LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
Saturday, June 7, 2008
LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba
CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Jennifer Howard (Fort Rouge); Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East) at 21.52
ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6
Members of the Committee present:
Hon. Messrs. Struthers, Swan
Messrs. Altemeyer, Caldwell, Eichler, Goertzen, Mses. Howard, Marcelino, Messrs. McFadyen, Nevakshonoff, Pedersen
Substitutions:
Mr. Martindale for Ms. Marcelino
Ms. Marcelino for Mr. Martindale at 12:21 p.m.
Mr. Pedersen for Mr. Graydon at 4:04 p.m.
Mrs. Rowat for Mr. Maguire at 4:04 p.m.
Mr. Altemeyer for Hon. Mr. Swan at 5:08 p.m.
Mr. McFadyen for Mrs. Taillieu at 5:29 p.m.
Mr. Goertzen for Mrs. Rowat at 6:06 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Swan for Hon. Ms. Melnick at 6:06 p.m.
Mr. Caldwell for Hon. Ms. Wowchuk at 6:06 p.m.
Mr. Saran for Mr. Altemeyer 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Dewar for Ms. Howard at 9:51 p.m.
Mr. Caldwell for Ms. Howard at 9:52 p.m.
APPEARING:
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk, MLA for Swan River
Mr. Cliff Graydon, MLA for Emerson
Mr. Larry Maguire, MLA for Arthur-Virden
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu, MLA for Morris
Mr. Stuart Briese, MLA for Ste. Rose
Mrs. Leanne Rowat, MLA for Minnedosa
Hon. Christine Melnick, MLA for Riel
Ms. Marilyn Brick, MLA for St. Norbert
Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for River Heights
Mr. David Faurschou, MLA for Portage la Prairie
Mr. Gregory Dewar, MLA for Selkirk
WITNESSES:
Mr. John Morrison, Concerned Citizens of the Sturgeon Creek Watershed
Mr. Kurt Stoess, Private Citizen
Mr. Jacob Hofer, Private Citizen
Mr. Claude Lachance, Private Citizen
Mr. Richard Taillefer, Private Citizen
Mr. Jason Falk, Hespeler Hog Farms
Mr. Allen Steinke, R.M. of Victoria
Mr. Sieg Peters, Private Citizen
Mr. Ron St. Hilaire, Private Citizen
Mr. Tom Greaves, Private Citizen
Mr. Dennis Kornelsen, Private Citizen
Mr. Mike Maendel, Private Citizen
Mr. Jamie Hofer, Private Citizen
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser, Private Citizen
Mr. Jack Hofer, Private Citizen
Mr. Terry Hofer, Private Citizen
Mr. Andy Gross, Private Citizen
Mr. Dwayne Hofer, Private Citizen
Mr. Joe Dolecki, Private Citizen
Mr. Larry Maendel, Private Citizen
Mr. Peter Wipf, Maxwell Colony
Mr. Cameron Maendel, Private Citizen
Mr. Dan Van Schepdael, Synergy Swine
Mr. Perry Mohr, Private Citizen
Mr. Gerald Siemens, Siefort Farms Ltd.
Mr. Denny Kleinsasser, Private Citizen
Mr. Arnie Waldner, Private Citizen
Mr. Tom Waldner, Private Citizen
Mr. Brian Klassen, Nutricycle Inc.
Mr. Ray Wipf, Maxwell Colony
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser, Private Citizen
Mr. Ron Klippenstein, Private Citizen
Mr. Michael Wurtz, Private Citizen
Mr. David Wurtz, Private Citizen
Mr. Bill Vaags, Private Citizen
Mr. Peter Wipf, Maxwell Colony
Ms. Sandra Trinkies, Private Citizen
Mr. Doug Cavers, R.M. of Hanover
Mr. Stan Toews, Private Citizen
Mr. Chris Maendel, Private Citizen
Mr. John Bannister, Private Citizen
Mr. Alan Bell, Superior Agri-Systems Ltd.
Mr. Don Kroeker, Private Citizen
Mr. Don Flaten, The National Centre for Livestock and the Environment, University of Manitoba
Mr. Peter Hombach, ETIA
Mr. Mike Teillet, Private Citizen
Ms. Diana Ludwick, Occupational Health Centre
Mr. Brian Siemens, Private Citizen
Mr. David Gsell, Private Citizen
Mr. Joe Marshall, Private Citizen
Mrs. Betty Siemens, Private Citizen
Mr. Ernie Siemens, Private Citizen
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Bill 17–The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities)
Elaine Henrotte, Private Citizen
Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles, Private Citizen
Mr. John Morrison, Concerned Citizens of the Sturgeon Creek Watershed
Mr. Joe Dolecki, Private Citizen
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser, Private Citizen
Ms. Diana Ludwick, Occupational Health Centre
MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION:
Bill 17–The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities)
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Good morning. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Food, please come to order. This meeting has been called to consider Bill 17, The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities). The first item of business is the election of a vice-chairperson. Are there any nominations?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): I nominate Ms. Howard.
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Howard has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, Ms. Howard is elected vice-chairperson of this committee.
Committee Substitutions
Mr. Chairperson: We have a substitution, Mr. Martindale in for Ms. Flor Marcelino.
* * *
Okay, we have a number of presenters registered to speak to this bill, as noted on the lists before you on the table and posted at the entrance of the room. Also, as was announced in the House on June 4, the committee will sit until tonight at midnight and we will sit again on the following occasions: Monday, June 9, from 10 a.m. 'til noon and then again at 6 p.m., Tuesday, June 10, at 6 p.m.
For the information of all in attendance, this committee has previously agreed to hear out-of-town presenters first. We have one presenter, Joe Dolecki, No. 40, who will not be able to be here until 2 p.m. So is it the will of the committee to not call him before 2 o'clock? [Agreed]
Before we–[interjection] Mr. Eichler?
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I was wondering if we could get leave of the committee to not call quorum count, and also, because of the number of presenters and because of the World Pork Congress, I know yesterday we sought leave to not move presenters to the bottom of the list if their name was called in order to try and get through as many presenters as we can and not have their name moved to the bottom of the list.
* (10:10)
Mr. Chairperson: The member has spoken. What's the will of the committee? [Agreed]
Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider.
First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this morning, please register with the staff at the entrance of the room.
Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompany your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff.
As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another five minutes allowed for questions from the committee members.
Written submissions on Bill 17 have been received from the following and have been distributed to committee members: Elaine Henrotte and Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed]
Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public about speaking in committee. Our meetings are recorded to provide a transcript. Each time anyone wishes to speak, I have to say the person's name to signal the Hansard recorders to turn the microphones on and off.
Thank you for your patience. We will now proceed with public presentations.
Bill 17–The Environment Amendment Act (Permanent Ban on Building or Expanding Hog Facilities)
Mr. Chairperson: I first call Sieg Peters, private citizen.
George Witf, private citizen. I believe that's Witf–spelling mistake there. Unless I state otherwise, from this point forward, they are private citizens. If they're affiliated with another entity, I will so name.
John Allen–Please call out your name when I call your name–Clarence Froese–or call out present, please.
Dennis Thiessen. Hugh Arklie, Springfield Hogwatch. James Hofer. Jacob Waldner. Olayinka Brimoh. Menno Bergen.
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if we could seek leave to let the presenters go ahead and start–I believe No. 68 and No. 80 are present–in order to save time. We want to get through as many presenters as we possibly can. I would seek leave of the committee to start with No. 68–it stays in numerical order–and then proceed with No. 80, rather than just the name call, and then resume calling names back at that point in time.
Mr. Chairperson: Agreeable? [Agreed]
I call No. 68, John Morrison, Concerned Citizens of the Sturgeon Creek Watershed. Mr. Morrison.
Good morning, sir. Do you have any written materials?
Mr. John Morrison (Concerned Citizens of the Sturgeon Creek Watershed): Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairperson: I see you do. You may proceed.
Mr. Morrison: As these get handed out, I think I'll make sort of an observation comment that a lot of farmers have, and that is that we wouldn't be having these hearings or a bill about hog production if they were cute and cuddly and didn't create quite as much manure as they do. That seems to be a general consensus from a lot of farmers that have spoken to me over the last little while.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for that, sir. The clock is running. You have the floor.
Mr. Morrison: Okay. My name is John Morrison. I reside in Rosser. There's a certain bio on myself on the front page. The group I represent is the Concerned Citizens for the Sturgeon Creek Watershed. We've had a rather serious drainage problem in our area that we were amazed to find was being called a wetland when we started finding out about some of these farm programs. Gee, it's really nice to stick together.
Having said that, our group is formed of farmers and concerned citizens in the Sturgeon Creek watershed where we've had some, as I said, serious problems, but they're rather unusual problems in a certain way. I'll start with a point on Bill 17.
Bill 17, in the opinion of our group and of a lot of the farmers out there, is an inappropriate and unreasonable attempt to limit or ban hog facilities and not supported by science, the findings of the Clean Environment Commission, nor the studies funded and directed by the Conservation Department nor the Department of Agriculture and Rural Initiatives. Further, a substantial number of the noted areas included in section 40.1 are not of any substantive risk environmentally from a concentration of hog operations or considered expansions of hog operations due to current legislation, planning requirements, and the Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation.
The publication of proposed Bill 17 has led to the tightening of review in applications of all types of confined livestock operations in the noted areas. This has led to further negative economical pressures to all producers in those areas. A common voice in rural communities is that there are confined livestock operations in these areas that are now prevented or limited in development at the stroke of a pen, even without the implementation of this bill.
LMMM outlines the operation size and restrictions of operations based on the area afforded for manure operations and MAFRI has the ability under the act to review and place limitations and recommendations on proposed operations or expansions. It is accepted as a standard and is based on recognized science, supported by the lower levels of municipal government, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and its farm development and support departments at PFRA. Farmers also support this by consensus as to the necessity to limit the density of large producers of manure to the available acreage for dispersal of nitrates and phosphates.
In making this presentation, I will now go on to show that the focus and direction of this government in putting forward the proposed changes to The Environment Act is neither appropriate nor reasonable and it raises the core issues that should be addressed.
It started out very simply if you read the Winnipeg Sun today. They talked about a record rain. So a record rain in Winnipeg; it wasn't a record rain in the area that the watershed flows through Winnipeg. The government of Manitoba is one inch away from being recognized as legally responsible for the largest intake of phosphates and nitrates into Lake Winnipeg for the 2008 year, one step closer to an irreversible environmental disaster. The cause of this environmental disaster? It isn't hogs. It isn't livestock. It's very simply overland flooding of agricultural lands due to the failure of government to properly manage the provincial drainage system. Further, it appears that the Province of Manitoba is attempting to cover up their responsibilities and their previous actions in this matter. I base this statement on the following information relating to the Sturgeon Creek watershed, the actions of the government relating to the information they've received, and the failure of government to address these issues.
I will also refer to the basic science provided by Don Flaten and others as they have attempted to provide guidance and understanding to those not directly involved in agriculture and in attempting to address Bill 17. I will underscore the following information on my personal knowledge and supported facts.
Simply put, all living matter gives off phosphates and nitrates. Plants give it off, hogs give it off, cattle give it off, those nice horses that look so nice in a pasture, all give it off. Bottom line is, how it gets into the water system and affects Lake Winnipeg and other areas of the environment is what we need to be concerned with. Frozen land and controlled drainage from agricultural land have a natural limiting of phosphate and nitrate uptake into spring run-off. Simply put, the ground's frozen. The ground's frozen, you don't dissolve chemicals or particles out of that area and into the run-off. The other side of it is with a slow melt, which is usually what happens in the spring. There's a limited amount of run-off. So that run-off, as it slowly goes away, has not very much likelihood of carrying away organic matter as a slow run-off.
* (10:20)
Land, however, once free of frost and inundated with water, as with overland flooding after the spring thaw, is very susceptible to uptake of these nutrients by dissolving into the water, the floating away of plant matter and its subsequent decay in the water body.
The decay of organic matter in water has an additional negative impact by removing oxygen from the water. That, basically–as you've read in the newspapers two years ago or three years ago–is how fish die, from not getting oxygen, or they drown. That's one of the problems which are out there, facing a lot of areas.
The Province of Manitoba, through its drainage mismanagement, expansion of the Sturgeon Creek watershed beyond its original boundaries and attempts to maintain restrictions to prevent Winnipeg flooding during times of summer rains, has caused and will cause overland flooding of agricultural lands and subsequent substantial environmental and economic damage to those lands into Lake Winnipeg.
This substantially exceeds any risk from hog operations in the area. By that, I'm talking about the Interlake and, specifically, South Interlake.
Mr. Chairperson: Order. You're not allowed to use props at the committee, sir.
Mr. Morrison: Okay. Actually, if you go to the back of your page, there is a copy of that in every one.
Mr. Eichler: I would ask leave of the committee that–I know we did allow a presenter yesterday to use a graph which did help the committee. I ask leave of the committee that Mr. Morrison be allowed to use his graph for illustration purposes.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Eichler has asked for leave.
What is the will of the committee? [Agreed] You may use your props, sir.
Mr. Morrison: The copy that you have in the back of your presentation talks about what's in blue, and it's not blue. So here, it's graphically very easy to see as blue.
This is from a study that was done by UMA consulting for the provincial government on the South Interlake. This happens to be Winnipeg, right in here; this is the Perimeter Highway, and this is, in large part, the Sturgeon Creek watershed. One of the things that are wrong in this is, when the consulting organization did their work, they forgot that all of this watershed in the middle also backs up with water.
The Province of Manitoba, the government and the Legislature, and all of the parties have talked about a 500-year and a 100-year event for the Winnipeg floodway. This is a display of a 10-year event which consistently has been happening approximately once every 10 years.
We're looking here, in the area covered by water, at 214 square miles. We're looking at millions of acres that are under water. If this happens in the summer, where the problem is–all of this water picks up organic particles, picks up nitrates, picks up phosphates and drops them in Lake Winnipeg.
To do a comparison in this room–because we're 20 feet across and approximately 60 feet long–the outlet in the Red River that takes all of this water from all this area, comparing it to the size of this building, is a whole one-quarter of an inch in that wall, one-quarter of an inch in diameter. That's all there is to move the water, and it moves it through Winnipeg.
Part of this presentation, which I have here, is very simply this–there weren't 214 square miles in Sturgeon Creek watershed. It started out that there were about 114, but the Province of Manitoba has expanded the watershed from not just the prime agricultural land closer to Winnipeg, but further out into cattle land and other areas that become a problem.
If you look at the picture that you have in there, just where the little V is in the roads, a few miles outside of Winnipeg–and I've said that it doesn't depict the land properly–that's where I farm. I've had 120 acres of 160 acres under water for 14 days in the summer, and not one bit of the water was off of my property.
All at once, it couldn't get through Winnipeg; it started backing up. The water backed up and covered almost two-thirds of a whole section of land. All the organic matter floated out, down the creek, down–and that's why I'm calling it a creek–down into Sturgeon Creek, down into the city of Winnipeg, down into the Assiniboine, out to the Red, all the way up the Red into Lake Winnipeg.
I'm a very lucky man. I also happen to have cattle further north of St. Laurent. We have some farmland up there. We're very close to Shoal Lake up there where we have water levels that are exceedingly high. Here's our problem. That water is within a few miles of Lake Manitoba, but no drains have been established–well, one was put halfway in and then it's partly closed in now–to drain that water into Lake Manitoba. So that water finds its way into the Sturgeon Creek watershed and it's actually not even included in these maps although it is an extension that is in there. It's a problem and it's serious.
I've laid out in point form quite a bit of information. So I want to be very quick on here so that possibly there can be a couple of questions that get interesting. I will say this, in point two, which would be in the first set of points that you come to, a diversion was put through with the provincial government in conjunction with the federal government in the 1960s so that East, West and Central Colony Creek and Omand's Creek were diverted into Sturgeon Creek. A funny thing happened. I'm on a century farm, we're there, all at once, oh my God, Winnipeg's getting flooded. Water's flowing over Ness Avenue. Oh, to protect Ness Avenue and the city of Winnipeg, we have to put restrictions in Sturgeon Creek. So you doubled the amount of inflow into Sturgeon Creek at the point where you put the diversion in, which is one mile outside of the Perimeter, and you reduced the flow from thereon going to Winnipeg to protect it.
Ever since then, my family and other people have been repetitively after the Province of Manitoba to put in a diversion. Repetitive municipal councils out in our area, other farmers, even crop insurance, before it became MACC and MASC, put forward that this is a problem. It's insurance, it's problems. What do we do? We've gotten promises from government who were going to do something. We even went out when GPS first come out, which is several years ago, and tracked the best route for that water to take. We told Agriculture, we told Water Resources, we told Conservation, we said right at Sturgeon Creek colony is the best point for you to have an exit for another diversion going to the highway.
Well, further on in here you'll notice that I bring up the Premier of Manitoba. The Premier of Manitoba was aware of this information and, following the farm rally from 2001, had us invited to the 2001 budget presentation. At the media scrum after it, Greg Selinger and Premier Doer walked over to myself, a group of farmers from all over Manitoba and said, you know what, John, here's what we've done. We've put like $7 million in the drainage budget. We're going to fix your problem. Well, I'm sorry to say, nobody even moved any dirt, not one thing was done to fix the problem. So you're still stuck with that same problem. What do we do?
Now farmers are mad and they started suing Woodlands municipality and getting fairly involved in a couple of things to make sure things were taken care of, and that's where the Concerned Citizens for Sturgeon Creek watershed got involved a couple of years ago. Strangely, as soon as the group got organized and started going, the Province was doing a study with UMA Consulting over the problems in the watershed and what was going on. Now, all at once, it seems that study is not seeing the light of day because it identifies where all the water is leaving the ditch and going on peoples' property.
In the back part of my presentation you can see the legal precedents, okay, that are standard in Manitoba and where the Province of Manitoba themselves have lost in court over the backup of water over farmland. I'm not here to threaten you with a legal action. I'm not here to say anything except that it makes common sense to try and work together to fix a problem, and the very serious part of it is it doesn't seem that anybody is trying to work together to solve a problem.
* (10:30)
One of the other notes I'll make on here is that the drainage of Sturgeon Creek Watershed was originally 114 square miles. Now, it's over 200. We're talking about 235. The key point that we have here is with those changes and what's gone on, we've had more water coming down from areas that are not prime agricultural land. They're coming in. They're flooding the prime agricultural land, and it's a concern.
One of the key points I'll add on here is point No. 4, which should be on, I guess, your third page. That's under The Fisheries Act. The Province of Manitoba could face a requirement to provide remedial action for water flow into Lake Winnipeg now that a health warning has been issued for water consumption from the lake. If a farmer, even in small claims court, was to have it identified that the Province of Manitoba was responsible for the nitrates and phosphates from some areas going into Lake Manitoba, you could have a requiring order to the Province of Manitoba from the federal government requiring you to facilitate all improvements required to fix the problem.
Now, the Province isn't on a very good foot here now because I understand that the Fisheries department of the federal government is currently investigating the Province of Manitoba for allowing the illegal draining of fish habitat and damage to fish habitat basically during last fall. It's a $300,000 fine and up to six months in jail. We don't want anybody to go to jail. We don't want anybody to be fined. We want to sit together as a group and say, hold it, we're working to fix a problem.
Some recommendations, and this is what we feel should be on the table for this committee and for considerations over The Environment Act: No. 1: That any party, including government, identified as causing environmental risk or damage must be responsible for providing reparations and payment of identified losses.
Number 2: That changes to legislation affecting environmental protection be based on scientific and logical information and be addressed on the basis of ranking of risk, and, on ranking of risk, the Sturgeon Creek watershed is 84 or 85 times more damaging than the hog producers in Manitoba. That's scary when we have a government that's sitting here not doing anything about it.
Number 3: Environmental risk based on livestock production is hand-in-hand with the nitrate and phosphate levels of all types of agriculture or of simple grasslands, that a consideration of effective drainage control to prevent overland flooding of agricultural properties be a priority. And that may mean an order that a farmer that's trying to drain his own property now to make it better than it was before, can't do it, but it preserves what we do have.
Number 4: The expected one-to-10-year model produced for the Province and shown here and understanding the principles of nitrates and phosphates in all organic organisms, sometime in the next 10 years there's likely to be an environmental calamity for Lake Winnipeg.
Now, while the Province may take issue with the costs and responsibilities, there're certain economic opportunities to cover these costs. No. 1: When the Colony Creek diversion was put in–
Mr. Chairperson: One minute, sir.
Mr. Morrison: –a FRED grant was used for that, which was federal and provincial. It wasn't used properly. There's an opportunity for the feds to resolve the issue.
Funding by the federal government has been allocated for the remediation or protection of Lake Winnipeg. Those funds can be used to fix part of this drainage. In a discussion with Steven Fletcher's office, it was indicated that Building Canada funds are available for projects like an extra diversion project for Sturgeon Creek west of Winnipeg. Mr. Fletcher's assistant indicated a willingness to support funding due to the positive effect on his constituents as well as the Manitoba rural economy.
As any diversion of water from within the Winnipeg's boundary is beneficial to Winnipeg, it is very reasonable to have Winnipeg assist in funding reduction of crop insurance costs and expenditures under farm programs, and the opportunity to have sustainable rural economics.
The rest of my presentation on there includes copies of the legal precedents that can be used by any farmer to take the Province to court. The water leaves your ditch and goes on their property.
Mr. Chairperson: You're at 10 minutes, sir. Are you complete?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, I am.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Thank you for that. Questions, I have Mr. Eichler.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Morrison. Certainly, a different twist than what we've been looking at from the previous presenters, and very informative.
Ms. Jennifer Howard, Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair
My question for you: to your knowledge, has there been any test taken as far as the water test results? If so, do you have those available for the committee, out at Sturgeon Creek in particular?
Mr. Morrison: Actually, we've repetitively requested from–
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Morrison, I have to recognize you before you answer, just so we can record it accurately.
Mr. Morrison: Yes. Actually, we've been asking Conservation and Water Resources for copies of their records, and we don't seem to get them. We can't figure out why, but we have an idea. I don't think I need to raise it.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Eichler, on a supplemental?
Mr. Eichler: Yes. There is the Freedom of Information, you could try that avenue. Then, I guess, my second question is–
Mr. Morrison: Could I add one small–
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Oh–Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: If I could add one small point to that. A study was done by Red River College–I think Ralph and other people are aware that I've been an instructor there–was done by them over the phosphate and nitrate levels in there, but, again, that study information hasn't now been made available, although funded by the provincial government. That particular study has now been requested through the higher echelons of Red River College to be published in their library, and we expect it to be there within the next few days.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Eichler, did you have another–
Mr. Eichler: If you could get that to us, you know, either through mail or e-mail, that would be certainly be appreciated.
My other question is that you went into an awful lot of detail about the drainage and, as you know, the current government has done a lot of work in regard to conservation districts. Could you outline your opinion on how those are working and, in fact, they will be the right tool in order to provide the drainage that you see in your organization, in particular with Sturgeon Creek drain?
Mr. Morrison: Firstly–
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Sorry. Mr. Morrison.
Mr. Morrison: I'm just not used to waiting. Thank you.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Well, I'm new here too, so it's all right.
Mr. Morrison: I'll put it across this way. The major meetings that we've had of our group with reeves and council members from our local municipalities there, being Woodlands, Rosser, Rockwood, they have been resoundingly told they do not want the area in a conservation district until this problem is solved. The reason we don't want it in a conservation district is we didn't create this problem.
In a conservation district, we as farmers would have to put up one-third of the cost for the repairs. It's much simpler, in the opinion of the majority of those farmers, to give the provincial government a reasonable amount of time to proceed, try and fix the problems and if they don't, they're prepared to see them in court.
Now, I'm here saying that that is their opinion. I'll be on record as saying that I'm not prepared to take the Province to court, but I do already have several parties that have requested me to be an expert witness.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you.
Mr. Cliff Graydon (Emerson): Thank you, Mr. Morrison, for your presentation. There's, certainly, a lot of information here that, this early in the day, is difficult to absorb in 10 minutes. However, it's a very well put-together presentation and we certainly will be going through it. But, as you pointed out in your presentation–and I'm sure you don't believe that the people in charge of different departments have acted in a responsible way in the past. I'm wondering, maybe, because of the overreaction, that–or, you said that you weren't in favour of the moratorium. Is this an overreaction? And do you believe that the regulations that are currently in effect are adequate to protect the lake?
Mr. Morrison: The legislation that is currently in place is, in my opinion, and the opinion of certain specialists in the field, which I know you've heard from, or are hearing from, and from the majority of farmers out there is very simply the legislation that's currently there with The Planning Act and now the municipalities on board that it's just not a hog barn. It's a real good way to get tax dollars, but rather we have to think of it in an environmental standard.
* (10:40)
You have enough legislation there that you shouldn't even be discussing or considering what you have for these in this proposed bill. You should walk away from these and say, you know what? We need to redesign this, and say, what do we need to do to protect the environment and get with it?
The recommendations that were put forth in there are backed by my group. I have two other speaking engagements to put that other information out there with groups of farmers that, I think, just want to take the Province to court because of there problems, but they're not in our watershed district. They have their own can of worms.
For us, we've been pretty concise; we have good records. We don't need more legislation in the form of Bill 17. What we need to do is effectively work with the legislation that is there. The Lake Winnipeg Water Stewardship Board put a solid recommendation to the Province of Manitoba that they use the existing legislation that they have properly to provide protection of the lake. They did not need more legislation.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you Mr. Morrison. That's our time. Thank you very much for coming. I think we had agreed to–
Mr. Eichler: I ask leave of the committee to have Mr. Morrison's full written submission recorded into Hansard. If we could ask leave from committee for his oral and written presentation to be recorded.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Eichler asked for leave to record the full written presentation in Hansard. I believe that's agreed to, Mr. Eichler.
I think we had agreed next to go to presenter, No. 80 on the list, Kurt Stoess.
Welcome, Mr. Stoess. Do you have a written presentation for us?
Mr. Kurt Stoess (Private Citizen): No, just oral.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Okay. You can proceed when you're ready then.
Mr. Stoess: First of all, I'd like to say hello to the ministers and MLAs. Thank you for this opportunity to speak out on this bill.
I'll start out by telling you a little bit about myself because that's who you are affecting as representatives of the people. You are affecting the people, and I am one of them.
I spent my first 10 years as a resident of Winnipeg. We'll keep that brief; it's not that important. The second 10 years of my life I spent in southeast Manitoba and grew up in the Steinbach area. I got some agricultural roots back there. I came back to Winnipeg, spent a few years here getting my Bachelor of Science in agriculture. Then, upon graduation, I started off my career in the hog industry. That brought me north to the Interlake, actually, the Chairperson's, Nevakshonoff's jurisdiction or area. I worked there both for a larger corporation and a private family farm in their hog operations.
What I saw when I got there was a town that had grown over the last 20 years by servicing nearby First Nations. As these First Nations became more self-sufficient, the town was shrinking and there was less need for their services.
Shortly within my time of arrival in the community, the hog industry also started to grow in this area. That brought people, such as myself and others from different parts of Manitoba, from across Canada and around the world. There's a growing Filipino community now in Fisher Branch due to the hog industry. It's that growth that you as the government of Manitoba need to support, either that or our province will continually shrink. So now the town of Fisher Branch continues to grow slowly.
It's kind of ironic that Chairperson Nevakshonoff had to step out to attend a different standing committee on the school closures, one of which is affecting Fisher Branch.
Personally, I've now left that area, but my wife has nieces and nephews that have prospered from the hog industry and have decided to stay in the area, whether it's by directly working in hog barns or just because the local garage now has more work because the town has people.
So, like I said, it's all about people. It's not about corporations, money and animals. The last 10 years, more or less, I've been back in southeast Manitoba and seen the phenomenal growth in immigration that's happening in that area. It's wild. I bought my house there five years ago–or where I currently live–I bought that house five years ago. The number of houses going up in my area are just–Crown corporations, like MTS, are having trouble keeping up.
You, as a government, you're having trouble. The regular health-care formula for southeast Manitoba does not work anymore, because the population is growing faster than you can gather census data. The schools are bulging, as you know.
You all take part in dealing with those issues. It's just a sign how much the hog industry supports that economy, not just that farmer, not just that company, but the whole area. I think, sometimes, people forget about that. So that's just a little reminder what the hog industry means to the economy of Manitoba, from my eyes.
Now I want to bring you back to a few years ago when BSE first got recognized in Canada, or diagnosed. We, as citizens, as government, pleaded with the world to base their decisions on good science. It took some time; it took some lobbying but, more or less, we've accomplished that. We continue to have the odd case of BSE pop up, but it doesn't change our status around the world.
In the meantime, if you parallel that over to what we're doing here now, the government on record is making decisions not based on good science, but based on paranoia and public pressure.
We spent all this time and money going through the whole CEC process. It came out with a report that listed a lot of recommendations. That day when it came out, I sat there and I read it. I said, you know what, that's fair. A lot more policing, a few rules–I can live with that. That's fair because, like other presenters have said, there's already a good basis of rules and regulations to follow. Meanwhile, a couple of hours later, I hear that the government has decided to try and read between the lines and add some notes, that it said, put a moratorium. I read the report again; I still didn't see it.
In conclusion, I urge you, as the committee and as government, to step back and take another look and implement what the CEC report had to say and recommended for you to do. I realize there are a lot of recommendations. I am sure both the urban population and the rural population would understand if the government could not turn around and enact them tomorrow because, as we all know, things move a little slower here on Broadway.
To be a permanent judge and jury and to put a life moratorium on those areas is just a death sentence, so I urge you to step back and leave yourself an out. Thanks.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Stoess.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Kurt, for your presentation–well-thought-out, well-presented.
I know you hit a real good point there when you talked about BSE. The current government and us, all of Canada and the world, we tried to base BSE on science. We based our trade challenges, the border opening–I think that's the significant point that we've been trying to all work on. It just gives us that many more reasons to base our decisions here at the Legislature on science rather than politics. So I think you did a fantastic job.
* (10:50)
On that point, in your current operations, do you have the land base or the necessary requirements in order to expand your operation if you needed to without the Bill 17 if it wasn't passed?
Mr. Stoess: I am not a hog farmer. I am an employee of the hog farmer, but, in our operations, in some areas we could expand. In others, there are limits with the new phos regulations, and we're working to deal with those and find how to continue on sustainably.
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): Thanks for your presentation, Kurt. I was very pleased that you referenced the Clean Environment Commission, that you've read it. It sounds like you've read it at least twice. Congratulations.
In that CEC report, there were references to regional imbalances that have grown in the province as the hog industry has developed. There was also a reference that the framework that we have in place–I know we've heard a lot about whether the current rules are sufficient, but the Clean Environment Commission very clearly said that they were not and that we, as a province, needed to move to put a stronger framework in place.
I'm really pleased that you've asked about working on the rest of the recommendations. We do have a group that is working to see how we can implement the 48 recommendations from that document. What would your advice to me be if you clear said no to Bill 17? What would your advice to me be to put in place a stronger framework than we have now to deal with those parts of our province where the hog industry is clearly developed in an unbalanced way, where there have been some RMs with a lot of hog barns and some parts of our province with very little? How can we deal with that concentration? What's your advice?
Mr. Stoess: I don't deal with permitting or the development of barns personally a whole lot, but, from what I understand of the whole TRC process, you need to show where that manure's going. Those rules are already there to manage the phosphorus, to manage the nitrogen. So, in those areas where you're talking about where it's overdeveloped already, there can be no expansion under the current rules already because if you can't show where you're going to spread that phos, then that permit should be denied. Your question's kind of redundant. It's already there. I haven't reread the CEC report lately, but I believe they talked about that, in those areas, the process is already there to take care of it. Going forward, those rules will cause natural attrition in those areas to get rid of animal units or increase land base. That'll be a natural process already.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Thank you very much, Mr. Stoess, for your presentation. You raised a good point when you raised the BSE. The Member for Lakeside, Mr. Eichler, has mentioned that already, but it hit me in a different way when you brought the issue of the BSE up.
That is, I know how much angst was placed on the cattle producers of Manitoba as well as the minister, both ministers. Members of the NDP and our side of the House all felt the angst of the decision that was made by the cattle producers and the U.S. government to close the border to cattle going south. That had a tremendous impact on that industry here in Manitoba as well.
It hit me that the same decision that's been made by the government here today in the moratorium has put the same angst now in the hog industry. It hasn't had the same impact to reduce the prices as quickly as the cattle closure on the U.S. border did, but our hog industry was already on its knees virtually because of high dollar values, high feed prices, the country-of-origin labelling that's been threatened to come in in the United States.
As a person working in the industry, I don't have to tell you how tough that's been in the last four, five, six months, if not longer. Do you see any comparison there that the decision that was made here? I know that the government wouldn't have wanted to have arbitrarily made a decision that had the same impact as the U.S. government made on the border to Canadian cattle, but, in my mind, it seems to be almost a parallel. Do you agree with that, or do you think that there's a better way of handling this situation?
Mr. Stoess: I believe your question is just for me to affirm that, from my eyes, what I see the government doing is exactly what the U.S. government did in the BSE situation and, yes, that is what I see. It's acting as judge and jury without listening to the testimony, and it's introducing life sentences which will change the Manitoba landscape forever.
Mr. Graydon: Thanks very much for a good presentation that you've made today. And you've indicated that natural attrition in certain areas that may be heavily populated right now with the hog industry will take care of part of the problem, but you have travelled around the province or in different areas, lived in different areas of the province. Have you seen a big change in the technology and how it deals with a lot of the issues, and do you still think that there's more technology to deal with issues as they arise?
Mr. Stoess: From my personal opinion, yes, technologies win–very far already, or just the manure technology. It used to be the big gun was out in the field and just doing its thing. Hopefully, you didn't get too close to the road [interjection] or the wind, correct. And if you talk to the old-time farmer, he'll tell you scary stories of things that used to happen, like cars going by on the highway. How they never got sued, who knows. But that was a different world, a different climate.
Going forward, we've went from monitoring a bit or figuring out what that manure was worth as far as nitrogen, phosphorus and how the crops have uptake of that and what's left over. Phosphorus is a little hard to manage because weather can change what's left as residual more than anything else, but I won't go into those details. That's all available in the CEC report. But other technologies have seen–there's innovation of the nitrogen tester on field so you can get immediate results and they would know what they were doing, just with GPS coming along and everything. Most of that manure is already mapped out. It knows that it's supposed to apply X amount of litres per hectare–save the Hansard from having to change it from gallons and acres–and it's all done there already, whereas, yes, if you go back 20 years none of that was around.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Stoess, for your presentation.
Mr. Stoess: Thank you.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: We're going to go back.
Mr. Eichler: I ask leave of the committee to call presenter 123, Jacob Hofer.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee to call presenter 123? [Agreed]
Okay, we'll call Jacob Hofer.
Welcome, Mr. Hofer. Do you have written presentations for the committee?
Mr. Jacob Hofer (Private Citizen): A few notes, and oral.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Okay, proceed when you're ready, sir.
Mr. Jacob Hofer: I thank you all for giving us the opportunity to come and see you and talk with you. My name is Jacob Hofer. I am from Starlite Colony. The minister there, me and Minister Honourable Wowchuk are related. She is the Minister of Agriculture; I'm the minister of Starlite Colony, and I know what a minister has to go through on the colony. I can't imagine what you go through with this. I'm not going to repeat what I heard yesterday, but I have a few small briefs for you to take to heart.
* (11:00)
We're hard hit by surprise. We are a colony of 160 people. We ship 200–no, 400 hogs a week and, as you'll remember, there was a time when the producers lost $50 a hog. That adds up to $20,000 a week. We're going in the hole.
The hog industry, boy, it's got a tough time to survive. There is a colony not far from a golf course, and I don't know too many people or farmers that play golf, and I'll tell you why later. This golf course is complaining that this colony fix up their lagoon–it's a mile away–so they don't get the bad smell. I don't blame them, but the colony decided instead of fixing it up, they shut down the hog industry. That's it.
The reason why there are so few people playing golf, you've got to get the ball in a small hole, you know. The skills maybe aren't there, but the answer if very clear: The farmers are in the hole already. They don't need to put a ball in there. That's why they don't play golf, believe it or not.
I find it hard to believe that the government doesn't really know, that we have to come and tell them. They must have known before they made Bill 17. On what did they base the bill if they didn't know?
Now, you have to listen to all this for two, three days. I would have advised to go and ask the farmers first and then, if they can live with it, make the law. But we still appreciate the government, we've had a lot of good things from.
But, with us and with the hog farmers, it's this mistake which always happens to me. When I do something good, nobody remembers; when I do something wrong, nobody forgets. We have had very good success in living. The government took us in from the United States in 1918, and I've had a very nice livelihood. We're able to live our community way of life as the Hutterites, and have had their protection. Sure, they can't hit everything, but they have done a few things. I'll just mention one.
Before Ed Schreyer got into the House, into government, they had passed a law that the Hutterite colonies are not supposed to have any land closer than 20 miles from each other's colony, and they were not allowed to buy land touching their colony land when a neighbour wanted to sell it. So we had to live by that. When Schreyer got in, he says, what's this doing here? We petitioned to him and said, we can't live with that. What can you do about it? Ed looked at it and said, are you paying your taxes? Yes. Are you complying to all the laws of Manitoba? Yes. And you can't buy land? The other farmer can buy it, and you can't? He threw that bill out the window, and we can buy land now. That's what I call a good government, and we appreciate that.
