Manitoba Committee Hansard — 24 October 2017 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 11, 41st Legislature, 2nd Session)

41-2-la11

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. 11 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, October 24, 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

327 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Tuesday, October 24, 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. Cullen, Friesen, Gerrard Mr. Allum, Mrs. Guillemard, Messrs. Helw er, Lindsey, Martin, Reyes, Smith, Mrs. Smith APPEARING: Mr. Wab Kinew, MLA for Fort Rouge Hon. Ralph Eichler, MLA for Lakeside PUBLIC PRESENTERS: Mr. Glen Gratton and Ms. Tricia Schmalenberg (by leave), Maple Leaf Foods Ms.

Accalia Robertson, private citizen Mr. Sheldon Stott, private citizen Ms. Glenda Whiteman, private citizen Ms. Brittany Semeniuk, Winnipeg Humane Society Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns, private citizen Ms. Margaret Rempel, private citizen Mr. Jerry Daniels, Southern Chiefs' Organization Ms. Lyame Cypres, private citizen Mr. Johannes Soer, private citizen Mr. Mike Sutherland, Peguis First Nation Mr. Pita Hoyt, private citizen Mr. Weldon Newton, private citizen Ms. Vicki Burns, private citizen Ms. Ruth Pryzner, private citizen Ms. Kristin Lauhn-Jensen, private citizen Mr. Kelly Whelan-Enns, private citizen Ms.

Louise May, Aurora Farm Mr. Kristaps Balodis, private citizen Ms. Marianne Cerilli, private citizen Mr. Kevin Toyne, private citizen Ms. Debbie Wall, private citizen Mr. Don Flaten, private citizen Ms. Anne Lindsey, private citizen Ms. Michele Rogalsky, University of Manitoba Mr. Gord Delbridge, C anadian Union of Public Employees, Local 500 Mr. Terry Egan, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Manitoba Mr. James Beddome, Green Party of Manitoba Mr. Terry Wachniak, private citizen Ms. M.J. Willard, private citizen WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Ardythe Basham, private citizen Robert G.

Mears, private citizen Elizabeth Cameron, private citizen Molly McCracken, private citizen MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 24 – The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017 * * * Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. This meeting has been called to consider–to continue consideration of Bill 24, The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017.

I would like to remind the committee that, if necessary, the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs will meet again on Monday, October 30th, 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 these committee meetings, so tonight we will hear from the remaining presenters registered to speak on Bill 24, and you have the list of those presenters before you. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjourn- ment.

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

328 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 the list. With this consideration in mind, then, in what order doe s the committee wish to hear presentations? Mr. James Allum (Fort Garry -Riverview): Out- of-town guests first, Madam Speaker–or, Chair. Madam Chairperson: Is this agreed to by the committee? [Agreed] Written submissions on Bill 24 from the following person has been received and distributed to the committee members: Ardythe Basham.

Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] Before we proceed with the presentations, we do have a number of ot her items and points of infor - mation 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. Also, for the information of all prese nters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask you provide 20 copies.

If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, in accordance to our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from committee members. If a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the l ist. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list.

I would also like to remind the members of the public who are observing the committee meeting, please do not disturb the c ommittee proceedings by applauding or commenting from the audience. Taking photographs are not permitted from the public gallery, as well as any audio or video recordings. And please ensure that your phones are in 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 the Hansard recorder to turn on the mics and off. Thank you for your patience. Bill 24–The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, 2017 Madam Chairperson: We wil l now proceed with public presentations. I will now call on Mr. Glen Gratton, Maple Leaf industries. Mr. Gratton, do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. Glen Gratton (Maple Leaf Foods): Yes. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr.

Gratton: I'm Glen Gratton, vice -president of Maple Leaf Foods, and I have here with me Tricia Schmalenberg, professional engineer and environment manager, Maple Leaf Foods. And we would like to do this as a dual presentation, if it's okay with the committee, in our 10- minute allotted time. Madam Chairperson: Okay, Mr. Gratton. We will have to seek leave of the committee to allow for a dual presentation. Is it the will of the committee to have a dual presentation? [Agreed] And could you please provide the name of your partner in this– Mr. Gratton: Tricia Schmalenberg.

Madam Chairperson: Okay, Tricia Schmalenberg. Please proceed. Mr. Gratton: Maple Leaf Foods supports the proposed changes to The Environment Act in Bill 24 and believes firmly that they will drive positive change across the province. Maple Leaf Foods supports the proposed changes to The Environment Act in Bill 24 and believes firmly that they will drive change across the province. At Maple Leaf Foods, we exist to raise the good in food, and our vision is to be the most sustainable protein company on earth.

We are actively addressing the more pressing diet -related health issues we face as a society, including reducing artificial ingredients and flavours, antibiotic use, sodium levels and continually advancing leadership in food safety.

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 329 Maple Leaf has a large presence in Manitob a. A major portion of Maple Leaf's assets and one third of its national workforce is in Manitoba –roughly 4,100 people: Brandon plant employs 2,000 people; Winnipeg plant employs 1,400 people; and Maple Leaf Agri-Farms, the hog production portion of the business, employs 740 people. In 2015, Maple Leaf Brandon generated $993 million in sales to North American and export markets, exporting to 40 different countries.

We are responsible for $753 million in salaries and taxes in direct economic benefit to the Canadian economy, as well as an additional $1.25 billion on indirect benefits. Maple Leaf is focused on continuous improvement and growth: in 2015, an investment of $17 million in the Brandon plant, installing a state-of-the-art CO 2 stunning system and automated loin-pulling equipment. In 2016, with the support of Manitoba Agriculture, we completed $24.1- million expansion of the Winnipeg plant. This drove an increase in bacon production by 8 million kilograms annually.

Maple Leaf foods in Brandon is not at capacity, short 15,000 hogs per week. In order to be com - petitive in North America, we will need to continue to invest in our nursery and finishing hog production facilities in Manitoba. This will generate further economic benefit for the province. To support our sustainability goals, we need to be able to build modern barns that facilitate the raising pigs without antibiotics, including better ventilation systems, natural lighting within the barn, gestation-crate-free environments, enriched environments for the animals and improved energy efficiency. * (18:10) Ms.

Tricia Schmalenberg (Maple Leaf Foods ): Maple Leaf Agri -Farms is the hog production division of Maple Leaf Foods. It's headquartered in Landmark, Manitoba, with operations throughout the province, including Souris, Arborg, Winkler, Niverville and throughout many of the rural municipalities. We produce 1.6 million hogs annually or approximately 45 per cent of Brandon's 3.4 million animals. Maple Leaf Foods is a leader in raised without antibiotics paving the way in sustainable meat. Sustainability is a far -reaching commitment at Maple Leaf and deeply entrenched in our business.

Our guiding principles are: advancing nutrition and health, valuing our people and communities, treating animals well and eliminating waste. Our vision is to be the most sustainable protein company on earth, based on the principles mentioned and an expansive sustainability agenda that has yielded advancements in nutrition, environmental impact and elevated animal care and step -changed the company's investment in social change. Some examples of our progress include investing $66 million in Manitoba to convert all sows under our ownership to gestation crate -free housing.

We have already completed 50 per cent of our conversions with a target completion date of the end of 2021. Fifty -eight per cent of our hogs are raised without the use of antibiotics. Over the last five years, we have averaged $8.5 million per year in environmental sustainability initiatives in Manitoba exclusively for our farms; $3.5 million in capital improvement projects ; $4.5 million in nutrient recycling; and half a million dollars in sampling and planning for nutrient recycling.

Maple Leaf Foods has committed to reducing our environmental footprint by 50 per cent by 2025, 50 per cent less energy, 50 per cent less water and 50 per cent less waste. We have made significant progress since 2015, including over 25 per cent reduction in energy, over 20 per cent reduction in water, over 30 per cent reduction in CO 2 emissions and a landfill diversion rate of 92 per cent. Maple Leaf Foods is also completing a c om- prehensive supply and water risk analysis, life cycle assessment to further identify environmental impacts in our supply chain.

We are working directly with World Wildlife Fund Canada on our water risk analysis. Manitoba has some of the most stringent environmental regulations in North America for manure storage and application. Those regulations remain governed by the Livestock Manure Mortalities Management Regulation and the Nutrient Management Regulation. They are unchanged by the proposed changes to The Environment Act. Fertilizer is an essential component to crop production, and manure replaces the need for synthetic chemical fertilizer. Manure is natural,

330 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 locally-sourced and it improves the soil health and crop performance. As part of our nutrie nt recycling program, we sample all of the soils and manure, and apply only the manure necessary to support crop production. Manure is incorporated into the soil to ensure valuable nutrients are available for crop production and do not leave the field. We obtain provincial approval on our manure management plans. We store manure in engineered manure storage structures. We will continue our commitment to environmentally sustainable farming practices.

The protection of the environment is embodied in our provincial regulations. And we require a healthy environment for the long- term sustainability of hog farming in our province. 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. Gratton and Ms. Schmalenberg, for being here this evening and appearing on behalf of Maple Leaf. You made some very considerable investments in our province, and your own operation has lasted a number of years, and you are to be commended for those.

We're bringing a change in

section 40.2 that would remove the arbitrary prohibition on new hog barns in Manitoba. There are some in Manitoba who would say that's not safe. What would you say to those people? Ms. Sch malenberg: All of the regulations that govern our spreading of manure and housing of manure are contained in the Livestock Manure Mortalities Management Regulation. The elimination of it from the act is really a redundancy reduction. Thank you. Mr. Wab Kinew (Leader of the Official Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Gratton and Ms. Schmalenberg, for your presentation. I notice you mentioned this water risk analysis.

I was wondering if you could explain a bit more about that, what it's all about and including, you know, how it takes into account impacts on the downstream water bodies. Ms. Schmalenberg: We have been working with world wildlife foundation of Canada to do the analysis, and we are in the early stages of it, providing them information with our operations and the water use of our operations. I think more to the point is the manure spreading component of it and the impact that it would have on possibly any waterways.

But, again, those are governed in the Livestock Manure and Mortalities Managemen t Regulation and the Nutrient Management Regulation, including setbacks, including incorporation. So we are very confident in our ability to keep the nutrients where we need them, which is on the field where the crops are. Mr. Reg Helwer (Brandon West): For those members of the committee that may not be familiar with agriculture, as some are, can you perhaps explain a little better what incorporation means to a layperson? It sounds a little different, but tell us what that actually means, please. Ms.

Schmalenberg: So incorporation is incorporating the manure into the soil so that it remains covered and buried in the soil and is available for the plant roots as a nutrient. So it's not on the surface of the field ; it is actually in the soil of the field. Mr. Tom Lindsey (Flin Flon): Thank you for coming, both of you. I appreciate you taking the time to be here. You've talked a little bit about manure management and what it means for Maple Leaf. I'm sure you're aware that Bill 24 incorporates changes to 14 other acts as well.

