IX. THE EVALUATION OF THE MAPLE LEAF MEATS PROPOSAL

The Question of a Clean Environment Commission Hearing

The filing of the proposal to construct the plant (February 27 1998), the Stage 1 submission (April 14 1998) and the “Preliminary Steps” license (May 8 1998) gave rise to a petition and numerous letters for and against a Clean Environment Commission (CEC) hearing (Public Registry, File 4289.20). The primary reason given for not recommending a CEC hearing to the Minister was: “Specific river impacts are uncertain due to insufficient river information: a public hearing will not resolve this issue. The river monitoring program is underway” (Public Registry, File 4289.20). This position was supported by other factors—that Brandon would monitor for specific impacts; that initial approval would be for a single shift; that the existing water treatment plant at Portage la Prairie was adequate; that other departments would be active in disease control and worker protection; and that The Environment Act provided for staged licensing. At the Citizens’ Hearing a representative of Manitoba Environment stated: “in our view sufficient data were not available in terms of river impacts to justify a Commission hearing. Our experience with the Commission is that if we came to them with that uncertainty, all the Commission would do is adjourn the hearing until that information was available” (Transcript. Strachan).

Federal Government Involvement in the Assessment Process

The federal environmental assessment process is usually initiated if “federal money is involved, it occurs on federal land, or some federal decision-making authority is involved” (Transcript. Briscoe). Environment Canada chose involvement in the provincial assessment process in order to add its views of the impacts of the plant on the aquatic resources of the Assiniboine River. That department also said that staged assessment approvals tend to compromise the intent of a proper environmental assessment before irrevocable decisions are made. However, the federal trigger which might have resulted in a full federal process was not pulled. It seems that federal financial involvement in a project is the most exercised reason for initiating the federal process (Transcript. Briscoe). Had federal money been involved, construction probably would not have started until an environmental decision was available. The provincial process, in comparison, is more likely to pursue rather than to lead the proponent’s start-up.

A Missed Opportunity? Notwithstanding the probable limitations in the scope of a CEC hearing, a formal process has one major advantage over public information meetings and fora such as the Citizens’ Hearing. Both the proponent and the government can be obliged to appear. They must expose the anticipated environmental consequences of an installation as well as the mitigation believed to be possible. This is done in front of the public at large and is subject to detailed questioning. In contrast, the Citizens’ Hearing could not compel testimony. One consequence of this Ministerial decision was that public understanding of the project, including its wider implications for life in rural Manitoba, was considerably reduced. In setting the conditions of the operating license, the government of the day relied very heavily, if not solely, on the knowledge of its staff and their ability to evaluate the relevant research and experience. The government seemed to signal its overwhelming concern for jobs and economic gain, carefully avoiding any element of public debate which would have been tantamount to planning for the future.

Sustainable Development Considerations: The advice provided by Manitoba Environment (December 12 1997) to MLM referred to the requirement that the 10 principles and six fundamental guidelines of sustainable development, as listed in the publication “Towards a Sustainable Development Strategy for Manitobans,” should be addressed in the process of preparing an environmental assessment (Public Registry, File 4289.20). At that time, the Manitoba Round Table on Environment and Economy, on behalf of the government, was engaged in a vigourous public dialogue on the ways in which sustainable development should be applied in the province. As well, departments such as Manitoba Natural Resources and Manitoba Agriculture were beginning to examine the orientation of their policies under the rubric of sustainable development. The assessment process in which MLM became engaged therefore took place while the implications of sustainable development were paraded as a priority consideration in the way in which government should do business. Subsequently, all departments and agencies of the Government of Manitoba were committed to using these principles and guidelines in their policies and operations by “The Sustainable Development Act,” proclaimed 1 July 1998. Departmental compliance has been slow (Transcript. Strachan). Had public hearings on the MLM proposal been held using these principles and guidelines, they should have examined the long-term viability of the plant proper; the implications for agriculture in Manitoba (including socio-economic impacts); and the central environmental concern about the bio-physical capability of our environment to support the concentrated production and processing of hogs.

Would the CEC have seriously considered testimony on the farm income crisis and the future of family farms, surely a priority for a government professing concern for sustainability? Probably not. Experience indicates a courteous reception followed by the avoidance of such large questions. They are not local to the project under consideration, and not the stuff of a license to regulate the operation of the plant with regard to waste disposal and air and water quality.

Applying the Recommendations of the Consultation on Sustainable Development Implementation (COSDI): In March 1997, the government launched a multi-stakeholder consultation initiative “to consider and make recommendations to government on how Manitoba can best implement the ‘Sustainable Development Principles and Guidelines’ into decision-making, including environmental management, licensing, land use planning, and regulatory processes.” (COSDI 1999). The COSDI recommendations on “Municipal/District Plans” and “Planning at Large Area Level” are particularly pertinent, but the COSDI Report provides food for thought on many other issues. For example, it proposes that an effects assessment include the assessment and review of all the sustainability factors. We believe the government should pursue the recommendations with vigour as a framework for intensive public debate and a foundation for regulations, to bring new order to rural Manitoba and the hog industry in particular.

Several presentations commented on the implications of factory production and processing of hogs for rural development and lifestyle. Much was cautionary, as for example the advocacy of strict regulation and inspection, careful storage and handling of manure, sensitivity of sub-soils, etc. (Transcript. Brown). Pervading much of the discussion was the question of the appropriateness of the industry to Manitoba, if it is to continue in the corporate form characterized by MLM and its supply network of hog barns. The demands of the second shift at the plant and a proposed new, major facility in Winnipeg add to the urgency of addressing these questions.

Recommendations

1. The recommendations of the Report of the Consultation on Sustainable Development Implementation (COSDI) should be implemented with all possible speed and its processes adopted even in the absence of confirming legislation.

2. With reference to hog production, priority should be given to sustainable development planning at the “Municipal/ District” level as well as at the “Larger Area” level, so that developmental decisions, when they are made, can be based upon the best available foundation of ecological, economic, social, cultural, and human health considerations.

3. Municipal ability to assess the suitability of the siting of hog barns could be improved if the province and municipalities cooperated in producing risk maps for each jurisdiction.

4. With reference to large processing plants, “effects assessment,” as distinct from environmental impact assessment as set out in The Environment Act, should be adopted so that all sustainability factors can be addressed in each license.

5. Public participation in the assessment of new major developments should be the rule. In particular:

-a. The COSDI Report’s recommendations on this subject should be strengthened by legislation to assist the Minister to resist the pressures of “jobs and revenue” until there has been full, formal discussion of each development and its implications for the sustainability of the plant proper and its supply. In addition, time is needed to integrate the public’s views (and to follow up the signals originating in the discussion) into a “go, not go, or modify” decision.

-b. Consultation, representation, public information sessions, etc., are useful, but should not be substituted for formal hearings.

-c. The Environment Act should be amended, at the earliest opportunity, to reflect the findings and recommendations of the COSDI Report.

-d. Individuals and groups interested in the role of the federal government in impact assessment should take advantage of the opportunity to be involved in the review of The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act now in progress. In particular, the “triggering” provision related to the regulatory authority of the federal government, and the question of federal intervention in the protection of resources “off-reserve” but customarily utilized by indigenous people should be examined.