It's something which we will find hard to live with, Bill 17, and I'll just give you an example. You all own a car and it's parked in the driveway. What do you when somebody takes it away? Am I allowed to ask questions or just–you call the police and tell them somebody took my car. Now, somebody is going to take our hog industry. Who shall we call?
You're taking it away. I'm 68 years old, but we have young people coming who are ambitious to work. We want them to be productive, and we need that for their future material livelihood, not so much as for making money, but employment also, besides turkeys, chickens and laying hens. It reminds me, I just don't want you to live to hear that.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Four hundred years ago, there was persecution happening in Europe, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The Mennonites, the Holdeman and the Hutterites lived through it, and it happened from the church. The church leaders seen and went through the records and seen, hey, that wasn't right when we forced those people out of the country and persecuted them. We have to go back and correct that. They did.
In Prague, they called a meeting from the Mennonites, the Amish and the Holdeman. I seen it on a tape; I wasn't there. In one, in six words of the presentation, it was very good. There was a lot of joy; they were crying for joy and laughing, even dancing. This commentator said, at one time, we were wrong; you were right.
I hope this doesn't have to happen here, but it took 400 years. That's too long. There's too much at stake for poor little Manitoba. Just look at the little stretch, going up to Dauphin, which we have for agriculture. The southeast isn't so very rich, and we're making the most out of it. You can see it. We're crowding it in producing grain and all the other livestock and keeping it perfectly clean. We want to live right beside it.
I don't blame anybody for complaining. We have some complaints from our neighbours and we do the utmost to remedy it. We don't turn the blind ear. That good stuff, that material that we spread on the land, that's valuable organic fertilizer, everybody is realizing, and we're saving it.
We used to look for a place to get rid of it and, sometimes, maybe it was dumped where it shouldn't have been, but now–no way, you don't dump fertilizer or grain. You just use as much as you need, and we save it. Yet, the odour comes with it; that, we're trying to remedy too.
The government imposed that we should throw away all our old gas tanks and put in double-wall new tanks. Glass-lined beer vats, they were good; they're still good. They are not legal anymore. We had to spend $40,000 to $50,000 to comply. There is never an ending to it, and there's more coming.
This government, as I believe and as our teacher told us in school, is the best government. We have the best government in Canada, she said. This government is by the people, of the people, for the people. Can you be for us too, I plead?
Mr. Chairperson: You're at 10 minutes, sir.
Mr. Jacob Hofer: Mr. Chair, I'm finished.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, thank you. I'll open the floor up to questions then. I have Ms. Taillieu.
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Thank you, Jacob, for your presentation. It's not difficult to see why you are the spiritual leader of your colony and the other colonies in the area.
* (11:10)
Whenever I've been to your colony, you've always been very respectful and you've always put questions to me–kind of put me on the hot seat, so to speak. I'm thinking back to the meeting we had in Morris the other day and all of the comments that were made by the presenters and the people that were talking about this at that time. At that time, you asked me a question, and you said, why is government doing this to us? So I'd just like to ask you what you think is the real reason government is doing this.
Mr. Jacob Hofer: I'm glad you asked that, Mrs. Taillieu. You're looking for a golf ball which was shot the opposite way. When you shoot this way, you're going to look for the ball there, not up there.
The problem of Lake Winnipeg–I believe it's a big problem, and everybody that's living alongside of it and has a cottage there has a house in Winnipeg, too. I stand to be corrected if I'm wrong. Or he has a house somewhere else; he's got two houses. They are worried about the lake. I don't blame them. How come nobody is worried about when you go farther north, Lake Winnipegosis? Nobody says nothing, and all that stuff goes into Lake Winnipegosis. What's happening there? Is there a deaf ear or a blind eye?
Going back that the farmers are only 1.5 percent of the phosphorus to blame, I think it would be time for this meeting to see and admit it, that Winnipeg, Grand Forks, Fargo and all the other big towns in-between are responsible for dumping the raw sewage. It's being denied and not openly admitted, but Winnipeg, the City admitted it themselves–we need billions and billions. I don't know–it was $4 billion–they could renovate the sewers and remedy that. Where shall we get the money from?
Does that answer your question, Mavis?
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Hofer. I want to congratulate you and your colony on the great job you're doing in regard to education, on your recent award at the past pork congress here held in Winnipeg.
I personally feel that we need to do more education, and I take my hat off to people like yourself showing leadership. I would certainly want to encourage that. Do you feel we need to, as government leaders, need to take more of a leadership role in educating not necessarily the rural people because I think most of them understand and grasp it, but do you think we do enough education in the urban classrooms in order to show how viable this by-product is, called manure, to the land and to the growth of our province through the economy in a natural way?
Mr. Jacob Hofer: Yes, you do need more. To educate them about the manure, I think, that's the last issue, but it's the most important issue. A lot of them don't even know where the food comes from, and that it has to have a farm to grow, and that there is a smell with it. When you drive a team of horses–maybe none of you did, but when we had driven horses 50 years ago, you got the aroma off the horses because you were going against the wind and it all came back in your face, and you were glad to have something to ride with. Nobody complained. The horses did what they want when it came time.
Those poor children are so uneducated. They think it's the store shelf where they pick it up, and there's no stink and smell to it. We've had tours out there. They've seen a chicken lay an egg. Oh, oh, is that where an egg comes from? Yes. I would never eat another egg. Gosh. Where do they think they come from? I don't blame them. Maybe they were never told, but it is so important.
Just going back to our education on the farm, we're going up in grades, too. But I am a very strong promoter for promoting physical education, physical training, welding, anything on the farm. Be productive. Learn to drive a tractor, a truck, highway tractors. Learn to build. Learn to grow. Learn to develop, and we are.
We just came back from a pork congress. We go to Brandon, wherever there are speakers, to learn more. I wish the city would learn their teenagers more, because there's a generation growing up. The strap is out of the schoolhouse, the Lord's Prayer too, and the youngsters are uncontrollable. It won't work, and we still want to keep them under control.
Mr. Chairperson: Time for this presentation has expired. I thank you for your time, Mr. Hofer.
Mr. Jacob Hofer: Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairperson: We call Nathan Baer, Airport Colony.
Lyle Peters. Darcy Pauls. Jason Falk, Hespeler Hog Farm. Mr. Adrien Grenier, but it's my understanding he'll be presenting in French on Monday.
Arian DeBekker, Morris Piglets Ltd. Garry Verhoog. Allan Steinke, R.M. of Victoria. Ken Rempel. Tom Greaves. Ron Johnston, Paradigm Farms Ltd. Lyle Loewen. Neil Cutler. Fergus Hand. Henry Holtman. Christine Waddell. We'll move on then.
Lara Forchuk. Marielle Wiebe, Reeve, R.M. of LaBroquerie. Geoffrey Downey. Kent Ledingham, Steinbach Auto Dealers. Randy Tkachyk. Keith Rogers. Joel Grenier. Harvey Dann. Jack Hofer. Eric Klassen. Timothy Hofer, Willowcreek Colony.
Claude Lachance. Terry Hofer.
Mr. Chairperson: Your name is–
Mr. Claude Lachance (Private Citizen): Claude Lachance.
Mr. Chairperson: Claude Lachance, okay. [inaudible] Yes, if you have copies, please.
Welcome, Mr. Lachance. You may begin your presentation when you're ready.
Mr. LaChance: I'm Claude Lachance from Elie, Manitoba. I'm a hog farmer. I raise food to feed people. My great-grandfather homesteaded the very same land I farm. He had pigs. That's 108 years of sustainable farming. My profession is sustainable, renewable and an honourable way to make a living. Unscientific claims and assertions have been made that what I do is somehow responsible for the water problems in Manitoba.
On the news, Stan Struthers, the Conservation Minister, told a total lie. He claimed that all surplus nutrients from hog production must end up in the lakes. He implied that most hog nutrients end up in the lakes. In a more normal situation, he should have been sued for slander because that's just not right. When your own people are more interested in inflaming public opinion rather than governing, no wonder the average person has been given an incorrect assumption. We would appear to be in a bread-and-circuses situation. Well, beware the Ides of March. Sooner or later, your lies and deceits will come back to haunt you. This is totally fearmongering on the part of this government.
* (11:20)
Your own CEC commission made no such assertion. When the science did not back up your political agenda, you simply shoved the results into a back drawer and did what you were going to do anyway. Your agenda seems to be a hand-fisted attempt at coddling to a totally ill-conceived attempt at winning a few more votes in the next election. A short-sighted, desperate attempt to garner a few extra misinformed votes would seem to trump common sense and people's rights. If this committee approved a bill that blamed the lake's problems on native fishers or Jewish people or people in wheelchairs or black people, this government would be laughed off the planet. Let's not forget Jim Crow. Segregationist laws were based on almost laughable science. This law fares little better in this ridiculous, callous, almost criminally stupid approach to a problem that may not even exist scientifically. This province, as a whole, is probably deficient in phosphorus compared to when the pioneers first broke the soil and, yes, brought some pigs with them.
Very small areas of the province have to be managed more carefully in terms of phosphorus use. That's right, use. The grain industry uses and places far more phosphorus into Manitoba soils than all the livestock industry put together. I don't see a moratorium placed on them. How about golf courses, lawns, detergents and, yes, your sewage? I'll bet the settling pond in the west end treatment centre is a lot less sustainable than anything I do.
The hog industry is sustainable. Your many other government-approved projects are not. Waverley West development is destroying 320 acres of prime agricultural land. All it will produce is more waste and a ceaseless demand for services by those who can afford $400,000 housing. Heaven forbid they spend $40,000 renovating a house in the North End. No problems here. Political expediency rules the roost.
The government is picking on one of the most regulated, controlled, structured and sustainable industries in the province. Somehow this ridiculous approach to destroying the people who have followed the rules has taken root in your minds. I suggest you ban cottage development, ridiculous projects like the causeway to Hecla Island, golf courses, hydro development that features wind turbines on premium farmland, hydro projects that permanently destroy Native lands to sell electricity to the U.S.A., sewage systems for every town that simply dumps waste into water courses by government decree.
I never thought I'd see people so stupid as to destroy the people who feed them. On your way to the cottage to enjoy your ridiculously fun-filled lives, pulling your massive boat behind your gas-guzzling SUV to park in your government-approved camping spot, I hope you fire up the barbecue to find it empty. You can cut out all this other ridiculous fun stuff before you tell me that what I do is unsustainable. Next time you get on that jet plane to burn precious non-renewable resources to produce nothing except fun, I hope that it finally hits home that what you do is unsustainable.
I guess until famine stocks the land, this government could not care less. Sadly, few parts of the world have the luxury of trying to destroy their farms. As somebody said better than me: They came for the Jews and I did not protest; they came for the gypsies; they came for the Jehovah Witnesses; they came for the gay people and anybody who opposed them, and I did not protest. And they came for me, a farmer who produces food, and when I'm gone, famine will stock the land.
This is unfair. I've done nothing wrong except try to feed people my entire life. Four generations of us have taken care of the land, have taken care of people. Yes, I know I've tried to make a living at it just like everybody in this room. Why are you doing this to me, my family, my children? I don't understand this. It's turned into a political football. Don't you realize you're destroying people's lives out there? And, no, we're not all big, huge, monstrous factory farms. I don't know what the negative connotation about that is anyway. You don't mind buying your cars from factories. You buy your motorboats from factories. You even buy your housing parts from factories.
There are so many other places that are not sustainable. What I do is. You've targeted a few small areas in two municipalities that have to be managed a little better. But, remember, you set up the rules and now you're changing the rules. These people who you say are no longer sustainable, they're willing to play ball. They'll just haul their manure another 10 or 15 or 20 miles. The economics of it may make them shut down these barns. Yes, there are eight million pigs being produced in Manitoba, but half of them are 10-pound isoweans, which hardly produce any manure. They're finished in the States, but that's not the point.
Where do you sit in judgment on this industry that, for the most part, has been highly successful, has followed all the rules, has met everything you've put in front of them, has done nothing but play ball? I don't understand this. Also, why is this even a Conservation issue? This is an agricultural issue, and it's about meeting rules, about meeting parameters and doing at the end of the day what's best for the public good, but you are wrecking people's lives out there.
What's my 25-year-old son going to do? I don't know if he has a future anymore. In an area where Cartier municipality has about, I think, 15 enterprises like mine on 172,000 acres, the grain farmers beg me for my phosphorus. I've got a list a mile long for the phosphorus that I generate. They love the product. It's sustainable. It's renewable. I guess we should be burying up the landscape using petroleum non-renewable products. This, if anything's sustainable, it's always been the mixture of livestock, grain farming and food production.
I think this whole industry's been skewed by people and tar and feathering an industry that has really played ball. And, yes, I take it personally. Who wouldn't? You know, it's my living and it's what I've done and somehow we've been labelled as the bad people here. I don't think we are. I think anybody who's spent their lives producing food should be a good guy. We should be kind of, like, thanked a little bit and maybe at least left alone to follow the rules. Like, that's all we're asking here. A blanket moratorium is not called for. Yes, regulations because that's what governments do. Regulations are liveable. An absolute flat out no–I never thought I'd see a government do this. You say yes to many, many other projects that I think are questionable and simply fall into the fun-filled category.
Somewhere in Europe, somewhere in the Middle East and somewhere in Africa they know that the fun doesn't count, it's the food on the plate. Two-thirds of the people in the world don't have that luxury, but I guess here–and I don't know, maybe we do, for awhile, anyway. But you know, I'm just appealing to this whole committee to take a step back and ask yourself what you're doing here to people like me and my family. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Lachance. I have Ms. Taillieu.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you very much, Mr. Lachance, for your very passionate and, actually, very common-sense presentation today. I can feel that you are very passionate about this issue because it affects your livelihood and it isn't fair.
There are over 1.1 million people in this province and, I think, a lot of industries that contribute to the environment in negative and positive ways. Certainly, the Premier has actually said before that, with 1.1 million people in this province, it is a responsibility of 1.1 million people to look after the environment.
So now it's not fair to shift this all onto a segment of our economy, and a very important part of our economy, to simply create the illusion of cleaning up Lake Winnipeg where, in fact, as we've heard from previous presenters, there's no science to support that, and, in fact, it's just not going to happen that way.
Do you see, and I think that you do from your presentation, that governments are, as you say, politically motivated to do this to secure their vote base rather than do what's right for all of Manitoba?
Mr. Lachance: Well, I really think that a more fair approach–the government is totally in charge of how cities and towns handle their sewage. I drive by the Elie lagoon and second stage is drained into the LaSalle twice a year. That would be a $50,000 fine for me. There's no reason why that can't be irrigated on some of that premium farmland, the clay. That would grab ahold of that phosphorus and produce a crop and perhaps a teeny, tiny amount of it might get to the water source. Right now, I know it all gets there, every last bit of it.
* (11:30)
This filter of growing a crop, a hay crop, a grain crop, or any other crop is totally necessary to intercept these nutrients. They found in the Deerwood Wildlife Management zone that the phosphorus coming off that cute little 40-acre streak of riparian along the stream sheds far more phosphorus than the cultivated field above it, because the cultivated fields are a negative phosphorus situation. Land that's in a negative situation grabs the phosphorus as it becomes available during the spring melt, after the minus-30 rupturing of the cell membranes. The phosphorus is coming off the riparian zones. Some of what people thought was the correct approach to fixing this problem turns out to be totally false.
We have to sit back and come up with an answer, not just slam dunk little parts of the industry because most people don't really know what's going on out there. This little study out of Deerwood Wildlife Management zone is an interesting one. It shows that, perhaps, some methods of farming are much friendlier to the environment than others that simply appear to be friendly to the environment. I think if you really want to fix this problem, you have to separate the difference between appearances and fact.
Yes, in Rhineland and Hanover, there are some areas that have too much phosphorus in the soil. This should be harvested, not banned. Harvested. If you harvest that hay crop off those beef pastures that have too much phosphorus for 10 years, there won't be a problem, and they could spread perhaps a small amount. But that's in your regulations today. Nobody can spread manure where there's an excess situation.
But how come other parts of this process get a free ride? I don't understand this narrow focus on my industry. The grain farmer right across the road from me has no problems with this. There are far far more tons of fertilizer, of phosphorus showing up on his fields, and he doesn't have to answer to anybody whatsoever.
Has anybody measured the phosphorus coming off those city and town lagoons? Go to the West End treatment plant in St. James. The water in the Assiniboine can't even freeze there where it enters the bridge at the West End Perimeter. Has anybody measured the phosphorus coming off that thing?
You're banning winter spreading of hog manure. Well, you better ban winter spreading of sewage sludge. To me, it's all part of the same problem. If the logic meter stops here, it can't just proceed over here. If 1.1 million people are part of the problem, then 1.1 million people have to work together to solve it, but what you're doing right now, it would be like bringing a bulldozer to Waverley West. Go for it and see what kind of reaction you get. They don't need that. That's just luxury housing. Why not sock it to them? Why not stop that dead in its tracks, half built? You're stopping me dead in my tracks. Why not stop them? They produce pollution. They produce issues. They produce problems. Why don't you put a complete ban on all housing?
How about cottages? That's just fun. Nobody really needs them. You're nothing but a conflict with the native entitlements on that one. Why not totally kick these guys out of all their cottages and stop all that conflict? See, but we don't do that, but that's all part of the problem. I don't see them participating in the solution, not yet. Why so harsh on my industry?
I know it sounds like a stuck record but, you know, I produce something that's irreplaceable: food. If there're a couple of molecules of phosphorus that end up causing problems, you know what? I produce something you can't cut out of your budget. Just ask people in Africa about that one. You can cut other stuff out. You can economize in a lot of other areas, and, yes, you could stop other sources of phosphorus pollution before you cut out the food on your plate because now you're going to be in big trouble over that one. It's called food riots in Mexico. What is it? Argentina banned the exporting of wheat because people were hungry. The Ukraine banned exporting of wheat because people were hungry. There's something that we just don't appreciate here about that fact. Yeah, if farming does cause some of that pollution, I think, in a funny way, we should be the last ones to pay the price because we're producing that one commodity you just got to have.
You don't need that big car in the driveway. You don't need this. You don't need that. You don't need your bi-annual vacation. You do need food, and it has never sunk in because we've never known hunger. We're fat and sassy. But, you know, you talk to my mother-in-law who remembers Europe, who was physically hungry. I had a Dutch immigrant working for me 20 years ago who went through World War II when he was 12 years old. He can tell you about hunger and the psychological impact it has on your thinking.
We're biting the hand that feeds us here. I honestly think we should almost be given a break. We're not asking for a break; we're asking for equal treatment. Nobody else is being shut down. We're asking for equal treatment here, not special privileges. You know what? If you talk to this Mr. Bill VanMurlow, who's sadly getting on in years, he'd tell you about hunger. There are not enough people like that around here anymore, are there?
This, for the most part, been a good successful industry. If the economics dictate that I have to haul manure 15 miles because of the phosphorous load, I'm done anyway. I can't meet the regulations; I can't meet the rules.
If the real problem is excess phosphorus in one area, then that area is saturated with this industry. You can say that about a lot of other industries, can't you? You can go to Grand Rapids and check out the flooding. That's kind of a saturated industry, pardon the pun.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lachance, your time has run out a few minutes ago. I thank you very much. I had other people who wanted to put questions, but–
Mr. Lachance: Thank you for your time.
Mr. Chairperson: All right then. Appreciate it.
Mr. Terry Hofer. Dwayne Hofer. Andy Gross. Tom Crockatt. Gordie Dehnn. Cindy Vandenbossche. Michael Hofer. Edward Stahl. Kelvin Waldner. Dennis Kornelson. Kurt Stoess.
Richard Taillefer. Mr. Taillefer, do you have any written materials for the committee, sir?
Mr. Richard Taillefer (Private Citizen): No, just a few notes.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, you may proceed.
Mr. Taillefer: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here.
I'm just talking on behalf of my influence and my little town. I come from La Broquerie, Manitoba. Just to give you background, my mom and dad were born and raised in La Broquerie. I have six brothers and sisters born and raised in La Broquerie; everyone is still living in La Broquerie. Four of them are directly employed by the hog industry; the other two are employed indirectly–carpentry in the local town and working at the local school.
For my personal life, I've been married for 24 years; I have three children, two attending university in Winnipeg and one working for the hog industry. I just want to say I'm thankful for a good paying job to support my two children that do attend university. I was born and raised in La Broquerie too. I still live there and I'll guarantee that I'll die there.
Just the impact on a small town for the hog industry, for what it brought to La Broquerie, Manitoba, is, for example, the Co-op, lumber yard, restaurants, golf course, schools, hockey and baseball programs, et cetera.
Our town grew and all that. I was there right–like I said, born and raised. I've seen the progress for the last 15 years, I would say; maybe it's not all contributed to the hog industry, but a big portion of it, for sure.
I would like to say, too, that I'm very proud that I do work for an industry which does feed the world, if it's meat, or manure spread on the croplands so we can have better harvests, so we can feed more people. I think, and so I think that's all, what I say. So thank you very much.
* (11:40)
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Taillefer.
I'll open the floor to questions. I have Mr. Eichler and Mr. Graydon.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Richard, for your presentation.
It's interesting the responses we've had, and you hit on a couple of them. We've seen the growth in small-town rural Manitoba as a result of the hog industry. In fact, we're just in the process of a boundary change within the constituencies, and when you look at the map of the province of Manitoba, it's really interesting when you look at where the hog barns are and where the growth is. Your points are bang on when you talk about the town of La Broquerie and some of the other areas where there are hog barns, and they have the opportunity to get the golf courses, the lumber yards that your referred to. My concern is, if Bill 17 passes in its current state, a lot of those services will be gone. First, you start with your schools because of declining population because you lose jobs, you lose people. So I think you're right on there.
Do you feel that, if it wasn't for the hog industry, you probably wouldn't be located in La Broquerie today?
Mr. Taillefer: I can't say 100 percent for sure, but it's sure been a big impact and influence that, yes. Probably I would stay there because I'm a family-oriented person, and my dad and mom are still living in town, and all my brothers and sisters. But, even though it gives me a chance of having a well-paid job in the industry and all that, so.
Mr. Eichler: Just a supplementary, Richard. In regard to the employer, how many employees are involved in the company you work with?
Mr. Taillefer: Today the company I work for includes 500 people, directly in the hog industry. After that we can't put a number on the offspring or whatever, everything else, like the restaurants and all that, so.
Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Richard, for making the presentation today.
In your presentation you said you were a family-orientated individual and that you would have probably stayed somewhere in the La Broquerie-Marchand area, if at all possible. Because I have a fairly good working knowledge of that area, the only other industry that would have been available would have been the logging industry. Basically, that's what is there, and we all know that the logging industry has had some terrible cycles as well.
Today, because of the livestock, and it's not just in the La Broquerie area, it's not just hogs. There's a big contingency of dairy farms there as well. They're well-managed large farms. Actually, 65 percent of the dairy industry in Manitoba is situated in two of the municipalities that are under the moratorium. However, the hog industry was singled out probably because–and the question has been asked a number of times: why have they focussed on one industry? Because it's so terribly identifiable. It's so identifiable by it's unique odour. The dairy industry, however, doesn't have the same odour, although they have the same effluent. The storage facilities are the same. The regulations for applying are the same.
In your area, what would the impact be if the dairies were faced with a moratorium the same as the hog industry?
Mr. Taillefer: The impact would be huge because it is a big industry for us, too, is the cattle, I guess. Because, like I was saying, it influences all the local businesses and all that, and definitely it brings a lot of immigrants, I guess, in the region, and all that. So the more people, the better it is for our schooling and everything else. But it would be a huge impact, for sure, if they would do the same thing.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Mr. Graydon, supplemental?
Mr. Graydon: Mr. Taillefer, if we were to lose either one of those industries, and because you said you were family-orientated, that your mom and dad are there, your brothers, your sisters, your nieces and nephews, where will your children be? If you lose one of those industries, will your children be able to stay there?
Mr. Taillefer: No. If they do choose to live in La Broquerie, it would be an hour drive to come to work to Winnipeg, I would assume, or in the Steinbach area. But Steinbach definitely has some issues for employment and all that, too, so they would have to drive to Winnipeg, which it would be an hour drive, morning, back and forth. So I would assume that they would move to Winnipeg for sure if they don't have a job locally.
Mr. Stuart Briese (Ste. Rose): Thank you, Mr. Taillefer, for your presentation. I recall a number of years ago, probably 15 to 20 years ago, a former reeve of your municipality telling me–John Giesbrecht–that one of the goals they set in that municipality was to triple the assessment base in that municipality over the next 10 to 12 years. That's an awfully ambitious goal. I know how assessments work in municipalities quite well, and they accomplished that. I think that says an awful lot for the area, that while many of our municipalities were seeing very low increases in assessment, they tripled their assessment base. I don't know whether I can emphasize that enough.
But what I'm just wondering about, I understand you are involved in the industry. Where, particularly? Like, what do you actually do in the industry?
Mr. Taillefer: My role in the company is that I am director of the sow units and nursery, so I do oversee 60,000 sows all over Manitoba-Saskatchewan, and then nurseries according to the sow barns.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much for your presentation, Richard. I just want to pick up on where the MLA for Emerson (Mr. Graydon) is going. The MLA for Emerson is a pretty decent guy, but I don't want him to leave on the record any doubts about Bill 17 and its connection to the dairy industry.
As the member has pointed out, there are some similarities, but I want to make a couple of very key differences between the two. The dairy industry over the years has operated under a quota system which does place limits on the kind of growth that you can see in the dairy industry. That doesn't exist on the hog side. In 1990, there were 3,150 hog farms in Manitoba with a total of 3.2 million hogs. In '07 the number of barns had decreased to 1,280 with 8.8 million hogs. That's a big amount of growth.
Now, I don't want to leave the impression that we shouldn't grow an industry, but we need to understand that the difference is that there were no restrictions on that growth, as was the case in the dairy industry. Much of that growth has taken place in your part of the world. What kind of advice would you give to this minister if you're not in favour of Bill 17? What kind of advice would you give to me in terms of how we manage the environment, how we manage to protect the water? What restrictions, if any, do you see we need in terms of the hog industry without dragging other industries into this, because, on the one hand people say we're singling out the hog industry with Bill 17, and then they try to connect everything else that's going on in rural Manitoba.
What advice would you be giving me in terms of any kind of management in terms of water protection?
Mr. Taillefer: Definitely, I think there is some ruling and some regulations out there, and I'm positive that our company is following all the regulations and all that. The regulations in place mean that we're not polluting or whatever, and we're utilizing all the manure that is applied to the land. So, if we do have excess or whatever, then, yes, it is an issue, and I'm sure we can look at it, or whatever.
* (11:50)
Mr. Struthers: Yeah, I mean, even Manitoba Pork has approached me saying that they're responsible for part of this. They claim 1.5 percent; others say that's inaccurate and it's some number higher. Whatever that number is, I don't think anybody wants to come forward and say the hog industry isn't contributing, at least I think. The Clean Environment Commission has very clearly said to me the framework that's in place, the rules that are there now aren't strong enough. Now, that's clear what the Clean Environment has told us. You don't want us to go to a moratorium. Where do I go in-between?
Mr. Taillefer: That's a difficult question, I guess.
Mr. Struthers: I know. That's why I'm asking it.
Mr. Taillefer: Like for myself, I'm speaking, I guess, what impact it did for my personal life, the hog industry and all that. And we have the proper people to deal with issues of expanding and manure spreading and all that. So, for myself, I'm not involved that much in those decisions that you were asking for.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Taillefer. I see our time has expired, so thank you very much for your presentation.
It's my understanding that Mr. Jason Falk, No. 27, is in the room. Is it the will of the committee to allow Mr. Falk to present since we've called his name already? [Agreed]
Mr. Falk, do you have a written copy of your presentation?
Mr. Jason Falk (Hespeler Hog Farms): I do not.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, proceed when ready.
Mr. Falk: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Jason Falk. I am from Niverville. I represent Hespeler Hog Farms. I am 31 years old, am a father of four, and have been farming full time ever since I graduated from college 10 years ago. I've grown up on a farm and I'm well-versed in its daily operations and management practices, which include good, safe environmental practices.
My love for the farm is only outdone by my love for my family and my faith. Holistically there is no occupation that can challenge one more greatly physically, mentally, emotionally or spiritually. Hard work and the need to trust God make farming an incredible way to raise and teach a family. I'm deeply saddened that I must stand here today to defend my great heritage to preserve our present situation and to fight for my children's future.
If it was not for the hog expansion, I would not have stayed in farming at all. Diversification on our family farm is what has allowed it to succeed over the years. Hog expansion is what has kept my family clothed and fed. Now our government is removing that option from us. Our ability to adapt and to grow will be severely restricted if the option of hog expansion which the current legislation, I might add, already regulates very well, is stolen from us.
There are two major problems that my farm in particular will face in the next few years if this legislation is forced through. Let me start with the issue of fertilizer. The cost of fertilizer, as you all well know, continues to rise rapidly, and the environmental cost of producing that fertilizer is also rising. Manure that my hogs create not only saves the environment by not needing to produce that fertilizer, but reduces my input costs allowing me to be much more competitive, which also allows me to create cheaper food for you to eat. The manure that my hogs created last year was valued at $122,156, and those are numbers I received on June 5, just a couple of days ago. That is just from my hog operation of 1,300 animal waste units.
Hog manure is not a liability or a danger as your non-scientific ways suggest. It may soon be the reason why crop farms in our area have any chance of success at all.
The other major problem I foresee is one of amalgamation. I'm involved in two farms that essentially belong to the same family. One has aging livestock facilities and infrastructure that, in the near future, will need upgrading and improvements to meet the already strict environmental rules that govern the process. The other is a well-established site with excellent infrastructure. The idea of amalgamating the two sites interests me greatly as it would not only dispose of dilapidating buildings, but also take advantage of current up-to-date infrastructure that already exists, thereby again reducing my input costs significantly. Equally beneficial, the up-to-date site has no residences within two-thirds of a mile and no non-agricultural residences for a full mile. The old site has 10 residences within that same two-thirds of a mile, of which seven are non-agricultural. By passing this bill, I'm not allowing expansion. You will force us to maintain these old facilities much closer to rural residences.
We are, in every way, wanting to sustain our environment. We want to use our natural manure rather than man-made fertilizer. We incorporate all the manure to ensure there is no run-off. We want to combine our facilities so as to be less disruptive to our neighbours. We even recycle every possible thing at the site that we can.
I said I had two major problems, but I guess I have a third. Like I said earlier, I have four children and, at this point, all under the age of five. They are not asking me questions about the government and their decisions and the processes but, when they are old enough, what do you suppose I am to tell them about what we are doing today?
I'd like to say that our government did some scientific research and followed through with those logical conclusions, but I can't. I'd like to say our government acted responsibly, basing their decisions on facts and not simply on what would potentially get them the most votes, but I don't think I can.
You make my job, as a parent, very difficult. While I want to teach my children to make well-educated decisions, based on good science, you thumb your nose at that science and make your decisions based on what appears to be personal whim. I want to teach them to be brave and choose what is right, even if it is not popular. You act cowardly as you blame hog farmers for pollution that is created by a much more and larger influential population.
As our leaders, you are setting an example with very dangerous ramifications. If our leaders can make irrational decisions, then why can't the rest of us? Furthermore, if our leaders are willing to sacrifice the hog industry without just cause, what industry is next? No industry is safe.
The bottom line you will be sending to the public, if you follow through with this bill, is that this government can't be trusted. If I'm not mistaken, people who can't be trusted can't get votes either.
For the sake of my farm, my family and my ability to raise children before good leaders, please kill this bill. There is time to save your integrity. Thank you for your time.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Falk. Questions?
Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Mr. Falk. You had talked about putting your manure back onto your land and how sustainable that was for your operation. Are you at a position where you have enough land to spread your effluent on, or are you at the maximum level now?
Mr. Falk: No, we have room–
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Falk.
Mr. Falk: We have room. We all have our manure spread on our own land. At this point, we have no need for land outside of our own.
Mr. Eichler: So you do the soil test and you do an injection application as well?
Mr. Falk: We actually have a third company that takes care of all of that for us, a professional company which does all the soil tests, all the analysis, which got me the numbers on what the value of this manure is. They take care of all of that for us. They're very professional and very good at what they do.
Mr. Eichler: We had a presentation earlier and they based their presentation on how we handled the BSE crisis in 2003, and asked that the world accept science, technology based on science and not just politics. We use that when we try and negotiate.
Do you feel that the government is basing their decision on science, or whether on politics?
Mr. Falk: I believe the government could answer that one better than I could–[interjection]–but I will say, in my opinion, it's political.
Mr. Graydon: Mr. Falk, because I didn't hear your total presentation, what I would like to ask you–because, at the end of your presentation, you said it was to raise your family, the ability to raise your family.
* (12:00)
I know that, in your industry, there's a large capital investment. I know that you specialize. In the hog industry, you have to understand that particular part of agriculture. I'm sure that, when you said your family and the family operation, you would like to see that operation carried on by your family and give your family the opportunity–your kids–the opportunity to carry that forward, it'll be you that's teaching those kids how to carry that forward and that knowledge.
If they don't have that opportunity, where do you expect to go and see your grandkids?
Mr. Falk: I have no doubt my children are brilliant. Even though they're all under five, I can see that already, as every parent usually does. The sky is the limit, but I don't want to take the opportunity of farming away from them.
I, myself, am a college graduate. I graduated with high honours. I could be doing many things, but I see that agriculture, hogs being part of that, because of the sustainability and the diversity, it's just an incredible way to raise a family. I could do many other things, and I've been asked to do many other things, but I choose not to because my family's more important than the money. I want to give them the opportunity to make that same choice.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation, Mr. Falk.
Mr. Falk: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to return to presenter No. 34, Allan Steinke? [Agreed]
Mr. Steinke. Is he in the room? He is.
Do you have any written materials for the committee, sir?
Mr. Allen Steinke (R.M. of Victoria): Some notes.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Steinke, the floor is yours.
Mr. Steinke: Just for a matter of introduction, my name is Allen Steinke. I'm from Holland, Manitoba. I am the reeve of the Rural Municipality of Victoria, and I also chair the South Central Planning District board. I thank you and the committee for allowing me to speak today, and I will be speaking against Bill 17. I've provided you with a number of notes, and it's the reasons for which I want to speak against this bill.
Many of them are probably reasons you've already heard, and I will sort of reiterate some of them for your committee.
I think Bill 17 is discriminatory. It's based on emotion. It's political and it's not science-based. It will not result in any immediate improvement to Lake Winnipeg water quality, but it will result in destruction of many family farms in the Red River Valley and in the Interlake district. It's a little bit like the not-in-my-backyard syndrome policy, I think. We all recognize that it would've been great to have a new hog processing plant in and around the city of Winnipeg, but not in my backyard; you can't have it here. I think we have the same kind of a policy applying here. We've identified one small sector and said, you guys are environmentally polluters, you are bad people, and we're going to create a situation where we're not going to allow you to do business as you normally want to.
I had the opportunity of travelling on the Namao, I think it's called, on the Lake Winnipeg research boat, and the member of that Lake Winnipeg Research Consortium water study group pointed out that the problem is multi-faceted and it's not a result of any single entity. We all have a responsibility. We all have to take some ownership. However, the government of today seems to think that it's the Manitoba hog producer and, in particular, the ones living in the Red River Valley are, quote, unquote, the environmental polluters. That, I think, is wrong.
I know there was a question asked by a committee member. I, at one time, used to work for the Province of Manitoba and was quite involved in the BSE ad hoc compensation program. I very clearly remember Minister Wowchuk, Premier Doer, very emphatically announce that Manitoba and Canada were being very unfairly treated by the U.S. government for taking a position, that it was a–and it really was an emotional situation and a political situation. The science-based information was, and showed, that BSE was not going to impact or have a cause of concern in the U.S. country, yet they saw fit to close our border.
We're kind of doing the same kind of thing, I think, with Bill 17. We’re saying, you know, hogs aren't bad but we really don't want you in and around the city of Winnipeg, in the Red River Valley, because you are environmental polluters. I think that's wrong. The science does not show that this is the case, and citing the hog industry as the main reason for water quality problems is also wrong. It's like cutting off a perennial thief's finger, just the one finger, and that's going to stop him from stealing. That doesn't prevent him using the other three fingers and his thumbs to still pick your pocket.
So, to come out and say that, guess what, it's pigs that are causing problem, so, if you can get pigs away from the Red River Valley, out of the Interlake, we're going to solve the Lake Winnipeg water quality issues. As I said earlier, Lake Winnipeg water study group is saying that it is multifaceted. There are a number of reasons. We have a situation, and I think we have to look at all of them together, not individually.
If the government, however, feels very strongly that a moratorium is needed to resolve water-quality problems, then we should maybe also take a further look at housing development in the city of Winnipeg, West St. Paul, East St. Paul and St. Andrews. Until such time that those centres have water treatment facilities large enough and functioning to prevent further dumping of raw sewage in the Red River, then perhaps we should be looking at something like that as well.
To allow Waverley West, to allow continued growth in the municipalities north of Winnipeg, a number of friends that we have that have cottages in and along Winnipeg Beach, Gimli area, they have black water sewage systems, yet their grey water just goes down the ditch and into Lake Winnipeg. They don't see any problem with that. What's wrong with a little bit of soap in the water that's going out? It doesn't contain any fecal material or anything else, but the soaps are what carries a lot of the phosphate issue.
