Hon. Mr. Lathlin

Peter Kalden, Private Citizen

Ken Overby, Manitoba Bison Association

Mervin Farmer, Private Citizen

Randy McRorie, Private Citizen

Lloyd Lintott, Manitoba Wildlife Federation

Graham Wyatt, Private Citizen

Dennis Saydak, Private Citizen

Sheldon Willey, Private Citizen

Dwain Lawless, R.M. of Rossburn

Jeannie Sasley, Private Citizen

Tracy Bell, Private Citizen

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:

Bill 5–The Wildlife Amendment Act

Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources please come to order. This evening the Committee will be considering Bill 5, The Wildlife Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la conservation de la faune. We have several presenters who have registered to make public presentations on this bill. It is the custom to hear the public presentations before consideration of the Bill.

Is it the will of the Committee to hear public presentations on Bill 5 first? [Agreed]

I will then read out the names of those persons and organizations registered to speak to the Bill. Peter Kalden, private citizen; Ken Overby from the Manitoba Bison Association; Don Halbert, private citizen; Allan Gould, private citizen; Mervin Farmer, private citizen; Randy McRorie, private citizen; Lloyd Lintott from the Manitoba Wildlife Federation; Tracy Bell, private citizen; Graham Wyatt, private citizen; Jan Lapka, private citizen; Edwin Harms, from the Manitoba Elk Growers Association; Dunstan Browne, from the Avicultural Advancement Council of Canada; Dennis Saydak, private citizen; Mike Crawford, from the Manitoba Canary and Finch Club; Sheldon Willey, private citizen; Yvonne Rideout, from the Keystone Agricultural Producers; Dwain Lawless, from the R.M. of Rossburn; Garry Tolton from the Manitoba Farm Animal Council; Jeannie Sasley, private citizen.

Those are the names of the persons who have registered to speak this evening. If there is anybody else in the audience that would like to register or has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation, please register with the staff at the back of the room.

As a reminder to all presenters, 20 copies are required of any written versions of presentations to this committee. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the Clerk of this committee.

Before we proceed with the public presentations, is it the will of the Committee to set time limits on presentations?

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): I think we are all interested in giving everybody a chance to speak tonight who is on the list. In keeping with that and past practices in committee, I hope I can put forth the idea, with the consent of both sides of the table, that we allow 10 minutes for a presentation and 5 minutes for questions following the presentation, if that is acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Let me again remind all of us of the uniqueness of our situation in Manitoba. We are the only government in Canada that allows private citizens and organizations to speak to us legislators before we pass a bill. I hold that to be extremely important. I do not automatically agree to time limits and limitations being put on it. I know that we have done it in the past. Last night we agreed to 10 minutes for presentations and 10 minutes for questioning. I will reluctantly agree to that but request an exemption. We have several presenters here representing organizations, the Manitoba Bison Association, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, the Manitoba Elk Growers Association, the Avicultural Advancement Council of Canada. In other words, I am saying that, when we have presenters here that are speaking on behalf of an organization representing several hundreds of people, I would like to see the Committee be a little more lenient with respect to the time limitation and allow them to, if needed, consider bending the 10-minute rule.

I would move therefore that, first of all, we accept the 10 minutes of presentations and 10 minutes of questioning with the exception for those persons speaking for organizations.

Madam Chairperson: The motion is in order. Discussion.

Mr. Struthers: I can go along with the 10 minutes for presentations and the 10 minutes for questioning. I would want, though, that we keep in past practices of the Committee, the precedent we established the other evening of organizations and private citizens each having 10 minutes to make their presentations. The other night, it seemed to me, that the organizations that did make presentations had ample time in the 10 minutes. So I would hope that we are, No. 1, consistent, and, No. 2, fair to all the presentations that are going to be made here tonight. So I would request that if we do go 10 minutes of presentations and 10 minutes for question and answer, that we have it equal for all. That would be my preference.

Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): My point is that while I recognize the Chair will do the bidding of the Committee, there was a very tight schedule kept. I felt that if there were more than one presenter that more time could have been used to hear a comprehensive presentation. So unless there is will of the Committee to provide some flexibility to the Chair, then I would not be in favour of a 10-minute limit.

Mr. Enns: Just further to what my colleague from Ste. Rose indicated, I then amend my motion to a simple exemption for presentations made by organizations from the 10-minute rule, period.

Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski (St. James): I guess it has been a while but not long enough that I recall being at that end of the room myself. I think that given the number of presenters, one person can make the same point for a number of people. I see a few young people back there, and I know that I would like to have my voice heard in a shorter period of time earlier as opposed to either not at all or at an hour that is really inconvenient.

Mr. Enns: Madam Chair, I just simply submit to you that we must have the patience to hear what our people in Manitoba want to tell us legislators. I again put my motion that organizations being represented here be exempt from the time limitation.

* (18:40)

Madam Chairperson: I was trying to get a consensus here without going to formal motion. Are there any other speakers on this? If it is a formal motion, then I would need it in writing. What I have suggested then is 10 and 10, with organizations exempted from the 10 and 10.

I do have Mr. Enns's motion. Before I go to that, I would like to see if I have agreement on the 10 minutes and 10 minutes, 10 for presentation and 10 for questions, because it is not in the motion. Is there agreement on that? [Agreed] The motion that I have: Moved by Mr. Enns that organizations be exempted from the time limitation.

The motion would be in order. Is there agreement?

Madam Chairperson: Those in favour, say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Chairperson: Those opposed, say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Chairperson: I would say that the Nays have it.

Madam Chairperson: I have been informed that one or more presenters are from out of town. Did the Committee wish to grant its consent for out of town presenters to be heard first?

How does the Committee propose to deal with presenters who are not in attendance today but have their names called? Shall these names be dropped to the bottom of the list? [Agreed] Shall the names be dropped from the list after being called twice? [Agreed]

Does the Committee wish to indicate how late it is willing to sit this evening? Hearing nothing, we will proceed with public presentations.

I would call on Peter Kalden. Mr. Kalden, do you have copies of your brief that you wish to distribute?

Mr. Peter Kalden (Private Citizen): No, I just made a few notes here so that I can touch upon the more important issues.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. I will give you notice when there is one minute left asking you to conclude.

Mr. Kalden: I will be brief.

Madam Chairperson: I would also mention to all the presenters that it is necessary to recognize your name everytime you speak for the sake of the record.

Mr. Kalden: I am happy to have this opportunity, ladies and gentlemen and respective Committee members.

I would like to start with going back to the portion of that bill which is the campaign initiated by the Humane Society, headed by Ms. Vicki Burns. Brainwashing, manipulating, bribing and blackmailing the public, in particular, the media, and some political parties, and such we are faced with that bill now. They have been manipulating, they have been dealing with half-truth, and they have been fabricating facts and figures, just like they are doing the same now with their campaign against spring bear hunting.

The approach of this government, with respect to the Bill, was so wide it is comparable to this government trying to intend, let us say, for whatever reason to close Broadway, and they close all the streets within the city parameter, and now they try to assure the people who live on other streets that their roads or streets would remain open. The Government could have achieved the same goal if they only wanted to target penned hunting under The Animal Care Act.

This Bill 5 gives the Minister sweeping powers and it is also an infringement and intrusion into private property. When you place animals under The Wildlife Act–this, after all, is a legal opinion I received–they automatically become property of the Crown. We are dealing here with privately purchased, privately owned animals. I do not see any reason that there is any public interest in expropriating us. That was more or less a preliminary.

I will be quick here. This bill was made by urbanites for urbanites against all rural interest. There is not a single farming organization, neither a single First Nations that I know of who is not opposed to that bill. Yet the Government still proceeded and went ahead and put it through second reading, which is unfathomable, in my opinion. This only assures my apprehension that we are living under an urban dictatorship here.

The true issue of this whole bill boils down to farm slaughter versus abattoir slaughter, because penned hunting was such a negative word, which was deliberately picked. It is just like calling hunting the wanton slaughter of wildlife. Who would be in favour of anything like that? We are trying to take the hunting word out of that penned hunting, and we are calling that harvesting preserves, or call it shooting preserves or whatever.

When you look back at, for example, bison which, under that bill, would become part of The Wildlife Act again. Without game farming, let me assure you, there would be no bison in North America anymore. Now game farming is all of a sudden being targeted as something very detri-mental. It is a growing industry. It is a very economically viable industry.

Your colleagues, brothers and sisters of this NDP Government in Saskatchewan, are doing exactly the opposite of what you are doing here. This is baffling not only me; it is baffling anybody who thinks reasonably about that. We are only targeting here rural interests from city point of view. This is very, very unfair. The city has no stake in it. Nobody asked us, the few forlorn souls left outside of the city parameter whether the city is going to put up a new bridge or a new traffic light somewhere.

The First Nations is another very interesting aspect and perspective, and it all made it very clear to the Minister. I was at that meeting that they would go ahead with it, regardless of that bill. They have two shooting preserves for elk in place. They are presently building another two. I am just saying: What is happening? They will not abide by that law, which is very good. I am happy for them. Why should we be forced to do it? I do not know what is happening here, but I would not be surprised if they were going to be exempt. I thought we were all equal before the law.

Another thing is when it comes to the whole law and the intent, which I have in writing after writing after writing from this government saying the only intent of that bill is to ban penned hunting. There is an interesting line from the Supreme Court of Canada which says: Any bill is measured by its text and not its intent. If it is not the intent of the Government to show everything and lump everything together, then why is it worded so vaguely in that bill? This bill concerns everybody who is sitting on a hedgehog, a parakeet, a llama, a bison, elk or wild boar.

As I said before, the true issue here we have to deal with is actually farm slaughter versus abattoir slaughter. Only a terribly ignorant person can deny the fact that farm slaughter, be it an old horse, be it a beef, be it a fallow deer, a wild boar, or whatever, is by far the more humane and the less stressful way.

I invited Vicki Burns to accompany only one load of whatever animals that is being shipped. First of all, they have to be corralled, and they have to be loaded, and they will be moved in a trailer to the slaughter facility, and then compare that.

Actually, to me, it is an anachronism. The Humane Society should have been supporting what they are fighting here now, because this is what the word implies. They are supposed to stand up for the humane treatment of animals, which they apparently are not. I assure you, and anybody of the respected committee here is invited to experience that for himself. Once you have been witnessing a commercial slaughter facility, in contrast to any kind of a farm kill, whether, as I said, you have a small or a large compound, I have been in that business for over 20 years and, in every letter I receive from the government, it says: Oh, yes, let me assure you. The only intent is to ban penned hunting. Other legitimate farm business will not be touched.

* (18:50)

What does that actually say? It clearly states, in my opinion, that what I have been doing for the last 20 years was illegitimate somehow, was illegal. You know, that is a joke. I have a lot of money involved here. As I said before, the question is not whether it is a big or a smaller pen. We have very large compounds. I am not trying to, in any way, defend the hunting aspect of it. A lot of people take offense at the name, when you call it hunting within a compound or whatever. So that is why we call it harvesting animals.

It goes further than that. When we talk about the Bill, its ramifications, it will do great detri-mental things to anybody who has plans to go into anything else but proper things, as it is viewed by this government.

Let me quote please from the NDP newsletter. Here it says: Our farmers are some of the most efficient in the country, never hesitating to diversify into new crops or different species of livestock when the need arises.

