Manitoba Committee Hansard — 23 October 2017 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 10, 41st Legislature, 2nd Session)

41-2-la10

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session – Forty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Mrs. Sarah Guillemard Constituency of Fort Richmond Vol. LXX No. 10 - 6 p.m., Monday, October 23, 2017 ISSN 1708-668X

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

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

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

Gimli PC WIEBE, Matt Concordia NDP WISHART, Ian, Hon. Portage la Prairie PC WOWCHUK, Rick Swan River PC YAKIMOSKI, Blair Transcona PC

251 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Monday, October 23, 2017 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mrs. Sarah Guillemard (Fort Richmond) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Shannon Martin (Morris) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Eichler, Friesen, Gerrard Messrs. Allum, Graydon, Mrs. Guillemard, Messrs. Lindsey, Martin, Reyes, Swan, Yakimoski PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Mr. George Matheson, Manitoba Pork Council Mr. Peter Williams, private citizen Mr. Ralph Groening, Association of Manitoba Municipalities Mr.

Justin Jenner, Keystone Agricultural Producers Mr. Dennis Hodgkinson, DGH Engineering Ltd. Mr. Micha el Stainton, Lake Winnipeg Foundation Mr. Scott Dick and Mr. Cliff Loewen (by leave), Agra-Gold Consulting Ltd. Ms. Michelle Gawronsky, Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union Mr. Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour Mr. Hugh Arklie, private citizen Ms. Janine Gibson, Organic Food Council of Manitoba Mr. Grant Rigby, private citizen Ms. Jennifer Demare, private citizen Mr. Edward Stahl Jr., private citizen Mr. Jeroen Van Boekel, private citizen Mr. Arian DeBekker, Independent Hog Farmers Co-op Mr.

Andrew Dickson, private citizen Mr. Jonathan Alward, Canadian Federation of Independent Business Mr. Eric Reder, Wilderness Committee Mr. Glen Koroluk, private citizen Mr. William Gould, private citizen Mr. David Nickarz, private citizen Mr. Mike Teillet, private citizen Mr. Derek Brewin, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Carla Antonation, Trilogy Tree Services Ltd. Jesse Antonation, Arboriculture Canada Training & Education Ltd. Keriennne La France and Gerry Engel, Trees Winnipeg (Coalition to Save the Elms) Carl Epp, Parkland Tree Care Ltd.

Moe Feakes, private citizen Harold Froese, private citizen Lynn Murphy, private citizen Cory Rybuck, Manitoba Egg Farmers Matt Vinet, International Society of Arbori - culture, Prairie

Chapter MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 24 – The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017 * * * Clerk Assistant (Ms. Monique Grenier): Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. Our first item of business is the election of a Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Agriculture): I nominate Mrs. Guillemard. Clerk Assistant: Mrs. Guillemard has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mrs. Guillemard, will you please take the Chair.

Madam Chairperson: Our next item of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations? Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): I nominate Mr. Martin.

252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 Madam Chair person: Mr. Martin has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Hearing no other nominations, Mr. Martin is elected Vice-Chairperson. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 24, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017. I would like to remind the committee that the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet again tomorrow, Tuesday, October the 24th, 2017, at 6 p.m., to continue consideration of Bill 24.

As per an agreement between the House leaders, a set number of presenters were scheduled to present at tonight's committee meeting so we will hear –oh, I'm sorry –we will hear from 29 of the presenters registered to speak on Bill 24, and you have the list of those presenters before you. I would like to inform al l in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment. A standing committee meeting to consider a bill must not sit past midnight to hear public presentations or to consider clause-by-clause of a bill except by unanimous consent of the committee.

On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we have out -of-town presenters in attendance marked with an asterisk on the list. With this consideration in mind, then, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr. Shannon Martin (Morris) : I suggest out-of-towners as per tradition, Madam Chair. Madam Chairperson: We shall proceed with out-of-town presenters. Is that agreed to? [Agreed] And then we'll proceed with the remaining.

Is that agreed? [Agreed] The written submissions on Bill 24 from the following persons have been received and distributed to committee members: Lynn Murphy; Carl Epp, Parkland Tree Care Ltd.; Matt Vinet, international society of 'arbicorculture;' Carla Antonation, Trilogy Tree Ser vices; Jesse Antonation, Arboriculture Canada Training; Gerry Engel, Trees Winnipeg; Harold Froese and Moe Feakes. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider.

First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with the staff at the entrance of the room. Please no te that additional presentations will only be heard if time permits after hearing from those previously listed for this evening. Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff.

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

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

We will now proceed with public presentations.

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 253 Bill 24–The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017 Madam Chairperson: I will now call upon George Matheson, Manitoba Pork Council. Mr. Matheson, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. George Matheson (Manitoba Pork Council ): As introduced, my name is George Matheson. I'm the chairman of Manitoba Por k Council and I am a hog producer from Stonewall, Manitoba.

First of all, let me state that we at Manitoba Pork are in full support of the proposed amendment to The Environment Act contained in Bill 24. This proposed amendment is very simple. It will remo ve the requirement for anaerobic digesters for a new or expanding pig farm. Despite what opponents say, this simple change will in no way lead to the harming of the environment. Anaerobic digesters never would have helped the environment in the first place and were impractical and 'prohibitedly' expensive.

Even the previous government recognized this and allowed us, through an agreement reached in April of 2015, to start building hog barns again without anaerobic digesters. There have been pigs in Manitoba from the beginning of European settlement. As a hog farmer and a descendant of the original Selkirk settlers, my family has been 'continualously' farming in Manitoba for over 200 years, so I believe I can speak with some knowledge of farming sustainably here. Farmers have been called the original environ - mentalists. We live here, as do our parents, our children and our grandchildren.

We intend to leave the land and water in as good or better shape than when it was passed on to us. Sustainability i s all about ensuring that upcoming generations can have a good future with the land and other resources. So today I would like to address three basic questions that are raised over and over again by opponents to the industry. * (18:10) First question: is hog manure getting into our rivers and lakes? No. The vast majority of hog manure, about 85 per cent, is injected into the soil of farmland or immediately incorporated into the soil.

This method of application essentially stops manure from running off t he land. I cannot overemphasize this point. This means manure does not get into rivers and lakes. In fact, it is illegal for manure to leave a field. Injecting manure also reduces greenhouse gases and significantly reduces odour. By law, manure management plans with soil test results are filed annually with Manitoba Sustainable Development showing where the manure will be applied, at what rates, and what crops will be grown that season. Farmers are then required to follow that plan.

These requirements wi ll not change with this proposed amendment. Crops love manure and soak it up as nutrients, helping them to grow vigorously. Then some of those crops are fed back to the pigs. It is a perfect nutrient cycle: local organic manure fertilizing local crops feeding local pigs. Second question often presented to us: Is hog manure bad for the environment? Again, no. Manure is an excellent fertilizer and has been used by humans for about 10,000 years. Manure is locally sourced, natural, organic, renewable, builds up soils and breaks down very quickly in the environment.

Synthetic fertilizer, which will be used if manure isn't available, is imported, manufactured or mined, non-renewable, inorganic, costly and does not build up soil. So, if farmers do not use manure, they will put synthetic fertilizer on their crops. And they need fertilizer for crops because over 90 per cent of agro-Manitoba is phosphorus deficient. That is, crops will not grow well without fertilizer being added. Even the Clean Environment Commi ssion in its 2007 report recommended that more manure should be used in Manitoba, not less.

Manure is very good for the soil and the environment when it is used responsibly, as it is in Manitoba. Human waste, on the other hand, must be treated with expensive systems. Manure, however, is not treated like in human waste, and does not need to be treated for a variety of reasons. Untreated manure is better for the soil. And, unlike all municipal systems that eventually outflow their effluent into waterways, h og manure storage effluent is never allowed to go into ditches or waterways. This requirement will not change with the proposed amendment.

It has been estimated that perhaps 1 per cent or less of the phosphorus in Lake Winnipeg may come indirectly from hog manure. Not that manure itself is getting into the lake, because it's not. But, as manure breaks down, some of its phosphorus binds to soil

254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 particles and occasionally –during spring melt, for example–some phosphorus-bound soil particles may run off into ditches and eventually make their way into the lake. Again, this is not manure running off; it is soil particles with some of the element phosphorus in it. And question No. 3 that is often posed to us: Are there too many pigs in Manitoba? Again, no. The best way to determine this is to compare available cropland to the amount of pigs raised and the amount of manure produced.

Some jurisdictions like North Carolina, the Netherlands, South Korea and others do not have enough cropland to apply their pig manure at environmentally sound, practical, agronomic rates, so one could argue they have too many pigs; they must export or treat manure with expensive treatment systems. In Manitoba, we have about 19 million acres of farmland, about 16 million acres of which do not receive hog manure. So not only do we not have too many pigs, we could safely handle many more without any nutrients getting into our waterways.

Even with about 3.2 million pigs in Manitoba at any given time, the amount of manure produced can only fertilize about 15 per cent of the province's total farmland, so over 85 per cent of cropland does not get manure and must be fertilized with imported, synthetic fertilizer. There are millions of acres of farmland in Manitoba that have never seen hog manur e. So, again, we do not have too many pigs and could easily handle many more. I am very proud of being the chair of Manitoba Pork.

Manitoba hog farmers treat their animals well; we follow all national animal care codes; our herds are regularly checked by veterinarians; and we are moving all of our sows into group housing environments. Antibiotic use is being continuously and responsibly reduced. No growth hormones are used in our pigs. Barns are engineered and constructed to high standards following national building codes, ensuring animals are protected from the harsh environment.

Manitoba Pork supports the responsible application of all national codes, and Manitoba Pork invests heavily in research to ensure we are continuously improving how we raise our livestock. Manitoba's hog industry employs about 13,000 people and generates up to $2 billion in annual revenue for Manitoba. To conclude, the hog sector is a good industry. It's good for the environment; it is good for the economy, and good for the people of Manitoba.

We would urge the government to proceed with this bill so that the useless requirement for anaerobic digesters, which should never have been implemented in the first place, is removed from The Environment Act. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Cameron Friesen (Minister of Finance ): Thank you, Mr. Matheson, for being here this evening. Just a quick question for you–you called the anaerobic digesters useless. What was the primary concern or cause for that language you used? Mr.

Matheson: The initial goal was to reduce phosphorate levels. You cannot reduce phosphorus levels in manure. You can reduce the amount of manure, but not the phosphorus in it. So, if you're trying to keep less phosphorus in the soil, then anaerobic digesters isn't your answer. In fact, there's no answer. Whe n you distribute the manure on the farmland, that's where you either lessen or increase the amount per acre, so to speak. But a device such as an anaerobic digester in itself will not take away phosphorus. Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry -Riverview): Mr.