Do you have any comment on those other 14 pieces of legislation that are about to be changed? Ms. Schmalenberg: Our comments are specific to the changes to The Environment Act. Mr. Helwer: Just following up on the incorporation question, once the product is placed in the soil, is it able to move? Does it bond with the soil, or does it move at all? Ms. Schmalenberg: It does bond with the soil particles and is relatively stagnant, does not move. Mr. Lindsey: So, to be fair, you're standing here in support of one piece of this piece of legislation.

Would it be fair to say you would be all in favour of the manure management piece being a separate piece of legislation and the other 14 pieces that are incorporated in this being stand- alone pieces of legislation?

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 331 Mr. Gratton: Well, we're here in support of Bill 24. I don't think we're qualified to comment on the other part of the bill. Mr. Lindsey: Thank you for your time. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call upon Accalia Robertson, private citizen. Ms. Robertson, do you have any written submissions for distribution for the committee? Ms. Accalia Robertson (Private Citizen): I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay, please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Robertson: May I reference my laptop? Madam Chairperson: Yes. Ms.

Robertson: Madam Speaker, Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here tonight. * (18:20) My name's Accalia Robertson. I am a resident of the electoral district of Morris, and my concern with this bill is that it gives way for only reactive response to public environmental and animal health issues. Although the current administration stresses that certain environmental regulations will remain in place, it begs the question: If the government is so supportive of these protections and why do they seek to eliminate this legislation?

So, firstly, I'd just like to address that this omnibus bill affects several key issue areas that are vital to Manitobans, and it's very concerning the amount of legislation that would be repealed and substantively altered by Bill 24. It's very concerning that the public -private partnership transparency act and accountability act would be repealed by Bill 24, although the administration, from what I heard last night, asserts that there will–they will seek out the best deal they can find, private par tnership or otherwise.

It's well known that capital projects' costs can be over what were originally estimated an d, in any case, I believe the public has the right to be aware and have transparency on all such projects. I see no rationale behind striking this act if efficiency is indeed the primary concern. I also think it's quite important to separate the issues w ithin the issue of hog manure treatment. With respect to my fellow citizens who presented last night, there's a lot of concern raised about the anaerobic digesters, whether or not they're necessary, given Manitoba's unique context.

But I think it's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this. Even if it is decided that these digesters are ineffective toward the goal of reducing phosphorus in our lakes and waterways, this still does nothing to justify the expansion of hog manure storage fa cilities, so the digesters are ineffective to that particular end. This only poses doubt on the method of treatment but has no bearing on the viability of expanding hog manure facilities and winter spreading, which is what's at stake if we eliminate sections 40.1 and 40.2 of The Environment Act.

I encourage the government to be clear about what the issues actually are and to handle them appropriately, separately, in bills specific to each unique issue. So, although the hog industry contributes significantly to Manitoba's economy, the profitability of the hog industry is not static, so emphasis on growth in the industry does not necessarily, in the long term, correlate to economic growth.

For example, in 2007 higher feed prices, a higher Canadian dollar, a nd the presence of porcine circovirus, PCV, contributed to a drop in the hog industry here, and I think it's important to consider what the impacts may be to taxpayers when pork producers need to check –cash-in on insurance, especially when there are bonfir es, especially due to lax barn code regulation. Further to this, I just– I believe it's really important for us to frame economic wealth in a broader sense, accounting for quality of air, water and last, but certainly not least, animal welfare.

I know it was mentioned, and I commend Maple Leaf on their improvements for sustainability and the elimination of gestation crates but, I mean, I remember going to first -year university and seeing protests against gestation crates, and that was in 2006 and we're sti ll having the same conversations today and we're saying 2024. Will we push it back again? We don't know.

Thus far I've just seen the industry really dragging its heels, although I do commend what they've established so far, but I think it's important to re member that that's the equivalent of any one of us spending our entire life in an airplane seat, economy class. That's what it's like to be in these gestation crates. So it's questionable whether we can expect the hog industry in Manitoba to expand, with respect

332 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 to environmental and animal welfare progress when, at present, the industry is so behind the times with its high concentration of animals and space. A high concentration is problematic not only for animal welfare but also for the environment.

We need to demand more of our major industries in Manitoba and it's great that they contribute, but we need to demand more, not less, if this industry is believed to be able to expand without negatively impacting the environment, then we should first have evidence that it can exist in its present state without doing so, and I think what we saw a lot of the presentations last night was that there hasn't been a ton of conclusive evidence to support that it is not negatively impacting the environment.

Now, again, I live in the electoral district of Morris and to the hog farmers who pasture their sows and use sustainable farming practices, I have no issue with this in our rural communities. To hog producers' emphasis on the difference between a farmer and a producer, as rural citizens we cannot overlook the negative impact that this very concentrated method of corporate agriculture has on the environment, human health and animal welfare. In 2006, the Province placed a temporary freeze on the construction of ne w pig barns pending a Clean Environment Commission review of the hog industry.

And a –Clean Environment Commission data was gathered by Dr. Eva Pip, a retired University of Winnipeg professor and expert in water and toxicology. And it found that, in centra l Manitoba, livestock and domestic sewage contributed to most of the nitrate. And the most vulnerable waters to contamination were actually streams where a lot of the livestock area sites were found, which was 63 per cent of livestock sites. So my home has well water. It's surrounded by intensive livestock operations as opposed to less concentrated pastured livestock farms.

And there are streams and rivers running all through these areas near where I live and the community that I live in. There's no prote ction for the quality of our well water in our rural communities. And what the administration defines as an emergency may only be detected when harm has already been done. Again, Bill 24 repeals meaningful legislation to reduce environmental protection and leaves us with reactive measures instead of proactive measures.

Section 9(1.1), the director may reduce the frequency of required assessments for a water system to a minimum of once in every 10 -year period. For rural communities with well water, this is simply unacceptable. Sections 40.1 and 40.2 of The Environment Act would be repealed, meaning the expansion of intensive hog farming in the province coupled with reducing t he frequency of our water assessment–this is completely illogical and, frankly, I believe it is reckless. And that's all I have to say. Thank you for having me. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.

Do members of the committee have quest ions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thank you for –Ms. Robertson, for being here this evening and making your presentation. I just want to clarify a few things. Water systems–there's no change for cities and municipal systems. This is simply about adopting changes that have been done in other provinces like Ontario, Saskatchewan. I want to also clarify for you, when it comes to hog manure spreading practices, there is no change to the government's approach. The hard prohibitions on winter spreading full y remain in place. I'm not sure if you were aware of that.

And, under our changes to allow the prohibition on hog expansions to come off, Manitoba remains a province with some of the most stringent environmental regulations in North America. My question for you is this, then: Knowing that there is no change in the government's practice of prohibiting winter spreading manure, does that change your opinion about that practice? Ms. Robertson: Thank you for your question. Well, it's been observ ed–despite regulations against winter manure spreading, it's been observed and documented.

That does exist and it still occurs and that –excessive applications still occur despite regulation. So I guess my question to you then would be: If the regulations are still in place and the government does support them, why, then, eliminate the legislation that supports them? Mr. Friesen : Yes, if I'm allowed to answer that, I would say this: yesterday, we heard six hours of testimony of people who proudly stated t hat they follow the rules, they're great environmentalists in their own practice and they seek best practice all the time.

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 333 I did not hear expressed one time at committee yesterday any concern from any producer or any other group that, somehow, authoritie s were not properly monitoring for compliance. I didn't hear that expressed. Mr. Kinew: Was she going to respond to that? Ms. Robertson: I was, if I may. Yes, with respect, I did hear of a woman who spoke from the Rural Municipality of Hanover who had observed on multiple occasions excessive application of livestock manure. So, just to clarify, that has been observed.

And–sorry, may I just ask what was the other part of your question? Mr. Friesen: I think you answered it, yes. Mr. Kinew: Thank you for your presentation. I think you bring up a lot of important points to consider on public-private partnerships, on drinking water, on environmental regulations. And we heard your analysis, but I'm just wondering if maybe you could talk a bit about what your recommendations are. Like, do you favour amending the bill, do you favour withdrawing the bill? What would you like to see happen? Whether it's specific provisions, or bigger picture. * (18:30) Ms. Robertson: Right.

I mean, I would favour –as I suggested earlier, I think it would be important to have the bill broken off into the appropriate sections. This is an omnibus bill; there's a lot packed in there. I don't think it's very conducive to, you know, public involvement to shove so many important things in one bill. So certainly I'm not against every aspect of the bill, but I think it should be considered. I mean, lumping in the issue of anaerobic digesters, which is clearly a sensitive issue for some farmers, it's been costly and maybe not effective , is not the same as carte blanche to expand hog manure production.

And I'd also like to add, with respect to Mr. Friesen's concerns that he voiced, I think it's also problematic for us to leave regulation of the industry in industry hands, and that those legislative measures are there for a reason. And there should be an independent, you know, check–checks and balances, so. Mr. Helwer: Thank you for your presentation this evening.

When he was m inister of Conservation, the Honourable Gord Mackintosh publicly stated that 85 per cent of the nutrient loading of the lake came from the north and south Winnipeg sewage treatment plants, and you seem to blame 100 per cent on the hog industry. So I'm wondering how I can square that rationale with what the former minister said happened. Ms. Robertson: I'd just like to clarify, if I misled you there, I don't blame 100 per cent the hog industry, although I do think it is a more significant proportion than the 1 per cent that is claimed by the industry.

To that end, I think, don't we then need to take more time to investigate this and have more scientific data to really confirm this? It sounds like that happened a while ago, and since then we've had incredible expansion in the hog industry. And perhaps we should have some more independent – perhaps–but perhaps we should have some more independent research, because even looking at Dr. Pip's research alone, you'll see that there's quite a different picture painted. So perhaps we should be looking at other scientists in the field and having a second opinion. Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: The time for questions has expired. Thank you for your presentation. I will now call upon Mr. Sheldon Stott, private citizen. Mr. Stott, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Mr. Sheldon Stott (Private Citizen): Unfortunately, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Please pro ceed with your presentation. Mr. Stott: Thank you, Madam Chairman and the committee, for allowing me to speak here today. I'll be very brief. I'm sure you've got a lot to tackle this evening, so I'll try to keep it as short as possible.

My name is Sheldo n Stott, I'm director of environmental affairs for Hylife Ltd., a pork producer in Manitoba. I've been employed with HyLife for the past 16 years, working directly in the field of agronomics and environmental management for the company. I've personally experienced tremendous change and evolution in the field of nutrient management and the environment and the environment governing it.

334 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 I just wanted to make a quick note on HyLife. HyLife is a progressive company. We're a Manitoba- made company. We were establ ished in 1994. Two family farms came together and created what is today HyLife. Currently, we're a large pork producer in the province and own a processing plant in Neepawa, Manitoba.