What happens if a large number of these hog producers in the restricted area want to now relocate outside the so-called closed area? We'd love to have them out in our western part of the province, in our municipality because it's an economic benefit to us, but does the government then of the day re-evaluate and extend the area? As you move out from another area, concentrate, is it going to do the same thing? Really, if the intent is to destroy the industry in Manitoba, then just say so. Like, 10, 15 years ago the government was very strong in saying, expand the hog industry. If today the government of the day wants to say kill it, then just say so. I think people can make business decisions.
Manitoba hog producers and, in fact, all farmers in general are aware of the issue of water quality. They have been proactive and have begun to change their farming practices long before the government actually got involved. I think the economics of the day dictate that. To implement this legislation is a slap in the face. Give Manitoba farmers some credit for having a little intelligence and that they are valued stewards of the land and the water.
We as municipal leaders always want to create fair and unbiased land use policies in our municipalities and planning districts. We base our decisions on technical reviews, in other words on science, and not emotion. Why then are we introducing Bill 17?
The Clean Environment Commission review of the hog industry and the subsequent report do not support an extension to the hog moratorium. The science, in other words, does not support this bill. Not one of the 42 recommendations states an extension to the moratorium. Yet, that's exactly what we're dealing with today. I was a little concerned and, I guess, amazed that the minister of environment–and the minister is here–made a fairly, I think, a very absurd statement on TV. I know you can't control what's edited and what's going to be displayed or published on television, but it leaves many urban residents, especially in Winnipeg and urban centres who are not aware really of all the manure management regulations–I can't quote the statement exactly, but what was presented on TV was that Minister Struthers said, well, we have to proceed with Bill 17 because all the hog waste will just end up getting dumped in the Red River in excess.
* (12:10)
Well, yeah, if your manure management plan says you can only put on 2,000 gallons per acre and you put 3,000 gallons on, there is a chance that the in-excess amount could end up there, but it leaves the impression that, if I were a city of Winnipeg resident, I'd say, well, once the pig poos, the shovel is out and it gets dumped into the Red River. Wrong, wrong picture completely, but this is what farmers are dealing with all the time. In fact, there are no direct pipelines from manure storage units in the Red River Valley, but can the city of Winnipeg claim the same? We know that millions of gallons of sewage occasionally ends up out of the city of Winnipeg lift stations and goes directly in the Red River and into Lake Winnipeg.
In closing, I would strongly recommend Premier Doer and the minister to stop Bill 17. The bill is discriminatory by identifying only one industry. We need all stakeholders to share in the responsibility to clean up Lake Winnipeg. Singling out one entity is wrong. It leaves the impression that this will resolve the problem when, in fact, the hog industry only contributes a very small portion. The science does not support the bill. Allow the Clean Environment Commission report to direct what needs to be done.
The farmers are prepared to work together with the government and not against the government. I guess farmers, in general, and we as municipal leaders want to work with you as well. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Steinke. I open the floor to questions.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you, Mr. Steinke, for your presentation, very logical and common sense.
You referenced Minister Struthers' comments in regard to the hog waste going straight into our rivers. I think that what we have here is a bit of a fearmongering situation where you're telling people that pigs are dirty, water is clean, and if we don't get rid of the hogs, then we're going to have a big problem.
That's just, to me, an easy message to get out to the public, but it's laziness on the part of the government to not actually look at the problem and address the problem piece by piece, instead of just blanketing a moratorium. You know, I think of the analogy, if there was a restaurant that had some issues with food preparation, would it make sense to shut down every restaurant in the province forever? No. I think you look at the problem and you go and you help that particular restaurant do what they need to do to become compliant.
But I just see this as a real lazy approach to cleaning up an issue that is really everybody's responsibility. I just ask you to comment on that.
Mr. Steinke: My comment, I guess, to that, Mrs. Taillieu, is that I agree with what you're saying and what your sentiments are. The science is there to show that there is an issue, and I don't think any farmer nor any politician is going to refute that. I think the way we're trying to resolve this issue is by doing it piecemeal and leaving the impression with other residents, especially in the city of Winnipeg and north of Winnipeg and even south of Winnipeg, that, well, if you take away the hog problem, then we're really going to solve a lot of the issue, and we're okay for another five or 10 years. The City of Winnipeg doesn't really need to spend $10 billion on trying to improve or increase or enhance or even retrofit their waste-water treatment system, that things are fine the way we are by just doing a little bit.
But there are more than just hog farmers in the Interlake and Red River Valley. Are they ultimately going to get labelled as well? It's going to be very hard for a hog producer in the moratorium area to go to a bank and say, well, I do want to finance so that I can enhance or better my manure management system, my facility, to meet the guidelines, but the bank is going to look at a hog farmer in the moratorium area like someone who's trying to get rid of an old gas station. The environmental implications are so great that the bank is going say, we're not getting involved here. Then what do you do? Do you just walk away? I think that's wrong.
Mr. Struthers: Thanks, Allen, for your comments. A couple of things, first of all, I'm really glad you're part of the South Central Planning District. I think that's a good approach, and I'm glad that you're involved with that.
Second of all, I was really pleased that you mentioned the Namao. I've been on the Namao and I've talked with the scientists on the Namao, as I know you have. Dr. Al Kristofferson said to me, quite clearly, exactly what you said in your statement, that we need to have a comprehensive approach. If we're going to solve the problem, we can't just single out farmers. We can't just single out cottages. We can't just single out municipalities. We can't just single out septic fields. We have to have a broad comprehensive plan. Dr. Kristofferson was very clear about that and so were the people at the Faculty of Environment at the University of Manitoba, who may believe their science is correct over the Department of Agriculture's science. So what's a poor Conservation Minister like me to do when you get all these very smart doctors, one saying their science is better than the other, and getting into these scientific battles?
I understand your point about basing this on science. But you are on the very same Namao, the very same research ship that I was when we were both told that there's science on the other side of the issue, too. So we have to be sure that when we look at this we just don't look at the science that fits into our own ideology, which is what I see happening.
The other thing is I will take you up on the statement about absurd statements made by the Minister of the Environment. I'm not going to hide behind the media. I'm not going to blame it on them. I didn't see what they quoted me on so I don't know if it was accurate or not, but let's assume it was. The discussion was about the excess, and even Manitoba Pork says there's an excess of 1.5 percent. That's their number. That is an excess amount. That's what we were talking about. I was being honest in saying that there is something we have to deal with here. Even Manitoba Pork says we need to deal with this. They disagree on where we're going on it, but there's no question that there's an excess amount, and that that excess amount can get into lakes, rivers, streams and eventually into Lake Winnipeg. Manitoba Pork, as we agreed before, Dr. Kristofferson, on the Namao says they need to be part of this.
Mr. Chairperson: Put your question, Mr. Minister. The clock is ticking.
Mr. Struthers: I heard myself one time also say that farmers should get credit for the environmental good decisions they make. When you hear that again in the news, will you come back and tell me that I was quoted accurately on that, just as you did with the absurd statement?
Mr. Steinke: I will do that, Mr. Minister, but to just comment on your comment, I guess, a couple of things. I think Bill 17 is not going to accommodate what you're trying to accommodate, and that's to try to clean up Lake Winnipeg. I think the message that has to come out to all Manitobans and to the U.S. and to Saskatchewan and to Alberta, is to look in the mirror and say, what can I do to help, not the other way around, and say, well, hog farmers are bad, you're doing it wrong. I think the science is there that there's an issue. I think Dr. Kristofferson was very clear, when I was there, saying–because there were other parties there and everybody was saying, it's your fault, your fault. Really, what we have to do is quit pointing fingers and just get down and get the job done.
I think farmers in Manitoba, whether they're hog producers, dairy producers or poultry producers, are all prepared to work with you if you're prepared to work with them. Thank you very much.
* (12:20)
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Steinke. I want to offer a little bit of advice here. We don't have too much time, quite often, for questions and answers so, if we can try and keep them brief, we'll have a greater opportunity for more people to participate. Just as an example, I had a presenter not too long ago that took seven minutes to answer a question, and that's unfair to other members of the committee who want to put questions.
Now, we're over time on this particular presentation, but I am going to allow the critic to put one brief question.
Mr. Eichler. And I'll be monitoring how brief it is.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for the advice. I do take it very seriously and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
My question is very quick. Do you have the necessary tools in your municipality, in your planning district in order to make decisions whether or not a hog barn should or should not be built in your area?
Mr. Steinke: Yes, we do. Based on technical reviews, the science that we're provided, we can make a good sound decision.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Steinke, and thank you for your presentation.
Is it the will of the committee to return to presenter No. 3, Sieg Peters? Agreed? [Agreed]
Committee Substitutions
Mr. Chairperson: I do have a substitution: Flor Marcelino in for Doug Martindale.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Peters, are you present? Oh, there he is.
Do you have any written materials for the committee, sir?
Mr. Sieg Peters (Private Citizen): I do, that I could leave you, yes.
Mr. Chairperson: You may begin when you are ready.
Mr. Peters: Good morning. My name is Sieg Peters. I'm from the Randolph area. I don't usually go out and make speeches so I am in foreign territory here. I am pleased to be here and I thank you for the opportunity. I have spoken out at the CEO when the Clean Environment Commission was out and I thought that was going to be the last time we were going to deal with the issue, so I am rather disappointed that this is still a continuing issue and I think there is a lot of misunderstanding. There's a lot of hype and I can just literally cry, often. I just sit back and I can't explain it in words. I've been farming since '65 and yes, I'm deeply disappointed into what's happening.
I farm together with my brother and myself and then I have a son and a nephew, my brother's son, who are involved in the farm. We grain farm and we've had dairy for a long time and now, the last 10 years, we've been in hogs. I think it's unfortunate that the urban people are being influenced by various people. They're being told how nice it was in the past that we had these small little farms and how great it was and then we use the word "mega" nowadays. It's a totally misused word. They use it for mega barns. I think about it like if maybe the urbanites–it would be nice if they could all work in a 7-Eleven store as well, right. I mean those would be small little corner stores but if you really ask them they would say, well, no, I couldn't make a living doing that. I would only get $7, $8, $9 an hour and that wouldn't be sufficient, and so we have to work for larger corporations, larger grocery stores.
Most of us don't buy our stuff in the 7-Elevens, and why not? They're actually the little stores, but, somehow, we go to the bigger ones. I'm not opposed to them, but I think urbanites, you know, see us in an incorrect light. I'm very disappointed that we're going to continue a ban. The word "ban" means–is very negative, it's a very negative tone. We were stopped from expanding already many years ago, because, if you need a sufficient amount of land for your barns, there are rules in place now to take care of all expansion, if expansion should not happen.
I come from a municipality which is often cited–Hanover–where there are quite a few barns. At the same time, there's still a lot of fertilizer being put on the soil, so there is more than enough land to put the manure on. It may not be in the right places so, while I agree that there probably are some areas that have more manure than needed, there are still other areas that don't have enough yet.
That's one isolated municipality. When we're talking about the ban and the rest of the area, we're talking about a totally different area, where there's lots of land available. We're going to put a ban on it.
A ban is very negative and that's going to come back to haunt us in later years. It's a negative term and it does not do the industry any good at all. We're doing this and the urbanites think, with this, we have made a good attempt at starting to clean up Lake Winnipeg. That's very unfortunate, because science would not say that this was the most important thing to do in order to clean up Lake Winnipeg.
I'm not suggesting here that we aren't one very tiny–could be a tiny source of that, but it's very unfortunate that people now will think that the Winnipeg lake is going to be cleaned up, because there's a ban on hogs. I think it's unfortunate that urbanites could be driving the farm policies in the future. You might want to do this in order to win elections. I think that's rather unfortunate.
Again, I can go home; I can cry all the way home. I realize what I'm saying here may not make any difference and that's very unfortunate, very sad. I can go home and cry, and you can say I can just continue my farming. I can for awhile but, someday, we will be out of luck, because I won't be able to make the changes required because, usually, when you make a change, you always get a little bit bigger in order to take up efficiencies that come along.
These things won't matter to us tomorrow, or a month from now, or a year from now, but it will matter in a few years from now because, normally, when a grocery store expands, wants to become more mechanized, they always get a little bit bigger.
When you build tractors–it doesn't matter what you do in the industry. If you want to become more efficient and you want to bring in more machinery, you get a little bit bigger. That's one of the things, essentially. It will be essential in the future and that's something that won't be able to happen, if what we're talking about here goes through.
I understand it's almost a done deal. That's why I will continue to be very sad. On this note–and I hope you guys are more optimistic than I am–but I feel totally defeated and totally saddened. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Peters. Open the floor to questions.
Mr. Eichler: This is your building; this is your right. We commend you for coming forward and making your voice heard. My question for you comes from your presentation.
You talk about plant breeders, developing new barley varieties to reduce phosphorus. You've been in this business a long time. We need changes; you've seen changes.
With the permanent ban on expansion of hog barns, do you see science stopping as a result of that, just because of the sheer fact that there's no hope?
* (12:30)
Mr. Peters: I think in the province of Manitoba, yes. I think there will be less things being done. Like I said before, there were things being done. They invented phytase, which means that your phosphate is more available so that the reduction in the phosphate coming out of a hog was 30 percent less than it was five years ago, and that's a huge improvement, but it seems–and we mentioned this; this was talked about when the Clean Environment committee went out and they took note of these things. While there have been big things done in the past, in the last few years, it seems like it means nothing to us in government right now when we're proposing this clean up Winnipeg lake and so-called hog farmers are supposed to be the magic bullet.
Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Peters, for your presentation. I know how hard it is sometimes to leave your farm on a beautiful morning and come to Winnipeg to make a presentation on something you thought had been taken care of sometime back when the Clean Environment Commission did their study.
I appreciate one paragraph. I appreciate your whole written submission, but one paragraph importantly sticks out in my mind and that is the fact that Winnipeg is supposed to reduce its nutrients in sewage by some 50 percent to 60 percent in the next few decades, and I underline and stress decades. But, by adding the phytase in the feed rations of animals, the phosphate has been reduced by 30 percent or 40 percent in the hog industry. We all know that phosphate is important to any of our lives. The excess passes through, that we can't use in our body, it passes through, and so Winnipeg, I would suggest, is passing through and going straight into the lake as well.
The point is the industry looked to technology on how to deal with phosphate. They looked at how to deal with that problem. The lake has a lot of algae growth, and it's been documented that that algae growth has also been there for many, many years. It fluctuates.
Do you believe that the government should be looking at technology that deals with that algae, that deals with that in a way that the hog industry, the feed industry, has dealt with the phosphate issue going through the pigs?
Mr. Peters: I believe we have been forced to do things in the last five years as an industry, in the ag industry, that stands up very well and is probably ahead of what some other areas have been doing, and so I feel good about that. Does that mean we can't do more? I think we can and we will be doing more. I know on my own fields we don't put one gallon of manure on our fields before we have to hand in a plan, and that plan needs to have soil tests being done and those soil tests have to show that we are short or that we don't have excess nitrogen and phosphate on that soil. If it does, we cannot put on manure. It's just that simple. And they don't have to believe my testing or my company's testing. They can send their man out and do the testing for me, so it's not just something that we can fool the system with because it's not that simple. So there are spot checks being done, and we've had spot checks on our fields and thus we meet the requirements that they have out there.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much, Sieg. I enjoyed the presentation. I want to pick up on where the MLA for Emerson was going in terms of a discussion on technology. I'm really very impressed with the advances that we've made in technology, whether it be on the hog side or across the agricultural spectrum.
Is it your opinion that the advances in technology have been swift enough to keep up with the rate in growth of the hog industry? I mean, I think we always need to be researching more and looking for more and better technology. I think that has to be part of the overall big picture, the big plan, but, from 1990 to 2007, we've gone from 3.2 million hogs to 8.8 million. Has technology kept pace with that?
Mr. Peters: I think we're making a little mistake right off the bat. It's just simply Manitoba grew so late. As a province, our rate of hogs per acre is still virtually nil compared to–Ontario has more hogs than Manitoba does, and we have far more arable land. They have far more people. Norway–we can go on and on and on.
I mean, it just so happened that we grew quite a bit the last 10 years. Other people had grown 10, 15, 20, 30 years ago, and we grew rapidly the last 10 years to try and catch up. That's why we're into this hype, what I call hype. I think things have been keeping pace, if we look at national or international, quite well. Probably in our area, things grew rapidly in the last 10 years.
As a province, we grew rapidly over the last few years, but it's just that we were very small before, and if you're very small, to double in size doesn't take very much.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you for your presentation. I don't think that anybody would dispute the fact that measures need to be taken to make sure our lakes and waterways are clean. But, again, pointing the finger at one industry, it's easy because you could say dirty pigs, clean water. If we get rid of the dirty pigs, now we automatically have clean water. It doesn't work that way. To me it's just a lazy approach to convince people that something has been done when something really hasn't been done.
So I guess my question to you would be, do you really feel that the government has done enough to involve every person, every sector, everything in the province, have they done enough to involve everybody to address the issue of clean water, or are they just creating the illusion of doing that?
Mr. Peters: I think the government has tried in a friendly way to influence people that safe water is very important, but I feel very strongly that certain areas are being targeted, and agriculture is one of them. We're being targeted and I think that is not correct.
So people in general are concerned about clean water, but they don't fully understand what makes for clean water. They may or may not know correctly what it takes to clean it up. I think there's a lot of misinformation out there. We all like headlines and headlines can be misleading. It's just as simple as that. I'm misled by headlines, too. Don't fool yourself, that I'm not fooled. I'm fooled by them as well.
But I do think that when we're researching something, like the Clean Environment did and like the government is doing now, I feel they need to get down. It should not be hype. It should not be just a little hype. That's it.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Peters.
Mr. Peters: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Claudette Taillefer, No. 82.
Wally Driedger. Carol Martens. Ron St. Hilaire.
Ron, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Ron St. Hilaire (Private Citizen): Just oral.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, you may proceed, sir.
Mr. St. Hilaire: Okay, well, I just want to say thanks for the opportunity to let me speak on behalf of Bill 17. I know you have tough jobs and I want to respect that. I'm not going to try to tell you people how to do your jobs. I'm just going to explain to you a little bit about mine, and, hopefully, it will help, as I am opposed to this Bill 17. That's why I'm here.
* (12:40)
What I find interesting with the industry, right now it's real tough and it's challenging, and I just encourage that we keep our heads together and we work at finding solutions and helping the farming industry continue to grow. I've developed an appreciation for the industry. In the last seven years, I was working for a window manufacturer in Steinbach, which is seven miles away from my community in La Broquerie. We dealt with a lot of people world-wide. I found that industry to be very technical–dealing all over the world.
I never saw the farming industry in that same perspective until I started working for it. I thought that hogs were easy–you throw them some cabbage or something, they would eat and that it was that simple. I found that it was an industry that got very–there's a lot of detail, there's a lot of work. A lot of resources to support an industry like the pork industry, for example.
Yesterday, I drove in at 1:30 last night to speak today from Des Moines, Iowa with some colleagues. It's interesting because one question that came to us is, wow, you guys can afford to continue to travel and you're out here in Des Moines supporting the industry. How is it going? Well, that's a tough question to ask. It used to be easier to ask a couple years ago.
Now, with the industry, the way it is, optimism can sometimes shoot you in the foot. You've got to be fairly even keel. You can't high-five too many people because some of them you turn off because they are maybe having the same difficulties as we are or maybe even tougher yet. You've always got to be careful; keep the focus, just work hard and show some stability. I feel that our company and a lot of us, that's our role is to do that.
I mentioned earlier that the industry is much more detailed than I expected. There is a lot of resources–a lot of people–that there is spin-offs on the pork industry. It's even hit our family. My son's going to the Asper School of Business. He's working on doing some hedging and stock market analysis in weather patterns for the people working for our company. I never thought that a guy that was going to take that type of education would have an opportunity seven years ago in this type of work. My two daughters–same thing. They work for us. I got them to shovel, clean and sweep. My daughter said, dad, I'm not going to do this kind of work all my life. I said, great. She's going to school to be a doctor. Unfortunately, she's moved to Vancouver. Hopefully, she comes back home and there's something for her and her kids to move back to in our area. We'd like to have her back.
That's, basically, in a nutshell, is really, I was just here to say that I am a community person. Our company thinks a lot about community. It has affected my family. It's given me a second chance at a new career outside the window and I enjoy it. I didn't know that seven years ago. I said, I'm going to try. It was time for me to move on. I'm determined to do my best in my job to support the industry and the people that are affected by it. I appreciate the opportunity to express myself.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. St. Hilaire, is it? How do you pronounce your name?
Mr. St. Hilaire: That's pretty good. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Questions.
Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. St. Hilaire, for your presentation.
I'm not sure if you were here earlier when I talked to or I had a question for Mr. Taillefer from La Broquerie. In that question, I presented the statements that the dairy industry in the La Broquerie municipality was a major contributor to the growth of the municipality. Also, that 65 percent of the dairy in Manitoba is situated in south-eastern Manitoba in a couple of the municipalities that are under this moratorium. At that time, I was trying to compare that they had regulations that they had to follow, but they weren't covered by the moratorium. Mr. Struthers pointed out that the dairy industries grow. The growth of the dairy industry is controlled by quota. You have said that you had the opportunity to change your career from the window industry. Are there any quotas that control the window industry that you know of? Because I think the point has been made that Mr. Struthers feels that the hog industry's growth needs to be controlled. Now, are there controls on the window industry in Steinbach? Are there controls on a Tim Hortons industry in Steinbach? And do you think they're necessary?
Mr. St. Hilaire: Well, for the window industry, I was the purchasing manager, so we worked with a lot of the tree huggers, and they had their concerns about good forestry and that, and we, too, back then respected that and the controls were that they didn’t stop people from cutting trees completely. What they did is they went to selective cutting and, you know, still continue to cut trees, but they were also more selective. They worked on it, but they didn't completely stop it. So I feel the same way about this situation here, too, as there's–lets find solutions without stopping it completely and then where can it work and allow this industry to grow, you know, is my thought on that.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Ron. Certainly, I appreciate you coming in and driving back late last night in order to be here today. We've had a number of presenters from out of town that couldn't make it because of the World Pork Congress and, hopefully, they'll be back in the next couple of days and we'll certainly hear from them as well.
I do have a question for you in regard to regulations. Do you think the regulations that have been brought down by the livestock manure management plan are sufficient in order to protect the water the way they are now? Do you think that you've had enough time to actually be valuated in order to make sure that there is enough arable land to spread the effluent onto the land and see whether or not that will work?
Mr. St. Hilaire: I think so. I, again, I'm not the expert in this. We've got people that work with the manure management quite regularly, but I do feel there's land that can continue to get manure spread on it, and I do think that continuing to be good stewards and then understand, educate each other, focus on the areas, if there are areas that are critical, then certainly I'm all for it. I mean, I drink water every day, and I want to continue to do so and, you know, right now I'm drinking it out of my tap at home and it tastes real good and it does good Kool-Aid and everything too. So, yes, I would believe strongly that there is opportunity for growth and without affecting the quality of water.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much for your presentation. Just to continue a little bit of the debate that the Member for Emerson (Mr. Graydon) and I are having, and I apologize, you end up being the tennis ball in the middle of the game back and forth, but, I think, it's useful. I think the Member for Emerson brings up some very good points in a discussion over this industry. The other factors that end up limiting the growth of this industry are the, you know, the dollar, where it's at, the input costs which are through the roof, the impending COOL legislation. Isn't that part of it as well if we're going to talk about what limits the industry? Decisions are being made every day on those economic factors that cause hog producers sometimes to decide not to expand or not to build new or not to have the industry grow, because it certainly hasn't grown during the period of time that those factors have been in place even before the moratorium.
Would you agree that those factors, too, play a part in limiting, just as they would if applied to the window industry?
Mr. St. Hilaire: Yes, I don't disagree with that, but to me, again, the bottom line is to find solutions so we don't lose people out of our province and that we don't lose people out of our community. We got our school, a school that's being built in our home town that, you know, wouldn't happen if the pork and the dairy and the beef, you know, are not around. We're just not going to have growth in our area, and it's very important to me, and then the hockey teams and this and that. You know, we've just got to continue to find solutions so we can grow and sustain what we have. In my home town, my house is probably worth $30,000, $40,000 more, and I built it four years ago. That's a good feeling, and I'd love for that to continue or maintain itself.
* (12:50)
Mr. Graydon: I don't want to get into a debate with the minister today. That's not what that's for. What I want to zero in on is the quality of water. That's the purpose of this moratorium is to clean up Lake Winnipeg. The question I'll ask is, the company you're involved with or the industry that you're involved with and the one you were involved with before, had issues that had to be dealt with with the populace, people who had a concern about the forest, people who had a concern about the land. We have a concern about the lake.
Most of the technology has been developed recently in our province to deal with particular instances; however, a lot of the information has been available for many years in other provinces. What the other provinces haven't had to deal with is an algae growth. Do you believe that there should be more money directed at the research to deal with the algae, maybe a useful use for that algae in the lake? The same way that industry has dealt with issues surrounding the phosphate and how to deal with that. They've put the money up. The people that want to use the lake, the people that want to protect the lake, the people of Winnipeg, should they all be putting money forward to develop research that could be useful with that algae, like a biomass situation?
Mr. St. Hilaire: I would say, yes. Really, that's a lot what's driving this whole bill in the first place, is the quality of water, and it's Lake Winnipeg. Certainly, it would be good to put some energies toward resolving that and coming up with a solution and at the same time, allowing agriculture to sustain and try to be profitable and survive. It's all about, I think, continuing to learn and to educate and to work together. I think that's what needs to happen. The farmers and the government just need to work together and to come to a solution to satisfy the public and also to continue growth in business.
Floor Comment: Is there more time?
Mr. Chairperson: Yes, there is.
Mr. Graydon: Then the responsibility–I'll go back to the CEC. The CEC has made recommendations. They did say that there was beginning to be a buildup of phosphate in some of the lands within this moratorium. However, they said that technology–there needed to be more research done in that. Now industry has contributed towards that research. I believe there is a responsibility of government to participate in that, whether that's through the University of Manitoba, through Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Water Stewardship.
Is there a responsibility for the rest of the ratepayers or the rest of the populace of Manitoba to participate in cleaning up Lake Winnipeg?
Mr. St. Hilaire: Again, I think I'm not the expert in it, but I think for myself that's a good example where I think the more we find out about the situation and don't get too distracted by people that may or may not know what they're talking about. I don't want to say that in disrespect to anybody, but I think it's just continuing to work, and the people that have concerns, to make sure that they've got the right facts.
If I go back to the window industry, if time allows, but it was thought that good forestry was that you would cut down all the trees and you'd burn everything up and then that was good forestry. That came along from the European influence. After that they were saying with selective growth that the forest would regrow itself if you kept a couple trees there and you kept it dirty so to speak, or not dirty. For 25 years they thought that a PVC window was better for the environment and, if a house burns and you have a PVC window, it's toxic.
Again, that's what I would say, just encouraging people to know what it's going to take to solve the issue, get the facts, learn from them and move forward. I think, then, people maybe look at it differently.
Mr. Chairperson: Time has expired. I thank you for your presentation, Mr. St. Hilaire.
Mr. St. Hilaire: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to return to presenter No. 39, Tom Greaves? [Agreed]
Mr. Greaves, are you present? Do you have any written materials for the committee, sir?
Mr. Tom Greaves (Private Citizen): I do, actually.
Mr. Chairperson: You may begin.
Mr. Greaves: Good afternoon, my name is Tom Greaves and I farm in Miami, Manitoba. I grew up on a mixed grain and livestock farm, which consisted of a farrow-finish hog operation and a cow-calf operation. After school, I attended the University of Manitoba to pursue my diploma in Agriculture with full intentions of returning to my family farm.
After two years of farming, I was forced to take a full-time job in the industry in order to maintain a steady income. I have been focussed over the past five years to continue to maintain and grow our farming operation so that, one day, I can return full-time.
The younger generation of farmers are intelligent, loyal, motivated, hard-working individuals who want to become very successful in their farm businesses. I continue to watch more and more of these individuals move to the cities or leave the province altogether in order to reach their goals. These are the individuals who will sustain and prosper in our rural communities; they're the individuals who will support and maintain our $1 billion hog industry.
The hog industry is not the only one affected by the reduction of young farmers in the communities. All rural business is affected. Without the younger generation in or around these smaller communities, they're starting to die off, one by one; they're just not being replenished. I know my little town of Miami there is shrinking by the day. There's just no one around anymore.
Ms. Jennifer Howard, Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair
I believe that all young farmers realize that, in order to operate and be successful in a farming operation and a business, they have to look at technology and science. This is an area that, my generation, we really strive for and we excel in. Bill 17 completely ignores this aspect. With proper manure management, soil testing, and integration programs, like ISO 14001, the hog industry can be very environmentally friendly.
I believe the hog industry, as a whole, is committed to ensuring best practices in order to ensure we have a sustainable environment which future generations can prosper in.
Bill 17 will do away with my ability and many other young farmers' abilities to return to the family farm. Yes, the hog industry is going through rough times currently, but is that to say we'll abandon ship?
This is a short-sighted vision. By implementing Bill 17, we are putting a permanent ban on the growth of the hog industry in Manitoba. When the industry does turn around, will there still be young farmers around to support our economy? This is a question that we really need to ask ourselves.
This is not only affecting municipalities listed in the bill, but all municipalities in Manitoba. As an individual wanting to grow within the industry, our government is sending the wrong message. What is keeping the government from restricting other areas within the province? I'm losing my trust in this fact. I feel that the government is not supporting us and, as a result of our lower voting population, we're being used as scapegoats. I'm asking that you think about all the futures for young farmers and withdraw Bill 17. Thank you.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Greaves.
Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Thanks for coming in, Tom. I do know where your farm is; it's in my constituency and it's right on top of the escarpment, for those who don't know. Deerwood Soil and Management was mentioned by one of the other presenters this morning and you are acutely aware of the research work that they've done there.
We certainly share your desire to kill Bill 17. You see it as a detriment towards your farming, and I certainly agree with that. Instead of Bill 17, what in your mind should the Province be doing to help you so that you can return to the family farm full-time?
* (13:00)
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Greaves? I just have to recognize you before you speak so we make sure we get it recorded properly. Go ahead.
Mr. Greaves: Actually, on that point, I think, you know, rather than putting a permanent ban on, you know, we are, like I said, we're very involved and we're willing to work with industry. So there are lots of things that can be done out there whether–and I guess that's really all that we're asking is to work with us rather than putting a permanent ban, because once we have a permanent ban, it's permanent. It's done, right? To be able to turn that around it's going to be a lot harder.
So we're willing to work with you guys. You know, there are things, you know, they mentioned things like phytase in the feed, our manure management plans. There are all kinds of things we can do, but we're willing to work with government in order to reach these goals. Once that we do say, you know what, it's permanent; that's permanent, and that means no growth at that point. Even though the industry currently, you know, we don't see a whole lot of growth, that's not to say in the future we might not see some in different areas, but once that we say permanent, that's permanent. So I guess that would be my response.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Pedersen, you have a supplementary?
Mr. Pedersen: Many of the presenters that have been in yesterday and into the wee hours of last night, many of them were quite willing to work with the government to make sure that the regulations are being enforced and to make sure that the regulations are actually working and the research can be done. They were offering their expertise to work with the government rather than Bill 17. When the minister asked, well, what about some of the anti-hog groups, would you include them, the presenters were certainly willing to work with all the public and all opinions on this.
Do you feel that would be a better alternative, also, as compared to Bill 17?
Mr. Greaves: Definitely.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Greaves. That was my fault. Go ahead.
Mr. Greaves: No problem.
Definitely. I think, you know, we're all very willing to work with industry, with government to move forward. I'll give you an example. As a young farmer, we have this new safe farm program I'm sure you guys are aware of, obviously. I've enrolled in it and I'm encouraged. Safety is an issue out on the farms, but we want to move forward with that. So I've enrolled in it, and I'm part of that with my farm. I want to make sure that we're doing things as safe as possible there. That rolls over into the environment side as well. We want to make sure that our farms are going to be sustainable, and they're going to be there for the future. Once, as I do have a family, I want them in the future to be around, too, and it to be sustainable. So, yes, we're definitely willing to work with any groups, and willing to find solutions to the problems that we're seeing.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you, Mr. Greaves, for your presentation.
I'm just quoting a line from just at the very end of your presentation, and it says: I feel that we do not have government support, and, as a result of our lower voting population, we are being used as a scapegoat.
Do you believe that governments, once they're elected, should govern for all Manitobans and not just those who voted for them?
Mr. Greaves: Yes, I do believe–
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Greaves.
Mr. Greaves: Sorry. Yes, I do believe that they should be governing for everyone that's within our province. I think it's very important. The government is working for the people. You know, just because we have a smaller population out in the rural municipalities, you know, I'll use Miami as an example. We have 350 people, or something. It's very small, right? But you have to look at the people that are around those areas, and I guess the main thing is we need to find proper solutions. What we've come up with here, I do believe, you know, we see that our contribution to Lake Winnipeg is under 1 percent from the hog industry, from the information that I've seen. What about the other 99 percent? Maybe we're only 1 percent of the people out there, but, you know, we're still focussing on that. The government has to be able to govern for all people, have everyone involved whether we're in the major communities or outside of the communities. So I think it's important that we work for everyone in the province.
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Thanks for your presentation, Tom. I'm pleased to see you coming here to make your presentation. I'm pleased to see young people involved in agriculture.
You talked about farm safety, but the other issue I wanted to ask you about is, have you done an environmental farm plan for your farm, and have you taken advantage of any of the supports that are offered through that program to help you to meet environmental requirements?
Mr. Greaves: Actually, my farming operation, we have just sold our hog operation within my farm in the last year. We had started on manure management plans, and we have passed that on currently. We still do have our cattle operation, but we're at a size, currently, that, as we want to grow, we will be utilizing that portion of it.
I think it's very important, depending on your size. The main point that I want to get to here is when I do come back to the farm, we are going to need some larger numbers. When we do that, we will follow all regulations, whether it be manure management plans, any of the programs that are involved, because I understand that you guys are here to help us as well. We need to utilize information and work together moving forward.
It's not like, I hate say it, for the older generation, if there are any around, but the older generation–but farming is changing. It's changing big time right now. There's a lot of the baby boomer generation out there right now on the farms. I looked around at all the farms and the small farms in our area, and we have all the 60, 65-plus, and they're not going to be around, moving forward. They're going to pass it off to their kids, but if their kids aren't there to take over, what's going to happen with these resources? What's going to happen with this land?
There are a lot of changes, technology, science. The younger generation, like I said in my speech, those are things that we're good at and we thrive on. I think that we'd really like to incorporate that and work with you guys moving forward with our farming operations because they are businesses. They're not just farms anymore. They're businesses.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Minister Wowchuk, for a supplemental.
Ms. Wowchuk: You're talking about manure management plans, and I'm wondering whether you're aware of a program called environmental farm plans where people from MAFRI will come to visit your farm and work through a plan with you that will help you find environmental challenges, and then once you do that environmental plan, there are financial supports to help you adapt your operations to address those issues. Are you aware of that program?
Mr. Greaves: Yes, I am aware of the program, and I think it is very useful. Any programs that we can work on together, I think that's great, and we should be taking full advantage.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Greaves, for your presentation.
Now, I look for direction from the committee and continue to go to the next name on the list, is Jamie Hofer.
I am informed that presenter No. 78 is here. Do you want to call that presenter? Is that what we'd like to do? Okay. So presenter 78 is Dennis Kornelsen. He is here, I think. Is he here? Dennis Kornelsen? Okay. Do you have written presentations for the committee?
Mr. Dennis Kornelsen (Private Citizen): Just my own notes.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Okay. Just go ahead whenever you're ready.
Mr. Kornelsen: My name is Dennis Kornelsen. I have been involved in farming all of my life. I've worked for feed companies in rural Manitoba as well as a feed company here in the city of Winnipeg for 18 years of my life. I'm currently employed by a hog farm and have been for the past 10 years. I have a family with four children that depend on my income. All of my income goes back directly into the community, the province and into the city of Winnipeg itself, too. Many other jobs are direct spinoffs from the hog industry with people like me that work on a hog farm. My future and their future depend on the hog industry.
To me, it does not make any sense. There are starving people all over the world, and we hear every day of increased food costs and food shortages all over the world. We have the land mass. We have the technology to safely build more hog barns in an environmentally friendly way in Manitoba. We have one of the largest hog farms in all of Canada, in Manitoba, who are leaders of the industry and are able to work with the regulations in place. We have the grain available to feed these animals. The Manitoba government has funded large ethanol plants in Manitoba.
* (13:10)
I believe that there should be no moratorium. In fact, the government should fund and grow the hog industry in this province. That's it.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Kornelsen. You took me by surprise there. I have Mrs. Rowat on the list.
Mrs. Leanne Rowat (Minnedosa): I'm an MLA from the Minnedosa constituency. We have several hog industries and a feed mill within our constituency. We also have several Hutterite colonies in my constituency who are supporters of the hog industry. I do know that, within our communities and within our school system, we have seen an increase of families coming to our communities and has strengthened not only our communities, but our schools as well. I believe that when we were looking at a feed mill within our community, we realized that by bringing in the families that we were trying to secure, we were actually securing another teacher within our school system.