Matheson, thank you so much for coming tonight and for such a concise presentation with so many others here. We greatly appreciate you getting right to the point, and I want to compliment you on 200 years of farming. That can't be simple from a family point of view. I think there–it's quite fair to say that others will come up tonight and talk about the science of what you've described, so I'm going to leave that alone for now 'til we've heard from all Manitobans. But one of our objections about this bill is t hat it's an omnibus bill that includes a wide variety of measures all thrown together.

It's reminiscent of the way Stephen Harper used to run government when he was prime minister of Canada. Wouldn't it be better to have this as an isolated matter so that Manitobans can have a full and complete dialogue on this issue as opposed to throwing so many issues together into one bill? Mr. Matheson: Okay. I'm sorry; I can't speak one way or the other on that. I'm assuming this is the best

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 255 way of handling it, but which would be the most effective way, yes, it's not my area of expertise, sir. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): In your presentation, you talk about the fact that injection of the manure is good practice, that it decreases any manure running off the land and that we've got about 85 per cent now being injected. Could we go higher than that 85 per cent and increase that amount to good end? Mr. Matheson: Eighty-five per cent synthetic fertilizers? Mr.

Gerrard: I think the figure you told me was 85 per cent of the hog manure is injected into the land, right? Could we go higher to 90 or 95 or – [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Mr. Matheson. Mr. Matheson: Sorry. Madam Chairperson: Go ahead. Mr. Matheson: The other method is, once it's put on the surfa ce, it's immediately cultivated in, so that's another way of dealing with it. But one of those two methods would have to be used.

And we also have the regulation in place where you can't spread manure over the winter months, you know, when the ground's frozen and then it lays on the surface, and then it would run in during the spring. So, between that regulation, injecting and/or cultivating, all three systems would keep manure from moving off the land, but yes. A smaller farm may be inclined to use a cultivation system. Some of your professional manure handlers, they have systems where it's injected, and they do handle most of the manure in the province. Individuals who are handling on their own may go to cultivation.

But one way or the other, it will be embedded into the soil. Mr. Andrew Swan (Minto): Yes, Mr. Matheson, thank you for presenting tonight. As you know, my family has visited your operation, and we're a fan of yours. And I think that Mr. Gerrard dealt with this a bit. I do take issue with one thing you raised–this bill is only about anaerobic digesters.

The government itself, in the bill, says that one of the other changes to The Environment Act is eliminating the prohibition on winter spreading of livestock manure. * (18:20) So can you speak about your own operation, but then also about other operations that would be considered more intensive that don't use all the outdoor practices and everything else that you do? Can you comment, then, on the winter spreading of livestock manure? Mr. Matheson: The regulation will still be in place as far as not spreading manure during the winter months.

My practice –I have a straw -based system, and I use large tractors and trucks to remove it during the summer months and spread it, and then i n my case, because it is not liquid, I will cultivate it in. So it's a smaller operation. I'm the chair, as I said, of Manitoba Pork. It's a board of directors of 10. I am the smallest, by far, producer of hogs along that table, producing around 100 per month capacity that I have for. But one way or the other, we all follow the same regulations. Madam Chairperson: And that concludes the time we have for questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Matheson.

I will now call on Peter Williams, private citizen. Mr. Williams, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Peter Williams (Private Citizen): I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Williams: Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposed legislation. I'm not going to address the issue du jour; I am going to deal with another aspect of this omnibus bill. I live and work in the RM of Springfield. As a small-business owner, I'm quite aware of the burden that red tape places on the private sector.

I'm comfortable with the concept of red tape reduction to streamline processes in governments at all levels and for individuals and organizations that they serve. I'm comfortable with the concept of increased government efficiency as long as it does not diminish the effectiveness of what legislation was designed to address. The cost of monitoring and enforcement of regulatory legislation should be balanced against the interests of the public, socially, economically, health-wise and environmentally. I want to address certain proposed changes in this bill that I believe are weakening that balance. In May 2000,

256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 contamination of the drinking water supply in a small Ontario community resulted in the deaths of seven people and ill effect s for about 2,500 others. The government set up a judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding this outbreak under Justice O'Connor , and moved quickly to introduce new drinking water legislation that incorporates significant requirements for drinking water providers. Other provinces followed suit. Manitoba enacted The Drinking Water Safety Act in 2007.

Bill 24 has proposed changes to this legislation, and I want to address those and provide you with four examples of related issues in my municipalit y to illustrate my concerns. Now, but first, I want to give you a brief history of what's happened over couple of decades in the RM of Springfield. In 1997, a public water system was put into place to serve the communities of Dugald and Oakbank. The sourc e of water for this system is a sand and gravel aquifer in an area that was and remains actively mined for aggregate.

Successive Springfield councils were appraised by the public of concerns with gravel operation practices affecting the viability of the aq uifer as a drinking water source, but no actions were undertaken by the local council to deal with these concerns. In November 2012, I wrote to the director of the Office of Drinking Water, documenting a number of issues that I and my colleagues felt were threatening the safety of the public water system. I received a fairly quick response in February of 2013, addressing each of these concerns that we raised in the letter, but not all were resolved to our satisfaction.

As a result of what we perceived as a lack of action appropriate to our concerns, we submitted a complaint a year and a half later to the Ombudsman, with much of the information provided to the Office of Drinking Water in 2012. The Ombudsman felt that an investigation was justified and undertook our case in July 2014. The final report of that investigation was completed in August of this year. The first example to illustrate my concerns –I'm wondering if I can get a drink of water as well. This is good water? An Honourable Member: Yes. We sure hope so. For now–for now. Mr.

Williams: The first example to illustrate my concerns with this bill is related to the raw source of raw water for our public water system serving Oak Bank and Dugald. For a water system legislation categorizes t he water source as either secure groundwater, typically accessed from a well, or surface water. The best known example is Winnipeg, which uses water piped from a lake in Ontario, or a source designated as GUDI, Groundwater Under the Direct Influence of Sur face Water. This category of water is defined in Manitoba Regulation 40/2007, The Drinking Water Safety Regulation.

Monitoring, testing and treatment regimes for water plants that have a source of surface or GUDI is much more stringent than those plants that have secure groundwater. In our complaint to the Office of Drinking Water, we indicated our concern about the increased surface water near the wells resulting from nearby gravel operations. That particular issue resulted in a letter in early 2013 to Springfield from the Office of Drinking Water amending their operating licence with altered monitoring and testing.

The Office of Drinking Water, however, disagreed with our assessment that the source should be classified as GUDI but gave it a category of potential GUDI and ordered a monitoring period to determine if it should be reclassified. It was only after the in volvement of the Ombudsman that they reviewed our arguments and reclassified the water source to GUDI and amended the operating licence accordingly. Anecdotally, they indicated that they had been inattentive. The second example to illustrate my concerns i s related to an abandoned landfill.

In March 1994, Manitoba Environment revoked Springfield's operating permit for the Hillside Waste Disposal Ground located in Springfield's sand and gravel area and no longer allowed the disposal of solid waste at that lo cation. The terms of the provincial closure order issued 23 years ago was a site closure plan, capping of the site, installation of monitoring wells, and the preparation of post -closure monitoring or maintenance program.

An engineering firm hired by the municipality submitted a report to Manitoba Environment in November of 1994 which read in part: The landfill area has been characterized as a groundwater pollution hazard area and is described as a recharge area for the municipality's groundwater aquifers. Regional groundwater flow, and I'm quoting from that report: Regional groundwater flow is

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 257 reportedly to the south. However, local anomalies in the regional flow patterns aren't anticipated. In this statement it is significant that the municipal wells for the public water system are three kilometres south of this landfill in the path of the regional groundwater flow. Transmissibility of water and sand and gravel is high.

In October of 1995 an engineering report proposed a post -monitoring and maintenanc e pro - gram to be undertaken for the closed landfill which was accepted by the Province, and the report says, and I quote: It is recommended that post -closure maintenance and monitoring be conducted to ensure that the closure cap remains secure and stable and that the leachate for the disposal grounds does not affect the groundwater in the area.

Post-closure activities will include (1) inspection of the site monthly, maintaining the integrity and effectiveness of the erosion control there; (2) inspection of wells, vents, and other appurtenant structures; and (3) chemical and hydraulic monitoring of the groundwater. * (18:30) For over 20 years the municipality did not comply with this post -closure plan ordered by the Province, orders designed to protect the health of the citizens of the municipality.

Neglect by the municipality has allowed the capping to be breached on occasion by neighbouring gravel operations and the monitoring wells have been lost or damaged. The potential for leaking of toxic elements from the buried garbage in the groundwater is significant. In 1995, there was a relatively small rural population on private wells that would have been affected by this potential contamination of the aquifer.

Today, the population would be affected by contamination is significantly larger due to the implementation of a public water system servicing those dwellings in the communities of Oakbank and Dugald, currently estimated at 3,500 people which draws on this aquifer. The municipality only recently installed–re-installed the groundwater monitoring wells, and will be undertaking a study to determine the integrity of the cap. A lack of enforcement or monitoring these orders by the Province, and the lack of adherence to these orders by the municipality is a potential disaster in the making.

My third example –I sure hope I have time for these–is related to a legislated requirement dealing with the process of permitting for significant expansion of a public water system.

Section 3.1 of Manitoba Regulation 40/2007 outlines the require - ments for a permit for construction or alteration of a water system which includes a design brief, project specifications and copy of the engineering design plans. The operating licence for the Oakbank-Dugald public water system– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Williams, your time has expired for the presentation. We have to go on to questioning now for our members. Mr. Swan: Madam Chairperson, I understand we have many witnesses presenting tonight. Given that we don't have a written presentation, I wonder if there's leave from the committee to allow Mr.

Williams to continue on with the understanding that comes out of the five minutes alloted for questions. Madam Chairperson: Is this suggestion agree d to, that we allow Mr. Williams to continue his presentation and we will stop at the 15 -minute mark and no questions will follow? [Agreed] Mr. Williams: The permitting requires that a signficant expansion of the water treatment source process, storage fa cilities or the drinking water distribution system be undertaken with the approval of the Office of Drinking Water.

Over a six -year period, the municipality has connected water lines to the public water system to service about 700 homes without applying for a permit to do so. Doubling the number of dwellings connecting to a water system would be considered a significant alteration of the water distribution system. When asked under an access to information request for a copy of their permit approvals, the municipal response was, quote, approvals for water system expansion were not required as they were not a condition of the subdivision by the province, unquote.