We have just recently invested or in the–are in the process of investing $150 million in Manitoba for the expansion of our processing plant, construction of a new feed mill and expansion of our finishing capacity in the province, and would like to continually invest in Manitoba going forward. First off, I would like to clear ly state that myself and HyLife are in full support of the proposed amendment to The Environment Act contained within Bill 24.

The inclusion of sections 40.1(1) and 40.1(2) provided no protection to the environment and unfairly singled out and discriminate d against pig producers in Manitoba for political purposes. The elimination of these sections is long overdue. The elimination of these sections of legislation will (1) in no way lead to harming the environment. Manitoba, as you've heard, consistently has some of the strictest legislation related to manure management in Canada and possibly North America.

Repealing these sections of The Environment Act has no impact on the existing regulations, and they'll continue to be the strictest in Canada and North America. Elimination of these sections of the legislation will be eliminating an economic barrier that was placed only on hog producers in the province of Manitoba. Hog producers are now being treated–hog producers will now be treated fairly and equitably with other livestock sectors, should these sections be repealed.

This will also allow hog producers to expand in a sustainable manner with the–within the existing regulatory system, as well as replace aging infrastructure with newer modern equipment. This legislation change will also show that this government is using sound science and logic to shape policy. Further to my points above, just like to share a couple of thoughts with relation to anaerobic digestion as well as to the existing nutrient - management process in Manitoba.

Anaerobic digestion–the inclusion of anaerobic digestion in legislation for the protection of water quality was a misguided and politically motivated tool. The use of anaerobic digestion on livestock manure does not provide any environmental benefit regarding water quality in the health of Lake Winnipeg. From my perspective, the use of this technology would actually make it more challenging to manage manure phosphorus as compared to our existing process. Removal of this clause make s very good sense.

Currently, we use gravity separation to concentrate manure phosphorus in our multi -cell manure storage facilities. This allows our –allows producers and ourselves to apply differing levels of phosphorus on different fields, as per crop demand and soil nutrient residual levels. Manure management in Manitoba –as you've likely heard, Manitoba has some of the strictest manure-related regulation in North America. A recent comparison conducted by Manitoba Agriculture shows Manitoba to be the most com - prehensive in western Canada and Ontario. Just want to highlight a couple of notes from that comparison.

Manitoba is the only jurisdiction where existing manure -storage facilities prior to previous regulations need to be registered and inspected for approval for use. Repairs can be ordered by Sustainable Development, and have been done. This is a very unique clause to Manitoba. Manitoba is the only jurisdiction to have an absolute ban on winter spreading on all operations, regardless of the size of that operation. Manitoba was the only jurisdiction to govern based on residual soil phosphorus and soil nitrate levels.

Manitoba was also the only jurisdiction that conducts in- field audits – that's actually going into the field and auditing the manure application activities that are taking place on the farm. To that end, Manitoba audits 40 to 50 fields from the 500 plans that they receive throughout the year. Manitoba's also the only jurisdiction that requires annual manure management plans to be prepared and submitted to the regulator on an annual basis. These plans must be prepared by a professional agrologist or certified crop adviser. They must also be prepared by a certified manure management planner in Manitoba.

These annual plans include actual soils analysis, cropping intention and also requires a confirmation of spreading indicating to the regulator how much manure was spread and where. Manitoba also requires the annual licensing of manure applicators to ensure consistency throughout the industry.

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 335 As an individual who works directly in the manure nutrient field, I can speak from experience that there is considerable due diligence performed on every aspect of the manure- management process. Even with these strict requirements, the hog indust ry has adapted and gone beyond these regulations in several areas. A couple examples of this: the implementation of GPS technology. Manure appli - cators in the province utilize GPS technology to identify exact, specific locations where manure has been applied throughout the field. We GPS our soil sample locations.

We return to these soil sample locations annually so that we can better determine the trends of nutrient residuals within the soils. We do comprehensive manure sampling on all of our operations. Producers have realized the value of manure nutrients and have increased the number of analysis to increase the precision of their application. And we conduct flow mapping. Flow mapping is routinely done where the actual flow rate is recorded at the GPS lo cation within the field. This allows greater record keeping and accountability to the applicator on application rate and location.

Manitoba hog producers have routinely demonstrated that they are tremendous stewards of the environment, conducting themsel ves in a pro - fessional, conscientious manner. The hog industry is not looking for an advantage or lessening environmental regulation. Our request is to develop policy based on sound science and treat us equitably and fairly to other livestock sectors. In closing, I would like to reiterate my support for Bill 24 and the elimination of the anaerobic digester reference within The Environment Act. This

section provided no value to the people of Manitoba or Lake Winnipeg, and the removal of this clause is the right thing to do. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thank you for –Mr. Stott, for being here and making this presentation on behalf of HyLife. Thanks for your comments, also, on the anaerobic digesters. Yesterday, in almost six hours of committee, I believe there was one person only who indicated any value in that.

I didn't even hear any defence of that by the members of this committee on that side who actually brought those provisions some time ago. * (18:40) My question for you has to do with the difference between your presentation and the one that came previous to you. That individual indicated that there was problems with the industry being left to police itself and that there was a concern about non-compliance with regulations. You told a different story here tonight. You're an agronomist, so I would like to ask you– you talked about some areas in which Manitoba really has the strictest policies.

Can you just say a little bit more about some of those strict requirements and how you'd explain that to people who don't know your operation? Mr. Stott: Appreciate the question. Manitoba is one of the only jurisdictions that I'm aware of that actively en forces regulation in the field. Other jurisdictions–and we operate some operations in Saskatchewan, and there it's more of an extension approach where they assist you in trying to change your practices,

whereas Manitoba has a strict speed limit, so to spea k, where if you break that speed limit, you're going to get written up. And active enforcement being–they actively will go and inspect our manure storage facilities to ensure that they are still structurally sound. They will actively go and audit our manure management plans not only on the paper copy to ensure that we're abiding by the regulatory limits that are set out, but also do in- field audits where they will actually take samples in specific locations in the field to ensure our residual nutrient values are within limits.

Those are some of the examples of the active policing that is occurring. Mr. Kinew: Thank you, Mr. Stott, for your presentation. In your remarks, you alluded to steps that HyLife is taking to becoming more sustainable, and I think you kind of alluded also to the, you know, benefit to the industry, long- term, to be environmentally friendly. So, I was wondering if you could talk a bit about what more needs to be done. What more–what further steps will be taken by HyLife to become more sustainable in the long term? Mr. Stott: That's a good question. Thank you.

I think it's about continuing the activities that we've endeavoured upon t oday and just building upon that and ensuring that we continue the strong level of leadership that we provided to the other producers outside of our organization and provide

336 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 leadership to them to follow suit with some of the activities and practices that we've implemented as set in stone, so to speak. For example, I mean, GPS technology –we require all of our applicators to utilize GPS technology. There–that's a non- starter. If they don't have GPS, we do not hire them to work for us. So, that's something th at we're proud of and something that we continue to do ongoing, and it's something that we encourage others to participate with, and it's something that has been actively catching on.

So it's about continuing our efforts to ensure that our practices are maintained and, yes, improved to a certain degree with some additional precision agriculture would be great, but there are limits, and I think we do a great job today, and we'll continue to do that going forward. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Thank you for your presentation. You've certainly done well and grown a lot as a Manitoba company, so–one of the questions I have relates to the injection of manure into the soil. What proportion of your operations would be injecting manure into the soil? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Mr. Stott.

Mr. Stott: Sorry. Our goal is 100 per cent, but I won't say injection; it's incorporation, because we do do manure application on grasslands where we will utilize an airway, which is a modified tool that just in–creates fractures in the soil so the manure can penetrate into the subsurface. So, I can't say that we will do 100 per cent, but I would say we are, for ourselves, probably in the 90 percentile range. Madam Chairperson: That concludes the time we have for o ur questions for this presenter. Thank you very much for your presentation. I will now call upon Ms. Glenda Whiteman, private citizen. Ms.

Whiteman, do you have written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Glenda Whiteman (Private Citizen): No, I'm sorry; I do not. Madam Chairperson: Okay. Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Whiteman: Good evening. I would like to start this evening by saying thank you to the committee members for being here and doing a very important job. Thank you for staying here until, I think it sounds like almost midnight last night, and probably it'll be about the same tonight.

And thank you for being one of the few provinces or maybe I think you may be the only province –we may be the only province that allows community and public participation like this. So , for all those reasons, I really thank you for being here. I also want to say thank you very much to your clerks for accom - modating not just my numerous emails and my requests, yes, but for accommodating me for putting me up earlier in the–on the agenda not only because I am from out of town but also because I have a disability called multiple chemical sensitivities.

And so for that reason it's really hard for me to be in this room with all of you. And when they sent me the second email about the date change, I remember thinking to myself, oh, I better mark that as very important in my inbox because I noticed that it's sooner and I wasn't feeling prepared. So that's two issues. I'm not prepared and I'm not h ere before you tonight with an extremely professional presentation. I don't have a single statistic, not 1 percentage for you, nothing.

I'm going to talk to you about my personal experience, which is different, different for me as a public speaker and on that note I want to say that I haven't been to speaking in public for many years and I haven't been active on any issue other than maybe the–sign my name on the odd petition in the last few years. And when people have asked me how–what do I do as an activist, I sort of tell them that I'm retired. And as you see me right here standing before you, I'm actually here. You got me out of retirement on this issue. That's how important I think this is. So, congratulations to you for doing that.

And here I am. So I want to go back to your email. When I highlighted your email about the date change, I said this is really an important thing, and I clicked that button that says important. And what happened next? Does anybody know what happens when you hit your email butt on? I got a flag. What colour? Anybody know? A red flag. I got a red flag to warn me that this meeting had been changed. And the point that I'm trying to make here is nothing whatsoever about the date change. The flag was red. Red is an important colour.

I t tells us, take note, pay attention; there's something important here that you must remember. And I have a hunch that maybe red flags follow red tape. So maybe sometimes that colour red is not a bad thing. Maybe red tape is not

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 337 necessarily a bad thing. If it's out there in –for the purpose of protecting us, protecting the public, protecting the public interest, maybe we should keep some of that red tape, maybe we should really reconsider before we get rid of the baby with the bath water. And as I was waiting to talk, I heard–I apologize I couldn't hear names, so I don't know which one of you asked the question, but you asked an earlier –a previous speaker, would it be a good idea to separate these topics from this bill.

And it was not something I had planned to say tonight when I came in here, but after I heard that question, I want to say very strongly, very positively, please separate these issues; they cannot be dealt with in one omnibus bill. It is not fair, not sensible and not in the public interest. So you have all been hired, elected or hired, to take care of the public interest, and that's what your job needs to be. I meant to introduce myself a little bit better when I started. So I'm going to back up a little bit. I want you to know I'm a mothe r. I'm a grandmother. I'm a teacher.

