said that in the House and it's on Hansard. I stand before you today to say, I live on a farm. Water to me is the most critical and important element on my farm as it is on yours, I'm sure. Without clean water, I don't live on my farm and neither would you.

So we on this side of the House are also as interested in clean water as you people are and any Manitoban is. I'd like you to tell the Premier, who is here with us this evening, about the fact that the hog industry is, indeed, also interested in saving Lake Winnipeg, ensuring that we have an environmentally sustainable source of water for our future generations in our province. Mr. Nathan Baer: Well, of course. Like I said in my presentation, we have families too. Without clean water we can't live. Our animals can't live. They die off, too, and with that would go our viability. What more can I say. Mr.

Struthers: Thank you very much, Nathan. I appreciate your advice. I was especially impressed with your argument that everybody should contribute to the solution, including the City of Winnipeg, including all sources of nitrogen and phosphorus. That is a statement that we on this side of the House agree with. To that end, in 1992, a Clean Environment Commission report was commissioned and ignored by the previous government until we moved forward on it dealing with the City of Winnipeg and its waste water.

We have seen progress already with the City of Winnipeg in terms of upgrades to its sewage treatment facilities. More progress in '08 and then some more in a third category, and we are at the table with our third of the funding on that. The only argument that exists now, I believe, is whether or not we should be withdrawing both the phosphorus and nitrogen. There are some who think we should just do half the job. What's your advice to me on that? Should we be withdrawing both phosphorus and nitrogen, much like Regina and other cities, within the watershed? Mr. Nathan Baer: Mr.

Minister, I believe the hog industry is being watched on both phos and nitrogen. I think for the sake of fairness, for the City of Winnipeg and all other jurisdictions, the same should be applied–[interjection] Not in 2013, today. Mr. Chairperson: Order. Have you completed your answer, sir? Mr. Nathan Baer: Yes. Mr. Chairperson: Time has now expired. Point of Order Mr. Derkach: On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Derkach, on a point of order. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairperson, the arguments that Mr. Baer presented tonight are very compelling.

I know there are still more questions on our side, at least, of the House. I don't know about the government side of the House. But I am asking this committee for leave to allow for some questions to be asked of this presenter because of the nature of the presentation and, I think, the compelling nature would at least allow us the latitude to ask one or two more questions of him. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Brick, on the same point of order. Ms. Brick: On the same point of order. I just wanted to make it known that the committee had an agreement.

I understood that we would be staying with the time line that we have put forward, and that we would be trying to give the opportunity to all the people who are here, who have come to speak, to have the opportunity to speak. I think that's what we're trying to do by saying that we will go past the midnight deadline. So, I think, in all fairness to the large number of presenters who are here waiting to present, we need to move on to other presenters. Mr. Eichler: To the same point of order.

I asked leave of the committee earlier if they would agree that the presenters that are called not be moved to the bottom of the list. A number of those people, as I've said, were at the World Pork Congress. We are prepared on this side of the House to listen to each and every presenter, and if a couple of seconds or a

366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 couple of minutes of questioning for any presenter, we'd be more than happy to hear them. * (19:50) Mr. Chairperson: Okay. I've heard enough, I think, to rule. First of all, what Mr. Derkach should have requested was leave to extend questioning. I assume that's what he meant. So, technically, he does not have a point of order. Ms. Brick responded, I think, denying leave. I do have to point out that we were already at 16.5 minutes, that Mr. Derkach, you put the first question and your

preamble was rather lengthy. So, you have to bear that in mind when putting questions, that we only have so much time [interjection] and, as I was saying– Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. As I was saying, we were at 16.5 minutes, that was 1.5 minutes over the time. We have literally hundreds of people to present and a lot of them are waiting. So, I'm going to rule, first of all, there was no point of order, and say that we're going to move on to the next presentation. So, I thank you, Mr. Baer, for your presentation. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lyle Peters. Mr.

Peters, do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. Lyle Peters (Private Citizen): No, sir. Mr. Chairperson: You do not. You may proceed. Mr. Peters: Well, good evening everybody. Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak to you. My name is Lyle Peters, and I was born and raised on a farm. I wasn't born on a farm. I was born in a hospital, but grew up on a farm, and now I'm farming with my dad and his three brothers. So, there are four uncles, and there are now four of us cousins in the process of purchasing this farm from our uncles.