So the municipality failed to comply with The Drinking Water Safety Act. But the Office of Drinking Water was copied on the circulation of these subdivision applications, and they provided advice. Yet they neglected to investigate why the municipality did not make permit applications for those significant subdivisions. I'm going to skip my fourth illustration and go on to the specifics of my concerns with the proposed legislation. Most of the amendments to The Drinking Water Safety Act in Bill 24 I consider housekeeping updates, but I challenge the following: current legislation sets the frequency of water system

258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 assessments at every five years; Bill 24 proposes with the addition of subsections 9.11 and 9.12 that the frequency may be reduced to 10 years at the discretion of the director. In the examples I've given for noncompliance with the legislation by the public water system operator, Springfield, were –have gone undetected by the regulatory agency, relaxing this periodic scrutiny with these additions will, in my opinion, increase the risk to public health and safety.

There were some amendments to the regulation that a lso reinforces this reducing of scrutiny by professionals, but I think I may just close it off there. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do the members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thank you, sir, for presenting this evening, and listened carefully to your presentation. I know you referenced, as well, you see the vast majority of the changes we're placing here to be housekeeping ones, and I agree with that assessment.

That's our aim, here: is nothing would change for system inspections of municipal water systems. But, also, I just wanted to clarify one thing, and that is we've attempted here to be able to differentiate between immediate, emergency reporting that would require–when there would be any kind of like a biological or micro -organism threat to a system, separate that out from the range –the tolerance range that normally occurs like when your parts per million fluoride calculation is out by a little bit.

Right now there is no ability for that fl exibility in the system; it makes everything an emergency, even when it's something like chlorine parts per million. So we have attempted to put that into the bill as well. I was just wondering if you were aware of that approach of ours. Mr. Williams: No, I wasn't. Mr. Allum: Mr. Williams, thank you so much for coming tonight and for your very informed presentation as well as your advocacy over many years. I think that's absolutely essential. You suggest that the change from five to 10 years may well pu t public safety and health at risk.

Is it your view that it should stay at five years, or should that actually be increased to indeed a shorter period? Mr. Williams: I agree that it should remain at five years, but the assessments should be done by professionals. The –part C to the amending of the regulation allows for self -evaluation and also allows for individuals who are not professionally –or engineers to do evaluations and that disappointed me. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, just quickly. When I spoke at the second reading, I expressed concern about the – increasing the length of the time for checking the infrastructure. And I agree with your concern.

Madam Chairperson: The time has expired for questions. Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Williams. I will now call upon Ralph Groening, Association of Manitoba Municipalities. Mr. Groening, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Ralph Groening (Association of Manitoba Municipalities): Yes, I absolutely do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation, Mr. Groening. Mr. Groening: Thank you, Madam Chair. Hello–or, and committee members. My name is Ralph Groening. I am the AMM vice -president.

I'm representing President Chris Goertzen, and it is my privilege to make some comments on behalf of Minister Friesen's Bill 24, which is The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act. So my comments : On behalf of the Association of Manitoba Municipalities, AMM, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present municipal concerns relating to reducing red tape, and that's our focus.

So I will 'egin' my presentation today by providing a brief overview of the AMM, Association of Manitoba Municipalities, our ongoing advocacy efforts to reduce red tape and regulatory burdens on our members, and our recommendations to help address this challenge. The AMM was formed in 1999 as the result of a merger between the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba A ssociation of Urban Municipalities. Our organization's independ- ent. We're non -partisan, and our mission is to identify and address the needs and concerns of our members in order to achieve strong and effective municipal government.

Our membership consists of

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 259 Manitoba's–all of Manitoba's 137 incorporated municipalities, and that includes city of Winnipeg. * (18:40) So now a few comments in regards specifically to Bill 24 and how the AMM welcomes the elimination of the need for municipalities to gain 'miniserial–ministerial approval to charge more than the specified amount to property owners for con- trolling noxious weeds under The Noxious Weeds Act. The regulatory change further recognizes municipalities as an elected order of government accountable to th eir residents.

However, it is essential the Province of Manitoba assures that adequate training is provided to weed supervisors and inspectors. We also encourage Manitoba Agriculture to make available department staff to answer questions from weed supervis ors and weed inspectors when required. Now, in relation to our advocacy efforts, the AMM made a comprehensive written submission March 3 of this year to the Red Tape Reduction Task Force which included 20 targeted recommendations to address red tape and e xcess regulations which often hinders our members when delivering public services.

Now, these recommendations were formulated based on our review of more than 75 written submissions from municipalities across Manitoba that identify inefficiencies in various provincial government processes; moreover, the AMM executive also made formal presentations to the Red Tape Reduction Task Force, transportation and land development subcommittees.

Overall, approximately 90 per cent of Manitoba municipalities have indicated to us that they encounter provincial red tape on a regular basis resulting in added financial and staff resources, and delays when dealing with provincial acts, regulations, licence requirements, and permit applications. Therefore , we are committed to iden - tifying red tape barriers and sharing practical ideas to streamline provincial government processes to benefit Manitoba municipalities. Our members often experience process delays when dealing with the municipal, public utilities, and highway traffic boards.

And our recommendation to conduct a full review of the function and purposes of these three particular bodies compliment the provincial government's commitment made in its 2016 Speech from the Throne. Now, in addition, more than 80 per cent of municipalities experience red tape with regards to land development due to provincial requirements causing process delays, additional paperwork, and labour costs. For instance, it is currently common for–common practice for municipali ties to experience multi -year delays in the acquisition of Crown lands.

And in some cases, it has taken more than a decade for applications to be processed, which not only hinders economic growth, but potentially discourages new investments in our local communities. Now our position when new regulations are being contemplated and implemented, it is essential that they are matched with provincial funding support. Unfortunately, over many years, munici - palities have often –too often–had to deal with a download of provincial responsibilities and regulations with no provincial funding.

For example, in 2011, the AMM repeatedly voiced concerns over the lack of provincial funding to municipalities to support the effective implementation –it's very important–effective implementation of accessibility standards. Funding support must be provided to ensure that the effective implementation of these standards happens, as there will assuredly be financial cost associated not only with the customer service and employment standards, but also with the three subsequent standards yet to be developed by the committee.

The–many Manitoba communities are currently proactively implementing accessibility plans in order to comply with provincial regulations, yet they shouldn't have to shoulder these priorities alone. In short, the implementation of the mandated accessibility standards will be undermined so long as no provincial funding support is provided. Now this is only one example of how excessive regulations are negatively aff ecting our members, our municipal members, and causing, unnecessarily, financial and administrative burdens for local communities.

So, in closing, the AMM welcomes the identification, elimination, red tape, and excess regulation. Municipalities require cle ar, efficient, effective processes in order to grow and sustain local communities. So I thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments and if you have any questions of me, I will be happy to answer them. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Hon. Ralph Eichler (Minister of Agriculture): Thank you, Ralph, for your presentation. In regards to part of your presentation, you talk about questions from the weed supe rvisor and weed inspectors when required. Is there an instance there that you feel that we haven't been able to meet those requirements as outlined in legislation? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Mr. Groening. Mr. Groening: Thank you.

T he point is made only to remind government and to remind your depart - ment that we need to work together with the weed supervisors, we need to work together with the Weed Supervisors Association which, I believe, has happened. But we thought it was important to emphasize that that continued support be made available to the association and the weed supervisors and the inspectors. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation.

One of the things which was discussed earlier on was the injection of hog manure into the land, and I think that the RM of Morris was ahead of most places in requiring injection of manure into the land quite some years ago. And then, of course, the provincial government, I think, took over the regulation of that area. Maybe you could describe your experience in the RM of Morris with that? Mr. Groening: Our experience in the RM of Morris–thank you, Mr. Gerrard–our experience with the hog industry has been successful.

We were pleased at the management style and the communication of the many corporate farms but also individual farms. What we took as a direction –and I believe some comments were made about the effectiveness of incorporation–and we included that in our request of the proponents of conditional use permits. We've been successful, and I believe we have done the very best possible to protect our environment and yet add the economic benefits that hog manure does offer. Mr. Allum: Mr. Groening, thank you so much for coming tonight.

I think we heard you loud and clear that, as a representative of AMM, you are against red tape. But, seriously, are you in support of every single element of this bill, many of which could put the health and safety of Manitobans at risk? Mr. Groening: This is a large bill. We're referencing only the principle of reduction in red tape.

Now, the detail of some of the inclusions in this bill–and I accept that it is a large bill –but we are mostly focusing on and directing our comments – representing municipalities, we are focusing on the areas where we see and w e think we would, and our municipalities would, benefit from a reduction in red tape. Mr. Allum: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call upon Justin Jenner, Keystone Agricultural Producers. Mr. Jenner, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr.

Justin Jenner (Keystone Agricultural Producers): Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Jenner: Good evening, honourable members of the Legislative Assembly, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Justin Jenner and I'm vice- president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, commonly known as KAP. I have a mixed operation with grains, oil seeds and cattle near Minnedosa. KAP is Manitoba's general farm policy organization, representing and promoting the interests of thousands of agricultural producers in Manitoba.

Our membership consists of farmers in commodity groups throughout the province who set our organization's policy through a grassroots governance structure. On behalf of KAP, I would like to share our organization's position and provide support for Bill 24, the red tape reduction and government efficiency act. In Manitoba, agriculture is a key economic driver. According to Statistics Canada, farmers generate more than 5 and a half billion dollars of farm cash receipts, or 4.5 per cent of Manitoba's GDP each year. When considering the secondary and tertiary contributions our sector

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 261 creates, agriculture represents more than 10 per cent of all economic activity in the province. Manitoba is home to not only world -class farmers, but our food- processing sector generates nearly $5 billion in revenue annually, which makes it Manitoba's single largest manufacturing sector. Hogs, cattle, canola and wheat are historically the top-earning commodities within the province. * (18:50) In 2015, the estimated value of hog production in Manitoba was $1.03 billion.

We are the largest hog producing and hog exporting province in Canada, with approximately 30 per cent of natural – of national pork pr oduction. The hog industry itself has a net worth of more than $6 billion invested in barns, land, equipment and livestock. Hog production in Manitoba makes a significant contribution to the provincial economy, and it also provides market opportunities f or Manitoba's crop producers. The Manitoba hog industry uses almost 2 million tons of feed annually, the vast majority of which is sourced from Canadian farmers.

Many farmers look to their neighbours to source barley, canola meal, corn or soy to feed their hogs. During the 2013- 14 rail transportation crisis which cost Canadian farmers 6 and a half billion dollars, KAP districts that had the largest number of hog farmers reported the least amount of financial losses. This is because there was a local market available for farmers to sell their products.

Selling feed locally is an important option as it provides an alternative market, which in turn creates industry resiliency, and it also enables farmers to profit from crops that may have received a low grade due to protein content or other factors. Hog production also contributes extensively to the agri -food process in Manitoba –agri-food processing industry in Manitoba. The largest food- processing sector in Manitoba is red meat, which produced about $1.4-billion worth of meat and meat products in 2015 and makes up one third of the total value of food processing.