I'm a vegetarian, and I'll tell you later why that's an important issue in this conversation. And as you heard, I am a former activist, now a retired activist, you could say. I purchased property in the Interlake a lit tle over 10 years ago. When I moved to the Interlake, a kind person, a gentleman who had lived there for his entire life, took me on a tour, and he drove me around in his vehicle and showed me where the hog barns all are and where the ditches have all been changed to be turned into rivers from the barns to the lake. So that, as I said, was over 10 years ago.

And I've been waiting, and I've been patiently waiting, and I've been hoping, and I've even been praying the government's going to make it better. I know this is a problem. We have all this –we have stuff going into the lake, and I can vouch for what I have actually seen going into the lake, literally a river of effluent, pouring directly into the lake.

I know this happens; I've seen it myself. * (18:50) So, as I understand it, you now want to make the regulations even easier for hog barns and large farming corporations to–I don't know to do what–but I can tell you that I'm terribly afraid of what it's going to do, of what it's going to do to the quality of the water and to a lake that we have heard has not improved. We have been regulating over the past number of years, but the quality of the lake has not improved. So my question to you, to your committee, to your government, in fact, is: How do you want to go down in history?

What do you want your legacy to be? Do you want to be known as the government that saved Lake Winnipeg, or do you want to be the government that put the nail in her coffin? So that's about all I have to say. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thank you for –Ms. Whiteman, for being here and making this presentation this evening. I'm glad that you got the emails that you needed in order to get here at the right time and the right place. I wanted to clarify for you, we share your concern about regulatory requirements.

There's a separate bill we brought that's not being considered here, Bill 22, where we've asked fundamental questions about the regulatory requirements in this province, separating them into those that add value and separating them into those that don't, and, of course, making sure that nothing that we do to eliminate red tape would reduce any commitment to health and safety of persons or meeting a fundamental social–[interjection] Ma'am, you'll just have to wait until I finish, to speak again–[interjection]–and without missing any kinds of social and key other economic and health goals, so I would want to clarify that.

Tonight you said you were coming not with any kinds of statistics or evidence. Now, we say as a government we value a science- based approach and the approach is –the changes we're bringing on some of the prohibitions for agriculture are because there was no scientific basis for the things that were put there. And so I want to indicate to you, you talked about a pipe pouring effluent into the lakes; you say you knew it happened. I heard the last speaker say

338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 that we have some of the most stringent environment conditions that remain in place even after this bill. And, if what you're describing is true, well, then, there would be a massive effort to decertify that individual, to take away their licence and issue fines. I'm not aware –if you have any specific inf ormation, what I would ask you to do is to send it to us, because there would be nothing that the department would want to do more than to find that perpetrator. But I've never heard such a story. So thanks for coming and being here this evening. Ms.

Wh iteman: May I clarify? May I ask him a question? Okay. So I may not have understood you correctly, but I believe you were saying that, Mr. Friesen, that you're concerned about health and you're going to make sure that all regulations are kept in place to i mprove the quality of health. Is that what you said? Mr. Friesen: We've said that exactly in the pursuit of trying to eliminate an excessive regulatory burden in this province for both individuals, non- profit groups, other levels of government and business.

We would make changes in such a way that there would be no negative impact on health, safety, social goals and other key policy goals. Ms. Whiteman: Okay, then –to clarify, then, if there's no negative impact on health outcomes, then can you please explain to me how can you reduce the frequency of assessment of water quality? Mr. Friesen : I'm happy to take the question. I'm mindful of the time, but happy to take the question, if there's support from the committee for me to answer that. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Friesen: Very good. Good. So, first of all, let's be clear.

The part of the bill that you are talking about is changes that we've brought to semi -private and private water systems. What it's designed to do is to help the department catch the bad actors and, in many cases, what happens is you'll have a– you have a situation where someone is in complete compliance year after year after year after year but with an enormous amount of paperwork. Because–we talk about audit penetration and the ability of departments to find the bad actors where there is a proven level and record of complete compliance.

This would create some flexibility for the department to focus on those bad actors and be able to address those more specifically. I would als o clarify to you these same changes are in place in Saskatchewan, Ontario and our changes bring us into complete compliance with those provinces. Ms. Whiteman: I'm afraid that you didn't clarify my question, though. So how can reducing the frequency of assessments of water, how can that protect our health? Mr. Friesen: Yes, I'm happy to answer that question. By taking a differentiated approach.

The last speaker talked about an audit penetration of 10 –of approximately 10 per cent, which is a high level. I run, you know, the Department of Finance here, and I can tell you that our audit penetration is not nearly 5 per cent in this province. And that wouldn't be different from other jurisdictions. When it comes to our environmental commitment in this area, that audit penetration on- site is 10 per cent. Very significant. So translate that to your question on water quality.

It would allow that differentiation to allow the department to focus its limited resources on looking to say where are there actually bad actors. Where are there problems? Let's focus on those situations. I think that differentiation helps us to take a results-based approach and look for compliance. Also keep in mind these changes we're bringing are exactly bringing us into line with jurisdictions like Ontario and Saskatchewan. Madam Chairperson: The time for questioning has expired. Mrs.

Bernadette Smith (Point Douglas): I'd like to ask for leave to get a young mum pushed up that has child-care issues, Brittany Semeniuk. She's currently No. 9. If we can move her up to after the next speaker? Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Whiteman for your presentation. Is it the will of the committee to now hear from Brittany Semeniuk, the No. 9 on your list? [Agreed] I will now call upon Ms. Semeniuk, Winnipeg Humane Society. Ms. Semeniuk, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Brittany Semeniuk (Winnipeg Humane Society): No, I unfortunately do not.

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 339 Madam Chairperson: Okay, please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Semeniuk: Thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to speak. Thank you for the committee before me for allowing me to speak. And I also want to say thank you to the clerks again for bumping me up and giving me the opportunity to speak earlier in the evening, as I do have three- month-old baby at home who is also quite sick right now, and she's waiting for me to get back to her.

So my name is Brittany Semeniuk, and I am the chair of the Winnipeg Humane Society's Farm Animal Compassion Committee, on which I have been actively involved for five years. I am speaking– you today strictly from an animal welfare standpoint while I address the Winnipeg Humane Society's Farm Animal Compassion Committee's concerns regarding the proposed repeals to sections 40.1 and 40.2 of The Environment Act. As a veterinary nurse, my passion for farm animal welfare spans my entire career. I have garnered extensive experience working directly with pigs. I have been inside hog barns.

I have seen the rows upon rows of sows in gestation crates in these densely packed barns that would greatly disturb any Manitoban given the opportunity to witness this. Pigs are highly sentient beings whose intel - ligence far surpasses any pet dog at home. Leading research shows that pigs show a complex array of emotions, just like us. They feel pain, they feel joy and they feel fear. Most importantly, though, an animal so fascinating and complex that is smarter than a three- year-old human child is worthy of our utmost respect.

As an advocate for all animals across Manitoba, I am gravely concerned of the impact that will result in having sections 40.1 and 40.2 of The Environment Act repealed, in addition to the Pallister govern - ment's previous decision to incorporate the Manitoba Farm Building Code into the Manitoba Building Code in January of this year, as part of their anti -red tape initiative. Having these specific sections repealed will end a hog born–hog barn moratorium. This puts the welfare of more hogs at risk for the long-term gain of producers while already mitigating the number of employees needed on site.

While we understand that the economic progress to our province is important, it cannot come at the expense of 8 million pigs raised annually in Manitoba's hog industry. The Winnipeg Humane Society has worked closely with Hog Watch Manitoba and other community organizations over the last 15 years. We know that over these years, the tide has turned and consumers are demanding more when it comes to the food that they eat. * (19:00) Consumers want choice .

Recent studies show that, when given the opportunity, consumers will choose to eat humanely raised meat from a farm that takes into account the welfare of an animal and its impact on the environment. With the proposed repeals and changes, let us not f orget about the five freedoms adopted by veterinarians, animal industries organizations world- wide, which were originally constructed in response to reports of inadequate livestock husbandry practices.

Consumers now expect all animals, not just their pets at home, to be treated with dignity and to have access to their five freedoms, which are as follows: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort by providing an appropriate environment, including shelter and a comfortable resting area; freedom from pain, injury or disease by preventing rapid–or rapid diagnosis and treatment; freedom to express normal behaviour by providing sufficient space, proper facilities and company of the animal's own kind; and lastly, freedom from fear and distress by ens uring conditions and treatments which avoid mental suffering.

While I commend the hog industry and Manitoba Pork for their improvements over the years, it is still not enough for the hogs within our province. Even with the 'revides' –revised codes of practice for pigs in 2015, there are still loopholes that ensure that sows can spend a third of their gestation works–which works out to be roughly 28 days, plus an additional seven days, which can also then be extended if the producer seems fit –so the pigs are still going to be at length in these gestation crates.

The sows are then moved to either group housing or larger individual stalls until they are moved into the ferrying crates, and then the cycle repeats itself. When stuck in these gestation crates, the pigs suffer from painful ailments like decubital ulcers, muscle atrophy, as well as severe psychological distress from chronic boredom and the denial of the ability to perform any sort of instinctual behaviours like rooting, foraging, building nests, et cetera.

340 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 Hogs that are confined in gestation crates in Manitoba are housed in direct violation of the five freedoms. By repealing sections 40.1 and 40.2 of The Environment Act and allowing the proposed 50 to 70 new hog barns to be constructed, this will directly result in 1.2 million hogs or more to suffer. The repealing of these sections, combined with incorporating the Manitoba Farm Building Code into the Manitoba Building Code, will cause even more of Manitoba's pigs to be at risk by fanning the flames onto another issue, which is the hog barn fires.

From 2009 to 2017, approximately 30,000 pigs lost their lives in barn fires in Manitoba alone. This is according to a report from the Office of the Fire Commissioner–30,000 pigs in eight years. To put that into perspective, there are approximately 50,000 registered dogs in the city of Winnipeg, so– and pigs are extremely much more intelligent than dogs, although they are equally sentient as well.

Increasing the number of hog barn fire –this will increase the number of hog barn fires in addition to eliminating the requirement in the Manitoba Farm Building Code for full fire alarm systems and materials which pass fire resistance ratings is unacceptable. This has been previously justified on the premise that pig barns should hold low human occupancy classification and therefore do not require such strict fire regulations compared to other industrial buildings.

I'm specifically referencing the previously approved statement in regards to the Manitoba Farm Building Code, which reads: removing requirements for fire -rated separations in high- humidity environ - ments where the building materials are unsuitable, or in areas where animals are likely to cause damage to them. It's a complete oxymoron to classify hog barns, known to hold anywhere from 1,600 to 4,000 pigs in a single barn, as low -occupancy establishments.

The very animals that the industry wants us to believe are getting the utmost care are the ones completely ignored during these amendments and repeals and the very ones put directly in harm's way. This removal of requirements for the fire -rated separations and full fire alarm systems, while also increasing the amount of hog barns within our province, will absolutely cause more pigs to die unfathomably cruel deaths.