How can anybody do it now with the Bill? This is impossible. This is such a contradiction, it is a joke. I cannot even take it seriously. On the one hand, you are trying to promote to go into alternative livestock. The whole farming industry is under tremendous pressure right now. The world prices are poor. The weather is miserable, and now this government is doing the utmost to kill us.

In public, the Premier (Mr. Doer) states that he will protect the family farm. Opposite to the family farm, he is protecting the corporate farm. When it comes to the hog industry now, for example, they are enjoying huge subsidies on top of that, but who from the private sector can afford to go into a commercial hog business. Nobody. Not a small farmer. Anyway, not a family farmer.

Madam Chairperson: One minute.

Mr. Kalden: This is what I would like to say. I am almost pretty well finished. Just one more word here. When it comes to the future of hunting, in closing, I tell you, there is only one sustainable future way of hunting, and this is to raise the animals which are being hunted. Because if only 50 percent of the Aboriginal people would make use of their subsistence hunting rights, there would be not a rabbit left within three months in Manitoba. This is it. I thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Kalden. Questions?

Mr. Enns: I want to thank Mr. Kalden for making his presentation this evening to us. I appreciate that you have come some distance to do that.

One particular issue that you raised in your presentation that I would like to just pursue with you. Both my colleague the Member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) and I certainly take some satisfaction in having made it possible to introduce elk farming to Manitoba and, in particular, to invite our brothers and sisters from the First Nations community to participate in that farming. I view that as an opportunity. Goodness knows, we–when I say we, government–have failed all too often in providing for some serious economic opportunities for our First Nations peoples on the kind of land base that they are on, the place that they are in, in the province. This diversified form of livestock is an opportunity for them, and several of them are, as you know, actively engaged. If I understood you correctly, Mr. Kalden, you have, from your own knowledge, information that the First Nations community does not intend to abide by this law, whether this law passes or not?

Mr. Kalden: The Minister will probably recall, he was there.

Mr. Enns: One person said that.

Mr. Kalden: That was the spokesperson for the Western Tribal Council. These are practically the only First Nations who presently are diversified into elk. They are also doing the same with white-tailed deer and that is another big flaw with this government.

Actually, I believe this would have been the golden opportunity for the NDP to finally do something for the farming community if they had opened up the doors for white-tailed deer farming. We are talking only about penned hunting and the aspect of it here, but it encompasses a lot more. When you look at white-tailed deer and you look at elk, for example, what are you ultimately going to do with the mature animals? I believe, and there is no doubt about that, economically seen, the most lucrative outlet is in a shooting preserve to have this mature animal harvested, which is–and I want to stress and emphasize that again–by far the most humane end. There can be no doubt when you compare that to any other way of slaughtering that poor animal, then as I believe, there can be no doubt.

Any sensible, intelligent person cannot deny the fact that a farm kill, and I am deliberately leaving the word hunting out here, is a lot more humane for the involved animal than any other way. I believe. Also, as I said before, economically seen, this is the golden opportunity, really, to offer the few remaining farmers possibilities and opportunities to diversify, but not with over-regulating everything and not with closing the doors to white-tailed deer and whatever else. Marginal ranchlands like the Interlake and on many First Nation premises, that is the only thing they can do. I am happy that there are so many of them involved in it now. They might force the hands of the Government ultimately.

Mr. Enns: Thank you, Mr. Kalden. I simply want to alert all of us on the Committee to the fact of the potential of passing legislation that will be a two-tier type of legislation applicable to some, not applicable to all. Quite frankly, that is not acceptable to me, and I will continue to fight that.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Kalden, I heard you mention the Humane Society and Vicki Burns and others that have lobbied long and hard to curtail penned hunting. I wonder if you have the information as to how many penned animals the Humane Society kills every year, or how many penned animals Vicki Burns and her organization would kill every year.

Mr. Kalden: There will be thousands of them killed. This, of course, is all sanctioned, and it is protected and well done and approved by the people here in the city, because they are not actually killed–that is the way she puts it–they are just getting a needle. They are being needled. I question this practice very much. I tell you one thing, if you take a dog and you needle this poor bugger so that he dies, or you take him outside, and you shoot him with a loaded shotgun, I guarantee you the latter way is definitely faster, quicker, and more humane.

Mr. Jack Penner: Mr. Kalden, a number of us are farmers sitting here. I pride myself in having been born and raised on the farm. My father was born and raised on the farm, so was my grandfather, and my three sons are continuing their farm operation. It has been made very clear to us that the federal government has cut us loose. We will have to compete with the American treasury and the European treasuries as individuals because there is no federal support, nor is there any provincial support, quite frankly. Under the new agreement that we have just struck, it is very clear that there are dramatic cuts in the support mechanism that was in place before. The only chance for survival that we are going to have on the farm is diversification. It is very clear that the areas of diversification are going to have to be livestock driven. Whether we like it or not that is the only chance for survival of our farm community in this province. Can you tell this committee how you would see that diversification taking place and what kind of impediments this legislation will put before the people and the uncertainties that will create in drafting and putting forward this kind of legislation?

Mr. Kalden: Actually, if this bill will pass third reading and will become law, it will certainly add the biggest nail ever driven into the coffin of the family farm because it practically eliminates the opportunity to diversify which is the only hope for survival.

If I may add something quickly, in the state of Texas, for example, shooting preserves, and let me tell you most of them are not even fenced. The perception here is that is why the word "penned hunting" is so negative. Everything has to be taking place in a five- or ten-acre area which has a high game fence around it. But, if you are in charge of a large enough area, actually it does not take a fence around it. You can manage and raise whatever species of animals you want in there. In Texas, for example, the game industry–and most of these places are not fenced as I said before–is out-performing cattle by far, even though cattle is riding an all-time high. In the neighbouring province where your brothers and sisters are forming the government, the game farming industry is making the cattle industry look pretty pale. There, the farmers have the opportunity–that is all we are asking for–that we can diversify into whatever we, the individual, or the family farmer deems proper in order to survive without getting subsidies.

As the Honourable Member just said here and as I pointed out before, farming is under immense pressure from all corners right now. If you take this opportunity to diversify away, then you may as well tell 50 percent of the family farms: Go on welfare, boys.

Madam Chairperson: Questions?

Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Kalden, for your advice to us here tonight.

Madam Chairperson: One minute.

* (19:00)

Mr. Struthers: I am sure there are a lot of people who think that in the Legislature, those of us on this side just fight with those on the other side and vice versa. But I want to assure you that given the comments of the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner) here a few minutes ago, just this afternoon we came out of the debate on agriculture in which both sides of the House did co-operate, come to an agreement and passed a resolution pinpointing the federal government for their lack of support in agriculture.

As with this issue today, my understanding at least is that there is agreement from both sides of the House that penned hunting is something that should be banned in this province and that both sides of the House would agree in the former leader of the Conservative Party and former Premier Filmon's words: closing loopholes in The Natural Resources Act, not The Animal Care Act, but The Natural Resources Act.

So I just wanted to make sure you understood that there is agreement in the House on both sides on this issue, and unless the members opposite are changing their minds, they are in agreement with the intent of this bill.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. That concludes our 10 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Kalden. I would call on Mr. Ken Overby, please, from the Manitoba Bison Association. Mr. Overby, do you have written copies for the committee members?

Mr. Ken Overby (Manitoba Bison Association): Yes, I do.

Madam Chairperson: Yes. Thank you. I would ask you to proceed with your presentation please.

Mr. Overby: Madam Chairperson, members of the Committee, fellow presenters, fellow bison producers, ladies and gentlemen, I am Ken Overby, elected Director and Treasurer of the Manitoba Bison Association. Seated behind me are 40 members who raise bison in our audience, representing 60 percent of the bison produced in Manitoba, who on short notice, in prime and holiday season, came to this meeting. This indicates the level of concern that bison producers have about Bill 5.

I would like to direct your attention to the MBA position paper. Due to time constraints, I will only read highlights from our presentation, and I may take some quotes under context.

The first three pages outline the history of the Manitoba Bison Association, history of the bison industry of this province, and the importance of the bison industry to Manitoba. If you could turn to page 4.

The bison industry is a self-sufficient livestock industry which relies on no government subsidy. It has been an excellent sustainable farm diversification. Several first nations in Manitoba are raising bison for meat and for cultural and spiritual benefits.

We understand the main reason for the writing of Bill 5 was to address the issue of penned hunting. The Manitoba Bison Association, on several occasions, has stated that we are not opposed to the banning of penned hunting. We however feel Bill 5 may introduce red tape and legislation which is harmful to our industry. The Manitoba Bison Association has never been consulted as to how to deal with penned hunting. Consultation meetings were scheduled across the province and then cancelled.

The Manitoba Bison Association feels that under Bill 5 the Conservation Minister has too much power to set regulations as to how we ranch bison. One example is the word "baiting." As bison producers, we regularly use grain as a lure or bait to move our bison from a grazed down pasture to a fresh pasture. When we raised these concerns and other concerns to members of the Department of Conservation, they assured us that the intent of Bill 5 was not to impede the ranching of bison but to stop penned hunting. If the sole intent of Bill 5 is to ban penned hunting, the Manitoba Bison Association feels this could be done using The Animal Care Act rather than The Wildlife Act. A legal opinion on The Animal Care Act was obtained at Manitoba Bison Association cost. I would like to reference appendix A, a legal opinion from the law firm Suche and Gange.

Please refer to item 4, appendix A2. 4. Based on statements made in the Legislature, it appears that the government obtained a legal opinion to the effect that The Wildlife Act may have no application to bison, other than the protected status given to the small population of wild wood bison, and that one of the weaknesses of the Wildlife Act is the ambiguity of certain definitions.

I would now like to quote the Honourable Jon Gerrard, appendix B, from Hansard, page 3032, paragraph 3: "The definition 'wild by nature' is put there clearly to differentiate what is the domesticated species from what is the wild species, but it is important, therefore, to remember that all the species which are domesticated now were wild once and that, indeed, where and how long does something need to be in a domesticated state before it is considered domesticated as opposed to wild? Where does the bison fall?"

Referring to item 9, appendix A2. During the debate on Bill 5, numerous statements were made in the Legislature by members of the Government to the effect that the only intention of Bill 5 is to ban penned hunting, and that there is no intention to cause hardship to those who raise bison as all or part of their livelihood. However, it is acknowledged in the Legislature as well that Bill 5 is enabling legislation and that the actual scheme for prohibiting penned hunting will be produced in the regulations.

In response to questions of the Opposition from Mr. Enns, appendix C, Hansard, May 25, the Honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food, Ms. Wowchuk, is quoted: "We have met with people from the Bison Association, and we have told them that we have no intentions of shutting down this industry. The intention of this legislation is to stop penned hunting."

In response to the Manitoba Bison Association President Dave Giesbrecht's letter to the Honourable Minister of Conservation, Oscar Lathlin is quoted, appendix D1: Bill 5 in no way is intended to impede that progress and will not regulate the bison industry other than it will prohibit the hunting and killing by a party other than the producer of the bison that are in captivity. All producers can continue to conduct on-farm slaughter in terms of which would entitle the sale of heads or hides to those who view them as wildlife trophies. Development of a regulation will be undertaken in consultation with the industry and other stakeholders. At this time I would like to refer to items 11 and 12, appendices A(2), (3) and (4).

