LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Monday, September 13, 2004
TIME – 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION –
CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Marilyn
Brick (St. Norbert)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr.
Gregory Dewar (Selkirk)
ATTENDANCE - 11 – QUORUM -
6
Members of the Committee present:
Hon. Messrs. Ashton, Bjornson, Struthers, Hon. Ms. Wowchuk
Ms. Brick, Messrs. Cummings, Dewar, Eichler, Faurschou, Schuler, Swan
APPEARING:
Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for
WITNESSES:
Mr. Bryan Ferriss, Vice-Chairman,
Mr. Peter Mah, Director, Community Relations and Sustainable
Development,
Mr. Ian Wishart, Vice-President, Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc.
Mr. Stuart Briese, President, Association of Manitoba Municipalities
Mr. Greg Bruce,
Ms. Betty Green, President,
Mr. Jim Stinson, Private Citizen
Mr. Jonathan Scarth, Executive Vice-President, Delta Waterfowl
Mr. Allen Tyrchniewicz, Prairie Habitat Joint Venture
Mr. Robert Rodgers, Chairman, Manitoba Conservation Districts Association
Ms.
Mr. John Holland, Reeve, Rural
Mr. Dan Benoit, Natural Resources Co-ordinator, Manitoba Métis Federation
Mr. Gord Steeves, Councillor, City of
Mr. Glen Koroluk, Private Citizen
Ms. Elizabeth Fleming, Provincial Council of Women of
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Mr. Ted Ross, President, Roseisle Creek Watershed Association
MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION:
Bill 22–The Water Protection Act
* * *
Madam Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Social and Economic Development please come to order.
The first order of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Madam Chairperson, I nominate the very capable MLA for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar).
Madam Chairperson: Mr. Dewar has been nominated. Are there any further nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Dewar is elected Vice-Chairperson.
This evening the committee will be considering Bill 22, The Water Protection Act.
We do have presenters registered to speak to this bill. It is the custom to hear public presentations before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the committee to hear public presentations on this bill? [Agreed]
I will then read the names of the persons who have registered to make presentations this evening: Brian Ferris and Peter Mah from the Manitoba Pork Council; Ian Wishart from the Keystone Agricultural Producers; Stuart Briese, Association of Manitoba Municipalities; Greg Bruce, Ducks Unlimited Canada; Betty Green, President, Manitoba Cattle Producers Association; Jim Stinson, private citizen; Councillor Gord Steeves from the City of Winnipeg; Jonathan Scarth from Delta Waterfowl; Glen Koroluk, private citizen; Allen Tyrchniewicz, Prairie Habitat and Joint Venture; Robert Rodgers, Manitoba Conservation Districts Association; Gaile Whelan-Enns, Manitoba Wildlands; Reeve John Holland, R.M. of Springfield; Dan Benoit, Manitoba Métis Federation.
Those are the persons and organizations that have registered so far. Is there anyone else in the audience who would like to register or has not yet registered and would like to make a presentation? Would you please register at the back of the room.
Just a reminder that 20 copies of your presentation are required. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see the clerk of this committee.
I understand that we have some out-of-town presenters in attendance this evening. These names are marked with an asterisk on the presenters' list. Is it the will of the committee to hear from out-of-town presenters first? [Agreed]
I would also like to inform the committee that a written submission has been received from Mr. Ted Ross, Roseisle Creek Watershed Association. Copies of this brief have been made for committee members and were distributed at the start of the meeting. Does the committee grant its consent to have this written submission appear in committee transcripts for this meeting? [Agreed]
I would like to inform presenters that in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations and 5 minutes for questions from committee members. As well, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance, their name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, their name will be removed from the presenters' list.
I would like to advise all in attendance that, in accordance with our rules, if there are fewer than 20 persons registered to speak at 6:30 p.m the committee may sit past midnight. I would like to advise also that as of 6:30 p.m. there were 14 persons registered to speak. Therefore, this committee may sit past midnight.
* (18:40)
Just prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would just like to advise members of the public of the process when it comes time for questions from committee members on your presentation. The proceedings of our committee meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be a member of the committee or a presenter, I have to first say the MLA's or presenter's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn your mike on and off.
I would just like to advise the committee that the first person on the list, No. 1, is also from out of town.
Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations.
Mr.
David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Madam Chairperson, I was wondering, in consideration of the timing of
presentations, are you looking to committee for guidance as to imposing a
suggested time limit for each presenter, and then, also, with that time, for
potentially having the option of the committee to extend a time limit for the
presentation?
Madam
Chairperson: It is now the
rule of the committee that we have the time line of 10 minutes and 5 minutes.
What we have done in the past, if the presentation the presenter makes it
shorter, we have allowed questions to go longer.