As a result, scrutiny of pork production by the public will only increase, and the exact opposite of any economic progress that the government and producers hope to achieve will occur because of these changes. We need to have more compassion for h ogs in Manitoba. While it's important to consider economic progress, we have a moral obligation to do better and to treat farm animals with respect and have their welfare at the forefront of every decision. These issues need to be taken into account before going forward with The Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act.

Thank you for your time and for listening to these concerns. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thank you, Ms. Semeniuk, for being here tonight and making this presentation.

Section 40.1 of this legislation sees the removable–the removal of the requirement to have an anaerobic digester as a precondition for any hog expansion or a new oper ation. I'm not sure if you're aware, but a report by the University of Manitoba expert panel review of measures to protect Lake Winnipeg issued a report when commissioned by the former NDP government. That report said that there was no utility; there was a –there was no case to be made that anaerobic digesters actually worked.

My question to you: Are you aware of that evidence, and on the ba sis of that evidence, do you support the removal of the anaerobic digester requirement? Ms. Semeniuk: I am not aware of that, and I would just like you to clarify as to what that exactly would do to cause the expansion of the hog barns within our province. I don't quite understand what you're referencing to. Mr. Friesen : I'd be happy to bring a clarification. You had talked –you had mentioned the measures 40.1 and 40.2 of the legislation. This is 40.1. We take a science-based approach.

This report by a U of M study found that there was actually no case to be made why that prohibition, or I should say, why that requirement for an anaerobic digester would be made in legislation before. We're removing it at this time. You had referenced it knowing that the st udy that came back said there's no value to it. Do you support the removal of that requirement through legislation? Ms. Semeniuk: I feel strongly –again, I'm coming from a welfarist point of view, and I believe that my

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 341 statistics show that, regardless as t o what that previous 'studly' entailed, which I am not –I can't comment on that study because I don't know about that study, but I believe that my statistics show that regardless, the repealing of 40.1 and 40.2 will ultimately cause more hog barn fires to occur and for more pigs to suffer immensely. Mr. Kinew: Thank you for your presentation. I appreciate the perspective that you bring of com - passion for animals. I think it's important to remember that.

I wanted to –I think you mentioned at the outset that you're a veterinary nurse. That's correct? I wanted to just maybe call on a bit of that expertise. Travelling around the province this summer, heard a lot of people talking about porcine epidemic diarrhea, and it brings to mind just the prospect of other, you know, viruses or contagions that the animals might, you know, be confronted with. Wondering, you know, based on any insight you may have, whether any of these changes might affect conditions like that being present in our province. Ms.

Semeniuk: I think that porcine epidemic diarrhea is a very serious issue.

In the past three years alone, the statistics for that specific disease has skyrocketed, and I would like to point out the correlation that, for example, the last hog barn fire that made natio nal attention was where 3,500 pigs lost their lives in this fire, that barn tested positive for porcine epidemic diarrhea, and as a result, I think the industry does not have that specific disease under control right now, and there is a lot of talk about how to get that under control, and I think, as a result, a lot of producers are panicking and they find it much easier to go along with this repealing these regulations strictly for the fact that the fire regulations will be decreased and if their barn does go up in flames, then it's easier to potentially work with insurers versus having to treat, you know, thousands and thousands of pigs, and it is a very serious issue that they are dealing with right now.

Mr. Gerrard: Just let me give you an opportunity to clarify what are you asking for in terms of the more humane treatment of hogs? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Sorry, Ms. Semeniuk. * (19:10) Ms. Semeniuk: Oh, sorry. Thank you for the question. I believe there are two answers for that. There is the realistic answer and then the ideal answer, and so I will briefly touch on the realistic approach, and I do believe that current practices for hogs in our industry need a complete overhaul, as it is happening right now , to reduce the amount of pigs that are confined within these barns.

Moving from gestation crates to group housing is just one aspect of the welfare for these pigs. There is –thus far, there are enrichment practices in place in barns, but it's not enough for such sentient intelligent animals. So, going forward, I do believe that the pigs – more effort has to be made for their social dynamics, for their intelligence and to have, you know, proper bedding, proper enrichment in these barns, and right now it's completely lacking. Even with sow group housing, they're still lying on concrete slabs.

There is no ability for these pigs to forage and nest, and they spend 60 per cent of their days on farms where they can go out onto the grass in the pasture. They spend most of the time foraging and there's no opportunity for that in hog barns in Manitoba. And so, just for those specific instances, we have to acknowledge that and we have to do more for their instinctive behaviours. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. We are now out of time for questions. I will now call–oh, pardon me –we've had a request from No. 7 on our list, Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns.

She has a family situation she has to deal with. Would she be able to –is it the will of the committee to allow her to present at this time? [Agreed] So I will now call upon Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns. Ms. Whelan Enns, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Whelan Enns: And thank you to the committee and the Clerk's office. I would appreciate about a three -minute warning, if I could ask the Clerk's office for a little bit of help with that.

342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to have a three- minute recess–my apologies; I didn’t understand. You would like me to let you know when it's three minutes. I apologize. Ms. Whelan Enns: Yes. I'm sorry. I've never been to a–[interjection] Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Whelan Enns: Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to be here this evening and thank you for accommodating my situation this evening in terms of needing to speak a little sooner.

I'm going to self-identify because I am sometimes viewed as wearing different hats in Manitoba. So I am the director of Manitoba Wildlands and have been for some time. I'm also the –a Manitoba board member on the Climate Action Network for Canada. I'm the principal in Whelan Enns Associates and most of our clients are technical servicers of First Nations in Ontario and Manitoba, and my family home has, for over 40 years, be en in the Morris municipality. So I am, with a little bit of analysis, but I'm mostly here as a property owner. Okay.

I do have some questions, and they have been asked by other speakers I've heard so far this evening, and the obvious one is why an omnibus ? This limits the ability to 10 minutes for members – citizens of Manitoba to speak to any of or a multiple of, I don't know, is it 15 acts–any new changes. The only other one I can remember was the Save Lake Winnipeg bill, which the PCs of Manitoba voted in favour of when in opposition, and that one was a little gruesome to deal with because it was, I think, five laws changed.

The next question, I guess, that I have in front of me is why the reduction in access to information and requirements to report to the Legislature. So this is a general question of you that is evident in a few of the changes, okay, in Bill 24. The reality of it is that reduction to public information, reduction to public access to infor - mation is not a reduction in red tape. It is a reduction in access to information and it can, in fact –well, it can end up causing problems one way or another. That lack of access to information can come back and bite us all, so you know which areas in Bill 24 apply to that.

The next obvious question is why we're having these changes regarding industrial animal operations, specifically, hog barns, and I understand that I've heard this evening that they are based on sc ience and technical and economic study and so on. What I've been wanting to hear, though, is exactly whether all of the technical studies and scientific studies and work that was done up until the time the moratorium was put in place in Manitoba have been reviewed and updated as in–it's not clear what's been studied and what the basis is.

I'm also sort of wondering where the Manitoba government's plan for Lake Winnipeg is, because that's clearly what's on peoples' minds this evening. And it is a simple fa ct of all of our lives that animal pollution and polluted waters from animal operations–including from the United States –are one of the most significant risks to Lake Winnipeg. So we are maybe risking a whole lot more of that issue.

The federal responsi bilities to do with Lake Winnipeg don't cancel my question in terms of where is the Manitoba government's plan for Lake Winnipeg, nor does the refunding of what is an insufficient fund for Lake Winnipeg sufficient. And we are talking about maybe the most endangered lake in Canada–certainly the least- studied great lake in our country. And it's ours. It's ours to take care of. Aha. Sometimes I ask whether I can be heard. Can I be heard now? [interjection] Okay. And thank you for the help.

It actually is pretty hard to hear from the back of the room this evening, so I should have been a bit more conscious of that. One of the things that I have had occasion to say in public and on the record and in correspondence over quite a long stretch of time is that it' s very, very long overdue for all Manitoba water permits, including all of the pieces of permitting for water infrastructure, irrigation permits and so on to be public in our province. There's lots of jurisdictions where this is done. Okay?

And any jurisdiction where this kind of information is public –especially, again, we're talking public lands and public waters – benefits in decision making, in quality of life, in quality of environment. I would suggest benefits economically, also, if you think of it as a layer cake where we have to take care of all the layers and make sure they're all good to eat. So governments could, in fact –and our government could, in fact, be saving a lot of money, improving decision making, assisting the municipalities, the developers and citizens if we

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 343 were, in fact, making all of the information about use of water in our province public. Now I have a story I want to tell. I'm going to– it's got two parts, and it's the main reason I'm here this evening. And it starts with gee whiz, my car was vandalized. So, at the end of August, my car was vandalized. I'm getting around to getting it fixed. This happens in the Exchange District. It's no big deal except that I have driven, then, with a car with a plastic window.

So on– at the end of September, the last Friday in September, I was doing my Friday evening drive down Lagimodiere, down 59, across to Niverville to 200 and driving home. It was a –we've had a fantastic fall. It was a beautiful day, a beautiful evening. Well, guess what? If you've got plastic over your window–that night–it was about 35 to 40 minutes of stench. So the question is: If the regulations that have been in place and what's in The Environment Act so far regarding industrial animal operations hasn't taken care of the air pollution issue, then what are we doing? Okay?

We just doing some kind of trade off, not talking about what we're trading off? What are we doing? I drove past a couple of suburbs with–full of homes that are three and four and $500,000 homes while I was driving through the stench. Right? So, if the regulations we're taking off didn't work well enough, then we really do need a whole plan rather than some things we're going to take away. And that's my concern. That's why the reference to where's the La ke Winnipeg plan, okay?

So we don't necessarily know what the results are going to be, but the moratorium happened for a reason, and it wasn't just because a few people yelled and kicked the wall. Okay. The second part of my story was –is the evening of Oc tober 20th. Another beautiful fall evening. Exactly the same thing. Forty minutes of stench. Now, if you don't live in the valley, you don't understand about having to close your windows. You don't understand about how, if the day's been good and you lea ve the windows open on a beautiful summer evening that the slurry is mixed in the middle of the night. Okay?

And you don't necessarily understand that it's bad for the economy. * (19:20) So let's take a quick moment to think about what an externality is. An externality is everything in our economy and environmental decision- making that we do not value or put a cost on or charge for. So we have a whole lot of aspects to this discussion, this part of this omnibus, that aren't necessarily getting enough attention. I don't know that we're charging enough for water for hog operations. I don't know whether or not they have strong enough incentives to avoid this kind of stench and pollution.

I don't know whether we're, in fact, charging enough in terms of the administrative costs to the public purse for what's going to be an increase, apparently, in hog operations, and I don't know whether there's security deposits on every single pit in the province. And I don't –I haven't heard anybody yet say anything about what happens to property values. So, double the number of hog barns I drove by on those two beautiful Friday evenings in the valley, and stop and think for a minute. Tourism is definitely affected.