Item 11 from our legal opinion: The amendments to The Wildlife Act will serve to make all bison in Manitoba subject to The Wildlife Act. Thus, not only the provisions pertaining to penned hunting, but all other provisions of The Wildlife Act will be applicable to bison, whether or not the bison are privately owned or raised for agricultural purposes.

* (19:10)

Item No. 12: The Association is of the view that it is more appropriate that agricultural industries such as bison production in Manitoba be governed by the Department of Agriculture and Food, not the Department of Conservation. The Association is particularly concerned that The Wildlife Act was drafted to address the management and conservation of wildlife, not to govern legitimate practices in agricultural industry, and, therefore, many provisions of The Wildlife Act are inappropriate to apply to an agricultural industry.

The next part of our legal opinion outlines how the government can use The Animal Care Act to ban penned hunting. Referring to appendix A4, paragraph 3, last sentence: Therefore section 5 of The Animal Care Act would apply to prohibit persons from engaging in penned hunting in Manitoba, and I quote section 5: No person shall engage in a practice or procedure specified as prohibited in the regu-lations.

Accordingly, our legal opinion states the current framework of The Animal Care Act may be used to prohibit penned hunting in Manitoba. Thus it is the Manitoba Bison Association's position that The Animal Care Act should be used to stop penned hunting rather than Bill 5. It has been brought to our attention that pheasants and wild turkeys are exempt from the penned hunting legislation. Is this true? If this is true, bison should be removed from The Wildlife Act and placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and Food whereby penned hunting could be regulated under The Animal Care Act with any necessary consequential amendments. Bison could be regulated by The Animal Care Act which is considered to be one of the most progressive pieces of legislation for any animal, non-human living being with a developed nervous system and other acts which pertain to this commercial meat-producing agricultural industry.

When amendments are made to Bill 5 or regulations are developed which affect the bison industry, the Manitoba Bison Association wants to be consulted.

At this time, I want to quote the Honourable Gary Doer, Premier of Manitoba, appendix E: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to clarify for you that our government has no intention to impede in any way the activities of legitimate Manitoba agribusinesses. Prior to this legislation becoming formal regulation, there will be an extensive consultation process involving all stakeholders and that any appropriate exemptions will be established accordingly. Quoting the Honourable Minister of Conservation, Oscar Lathlin, appendix D2: If Bill 5 is passed by the Legislature, I assure you that consultation with stakeholders will take place prior to development of any regulation to implement a ban on penned hunting.

Madam Chairperson: One minute.

Mr. Overby: I appreciate the effort taken by the association obtaining a legal opinion respecting the use of The Animal Care Act instead of The Wildlife Act for the purpose of prohibiting penned hunting. This document will be reviewed in consultation with legal counsel and action taken.

Quoting the Honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food, appendix X: If there are other changes that we have to make to other legislation to ensure that the livestock industry in this province can grow, and for those people who have invested in various species such as bison and elk, if there are areas of legislation that have to be changed to address their concerns to ensure that they can continue to operate viable businesses, then we will bring those changes first.

In conclusion, Madam Chairperson, the bison industry in Manitoba is a viable, sustainable, diversified, agricultural entity. The Manitoba Bison Association's position is that the banning of penned hunting can be done under existing legislation, The Animal Care Act, with consultation of the bison industry. Therefore, we, the Manitoba Bison Association, agree with the elimination of hunting in small enclosures, but we ask that the broad issues of Bill 5 be dealt with honestly, forthrightly, instead of pretending that this is a bill solely about ending the hunting of animals in small enclosures. Respectfully submitted by the Manitoba Bison Association.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Overby. Questions?

Mr. Enns: Again, thank you, Mr. Overby, for that presentation on behalf of the bison growers in Manitoba. Allow me, Madam Chair, to put on the record it is truly a remarkable achievement that the bison growers of Manitoba have accomplished in bringing back that species that we virtually extinguished–I say we, mankind–from the face of North America, to its present status. That speaks volumes of the care and the nurturing that the bison farmers provide to these animals.

I just have one question; my colleagues no doubt will have others. Mr. Overby, I am sometimes teased about it in this Legislature, but I cannot deny the fact that I have had a bit of experience. I have served in this legislature for a bit of time. My presentation to the Minister on the first or second reading of this bill is I simply cannot understand the order of things. He is assuring us that: Pass this bill now, and we will consult with stakeholders later. That, to me, seems to be just the wrong way around. My understanding is that, prior to this bill even appearing in the Legislature, meetings were scheduled with your organization and, I assume, with others to do that consulting. Can you confirm for the members of the Committee that, in fact, consultation and meetings had been set up, dates had been set up, and that they were then cancelled for one reason or another?

Mr. Overby: Yes, I can confirm that meetings were set up, and they were cancelled. If I could add to that, our president, Mr. Giesbrecht, had asked to have meetings with the Honourable Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk) last November, and it took a very long time. It was not until this spring, in April, before he could meet with her, well after Bill 5 was launched.

Mr. Enns: The other concern that I have is that those, I call them, non-traditional livestock, whether it is bison, elk or others, are covered by some very stringent rules and regulations, for instance, The Manitoba Livestock Diversification Act that talks about how they can be transported, the necessary permitting of them, fencing and all the rest of that. We are now introducing by this bill, by bringing them under the aegis of The Wildlife Act, a whole new regime of regulations. Surely that is unnecessary and confusing to the producer.

Mr. Overby: Yes, Bill 5 could potentially make the working of our industry difficult. It could be at the whims of the Conservation Minister as to how we ranch bison. I outlined one of the possibilities on the word "baiting," where baiting is not supposed to be allowed under The Wildlife Act, and yet we have to use it in order to move our livestock from one pasture to another, or to move them into a corral.

Another fear that has been expressed by many bison producers is that, if we are part of Wildlife, then we might be required to erect game fences. Game fences are usually eight feet high. Traditionally, bison have been fenced in five-foot fences, and they have never gotten out. They have been contained, and it has worked very well. So those are a few of the concerns that Bill 5 has caused us.

Another area of concern has been financial institutions are uncertain about what Bill 5 is going to do for our industry. I have had many producers who are going to obtain a loan or are wanting to start in our industry or are wanting to expand their farming operation, and the financial institution has indicated that, oh, there is some uncertainty here. We know financial institutions, they do not like uncertainty. They are unsure. Where are bison? Are they wildlife, or are they agricultural?

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): I would just like to ask after hearing your presentation. Although I was not seated at the table, I heard the presentation from the back of room. I do want to ask you in your position representing the bison industry here in Manitoba, do you see any reason for the legislation even coming into place as far as the bison industry is concerned? Is there any value in Bill 5 as you see it, period?

Mr. Overby: I would like to reiterate our position. We feel that penned hunting could be banned by The Animal Care Act. There are several provisions where it could be done with some of the consequential amendments and that Bill 5 was not needed for that purpose.

Mr. Faurschou: I just want to clarify my question. Is there any benefit to the bison industry from having Bill 5 made law here in the province of Manitoba? In fact, is there any reason for Bill 5 being a law, required for law? You stated the penned hunting, that being the preface for which the Bill is to be here, but if it is handled someplace else, is there any reason for Bill 5 being passed into law?

Mr. Overby: A one-word answer, no.

* (19:20)

Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Overby. I certainly have had a lot of discussion. In your comments, you had indicated that it was difficult to get a meeting with me, and I want to say that there were people who had discussions. I have met with Mr. Giesbrecht and people involved in the bison industry. We had given them, as you outlined in your presentation, our assurances that we recognize the bison industry as a very important industry, and we want it to continue as an industry and that our concern was with the ending of penned hunting.

You just indicated that you see no need for this legislation. However, your association has said they are in favour of ending penned hunting in Manitoba. I thought I heard you say earlier that you were in agreement with the ending of penned hunting, and then you said there is no need for legislation. So I am just trying to clarify because, indeed, when I met with Mr. Giesbrecht–and I do not remember who else was at the meeting–they said that they were not opposed to ending penned hunting.

Mr. Overby: Yes, I have stated the Manitoba Bison Association's position. We are not opposed to the banning of penned hunting. We would support you on that. When I answered no to the previous question about Bill 5, we have a legal opinion from a legislative lawyer firm indicating that the banning of penned hunting could be done under The Animal Care Act. What we would really like to see is bison removed from Wildlife and become part of your department, the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Jack Penner: Madam Chair, just a very brief question. I thought I heard you say that you had asked for a meeting with the Minister in November and it took till April for you to get a meeting.

Madam Chairperson: One minute, Mr. Overby.

Mr. Overby: Yes. Possibly the Minister could confirm that for us.

Mr. Jack Penner: Second question: As far as you are concerned, is this the only province in the country right now proposing this kind of legislation?

Mr. Overby: I do not know if I am in a position to answer that fully. I want to just state our position again that we want bison removed from wildlife, exempt from wildlife, and become part of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Jack Penner: Thank you very much. I just want to make a personal comment here. My personal comment is to you. I encourage you strongly as an organization to continue the good work that you have done. We encourage the expansion of the bison industry. Hopefully the ministers and the Cabinet, Mr. Doer and his cabinet, will come to their senses and realize how restrictive this legislation is and the uncertainty it will create in the agricultural community. That is the last thing we need, in my view, at this time.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Time has expired. I thank you, Mr. Overby.

I would call on Don Halbert, private citizen. Mr. Halbert. Mr. Halbert, then, will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

I would call, then, on Allan Gould. Mr. Gould. He also, then, Mr. Gould will be dropped to the bottom of the list.

Mr. Mervin Farmer. Mr. Farmer, private citizen. Mr. Farmer, do you have copies you wish to circulate?

Mr. Mervin Farmer (Private Citizen): Yes, I do.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed, then, with your presentation.

Mr. Farmer: Madam Chairman, the Honourable Minister of Conservation, Oscar Lathlin, and members of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

I must say that I am disappointed that you have limited me to 10 minutes. I got two days' notice on this. I missed all day yesterday out harvesting hay. It rained last night, so I am out of luck today, and now you cannot even afford more than 10 minutes to hear my presentation. So what I am going to say is going to have to be in rapid-fire motion.

I am a farmer, owner and operator of a family operation known as Stonewood Elk Ranch located in the Stonewall area in Manitoba's Interlake Region. I am currently vice-president of the Manitoba Elk Growers Association and a director representing Manitoba on the Elk Breeders of Canada Board, an organization representing elk breeders across Canada, from QuJ bec in the east to Alberta and the Yukon in the West, an organization dedicated to being the distinctive leader in enhancing growth and integrity in the Canadian elk industry.

Elk farming in Manitoba is a relatively new branch of diversified livestock farming, becoming legal in March of 1997. In just over three years, 90 licences have been issued to farm elk in Manitoba, with a population of approximately 1900 without counting this year's calf crop.

Well in excess of $22 million has been invested in this new livestock industry in three years, all private money, with no financial assistance from any form of Government. Manitoba, with its famous breed of Manitoban elk, progressive thinking and planning by entrepreneurial farmers and government officials, is and can be a real leader in the industry across Canada. There are now close to 150 000 farmed animals in Canada, creating millions of dollars in economic and taxable revenue.