Is
that the will of the committee? [Agreed]
Seeing no other questions, I would like to proceed with public
presentations. Our first presenters are Bryan Ferriss and Peter Mah from the
Manitoba Pork Council.
Mr.
Bryan Ferriss (Vice-Chairman,
For
the record, my name is Bryan Ferriss, Vice-Chair of the Manitoba Pork Council,
and I am accompanied by Peter Mah, our Director of Community Relations and Sustainable
Development.
We
are here tonight on behalf of our board of directors, and we sincerely thank
you for the opportunity to present our comments and recommendations to you on
Bill 22, proposing the adoption of The Water Protection Act.
First
of all, let me tell you a little bit about who we are and what we do. The
Manitoba Pork Council is a non-profit organization representing over 1400 hog
producers in
We
are very proud that the
We
recognize, however, that for every human endeavour, whether it be the
development of our urban centres and rural communities, transportation and
municipal services, industrial activity, power generation, resource harvesting,
general or intensive agriculture, or recreational pursuits, they all can have
some negative impact on our environment. We recognize this and we, as an
industry, are doing our part to lessen our environmental footprint. But, quite
frankly, we are disturbed by often-heard arguments and innuendo by industry
detractors that attempt to single out the hog industry as a harbinger of all
that is evil.
On
the contrary, our member hog producers work hard to produce safe quality pork
for Manitobans and world markets in an environmentally sustainable manner. We
take our industry's responsibility for wise stewardship of air, soil and water
resources very, very seriously. In fact, so much so, that as an organization funded
100 percent by producer levies we have invested over $5.4 million since 1999
toward independent environmental and production research to organizations,
such as the Department of Animal Science at the University of Manitoba, the
Prairie Swine Centre in Elstow, Saskatchewan, the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium and the Manitoba Livestock
Manure Management Initiative.
In fact, the Manitoba Pork Council, as a note, has been the only livestock commodity group contributing funding to support the manure management initiative since its inception in 1998.
In fact, this year alone,
at a time when our industry is facing uncertain U.S. trade challenges and have
ourselves self-imposed additional trade defence levies on Manitoba pork
producers to raise upwards of $6 million to fight the countervail and
anti-dumping battle, we are still spending nearly half a million dollars ($400,000) in 2004 towards independent
environmental research and tech transfer efforts to advance the environmental
stewardship of our industry.
Some recent examples of water-related research studies that we have and are supporting include: ingredient processing and enzyme supplementation for minimizing nutrient excretion and manure volume; effects of drinker height and water flow and water usage in grower and finisher hogs; innovative design for manure storage facilities; measurement and simulation of nitrate, phosphate and carbon leaching from manure and fertilizer; nutrient model for setting phosphorous application limits–we are currently in Year 2 validation; phosphorous study on the role and fate of phosphorous in livestock and crop production systems; regional nutrient balances study of nitrogen and phosphorous to assess inputs of both organic and inorganic fertilizers to determine potential leakage to the environment; best management practices to improve environmental sustainability and productivity of grassland systems using hog manure; efficiency of buffer strips in the Manitoba landscape as a best management practice; and support to the Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium survey of Lake Winnipeg's physical, chemical and biological processes and condition in years 2002, 2003 and 2004.
As I said before, as an industry, we are very serious and committed to protecting our province's precious water and soil resources. We believe that we already are doing our part in terms of advancing research and technology transfer and raising producer awareness of environmental stewardship best management practices. We also deliver our Peer Advisors program to foster more harmonious neighbour relations and to better ensure producers' compliance with rules and regulations that apply to our industry. In other words, we believe that if we talk the talk, we had better walk the walk, and we believe we do that. We pledge to continue our efforts.
We wish to emphasize again that, with respect to protecting our water resources and because we collectively all have an impact on water, we must all be partners in the solution. It is within this aforementioned background and perspective that I will now address Bill 22.
The Manitoba Pork Council
supports the
We do acknowledge the
Province's past release of
The proposed adoption of Bill 22 is a new initiative designed to protect water at source. As we understand it, Bill 22 is essentially framework legislation. It proposes, among other things, to enshrine current provincial water quality policies, objectives and guidelines into regulatory standards. It will also enable adoption of detailed provincial regulations, local watershed management plans and provincial designation of water quality management zones to regulate levels of nutrients from all sources in future.
* (18:50)
We are pleased to see in this last point that nutrients from all sources, whether from our cities and towns, industries, agriculture or cottaging, will be regulated. For the record, Manitoba Pork Council supports Bill 22's general thrust and public policy objectives to protect and sustain our province's valuable water resources and aquatic ecosystems.
However, we do have some concerns and questions and some recommendations to offer that we believe will improve and strengthen the proposed legislation.
