LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Monday, June 6, 2005
TIME – 6:30 p.m.
LOCATION –
CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Daryl
Reid (Transcona)
VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tom
Nevakshonoff (Interlake)
ATTENDANCE - 11 QUORUM
- 6
Members of the Committee present:
Hon. Messrs. Bjornson, Rondeau, Selinger, Smith
Mrs. Driedger, Mr. Hawranik, Ms. Irvin-Ross, Messrs. Loewen, Maguire, Nevakshonoff, Reid
Substitutions:
Mr. Eichler for Mr. Loewen at 7:52 p.m.
Mr. Martindale for Mr. Selinger at 9:42 p.m.
Mr. Loewen for Mr. Eichler at 10:15 p.m.
APPEARING:
Mr. Leonard Derkach, MLA for Russell
Hon. Jon Gerrard, MLA for
Mr. Jack Penner, MLA for Emerson
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA
for
Mr. Glen Cummings, MLA for Ste. Rose
WITNESSES:
Bill 51 – The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended)
Mr. Bernie Bellan, Private Citizen
Mr. Paul Sveinson, Private Citizen
Mr. Chris Christensen, Private Citizen
Bill 33 – The Planning Act
Mr. David Rolfe, President, Keystone Agricultural Producers
Mr. Larry Schweitzer, President,
Mr. Chris Fulsher,
Mr. John Bannister, Executive Member, Dairy Farmers of
Mr. Garry Wasylowski, Vice-President, Association of Manitoba Municipalities
Ms. Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles, Private Citizen
Ms. Carol Clegg, Private Citizen
Mr. Leon Clegg, Private Citizen
Mr. Alan Baron, Private Citizen
Ms. Ruth Pryzner, Private Citizen
Mr. Fred Tait, Private Citizen
Bill 48 – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act
Mr. Ray Sitter, Private Citizen
Mr. Ray Derksen, First Vice-President,
Ms. Pat Bowslaugh, Private Citizen
Mr. Gordon Henderson, Private Citizen
Mr. James Penner,
Ms. Jean Todd, Private Citizen
Ms. Laurena Leskiw, Private Citizen
Ms. Deanna Dolff, Private Citizen
Mr. Doug Kinney, Private Citizen
Ms. Shirley Augustine, Private Citizen
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS:
Bill 51 – The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended)
Mr. Paul Sveinson, Private Citizen
Bill 33 – The Planning Act
Mr. Joe F. Dolecki, Associate Professor and Chair, Department of
Economics,
Mr. Rodger Mawer, Private Citizen
Mr. Reed Wolfe, Private Citizen
Ms. Clair English, Private Citizen
Mr. Charles Arklie, Private Citizen
Mr. Larry Powell, Private Citizen
Mr. D. E. (Ted) Ross, Roseisle Creek Watershed Association
Bill 48 – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act
Mr. Ray Sitter, Private Citizen
Ms. Judy Goodman, Private Citizen
Ms. Gayle Robertson, Private Citizen
Ms. Leota Nelson, Private Citizen
Mr. Fred Cole, Private Citizen
Ms. Barbara Teskey, Private Citizen
Mr. Bob Swayze, Private Citizen
MATTERS UNDER
CONSIDERATION:
Bill 33 – The Planning Act
Bill 48 – The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act
Bill 51 – The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended)
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, everyone. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order.
The first order of business is the election of a Vice-Chairperson. Are there any nominations?
* (18:40)
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Chair, I would like to recommend and nominate Mr. Nevakshonoff for Vice-Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Nevakshonoff has been nominated. Are there any further nominations?
Seeing no further nominations, Mr. Nevakshonoff is elected as Vice-Chairperson.
This evening, the committee will be considering the following bills: Bill 33, The Planning Act; Bill 48, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act; Bill 51, The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended).
We do have presenters
registered to speak to bills 33, 48 and 51. It is the custom to hear public
presentations before consideration of bills. Is it the will of the committee to
hear public presentations on these bills? Agreed? [Agreed]
Does the committee wish me to read the names of the persons that are registered to speak this evening? It is quite a considerable list.
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.
For members of the public that may wish to check the list just to make sure your names are registered if you wish to speak, please check the list with the Clerk at the back of the room. If there is anybody that has not registered, not on that list, you can also see the Clerk to have your name added to that list.
Just a reminder for those folks that are making presentations here this evening, we would require, if possible, 20 copies of your presentation. If you require assistance with photocopying, please see one of the clerks and we will assist you with the photocopying for your copy of your presentation for committee members' use.
I also understand that we have some out-of-town presenters in attendance this evening. These names are marked with an asterisk on the presenters' list. Is it the will of the committee to hear from out-of-town presenters first? If yes, in what order?
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Yes. Mr. Chair, I look at the list, and I see there are only four presenters for Bill 51. So I would suggest that we hear all presentations on Bill 51 first, beginning with the out-of-town presenter or presenters, and then move on to bills 33 and 48 respectively, again, hearing from out-of-town presenters for both of those bills first before getting into the main list.
Mr. Chairperson: It has been recommended, or suggested, by Mr. Nevakshonoff that we start with the Bill 51 with four presenters and then proceed with Bill 33 and then Bill 48.
Mr. John Loewen (
We have got a room jam-packed full of people, people who are going to be asked to be here until midnight and possibly come back tomorrow, people who are going to have to stand through this process, there is absolutely no reason for this other than the fact that the government of the day wants to do everything possible to avoid public scrutiny on the bills.
It would be far better, in my belief, for the government, first of all, to have, you know, scheduled a committee for each particular bill, so that people could have made presentations in a time that was reasonable and in a setting that had some reasonability to it. To ask, now, to deal with all three of these bills and to ask people who are here to have to stay until, you know, midnight and possibly come back tomorrow, I think is a complete disregard for the process that brings us here in the first place.
Having said that, you know, I guess what I would do, then, is move that we deal with Bill 33 tonight, because I notice, of the out-of-town presenters, that primarily the majority of them are from out of town. Some people may have come from long distances and need to get home. There are out-of-town presenters for Bill 48 that we agreed to hear those tonight.
You know, if people do want to stay on those two bills until very late at night who are not from out of town, I would leave it up to them to make that decision, and we would be glad to hear it, provided we do not go past twelve o'clock, and that we apologize to the four presenters here that are in Bill 51, but that we, possibly, hear the out-of-town presentation on Bill 51, if the presenter so desires. Otherwise, we move Bill 51 to a separate date.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Loewen, for clarification, are you making this by way of motion? If that is the case, I would need to have such a motion in writing.
Mr. Loewen: Just for clarification, the previous member just spoke to it. I would be happy just to put it on the record in terms of something the committee should consider, and, hopefully, will agree to. We will leave it at that.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Loewen. I take that as a suggestion, then, versus a motion.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Chair, I think the committee was established the latter part of last week. Obviously, you do not know the amount of people who will sign up for bills. Obviously, the bills were put on, members could have made a comment at that time. It certainly makes good sense, as Mr. Nevakshonoff has mentioned, when we have the bills as they are scheduled in front of us here tonight, to look at the four names of the people that are here to present. It does make good sense to me and this side that there are four people on this bill. On the others, there is a multi-number of people on the bills. Obviously, in consideration of the four people on the bill, certainly on the Crocus investment, it makes good sense to have those people present, the out-of-town persons first. Give them the consideration to make their presentations and then deal with the others that are quite numerous.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Chair, it is unfortunate that we have to waste this much time in wrangling about the procedures, but there are many out-of-town presenters on other bills, as there are on 51. These are people who have to journey home tonight. I would agree with Mr. Loewen that we should be hearing the out-of-town presenters on Bills 33, 48 and 51 if that is going to be possible tonight, and at least let those people have their say because they have travelled a distance, and then, perhaps, leave the rest of Bill 51 to another sitting.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Chair, it makes sense that because there are only four speakers on one bill and, again, multiple numbers in other bills, it would probably make sense to not wait, the four for the thirty, but have the thirty take time and hear the four, because there are only four presenters on Bill 51. We can have that done.
We do not have to do the clause by clause till the end, so we do not have to inconvenience the people presenting on the bill; but, if we did the four people, heard all the speakers, then it would be over and those four people can go. They do not have to wait for both other bills, which have numerous speakers. It seems best to not inconvenience the four while they wait for the thirty in both the pension act and the other act.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I would just like to put on the record, Mr. Chairman, that I think that actually inconveniences the out-of-town people for bills 33 and 48, where the majority of out-of-town people have come, by putting them back at least another hour by hearing Bill 51. I would agree with the recommendation that we move ahead with the out-of-town presenters on bills 33 and 48 tonight, and that we reschedule Bill 51 for the committee meeting scheduled for tomorrow and Wednesday as well. We can hear that there. I am not even sure we would get through all of the out-of-town presenters on these other two bills tonight, but if we did, we could hear some of the town presenters on 33 and 48 tonight as well.
Mr. Nevakshonoff: Mr. Chair, I thought my original suggestion was pretty straightforward and reasonable, so I did not realize that it would generate such a debate here. I think the fact that there are just four people here, one of them from out of town, I think it is reasonable to deal with this expeditiously. In fact, without this discussion, we probably could have heard from a presenter by now.
* (18:50)
So, therefore, I will move, seconded by the Member for Gimli (Mr. Bjornson), that the committee hear from all the presentations on Bill 51 first, beginning with the out-of-town presenters, and then hear presentation on bills 33 and 48 respectively, hearing from out-of-town presenters first on both bills before addressing the full list. I have it written.
Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by Mr. Nevakshonoff, seconded by the Member for Gimli, that the committee hear from all of the presenters of Bill 51 first, beginning with out-of-town presenters, and then hear presentations and bills 33 and 48 respectively, hearing from out-of-town presenters first on both bills before hearing the full list.
The motion is in order. Any debate? The question has been called.
Is the committee ready for the question?
Some Honourable Members: Question.
Mr. Chairperson: The question before the committee–do you wish to have the motion read back?
Some Honourable Members: Dispense.
Voice Vote
Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, signify by saying yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, signify by saying nay.
An Honourable Member: Nay.
Mr. Chairperson: In the opinion of the Chair, the Yeas have it.
* * *
Mr. Loewen: Just for clarification, because I am sure there are a number of presenters on Bill 51, I am not sure that everyone will be here. They may have been told by the Clerk's office that they would be the third bill, so I would just like to make sure that when their name is dropped to the bottom of the list that, after all the other presenters, they do have an opportunity to come back if they are not with us right this evening.
Mr. Chairperson: It has been suggested that any names that may be called for the first time would drop to the bottom of the list, but their names would not drop off the list. Is that agreed?
Some Honourable Members: For tonight, yes.
Mr. Chairperson: For tonight. [Agreed]
Thank you. Then we will start with the bills.
I would first like to inform all presenters that are here this evening that in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations and 5 minutes for questions from committee members. As well, in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance, their name will be dropped to the list but as I have indicated, their name will not be dropped from the list totally.
I would also like to inform the committee that several written submissions have been received. First, for Bill 33, Charles Arklie, private citizen, Larry Powell, private citizen, and Ted Ross, Roseisle Creek Watershed Association, have presentations. I believe members of the committee may have received as well.
Bill 48: Barbara Teskey, private citizen; Bob Swayze, private citizen; Gayle Robertson, private citizen. Copies of these briefs were presented to committee members.
Is it the will of the committee to have these presentations appear in the Hansard? [Agreed] Thank you.
Just prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to inform members of the public of the process when it comes time for questions from committee members on your presentation. The proceedings of our committee meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be a member of the committee or a presenter, I, the Chair, first have to say the MLA or the presenter's name. This is a signal for our Hansard folks who are sitting behind me here to turn on and off the microphone to make sure that your comments are recorded on our transcript.
Bill 51–Labour-Sponsored
Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended)
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you for your patience.
We will now proceed with public presentations, starting with Bill 51, The Labour-Sponsored Investment Funds Act (Various Acts Amended).
The individual, first on our list of out-of-town presenters, is Chris Christensen, private citizen. Is Chris Christensen in the audience this evening?
Next name on the list is Bernie Bellan. Is Bernie Bellan, on the list, here this evening?
Good evening, sir. If you could just give me one moment, please. I would like to ask for consideration by those that are in attendance here this evening. Anyone that has a cell phone, could you please turn off your cell phone to make sure that our proceedings here are not disrupted? That applies also for members of the committee.
Mr. Bellan, do you have copies of your presentation, sir?
Mr. Bernie Bellan (Private Citizen): No, sir. It is an oral presentation only.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, you may proceed whenever you are ready.
Mr. Bellan: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity.
I might say, in reference to some of the comments that were discussed before, the notice that was given to the people who might have presented at this committee was relatively short. In fact, it was exceedingly short. I have the opportunity to correspond with over 400 individuals who belong to something known as the Crocus Investors Association, which is an ad hoc group formed to protect the interests of Crocus shareholders. I was just able to e-mail them last night. Most of them who would have been willing to present said that they certainly did not have enough time. So I think it is exceedingly outrageous that this meeting is obviously designed to give short shrift to the interests of Crocus shareholders.
That being said, I want
to deal with the substance of the amendments that are proposed by stating, at
the outset, I do not know how many of you are familiar with something called the
Every single aspect of this legislation is something that should have been implicit in the legislation that had existed. There was no need to add these kinds of embellishments to The Crocus Fund Act saying we should protect shareholders from this and from that, and I will go into detail.
If people in the government had been doing their duty, they would have known that the kind of breaches of the act that were occurring, and that apparently these various proposals are meant to prevent in the future, could have well been prevented in the past. So, to me, this is so much window dressing, designed to protect the government from any further attacks on its credibility.
Notwithstanding anything I just said, though, I want to deal with some of these particular proposals. One is, for instance, in section 3(2) of the amendment to The Labour-Sponsored Investment Fund Act. It says section 3(2) is being amended to state: "Fund must carry on all material aspects of its business with a view to earning a return for its shareholders."
It seems to me that the corollary of that is that the fund was designed not to return anything to its shareholders. Why on earth would that have to be put into legislation? If shareholders had thought that the Crocus Fund was not intended to earn them a return, what shareholder in his or her right mind would ever have invested money? It is an insult to think that this kind of legislation has to be written now, years after the horse is out of the barn.
Turning to another proposal, section 4(1)(c) provides that the board shall consist of four members who are labour appointed and four who are elected by the Class A shareholders, also that the government can expressly not have a seat on the board.
It seems to me that what you are saying is that the previous structure was flawed. If so, is the government prepared to admit that it was flawed and in that case, was it working against the interests of shareholders?
There is a recurrent theme in these proposals. It seems to me that it is implicit in the very nature of this whole charade that it is clear that the government is admitting that it was not doing anything to protect the interests of shareholders by saying now, we should do this, we should do that. We should provide this protection, that protection. What were you doing years ago when you had a chance, when obviously officials in your departments were raising all sorts of red flags?
As we saw in the Auditor General's report, these proposals are way too late. Another proposal that the fund invest only in, let me see, section 11(2) will prohibit the fund from investing in any entity that is engaged in selling or promoting the sale of shares in a fund, obviously intended to address the problem of Wellington West, making an investee company of Crocus at the same time as it was the lead broker, a problem that the government was well aware of, years ago, did nothing about. If you had concerns, why did you not do anything now? Do you need an Auditor General to bring it to your attention?
Another point, section
13(2) will regulate where the money from the fund can be invested. Most particularly,
they will be invested in
* (19:00)
Another section, section 4 is being amended to allow the board to amend the charter without the government's approval. Is this an attempt on the part of the government to distance itself from the operations of the board? Again, the government said it maintained an arm's-length distance from the board in so many respects. But, in so many respects, the previous legislation showed that the government did have a direct involvement in the Crocus Fund. Whether it was amendments having to be passed by the government or the government appointing representatives to the board, the government was involved. Now the government is trying to distance itself.
Again, I ask, in what sense is this going to do anything for the shareholders now that a fund that is moribund, that should be declared, simply put into receivership so that–[interjection] I thought I turned that off, excuse me. These are reporters who want to know what is going on.
Section 5.2, it says, "directed at day-to-day management and identified by the Singleton report." We have to have an Auditor General point to us how negligent and how deleterious the management of Crocus Fund was for so many years. The government needs someone to tell them now, "Well, the management should be doing what management is appointed to do." This is an insult to shareholders, to think that we have to have that kind of thing put into an act. We have to have it spelled out. Boards of directors of corporations should do their duty instead of requiring them to do it in the first place. They had a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders. They abandoned it completely.
Section 5.5(1) sets out which committees must be established. Would you not think that that kind of thing would have been done at the outset? [interjection] Sorry, I know this is cutting into my time. Maybe the Crocus Fund could give me a new cell phone.
Anyway, the point of all this, and I think I speak on behalf of most Crocus Fund shareholders who, frankly, are intimidated by this kind of proceeding, I had a lot of e-mails today from people saying, "We are counting on you, Bernie Bellan, to represent the interests of shareholders." I do not mind saying that I took a stand on this years ago, even though I was pilloried by government officials and by various other people in the media for having the effrontery to challenge the crown jewel of the Manitoba Federation of Labour–NDP's cornerstone of economic development in this province.
It was a sham. The question is how far back does it go in time. The Auditor General went back four years. He seems to be pointing to a whole series of shameful events that occurred throughout the history of the Crocus Fund. It is time that we got on with the business of addressing the concerns of shareholders. Never mind protecting the image of the government in this. The Crocus Fund act should simply be brought to a close. Crocus Fund should be wound down, put into receivership. The assets should be distributed equitably among all shareholders, and the government should do the right thing and offer compensation to the shareholders, along with the other parties who were negligent in this whole sordid mess. There should be compensation in the tens of millions of dollars.
Obviously, there are undercurrents of which you are all aware. We are talking about suits. We are talking about compensation of a huge magnitude. This is a maelstrom of anger that has developed. It is obviously catching media attention across the country. If you want to try and treat it with this insulting window dressing, pretending this will address the problems, go right on. You are fooling no one. The shareholders are just beginning to speak. I had over a thousand hits on my Web site today. I get about a hundred e-mails from Crocus shareholders from across the province saying, "What has the government done to us? Who is there to protect us?"
If it comes down to me having to stand up for Crocus shareholders against the government and some of the larger interests in this province, what does that say about the state of affairs in this province? Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Bellan, for your presentation, sir. Sir, if you would like to come back. [interjection] We will leave that to you. Thank you, Mr. Bellan, for your presentation this evening.
Mr. Loewen, questions?
Mr. John Loewen (
I must say that I agree with every comment you have made regarding this bill. It is nothing more, in my view, than window dressing, although it does deal with two particular issues that the Auditor General raised that need to be dealt with, pretty minor ones that could have been dealt with by the government in terms of policy and regulation as opposed to needing a bill to do it.
Having said that, we only have five minutes. I do not want to take too much time, but you raised concerns about this fund years ago. You were told by government and others that everything was fine. I guess, if you could answer two issues for me. One, do you ever think that the government took the issues that you raised with them, the concerns that you raised with them, seriously? Secondly, if you could just answer as well, did you, in your belief, and do the unit holders that you have had contact with, have a genuine belief that because of the nature of this fund, how it was set up under a government act and the fact that there was a government board member there, that the government was actually doing a significant amount of monitoring of the fund to look out for unitholders' protection?
Mr. Bellan: I will answer your first question. The answer is, no, I never believed that the government officials took me seriously. I will give credit to MaryAnn Mihychuk, I do not know whether she wrote a response to a number of e-mails that I had sent, back in 2002, saying there are serious questions about the Crocus Fund, would you take a look at it, she, at least, had the decency to respond as opposed to other government officials who, by and large, ignored my requests, my suggestions that they look at the Crocus Fund.
As for what the shareholders think about the government involvement, let us speak candidly here. The government is trying to maintain that it was at a distance from Crocus Fund, it never guaranteed the shareholders' investments in Crocus Fund and the Crocus Fund and shareholders are really left twisting in the wind. That is, it seems to me, the implication.
The fact is that there
were so many ways in which the government gave a stamp of approval to Crocus
Fund, to the degree that shareholders were led to believe that this is a
government-backed fund. Now, if you want to get into a semantic discussion over
that, that might be something for another day. But I have had so many people
working within government say their pay envelopes were stuffed with propaganda
for Crocus Fund. They would go into their offices, whether it was the
I cannot believe that people, now, are going to be blaming anyone other than the government for the misfortune in the main part. They are going to be turning to others, too. This is what I am getting, they are saying "The Crocus Fund misled us, but the government misled us just as much." I think that is something that is going to continue to haunt the government for years.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): I thank you for your efforts on behalf of shareholders, for a long time.
In this act, we have done two things that I just wanted your information. One, in 2001, we said that we were not going to put information in pay envelopes. We made that illegal where that has happened. We are also putting all the regulations under labour-sponsored venture capital fund, and both ENSIS and Crocus now have representatives, legitimate representatives of the shareholders, the people who put money in the fund, on the board, on every active committee and have legislated that. Do you think that will help support the industry in the future and create more accountability of the board to the shareholders?
Mr. Bellan: Let me talk specifically about the new appointees to the Crocus board. If these people are supposed to represent our shareholders, is there anyone there with a background in venture capital investing? Not a one among them. You did have some people before who should have had some experience, especially the previous representative from the Department of Industry. Apparently, these people were well-qualified to vet Crocus investments. What they were doing is a matter for another time. It seems to me clear from the Auditor General's criticism that if they were raising objections to some of the things going on at Crocus, certainly, their concerns either were not being heard or they were not raising those concerns at all.