I have serious concerns with the proposed changes in the wording of The Wildlife Amendment Act, Bill 5, as presented in the Manitoba Legislature for first reading December 14, '99, and second reading, April 26, 2000.

The Bill contains a number of amendments to The Wildlife Act. I have listed them there, but I do not have time to list here. Should these changes as presented receive third reading by our honourable members of the Manitoba Legislature, virtually any animal not indigenous in Manitoba now farmed under Agriculture can, and I repeat "can", come under the authority of The Wildlife Act. Bison, buffalo, elk, wild boar, ostrich, emu, llama, and, yes, even some breeds of cattle could fall into the new changes.

These sweeping changes, I think, are overkill if the intention of the amendment bill is just to so-called ban penned hunting. The proposed changes will give the provincial government full powers over the movements, sale and parts, transportation, chemical immobilization, propagation, trapping, building and husbandry of animals now farmed under agriculture. The sweeping changes will give the provincial government powers to control every aspect of the livestock industry in Manitoba.

I and many, many others involved in the livestock industry strongly object to this type of provincial powers over our agricultural industry here in Manitoba. It is totally ludicrous to think that livestock now farmed under Agriculture could fall under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Conservation portfolio. I want to know why.

The government of the day tells us we have nothing to worry about this proposed legislation. Yet nowhere in this proposed legislation does it tell me it will not impact or affect the ownership of domestic pets or it will not impact on legitimate agricultural activities here in Manitoba.

I have 13 llamas at home at present. I have been farming llamas for the last 25 years. Now you want to tell me that the jurisdiction of these animals is going to fall under Natural Resources. Put Bill 5 through in its present form and you have done just that. Is this democracy?

We have organizations here in North America out to ban legitimate livestock operations. Many members of these various organizations have no idea how livestock is reared on the farms. They have just one purpose in mind and that is to stop all livestock production.

* (19:30)

We have the Animal Liberation front, a violent and destructive terrorist group. We have Mr. Rob Sinclair in the International Welfare Fund pouring thousands of dollars into Manitoba here to ban certain aspects of the livestock industry, one of which is penned hunting.

Liz White of the Animal Alliance suggests there are 350 to 400 organizations across Canada. She tells us the Animal Alliance formed in the summer of 1990 went from zero to 20 000 members in a matter of months. Is it any wonder those of us in the livestock operations are concerned and worried? We need government legislation that will protect our livestock industry, not to pass legislation that could give some radical or radicals the power to destroy our industry. I am not for a moment insinuating that members of the government of the day are radicals.

But with this proposed legislation, I fear for the livestock industry in Manitoba and particularly the elk industry in which I am involved. I cannot believe officials of the Government can undertake to pass such a piece of dangerous legislation as Bill 5 without even consulting the various livestock industries here in Manitoba. I am concerned that we have certain government officials listening to those groups who have a problem with the livestock industry.

I am concerned when I place two telephone calls to the Minister of Conservation's office and asked for a meeting with the Honourable Oscar Lathlin to discuss Bill 5, and I do not even get a reply. I am concerned when the directors of the Manitoba Elk Growers Association meet with the Honourable Rosann Wowchuk, our Minister of Agriculture, and she would not even listen to our presentation on hunt preserves, showing the operation of two very successful farms, one in Saskatchewan and the other in North Dakota. Our presentation would have pointed out just how humane these operations are, how they operate and the economic benefits to both producers and the province of Manitoba.

I am concerned when a series of public consultation meetings are scheduled throughout Manitoba during April and May to give residents and stakeholder groups an opportunity to present their comments to the advisory group, and then to find out after placing numerous telephone calls and spending a couple of hours arranging for people to attend these meetings, the meetings are all cancelled.

I am concerned now that the Minister has decided to hold these meetings in Winnipeg only with two days notice, and in some cases, one day. Bill 5 can have serious implications for the livestock industry in Manitoba. It is a rural concern and these meetings should have been held throughout Manitoba so as to enable all parties interested to voice their concerns. At the very least, these two public consultation meetings should have been made well known in advance.

Although the government of the day appears to have a closed mind with regards to penned hunting, I would like to take this opportunity to explain how a few regulated hunt preserves throughout Manitoba could benefit livestock producers, and at the same time, produce substantial financial income to the Government. Hunt preserves contradictory to those opposing them are not inhumane when run properly.

Four or five hunt preserves strategically placed throughout Manitoba with rules and regulations and properly monitored could be an outlet for culls from livestock herds, thus enhancing herds as well as the method of disposing of our old bulls. Fourteen hunt preserves in Saskatchewan last year generated over $4.5 million. Ban penned hunt preserves in Manitoba and you will add greatly to the financial coffers of Saskatchewan and even North Dakota.

Hunt preserve operations in North Dakota are already soliciting bulls for Manitoba in anticipation of the border being opened and the cancelling of hunt preserves here. I had a call just yesterday, a guy wanting 10 bulls if I can give them to him for North Dakota once the border opens up.

I ask you in your judgment: Which is more humane–trucking animals for several hours and hundreds of miles to North Dakota and Saskatchewan or, for a maximum, two hours to a preserve here in Manitoba? When that animal leaves my farm, does it really matter in the eyes of humanity whether the animal is killed at an abattoir or in a section of land, fenced and partially treed?

I ask you: Which is more humane, allowing several animals to run down a chute to be put down with the smell of blood permeating the air in front of them at an abattoir or allowing several animals to roam a section of land with a hunter looking for one with a large set of antlers? There are no guarantees that when you hunt in a hunt preserve you are going to bag an animal.

I ask you: Which is more humane–shooting and wounding an animal in the wild which may never be found and to die a painful death or shooting an animal in a confined area and, if wounded, will not be left to die a painful death? This may sound harsh and crude, but I ask you: What is the difference between an animal being shot with high-powered rifles with bullets strategically placed and some 3000 dogs and cats that nobody wants being removed from cages here in Winnipeg and killed with a strategically placed needle? Let us face it. Both animals have died a painless death.

In the elk industry there are, or will be, four sources of income: that of breeding, stock antlers for neutraceutical purposes, meat and hunt preserves. I ask you: Which makes more economic sense in view of what I have stated earlier–selling an old bull elk to the meat packers for $500 for sausage or selling that same animal to a hunt preserve for $1,000 to $5,000? You do not have to be much of an accountant to figure that out. To think that our provincial government wants to throw that income for livestock producers out the window, I just cannot understand it.

At the present time, there is only one licensed abattoir in Manitoba that is allowed to kill elk, that being in Swan River. For any of us in southern Manitoba that means a minimum drive of eight hours pulling a trailer. Can you imagine the stress on that animal when it gets to the abattoir? At least, when taken to hunt preserve, the animal is released to a fenced compound and, in all likelihood, will remain there for at least three to four months. In some cases they are even there for more than a year before being put down.

Madam Chairperson: One minute.

Mr. Farmer: Trucking for eight hours or more to an abattoir and then killing it will, in all likelihood, cause severe stress. I explained in my address here what happens to meat because of stress, but I do not have time to read it. But I hope the members of this standing committee will read it.

Studies in domestic livestock will show that it can take as much as a week to recover from transport and handling stress so that proper acidification can occur at slaughter. Thus, taking an animal for slaughter to hunt preserves to be strategically placed is far more beneficial and humane. I would like to point out contrary to what some people and organizations would have you believe, that regulated hunt preserves are not even humane. I firmly believe the livestock presently farmed under agriculture in Manitoba should be left the same, as there are strict governmental and industry standards already in place governing the welfare and well-being of such animals.

In conclusion, if those responsible for Bill 5 are adamant that the Bill proceed in its present form or even close to it, please consider adding the following clause: Animals otherwise subject to the provisions and applications of The Wildlife Act are excluded from those provisions and applications of those animals that are held and maintained for captivity under authority of a licence issued by the Minister of Agriculture.

Madam Chairperson: Questions? Mr. Enns.

Mr. Enns: Thank you, Mr. Farmer, for your presentation. I just want to confirm with you again that, although it is a very new industry, the elk industry, that you operate under, and I know that, having helped arrive at them, there is a pretty strict set of rules and regulations that define how you look after your animals, how you fence your property, how you move and transport those animals. It is a well-regulated industry that you are occupied in. Is that not the case?

Mr. Farmer: Yes there are very stringent rules and regulations for those of us that are in the elk industry. These are all set down by the Government of Manitoba under The LIDA Act. The rules and regulations are, in fact, sometimes a little overbearing.

Madam Chairperson: Questions?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Farmer, as I read your concern throughout the brief, and I regret that we have to rush you the way we are in this committee, an overriding concern that those of us in rural Manitoba, those of us involved in any kind of farming, we are very much a minority in our society. Governments of whatever political makeup tend to listen to majorities. The ambiguity in this bill, the lack of clarity in this bill, the enabling features of this bill, will make it possible for a future minister or a future senior bureaucrat, for that matter, to pander to this majority urban view from time to time. That could have very serious consequences for those of us engaged in this kind of farming. Is that a fair statement to make?

Mr. Farmer: That is exactly what my concern is. There are so many people today, urban people, who have no idea what an elk even looks like out there, or a bison for that matter. They have no idea how we farm those animals. They are so humanely handled out there. We are governed by the Health Act. We are governed by the Department of Agriculture. We are governed by the food industry. The business of livestock industry is so well governed that it is ludicrous to think that you want to put Bill 5 through and put us out of business. Basically, that is what could happen, as I said in my address here, if you get some radicals here, and there are lots of them around in our country.

Mr. Enns: As you also indicated, these groups have the capacity of being very well funded, reaching out for the dollars and cents where they need them. We have only the wild fur industry to look at. The success of virtually driving fur out of the clothing industry has left us with humongous problems. We have livestock populations out of control, notably beaver, costing us thousands if not millions of dollars throughout rural Manitoba and the flooding damage that they are doing, and members on both sides of the House are aware of that. But that is a very real example of how an interest group can affect the situation that could well apply to this situation.

Mr. Farmer: Yes, you are exactly right, Mr. Enns. As I mentioned before, we have Mr. Rob Sinclair and the International Welfare Fund pouring thousands of dollars here into Manitoba to defend this bill. I was told, and it came from a Wildlife branch, there was a million dollars came into here to defend this, and there is another million dollars sitting out there to see that it goes through.

When I read the article in the Winnipeg Free Press by Rob Sinclair, it said if the Government reneges on their word on allowing the penned hunting, they have a big fight on their hands. That was reported in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Mr. Jack Penner: Just one very brief question. Are you suggesting that there might even be money filtering through to the NDP party organization by these organizations?

Mr. Farmer: No, by no means am I, but I know there is money coming into Manitoba to other organizations.

Mr. Cummings: Would you describe your understanding of a hunt preserve? Could you describe your understanding of a hunt preserve?

Mr. Farmer: In my opinion, a hunt preserve should probably be approximately 640 acres, and I would think one third of it should be treed. That, to me, is no different than a hunter having a licence from the Province of Manitoba and going out to capture an elk.

* (19:40)

Mr. Faurschou: I first off want to thank you for the time spent. I know how hard it is to get the hay this time of year and under the climates that we have been experiencing, and for you to dedicate the time for this is greatly appreciated.