1. Full implications of the legislation are daunting and unknown. While the proposed Water Protection Act's focus is on water, its effect will nonetheless be very much on land use and, in the final end, on development restrictions or prohibitions on uses that are deemed to be detrimental to sustaining water quality and quantity or aquatic ecosystems. We simply do not know yet the full implications and effect of the proposed new powers to be conveyed on provincial agencies and local water planning authorities. An example to that would be the roll-back-the-clock powers to remove existing uses that are deemed to be a threat to water quality.
Some of the questions we have include:
How and on what basis will water planning authorities prioritize water use and therefore users within a watershed under normal circumstances pursuant to section 11(1)(b) (v)?
Similarly, in times of drought or serious water shortage, how and what basis under section 7(2) will the minister's order or regulation propose to limit water use to producers that are–
Madam Chairperson: Mr. Ferriss, I am sorry but your time is coming to an end so you will just have to–
Mr. Ferriss: –dependent on water to sustain livestock and who have been issued a valid water rights licence?.
We would hope that the legislation and the research that the government takes will be based on good science, that it be applied fairly and consistently and importantly would provide an appeal process to that. The precedent under The Planning Act as well as The Water Rights Act has already given those two pieces of legislation an appeal and we feel that it is very important to have that as a part of this act.
Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to allow the presenter to continue or did you want to ask questions?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
An Honourable Member: Give him some questions.
An Honourable Member: Let him continue.
Madam Chairperson: Continue. Please continue.
Mr. Ferriss: Continue?
Madam Chairperson: Yes.
Mr. Ferriss: Okay.
Under The Water Rights Act we note with some reservation that section 35(5) of Bill 22 also proposes an amendment to The Water Rights Act to add proposed section 9.2 to suspend or restrict existing water rights licences for a specific period to protect and maintain aquatic ecosystems.
The questions we have are these: Will there be compensation for those producers who are directly impacted by these new rules, and will there be incentives provided to advance water protection objectives and public benefits on private land?
The second one is that we
would hope they would be based on good science and not "junk" science
or emotion. Such potentially far-reaching
legislation and the plans and regulations that are to follow must be carefully
developed with good scientific basis to balance the social, economic and
environmental consequences. We appreciate that section 2(d) recognizes "the
importance of applying scientific information in decision-making processes
about water." Our chief concern is that provincial and local water
planning authorities empowered with new, untested mandates must exercise their
new authority with sufficient scientific basis and support.
For instance, how and on what basis will "no-go zones"
or vulnerable water sensitive areas be determined? How will the necessary
credible technical and scientific support be provided to water planning
authorities to ensure that local decision-making will be science-based?
Apply fairly and
consistently. Water quality objectives,
standards, guidelines and regulations should be consistently applied across the
province for all development or land uses. No particular sector or activity
should unfairly be targeted (e.g., agriculture or livestock production) to meet
any higher standard than other land uses.
With regard to watershed level, water management planning policies and severity of development, limitations should be just enough to adequately address the environmental risk tolerance of the water resource and aquatic ecosystem, but not be so severe as to unduly limit development options or impede economic growth.
Most importantly, we feel that section 12(2) of Bill 22 requires a minimum of one meeting in the review and adoption process for local water management plans. There needs to be provision for an appeal process to a higher independent tribunal before final adoption of a watershed management plan or imposing of water or nutrient management zoning restrictions.
As I mentioned, by way of
precedent, The Planning Act has that appeal. An appeal process is afforded under The Planning Act for objections to
be heard under section 30(7) for land use development plans, under section 45
for zoning by-laws and for decisions of a subdivision approving authority under
section 68.
As well, section 24, The Water
Rights Act, also has that appeal process: "Any
person affected by an order or decision of the minister under this Act may
within 30 days of the making of the order or decision, appeal the order or
decision to the Municipal Board, and the decision of the Municipal Board . . .
is final and not subject to further appeal."
We feel quite strongly, Madam Chairperson, that the water management plans and water quality management zoning under the proposed Water Protection Act should also provide this right under legislation for an appeal mechanism.
The need to respect
bio-security protocols. Section 26(1)
empowers an officer to enter and inspect any place or premises, other than a
dwelling, at any reasonable time to administer or determine compliance with the
Act. Most hog farms have strict bio-security requirements to maintain high
health herd status. All persons wishing access must follow strict protocols.
Respecting these bio-security protocols on livestock farms must become part of
the operating policy for inspection officers.
With the powers that are given to the personnel within the ministry to come on-site in the hog industry, bio-security is of absolute paramount importance to all of us as producers to maintain herd health and we feel that that should be part of the bill.
Streamline development review and approval process. We feel that the implementation of The Water Protection Act should not stall or cause undue delay for development proposals pending preparation of watershed management plans, zones and restrictions. We are concerned that The Water Protection Act processes will increase costs and delay producers in yet another developmental application, review and approval bureaucracy.