But, if we are talking about the shareholders now being represented by representatives on the board, I know that these people may have eminent reputations, but none of them has a background in the whole area in which Crocus is supposed to be involved, which is investing money. They are accountants; they are lawyers; there is a former Auditor. What are these people?
* (19:10)
I mean, are you going to suggest in any possible way that Crocus Fund is going to start investing again when it is dead in the water? It owes so much money. The only thing that is going to happen is Crocus is going to be paying off bills, as it just did last month, paying off $5.3 million to that fund in Québec, which was an outrage, the one that was disguised as an investment when it was a loan. Are these people on the board going to protect the interests of shareholders?
This, again, is window dressing. What we are doing is we have got a corpse in the ground. You are trying to pretend it is not there, and we have got some people standing over it, saying, "Maybe it'll come alive." That is what those board members are doing.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Bellan, for your presentation. Time has expired.
Mr. Loewen? Is it the
will of the committee to allow Mr. Loewen to ask one short question? [Agreed]
Mr. Loewen: The Auditor General has made it very clear that, and it is his words, there were enough red flags raised within the two government departments, Industry and Finance, by the end of 2002, that the government should have conducted a more thorough investigation of the goings-on at the Crocus Fund. How do you feel knowing that, given that the warnings you were giving to government in 2001 and 2002 basically went ignored at the same time that their internal departments were warning them?
Mr. Bellan: This, to me, as with any scandal, the real scandal was not in the
details of what went on. It is in the cover-up, which is what we are seeing and
was what the media finally have their teeth in, even though they were also
ignoring this, despite my protestations to them that they have a solid story
here. We are going to see the juiciest scandal in
I happen to know enough about history to know that you have got your Churchill Forest Industries; this is going to be right up there with Churchill Forest Industries. I did a paper on CFI in university, and it seems to me we are seeing a rerun of that, financial skulduggery of an order that Manitobans are shocked at. But, of course, to get Manitobans to wake up to anything is an effort. They are awake now. We have got 34 000 investors, a meeting next Wednesday for all Crocus Fund investors in which we will announce the details of the lawsuit, who we are suing–some of you people here might be a little uncomfortable–and for how much we are suing.
So the sleep time is over, and, as far as, Mr. Loewen, the red flags, they just were not red flags, they were enormous balloons going up all over the place. But, unfortunately, there is none who are so blind as he who shall not see. I think that is from the New Testament, is it not? I am Jewish.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Bellan, for your presentation this evening.
The next presenter we have on our list this evening for Bill 51 is Kevin Miller, private citizen. Is Kevin Miller in the audience this evening? Please come forward. Not here? Mr. Miller's name will drop to the bottom of the list.
The next presenter we have for Bill 51 is Paul Sveinson, private citizen.
Good evening, sir. Would you please come forward? Do you have copies of your presentation for members?
Mr. Paul Sveinson (Private Citizen): Copies were made.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. If you give us a moment, we will distribute to committee members first, and then we will proceed.
You may proceed when you are ready, Mr. Sveinson.
Mr. Sveinson: Mr. Chairman, Vice-Chair, committee members. Apologies to those behind me that have to watch my back. However, they are very involved in what we are discussing here today, because there is $37 million of provincial taxpayer credits that have been used to help market and promote this fund, and the $37 million have come out of the pockets of many of those who are here today, to entertain the other bills to be spoken about.
I am a private citizen and have no money in Crocus, other than the $37 million that I am part of. I was never hurt or have not been hurt by the devaluation in shares ongoing. Even as we speak here, they are devaluing by the hour as monies are being spent to run, operate, control and support the fund with no revenue. So there are losses being incurred as this committee sits here today.
The backroom dealings of Crocus, however, have caused me some concern. I did negotiate some communications and some number exchanges with Mr. Bellan years ago, and a number of you may have received same. I, too, saw some flags, including the seriousness of the misdealing $10-million investment/loan from Québec.
The eventual amendments that you gentlemen and ladies will be approving may appear to be arriving after most of the horses are gone from the barn, some of them being very expensive, mind you, but it behooves us as legislators, taxpayers and citizens to do our best to protect the concept and improve the product for all to benefit by putting better locks on the doors and some clearer windows all around the building.
Time allows just 10 minutes, while the provincial auditor took nearly six months and summarized in his cursory review, only 16 companies remain in Crocus Fund's asset list, many of which who have been or will be removed as the recent $61-million write-down flows through to the public.
As an initial overview comment, what in heaven's name were the highly paid professional auditors doing, or not doing, that this information that was made semi-public to date could occur without anyone knowing or blowing a big whistle? Auditor Singleton found, for example, four companies alone that started with $3.7 million in combined investment monies in Crocus. Before the proverbial excrement hit the fan, there was up to $32.5 million in cash, $3.7 million in guarantees and other party financing, 155 additional financings to these four companies. The auditors did not notice it and did not tell the directors? Incredible.
Over a finite period of time, he only looked into 16 companies and over four years, so there is much more to be discovered or eventually become public. There were not just red flags. Bernie mentioned red balloons. I suggest a nuclear meltdown has occurred in this fund, and the panic started to happen in late '01, early '02. The piles of binders presented to the apparently inexperienced or naive directors, which they said they read for hours and checked before they went into the meetings to vote on, were probably correct.
What they did not know is what they did not know. They did not know what to ask and what was missing in those binders. Why did they not know some companies got 55 additional financings? Who were they trusting for the information, the senior officers or the outside auditors? A horrible flow of mis- or lack of information for this board of directors. I almost feel sorry for them.
The intent of the fund
was excellent. The concept was correct in its start up, although in Québec, it
was being planned to finance Québec leaving the country when the first fund was
set up. At least in
As the distribution of blame and responsibility are doled out, do not forget those auditors. We cannot dwell on each of the revelations, but must reflect on possible legislative amendments to deal with the issues before this expensive debacle continues.
On the matter of compensation, we have heard huge salaries, perks, trips, et cetera, that not a deputy minister or a minister enjoys, yet they are responsible for billions and billions of the taxpayers' dollars in this province, but these parties, to which we cannot ask questions and are noticeable by their absence today, were making pretty big bucks off the shareholders of this fund.
Suggesting that a five-year, cooling-off period after a major senior officer leaves the fund or any fund of this nature prior to going into private-sector employment with any company that has been funded by a labour-sponsored fund should be considered by this committee so that they cannot drop $20 million and say good-bye and pick up a million-dollar-a-year job across the street. It should not be able to happen.
The annual report,
completed by the legal and accounting consultants, would be signed off, confirmed
by the directors and forwarded to the minister and the provincial auditor's
office within 100 days of each fiscal year end. Any bonuses or performance
enhancements would simply be tied to share value, not how many times he went to
* (19:20)
On the matter of competition, there has been a very uneven playing field set up in this province with the fund being able to invest in Company A and Business A, and leave Company B hanging high and dry, having to pay commercial rates or go to the street for financing. When the Auditor said, "Oh, by the way, 26 companies have loans, but only 12 are paying them back, and 55 or 95 debt instruments are out there, but no one is paying interest," how does Charlie or Tom or Dick or Harry, who are paying full property tax, full business tax, full payroll tax, GST, PST and every other tax that he has to pay, plus go to the bank, carry a business and compete with a company that has got $5 million or $10 million or $20 million of evidently very free money?
So, perhaps, a corporate control or restriction on how directors and ex-officers of a Crocus or any labour fund today or in the future cannot become involved with any Crocus holding or any subsequent holding of another fund. The stunning financial losses of one of the fund's holdings were exacerbated by the founding shareholder starting another company prior to his resignation and then subsequent bankruptcy and then buying back the cherry-picked assets of the company he owned, that $20 million was flushed with. He is still in business today, obviously a fairly smart businessman. He got stuff at 10 cents on the dollar, a true Winnipegger and Manitoban, and ended up signing a lease in a company who owned the building that was a director of the company that went bankrupt for $20.9 million. Nice deal.
Most shareholders, if not all, want to see their investment grow. Social audits and responsible corporate governance is a quality to be noted and excellence in these areas highly touted. However, they should be relegated to a scorecard or a report maintained on the Web site, so those who really are influenced by same can choose to do business with those companies. If they are socially responsible company and have achieved a high score, any investor or any Manitoban can choose to buy their widgets from that company. But the bottom line, the shareholders were looking for a return on investment. That should be the only priority of the fund, if it is going to be in the investment game. If it is out there fixing board of directors' notes, if it is out there starting new, little training courses, identify it as such, be funded by the appropriate level of government and do it. That is fine, but do not take their money and sneak it into somebody else's pocket.
Perhaps the committee would consider a shareholder's ability to ask for an audit on a single company when red flags are seen and/or ignored. For instance, if a hundred shareholders brought a petition, signed, forward to the minister, the minister could consider or take into consideration a departmental official or even the Auditor review that company and its dealings or lack of dealings. If it gets as serious as this one, it should not take three years for the provincial auditor to come into the picture. If 250, the number better approved and chosen by yourselves, 500, select and sign a petition saying we need another audit, then, by all means, get it going.
As the Auditor noted, only 16 of the 46 companies were reviewed, incredible mistakes, errors, bad judgment, sloppy, sloppy, so, who knows what went on in the other 30? We have not got a clue, yet. Were they the goodies that he did not pick? Was it arbitrary? Did he throw a dart board? How did he choose the 16? There could be even worse news sitting there, so before you cap the legislation, I suggest you get the rest of the audit done. There are some more gaping holes may be sitting there, waiting to be stepped through.
There is a 16-company audit, out in public. The financials have been withheld now, public financials, since March 31, 2004. The company has written down $60 million or $70 million in assets. The September '04, audited financial statement should be delivered. It is already two months past the March 30 interim statement. We know they have been losing a couple of hundred thousand dollars a week since year-end last year, so perhaps they are all ready at $8 million or $10 million more in lost operating expenses to date. This, again, is going to not surface probably until the committee has reviewed and finished these changes to the legislation. They lost $18 million last year, could go $18 million or $20 million more by September 30, 2005.
The final and most important issue, watching the clock. In my mind, it is the contamination, perceived or otherwise ,with respect, not easily granted here, to the cross-financing of a labour fund with a level or levels of public sector financing in any or all investments. They should not be condoned, but in the event of a financial benefit to the marketplace, short and long term, subject to substantially more investigation and study, independent legislative committee review, such as we are having here today, and a very open process of public input. Hiding behind third-party confidentiality rules should automatically rule out an investment for the government to be participating in.
I will capsulate real quickly. Social engineering or political interference overruling prudent business practice and normal levels of private sector risk should be treated differently. If the City or Province wants to put a building, for example, on a specific location, then they take the credits for the efforts and the heat for the decision. Hiding behind third-party FIPPA act rules so as not to disclose details is unacceptable. There is no time to address the involvement of credit unions and directors sitting on each other's boards. That is another time and another place.
A certain empty building, downtown Winnipeg, on a major thoroughfare, not to be named, as the Auditor gave everything a lettered code, was demolished before reports of its suitability for alternative environment-friendly uses was tabled. Financing for the effort was announced as a private-sector-led, Crocus-driven initiative.
Public hindsight is
catching up with the few who are watching the red flags. We see the proposal as
unfinanceable and not financially sustainable occurring at almost the same
time Crocus got into a cash crunch. Did Crocus hatch that whole real estate
deal on
There is a secret
feasibility report that was prepared for this particular Crocus,
We have got $40-plus million capital in this Crocus-led project and another $100-plus million in subsidies that we are giving them for the next 25 years. It did not work. They could not finance it. The government says it was private-sector-led and used Crocus as their lever. Crocus was not to be involved in real estate venture financing in this province.
My time is up, gentlemen.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Sveinson, for your presentation this evening.
Point of Order
Mr. Loewen: Just quickly, on a point of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Loewen, on a point of order.
Mr. Loewen: I know we rushed you, Mr. Sveinson, I wonder if it would be the will of the committee to incorporate the whole written report that we received from Mr. Sveinson into the Hansard.
Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to include Mr. Sveinson's entire presentation into the Hansard? [Agreed]
Thank you.
* * *
Mr. Loewen: Thank you, Mr. Sveinson, for your presentation, very detailed and well thought out. I know that you have been watching this file for a long period, as well, and likely share some of the same views of Mr. Bellan.
I do want to focus in on one particular issue, though, that you have raised and give you a little more time to elaborate on it, and that is the issue of government involvement with Crocus in terms of the financing of various projects and the co-investing in some of these funds. I take from what you are saying that, if that is to take place in the future, there should be a requirement that each of the co-investors proves that it has done its own due diligence and all facts of those deals are available for public scrutiny so that we do not get into a situation like we have now, and in particular where the deal that you have mentioned is subject to an imposition, as part of the deal, of a 25-year confidentiality clause, as we have seen in the arena. Could you comment on that please?
Mr. Sveinson: You probably addressed it in your remarks exactly. We have got a situation where that funding, not just for that project, there may be other involvements that we are not aware of. Unfortunately, the Auditor to date has given company names of letters, so we cannot be specific.
One reference he made in
the report was to a company that just started operations so that we do not have
the information yet to comment on. Well, the only Crocus holding that really
just started operations within the time period that the Auditor was looking at
would have been that project on
The auditing, the presentation of feasibility studies, what a co-funder from a private sector and a public sector are looking for may be two different objectives. But, darn it, as a taxpayer, there should be a bottom line that shows a positive cash flow at the end of the day, whether we are putting a million dollars into a wind farm out in the south end of the province or we are putting $40 million, $60 million, $80 million, $100 million into a project. The report should not be hidden.
* (19:30)
It behooves this committee, and the members thereof that are interested in it, to ask for and table that report. The Ernst & Young report has been around, and I have seen through FIPPA–FIPPA, another story–the black pen used in the report's distribution after a FIPPA request was substantial, "Dear Sir, black, black, black, black, black, black, and furthermore, black, black, thank you." That was the information received through the FIPPA because they claimed there was some third-party confidentiality. I sat in the rink; I know how many people were there. What is confidential about a $28 ticket price and 7000 people coming in the door? Anyone can do the math that is interested.
So there is no reason to hide that report and reports, for something of $100 million needs serious public vetting in an open forum like this.
Mr. Rondeau: Thank you very, very much for your wonderful presentation. It was very well thought out.
Just a couple of questions. The new act is trying to get greater representation of people who invest in the fund on the board and on the board committees. That is one provision. The other one is to ensure that there is disclosure of compensation, and the other one is to get more reporting. What do you think of those provisions in the new act?
Mr. Sveinson: Well, I have to congratulate the minister and the parties thereto that were drafted to go on the board, because when the Titanic was going down, nobody jumped back on the ship. So you have done a fabulous job of selling this because those eight, nine or ten people could be there for three to six months, and it is in the hands of a receiver. You wind it down now, the creditors, which are the shareholders, would probably see about 40 to 45 cents on the dollar. They had a 30% tax credit, which the people behind me have helped pay for. They did not help, they did pay for it. So there is about a 35 cent window here missing in lost monies to the various shareholders, a couple directors, insurance funds and maybe a topping up from the Province. No one has to make money, but no one should be kicked in the crotch because they believed and trusted in Crocus.
So those directors are going to be there for, I believe, a winding-down, not a future investing. No one in their right mind is writing a cheque to Crocus in the future.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Maybe you could tell me two things. One is when you first started to suspect that there was a problem at Crocus, and, second, we are still left with two acts here, a Crocus act and a Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations Act. Would it not make a lot more sense just to have one Labour-Sponsored Venture Capital Corporations Act?
Mr. Sveinson: Not being a lawyer and never having played one in court, I will answer the second one first. Yes, it does sound like it would make sense, as obviously the parties involved with Crocus complained about the volumes of material they had to read all the time, and if an act becomes an act and then there is another act, then do we look to one or two for reference all the time? It would probably drive anyone crazy.
The first issue about when I first noticed or became a little bit concerned was when a particular company well known to everyone in this room was losing money, publicly stated so in various newspaper articles, and Crocus paid for a percentage share of the company's loss. That is fine one year. You can have an up year; you can have a down year. They were in there as 40 percent or 45 percent of shares owned at the company. The second year, it increased. The third year, it increased. The fourth year, wait a minute. How long are you going to carry the operating losses of Company A, and it turns out now, companies B through F, without saying, "Come here. What are you doing wrong? We're out of here next year unless you turn it around." They did not, and the add-on investments will probably stun some of the people in this room, perhaps even members of the committee.
The most successful businesses in this community that you are aware of, and you have eaten at his restaurants, you have been in his hotels, you have attended a game where the pitcher threw some pretty decent hardballs, but I am not mentioning any names. They got investment after investment after investment. You cannot get a ticket. Why did they need more money? So I got concerned.
Then that Solidarity Fund announcement printed verbatim from the press release of Crocus by their words right into the Free Press by a particular writer, who has written 55 positive Crocus stories, just went boom. I only saw the three or four clauses that Mr. Loewen and yourself and everyone else saw the next year that were included in the prospectus, but the Auditor said there were 25 other clauses.
The mafia does not get 22 percent, sorry about that, on their money. They do not get to come into board meetings and tell you what you can or cannot invest. They do not tell you where their money goes. It was even much worse than we ever thought. That Québec fund had Crocus over a barrel.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Sveinson, for your presentation here this evening.
Next presenter, on the second call, is Chris Christensen. If you are here in the audience, would you please come forward?
Good evening, Mr. Christensen. Do you have a written presentation, sir?
Mr. Chris Christensen (Private Citizen): This was short notice, I just heard about it and phoned in today. I was at work.
Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed when you are ready, sir.
Mr. Christensen: Thank you for letting me in and making some comments. Of course, I am not a financial expert and I am not a lawyer and I am not anything that you need here to sort out this issue. One thing I am is a shareholder, one of those 34 000 that are, evidently, going to have a class action lawsuit. And I will tell you right now, if there is, I do not want to be part of it. I will testify against that, and I will tell you why.
First of all, before the fund was set up, I was in discussions with Sherman Kreiner, Susan Hart-Kulbaba, and we knew up front that this was high-risk investment. Everybody knew that. What bothers me about the way this was approached in the media was that, "People did not know that." Well, I find that difficult to believe because every year there is a new prospectus issued with amendments, whether legislated or otherwise, there are annual shareholders' meetings, which I have attended most of them. I did not attend last year. But, if the shareholders read their prospectuses, if they went to the meetings, I do not understand the problem. But that was the problem that was brought out, that all these people lost money because they did not know it was high risk.
I have a real problem with that. I mean, I can understand some people simply buying because some financial person recommended that they buy and they did not bother to personally get involved in the details, but that is one of the things I want to debunk, is the fact that this was something that people did not understand. They should have understood. We are all adults. We invest money. And you know what? If you want to invest in high risk and you lose money, well, that is too bad.
That is why I say this class action suit, I cannot see what that is going to do for Crocus. In fact, it will shrink the assets of the fund, all that cost and time and everything else. I put my money in; I got my tax credit. I was happy. I was hoping to get more, but I knew if I did, that would be the cherry on the top, you know, that would be the icing on the cake. So I am not disappointed in that sense. Yes, it is a letdown, but I went in with my eyes open. I knew what was involved. So this situation does not bother me.
Okay, there is all the technical stuff about making it a more effective fund, better management, better advisors, this, that, whatever. Well, that is fine. That is true throughout all the financial investing, whatever. I will tell you, I am also a shareholder in Tembec Corporation, and, you know, they were supposed to go to $20 a share or more. I hung on to all my shares, and what happened recently? Three dollars, three and a half dollars. Well, guess what? That was my choice. I hung on to them, and now I do not have the value I would have had if I had cashed them in at $15, $16.
I do not see the
difference, except there is a technical difference. When I bought shares, I
knew what the market was saying they were worth, because you had something to
go by. Crocus deals in things that have book value, fair market value. Well,
what is that? That is a whole different system. We went through that when we
bought the mill in
I am no expert in this sort of thing but, again, the problem I am having with the way this whole public perception is being driven is that it is inaccurate and it puts responsibility on the government, on the fund managers, and not on me, not on the individual investor. Do not try the cop-out thing and blame everybody else. You know what they say about the biggest room in the world? It is the room for improvement, and Crocus can improve and other funds can improve. You can get better qualified people, you can do whatever.
* (19:40)
I certainly hope that that is what happens and, obviously, having read some of the Auditor General's report, I know some of the things that are in there. There are some good recommendations, obviously. But, essentially, I just want to make the point that, as a citizen, I think this has become a feeding frenzy. I know that, as a member of the MFL executive, and I am not here speaking for the MFL, I am not here speaking for anybody or any organization, I am here as a shareholder, the MFL will have its response. The technical stuff will all come out. Hopefully, you folks can wade through it and do what you have to do, but to me, if people want to sue in a class action manner, they are just going to debilitate their own return on investment.
I have heard some comments in the press about, well, the government might have to pay for these losses. I am not a lawyer, but I say a judge would have an awfully hard time justifying why people who are adults and who should know what they are doing should be compensated because something went wrong. Anyway, that is really all I wanted to say.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Christensen, for your presentation this evening. Questions of the presenter?
Mr. Loewen: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Christensen. Just to clarify, we can argue back and forth amongst ourselves whether people understood that there was a significant risk in this venture capital fund or whether they felt that the government was standing behind it and there was considerably less risk, but I do not really believe that has ever been the primary issue here.