Can you speak a little bit about what your family and the families that represent your, I guess, barn or your business that you work in, how it has directly affected your community and your school?
Mr. Kornelsen: Like I said, I have four children that go to school–some of them not yet, but will be going to school–so for the schooling, of course, there's, you know, there's the factor of them all wanting and needing good educations and, depending on the school system, for the children to go back to school, I mean, not sure what else I can follow up on it.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mrs. Rowat, on a supplemental.
Mrs. Rowat: How many families work at the industry that you're located on your community and how many children, actually, do you think come from those families that work at that barn that actually go to the school within your community?
Mr. Kornelsen: Well, I work for a fairly large–
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Sorry. I just have to recognize you, for the record.
Mr. Kornelsen: I do work for a fairly large hog farm, so there are–I'm not even sure how many–there are probably 400, 500 employees directly employed, and all of their families and, you know, so there's a large number.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mrs. Rowat, one more question.
Mrs. Rowat: I want to thank you for that, 'cause what it tells me, and, I think, what it reflects in the communities that I represent is, if you have the opportunity to employ 10 families and each of those families has two or three children, you are actually working at employing another teacher within that school system. You are increasing the opportunity to have another grade, or classroom representing that grade, and from that you have the spinoff of the recreational supports.
I know in my community we work really hard at making sure we at least have one ball team or one hockey team, and I think that what you're representing and your kids are growing up through that system, is that communities are needing those supports and needing those individuals to live in that community. So I want to thank you for your presentation today.
Mr. Kornelsen: Thank you.
Mr. Graydon: Thank you, Mr. Kornelsen, for your presentation today. Personally, I run a beef operation and a grain operation, and I know that I don't always grow No. 1 wheat. I don't always grow the malting barley. Although that I try my hardest, I run into weather conditions and so on that are beyond my control. The feed mills, do they–are they competing for that No. 1 wheat? Are they competing for the barley for beer, because that's what malting barley's for, for those that don't understand, that's a certain market, but whenever I can't maintain the quality for that market, do you, at the feed mill, do you have a certain standard that you would use?
Mr. Kornelsen: Yes. The feed industry generally uses mostly by-products. Most of the wheat and the barley goes to the Wheat Board. So, whenever the grain does not meet the standards, for the most part the feed mills will take that grain and use that grain to feed the animals. It's also by-products from Canola-crushing plants, from soybean-crushing plants. So it's mostly the by-product. We do still have standards of the grains that we do use, but, for the most part, it's a result or a path for these grains that do not meet barley malting standards or Canadian wheat standards.
Mr. Graydon: So, then, Mr. Kornelson, you would say that the hog industry actually supplements what the grain people are faced with, supplements their industry, so to speak, as we in Manitoba are the farthest from the ports, for many export ports and the cost of export has gone up and up and up. So you would actually say, then, that you supplement the grain industry in Manitoba and then, by doing that, also communities that there are no hogs in.
Mr. Kornelson: Yes, I would agree with that. I mean it's a direct path for farmers, growers. It's another marketing place that they can sell their grains to. So it's definitely a place for grain growers to bring their grains to.
Mr. Graydon: In saying that–and the grain farmers, I can tell you, really appreciate the fact that there is a feed mill close by, and us in the south and southeast really appreciate that; however, it's impossible, agronomically impossible for us to produce enough grain to feed the hogs in our area. So I would suggest then that there's a trucking industry that possibly needs to be supported as well. Would you agree then that you're also supporting this trucking industry by the development that you have in southeastern Manitoba or the development that you work with in the feed mill that you would be supporting a truck industry as well?
Mr. Kornelson: Yes, and, having worked for grain companies for 18 years of my life as well. I mean, the trucking industry is a huge industry for the feed industry. We get product brought in from all over Manitoba, as well as coming in from the U.S. Yes, I don't know exactly what the numbers are of trucks coming in, but I would imagine the number's huge for getting product in all over Manitoba and western Canada and the U.S.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Graydon, on a very short question.
Mr. Graydon: The trucking companies that supply the trucks are all situated in, where? The city of Winnipeg?
Mr. Kornelson: No, I would say they're mostly in the rural areas.
Mr. Graydon: The truck dealers, Mr. Kornelson.
Mr. Kornelson: The people that sell the trucks are probably mostly in the city of Winnipeg, yes. I would agree.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, sir. I'm going to ask the committee, we can continue–our time has expired, so I thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr. Kornelson: Thank you.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: I'm going to ask the committee if you'd like to continue reading down the list. I understand presenter 117, Mike Maendel is here. Should we continue to read down the list? [interjection]
Okay, so we'll move to presenter 117, Mike Maendel or Mandel?
Mr. Mike Maendel (Private Citizen): Maendel.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Welcome, Mr. Maendel. Do you have a written presentation for the committee?
Mr. Mike Maendel: No, I don't.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Okay, you can start whenever you're ready, sir.
Mr. Mike Maendel: I'm Mike Maendel of the Blue Clay Hutterite Colony located in the R.M. of De Salaberry. We're a community in the R.M. of De Salaberry. We're a community of 88 people. We've got about 50 children.
I must say that I am very nervous. That's the first time I've spoken out in a public hearing like this, and I would say that it's a direct hit at the colonies. It's a ban. We split out from Blumenort Colony in 1992 or '98. We bought land in the R.M. of De Salaberry, 4,000 acres, and we built a piggery back in 1992. In 1992 the packers wanted a 200-pound hog. Today, they want a 240-pound hog. Barn wasn't built for it. The ban has been on for a couple of years now. We want to expand our barn, not by adding more animals, but to give them what the industry wants, so many square feet per pig. Now we can't. Where do we go now?
* (13:20)
For us, I guess I'm about 40, 45 years old. We may say I'm halfway through life. What about my 12-year-old son? Where's he going to go? What chance does he have with a government that wants to put a ban on agriculture? You can think on and on and on. I've been sitting here for four or five hours listening who all is going to be involved. It's not only the farmers. It's the city of Winnipeg. It's trucking industries. It's endless, if you consider it, and our culture having to rely on agriculture which is being, we feel, threatened by the government.
Yes, there are some issues out there, but we farm 6,000 acres. Nobody has access to the land to spread manure. Why ban the whole province? Why not look at concentrated areas? There are already laws in effect. We've got manure management plans. We've got nutrient management plans. You want to put up a barn, you have to go through technical review boards, and if you don't have the sufficient acres to cover the land, the ban is already in place.
We feel that this bill has to be killed or else the colonies, where are we going to go? We've got 50 children. We built a big school. How do you build schools without money to build schools? Our piggery is a big, big contributor to our financial backbone. I might not be a professional in talking, but I'll tell you this got me going. This is a very serious issue, and the government should be helping us. We feel that the government is not doing enough for the farmers. I know it came up here, we talked about the environmental farm plan which is a good plan but what good does it do? You go to the farm plan, everything, and there's no money there. The government can't help you. Like a couple of years ago, we got a letter saying we need to update our fuel storage. So we got the environment guys involved, built an up-to-date facility, three or four years later I get a letter saying that it's obsolete. I have to rebuild it. Why? I built it to specs. I tried fighting it. I can't.
Well, now they're saying the environmental farm plan, go after them and they're going to help you with that. Well, the environmental farm plan says, sorry we're out of money. It won't be before 2009. Yet, the environment is saying you have to because I got pushed from '07 to '08, and they're saying we're not going to push it from '08 to '09. You'll have to do it on your own. We can't afford this. Like, the hog industry already is struggling. We're struggling, and yet the government keeps putting pressure on us. Are they trying to kill hog farms? Are they trying to kill colonies or communities? If they are then tell us, then be upfront with us so we know what to deal with them all.
I mean the ban, the CEC report, one of our guys got up and we talked about it. They promised yes, there will be some regulations. The ban is going to be lifted. Yet, the government wants to put a total ban on it with absolutely no science behind it. The CEC report stated that the hog industry is sustainable. Why wreck a billion-dollar industry?
We have to start realizing that farming is a very important part of the province. We need farmers. We need to put food on the table. There are a lot of countries out there starving people, starving children. Why do we want to create an issue like that? We're trying to keep our young people at home. We're trying to keep them off the streets, keep them out of the city of Winnipeg. What are we going to do with them? We don't want them in Winnipeg. You look at the local paper or newspaper, all you hear is shooting or kidnapping, stealing cars. We're trying to keep our people home and, by choice, they're staying home. They're working in those barns. Why ban them? That's it.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Maendel. I have Mrs. Taillieu.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you, Mr. Maendel, for your presentation, and thanks for coming today to make that passionate statement because it's important. You've certainly, I think, raised some awareness for your community and for the people at the table. I just want to, first of all, welcome your son as well and ask him his name so we can record him as being here as well.
Mr. Mike Maendel: Lucas Maendel.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you, and welcome Lucas. I hope this will be an experience for you here with your father today.
You did talk about how direct a hit this can be to your colony and to many other colonies. I just want to ask you what is going to happen with your colony if this happens? Will it force you to move to another location? What effect will it have on surrounding communities because nobody is just an island unto themselves. I mean, you obviously support other local economies and local business so how do you think that–first of all, how is it going to affect your colony, and secondly, how is it going to affect the community around you?
Mr. Mike Maendel: Well, when a colony gets to be to 140, 150 people, we start looking at building another colony. We look for a package of land, and the first thing, usually, a colony builds is a hog barn. When we moved over to Blue Clay, and we went in get permits for barns, for anything, the R.M. just welcomed, just waved us in with open arms. Come on, come on, Mike, put up some more barns. Put up some more barns. We need the tax money. We need your support. Where are we going to go now? I guess we'll have to move to municipalities or elsewhere where we can build barns.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. I know that this is something very dear to your heart and your colony. My question for you is pretty straightforward. With the current operation that you're running now, how long will that be sustainable for your particular colony if you're forced to stay the same. Like, is it a five-year span or a 10-year span for your particular colony?
Mr. Mike Maendel: Well, we're forced at the moment. We've been waiting for the ban to be lifted because we want to add to our feeder barn immediately. We're short on finisher space and it's not that we want to increase our sow numbers, but we need more finisher space. With the ban, we just can't do it. So we're immediately affected.
Mr. Eichler: Did you make application prior to the pause, or since the pause, have you made application to increase your operation or were you just sitting waiting, hoping, that the government would come through on their promise when they did say they would lift the ban some–almost a year ago already?
Mr. Mike Maendel: We sat and waited. We had confidence that the government wouldn't do that to us.
Mrs. Rowat: Thank you, Mr. Maendel, and welcome, Lucas. I have a son very similar in age to you so I give you great credit for standing up there with your dad because I know my son would have some trouble doing that. Good for you.
I want to indicate to you that I'm very pleased to hear you come forward today and share your concerns and your story. You had indicated to the Member for Lakeside that you're having some trouble accessing the next level or the finisher barns. Where are you now accessing that support? Are you having trouble finding that locally or are you having to transport your animals a further distance?
* (13:30)
Mr. Mike Maendel: We're having to–
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Maendel. Go ahead.
Mr. Mike Maendel: Sorry.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: That's okay.
Mr. Mike Maendel: We're having to transport animals off site to finish. Now, with the way the hog industry, the state it's in, it's difficult to find producers that are willing to take you on. There's just no money in it. We feel at home that we have guys like him coming up, at the age of 15-16, they already work in the barn. They have their responsibilities and they could do the job.
Mrs. Rowat: Thank you, Mr. Maendel. I do know that in one of my colonies there were some young men that had left for a few years and have come back to the community and were very interested and excited about the opportunities in continuing to live in the colony and to raise a family and to build their colony. They are indicating the same concerns that you have indicated.
When you were saying that you were confident that the government wouldn't put the moratorium on, do you believe that the government consulted enough and understood enough? As you indicated, when you start a colony, one of the first things you do is build a hog barn. Based on what you're saying, am I correct in assuming that the government didn't get that? They don't understand that that is part of the culture, that's part of when you're developing a community that that is a natural process or step to follow. Were you ever given the opportunity to ensure that government understood that before they put the moratorium on?
Mr. Mike Maendel: Absolutely not. That's the way I feel. I feel the government hasn't even stopped to think about the community living and what the colonies do for the province. Like, for example, we have two of our members left the colony. They're going to go on their own. The one guy has three children. He just couldn't make a living out there. Well, he's back in the colony, and it seems he's an asset there. We want him there. He wants to be there. He wants to put his children through school, and he wants to have a decent living. It just gives guys that are, you could say weak, an opportunity.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Maendel. Time has expired. Thank you very much for your presentation.
Mr. Mike Maendel: And, please, consider that bill.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: We're going to move on to–Mr. Graydon.
Mr. Graydon: I would ask leave if there are other questions for Mr. Maendel.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Well, there are several people on the list, and we've gone well over time with this presenter.
Mr. Graydon: Thank you.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: I'm going to move now to No. 86, Jamie Hofer. Is Mr. Hofer here?
Welcome, Mr. Hofer. Do you have a written presentation for the committee?
Mr. Jamie Hofer (Private Citizen): No.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Okay. Proceed when you're ready, sir.
Mr. Jamie Hofer: Thank you. Hello, my name is Jamie Hofer and I live on the Starlite Hutterite Colony. I thank you for the opportunity to speak here today.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
I am against Bill 17 for a number of reasons. First of all, it is a pure political decision. It has nothing to do with Lake Winnipeg unless, of course, Lake Winnipeg can vote. The government thinks that it will save Lake Winnipeg by not allowing the hog industry to expand. Well, for your information, only 1.5 percent of the phosphorus entering Lake Winnipeg comes from agriculture. So you could shut down all the hog barns in Manitoba and it still wouldn't make a difference. If they could dam the Red River or filter it before it enters Canada, then they might be onto something, because 40 percent of the nutrient load of the river is in it before it crosses the border, and after the border less nutrients enter the river before Winnipeg than after Winnipeg city. There aren't very many hog barns after Winnipeg city. The government should tackle issues like Devils Lake, not hog barns that don't even exist yet.
Secondly, the Clean Environment Commission spent a ton of taxpayers' money to find out for the government if the hog industry is sustainable. After a lot of time spent researching and doing public committee hearings, the CEC released their report. In this book they said that the hog industry is sustainable. I repeat, is sustainable. They recommend a bunch of regulations to help keep the environment clean.
Before the report's release, though, the government had promised and, as it turned out, lied, now, that it would lift the ban on new and expanding hog barns in all of Manitoba, but, contrary to their promises, on the same day, yes, the very same day of the report's release, they slapped a permanent ban on building new hog barns and expanding old ones in two-thirds of agricultural Manitoba.
It was a real shock to an industry already reeling from low hog prices and high feed prices. The government discredited all the research and recommendations that the CEC made. I wonder if they even read the report, unless they flat out missed the part that said the industry is sustainable. All the efforts that hog farmers and community people put into the CEC hearings seems to have been a royal waste of time.
The third reason I'm against Bill 17 is because, in the future, we will definitely want to expand our hog operation at home. The barn we have was built 20 years ago, and it was built for 22 to 23 pigs per sow per year. Now we are over 27 pigs per sow per year and shooting for 30. Our weaning and finisher spaces are not big enough for all these extra pigs, so we will have to expand because space is getting limited. We might want to increase our sow herd. We are at 600 sows now, but nowadays that's small. In today's world you have to be big to survive. A lot of the 300-sow operations are gone. I know quite a few people personally, small family farms, they're gone. They couldn't survive because they were too small. I wonder if we're next if we can't expand.
The question I have is why doesn't the government take an example from Denmark? They are a country that is smaller than the size of Lake Winnipeg. They produce a lot more hogs than Manitoba produces and they have water, you know. They have water, too. How does Denmark do it? First of all, they don't do it by banning construction of new and expanding hog barns. They do it with regulations. They work hand in hand with the hog producers and research centres to come up with workable, sensible agreements and regulations to deal with any problems that arise from the hog industry. Why doesn't our government talk to producers and industry people about fixing the issues they have with the hog industry? We, as hog producers, have always been willing to talk. We have always complied with the countless regulations that the government has placed upon us, and we are willing to further do so. We have spent thousands of dollars upgrading our manure storage systems and continue to do so at the moment just to comply with new rules.
But to put a ban on the industry is the wrong approach unless the government wants to drive hog farmers and Hutterites from Manitoba. The NDP government seems to be against hog farming as a whole and agriculture as a whole. If we cannot build new hog barns, we just might leave because hog barns have been a primary source of income for the colonies over the years, unless we go into manufacturing. I suppose we could, for instance, manufacture pencils for the government to write new bills or make baking ovens and frying pans, but what good will they do if there's no more food and no more meat to cook on them?
We don't want to manufacture. We want to produce food for the world. That's all we want to do. Isn't the government aware that there are hundreds of people dying around the world of starvation? Often on the news we hear about hunger riots, mobs breaking into warehouses and stealing food. Doesn't this ring a bell, folks? We need to produce more hogs, not less hogs. If there's a shortage of hog meat, which is one of the cheapest meats, then the poor countries won't be able to afford it anymore, and more people will die of hunger. Look at the price of fish, $5 a pound; beef, $10 a steak, much more expensive than pork.
Another point I would like to make is that raising hogs is part of our Hutterite culture. I grew up working in a hog barn, helping my dad and uncles do chores, just anything to keep busy. I have four younger brothers, aged 16, 13, 7 and 6. They all help in the barn, not because they have to but because they want to. We love raising hogs and we want to be in it for the long run.
* (13:40)
Earlier this year, the provincial government made millions of dollars available in loans for hog farmers in Manitoba to help them get through the tough times. It's strange how, on one hand they want to help the hog industry, and, on the other hand, they make laws to destroy it.
In conclusion, I think, as Canadians we deserve better. We deserve better than the government taking away our jobs and making our future uncertain and bleak, destroying our culture and changing our way of life permanently and, on top of that, that of our next generation.
Canada has always been a free country. Let's work together and keep it that way. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hofer. Questions?
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, James, for your presentation.
I have a couple of questions, but I also want to indicate to you and the previous speaker that, in fact, I have been meeting with the brethren to talk about the issues facing the colonies. We certainly value the contributions that the colonies make to this economy and I know that there are some issues here. So we have met with them and indicated that there will be a follow-up meeting to work through some of these issues.
A couple of questions that you talked about–I wonder if you would just take a minute to explain to the committee how long a barn lasts and, when you're building, what has changed with respect to the industry that would require you, if you're building a new barn, to build it a little different than the barn that you have now, as far as size of hogs go.
Mr. Jamie Hofer: So the question is: What would be different when we build new hog barns?
Ms. Wowchuk: If I could clarify, how often do you have to replace your barn? In the time that you built the last barn and the time that you are building the barn now, if you were building one, what has changed that would require you to build that barn a little different?
Mr. Jamie Hofer: First of all, there seems to be a change–Maple Leaf announced this year or last year that all of their hogs in the next 10 years will phase over to loose housing in gestation. Right now, we have stalls in our gestation barn. In the next 10 years, we might have to build a new gestation barn that has loose housing.
Our barn is falling apart; everyday, we have to take 10, 12 gates out. Sows are big; they're 500, 600 pounds. They push around and the barn–there is constant wear and tear. Twenty years ago, the barns weren't built that strong. Nowadays, a lot more concrete and stainless steel is used.
While I've been working with hogs, I've learned one thing. You can never make it strong enough that it's not going to break. Never. It will always break, even if you weld it like the army does. It's going to break.
Mr. Chairperson: Supplemental, Ms. Wowchuk?
Ms. Wowchuk: You talked about Denmark and different technologies there. I have two questions: Do you have the land base to use all of your manure on the colony right now that you have, and are you looking at new technologies to use them in a different way, so you're not just spreading it on the land?
Mr. Jamie Hofer: Yes, we have enough land base, for sure; we have enough. We have quite a few acres around the colony; we have enough land. We have sold to our neighbours also. Most of it we use ourselves on our land.
What was the second question–[interjection]–the technology. Two years ago, we remade our lagoon system. One of our cells, we poured concrete. The whole cell is concrete where the solids are. Just last week, we're working with a company from Alberta to put a synthetic cover over it. We're working with the University of Manitoba; they're doing studies with us to see if we can get methane off there. We're constantly trying to develop new technology.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you, Jamie, for your presentation. I know it's difficult sometimes to stand up in front of a committee and make your presentation, but you did a wonderful job, and sometimes it's difficult to get questions put to you, but I'll be much more friendly with my questions.
I wonder just if you could explain how this is really going to affect Starlite Colony. We heard from Jacob–I don't know if he's your grandpa–
Mr. Jamie Hofer: Grandpa, yes.
Mrs. Taillieu: Yes, I kind of sensed that just because of your sense of humour. But I just wonder if you can tell me what does this colony face now because of this, and, also, I know that your colony is involved very much to an extent to the surrounding communities because you're a very community people and you've done a lot of good things in the surrounding communities. If you were forced to leave the area, how would that affect those other communities as well?
Mr. Jamie Hofer: Well, how it would affect the other communities, we do a lot of business with the neighbours, like, let's say the Morris Brothers. That's a spraying company not far from us. We buy all our chemicals from them. Let's say we move out of Manitoba. Well, we wouldn't sell our grain to the elevators anymore. They wouldn't get the grain if we do move out of Manitoba to build hog barns. We probably wouldn't buy equipment from here for sure if we moved to another country, so the industries that make hog equipment and the construction industries–well, usually we build our own barns but, like, the manufacturing–the hog equipment manufacturing companies wouldn't sell that much equipment. It's also bad for them, the ones that make the equipment, sell the feed, the feed companies. It's not good for everybody.
And how it would affect our community, I had it in here, our hog barn. I work in the hog barn–my dad's in the States. I've been–I'm looking after the barn at home for a week now and the space is tight. Like I said, our barn was built for 22 pigs per sow per year. Right now, we're at 27. We're still increasing. Every month it's increasing and you have to finish those pigs. You need more space 'cause you didn't build enough finishing space to finish all those pigs. We're also building a new colony. We're in the process. We bought land last year. My grandpa probably told you about that, and we have a hog site up there that's old. It's even older than ours. It's falling apart. It's only 400 sows. We definitely have to rebuild it. If we rebuild it, we'll make it bigger 'cause 400 sows nowadays is not very big. You got to be bigger to survive. To have a mill that's running, you want to make more feed than for 400 sows.
Mr. Chairperson: [interjection] No, I think we are out of time for this presentation, so I'll–and I have a couple others that would have put questions if they had time. So I have to thank you for your presentation, Mr. Hofer, and we will move on.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Rowat, on a point of order.
Mrs. Rowat: I was very interested in what Jamie Hofer was presenting today and I had a number of questions to ask him as a young producer and as a young man who is living on a colony that is looking at expansion. I was wondering if you would be kind enough to give him at least five more minutes to share his responses to a number of interesting points that he raised and need to be explored further, just based on the minister's questions to him.
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Wowchuk, on the same point of order.
Ms. Wowchuk: Although I don't disagree that Jamie offers a lot of information, yesterday, when we were getting this committee started, we said that there were a lot of presenters, and, in order to get through all of these presenters, we would stick to the time period of 10 minutes for questioning and–10 minutes for presentation and five minutes to respond. If the individual chose to take the whole 15 minutes for a presentation, it would be a 15-minute time period. We have a lot of presenters and I think we have to stick to that recommendation, Mr. Chairman.
* (13:50)
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for that. The member does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: We'll move on. I'll call Dennis Stevenson.
Ian Kleinsasser. Mr. Kleinsasser, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser (Private Citizen): Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairperson: You do. You may proceed.
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: Okay. I'm not going to follow the exact copy of the presentation that I'm handing out. I'm just handing that in. I wrote that out, but I want to talk more about something else that I've added to the back of the presentation.
My concern is not necessarily only for the moratorium and how it affects hog producers, here, in Manitoba, how it affects the colonies. I'm more concerned is, where is this all going on a global scale? Our colony, our main industry is, actually, we produce equipment for hog barns. So this moratorium, in many ways, will not affect us as heavily as it will other communities who raise the pigs. We will simply go where the business goes. My uncle and my brother both are heavily involved in our manufacturing plant, and they've travelled extensively all over the world to sell our products.
One of the things that they have noticed and they've come back with is, they say, when, you know, for instance, they go to Malaysia, they go to China, Russia, and they say what really bothers them is how manure is treated there. Because what's happening is, because we're putting in stronger restrictions over here, it's forcing the businesses to go into the developing countries where there are no restrictions.
My uncle says one time when he was in Malaysia, and it really bothered him. He was walking down the street and, from the barn, there was an open conduit running straight down into the ocean. What are we doing when we're, with this moratorium here, we're cutting down all options here, in Manitoba. We're saying, that's it, no more building barns, instead of saying, you know, let's work with this. Let's try to find a solution that we can address the problems here instead of just chasing the problem over into somebody else's backyard. Because that, unfortunately, seems to be the trend not only in this case, but in many environmental issues.
On the back, I have this cartoon where there's a big American in a big SUV trying to stop a third-world farmer from chopping down a tree. He says, we need that tree to save the–to protect us from greenhouse gas effect. Well, we're trying to clean up our Manitoba, here, and we want to keep it clean, but aren't we forcing the problem, now, across the sea to Malaysia? Does that make the world a better place? We have to think more on a global scale, here. What is the effect of what we're doing? I think we have the power, we have the capability here, in Manitoba, to actually make a difference.
You know, there are lots of colonies. I mention that in my presentation. There are colonies that have experimented with different methods. You know, solid separation, covering the lagoons, all of these different systems trying to find a solution. But I think if this moratorium comes in, we'll see an end to that because it'll just–colonies will simply say, okay, either we need to go out of pigs, or they're going to move away. I am going to have to, fine, move out. I mentioned that, I believe it was in 1969 in Alberta, the government passed what was called the communities land act which was aimed at the Hutterite people. It stopped them from building colonies and then later it was amended to stop them from building colonies within 50 kilometres of each other. But what was the result? You know, they were trying to limit how much land the Hutterites were buying, but they totally stopped it, and some of the Hutterites actually moved out of Alberta, moved into the United States. So here we're looking at potentially the same thing. So I'm just asking that the committee or the honourable members really think about that.
So I think that's it.
Mr. Chairperson: That concludes your presentation, sir?
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: Yes.
Mrs. Rowat: Thank you, Ian, for your presentation. In reading quickly through your presentation while you were speaking, you talked about the various ways that the Hutterite brethren have been looking at alternative methods of handling waste. You talked about methane and looking at harvesting it for the purposes of reheating for various liquids and solids separation methods. Could you talk a little bit about that because I know that that is definitely something that has been discussed briefly within the Legislature, and I think you've got some ideas here that we should be listening to.
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: I believe there's a colony near Carberry, Riverbend Colony, that has presently set up–I'm not 100 percent sure if it's in progress yet, but the last time I was there they were pretty much finished with the setup. They have a methane plant, a harvesting plant, where they will be harvesting the methane off from the manure.
At the present time, they are still looking at options of what to do with the methane. There're obviously different options. You could run vehicles with it or they were thinking of just feeding it back right into the system and using it to reheat their barn. So, to me, I was very impressed. I thought that was a move in a positive direction.
Mrs. Rowat: So, you know, examples like this, and I think in discussions earlier we were saying that there should have been more discussions with the Hutterian brethren regarding examples such as this and saying, okay, you know, here are ways that can address some of the faults and concerns, which I believe are raised inappropriately.
I think that when you have a community that relies so extensively on this type of industry, and based on what was being said over the last few presenters, it is a culture of establishment for your colony. Do you know of any government officials that have been working with this type of initiative with the community, and have you had an opportunity to work with government officials on developing alternative ways of utilizing waste?
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: No, I've not worked with them, but I've been to two or three different colonies and seen their setup, and from what I understood, it was either funded by them or funded by other industries. I don't believe the government was involved. As a matter of fact, I did hear some comments by someone saying they had asked for government involvement, funding, and they had not received it.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you, Mr. Kleinsasser. Just a quick question in regard to your thoughts. You've obviously indicated that the decision is, for political reasons, to have a moratorium. I paralleled it to the U.S. making a political decision to close the border to cattle because of BSE. They didn't look into the science and what we were doing, the tagging, or anything else in Canada, and the meat was proven to be fine.
Your industry is very supportive. The technology is raising one of the most high-quality products in the world today as far as feeding people. Can you elaborate on the co-operation that you think would be required to remove the moratorium and work with the industry in the meantime to come up with a better solution than a moratorium?
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: I guess what we're looking for is funding from the government to–let's say people come up with solutions, with ideas that they want to try, that the government is willing to come in and say, okay, let's look at this. Let's make some funds available for research and development and look at some real numbers of what's possible.
I think there are some alternatives out there. They have been tried in different countries. I know a number of years ago we had some people from Singapore here who were showing us some solid separation systems, where the government stepped in there and actually–I believe they had the government put in the solid separating systems into all the barns in exchange for–they said they want all the manure for the next ten years. So they took the manure, aerated it, turned it into compost, sold it back to the farmers and actually made a profit on the whole deal.
So that's what we're looking at. Let's come up with some alternatives. Let's just work together. Let's not just close the door entirely.
Mr. Maguire: Just to that, then, you agree that there are other solutions to this problem.
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: Yes.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you.
* (14:00)
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: I was going to make one more comment, but it slipped my head here. No, I think that's it.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we'll move on to Mr. Eichler.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. You spend a lot of time talking about Canada and the world. Our Finance Minister is here with us today, and I think it's very important that we talk about the economics, especially on the topic which you talked about. What kind of signal does this say to investors like you just talked about, somebody from China or Hong Kong that wants to invest in Manitoba? If, in fact, Bill 17 passes and puts a permanent moratorium on, do you feel those people will be taking initiatives to move to Manitoba?
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: I think that's already happening, because I know in many of the barns that we supply in Malaysia and China and Russia, these are investors from China, they're investors from all over the world who are choosing to go to these countries because, frankly, it's cheaper for them. They don't have to worry about–and they say it right openly, we don't have to worry about the environmental red tape. And I think that is, it's the wrong way to go. We should be worried about it. But I think it's wrong that we are actually causing that problem.
We have the means. We have the money. We have the economy. We have everything we need here to actually solve these problems. The developing countries don't have that. They don't have that, and it's unfair of us to demand it of them. We're pushing the Kyoto protocol and all these things upon all these developing countries and, in return, they're turning around and saying, hey, wait a minute. It's not fair what you guys are doing. You guys got rich. You built up your economies by destroying the environment, and now that you're rich, you're well-off, you want to stop us from doing it. And, you know, there's an irony in that. And I think as, you know, we have a responsibility to the world. Yes, we have caused a lot of damage, but I think now we can also make a difference.
Mrs. Rowat: I want to thank you, Ian, for your presentation. I think you provide what I do here for my communities or my colonies within my constituency, that you're very entrepreneurial. You do look outside of our jurisdictions. You look world-wide for solutions in trying to be self-sustaining and providing uses for all of your products. And I want to thank you for your presentation today because I do believe that your communities do play an integral role in our province and when you stated earlier that what Alberta had done by passing their Communal Property Act and we had lost colonies to other countries I don't want to see that happen in our province, and I commend you for coming forward and sharing your ideas, which I think should be taken on record and given consideration by this government, so thank you for doing that.
Mr. Ian Kleinsasser: I just want to thank the committee for taking the time to actually listen to us and letting us come express our views. We hope that, somehow we can, in the future, work together.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kleinsasser. Mrs. Taillieu? Further question?
Mrs. Taillieu: No, I'm just wondering if it's the will of the committee to have his presentation also recorded in Hansard.
Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreeable? [Agreed] Agreed and so ordered. Thank you, Mr. Kleinsasser.
If it's the will of the committee, I'll go back to presenter No. 61, Mr. Jack Hofer. Is that agreeable?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hofer, Jack Hofer. Mr. Hofer, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Jack Hofer (Private Citizen): No.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed.
Mr. Jack Hofer: My name is Jack Hofer. I'm the hog facility manager of the Walheim Colony. I've been working in the hog industry for 15 years. Hog industry is my livelihood. It's my culture; it's my way of life. It's my way to make a living. In our community, we don't promote a college education or university degrees. We kind of educate our children in the community to prosper our way of life. For me to come in here, stepping outside the box of the community. We don't do that. But to come in here and express my feelings, it's a shame that I have to come here and educate the government. We have to come in here and show them that my legal rights are being violated.
I read this letter to bring to light the imminent, negative repercussions of pending Bill 17, The Environmental Amendment Act, on the Hutterite brethren communities. The Hutterite brethren communities are a vibrant, unique part of Manitoba that not only adds to the culture and diversity of our country, but also significant economic growth by the means of the hog industry. These economic growths are a benefit directed to success for the well-managed, hog farming practices. So important is the hog farming to the Hutterite brethren community in Manitoba as a whole, that it accounts to well over 14,000 jobs and a multi-billion-dollar industry. Hog farming not only means earning a living, it has become a way life for many Manitobans and members of the Hutterite brethren communities.
In fact, hog farming is the primary source of our income for many families and a family tradition that has spanned for many generations, ensuring the preservation of our lifestyle, our employment and practices of our fundamental freedom. In addition, a provision of our sustainable employment, Manitoba has created a global competitiveness in the industry, in spite of a current volatility in the global conditions, by the means of production and expansion of the hog industry, all within the requirements outlined in the environmental act.
In our respectful opinion, our freedom, our fundamental freedom, guaranteed to us in this country, has been violated. As such, we ask the government to retract this bill that threatens and stifles new expansion of industry and the way of life. If this bill becomes law, communal life enjoyed by many will be infringed upon. It is wrecking not only our lives, but the lives of our children, expunging our rights, the legal rights of life, liberty and security of a person, and the right not to be deprived to legitimate family farming.
If Bill 17 becomes law, this government, in fact, is contributing to the communities, but to consumers, purchasers and merchants depending on the Canadian hog industry. Bill 17 discriminates, both directly and indirectly, against the Hutterite brethren communities, individual hog farmers and all business related to feeding, shipping, purchasing, on which the industry is relying. The most visible effect would be rural farmers, families and small businesses in the hog industry, with its effect and extending out to the sector of agriculture.
Bill 17, an environmental act of amendment, permanent ban on building or expanding the hog industry, was done–the environment act amendment, permanent ban on hog building practice, contradicts the government's own taxpayer-funded $750,000 study that has been done by Dr. Tyrchniewicz and by the CEC, Clean Environment Commission, and a 10 years of additional, regulated, independent study has concluded that hog farming in Manitoba, with environmental rules and regulations, is sustainable.
Why are we here, if it's sustainable to rules and regulations? We need more rules. If we get more rules and regulations, it's better for us. It's way better for us. We can make it more economical to rules and regulations with manure programs. It's a benefit for everybody.
Bill 17 unjustly blames the hog industry of Manitoba for water issues, by putting a permanent ban on hog farm building or expansion. Furthermore, the passing of Bill 17 would eradicate probably 14,000 current and future jobs. Of those 14,000 jobs, in the Hutterite communities–there are roughly 100 Hutterite communities; there are about 50 children in every Hutterite community. Bill 17 would eradicate their future jobs, their lifestyle, their culture which otherwise would be available to Manitobans, to science research in improving and advancing a hog industry within our province and allowing it, in turn, to remain consistent and competitive in the global market.
In conclusion, we ask the government–our needs and the future of our children not to be exposed to this vulnerability and possibly demolishing our culture, religion and livelihood, what would be brought about by passing Bill 17, which is discriminating and addresses a serious matter of breach of our rights and fundamental freedom, as an individual that is reliant on the hog industry–to allow this continuation of production and expansion of the hog industry.
It's a shame and a disgrace to be supportive of Bill 17, now here to eradicate the current and future jobs, 14,000 current and future jobs, a multi-billion-dollar industry, cultures, livelihoods, legal rights to life, liberty and security, and possibly promoting starvation.
* (14:10)
This is serious. This is serious. Do you know Canada produces the best pork in the world? Did you know Canada has the best producers in the world? I know so. Two times, we've been awarded for the top producers in Canada, in North America, top production. This is my livelihood.
Do you know supporters of Bill 17 are trying to take away our rights to produce food? That's real, and I say, in my own opinion, that's prejudiced and racist because 80 percent of the hog producers in Manitoba are Mennonites and Hutterites. There are food crises out there. There is food crisis in the real world. We're talking 900 million people are deprived by food each day. That's a lot of people. That's more than Canada will ever have. I shouldn't say ever have but more than Canada will have in a long time. There are children out there depending on us to produce food for them; come on. Supporters of Bill 17 are going to starve those people. They're going to starve those children.
We have the right to produce food if we can produce food. Promoting starvation is an act of evil. I'm a believer. I believe in a God. This is wrong. Hungry people aren't happy people. I'm serious. Most of us have probably never seen hunger. If there are any Bill 17 supporters out there, you should feel disgusted and devastated about yourselves to support such a bill, an evil act; I'd be. In my opinion, if I supported Bill 17, I'd feel like the worst criminal ever existed on the face of this planet. Think about it. Starvation is something. It's going to take jobs away. You're going to take cultures away. You're going to take lifestyles away. That's enough.
It's time to sit down. Let's talk about rules and regulations. It is sustainable. The industry is sustainable. Let's work together. There's always an option. If it needs more rules, it needs more rules. If it needs more regulations, it needs more regulations. What's good for you is good for us. It's good for the neighbour down the road but we just can't close the door. It's impossible.