At last count there are at least 26 federal and provincial
statutes and regulations as well as a myriad of municipal by-laws that already
govern livestock farming in some way. Every effort must be made to co-ordinate
and streamline the planning, development review and approval process for
livestock development–indeed for all development proposals.
The mandates for provincial agency under The Water Rights Act, The Environment Act, the recently updated Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, The Pesticides and Fertilizers Control Amendment Act, The Planning Act, particularly in light of Bill 40, The Planning Amendment Act and the proposed Water Protection Act result in overlapping jurisdiction in land use, water and natural resources management.
This becomes even more confusing for citizens, industry and commerce
when you add the mandates and activities of local conservation districts,
regional water management associations, planning districts, municipal councils
and now the proposed water planning authorities. For instance, a watershed area
could be governed by a planning district development plan (or various
municipal development plans), a conservation district scheme or conservation
district integrated resource management plan, a provincial water quality
management zone and a local watershed management plan, . . . or a combination
thereof.
The proposed Water Protection Act should not be adopted in isolation of all other current laws and regulations in place. Our key message here is to streamline legislation; do not overlap jurisdiction, duplicate or over regulate.
In conclusion, Madam Chairperson, our society's use of water and our individual and collective attitudes as water consumers have evolved over time and many generations. There is no question that we must, as a society, be more prudent in our stewardship of this precious, life-sustaining resource.
We hope and trust that the proposed Water Protection Act, regulations and watershed management plans to follow will take a step-by-step and reasoned approach so as not to impose major hardship on current and future water users and impede growth of the provincial and local economy.
Wherever possible, we encourage the use of positive incentives
and mitigative measures to meet the proposed provincial water quality
objectives and standards rather than a strict outright prohibition of
development. Much can be accomplished with innovation, technology and pure
commitment. Let us get the job done, but let us not over regulate.
More public consultation with key stakeholders will be critical during the preparation of draft regulations and watershed management plans. The Manitoba Pork Council is ready, willing and able to assist, and requests to be an active participant in the development and review of proposed regulations and plans.
I would like to thank you for your time and considerations of our comments and recommendations to improve the proposed Water Protection Act. Thank you very much.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I am sorry, in consideration of the time, we do not have any time remaining for questions, unless the committee decides to overrule.
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Do we have time for a couple of brief questions, Madam Chair?
Madam Chairperson: Is there leave from the committee?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Water Stewardship): I think we had a couple of people that had been recognized. Perhaps in fairness if we would ask each of them to have the ability to ask one question, I think that would be in keeping with the spirit of the moment.
Madam Chairperson: Okay. Come on back, Mr. Ferriss, please. Please return.
Mr. Cummings: Well, thank you. I will keep my question brief. Just as you were coming to the conclusion, you were indicating concern, as we have indicated as well, that the regulations will be the teeth, obviously, in dealing with this legislation. Would it be appropriate to hold this bill until further work has been done on reviewing potential regulations before it is imposed in law?
Mr. Ferriss: Peter. I am going to defer to Peter.
Madam Chairperson: Can you please identify yourself.
Mr. Peter Mah (Director,
Community Relations and Sustainable Development,
To me, what is happening, in a similar sense, when you have a development plan under The Planning Act, many of the municipalities, many of the residents, many of the businesses are asking for the zoning regulations, at least in draft form, to be able to see how the policies and objectives fit with the regulations or zoning. That is really where the rubber hits the road relative to the kinds of development controls and restrictions and limitations that would be put forward. I really do not know the full extent of the implications based upon the bill as it is.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Madam Chairperson: Mr. Ferriss, go ahead.
Mr. Ferriss: I was just going to say that, certainly, from an independent tribunal perspective, from a producer's, from our perspective, that we feel we need something other than what is provided in the act at present, the proposed legislation at present–Peter, do you want–as far as definition of what that would be.
* (19:00)
Mr. Mah: Thank you very much. Peter Mah. Again, the analogy is this. The key element should be that it is an independent tribunal that is apart from the decision-making body at the lower level.
The example is The Planning Act. Again, where I go back, there are a number of planning district boards who are given the mandate under The Planning Act to be a zoning appeal body. I can say that, generally, that happens quite well, but there are going to be a number of instances, it has happened in the past, where local decision making in the planning appeal has not always afforded, in my point of view, independent, autonomous decision-making authority. That is where the Municipal Board comes in. They are appointed and they are responsible and they are a third party that does not have a stake in the local area. We would like to see an independent administrative tribunal, but that is the key.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation.
Hon. Roseann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Madam Chair, as Mr. Ferriss had to rush through his presentation, I wonder whether we could have his presentation printed, as he presented to us, in written copy rather than as he delivered it.
Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee? [Agreed]
Mr. Cummings: We also have a printed presentation from Roseisle Creek Watershed that I am assuming will be entered into the record as written.
Madam Chairperson: Yes, we had put that previously.
Mr. Cummings: I just wanted that on the record.
Madam Chairperson: Ian Wishart from the Keystone Agricultural Producers.
Mr. Ian Wishart (Vice-President, Keystone Agricultural Producers Inc.): Thank you, Madam Chairperson, ladies and gentleman. My name is Ian Wishart. I am the vice-president of Keystone Ag Producers, and I am also chair of the environment committee. I hope you have a copy of the proposed legislation in front of you because we make several references to it throughout it.
On behalf of Keystone Agricultural Producers, I am pleased to share our organization's position with respect to Bill 22, The Water Protection Act.
KAP is a democratically
controlled general farm policy organization representing and promoting the
interests of agricultural producers in
Overall, it appears that
Bill 22 is heavily targeted towards the agricultural industry. Agriculture is a
primary industry using most of the land base in southern
This bill must include a provision to allow for an appeal process to protect the interests of stakeholders. The provisions outlined allow for establishment of zones, guidelines, water conservation programs, et cetera, but do not allow for an appeal process. As with much of this act, it opens the door for regulations, but not being privy to the intent of such regulations causes much concern.
This piece of legislation and the regulations developed under the act will supersede several other pieces of current and upcoming legislation such as The Planning Amendment Act. How can legislation which supersedes other regulations be developed without being done in concert? It will necessarily cause more reworking of development plans, et cetera, to ensure that they are in line with this legislation.
Section 4(2)(e) allows recommendations regarding zoning in the areas containing a potential source of drinking water. Before an area is zoned, we recommend that all water sources be identified in order to prevent future development disruptions.
In the event of serious water shortages under section 7(2), the minister can take any action necessary to prevent, minimize or alleviate the water shortage. Government must ensure that, in the event of water shortage, any regulation or steps taken must address compensation to those affected. Policies and procedures for this section are not yet developed and when they are developed, it must be done in consultation with industry.
In the event of a shortage, there must be an awareness of the importance of water for livestock enterprises and irrigation for crop production, as opposed to water needs for recreational uses such as golf courses and effluent dilution.
In the bill, 35(2) makes no mention of compensation for suspending or restricting water rights under a licence to ensure the protection and maintenance of aquatic ecosystems. Again, this a public benefit and should not have a negative impact on the agricultural community.
This act prevails over The Water Rights Act, and this means that there may be suspension of existing water rights permits. This will have an impact on the holders of such permits, and adequate time lines must be established to ease any transition. There should be compensation for the loss of water rights.
Section 9 designates a water planning authority for a watershed, and government must ensure that agriculture is a part of any authority established in an agricultural area. We, as an organization, want to ensure that we are involved on the local level, therefore we need to be aware of the establishments of such water planning authorities and also have the ability to appoint members to any such authority.
Section 10, in dealing with consideration of watershed management plans, uses the bases of futuristic studies. We ask how far in the future do we need to look or do we place our focus on current needs while keeping in mind the future generations?
Section 11(1) identifies the contents of a watershed management plan and includes a clause dealing with the possible restoration of water quality. We ask how government actually intends to accomplish this. We do believe that some measures can assist with this process through incentives, such as beneficial management practices, but the Province must ensure that the funding is available and adequate to move in that direction.
Agricultural stakeholders must be included in the consultation process for the development of any watershed management plans. We need to be made aware of the time frame when development of a plan proceeds. It is vital that local interests are heard and the needs of all parties are taken into consideration.
The bill allows for the establishment of Manitoba Water Council, and it is imperative that KAP, as the provincial general farm policy organization, have some representation on this council. We were part of the water strategy process and would bring strong agricultural representation to the council.
Within the Water Stewardship Fund, we believe that a program we have initiated called Alternate Land Use Services (ALUS) could play a key role and serve as an incentive-based approach. ALUS is an incentive-based concept that recognizes the public environmental services such as healthy soil, clean water and biodiversity. It has the ability to bring real improvements to the rural landscape in a way more acceptable than by regulation.
Section 30 may be a window for nuisance and harassment complaints and the agricultural industry needs assurance that this will not be the case.
Under the regulations,
section 33(1)(d), it refers to areas adjacent to water bodies. What defines an
area adjacent to a water body? I cannot help but think in the spring of 1997, a
good portion of southern
This act allows the Province to come in and do remedial work and then invoice the owner for the public benefit. While we realize that this may happen only in extreme cases, should an individual be paying for public benefits?