The question I was going to ask is your definition of a large penned area, of which you have just responded to my colleague Mr. Cummings. I will just repeat my question presented earlier. Would you see any reason for Bill 5 proceeding, as far as it pertains to your industry? Is there any reason for Bill 5 if, in fact, penned hunting can be dealt with in another sector of legislation?

Mr. Farmer: No, the elk industry here in Manitoba is already controlled by the Department of Agriculture. It is also controlled by the Wildlife branch. In fact, 87.1 of The Wildlife Act will tell you they have the delegation of powers to the Minister of Agriculture on The Livestock Industry Diversi-fication Act.

Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to ask one question. In your presentation, you talk about there are four sources of income in the elk industry. You have the breeding stock, antlers, meat and hunt preserves. When the elk industry was getting started here in Manitoba and when we asked the questions, I was under the impression that the goal of the elk industry was for the antlers, for the meat market and for breeding stock. We were always told that hunt preserves were never part of the intention of the previous government when they were bringing elk ranching into this province.

Was it your impression when you got started in the elk industry in Manitoba that hunt preserves would be part of it at that time?

Mr. Farmer: Yes, it was. I felt that we would be able to get rid of some of the bulls when we were finished with them or culling our herds for genetic purposes. I really figured that we would be able to take some of these, because there were hunt preserves already operating here in Manitoba. I felt that well, fine, we can take these animals to there. I could take mine less than two hours from Stonewall to one that is operating now. I was not too concerned, but, yes.

At the same time, I must say that I was not involved in the Manitoba Elk Growers Association. It is a new endeavour for our family.

Madam Chairperson: Are there further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, Mr. Farmer.

I would call on Mr. Randy McRorie, private citizen. Mr. McRorie, do you have any copies you wish to circulate?

Mr. Randy McRorie (Private Citizen): No. These are just some notes.

Madam Chairperson: Fine. Proceed with your presentation.

Mr. McRorie: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. In early March, I visited Dauphin to attend an annual general meeting of the Elk Growers Association of Manitoba. My sole purpose in attending this meeting was to listen to Bob Carmichael. We all know who that is, Manitoba Conservation. He was to give a presentation on Bill 5, The Wildlife Amendment Act. From the outset of his presentation, Bob Carmichael attempted to distance himself from the Bill by claiming that he had no involvement in the preparation of the legislation. Nevertheless, it was his understanding that the Bill was only intended to address penned hunting.

Zeroing in on the issue of penned hunting, I asked Mr. Carmichael the following question: What was more humane, an animal being loaded into a truck on a trailer and hauled to a slaughter plant or being shot in the stress-free natural environment. Mr. Carmichael's answer was, without question, shooting the animal is far, far more humane. Bob Carmichael then advised the audience that Bill 5 had nothing to do with biology, logic, economics or what was more humane. It did, however, have everything to do with public perception, and I believe that is what this bill is all about.

It is comforting to know that our provincial government is prepared to interfere with citizens' ability to earn a legal and honest living just to address public perception. There is no doubt hunting in general is perceived negatively by the non-hunting public. People like Vicki Burns of the Humane Society and other animal rights activists and fanatics are responsible for the disbursement of misinformation. If she and her gang of fanatics are not targeting hunting, they are criticizing the hog, poultry and other livestock production industries in this province. My question to Doer, Lathlin, Wowchuk, and all the NDP party: Who did you get your facts from? Where did you go to gather the information on harvesting preserves? As we all know now: Why public perception? My family and I are stakeholders in this one-sided debate. Why my family and I are not asked to participate is beyond me. We are questioning it. We have a lot at stake here.

Education is the most important tool in the evolution of decision making. I have not once heard a response from Wowchuk, Lathlin, or Doer on numerous invitations to sit with me and be educated. Come visit my harvesting preserve. It took me six weeks to get a response from Wowchuk and Doer. A handful of words, that was what I received as a response. The response was: We have made a decision. Okay, if that is the case, you tell Manitobans how you make decisions and rulings without facts, the facts from both sides. Is this democracy or a dictatorship? Please let us know. We need to understand this now. You are going to make a decision on public perception, and you have not even been educated.

I have done my homework and researched all arguments for and against harvest preserves. I gained an education of disturbing facts. You are going to act on public perception. My fact-finding mission has revealed that the minority of lobbyist groups, which make up less than 3 percent of our voting population in this province, has the influence to persuade politicians to pass bills which cost all taxpayers in the pocketbook: lost revenue for the Province, expropriation of livestock, and the livelihoods of farmers. Have you even researched the losses and the millions that it is going to cost this government? Every last dollar I generate in this province benefits every single citizen of Manitoba. What do the lobbyists have to lose? Nothing. They have not invested their life, their dollars into this industry to benefit all Manitobans, have they?

Since when do animals have more rights than my children? They do not. Our children are the future of this province. We must assure them that our leaders of this province are going to stand behind them to encourage economic growth for their future. If it is a question of inhumanity, why has not one politician, civil servant, or lobbyist taken me up on my offer to educate and walk my harvest preserve? Not one. I have an open invitation to any and all visitors that would like to visit my harvest preserve, and sit down with me and discuss and be educated on this industry. Not one well-educated participant would partake, not even the Department of Conservation, the creators of this bill. Conservation has received an invitation. Response was, no time for fact-finding mission.

* (19:50)

Is it humane to have harvest preserves? Yes, it is. Wild boar will not come off my trailer at the slaughter plant. I physically have to go on that trailer and drag each and every one of them off that trailer individually because they hear and smell death in the air. Those are the facts. When I deliver wild boar to my harvest preserve, I hardly get the door open two inches on my trailer, and they storm the door and come out three abreast. They are released into nature. Within days they have explored every inch of the land several times, which provides a heavy advantage in the animal's favour.

At a slaughter plant, the sticker moves four wild boar into a five-by-five kill pen, or should we call it a penned hunt in a slaughter facility. Then he hops in with them. These wild animals cower down in that kill box. He reaches down, shackles one by the back leg. As he lifts it to the ceiling, he sticks a knife in its jugular. The blood gushes out of that animal. He spins around on a shackle, crying and bleeding to death. Is that humane? No, but it is acceptable, is it not? It is acceptable.

Now, look at this alternative. On a harvest preserve, the wild boar is roaming in a stress-free environment, not a worry or smell of death in the air. There is a guide that assists the client during the harvest of the animal. The guide also ensures that all conditions are ideal. Safety for the public, safety for the client, and to ensure that only quick and clean harvests of these animals take place. Ninety-nine percent of the time when an animal has been harvested, they are generally rutting, grazing, and swatting flies with their tail and have no stress of what the end result is, which is ultimately death for these animals that we raise. They are not here for a free ride. They have to pay their rent.

Animals have been harvested in this manner since the turn of time. You are going to let fanatics of this society play God with our livelihoods and our future. You tell me what is more humane, slaughter plant or harvest preserve.

I also hear hunting organizations calling it unethical. They have been invited. No takers. Nobody wants to sit and be educated. Nobody wants to walk the preserve. You need the same skills and physical conditioning as hunting in the wild. That is the hard facts. Come and join me.

How about ethics and the Winnipeg Humane Society? They kill animals at will with no recourse, no fear of losing their livelihood.

Madam Chairperson: One minute.

Mr. McRorie: They kill at will. No matter what they do, a death is a death, plain and simple.

Doer touts that we are a have-not province. Well, let us compete with our neighbouring province and allow Manitoba to prosper and be a competitive province. My family is proud to be Manitobans. Let us create jobs, economic growth, and tax dollars for this province. You the politicians and civil servants have been hired by me, as a taxpayer, to protect, assist and ensure my family a right to make an honest living and a humane living.

It is so much more humane to have harvest preserves than slaughter plants. Please take the time to become educated before you act on public perception. We deserve the same rights as activists and the opportunity as voters and revenue providers to this province to have our industry studied and the facts made public before a decision is made on this bill. You must take the time to be educated on harvest preserves in this industry. Education is the most important tool.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. McRorie. Questions?

Mr. Faurschou: I am disappointed the other committee members would not go along with us to give you leave to finish your presentation. I would like to ask you: Being that this is, in fact, your livelihood, and this legislation would pre-empt you and significant financial loss would be pending, have you had any correspondence or information provided to you as to the compensation that you would receive, should this legislation pass?

Mr. McRorie: No, I have not been approached by anybody. Like I have said earlier, I have invited Wowchuk, Lathlin and Doer and the whole NDP party to educate me so I know where it is going. And I will educate them on hunting or harvesting preserves. So, no, to answer your question. Left out in the dark.

Madam Chairperson: Further questions?

Mr. Faurschou: I might just say, Mr. McRorie, it is Minister Lathlin, Minister Wowchuk do the protocols. However, I would just like to ask you for your response. You have garnered no information at all in this regard? Because this is your livelihood that this legislation is dealing with. You have asked the questions and the responses have been not forthcoming, or what have the responses been?

Mr. McRorie: I have received no response. No response.

Mr. Cummings: To follow on the line of questioning on the Member for Portage (Mr. Faurschou), it would appear that you are on the verge of expropriation without compensation if your livelihood is to be eliminated. Have you sought any legal counsel or support in light of the fact that your organization or your operation could be at risk?

Mr. McRorie: Yes, yes.

Mr. Cummings: We have seen before where governments can create confusion by starting, stopping, and changing direction in the early days of the elk industry. There was considerable angst about whether or not the elk ranching should begin. Then it was stopped, and there was a lot of confusion, and a lot of expense both on the part of private and government. I would encourage you to, if we cannot get this bill amended or stopped, continue to stand your ground, because in this society no one should have his property or his living expropriated.

Mr. McRorie: Yes, I agree 100 percent, fully.

Mr. Jack Penner: Well, thank you very much, Mr. McRorie. If this legislation is, in fact, passed and the situation as some of you or some of the people that have presented here before, can you give us an indication of what you perceive the industry as a whole to be let us say a decade from now? Can you see any growth in the industry? Or do you see a deterioration of the growth? Where do you see the legislation or the industry going, if and when this legislation is passed?

Mr. McRorie: I can see a depleting future for the Manitoba farmer. I heard a report back. The NDP party visited Brandon to gather all the municipalities together to speak on the plight of the family farm. Let us save the family farm. Help family farm diversify. This is an opportunity for all different, especially livestock producers.

An Honourable Member: The Minister of Agriculture should be fighting for it.

Mr. McRorie: Exactly. Very much so. Very disappointed. Here is an opportunity for farmers that are struggling to diversify in more than one area such as Mr. Farmer said. There are four different areas of diversification just with his species.

Mr. Jack Penner: Very briefly. I had the opportunity to travel to Ukraine, which was formerly a country of Russia taken over by the Russians. Many of the stories that we heard there of the people that still remain there, some of our people still remain there, reflect very similar kinds of comments in that, first of all, they were given legislation and told do not worry about this. Then when the legislation was brought to bear, the true controls were brought in. I am wondering whether you see this kind of attempt being made here. There have been few comments made about the dictatorial aspect of this legislation, and I wonder how you see this.

Madam Chairperson: Order, please.

* (20:00)

Mr. McRorie: I agree with you 100 percent that this is just a dog-and-pony show and they are going to ram it down our throats. Then they are going to look at us and try to wonder why we cannot make it in rural communities when they are shrinking day by day. Let us give the rural community something to strive for, not take it away.