The hog processing sector also employs about 4,500 Manitoba residents. It is vital that the hog production remains stable to ensure job security and economic activity in rural Manitoba. While farmers have a vested interest in the continuation and expansion of the hog industry, they also have an interest in healthy agro -ecosystems. Farmers are acutely aware of their responsibility towards Manitoba's environment, as their livelihood depends on the health of the soil, air and water around them.

The Manitoba Pork Council has a campaign called I am part of the solution that highlights the ways in which Manitoba's farmers are working towards environmenta l protections including soil testing, nutrient management and environmental certification. In the past five years, of farmers who have completed an environmental farm plan, 14 per cent are hog producers yet they make up less than 2 per cent of the population of farmers in the province.

Environmental farm plans, or EFPs, are voluntary self-assessments that farmers undertake in order to make management decisions for their operations with respect to the environment. There are sections of the EFPs that spec ifically deal with water-source protection and management, the storage and transport of livestock manure and confined livestock areas. So farmers are voluntarily making improvements on their farm to reduce their impact on the environment, and there is al so a regulatory frame - work in place that requires farmers to submit soil samples and follow strict nutrient management guidelines.

Manitoba farmers submit annual manure - management plans to the Department of Sustainable Development as per the Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation or LMMMR. Manure-management plans contain information on manure nutrient content, storage, field application and spreading. Farmers are also required to complete annual soil testing and manure analysis and share their records with the government of Manitoba. There are also restrictions in place on when farmers can apply manure to their fields, as per

section 14 of the LMMMR, and where farmers can spread manure, as per schedules B and C regarding setback requirements. These procedures will remain unchanged should Bill 24 pass. We would also like to highlight the importance of hog manure as a component of cropping systems. Hog manure is a valued organic fertilizer containing phosphorus that is used by farmers in M anitoba to enrich their soils. Farmers use systems of manure injection which inserts manure 10 to 15 centimetres into the soil.

By injecting manure so far below the surface, farmers are able to optimize their fertilization efforts, as the manure is placed at the roots of the crops. This method also prevents manure from running off the surface of fields and into lakes

262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 and waterways. In Manitoba, 85 per cent of hog manure is injected into soils. As well, removing the requirements outlined in

section 40 of T he Environment Act, relating to anaerobic digesters, will not harm the environment or the lakes and waterways in Manitoba. They are a poor tool for managing manure in Manitoba, both due to our climate and the excessive construction costs. KAP members in the dairy sector who have been piloting this technology with Manitoba Hydro have concluded that this is not an effective technology for Manitoba, our environment and the structure of our industries.

It is important to note that the 2007 Clean Environment Commission report on environmental sustainability for the hog sector in Manitoba did not recommend the required use of digesters for the same reasons I have outlined. It is important to note that many areas of agro-Manitoba are short of phosphorus and act ually import synthetic fertilizers to increase phosphorus levels in the soil. On our president Dan Mazier's farm, north of Brandon, for example, they have done soil testing which has shown severe phosphorus deficiencies in the soil.

Dan must add synthetic fertilizer to his fields as adequate phosphorus is needed for 'incroved' prop– crop quality, greater stalk strength, increased root growth, and earlier crop maturity. Many farmers use their neighbour's manure as a made -in-Manitoba approach to achieving optimum crop nutrient levels. To conclude, KAP is supportive of government's efforts to modernize and improve our regulatory pro- grams. We want to stress that farmers in Manitoba, including hog producers, work within a strict regulatory framework and have m ade substantial environmental advancements in recent years.

Repealing the proposed sections of The Environment Act will not change these best management practices, and will allow our industry to modernize and enhance the safety and environmental performance of barns throughout Manitoba. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the c ommittee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Justin. Just coming back to the setback requireme nts for injecting manure, does your organization feel that those setbacks are meeting the needs of the farmers as well? Mr. Jenner: Yes, I believe so.

Not being a hog producer myself, I can't speak to specifics of involving–injecting hog manure, but we cer tainly haven't heard a lot at our office about problems with it, but we agree that we need setbacks from waterways for manure injection. Mr. Allum: Mr. Jenner, thank you so much for coming.

Last week, Wab Kinew and I –he's the new leader of the NDP –had the opportunity to have a very good meeting with Keystone about a variety of issues, most of them dealing with environmental sustainability and it seems to me that very –we disagreed on almost nothing during the course of that meeting, with one exception around a financial matter that was unrelated, I think, to the other issues that were identified. I want to ask you the same question that I asked earlier of –this is an omnibus bill that includes provision over a wide variety of environmental regulations.

I understand you've come in to speak on behalf of the hog industry, I guess. Do you have any observation about the require - ment that a report on ecological reserves every five years should be removed? Do you support that particular provision of the bill? Mr. Jenner: Well, I'm not just here in support of the hog industry, I'm here in support of all farmers. As a cattle producer, I also have manure to deal with and I have to deal with regulations–maybe they're not quite as stringent as the hog industry, but they are certainly still stringent.

As to the makeup of an 'omnimus' bill, I can only speak to the portions of it that I know. And that's what I'm here to do. Mr. Gerrard: Yes, you mentioned–as have others – that the injection of hog manure is a good practice. And yet we only have 85 per cent of the hog manure being injected into the land, it's not a required process, and one can understand that there would be a few small hog operators who would–for whom that might not be economical. But I wonder whether there could be a larger requirement for injecting hog manure into a land.

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 263 Mr. Jenner: I'm not sure that 15 per cent is–has a lot of room to be able to be regulated into doing it. I can't speak to it specifically, but there are many different kinds of hog operati ons, and if you're not near–if your barn isn't near enough that you can run a hose to inject–because that's what they do, they run a big hose from the lagoon and pump into the injector, and they need to be within so far of the hog barn, and if not, you hav e to find other ways to spread and incorporate, or find other ways to get it into the soil.

Madam Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, thank you very much for your presentation. * (19:00) I will now call on Dennis Hodgkinson, DGH Engineering Ltd. Mr. Hodgkinson, do you have any materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Dennis Hodgkinson (DGH Engineering Ltd.): No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Hodgkinson: Thank you to all for the opportunity to speak to you. My name's Dennis Hodgkinson. I'm a professional engineer. I have interest in particularly the anaerobic digestion portion of your subject matter tonight.

I come to you as someone who has been actively involved in the development and promotion of anaerobic digestion technology. I've been in professional practice for about 40 years. I grew up on a ranch in the Interlake of Manitoba, I'm a graduate of the U of M and for the first 12 years of my career I worked in the technical services branch of the Department of Agriculture. At that time, I served on several national committees related to farm animal manure management and have spent a good part of my career working in this area.

I–in 1989, I founded, together with my family, a small engineering company, DGH Engineering. We've continued for the last 28 years to work in Manitoba and western Canada, with a portion of our business actively involved in animal agriculture. In addition, we've had opportunity to do some international work in this area as well. Over this time, my company, DGH Engineering, had the opportunity to become directly involved in the 'anaeric' digestion business, as it relates to agriculture.

We were one of the founding partners in a company that's in operation with most of our staff based in Quebec, but the company's Bio- Terre Systems Incorporated, and it's been in the 'anaeric' digestion business since 1998. Our company, Bio -Terre, holds an inclusive licence to a commercial–to commercialize a patented technology actually developed in the '90s by Agriculture Canada and the University of Ottawa. We've collaborated in R&D activities related to anaerobic digestion development and enhancement of the technology.

We've had some commercial success in the USA with this technology, most notably on some large dairy farms, four large dairy farms in the Willamette Valley in Oregon and we actually have provided digesters to two large farms in North Carolina. Obviously, when the government of Manitoba expressed an interest in promoting anaerobic digestion in our domestic industry we were very, very interested. However, I –as is so often the case, the devil was in the details. Anaerobic digestion is a treatment process.

It's well-suited, high -strength organic waste in a digester, a special floor of micro-organisms actually take the organic matter and break it down into more simple molecules and in the process produces energy in the form of methane, which is the same as natural gas, only in different quantities. The process takes place in the absence of oxygen, and that's why it's called anaerobic. The Bio -Terre process operated in a unique temperature regime.

It's a cold temperature, a cool temperature process that gave us some particular advantages in some of the industry with regard to net energy production, and, in addition, we believe the process operating in low temperature is more robust and a bit more stable. The process actually, as I mentioned, produces energy. In addition, it eliminates odour, produces a stable digest state, it eradicates manure pathogen and it conserves fertilizer nutrients. Anaerobic digestion is used extensively in many parts of the world, primarily to produce green energy with manure treatment as a co -benefit.

Our success with commercialization in the US in the past has been built around this opportunity to take farm manure, produce green energy, market it to utilities that had a mandate to have a proportion of their portfolio in green energy –and obviously in the current economic climate, or with the current constraints in the US right now, that's not exactly a

264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 growing marketplace for us. Similarly, in my travels internationally, we find our digestion technology being very, very successfully implemented, but , again, being done so in jurisdictions where it's enhanced by opportunities to produce green energy, most notably Germany in particular. Sadly, the lack of significant growth in our 'anoric' digestion industry in western Canada, especially in the swine industry, directly relates to the absence of favourable economic incentives to offset the capital cost with other forms of revenue, most notably green energy.

The implementation of 'anoric' digestion systems on all new 'swarn' farms –swine farms in Manitoba was, in our view, somewhat misguided and incomplete. Yes, 'anoric' digestion systems had the potential to reduce nutrients, but at a very significant cost without any offsetting benefits or streams of revenue. In addition, I think it's worth knowing that the cost of entry for a digester on a small farm is, order-of-magnitude number, is a million dollars. And providing a system at a cost of $1 million that has only the opportunity to offset nuisance doesn't really pencil out very well.

I think it was a common misconception that somehow, 'anoric' digesters would materially impact the nutrients out of the equation. In fact, we see an advantage to anaerobic digestion technology in its ability to conserve all the nutrients. With an 'anoric' digester, you wind up with more nutrients to take to the field annually. And if you're in an integrated, land- based production model like we are in Manitoba, where we grow grain, we feed livestock, we take m anure back on the land to grow more grain, that nutrient conservation is a huge advantage and a real plus for the technology.

But if you were looking at it as a panacea to try and help with reduction of nutrients–for example, if you saw it as something that would reduce the phosphorus load in the Lake Winnipeg basin –you would be focusing on the wrong sort of technology and looking for the wrong kind of features. In the absence of any green energy offsets, the requirement to install an 'anoric' digestion s ystem for new farms in Manitoba became essentially a development tax or a development surcharge.

For almost all swine farms that we were exposed to in the past decade, this surcharge was not affordable. 'Anoric' digestion is a good technology, and in the right economic environment, it has a meaningful place. If the green energy from a farm digester could be sold off-farm at 18 to 20 cents a kilowatt hour, it would have real value to the business of farming. But in the absence of that, we need some other way to offset those costs.