We're trying to do it a piece at a time because of the economics. Our farm, as a family, is 3,500 sows, farrow to finish, except that we are short one feeder barn, and that's an issue that I will address later. We also crop appr oximately 4,000 acres, and all of our land is within the distance of our barns that we can pump manure there. We, at the present time, use all of our manure for our own use on the fields as a cover-up for synthetic fertilizer. In April of 2005, I graduated from the University of Manitoba with a degree in agri-business and chose to move back to the farm.

I chose to move back to the farm because there were opportunities, and because I enjoyed working on the farm. I enjoyed getting my hands dirty, and I enjoyed watching pigs grow, and I enjoyed watching grain grow. Those are some of the things that drew me back home. In June of 2007, I was married and my wife and I chose, again, to move to the farm. I married Maneesha Manuel who grew up in Winnipeg.

She chose to move with me onto the farm and that is also again because of the opportunity, and for her, she really wanted the space that the country provided and some of the other opportunities that we were able to have on the farm. This past April, my wife and I were nominated as Manitoba's Outstanding Young Farmer. We finished as runners-up, a nd it was a very wonderful experience knowing that some of us younger farmers can still be recognized for some of the work that we try to do in all aspects–production, environment, and all the other things that come with running a fairly large hog operation.

We, as young farmers, always grow up with hopes and dreams. I have always wanted to live on the farm and work on the farm and have always also wanted to expand the farm. At one point, also, to buy from my dad and his uncles, but also to maybe get larger and grow together as a family so that we can also have opportunities for our own children. Part of this Bill 17 takes that away from us, especially some of us young farmers. I realize that where we grew up or where I am from, there probably are a few too many pig barns.

The CEC report does say that where our barns are located is in Hanover, and we have one that is almost in La Broquerie, but it is in Hanover and in that particular spot of the province, there probably are too many pig barns. But in the rest of the province, I don't know if there are. There is still lots of land in western Manitoba and in other areas that would be able to support pig barns. I realize that today there is a huge irony between the hog farmers demanding money because of the incredibly bad environment, but also the need to reduce the moratorium.

We are hoping that, in the long run, pig farming can be successful if the economy stays here, if Maple Leaf keeps their killing plant, that we can, in fact, expand–well, maybe not expand but continue to grow as a group.

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 367 I believe it is unfair that the hog farmers are getting singled out on this. I'm not suggesting this Bill 17 should have a 17A that lumps dairy farmers or beef farmers in as well. That is not the point, but it seems that pig farmers are not the only problem with the phosphorus levels in Lake Winnipeg. I am very, very concerned with water quality. We get our water from a well; we spread manure on the field that the well is beside.

We don't spread right on top but, if there would be an issue with too much manure, it would end up in our water first, not in Lake Winnipeg. We know that, with our injection of manure and the timeliness of our application, there is incredibly little run-off. I drink from our well and I don't want E. coli. I don't want phosphorus and I don't want salmonella or whatever else we can all get in our water from our manure. It seems unfair that there is also no phosphorus regulation in city expansion.

You don't hear that Waverley West is not allowed to have dishwashers, or that they're not allowed to use phosphorus in their dishwashers. Yet, pig farmers have to now start spreading manure by phosphorus regulations; it doesn't make sense. We do use phosphorus in our dishwashers as well, but there is no regulation on that, and there is no talk of banning phosphorus in dishwasher detergent or laundry detergent. Maybe, that is a possible idea to get rid of some of the phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg. We, as a farm, are doing our best to do what we can for the environment.

We live close to our pig barns and we do not want manure in the ditch. We do not want anything to go wrong. We want Lake Winnipeg to be successful and now, with the increase in regulations, we have been forced to spread our manure furthe r distances, which is a higher cost to us, of course. We have also been forced to spread very close to the town of Mitchell. We own the land right around the town and, last fall, we spread manure just, basically, across the road from the town. That was because we were running a little short on the–were high on our phosphorus levels on some of our fields closer to home.

Our applicator did a very good job and we heard no complaints, because there was no smell, because the manure was injected very properly. So I ask this committee to please help us, the young farmers, be successful in this environment. If we can keep the economy so that farmers, like myself and others in this room, can expand and also continue growing the operations, we can have access for our kids to farm, not just end it with our generation. I came back to the farm because there were opportunities, and I don't want the government to take those opportunities out of our hands. Thank you very much. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Peters, for your presentation. Questions? Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. Congratulations on your nomination and a job well- done. My question for you is–nowhere in the CEC report did it refer to a moratorium. That was imposed directly by the minister and the Premier of this province. The guidelines were outlined in that CEC report and the nutrient management regulations.