The primary issue raised by both the Securities Commission and the Auditor General was that people investing in the fund were significantly misled by the fact that valuations were not done properly and the fund was overvalued in terms of what it was putting out as being worth versus what it was worth. The directors from the MFL are under very serious allegations from the Securities Commission that they sat quietly by while this was done.
I guess my question to you is that do you take a little different look at it, understanding that it was not an issue about whether it was a high-risk fund or not, but the real issue in contention here is whether the fund itself, as the Auditor has said, significantly misled those people that were investing in it by propping up its values and stating them to be something that they were not, over a considerable period of time.
Mr. Christensen: Well, that is the allegation. Whether that is going to be proven true when it goes through a court of law, I cannot say. What I do know is that having an involvement within the labour movement I think we were fairly well kept up to date on developments.
I know one of the issues which I think is fairly safe to talk about is the liquidity thing. When that came up a few years ago here, they are bringing in cash, but now redemptions are going to happen. Well, is there going to be enough to pay out and keep the ratio within the invested part? That was as a problem, and I remember discussing it. It was dealt with.
The legislation was changed and we went from a seven-year to an eight-year hold. I gather that ENSIS is basically coming up to its wall on the same issue at this time in their existence, but I do not recall anything that would give me reason to believe that what I was being told was deliberately false, misleading, that it was not done with the advice of their legal people, their valuators, their whatever. I guess you could say, "Well, maybe they are just incompetent." Well, they are incompetent and let us say they are. Let us just use it for argument's sake. I think the test of liability on these people is based on them doing their job to the best of their ability and the best of their knowledge. Were they weak? Maybe so. I cannot judge that. Maybe a court will find that to be so. To say that they were wilful, I would have a hard time with that.
Mr. Rondeau: Part of the questions that I have been asking is that the new bills are trying to get better disclosure to shareholders, getting shareholder reps on the different boards and board committees, and to ensure that there is more information provided for all people. Do you think those are legitimate things in the bill, and do you think they will help with the information flow for people?
Mr. Christensen: I believe that a number of these are good recommendations. I do not see the problem, as I said, the biggest room in the world.
Mr. Gerrard: I gather that you were involved or had some discussions pretty early on in the setting up of the fund. You are indicating that really, it is a matter of people doing what they can do best. What this law is doing is trying to sort of tell people to do what they should have been doing to start with. Is that sort of a correct view of what this law is trying to do?
Mr. Christensen: Hindsight is always 20/20, is it not? When Mr. Filmon drafted the
legislation, it was with the best of intentions, no doubt. I know labour was
quite happy that Mr. Filmon had that legislation, and evidently, some things
could have been done better. So I do not have a problem with improving what was
initially done but, again, I would not go so far as to say that either Gary
Filmon or his successors were, in any way, wilfully wanting to hurt anybody.
This was for the benefit of
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Christensen, for your presentation here this evening.
We will call Kevin Miller for the second time. Is Kevin Miller here this evening?
Ho. Greg Selinger (Minister of Finance): I just want to clarify that I understood that we would let people stand, even after they have been called a couple of times, until we are finished our public hearings.
Mr. Loewen: Mr. Chair, I just go back to the agreement that I clearly understood we had at the beginning of this, that because we are flipping around bills and because there are so many presenters, there may be people that do not get here tonight that will be allowed to make a presentation when this committee sits tomorrow, and that was a clear understanding we had going in to this, in my belief. I would just like some clarification on that.
Mr. Selinger: I think, as a matter of good faith, that we should let anybody who shows up before the committee hearings close tomorrow, if they wish to make a presentation I would hope that we would give them the opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Loewen: Well, again, I do not want to be too picky on this, but I just want a clear understanding in my mind that people who are not here tonight, when the committee reconvenes tomorrow, will get an opportunity to make a presentation at that time.
Mr. Selinger: If the member would have heard me, I just said that.
Mr. Chairperson: It seems like there is agreement, then, that since Mr. Miller is not here this evening, his name will remain on the list and that any other individuals wishing to speak tomorrow to this bill will be given the opportunity to make presentation on Bill 51. Is my interpretation accurate?
An Honourable Member: People that are on the list.
Mr. Chairperson: People that are on the list.
Mr. Loewen: Well, I do not disagree with that, but I will say this, that the committee should recognize it, if we finish at midnight tonight and there are more presenters to come back tomorrow, then those people will, you know, and the people coming tomorrow to this committee during presentation stage and register with the Clerk on any of the bills we are dealing with, they should be allowed to make a presentation. That is standard process in this committee, from what I understand it. That is all I am looking for. I just wanted to clarify to make sure that Mr. Miller was not dropped off the list, because you did mention second call.
Mr. Selinger: Yes, I think we should get on and hear the rest of the many people in the room that wish to present on the other bills. We have got a clear understanding.
Mr. Chairperson: Okay, committee has agreed. Thank you.
* (19:50)
Bill 33–The Planning Act
Mr. Chairperson: We will now be dealing with Bill 33, The Planning Act.
We have a number of out-of-town presenters.
Mrs. Myrna Driedger
(Charleswood): Mr. Chairperson, with the unanimous
consent of the committee, I would like to make the following membership
substitutions effective immediately for the Standing Committee on Legislative
Affairs: Mr. Eichler, Lakeside, for Mr. Loewen,
Mr. Chairperson: Is there unanimous consent of the committee to substitute Mr.
Eichler for Mr. Loewen? [Agreed] Thank
you. So ordered.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: We will proceed with public presentations on Bill 33, The Planning Act. The first name out-of-town presenter I have on the list is David Rolfe, President, Keystone Agricultural Producers Association. Is Mr. Rolfe here this evening?
Good evening, sir. Would you please come forward? You have copies of your presentation for committee members?
Good evening, Mr. Rolfe. You may proceed any time you are ready, sir.
Mr. David Rolfe (President, Keystone Agricultural Producers): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is certainly a pleasure to be here this evening to talk on Bill 33. On behalf of Keystone Agricultural Producers I am pleased to share our organization's position with respect to Bill 33, The Planning Act.
KAP, Keystone
Agricultural Producers, is a democratically controlled general farm policy
organization representing and promoting the interests of agriculture producers
in
There are certainly some positives with Bill 33, but we must look at where further improvements can be made, and believe there is certainly room for improvement. The Province must look closely at all proposed development plans to ensure that they are reasonable for the agricultural industry, and certainly allow for sustainable livestock development.
Another major concern with Bill 33 is that it will not ensure consistency of regulations across the province. Municipalities will continue to have great latitude in requirements for conditional use hearings and siting and separation distances.
We have concerns with this bill and the impact it will have on the continual growth of sustainable agricultural industry and rural communities. We do agree that all councils need to have development plans in place. We are pleased that the Province is aiming for a time frame of two years for compliance. We believe that some areas, those currently having restrictions and moratoriums in place for livestock must be given priority, and adequate resources must be allocated to ensure that a viable plan is put forward.
We cannot stress enough the need for the Province to ensure that all development plans allow for sustainable livestock operations policy, one that will not limit the growth of the industry. Government must not approve development plans with a livestock operations policy that is so restrictive that it allows for no further development of the industry. If such a plan does come forward, the Province must negotiate with the council to defend agriculture. The reference to the sections are as marked on the presentation.
The development plan process is an open one, and the importance of active involvement of local ratepayers, farmers included, is certainly crucial. A fear of our industry is the influence of outside parties on the development plan process that could negatively impact agricultural growth in the province for the foreseeable future.
The provincial land use policy, No. 2, will have a bearing in this process, and it is extremely important that the provincial land use policy be updated as soon as possible and that it be done in conjunction and consultation with industry players. The government has agreed that there will be opportunities provided to discuss the policy, and we appreciate that.
The development plan will outline areas that allow livestock development and areas where livestock are prohibited or restricted. If an existing operation is in a prohibited zone, what will be the future of that family farm operation if it cannot expand to remain viable, or worse, if it has to relocate? Also, these existing operations that are prohibited will not be able to maintain their property value. There must be compensation provided in cases where operations are adversely affected by this act. As well, in the case of a fire or some other catastrophe, would operations be able to rebuild? It is certainly a requirement of fire insurance, and it may become an issue.
The threshold for the conditional use process is set at 300 animal units, and the process will include public hearings and a technical review. Each municipality will decide if the same process will be required for development under this threshold, and this can impose significant restrictions on our industry. We are sure that councils do not want the onerous task of reviewing a multitude of applications for small increases in animal units.
There is the requirement for a hearing for 300 animal units or more, even if the development is in a designated livestock development area. It is KAP's position that if one is applying to develop in a designated area, there should not be the requirement of a hearing. The hearing process involving local ratepayers has already taken place during the consideration of the development plan which outlines the livestock development areas. If an additional hearing process has to take place, it has the potential to open up the whole process again to outside influences with their own agenda, and that certainly has potential to the detriment of the whole community.
The process would require enhanced public notice and hearings for livestock operation applications over 300 animal units, ensuring neighbouring municipalities, planning districts and residents are notified of all species of livestock applications. This makes it a process open to emotional and acrimonious debate, certainly as it was previously, and it does nothing to ensure that only those affected have a voice. It essentially allows for emotion and not necessarily science-based decisions.
There is also a decision to make on the body that will be chairing the technical review committees, and it is KAP's position, Keystone Agricultural Producers' position, that it has to be chaired by Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives.
A proposal that goes to a technical review committee (TRC) will be evaluated on whether it creates a risk to health, safety or the environment. This determination, however, must be science-based. The TRC then submits a report to council, who has the option to deny an application based on much more subjective and undefined criteria, including general compatibility, a perception of detriment to health, safety and general welfare, or an expectation of negative effects on properties or other development. The language of this clause should be tightened up toward proven criteria, not perceptions.
* (20:00)
This process creates a number of loopholes. Particularly, as proposed under this bill, councils will not be required to provide a written justification for their decisions. There is at present no appeal process. If an application is denied, then there should be an appeal process in place for the applicants and the cause for denial, based on sound science and reasoning, must be provided in written form to the applicant. Agriculture is the only land development use where an application can be denied even if it fits all the criteria set out.
The siting and set-back distances must be mutual so that rural residential parcels of land do not encroach on existing farm sites. The act states that the Province will provide direction on minimum siting and set-back standards as a guide to municipalities. However, rural municipalities will be able to substitute the provincial regulation with stricter local standards, essentially resulting in restrictions on all species of livestock operations. The Province should set firmer standards on variation from the provincial minimum standards.
It also allows, for what may be simply esthetic reasons, development plans which restrict or prohibit livestock operations. Under what conditions would the minister approve a development plan which prohibits livestock? How do we build an industry under such strict conditions? The act allows for conditions on livestock operations to include measures to ensure conformity with the applicable provisions of the development plan by-law, the zoning by-law and any secondary by-law. The question here is, does this open the door for the requirement of performance bonds for livestock operations?
The municipality can require covers on manure storage facilities and also the establishment of shelter belts. Will this clause be used as a deterrent for an operation? Will the municipality ensure that it is the most applicable manure storage cover, for example, proven technology that is required, or will it be the most expensive option that would be required? As it relates to shelter belts, will the municipality ensure that the most feasible option is required, for example, PFRA seedlings or the more expensive option of nursery trees?
Planning commissions can be established by council and could include citizen members that have no electoral responsibility. These commissions could be used to take pressure off council but this is not an acceptable method of decision-making. The suggested method of appealing a decision being made by a planning commission is to go to council. This should be an independent body.
In closing, we would like
to stress that
It is critical for the future of agriculture and for the survival of rural communities that all stakeholders accept the growth of the livestock industry in a positive, reasonable and responsible manner. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Rolfe. Questions for the presenter?
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
The concern that I have, and you talked a bit about it on page 4, about the appeal process, does KAP have a program or a board or a process that they would be wanting to recommend that we add to this bill in order to make that appeal process where it will be workable for the organizations?
Mr. Rolfe: We, certainly, as an organization, take every opportunity to lobby government and to enlist the help of opposition wherever. Certainly, the appeal process is something that has been required for a very long time. It certainly caused a lot of acrimonious debate and there have certainly been some emotional decisions made over the years. That is the ultimate. If that cannot be achieved then, certainly, there has to be written reason given to a proponent why his project was turned down. Those reasons have to be science-based. They have to be rational and not based on emotion. There is still some leeway in this bill that may allow for emotional decisions, that may allow for decisions to be made on very vague reasoning. That is why we suggest in the bill that language in some clauses needs to be tightened up.
Mr. Eichler: Just a supplemental to that. With Bill 33, were the Keystone Ag Producers in consultation with the government in the drafting of the legislation as it stands?
Mr. Rolfe: Not in the drafting of the legislation per se, but we have certainly had opportunity to talk with the minister since then, both with the Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): I wanted to just touch base in regard to the comments you made about the Technical Review Committee and the fact that it should be chaired by someone from the Ag, Food and Rural Initiatives. I think I would agree, and I am assuming that you are looking at doing that because there would be the technical experience involved by that individual because of their education and training.
Mr. Rolfe: We certainly would request that. We certainly would request that in the bill. It seems a little ironic that there was some discussion on moving the chairmanship of that committee, which is so directly in Agriculture, away from Agriculture. We would certainly make that recommendation that Agriculture retain the chairmanship of that Technical Review Committee.
Mr. Maguire: Therefore, they would then be able to ascertain and make recommendation back to the council that the reasons that they would be giving would be science based.
Mr. Rolfe: That would lend credence to any decision that the Technical Review Committee would bring forward.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Well, thank you very much, Mr. Rolfe, for your presentation. The government of the day, as we all know, brought forward a planning act, Bill 44, and then withdrew the bill and brought forward Bill 22, The Water Protection Act. They then said they believed that they could incorporate in Bill 22 what was needed as far as the planning process that they thought they needed to establish. They have since, now, brought Bill 33.
What kind of compatibility do you see in Bill 22 and Bill 33? How are they going to be able to be fit together to make the planning process, both in land and water in this province, a compatible process that will give us some comfort of the environment being protected?
Mr. Rolfe: Well, certainly, Bill 22 is new legislation. The Water Protection Act is certainly far-reaching legislation. The two pieces of legislation, both Bill 22 and Bill 33, have to harmonize. They have to come together. Municipalities and planning districts are going to be in the process of setting up livestock development policy. They are going to be in the process of deciding where livestock can, cannot or may be restricted. It is important that both Bill 22 and Bill 33 be harmonized in that respect. One cannot proceed without the other. The two have to go hand-in-hand in harmony. Otherwise, we are going to have planning districts, municipalities putting development plans in place and then having to go back and revisit them to harmonize with Bill 22. Obviously, watershed planning districts too are going to play an important role in that. So there has certainly got to be a tremendous amount of harmonization come in the whole process.
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Thank you, David, for your presentation. Certainly, in your presentation, you highlight a number of the things we had talked about and not all the concerns you had and some of the recommendations you had other than these. So I appreciate your presentation tonight.
* (20:10)
I know some of the substantial changes and modernization we have had in The Planning Act are 30 years in the making, I guess, if you will, the last time the act was really substantially introduced and changed. So those 30 years, I could not agree more on better up-front planning, certainly, to deal with a lot of the issues that you spoke about here tonight.
I know on page 4 of your 5-page presentation you mentioned some of the possible encroachments of people migrating from urban centres out into rural municipalities and the impact that that has had over the last 20-some odd years. It certainly has had an effect on the agricultural industry. But certainly the accountability of decisions to area residents is clear on better up-front planning in the bill. Certainly, some of the good advice that you have brought forward from the Keystone Agricultural Producers has been drafted and put into the bill in a substantial way and certainly to modernize it. It will reflect some changes in practices that we have all seen over the last period of time.
So I was glad to hear overall that you would like to see the bill move and move forward. Certainly, some of the changes are positive. Your views may be differing from some other presenters that we have here tonight, but I certainly respect your comments and your advice and certainly the ability of KAP to bring these forward to me over the last period of time.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Rolfe, did you wish to respond?
Mr. Rolfe: I would just like to make one comment. Certainly, we were disappointed when Bill 40 was withdrawn. However, there was a promise made at that time that the whole Planning Act would be reviewed and in fairly short order, and we certainly appreciate the move to bring that forward and to begin the discussions on how we can move forward with this whole planning process. So, certainly, the timeliness of it, sooner than waiting several years to begin the process, at least we are starting down the road and things, with some of this legislation, may begin the process of healing communities and bringing communities back together again.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Rolfe, for your presentation here this evening. Before we–[interjection] Time has expired, Mr. Maguire.
Before we proceed to the next out-of-town presenter, I would like to advise the committee or inform the committee that written submissions have been received from the following individuals for Bill 33: Clair English, private citizen; Reed Wolfe, private citizen; Rodger Mawer, private citizen. Please note that Mr. Mawer is listed as No. 18 on the presenters' list and will not be presenting, but submitted this presentation in place of his speaking. A copy of these briefs was made for committee members and was distributed at the start of this meeting.
Does the committee grant its consent to have these written submissions appear in the committee transcript for this meeting? [Agreed] Thank you, committee members.
We will now proceed with the next out-of-town presenter on Bill 33, Shirley Conibear, the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. You are in the audience?
Would you please identify yourself, sir? It is not quite the same as the name I have called.
Mr. Larry Schweitzer (President,
Mr. Chairperson: Proceed when you are ready, Mr. Schweitzer.
Mr. Schweitzer: The Manitoba Cattle Producers Association is pleased to make some
comments on Bill 33. Further details are provided in our written submission
which is being passed out there now. The MCPA is a producer-driven, non-profit
organization representing 1200-plus producers involved in various aspects of
the beef cattle industry. The livestock industry is worth in excess of $500
million to
Cattle producers are good stewards of the land. They shoulder a large share of the responsibility for protecting our natural resources. This involves a direct cost, but producers cannot pass these costs on directly to the consumers. The MCPA appreciates the government's effort to make the land use planning process more orderly. Accountability and the use of sound science must prevail.
The MCPA recommended an
economic impact analysis be undertaken to determine the financial implications
for the proposed Planning Act on livestock producers. As noted, cattle
producers have no means of recovering added costs resulting from a changing
regulatory environment. Changes regulated to The Planning Act and other
legislation such as The Water Protection Act will have a significant impact on
producers' bottom lines. The government needs to be aware of the burden that is
placed on this sector so crucial to the well-being of the
Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the
Chair
Regarding the provincial land use policies, the MCPA believes that the sound policies are essential to agriculture's long-term viability and municipalities should not be allowed to arbitrarily reject agricultural activities in these areas where they have been deemed allowable. Updated land use policies must be made available to municipal governments as soon as possible. Planning in the absence of finalized policies is not a sound exercise.
The MCP has questions about section 32, which gives the board of a planning district or municipal council great latitude in making appointments to a planning commission. For example, the entire planning commission could be made up of individuals who are not members of the planning district or the council or even local ratepayers. The MCP suggests two options. First, the MCP prefers section 33(b) be removed outright. That is, planning commissions should be tasked with hearing variances only. Conditional use hearings should remain the purview of the affected municipal councils, LGD, this will help increase local accountability to ratepayers.
Failing that, given that Bill 33 gives planning commissions the authority to do conditional use hearings, MCP recommends that only elected officials sit on these commissions. This will increase accountability to ratepayers. It will also help limit the perception that some members of a planning commission may have been appointed to achieve a certain outcome related to conditional use hearings.
The MCP is concerned that the municipal councils will be allowed to exceed the provincial siting and setback standards for livestock operations. This could deter producers wishing to expand, even though there is no scientific basis for the stricter rules.
Also with respect to
siting, will residential, commercial, industrial or other types of development
be allowed to encroach on agricultural lands? Will they be required to go
through a conditional use application process? The act must reflect the need to
protect
The MCPA believes that the municipal councils should be open and accountable in terms of their decision-making processes. They should provide written explanations when various types of applications have been rejected or accepted. These types of reporting are not without precedents elsewhere in the bill such as section 51(3).
Regarding variances, the MCP believes there should be an appeal process. Council should supply the applicant with written reasons for rejecting or accepting the variance. The MCP has concerns about the planning commissions being involved in the conditional use hearings. The council to whom the application was made should undertake these hearings, ensuring accountability by elected officials to ratepayers.
The MCP questions the subjective nature of sections 106(1)(b)(i) and (ii). These are far too open to interpretation. Conditional use applications for livestock operations that meet all government requirements and that are consistent with the development plan and zoning by-laws could still be rejected for purely ideological reasons.
Regarding section 106(1), the board, council or planning commission should provide written reasons for rejecting a conditional use application. The MCP recommends that the act contain a provision so the applicant can appeal a negative decision to a third party such as the Municipal Board. This will help ensure fairness for applicants.
The MCPA is pleased with the guidelines respecting odours. The MCP also appreciates that the responsibility for the storage, application, transport or the use of livestock manure under one provincial jurisdiction. We feel that responsibility should fall under the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives because of their expertise. We appreciate that this, in effect, removes the potential additional layer of bureaucracy when it comes to regulating manure. These types of measures will ensure uniformity of regulations across the province and will prevent municipalities from applying a variety of nuisance regulations that have no basis in science.
The MCPA supports the continued use of technical review committees to review conditional use applications related to livestock operations as long as the science-based approach to reviewing applications is maintained. The MCPA believes that it is essential for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives to chair the TRCs, given their expertise pertaining to livestock operations.