In closing, we would like to reiterate that this bill does appear to target our industry. We have had a good relationship with government dealing with water issues in the past and hope that it will continue by allowing us the opportunity for continual involvement. As an organization representing agriculture in this province we need to be an integral part in the initial development and ongoing consultation on any regulations put into place under this act. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much.
Mr. Faurschou: Thank you very much, Mr. Wishart. You had mentioned in your presentation that you are concerned about the suspension of water permits and the usage of water by the minister without availing compensation. Are you suggesting this act is deficient in that area and would like to see an appeals mechanism in which potential losses by producers take place?
Mr. Wishart: Yes, we do have some considerable concerns in that area. We have quite a strong irrigation industry that has been developed in this province based on, to no small degree, the fact that water is available and that secure water rights have been available to these individuals. Loss of them without some period of adaptation, so to speak, could be a very serious blow. We have industries that are built around this and it is often lost to the average Manitoban that irrigation is the basis that these value-added processing industries are here on. It is because we have irrigation available to us at a reasonable cost that these things have chosen to locate here, and removing the certainty and the costs associated with that puts producers and the industries at risk, not just individual producers, but the whole industry.
* (19:10)
Mr. Ashton: I would like to thank you for your presentation, and also, the previous presenter, if I could; I did not have the opportunity. Obviously, I did not want to take up time when members of the committee might have wished to ask questions.
One thing I can assure
you is that this bill is not targeted at agriculture. I look at some of the
presenters coming later. There are concerns that I am sure will be expressed in
municipalities. I look at the City of
I have always said, by the way, that it is 1.1 million Manitobans who have to be part of the solution. I do want to acknowledge the participation of KAP in the water strategy, which is the basis of this bill, and to assure you that the farm community and KAP will continue to play a significant role, including the fact that the regulations actually have to go to consultation under this act, which is something we felt was very important.
I hope to have the opportunity to respond to some of these issues, but the reference on the water shortage side, can you not see some situations where in fact the provisions of this act will actually protect agricultural activities, given the fact that agriculture is recognized in the act as part of one of the major elements we look at in terms of water issues, water quantity and water quality issues? There might in fact be emergency situations in which access to water for either crops or other agriculture purposes might be threatened, if not for the intervention under this act.
Mr. Wishart: Yes, Mr. Minister, I can see circumstances. I appreciate that you understand some of the pressures that are currently existing out there related to agriculture, but this act will be there for a long time in the future, we trust, so we do have to look down the road and make sure we put something in place that we can all live with.
I cannot help but think
of the one time that water quantity was very tight for the agriculture
industry, which was the fall of 1988 when the water flow on the Assiniboine
dropped down below critical levels from the City of
So I want to make sure we
maintain a proper perspective here, that agriculture is a higher priority in
everyone's mind than the issue of recreation or dilution issues. I guess past
practices have made us a little bit concerned that when things do get tight we
are often the first ones forgotten. We are a very small voice, and we are
outside of the city of
I do appreciate your comment that we have 1.1 million point sources. I hope that 1.1 million point sources are prepared to do an equal amount to deal with this issue.
Mr. Gerrard: I would like you to comment on two points. One is your recommendations in terms of the optimum nature of the appeal process. Second, I would like your comments on the recommendations around zoning where the area contains a source or potential source of drinking water, because I think it would be helpful if you expanded a little bit.
Mr. Wishart: In regard to the appeal, we think the question of maintaining an independent arm's-length appeal process is absolutely critical. No matter what regulations come into place following the act, there will be no doubt circumstances that were not foreseen, and we must have a mechanism so that we can get some fairness and justice at the time. We are not actually bound by the regulations, but the regulations become more guidelines than anything. You can structure it whatever way you want, but some level of independence from the process is absolutely necessary.
In regard to the water
source situation, I guess what we are drawing on here is what we see happening
in
Yes, it would be very
valuable to know where all these possible water sources are, the size of them
and, in regard to the planning for the future, what future use might
necessarily be done with them, but it is almost impossible for agricultural
producers to be in a position to know the answer to all those questions. Yet we
are going to be impacted immediately by regulations around these things. So I
guess we are drawing on the experience out of
Mr. Faurschou: Thank you very much. I know there is a time constraint, so instead of all I will pick one of my three questions. I would like to ask: In your consideration, then, where you have alluded to the regulatory component of this legislation as being vitally important, are you then too of the position as Manitoba Pork Council that you would like to see this legislation held until regulations, at least in the draft form, are available for review?
Mr. Wishart: We would certainly be a lot more comfortable if we had at least draft regulations. We recognize that, with the new department that is being created, there is some need to rework existing water regulations in this province. I think that that is well justified, and we applaud your incentive on that. But the devil is always in the details on these things, and, unfortunately, representing the farm community, we are the ones that have to deliver on the details. At the farm gate, all of this stuff becomes integrated and delivered, and the farmer has to deal with it. So, knowing to some degree, or to a higher degree, what the regulations might entail, certainly would be way more valuable to us.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Wishart.