If the minister would sit down with your organization, your lead organization–Manitoba Pork Council– could you live with those regulations, if the minister would sit down and draft new regulations in order to adhere to the CEC report? Mr. Peters: As far as I know, we do have the land base to sustain a phosphorus-based, even one-time crop-removal system that has been talked about in the CEC. From an economic standpoint, two-times phosphorus removal would be very nice, that you could go every other year with the manure, but the outline in the CEC report would be livable. The moratorium seems a little bit too much.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much, Lyle. I think that one of the reasons you've probably done so well in that competition is your ability to express what you do on your farm, so thank you very much for your advice. * (20:00) I was very impressed with your across-the-board approach that you've outlined for us. Dishwashing detergent is something that we've made announcements on and have put in place a moratorium, a ban as of 2009. We have said no to in excess of 6,000 city lots that have not got a plan to take care of its sewage, as opposed to the old days when there was just development, at no cost, with no end.

368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 What I was really impressed with is your assertion that there is lots of land outside of the moratorium area within the province of Manitoba that is still available for agriculture and, in this case, hog barns. We have heard from some across the way that this would be a total shutdown of the industry in Manitoba and that people would be going to the States or to Alberta. Do you agree that in your area there may be people that might take up hog barns in other parts of the province of Manitoba? Mr.

Peters: As far as we know, it seems to be very difficult to build a pig barn in western Manitoba. Lots of the municipalities seem to be very anti-hog barn even though they are outside of the, maybe, moratorium area, so that doesn't necessarily help at all, and I know that you maybe can't twist arms to get some of the western part of the province to open up their pig barns, but moving into the United States is definitely a possibility for lots of farms in our area because you can't–and it might be more economical in the States than in western Manitoba, but, yes. Mr.

Graydon: Congratulations, Lyle, on your nomination. It seems like a lot of young hog farmers get nominated throughout the area. There's Mr. Boggs and Mr. Wiebe and yourself. You make our area proud. They talk about the moratorium and you yourself said that, in some places, there's a lot of hog barns and maybe too many, and maybe there aren't, but I think they're all adhering to the rules that are in place today. Your municipality, for example, has some pretty strict rules as well.

Do you think it was necessary to put a moratorium on when, firstly, you have the government rules and regulations that have to be followed and then the municipality looks at it and says, we also want to have input into this. And you, because you want to be a farmer but perhaps your brother wants to be a CEO of the municipality, and so we put a moratorium on and your brother has no decisions to make. Is that something that we should look forward to? Mr. Peters: It's definitely a situation that could arise.

I know R.M. of Hanover is in the special zone or the high agriculture zone where we did actually have approval just before the moratorium came on to build another pig barn. We had enough land at the one time, crop removal at the municipal level, but when it came to the federal level for the lagoon permit, that's where it fell through for us, and so we actually had the approval before the moratorium started 18 months ago, or however long it was, and so it's interesting that the municipality could say, yes, that you have lots of land base for it, but then the provincial government says, no, you don't anymore. Mr.

Chairperson: Sorry. Order. Was that a supplemental question, Mr. Graydon? Mr. Graydon: No, that's fine. Mr. Chairperson: That's all right? Mr. Pedersen. Mr. Pedersen: Thank you, Mr. Peters. You have a 3,500-sow operation. You're involved in a 3,500-sow operation. That's a pretty good-sized operation for Manitoba. You have a university education, so you have some smarts about you. The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) and the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) like to say that you can pick up and move out to western Manitoba no problem.

Do you think a financial institution, given how Bill 17 is being introduced overnight, do you think there would be any problem convincing a bank to finance that operation in western Manitoba? Mr. Peters: For our family, I think that it would probably be a bit of a tougher sell because one of the assets that we as a family have is that our management is very close by. How would you sell a bank on having management three hours away?

We wouldn't be able to have nearly the hands-on contact that we have now with our employees, and I think it would be a very tough sell, as well as getting a barn approved in many of those municipalities is also a tough sell, but even to the financial institutions, I think that it would be a very tough sell for us as a family. Mr. Borotsik: I'll go just a little bit further than that. Not even just dealing with the financials, because certainly I think it would be difficult to get financial backing, but, Mr.

Struthers, the honourable minister, has indicated that there is other opportunity for expansion in western Manitoba. It's only a certain small area that's going to be affected. I guess, in my opinion, it boils down not only to attitude but to what this government can do at a whim.

