Submitting Resolutions

A crucial component of our AGM is the opportunity it gives local chambers to put forward Resolutions that identify the challenges facing Manitoba.

The MCC’s By-laws require that any submitted Resolutions must be:

  • provincial or national in character,
  • timely in importance,
  • and general in application to both economic and public well-being.

The draft should also be in the format of:

  • a Preamble (background),
  • Resolution (what you want done) and
  • Argument (why what you want should be done)

- see the Resolution sample at the end of this page.

Also keep in mind that any chamber that sponsors a Resolution must present it at the MCC AGM.

There are two kinds of Resolutions, regular Resolutions and Late Resolutions.

Regular Resolutions must be submitted to the MCC office (227 Portage Avenue, Wpg, R3B 2A6, fax (204) 948-0110, or by email to the MCC, e.g.,, 60 days before the MCC’s AGM.

Late Resolutions can be submitted at the AGM pursuant to section 5.7 of our By-laws, which reads:

At the Annual General Meeting or a Special Meeting, any subject, even though it has not satisfied the requirements of these by-laws for presentation to the meeting, may be brought to the floor of the meeting for discussion if a motion to do so is carried by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast. If the subject is then placed on the floor of the meeting, and a motion is introduced, then such motion will require a majority of not less than two-thirds of the votes cast for passage. Such motions shall be prefaced with an explanation for the failure to meet the normal requirements.

Sample Resolution

Lifting The Ban On The Expansion Of Hog Production

Preamble: On November 8, 2006 the Manitoba Minister of Conservation made a request to the Clean Environment Commission (CEC) to investigate the environmental stability of hog production in Manitoba.

The Minister released the report of the CEC on March 3, 2008, at the same time announcing a further halt to industry expansion in:

  • Southeastern Manitoba
  • The Red River Valley Special Management Zone: This area includes the Capital Region of the province.
  • The Interlake: This region borders on Lake Winnipeg to the east and Lake Manitoba to the west.

New and expanding hog operations in the rest of the province were allowed subject to new, stricter requirements as recommended by the CEC.

While the CEC made 48 recommendations, it did not recommend an outright ban on hog expansion in any area of Manitoba.

Further, the CEC report stated:

“The challenge for the government will be to develop an implementation strategy that works with producers and other members of society to ensure the industry’s social and economic sustainability. In those areas where nutrient production is currently out of balance with the environment’s ability to remove those nutrients, the province and producers must move quickly and cooperatively to bring production into balance within the next five years. ” (p. 153)

The bans announced were not done in cooperation or consultation with the industry.

The CEC reported that Manitoba’s hog-production and processing industry generates 7,500 jobs in Manitoba (hog farming plus direct estimate for packing); total wages, contract benefits and other income of $610-million; and total economic activity of $2 billion.

Resolution: That the Government of Manitoba:

a) immediately end the current moratorium on expansion of the hog industry in Manitoba; and

b) work with hog industry as the government seeks to implement the recommendations of the CEC.

Argument: The hog industry is a valuable contributor to Manitoba’s provincial economy. While the citizens of Manitoba have a moral obligation to preserve and protect society’s natural resources for the utilization and enjoyment of current and future generations, they also have a moral obligation to ensure optimal use of society’s natural resources in the pursuit of efficient food production.

Any of Governments concerns related to the Interlake and Southeastern Manitoba can be addressed through all the existing and new regulations that may come into place based on the CEC recommendations. To suggest that these regions can afford no further development ignores existing Municipal Land Use Policies and ignores the fact that each hog barn application goes through an intense permitting process that address Municipal and Conservation’s concerns.  All though it is true that the Red River Valley is prone to flooding what the Government is ignoring is that any new lagoon would have banks high enough to address the risks associated with flooding.

The proposed ban will drive future investment opportunities and Manitobans outside our province. It will also needlessly expose the hog industry and the Manitoba economy to unacceptable trade risks if another trade dispute or foreign animal disease event occurs without sufficient Manitoba investment in processing capacity. This investment is dependent on an assured supply of finished market hogs and faith that our government will not act capriciously.

Significant progress has been made since 1999 in regulatory reform, livestock stewardship and water quality protection measures, all of which ensure that the livestock industry (including hog production) is managed in an environmentally sustainable manner. These measures include:

  • The Livestock Stewardship Review Panel public meetings and report, December 2000;
  • Amendments to strengthen the Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, March 2001;
  • Creation of the Office of Drinking Water;
  • Increased environmental monitoring and enforcement of livestock operations;
  • Requirements for annual water source testing for livestock operations over 300 A.U.;
  • Adoption of the Water Protection Act, January 2006;
  • Adoption of the Planning Act requiring mandatory local livestock policies, January 2006;
  • Completion of government’s 2006 report “Examining the Environmental Sustainability of the Hog Industry in Manitoba”, which did not identify any significant issues of concern;
  • Strengthened Livestock Technical Review Committee mandate and resources;
  • Final report of the Manitoba Phosphorus Committee, January 2006;
  • Adoption of a new phosphorus regulatory amendment, November 2006;
  • Proposed nutrient management regulation currently under public review;
  • The CEC report made 48 recommendations but did not recommend an outright ban.

Given all of the above, there is no legitimate reason and no need for the proposed ban.

A prolonged and open-ended ban will only extend the uncertainty and damage Manitoba’s business and investment climate.

In This Section