If we were to take farms and open up so that they could bring in off-farm organic waste, collect tipping fees, treat the waste and then take that product back as a field fertilizer, that would be a business model that would have some merit. However, that also comes with some liabilities. If you have a unique farm–occasionally, I'm sure everyone's heard of some farms where this made sense. If you had a unique farm, a farm that was built beside something like an ethanol plant that had a huge need for the energy that the digester would produce, that would be great.

But on an individual farm, our energy demands aren't big enough to take the energy produced by an anaerobic digester, so you have no co-benefit. You don't have no other business line to support the cost of the digester. I am confident I can say with some conviction and some direct experience that adding an 'anoric' digestion unit to a typical single swine farm in Manitoba is not viable, except in very, very rare circumstances. The farm cannot recover sufficient added value for the energy produced to pay for the investment.

In a simple fundamental ecological cycle where we grow feed, feed animals, return the byproducts to land to grow more feed, there is no value added to an anaerobic digester in that system, unless you're trying to produce green energy and have a market for the energy. * (19:10) In

summary, in my view, based on my experience both here and abroad, the repeal of the requirement for Manitoba swine farms to construct an anaerobic digester as part of their manure treatment is unwarranted and its repeal is long past due. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen: Thank you, Mr. Hodgkinson, for your presentation this evening, for your expert opinion. You've given us a lot to think about. I want to ask you–I'm thinking about the previous

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 265 government's expert panel review of measures to protect Lake Winnipeg that they commissioned and then was reported back in 2014. Now you said to us this evening that there is no case to be made that nutrient level could be reduced. Would the previous government have had experts present that opinion to them or is this exceptional knowledge that has since become known? Mr. Hodgkinson: Yes, through the Chair. No, I believe the fundamental principle, that anaerobic digestion technology preserves nutrients, is something that was well known.

I was not privy to the discussions about t he implementation of the requirement for anaerobic digestion. And, as I mentioned, I certainly welcome the interest in the technology. But if it was introduced thinking that it would reduce nutrients on farms it was misguided. Mr. Allum: Mr. Hodgkinson, thank you so much for coming tonight. I think your presentation goes to the core of–part of our critique of this bill is that obviously this is a subject that has significant breadth and complication to it, and to just treat it in isolation of all of the o ther provisions in this bill actually does it an injustice.

But–and so when the government decides through legislation like this, to simply remove this particular provision of the bill, it leaves open the question whether or not we couldn't be using this for–couldn't be using this particular technology for other green environmental opportunities. Would it be better for the government to, in fact, not just, holus bolus, remove the provision but, in fact, invest in this kind of technologies and others like it that does produce green energy? Mr. Hodgkinson: I think that really kind of was the essence of my presentation.

The requirement for swine farms to install these digesters hanging there by itself is misguided and counterproductive. If what you want was green energy then, by all means, this should be part of the tools in your toolkit. But to have that as a stand-alone requirement for swine farms with no offsetting revenue stream permitted I think is a mistake. Mr. Gerrard: I just want to say thank you very much for a very clear presentation and much appreciated. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call upon Mr. Michael Stainton, Lake Winnipeg Foundation. Mr.

Stainton do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Michael Stainton (Lake Winnipeg Foundation): I do, indeed, and I–be distributed. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Stainton: Madam Chair, committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening. My name is Michael Stainton, I'm the vice -president to the Lake Winnipeg Foundat ion. I'm speaking this evening on behalf of the executive director of the Lake Winnipeg Foundation, because she is at home with a very serious case of the flu. So, everybody get your flu shots.

I am speaking on behalf of the Lake Winnipeg Foundation, as well, so. At the centre of Canada, Lake Winnipeg is the world's 10th largest freshwater lake, a majestic water body with a watershed that spans two countries, four provinces, four states and over 100 indigenous communities. Lake Winnipeg supports a $25-million fishery, a $100-million tourism industry. Property values around the lake's south basin alone are worth 2 and a half billion dollars and collectively generate approxi- mately $40 million in annual tax revenues, all of which support vibrant communiti es and businesses on the lake's shore.

This is a lake that matters to Manitoba families. It defines our province's geography, shapes our culture, supports our biodiversity and drives our economy. This past summer, however, was a heartbreaking one for many who visited Manitoba's great lake. The Lake Winnipeg Foundation received calls from many Manitobans who were horrified by what they saw at the lake: beaches coated with soupy green film and water that was unsafe for their kids to swim in; water that could potentially cause serious harm.

Our members shared many photos with us of this situation and asked that we, in turn, share them with provincial decision -makers, which you can see in figure 1 of the handout.

266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 Lake Winnipeg is in trouble. Manitobans a re concerned, and Manitobans expect evidence -based action from its governments. The Lake Winnipeg Foundation acknowledges the economic importance of the hog industry to Manitoba. We recognize the value of recycling manure nutrients to support crop growth. Lake Winnipeg Foundation also recognizes that the hog industry shouldn't be singled out. Regulations related to the spreading of manure as agricultural fertilizer should apply to all of Manitoba's livestock industry.

Effective manure management ensures that manure and nutrients stay on agricultural fields where they support crop growth. Effective manure management is critical to prevent pollution and protect Manitoba's water quality. The Lake Winnipeg Foundation is concerned that data are lacking to d etermine if current manure management practices are indeed effective.

Without data, industry, government, regulators, and con- cerned citizens cannot accurately quantify the current impact of Manitoba's hog industry and water quality nor determine how the i ndustry may be expanded without increasing phosphorus loading to Manitoba's rivers, lakes and streams. Despite this lack of evidence, Bill 24 proposes to repeal sections of The Environment Act that govern phosphorus-producing activities of the Manitoba hog and other livestock industries. Regarding The Environment Act ,

section 40.2, Prohibition of Winter Spreading, currently, The Manitoba Environment Act prohibits the spreading of any livestock manure on agricultural fields between November 10th and Apri l 10th. This is widely recognized and well -established best management practice supported by broad scientific consensus. Arguably, the ban on winter spreading is the most important pollution prevention that has been put in place to protect Lake Winnipeg over the past two decades. When manure is spread on saturated, frozen or snow -covered ground, phosphorus in– contains–cannot be incorporated into the soil.

On the surface of the soil, this phosphorus is not available to support plant growth and is highly susceptible to runoff during winter storms; in particular, during the spring melt. So what Lake Winnipeg Foundation urges –that Bill 24 be amended so as to not repeal

section 40.2 of the Manitoba's environment act. The ban on winter spreading of all manure s hould be maintained in legislation, the highest form of protection for Manitoba's water. Regarding s ection 40.1, Prohibition – confined livestock areas and manure storage facilities for pigs:

Section 40.1 of the Environment Act currently prohibits construction or expansion of hog barns and manure storage facilities without environmentally sound manure tr eatment, including or equivalent to anaerobic digestion of manure. Anaerobic digestion does not remove phosphorus from manure. Rather, it separates manure into solid and liquid components and concentrates the phosphorus in the solid fraction of the manure. The advantage is that this helps to manage manure volumes, reducing the costs of transporting manure to spread to fields at greater distance for some of the barns.

Lake Winnipeg Foundation agrees that anaerobic digestion should not be the factor elimi nating the growth of Manitoba's hog industry. However, we strongly believe that industry expansion should be limited by availability of suitable land for manure spreading at a rate equivalent to the rate of crop uptake. The moment we start spreading more manure than crops can use, it's no longer fertilizer; it's a waste product to be disposed of and, as such, poses a risk to our water supply.

Our problem is this: We don't currently have robust and credible water quality data to identify the extent or lo cation of suitable land for increasing manure spreading. The necessary water monitoring programs have not been developed. Without knowing how much suitable land base exists, we don't know the extent to which Manitoba's hog industry can expand without inc reasing phosphorus runoff. * (19:20) Currently, hog production in Manitoba is very concentrated. Manitoba Census Division No. 2, directly southeast of Winnipeg, supports 35 per cent of the province's hog operations on less than 1 per cent of its land.

You can see this in f igure 2 where's–has all the manure management plans for that area dotted on the map.

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 267 Because high costs prohibit the long- distance transport of manure, manure spreading from these operations is also very concentrated. High density and high concentration of manure spreading is likely to increase the risk of phosphorus runoff into provincial waterways–likely, but we just don't know.

To answer some of these concerns, science data is being collected in this region among others in the province by the Lake Winnipeg Community -Based Monitoring Network, an organization initiated by the Lake Winnipeg Foundation With data collection and analysis overseen by the Lake Winnipeg Foundation's nationally recognized Science Advisory Council and leveraging decades of analytical water chemistry expertise, we have ensured that community-based monitoring data is credible, robust and comparable to existing government data.

CBM data to date indicates that phosphorus losses from watersheds southea st of Winnipeg in Census Division 2–you can see figure 3 –are concerning, as they are considerably higher than anything previously reported in the Red River basin in the State of the Lake Winnipeg Report. The data on these maps are rates at which phosphorus exported based on kilograms per hectare per year. The larger the number, the more intensive the phosphorus loss from that

section of the watershed. Community-based monitoring suggests these watersheds are phosphorus hotspots contributing disproportionately high phosphorus loading to local waterways. It is, however, important to note that correlation does not equal causation. We don't know if the high phosphorus loading in these regions is directly linked to hog operations. The density of other livestock o perations–dairy and poultry –is also high in this region, as is rapid urban growth.

Nonetheless, community-based monitoring data indicates that we do need to know more before we are able to make responsible, evidence- based decisions about expanding the hog industry or expanding into the other phosphorus -producing activities in these identified phosphorus hotspots. Lake Winnipeg Foundation advises that any proposal to expand Manitoba's hog industry must first provide robust data to answer these outstanding questions.

Industry regulators and the public need data that clearly demonstrate the extent and location of suitable land for manure application in compliance with best management practices and at rates that do not exceed crop-uptake rates.

Section 41 in the

schedule of the Manitoba environment act should not be amended or repealed until this data is made available. Where do we go from here? How can we evaluate the feasibility and sustainability of the hog industry in Manitoba? Ten years ago, the Clean Environment Commission identified the need for a thorough review of hog industry regulation to evaluate the effectiveness of manure -management practices. Such a review depended, and I quote, on the availability of a wide range of water-quality data.

In 2007, the commission noted that, and again I quote, water monitoring efforts need to acquire these data should –and should commence immediately. That has not yet happened, and it has to start today. Collecting robust water -quality data that identifies the impact of Manitoba hog industry on water quality is not a hindrance or hurdle to overcome. In fact, Manitoba's provincial government has promised voters that it is committed to making decisions based on evidence, and evidence is founded in data. Here is an im portant opportunity to fulfill that promise and to support shared provincial goals.

Robust data will benefit industry by identifying where and how sustainable expansion is possible. Robust data will benefit citizens, increasing public trust in the safeguar ds in place for Manitoba's water, and robust data will eventually benefit our precious lake, enabling us to make smart decisions to improve water quality and to ensure that a day spent at the beach isn't a potential health risk for our kids and grandkids. Thank you for your kind attention. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thank you, Mr.

