LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, June 1, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Committee of Supply

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

Standing Committee on Public Utilities

and Natural Resources

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Second Report.

Your committee met on Tuesday, May 31, 1994, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for the year ended March 31, 1993.

Mr. Derek Smith, president and chief executive officer, provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report and business of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.

Your committee has considered the Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission for the year ended March 31, 1993, and has adopted the same as presented.

Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Estimates for 1994‑95 for Manitoba Highways and Transportation.

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report 1992‑93 for The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation.

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Quarterly Report for the six months ending April 30, 1994, for Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.

* * *

* (1335)

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have just been informed that Hansard indeed is not operational at this time, and I have no idea how long it is going to take Tim to get this whole system up and running.

I think what I am going to do at this point in time, I am going to recess the House till 2 p.m., at which time, if the system is not up and running, I will communicate with the three Leaders of the three parties and we will have to have a further extension or something, but there is just no way that we can proceed without Hansard.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Prior to going any further than Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports, which we have just done, because we have guests in the gallery here this afternoon and because mine is the only mike that is operational at this time, I would like to recognize this afternoon from the Rosenort School thirty Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Grant Plett. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Education (Mr. Manness).

From the Red River Valley Jr. Academy we have seventeen Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Gilles Landry. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer).

From the Shady Oak Christian Academy we have twenty‑five Grades 7 to 9 students under the direction of Mr. Harry Friesen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

* * *

Mr. Speaker: The House is now recessed until two o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1:35 p.m.

After Recess

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all honourable members for their indulgence. Everything is supposed to be up and running now.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 12‑‑The Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer), that leave be given to introduce Bill 12, The Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le vérificateur provincial, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 211‑‑An Act to amend An Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick), that leave be given to introduce Bill 211, An Act to amend An Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la santé des non‑fumeurs, and that the same now be received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, this act amends the Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers and potentially younger smokers as well. The purpose of this act is to strengthen legislation so that we can assist in the enforceability of the legislation in the province of Manitoba.

We have had many discussions during the Estimates process in talking about stronger recommendations for amendments to An Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers. I know the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) is supportive of these type of recommendations, and I would hope that we would have support of all members of the Legislature.

This amendment has been recommended by the Canadian Cancer Society. It is a nonpartisan piece of legislation, and it is here to protect the health of younger Manitobans. I hope all members of the House will support it, because we want to ensure that, in fact, potentially young Manitobans have more difficulty in buying cigarettes.

I recommend this piece of legislation to all members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill 212‑‑The Smoking in the Workplace Act

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that leave be given to introduce Bill 212, The Smoking in the Workplace Act (Loi sur l'usage du tabac dans le lieu de travail), and that the same now be received and read for the first time.

Motion presented.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to restrict smoking by establishing minimum standards which limit exposure to tobacco smoke in the workplace. This legislation would apply to all workplaces under provincial jurisdiction. This would include retail, commercial, manufacturing and mining operations, hospitals, social services agencies and educational institutions. This legislation would prohibit smoking in enclosed workplaces. The result of this legislation will be improved health for all Manitobans.

I recommend this piece of legislation for the support of all members of the Legislature.

Motion agreed to.

* (1405)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Victims' Assistance Programs

Funding Reduction

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

In 1986, Victims' Assistance legislation was passed in this Chamber that provided some symbolism and some support to victims of crime. It was a surcharge that was redirected through the Department of Justice or the Attorney General's department to many community groups to help deal with victims of crime and have new and innovative programs to deal with victims of crime.

I asked the minister on April 22 a question about, why is there a reduction of some 12 percent. I believe the minister said, and I have the quote: We continue our commitment to this program and we will do more and more in our role of victims' assistance.

Today, we hear publicly what we have heard privately from many groups on the front line, that 1) they feel the program has been reduced as we have alleged in this House; and 2) they feel that they have not been properly notified and there has been no co‑operation between the government and groups working on the front lines with victims through the Victims' Assistance program.

I would like to ask the Premier: Did they evaluate the impact of their cuts before the budget was tabled and their reductions in the Victims' Assistance program prior to the introduction last year?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, this government continues its support to victims across this province.

As the member knows, the process is that groups would submit their proposals to a committee which evaluated the proposals. That is the first step to make sure if those proposals actually meet the criterion.

This year the funding to community groups who deal with victims is in the range of $517,000. That is the same range of funding to groups as has been in place, certainly last year and I believe before that. So we continue to maintain our amount of funding. We will continue to grant to new organizations. We also continue, Mr. Speaker, the grants to programs which are ongoing.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, when you reduce the grant level to community groups by over 10 percent, it is not continuing the support. It is a 10 percent cut.