Floor Comment: Thank you.
Mr. Jack Hofer: You're welcome. I thank the government, thank you very much for taking care and time to read my issue. I hope you do your best.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hofer. If you would wish to remain, there are a few people that have some questions for you.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you very much and thanks for your presentation. I know that sometimes it's difficult to step outside your comfort zone, but you did an excellent job of your presentation today. So thank you very much for coming here and bringing your message about your culture. Pork producing is something that is part of your culture and we've heard that from several of the brethren that have come to present today.
We need to thank you, actually, for doing what you do and your way of life and your families who put food on the plates of our families. I think the message, if I'm correctly hearing you, the message that you're sending to this government today is let's work together on this, but let's not put people and businesses out of business. There's a better way. Am I right?
Mr. Jack Hofer: Yes, you're 100 percent right.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hofer, sorry, I have to recognize you so that you're words are recorded by Hansard. Proceed.
Mr. Jack Hofer: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hofer, I have three more questions for you yet, if you don't mind. I'll go to Mr. Eichler.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you. You did a fantastic job and I'll tell you what. We appreciated hearing from each and every one of our citizens in this great province that we live in. I know that you talked about us being a world-class leader. We'd certainly encourage you and we hope that, you know, by the turnout on the other side of the House today these colleagues of ours that are sitting on the government side do hear what you have to say.
I guess my question for you is, we know there's great science out there. We heard about barley genetics. We heard about feed programs. Do you feel that with the permanent ban coming on that those programs will then stop and there won't be any new science come forward as a result of this strain it's going to be placing on the industry?
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Hofer, would you answer again just for Hansard.
Mr. Jack Hofer: Yes. Who's going to support it? If the hog industry goes down, who would support science? Nobody would fund it. It's the economics and the turnover from the hog production to the feed companies to science to everything to get this thing rolling. Why would somebody stick money into science if the industry's shut down?
Mr. Struthers: Yes, thank you, very much for your presentation. I begin from the premise that your colony does things to protect Manitoba's water and would support initiatives that protect either the quantity or quality of the water in Manitoba. In conversations in the hallway with a number of different people, it was indicated a number of different things that, very practically, you're doing on your farms to protect Manitoba's water.
Can you indicate in your own operation some of those things that you're doing to protect Manitoba's water?
Mr. Jack Hofer: Well, No. 1, we have a manure management program and a management system where every year, in fall, we inject our knife, our manure into the soil where it decomposes and it turns it back into soil. Then we have approximately about three-and-a-half years where we don't have to put on any chemicals like anhydrous fertilizer on there. We get it naturally, organically from the soil that has been decomposed through the manure. That's a great advantage. We're saving piles of money–hundred dollars on an acre right now if you'd put it on, if you'd buy it and put it on. Rules and regulations help us. We need to keep our waters clean.
Mrs. Rowat: Thank you for your presentation this morning or this afternoon. You talked about starving people in starving countries, and I know that a number of colonies are strong supporters and believers in soup kitchens such as Siloam Mission, food banks. I know that blankets have been made for Siloam Mission for their homeless shelter.
Can you talk a little bit about how you provide products to help those within our own province who are maybe less fortunate?
Mr. Jack Hofer: Well, every year, we have this big hog competition and then we donate pork to the food banks. Then there are companies that bid on the best hogs and then we take the money and donate it to hospitals and to food banks to help out the communities, to help out as much as we can. We donate money if we can. Our church is set up to donate and to help in any way we can.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, thank you, Mr. Hofer.
Mr. Jack Hofer: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Do I have leave of the committee to return to presenter No. 65, Terry Hofer. [Agreed] Is Mr. Terry Hofer present?
Mr. Hofer, do you have any written materials for the committee? No? Okay, please proceed, sir.
Mr. Terry Hofer (Private Citizen): I am Terry Hofer from Woodlands Hutterite brethren community. I've been in the hog industry on an off for about 15 years. It's a shame we're here today arguing for our fundamental freedom and our farming rights that have been guaranteed to us in this country. Now we're here today fighting against an unfriendly Manitoba Bill 17. At first the government released a $200-liquidating program to destroy 40,000 employees that have families to feed and to put them through education courses about hog facility programs. Not only that, but the community life and the negative precaution of pending Bill 17.
Permanent bans on building or expanding hog facilities contradicts the government's own funding money of $750,000-study that has been done by Dr. Tyrchniewicz and with the Clean Environment Commission, and the 10 years additional independent study that concluded that hog facilities are sustainable which has been done.
* (14:20)
One point 5 percent of phosphate is revealed from hog facilities, the CEC study shows. With that low percent, this takes pride, responsibilities and farm team efforts to live up to those environmental standards. We care for our future, our country and our coming generation. We ask the government about the rest of the 98.5 percent phosphorus that's contaminating Lake Winnipeg. No guidelines or any information has been sent out to us that we can work with.
So why is this happening? Because the hog industry is a very vulnerable target. If city waste and hog facilities would have similar regulations, we could fold the hog industry by 100 percent. The NDP has to start realizing that working in the hog industry is the biggest challenge in life, to fill the food demand of this country as we speak.
Passing on Bill 17 discriminates and addresses a serious matter in this country, a breach in rights and fundamental freedom as individuals who are entirely reliant on the hog industry that have inherited and passed down for centuries. This livelihood, religion, and culture is our way of life. That's what we have. That's all we got and to expand for many to enjoy. Why take that away from us? Is it because of political reasons? What is it?
Science has been done about how much we're contaminating. It's all a written fact with the CEC environment commission, and why is it really happening? It's a serious issue in society we're actually adding into. It's unfair, mean, and arrogant. Thank you for your time to review our concerns on this issue.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Hofer. Questions.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Hofer. On your current–in your colony, are you at the maximum level as far as animal units are concerned in your particular operation, and are you looking at expansion down the road? If you were allowed to, would you be expanding your operation?
Mr. Terry Hofer: If we look back like I just said, for centuries, that's our inheritance. Of course, that is our main source of income. This is all we have. Not all we have, but it's part of what helps us right through life, support what we have, our families. Our biggest thing is our religion. No matter what, we're standing up for what we have, and we definitely want to expand and come out with, yes, and for many to enjoy. We love that. Why would you want to take that away from us?
That's why we're here fighting. If we wouldn't want to expand and be with the moratorium, we wouldn't be here. We care for what we have. That's why we're all here telling you guys it's not right. We were here first. Farmers, we don't come in the city and tell you guys how to run the city. You live in the city. It's your city. We got the country, no, not we, but we've been farming in the country for centuries and for a long time. That's our livelihood. Why destroy it? It's not right.
If you guys think you got tighter regulations and better environmental standards, hey, you know what, let's work as a team. Let's do it. Like, why not? What are we scared of? We want to have a clean environment. Why not?
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Eichler, supplemental.
Mr. Eichler: We've heard this time and time again from presenter to presenter, making it very clear to the government that there's not anybody, there hasn't been one presentation saying they would not want to work for the government. Rather than put a bill through, they would like to see regulations through negotiations, through consultation, that the industry be allowed to go ahead, to grow and prosper, and work through those regulations. Do you agree with that as well?
Mr. Terry Hofer: Well, I wouldn't come out and say we don't want to directly work with the government, but–I'm just a little tongue-tied here. Let me think. To be honest with you, tighter regulations, we can work with that, and we can work with the government. Whatever it takes to keep our facilities running and the expanding going in our culture, we will work with the government. We'll work with environmental standards.
When we go out to knife our manure or whatever we have for better environmental reasons, we got the environment. Environments are out there working with us. A Clean Environment Commission shows that they're there. It's a $750,000 fund paying money that's been done with our money shows it's sustainable. Why are we here arguing or disagreeing with each other? For what? What is the reason, really? It's been done. It should be over.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you, Terry, for your presentation. It's very clear what you're asking for. The $750,000 Clean Environment Commission study that you referred to, obviously, came out and said that the hog industry is sustainable. We have heard that from other presenters here today.
I'm assuming, and would you agree, that the $750,000 would have been much more wisely spent if we had done what Mr. Eichler just indicated and brought the industry together with the government to sit down and try to find solutions to this?
Mr. Terry Hofer: Yes, that was actually a very good funding, really, to prove to the public, to the media, that we're not really to blame on contaminating Lake Winnipeg, that we're actually running a clean, safe environment. That's what we want to show and I think we've done an excellent job.
Mr. Chairperson: I'm going to go to Mrs. Taillieu, unless she would give leave to Mr. Maguire to put a supplemental.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you, Terry, for your presentation. I think we've heard many times that producers are willing to work with the rules and regulations that are in place. Certainly, it would be, I think, desirable for this government perhaps to have consulted with the producers before, if you had had input into this whole process, if they'd come to you and said, how is your operation working and are there any problems; can we all work together and make this work? Certainly, maybe, there are issues with certain areas in the province that need to be addressed, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you should shut down everybody in the whole industry across the province. You need to work with the ones that need help, I guess, is what I'm trying to say.
But I think that if you had been consulted with beforehand and worked together, maybe we could have avoided this whole issue. I guess my question would be, did you have any input or were you asked about this whole process beforehand?
Mr. Terry Hofer: I've got no comment on that because I don't know. I've got no comment on that.
Mrs. Rowat: Based on what you're presenting today, obviously, there are several young members within the colony who are probably quite concerned that a decision was made, really, that doesn't reflect the science. The CEC report obviously confirmed what you've been saying.
Are there members of your colony, your generation, that are quite concerned about your future and where this moratorium is going to lead your community?
Mr. Terry Hofer: Of course. There are so many people out there concerned, especially my generation. Why wouldn't you be, really? Why wouldn't you be? They're taking something away from you that comes from your forefathers. If you really think about it, what the government really is trying to do, it discriminates our religion, and that's not cool with us. That's not cool.
Mr. Graydon: Mr. Hofer, the hog industry creates over a billion dollars a year to the economy of Manitoba. That's more money than Manitoba Hydro contributes to the economy of Manitoba. The moratorium was put on to clean up the lake. That's the media, that's the spin to this, is that that is to clean up the lake.
However, nothing has changed from the day before the moratorium to the day after the moratorium as far as the hog operations in Manitoba. There will not be one ounce less phosphate going into the lake, but we jeopardize the future of this industry just by psychologically saying there is never an opportunity to change it. Do you agree with that type of philosophy?
* (14:30)
Mr. Terry Hofer: Yes, well, it's, like I said earlier, if it's still the amounts of phosphor hasn't been changed, right, like you said? So that's why we're asking here: where is it coming from then? Where is it? It's obvious it's not from us. Where's it coming from? What's contaminating Lake Winnipeg? Is it city contaminations? Really, what is it? Does anybody know? Can we focus on what it is? Why don't we focus on what it is instead of hitting on the hog industry? Because we've done a study. It's a shown fact that it's not us and, like you said, there's not one ounce of phosphorus since the mandatory ban has been on, so where is it coming from?
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, Mr. Hofer, I thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Terry Hofer: Thanks.
Mr. Chairperson: With will of the committee, I'll go back to presenter No. 66, Dwayne Hofer. Is that agreeable? [Agreed]
I call Mr. Dwayne Hofer. Dwayne Hofer. Okay. If Mr. Hofer is just out in the hallway and returns shortly, he can inform the Clerk and we'll come back to him.
Mr. Andy Gross.
Mr. Gross, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Andy Gross (Private Citizen): No.
Mr. Chairperson: No. Seeing none, you may proceed.
Mr. Gross: I'm here to share a few views and to protest about Bill 17. We had some visitors tour our barn from Russia and envy what we have in this country. They would like to get back into what they had, but the government they had before kind of eliminated everything they had and worked for. They've got the best farming texturing soils in the world, and it was ruined by a corrupt government, and now they're coming into our country to start over and teach and learn how to go about farming again.
What we're doing here is totally going to where they were with starving people in a war-torn country. If this bill passes, we will be the next Russia. If people don't open their eyes and do some major adjusting, then that's what we're heading for. I've got six kids at home. They don't know of other life than farming. Their generations they're going to have, there is none. The food that we produce is the best in the world. The farming and all the equipment we have is the latest and the best. The animals are not abused and misused. They're there to produce food. I am concerned because of the future of my kids and everybody around us. What I would like you to do is scrap that bill and just throw it out. It is a waste of money and, like I said, we are going to be the next Russia if this keeps going. This government has to stand up and do what is right, because they've got hog barns there, they've got 24-hour armoured guards watching those barns. That how much they have and they're buying hogs and they're buying cattle and they're sending their generals from the army into our country to buy livestock. They don't know of anything else because it's been taken away from them and we're going to be where they are now if we don't open our eyes.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Gross. I open the floor to questions.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Mr. Gross, for your presentation. You mentioned you have six children in your immediate family. Is your colony looking at expansion to a sister colony or a daughter colony within the next short time?
Mr. Gross: At the present time, no, but, in the future, definitely.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Eichler, supplemental?
Mr. Eichler: If a colony was to split, we know you need a large land base in order to establish another colony in order to get started. Normally tradition follows with a hog barn. If the ban does goes through, I know that a number of other presenters have talked about the regulations; would you rather see the regulations come into effect for expansion of a barn rather than through a bill?
Mr. Gross: We need to have expansion. It's our livelihood and our main source of income is hogs. There's hardly anything else that you can get into that–like the way we're raised and the way we're brought up, that's basically our education, is livestock and farming.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much, Andy. I respect a guy who can just stand up, without notes and tell us exactly what he thinks of something. I appreciate that.
Tell me exactly what your community does to protect Manitoba's water. Again, I want you to know that I start from the premise that there's some very practical things being done on farms, I suspect yours included, to protect the water. Can you tell me what you do on a day-to-day basis to accomplish that?
Mr. Gross: I would be a fool to do something to hurt my family and the people around me. So we operate at the highest tolerance level that we possibly can to keep everything clean. The waters–we'd be fools to pollute them because we have to drink it. All the standards that we can basically do, that's what we do. There's a small creek running by our yard. It's clean and if it's not dried out, we don't go dumping stuff in there because we'd contaminate ourselves. Why would we go and do that?
The lakes around us–the closest is the Assiniboine River. I like to go fishing there. I'd be a stupid fool to dump some manure in there and then have to go and sit and catch a fish there. It's logic; it's stupid. We have to breathe air that is out there so why would we go and pollute it.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you, Mr. Gross, for your presentation.
I think that was a little bit of an unfair question to ask you, what you are doing to protect the water. I think that, if they're going to ask that question of you, they should ask that of every single Manitoban in this province because we are all part of the problem here. We all need to be part of the solution; not just you, not just the colonies, not just the hog producers, but every single person. I think that the message here should be to the government. If you want to protect the environment, and who doesn't, then talk to every single person in this province and don't try and single out an industry.
Mr. Gross: It is unfair. There are people that are probably changing oil on the streets of Winnipeg and just running it through the sewer system. There are thousands of people that contaminate water like they don't care. But it's all being pointed at the farmer. Because of the animal waste they think that's where most of it is going and it's not fair. There are big, big companies out there that produce twice the pollution that a hog farm would and three times the level. Toxic waste too. The waste that we get off the animals is organic; it's not a toxic waste.
We love to have the waters clean. We like to see the bottom of the lake too. There are not too many lakes around where you can see the bottom no more. It's not from the farmers, it's from everybody around.
* (14:40)
Mr. Struthers: Andy, it's too bad you're in the middle of this, but I did not intend that to be an unfair question. If you felt that it was unfair, I apologize to you. I do not ask that question in any way, shape or form to put you on the spot, to suggest that it is all up to you or all up to farmers to protect water. My premise is that the Hutterite colonies and other farmers, every day on the job, they make good decisions to protect Manitoba water. That's my premise. I've been clear on that. I don't want others to play politics with it when I ask an honest question to give a farmer a chance to brag about the things that he or she does on their day-to-day operations. So I suggest we just distil that kind of politics out of this. I have talked to people in that hallway this afternoon who told me about collecting water in rain barrels and using it. That is a good practice. It happens every day on Manitoba farms.
I don't want, at the end of this process, to have people mistakenly think that people on Hutterite colonies get up every morning to look for ways to screw up Manitoba's water. I don't believe that, and I don't think we should make those kinds of statements in this committee. I think we need to give Manitoba farmers, Hutterites included, every chance, every possibility to explain how good stewards they are in our land. I take that serious, and I'm offended at that kind of an insinuation by the Member for Morris (Mrs. Taillieu).
So, Andy, I'll–if you don't mind, I'll give you another chance to talk about some of the very practical ways that you do to help Manitoba protect its water. That's all good intentions and everything.
Mr. Gross: To protect water it takes a team. An individual can't do it. If I try my best to keep it clean, and the guy down the road doesn't, well, there's not much you can do. But, in our community, that we have, water is a very important source. We have lots of it. We've got artesian wells. The water quality is excellent, and it was there when we got there. It's been like that since we've been there, and we've been there for 30-some years now, so the practices we are doing, they're good, because, if the water quality would be bad, and it was good when we got there, then who'd be to blame? It would be us. But the practices that we do are–apparently we're doing the right thing because the quality is good.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to follow up again. Thank you for your presentation and for sharing about your colony.
I wanted to ask you whether on your colony you had enough land base to spread the manure or whether you have extra room?
I also wanted to ask you–there's a lot of talk about different kinds of technologies that can be used to process manure. So there are two questions: Do you have enough land or do you have more land than you are able to use now? And are you looking at any of the other technologies that are available to treat manure?
Mr. Gross: We have enough land to triple our hog production. That will answer the one question, and the second question you'll have to repeat because I forgot it.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, if you have triple the land base that you need, you probably don't have to look at technologies. What I was asking is, sometimes when there isn't a large enough land base, people will look at different kinds of technologies whether to separate manure or those kinds of things. But, if you have a large land base, you probably aren't looking at those other technologies.
Mr. Gross: We're in the practice of spending over half a million dollars to update our manure system we have now. It's going to be better or more updated technology, and the reason we're doing it because it's for the environment's benefit. If we wouldn't be doing it, we wouldn't go wasting that money.
Mrs. Taillieu: I just wanted to respond to what the minister said. He said that we shouldn't be playing politics, and, you know, I agree with that. We shouldn't be playing politics, and if the minister doesn't want to play politics, I suggest that he should kill Bill 17.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairperson: I have a point of order, but, first of all, I just want to remind the crowd–and I did this last night–that they're not to participate. Everybody who wants to has an opportunity to participate, that's at the microphone at the end of the table here. So I ask you to just restrain yourselves, please.
Mr. Chairperson: I have Ms. Howard, on a point of order.
Ms. Jennifer Howard (Fort Rouge): I don't want to take up the committee's time, but I wonder if you could just remind us all of the guidelines when it comes to questioning presenters and the purpose of those questions.
My understanding of questions is they're to gain information from the presenters. It's not an opportunity for us to debate with each other. We've lots of time to do that in the House. This is the time for us to hear from the public.
I think we've had very good co-operation on the committee and we should try to continue that, thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, one moment. Thank you, Ms. Howard. I'm going to respectfully rule that it is not a point of order, because I do not want to unnecessarily subscribe debate here or questions. However, I will read this which the Clerk has passed to me.
I would like to remind committee members that questions addressed to presenters should be for clarification, based on information contained in the brief. These questions should not be used to debate or argue with presenters or used as a vehicle to ask leading questions. I thank honourable members for adhering to these practices.
There will be ample opportunity, after the public presentations are complete, for members opposite to debate this till the cows come home, or the sun comes up, or whatever comes first. I'm sure we will not limit you in any way whatsoever at that point in time but, while we have the public before us, let's try and focus on questions to the presenters, based on their presentations, please.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Where was I? Mrs. Taillieu, I believe, had put a question? Had you?
Mrs. Taillieu: No, I'm finished. I made my point.
Mr. Chairperson: She was done her question, and it was to the presenter. Sir, do you recall the question Mrs. Taillieu put?
Mr. Gross: Absolutely not.
Mr. Chairperson: Pardon me.
Hon. Christine Melnick (Minister of Water Stewardship): There really wasn't a question there and then we got onto our discussion, so I think there might be about a minute more for questions to this gentleman. That's where we were.
Mr. Chairperson: Time has expired for this presentation, so I won't take any new questions.
Mr. Graydon: I ask leave of the committee because the time has been used up for other things. I have a small question for the presenter that was raised in his presentation, Mr. Chairperson.
Mr. Chairperson: First of all, the Clerk had stopped the clock, so the clock was not running while we went through the debate over the point of order. Time has now expired so, if you want to put a question, you would have to ask leave of the committee to do so.
Does Mr. Graydon have leave to put an additional question?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Chairperson: Leave has been granted.
Mr. Graydon: I thank the committee for that and I thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.
Mr. Gross, you said that, when answering the question from the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk), you had three times the land base that was required for your hog operation today. However, because of the moratorium, you'll not be allowed to expand your hog operation.
I know that your religious beliefs and your denominational beliefs are that you work with the land. If you have three times the land base, but you can't develop that, the next generation–when it comes time for that colony to split and to move on, would that happen in this province, or will that happen somewhere where they'll welcome you, like Saskatchewan?
* (14:50)
Mr. Gross: If Bill 17 is informed and we cannot build no hog operation, it will not be in Manitoba. It can't be in Manitoba because, like I said before, all we have is hogs, like our major source of income, the reason I said we've got three times the land base with the hog unit we have, I was talking about injecting and handling manure properly. A lot of farms, they don't have the land base, but we do. If Bill 17 is passed it, cannot be in Manitoba.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, sir.
I'm going to call Dwayne Hofer. I'd called him a few moments ago and he was out of the room. Is he present now?
Mr. Hofer, do you have any written materials you'd like to pass on? No? Seeing none, proceed, please.
Mr. Dwayne Hofer (Private Citizen): My name is Dwayne Hofer and I'd like to comment on Bill 17.
Manitoba's Bill 17 that stops the building of new swine barns is a direct attack on Hutterites and Mennonites. They comprise 86 percent of all swine producers in the area. The bill effectively prevents building in the area encompassing 75 percent of Manitoba's crop land. Mennonite families who wish to grow hog productions in their own communities will be prevented by this ill-advised draconian legislation. They will not be able to build by their family, by their church. They will be forced to move large distances or out of the province to pursue their vocation. Hutterites live in communities. When they wish to build a new community, one of the centrepieces of their development is the building of a swine barn. Preventing new swine building will in essence push all new Hutterite communities out of most of Manitoba.
Is this legislation or environmental law? We think not. It's a trade by the socialist government of Manitoba to drive conservative church folk as hard-working people of our society out of the province or into its fringes. The environment has become a mantra for social engineering. This is not environmental legislation but a direct attack that is an affront to human rights. It's free justice. It's anti-religious. It's an offence to any person who believes in freedom and the right to commerce. If ever there was an issue that needs fighting, this is it.
It appears that the socialist government of Manitoba wants to drive the Hutterite and Mennonite communities from the province. It's the worst kind of social engineering. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Questions?
Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Dwayne, for your presentation. We've heard a lot of comments in regard to management. Could you–and the minister had talked about it in his question, when it comes to regulations that are out there now, and some of those are fairly new, and some of them haven't been implemented yet, do you feel those regulations are, in fact, fair at the point in time that the current situation's under with regard to those nutrient management regulations?
Mr. Dwayne Hofer: No comment.
Mr. Chairperson: No comment. Supplemental to Mr. Eichler.
Mr. Eichler: I'll rephrase it. In regard to the current situation that you practise your manure management under now, do you feel that those are fair? If not, what would you see changed, or would you be prepared in order to make the necessary changes to work with the government rather than put a moratorium on?
Mr. Chairperson: You're not obliged to answer, Mr. Hofer.
Mr. Dwayne Hofer: I got no comment.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay.
We'll move to Mrs. Wowchuk.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you very much for your comments. I want to assure you that this is not, as you suggested, an attack on the Mennonites and the Hutterites. We want to work with you, and I want you to know that I have met with the brethren just very recently to talk about some of the challenges that some of the colonies are facing and have given a commitment to work together with them because we recognize that the colonies play a very important role in the agriculture economy of this province. I have committed that I will meet with them again, and I guess I would look to you if you could give me any suggestions before I meet with them about what we could do to help the colonies and recognize them for what they contribute to the economy.
Mr. Dwayne Hofer: No comment.
Mrs. Taillieu: Maybe you could just tell the government what they should do with Bill 17.
Mr. Dwayne Hofer: Just throw it out. It's garbage.
Mr. Chairperson: Just throw it out. Okay. Mr. Graydon.
Mr. Graydon: Mr. Hofer, on your colony, as in many colonies, there's a hog barn. I assume there's one on your colony. Do you do direct injection on your farm with the manure, with the big machine direct injection into the soil?
Mr. Dwayne Hofer: Yes, we direct into the soil. We knife it in there.
Mrs. Rowat: Thank you for presenting today. It is probably making you very nervous to be answering questions, but can you tell me about what your colony does for communities such as Winnipeg with the food banks or with other communities in your area? Does your community contribute to either the soup kitchens or the food banks and the churches and the communities in any way?
Mr. Dwayne Hofer: Well, in hog competitions, we usually donate a hog for competition and all the money that is raised goes to food banks and all the food goes to guys that need it.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Seeing no further questions, I thank you for your presentation.
We had a Mr. Joe Dolecki, No. 40, who had said that he would be available. Is he here? Okay, I'm going to call Mr. Dolecki, No. 40.
Mr. Dolecki, do you have any written materials for the committee? Yes, you do? You may proceed when you're ready, Mr. Dolecki.
Mr. Joe Dolecki (Private Citizen): My name is Joe Dolecki, and, in real life, I'm an associate professor in and the chairperson of the economics department at Brandon University.
I'd like to thank you for granting me this opportunity to offer a submission on Bill 17, and I'd like to thank you for your patience. It's kind of a long drive in from Brandon, and I don't get into Winnipeg very often. I also have a request that the text of my material gets submitted for the record and placed on the record inasmuch as I tend to deviate from whatever is printed in front of me. It's a four-page thing.
Mr. Chairperson: All right. Is it agreeable to the committee that the text as he submitted it be included into the record? [Agreed] In addition to his comments over the microphone. [Agreed] Thank you. Continue, sir.
* (15:00)
Mr. Dolecki: If you were to ask me today if I supported the passage of this bill, my answer would be yes, but. In particular, it's my view that the principal strength of this bill is that it places a moratorium on new and expanding hog production facilities in certain areas of Manitoba. But it's principal weakness is that it doesn't place a moratorium on the rest of the province which, in my view, is minimally necessary in order to achieve the stated objectives of the bill.
At the outset, I would like to say that my appearance before you today is, in part, inspired by the Manitoba Pork Council, the MPC, and, in particular, the material that's been posted on its unfriendly Manitoba Web site. While reading through this material, I was reminded of something my father, who turned 90 in December actually, told me many years ago. He said, it's always easier to repeat a lie than it is to seek the truth. In my view, the Manitoba Pork Council's unfriendly Manitoba campaign, confirms the wisdom of my father's remarks.
Anyway, in the time that I've got left, I'd like to walk through or briefly talk about a number of propositions that have been advanced by the Manitoba Pork Council and which I imagine have been advanced here in various forms for the last couple of days. I'd like to consider them one point at a time individually, but collectively at the end in relation to the question of the passage of Bill 17. My comments, I must underline, concern primarily the intensive livestock operation form of swine production.
The first comment is that the MPC consistently and falsely identifies intensive livestock operation hog production as an agricultural activity, not unlike the traditional family farm. The clear suggestion here is that the environmental problems which, objectively, are actually specific to this form of production process are problems that are ingredient in agricultural activity generally. That proposition is simply false.
As Bill Weida, a resource economist from Colorado and a foremost authority, I might add, on Intensive Livestock Operations in North America, as he notes, swine ILOs, quote, are industries not agriculture. They create industrial-sized pollution and waste problems. They masquerade as agriculture because pollution and monitoring and pollution regulation are weaker in the agricultural sector.
The second point is that the Pork Council consistently and falsely portrays intensive livestock operations hog production as a significant engine of economic growth–they reference a billion dollars a year–and job creation, 15,000. It's an engine that's seen as a significant engine of growth for the Manitoba economy, particularly in rural areas.
In fact, the alleged billion-dollar contribution is a gross figure which does not incorporate, in particular, the full-cost accounting principle. In other words, it doesn't include along with it an assessment and inclusion of attending health, social and environmental costs. As well, on the second part of this, the job-creation business, the industry-friendly George Morris Centre reports in a study that was commissioned by the Clean Environment Commission that in 2006, the hog sector's last good year, the actual direct and indirect jobs attributed to the production side of things was about 4,776 which is, in itself, hardly sufficient to inspire rural repopulation. Another 3,713 jobs are attributed to the packing side of the industry, making the industry totals 8,489, a little over half what's claimed in the advertisements.
The third point is that the MPC consistently and falsely claims that the industry is operating under the most stringent regulations in the country. In fact, as the posting on the MAFRI Web site indicates: This government and the previous government of Manitoba and industry continue to work together to ensure the success of the pork industry in Manitoba.
Among other things, what this is is a collaboration, and among other things this collaboration has resulted in what I've called elsewhere regulatory subsidization of the industry whose extent is not only significant; it is breathtaking.
This regulatory package involves a number of things. First, it involves changes to the statutory framework within which this industry has developed, most notably The Planning Act. The changes that were intended to facilitate the proliferation of swine ILOs is a matter of right. They made changes to the regulatory structure within the planning and environment acts, most notably, the phosphorus regulation which accommodates existing practices and constitutes a licence to pollute. It includes direct and indirect interference with decision making in respect of ILOs sightings at the municipal level as in the R.M. of Daly, my home. There's the subsidy that's involved in regulatory non-enforcement, and the whole thrust of the government's attempt to hide and to secrete from the public information on their record and on the performance of the industry by using the FIPPA process as a shield and the Ombudsman as a principle gatekeeper. All these elements have facilitated cost-shifting from the hog industry and on to the public at large.
The fourth point is that the Pork Council consistently and falsely claims that hog manure is a valuable, organic, natural by-product of its operations. In fact, in ILO hog operations these operations generally have a livestock, land-base ratio that's too large to permit it to be used exclusively as fertilizer.
What you have, then, is a waste disposal problem, arguably a toxic waste disposal problem. Consequently, what you have is a situation where producers systematically over-apply manure relative to crop requirements, which is the standard set by the CEC for the question of sustainability in this sector.
Fifth, the Pork Council consistently and falsely claims that hog production is environmentally sustainable and that ILO hog producers are good environmental stewards. In fact, the hog industry's utilization of the environment, particularly for the disposal of livestock waste, is an industrial polluting practice, one that results in the degradation of our environmental resources, notably land and water. This practice conveys a considerable economic benefit to the industry, substantially reducing the ledger costs of production. Objectively, these costs of production are shifted on to others, shifted on to the environment in the form of its degradation and to the users of the environment whose utilization of it is impaired by this degradation.
I made a submission to the CEC on this point, and I provided an estimate of the dollar value of this pollution subsidy to the industry, which was calculated on the basis of 2005 numbers supplied. In a study by Salvano and Flaten of the University of Manitoba, applying their study's estimates to the threshold of 60 ppm, which is the environmental or efficiency threshold on nutrient application, where it's the maximum possible conceptual rate at which crops can utilize phosphorus, the magnitude of the industry's pollution subsidy worked out to be between $111 million and $128 million minimum in 2005, which represented 111 percent and 125 percent of the net earnings that the industry reported for that year.
The conclusion that you draw from that is that, in the absence of this pollution subsidy alone, the industry as a whole is not economically viable and it is certainly not sustainable within the meaning of The Sustainable Development Act.
We've had a couple of confirmations since then. If you have the opportunity, take a look at page 90 of the Clean Environment Commission report, which estimates the compliance cost for 188 operations in two municipalities of about $50 million.
There is a submission that you had heard yesterday from Maple Leaf who indicated the cost of compliance on the order of $5.50 or $11 a hog. If you apply these estimates and this guys' estimates to the environmental threshold of 60 ppm, it appears that my estimate of the pollution subsidy is low, out by a factor of two at least.
Sixth, and finally, for now, the Pork Council consistently and falsely claims the hog industry has been a willing partner with government to seek solutions to the environmental problems it creates based on what is termed, quote, sound science. In fact–
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Dolecki, you're at 10 minutes now. You can either continue or allow questions. It's your choice.
Mr. Dolecki: What they're really saying is, let us continue with business as usual and, if there's any environmental harm that results, the government should assume liability; the taxpayers should pay the costs of adjustment. Anything else is unfair. From the perspective of the precautionary principle, the polluter pay principal and economic theory, that's just hog wash. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Struthers: Thanks for your presentation, Joe.
* (15:10)
It underlines kind of the environment in which we're trying to move forward in this. I have, on the one hand, a number of scientists telling this committee both the science for moving forward on a moratorium and the science for not moving forward on a moratorium. I have, on the economic side, people such as Manitoba Pork and others saying, here are the numbers; here's how we contribute to the Manitoba economy, and we have professors of economics, such as you, who are casting some doubt on that.
We've gone from 1990, when we had 3.2 million hogs in this province, to 2007 with 8.8 million. Why hasn't that, in your view, translated into better economics for our province?
Mr. Dolecki: From the perspective of economic analyses, what you're looking at is a transformation of a production structure becoming more capital-intensive, becoming more dependent on external sources of input. When you have that occurring, you have little employment on the ground–two or three people in operation, generally, and you have most of the expenditures going outside the province for imported materials, et cetera. The output is exported, which means that the secondary-multiplier effects end up materializing outside the province. Then on the other side, you have all of the costs, particularly environmental or social costs of obtaining locally.
I might say, at this juncture, that the economic argument is advanced by, I imagine, a number of people here that, if the moratorium is in place, will be forced to go out of business. I might say on that–I think most of the people who are concerned in the south where the areas are, most people in those areas want to transform from an export weanling-type of operation to a finisher operation. They're objecting to the fact that that would imply an increase in animal-unit size and, therefore, they could not, in fact, make the expansion.
There's a reason for that; there's a good reason for that. You get much more output in manure and much more pollution that results out of that.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation–very interesting comments there. In fact, I'm an auctioneer and I thought I talked pretty fast, but I think you outdid me.
I do have a question for you, though, in regard to the nutrient management regulations which have been brought forward. Obviously, in your opinion, those have not worked. That's the first part of my question.
The second part of my question is–we've heard from municipalities, we've heard from communities that say they've had lumber yards, they've had electricians move in their areas, they've had golf courses built and, yet, you say to us at the committee that the Pork Council is wrong in their determination of that economic benefit to all of Manitoba. Is that correct?
Mr. Dolecki: What I'm saying is that the George Morris Centre, which was commissioned to do a study on precisely this matter, reports the numbers that I reported and that it's substantially less than what is claimed by the Pork Council.
You'll have to ask them why they continue to insist upon using the 15,000 job-creation figure when, in fact, there is no evidence to suggest that that's the case. But that's neither here nor there.
With respect to the first question about the phosphorus regulation, as you know, the phosphorus manure management was not under any phosphorus regulation until recently. In fact, for the next four or five years when it takes into effect, they are still not under nutrient management, under phosphorus.
The threshold levels are extraordinarily high; they're spectacular in terms of–they allow spectacular amounts of P205 to be placed on the land; 823 pounds per acre is the 180 threshold. If you ask anybody, ask any grain farmer if they would, this week, go and seek to have 838 pounds of chemical phosphorus placed on their land, they would tell you, that would be fine, but I'd turn over the keys to my house, my son's house, my daughter's house, et cetera.
The fact is that's a licence to pollute. It was designed, in my view, to accommodate the existing practice, precisely because, if the upper limit was set as it should be at the environmental threshold of 60 ppm, then you would have a situation where people would be compelled to bear the full cost of production, the true cost of production, which includes the waste disposal costs, and they would simply not be viable.
I mean, as a person who has lived in this province for almost 30 years and as a regular taxpayer in the province of Manitoba, I object to the fact that we have, on the one hand, provided them with that subsidization all these years, and now, when the markets have dictated that returns and so forth in this industry have collapsed and this industry is collapsing, we open our treasuries, federally and provincially, to assist these folks.
The reality is, if we're going to be serious about sustainable development, if we're going to be serious about protection of the waters of Lake Winnipeg, we need to apply the full-cost accounting principle and develop a variety of means and come up with some kind of plan to have an orderly decommissioning of this industry to the point where we can actually support something environmentally.
Mr. Chairperson: We're overtime, Mr. Eichler. If you want a supplemental, you'll have to seek leave.
Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Dolecki.
Okay. I seek the advice of the committee. I'm at a crossroads here. I have a conundrum. We are starting to get more and more presenters, whom I've called earlier, now showing up seeking to present, and yet there are others ahead whom I have not called yet. I have roughly four presenters in those circumstances, so what is the advice of the committee? Do you want to proceed with those four, or to go back to the point where I'd stopped moving forward with names?
Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Chairman, I'm sympathetic to the people who are coming, but I do think that a number of individuals have been waiting quite awhile to have their names called. They are on our list and were expecting to have their names called, so I would suggest we go back, revert back to calling people's names from the list, and then, once we've finished with whoever's here, then we can return back to those individuals who are here.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, we've heard Ms. Brick. Is that the will of the committee? [Agreed]
We will move forward. Where are we? No. 90, Ted Neufeld?