Stuart Briese from the Association of Manitoba Municipalities. Did you have a presentation to circulate, Mr. Briese?
Mr. Stuart Briese (President, Association of Manitoba Municipalities): In here somewhere.
Madam Chairperson: You may proceed. Thank you.
Mr. Briese: Thank you. On behalf of
Water is one of the most
important resources in
There are many positive attributes in this bill. The AMM has been, and continues to be, a strong proponent of the watershed-based planning, as this unchangeable unit is the most logical foundation for planning. It is crucial that watershed-based planning be linked to land use planning, as the two processes are obviously intertwined. While this will not be an easy procedure, it is certainly a needed one, and the AMM is encouraged that it is included in this bill.
The AMM is also supportive of the creation of a water council that will be charged with the responsibility of monitoring the development and implementation of the watershed management plans and advising the minister on water issues.
It is also important that the composition of this new council reflect the stakeholders most directly impacted by the new legislation. For this reason, it is imperative that the AMM, as the association that represents all 199 municipalities in this province, be included on this council, as municipalities will be impacted directly by this legislation.
The AMM is also supportive of the development of watershed quality management zones. These zones will protect water, aquatic ecosystems and drinking water sources by designating all areas of the province into zones and then governing, regulating and prohibiting any use, activity, or thing in those zones.
These management zones will be useful tools in the development process and will help ensure that sound environmental decisions are being made. However, the creation of these zones must be made based on sound science and cannot be used as a tool to prevent or limit development in certain areas of the province, such as the Capital Region. Management zones will be a useful tool, but only if the mapping of these zones is based on sound science, and it is imperative that the Province complete the maps and provide them to municipalities and watershed management boards quickly.
* (19:20)
The AMM was also pleased to see that Bill 22 includes a clause guaranteeing that there will be consultation in the development of the regulations under this act. This is an important clause, since much of the detail will come later through the regulations. For this consultation process to be meaningful, however, municipalities must be consulted in the development of the regulations and not simply asked to comment on a completed draft. Input must be sought in the beginning stages of drafting the regulations, and not merely once the Province has internally set the direction of the specific regulations,
However, while the bill does have some excellent attributes, the AMM does have some concerns. While legislation in general requires a certain amount of vagueness to ensure that it is adaptable to future changes, this legislation is visibly vague and grants unprecedented powers to the current and any future Minister of Water Stewardship, and for this reason should be considered carefully.
One such power is the
unilateral ability of the minister to declare a serious water shortage in part
or all of
One of the greatest concerns our association has with this bill is in its implementation. The bill is vague about how all of the newly legislated ideas and requirements will be implemented. It is clear that municipalities, along with conservation districts and planning boards, will have a major role to play in the implementation of the concepts laid out in the bill. However, how great a role this will be is not clear. This bill lacks any plan for action as to how any of these new requirements will be met and lacks any details as to who will be responsible for insuring that these new requirements are met. It is imperative that these rules are shared with key stakeholders prior to the act being passed, because it is crucial that local people are consulted and involved in this process.
Closely related to the matter of implementation is the issue of financing. This bill is vague on the issue of who will be financing the implementation of this legislation. Without adequate funding, none of the key attributes of this bill can occur. For instance, watershed planning authorities cannot make the watershed management plans required under the act without financial assistance. However, there is no indication that the Province will provide any financial assistance to watershed planning authorities in the development of these plans. Without provincial financial assistance for this bill, the financial responsibility will be simply downloaded to municipalities or will be financed by all Manitobans through user fees. Simply put, Bill 22 will not work without a clear commitment from the provincial government to adequately fund the requirements of this legislation.
In summary, while there are definite positive attributes to this bill, the AMM is concerned that this bill is vague, and it is imperative that the Province help offset this vagueness through early consultation in the development of the regulations. The Province must also address the problems with implementation and the financial underpinnings of the bill to ensure that these responsibilities are not simply downloaded to municipalities, and to ensure that the strengths of the bill are not lost due to these weaknesses.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views to you today on this important bill. The AMM looks forward to further consultation in the development of the details of this legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Faurschou: Thank you very much, Mr. Briese. Again, it seems to be a commonality between the presenters here this evening, that you are looking to the regulations component within the legislation as being vitally important to this particular act. Are you, too, suggesting that this legislation not go forward until you, as an organization, have been consulted on the potential regulations or at least have an opportunity to review? I believe you did say that you want to see them before they even got to draft.
