II. SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS

The relationship between large-scale meat processing plants that have been established in North America during the past 20 years and their host communities have had the following characteristics:

• The large, often multinational corporations owning these processing plants have greater power than most of the jurisdictions with whom they negotiate, and have used this power to get financial and other concessions from the community in return for bringing investment and jobs to that community.

• Initially, during the construction and early operational phases, local unemployment decreases, commercial activity increases, sales of lower priced homes are brisk, and there is a small demand for higher-priced homes. • Once a plant is in operation, demand for consumer goods and entertainment, particularly in the lower-price range, increases. Demand for low-cost rental housing exceeds supply. Revenue from commercial and residential property, and from service fees, particularly if the new plant is paying its full and reasonable share, increases.

• The majority of the jobs are relatively low-paid, difficult and dangerous, leading to high turnover. The workforce for these jobs tend to be highly mobile, young, and often immigrants or visible minorities.

• The processing plant uses large amounts of water and discharges liquid wastes containing coliform bacteria, disease organisms, and plant nutrients. These contaminants may be difficult to remove in standard waste-treatment plants and have caused the deterioration of waters into which they were discharged. If the plant has been excused from full service rates, the cost of operation and of any upgrading of the facility will be borne by other customers or the government; that is, ultimately, by other businesses, residents and taxpayers in general.

• The processing plants have tended to depress the price of hogs by vertical integration into large hog-production enterprises, by dominating the market for hogs, and by buying from independent producers only by contract. Many farmers have been forced out of hog production and even out of farming. Family farm hog production, locally owned and managed, and using little hired help, has been replaced by large-scale corporate hog production, which:

• Injects capital and hires workers for the construction of barns and waste disposal systems.

• Is owned and managed non-locally.

• Hires barn workers who are often single and mobile, with little stake in the local community.

• Purchases in bulk, from affiliated companies or from low-price sources outside the community.

• Uses large volumes of water and produces large amounts of waste. The establishment of a large-scale meat processing plant has had the following direct effects on communities:
• A shortage of, and overcrowding in, rental housing.
• Increased costs of handling social problems such as marital disputes and child abuse, and of health care and language services.

• Increased cost of law enforcement, particularly those costs associated with a young, male, and mobile workforce, such as intoxication, driving offences, assault, and murder. The establishment of large-scale hog production units in rural communities has affected the local community by:

• Decreasing the number of family units and the number of school children. • Decreasing local purchasing with loss of local businesses.

• Loss of local control. The process for evaluating the MLM proposal for a large-scale hog-processing plant in Brandon was flawed in that:

• The secret “Memorandum of Understanding” between the Government of Manitoba and MLM essentially removed the “go/no-go/modify” options without any public airing of the costs and benefits of the plant and the projected large increase in hog production in Manitoba.

• The approval of the proposal followed the provisions of The Environment Act, and ignored the provisions of The Sustainable Development Act, proclaimed 1 July 1998, which committed the Government of Manitoba to consider sustainability in evaluating all proposals.

• The staged licencing process under The Environment Act excluded consideration of the wider implications and impacts of the proposed development.

• Requests for public hearings for the “stages” in the licencing process were denied by the then Minister of the Environment, leaving an impression in some quarters that the Memorandum of Understanding had included acceptance of the proposal and an assurance that the licencing process would not delay final approval. Although information sessions were held by the proponent, these did not allow the testimony of independent experts, questioning by a panel charged with evaluating the evidence, or the introduction of information on the wider effects of the development.