Now, do you think that a lot of people your age would like to go to western Manitoba now, go through all the process, deal with the municipalities, knowing full well that in a year or five years, or for that matter, in six months after you develop, by the stroke of a pen, they can say you can't expand, you can't do anything more than what you have right now? Would you be prepared to spend that kind of energy, that kind of effort and that kind of money,

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 369 knowing full well that this government, this minister and this Premier (Mr. Doer), on a whim, can just shut you down anytime they want? Would you like to invest that kind of money in this province? Mr. Peters: That is obviously of concern. No, I would not want to move to the western part of the province just because I grew up in the eastern part. It's got nothing to do with the western part. But it also puts on questions about expansion into other areas.

Do we really want to buy a chicken barn now because six months down the road are they going to shut down chicken barns? Or do we want to buy a dairy farm or do we want to–are they going to stop us from spreading manure on land at all and then we have to go to synthetic fertilizer? It's a concern that– because the CEC does not say, no hog barns in Manitoba or no more hog barns in Manitoba. I mean it says be careful, but that's completely different than what this bill is outlining. So, no, I don't think so. It's very concerning to even know what to do in the future in all aspects of agriculture. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Peters, for your presentation. Okay, I have a request from a city presenter that has a flight to catch at 6 a.m., Tuesday morning. This individual has been here on a previous evening. This has been confirmed by the Clerk and he seeks leave of the committee to present at this point in time. [Agreed] I call Mr. Glen Koroluk, No. 1. Mr. Koroluk, do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. Glen Koroluk (Beyond Factory Farming): Mr. Chair, I have pictures. Mr. Chairperson: Pictures? Okay. Okay, Mr. Koroluk, you can begin when you're ready to do so. Mr. Koroluk: Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Usually when I come to these committee meetings, I have a wise quote to start it off, but today I don't because I'm sort of mixed in my feelings as to what's happened over the years with the hog industry. As many of you may know, you know, I was part of the Hogwatch coalition that formed back in 1999. I've worked on environmental issues now for about 20 years and what I've gained from that is a great respect and knowledg e for a lot of different environmental issues that confront us.

I've seen the battles in the communities from the hog expansion over the years, both with the previous government and with this government. I've seen families break apart. I've seen people move out of the province or get bought out by the industry. My own family has suffered from this particular industry. * (20:10) I want to tell you that I do come from a farming background. Both my parents are from the farm. My grandparents on my mother's side homesteaded near Sarto, in between Steinbach and Grunthal. They had the quarter section, and I spent my childhood youth on that farm until age 16.

It was a subsistence farm. It was a different time and a different era. A lot of people tell me, well, we can't turn back the clock. But, what I do tell you is that we need a new clock. That's for sure. My family on both sides are Ukrainian and they were hardworking people. They were very respectful of coming into this country. Much like the Hutterite people, they're hardworking people and so are the Mennonite people. I have a great respect for people who put in their work in their livelihood. So I want to get back to why we need a new clock.

The reason why is the Canadian pork industry, right now, it's restructuring and consolidating. My opinion is it will never be able to compete in the global international market in the future and within the next generation. We've heard the obvious reasons, the high price of feed grain partly driven by the global biofuels industry; the low value of the U.S. dollar; overproduction and the new country-of- origin legislation in the U.S. There are other reasons that you don't hear. One is, you know, global industrial pork production is moving to other parts of the world such as China, Brazil, Mexico and Russia.

As we track the industry over the last generation, we've seen it move from Europe and then it moved into North America, into the U.S., places like–I mean, Iowa has always had a hog industry, but we're talking about the industrial model–Iowa, North Carolina, it moved into Québec, and it keeps moving, and then it came to western Manitoba. So what happens is everyone's, you know, enthusiastic about this new industry. We're going to make money. You know, we're going to sell pork across the globe. Well, what really happens is a different story.

370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 Now, I just want to remind the committee and the audience, too, what Bill 17 actually is. It covers less than a third of agri-Manitoba. It doesn't affect existing operations with current technology in the moratorium zone and that could be a production of up to six million hogs per year. It only applies to confined hog operations that utilize a liquid slurry system. So it does not impact over 95 percent of other farm operations in the other agricultural sectors.

Just to make it clear, the amendment says an operator can expand in the moratorium zone if they use environmentally better production systems such as straw-based systems, poop barns, or if they treat their liquid waste through solid liquid separation, or install anaerobic digesters. So even though there's a perception that there's a moratorium, there isn't. What it is, it's a bill that sort of gives the industry a push to change their production method. Now, eight years ago, we had a review much like the CEC review we had last year.