Mr. Faurschou: Mr. McRorie, you mentioned a game preserve. Can you give me a definition or does your association have a definition of what would be qualified as a preserve? We asked Mr. Farmer earlier. He designated his definition of a preserve. Could you do likewise?

Mr. McRorie: I believe size is not of importance. I believe the terrain, how rugged, how challenging it is, and at the utmost, in the animal's best interest and favour.

Mr. Faurschou: Your operation, as obviously none of us has visited there, do you have other people that are familiar with your preserve and could attest to and support your continued livelihood, that have first-hand knowledge of your operation?

Mr. McRorie: Yes, I do. The South East First Nations Tribal Council visited my harvesting preserve and gave me two letters of support suggesting that the harvesting preserve resembled and mirrored the image of what they do in the wild.

Mr. Faurschou: My understanding is that those who are familiar with your operation, such as our First Nations community here, which are stewards of the land and the wildlife thereof, are in support of your continued operation.

Mr. McRorie: Yes, the South East First Nations Tribal Council and other tribal councils in this province are supporting us wholeheartedly. There is a need for hunting, harvesting, shooting, whatever types of preserves you want to call them for specialty livestock

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you for your presentation. You had indicated that the size of the preserve to you did not matter, it was the terrain. Can you tell me what the size of your operation is?

Mr. McRorie: It is 160 acres of granite rock outcropping, swamps, ash swamps, willow swamps, few to no meadows, a total of maybe 10 acres of meadow throughout.

Ms. Wowchuk: Do you have elk on your operation or is it wild boar or is it both on your operation?

Mr. McRorie: It is wild boar, sika deer, fallow deer, and different varieties of rams. I have as well been approached by elk producers in this province, hoping that the support of harvesting preserves will take place because they need a place to move their culled bulls as well as the bison industry. I am very surprised. I have had a number of calls from the bison industry requesting that I have a look at purchasing their bulls that are no longer useful for breeding.

Madam Chairperson: One minute. Are there further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.

The next presenter is Lloyd Lintott from the Manitoba Wildlife Federation. Mr. Lintott, do you have copies you wish to circulate?

Mr. Lloyd Lintott (Manitoba Wildlife Federation): Yes, I do.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation.

Mr. Lintott: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, Madam Chairperson. My name is Lloyd Lintott. I am Vice-President of the Manitoba Wildlife Federation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Standing Committee for the chance to express the views of the Manitoba Wildlife Federation on the proposed legislation referred to as Bill 5, and specifically penned hunting.

Established in 1944, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation is the oldest and largest conservation organization in the province. At present, we represent 14 000 members in 110 affiliate clubs throughout the province. Our membership consists of anglers and hunters who strive for the wise use of our natural resources and, most importantly, the continuation of our rich hunting and fishing heritage. We understand that Bill 5 is a large and complex piece of legislation. Our purpose tonight is to give the views of our members in regards to the practice of penned hunting which we hope this legislation will effectively deal with.

The Manitoba Wildlife Federation has been opposed to the practice of penned hunting for several years. In fact, our long-term opposition to game ranching has been partially based on the fact that penned hunts have always been the next obvious step in the progression of the game ranching industry.

The majority of the members of the Manitoba Wildlife Federation believe that penned hunting has the ability to have a very negative effect on the true hunting heritage that we know and respect. To shoot a semi-domesticated animal in an enclosure and try to sell this as a hunting experience makes a mockery of the tradition of hunting.

In today's society, 8 to 10 percent of the population hunt; 8 to 10 percent are anti-hunters, and the remaining 80 percent to 85 percent are neither opposed to or are in favour of hunting. It is the undecided portion of the population who will ultimately decide the future of hunting as we know it. Unfortunately, the average undecided person will not differentiate between the time-honoured tradition of hunting wild free-roaming animals and the so-called practice of hunting semi-domesticated animals confined in escape-proof enclosures. We do not want legitimate hunters to be painted with the same brush.

Proponents of penned hunting use several arguments to justify their reasons in support of penned hunts. The membership of the MWF feels that these arguments are not justifiable. The game ranching industry would have us believe that what they offer in their so-called Cervid Hunting Preserve are ethical fair chase opportunities to harvest game.

How can shooting semi-domesticated animals in an escape-proof enclosure be considered ethical? It certainly cannot be considered fair chase. Regardless of the size of the enclosure–and economics will dictate that the enclosures would not be very big–any animal hunted has no chance to elude the shooter. If pens are large enough to include some heavy bush cover, it would only lengthen the time before the animal is tracked down and shot. It would in no offer security or escape. These animals could conceivably be pursued until the hunter is satisfied. There would be no consideration given to length of season, shooting seven days a week, et cetera. As long as the animal carries its trophy rack it would be considered shootable.

The game ranching industry sees this legislation as an attempt to restrict their economic prosperity. Should the economic gain of a few individuals be more important than the economic impact generated by the thousands of Manitobans who take to the field each year to enjoy to what to many of them has become an integral part of their lives, that being hunting?

In the past, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation has been accused of selling out to the anti-hunting movement because of our position on this. I assure you that nothing could be further from the truth. The anti-hunting movement's opposition to penned hunting is understandable. However, it is just a veiled attempt by those organizations to attack hunting as their mandates are clearly to eliminate all hunting, and this is just one more attempt to do.

The Wildlife Federation is opposed to penned hunting because of the detrimental impact that it will have on our traditional hunting heritage.

In closing, I would like to stress to you the passion that the majority of our members feel toward this issue. As hunters we are constantly bombarded by negative images which portray us as unethical slobs whose sole purpose is to shoot and kill animals. The harvesting of an animal is the culmination of, in most instances, weeks of preparation and hard work, not the easy quick fix that penned hunting would offer. Hunting is about the entire experience. More often than not, the hunter goes home empty-handed.

Hunting any species legally according to established fair chase principles is not easy, and it should not be. It requires fitness, alertness, and an understanding of the landscape and prey. By substituting that with an enclosure, and, in some cases, a guaranteed kill makes a mockery of hunting. Proponents of hunt farms claim that their killing farms offer just another form of hunting. They are wrong. What they offer behind the wire fence of their compounds has nothing to do with hunting. For a client to kill pen-raised domesticated animals is a travesty to the predatory process that hunting truly represents.

* (20:10)

The majority of the 14 000 members of the Manitoba Wildlife Federation are not willing to risk the future of their chosen recreational activity over the economic benefit to a handful of people who are motivated by money and who are trying to find ways to dispose of the leftovers from the game ranching industry.

It this legislation ultimately leads to a ban on the practice of penned hunting, you can be sure that the Manitoba Wildlife Federation would fully support such a position. Thank you for your time.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you, sir. Questions of the presenter.

Mr. Faurschou: Madam Chairperson, I would like to ask you, Mr. Lintott: Have you hunted on a recognized wildlife preserve?

Mr. Lintott: Personally, no, I have not.

Mr. Faurschou: So everything that you say in this document, then, is hearsay or perception and someone else's viewpoint, so therefore that is the extent of your presentation then.

Mr. Lintott: I would like to think that some of the opinions that we got and people that I have talked to were like-minded individuals like myself, had the same views on this as myself.

Mr. Faurschou: Madam Chairperson, therefore, what you are saying is that you talked to people, but can you tell this committee that your language here is derived from somebody that has first-hand knowledge of a preserve? Can you guarantee that to me?

Mr. Lintott: Yes, not necessarily in the jurisdiction of Manitoba, but I have talked to people who have used the services of hunting preserves in other provinces.

Mr. Faurschou: Therefore, you are basing your presentation on something of a hearsay based upon another jurisdiction and telling of that experience, and that is how we are to be understanding of your position. Therefore, there is nothing in this presentation that pertains to Manitoba.

Mr. Lintott: I believe that I am representing the opinions of the majority of our 14 000 members.

Mr. Faurschou: I am a little bit behooved here to understand, then, about the presentation. You state that a preserve makes a mockery of hunting, and yet you have absolutely no premise to make that statement. So we will disregard everything that you have stated here, then, the reserves, that gives an opinion on a preserve, and that is what I appreciate.

Now, currently you say you have 14 000 members here in the province. That is current paid-up membership?

Mr. Lintott: Yes, it is.

Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairman, prior to the introduction of this legislation, as you have heard tonight, there have been operations including wild boars that were not listed under The Wildlife Act. Did the Federation take a position on some of those other species?

Mr. Lintott: I can only answer that by saying that a lot of that happened previous to my being involved with the Federation, so I would not want to speak for past presidents or vice-presidents of our organization at the time.

Mr. Cummings: This is not a hostile question, but my point is that we have had this activity regulated under The Wildlife Act where it referenced species that were included under The Wildlife Act. Some were not, and I wondered if there was any discussion recently with the Wildlife Federation about that situation.

Mr. Lintott: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Struthers: Thank you, Mr. Lintott, for your presentation. I would like to know, just to follow up on the questioning of the Member for Portage (Mr. Faurschou), Mr. Lintott, have you ever given birth to a child?

Mr. Lintott: No, I have not.

Mr. Struthers: Is it your opinion that that is painful?

Mr. Lintott: I would imagine, extremely.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Lintott, given the questioning of the Member for Portage, how would you know? Would it be through hearsay and second-hand information? Are you pretty sure that it would be painful?

Mr. Lintott: I would suspect, yes, from my wife screaming in my ears, that that would be hearsay and that that was be a pretty good indicator.

Mr. Struthers: But is that not hearsay and should we just disregard that kind of information? I am not saying to base public policy totally on hearsay and rumours and innuendo, like what happened here in the last 11 years, but, Mr. Lintott, is it not an unfair comment for members of this committee just to take your organization's viewpoints and throw them out the window like was just done by the Member for Portage? Would you not think that is a little unfair?

Mr. Lintott: I certainly think it is, and I would hope that that would not be the case.

Mr. Struthers: Could you, Mr. Lintott, maybe educate the Member for Portage (Mr. Faurschou) and anyone else in this room who thinks that they should simply disregard out-of-hand any organizations, any democratically elected person representing a Manitoba organization, whether it be the Manitoba Wildlife Federation or the Elk Growers or the Bison Association or the Progressive Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party?

I do not care what organization we talk about, should anyone simply dismiss out-of-hand the opinions, the surveys, the research that had been done, and could you maybe indicate for us how you went about getting the information that you presented to us tonight in committee?

Mr. Lintott: Well, I would hope that the effort that I put into this presentation is not going to be just discarded because some members of the Committee may not feel that it is along their lines of thinking. I can tell you that I spent a great deal of time on this whole issue; the whole federation has in the past year to 18 months.

It has been a topic of discussion at most of our general meetings over the past year where our membership has had an opportunity to voice their concerns on that very issue. I have spent countless hours on phone calls to different jurisdictions across Canada trying to get in touch with people who are experiencing or have experienced the same things that are happening here in Manitoba now.

So I would hope they would see this as being more than just hearsay and take it for the spirit that it is given in.

Mr. Faurschou: Madam Chairperson, I did not want to get into a debate about hearsay or whatever, insofar as you just said you had personal experience and know that it is painful to have a birth because you were there. I want to then bring you back to the traditional hunting heritage. Would you not say that the Aboriginal community within this province understands traditional hunting heritage?

Mr. Lintott: Certainly they do.