I can talk some more about some parks that aren't getting near the traffic because of what's located near them, and there's a lot of concern about property values throughout the valley. There's also a myth that somehow or other there's a wall around a municipality and the decisions in terms of which hog operat ions are in that municipality don't affect anywhere else. Well, that's not the way the map in the Red River Valley is driven–is drawn. You know, you can have–we've got eight east of us, two municipalities away, okay? I'd like to know where all the watershed plans are, okay?

And I'd like to know where all the updated planning district plans are in southern Manitoba, because they all –I need it at the same time, as in you–I'm repeating myself. Where's the whole plan, right, versus two regulatory changes? I think I'm at three minutes. Madam Chairperson: Ten seconds. Ms. Whelan Enns: Ten seconds. Well, I was going to invite the MLAs and Cabinet ministers, both sides of the table, to take the drive with me next time. We have a beautiful fall evening. Try openi ng your windows. Madam Chairperson: Your time for the presentation has expired.

Thank you for your presentation, and do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thanks, Ms. Whelan Enns, for being here on behalf of Manitoba Wildlands and making your presentation. I'd go for a drive with you, but just

344 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 make sure you get that window fixed first, otherwise the plastic flaps around. It's very noisy. I've been in that situation. You had asked, why the omnibus approach? And I know I've heard members of the committee try to get support for their position that it shouldn't be an omnibus approach. Thank you for referencing Bill 46, The Save Lake Winnipeg Act. Let's be clear that that was the act that put these –some of these provisions in place. That act was an omnibus bill. It was amending five different acts at one time.

As a matter of fact, in the last six years, there have been over 40 bills the NDP has brought to amend multiple acts at once. The fact of the matter is it's a common approach when there's a thread or a theme, and in this case, the theme is reducing red tape. So, thanks for asking the question. Question for you that I had was–and I heard your comments about odour. And those c an be very real, and setbacks are very necessary in those buffer zones, and those are adhered to. I understand that industry gets better and better at managing odour issues.

I just want you to be aware–some people have referenced this and expressed concern . Were you aware, in the provisions of this bill, that there are no changes to the government's practice of prohibiting winter spreading of manure? Ms. Whelan Enns: Yes, Mr. Friesen. That's exactly why I'm speaking to it. I am basically saying if the regulations we've got aren't good enough, hence my story, then what's the result going to be and what are we going to be talking about two or three years down the road? Mr. Kinew: Thank you, Ms. Whelan Enns, for your presentation.

I think that a lot of times when we look at rules that are put in place, it's about protections, right, you know, protections for health and safety, protections for water, protections for quality of life. And these things are important in many areas and, you know, they do deserve due consideration. You know, sometimes there's a balancing act necessary. But I'm wondering, you know, if we were to look at your comments from the other side, you seem to suggest that the status quo was not meeting your needs. What recommendations do you have? Like, I'm just curious to hear. [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Ms.

Whelan Enns. Ms. Whelan Enns: Sorry. Thank you for the question, Mr. Kinew. I wish we'd been reviewing about three or four years ago, okay. You know, that's water under the bridge. But I guess I do lean to putting into bills very specific, transparent and public reviews, particularly, for instance, when you put a moratorium and a variety of new elements into The Environment Act. I think that, well, we should stop talking about how if you plant a lot of trees around your barns that'll take care of the fumes. That's one thing we should stop doing.

I think the industry needs to get a whole lot smarter faster about air pollution and odour. And the idea, like I say, of having another eight or 10 nearby is a little bit daunting. I don't know the –this bill well enough or the previous one, and I am confes sing that in terms of workload right now, but there has to be equipment that could be installed, that should be installed and should be in every barn. Mr. Gerrard: I'm just wondering, whether from your observations at the time, when you had the –all the odour the two evenings, was that because there had been hog manure spread on the land?

Was it not injected into the land and spread on the surface, and that's why it was so odoriferous? [interjection] Madam Chairperson: Ms. Whelan Enns. Ms. Whelan Enns: Thank you. Sorry, that's a very good question, and it's one of the things I was trying to figure our as I was driving, except it was –it got dark. So I don't believe I was dealing with spreading, but I don't know that for sure. And it –because I don't do this drive and do this commute every day, I'm less able to make that comparison. I watch the barns nearest my destination, and I'm usually aware of when they're spreading.

But I don't have the full answer for you, because I was–couldn't figure it out. Madam Chairperson: The time for questioning has expired. Thank you for your presentation. I will now call upon Ms. Ruth Pryzner, private citizen. Is Ruth Pryzner in the room? Ms. Pryzner will be moved to the bottom of the list. I will now call upon Ms. Marga ret Rempel, private citizen. Ms. Rempel, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee?

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 345 Ms. Margaret Rempel (Private Citizen): I do, Madam Chair. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Rempel: Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in these hearings. I'm the owner -operator of a diversified farm southeast of Winnipeg near Ste. Anne. My son is also a partner in our family farm enterprise, and we employ three persons full time.

Our farm includ es cropland of 1,600 acres, as well as a 500 -sow, farrow -finish facility –hog facility; a herd of goats raised for meat; pasture - raised chickens; and a direct -to-consumer meat sales business. I'm here this evening to speak in support of Bill 24, as it is , in my opinion, a necessary and reasonable housecleaning act. I especially wish to reinforce the repeal of the requirement for an anaerobic digester for new and expanding hog operations in our province.

That requirement was completely unreasonable on ma ny counts, including that cold 'weader'–weather–or, cold climate digesters are not efficient, requiring more energy to operate than they're able to generate. Adding a cost of a million and a half to two million dollars to a construction of a hog barn ensur ed that the option was completely unattainable. Digesters do not eliminate phosphorus from manure, so the claim that digesters are needed to protect Lake Winnipeg is bogus. * (19:30) Livestock manure is a very valuable resource to me as a farmer.

As a high-quality organic fertilizer, it provides superior nutrition for growing crops, contributes significantly to the building of healthy soils in the long term and, of course, is a local product and a renewable product. In any given year, only 2 to 3 per cent of the cropland in Manitoba receives an application of livestock manure, and that includes all livestock sectors, hogs, beef, dairy and poultry.

I have long maintained, and I've been 'forting'–farming for 40 years, that the best possible farming practices include the integration of raising livestock and growing crops, the most sustainable way to build healthy soils and provide quality food. Raising about 12,000 market hogs annually on our farm provides only enough manure to fertilize about a third of our cropping acres. All the manure is injected beneath the soil surface to maintain maximum fertility benefits and to prevent runoff or volatization. It is certainly our preferred crop fertility product.

We adhere to the highest standards of manure storage and manure application as outlined in our mandated filing of annual manure management plans. Manure sample analysis as well as annual soil tests are matched to provide the requirements of the crop that will be grown in the particular year. While we follow strict environmental rules, it is disconcerting and discouraging to us as farmers to see nearby villages and towns routinely releasing the untreated contents of their lagoons directly into drains, ditches and waterways.

Sadly, the City of Winnipeg also has a rather poor track record when it comes to releasing untreated sewage into our rivers and lakes as well. Frequently, the agriculture sector has been most unfairly blamed for contributing phosphorus to Lake Winnipeg waters, which we find to be highly discriminatory and offensive. Increasing–I will just make one additional comment that isn't in my paper. Listening to the last speaker, I don't know of any village, town or city that locates their sewage lagoon inside their boundaries. They put them all on fa rmland.

I'm surrounded by many hundreds of acres of sewage lagoons from towns, cities and villages around me, and, you know, you can complain about odour from agriculture, but you don't tolerate your own odour; you make someone else tolerate it. So, bit of a double standard. Increasing the number of livestock being raised in our province would contribute significantly to increasing the long-term health of our soils, which is what sustains all of life on this planet. To the extent that Bill 24 removes unrea sonably prohibitive requirements on the construction of hog facilities, it is one step in the right direction.

Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. And do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen : Thanks, Ms. Rempel, for being here this evening and making your presentation. We heard previous speakers say tonight that Manitoba has some of the most stringent environmental regulations in all of North America when it comes to practices, and it sounds to me, from your presentation, that you share that commitment to

346 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 making sure you're following best practice. What do you say to people in the room who don't know your operation so they'd know a little bit more about your commitment to sustainable practices? Ms. Rempel: It's an ongoing challenge to continue to keep people updated on present -day agriculture. We operate very differently than 50 or 100 years ago.

For those people who like to–who think that it's a utopia for piglets to be running around outsi de, I have seen operations like that where pigs were cold, wet, shivering, stressed, and I feel incredibly sorry for those pigs. I compare them to the animals in my own barns who are comfortable, climate controlled; the floors have heating and cooling; the re's misting systems in summer when it gets hot, fans that blow over the misted pigs to keep them cool. We do absolutely everything to keep the animals comfortable even to the point of gestation stalls.

I think it's helpful to remind people that studies coming out of Europe, who have been dealing with this question for even longer than North America, 92 per cent of adult sows, the adult pigs, will spend 98 per cent of their time in a stall, given the opportunity. Given the freedom to choose a stal l, the sows will choose a stall. They are not–they feel most comfortable when they are not exposed to bullying or interference with intake of their food or water from any other animals. And that's something that no one asks us. We spend our time–I've been taking care of pigs for 40 years. Mr.

James Allum (Fort Garry-Riverview): Thank you, Ms. Rempel. Thank you for coming out tonight and for your very concise and knowledgeable presentation. I wouldn't pretend to have your experience or expertise after 40 years of farming. So I want to defer to you on that. The issue that we have on this bill is not so much around the nature of your presentation. It's just that we're being asked –you come in support of Bill 24, but I don't think that you would probably suppor t lessening standards for drinking safe –water safety in our province.

I don't think you would want us to see the elimination of reporting on ecological reserves in our province. I don't think you would want to see the elimination of oversight on transferring public assets into private hands. And so you can understand our dilemma on this side of the table as legislators is that by forcing all of these things together under the guise of red tape when it's really not –we're dealing with en - vironmental regu lations here tonight in your presentation.

Wouldn't it been better and more valuable if the government had split this bill up and into its proper component parts so that we can have a good and strong dialogue on each of the elements in here, as opposed to you coming in supporting Bill 24 on one element, yet, there are other very serious concerns in this bill? Ms. Rempel: I have read the bill, and I am aware of all the other components to it. As a taxpayer, supporting the administration and bureaucracy of this government, I appreciate any efficiency that is put in there.

I see this bill as housekeeping, cleaning up a whole bunch of language and phrases mostly. I do not see any reduction in regulations that matter. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentat ion and talking about your farm operations and injecting all the manure and so on. We had the presenter before you talk about the stench. Just from your comments about municipal lagoons, do you think these –stench may have come from municipal 'magoons' rather than hog manure? Ms. Rempel: The other thing we –that–you–I heard comments equating odour with pollution, and that's not true.