It was called Finding Common Ground, and back then we said basically the same stuff that we said last year through the CEC. Back then, eight years ago, they said we had to regulate phosphorus. So, you know, I'd like to say that with Bill 17, Lake Winnipeg will still be in jeopardy. The reason for that is that the outbreaks will still continue in the years to come.

You know, through the hearing we witn essed with the CEC, all they did was provide circumstantial evidence, and they say they couldn't prov ide a definite answer to the issue because of lack of local soil test data and limited evidence on local watershed studies which, unfortunately, these same recommendations were made eight years ago and nothing was acted upon them. But what we do know is that some of these scientists at the U of M are saying that we need to find four to six times more land base to apply the liquid slurry, and that's because of the production system.

It's a slurry, it's liquid, liquefied, and the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus makes it that we over-apply the phosphorus. Not enough of the nutrient is up-taken by the crops that are grown so we get an overload of phosphorus on the land. We have rainfall events and spring run-off events. If you look at your photographs that I handed out to you–these are just a few of them–we've got hundreds of these. We go up in the air and take pictures of the hog industry in the province. You can see the size, scale and magnitude of some of these operations.

Now, you get a heavy rainfall, you get lots of manure ending up into the surface water. Some of that goes down below too. I also want to say that Lake Winnipeg will still be in jeopardy because we're not reducing the phosphorus load in this province. We're trying to in different sectors; the City of Winnipeg is doing its best; the soap detergent industry is phasing out phosphates; the cattle producers are doing best management practices now. So everyone is doing their fair share. I want to tell you that we're actually having an expansion of the slaughterhouse sector in this province.

Maple Leaf is going to a second shift. Hytek, which bought out the Neepawa plant, is expanding their yearly kill capacity. What we're going to get actually is more finishing barns built mostly in western Manitoba. Some of them will go in northern North Dakota, some of them in eastern Saskatchewan, but we're going to get an increase of phosphorus loading because western Manitoba still drains into Lake Winnipeg. Can someone tell me how much time I've got left? One minute; holy smokes.

What I want to sort of conclude here is that while we're focussed on the phosphorus issue, what we really have to do is look at the production system, the liquid slurry confined system. That's the real issue. As well as impacting our surface waters, we also know that the liquid sl urry system contributes to global warming. We know that from measurements we have from other places in the world.

We know that it causes ground-water contamination, and we've got the proof in Manitoba through freedom of information requests and all the ground-water monitoring wells that the lagoons, the manure storage facilities have installed. We also know that there are impacts to the he alth of those living near these facilities and also for the people who work in them. So I guess in closing–I have enough stuff here for a day myself–in closing, what we should really do is amend Bill 17 so that there is this moratorium on liquid confined systems throughout the province.

Really, we should be working with our hardworking farmers in this province to make a just transition to sustainable farming. That's what we've really got to do. I thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you Mr. Koroluk. You have four minutes and four questioners.

June 9, 2008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 371 Mr. Graydon: Mr. Koroluk, you made a statement that it wasn't really a moratorium that's on; it's just a push for better farming practices, but it's really not a moratorium. I'm of the opinion, I would suggest to you, that this is the beginning of an assault on agriculture, that it could be better described in my view as a genocide. The slurry systems that you speak of, that you refer to in the hog industry as not really what we should be doing, is used in the feather industry and is used in a dairy industry.

Are you suggesting that they should also be limited to production? * (20:20) Mr. Koroluk: No, I'm not, actually. I'm just talking about the confined hog system. In fact, if you look at our agricultural sector right now across the country, the biggest growth in the industry is organic food and organic food production systems. I mean, the public is dying for organic food produced locally, and if we look at the other agricultural sectors that you allude to, dairy and the poultry sector, I mean, that's where you have to invest your resources because that's the global trend.

We're in an energy crisis right now and industrial food production is very energy intensive. Either way, we have to change because we're not only in an energy crisis, we're in a food crisis too. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Koroluk. You mentioned during your presentation that you didn't feel that this bill in itself would make much of a difference in terms of the water quality in Lake Winnipeg. Having said that, I know that the government has, time and time again, tried to sell this bill as one that will be the bill to clean up Lake Winnipeg. Don't you think that's a bit dishonest? Mr.