Mr. Faurschou: Thanks for the response. Therefore I will read into the record the Brokenhead Ojibwa Nation and their specific understanding of the preserve to which the gentleman has just made a presentation, that, in fact, the space of land will ensure hunting environment that is similar to any hunting existing in this province today.

So, therefore, I give you the opportunity to comment in regard to the First Nations' understanding of a preserve here in this province as it exists to Mr. McRorie's.

Mr. Lintott: I guess I can say that I do not know how many people those individuals are speaking for. I am giving the opinion of the majority of our 14 000 members. I hope that carries some weight.

Mr. Faurschou: I want to say that one of those memberships is probably my own, as I have been a member of the Canadian Wildlife Federation for so many years I cannot remember. So when you state that you are, in fact, representing all of that membership, I would like to say that–[interjection]

Madam Chairperson: One minute, Mr. Lintott.

* (20:20)

Mr. Lintott: I would just like to say not one time did I say I was representing all of our membership. Several times I said the majority of our membership. As with all democratic organizations, there are going to be people with differing viewpoints. At no time did I say I represented the viewpoints of all of our members.

Madam Chairperson: Did the Minister have her hand up earlier? Minister of Agriculture, then I have Mr. Penner, Emerson, and then Mr. Cummings.

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I appreciate the work that you have put into this presentation and the fact that you are speaking on behalf of many Manitobans.

I guess the point that I find very interesting, and one that I am glad you have pointed out is the fact that, when you put domestic animals into pens, no matter what size they are, those animals are domesticated and are not the same as wild animals. You have said you have talked to many people or have heard from people who have had experiences hunting on game farms. I would ask what their comments were with respect to those animals that had been moved from a game farm onto a preserve, and indeed what the similarities were to the wild hunt versus a semi-domesticated animal that had been moved into a preserve.

Madam Chairperson: Very briefly, please, Mr. Lintott.

Mr. Lintott: Just briefly, one comment comes to mind. I was talking to an individual in the States as a matter of fact. He was saying it was like going out into your barnyard and shooting your milk cow. It had nothing to do with hunting, and he was totally disgusted with the whole process, after it had been advertised and marketed as being a hunt.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Lintott, for your presentation.

I call on Graham Wyatt, private citizen? Mr. Wyatt? Fine. I will put his name then at the end of the list. He is here? Mr. Wyatt, do you have copies you would like to circulate?

Mr. Graham Wyatt (Private Citizen): Yes.

An Honourable Member: Out-of-towners first.

Madam Chairperson: I have a revised list, committee members, in terms of who is here and not here as of six-thirty. We also have sorted the list, of course, for out-of-town first. So, thank you. Mr. Wyatt is circulating copies. Please proceed.

Mr. Wyatt: Thank you. I am here today as a concerned citizen of Manitoba, but also as an owner and breeder of lizards as well as Asian parrots, some of which are the only ones in the province. No other person owns some of the birds that I do.

My objection to Bill 5 is that the wording is too broad and that it does not define what it is intended to do. For example, it does not even mention penned hunting. I also do not see what sperm or body parts have to do with penned hunting. If this bill is to stop penned hunting, then I would like to see the words "exotic animals" removed. I would like to see an exemption to be put in to exclude animals and birds that are commonly kept as pets, and that a grandfather clause be put in place for the existing animals that are already here.

I have heard it said by the Honourable Oscar Lathlin, the Minister responsible for this bill, that the intent of this government is to stop penned hunting. But what is to stop some future government from interpreting the Bill totally different? This bill is not needed. There is legislation already in place that covers the issue at hand. Yours truly, Graham Wyatt. Thank you.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Do the members of the Committee have questions?

Mr. Jack Penner: First of all, a comment to the previous presenter of The Wildlife Federation. I have listened with interest to your comments. I want to congratulate you on not having changed your position during the last 12 years that I have had an involvement with the federation previously as a Minister of Natural Resources, and I know what your position was–

Madam Chairperson: A point of order.

Mr. Struthers: Madam Chairperson, I think it is inherently unfair for the Member for Emerson (Mr. Jack Penner) to direct comments to people who do not have a way of defending themselves. We decided on the parameters, whether the Member likes the parameters or not, of 10 minutes for presentations and 10 minutes for questions, and that we would stick to that. I think it is absolutely unfair of the Member to comment to somebody who has no way of defending themselves or responding to the Member. I think that is inherently unfair.

Madam Chairperson: On the point of order, Mr. Penner, Emerson.

Mr. Jack Penner: On the same point of order. If the Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) would have just had a bit of patience, he would have heard me compliment the Wildlife Federation for the position that they are taking. Because it has not deviated from the position they had 12 years ago. I commend any organization for putting forward a position protecting its members' interests. I think that is what he was doing, and I commend the president of the Wildlife Federation for that.

I find it very interesting that the Honourable Member for Dauphin is so emotional about this issue.

Secondly, I also commend the Member that has just made a presentation, Mr. Wyatt.

Madam Chairperson: On the point of order, I would like to encourage all committee members to direct their questions to the presenter who is at the podium at the time.

Madam Chairperson: Further, then on questions to this presenter. Questions? Mr. Penner, Emerson.

Mr. Jack Penner: A question to Mr. Wyatt. In discussing this bill a couple of weeks ago with probably the largest franchiser of pet sales stores who has their head office in the city of Winnipeg, he indicated to me that if this bill proceeded, they might as well, and I quote, "shut down all their operation in the Province of Manitoba." Because he did not believe that they would be able to continue the sale and marketing of many of the so-called exotic species that they sold and which was a large part of their market.

Can you tell me what changes you would see that could make this act more amenable to your industry and your breeding operation?

Mr. Wyatt: What I would like to see, if this is the intent of this bill, is to see some exclusion put in there that would exclude pet animals, whether it be a parrot, a lizard, a rabbit or a mouse or whatever it is. It needs to be put in there to be excluded from that.

Also, there are thousands and thousands of pets in this province already, but there is no provision given in here for a grandfather clause that would see those animals kept as pets. If this bill goes through, there is nothing to say that anybody could come along and say we are confiscating those animals. If they do that, another question comes up: Where do these animals go? Who looks after these animals? What happens to these animals? None of this is addressed.

Madam Chairperson: Further questions?

Mr. Jack Penner: Thank you, Mr. Wyatt. Do you see another way of dealing with this whole matter of penned hunting? If so, how would you prescribe that the Minister might, in fact, regulate or control or for that matter eliminate penned hunting?

Mr. Wyatt: If that is the intent, well, then, put that in the legislation. There is no need for the legislation as it is now. The provision is already there, and if they want to control penned hunting, well, then, specifically say that.

Mr. Jack Penner: In other words, you are suggesting that they could have drafted a penned hunting bill.

Mr. Wyatt: Exactly.

Madam Chairperson: Questions from committee members. Are there further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much, Mr. Wyatt.

Mr. Wyatt: Thank you for your time.

Madam Chairperson: I would like to call on Jan Lapka, private citizen. Jan Lapka. The name then will go to the bottom of the list.

Presenter Edwin Harms, the Manitoba Elk Growers Association. Mr. Harms, do you have copies of your presentation that you would like to circulate?

* (20:30)

Mr. Edwin Harms (Manitoba Elk Growers Association): Yes, I do.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed then with your presentation.

Mr. Harms: Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. Committee members, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Edwin Harms. I am the President of the Manitoba Elk Growers Association. Our association has approximately 15 members. There are 91 farms, as was stated before. I believe we, as an organization, represent about 80 percent of the elk producers in this province, being that the Natives have their own wapiti and bison council and are not members of our association. A lot of the producers in the province are father-son operations or brother operations, have more than one licence per farm, and that is why our number is where it is.

First of all, I found it very difficult preparing for this presentation because of the responses I got from the Premier (Mr. Doer) and from the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) when I asked them why they were supporting implementing Bill 5. Both said it was because it had been election promises. In trying to find out more about the reasons, they both had the same response about how the Conservatives had made the same promise. This promise that both you people have made was directly for getting votes to get re-elected. That is all it was. There was no reason, other than to get votes.

To argue the pros and cons on this issue, you need to know about more than it is an election promise, so I am going to try to give you our side of what we would like to see happen. First of all, farmed elk in this province should not be regulated in any form under the department of natural resources. This department has made it very clear that they are totally opposed to elk farming in Manitoba, and we, which is MEGA, feel that they should not regulate our industry.

The elk industry is regulated under Agriculture by The LIDA Act, and we feel we want to stay totally under Agriculture. MEGA feels that we do not want to be included in Bill 5 in any way.

If the Committee feels that Bill 5 has to be implemented, we would request that farm elk not be included. We are not supportive of Bill 5 and would ask that it be tabled and a closer view be done before any ban be placed on the harvesting of farmed elk.

To address the terms around penned hunting I would first like to say that we are opposed to penned hunting. I am a farm person. I have been on the farm all my life. When I hear someone talking about a pen, it is a small enclosure. A pen. It is not a big acreage. When you are talking penned hunting, like the wild boar person talked about, how they put them in a small enclosure and kill them. Other terms have been used like "canned hunting." These terms refer to shooting fish in a barrel. Putting an animal in a pen and shooting it is not a hunt; it is a slaughter.

These two terms are being used to describe what we are asking for, and this is not right. Putting an animal in a baseball-sized enclosure and having someone shoot it is like a slaughter, like I said before. What is wrong with this issue is that it stirs up strong emotions in some people. They say that the animal has not a chance to escape, and there is no challenge for the hunter.

Let us look at these two arguments. This animal, in the case of an elk, is an animal that is either an old velveting bull that is 10 years or older and is too old for the prime meat market, or a bull that is unmanageable on a velvet farm, too dangerous to handle, a problem animal. This animal is taken to slaughter, like some people would suggest we do with them. What chance does it have? Is it going to hide and escape? Has the animal any chance of hiding and living for another day? No. This animal is going to die. It is a cruel reality, but nevertheless, the reality of all the animals on this planet, as we will all die one way or another.

Animals are slaughtered. They are put down. Put to sleep everyday. The reality in farming is we produce a product that has a life span, and at the end of that it has to be harvested. On the issue of a hunter not having a challenge, if the right terrain is used and large enough, the challenge can be far greater than a hunt in the wild. I know. I have hunted elk around Riding National Park. There is no fence. The challenge is to wait and hope that the elk does not go back into the park before legal shooting time in the morning, or I would just like to add, if the game wardens are around to chase them back in before the hunter has a chance to shoot them.

The challenge is to wait beside a trail and shoot the animal as it walks beside you. The fence should be seen as a protection for the wildlife outside the preserve rather than an entrapment for the elk inside. If the Wildlife Association would look at this from a little different point of view, they would see that it is the protection. We also want to protect the wildlife in this province. We do not want to infringe on the wild hunt in any shape or form.

A properly run hunt preserve can have a lot more than just an opportunity to harvest elk. The resort styles of the lodges in the U.S. have trout fishing, snowmobile riding, hiking, cross-country skiing. They offer the hunter a challenge to bring his or her family, the whole family, along to enjoy the outdoors. Not only do they put more money into the pockets of the elk farmer, but they also would add tourism dollars to the province. It would add to the employment of outfitters and guides and bring new money into the province. One thousand elk bulls three years and younger if slaughtered for wapiti meat would return about $1.5 million for the Manitoba producers. These same elk bulls harvested at 10 years or older on a Cervid Harvest Preserve would return more than $4 million to that producer. The Saskatchewan operations took over $5 million in direct revenue in '99 for their first year of operation, and the Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture estimated that that turned around and brought in $14 million in additional revenue to their province.