Odour may be uncomfortable or an inconvenience, but it's not a pollution. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation. I will now call upon Grand Chief Jerry Daniels, Southern Chiefs' Organization. Grand Chief Daniels, do you have any written materials for distribution through the committee? Mr. Jerry Daniels (Southern Chiefs' Organization): Just some background on the organization is all. Madam Chairperson: Excellent. Okay, please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Daniels: Just want to start by acknowledging our Creator and just introduce myself.

I'm the grand chief of Southern Chiefs' Organization. I have a pamphlet going around just kind of telling you all who we are. We represent 33 First Nations here in southern Manitoba , primarily Anishinabe, Dakota and Cree peoples, treaties 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. I want to also suggest to the C lerk that you start your committee meetings by acknowledging Treaty 1 territory, which we'll all do now.

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 347 And I want to–so I'm here because of–obviously, we have concerns about the bill. We're not here because I just want to see you all, though you're all good people, here. I have a primary concern around the environmental act, the removal of, well, the ability to, I guess, increase the numbe r of hogs –you know, the industry, basically.

And my concern, I guess, really is around the number –the increase in the number and the adverse effect it will have on Lake Winnipeg is one point that I have that I'm a little bit–I'm worried about because I don 't have a clear picture of the impacts that it has on our water ways and on Lake Winnipeg. * (19:40) I also want to just point out that the –it is one of the most –the greatest threatened lakes and that we need to ensure that our fisheries and other indust ries that are renewable within our lake, renewable industries that are going to sustain for a long time, are going to continue and also that we value water just as much as we value the creation of, you know, a thriving economy, just because we –it's something that we all depend on and we want to ensure anything that of renewable industry be valued over and above anything that is not.

I want to also state that, in the past, when this discussion around hog farms, hog operations was done, there was lands, Crow n lands, that were taken in order–were used for the expansion of this industry and so we have concerns around acquisition of Crown lands before we have resolved the TLE issues, the outstanding TLE lands, and so that's another one that I want to just point out.

And the final point that I want to make surrounding this particular bill is that the support from all parties of a path to reconciliation act, and how I have concerns that our nations have not been consulted in any meaningful way or genuinely consulted on laws that are being put forward to the Legislature. I'm new to the role of Grand Chief. I've been here for maybe about 10 months and I can tell you I'm doing my best to catch up on a lot of files. We don't have the explicit expertise to evaluate and assess some of the impacts of laws that are being put forward, but I know that it's important.

It's important to the future; it's important to our nations, and the treaties on which we came into partnership on reflected a real genuine understanding betw een the parties that we would prosper but prosper in a sustainable way. And so I will point out that reconciliation, I don't think, is being adhered to through this process because we haven't been engaged in a genuine way, and so I just want to make tha t statement to everyone.

And I also want to point out The Sustainable Development Act that was passed by the former –the last Conservative government that we had and I want to point out four things within the principles of the sustainable development, gov ernment of Manitoba principles. The first one's prevention, prevention of and to mitigate significant adverse environmental effects and economic advanced policies and programs, so how are we preventing the impacts on the lake? Number 7, the enhancement requires to enhance long-term productivity capability, quality and capacity of our natural ecosystems.

So how is the natural ecosystem within Lake Winnipeg and around Lake Winnipeg, the whole basin, how have we addressed that in terms of how this act is going to impact the lake? And then our global responsibility is another one, so that I think that we're not really –we need to keep in mind that the impacts on the industry, whether it's fishing and also on our water, on our lake and the industries that are , you know, sustained there, are being considered. I think that's about it.

I'm asking for a commitment, obviously, to ensure that if there is going to be an increase, because, you know, I'm not– I don't make the decisions on the direction of government, but I will let you know that I do –would like to see a commitment that TLE issues be resolved prior to the acquisition of any outstanding Crown lands for the use of industry, only because we've waited a long time to be in a fair playing field with other segments of our population, of the population. And–so I think those are the two that I want to make–you know, I have, obviously, issues around.

So I know we're talking about red tape, but we need to remove, I think, some of the red tape around how we're going to protect the lake. How can we be –how can we actually work with the Province to ensure that there's monitoring of this industry? We would like to be a part of that. You know, we would like to be a part of monitoring industry that's going to affect the environment, because when we say, for as long as the sun shines, the grass grows and river flows, we're talking about the sustainability in perpetuity.

348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 And we need to be a part of that plan–creating the plan and implementing the plan right up until any kind of plan changes. So, with any work that is happening within our traditional lands, we need to be a part of it from beginning to end. So that's all I want to say. I want to thank you for your time. And questions? Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your pre sen- tation. Are there –do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen: Grand Chief Daniels, it's great to see you again in the Legislature.

You and I met and discussed at our first prebudget consultation just about two weeks ago here in the Legislature. Thank you for being part of our very first consultation, and thank you for being here on behalf of the Southern Chiefs Organization. Thank you for your concerns that you expressed about the sustainability of Lake Winnipeg. We share those concerns. One thing I'd like to point to is even a change that we've brought for commercial fisheries on Lake Winnipeg.

Previous government had instructed fishers, when it came to off catch, there would be no market for that, told them to throw it overboard and let it drop to the bottom of the lake or throw it on the land. We talked to fisherm en; we know that there's markets out there for that. Some of those fishermen are actually First Nations indigenous who called for the same thing.

And so we've created a better situation in which there would be open markets to allow those fishermen to not throw that catch overboard but to actually find markets for it and create a better –more viable conditions for people in the North and people in the south throughout Manitoba. On the treaty land entitlement obligations, just to be clear, nothing in this bi ll expresses a desire to develop commercial farmland operations on Crown land. Those obligations kick in, of course, when we designate any land as surplus, and then, of course, there would be that formal process.

On your comment to make conditions first to go to dialogue and resolve some things, we see it as concurrent and not sequential. We are absolutely engaged. I know that our Minister for Indigenous and Northern Relations is very, very engaged in building relationships, and I know you are as well. So I put a lot of confidence in this process going forward. Just, once again, thank you for being here. Invite your comments back in any way you'd like to. Mr. Daniels: Yes, thanks for your comments.

We do–and I've said this to the minister and the staff in that we need some sort of a communications protocol between us and the Province in order to ensure that I'm being fed the information that I –so that I can work with you in a way that is going to have genuine impacts and that are going to–you know, so–it 's my desire. I'm not –obviously, it's the issues that really matter to me as a representative of indigenous governments. And I want to be able to work in a real, genuine way so that the outcomes of whatever work we do in the future are positively impacting indigenous people. Mr.

Kinew: Miigwech, Grand Chief. I –just to respond briefly to a comment you made at the beginning, so, shortly before the Legislature resumed sitting this fall, I sent a letter to the Speaker, to the Premier (Mr. Pallister) and even to this guy here, my colleague f rom River Heights, just saying that we should consider doing a land acknowledgement before the House begins to sit each day. We're in the practice of doing a prayer already, and to add maybe a land acknowledgement representing some of the treaty and non- treaty First Nations that you do and also the Metis.

So, just to share with you that, you know, the suggestion you make is, you know, one that we're contemplating. And, hopefully, you know, the Speaker, in her wisdom, and others will be able to give you an update on that shortly. * (19:50) You raised in your presentation the obligation to consult with First Nations people, in particular, you know,

section 35 of the Constitution–the modern

interpretation of

section 35 is that any action is going to have an impact on treaty rights needs to have meaningful consultation with First Nations people. And meaningful consultation– you know, the Supreme Court says, is basically , a government has to be willing to change its mind as a result of the consultation in orde r for those consultations to be meaningful. They should be prepared to change course. Right? So, with that in mind, I'm just wondering, you know, if you could share a bit about –in your view, what should real consultation look like? What should a governme nt be doing to properly discharge its constitutional obligations to indigenous nations?

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 349 Mr. Daniels: Okay, so there's a–I got to answer the– I'll just answer the one question on–in terms of consultation because I think that's the most signi - ficant point th at was raised. Thank you for your raising the acknowledgement of the land as well. I'll just say that. So in terms of consultation, I mean, we obviously held a forum on this in the past, and what we've heard from our communities was that communities do have their own processes. Right?

As a grand chief at the Southern Chiefs' Organization, which was–is the first layer of representation before you start going to AMC and before you start going nationally, we –it is our duty to ensure that those processes are done in a way that truly reflects the community. And we provide that additional layer to ensure that whatever we decide is being honoured further down the road. So each community has its own way of consulting, but the –it's–there's different processes 'whichin'–within each. So I can't point out specifically to each –which community wants.

All I know is that there needs to be engagement and that you need the council and the chief to say okay, this is okay, we can move forward on this. Right? And, as a grand chief, it's important for me to be a part of those discussions in that I'm present there and that I know of what's happening so that I can ensure that when I come to things like this, I'm informed about it and I can talk about all the – how it's benefiting and maybe how it's not benefiting our communities. Madam Chairperson: The time for questioning has expired. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Before I move on to the next presenter, we've had a request from one of our out -of-town presenters if they would be able to move up on the list as they have to drive back to Neepawa tonight. We have identified our speakers for out -of-towners to present first, to accommodate and recognize the hardships on the out -of-town members, and it is up to the committee to decide whether or not we want to decide this based on distance from the committee. So I will put this before the committee. Is it the will of the committee to respond to this particular request and move this member up in the presentation list? Mr.

Shannon Martin (Morris): Madam Chair, just a point of clarification. So you're asking a criteria of geography, then, in terms of distance to the Legislature–or, to home after the presentation, is the criteria for the future presenters? Potentially? Madam Chairperson: At this point, there is no criteria in terms of the length of distance. If you identify as out of town, you are out of town. It's not based on miles. So at this point, this is up to the committee to decide whether we want to base our–presenters based on how far out of town they reside.

Is it the will of the committee to see presenters based on their distance from the Legislature? Mr. Helwer: Madam Speaker, I suggest we respond to individual requests. And this one seems reasonable for this particular presenter as opposed to putting in additional barriers to anyone that might want to present. So–respond on a one -off type of request, if that's okay with the committee. Madam Chairperson: Is this agreed? [Agreed] I will now call upon Lyam e Cypres, private citizen. That's No. 35 on our list. Ms. Cypres, do you have any written materials for distribution to the committee? Ms.

Lyame Cypres (Private Citizen ): No, unfortunately not. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Ms. Cypres: Okay, so good evening to all the members and participants of this legislative council, and thank you for having me here, and I apologize for the inconvenience that I have caused because me and my friend have three kids at home that is waiting for us; we are working moms, so we have to be off right away. So, anyway, I am Lyame Cypres from Neepawa.

I am an employee of HyLife Foods, a Canadian citizen and represents one of the stakeholders of the pork industry in Manitoba, which are the temporary foreign workers. So I would like to impart my thoughts in support of the Bill 24, Red Tape Reduction and Government Efficiency Act, in relation to the pork industry. So I have been in the pork industry for 34 years. My parents be a backyard owner, pig grower and me at shop owner in the Philippines have raised our big family through this business.

I was encouraged to further my understanding in livestock farming through my studies in agriculture as a food technologist.