Stainton, and thank you for being here sharing with us on behalf of your organization. I want to clarify one thing for you. Our government has no plans to allow for a change in terms of winter manure spreading practices. I wonder–you're aware of the fact that we have a redundancy here, a prohibition against that in the legislation and a prohibition against that in regulation. We're just looking to take away that redundancy.

268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 Your comments? Mr. Stainton: I guess I would argue that a few lines of ink are not a high overhead to maintain and not even raise these questions in the first place. Mr. Allum: Thanks for coming tonight, and I think I can safely speak for all members of–around the table tonight for –congratulate you and–for the work that the Lake Winnipeg Foundation does every day to advocate for a very important body of wat er in our province. I 'thernk' –think I heard you make an argument for anaerobic digesters, even if the intended purpose may not be the correct one.

But this bill was sold as a red tape reduction bill. We see it as an environmental deregulation bill. How would you characterize it? Mr. Stainton: As regard to anaerobic digesting, I guess the issue there is because I understand fully the economic argument against them, but the advantage is that it makes it more economical to move manure from an industrial ope ration that doesn't have a land base to put it on to places further afield and actually handle it as a commodity instead of a waste product. Mr.

Gerrard: Michael, thank you very much for presenting and thank you very much for being involved with the Lake Winnipeg Foundation and the monitoring network which has been developed because that's –it seems to me extraordinarily important in being able to understand what's happening. Have you any data with regard to the different forms of spreading of manure, whether it's injected into the soil or whether it's spread on the surface, or any particular comments on this? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Mr. Stainton. Mr. Stainton: We collect–sorry. We have no data in that regard.

We are simply collecting aggregated data. It's for others to begin to sleuth where those sources of elevated phosphorus runoff are coming from. It's hard enough to gather credible data at a higher enough frequen cy in the province to –at, you know, credibly identify these hot spots. It's for others to eventually to decide what to do about those hot spots. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Stainton: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: I will now call upon Vince Hiebert, Manitoba Weed Supervisors Association. Is Mr. Vince Hiebert in the room?

His name will be dropped to the bottom of the list for tonight. We will move on to Mr. Scott Dick, Agra -Gold Consulting Ltd. Mr. Dick, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Scott Dick (Agra-Gold Consulting Ltd.): Yes, actually two documents. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Dick: I'm going to have my bus iness partner Cliff Loewen start out. Madam Chairperson: Okay, we will seek leave from the committee. Does the committee give leave to have–sorry, Mr.–? Mr. Dick: Cliff Loewen. Madam Chairperson: –Cliff Loewen present first? [Agreed] Go ahead. Mr.

Cliff Loewen (Agra -Gold Consulting Ltd.) : Good evening and thank you for the opportunity to give a short presentation from the perspective of those working in the very industry that will be impacted by these proposed regulatory changes. We are Agra- Gold Consulting, and for over 10 years we've been offering nutrient management – manure management services to the livestock industry in Manitoba. My name is Cliff Loewen and I'm a partner in Agra -Gold.

My career in manure management began in 1998 -99 when I was working with Maple Leaf, and there I was given the opportunity to implement the very earliest manure management regulations for the rapidly expanding livestock industry here in the province. Since those earliest beginnings, I did take the manure management planners course, attained my certified crop adviser's status and was involved in the creation of the manure applicators certification course. My business partner , Scott Dick, also began his career in manure management when he was hired by Maple Leaf in 2001.

He has a bachelor of science degree in agriculture, his P.Ag. status with MIA, took the manure management planners course. Scott has also been a board member of the Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative for over 10 years.

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 269 * (19:30) We're a small consulting business. We employ a few full -time and part -time staff. Among those is Scott's dad, Werner Dick [phonetic], who also has his bachelor of science degree in agriculture, now in his late 70s. He enjoys soil sampling and water monitoring. My son Chris, who also attained– has attained his CCA status, is a full-time technician with us. So as you can tell, we are a multi -generational business having a rich history in roots in agriculture here in Manitoba.

Agra-Gold files and prepares with Susta inable Development over 170 nutrient management plans annually. And I believe, according to the numbers, that's probably over 35 per cent of all the manure plans filed here in the province. For these plans, soil tests and details for manure application nee d to be submitted for every field that is to receive manure. We sample over a thousand fields every year; after manure application, confirmation of spread is also submitted to Sustainable Development. All these plans are checked by Sustainable Development staff.

They have an auditing process where they randomly check a certain percentage of these manure plans and soil test fields to ensure compliance with regulation. Agra-Gold also works with 12 to 15 commercial manure application service providers here i n the province. Manure applicators have significantly improved the technology used over the last 10 to 12 years. Most of them now use GPS mapping tools coupled with flow -rate technology which enables us to create digital coverage maps of where manure has been applied. Auto- steer technology assists in much-improved and consistent coverage of manure application.

Modems hooked up with these mapping systems allows us as manure planners to upload updated digital files in real time as well as ensuring mapping data is immediately stored and saved as it's being created. We can remotely connect with many of these systems and check on progress compliance and rates being applied.

Possibly the most important part of our role in manure management is working with produc ers to receive manure to ensure that not only is manure being applied in an environmentally sustainable way, but also ensuring that these producers are benefiting agronomically from the rich nutrient resource found in manure. We could give countless exampl es where grain growers and forager beef producers have and are seeing improved yield production. Rigorous and ongoing soil sampling together with manure sampling ensures that manure application rates are correctly given for specific crop and yield target s.

Working with and meeting with these producers is possibly one of the most enjoyable and fulfilling part of our work as a consulting company, and Scott will speak further to some specifics. Madam Chairperson: Mr. Scott Dick, go ahead. Mr. Dick: The red tape reduction bill looks to repeal 41 and 42 of The Environment Act, which allows pig manure storage to be built with an anaerobic digester, or similar environmental technology. The act doesn't define similar or better than anaerobic digestion treatment, but it is understood by industry that is referring to phosphorus management.

I've toured digesters in Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario and the Netherlands. The primary purpose of anaerobic digesters is to create heat and energy. In this process, carbon is digested, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Anaerobic digesters do work to create energy, but at a cost of two and a half to three times of what Manitoba's –Manitobans pay for electricity. There's no real incentive for Manitoba Hydro to subsidize anae robic digesters in Manitoba since almost all of our energy in Manitoba is considered green, as it comes from hydroelectric dams.

Economically speaking, without significant dollars from carbon credit programs, anaerobic digesters for swine barns will never make economic sense on the Canadian prairies. Agra-Gold took over manure management of Cudworth Pork in Saskatchewan in 2016. The site has an anaerobic digester built on it that was built in the early 2000s. The treatment plant ran for about two years before it was mothballed, and you can see the picture in the handout that I gave you.

It was a $1.3-million investment that turned into a white elephant, as it was unable to produce the energy predicted and, therefore, was economically not viable. As an ag ronomist who's spent most of their career devoted to nutrient management planning in the livestock industry, I can tell you that anaerobic digestion is a very, very poor nutrient management tool. In terms of nutrients, the net amount of nutrients going int o the anaerobic digesters is pretty much the same coming out. The phosphorus and nitrogen are not removed in the process.

Therefore, the same number of spread acres are required, whether you have anaerobic digesters or not.

270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 So what are some solutions? And I'll say No. 1 with a bias. The best nutrient management strategy is to hire a nutrient management planner. There are 32 nutrient management planners registered to write plans in Manitoba. To be a planner you must either be a professional agrologist with the Manitoba Institute of Agrologists or a certified crop advise r with the prairie certified crop advisory board. Both groups have a code of ethics and an ongoing professional development requirement to remain accredited.

In addition, you must have passed the Assiniboine Community College manure planners course. Second solution, in terms of phosphorus management from hog manure, one of the best tools for environmental sustainability is to ensure that the facility has an adequate land base to rotate the manure– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Dick, your time for presentation has expired. So thank you for your presentation, and do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen: Mr. Dick and Mr. Loewen, it's great to have you here at committee this evening. My question can be for either of you.

I wanted to thank you for your presentation. I wanted to ask you the question–the previous speaker had made the point, and I think right ly so, that our approaches should be evidence-based. If you were in conversation with that individual or other Manitobans, what would you want to say about the evidence-based approach that you're advocating for? Mr. Dick: Absolutely, evidence -based approa ch, I would agree, would be the best, and that's why we use things and scientific tests such as soil tests, manure tests to determine what we're going to do on the land.

We go and soil test every field for our manure management plan before we apply manure on to ensure that we have the right evidence to support the rate that we apply. Mr. Allum: Mr. Loewen, Mr. Dick, thank you so much for coming out tonight, and like so many others you've concentrated on one element of a bill that, in fact, represents a who le spectrum of environmental deregulation. Wouldn't it have been better simply to have a bill which addresses this issue in isolation of other parts of the bill which deal with clean drinking water, ecological reserves and a vast array of other environment al issues?

Do you agree that it would have been better to separate this out and had a complete dialogue, as opposed to having it rammed into some bill with about 15 other provisions in it? Mr. Dick: You know, I'm an agronomist and my –I cast my vote, and I trust you politicians to come up with the best way of moving through these types of laws and bills. Mr.

Allum: I appreciate that, but if we are to be evidence-based and scientifically evidence- based in ensuring that we have clean air, clean water, sustainable land, wouldn't it have been better to treat this in isolation, rather than having it –throwing it into an omnibus bill, as a scientific, evidence -based debate? Mr. Loewen: I can't speak to that question, sir. I'm sorry. I– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Gerrard. Mr. Gerrard: Eighty-five per cent of the hog manure is injected into land, and 15 per cent is not.

And my understanding that it's injecting into the land is a better practice because it doesn't run off as much into the water. Could you comment? Mr. Loewen: Mr. Gerrard, I can assure you that Scott and myself have frequent conversations with manure applicators in terms of the technology they're using. And we, as consultants, heartily encourage more vigorous incorporation, more frequent incorporation, more efficient in order to retain more of the nutrients in the soil. We are strong supporters of using injection as much as possible. Mr.

Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): To follow up on my colleague's line of thought here, you would appear to be in favour of one portion of this regulation. Are you–or, this red tape reduction act. Are you in favour of the whole thing or just that one portion that you've talked about? Mr. Dick: We didn't come here today to speak about all the elements of it, just one particular one. Thank you. * (19:40) Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call upon Mr. Dennis Crockett, private citizen. Is Mr. Dennis Crockett in the room?

His name will be put to the bottom of the list. I will now call upon Mr. David Hammond, Manitoba Association of Campgrounds and Parks.