The bulls in Manitoba are not going to die of old age in this province. They will be shipped to the U.S. or to Saskatchewan to be harvested, and they will benefit from the income spinoff that we will lose in this province. Many people have mixed emotions, like John Willmott who is the President of the Regina Humane Society, and I quote from an article written by Ed White in the Western Producer: "I am a farmer to begin with, so I see both sides of the equation. The Humane Society official policy opposes farmed hunting because captive hunts rob animals of their inherent honour, dignity and respect."

Willmott does not entirely agree with the Society's description of inherent characteristics and is also wrestling with the ethics of farmed hunts. He instinctively recoils at the idea of captive hunts being shot for entertainment but wonders if that is a good enough reason to legally ban the practice.

If I go out there and start picking off gophers, is this any different, he wondered on a recent day when his dogs were off hunting local ground squirrels. Willmott believes farmed hunts can be ethically allowed but only if they are subject to strict rules, regulations and the practice of codes.

Attached is an article by Pete Crow of the Tracker magazine who talks about the move from cattle-raising into the area of harvesting of white-tailed deer and how lucrative this kind of industry is. This is in Texas, and the need for better returns per acre is made very obvious.

* (20:40)

Madam Chairperson: One minute.

Mr. Harms: Agriculture in Manitoba is no different than in Texas. We also need to make money to stay farming. Harvesting farm animals is a very emotional issue with hunters and urban people. We must not allow the emotions to cloud our judgment and to make a realistic view of the new diversification in agriculture.

In closing, MEGA does not support Bill 5 and would ask that it be tabled, but if not, ensure that farmed elk are not included in this bill. Attached is the article from Pete Crow. I guess you can read that at your leisure, seeing my time is up.

But I would just like to add that the Minister did state that the animals were domestic, and I was wondering why we are being included in natural resources if you were referring to those animals being put in a pen as domestic.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you, sir. The Committee open for questions.

Mr. Enns: Thank you very much, Mr. Harms, for your presentation. Could you indicate to the Committee whether you, yourself, or perhaps other members of your association have made themselves directly informed about the Saskatchewan hunt farm? Are you aware if any of your members visited the farm or had specific discussions with the managers of the Saskatchewan farm?

Mr. Harms: Not with Saskatchewan, but I have direct contact with some of the people who have hunt reserves in North Dakota, and I have spoken to them.

Mr. Enns: I think, Madam Chair, for those who carry the illusion that somehow by passing this bill we will somehow stop some animals from being killed, simply is not the case. First of all, all animals die, as we all die. Secondly, I think the point that you make very clear is that your colleagues in the industry will ship and cull animals out, as good animal husbandry will call for from time to time, and they will, along with the economic benefits, go to other jurisdictions other than Manitoba. They will be moved on to hunt farms out of Manitoba. Is that your position, Mr. Harms?

Mr. Harms: There are people outside this province wishing behind our backs that this be imposed, so that they can come in here, buy our bulls and take them into their province, or stay and have them harvested there. They will make the money, and we will lose. We will be 10 years behind like we were starting with the elk farming. Why can we not be aggressive once and be the first ones in line, not always the last ones?

Mr. Enns: This may not be a fair question to ask to the presenter, but could it be, Madam Chair, the New Democratic Party Government in Manitoba is passing this bill to help out the struggling New Democratic Party Government in Saskatchewan, to do them a favour, to help their economy? Is this somebody scratching somebody else's back? One New Democratic Party government scratching another New Democratic Party government? I really do not think that the Minister is doing this, but it leads to that conjecture.

Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): The question that I have relates to the figures that you gave for the size of the industry in Saskatchewan. What are the projections for the industry in Saskatchewan, and what would be your estimate if the farmed and hunting, ranching of elk were to occur in Manitoba as to the size of the industry 5 to 10 years from now?

Mr. Harms: From 10 years from now? If you look at Saskatchewan, they have quite a large base to draw their animals from. I am not exactly sure how many farms. There are in the neighbourhood of over 400 farms.

We only have 90. So, we are going to grow at a tremendous pace if we can be allowed to do that. I would think $50 million should be very achievable in the producers' pockets in a couple of years. If they did $5 million in 14 farms in the first year of operation, they are estimating from the Canadian Venison Council, Ian Thorlason [phonetic] estimates that they will double that this year and be at $10 million if they can find the bulls.

Mr. Gerrard: One of the points that you raised had to do with what a pen is. One of the problems I have with the Act as it is put together at the moment is that the word "pen" is not there, let alone being properly defined. There is reference to a shooting preserve which could be anything.

If you were to put in an act which banned penned hunting, as you define it which I think is appropriate as small enclosures, how would you define a pen as separate from what you are trying to develop which is an elk ranch?

Mr. Harms: Okay, a pen would be like a baseball-sized enclosure, a couple of hundred feet by a couple of hundred feet. As our association put out in our newsletter, we would recommend that a hunt preserve be no less than 320 acres, which is a half a mile by a mile and be at least 30 percent to 40 percent with trees so that there would be a sufficient amount of ground cover for that animal to escape and to elude the hunter.

I mean, these people are coming in here paying a lot of money for the hunting experience. No one else can come into this province, no one. The only people that can hunt elk in this province are Manitoba residents. We are not trying to infringe on their hunting at all. We are trying to open up a whole new industry here which could bring all kinds of money from different places. We are not looking for the people in downtown Winnipeg to come and hunt in our reserve. We are looking at the Americans, the Europeans, the Asians.

I mean, Walt Disney has made a terrific amount of money on entertainment. As farmers, we have to look at other ways of generating money, and entertainment seems to be one of the big things to do.

Mr. Gerrard: Another question I have relates to the quality of the land that would be used for the elk ranching. In many cases, my assumption would be that it would be relatively marginal in terms of traditional agricultural practices and therefore would provide a form of agriculture in an area which has not been all that valuable in terms of grain farming and so on. Can you comment?

Mr. Harms: Well, if you read that article that I have on the back of my presentation, they talk exactly about that, how the land that they are using to hunt their white-tailed deer is very, very marginal land and is very unproductive for cattle. They are able to make a considerable amount of money on the hunting aspect of managing those wild animals with no fences around them.

Madam Chairperson: Further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much.

Mr. Harms: Well, thank you very much for this opportunity.

Madam Chairperson: I would call on Dunstan Browne of the Avicultural Advancement Council of Canada. Mr. Browne, do you have copies for the Committee?

Mr. Dunstan Browne (President, Avicultural Advancement Council of Canada): Yes, I do, Madam Chair.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation.

* (20:50)

Mr. Browne: Madam Chair, let me introduce myself. I am a lawyer from British Columbia. I think I am probably the only outsider who will address you this evening, so you might regard my comments as somewhat objective. I am President of the Avicultural Advancement Council of Canada, and I am a non-governmental organization representative to the CITES, Conference on the International Trade in Endangered Species. I have in that capacity attended two conferences of the United Nations organization. I am chair of the CITES committee of the AACC. Together with Mr. Holoboff and Mr. Rason, we represent Canadian aviculture.

Aviculture, for those of you who do not know, is the breeding of birds in captivity.

Let me congratulate you, first of all, for this forum. We do not have that in British Columbia, and I think that is a great pity. But at the same time let me say I am sorry that you have restricted the times for presentation. This is serious business.

I have, what looks like I would have said, walked into but in view of my qualifications, flown into a local fight over pens. I cannot offer you any bloody, gory stories of how we take our birds to the abattoir, because we do not. What we have is a whole number of people, ranging from the lady or the little person who has a budgie that talks, to the supplier of the pet industry, which has always found Manitoba as a very, very good position to distribute many of their goods.

Unfortunately, Chris Holoboff, who is our counsel on this matter for the AACC, could not make it on the short notice, so I am going to talk to his paper this evening.

First of all, though, can I just for reference purposes refer you backwards to the cover of what is called The Avicultural Journal. There are four pages in there. The first is just the cover with the beautiful picture, but you cannot see it because it is black and white and I did not have time to bring you colour. The second shows you, if I am not mistaken, the affiliated clubs. We have 35, I think it is now 36, even since that was printed, affiliated clubs in Canada. They range from anything from 20 to 200 members. We have many, many private members of the AACC, I would say the majority of whom come from Manitoba because Manitoba is an area where the breeding of parrots, in particular that species is very, very prominent. So, I am representing here this evening between 3000 and 5000 aviculturists in Canada. We have international affiliations, particularly in the United Kingdom, and the United States, Australia, South Africa and most of the European countries.

The second part of the third page will show you the contents, details and information where, if you are interested, you can find on our Web site, far more information than I am able to give you this evening and I will leave that there for your information. Page 4, of course, has a picture of me and I would hate to leave Manitoba without at least leaving you some memory of me because, when I leave I am sure you will not remember who I was this evening.

Floor Comment: A fine picture.

Mr. Browne: Thank you. Let me take you then to the second part of the presentation. The first is a letter from Chris Holoboff to you when he thought that he could not come and I could not come. I could only come because I had an arbitration cancelled and it allowed me the time to be here to speak with you. Chris is the vice-president, a director, and legal counsel for the AACC. He also was very prominent in our fight against the Toronto by-law which was proposed last year which was very similar, quite frankly, the wording is almost identical to what you are putting forward in your Bill 5.

It came about because Toronto was being consolidated into a megacity and so it meant they had to take into account 12 or 13 sets of by-laws. Then suddenly, although they were not incorporated in any of those by-laws, but they were very hardly pushed by the Humane Society, we found this sort of wording coming in to by-law legislation. We were faced with a huge onslaught. Our budget probably will come out at about $6,000 or $7,000 for a year to run our affairs. We were faced with full paper ads in Toronto at $35,000 a pop, and we did not have the ability to counter that. However, we spoke to the city councillors. They listened to us and they declined that piece of legislation, and I am hoping I can repeat that here this evening.

I will have to talk to you first as a lawyer and then as a politician. Let me read to you from page 2 of Chris Holoboff's letter, second paragraph: I have reviewed the proposed amendments to The Wildlife Act and I agree entirely with what he says, and I have identified a number of serious problems with it and their effect on the keeping, breeding and studying of all birds in Manitoba. It has been said that they deal only with penned hunting of animals and private shooting preserves or wildlife farms. After a careful review I, and that is including me, can say that they have almost nothing to do with penned hunting and have everything to do with banning of so-called exotic birds and other animals in Manitoba.

The current Wildlife Act deals with hunting and trapping of native wild animals. The proposed amendments would make it illegal not only to hunt but also to own and possess almost all animals. The amendments introduced a definition for exotic wildlife which is so broad that it includes birds and animals that have nothing to do with penned hunting. By defining exotic wildlife as wild by nature, it effectively includes many pet companion birds such as parrots, budgies, lovebirds, cockatoos, macaws–and I can go on with a whole lot of the rest of the list–which have been domestically bred in Canada and which have been owned for many years, some of them 400 years out of the wild.

Most birds would be considered wild by nature. The Act would prohibit the possession of these birds