Koroluk: Over my years of working on this particular industry, I've seen a lot of dishonesty. I would prefer not to fingerpoint anymore, and I think there's a lot of work that all of us have to do together. What I'm saying is that we're actually going to get an increase of phosphorus loading in this province with the expansion of the slaughter capacity. So that's why we're asking for a province-wide moratorium on the confined liquid-slurry system. Not on the other types of production systems that are more environmentally better. Mr. Borotsik: Very quickly, because you don't have a lot of time.

I have gone through the Maple Leaf plant. I did hear you say that we don't have any world markets. I should tell you that I did see product that was destined for Korea. I saw product that was destined for Japan. I then heard you say that if they do more of the feeder barns, then obviously it's going to add to the load and Maple Leaf is part of the problem. Are you opposed to value-added production, such as Maple Leaf, Mr. Koroluk, and are you also opposed to free trade, where in fact we can trade our commodities throughout the world? Mr.

Koroluk: I'm for fair trade and I'm for increasing domestic and local supply. As I mentioned, with the energy crisis, the global energy crisis that we do have, the global market will have some difficulties in the next generation. My understanding is that Maple Leaf is consolidating. They've sold off a lot of their assets, and they want to concentrate and focus on the Canadian domestic market in order to be competitive in the continent.

It's unfortunate because, while we had our hearing, our CEC hearing, and while we have debate on Bill 17, it's really the Maple Leafs and the Hyteks that have been given the financial taxpayer opportunities to expand on the shoulders of other farmers. Mr. Chairperson: Last question to Mr. Eichler. Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Mr. Koroluk, for your presentation. I have two questions, mainly boiled into one, though. When we look at the new techniques that we've heard about here in the committee about feeding, lowering phosphorus levels, and also the treatment of storage facilities.

What is your impression of what Bill 17 would do to those initiatives? Mr. Koroluk: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairperson. I don't understand the question exactly. Mr. Eichler: We've heard a number of presentations in the ways that feeding will be changing, the way they manufacture feed, an d also the treatment of storage facilities to lower the phosphorus levels. Do you think that technology will, in fact, go ahead if Bill 17 passes? Mr. Koroluk: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You're talking about adding phytase to the feed and changing the diet, and technology, You know, when we rely on technologies that aren't proven, sometimes that creates other problems. The phytase, my understanding is that's a genetically modified

372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2008 organism. From my understanding, what you might gain from changing the diets, you might lose somewhere else. For instance, there's a strategy to feed livestock more distillers grain from the ethanol industry. Feeding distillers grain amplifies, concentrates the phosphorus in the waste. So, one small gain here, you get a loss somewhere else. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Koroluk, for your presentation. Mr. Koroluk: Thank you for allowing me to make the presentation. Mr. Chairperson: You're welcome. Mr. Eichler: Just a point of clarification.

As of right now, we have 55 presenters–you might want to hear this. We have five in-town presenters. We know that we sat 14 hours on Saturday; we sat 15 hours on Friday. We only heard 51 presenters on Friday, 52 on Saturday, and we know we can't sit past 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. A number of these people's voices will not be heard tonight. Now, in fairness to those people, we either need to cut off registration or we need to do some type of a management here that's fair to these people. A lot of them have to go home and do chores; the animals need to be fed.

I ask the guidance of the committee on what they would like to do with those presenters because, according to the registration that is on the Clerk's desk at the back, we have 55 out-of-town which we'll be hearing first and five in-town. I ask the committee for their advice. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Eichler has spoken. Does anybody have any additional advice? Ms. Wowchuk: The member, Mr. Eichler, raises a very important point. There are many presenters here. We have agreed that we will sit beyond 12 o'clock, I believe, or we'll reassess at 12 o'clock. We have more time tonight.

There'll be another committee on Tuesday and then another one on Wednesday. I think we should be a little bit conscious–maybe we should be letting people make their presentations and, if we don't have to ask questions, don't ask questions, just so we hear. I think we have to look at those options. Maybe we can shorten it up some way, but I think we do have to look at how we can hear as many as possible. Mr.

Eichler: Just to make it clear, for those people that have travelled so far, and we know that, in the past, we only had the maximum of 52 in that 14-hour period, we will agree to sit then as long as we possibly can, till the committee rises tomorrow morning. Ms. Wowchuk: I think the normal rules are, at midnight, we assess it again, but we should just keep going right now. Let as many people speak as possible and then assess it at that

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-2-ag4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 2nd hansardpdf ag4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a0950464f6a36c83a8ff2f53afbac2662382c14a

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