Section 113, Appointment of Technical Review Committees, requires clarification. The MCPA strongly believes that TRCs should be made up of experts who have the knowledge in the areas such as livestock production, land use planning and so on. This will help ensure decisions that are made on the basis of sound science and are not motivated by other interests. Laypeople should not be tasked with reviewing applications and making recommendations about the livestock industry.
* (20:20)
Conditional use hearings should be used to determine the merits of the application under consideration. The hearings should not be debates about land use planning or the value of certain types of agricultural production. These discussions should have taken place during the creation of a municipality's development plan and zoning by-laws.
The MCP recommends that if the application for conditional use is rejected, written reasons for a rejection must be provided. This will help bring accountability and transparency to the process. Council should not be allowed to reject sound applications on the basis of subjective criteria. The act should provide an applicant whose application was approved by the Technical Review Committee but rejected by council with the opportunity to appeal to a third party such as a municipal board.
If the TRC has approved additional use, the applicant obviously met the science-based requirements needed to proceed. The MCP wishes to reiterate the importance of projecting existing livestock operations and of encouraging future growth in the industry. What would happen if an existing livestock operation located in the area designated as being unsuitable for agriculture or damaged due to a fire, flood or other disasters, there may be insurance implications? The MCP recommends that these producers' operations be grandfathered and be allowed to rebuild.
If a producer needs to rebuild after a disaster, could a municipal council deny their application because it is in a restricted zone? Would the producer be compensated for the loss of future income in their operation that were denied? What would happen to the resale value of their land? Will grandfathering rules apply? The MCP recommends these issues be examined in more detail with compensation included as a critical component.
The MCP believes municipal government will try to finalize their development plans and zoning by-laws within the time frame set out in the act. While there may be valid reasons for a municipality to receive extensions, they should not be used as a stalling tactic. The MCP recommends clear time frames for extensions being incorporated.
There should also be clear time frames set out and related to other aspects of the act such as the timely handling of applications of GRCs and ensuring recommendations for council. These time lines will assist all stakeholders with planning.
To ensure uniformity of regulations, the MCP recommends that all pre-existing municipal by-laws be deemed amended as soon as the new Planning Act receives Royal Assent. Livestock producers need more confidence in the government regulation framework in order to move forward and to expand this valuable industry. The provincial government must recognize the cumulative effects of its legislative and regulatory initiatives on the producers.
It is important to ensure
fairness for all stakeholders be they livestock producers, rural non-farm
residents, small communities, and others. A vibrant livestock industry is
critical to the social and economic well-being of the
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Schweitzer.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Mr. Schweitzer, for your presentation. It is good to hear the Cattle Producers on this particular issue, on Bill 33. You touched briefly on the time frame in order to incorporate the new legislation. Do you have a suggestion on that time line? I know two years has been kind of thrown out. I know that the other thing you talked about was science an awful lot, and your industry has been through enough science the last couple of years and indeed, a lot of financial stress has been put on them as well. In all fairness to the cattle producers, that time line that you refer to in your submission, what type of a time frame would you like to see?
Mr. Schweitzer: We need to have some direction and some time lines so everybody has a solid idea of where they are going to go. With the cattle producers this last little while, we have had some ups and downs in our industry, that is for sure, but I think we need to get more direction, and this is what we are asking from The Planning Act.
Mr. Eichler: Just supplemental to that. Mr Schweitzer, did your organization have much input into the drafting of the legislation as it sits now?
Mr. Schweitzer: No.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you for your presentation, Larry. It is most encouraging, I think, to be talking about Bill 33 this year. I did not say it earlier that a lot of what I see in this act was contained in Bill 40 last fall, and it was killed. I believe that there was talk of more discussion coming forward, as wanting more consultation to come forward. Clearly, from the number of presenters, we have got less, but I nonetheless wanted to ask you if you, through the process, of course, as you recognize zoning by-laws are being set up and established by all municipalities–the member from Lakeside just indicated the time frame around that–but do you believe as well that, if a livestock operation is being built in a GO zone that is clearly outlined by a zoning by-law to be an area of a municipality or a region that has already established that livestock could be put there, they should necessarily require a hearing process?
Mr. Schweitzer: The hearing process is probably necessary just to make sure that the neighbours and everybody else are all on the same page here. We need to live with our neighbours. We need to do the best job we possibly can to keep everybody on the same page. We know that, you know, communication between everybody in the community, especially smaller communities, is crucial, and we still think there needs to be some hearings.
Mr. Maguire: Of course, there would be hearings to establish the zoning by-law in the first place, and all municipal citizens could have the opportunity to do that. I did not finish all of my question there. I guess, I should have said if the proponent of an operation meets all of the zoning by-laws, including sightings and setbacks and that sort of thing, which does require them to speak to neighbours and others in the municipality and adjoining municipalities, if, of course, they are on the edge of a municipality, this act provides for that, as well. Would it be as necessary?
Mr. Schweitzer: I would think not. The technical review committees, as of such, are doing more due diligence now than what they ever have done before. They are asking for quite a few different things as far as phosphorous content, nitrate content in soils, and what have you, setbacks and odour issues, and all that kind of thing. So it gets pretty deep when you go through those technical reviews.
Mr. Maguire: Just in regard to the issue of performance bonds, do you see sections of this bill that may require the addition or perhaps the imposition of a performance bond down the road?
Mr. Schweitzer: We would hope that would not be necessary. If you are looking at 300 animal units, there are lots of farm families right now that are going over 300 farm animal units just because of the increase in livestock. Some of these regulations will be a burden on these farm families. If we need to do all the regulations, and all the paperwork, and all the accountability for all these programs we are going to take the farm families out of this scenario here and they are going to be made into bigger farms.
Mr. Smith: Thank you again for your presentation, Larry. Certainly, the input has been very strong from your organization in KAP, certainly in Bill 40. This substantially reflects the intent of Bill 40, but it also is a substantial change in The Planning Act, better up-front planning and the modernization of the act that incorporated. It was very good to read a lot of your comments that you have made to the Province over the last three years or so, and certainly on Bill 40, and some of the changes in The Planning Act.
I know the Minister of Agriculture has had the opportunity to hear your concerns, passed it on to myself, as well. I appreciate your views to Agriculture, to Conservation, to myself and to Water Stewardship.
The planning commission, and you mentioned, certainly, some issues on the planning commission. Just for clarification, as you know, it will be an option for municipalities, not mandatory for municipalities to form that planning commission. Obviously, that is just a tool provided to municipalities for the area of reducing some of the workload in some of the areas where, in fact, they do have a number of public planning hearings in their areas. Certainly, that is an option. It is an option for them. If council does decide to appoint a planning commission by by-law in their municipality, they may determine not to allow the commission to hear conditional uses, or not allow it to hear conditional uses for livestock, and, as you know, all planning commission decisions can be appealed to the full council after that point, after the recommendation.
* (20:30)
The option for creating a planning commission is intended to reduce the workload of those councils, and that is strictly what I believe most of them will do. Obviously, there are not a lot of these types of applications that are happening out there anyway, but to municipalities that do have it, it does provide the tool and it can be appealed.
In terms of, and, as you mentioned, certainly this bill does address a lot more than livestock operations all planning for the province. Obviously, livestock operations certainly are important. The LOs are regulated under, and influenced by several different acts. I know you mentioned you would like to see some things stay in Agriculture, and you would like to see some things in other departments, but, certainly, under a lot of different acts, including The Planning Act, The Fertilizers and Pesticides Control Act, The Environment Act, which is livestock manure and mortalities management regulation and The Farm Practices Act. They will soon also be regulated under The Water Protection Act in the proposed water quality management zones.
So I believe this is a pretty good example of why many of these issues raised by LOs certainly do belong in The Planning Act. People can get direct access in one department and get the answers they need, and appreciate having it under one umbrella and having clear, straightforward regulations. That is why we considered the better up-front planning and to have these all under one department, where it is a one-stop, if you will, not going department to department to department and confusing people. I believe that is the way it has been since 1975, and a lot of these different changes and different departments are now being proposed under one umbrella to make clarification for everyone.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Time is up, Mr. Schweitzer, but I will allow you a brief response.
Mr. Schweitzer: Well, for our end of it, we would definitely like to have as many rules as we possibly can, or as least as many rules as we possibly can under one department. We have had great response from Manitoba Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. They worked well with us over the last two years here since the BSE situation has happened. Because of their expertise, we would really reiterate that they have the data and the know-how to make some of these regulations so you do not swing the pendulum too far one way, because it is very difficult to bring those regulations back after we are done.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, sir.
I now call Reeve John
Holland of the R.M. of
Next person I have is Chris Fulsher, Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association.
Good evening. Mr. Fulsher, is it?
Mr. Chris Fulsher (
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: You have a written presentation? I see you do. Proceed when you are ready.
Mr. Fulsher: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good evening to members of the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs. As I said, my name is Chris Fulsher, and I am the chief administrative officer at the R.M. of Headingley.
I am here today
representing the Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association. Our association
represent over 300 chief administrative officers and senior management staff of
I am pleased to represent the MMAA here and provide our comments on the proposed legislation. Our association participated in the rewrite as part of the technical advisory committee. However, our role was limited to review of the concepts of the law, and not the final product that we are here to comment on today.
The Planning Act is
probably the second most important piece of legislation that affects municipalities
in
Our presentation today is based upon the thoughts of members of our planning committee, but there has not been an opportunity for input other than casual comments from other members of our association. Our comments will deal with specific sections of the act.
Section 2(a) exempts the
City of
In Headingley, Plan
Winnipeg was amended to redesignate land next to Headingley as neighbourhood,
with no specific development proposal presented. Now the land is being proposed
for development which will impact municipal infrastructure in Headingley, yet
we have no recourse beyond the community planning committee to have our
concerns addressed. The procedures in this act or in the City of
Section 42(2) imposes a requirement on all municipalities to include a livestock operation policy in their development plan, and section 201(b) requires that policy to be adopted by January 1, 2008. While this requirement is a reasonable one, it seems to be a somewhat redundant requirement for urban municipalities. The process for development plan amendments can be quite significant and consideration should be given to enable urban municipalities to adopt that policy when their development plan is next reviewed rather than by January 1, 2008, as is set out.
Sections 43 and 59 provide for periodic review of development plans. The legislation requires a board or council to complete a detailed review every five years or some other date that may be set in the development plan. The wording in the old act is somewhat similar, but, in actual practice, the completion of a review is seldom, if ever, achieved in that five-year term. The legislation should recognize this and be softened to require the review to be initiated in the time frame set out.
Section 47(2)(b) requires the minutes of a public hearing held to consider a development plan or development plan amendment, together with copies of written submissions to be sent to the minister. While the minutes are very important, they are not adopted until the next council or board meeting, often a month after the hearing. Approval of development plan amendments takes long enough already. By requiring minutes to be sent will extend the time for this process. Our association recommends that this requirement be changed to the filing of a statutory declaration outlining the proceedings of the hearing. This process would be similar to the application process for approval of borrowing by-laws by the Municipal Board.
Section 51(1) deals with the minister's decision regarding approval of development plans or amendments thereto. While our association welcomes the devolution of this authority down to the ministerial level, we believe that the section should include a time limit for a decision to be made on development plan amendments. These amendments are often very important to a municipality and a development proponent and the delays currently being experienced must be reduced or eliminated.
Section 68 requires the municipality to amend an existing or adopt a new plan zoning by-law generally consistent with the development plan, and section 202(1)(b) requires the by-law to be adopted by January 1, 2008. Our concern is that the wording of this section may obligate a municipality to prematurely zone lands to comply with this clause. The legislation should ensure that municipalities are not required to change the zoning of any land to be consistent with the development plan until, in council's opinion, it is warranted.
Section 102(1) deals with authority for minor variances. This section should include authority to make an order that varies yard, area, or frontage requirements where an existing non-compliance is being increased but still does not meet the minimum requirement of a zoning by-law. For example, a zoning by-law calls for a minimum frontage of 100 feet. A property owner with a 50-foot lot subdivides the next lot in half and consolidates half the lot with his lot and the other half of the next lot creating two 75-foot lots out of the three 50-foot lots. This would require a variance, even though the lots are getting larger. This should be considered a minor variance.
* (20:40)
Section 114(2) provides for notice of livestock conditional use hearings. Subsection (iv) requires notice to property owners within a range of three kilometres of the proposed ILO and including those in adjoining municipalities if they are within three kilometres of the site. The legislation does not specify what source of information is to be used to determine who the owner is. Are administrators expected to search ownership records at the Land Titles Office? How do we get information from other municipalities? What if the information provided by another municipality is incorrect or information is omitted? Would this invalidate a hearing? Worse yet, would it be grounds for legal action by an individual who did not receive notice and is adversely affected by an ILO?
Subsection (c) of the same section requires the posting of a notice on the affected property. Section 170 sets out the manner of posting of this notice. The effectiveness of posting a property in a rural location is questionable. The legislation calls for an 11-by-17 notice posted in conspicuous locations on the property and specifically not more than one metre inside the boundary lines of the property. Boundary lines are not often clear in rural areas. How can we be sure the posting is in the right place, and even if it is, the likelihood that someone travelling in a vehicle some 50 feet away is going to see the sign and stop to read it is extremely remote. What about an application in the winter? Posting of a remote agricultural property may be difficult if not impossible. Posting of properties can be an effective tool in urban centres but should not be a requirement in rural areas.
Section 124(2) deals with the processing of an application for subdivision. The legislation should include a time frame for circulation of applications. The approving agency should be required to ensure that applications are circulated in a timely fashion to government departments and agencies, and those departments and agencies should have a deadline for response.
Section 125(2) provides for a public hearing when a subdivision results in the creation of a new public road. While this requirement is a good one, the legislation should also address condominium subdivisions where the roads are private, or when subdivisions occur on an undeveloped road allowance. These types of subdivisions can be more controversial than typical subdivisions, yet, according to the law, no hearing would be required.
Section 130(1) requires the Municipal Board to hold a hearing of appeals on subdivision applications. Again, the legislation should include minimum time lines in which to hold such a hearing.
Section 134 deals with minor subdivisions. Subsection (1)(b)–
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: One minute, sir.
Mr. Fulsher: Thank you. Subsection (1)(b) limits these provisions to urban-type municipalities or LUDs. Why are minor subdivisions in R.M.s not included, or at least some latitude given to the approving authority to determine whether an application is a minor subdivision? Many R.M.s have unincorporated urban districts or urban centres that should also qualify for the provisions of this section.
Section 134(3)(a) sets out
the process for a designated employee of a municipality to deal with a minor
subdivision. It limits the actions he or she can take to approving or approving
with conditions the application "but may not reject it". There could
be conditions under which a "designated employee" should reject
application. The legislation should allow him or her to do that or there should
be provision for the employee to refer the matter to Council if he or she feels
the application should be rejected.
I will skip to 173(1)(b), which allows written representations at public hearings. There is no opportunity for questioning of the objector or clarification of the submission. The objector does not hear the submission of the proponent which may address the concerns of the objector. Yet the objection stands and the process for appeal must be respected. There should be an option for a council to dismiss written representations as invalid and not eligible for the appeal process.
Section 178(2) empowers municipalities or planning districts to enforce orders regarding contravention of a by-law or permit or order. The act should include provision to add the cost of enforcement to property taxes.
The MMAA encourages the provincial government to carefully consider these comments as the new legislation is put into place. Our concerns are not significant from a political perspective but are important in how we administer the planning function in our respective municipalities.
Thank you for hearing this presentation. I would be pleased to answer questions.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, sir.
Point of Order
Mr. Eichler: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would like to ask that the presentation in its entirety be recorded in the minutes.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Okay, moved by Mr. Eichler, and agreed by the committee that the entire text of the presentation will be included in our minutes.
* * *
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Fulsher. With respect to page 5, you talk about the legislation with the source of information to determine who is the owner, and the administrator is expected to search the ownership records. I know, from past experience in being an administrator, that can be a very time-consuming job. In your opinion, the cost that is going to be involved in this and the extra staffing, do you see that as a barrier as an administrator that is going to have to be passed on to the person making the application, or is this a cost that is going to have to be picked up by the municipality?
Mr. Fulsher: Well, there certainly would be a significant cost, particularly dealing with municipalities who are not anywhere near a local Land Titles Office, to go down and search those would be very time-consuming and costly, obviously. Somebody will have to bear those costs. Prior legislation, we have always made reference to the latest revised assessment rolls in municipalities. Perhaps that should be the guide for obtaining the names for service of notices.
Mr. Eichler: With just a follow-up to that, I know the municipalities will be making their presentation here shortly, but this is a huge cost that could be passed on and one that maybe the Province should have a look at as funding. Maybe that information would be made available to your organization as a resource to you in making application. Would that be another alternative that your organization would look at?
Mr. Fulsher: That would certainly be welcome. As I say, the process will be extremely long and costly and funding would be certainly well appreciated by outside agencies.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much, Mr. Fulsher, for your presentation as well. Just a practical thing, you are recommending that this–it is in regard to the posting of these notices and just–it cannot be anymore than a meter, I believe it is, inside boundaries, and it is very difficult to know where those boundaries would be at some point so it is more of a practical nature. You are wondering whether or not that actual posting is very effective. I would agree, it is pretty hard to read those in the country if driving by in regard to the size that you are looking at, an 11 by 17 notice out there in the field some place.
That is just a practical issue. It is also a posting. Can you just indicate, I mean, this is a posting in the winter is not a very practical thing, either, is it? You have got stakes in the ground. I am just wondering if this is the reference that you are alluding to here.
Mr. Fulsher: Well, certainly posting in the winter would be a problem and
perhaps snowmobilers might see it, but, the whole posting question is one that
I think deserves to be relooked at in rural
Mr. Maguire: Also, in regard to section 130(1), "to require the Municipal Board to hold hearings on appeals of subdivision applications," you are recommending a minimum time line to hold those hearings, consistencies about times in this bill and other areas. Would you have any recommendation for me on that, or for the committee on that?
Mr. Fulsher: Time is always an issue. Typically in rural
Mr. Gerrard: Thank you for your presentation. You put forward quite a number of suggestions. I just wondered, had you been consulted with this bill in advance so that you could have had a chance to put your suggestions to the government before this.
Mr. Fulsher: Yes, I had the opportunity to sit on the Technical Review Committee of the legislation. Unfortunately, we were dealing with concepts only. We did not see the detailed bill or have the chance to give it the kind of scrutiny that it deserves, so details such as we are suggesting here, we did not have that kind of an opportunity to recommend or suggest.
Mr. Smith: Certainly, I do appreciate Mr. Fulsher's recommendations. Many of the recommendations that we have made in the bill have certainly come from your organization and your input. Obviously, no one sees a detailed bill until the detailed bill is put out for public review.
* (20:50)
Obviously, the input into this has been quite technical and, certainly, when you speak on page 5 of the latest revised assessment roll, I know you have brought to my attention and my office, and some of those suggestions are very much appreciated. The property owners within the range of three kilometres is something that has been asked for a great many times, a great deal of times, and corresponding close proximity to other municipalities is certainly the flavour all over Manitoba that people have asked for in a substantial way, but I appreciate that comment on that page.
There has been a great deal of thought and technical thought put into some of these suggestions you have made. I know over the last period of time in consulting with my department, you have made many recommendations and many of the changes that we see in the bill. We certainly appreciate some of the common-sense recommendations that you have got here to look at for consideration, not on the back of a napkin, but certainly appreciate your thoughtfulness in this presentation.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Last comment to you, Mr. Fulsher.
Mr. Fulsher: I will just again reiterate that we appreciate the opportunity to
participate in this process and urge the committee to come forward with some
solid recommendations. I understand the timeframes are very short on this, but,
hopefully, you will give good consideration to all of the presentations here
today and come forward with a good act that we can all make good use of and
will be effective in planning in
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, sir.
I now call Mr. John Bannister, Dairy Farmers of Manitoba. Good evening, Mr. Bannister, you have a written presentation? Begin when you are ready, sir.
Mr. John Bannister (Executive
Member, Dairy Farmers of
Dairy farms are located
in 81 of the 120 municipalities, and they stretch from Minitonas to Piney and from Deloraine to Riverton, and all points in between. There
are even three dairy farms located inside the
Bill 33 has a lot of good features that improve on the present Planning Act. There are a few areas that are noteworthy changes that will improve the municipal planning system.
These are municipalities will be required to specify conditions of approval in terms of a development plan specified in The Planning Act; The Planning Act removes municipal authority to regulate manure storage, handling and disposal except for the requirement for a lagoon cover and shelter belts; the Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulations under Manitoba Conservation will apply; Manitoba's provincial land use policy will be updated to provide guidelines for livestock policies; Bill 33 requires that local livestock planning and regulation be done only within The Planning Act; applications for livestock development of less than 300 animal units will not require a public hearing; and finally, the municipal planning process will require hearings, thereby giving all citizens an opportunity to participate in the development of the municipal development plan.
Bill 33 also contains a number of new concepts that need strengthening so that Manitoba's agriculture industry and notably livestock producers are assured of their ability to carry on their present food production businesses and continue to compete in a sustainable way in the future along with other provinces and countries.