Mr. Briese: We would like to see some of the proposals for the regulations that are coming forward. There is a commitment right in the piece of legislation that there be public consultation on the regulations. If the bill proceeds, what I was saying in my presentation is that we want to be up front. We want to be in that consultation very early.
Mr. Faurschou: I just wanted to ask also, Mr. Briese, in regard to an appeal mechanism not being in existence in this legislation, have you concern in regard to that because under 35(3) it repeals section 4(6) of The Water Rights Act, which, essentially, used the opportunity to appeal with compensation?
Mr. Briese: I do not see a lot of situations where municipalities would have to have an appeal mechanism. There may be some, but outside of that I cannot really comment on that.
Mr. Ashton: I would like to thank the presenter and acknowledge publicly the input of the AMM, certainly on this bill but also the water strategy of which it is the basis. I would just like to ask Mr. Briese in terms of the consultation on regulations, what the experience of the AMM has been with, for example, the commitment to consult with regulations that were part and parcel of The Drinking Water Safety Act–in fact, I think the consultation took place as recently as the last several weeks–whether there has been a growing acceptance of the fact that regulations have to be consulted upon. In fact, in this case, that is in the act itself. I just wondered what the experience of the AMM has been on this.
Mr. Briese: We were consulted in those parts of the legislation and regulation. The one thing that we feel we have not had a lot of consultation in, once again, is how they are going to be paid for, and that always concerns the municipalities. Is it through licensing fees and permitting fees? That goes right down under our property tax; that is where it ends up.
Mr. Gerrard: In your presentation, you talk about the need to involve municipalities, conservation districts and planning boards in the process of developing the watershed plans. I would ask, in your view, what the optimum process is for involving all the groups and, second, what a reasonable time line would be if there was adequate provincial financing for the completion of such watershed plans.
Mr. Briese: That somewhat goes back to the whole COSDI process that we went through a number of years ago. The municipalities' planning districts and most conservation districts do not follow watershed lines. To use a watershed planning concept, you have to have a plan for the watershed, which would, in my view, be set up in consultation with local people for that particular watershed. Then whoever happened to be in that municipality planning district or conservation district would adhere to that overall plan. I do not see it as another level in there. I think it is something that would be done by local people in that area, and then referred to in whatever was being enacted in all three of those other bodies. Probably there would be a need to review it from time to time, but beyond that I do not see another legislative or policing mechanism higher up. Develop a plan and then use it for that particular watershed.
Floor comment: Do you have time lines?
Mr. Briese: Time lines? I think there are models out there that can be used already. There are a couple of conservation districts that do follow watershed boundaries, but really on a time line I think it is doable. I think it is something that could be done, and I will not give you a time but in a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Cummings: Well, just following on the previous question and your answer, historically, it seems that when the original watershed conservation district program was put in place, the Province played a significant role in funding the development of the plan. It seems to me that we have gotten a little bit more into a mode of downloading some of those costs to the watersheds and, ultimately, to the municipalities. Do you see the Province as having an ongoing role in funding the development of these plans or perhaps the main role in funding the development of watershed plans?
* (19:30)
Mr. Briese: I certainly think the Province has a role to play. I think municipalities and other entities are willing to be partners in these plans, but I think the Province has to be the lead, and the lead financially.
Mr. Faurschou: I appreciate the comment, but having been a founding member of the Whitemud Watershed, I believe at that time the government virtually paid 100 percent of the cost to develop the watershed management plan. Do you envision that the Province continue to be consistent with that particular level of funding?
Mr. Briese: I think, as I said to the earlier question, there is a need for the Province to be there and take on a significant part of the funding. I do not know whether it needs to be 100 percent or 75 percent or whatever. I think they do need to be involved.
Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Seeing no other questions, thank you for your presentation.
Our next presenter is Greg Bruce from Ducks Unlimited Canada. You may proceed, Mr. Bruce.
Mr. Greg Bruce (
On behalf of Ducks Unlimited Canada, I would like to thank the standing committee for the opportunity to provide input into The Water Protection Act. I provided copies of a more comprehensive written submission for the committee's consideration.
Although I am making this
presentation and submission on behalf of Ducks Unlimited Canada, I am pleased
to advise the committee that Ducks Unlimited's recommendations have received
the support of the Manitoba Naturalist Society, the
Ducks Unlimited Canada is
a private, non-profit charitable organization dedicated to conserving wetlands
and their associated upland habitats for the benefit of wildlife and people. We
began our mission in 1938, and have developed considerable expertise related to
wetlands and their contributions to watersheds, human health and the economy.
Indeed, I would like to congratulate the
We recognize the importance of this legislation and are pleased that important issues for Manitobans, such as source water protection, aquatic ecosystems and watershed planning are entrenched in the act. The approach of integrating incentives with awareness and education through watershed planning along with targeted, rather than blanketed, regulation is desirable.