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 271 Is Mr. David Hammond in the room? His name shall also be put to the bottom of the list. We shall now call upon Michelle Gawronsky, MGEU, Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union. Ms. Gawronsky, do you have materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Michelle Gawronsky (Manitoba Government and General Employees' Union): Yes, I do, Madam Chair. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Gawronsky: Good evening, Madam Chair, honourable ministers and honourable members.

For those that don't know me, my name is Michelle Gawronsky, and I am president of the Government and General Employees' Union. First, I would like to once again thank Mr. Shannon Martin and Ms. Peter, the co- chairs of the Red Tape Reduction Task Force, f or meeting with me back in January. Definitely was appreciated. It was a very important meeting for the MGEU to share our thoughts and offer our perspective on the issue of the red tape. So thank you very, very much for that, sir.

As you all know, the MGE U represents over 40,000 Manitobans who live and work throughout this province delivering valuable public services that families rely on. While our union supports improving the delivery of public services, the government needs to exercise caution when putt ing protections on the chopping block. The Manitoba government's new Red Tape Reduction Task Force must ensure the health, safety and the environment of all Manitobans is not put in jeopardy while they carry out their work.

The MGEU is urging the governme nt not to use this legislation as an opportunity to cut corners, especially when protecting the health and safety of workers on the job who deliver important public services to Manitobans when that is at stake. This has been reinforced in our written submi ssion and participation in the current review of The Workplace Safety and Health Act regulations and the administration of that law.

We push for stronger workplace health and safety legislation and administration of the law so that people – Manitobans–are protected while at work and can go home safely to their families at the end of the day. The MGEU has been a strong supporter of safe words–safe roads and have advocated, and we will continue to advocate for enhancing safety in construction zones. These are just a few examples of the types of regulations that need to be strengthened and broadened to keep all Manitobans safe, to keep our friends and families safe.

We also have concerns around the government's specific path forward on limiting red tape. Wha t's being proposed is a one -for-one or a two- for-one type of law. Essentially, for every rule and/or protection added, one or two would have to be deleted. This is an arbitrary rule with no clear reason for the formula. Take the introduction of automated vehicles, for example, which will likely be on the roads within the next 20 years –within our lifetime. There will need to be new regulations developed and new rules put in place. That doesn't mean that regulations for driver -controlled vehicles won't still be needed.

Yes, this would mean add more regulations, because regulations will now be needed for both. Or, if an emerging issue in public health arises like food -borne illnesses like listeria or the H1N1 outbreak, that may require numerous changes in regulations. How will this impact the arbitrary guidelines put in place by this law? We have seen the devastating impacts of these cuts can have in other jurisdictions and how weak enforcement can lead to problems. And, as a previous speaker, Mr. Williams, sh ared, I ask again: do you remember Walkerton?

In this incident, bacterial contamination resulted in the worst public health disaster involving municipal water in the Ontario history. At least seven people died, and 2,300 became ill. Investigations into the causes of the tragedy found that improper practices, the lack of government provisions for notification of testing results and the recent privatization of municipal water testing all played key roles in this crisis. Or the deadly train derailment in Que bec that killed 47 people and left 27 children orphaned.

Regulatory changes, like the number of operators, how many brakes should be engaged, and the rail line that the train parked on, all contributed to the crash. Regulatory failures such as these loos ening protections can have serious consequences. To strengthen Manitobans' regulatory environment, we recommend that the task force align its mandate with the government's goal to be the most open and transparent government in the world by reporting

272 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 every regulation that is cut under this initiative. This will ensure that Manitobans can decide whether their interests and their safety are being served. Further, we recommend that any savings that are found through the process of finding efficiencies should be re -invested in strengthening the existing enforcement. Manitobans should be –would be safer if workplaces were inspected more often and if highways were kept safe by inspecting vehicles more often. Finally, one area we think processes could be streamlined is in the non- profit sector.

The MGEU represents members at over 30 community -based social service agencies such as St. Amant, Macdonald Youth Services, and child welfare agencies. The previous government piloted multi - year funding projects where agencie s delivering services would get stable and predictable funding grants for several consecutive years. This allowed them to make long- term plans and ensure that they wouldn't have to resubmit funding proposals and requests year after year. We think this is a good idea, provided that the funding is adequate and that this isn't used to make cuts to these important community agencies.

As a committee, we hope that you take our concerns seriously and our recommendations under consideration. The re are ways to make government run more smoother and more transparent, but this must be done with the public interest in mind at all times. We must remember, most regulations were put in place to protect Manitobans and nothing is more important than the sa fety of Manitoba workers and citizens. Thank you so much for your time. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thanks, Ms.

Gawronsky, and thank you for being here this evening and for advocating on behalf of MGEU. There is an awful lot in this presentation that we agree wholeheartedly with you here on –that just–that fundamental need for safety. It's why we stated in this act that we are moving to try to eliminate r egulatory requirements that do not add value or do not meet strategic public policy goals, all with a mind to do so without compromising human health and safety, environmental objectives, or other essential economic and social goals. So we completely share the lens through which you're viewing this.

I want you to have that assurance that it's the lens that we will continue to view these things through. I would want to make one clarification: The bill itself doesn't describe a landscape in which there won't be a need for regulatory approaches. We will add that regulation as society evolves, as new things come up. The test function is there to ensure that the regulatory burden doesn't become excessive for individuals, non-profits, business, and other levels of government as they interface with government.

So I appreciate this, and on the subject of Walkerton–I wasn't sure if you were aware, yes; a terrible incident that could have been avoided, wanted you to know that nothing in what we've described here goes to any kind of change that –as a matter of fact, the province of Ontario brought the same changes for efficiency that we have suggested in this bill. This would bring us in line with Ontario. I wasn't sure if you are aware of that. Ms. Gawronsky: Madam Chair, am I allowed to ask questions? Thank you.

So, Minister Friesen, with that being said then, my understanding with the bill is that for every one that was to be introduced, at least one or two needed to be removed from somewhere, and I guess hear ing you say that the intent is to make sure that the safety is foremost for Manitobans and for workers, that is – that's awesome.

I mean, that's exactly what we're looking for. * (19:50) So then I guess with the committee , then, there wouldn't be an issue with actually sharing with us the reasoning why certain bills would be removed or certain regulations would be removed or if they're going to be joined together. I've heard that this evening, as well. So I'm assuming, then, that the committee would not have any issue with sharing with Manitobans the reasoning why certain regulations would be removed? Mr.

Friesen: I could answer the question, but I want to defer to other members of the committee right now who haven't had a chance to ask questions yet. Do you want to maybe go around and if there is time sufficient I could come back to an answer? Mr. Lindsey: I would be more than happy to defer and let the minister answer the question.

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 273 Mr. Friesen : Thank you, Ms. Gawronsky, for the question. When we did a count of the regulatory requirements to the province of Manitoba, we reported that number as being 900,000. We believe that the two-for-one ratio that we've articulated gives us plenty of room to both add requirements as t hey are necessary, test them as we do so, but to move down. So it's about threshold and a need to move down.

But over time, you're right, we will eat up some of that room and we will return to a one-for-one regulatory requirement, and that's built into the legislation, as well. Mr. Lindsey: Ms. Gawronsky, you're not opposed to reviewing regulations, correct? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Ms. Gawronsky. Ms. Gawronsky: Absolutely not, s ir. Oops, sorry. Absolutely not, we are in full support of reviewing it. We would just like it to be very open and transparent for what and where, what regulations would be removed or what would be added or what would be joined up and why they would be. Mr.

Gerrard: Thank you very much for coming and presenting tonight. One of the things that I've been concerned about is the concern over monitoring the source for drinking water and changing that from five years to 10 years, and this could be potentially related to the time that you could build up a situation that could've led to something like Walkerton. So I wonder if you'd comment on this. Ms. Gawronsky: I would be happy to, and actually I have a concern with it being extended 10, definitely have a concern with it remaining at five.

Should any of the regulations towards any of the hog industry or any of the ag industry, when it comes to the safety and the protection of our water, should any of those regulations be removed, I would actually like to see it then moved down to a two-year review then should we have a need for it. I live in an area where we have an awful lot of hog barns. It's ag area totally. In full support of all of it. My children have worked in it. My husband ran an ag organization–or a farm.

I understand the need for all of it, but I also understand the need for my safe drinking water, and I do have a concern if it should ever be compromised. Thank you. Mr. Lindsey: Just–I'd like you to comment on something that Minister Friesen said, the review of regulations has to look at value added. Your comment on that value added as a cost value as opposed to a cost of human beings. Madam Chairperson: I'm sorry, but time for questioning has expired for this presenter. Mr. Swan: So could we give leave at least to let the presenter answer the question?

Madam Chairperson: Is there leave for the presenter to answer the question? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Madam Chairperson: Agreed. Go ahead, Ms. Gawronsky. Ms. Gawronsky: So, if I'm understanding your question, it's the value for added on the regulations and what they're doing with it. In light of what Minister Friesen said that Manitoban's safety and health is going to be first and foremost, then–and, you know, the fact that t here–it's going to be a willing to be able to share exactly what's going on and be open with us.

I would not have a concern with–on the meaning of value added in light of what Minister Friesen has shared with us. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call upon Mr. Kevin Rebeck, Manitoba Federation of Labour. Mr. Rebeck, do you have materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Kevin Rebeck (Manitoba Federation of Labour): I do. Madam Chairperson: Go ahead with your presentation. Mr. Rebeck: The Manitoba Federation of Labour is Manitoba's central labour body.

We represent the interests of more than a 100,000 unionized workers, and we oppose this omnibus bill that will weaken water quality testing, ramp up hog barn c onstruction, leading to further damage to Lake Winnipeg, and erase taxpayer protections related to the construction of major infrastructure projects, all under the misnomer of cutting red tape. The fact is that all this bill will do is cut protections from Manitoba's families related to health, our environment and public funds.

274 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 And with this government's ideological rule that for every new regulation, two have to be cut, it seems these cuts are just going to continue. For a government who came into power preaching more openness and transparency, this omnibus bill is anything but open and transparent. It's a Harper - government-style approach to legislation where a number of unrelated issues are lumped together in one bill, and Manitobans will be on the hook for all of the cuts to important fiscal, health and environmental protections contained in it.

The bill is an attack on regulations that protect workers, our environment and our communities.

While the Manitoba Federation of Labour joins many others tonight in opposing a number of provisions of this bill, like reducing restrictions on hog- barn construction and weakening monitoring requirements for water quality, I want to focus my comments tonight specifically on the impact that this bill would have on lift ing current taxpayer protections and opening the door to more privatization and costly public-private partnership construction projects that serve the interests of private corporations over everyday Manitobans.