There is an assumption in Bill 33 that all ratepayers in all municipalities will participate in the preparation of the municipal development plan. It is further assumed that farmers will have a strong voice in the preparation of every municipal development plan, but it is safe to say that few municipal councils have a strong agricultural producer content. It is also safe to say that farmers in total have a much smaller voice at the polls than was the case even a short 10 years ago. Will farmers' interests be heard in the creation of the municipal development plan, or will their voices be drowned out by the voices of non-farming interests?
There was a little slip up here between the tongue and the word processor. It should read Bill 33 allows a municipal a maximum of three years to review a development plan, but it usually stretches to five years. Dairy Farmers of Manitoba are recommending that three years be the maximum.
Dairy Farmers of Manitoba recommends the following list of changes to Bill 33 to protect the farmer's right to farm in a sustainable manner: No. 1, council's decision is final and no right of appeal on an intensive livestock application, and council is not required to give reasons for its decision. Now this, the transparency and accountability in the decision-making process by all municipal councils must be supported with written reasons that an application has been denied. There must also be an appeal process.
It also states Bill 33 retains the conditional-use process for livestock application. The planning commissions may include appointed citizen members who may make conditional use decisions concerning livestock applications. While the decisions may be appealed to council, citizen members have no direct accountability to the voting public. Bill 33 also waives any public liability. The Planning Act must be accountable to ratepayers and any decision made by a municipal council or appointed planning commission must be science-based.
Bill 33, section 116(2) allows that a livestock application could meet all federal and provincial requirements and local development plan policy and zoning and siting requirements but can still be turned down at council's discretion because it is not satisfied that the proposed operation or expansion will be compatible with the general nature of the surrounding area.
Dairy Farmers of Manitoba requests that this section be strengthened and that municipalities are required to approve a livestock application if all conditions are met. In cases where a livestock producer's facilities are destroyed by fire, a producer could be prevented from rebuilding and therefore put out of business. Most insurance companies nowadays require the insurer to rebuild to recover any part of the insurance coverage. In a case where a livestock producer wishes to increase his or her herd that producer may be prevented from increasing the herd to maintain the viability of their operation by such a restrictive municipality.
While provincial water quality management zones are to be science-based and used as a tool in local land use planning, these zones will eventually incorporate policies and restrictions on phosphorus application. There is a concern that regulations on manure phosphorus will be singled out for early regulations well in advance of other regulations affecting other point sources of phosphorus such as municipal discharge and commercial fertilizer.
This is not in the presentation, but I came across last night we were visiting people in an urban area and they have a big yard and he told me that he put fertilizer on his lawn and because his ditch sides did not grow quite as well last year he fertilized the ditch sides as well. Now we as farmers who make a living from our land have set distances, but that guy could go along and put it on. He said he could not get fertilizer with 25% nitrogen this year so he put half as much again on because he could only get 17 percent. So the phosphorus content was the same, but he did not cotton on to that. So I had quite a strong argument with him.
No. 5, section
42(2)(a)(iii), an elected council can prohibit livestock development to the
whole municipality if it justifies this. Dairy Farmers of Manitoba requires
that this section be amended to ensure that the provincial interest to protect
agriculture and agricultural land is ensured. There is a possibility that the
municipal development plan could prohibit livestock development or agriculture.
Dairy Farmers of Manitoba request that
Bill 33 states council
may exceed the minimum provincial standards for livestock siting and separation
distances provided the requirements are relevant and reasonable. Dairy Farmers
of Manitoba request that
* (21:00)
Bill 33, section 116(2)(a) states council may include as a condition of approval of an intensive livestock operation, a measure to ensure that conformity with the applicable provisions of a development plan and zoning by-law. This is too open-ended and broad and could lead to applicants being required to pay for municipal monitoring and enforcement costs or posting a bond as a condition of approval.
Dairy Farmers of Manitoba
requests that Bill 33 be amended to ensure that
In conclusion, Dairy Farmers of Manitoba urges the Legislative Affairs Committee to strengthen Bill 33 in several areas listed, create a positive environment for livestock industry development, promote and support the agricultural industry, and accept livestock industry growth as a positive influence on the growth of rural communities.
Dairy Farmers of Manitoba
has a positive view of the future of
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Bannister. The floor is open for questions, but I am going to advise council or the members around the table that supplementals have been going on a little bit too long. So I am just going to allow one question per individual. I will start with Mr. Maguire.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening. One of the things in Bill 40 last fall, we heard–well, we did not hear from committee on it, but people speaking to Bill 22 were hoping that the government would bring forth regulations before Bill 40 was passed to know what the water regulations would be around these industries.
Can you indicate to us if you have a concern that now that this bill has come back in virtually the same form, with a few changes and some additions to it, I should say, that we still need to have had more recognition of how the water bill, Bill 22, would impact on this particular type of legislation?
Mr. Bannister: Bill 22, no dairy farmer wants pollution, and I think Bill 22, incorporated within Bill 33, has to be one. We have got to work together and in unison or parallel. I do not think you can have one without the other. I think they both work together for the benefit of everybody.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Bannister. I have a question in regard to the Dairy Farmers with respect to quotas. Does your organization see Bill 33 being a problem as far as when a farmer get to the point he wants to retire and transfer that quota, do you see that as a problem in the development through Bill 33?
Mr. Bannister: It could be a problem if you have got a dairy farm within the sort of zoning that was zoned urban. Then you may have a problem being passed on to, if somebody wanted to expand the operation a little bit, worried he would be limited then that he could not expand. There could be a problem with that, and then it would be an unviable unit for him to carry on in future years.
Mr. Smith: Just quickly, I would like to again thank Mr. Bannister for a very thoughtful presentation, certainly, positives and negatives, as you have reflected here. Certainly, as I read through your presentation, I find that for accomplishing what this bill is, what you are saying continually through this bill is better up-front planning. When we look at your issues, to base certainly planning commission decisions and other decisions based on science, the Technical Review Committee certainly is able to do that now.
I was certainly interested in your suggestion to move the maximum of five years up to three years for their development planning. I heard quite the contrary from a lot of other folks, but certainly that is pretty aggressive. It is something that you are suggesting, and I quite agree that having better up-front planning in a faster mode is certainly positive.
Just to wrap up quickly, one thing that you did state in No. 6 on the last page was Standards should be of mutual separation distances for livestock operation residences. Certainly, I could not agree more. Certainly, this Planning Act has not been substantially redone in 30 years. I know the practices of people moving to rural settings have certainly outstripped many of the farm families and people that are out in rural residences. I only wish this could have been introduced some 20 years ago.
Basically, what I am seeing in certainly a lot of your comments is some of the up-front planning that we intend to do as being a positive model for the inclusion of a lot of the things you are recommending. So I appreciate your views on it.
Mr. Bannister: I think the last point you made is very relevant. You know, if we have got to have them as farmers, then the urban people must have them because if you get somebody coming in, building, the original owners of that property may be able to get on with the farm and then they sell it and you have got a problem then.
The aggressiveness of the review policy, most of the reviews, most of the planning has been done now, so to get a real good handle on, sort of, what is happening, the review policy must be taken into account because those zonings were done for Bill 40, not for Bill 33, but they have been accepted for Bill 40.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Maguire, you have 10 seconds.
Mr. Maguire: I would like to know, then, if you had been consulted by the government, if the Dairy Farmers had been consulted by the government before this bill was brought forward.
Mr. Bannister: In the initial phase they were not but, along with KAP, we were consulted then.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation, sir.
I now call Garry Wasylowski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities.
Good evening, Mr. Wasylowski. Do you have a written presentation?
Mr. Garry Wasylowski (Vice-President, Association of Manitoba Municipalities): Yes, I do. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present to this committee.
The Planning Act is a critical piece of legislation for municipalities, since it defines powers at the municipal level and guides process for land use planning. And, certainly, as municipalities, this was probably one of the top municipal bills that municipalities deal with. Next to the municipal legislation, this would probably be the second most important bill to municipalities. As a result, municipalities have raised several concerns related to Bill 33, such as the recognition of local authorities and the separation between provincial and municipal responsibilities. This presentation will provide an overview of municipal concerns that have been addressed by Bill 33, as well as discussion of outstanding municipal issues. Specific areas of concern pertain to development plans and development process, livestock operations and the division of responsibility between municipalities and the provincial government.
First, regarding development plans, Bill 33 incorporates many of the key municipal concerns the AMM raised regarding The Planning Act. Since the development plan is such a significant planning tool for municipalities, several issues have been raised regarding this process. Therefore, implementing a development plan in a timely manner is essential for municipalities. At present, municipalities view the approval process as too lengthy and AMM has been concerned that an increased demand for development plans will further delay the approvals process and plan implementation. The AMM is pleased that the provincial government has changed the approval process and that the minister is now authorized to approve development plans without approval of executive council. However, there is time limit for the minister to respond and approve plans, which can create delays. With the addition of timelines put on the ministers, this could effectively reduce the time delays associated with provincial approvals.
As well, the AMM is pleased that provisions have been made to link development agreements on conditional use to caveats on land titles. It is crucial for municipalities to have authority to regulate future landowners through development agreements in order for planning to remain effective over the long term. The provisions under Bill 33, which allow a caveat with a copy of such agreement to be filed at the appropriate land titles office will, therefore, be beneficial for municipalities.
* (21:10)
Under the existing Planning Act, caveats related to development agreements were only permitted if they pertained to zoning by-law amendments and subdivision approvals. This change will ensure that development plans on conditional use will continue to be effective into the future.
However, there are other
improvements that could be made by this legislation. For instance, the minister
maintains the authority to reject development proposals without providing
specific reasons to local council. There have been incidents where municipalities
felt they were treated unfairly by the Province and that proper consideration
was not given to the development proposal. Unexplained rejections tend to be
perceived as biased decision-making and municipalities would appreciate a
legislated requirement that the Province must explain any objections to
particular developments in rural
Further, if the Province provides the rationale, municipalities will have the opportunity to consider how proposals could be approved for future submissions. The approved process must be fair and therefore, a transparent process requiring the Province to clarify its objections would ensure equitable treatment for all municipalities.
Another critical issue regarding development plans is the process of referring development plans to the Municipal Board. At present, development plan objections can be taken to the Municipal Board when only one individual is opposed. This results in undue delays to local planning process since the objection may not represent a significant opinion within the municipality. The AMM suggests that the Municipal Board should only consider appeals when a critical mass of local citizens formally object to a development plan such as 10 percent. This would ensure that development plan objectives adequately represent a significant portion of the municipal population.
Therefore, the Province should take into account a high degree of local support for the development plan by-law when making a decision to approve the plan, even though it is not formalized in this legislation. The AMM is disappointed that the proposed legislation does not address this concern and requests that further consideration be given to this matter.
While development plans significantly guide local initiatives, there are many other aspects of development processes that require improvements. For instance, municipalities have been concerned with the mandatory physical posting requirements related to public hearings. We appreciate that some new alternatives have been created under the new Planning Act regarding notification. The removal of the requirement to send notices by registered mail will reduce cost of notification.
In addition, Bill 33 does not extend the radius of notification, and it is imperative that the radius remain at the current level due to the additional administrative and financial responsibilities that would be associated with further notification. The AMM looks forward to future improvements to the notification requirements in the next phase of The Planning Act review.
The development process
is inextricably linked to livestock operations in many parts of
Municipalities anticipate that the ability of establishing siting and setback requirements would be included in the creation of a livestock operations policy. This demand is met by the specification that the livestock operations policy must set out general standards to be followed respecting the siting and setback of livestock operations. Furthermore, municipal zoning by-laws must establish siting and setback requirements for livestock operations that meet standards established by regulation and are generally consistent with livestock operation policy. Along with existing variation authorities, these features satisfy municipal desire to control siting and setback for livestock operation.
As legislation that outlines municipal authority, it is important that The Planning Act clearly delineates municipal and provincial government responsibilities. For instance, municipalities are appreciative that Bill 33 maintains the conditional use process for all development, including livestock operation. This process effectively ensures that municipal councils have final approval on all developments within their boundaries.
In general, municipalities want final say in all land use planning decisions with no appeal process to another jurisdiction that supersedes municipal land use decisions. This is very important to AMM members since councils are elected officials with first-hand knowledge of suitable land uses within their jurisdiction.
Bill 33 also maintains an appropriate balance between municipal authorities and the provincial government authorities regarding other approvals and appeal process. Local councils retain authority related to development plans, zoning by-laws, variances, conditional use and subdivision approvals, therefore empowering local decision making.
A key part of decision making for livestock operations is the approval process that municipal councils undertake. Although much of this occurs in the development plan through the livestock policy, there is still a requirement for further council approval on all livestock operations over 300 animal units as proposed in this legislation.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: One minute.
Mr. Wasylowski: I have got some very important issues to cover here, Mr. Chair, and I would certainly like to go through them.
Municipalities are able to set threshold amounts for councils, for council approvals lower than 300 animal units, but cannot adjust the approval process for a larger operation. This creates a disconnect from development planned livestock operations policy. That is, if a municipality creates a livestock operations policy in the development plan and designates areas where large livestock operations can be suited, there should be no need for a subsequent process regarding individual operations. Requiring a second process potentially increases conflict at a community level, since the decision becomes more personal when it applies to only a specific operation. The function of the development plan is to provide long-term planning and the public has the opportunity to raise this at a public hearing by-law.
Therefore, an additional
approval process should be optional to council as long as a livestock operation
is consistent with the development plan and zoning by-law, regardless of the
number of animal units.
The need to establish local
guidelines extends to other aspects of livestock operations, including odour control
mechanisms. The AMM recognizes that the provincial government is in the best
position to establish environmental regulations, yet municipalities seeking to
impose additional restrictions are still acting in conjunction with provincial
objectives. For instance, if municipalities were authorized to require manure
injection this would provide a better mechanism for municipalities to control
odour. However, Bill 33 restricts municipalities to two odour-reducing
measures: requiring covers on manure storage facilities and requiring shelter
belts be established. While these are both valuable tools, municipalities
aiming to have better odour controls should have the authority to do so.
There has also been some
concern with the definition of animal units. The Province currently defines
animal units based on species type. However, municipalities have identified the
additional consideration of confinement periods as relevant to this
calculation. One of the primary functions of the animal unit calculation is to
determine the amount of land required for spreading manure.
Therefore, this calculation
should also account for the differences between operations with year-round
confinement and operations with some pasturing. The key differences between
these two types of operations occur since the length of time animals spend in
the pasture will reduce the need for spreading the manure in other fields.
Therefore, these distinctions should be reflected in an animal unit calculation
that accounts for both species type and confinement period.
Division of Responsibility
In the areas of provincial
authority, local input must still be considered in the decision-making process.
However, the process would also benefit from the inclusion of local input. The
ongoing use of local consultation in other areas of The Planning Act
contributes important information to the development processes and this should
be no exception. Community consultations are critically important to land use
planning and the inclusion of consultation feedback will strengthen support for
TRC reporting. To gain a complete perspective on the local circumstances, the
TRC should be required to conduct on-site inspections and consult with
knowledgeable individuals at the local level.
Another concern with the TRC
process is that under the new legislation, fewer livestock operations will be
subjected to review. At present, municipalities are able to request a TRC
assessment for any livestock operation. Bill 33 focusses extensively on the
difference between livestock operations based on whether they are more or less
than 300 animal units, including as it relates to the TRC process. In
particular, livestock operations with more than 300 animal units will be
required to have a TRC assessment and municipalities are not opposed to this
requirement. The difficulty arises with smaller livestock operations since
municipalities can now request a TRC review for any size operation, yet the
smaller operations become a lower priority under the new procedures. Instead,
municipalities should retain the ability to request a TRC review for operations
having less than 300 animal units and the Province should ensure that these
requests are given appropriate consideration.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Wasylowski, we will allow your entire presentation to be put into the minutes. You could read it in, or I could allow you the question-and-answer period. I think the committee has some questions, so if that is acceptable to you, sir?
Mr. Wasylowski: Yes, I mean, there is one important paragraph that I do want to read here, page nine.
At present, municipalities are able to request the TRC assessment for all–sorry, last paragraph.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: The clock is running.
Mr. Wasylowski: There is a need for greater interaction between public and levels of government, especially regarding the public hearing process. The present system expects municipalities to defend provincial policy. The situation must be rectified in order to ensure that public has access to accurate information. Currently, only municipal councils attend the public hearings, leaving them responsible to explain the terms of environmental regulations, yet when technical questions arise, it is more appropriate for Department of Conservation staff to respond since it is an explanation of provincial environmental regulation that is required. Since Department of Conservation staff is not required to attend public hearings, this creates a perception that municipal councils are accountable for provincial decision.
If the public has no ability to be reassured that the
environmental concerns have been addressed, they will continue to pressure
councils to deny livestock applications. Rather, the provincial government must
be accountable for its environmental regulations and ensure the transparency of
the process by attending public hearings, just as municipal councils are
present to defend their decisions. Without these fundamental changes to the
public hearing process, the livestock portion of this legislation will be
totally ineffective.
With the exception of the
public hearing process on livestock operations just outlined and the other key
issues identified above, overall the AMM is generally supportive of Bill 33 and
looks forward to many of the improvements to long-term planning that will be
achieved by this legislation. Land use planning is a partnership between
municipalities and the Province, and by incorporating the concerns outlined
today, the Province will do much to strengthen this relationship.
Thank you, and I would ask that the whole presentation be–
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Okay, yes, certainly, your entire presentation will be part of the minutes.
We have four minutes for questions.
Mr. Maguire: Thank you, Mr. Wasylowski. I wonder if you could indicate, I know that there has been a considerable amount of time spent on this particular bill, if you could outline the differences between or the expansion of this, I guess, in regard to Bill 40 that was killed last fall, and if you could indicate just exactly; I think you have expressed it in your presentation about the concern of the amount of time since this bill was reintroduced as Bill 33. It was killed and later brought back. Have you had enough time to properly deal with all of the bill and get the feedback from your large organization all over the province?
* (21:20)
Mr. Wasylowski: Certainly, a lot of time was spent on Bill 40. Virtually all of Bill 40 is in this bill. Probably the only exception is that municipalities were able to get "conditional use" back in, which is something that we really wanted. We would have liked to see more time on Bill 33, and I think we have asked the government for just a little more time to get it out to our municipalities and get comments on it. That has been raised to the government on several occasions.
Mr. Eichler: Thank you, Garry, for your presentation. One quick question. Do you feel that Bill 33 should be held up at this point in time because of the concerns that your association has along with the administrators?
Mr. Wasylowski: We are expressing our concerns. Whether the bill gets held up, I guess that is up to the Legislature. We are generally supportive of the bill. We have raised some issues here. Our major concern on this bill is on the public hearing process on the livestock operations. We really feel that in that area, there has to be improvement, and we really feel that what we are asking for is what is needed to make this bill work. That is really essential to what we are here for today because if not, municipalities are going to be the ones that are acting as a buffer to explain some provincial legislation. Then, you are going to get down into the emotional part of it again, and good decisions are not going to happen.
Mr. Gerrard: Two quick points. On page 2, you suggest there should be a time limit for the minister to respond and approve a plan. What time limit would you suggest? Second, you make a point fairly strongly that municipalities should be authorized to require manure injection, and maybe you can give a reason to that.
Mr. Wasylowski: Certainly, requirements, we are looking at 30 days, something in that, 30-60 days, something in that range. What is appropriate, but at least we would like to see some time lines. As far as manure injection, I think municipalities see that as an odour control measure.
What you have to remember here is municipalities have to reflect what their ratepayers are saying, and they have to be able to defend and have the ratepayers agree with these policies. If they have more control over some of the odour issues, I think it is easier for a council or a municipality to get those zoning and planning by-laws passed and accepted by the general public.
Mr. Smith: Thanks, Garry. It sounds like you have got a bit of a cold. I am glad you got through as far as you did–
Mr. Wasylowski: This is my
Mr. Smith: It has got a nice, raspy tone to it.
I certainly have appreciated your views and AMM in the many times we have had a chance to get together. I just got some of the other presenters that raised the question and just wanted to ask your opinion. Right now the municipality does have the final decision, regardless of information provided to them. The autonomy is with the municipality to make the final decision on any proposal that is brought forward in front of them, but some others are tonight suggesting that municipalities should be held accountable and provide written reasons for any decisions that they make on declining livestock operation applications, that municipalities have to provide written reasons to the applicants. What would the AMM's position be on that?
Mr. Wasylowski: You may have five, six different councillors on the same council with six different reasons. How do you articulate that into one reason? That may be part of a concern. Certainly, council members have to report back to the public, and the public is going to demand certain things of them. A written rejection, I am not sure that we would be in favour of that, but councillors have to be accountable to the public, and the public is going to demand certain things of them.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, sir. I now call Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles, private citizen. Do you have a written presentation? I see you do. You may begin when ready.
Ms. Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles (Private Citizen): Dear ladies and gentlemen, my name is Cheryl Kennedy Courcelles, and I am here today representing mothers and children of this province, as well as those who do not have a voice and cannot stand up for themselves such as the domestic animals, the wildlife, water, air, and land.
Mr. Chairperson in the
Chair
I have a degree from the
I have been a financial planner, a national sales manager, a provincial and federal employment counsellor. I actively volunteer at every level of life and my most sacred and rewarding has been my position of being a dedicated mother, wife, conservationist and nature lover.
So based on that, the passing of Bill 33 as it stands shall provide little to no added value to the despairing plight of this destructive, greedy power struggle that our society is in right now with Mother Nature, the animal kingdom and feeding the world.