We'll try it and, if nobody is here, maybe we'll have to revisit this.
Larry Maendel? Larry is here? Well, that proves we made the right decision.
Mr. Maendel, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Larry Maendel (Private Citizen): Just private notes.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, you may proceed.
Mr. Larry Maendel: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Larry Maendel. I come from a farm southwest of Portage la Prairie, Manitoba, and I am here to express my dismay about Bill 17. I have been working with hogs for 15 years. This is a way of life for me and the people of the community where I live and work. If parliament passes Bill 17 and it becomes law, our future as a hog farming community is finished.
Bill 17 will ensure that our future and way of living will change permanently, and it will be a disappointing day if this comes to pass. My community's main income is hogs that we produce as food and a means of income, supported by a Black Angus herd and a turkey quota. We also custom-raise pullets and farm several thousand acres of land.
* (15:20)
Pork is a very good source of protein and economically viable to produce. Furthermore, it comes to be produced–it can be produced in an environmentally sustainable manner. As a hog producing community, we walk hand in hand with the environment that surrounds us.
The organic by-product from our hog facilities is returned to the fields by means of cultivation injection in the springtime before we seed our fields. Careful regulations are followed to ensure that the right amounts are applied to specifically selected fields that need the fertilizer for the crops that will be grown. In this way, we never have to winter spread our manure, but it is applied to the fields in the spring. This ensures that no hog manure will be laced with spring run-off from those fields.
Bill 17 will seriously undermine the ability of Manitoba's Hutterite communities to come to contribute to the economy. A colony which depends on hog farming for its main income and needs to start up a new colony because of being too large and not finding enough employment for its people will not be able to build a hog barn as means of employment for its people who work as a hog producing group. This will have a negative effect not only on my community but also on the thousands of people the hog industry supports in this province. It will not be instantaneous for some people but for others it will.
In addition to hog farmers, veterinarians, biologists and others who work with the hog industry will be adversely affected. Eventually Bill 17 will affect our potential to export overseas to Japan and other countries that purchase pork from Canadian exporters. Somebody wiser that I said, and I quote: If agriculture and livestock production prosper, so will our countries' cities, but, if agriculture and livestock production suffer, eventually so will our cities.
I thank you for letting me come to share my perspectives. Danke schön, thank you, merci beaucoup.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Maendel. Questions?
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Larry.
On your particular colony, you talked about your farm practices and how you value the manure that you inject into your system and the method of which you use it. Do you do a rotational-based crop, as well, through your soil testing, in order to determine how much manure you actually put on that land?
Mr. Larry Maendel: Yes, that is correct. We do rotate. It's not every year the same. Sometimes it's corn. Other times, providing there are, basically, sustainable amounts for other crops like potatoes, which we are surrounded by potato growers, plus we alternate with other grains and cereals.
Mr. Struthers: Thank you very much, Larry.
I'm going to take another crack at this. I hope this is taken in the most positive way as it's intended that way. I want to learn more about the practices on farms, including yours, and I don't ask this question in any kind of way, saying that you have to carry the whole burden on your shoulders, but I'm actually interested in knowing about water conservation at your farm.
I live in Dauphin and I see examples, whether it's up No. 6 highway through the narrows or up No. 5 highway to Neepawa, of good positive examples that farmers do all the time to protect Manitoba's water. Can you help me out by telling me some of the things you do to protect Manitoba's water?
Mr. Larry Maendel: I have no comments to that.
Mr. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Maendel, for your presentation.
Just following up on your presentation, I have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask you. You talked about the size of the colony. Do you have enough land base within the colony for your manure spread or do you have to go outside the colony to spread manure?
Mr. Larry Maendel: We have enough land that we can alternately use fields for application.
Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Wowchuk, supplemental.
Ms. Wowchuk: My second question was, I don't know if I quite heard you right, but I believe you were talking about a sister colony. Are you in the process of looking to establish a sister colony and, if you are, have you identified land where you are considering that sister colony?
Mr. Larry Maendel: As far as I know, not in the near future.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just try and ask what the minister asked in a different way in that, because you actually live on the land, you work the land, does it make common sense to you that you protect the water that's on your land and the water that runs through your land?
Mr. Larry Maendel: Hundred percent. We use the water as our own drinking water from our–and not only alone for us, but also for the livestock that we produce. We also use it for our irrigation, which we apply for our fields and the crops.
Mr. Chairperson: No further questions? Seeing none, sir, I thank you for your presentation.
I call Mike Van Schepdael, Genesus Inc. George Dyck. Raymond Funk. David Mendel.
Peter Wipf, Maxwell Colony. Mr. Wipf, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Peter Wipf (Maxwell Colony): No, I don't. Nope.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed.
Mr. Peter Wipf: My name is Peter Wipf. I'm from Maxwell Colony, and I'd like to say that the majority of our income that we generate at Maxwell Colony comes from the hog production. That is why not only myself, but the majority of the Hutterites, as you will see when they come up here, are against Bill 17. The reason why the majority of the Hutterites and our Mennonite friends in general, too, are so against Bill 17, it's not as much for ourselves, 'cause we're too old. It's our children's future. The Bill 17 is going to kill the hog industry as you know it. It's not only going to kill the hog industry, it's going to kill the Hutterite culture and the Hutterite way of life as we know it. That is why the majority of the Hutterites and Mennonites in general, too, that are in farming are so against Bill 17.
* (15:30)
Another thing about Bill 17, when we came to this country and our grandfathers came, they came to a democratic country. They thought they did. Now we're asking ourselves, where is the democracy in this country? It doesn't seem to be so free as it used to be. When the grandfathers came, they could build as much as they wanted to. I agree that the Hutterites and the farmers, hog farming in general, are being singled out for the pollution of the big lake. The Clean Environment Commission gave you guys a report and said that the hog industry and farmers in general only put 1.5 percent of pollution into the lake, so why is the hog industry being so singled out?
If Bill 17 goes through, it seems to me that we have no choice but to move out of country. Move out of country. I mean, I might as well call you alone, and other Hutterite colonies are in the same boat as we are. We have 20 boys at home that are 15 years of age and under. That's why I'm saying I'm not talking for myself; I'm talking about for our children and our children's future. In the future when we get big enough, when our colony is big enough when we have too much employment, that's when the colony splits up, as you know, especially the guys and the friends around here that know the Hutterite culture.
When it comes to split up, those 20 boys we have at home, they want a home. They need a future. They need a new colony. How does the Doer government expect us to expand if we can't expand into our only livelihood like all of us know, that's the hog industry?
There are not many colonies around right now that I had to throw out millions of dollars to buy a layer quota, turkey quota, broiler quota or a dairy quota. You know as well as I do it costs millions and millions of dollars which not many colonies have.
Maxwell Colony is like any other colony. We run a 500-sow herd. We inject the manure like any other colony. The manure management plan almost is in place in any other, in any farm, in any hog industry. And when you had mentioned plan, which is a very good plan, should have been done years and years ago. Our grandfather should have done this years ago already. But now, with Bill 17, our children's future is at stake, and I hope the committee can see that. It's not for ourselves, brothers; it's for our children's future.
It looks like if Bill 17 goes through and our children have no future here in Manitoba, it's like some of the past speakers have said, we might have to move out of country and go back to the old country where our grandfathers came from. I ask Mr. Doer and company, is that what they want? There have been great leaders here in Manitoba before. There have been great leaders in Canada. Is the great leadership showing itself here in Manitoba now? Bill 17 talks totally different. I don't think so. I think that's all I have to say.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wipf. Questions?
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. We've heard time and time again about the great stewardship that your organization and your leaders and your previous leaders and the next generation that you want to hand this operation over to. If Bill 17 does go through in its current state, you talked about having to leave this province. That would be shameful and totally unacceptable. I personally feel that you have a right; you have demonstrated that right by expressing your voices here today, which I commend you for coming in. I know that I've talked to a number of the Hutterite colonies around the province in the past month, month and a half, and a lot of them didn't want to come and make these presentations to the committee, but, after talking to you, you certainly did a fantastic job outlining your position in regard to that.
You came from the United States. You moved to Canada. Where would you go if you weren't going to live in Manitoba?
Mr. Peter Wipf: Right now, I guess, like the other guy said, no comment. But where can we go? Can I ask the Doer government, where do we go? Of course, we can move west, but it's just a matter of time till the government of the day has the same legislation in the west. So maybe there are only one or two places in the world where I can go is to South America or back to the country where we came from. Like I said, is that the leadership we have in Manitoba today? Is that what they really want?
Mr. Eichler: I hope that we can find resolve. I hope that we can find some type of amendments that we can bring forward, or just the withdrawal of Bill 17.
I know that we've also heard that the various organizations are more than prepared to meet the recommendations being brought out in the CEC report and the regulations that are currently in place. Do you feel that the current regulations that have been handed down by the government have had an opportunity to actually be tested to see whether or not they in fact will work, rather than bring in a moratorium at this point in time?
Mr. Peter Wipf: I really don't know what you mean with all the regulations. We have the manure management plan in place now which every farmer, I think, in Manitoba, especially the Hutterite colonies, they have been monitored very closely. More power to their management plan because, like I say, this should've been done years and years ago. As to my mind, that manure that's generated by our livestock is liquid gold, because one of your gentlemen says, there are hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in that manure when we don't have to apply organic fertilizer.
So, in order to answer your question, the manure management plan is working perfect, very good, as far as I'm concerned. It's regulated by very nice people, people that understand the industry, but there also can be stepped on toes if they have to, as we've seen in the past.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you for your presentation, as well.
Discussions here, I guess, obviously, the first step is to stop the bill, to have the government see the light of day and change the bill, amend the bill or stop the bill, and then come in with some kind of committee to look at the rules and regulations that you've just outlined are providing very stringent means of controlling our environment today, probably some of the best to do that in North America, some would say the most stringent anywhere.
The Pork Council, other groups, were not given any notice of the moratorium coming in, when it was first brought in, and the shock and surprise that it was extended the day that the Clean Environment Commission came down. Would you agree that it's time to set those things aside and work together in a co-operative manner in some kind of a committee this summer, now that this bill won't become law until fall, to try and find a solution to this?
Mr. Peter Wipf: I think to answer your question, I have to agree with one of the other gentlemen here, is strictly kill Bill 17. It would be the straight-out answer, but, if it has to be, then negotiate. Diplomacy has always worked between other countries, when countries have fights with each other. It seems to me the hog industry has just had to fight with the Doer government right now.
Mr. Maguire: I just might reverse that for you, but I agree. Thanks.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you, Mr. Wipf, for your presentation. I visited Maxwell Colony before, so it's nice to see you here.
I guess I just wanted to ask: Many people have actually made similar presentations about what would happen if the industry dies in Manitoba and you were having to go somewhere else. I know that you and your colony and many colonies are very community-minded and are committed to helping other people in the neighbouring communities. As well, you contribute to the economies of the neighbouring towns because that's where you do your business. So what's going to happen to some of the communities nearby should your colonies move away?
Mr. Peter Wipf: Ms. Taillieu, if the Hutterites should move out of Manitoba, I would not like to add, it will start at the top with our lawyers and our accountants. It will work its way all the way down to our feed suppliers, to our fuel and gas suppliers, to our machinery suppliers, to our hardware, bearings and belt suppliers, and everybody and the economy in general.
* (15:40)
I hope that this message can be given to the Doer government, what the consequences will be if the Hutterites should ever–it won't be today and tomorrow, brothers and sisters, you know that. Like I said when I started, our children's lives are at stake here.
That is why Bill 17 has to be killed. If the children have to move out of Manitoba, you think of everybody that's going to be involved in the Hutterites leaving, with the Hutterites gone, but not every Hutterite. I have to apologize when I say Hutterites only; there are just as many Mennonite friends involved as Hutterites.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, Mr. Wipf, I thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Peter Wipf: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Darren Bates, Hypor Incorporated. Jason Wurtz.
Cameron Maendel. Mr. Maendel, do you have a written presentation for us?
Mr. Cameron Maendel (Private Citizen): Yes.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed, sir.
Mr. Cameron Maendel: My name is Cameron Maendel and I am from Fairholme Colony, located 35 miles southwest of Portage la Prairie area. Even though my area is not in the moratorium districts, I believe that Bill 17 will indirectly affect all of the hog growers in Manitoba and, eventually, every farmer here.
I do not know what to say to this bill. I was brought up to respect the government as well as what and whom they stand for, but Bill 17 is not right. It goes against beliefs that I was brought up to respect. For example, the University of Manitoba, an institution that has probably been responsible for putting most of you where you are today, is now telling you that hog barns are not responsible for the pollution in Lake Winnipeg; yet, the sole blame is being laid on hog farmers, farmers who care for their environment more than most people.
These farmers are horrified and disappointed, because they feel wronged by their own leaders. They don't want to harm the environment because they make their living on the land. Farmers are honourable Canadians who strive to inform and educate themselves about appropriate sustainable practices in raising livestock. This includes responsible manure management, animal welfare and aquifer protection, among others. Being a farmer is not a job, but a vocation and a lifestyle.
As for me, I hope our leaders have the dignity and leadership skills to stand up for what is right when the time comes to do it. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, sir. Questions?
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Cameron. In regard to your colony, where you're from–in Fairholme–your land base, is it enough to sustain the manure that's off your particular operation?
Mr. Cameron Maendel: Yes.
Mr. Eichler: You're outside the area, you said in your presentation, if I remember right. If you were allowed to expand–you don't need permission to expand, other than through the licensing. Are you to the point now you'd be looking at expansion?
Mr. Cameron Maendel: No, we are not.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much for your presentation, Cameron.
Don't despair. Governments have been known to change their minds. This one did when it brought in the compulsory checkoff for BSE and turned it around to make it refundable, at least.
I think there's hope that the government will come forward, now that the bill is not coming back to be passed, at least, until fall, by the looks of it. We're hoping that this is the case. I think it gives time for industry to make presentations and have input into a process that could be put in place.
Would you like to see a process–first of all, you've indicated that you don't think the bill is right, so it should be stopped. As an alternative to that and trying to find a better solution, we've heard from many today who believe that there is a process which could be–where everybody sat down together and tried to find a better solution–should be implemented. Do you think that should be done?
Mr. Cameron Maendel: Yes, I think that should be done and regulations that are in effect should be enforced.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation.
Call Mr. David Hofer. Mr. Bennett Hofer. Mr. David Gssell. Rena Hop.
Dan Van Schepdael. Mr. Van Schepdael, do you have any written materials for this committee?
Mr. Dan Van Schepdael (Synergy Swine): No, actually, I thought I'd just come watch for a bit today. I didn't think I'd be talking 'til sometime on Monday or Tuesday, so I'm going to shoot from the hip here pretty much, I guess.
Mr. Chairperson: Fire away. The floor is yours.
Mr. Van Schepdael: Okay, my name's Dan Van Schepdael and I own a finisher operation in East Selkirk in the R.M. of Brokenhead. We have an isowean operation in the same R.M. as well. I can attest to Mr. Wipf's comments about how much money the Hutterites throw at the economy because I used to be a feed salesman for East-Man Feeds and I used to visit them regularly. They paid my mortgage for a couple of years, not them in particular, but that's how I made my living, so–
Ms. Marilyn Brick, Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair
We're not in the moratorium area, but I guess I could be really happy and rejoice. My land values will probably go through the roof now because people want to build there. We sell breeding stock and we sell to all areas of the province, throughout the country, throughout the world, which pigs going all over the world now.
So it will affect us. It's going to affect everybody and it's a slippery slope. If there's a moratorium brought in in certain areas, it's very easy for my municipality to say, no, you can't build here either. The precedent has been set. Why should we let you do that? So I think it's a very bad idea.
I guess I question how much it's worth for me to be talking here today because I went to the Clean Environment Commission's hearings and I didn't speak there, but I saw a lot of people that did. It seems that the recommendations of that committee were just ignored anyway. So it doesn't quite make sense to me.
On our farms, we inject our manure. We have a buffer zone around the fields where we inject it. The amount of manure that's applied to the land is equivalent to about a quarter inch of rainfall, so it's not like there's manure leaching into the ditches and whatnot.
Got to try to gather my thoughts here a little bit, so–what I'd like to know, I guess, ultimately, is how is it that hog manure is different than cattle manure or chicken manure or commercial fertilizer? Because we're all worried about Lake Winnipeg, apparently, and, somehow, it's only hog manure that's being stopped. There are more houses going up in Winnipeg every day. There are problems in Manitoba with the cities and municipalities contributing to Lake Winnipeg to the nutrient loading there. There has been no moratorium been put on houses built anywhere.
Every time I drive into Winnipeg, there are new houses built everywhere. There are new houses built in all the municipalities everywhere. There's no stop to that. I drive up by my place and I see a municipal lagoon that was built a couple of years ago for the R.M. of Brokenhead, and I'm wondering why the ditches are full of water. I drive a little further and I realize it's all coming from the lagoon. I'm not sure how much testing is done on that. It seems to me there's not as much done on that as there would be on hog operations.
So I guess I'm kind of curious more than anything as to why it's the hog farmers that are being singled out. Is it because we're a minority and we're a couple of votes and most hog farmers tend to vote Conservative, anyway, so, I guess, maybe, the NDP government doesn't care if they lose those votes? I'm not sure.
But I think governments are put in place to uphold the rights of minorities as well of that of the majority. So I guess, basically, that's all I got to say right now.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation.
Mrs. Rowat: Thank you for your presentation. Obviously, you may have heard a few presentations today, but your presentation speaks from the heart and it speaks about the question, and the question is process.
* (15:50)
You spoke about listening to what was presented at the CEC hearings. Based on what we've heard from the industry is that the regulations that have been put forward through the CEC report can be met. We've heard that throughout the day today that regulations can be met. You know, often they're looking at ways to even work ahead of the regulations and making sure that their livelihoods, I guess, are sustained because this is an issue of livelihood for a lot of the individuals that are here.
You spoke about the uncertainty. I think that speaks volumes to agriculture as a whole because, if this is happening to the agriculture sector, the swine industry right now, what's to say that this doesn't reflect down the road to the cattle industry and the poultry industry or any other industry within agriculture? There doesn't seem to be a consistency or any rhyme or reason for this to happen. So I'm just wanting you to comment again to assure what I'm saying is what you're referencing, and if you have a suggestion regarding Bill 17.
Mr. Van Schepdael: Yes, I agree entirely with what you said. It doesn't seem to make sense 'cause there's no difference if it's a pound of phosphate if it comes from a hog or a chicken or a turkey or a goat or from commercial fertilizer. It's going to have the same effect. So to say that hog farmers, there's to be a moratorium on hog barns, I can't build–well, I can build a hog barn, apparently, but, if I lived across the road–In front of my house is the dividing line been my municipality and St. Clements. So, if I lived on the other side of the road where I have land, I can't build on that side, but I could build a, I mean, I could build a million-cow feedlot if I wanted to or, I mean, as long as I meet the guidelines, so it doesn't quite make sense at all. Is the next thing going to be that, okay, we're all only allowed to apply 50 pounds of nitrogen to our crops? Well, we got to compete with the rest of the world so we have to be on the same basis. There's no reason why I as a hog farmer–
I live–my parents have a hog farm; I grew up there–I live a half mile away now. Our other barn's a mile away from that. I'm not going to do something that's going to damage my water. I drink my water. We've done tests on our wells at home. They haven't changed at all over the past 30 years. The last thing in the world that I want to do is do something that's going make me have to bring in truckload after truckload of water for my pigs to drink. I always get the–people always say we're contaminating the water. It doesn't make any sense, morally or economically or anything else. It makes zero sense, and it's a very lame argument. I think that if pig manure didn't stink, I think we wouldn't be here right now.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Next question, Minister Wowchuk.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you for your presentation. Even though we caught you a couple of days ahead of time, you've done very well.
I wanted to ask you, you talked about the application of the manure, and you said it's equivalent to about a quarter of an inch of rain. Could you, for the committee members, tell us how often you can apply that? And when you make that application, what's the dollar value of it in comparison to commercial fertilizer?
Mr. Van Schepdael: Okay, we generally apply spring and fall. The main reason for that is because it keeps the volume of our lagoon lower, which creates less smell, so it's–sometimes it's not the best thing for us to do. Causes us to wait before we get on the field in the spring and whatnot, but, for the neighbours' sake and whatnot, we think it's better. It keeps the smell down. Nobody likes the smell.
We generally apply about 5,000 gallons an acre which, I don't have figures in front of me. I would have brought them if I had the time, but it works out to about a quarter-inch of rainfall, is about 5,000 gallons on an acre, so that's what it works out to.
What was the second part?
An Honourable Member: What was the value–
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Minister Wowchuk.
Ms. Wowchuk: Sorry, Madam Vice-Chairperson. I was asking about what the value–what's the value of the commercial fertilizer that you would have to put on that land? How much money are you saving on your commercial fertilizer bill by applying the manure?
Mr. Van Schepdael: I'm not–
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Van Schepdael.
Mr. Van Schepdael: Sorry. I'm not sure that we're actually saving any money. It costs a lot of money to apply it, so I know on our finisher operation, the manure's a little bit more nutrient-rich than on the sow operation. I'm not sure that–I guess if you took every single ingredient in that manure and analyzed it, we'd be probably a little bit of money ahead. If you look at the nitrogen and phosphate, we're probably cheaper just to go to commercial. Probably, but I mean it's–you know, it's not a waste product, as Mr. Dolecki had said before. We're not trying to poison our land. I'm not dumping more on there than I need to because my crop is going to lodge. There's no benefit to that. I got lots and lots of land. I could be probably five times bigger than I am and have plenty of land base still. I mean, I sometimes wonder if people think we're just a bunch of idiots or something, that we're just trying to–why in the world would we do anything like that that's going to work to the detriment of our farms? It doesn't make sense at all.
Ms. Jennifer Howard, Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Maguire: I appreciate the minister's question only because, Dan, I think that sometimes she's asking–the nature of her questions are to inform some of her colleagues on her side of the House as to the practices of agriculture, and I appreciate the fact that she's doing that because, you know, we've talked a lot about education in this room today, and there needs to be some.
I would like you to describe the term "lodging." As a farmer myself, I understand in the past–I understand what it is, but there are some that may not. That is referenced to the fact that you're just not going to pour manure or any kind of fertilizer on a field.
Can you just describe that term and explain it for those that may not understand it?
Mr. Van Schepdael: Yes, sure. Lodging is when, generally, when a crop is over-fertilized and it, instead of standing straight up, falls over flat, which, you know, causes a lot of damage, makes it hard to pick up. You lose yield and everything else. I appreciate your comments. I'm aware that not everybody is familiar with all these farming practices and whatnot. I would hope that people who are involved in this whole process would've made an effort to be involved in this because this is all of our livelihoods we're dealing with here.
I might add, too, our operation at my dad's farm, at a finisher operation, I expanded it in 1994. Then, in 2001, we built the sow operation and that's when I quit working off the farm. You know, had we not been able to do that, I wouldn't be farming right now. There are a lot of people in my same position. We built that barn. We brought in a neighbour who's managing the barn. There are four people working there. There are probably four or five houses in the neighbourhood that have been bought or built by people who are or who were working there, and family members with them. There's a big economic boom to it and I know the cheques that we write out to everybody–you know, there's a lot of money involved just around the business, maybe not very much staying in the business right now, but there's a lot going out to everybody around us.
Mr. Struthers: Thanks, Dan. You said at the beginning you're shooting from the hip. You're a very good hip-shooting presenter. Thanks.
I'm big on education as is the Member for Arthur-Virden, and I think rural folks can learn a lot from urban people as well. I think that's a two-way street.
You'd mentioned a couple things that I think we need to chat about briefly. We have said no to many, many–actually, over 6,000 lots, applications for lots to build in the city of Winnipeg. We've said no to those based on the fact that there's not a water plan, a water treatment plan to go with that. Any that do get built have to have a way to treat their sewage and to provide safe drinking water. We've had people come to us about their septic fields and we've told them no, you cannot continue to operate with a septic field; you need to upgrade.
The one that I really want to key in on, though, you've mentioned a situation in the R.M. of Brokenhead. A couple of years ago, we actually did the environment licence for that. That water that is released is tested regularly like every other sewage treatment facility in the province. We do that in co-operation with the R.M. or, in some cases, with the city or the town, whoever the municipality is, and they cannot discharge that water until they have treated to such a stage that they meet certain standards. On the one case, if I remember correctly, we actually then shoot that treated water through a marsh. That's nature way of helping with that filtration.
So I wanted to make sure that we addressed those sorts of things. I don't want to have anything left on the record to suggest that we're not following up on that.
So thanks for your presentation.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Did you want to respond, Mr. Van Schepdael?
Floor Comment: Yes, please.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Go ahead.
Mr. Van Schepdael: So, if I hear you correctly here, what you're saying is there are guidelines that you have to follow, and they have to be followed. So there's no need to have a moratorium on building houses because there are guidelines to follow on those guidelines. Also, you guys use a marsh for nature's filtration of the lagoon water and, as farmers for the hog manure, we use the crop. We put in the land. The crop uptakes it and it's filtered out much the same way.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: I don't want us to get into a debate here, so do you have a question, Minister Struthers?
* (16:00)
Mr. Struthers: Yes. The only reason I put forward that is just to make sure that everybody understood that those standards are in place. I understand your point and I agree with much of what you said.
Is your advice to me that the standards in terms of the regulations that govern manure are strong enough to protect Manitoba's water?
Mr. Van Schepdael: I think that the guidelines are in place. The new guidelines that haven't even been phased in yet should probably have a chance to work. Then to single out one industry which is not doing anything more than another industry, I think, is totally unfair.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. I have more of a scenario and I'd like you to respond to it. We've heard from one good steward after another, and good farm practices. I mean, I think we're sitting here waiting for somebody to come in and say, I'm the bad guy. I'm the one that actually causes all the trouble. Is this not about enforcement, rather than just more regulations and a moratorium that shouldn't be there, in your opinion?
Mr. Van Schepdael: Yes, absolutely. I sit on Manitoba Pork Council as a district delegate as well and we've had these talks too about implementing winter-spreading bans and stuff like this, and we're all for it. Hey, if somebody's doing something that's not right, then nail them to the wall because it's hurting all of us. But every day I drive home and I drive by a cattle farm. He's got a big pile of manure and he's right beside a creek and, after this rainfall we got right now, I mean, there are puddles everywhere and whatnot, and he can do whatever he wants.
I don't want to make this against hogs, against cattle, against chickens or anything like that. Let's make it a level playing field. Let's include cities and cottage owners and everything else, too. We all have a part to play in this, so let's all play our part. Let's not pick on the small population of people that we feel we can pick on. As I've said before, too, if pig manure didn't stink, I don't think we'd be here right now. So, maybe, instead of spending time and effort and money on hearings and regulations and whatnot, maybe we should just be looking at more research into treatments for manure or cheaper lagoon covers or something like that, because, I think, if pig manure doesn't stink, I don't think we're here right now.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, sir. That's our time for your presentation. Thank you very much.
So we're going to continue down the list.
Jacob Waldner. Is Jacob Waldner here? Jacob Waldner.
Okay, Bob Waldner. Is Bob Waldner here? Bob Waldner.
Mark Waldner. Is Mark Waldner here?
Rickey Maendel. Rickey Maendel.
Rita Caya. Is Rita Caya here?
Kathy Neufeld. Is Kathy Neufeld here?
Dwayne Friesen. Dwayne Friesen.
John Doerksen. John Doerksen.
Michael Sheridan. Michael Sheridan.
Joseph Hofer. Joseph Hofer.
Garry Hofer, Elm River Colony. Garry Hofer.
Evan Penner. Evan Penner.
Isaac Hofer. Isaac Hofer.
Perry Mohr. Is Perry Mohr here? Okay.
Committee Substitutions
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Just before you start, sir, I have some substitutions for the committee. Mr. Pedersen for Mr. Graydon and Mrs. Rowat for Mr. Maguire.
* * *
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Do you have a written presentation for the committee?
Mr. Perry Mohr (Private Citizen): I do and I'll submit it on the premise that I, like Mr. Van Schepdael, was not expecting to be here today. Subsequently, it's probably not edited to the degree that I would like it to be to present.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: That's perfectly fine. So you can just start your presentation whenever you're ready, sir.
Mr. Mohr: Okay, I would like to begin by commending the number of hog producers here, in particular the brethren. I work very closely with the brethren. Typically, they're non-confrontational, and the fact that they've come here today to show their support against the bill, as well as got up here and spoke to the group in front of you, which, even by my standards, can be a little bit intimidating, I think it shows me, and should show the rest of you how important this matter is to the hog producers of Manitoba.
Anyway, my name is Perry Mohr and I'm approaching the panel today as a citizen that has worked in the hog industry for 20 years. Throughout those 20 years, I've seen the industry grow significantly. When I started, we were producing about 2 million head annually and, today, we're about 9 million head. While the industry was growing and changing, so did the criteria and the regulations that producers needed to adhere to in order to build a barn and spread the manure that is a by-product of hog production.
Every time a barn and a lagoon were constructed, the producer had to apply for a permit, which was accompanied by a copy of blueprints complete with engineer's stamps. As the industry evolved, producers were also required to file manure management plans. A great deal of planning went into site selection, construction and the subsequent usage of the manure by-product. Soil tests were taken and the manure, rich in nutrients, was applied to the soil and supplemented with chemical fertilizers when necessary. In all cases, the regulations in place at the time were followed and adhered to.
As most of the producers lived in the area and farmed the neighbouring land in which the manure was spread, it was extremely important to the producers and their families that their farming practices were sustainable. They utilized techniques and methods that allowed them to preserve their assets so they retained their productivity for future generations.
So why do I oppose the bill? Well, first of all, I don't think it's necessary. The hog industry is already heavily regulated, and the government is about to impose more regulations based on the recommendations made in the CEC report released in March of 2008. From an economic standpoint, the industry has been financially ravaged over the last three years, and it will be several years, if ever, before producers would consider further expansion of our industry.
As a matter of fact, as we speak, many producers are making the difficult decision to shut down their barns, reducing the industry on a daily basis. In the areas where there's already concentration of hog barns, from a disease and bio-security standpoint alone, it is not practical to expand any further without seriously breaching bio-security protocols.
Secondly, Bill 17 is not based on science. Quite frankly, I think all of us here are trying to figure out what it is based on. Our scientists tell us that the hog industry is responsible for only a small percentage of the nutrient overloading of Lake Winnipeg, 1.5 percent, according to Don Flaten, a respected soil scientist specializing in soil chemistry and fertility at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Flaten is basing his assessment on scientific research. To me, it is mind boggling and somewhat troubling that the government is choosing to ignore solid scientific research and evidence.
Lastly, the bill will have a lasting adverse effect on the business for which I'm employed and the producers that we represent that are still producing hogs, despite the financial challenges faced by the industry. The organization I work for, Manitoba Pork Marketing, represents about 500 hog producers with annual sales of over $200 million from mostly smaller, independent producers and Hutterite colonies. I believe James Hofer and many of the other producers here have provided you with an explanation as to how Bill 17 will impact Hutterite colonies and their ability to split once they hit a critical mass of 130 people.
The smaller, independent producers that we represent, when the new manure management regulations are imposed, may decide that, in order to meet the new criteria, an expansion may be necessary to justify the capital investment of expanding a lagoon or constructing above-ground storage for manure. If expansion to their business is not possible, this bill may effectively force them out of business.
* (16:10)
The producers that my organization represents are all land-based operators. They use the manure from their hogs to spread on their cropland to produce feed for their livestock. The pigs, when marketed, provide us all with some of the highest quality, low-cost pork in the world. If these operations do not represent sustainable farming operations, none do.
Manitoba's main economic resource, other than the hydro we produce, is agriculture. Our livestock and crop production are big economic drivers for the province. We need to provide a political and business environment for them to continue to grow and prosper. Am I suggesting that we allow unabated expansion? No. Impose the regulations suggested by the CEC and allow the industry to operate as long as the regulation and guidelines are adhered to. Hog producers have exhibited a willingness to adapt to any and all regulations that have been required of them.
In closing, I ask the government of the day to rescind the bill, impose regulations and guidelines, enforce them and let one of your natural resources grow or fail based on the economics, not some legislative process. Please be careful not to bite off the hand that feeds you, cheaply, I might add.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Mohr. I'll open the floor for questions. Are there any questions of this presenter? Seeing none, I'll thank you for–oh, okay.
Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr. Mohr, thank you very much for your presentation and taking the time to come forward. I know the Pork Marketing Board plays a vital role in Manitoba's industry.
I've asked a number of people throughout this process if they feel that coming together as a group with the government, the industry and players would have been a more valuable way to go; $750,000 was spent on the Clean Environment Commission hearings, and they weren't listened to, as has been said before. Perhaps we should be able to put an industry group together that would be able to come up with a solution that would allow the industry to continue to grow and thrive and have its families contribute to the future economy of Manitoba instead of some other province or state.
Do you feel that that would be possible or that that should be something that the government looks at in the next few weeks?
Mr. Mohr: I believe that the hog producers, through the leadership of Manitoba Pork Council, have exhibited a willingness to participate in any kind of forum, any kind of study. They've supplied research dollars towards finding solutions to the problems that exist.
Absolutely, positively, I believe that the producers have a willingness to try to work with government to solve the problems.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Maguire: Just a supplement to that, thank you. We didn't have much say when the borders closed to BSE going into the United States because the decision was made by an out-of-jurisdiction government, the U.S. government at the time.
But this is made by our Province, and I feel that I agree with you. We do have an opportunity to control and manage this process because it's within our boundaries. I applaud you for, again, making your presentation. Thank you for your insight into it. I just concur with you that I think that there is a better way to find a solution to this. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Mohr, comment to that?
Mrs. Rowat: My question is, you spoke about leadership and the need to be accountable and open in the process. The CEC did their work. From that point, I guess I'm wondering, and I think I know the answer, but were you consulted with regard to this moratorium coming into place? Did you have any idea that this is where the government was going to be coming once the CEC process had been completed?
Mr. Mohr: The simple answer to that question is no.
Mrs. Rowat: If this government is truly open and transparent in the process that has just been completed and the CEC made no recommendation to create a moratorium, do you see that this decision to put in Bill 17 is going to destroy an industry, and, obviously, based on the presentations we had from the brethren, do you see this as a direct hit to their economy and their livelihood?
Mr. Mohr: I believe that putting a moratorium in place in this industry will not create an environment that will foster any further growth. Hog barns have a limited life span and they have to be replaced after 20 to 30 years. In addition to that, you're not going to attract any investment into an industry that cannot expand if the economics dictate that it should. That money will go elsewhere where it is possible, and that will probably be the other Canadian provinces and/or the United States.
Mrs. Rowat: An earlier presenter had indicated that if the moratorium does stay in place that their family and their community will likely have to look at alternative locations. We talked about the Alberta communal act. Do you see that as a possibility, that we will be losing our citizens not only in industry but losing even more population base from our communities?
Mr. Mohr: Again, the potential for the colonies, in particular, is once they hit the critical mass of 130 people, they split. The first thing that they do typically is build a hog barn or some kind of livestock production entity. If they can't do that in Manitoba, obviously that investment will go someplace else, yes.
Mrs. Taillieu: I note that in your presentation that you're quoting 1.5 percent of the nutrient overload is coming from the hog industry which is a very small amount and which I think proves that many producers are living within the rules, guidelines and regulations. My question is would it not make more sense to deal with those that are not and allow those that are to go about their business?
Mr. Mohr: I guess if I was to answer your question Mrs. Taillieu, we would have to assume that the 1.5 percent that is ending up in Lake Winnipeg is from producers that are not adhering to the regulations. I don't think it's safe to assume that.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, Mr. Mohr, I thank you for your presentation.
I call Mr. David Waldner. Lyndon Waldner. Jacob Waldner. Sheldon Waldner. Doug Martin, South Interlake Land Management Association. Gerry Martin.
Gerald Siemens, Siefort Farms Ltd. Mr. Siemens, do you have any written materials for this committee?
Mr. Gerald Siemens (Siefort Farms Ltd.): No, I don't.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed.
Mr. Gerald Siemens: My name is Gerald Siemens. I'm representing Siefort Farms, which is an alfalfa and straw family farm on the western edge of the R.M. of De Salaberry. I'm here to speak out against Bill 17.
Our farm grows and bales for export to the United States, alfalfa and cereal straw as well as having an interest in a hog farm primarily for the manure and diversification. The moratorium on expansion would limit our access to manure. We prefer manure to commercial fertilizer because it is more manageable. It has a slower release time than commercial fertilizer. It takes about four or five years to get the majority of the nutrients to release.
* (16:20)
The other reason we prefer the manure over commercial fertilizer is the cost. Commercial fertilizer has increased in cost two to three times just this spring alone. In fact, this spring, we applied over $100-per-acre worth of phosphate, primarily phosphate fertilizer, to one of our alfalfa fields.
At this point, we have five of our children and their families involved in the farm. At this point, we're looking to expand the hogs to control our fertilizer cost for alfalfa production for export. The moratorium puts future viability in jeopardy. We're facing higher transportation costs, which is a big part of our costs for exporting due to fuel costs which we have no control over, also the relationship of the currencies between the Canadian and the American dollar, which we also had no control over, and then now the fertilizer situation.