350 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 From then on I have started working on the number one meat plant in the Philippines. The company is an integrated plant, so we have producer from farm to fork, and they have trained and held me in the highest quality meat standard and different levels of pork production. So any of the time that I would like to make an impact in the food production to the pork industry. So life is tough and my yearning to implement opportunities and my family situation has brought me in deciding to move to Canada.

So we landed in Neepawa, two hours northwest of Winnipeg, in February of 2009. I was part of the first 28 Filipinos who worked under the Temporary Foreign Worker Program. So we were employed by HyLife Foods, which was then the Springhill foods or Springhill Farms. The experience of landing here in wintertime at minus 50 degrees Celsius was really shocking, but it was also living in almost what we call like a ghost town. So there was very few businesses, very few housing, and you will scarcely see people in the streets. So the population at that time of Neepawa was about 3,300 in 2009.

So, when I started working at the HyLife meat plant, we were only producing 3,600 hogs per day in only one shift. So even for us, it was a significant surprise as a PFW because this a mount of hogs available and being produced in my previous company was not like that , even though we are the No. 1 large pig producer in the Philippines. So, even though the Philippines is an agriculture country and pig farming is large, our company was sti ll strongly dependent on imported meats from US, from Canada and Australia to meet the demands of our customers.

So this is where I saw and got into the Springhill foods–or Springhill Farms brand because I used to perform the meat inspection for imported meats in the Philippines. So, in 2009 and 2010, our company, HyLife Foods, had focused its effort in improving meat quality and shelf life, thereby attracting Japan customers–will start getting chilled products. So with HyLife's growing market in Japan, the company had expanded to two -shifts production last 2012–so in – with incremental growth in the volume.

So, currently, we are at 6,950– 6,950 hogs through put with the majority of our fresh and frozen products being exported to Japan, to China, to Mexico a nd Korea. So, as part of the quality assurance and production, I was part of the team that started and developed the Japan production and selection. So, you know Japan; they are very picky; they will like the number one ; they always like the number one product.

So through the attention of all employees, obtained the highest quality pork, we have become the number one exporter of Canadian meat with superior quality in Japan, the brand being along the name of Manitoba pork. So there is still a growing demand for more meat in the Japan market.

This makes me proud, as it speaks well about the work done by everybody from the farm up to the production to attain on this level, on this high level. * (20:00) So, along with this –along with the company's growth, the initial employees –approximately 700 employees of Canadians, Ukrainians, Koreans, Filipinos and South Americans, when I started in 2009. Now we are at about 1,300 employees. So more jobs was opened domestically and even on the foreign–and even in the foreign countries. So, for myself, I have also gone a long way.

I started working in the packaging department at the cut floor, and I was given a chance to become one of the quality assurance technicians. I have moved up to the management team as quality ass urance assistant manager and has eventually became the cut floor manager. So I have been working as a manager 4 and a half years with 350 employees reporting in my department. So it was a huge opportunity for me to demonstrate my abilities and contribute to the growth of the company, at the same time, realizing my goal to have an impact in the food production.

So, in our community in Neepawa and the neighbouring towns, the plant expansion and volume has brought a lot of changes and in the businesses around. We have seen an increase in the new business opening up, like Tim Hortons: we already have Tim Hortons, we have Giant Tiger, we have Boston Pizza and we have other small local businesses. So a lot more employment opportunities was created and Neepawa, wh o was before a small town, is buzzing with a lot more activities.

All of us temporary foreign workers have settled in, integrated, and become an integral part of the community of Neepawa, Gladstone and other neighbouring towns. So, just last Sunday, we have a Filipino - sponsored fall supper in order for us to raise funds

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 351 for the roofing of the church, which had cost us more than $600,000 to repair and replace. So it was a successful event which was supported by the whole community, and I was proud to have made a big contribution. So, through these years, too, I have become a citizen of Canada and was also able to support my family in coming here. This is the same with other temporary foreign workers who have brought their families in Manitoba and have the required years of living here in Canada completed to become a resident and then eventually a citizen.

So, on the last count, Neepawa's population has grown to 4,609 in 2016, and it's still growing. So there is now more than 1,000 immigrants and families in Neepawa and neighbouring towns who strongly depends their livelihood from the HyLife meat plant. So I am speaking in behalf of the 1,000 of temporary foreign workers that have their lives and their families' lives change through the pork industry in Manitoba. We are grateful for this chance to bring and raise our family in Manitoba. We would like to see the pork industry flourish, to increase for –pork pro- duction.

We also would like to see the agriculture and livestock raising grow bigger and have our kids, the next generation, to have job opportunities here in Manitoba when they finish their school and raise their families instead of moving to other provinces, which we're experiencing right now. So what I have is a success story that other immigrants have. I am a testament of how the pork industry has changed my life. So I am in favour of Bill 24 in reducing the restrictions on the growth of the pork industry and pork farming in Manitoba.

We should not be restricting the growth of the industry but should focus our energy in responsible farming practices and sustainable environment. Being a Manitoban resident, I also share the environmental concerns; however, I put my trust and faith in the farmers, the environment stewards and the government to set the regulations, the policies and put in place the protocols to ensure the protection of the health of all Manitobans. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do members of the committee have questions for the presenter? Mr. Friesen: Thanks, Ms.

Cypres, and thank you for being here and sharing your story with us. That was very compelling. I often tease people that the new test in Manitoba of a community has become you can call yourself a city when you have a Tim Hortons. So maybe the people of Neepawa can start calling themselves a city now. [interjection] You also have a Giant Tiger, that's true. And thank you also for, you know, for reminding us about the connection between the growth, the hog industry and the newcomers to Manitoba who are increasingly calling this place home and the success of Manitoba's Pr ovincial Nominee Program.

So thank you for coming. And thank you also for underscoring, as you did, that your industry cares a lot about responsible farming practices and concern for the environment. Appreciate you being here this evening. Ms. Cypres: Thank you. Mr. Kinew: Thank you, Ms. Cypres, for your presentation. Congratulations on all your pro- fessional success, and also, welcome to the Canadian family; very awesome to hear about that journey that you've been on. In your presentation, you refer to how some export markets are after quality, and how having a differentiated product can help market your product overseas.

I'm wondering, does environmental sustain - ability factor into being able to differentiate your product overseas? Can having sustaina ble 'processees' in production help market the product around the world? Ms. Cypres: Yes, normally, before we started with Japan, most of our customers have come down here who visit our production, and even the farms in Steinbach. So they have seen the pr ocess. They have seen how we take care of the animals –of the pigs, and how we make sure that our environment, even in our plant, is complying to the environmental regulations.

So for us, there was a lot of –there was several concerns with regards to humane handling, and for us in the production, it's very important, because the humane handling is very –there is a direct relationship to the pork quality. If we don't take care of the pigs, the pork quality is not going to be there; the colour, the texture is not going to be there.

352 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 24, 2017 I was in the quality assurance for how many years and I can vouch that you have to make sure that you take care of the animals before slaughter and during transportation, and even on the farms, you have to take care of them or else you will –you're going to see it on the final product. Mr. Gerrard: Thank you, and it's an important part of the story that needs to be told and well known that communities like Neepawa–I was there not very long ago–have grown substantially because of the hog industry. Thank you. Mr.

Helwer: Encouraged by your presence here and your presentation. Thank you for that. You see the whole industry through very different eyes than those of us that grew up in Canada. So thank you for being here. I'm encoura ged by your statements on animal husbandry and the protocols that are in place, and also the environmental sustainability you see in our operations.

Like we've heard some –from some previous presenters tonight, it's a story that we don't tell often enough a bout agriculture that we need to make sure that Manitobans and Canadians, and indeed your international market, is well aware of the environmental record that we have in agriculture in Canada, and we should be very proud of that and promote it more often. So thank you for being here, for doing that. Ms. Cypres: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation. I will now call upon Johannes Soer, private citizen. Mr.

Soer, do you have any written materials for distribution to the community? Mr. Johannes Soer (Private Citizen): Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Soer: Ladies and gentlemen, honourable members and guests, thank you for the time to be here and express my concerns on the bill of 24. I'm a hog producer, and I read in the Winnipeg Free Press that Manitoba has too many pigs. And yesterday we could hear how that's to form later. I'm also part of, as a pork produce r, I am also then look like I'm part of the polluter from Lake Winnipeg.

So this is, I come here to voice my concern and, as a pork producer, I would like to tell you what I have done to minimize the pollution or to eliminate the pollution. * (20:10) And then you see here the–but first of all, tell my background. I'm an immigrant. I came to Canada 30 years ago, and I am a farm all my life. My education is in Holland. I went to farm school, after that, went to college and the university and I became an engineer. To be in The Netherlands, growing up over there, we were called –we are like post -war kids, because Holland was –in the Second World War in '44-45, was a starvation.

There was no food. People died of hunger. So the Dutch government, they said, we have to do something that it never happened again–never hunger in Holland again. In Manitoba –or, in Canada, we –here in Manitoba, we never heard about food policies. Are we having food? Is a time coming that we have no food on the table, that people die of hunger? I believe, in Manitoba, it's not an issue, but in big centres like Toronto, Vancouver, yes, it could be done. It could be a man -made hunger. There's no food. That's why it's important that farme rs stand up and tell the story.

When I came to Canada and then grew up as a dairy farmer, my sister and I, in the '60s, we were milking 46 cows we had. In '72, we got hydro. Our field was in the middle of the battle zone and was 90 per cent destroyed. We were one of the last people in The Netherlands to get hydro. So we have not hydro, no way, no equipment –it was a wheelbarrow. We didn't have no tractor and that kind of thing. It was, like, a horse and buggy. I told my sister, if I have money enough and brains enough, I'm going to be an engineer and design equipment and make a comfortable work situation.

When we go to school in The Netherlands, as a farmer, we are taught we produce top -quality food, large quantity, from competitive price, in a sustainable and viable method. That was key issues. You come to Canada, it's a different story. When I came to Canada in '85, I met a dairy farmer–oh, I have to tell, in '72, my parents built a 200 free-stall barn for dairy. I came in '85 in Canada, and I met the da iry farmer, got 44 cows, and he was

October 24, 2017 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 353 milking the cows with a machine, and he got a car, got a pickup truck and a house. My parents –we had 200 cows, did have no car, no pickup truck–we were very frugal–and a small house. As a farmer, that was, for me, the s ign to come to Canada, and I brought more than–from the late '80s to '95, more than 800 farmers from Holland to Canada because I went every four weeks to Holland to tell, we have to come to Canada; there's a future for farmers, and we came to be in here. S o most of our farmers were dairy farmers but also a few pig farmers come to Canada.

We brought a lot of technology. I brought the milk robot to Canada; I brought a new apple variety to Canada and I brought a lot of environment technologies to Canada, but also, I brough

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	41-2-la11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	41st 2nd hansardpdf la11.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f183fef59a335e761d842d1313742683373d334c

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