What we do know for sure is that there are over 465 endangered species in the Great Plains Region, which covers most of Manitoba, that Manitoba is in a severe water and waste management crisis with no concrete funded or managed action plan from all of its stakeholders, ranging from the farmer to the local R.M.s, to industry in the cities, to the cottage and residential owners, from the provincial and the federal governments.
That southeastern
Currently, we are also plagued with West Nile virus, largely due to modern day farming practices of using pesticides, herbicides, destruction of all the tree lines, forests, swamps, and the removal of the natural order of the ecosystems, not to mention the massive doses of drugs given out by the ILOs to their penned-up animals that make their way back to everyone and all life forms of water supply. We no longer can control pests and diseases like we used to because of our careless water and waste management practices. The ILOs must plant at least a thousand trees around their operations to help filter out some of these toxins and to attract the ecosystems in order to help control the diseases, land, and air emissions.
To overlook the healing
power of the trees is like to turn off all the electricity in a hospital and
watch what happens when that core energy source is removed. Death and
destruction will follow. Please, please put planting thousands of trees
mandatory for all of these ILO operations. Trees do not cost much, and students
can plant them, a make-work project of sustainable value for
Feed the world and
provide
Bill 33 takes away power
from the people and the ecosystem instead of ensuring long-term sustainability.
It seems to be on the plan of use it up quick before they notice that critical
damage is being done, as we have already seen in the potato industry across the
country. We can plan better than that here in
* (21:30)
Bill 33 is not acceptable as it currently stands to anyone or any life form in this province. We, as wise and smart Manitobans, can come up with a better plan than this. We owe it to the land, the animals and our children to set up a harmonious plan that keeps our people employed while helping to feed the world, but not by poisoning our very own selves, water, land and animals in doing so.
The intensified livestock operations are out of balance with sustainability so it is not a surprise that no one really wants to be their watchdog. Co-operation, continual planning and monitoring from all stakeholders, be them the ILO's themselves, the agriculture industry, federal and provincial governments, the local R.M.s, Manitoba citizens, The Fisheries Act, The Conservation Act, agriculture policy framework plans, the federal and provincial Health acts, Kyoto agreement, First Nations rights and agreements, plus the current Water Protection Act, must all be involved in fine-tuning this Bill 33 to ensure safety and priorities in determining and policing this important bill.
When I visit an
intensified livestock operation, it reminds me of a Saturday night chiller
thriller movie, a Hitler-run
Truthfully, the animals are not asking for much. They just want at least once in their lifetime to feel the sunshine and the rain on their backs, to see the clouds roll by, to have Mother Earth touch their feet and their spirit. For this not to happen on their last day of their life on their way to the slaughter house, is this really too much to ask for? Is this not so different as what we would want for ourselves, our children, our pets, and how our own forefathers would have fed the world and put meat on the table in the very first place?
To have such blatant
disrespect and abusive ILO practices from production to market coming out of the
heart of the continent,
On behalf of the people and the environment, I applaud all those who have spent countless hours and dedication to this bill and our nation's agricultural future. In order to make any of this sustainable, co-operation and harmony of all the elements and participants needs to take place which is not quite where Bill 33 is yet.
As an animal whisperer and speaking on behalf of the animals kept in these intensified livestock operations, if we do not immediately start to give them some respect, dignity, freedom and sunshine, they shall start to mass destruct not only locally, but nationally as well, just like the cows with the mad cow disease, the avian flu and all the other plagues that are on their way.
The genetic composition
of a hog is so thin that a pig can barely be called a pig. In the R.M. of
Ritchot, some of the ILOs will not even personally eat their drug-ridden,
genetically altered hogs. They keep separate hogs farmed the old fashion way
for their own consumption. Why, we might ask? They state that they have to
scour the countryside these days to find that old-fashioned farmer to find a
line of pigs that still is really a pig in order to keep up the market
production demands.
Personally, I believe we
have pushed the system about as hard as they can go. A double shift in
Perhaps Manitobans, Winnipeggers, politicians and CEOs are not aware of the thin lines that all this is attempting to balance while making a profit. Perhaps that is why so little real sustainable planning and action has taken place other than the current destructive cycles of mass production of animals for profit with uncontrollable waste, water, environmental and animal mismanagement and disrespect.
It saddens our hearts and
the hearts of our children to see that we have not learned here in
Bill 33 can help restore this balance if given the appropriate time frame to have all aspects of the chain working together in harmony. We need a clear vision of where sustainable agriculture practices are going in this province and in this nation. We are proud, intelligent, earth-connected people, who need to remember and implement what our ancestors taught us and use a little bit of common sense and appreciation of our diversity and co-existing both morally and physically in our ecosystems of modern-day demands on our natural resources.
Common sense needs to be
utilized for the R.M. of Ritchot alone, for there are over 30 ILOs within one
mile of the
On behalf of the animals,
the ecosystem, mothers and children in
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Courcelles, for your presentation here this evening.
Questions of the presenter?
Mr. Maguire: I noticed that in your early comments you felt that we should be looking at local R.M.s, industry in cities, cottages, residential owners. So you have included everyone in the gamut of looking after the nature that we need to and, I guess, as you went further through your presentation, I see that it is obviously mostly directed at, I think, farming, agriculture, in that area. Given the other areas of waste and that sort of thing that are used, I wondered what other recommendations you could see in Bill 33 that might, as you say in your last comments, would improve that bill.
Ms. Courcelles: What other recommendations for Bill 33? I guess what I am saying with Bill 33 that it is not, perhaps, working harmoniously enough with all those other departments that I had stated, that one hand seems to be kind of on a bit of a page, and then the next department is just starting up that page, and the other department is closing the page. All of this is becoming just–even tonight we hear this with The Water Protection Act, et cetera, so I guess I am just not satisfied as a mother that Bill 33 really is taking into account all those positions, that I just do not think it is really ready to be a full bill yet.
Mr. Smith: I do appreciate your views in your presentation here tonight. Thank you for it. We have heard from some of the other presenters here this evening that reducing the mandatory conditional use hearing from 400 to 300 animal units might be tipping the scales too far in one direction. Do you feel that that is tipping it in a direction that is too forward? Do you believe that it should go further than that? Obviously, the conditional hearings prior were 400. Now the conditional-use hearings are now 300. What are your views on the conditional use hearings? Is there an animal unit that you would suggest?
Ms. Courcelles: Personally, I do not have a problem with the higher units if the respect is given to the animals. It is the conditions that they are kept in, and I am not, certainly, talking about the cattle industry because, for the most part, those animals are outside. It would be the hogs, in particular, and specifically, I guess, the University of Manitoba research station which is being currently funded by all levels of government and internationally, based right on the Red River.
* (21:40)
They can have higher numbers if they give them some turn-out time. That is the biggest thing. It is dignity that is being removed from our animals, and I just do not know how we can teach our children that this is okay. I mean you cannot drive in the country and see animals on farms anymore. They do not exist. They are in all these ILOs, and they are prisons.
Mr. Chairperson: Any other questions of this presenter?
Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Courcelles, for your presentation.
Ms. Courcelles: Thank you.
Point of Order
Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Driedger, on a point of order.
Mrs. Driedger: I would like to ask the Chairman if there is any opportunity to
canvass the room and find out how many people might be here from a two-hour and
beyond drive. By lumping all these bills together, I think what you have
created here is some serious inconvenience in travel time for a lot of people.
I wonder if we could mix up, even if they are from Bill 48. I know that there
are five people here, I understand, from
Mr. Chairperson: There is no point of order, Mrs. Driedger, but it is a good point you raise, nevertheless.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Perhaps for the convenience of the public who are here with us this
evening, if members of the public could indicate if they are a considerable
distance away from the city of
If the committee will indulge us for a brief moment here till we gather this information. Ms. Irvin-Ross did you have a question?
Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (
Mr. Chairperson: All right, perhaps we will deal with that now then.
Committee Substitution
Ms. Irvin-Ross: Mr. Chairperson, with the unanimous consent of the committee, I would like to make the following membership substitutions, effective immediately, for the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs: the Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger).
Mr. Chairperson: Is there unanimous consent of the committee to allow the substitution of the Member for Burrows for the Member for St. Boniface? [Agreed] Thank you.
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: Perhaps while we are canvassing the audience, the Clerk will speak to the individuals, and if we can have one more presenter to allow that canvassing to occur. Perhaps we can call Carol Clegg, private citizen, forward to make a presentation. Then we will gather the rest of the information for the committee members, and we will make a determination at that time. Is that agreed? [Agreed] Thank you.
Is Carol Clegg here this evening, please? Would you please come forward. I hope I have pronounced your name correctly.
Ms. Carol Clegg (Private Citizen): Yes.
Mr. Chairperson: Do you have a presentation for committee?
Ms. Clegg: Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. You may proceed when you are ready.
Ms. Clegg: Mr. Chairman, members of committee and long-suffering members of
the audience, when Bill 40 died after a storm of protest from rural
A few of us cut to the
heart of the bill and discovered that with one exception, the sections which
deeply concerned us had been incorporated into the new Planning Act. Our
elected representatives sit smugly in
The municipal and planning acts endowed our rural councils with power to govern for the common good of the citizens of the municipality. Sections of the new act will usurp that authority and replace it with ministerial decree. Councils are ordered to prepare development plans with livestock policies. A council in consultation with citizens may draft a plan which it believes meets the needs and objectives of the municipality. Bill 33 gives the minister the right to inject his own measures into the plan or toss it out completely. He or she is no longer obliged to send it to the Municipal Board for review, but council will be prohibited from giving third reading to a plan rejected by the minister. Clause by clause, this bill chips away at rural democracy.
The Technical Review Committee appointed by the minister has the last word on environmental health and safety aspects of a livestock operation application. The council can only impose conditions recommended by this committee. The act gives no terms of reference for the TRC to follow in producing a report. There is no public input into the process. In our experience, technical reports have been grossly misinformed about the environs of a proposed LO. Review committees seldom venture out into the field. They tend to sit in urban offices writing reports based on information provided by the proponent.
In its required designations of agricultural areas within the livestock operation policy, Bill 33 is an improvement over Bill 40. The R.M. may now include areas where any size of operation is allowed, areas with restricted size of operation and areas with no livestock. At least this puts the small farmer back into the picture, cite section 42(2). The new act appears to give the R.M. control over siting and setbacks, however it has been our experience that land use planners are very adept at the art of bamboozling councils. They badger and threaten until council agrees to use the minimal setbacks in the farm practices guidelines when council would really prefer to take the initiative and establish more stringent setbacks from neighbouring property and water courses. Then our planners toddle back to the city to escape from the aroma of lagoons.
In a recent review of its
development plan, the R.M. of Lac du Bonnet decided to place a half-mile
limited agriculture buffer along the
The attempt to remove the conditional use provision for LOs crashed Bill 40. As a gesture of appeasement, the conditional use process has been restored, but the options for applying conditions to LOs have been severely restricted. The conditional use hearing will be a sham. Sections 107(1) and 116(2) are the proof.
Let me quote a little from these sections. "Concerning small livestock operations, only the following conditions may be imposed on the approval of a conditional use for livestock operation involving fewer than 300 animal units. Measures to ensure conformity with the applicable provisions of a development plan by-law, zoning by-law and any secondary plan by-law, one or both of the following measures intended to reduce odours from a livestock operation requiring covers on manure storage facilities and requiring shelter belts."
* (21:50)
The same conditions apply to large livestock operations, and one other condition, measures to implement recommendations by the Technical Review Committee. Now what could possibly transpire at one of these so called hearings? There is not much point to a public discussion of the technical review if council is powerless to deal with its inadequacies. The development plan is written in stone so there is no use discussing it. Manure handling and storage are out of council's realm so why spend time talking about that. The hearing will be a process devoid of purpose.
Section 116(3) states: "No conditions may be imposed respecting the storage, application, transport or use of manure from a livestock operation that is the subject of an application under this division other than a condition permitted under clause 2(c)."
This particular section
hands the factory farms a license to pollute. Factory hog farms all use liquid
manure handling systems. It is the cheapest way to dispose of manure. It is
also the most environmentally devastating. Millions of gallons of clean water
are drawn daily from
This legislation will
entrench open pit hog sewage lagoons into the law of
City residents are guaranteed clean water. We depend on our wells and rivers for drinking water. The farm practices guidelines, which will be the ultimate authority for manure management, allow lagoons to be situated 100 metres from a well or watercourse. Manure can be spread much closer. What right does our government have to guarantee industrial agriculture the right to pollute our water?
The notwithstanding
clause, section 187(2), deals the fatal blow to democracy in rural
Emissions from factory
hog barns and lagoons are a known health hazard. With this legislation, the
government is knowingly endangering the health of rural citizens for the
greater good of a few investors in the hog industry. As I see it, changes in
land use planning related to agriculture have one intent, to smooth the way for
factory hog farms to locate in rural municipalities. Why is our government so
determined to saturate rural
Rural residents all know that livestock is part of the agricultural economy. We are prepared to live with our neighbours' animals. To enable us to live in harmony with nature and our neighbours, we want the power, via livestock operation policies and zoning by-laws, to set out very specific and stringent conditions under which LOs may exist. If industrial agriculture is here to stay, then industry standards must be written into the by-laws of our R.M.s. Councils must remain in full control of the conditional use process. We demand the right to dictate how these operations deal with manure. After all, if we do not get it right, we are the ones who will have to live with the stench of pig shit.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Clegg, for your presentation this evening. Before I proceed to questions, I must advise the public who is here with us this evening, there is to be no participation in the activities of this committee, please. That includes applause.
Mr. Penner: I truly appreciate your presentation. I reflect on some of the
statements you make, and I will not name them, specifically the one term you
used in your second last paragraph describing the excrement of animals. I want
to ask you this, however. There are some very stringent rules in how to deal
with manure in the
Ms. Clegg: How we handle–
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, I have to recognize you for the purposes of the recording. Ms. Clegg?
Ms. Clegg: Do I know about the process of dealing with human sewage? I know that small towns have lagoons, and lagoons are licensed to dump their second lagoon cell into the drainage ditch which eventually runs into the river. Yes, that is what I know about human sewage.
Are you trying to say that, you know, to justify what we do with human sewage as opposed to what we do with hog sewage, or are you trying to make me say one is as bad as the other? I am not quite sure of the point of your question.
Mr. Penner: Well, thank you very much. The point of the question is this. I received a letter from an Aboriginal community in northern Manitoba yesterday which indicated that they were being forced to dump their sewage into the lake and draw the water that they drink out of the same lake, just a bit downstream from where their community was.
Secondly, I live along
the Red River, and we take all our drinking water out of the
Ms. Clegg: Absolutely not. There is no justification for either of us dumping our sewage into the river. Open-pit sewage lagoons, that is the big bugbear with ILOs, is open-pit manure storage. It is a colossal waste of clean water. It is just unbelievable the amount of contamination of that clean water that goes on with this manure storage system. There are other manure handling systems available. There is also manure treatment. We do not have to use open-pit storage lagoons. But, as I see it, this legislation is allowing it because the Province will be in control of manure storage, and the Province has all along sanctioned open-pit manure storage lagoons.
* (22:00)
Mr. Gerrard: You made a pretty strong point about the role of the minister early on. I think that what you were trying to say is that, you know, the council's decision should not be interfered with to the extent that it is proposed in this legislation, in terms of the minister dictating decisions to the council. Is that correct?
Ms. Clegg: Yes, it is. I believe the minister can reject, not reject a development plan outright, does not have to send it to the Municipal Board for review. It seems like the Municipal Board is pretty much out of the picture in this legislation. It is ministerial control.
Mr. Smith: Thank you very much, Mrs. Clegg, for a thoughtful presentation and bringing some of your concerns certainly to this table for consideration. The Planning Act, I believe, does address many of the issues that you have mentioned, maybe not to the extent that you would like to see, but in terms of environmental protection. It was a substantial difference from what it was prior. The water quality management zones certainly will prevent manure spreading and storage from water courses and sensitive lands, and certainly where lands are of a sensitive nature. I know that the incorporation of The Water Protection Act in the regulations for up front planning being mandatory in this act will go a long way to, what some term as go and no-go zones, and is certainly a better tool for consideration on planning within different areas that are sensitive.
The question I have asked others, and you did not get into in your presentation, but I would like to ask you is that the reduction from 400 animals units to 300 animal units, do you feel that that is appropriate for conditional use, or do you believe that number, as the previous person had said, maybe 400 or higher, or do you believe 300 is an area that we should have mandatory conditional use hearings?
Ms. Clegg: Well, having lived beside an intensive livestock operation, I would prefer the number to be even lower. I believe some of our rural municipalities have considered the number 200.
Mr. Chairperson: Minister Smith, one short question.
Mr. Smith: Just one short question, just for clarification. Certainly, local municipalities, I know some have asked for written decision when the municipality, for one reason or another, turns down a development plan, or certainly a livestock operation within an area, but it certainly does remain the autonomous decision of a local jurisdiction, municipality. I know on your front page or your first page, you described that is still in the act and it appears to be in the act. Well, it is in the act, and that land use planners bamboozle councils; unfortunately, I cannot do anything about that, but certainly the autonomy for the final decision is left with the local jurisdiction and that is the council of the area.
Ms. Clegg: You are talking about siting as siting and setbacks, of course. That is what you are talking about, I presume. So I am then taking you at your word that councils will be in total control of siting and setbacks and there will be no interference by the provincial planners who really like the farm practices regulations. They do not want anything more stringent than that.
Mr. Smith: Mrs. Clegg, just for clarification, it is not just for siting setbacks, it is for any reason that they decide not to approve intensive livestock operation within their jurisdiction. They still have final approval of that irregardless of whether or not all regulations are met. Provincial regulations, municipal regulations, federal regulations and others, they still have the autonomy irregardless of what the reasoning is to deny that application. They have that.
Mr. Chairperson: Final word to you, Mrs. Clegg.
Ms. Clegg: Yes, they do. There is just one final word. I really would like to see local councils in charge of manure, though. That is where their power has been severely eroded. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mrs. Clegg, for your presentation here this evening.
For the information of
committee members, we have identified a number of folks who are from
considerable distance, and with the will of the committee, I would like to
proceed through the list for those folks who have come to
Leon Clegg. Mr. Clegg, are you with us this evening?
Mr. Leon Clegg (Private Citizen): Yes.
Mr. Chairperson: Please come forward, sir. Good evening, sir. Do you have a written presentation?
Mr. Clegg: Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairperson: Do you have copies for the committee?
Mr. Clegg: I will distribute them.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed when you are ready, Mr. Clegg.
Mr. Clegg: Okay. Before I start on my official presentation, I would like to say that I have been adversely affected by intensive livestock operations. I feel that in the past people such as myself have not had much input into any of the regulations regarding these livestock operations, and the government needs to give equal time to rural residents regarding intensive livestock operations.
Now, I will start on my official presentation. When I sat down to read Bill 33, The Planning Act, I began to think about the statement of the principles of the NDP and how this bill contradicts almost all of these principles with regard to intensive livestock operations, I might say.
Principle 1 states: "Our society must change from one based on competition to one based on co-operation." Why, then, was there no public consultation prior to drafting Bill 33?
Principle 3 states: "We believe present human endeavours must be environmentally sound in order to ensure that future generations may have access to an abundant and diverse biosphere." Once areas where intensive livestock operations may be located are put in the development plan, there will be little local control over the siting of large hog sewage lagoons or the spreading of manure. Again, local control will be lost, and there will be no local remedial action taken against ILOs if it adversely affects the environment or local residents' quality of life.
A municipality should have some control of what types of manure management will be permitted in their district. They should certainly have the right to decide whether to allow or disallow hog lagoons, which are environmentally damaging and are the cause of so much conflict within municipalities.
If the objective of this
legislation is to allow unfettered expansion of the hog industry, even more
clean water will be contaminated and loaded with nutrients.
Principle 5 states: "Our purpose as a movement is to foster social change towards a more cooperative society. Our purpose as a political party is to develop a public mandate for social change through giving individuals greater control in the economy, their workplace, and their community."
This act certainly removes some of the control of the individual and the local community since once areas are set aside where ILOs may be permitted, the Technical Review Committee will then have more say about the suitability of an ILO than the local residents or the council of that municipality. Also, the minister has the final say on the development plan. He does not even have to send it to the Municipal Board for their recommendations and may amend it as he sees fit.
I feel that if Bill 33 is adopted, local control over the expansion of ILOs will be lost forever, and the proliferation of these hog factories will proceed. Then, NDP principles 4 and 6 will also have been broken.
* (22:10)
Principle 4: "Our commitment to the electorate is to be forthright about our long-range goals." What are the long-range goals of the NDP government as regards the hog industry?
Principle 6: "Our actions and words must reflect our fundamental faith in the capacity of people to live co-operatively and to work for the betterment of all." The expansion of the hog industry has ripped communities apart and has fostered bad feelings between neighbours. Bill 33, with regard to the livestock operations, goes against many of the principles of the NDP. I urge you to adopt the NDP principles, not Bill 33.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Clegg, for your presentation here this evening. Questions of the presenter?
Mr. Gerrard: I have a strong sense that you feel that your recommendation should go where there is a need, to the Municipal Board, instead of that being bypassed.
Mr. Clegg: Even further, I think, to the municipalities rather than Municipal Board, because I think they have more sense of what the people in the community are feeling, so I think rather go to the municipality, rather than the board, even.