We were looking at increasing our hog farm or the one we have an interest in, which is centrally located amongst the land we have as well as what my siblings have. At this point fertilizer accounts for at least half of our out-of-pocket cost for alfalfa production. Predominantly, phosphate is what we need for alfalfa, and it seems the one area where we have some control over to keep ourselves competitive in spite of the transportation and the currency issues is now getting taken away from us. The land base is more than enough under current regulations to allow for a doubling of the hog farm. Manure application methods have come a long way over the last 11 years since our first involvement with hogs. With the price of commercial fertilizer increasing by three times this spring, manure management and application will continue to improve well ahead of provincial guidelines, recommendations and regulation.
What is the goal or purpose of the moratorium? Is it based on good science? What could be better for the environment, global warming or cooling, ozone layer, polar ice melting, polar bears drowning or starving than growing lush green forages from mild, manageable, economical, locally produced hog manure? As an aside, the straw bale for export in southern Manitoba as opposed to burning in the fall has a direct correlation to the haying equipment available in the area. Please reconsider Bill 17 and allow the next generation farm families a viable future at balanced, environmentally friendly agriculture.
Thanks for listening.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Siemans. Questions?
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Siemens.
You had made reference to expansion. You have the land base. You have the necessary tools at your disposal. Did you make application to expand prior to the moratorium? Where are you at in that stage?
Mr. Gerald Siemens: Yes, we did and apparently it's been sitting on a shelf somewhere for a year and a half or whatever, but we were ahead of this thing and supposedly we were one of the ones that was approved.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for the supplement, Mr. Chairman. Just for clarification again, from what size operation were you expanding from and to?
Mr. Gerald Siemens: I have an interest in a nursery and feeder operation together with my siblings and what do we have? Eight thousand head feeder barn with a nursery to supplement that, and we were looking to double that up. We have the land base in the immediate area to more than cover that under the current manure regulations that are out there now.
Mr. Eichler: Have you had written correspondence back from the department in any way or has it just been, like you say, sitting on a shelf and collecting dust and no response from the government?
Mr. Gerald Siemens: We're being told by our guy that applied for that on our behalf that it has been okayed and it's out there, but we don't have the lagoon permit physically in hand. So I get the feeling that it's kind of there because of this whole moratorium thing and the tough environment that the hog industry's been in here in the last while, that it's just kind of out there. They tell us and assure us it's coming, but it's been a long time.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation.
Mr. Gerald Siemens: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: I call Mr. Brendon Penner of Border Rock Farms.
Don Winnicky.
John Gross. John Gross.
Joe Van Schepdael, Van Schepdael Farms.
John Waldner. Victor Hofer. Brian Siemens. Melvin Penner.Dave Van Walleghem. Garry Hofer, Elm River Colony. John Nickel. Steve Hofer. Christopher Tokaruk, Designed Genetics Inc. Peter Waldner.
Denny Kleinsasser. Mr. Kleinsasser, do you have any written materials?
Mr. Denny Kleinsasser (Private Citizen): No.
Mr. Chairperson: No? You may proceed.
Mr. Denny Kleinsasser: My name is Denny Kleinsasser. I live at the Springfield Colony in Anola, Manitoba. I'm a farmer and I work in the hog barn. I'm speaking out against Bill 17, because it's not right what you're doing.
Born and raised in a Hutterite colony, we've been raising hogs for the past 52 years. I would appreciate seeing our children grow up and teach all there is to know about raising hogs. The reason is so important. It's because our hog barn is one of the greatest reasons why our community is sustaining solid ground financially, feeding the citizens of the colony and many others around the world and providing our children with a healthy lifestyle and education. The greatest fear would be not having our children grow up and carry on the tradition that has been part of our colony for decades.
Banning hog barns would take so much out of a person's lifestyle, especially if it's your only income. It would wipe out thousands of jobs and completely destroy Hutterite colonies, businesses, financials and individuals who have made hog farming their life and are depending on it financially.
Needless to say, millions of people enjoy work and enjoy pork as a wise and healthy food choice. Just for a moment, put yourself in our shoes, in our situation, and think of the consequences of banning hog barns. If that's the only life you've ever known, let's just say banning hog farms would affect each and every person, whether you own a barn or not.
Even if the government passes Bill 17, we will continue to fight it. We will not give up our legacy. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Kleinsasser. I open the floor to questions.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Kleinsasser, for making your presentation. We talk about, if this act was implemented, it would not ban, but it would restrict. You wouldn't be able to expand operations.
* (16:30)
On your colony right now, do you have any plans in place that you are looking at expanding right now? I believe you're looking at a sister colony, but on the colony that you have right now, are your plans to build new barns, and, if they are, are you in the process of applying to build new barns?
Mr. Denny Kleinsasser: Not applying to build new barns. We just like to be able to modify them and meet more of the regulations and situations that will come up in the future.
Ms. Wowchuk: Have you started that process? Have you been in contact with the departments to look at how you could remodel or make those changes?
Mr. Denny Kleinsasser: Not at this moment.
Mr. Eichler: Just further to what the minister was talking about, the land base that you have, how many more animal units would you be able to add if you needed to, based on the requirements outlined in the act now?
Mr. Denny Kleinsasser: That figure I haven't got in front of me right now, but right now, we've got more than enough land to apply our manure on.
Mrs. Rowat: You spoke about modifying your operation for regulations. I'm assuming this is not only just from the government regulations, but this is also from either Maple Leaf or Hytek or whoever you deal with. There are regulations that they require you to continue to meet. It would appear that you probably are concerned with the moratorium and how this will affect your continued relationship with your marketing opportunities. Am I correct?
Mr. Denny Kleinsasser: Yes.
Mrs. Rowat: Have you had an opportunity to meet with government officials regarding this bill at all, and have you had an opportunity to voice your concerns with regard to this bill?
Mr. Denny Kleinsasser: No. Just now.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation.
I call Mr. Leonard Maendel.
Mike Teillet. [interjection] Oh, I'm sorry. Paul Maendel, Prairie Blossom Colony.
Jack Penner. Todd Hacault. Marinus Hop. Levi Hofer. Kurt Plaitin. Ruben Waldner.
Arnie Waldner. Mr. Arnie Waldner? Okay. Do you have any written material, sir?
Mr. Arnie Waldner (Private Citizen): No.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed.
Mr. Arnie Waldner: My opinion on Bill 17 is that it's unjust and unfair. I think if you have the land base and your soil type is right, you should be able to build barns if your area is zoned agriculture. Part of the problem comes from city people building homes on land that is zoned agriculture. That's why we zone land in the first place. In other words, farmers don't move into the city and build barns in the city that's zoned for people to live in.
People from the city can move, come to the country and build their homes a few hundred yards from your hog barn, then complain about the smell. I mean, that's why we zone land in the first place. If it would be the other way around, it would never, never fly, and you all know it. In Belgium, it is against the law for city people to build houses on land that is zoned agriculture. Maybe we should consider something like that here.
Bill 17 will do nothing to clear up the real problem. All it will do is create the demise of the family farm. The family farm, in many cases, has been passed down for four or five generations. For the most part, family farms, they take care of their land. They want to pass it down to their children. Part of the problem is big corporate farms going into one small area, building big facilities, which they don't have the land base for. If you have the land base to go on a three- or four-year rotational system with injecting your manure–I think the word "spreading" should be taken out of the equation. Nobody spreads manure anymore; they inject into the soil.
The CEC report stated that manure should be used instead of synthetic fertilizers, suggest that manure should be used instead of the synthetic fertilizer that most people use. My question is why is the report being ignored and hog manure being targeted when, actually, it's a huge asset if you have the land base to spread it on.
Some of the municipalities mentioned on the back of Bill 17 should not be on there because they hardly even have hog barns and their heavy soil is very suited for the hog manure. Like, the R.M. of Woodlands has three barns that I know of and very, very heavy soil. So where's the problem? Why is it on the list? Who drew the map? I think it hasn't been researched properly.
Not only is Bill 17 not based on truth but on half truths and innuendo. Science has proved that agriculture is only to blame for 1.5 percent of the phosphorous problem. So why would you want to shut down a billion-dollar industry?
Manitoba pork production is the envy of the world. I know that because, in our specific barn at home, we've had people from all over the world. We've had people from five or six different areas of China, Taiwan, Korea, foreign investors that want to come here. They're amazed. They can't believe what we have here. We actually had another two or three groups from Russia. The way the barns are built and the way the manure gets handled and the equipment, they just can't believe it.
These big corporate farms that have caused some of the problem, I know, I've looked at the barns. Their barns are designed to, maybe, last seven to eight, at the very most, 10 years. Our barns we build are out of cement most of the time. They're made to last 30 years, easy. Maybe you'd have to change some slats or something, but, for the most part, we're in it for the long run.
You're not shutting down the real problem. The corporate farms will move out of the moratorium area and go to Saskatchewan or on the other side of Brandon. You're doing absolutely zero to correct the problem. The family farm is not–I don't believe for a minute that they're the problem because they want to pass that farm down to their children. They want to take care of their water. I don't know of anybody that doesn't inject the manure right into the soil. Spreading is done; it's not happening anymore.
We all know that a stagnant industry is eventually a dead industry. By shutting down the pork industry, you also shut down feed companies, trucking companies, fuel stations, truck washes, et cetera, et cetera. They're too numerous to mention.
I read an article somewhere that 70 percent of Manitobans are connected directly or indirectly to the agriculture sector. What do we want to do, end up like Saskatchewan? Saskatchewan, you drive through, in the last 30 years, it really hasn't changed. It's been the same for year after year after year. Nothing is happening. Like I say, we're the envy of the pork world. We should be proud of what we've achieved. If tougher regulations are necessary, I'm all for it. We should have tougher regulations. I think the moratorium, or Bill 17, it shouldn't be happening. If you have the land base, we should be looking at it at a case-by-case basis. You have the land bases and your soil type is right, you should be able to. If you're in a sandy area or you want to build a huge hog barn and you don't have the land base to handle the manure, well, that's too bad. Like, I agree that the environment is very, very important.
* (16:40)
I've been involved with the production of pigs for 18 years. I don't want to be rude or anything, but most of you I don't think have ever been on the inside of a hog barn. I know the way we handle pig manure is state-of-the-art. Even without hog manure, the land would be fertilized with commercial fertilizer so what's the difference? I think the NDP is catering to a few special interest groups who have probably never been outside the perimeter of Winnipeg. Own a farm to see what actually goes on in a farm or how we even do things. I think the conception is people–maybe 20 years ago things didn't get done right. I'm not going to stand up here and apologize for past mistakes, but being on the Pork Council the last six years I know how far we've come and how, year after year, I know how we sit there and figure out how we're going to deal with and do a better job of handling the manure and protect the environment.
If a government was trying to pass a bill like Bill 17 in Europe, there will be a full-scale rioting. You know, I talk to a lot of neighbours down south in the States, and they can't believe we're even dealing with this. People all across the States envy what Manitoba has done. And another thing, because of our Canadian quota system, the only thing you can freely go into is pork production. So it's really–
Mr. Chairperson: One minute, sir.
Mr. Arnie Waldner: It really affects the whole agricultural sector, not only the pork industry, because laying chickens or broiler chickens, turkeys, you've got to have millions of dollars to get into that because a laying chicken will cost hundred and thirty bucks a chicken to buy the quota. If you want to buy a few thousand, it's millions of bucks to get into. The only thing you can actually freely do is pork production, and pork production enables you to go on into other things like buying quota if you have to.
I mean, we live in a free democratic society. You know, I can't even believe we're even here discussing this, because if Bill 17 can be forced through even though it's not based on science or truth, then we're heading straight back into the 18th century.
Most of the municipalities on Bill 17 are perfectly suited for more hog barns because of their soil type, and what if the CEC report had stated that Manitoba hog industry is very sustainable? If the NDP party doesn't believe the report, why did they blow $800,000 of hard-earned tax dollars on it?
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Waldner, you're at 11 minutes now. There are four people that would like to put questions to you. You can continue, or you can take questions. The choice is yours. You have another four minutes remaining. Okay?
Mr. Arnie Waldner: One little brief paragraph. When some city kids come out on the farm, they are amazed of where their food comes from. They think it comes from the back of a Safeway store. So I think there's a huge rift between the city and the country. I don't think people growing up in a city actually know what goes on on a farm. I think we have to all educate ourselves a little better. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. Questions? I have Ms. Wowchuk.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you for your presentation. I have to say I agree with you. I think that there is more that we have to do to educate each other about what we do. There are programs like Ag in the Classroom, and I want to recognize that many of the colonies are very good about having children come to the farm to learn more about that, and I appreciate it.
A couple of things I wanted to ask you. You had said that you could live with tougher regulations. That would be better than having Bill 17. Could you advise us on where you think things might be strengthened to address the concerns?
Mr. Arnie Waldner: See, that's why I went into talking about the zone agriculture thing, because it's no use to let people build hog barns if they don't have the land base to handle the manure on. In our situation we got a four-year rotation, where every four years it'll come back on the same land. It all gets injected. Actually the manure gets separated and just the liquids get injected, and the solids actually get used for gardening purposes.
So, like, it's very doable. I mean, if we need tougher regulations, let's do them. For example, if one car is speeding on the highway, you don't shut down the whole flow of the traffic, right? You just ticket that one car that was speeding. You don't shut down No. 1 because of it.
Mrs. Rowat: Thank you, Mr. Waldner, for your presentation. You spoke about regulations, and I believe that some of the regulations that have been put into play haven't even really had a chance to even be realized. I think there are regulations out there that are fairly new, and some of the industry has just been starting to implement.
So I'd just like your comment on that. Do you think some of the regulations that have already been put in place have even had a chance to see some outcomes?
Mr. Arnie Waldner: The CEC report said we should be using manure instead of synthetic fertilizer. They must have had a purpose when they said that. Like they must have had a reason for saying this.
See, what I mean is if you don't have the land base to spread the manure on, well, see, I'm not trying to discriminate against people who don't have the land base, but the environment is very important, and we don't want to pollute it more than any of you sitting here. We want to be good stewards of the land. I think on a four-year rotation injecting, there's no harm being done whatsoever.
Mr. Eichler: Very quickly, you didn't talk about enforcement. You talked about some of the corporates that weren't playing the game by the rules. They're short-term barns rather than long-term barns.
When it comes to regulations that's been in the past, do you think they've been enforced to the level which they should have been and maybe we wouldn't be where we are today?
Mr. Arnie Waldner: Maybe not, because we all know that a few R.M.s south of Winnipeg have caused a lot of the problem. I'm not trying to pick on certain people, but there's maybe too many hog barns in those R.M.s, and now we're all getting painted with the same brush. It's just not fair.
* (16:50)
Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Waldner, thank you for coming to present. I'm one of the ones here who's been inside the hog barn on a Hutterite colony, and it's been more than one occasion, so I've got some familiarity. I appreciate the efforts that you make to provide food for lots and lots of people.
Now, you made, I think, a very important point, and that is that when–with hogs and pork, it's one of the areas that you can now freely get into. I think you were referring to, in relationship to chicken or into other areas, not into grain or crops, but it certainly means that it's a very important part of the agricultural sector and it would be a real shame to shut down the last area where you've got some freedom to invest.
Mr. Arnie Waldner: Yes, it would be. What can I–I mean, I think, in closing comments, I think it should be, Bill 17 shouldn't happen. We should be looking at the whole thing on a case-to-case scenario. Like, if you can do a three, four-year rotation on the manure, you're not harming the environment. It should be truly checked. If everything's where it should be, then it should be allowed to proceed. That's my opinion on it.
Mr. Chairperson: Those are your final words. Thank you, sir. It's all the time we have for this presentation.
Mr. Arnie Waldner: Thank you for letting me speak here.
Mr. Chairperson: You're welcome.
Move on to Mr. Titus Baer. Tom Waldner. Brian Klassen–
Floor Comment: Tom's here.
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry. Mr. Waldner? Do you have any written materials for the committee, sir?
Mr. Tom Waldner (Private Citizen): No, sir.
Mr. Chairperson: No. You may proceed.
Mr. Tom Waldner: My name is Tom Waldner from Walheim Hutterian colony. I'm a farmer and I'm here to speak out against Bill 17. Farming and raising hogs, which is our main income for our people which brings– putting food on the table for us–a roof over our heads. It's our livelihood. It's our culture. It's our living. It's the future for our children and, as parents, as all parents, or any decent parent in any walk of life, we try to plan a future for our children, try to bring them up as best as they can, be it education, be it food, be it morals, and their upbringing where we try to bring our children up to be a productive human being, sensitive to other people. But what kind of future now do our children see, or do parents see on a family farm with this bill on the horizon?
We wouldn't be very willing to invest more money in hog or would–with that bill on the horizon, with an unfriendly government. Taking care of our seniors, our sick people is part of our life. Planning is our way of life for them, farming, practising our faith. I believe in God, which we have enjoyed since 1918, when we moved from the United States. It has been a privilege, but Bill 17 is a serious threat to our way of life and culture. We ask our government to seriously consider and to withdraw, we feel, an unfair bill.
The majority of Hutterites and many farmers believe in honest, manual labour. Making what is useful for man is honourable to us; it includes raising pork for food for all men all over the world. When millions of people go hungry in this world, why can't the government see it's an honourable profession or industry?
I can't see how a government can justify a bill like this–maybe changes or policies–but, to take out the feet under a farmer where there's basically no chance of walking again?
Bill 17 is with no scientific facts to back up their accusations; to us, Bill 17 is scientifically and morally wrong. Manitoba hog producers, including Hutterites, are among the best in the world, among the best of the best, be it with numbers, with weight gains, with raising a healthy product. I think we can be proud, and I think the government should be proud too. We try our best through hard work, determination, and a will to be among the best. This includes being good stewards of the land too.
Hutterites have been farmers for generations. We take our drinking water out of wells, right beside the barns. We take our drinking well out of ponds for our livestock, a mere hundred feet from where we inject manure. Would we pollute our land? Would we pollute our livestock? Our children? I don't think so–of course not. Yet, we, as hog producers, are singled out, painted unfairly as polluters of land and water.
We as a colony have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars the last number of years to upgrade our storage, our distribution system. With those upgrades, we can evenly and accurately distribute the hog manure with flow metres, taking samples and sending them in to see what the content is and applying it accordingly.
* (17:00)
We've taken advantage of technology, new equipment, up-to-date, remote controls and installed sensoring pumps if anything goes wrong. It senses if the pressure goes down or the heat goes up; it shuts the pump down from the feed. We can control the speed or the volume of the manure; driving the tractor; at all times, sees the number of gallons applied per acre to control it up or down at speed with remote or increase of travel.
All this we spend huge amounts of money not only to make it easier, but to apply it in a safe, orderly manner. Where does all this equipment come from? We buy it right here in Manitoba. The income we produce, the majority, way the majority gets spent right here, again, in Manitoba. Yet, when the economy is flourishing and the unemployment is down, the government stands up, proudly tells the public–
Mr. Chairperson: You're nine minutes, sir.
Mr. Tom Waldner: When unemployment is down, economy is up, yet they don't give the farmers any credit, or the hog producers.
We are a colony and many other farmers do lots of business in Winnipeg. I mentioned before our money goes back into Winnipeg. People benefit greatly from the business we do. Our money stays in Manitoba and Winnipeg–kinds of supplies, repairs, updates, vitamins, minerals. So it's a huge benefit for Manitoba and the hog industry, all over Manitoba. Yet our government doesn't see the true, the hog industry. We put food on the table for thousands of people. The government, they are responsible for the well-being of the people, or would they rather make handouts or pay unemployment?
Farmers use manure for nutrients for crops they grow, with the plant using up the nutrients to promote its growth. If we oversupply manure, put too much on, the crop can't utilize the sediment nutrients, so it would be a waste to put on too much manure on the field, and at a thousand dollars a tonne, synthetic fertilizer, it would be stupid to waste organic manure. It would be throwing our money away in one hand instead of utilizing our manure that we have on the farm.
And in saying that to us, hog manure is not a liability, it's an asset. To utilize an asset hog manure, we have put in at least 7 kilometres of underground pipe to reach more land so we can distribute it evenly according to the manner in the guidelines that allow us to do it. Every time we empty our slurry, we follow the procedures of sending in the–whatever they call the forms in the–where we've put on the manure. We've been doing it for, you know, six, eight years, following the procedures as we should. Yet our government paints hog producers, all of us, as unresponsible, uncaring–
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Waldner. You have two minutes left in total in your presentation. Are you thinking of entertaining any questions? I know I have three people who want to put them to you.
Mr. Tom Waldner: Give me another minute.
Mr. Chairperson: It's your dime, sir.
Mr. Tom Waldner: –and with this Bill 17, polluters of land and water. I think that's very unfair. The majority of Hutterites, farmers, Mennonites are hardworking, honest people.
Again, Bill 17 is morally wrong, scientifically not sound and does a great injustice upon our producers. Why the government would promote such a drastic bill upon its own people, I don't know. I think they should sit down with the hog producers instead, one each side, and voice their concerns.
With the hog industry creating so many jobs in Manitoba, why would a government slowly destroy an industry that so people work in it, put food on their table, a roof on their heads, without any scientific fact to back it up? In our eyes, as reasonable human beings, it doesn't make any sense at all. Bill 17 is scientifically and rationally wrong. As people of Manitoba, we ask the government to withdraw this unfair and harmful to many people's lives, wrong Bill 17. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Waldner. Your presentation went almost 16 minutes, so the time for this presentation has expired. Thank you very much.
Floor Comment: Thank you for hearing me.
Committee Substitutions
Mr. Chairperson: I have a substitution to announce: Mr. Altemeyer for Mr. Saran.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Let's move on. Mr. Brian Klassen of Nutricycle Inc. Is he here? Oh, okay. All right, Mr. Klassen. Do you have any written materials?
Mr. Brian Klassen (Nutricycle Inc.): No, I don't.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed.
Mr. Brian Klassen: Right. My name is Brian Klassen. I'm a strategic animal by-product relocation technician, and, no, I don't transport hot dogs. I'm a custom manure applicator, and I'd like to speak to the phosphate issue, I guess.
Under the government's own admission, phosphate has risen 30 percent in the last 30 years. That would be 1 percent per year, if I understand that correctly. If you put that on a graph, it would kind of go up about an angle like that, and if you would put the hog industry on a graph for 30 years, the graph would basically run flat for 15 years, and then it would spike quite seriously at the end. If you put the graph of the growth of Winnipeg on the same graph, I think you'd probably rise 30 percent in 30 years. I guess my point is if you would give this information to 600 six-year-olds, they could all figure it out. It will be very, very simple to figure that out.
* (17:10)
My question is: How come this government can't figure it out? It's not really rocket science, and I'd like to know how come it can't be figured out where the problem actually lies. I think that time has a wonderful way of clearing up misconceptions and falsehoods and fraudulent actions. I would say Bill 17 is a fraudulent action by this government because they are pretending to do something about the environment and they're not doing anything about the environment. I would say, if anybody else did that, that would be called fraud; that is pretending to do something that you're not really doing.
Many times I hear the comment, oh well, at least they're doing something. I'd like to ask, if your house was on fire and you called the fire department and they came down and just sort of sprinkled water on the grass, you'd confront them, hey, what's going on here? My house is burning. Well, whatever, at least we're doing something. Would you take that? No. You would say, put the water on the house. I would say you should work on where the problem actually lies. You know where the problem is; you know very well where the problem is. It's not a secret that the problem lies in the city dumping sewage into the river. You look at any graph and you can see 1.5 for the hog industry and considerably larger for the city. What are you doing putting water on the lawn? Get with it.
If there was one conservationist in this province, that person would go to where the sewer comes out of Winnipeg city and stand there and cry, or do a hunger strike, one of the two, until somebody else joined him and somebody else joined them. Then you'd see some action. I think what you should do is leave the hog industry completely alone. Naturally, you'd tax us and we'd pay for fixing your sewer system. That's where the problem actually is. Work on the problem that's there. It's fraudulent; Bill 17 is absolutely fraudulent.
I hope some day there will be a law that says–I'll back up a little. I'm not trying to equate anybody with Hitler here, okay? Don't get me wrong here, but, before World War II, the term "crimes against humanity" didn't exist. But in the Nuremberg trials, lots of those guys all of a sudden heard the term crimes against humanity. Ten of those guys got hung. Ten of Hitler's guys got hung. Now, I'm not trying to say this is the same thing here, don't get me wrong. What I'm saying, you guys are popping out more extreme environmentalists out of your public school system than Carter's making liver pills. Those extreme environmentalists are going to bite you guys if you push this through. I hope that a term "crimes against the environment" is going to be an existing term in 10 years, when it will be very obvious that you didn't do something that you should have done. You pretended to do something by attacking the hog farmers who you know can't defend themselves because they are few in numbers.
Doer, after all, wants to win the election so he doesn't care what he's doing. He doesn't care about the environment. He just cares about winning his election. Are you guys all patsies for him? Are you going to win his elections for him and ignore the environment? I would say it's time you guys do something. Just take your government hats off and think about it. Do something real, quit pretending. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Klassen. Questions.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Klassen, you said you were in the manure spreading management business. You also talked about misconceptions. You've been in the business for a long time. Can you sort of talk about when you started in the manure business, how manure was handled and how it is handled now? I assume there are improvements made. Can you talk about that a bit?
Mr. Klassen: Yes, I started approximately 10 years ago. I was one of the first to actually build a tanker with an injection system on it. So I've been injecting manure all the time, but, yes, my brother was in it before that and he just used an irrigation gun. So, yes, times have definitely changed. Then, of course, the manure management plans came into effect where the nitrogen is limited.
By the way, I think that the hog manure business is completely self-regulating because of the price of fertilizer right now. If every regulator died and went to wherever you think they're going, it would completely regulate itself because the price of fertilizer is so expensive that farmers don't want to waste any of it.
So it's completely self-regulating. You guys could step completely away from that, and it would regulate itself perfectly well.
Mr. Gerrard: Just, again, asking a question about the application because I think a lot of people don't understand how sophisticated it's become. You are now injecting and being very careful about how much nitrogen, and, if not already, will be in terms of the amount of phosphorus that's going into the land.
Tell us a little bit about it and whether there really is any run-off of what you inject into the waterways.
Mr. Klassen: Yes, I guess I'll skirt that issue a little bit. I'm going to say the Pansy area, government has been trying to find a problem there for many, many years. There's been studies done, and trying and trying and trying to find a problem. That, I'd like to add, is completely different than being unbiased and seeing if there actually is a problem. Here they're trying to find a problem, and they've been quite unsuccessful. I don't think that anything's really ever come out of the Pansy area, and there are piles and piles of manure being injected there or applied. It's mostly grassland there.
In terms of the equipment we use, in my tractors, I have two outfits. I run two custom manure-applicating outfits. My tractors have a very sophisticated Titan computer in it. It has a flow monitor in it, and the manure comes into the cultivator, through the flow monitor, is computered by the Titon computer and tells me on a readout exactly how many gallons per acre I'm putting. So, if I want more gallons per acre, I slow the tractor down slightly, and instantly the number changes. If I want less, I speed the tractor up, and instantly the number changes.
So we follow the manure management plan which is put out by an agronomist. We have this manure management plan in the tractor. It says you can put on 5,000 gallons an acre, and that's where we target our computer, and it stays right there.
We also have auto-steer which doesn't allow for any overlap. We basically follow an absolute straight line, so that there's no overlap. So it's become very, very sophisticated in those terms.
Mr. Gerrard: Once you inject it, it's not on the surface and it's not very likely to run off into the waterways.
Mr. Klassen: That's right. No, there's a buffer zone all around the field.
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, Mr. Klassen.
Mr. Klassen: Yup, there's a buffer zone all around the edges where there's danger, like in slopes. There are regulations for all that.
Mr. Gerrard: Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Seeing no further questions, sir, I thank you for your presentation.
I call Mr. Brent Manning. Stan Siemens. David Hofer.
Ray Wipf. I thought he was here. Is Mr. Ray Wipf here, presenter No. 166?
Mr. Wipf, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Ray Wipf (Maxwell Colony): Yes, I do. Yes, good afternoon. I'm Ray Wipf from Maxwell Colony.
Mr. Chairperson: One second. Okay. Proceed, Mr. Wipf, please.
* (17:20)
Mr. Ray Wipf: Hi, I'm Ray Wipf from Maxwell Colony. I've been in the hog business for 24 to 25 years, and I just can't seem to see why the hog producers are being targeted. All the regulations concerning food safety, manure handling have been followed and achieved by everybody I know in the industry. Research is still going on at all times to improve what how we can handle manure efficiently. Bill 17 positively can't be good for Manitobans, the hog producers and nutrition industry people, who make their living at hogs. Folks are very worried, not just the Hutterites and the Mennonites. This includes all people who care who are involved, from the banker to the plumber. We are people producing food for the rich and the poor. That is what agriculture is all about. We can't start chewing on a piece of plastic and survive.
What are politicians thinking? They must be a government gone wrong. Now, going back to the home front, my 14-year-old son came to me and said he wanted to graduate. There was quite a list of courses he was able to pick from, but he picked the course on hog apprenticeship programs. I was pleased he wanted to because he runs the nursing and hogs in all parts of the barn. What if Bill 17 passes? Should I tell my son to take an art class? No. We're in the hog business for the long run. This is our livelihood and it's good for the people of Manitoba. So let's hope good sense is used and Bill 17 is scrapped. Let's hope that God loves our industry in the future. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wipf. Questions?
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Wipf, for being here today and making your presentation. Part of the process in Manitoba is that when we introduce the bill the public gets a chance to share your views on it, and you and many others have certainly shared your views on this one. We are here to listen.
You talked about your son. You want him to be in the industry, and that's a goal of many of us to have our children work in the same field that we are in. Right now, within your colony, are you using all of the land base that it is available to you? Do you produce more manure than you can use on the land base that you have?
Mr. Ray Wipf: No, we're not using all our land for the manure handling. We have a lot of extra land that is still very much available for our manure management program.
Ms. Wowchuk: Is it in your plan right now to make some changes to your operation? I don't know whether you're farrow to finish or whether you just raise weanlings or what you do, but is it part of your plan to make some changes in that operation?
Mr. Ray Wipf: We have a newer finisher barn. It's a farrow-to-finish operation. We have a newer finisher barn that we built in '02. We put on an older barn and plus we only have a small finisher barn there right now that we built in '02. We built a big finisher barn, and the old finisher barn which we have full of pigs, too, is a 1970 barn. Our dry sow barn was actually made in 1983, which maintenance is every day plus the farrowing at the finisher is just a few years older and the farrowing at the nursery is just few years older than the farrowing since early '80s or late '70s. We have older facilities except for the new finisher barn.
Mr. Briese: Thank you, Ray, for your presentation. I didn't get the chance because I ran out of time on a previous presenter, but it kind of follows on the Minister of Agriculture's question. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the regulations are in place for having X amount of land to put the manure on, and I believe that regulation–and this is what I want to get from you. If you don't have enough land, you have the ability to go and make deals with your neighbours and find enough land. You don't have to necessarily own the land. You can sell the manure to somebody else. You can rent land, whatever, to put it on. I think that regulation's there. You're only allowed to put so much–if I'm understanding you right–you're only allowed to put so much manure on each acre of land.
Mr. Ray Wipf: Yes, that is correct. If we would ever have a problem, we got neighbours down the road; I guarantee you, they probably want us to dump our manure on there right now, I'll be honest with you.
Manure handling, like I say, is not what it was 10, 15 years ago–30 below, out in the middle of winter, just spreading it on the snow. We knife in our manure every fall. To be very honest with you, I have to put a point that we've got different managements in our communities. When we feed grab-grain–let's say barley for $2 an acre–if it's going for a bushel for that price at that certain time of year, that's my expense in the hog barn. It's just to show what the income is in the hogs.
You know what? Since I gave him my manure, maybe I should just put a buck in that expense, instead of $2. That's how much people are really going after the manure right now. At home, we go for crop rides now and then; it's just unreal the crops that we're getting off of that field which we are putting the manure spreading on.
Mr. Chairperson: Supplemental, Mr. Briese?
Mr. Briese: Thank you again. More a comment than a question–I raised hogs myself for 30 years and I've been out of the business for about 10 or 12 years. I sure wish there was a big barn near me, because I would sure use that product on my fields. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Rowat: I'll pass to the member first.
Mr. Chairperson: Actually, Mr. Gerrard is next.
Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you to my colleagues and thank you, Ray, for your presentation.
You mentioned, just in the course of this conversation, that you had enough land to spread the manure or inject the manure and you also had a market for it, should you not have enough land to inject, which raises a question for me.
If there's less manure, which is organic, then we'll be running the risk of using more chemical fertilizer, which isn't really where I think we want to go. Am I making any sense here?
Mr. Ray Wipf: Absolutely. I mean I'm really not–like I say, I've been stuck in the hog barn for 25 years. All I hear are complaints about fertilizer prices going up. It's ridiculous what happened this spring; people who didn't buy last year are in trouble right now. So I'm just commenting that manure is definitely an option, if you've got it.
Mr. Gerrard: You made, I think, an important point, that manure, compared with what you were using in terms of synthetic fertilizer, has made quite a dramatic difference in terms of the yields that you're getting. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
Mr. Ray Wipf: Yes. It seems to me, like I say, I'm stuck in a barn and, when we go around, we know which field has been injected. We go see the boys who are doing it, now and then, and see how things are going. To be honest with you, it's just look in and just wonder–look what we got here. It's just as we do ourselves, and the bushels are definitely there. I cannot compromise if it's better or worse, to be honest with you, in the bushels and the yield.
Mr. Chairperson: Any further questions? Seeing none, Mr. Wipf, I thank you for your presentation.
Floor Comment: Thank you for your time.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Leonard Waldner.
Mr. Hugh McFadyen (Leader of the Official Opposition): Can we do a substitution at this stage on the committee?
Committee Substitutions
Mr. Chairperson: Yes. We have a substitution: Mr. McFadyen in for Mrs. Taillieu, and, also, substituting Mr.–[interjection] All right. We'll just leave it with the first substitution.
* * *
* (17:30)
Mr. Chairperson: I was calling Mr. Leonard Waldner.
Mr. Jack Waldner?
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser?
Mr. Kleinsasser, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser (Private Citizen): I do not.
Mr. Chairperson: You do not?
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser: No.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed.
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser: Hi, my name is Victor Kleinsasser. I'm a school teacher. I'm from Ste. Agathe, Manitoba. Went through Brandon University. I've been teaching for nine years and I'm here to talk about what I don't like, why I don't like Bill 17.
I think Bill 17 makes us farmers sort of look like criminals, and I don't think that's fair. It's just–it's not quite fair. I don't think it's quite fair for our students. I'm teaching grade 5, 6, 7 at a Hutterite colony and part of the Hanover School Division. We're doing a lot of things. These kids are working on the farm. They're working with animals. They are looking forward to this as their life as a farmer. It's not just growing grain. It's also dealing with the manure. It's that whole gamut, you know, the animals, the manure going into the land, the land returns it back into the animals and that, and doing a good job.
We're spending a lot of time doing things like trying to teach these kids about the environment and that. We are not just, you know, pushing that aside and saying it doesn't exist. Just last year–or was it the year before?–we did a thing with the grade 7 science, where it was–this question was: What could you do now that you've finished your unit of study? What could you do that could improve our environment? So you got the standard stuff. Some kids decided to make bird houses and they put up a certain number of bird houses along certain places. Other groups of kids decided that they're going to plant trees, so they set themselves a goal and they planted trees, and that was actually courtesy of a grant from Environmental Youth Corps out of Manitoba government.
Another group decided that they would maybe try something with the recycling and so they set up a recycling program on our colony, so now they're going to recycle glass because everything else has been–is being recycled. We're recycling paper. We're recycling the metals and all that stuff, so these kids figured they are actually doing something for the environment. I think they're positively impacting our environment. They are putting energy into this.
Well, this is what I don't like about Bill 17. Bill 17 is sort of like the end of that stop. Don't work on this. It's not constructive thinking. We're trying to teach these kids, here's a problem; these are the problems we face. Come up with solutions, you know. Let's work towards it and, I think, with education, we can do a lot of stuff.
I wanted to talk a little bit about–I think Hutterites have come a long way in the line of being conscious of the environment. Well, we have to put up with a lot of regulations, stuff like that, and I think mostly people put up with that. They know it's for a good purpose and they go with it. However, in the past, I don't think it was that way. I think, you know, just a couple generations ago, I remember you go through the drive-through, you would pick up your food and stuff. On the way home, people would roll down the window and out it goes. That's not how we're treating–teaching our kids nowadays. We're trying to teach them a better way. We're trying to do a good job, but yet we're getting stuck with Bill 17, which is sort of like a slap in the face or on the hands or whatever you want to call it. It's–or shutting us down.
Even in little things like composting. Our colony has, just in the last couple years, got into composting and we're now composting all our kitchen scraps. This is a fairly large community. We've got 31 families and it's about 150 people. We're one of the larger colonies in Manitoba. So we're composting now. I think that's positive. These kids are–they're doing the work. They're bringing it in there, the scraps. It's being composted in a large, cement, little bunker and it's kind of rolled over and then, after awhile, they use it for the gardens and all that stuff. It's a positive thing. Just as here–I just saw it in a newspaper the other day and it was in the Free Press, there was this article about a group of Manitoba school from–the Baker Hutterite colony has won the Manitoba Envirothon for this year.