Section 14 of the bill would repeal The Public-Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act. For those unfamiliar, this act was passed in twenty –2012 to provide Manitoba's taxpayers with greater transparency around proposed public-private partnership projects, more commonly referred to a s P3s. It does so by outlining rules for public sector organizations that take

part in P3 agreements for major capital projects having a total projected cost of $20 million or more. P3s are a well -used government phrase for traditionally public assets like community infra - structure and services that are privately built, privately owned and rented by governments, often for much higher amounts over their lifetime than they would have cost to build publicly in the first place. With P3s, governments enter into costly contracts that are essentially rental, lease or operating schemes rather than building and maintaining community infrastructure directly for the public benefit.

P3s are just another form of privatization of public assets. Evidence shows that privatization increases costs and leads to lower quality and a reduction in service levels. Citizens also lose control and accountability with privatization because making a profit becomes the sole priority of building an asset like a school or a bridge instea d of serving the needs of the community. The Public -Private Partnerships Transparency and Accountability Act outlines rules for public sector organizations that take

part in P3 agreements. This act improves the transparency and account - ability of the decision-making process for P3s, which is something that benefits all Manitobans. By forcing government to demonstrate to taxpayers what a project would cost under a P3 model, the act forces government to be open and transparent when they're considering this type of model for building an expensive asset like a school.

It does this by requiring a preliminary analysis be produced outlining the risks, costs and benefits of using a P3 agreement; that public consultations be held, including a public meeting and the release of a report on the public proceedings; the appointment of a fairness monitor to oversee purchasing processes and releasing a contract

summary; the reporting be made to the provincial Auditor General after construction's complete and a detailed risk-for-value-for-money analysis be undertaken to determine if the P3 delivery method creates the best value; that further public consultation occur before starting the bidding process, the establishment of an independent fairness monitor to oversee the bidding process for the benefit of all bidders; and that the public entity reports on the results of the project and to make terms of the P3 arrangement public.

These are all important protections for taxpayers because P3 funding models have been found to cost far more in the long term than traditional public sector delivery models basically anywhere they've been used. This act was a first for Canada, recognizing the serious concerns over accountability that P3s represent. Auditor generals in other provinces have raised a number of concerns about these higher long- term costs.

Ontario's Auditor General found in 2014 that P3s had cost Ontario taxpayers nearly $8 billion more on construction–on infrastructure projects over the previous nine years than if the government had just built them themselves. A 2014 report by the Auditor General of British Columbia raised serious concerns about the high costs and high debt of 16 P3 projects examined in that province, reporting interest rates ranged considerably from 4 and a half per cent to 15 per cent more. An average interest rate of seven five–

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 275 7.5 per cent was found, meaning the debt loads of P3 projects were almost double, when they could have been –could have just been financed by the province itself. * (20:00) I find it difficult to understand how this government, who claims to preach fiscal restraint and talk about value for money, would even consider projects that will cost more to taxpayers than the traditional model, let alone dream of erasing legislation th at requires government to demonstrate to a taxpayer that P3s would be a good deal.

If this government's adamant about considering P3s for building large capital projects and they're so confident they would be of value to taxpayers, then they should be pr oud to show Manitobans what a deal they got by way of a P3 funding model. The fact is they want to eliminate reporting requirements because they know full well that P3s are a bad deal for taxpayers. They want to hide the true costs from public scrutiny. For a Premier (Mr. Pallister) who claims to be a smart shopper, repealing this act is anything but.

This government has said specifically they would like to have schools built through the P3 model. Recent evidence from our neighbours in Saskatchewan show th e impact of putting private – schools in private hands can have on this ability for teachers and students to use their school by putting absurd rules in place. Staff guides at P3 schools in Saskatchewan ban teachers from opening windows for the first year af ter a school opens.

The staff guide also outlines rules on classroom decoration, including banning mounting anything on walls or doors without written authorization from the owner of the school, including a penetration permit. I can't think of a more glar ing example of unnecessary paperwork than requiring teachers to fill out a permit to hang something in their classroom. Also, surprise –unsurprisingly, P3 schools have been found to cost more long term than traditionally publicly financed schools.

New Brunswick's Auditor General found that the P3 Evergreen Park School cost $900,000 more than if it had been built through conventional public financing. The company that built one of the first P3 schools in Calgary cut costs during construction and used substandard roofing materials, meaning within three years of the school's opening, the school board had to pay more than $100,000 in maintenance and upgrades on the roof. This act cuts a number of protections for Manitobans, including ones dealing with health, our environment and public funds.

If this government was actually serious about standing up for Manitobans, it would withdraw this bill immediately. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thanks, Mr. Rebeck, for being here and for your presentation on behalf of your organization. I would want to give you the comfort that our government from page 3 of your presentation wouldn't consider projects that would cost more to taxpayers in the traditional model. As a matter of fact, we take an evidence -based approach.

We're only interested in providing that opportunity if it's a – if there's evidence that we can do it on time and on budget, and I would submit to you while you've cited other examples, there are many examples where P3s have provided that kind of on- time and on- budget performance. My question for you is on the third line of your presentation. You indicate there that the bill will ramp up hog barn construction leading to further damage to Lake Winnipeg.

Having heard a number of experts come tonight and indicate that by anyone's evidence, less than 1 per cent of the lake's overall pollution can be attributed to hog manure and understanding the significant sustainable practices that are in place to make sure it's not leaching, what would you say to those proponents of the changes to this bill? Mr. Rebeck: Well, two comments on that: one is on P3s, if they're such a great deal, then we shouldn't eliminate the accountability for them and they should be maintained.

If anything, if you're right, which you and I obviously have a dispute on whether P3s are a good deal or not, why return to secrecy on them? That's the wrong thing to do, and this bill does that. It puts it back in a secret deal. On the hog barns itself, this bill requires a reduction of regulations, and there are ways to build and have more hog barns in our province, but they require more regulations and standards be put in place, not less. And this bill set s us up to reduce things even further in a mathematical formula that's magically supposed to make things better. You

276 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 23, 2017 know, it's not a measurement of our society that if we have more regulations, that's necessarily a bad thing. Regulations are synonymous wi th protections, and they're there for a reason, and we should make sure that they're there in place. We should review regulations; we're not opposed to that. But it should be done in a common sense approach and it shouldn't have a requirement and a goal of elimination for the sake of elimination, which is what the intent of this bill does. Mr. Swan: Yes, Mr. Rebeck, just want to pick up on the issue of P3s.

Now, you're not calling for a prohibition on private –public-private partnerships; you're just callin g for a continued analysis to compare apples to apples between P3s and the traditional way of construction to make sure that taxpayers are getting the best deal when it comes to contracting for a major project. I was surprised by the minister's comments just a minute ago.

Could you educate the minister a little bit on all of the various long -term costs that have to be taken into account when the government is considering entering into a P3, say, for the construction of a school or for a major piece of highway infrastructure, like a bridge or a freeway? Mr. Rebeck: Yes, I stand to be convinced that P3s are a good deal. But you're right; we're not ideologically opposed to them. Where I –where–we believe that accountability is paramount for governments to make sure that they do it in an open, transparent way.

When government is entrusted with public funds and they're going to use them for P3s, they should be accountable to public how those funds are used. And that –with that–that's exactly what that act laid out: a method and a process to do so. This bill proposes taking that bill out of play –taking that law out of play and returning to a secret process that's unnecessary and anything but open and transparent. And we oppose it for that reason. Mr. Gerrard: I want to come back to what you mentioned about Saskatchewan and P3 schools banning teachers from opening windows for the first year after the schools were opened.

I mean –tell me, what's the reason for rules like that? Mr. Rebeck: Yes, I would love to know the reason for some rules like that. But that's just it, though. When you enter a P3 arrangement and some of them are leaseback or rent back, an infrastructure project like a school–you're subject to them being the owners, that can lay all kinds of rules in place that you now have to follow. That you can't post things in the wall because you're going to put a pinhole in the wall. Perhaps they don't want the windows open because they're worried about the m being left open and there being rain damage to their property.

I'm not sure why, but they don't articulate it very well. And now we, as the public, are subject to the landlord dictating terms on how we use our public asset, and that's just wrong. Mr. Shannon Martin (Morris): Mr. Rebeck, I appreciate your presentation. You railed against the idea of, you know, the secret process and that government tendering should be open in a trans - parent way; I agree with you wholeheartedly.

I'm wondering if you ca n add comment just given the context of those comments, juxtaposed against the previous government's $5 -million untendered purchase of Tiger Dams, which the former member –I think the editorial board at Free Press referred to it as a lingering stench and, q uote, that the previous administration went through no untendered process, circumnavigated Treasury Board and such. And, at the end of the day, when they released that very report, it was mostly a blacked -out document.

So how do you–is that the kind of process that the Manitoba Federation of Labour is advocating that our government take? Or what? Are you proposing something of a higher standard? Mr. Rebeck: Yes, we're very clearly saying that we need to be clear and transparent in how we report things. And that's regardless of what government's in power and what they're doing. What was put in place was a law that requires that transparency to be there. And what I see right now is this government removing a law that requires that transparency to be in pl ace. And I will always speak up against that. That's not right.

When we're using taxpayers' money, we need to be accountable, we need to be clear, and that's for governments of all stripes. Madam Chairperson: The time for questions has expired. Thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call upon Mr. Hugh Arklie, private citizen. Mr. Arklie, do you have materials for distribution to the committee?

October 23, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 277 Mr. Hugh Arklie (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. And my presentation is more of a show and tell, so I'd like everybody to have a copy before I start talking. Madam Chairperson: You can proceed once everyone has a copy. Mr. Arklie: Can everybody hear me with my back to you? When I talk, can you hear me? I don't think this is working very well, but I'll try to shout. So I think everyone's got a copy now of three documents that I'm submitting.

The first document is a newspaper advertisement that has regularly appeared in city and rural newspapers and on the Manitoba Pork Council website. You have the website copy. This is the only copy of the newspaper that I have, but it appeared many times in many locations. What you have is a facsimile of that.

In it, the Manitoba Pork Council claims, in the boldest of type, that Manitoba farmers, quote, follow the strictest environmental regulations in North America. * (20:10) The second document that you have is a copy of a letter which I wrote on July the 10th to the Manitoba Pork Council asking for some context to the newspaper and website advertisements. That is, if the Manitoba Pork Council lays claim to the, quote, strictest environmental regulations in North America, could they therefore tell me who has the second strictest such regulations and who has the worst ? These are logical questions.

Surely, the Manitoba Pork Council would have done its homework before publishing such a bold claim. The third document delivered to me promptly on July 14th, only four days later, the Manitoba Pork Council replied in writin g. In it, the Pork Council unequivocally states that it has, quote, no opinion on what are the second best or worst environmental regulations in North America. No opinion, ponder that for a moment. Effectively, the Manitoba Pork Council made a claim in M anitoba's city and rural newspapers, as well as on its website for worldwide consumption, th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-2-la10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 2nd hansardpdf la10.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d917a6beaf23607d6b9da0ef4438ebec5fd9d81b

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