Mr. Penner: Certainly, again, I appreciate your presentation. I think this clearly demonstrates where the NDP party has gone with its policy and I refer to, in a similar manner, to the party's direction in gambling, casinos. It is a very similar change in policy that they have made since they became a part of government.
Whether one is in support of livestock production or not, it is the process of policy development and the policies of the party that you have questioned here. I believe what they portrayed prior to the election, before they were elected and the product that you got after they were elected is an entirely different product. I think the process of development of the policy, such as The Planning Act and The Water Protection Act are a very similar process, the public process that they so highly held as one of their models, is gone. It did not happen, and I ask you what sort of a process should they be using to ensure that the public be heard.
Mr. Clegg: I do believe in the principles of the NDP, sir, but I must say that I think, in regard to this bill, they have forgotten some of those principles, and I wish they would go back to the original principles of the party. That is my feeling.
Regarding the water act, I think it is a good piece of legislation and I like that part. I do not have too many complaints there. I want to see the protection of the water in this province, and I think it will help do that.
Mr. Smith: I would like to thank you, Mr. Clegg, for your presentation. As we have seen tonight, there are certainly contrary views on the direction we should go on development and the amount of development we should have and what we should be considering in that development. Certainly, this Planning Act does believe in the principles of strengthening the environmental protection while looking at the balance of science through The Water Protection Act and many other tools within that. We will look at go- and no-go-zones through mapping and other tools.
Certainly, we have heard from other folks that believe we have gone too far regarding this and we impede development of, not only agriculture, but certainly in development of any development within the province. You have contrary views on that and I appreciate your views, and I thank you for making a presentation.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Any comments?
Mr. Clegg: No, I just feel a strong sense of protecting the water in this province and the rural residents. I think that often our voice has not been heard and people at the Legislature have heard more of the industry and have not taken into account the rural residents. I know there is always conflicts and we can live with regular farmers, but when it comes to these huge, huge ILOs, you know, they are bad news, I think.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Clegg, for your presentation this evening. Good evening.
Committee Substitution
Mr. Chairperson: Mrs. Driedger, with a committee substitution.
Mrs. Driedger: With unanimous consent of the committee, I would like to make the
following membership substitutions effective immediately for the Standing
Committee on Legislative Affairs. Mr. Loewen,
Mr. Chairperson: Is their unanimous consent of the committee to substitute Mr. Loewen for Mr. Eichler? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Chairperson: For the information of the members of the public who are here with us this evening, we have three considerable distance out-of-town presenters on this Bill 33: Al Rogosin, Alan Baron and Ruth Pryzner, whom we will be calling next before we proceed to the next bill, Bill 48. Yes, sir?
Mr. Al Rogosin (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairman, I am Al Rogosin, and there is no way I am going to drive back tonight. I am willing to let my turn go, and I will be here tomorrow.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that. Then, perhaps, for the information of the folks that are with us, I should read the names of the folks who have come considerable distance for Bill 48 and others that may wish to remain may do so and those that wish to leave, their names will remain on the list for tomorrow.
We have from Brandon, Ray Sitter. We have Ray Derksen, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents. We have Pat Bowslaugh. We have Gord Henderson, James Penner, Jean Todd, Margaret Warrian, and Laurena Leskiw, in addition to Deanna Dolff, Fred Cole and Doug Kinney. Those are the names that I have listed that have come considerable distance that I would ask the committee members to approve calling in that sequence.
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Chair, I have been approached by some of the urban members of the audience. They are content with hearing rural members first, but they want to know that after 12, if they have left, in order to get back here in the morning, that their names will still be on the list in the morning. They want assurances of that.
Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee that the names will remain on the list for tomorrow morning for those folks that may wish to leave this evening? [Agreed]
Then the members can use that information to whatever purpose they need.
We will call Alan Baron, private citizen. Mr. Baron, please come forward, sir.
Good evening. Thank you for your patience. Do you have a written presentation for committee members?
Mr. Alan Baron (Private Citizen): Mr. Chairman, committee members, I thank you for—
Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed, Mr. Baron, when you are ready.
Mr. Baron: Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to speak to you tonight. I am going to be very brief and, unless you have lots of questions, it will go quick.
My interest in this topic is more the nutrient management side of intensive livestock operations and that comes from being a farmer most of my years. I played an active role in nutrient management on my farm, but I also suffered the unfortunate happening of having the ground water under my farm contaminated by a leaky lagoon. It was not handled at all well by government officials, so let us just say you woke me up.
I have been paying
attention to environmental issues and this is one I am paying very much
attention to. I knew from the start that the manure management that was put in
place would never work. You are always going to be overfertilizing. Nothing has
changed since 1990 and '94 when the first guideline got put together. So what I
have to say is unless there is relevant and realistic amendments made to the
* (22:20)
Who are the stakeholders that were consulted to draft this legislation? There were some questions asked of people tonight and they were not directly involved, so I wonder who was. I was not. For too many years, I have encountered supporters of the ILO industry who are either uninformed or they are playing dumb. Unfortunately, many well-educated, professional people fall into the latter category.
The credible criticism
that I am submitting today was received by the southwest regional Technical
Review Committee in April of 2000,
and shortly after that by the
Since then, it has caused some strange phenomena, including malfunctioning of fax machines at Manitoba Pork, urgent unplanned meetings to be attended by the Deputy Agriculture Minister and, more recently, has vanished in no less than four Cabinet ministers' offices. It is gone. Denying reality is one thing, but creating legislation to protect professional incompetence or arrogance is another issue which can be dealt with if necessary.
What I have submitted here is a copy of the conditional use presentation I presented in February of '02, including the text and supporting documents which were sourced from Manitoba Agriculture, and I have only included two but I thought I had three, but in my rush to get here I missed one or duplicated one, the surplus nutrients that will accumulate if you use the guideline, and it is calculated by using long-term average yields and crop insurance risk areas. I have been able to do this in three risk areas and use the long-term average yields, how many nutrients they will use, what is going to be left over when you use the guideline application rates.
Another is a newspaper article. It was published in the Neepawa Banner of this year, and it is a simple version of what happens when you follow the guideline using the alfalfa as a crop as an example. It is bizarre when you start doing the calculations.
So we have got to start talking realistically about manure management, and not only hogs, cattle. Any manure, if you use it continuously on farmland, is going to create a surplus, guaranteed, no matter what farm organization or farmer tries to tell you. If you use manure, solely, as a fertilizer source, you will create surpluses, because the animals remove it in different proportions than what the crop requirements are. Animals remove it and convert it to protein or meat and out in equal portions.
For you people who received, if you go to page 8, just to point out, in case you throw it away again, the average nutrient content of hog manure is 27.3 and 18.6 for phosphorus. So you divide 9 into 27, it is 3; 9 into 18 is 2. That is a 3 to 2 ratio. Okay. Now you go to page 11. If you look down the right hand column there is an N:P205 ratio for all the listed crops. If you find a crop there that has a 3:2 ratio you may yell bingo. Mmm. Silence.
So that is all I have to say. If you got any questions, I will be glad to try and answer them.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Baron, for your presentation. Questions of the presenter?
Thank you, Mr. Baron, for your presentation this evening.
Mr. Baron: Thank you for the usual silence.
Mr. Chairperson: I hesitate to remind the members of the public who are here with us this evening that our rules are quite clear. In this Chair. I know, members of the committee encourage me to cut some slack here, but I must encourage you, please, do not participate in the proceedings of the committee unless you are one of the presenters. I ask your consideration.
The next presenter we have from a considerable distance is Ruth Pryzner. I hope I have pronounced the last name? Good evening. You have copies of your presentation?
Ms. Ruth Pryzner (Private Citizen): Yes.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Could you wait a few moments until we distribute?
Ms. Pryzner: Sure.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed when you are ready.
Ms. Pryzner: Before I start my presentation, I would just like to express to the committee on behalf of some people who live in my area the fact that they are quite disconcerted that the government did not choose to hold these committee hearings out in rural areas so that people who are busy farming, who are facing some disaster situations, et cetera, would have the opportunity to be here, because I know of at least five people from my area who would have come and presented had the committees been more accessible.
Having said that, as I read through Bill 33, I was struck by how similar many of its components are to Bill 40. I guess that this government promised that. As you may recall, Bill 40 was met with massive opposition by citizens across the province. The promise was to address the problem and eliminate the controversy over the assault on the nature and viability of rural communities from industrial food production systems, more commonly known as ILOs, by engaging communities in "up-front planning" and providing certainty and predictability for ILOs by providing siting and zoning up front.
I was reading the document, "A Review of Manitoba's Land Use Planning Law," a law discussion paper, and noticed some interesting statements. Land use planning allows us to better manage our land and resources in order to promote a healthy environment, build sustainable communities and sustain a strong economy. It also helps each community set goals on how it will grow and provides a way to engage citizens in the decision-making process.
More specifically, planning guides land use change in a way that fosters physical, environmental, economic, cultural and social well-being consistent with provincial and local objectives, protects, conserves and manages the environment and resources for the benefit of present and future generations, provides for planning processes that are fair, inclusive, accessible, accountable, transparent and timely and finally, facilitates co-operation and co-ordination among various interests.
The objectives of the review done by this government include balancing provincial and local interests, developing legislation that is enabling and flexible while providing for open-end, accountable decision making in processes that are integrated and consistent.
"Good planning law helps to ensure that the environment is protected and development does not jeopardize human health, safety and well being."
Bill 33, like Bill 40, fails to meet these objectives. I will deal with these and other principles that must guide and be reflected in decent planning legislation in turn and identify where Bill 33 falls short of this.
An operative principle of any meaningful planning legislation must be that citizen participation is valued and incorporated in a substantive way, as opposed to a formal way. In order to ensure the public citizen participation is meaningful and the will of community citizens is incorporated into development plans, zoning by-laws, livestock operation policies and conditional use hearing permits, a number of changes to Bill 33 are required.
First, an addition to section 4, I would call it 4(4), is needed to ensure that at a minimum, there is public consultation, preferably a public hearing, on the development of provincial land use policies because these policies are the foundation for all development plans and land use by-laws across the province. Public participation is absolutely necessary in their creation. Because 9(a) requires that reviews of development plans must generally conform to a regional strategy if adopted, public hearings must be required for the creation of regional strategies, not just the minister.
* (22:30)
Citizens and municipal councils, planning district boards should be able to trigger the process of creating special planning areas and be involved in defining what areas have special provincial or regional significance, in addition to just the Cabinet being able to do so.
In addition, special planning area regulations, designations and applications must be subject to public input, again, preferably by way of public hearings. This should not be left solely to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to decide.
In section 19(1), planning district boards must include citizen representation on the board itself, in addition to municipal councillors selected by citizens themselves, based on the expertise they can bring to the board. The structure of the board should be functional and include representation of various types of considerations that will be before the board, such as environmental, water quality, agriculture, residential, et cetera. Bill 33 does not provide for this.
In section 21(1), it must include minimum requirements for the conduct of meetings and hearings, including rules of procedures to ensure that there is some level of consistency and fairness that citizens can expect across the province in the conduct of meetings and hearings.
In 32(1)(b), again, I would suggest that minimum requirements for the rules of practice and procedure for the commission, as well as public hearings, must be incorporated into the duties of planning commissions.
I would delete section 32(2)(a) that it may consist entirely of members of the board or council. I think the principle is to broaden the participation of people on those commissions.
A section also must be added to ensure that members of planning commissions are subject to the municipal conflict-of-interest legislation, but I would also note here that the municipal conflict-of-interest legislation is sorely lacking and full of loopholes when we start talking about development and conditional use hearing permits.
Public participation in the development plan creation process may become and can possibly be rendered meaningless for the following reasons. Section 48(c) provides the opportunity for any person who made a representation at the hearing on a development plan by-law to file an objection, setting out the reasons for the objection to the minister, who then is empowered to refer the objection to the Municipal Board. This provides the minister with too much authority; 48(c) must be changed to provide for such objections to be filed directly to the Municipal Board for adjudication. This will serve to reduce the amount of political influence that the minister has in the creation of development plans.
Mr. Chair, 50(1) must be changed to require the minister to refer such objections to the Municipal Board instead of "may." Similarly, 51(1) must be changed to eliminate the minister's discretion in being able to treat Municipal Board decisions as mere recommendations. As the section now reads, the minister may override the findings of the Municipal Board, and through this, the essence of the objection if the Municipal Board finds merit in the objection.
Because section 201 requires all municipalities or districts to adopt a development plan and/or a livestock operation policy by 2008, the minister is effectively provided with a veto over all development plans in the province.
While section 55 provides boards or councils with the ability to reject ministerial requirements by refusing to give third reading to a development plan by-law, that is council saying no, we do not like what you have to say, Mr. Minister, section 60 and 61(1), 61(2) and 61(3), the minister has the authority to create and approve a development plan through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the local jurisdiction without even a public hearing.
Section 60 and 61(1) to 61(3) are clearly anti-democratic, and Bill 33 must be amended to remove these clauses. Meaningful planning cannot be forced upon local jurisdictions and people in this manner. It must be created through co-operation and true negotiations within a spirit of good faith by all involved.
Taken together, these sections provide the minister with authority far in excess of what can be reasonably allowed in a purportedly democratic society.
Section 42(2), in the livestock operation policy, there are regressive restrictions on the components of a livestock operation policy required in 42(2) that are imposed by sections 187(1) and 187(2). If a council cannot impose further restrictions on size or location of livestock operations, subject to conditional use, nor use The Municipal Act or zoning by-law to regulate nuisance odours or prohibit or regulate the storage application or use of manure, it does not apply to a livestock operation if the owner or operator is complying with all other acts and regulations in terms of any permit or conditions.
The question is how will the public be protected from such non-compliance. The importance of this question is underlined by the change in the enforcement provisions of section 80 of the current Planning Act. Section 180 of Bill 33 removes the ability for an elector to take a private enforcement action to the Court of Queen's Bench. Citizens must then rely on the planning district or the municipality to make application to the court in order to enforce a by-law made under the act.
What happens when the district board or municipality will not do so and chooses not to enforce the by-law provision? Then, place this in context of the indemnification in section 192 where a member of a board, council or planning commission or any person are protected from anyone bringing action against them for anything not done or for any neglect, unless a person is acting in bad faith. But bad faith has not been defined either in The Municipal Act or the current Planning Act, nor in Bill 33. So, taken together, the effect of this is that people are denied the ability they currently have to participate in enforcement of applicable by-laws and decisions.
A crucial component of
democratic decision making that includes the principles of fairness,
inclusiveness, accessibility, accountability, transparency and timeliness is
ensuring that information necessary for citizens and decision makers to
participate in as fully informed a manner as possible and increase the
possibility for the outcome to be based on the best available information, is
readily available, authorities responsible for providing this information
clearly identified and the timelines for being able to access this information
clearly spelled out in the legislation. Bill 33 falls short of meeting these
principles.
As such, a number of
sections of the Bill require amending.
105 Upon receiving by
resolution an application for approval of a conditional use. . .
105 (c) Create new clause to read: immediately make the application, project proposal, and accompanying materials available for public inspection and copying at the office of the applicable planning district or municipality.
114 (3) . . . Technical Review Committee report and
the application, project proposal, and accompanying documents are available for
inspection and copying . . .
106 (1)(b) replace with existing 53(7) and 53(8):
53(7) On completion of the hearing and consideration
of the matter, council shall
(a) reject the
application; or
(b) approve the
application if the facts presented are such as to establish
(i) that the proposed use
or feature, at the size and intensity contemplated and at the proposed
location, will provide a development that is necessary or desirable for, and
compatible with, the neighbourhood, the community and the general environment;
and
(ii) that such use or
feature as proposed will not be detrimental to the health, safety, convenience,
or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or injurious
to property, improvements, or potential development in the vicinity, with
respect to aspects including but no limited to
(A) the nature of
the proposed site, including its size and shape, and the proposed size, shape,
and arrangement of structures,
(B) the
accessibility and traffic patterns for persons and vehicles, the type and
volume of such traffic, and the adequacy of proposed off-street parking and
loading,
(C) the safeguards
afforded to prevent noxious or offensive emissions such as noise, glare, dust,
and odour, and
(D) treatment given,
as appropriate, to such aspects as landscaping, screening, open spaces, parking
and loading areas, service areas, lighting and signs, and
(iii) that such use or
feature as proposed will comply with the applicable provisions of the zoning
by-law and the development plan.
Conditions of approval
53(8) When approving a conditional use as provided
herein, the council may prescribe such additional conditions, beyond those
specified in the zoning by-law and development plan, as are in its opinion
necessary to secure the objectives of the zoning by-law and development plan,
and the council may revoke the conditional use authorized for any violation of
any conditions imposed by it.
The existing conditional
use process is predicated on the principle that local people possess the most
intimate knowledge of local and site-specific conditions, and it is the people
within the local jurisdiction, after all, who will have to live with the
effects and bear the social, environmental and economic costs that result from
problematic development. Contrary to received opinion, the conditional use
process is an efficient planning tool.
One must keep in mind that
conditional uses are a privilege, not a right. To see this, one needs only to
consider the language of section 65 of Bill 33, where up-front planning and
zoning by-laws are clearly enabling and not prescriptive.
In fact, conditional uses
are a privilege earned when the applicant can demonstrate the requirements of
the existing 53(7), with the burden of proof clearly falling to the applicant.
This is as it should be. It
is the public who has the paramount right in the conditional use process, a
right that is consistent with the principle that development may proceed only
if it does not harm another. It is this principle which gives meaning to
decision making in the public interest, as opposed to decision making in the
special interest.
Governments, in my view,
have a mandate to develop legislation that serves the public interest. While
private interests comprise part of the public interest, the good of the public
must supersede the good of the private, particularly corporate, interests. At
times, these interests may not be mutually exclusive and the success of private
interests may provide some social benefit.
However, we are not talking
about ensuring the success of smaller (or even just family) farms in the
discussion about the need to change The Planning Act. What is being debated
here is the government's apparent need to create a planning and zoning
environment that is favourable to private, corporate interests at the expense
of the public interest and family farms who engage in agriculture as opposed to
industrial food production.
Why is it that we create
communities? We do so because we know that, collectively, we can improve the
lives of individuals within that community and we can achieve more together
than we can alone. Planning is about how we live and marshal resources for the
benefit of the members of our society as a whole and ensure that our collective
resources such as the ecosystem, water, land and air sustain life indefinitely.
Bill 33 is antithetical to these objectives.
The government has the
power to impose Bill 33 on the people of
What you do with this bill
upon completion of the committee hearing and legislative processes will signal
to all citizens in this province, which you have the privilege to govern, the
objective reality of what this government is all about and for whom it is in
service. I ask that you make the change that I and others have outlined to
ensure that the democratic process is not further subverted and eroded.
The alteration of the conditional use hearing process also is a failing of Bill 33. It does not go far enough. I would suggest that what the government do is replace 53(7) in the old Planning Act or leave it as it is, and also include 53(8) because the conditional use process is predicated on the principle that local people possess the most intimate knowledge of local and site-specific conditions. It is the people within the local jurisdiction, after all, who will have to live with the effects and bear the social, environmental and economic costs that result from problematic development.
The one other thing that I would really like to say is that we must keep in mind that conditional uses are a privilege, not a right. One needs only to consider the language of section 65 of Bill 33 where the up-front planning and zoning by-laws are enabling and not prescriptive. No municipality or jurisdiction has to implement any of the plan. I will just–just give me 30 seconds.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Pryzner. Maybe if it might assist you, perhaps with the approval of the committee, if we would include your entire presentation in the transcript proceedings of this committee, that might be helpful. Would you be agreeable to that?
Ms. Pryzner: Of course.
Mr. Chairperson: Committee members agree? [Agreed] Thank you.
That concludes the time for presentations, but we will move to questions of the presenter. Any questions of the presenter?
Mr. Maguire: Thank you, Ruth, for your presentation. I just wanted to touch base on a few issues. This bill does allow for hearings in regard to the public coming to make their concerns known in this whole process. I just wanted to know what your thoughts were around the reestablishment of conditional use hearings because, of course, that was not part of Bill 40. As you are aware, Bill 40 was killed, and as you have indicated, brought back mainly in this bill. But the use of conditional use hearings has been included, and I am wondering what your thoughts are on that.
Ms. Pryzner: I think that conditional use hearings are absolutely critical, and, in fact, they are actually one of the most efficient tools in the planning process. There is no way that in creating development plans, livestock operation policies and zoning by-laws, that an authority can deal with all contingencies. That is why we look at the site-specific conditions around siting a particular operation on a particular piece of land. That is why we need to have the people who have lived there all their lives who know the land, who know the area, involved in the process.
* (22:40)
It is also incumbent upon decision makers to hear people who live in the community, because they have the ability and the right to define what they want their community to look like. After all, a conditional use is something that is not granted, it is not given just by the very nature of the operation or the kind of development.
So I am glad that the government recognizes that certain types of livestock operations should be subject to conditional use. The problem is that the numbers game does not really cut it. It is the type of livestock operation that is more significant than the numbers. An extensive livestock operation, I know a sheep producer who had 1000 ewes and ranged them over a large area and never confined them. The impact that operation would have would be negligible compared to 1000 hogs or 1000 sheep or 1000 cattle in a very small area.