It's not like we don't care about the environment. We are trying, and I think these kids really do care. They're not carelessly trying to abuse the environment. I think they want to do the right thing, and I think we should be there to help them and, you know, I think for the most part we do, but I still don't think that Bill 17 is–Bill 17 I see as a little bit as the opposite of all this. It's not like an educational approach. It's more like, you know, cut it off, that's it, schleusss, no more.
As far as, I mean, I haven't gone down to Lake Winnipeg to do research and such, but you look at the reports that are available, the Clean Environment Commission or the Lake Winnipeg Stewardship Board report in 2006. I mean, they give you certain numbers that they've found and I think that's what we have to go on. They don't ask for a moratorium. They ask for guidelines. They ask for changes by 2013. Well, here we are in 2008, you know, we didn't go with most of these changes that they had suggested. We're sort of jumping in and just cutting it off rather than implementing the suggested changes that they have asked for.
We realize that there are parts of Manitoba which, you know, they have said it's no more hogs can be sustained in the area, which I guess everybody can respect that. The other thing that I'd like to–thinking about, is this business of the world food crisis. You're hearing a lot about this. Kids are studying about this in school. You know, there is a problem. Food is not every–not all parts of the world have as much food. Actually, my brother is in Nigeria at the moment and you get phone calls, e-mails from him just a few times a year and there is not much food there. I can see from the pictures that he's lost quite a few pounds and we can help these people. We are helping them. We're sending over funds. The Hutterite colonies are actually backing a church, a school over there, also one in Liberia. We're concerned about people in different parts of the world, but we in Manitoba can grow these crops.
To grow crops we need nutrients. We all know that. We can use potash that's mined from underground in Saskatchewan or we can use nitrogen which is made from propane and natural gas in Alberta, but when it rains and there are too much nutrients in the water it's going to end up in the rivers and in our lakes. The same thing for the manure. They have to be managed just like manure, managed properly. We can't blame hog farmers for all the woes of Lake Winnipeg. We just can't. I don't think we can.
Just thinking about the 100-mile diet. I'm sure lots of us are having–are part of that 100-mile diet. We're eating food from Manitoba. We're eating stuff from nearby. I mean, I'm one of those guys that eats a lot of food locally. That's something we can be proud of, but we can also produce food for different parts of the world.
I still don't like Bill 17. I don't think it's a constructive situation. I think it makes–and this may sound a little cruel as I was writing this–it makes Manitoba look like Zimbabwe in the sense of what happened there with the land grab, the eviction of the white farmers, going from a country that was exporting food in 2000 and then the land seizures. Well, of course, what came into there was they had a bunch of drought years, so all of a sudden it slumped, their production, and now 25 percent of the people in Zimbabwe are on food aid just because it's a miss–it's a sort of knee-jerk reaction. Let's get the land away from these people, or let's chop off all farmers in this area here and then you get sort of precautions that maybe you just didn't foresee.
Then the other question of hog farmers, if you stop hog farmers in Manitoba, where are they going to go? I mean, okay, they could build in Saskatchewan or they could build right outside this line that we've made halfway across the province–
* (17:40)
Mr. Chairperson: You're at nine minutes, sir.
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser: Okay. They could end up polluting the north and south Saskatchewan River. They could end up polluting the American side of the Red River. Okay? Well, this sort of thing, Devil's Lake is being drained in here. We're getting all these nutrients. We're getting, according to the environmental stewardship report, we're getting something like 40-some percent of the nutrients that end up in Lake Winnipeg comes from the American side. How can we take all the blame for this?
Just one more point. I think that Bill 17 is not very friendly towards the Hutterites. There are 106 colonies in Manitoba. When they expand the general area farming colonies, where are they going to expand to. Nobody is going to expand into the land that has been set aside for Bill 17. Why would they?
So my final word is, if MLAs shut down hog farming expansion and stuff in Winnipeg, over 2 percent of phosphorus that ends up in Lake Winnipeg, what are you going to do about the 98 percent that's still out there? We can only take so much of the blame, I think, even though I don't want to look like I'm callous. I always talk about education and about how we are trying to teach our kids to do a better job with the environment. But, at the same time, I don't think we can take all the blame. You can blame us for 2 percent, but who's going to take care of the 98 percent.
I guess I better quit before I run out of time.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Kleinsasser. Questions?
Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. I believe your community also makes machinery, and so on, for hog barns, and that you export this around the world. If we kill the industry here, then we're going to lose a lot more than just the production of hogs because you will have lost a local market and you will be less able to export these machinery and sensors, and all the things that you make, around the world.
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser: We've already felt this. This happened a year or so ago when the moratorium came down. We already knew that there's no more building of hog barns in this area, and so there you go. So that has already happened. How could we sell hog equipment in Manitoba? Why would somebody build a hog barn in this area? It would not be economically smart.
Around the world, we have a great impact. We consider ourselves to make some of the best equipment around. So we sell all around the world. That, I imagine, answers the question. I don't know.
Mr. McFadyen: I want to thank you, Mr. Kleinsasser, for that presentation and just for providing us with some insight into the lessons that are being taught to the students and the role that you're playing in that, and a whole range of different issues that are important to us as Manitobans and world citizens as well.
I want to just ask you. You have identified what you view as the problem with the bill as being going beyond what was required to solve the issue at hand, which is to find ways of reducing the amount of phosphorus flowing into our waterways and, ultimately, ending up in Lake Winnipeg.
I am not even close to having the same level of expertise as I think you have, and many others involved in the industry, as to how best to solve the problem. I wonder if I could just give you the opportunity to state what you think, what you would do if you were in government and trying to achieve the goal of cleaning up Lake Winnipeg, with particular attention to the 2 percent issue that you have spoken to with respect to the hog industry.
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser: It's an incredibly tough question. How do you solve the problem of Lake Winnipeg? I'm not sure anybody would know the answer. But, you know, just one point would be, in 2010, the federal government has instituted, or whatever, put out legislation saying that, from now, on household cleaners, the level of phosphates in household cleaners has to go from 2.2 percent down to 0.2 percent. Anybody who's washing their hands at the sink, the detergent they use will be limited. They'll have less phosphates in it. That phosphate goes down your drain, goes down to the lake. Well, it doesn't end up in the lake. It goes to a sewage treatment plant, right? That's a good thing. I'm willing to buy detergent with less–stuff like this. I'm sure there are little loopholes, and stuff people can do a lot of things in the line of being more careful. You know, the business of when you knife in manure, so you got your tractor driving along with the manure. Well, if you put on too much manure, it'll overflow, but there are limits. So it's put into ground. Well, there should be distances between waterways and where you put in manure. That should be respected. Stuff like that, you know.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. McFadyen, supplemental?
Mr. McFadyen: Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for letting me ask the follow-up question because I didn't pose my question to you very well. I was really just wanting to give you a chance to talk about practices in the hog industry that could help deal with the issue. You've got knowledge on a range of other areas, but just expand on the comments that you were making toward the end in terms of knifing and other practices that might achieve the goal of having the manure provide the nutrients to the grain, which is then fed back into either human beings or hogs and avoid having it run into the waterways. If you can just go a step beyond in terms of the evolution of practices in recent years and where things need to go on a go-forward basis.
Mr. Victor Kleinsasser: Not sure if I can really answer that question very well. I mean, I don't have that much expertise in that area. Like I was saying, to have crops, you can't just keep taking, you know, nutrients or whatever out of the crops as the crops grow to use nutrients, right? Well, you have to replace that with something. Now, if you load up your fields by tonnes of, you know, fertilizer, it's going to wash off. That's why there are limits. That's what we need to set, good limits where we can go and then, of course, our crops are then converted into–I mean, the nitrogen and stuff like that in the soil is converted back into crops, and then crops can be fed to animals or exported as Canada is doing a good job in that line.
I'm not really an agricultural expert. I was more going to speak today on the subject of just the children. That's what was my point. I was going to talk about children in the future of Hutterites and not just Hutterites, rural kids. Kids, you know, farming kids, who are out there; they plan to spend their lives, you know, in agriculture, but is there a future for them in this area?
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Kleinsasser. Time for this presentation has expired, so I thank you.
Call Mr. Guy Labossiere. Mike Hofer. Felix Boileau. Felix Boileau. Rick Fast. Miles Beaudin. Mack Waldner. Jonathan Maendel.
Jeff Mah, Envirotech Ag Systems–oh, sorry, that's inside the city.
Tom Leppelman. Stanley Hofer. Adam Waldner. Blair Cressman. Edwin Hofer, Miami Colony Farms Ltd. John Bannister. William Hoffman. Don Winnicky. Robert Krentz. Jeremy Maendel.
Ron Klippenstein. Mr. Klippenstein, do you have any written materials for the committee?
Mr. Ron Klippenstein (Private Citizen): No.
Mr. Chairperson: No? Seeing none, you may proceed.
* (17:50)
Mr. Ron Klippenstein: Thank you for the opportunity to come together here. As I have 10 minutes, I thought I would do something a little bit different today, and, no, I won't tap dance. But I wrote a poem. Sometimes farmers have some talents other than raising livestock for the Canadian population. So here's the poem:
I got my place in the countryside, / I worked very hard, you know I've strived, / When all was set, it was fresh and free, / I felt there was nothing that could bother me, / I woke up early one spring day, / I opened my door and to my dismay, / There was an odour, I did not know why, / It became my mission to identify, / I followed the scent round hills and dale, / And as I got closer, my face turned pale, / I went in the yard to inquire on the matter, / And found an old farmer mad as a hatter, / He said times were hard and profits were low, / He was out of money, and his workers didn't show, / Government forms sent him back to school, / Farming these days? He was the fool, / I listened intently, and I tried to console, / As his stress clearly was starting to show, / I said we don't need pig farms anymore, / I just picked up some pork at the grocery store, / He looked at me, his eyes full of pity, / It seemed I had missed the nitty-gritty, / As I listened intently, I started to know, / Why farmers are needed to make the world go, / So I phoned up my M.P. and found this meeting, / I spoke of how farmers were taking a beating, / I voiced my concerns and issued my warnings, / I really want farmers to greet in the morning, / I ask that you give your heads a shake, / As the food grown by farmers fills your plate, / If you eat, then you're certainly involved, / Because it's farming that feeds us all.
So much for the poem.
Mr. Chairperson: With leave of the committee, I'll allow some applause from the audience for that. [applause]
Mr. Klippenstein: Thank you. Sorry, I have some more, but not poems. [interjection] No, you don't have to applaud.
You've heard all the stories. This isn't a poem, so I won't try–you know, get out of that mindset. You've heard all the stories and pretty much all the angles. On one side, you have people who want Manitoba to be a recreation resort and want anything resembling farming to stop. You have the farmers, whose way of life is being threatened and whose very existence has been reduced to begging to stay financially viable.
Farmers have had to become experts at everything they do, from keeping up with the most recent new law to comply with to being a master accountant to fill out all the required application forms, just so that we can survive one more day while the world consumes our product.
It was my dream to become a farmer when I was very young, the son of a farmer from a history of farmers through the last seven generations. Early every morning till late every night, I cared for hogs. Seven days a week for 30 years, I was consumed by the worry of finances and the many risks associated with farming. With my father's farm to build on, I expanded my farm five times in 30 years. I was always too small to compete in the world. In fact, I would like to suggest that every hog farm in Manitoba is still a small family farm. As far as the multi-billion-dollar companies go in the world, we don't even light the candle.
It was my dream to feed the world. I've also seen the pictures of the anti-farm lobbyists, the ones they've shown to the politicians, farms flooded during wet seasons, most likely staged videos of animals confined or abused. With so few farmers left in Manitoba and so many people who haven't a clue where food comes from or how it's produced, it seems easier for the politicians to listen to the lobbyists who pull at the heartstrings of unsuspecting voters.
There are two people in this building who I would like to say this to, and I hope this panel understands. I brought my two sons along. The first thing I'd like to say to my two boys is, don't believe that you can make a living producing food for Manitobans. Don't worry if the cities run out of food. They don't deserve the sweat and blood you would need to put out for them to eat. Never farm like your ancestors did; it amounts to being a beggar your whole life. I regret the years I spent farming; the hard work was not worth it. Canada, and more specifically, Manitoba, does not care about farmers because they can buy all their food in the grocery stores. They have a serious disconnect with reality. To my boys, take a look at this committee. They will go home with their wallets full. They will go get their food from the grocery stores. They will not suffer any of the hardships your father suffered.
No. 7. We have become a visible minority. We are an endangered species. You are watching the process used by short-sighted lawmakers that aided our demise. Our heritage as farmers, our fiscally responsible ways of managing our farms, our hopes and dreams in this new land of being able to work hard and live with dignity and feed our families, is disappearing before our eyes. History will judge these lawmakers and as world hunger rises, there will be fewer people around who know how to feed the world because Bill 17 will kill the farmer, make the existing farms obsolete.
No. 10. My grandfather used to have a saying. I'll translate it for you. [Low German spoken.] You don't know anything about the war.
I applaud the fact that this committee is listening to me, but the fact that we are even talking about this has put an ill wind in the air for farmers, when we should be standing up and offering a minute of silence for all those of us who have fallen. You talk about our systematic demise when you should be giving us few farmers left a standing ovation. You talk about legislating us out of existence and creating laws that are cumbersome to comply with and regulate. This bill is the beginning of our end. If you eat, then you will also feel the end of grown in Manitoba. Don't do it. Open your eyes. Allow farmers to build and expand as they have done in the past. All the expansions that I made, I had to ensure that I had appropriate land available. These were required of me before I got the building permits. The existing controls did their job. Stop the bill before it stops food production. Thank you.
* (18:00)
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Klippenstein. I open the floor to questions.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you. Wonderful poem. Great presentation. I do have a question for you though. I took very seriously your comments which you were making to your son. We've heard from other presenters that want to encourage their sons or daughters to take over the farm. If the government was to repeal Bill 17 and come back with a set of regulations or follow the recommendations put out through the CEC report, do you think that would change the mentality out there as far as the next generation of farmers, and put some confidence back in to those farm people that want to have the next generation, in fact, be farmers?
Mr. Klippenstein: Thank you. It's a very good question. Firstly, I think it's important to say–you know, I lost my train of thought, but it'll come back to me.
Would my children regain their heart for farming? This is what we do. When we, who feed the world, should be one of the richest groups on this planet, this is how we live, like beggars. This is how we do it. You know what the costs of production are and if you're not sure what they are, they have been as bad as $100 less than what we got for it. So when I talk to my boys, and I'm talking to them right now. You want to be a farmer, learn how to beg. Don't be proud because pride doesn't fill out forms, begging does.
When I look at the last 15 years of farming, and I find more and more and more regulations, manure management plans. Oh, we all know they're important. But I can't go to the bathroom on the field without turning around in circles for fear there may be a puddle, and I didn't file a manure management plan so if someone was there, they could make it very difficult for me for dumping manure on the land. These are ridiculous. In order for me to farm, I have more phone calls from government regulators right now than I have from concerned people. They all feel it's their God-given duty to make sure I comply. So I have to be really nice to them because if I tell them where I'd like to tell them to go, because I've got pigs to feed, they would make it very difficult for me and other farmers around. So I got to blow sunshine somewhere.
So, no. You lost me. As an individual farmer who's spent a quarter of my century, quarter of my life, or more, working, I don't want my boys to farm. I think that's the stupidest thing they could do in their lifetime. Why not join a committee? Get overweight.
It's personal. To me, it's personal. I hope I answered your question.
Mr. McFadyen: Mr. Klippenstein, I want to thank you for the comments today. I think that they've had an impact on those who are here listening to what you're saying. I want to just comment on your pessimism about the future of farming in Manitoba and say to you that there are members of this committee who are opposed to Bill 17, the members on this side of the table, in particular, many who have been extremely articulate in their opposition to this bill, including Mr. Goertzen, Eichler, Pedersen, Mr. Faurschou, Maguire, Cullen, Mr. Graydon and Mr. Dyck.
Ms. Jennifer Howard, Vice-Chairperson, in the Chair
As a city of Winnipeg MLA, I agree with the position, too, although I don't understand it as well as they do, but I know that Bill 17 is wrong. I think you should know there are members of this committee who support you and want to see the bill stopped. Also, to let you know that the original plan on the part of the government was to have this bill passed by next Thursday. I want to give you–I hope, before you leave–some sense of optimism before you walk out of the room, and that is that the government has agreed to hold this bill over until October for more opportunities for people like you to come and speak and to consider changes to the bill and, we hope, changes that will give you reason to be optimistic about farming again.
I want to just share that with you. I know members on the opposite side of the table, even as the proponents of the bill, have been listening carefully. I hope that you will walk out of this room with some optimism that, between now and early October, which is when this bill is supposed to be voted on, changes can happen.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Klippenstein, did you want to respond to that?
Mr. Klippenstein: Thanks for the opportunity to say how I feel.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you. We're at the end of our time for this presentation, so we'll move on.
I have some substitutions for the committee. [applause] Okay. I know that we had some applause for the poem; I think that was well-placed and loud. But, just ask everyone, please to–we ask the audience that your presentations are your participation and you refrain from applauding or participating in other ways. Thank you.
Committee Substitutions
Madam Vice-Chairperson: I have some substitutions for the committee: Mr. Goertzen for Mrs. Rowat, Mr. Swan for Ms. Melnick, and Mr. Caldwell for Ms. Wowchuk.
* * *
Madam Vice-Chairperson: We'll continue calling through the list.
James Waldner, James Waldner?
Tom Leppelman, Tom Leppelman?
Albert Maendel, Albert Maendel?
Patrick Hague, Patrick Hague?
Kevin Kurbis from New Standard Ag. David Hofer. Christine Hofer. Martin Sharpe from Little Saskatchewan Feed Yard Group.
Mark Gauvin. Mark Hofer. Levi Waldner. George Hofer. Fred Hofer. Alvin Hofer. Martin Gross from Iberville Colony.
Brad Schnell. Robert Toews. Rika Coelstra. Kees Vanittersum from Micro Fan Canada.
Joe Marshall. Garry Stott. David Waldner. Darrin Warkentin. Jeroen VenBoekel. William Tshatter. Rick Friesen. Amos Stahl. Christine Kynoch. Josh Waldner.
Michael Wurtz. Michael Wurtz, do you have a written presentation for the committee?
Mr. Michael Wurtz (Private Citizen): I got the speaker, so I made a copy so the guys could follow me.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Sure, if you have copies, you can just give them to the clerk here and he'll make sure they're distributed. You can go ahead when you're ready.
* (18:10)
Mr. Michael Wurtz: Hello, I'm Michael Wurtz from around Starbuck, Manitoba.
I want to voice my concerns regarding Bill 17 which, I think, is not in the best interests of the residents of Manitoba, especially the farmers.
As a kid growing up, I looked at a lot of National Geographic magazines. Caterpillar always had in there with a quote: There are no easy solutions, only intelligent choices. I think this quote fits our situation perfectly. I believe that we as intelligent adults can and should find a better solution to this situation. This hog moratorium is not the answer. If we make a decision on a matter that affects thousands of people, it should be well thought out. It should be made on sound environmental studies and on facts, not assumption politics.
The study by CEC clearly shows hogs are not one of the big contributors to the phosphorous problem, less than 2 percent. I feel with sound manure management practices, which both farmers already had in place, this can be controlled. With a couple of regulations and guidelines on new hog set-ups or expansions, future pollution problems should not be an issue. I think we can find a solution that will sustain agriculture, hog farming, the environment without Bill 17. Let's work together like the sensible adults we claim to be.
Please don't bite the hand that feeds you.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wurtz.
Mr. Michael Wurtz: I'm not done.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Are you not done? Okay, I'm sorry.
Mr. Michael Wurtz: I would like to see the NDP government go down in history as a government who helped make Manitoba a leader in supporting agriculture, manufacturing, mining and all other business sectors of Manitoba, not make one sector a scapegoat for our environmental issues. Everybody who supports Bill 17 will go down in history as a bunch of idiots who used the hog industry to mislead the public into believing they are saving Lake Winnipeg when in fact Bill 17 will do very little for the environment. Most existing hog operations will be around for the next 10-15 years. If you really want to do something positive, help existing operations meet current manure management practices that would have immediate results. Any new operations that have proper manure management plans and follow CEC's guidelines should have very little effect on the environment.
Who do you think will be most affected by Bill 17? I think mostly corporate hog operations that buy 30-40 acres and build huge hog operations that don't live near the barns or hire local people to run their operations will not be terribly affected. They will just build future barns in different R.M.s. The people who will really get hurt by Bill 17 is the family farm. People who live on the land, people who have been living in one place for two or three generations and who are tied to the lands, who live on the land they own. Take, for example, a father with two sons who would like to stay on the farm in order to generate enough income to support three families. They would like to increase their hog operations by 50-100 sows. They have the land base to properly incorporate their manure. They have a sound manure management plan in place, but because of Bill 17, their hands are tied. These people will be the real losers.
These days you hear a lot of Kyoto, greenhouse gases, wind farms and renewable energies. I would like to point out that manure properly applied is both renewable and environmentally friendly. Every acre where manure's applied, we're not using synthetic fertilizers, which are not renewable and have to be hauled long distances, both of which are bad for the environment. It costs lots of fuel and wears out the highways. Think about that.
In the past 15 years, I have been actively involved in farming. I have seen manure go from waste and nuisance that we tried to dispose of as soon as possible to a valuable commodity. We try to cover as many acres as possible. We take annual soil and manure nutrient tests to a third party. We have had very positive results.
In early April I drove over the Peguis Trail Bridge in north Main. I smelled sewer. Looking down on the south side, I saw a wide stream of sewer running into the river. It made me wonder how many tonnes of phosphorus Winnipeg is dumping into the Red River daily. Why isn't CEC doing a study on Winnipeg sewer draining into the Red River and making numbers public? If you're really concerned and want immediate results, I challenge you to stop all new housing developments and new buildings in Winnipeg till Winnipeg sewer system is upgraded to handle existing sewage and any sewage new housing would generate. Or is it easier to pick on hog farmers?
Ten or 15 years ago I got a chance to listen to Peter Warren doing a talk show on farmers. When one older lady phoned in asking why we need farmers, claiming she gets her milk and that from Safeway, Peter just hung up on her. The NDP government seems to have the same mindset. I feel anybody who supports Bill 17 has lost sight of where the food he or she eats every day comes from. They think it gets manufactured in some warehouse in Winnipeg.
If you don't want to support agriculture, I challenge every one of you to boycott farmers for the next three weeks. Don't buy or eat any pork, beef, chicken, turkey, bread, pasta, buns, milk, eggs, vegetables or anything that has any of these items in it either at home or any restaurant. Maybe after three weeks of living on water and seaweed, you will realize how much you take for granted.
In closing, I would like to say Bill 17 is an insult to farmers. We are not trying to exploit agriculture. We are trying to be good stewards of the land. We want to protect our land and environment so that we can pass it on to the next generation in as good shape as possible. We are not on some get-rich-quick scheme.
Bill 17 needs to be thrown out, or at least amended. Let's put our emphasis on proper management and stewardship. We are willing to listen and change our practices if it will help sustain agriculture and our environment. Let's work together to find a solution that's practical. Bill 17 will never accomplish what manure management has in the last 10 years.
Have a nice day and many restless nights regarding Bill 17.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Wurtz. We're open to questions.
Mr. Pedersen: Thank you, Madam Vice-Chair. I am just going to assume, sir, that you have family. If Bill 17 goes through, how does this impact your family and your everyday life as you know it?
Mr. Michael Wurtz: It might not have any short-term effects, but it will in the long run because, currently, we bought an older hog set-up in southern Manitoba and that's in pretty rough shape. We want to wait for another couple years and then slowly upgrade it, and, with Bill 17, our hands are tied. So it's kind of a rough situation for us.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. I do have a question for you in regard to the regulations that have just been put in place in the last year or so and also the Clean Environment report that's been tabled. If those changes were implemented and Bill 17 wasn't put in place, do you feel that that would be sufficient in order to maintain the water quality that's out there now in order to deal with Bill 17 rather than that of a permanent moratorium?
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Wurtz, I just have to recognize you so we know everybody who said things at the committee. So go ahead, Mr. Wurtz.
Mr. Michael Wurtz: I think we should at least give them a chance. The phosphorus regulations aren't even in place. They're in 2010 even though in our farm we're already trying to follow them. We're two years ahead of the regulations, and I think with a couple of more guidelines by CEC that were–that they had in their list, we should make sure we have enough land base before we can build barns. I think we should be able to expand our hog operations.
Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Thank you very much, Mr. Wurtz, for your presentation. I don't think more truer words could be spoken in regard to the change in the last 15 years from looking at manure pile as being waste and a nuisance to something that is extremely valuable. I'm afraid that the current administration is viewing us on the farm now the way they perceived us many, many years ago, and so I thank you very much for your presentation. Indeed, I think if the government was to take the time to go out to the rural and see exactly what our operations are today, they would be much the wiser and would be throwing this Bill 17 so far away that no one would ever find it again.
On that point, has anyone ever come to you and to your colony community from the government to ask questions of you as to how regulations and your farming techniques have changed?
Mr. Michael Wurtz: Not that I'm aware of. I personally haven't talked to anybody.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Seeing no other questions, thank you very much for your presentation, sir.
* (18:20)
Okay, next, proceeding down the list, calling Edward Maendel. Edward Maendel?
Russell Paetkau? David Waldner?
David Wurtz. Welcome, Mr. Wurtz. Do you have a written presentation for the committee?
Mr. David Wurtz (Private Citizen): No.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Okay. Well, you can start whenever you're ready, sir.
Mr. David Wurtz: Well, first I'd like to thank everybody for the opportunity for us, as the people of Manitoba, to speak in front of you.
Also, before my message gets too long-winding, I'd like to just tell you that I'm against Bill 17. I'm also very disappointed when I look at all the faces here that I can't see Mr. Gary Doer here. With an important bill that's in front of us, I think the leader should be here, of our government.
In my community I'm a part-time teacher besides helping on the farm and hog raising and other livestock we're in. Two weeks ago, I had the chance for the first time to take a tour of this building here, actually, with the school tour. With 11- and 12-grade students, we came in here and toured the building, and it was fascinating, the big building, seeing one in Winnipeg here. I've seen some very interesting things that I took note of, and it made me really rethink all of Bill 17, what it's all about.
For example, we were in your House of the Legislative Assembly, I think is what you call it, and there were some interesting pictures on the walls. I don't know if you ever have time when you walk in there to take a look at them, or if the tour guide did a good chance of explaining them to us, but, hopefully, you know what they stand for. Like, over the Speaker's head, there's a big picture of a poor man on one side and a rich man on the other side, and justice in the middle, and it seems that that justice would be served to the people of Manitoba, is what our tour guide told us. I just think that in there, there should be a picture of a young family there with his children and maybe holding a pig, just to see that we need justice too. Then the pictures all around the wall there, of all the women there, she told us stands for all the virtues; for example, honesty, fairness. So I asked a question to myself: Where is the fairness to the hog industry?
Then we also had a chance to go across the street, and we toured the Manitoba courtyards and had a chance to talk with one of the judges. He gave us interesting comments on his job, what he does. One of the things I took out of there–I knew it before, but it kind of stuck on me–is that people are innocent in Canada and Manitoba unless proven guilty. I'm just asking a question. The question I'm asking: Is this really happening with Bill 17? Where is the proof that we, as hog producers, are guilty? That's a question I've asked myself when I looked at that. I haven't seen it in the papers. I haven't read it in the documents. Maybe you could help me.
So I ask you: Are you fair with the hog industry and with Bill 17? How can you penalize us with the hog moratorium without showing us the proof that we are at fault? The only chart I've seen showed me that the hog industry is only to blame for 1.5 percent of the phosphates. Is that a reason to tie our hands and basically stop us from expanding? Is this innocent until proven guilty?
I just got a quote here from one of your own I'd like to read, quote: I don't know. A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof, and when you have good proof, it's because it's proven. That's Jean Chrétien. So, again, my question is: Where is the proof? So I'd like to really have you rethink what you are doing.
I'm also involved in manure injection on our farm. Comparing to 20 years ago, the rules in place now help the farmer that the government put out before Bill 17. It saves us lots of money and lots on fertilizer. It's actually helping us and we thank you for them; making rules to help the farmer not make him quit his livelihood. So I ask you to continue making rules that help us and not destroy us.
Be more open. I've got a couple of suggestions I wrote down here where you can maybe help us. Be more open to companies coming into Manitoba to help us solve pollution problems, like a company that's working with us right now called AgCert. They're a worldwide company. They wanted to come put a tarp on our lagoons so we can avoid the stink coming from it and were actually going to pay for everything. They were planning on taking the points and selling them. Like, what they wanted to do, they wanted to burn methane and when they burn methane it's not as hard on the environment, so they figured they'll be collecting points and selling them on world market. And they're also wanting to involve University of Manitoba to do a study. What really made me excited is they're not going to ask for government funding, they're just asking for permission. So far we've had a lot of stumbling blocks, and we figured by springtime the project would be done and going, but hopefully, it will be, but so far it hasn't.
So I'd also like to beg you to look more closely at point source. Where does that phosphate really come from? Just saying it comes from the pig farm or it comes from U.S. or it comes from there, is there really studies showing that? Have we done point source? Do we know exactly where it comes from before we start making laws like Bill 17?
Also, instead of shutting us down with Bill 17, I'd also like you to take a look at it case-by-case. Do the people who want to build have enough land? Is the land suitable for putting on manure or is it leaching? And look at all the aspects of case-by-case, and that way, we're not all put in one sect.
So, I want to beg you, please help us. Don't kill us. Thank you.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Thank you, very, very much, Mr. Wurtz for your presentation, for your quote from Mr. Chrétien. I rarely agreed with the former Prime Minister, but I agree with him on that quote in relation to Bill 17. I want to thank you for, first of all, stating that you're opposed to Bill 17, and then talking about fairness and as it relates even here to the Legislature and our duty to ensure that there is fairness.
I want to read a quote for you that the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) gave in the Legislature this past Tuesday. He said that this bill, Bill 17 will actually separate people apart, those who want to protect water, and those who don't want to protect water. What he was saying is that if you're opposed to Bill 17, you don't want to protect water. Do you think that's a fair comment for the Minister of Conservation to make?
Mr. David Wurtz: Well, I can't agree with that. We use the water surrounding us. We run our manure management plans. We try and do the best we can with it so that we don't pollute the water. We definitely want clean water and if we could help in any way, we could maybe take shovels and come up and help you shovel it out if that's what it takes.
* (18:30)
We're here to help, but we need the Manitoba government to also be willing to sit down with us across the table and discuss what we can do to help and not just throw a bill at us, and now, here, you have to live with it. I don't believe that's fair and I don't believe that's justice in Manitoba.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Any other questions?
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation. I do have a question for you. Based on your operation now, do you have sufficient acres in order to spread your effluent on?
Mr. David Wurtz: Yes, we have sufficient acres. We also have farmers that are willing to pay money for it, but why should we give it to them if we can put it on our fields, and the benefit is ours. Why should we? They've approached us time and time again. We want your manure. Why should we give them any unless they're willing to pay us a large amount of money for it? So we're at the point where we're not willing to sell it. We want it on our fields to get the most benefit out of it.
Mr. Gerrard: I'm interested in your approach to the environment, improving the environment, covering the lagoons and, hopefully, that will work. You were talking a little bit about the methane. Was this as part of an effort to capture methane as well?
Mr. David Wurtz: Yes, that was the whole idea behind it. The company isn't going to give us a free tarp. I mean, it's a $150,000 project. We know there are no freebies around. What they wanted to do, as they're a worldwide company, and they trade Kyoto points. They're going to burn the methane. When you burn methane, they say the carbon monoxide that comes from the methane is only–the methane is about 100 times more dangerous to the greenhouse, or whatever you want to call it. So in burning it, you're saving the environment. But the problem that AgCert has got, they have to prove it to our government. If doing it worldwide, they're doing it for a living, but they come to Manitoba and the Manitoba government doesn't want to recognize it as actually helping the environment.
So what do they have to do? They have to go to the University of Manitoba, and they'll run a study. Until that study is done, they won't be able to get paid for the methane that we burn. There are a bunch of other stumbling blocks with Manitoba Conservation that we're in right now. It's tough, as farmers, to try and do something, make a good decision that'll help the neighbour, help everybody, and now we run into government problems where we can't go ahead.
What I suggested is maybe we should ask the government for a $10 million grant and maybe it will go through then faster. I don't know. I don't have the answers.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you.
Mr. Faurschou: Indeed, most of us out there now would much sooner use an organic-based fertilizer for the crop production rather than synthetic fertilizers. I thank you very much for bringing that point home with the committee here this afternoon.
But, once again, you have demonstrated that farmers are adopting and incorporating technology as well as innovation, and the government is lagging so far behind that they're more of a hindrance than a help.
I ask the question of yourself. When was the last time a government official was asking you for thoughts as to what would be the best way in which to bring forward new policies?
Mr. David Wurtz: Well, I have to honestly say I've never talked to–that's the first time I've talked with government people. I guess if that's what I have to do, I'll have to come in here more often, that's all, and bring a whole load of hogs.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, sir. That's the time for your presentation. Thank you very much.
We'll continue moving down the list.
Betty Siemens. Betty Siemens? James Siemens. Leonard John Friesen. Wendy Friesen.
Bill Vaags, Bill Vaags? Welcome, Mr. Vaags. Do you have a written presentation?
Mr. Bill Vaags (Private Citizen): No, I don't.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Okay, you can start whenever you're ready, sir.
Mr. Vaags: I'll make it short and sweet. This morning, I was ready to come down here and realized I locked myself out of the car that I was supposed to come here with, and I had some notes and stuff in there. I haven't got any notes. Whatever you get is straight off the cuff.
First of all, let me tell my name is Bill Vaags. I'm a married man; my wife and I raised five children. They're all grown up. I've been in the hog business for the better part of 45 years, so that tells you how old I am. I should tell you where I'm from, right? I'm from Dugald, Manitoba.
It's been interesting sitting here, listening to all the comments. I won't make any recommendations, because I don't even know how to speak properly off the notes that are in my car, and that car's not here yet.
I'm glad that I stuck around as long as I did, so I could just let you know that I wanted to be known–not that I'm giving you any advice, because I don't think I have the proper advice–but, at least, it will go on record that I was with the committee here to try and listen to you guys and everybody else. I'll leave it with that. I said it should be short and sweet. If you have any questions, I will try and answer.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Vaags.
Mr. Eichler: Forty-five years–that's quite a milestone, Mr. Vaags, and I certainly commend you for being around the industry a long time. We've seen the highs and lows and, right now, we're into that low.
We know that everything comes in cycles and I know that, right now, there's a signal out there, not only because of decline in the prices but, with Bill 17, it brings a different signal. It brings a signal of uncertainty, a signal of whether or not we even want the industry within the province of Manitoba.
Could you give us your opinion on that, since you've been around for 45 years in this industry and you see how that might have an effect on the next generation of farmers?
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Vaags: Well, naturally, it speaks for itself. I've been in the business for 45 years. We do both hogs and grain, oilseeds and everything.
I think there's still a great opportunity in this province to proceed, but you mentioned the word "sensitiveness." I think that's the way you put it. That's uncertainty; that is really the big thing with this whole committee and everything. When I talked to people at home yesterday–I left here at five o'clock for a farewell thing for our pastor from our church–they asked me, what did you learn from the committee? I had to honestly say that I wasn't sure just what it was all about.
I do want to say, I know the question is going to come as far as, do you have enough land to spread your manure? We don't spread it; we inject it. We've gone along with the trend of change in production patterns and of costs and so on.
Back in the early '60s, we were hauling it out with the stoneboat, they used to call it. From there, we went to manure spreaders; from there, we went to the irrigation-type system with the big guns which was the most stupid thing that anybody could have ever gone for, but we thought it was a great idea at the time.
Then, from there, we went to the injection system. The injection system–we've been doing that now on a custom basis. We get a custom operator doing it for us, and we get it cleaned up in a hurry. We certainly we get the best use out of the by-product.
* (18:40)
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Thank you.
Mr. Faurschou: Thank you, Mr. Vaags, for your presentation today and for sharing some of your time, which has a wealth of experience. Your family, you mentioned you raised five children. Are you looking to see the operation continue to another generation after yourself?
Mr. Vaags: I didn't explain my family. I have one son and four daughters. My son is a full-time partner in the business and a full-time manager now because myself, I've had some medical setbacks where I've had to slow down a bit, with heart problems and so on. I wanted him to be here today and present. He could give you a better overlook from the whole situation. Unfortunately, he said, dad, I am not going there; you go do it.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Faurschou, on a supplementary.
Mr. Faurschou: He would probably have a fair degree of frustration, and I appreciate your calm demeanour here today.
The operation that you just mentioned, obviously, has changed significantly and is much more understanding of the environment and the value through the nutrient levels within the manure. I would suspect that you are using less synthetic fertilizers with the injection services that you employ. Could maybe you elaborate a little bit more on that?
Mr. Vaags: I'm sorry.
Madam Vice-Chairperson: That's okay, sir. I haven't got it right most of today, so go ahead.
Mr. Vaags: What was the question again?
Mr. Faurschou: Just in regard to the value in nutrient levels, the injection system and using less synthetic fertilizer, how this pertains to your crop production methods now.
Mr. Vaags: We use whatever we possibly can on the soil, but we have a large acreage available for applying