Mr. Smith: I would like to thank Ms. Pryzner for taking the time to travel a considerable distance. I know the disaster that is going on in her area right now, it certainly was probably hard on her part to leave. We had other presenters here tonight mention and you know we have changed the application on livestock operation applications from 400 to 300 animal units and hearings be done from one kilometre to three kilometres surrounding that. We had others mention tonight certainly that because of the newspaper advertising for the livestock operation applications, outside special interest groups will affect decisions in those areas.
Some have suggested that only people who live within those three kilometres should be able to make presentation at those hearings. What would your views on that be?
Ms. Pryzner: Well, first of all, I think reducing the trigger threshold to 300 animal units is appropriate. It is also appropriate to allow communities to further reduce that if they so choose, depending on the type of operation that is being proposed in the area. Using only the animal unit designation is going to create problems because people understand the difference between different types of livestock production, different types of manure and that kind of thing so just using animal units is not in and of itself sufficient.
Extending the notice requirements, I think they should be extended even further than that because the impacts, the historical impacts of some livestock operations particularly factory farms, have been felt much further than three kilometres. I think that this whole notion that people and members of the public who come from areas in other parts of the municipality, or it may be in an adjacent municipality, or somehow special interest groups, or outsiders and people who should not be involved in the process is ludicrous, if special interest groups are the applicants themselves.
The whole purpose of planning and the whole purpose of having hearings and having conditional uses is to protect the public interest. That is what our planning should focus on. Development, while it may help the public interest to a certain extent, it is not the public interest. You cannot equate it that way, so I think the more we can do to involve the public in these decisions, the better. This bill does not achieve that.
While you have public hearings and people involved in public hearings, you still have ultimately, the government still has final say on what the development plan is going to be, and has an enormous amount of influence in quote, "guiding" communities. When I was at the AMM convention–
Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Pryzner, your time has expired considerably. Thank you for your presentation this evening.
Next presenter is Fred Tait. Mr. Tait, if you are in the audience, sir, please come forward.
Good evening, sir. Do you have a written presentation? Proceed when you are ready, sir.
Mr. Fred Tait (Private
Citizen): Good evening, members of the committee.
It has been a long evening. As I sat through this evening, it is very
reflective that in every jurisdiction in
I would first of all like
to comment on the current government's sort of insensitivity to rural people.
If a government of the day was serious about consulting with rural people, then
it would have not scheduled this hearing with 48 hours of basic notice, in
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the minister from Arthur-Virden for his efforts to get these committee meetings moved outside of this city, and I would also like to thank, in his absence, Jon Gerrard, the Leader of the Liberal Party, for his same efforts in this.
In looking at this livestock issue, I have noticed that it is a very important tactic employed by the Government of Manitoba aimed at restricting public opposition to the further expansion of intensive livestock operation has been its refusal to distinguish between different types of livestock and livestock production systems. Any effort to equate a 300 cow-calf operation with a 1000 sow farrow-to-finish operation requires one to conveniently ignore the fact that the cow-calf payers will spend five or more months of each year on pasture, and while on pasture the manure from the cattle is dispersed over the same land area that provides the feed source. Cattle on pasture are not known to cause problems related to odour or the release of high concentrations of ammonia or hydrogen sulphide gases. Winter feeding of cattle is straw-based. They are also a natural barriers present that serve to restrict the size of cow-calf operations. The number of animals confined in intensive livestock liquid manure operations is often in the thousands and tends to concentrate production on the province's aquifers. The resulting concentration of manure often results in the release of unacceptable concentrations of ammonia and hydrogen sulphide.
The government refuses, in my opinion, to distinguish between the types of livestock production systems as related to the government's effort to widen the base of opposition to implementing effective control of the province's intensive livestock operations.
There has been discussion repeatedly tonight about the Technical Review Committees and their roles, in particular, their roles under the previous regime and also under proposed Bill 33. It is being alleged that the role of the Technical Review Committee is to provide members of municipal council with expert advice on the merits of, or to identify potential problems associated with a proposal to build an intensive livestock operation. The role of members of the Technical Review Committee is restricted to examining a proponent's application for compliance with provincial guidelines, regulation and municipal by-laws.
* (22:50)
Technical Review Committee members do not check a proponent's application for accuracy. If it does not check the application for accuracy, what purpose is it serving? You have to really understand that, the logic of having a government-appointed committee not check the application for accuracy. How are the needs of the environment and water protection act being served by a committee that does not check applications for accuracy? Based on my five years of experience gained from examining a number of Technical Review Committee reports, I strongly recommended the title of Technical Review Committee be replaced with the title of Provincial Intensive Livestock Protection and Promotion Committee.
Water stewardship. There has been a great deal of promotion about
The Water Protection Act. The Water Stewardship Minister has communicated to
the public that we, as a society, must now take strong action to protect the
province's water resources. He has quoted, in my presence, there are 1.1
million potential water pollution sources in
The words of the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton) are encouraging, and I commend him for expressing this verbal commitment to protect and improve the province's water resources. I would suggest to the Minister of Water Stewardship that it is important that before proceeding further, he focuses some of his attention on the actions of his fellow Cabinet ministers. It is important that he fully understands effects of their legislative and regulatory changes and the role they are playing in compromising his stated objectives.
If the Minister of Water
Stewardship is serious in his invitation to the 1.1 million residents of
The minister may want to consider the environmental consequences of a proposal by Manitoba Conservation to allow the application of manure-based elemental phosphorous in P205 equivalent amounts of 276 to 323 pounds per acre.
On the opposition side, there are some recognized farmers. Anybody that has farmed knows that probably the highest rate of phosphorous you can use with any crop in Manitoba is 50 pounds per acre in corn production, and so when one would get from a range of 276-823, one would think, as Al Burns said, what we have is the Minister of Conservation (Mr. Struthers) promoting and possibly in the future licensing a polluting practice. I do not know how this will conform with Mr. Ashton's objectives.
The minister will need to familiarize himself with the Manitoba plant removal by crops charts prior to asking the ministers of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) and Conservation if they are aware of the differences between the terms "nutrient management" and "waste disposal", because 276 pounds of P per acre is waste disposal. That is not nutrient management.
He will need to examine the role of Department of Agriculture staff in remapping the environmentally sensitive soils in the R.M. of Lorne from 70 percent of the total area down to 5 percent, and I have a little excerpt here from a letter from the Minister of Agriculture's staff out of the Carman office which, again, would bring Steve Ashton's initiative under some question, "Our department recommends that the agriculture capacity rating maps be used instead, as this rating system uses more soil and landscape factors in assessing soils, although factors to integrate the impact of runoff and leaching management and groundwater (aquifers) are not recognized in this system either, in a way that correlates with environmental risk assessment."
Now, the question here I have, "are these rogue elements in the Department of Agriculture in the Carman office, or is this a directive from the Minister of Agriculture's office?" If they are, in the first case, if it is rogue elements, they should be dismissed. If it is directly from the minister's office, again, there is a contradiction of policy directives within this caucus that should be examined and should be corrected.
The minister must also reject any effort to raise the allowable threshold of phosphorous in the province's surface water. If the minister fails in his efforts to convince his fellow caucus members of the need to protect the province's water, then there is little practical value being served by the continuing existence of his ministry. It may now be time for the Minister of Water Stewardship to find that little girl on that attractive TV ad, her face decorates that 12-point pamphlet and tell her, "I am so very sorry, but the majority of the members of my Cabinet have said no to water protection."
I believe I have come to a point late in the evening and on in my years, that I would have to ask the members, particularly of the opposition, what would you recommend that I and others like me that have spoken here tonight do to protect the environment of this province from the actions of this government? Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Tait, for your presentation this evening. Questions of the presenter?
Mr. Penner: Just one comment. Fred and I have known each other many years and we have debated from time to time. Fred, my answer to your last question is use scientific evidence. You asked what we would say, our proposition to the government is we would say use your scientific evidence.
Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Tait, do you wish to respond?
Mr. Tait: Yes, Mr. Chair, you are quite correct on that, Mr. Penner. You and I have disagreed at points over the years. I have always considered that was risk management because then there was no way we could both be wrong.
Floor comment: That is right.
Mr. Tait: If you look at the debate around the intensive livestock issue in the province, initially the opposition was emotional. Within a short period of time, it came rather, well, factually based. Then it became extremely well based in science, research and factual information.
It came to a point where people like Al Baron, Ruth Pryzner, Al Rogosin and others could go before any technical review team and totally destroy the credibility of their reports. The industry was putting forward proposals that were factually wrong, and perhaps wilfully so, and we out-scienced them, out-politicked them, out-debated them.
When we won the battle, they went to the Ministry of Agriculture and said we are losing the battle, you are going to have to protect us. A responsible minister would have said that I know those rural people; they are decent, hardworking people. If you got a problem, you had better go back and deal with them, but they did not do that. They took our power away, or are attempting to.
Mr. Penner: In all sincerity, we have constantly said to our American friends where we are dealing with the BSE crisis, we are totally in support of using or utilizing the scientific analysis and science to settle our differences, and yet, we do not do this in water.
When we look at the
Mr. Tait: Well, Jack, you do not put 276 pounds of . . . to the acre. If you wanted something based on science, you would not have the Technical Review Committee refuse to check the accuracy of an application. So the government is refusing to use science, we are prepared. We will win on a science-based argument. I know that. That is why we are faced with this bill is because we have won that battle.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
* (23:00)
Mr. Tait: There is an unknown here. Over the years, over the past five years, we have been able to expose some things that have happened. I, because of my background, was extremely committed to the restoration of single-desk selling when this government became elected and, as Leon Clegg pointed, there is a principle there, only to learn that the Premier (Mr. Doer) had made a personal promise to Michael McCain that there would be no restoration of single-desk selling in this province.
I am also aware that the
Crocus Fund diverted huge sums of money into
So one can speculate,
which is a dangerous occupation, perhaps, but the trend here is this bill is
serving someone's need other than the rural public's need. If you look at the
number of producers that are out there, the last time I looked at strong
statistics, there were 115 producers producing 82 percent of all
Mr. Smith: Thank you very much. I appreciate your presentation, Mr. Tait. Certainly, we have had many discussions as well over the years. I am not sure whether we have agreed or disagreed more than you have with Mr. Penner, but I appreciate your views and certainly your background.
Things have changed since 1975 when the bill was last actually brought into legislation. Over the period of 30 years, the bill has not been modernized or updated. The utilization and the balance of provincial and local interests, I believe, have been addressed considerably in the bill. Final decisions on a lot of the ILOs will be left with the local decision makers. Some agree with that. Others feel that the Province should not have that final decision done by local communities. I, in fact, believe it should be.
The member opposite, Mr. Penner, makes a suggestion to basing decisions on science. That certainly is something that I believe that you would agree with. It is something that should be part of the process through technical review committees just as one element, and many other information pieces coming forward to a local council and having full disclosure and public hearings on that disclosure. Certainly that is in there.
I believe, you mentioned quite a bit in your presentation regarding water stewardship, as Minister Ashton develops the water quality mapping zones, that will be included in The Planning Act as well, goes, and no-go zones, if you will, to give another tool to municipal officials and people within the area to address that.
But I think the key piece
and the key point that, although you did not address it in your presentation,
you mostly specified livestock operations and farming practices, where this
bill goes much beyond that. In fact, all development in the
Maybe we could go back and say that should have been done 30 years ago in '75, or 20 years ago in '85, and so on. But, certainly, that is what this bill promotes, is that process for all people in the municipalities, whether they be urban, residential, farming practice or other, to have that up-front planning. I believe that is what this bill does address, and I believe that is something that will be positive in moving ahead.
Mr. Tait: Thank you, Minister. You are correct that a lot of things have changed since 1975 when the bill was last amended. But there is something that has not changed and that should be the respect for democracy in the local communities. This bill is setting out to change that relationship and I resent that deeply.
Your reference to The Water Protection Act and how it is going to be worked into The Planning Act, the words are, "should be considered," and so, if you go ahead and do The Planning Act before you do the implementation of the regulation of The Water Protection Act, you know that The Water Protection Act then is going to conform to the already developed Planning Act.
So you have, in effect, the departments of Agriculture, Conservation, Intergovernmental Affairs establishing the terms of The Water Protection Act. That is why I say there may be some question of the usefulness of the continued existence of that ministry under these terms.
Mr. Chairperson: If there are no further questions, thank you, Mr. Tait, for your presentation this evening.
That concludes the last long-distance presenter for Bill 33.
Bill 48–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act
Mr. Chairperson: As previously agreed in the committee, we would proceed with out-of-town presenters on Bill 48, those that have travelled considerable distance.
The first individual I have, Bill 48, The Teachers Pensions' Amendment Act, is Ray Sitter.
Mr. Sitter, good evening, sir. Thank you for your patience. Do you have a copy of your presentation?
Mr. Ray Sitter (Private Citizen): Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairperson: You may proceed when you are ready, Mr. Sitter.
Mr. Sitter: Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the
Chair
First of all, I would like to thank the members of the opposition for raising the issue of accommodating people from far away. I am disappointed in the educational system that was unable to teach simple math to the organizers, unless of course–I apologize if all of the presenters called in late this afternoon and said, "We are coming." But, if it happened earlier that people were aware that there were going to be a large number of presenters, then I would think taking the number of presenters and multiplying it by 20 would come up with a reasonable expectation of how many bills you can look at tonight. Since we have three exceptionally important issues to deal with, I think that jumping from one to the other is really a poor way to really focus on what it is that you are talking about in any particular topic. My wife, she would talk about somebody having ill ability to organize a one-car parade.
Anyway, to get on with what I was going to say. I am here today to express my extreme disappointment and displeasure at the changes to the teachers' retirement pension act, represented by the amendment before the committee today. Last year, Bill 46 provided relief for a few retired teachers who could buy back maternity leave. The remainder of us got 0.5% increase in our cost of living. The bulk of the benefits in Bill 46 last year went to the treasury of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. This amounted to approximately $1.5-million worth of relief every year, not just last year. This has assisted in undercutting the viability of the teachers' pension fund.
This current bill is an
insult to each and every retired teacher in the province. It starts to address
the shortfall of pension funding by active teachers, but it gives retired
teachers absolutely nothing. This year, we will get approximately 0.4,
four-tenths of one percent, as a cost of living increase. I would like you to
contrast that with 9.9% increase that you as MLAs will receive this year. Contrast this
with the cost of living allowance increase received by retired teachers in
B.C.,
I understand all the arguments. The pension adjustment count gets a certain amount of funding, and that account is the one that pays the cost of living. There is only enough in the account to pay so much, or is it really so little? Blah, blah, blah, blah. We hear this all the time.
When money is needed, it seems to appear from somewhere. Government, you have to remember, set up the pension act. Government decided to defer their portion of their liability. Government set up the pension adjustment account in the act to provide inflation protection. Government made a commitment by that action to manage the fund in such a way as to provide a reasonable cost of living allowance for retired teachers. Would they create it to produce an unreasonable cost of living allowance? Obviously, that account has not been managed appropriately.
* (23:10)
Governments, as you well know, initiate amendments to acts. Fix it. All it takes is a political will and the guts to do it. Schreyer had the guts and he had the will. I do not see any political will in this amendment relating to retired teachers.
I understand the mentality behind this and the lack of political will. You believe retired teachers and other retired people are a burden, not an asset, to society. Give them a lot of platitudes. Give them, "I would like to thank you personally for your service as a teacher," and send them away. They believe retired people are too dumb to recognize crap when they step in it. Senile, over the hill, that is us.
I believe that governments do not recognize the contributions that seniors and retired people make to the economy of the communities in which they live. They buy goods and services. They are the heart and soul of almost all volunteer organizations in the communities where they live. Charities, if they had to pay for the services they receive from their senior volunteers, would not be nearly as healthy as they are now. If senior volunteers were removed, government would have to pick up the slack with dollars if the level of funding were to remain the same for services and research. Sporting events, curling, summer and winter games, local festivals, et cetera, which bring millions of dollars of revenue to the communities, would suffer dramatically if senior volunteers were not there. The list can go on. What I want to point out is that seniors are money multipliers in their communities, not a liability.
What do we want? We want
fairness. The Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) himself, at the NDP
convention in
I find it totally unacceptable that issues of active teachers have again been addressed and those of retired teachers have again been ignored. We are getting a very clear message.
Secondly, we want inflation protection. Throughout our careers, we have paid a portion of our pension premiums for inflation protection. Where is our cost of living allowance? Where is that protection?
Number 3, we want the problem fixed. The problem relating to COLA has been flagged by auditors for 15 years or more. The act governs our pension. Who is managing the act so as to provide reasonable results? Why has nothing been done? You knew there was a developing problem, or should have known. Remember the red flags? Yes, they were there 15 years ago, well longer, 1987. Who is responsible for those red flags and the inactivity that goes along with them? Fix it.
Number 4, we want consultation with respect to changes to the act and changes to cost of living allowance. It is clear that others have no interest in looking out for the concerns of retired teachers. We want Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba representation on all committees that relate to our pensions.
Number 5, we want respect, respect for who we are and what we do, and not only for what we did.
Let me give you my views on politics and government. Governments recognize only their political self-interest. The role of political parties is essentially to get elected. The role of the government is to stay in power. Everything in politics flows from that.
Let me give you some insights on teachers. Teachers, active and retired, generally have been prone to do their jobs and let Big Brother take care of them, whether Big Brother is the Manitoba Teachers' Society or the government. They have had that trust that Big Brother will do the right thing by them. The adage that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned–
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: One minute, sir.
Mr. Sitter: Thank you.
–also applies to teachers whose trust has been broken. I can tell you that I am amazed at the anger that is there when I point out to teachers, retired and active, what is happening to their pension and COLA, when I tell them about the muddling and fiddling and inactivity that has gone on that has cut up the value of their pension.
Teachers are people who have always had a strong dedication to causes when moved. Retired people do have time to organize. They do have time to push for changes. They do have time to talk to each other and to others, relatives, other seniors and other community people. Retired teachers have many community contacts. Check the numbers of teachers eligible to retire in the next few years and the number already retired. Remember the multiplier effect. We ask not to be ignored. Thank you.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you sir. Questions?
Mrs. Driedger: Thank you for your presentation. From the minister's comments in
Mr. Sitter: Whether it is going to be properly addressed or not as we saw it, not necessarily. What we were looking for and what we are looking for is full cost of living allowance. As we understood, that was an agreement, verbal, made in the past. However, we were expecting something better than 0.5 percent. We thought it should be, from the discussion, that it would be closer to 2.
Mrs. Driedger: And the discussion that was held on this, was it with a minister or was it with the Pension Task Force, or where did that number come from?
Mr. Sitter: It was at the NDP convention where we, Retired Teachers' Association, had a table, and we just approached the minister as he went by.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Thanks for your presentation again, Mr. Sitter. Indeed, it was a pleasure to talk to you at the convention, and certainly, I had advised you at the time that this was a matter that was before the teachers' Pension Task Force. Those negotiations have resulted in the bill that is presented at the table this evening. Again, I thank you for your presentation this evening.
Mr. Sitter: Thank you for hearing me and for your time.
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: I call Mr. Ray Derksen, Manitoba Association of School Superintendents. Sir, do you have a written presentation?
Mr. Ray Derksen (First
Vice-President,
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Clerk will distribute it. Begin when ready, sir.
Mr. Derksen: Thank you, Mr. Chair, committee. Manitoba Association of School
Superintendents wants to add its concern to that of the active and retired
teachers. We certainly acknowledge and we appreciate that the government has
taken a step in the right direction with Bill 48 in addressing the pension fund
deficit. The increase, however, in contributions fails to address the serious
long-term pension issues facing
The 1.1% increase in contributions and the corresponding smaller percentage that contribution will generate for COLA purposes will do nothing to reduce the current pension erosion, and leaves future pension adjustments less able than ever to maintain pension levels, past or present.
Just as serious will be the eventual undermining of confidence of current and future teachers in this province when they discover their pension plan is not what they expected from their many years of service. The 1977 establishment of the PAA, or Pension Adjustment Account to ensure a COLA was arrived at after negotiation and in the belief that it afforded a pension adjusted into the future. Teachers willingly increased contribution levels to allow this to occur and now are deprived of the benefit of that increased contribution.
Despite the warnings of the TRAF board actuary in 1987 and in every evaluation since, the depletion of the PAA has until now gone unaddressed by the various provincial governments in power. Since 1999, the ability of the PAA to support an annual COLA has steadily declined, and if Bill 48 is considered a response to this situation, it falls short, as the PAA will continue to decline, with the very real possibility that it will shortly be unable to support a COLA at all.
Sufficient funds needed to be added directly to the PAA if the situation is to be rectified.
* (23:20)
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Derksen. Questions from the committee?
Mrs. Driedger: What do you think needs to be done to the legislation in order to make it better and improve the COLA situation?
Mr. Derksen: I think–
Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Mr. Derksen, sorry, I have to recognize you, sir.
Mr. Derksen: I think what we would suggest is that there be some actuarial models developed and recommendations would flow from that.
Mr. John Loewen (
Mr. Derksen: I am not sure where else that money would come from than increasing the contributions of the current teachers.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Derksen: Our suggestion was that there needs to be some examination of actuarial, real models and that we go from there.
Mr. Lamoureux: Any drawback from your perspective in terms of holding it off?
Mr. Derksen: We recognize that the 1.1 percent is a value and that it is a start. We are simply saying that it falls short.
Mr. Lamoureux: Finally, if you were in the opposition and you provided the opportunity to prevent the bill from actually being passed where it could be held off until fall, would you d