The minister mentioned the cut from this year to last year. The 1991‑92 Annual Report of the Victims' Assistance Committee speaks about $871,000 being redirected from fines from people that were convicted of crimes to victims under this program. It is now down to just above $500,000, as the minister said.

How can this government say it is committed to community‑based programs for victims' assistance if we have gone from $871,000, no co‑operation with people at the community level, down to just over $500,000?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, before the member gets all worked up, let me also add that the amount of money being spent to assist victims in this province is $1.8 million. There is over $500,000 being spent with community groups. There is also money which deals directly with victims who deal with the court system. Perhaps the member does not think that those victims are also important.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I am worked up about this government's cutbacks to victims. Maybe you do not care about the Victims' Assistance program, but we started it and we are committed to it, and we are not going to let Tories take away support for the communities.

The money for community‑based Victims' Assistance programs has been redirected into the department's program. It has gone down from over $800,000 to just over $500,000 as the minister indicated. The whole program has been reduced from $1.9 million to $1.8 million. Again, another reduction. No matter which way the minister tries to answer the question, the answer is the same, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the facts.

The programs have been reduced. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), why is he reducing support for community‑based Victims' Assistance programs and redirecting that into department programs? Where is the priority for Victims' Assistance programs at the community level?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I have several points to make. First of all, we continue in our commitment to deal with community groups. I have met with those community groups, and we are directing funds, over $500,000 worth of funds, to those community groups.

We also direct funds into programs which deal directly with victims who are dealing with the court process, and those victims, we deal with over 24,000 a year. Those individuals previously were dealt with within, for instance, the advocacy program in Family Services. They are now being dealt with within the Department of Justice to allow an integration, a co‑operation, a sharing of information.

I refer to the Leader of the Opposition's speech on July 26, 1988, when he said that we are not providing‑‑his government, the previous government‑‑we are not providing services across this province that are needed.

Because we have enhanced the funding, because we are concerned about victims, we have expanded the positions in terms of the victims' assistance to three. Earlier this week, one of the members opposite said that we did not care about victims in the North and people of the North. We have expanded the positions to Brandon, Thompson and The Pas.

Mr. Speaker, one more point. They do not care about the victims. They are on the side of the offenders. Where do they stand‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

* (1410)

Manitoba Telephone System

Layoffs

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, there will be a lot of Manitobans who will not be convinced by the Minister of Justice's rhetoric about concern for victims, just like there are a lot of Manitobans who are not convinced that this government has any concern for the many people who are unemployed in the province.

Just this week, Unisys announced the layoff of some 25 people. Bristol workers may face 250 people being laid off; AECL, an uncertain number of people are facing layoff. Today, Manitoba Telephone System announced that some 130 people are going to be laid off.

My question to the Minister responsible for Industry, Trade and Tourism, or the Minister responsible for MTS, is to explain to Manitobans how laying off 130 people at a time when the quarter report suggests that MTS is going to make $3 or $4 million, makes any sense‑‑

An Honourable Member: In this quarter.

Mr. Storie: ‑‑in this quarter, makes any sense whatsoever.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, last year the Manitoba Telephone System saved 3.8 percent on the salary side of their budget by the 10 days off. This year, they had budgeted for the same. In the process of achieving their budget, they have asked the unions to accept that on a voluntary basis. Negotiations have gone on, and one union out of the three has accepted that as a way for MTS to save money and at the same time save the jobs at the Manitoba Telephone System.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, this government knows that there is a total other agenda out there. MTS, in its PUB submission, some time before the introduction of Bill 22, indicated it was going to start laying off people, and it is today, at a time when it is making money.

My question to the Minister of MTS is: How can he justify laying off 130 people, some who have been with MTS for 20 years, at a time when the unemployment levels in this province are at historically high levels? How does it make any sense whatsoever?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, this question has been asked in different ways, and the answer will be the same as it always has been. In the telecommunications area, technology has advanced so less people are needed to do the job. In Ontario, as an example, 5,200 people face the reality of losing a job.

Instead of losing the job, they took a 10 percent reduction in salary. That is the principle that is being used in the telecommunications industry, and it is the right principle for Manitoba Telephone System to position themselves in terms of cost, to keep the rates down to the people who are using telephones in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, if this is simply a matter of negotiations‑‑this government only a few weeks ago appointed an arbitrator to settle a dispute at Manitoba Sugar Company, appointed a mediator, pulled out all the stops to make sure that we did not lose jobs.

My question to the Minister responsible for MTS is: Will he now ensure that someone is appointed to resolve this impasse in negotiations, not sit idly by while 130 people, some of them with 20 years service, lose their jobs?

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, there is one very important point that I believe all honourable members opposite have to appreciate in labour negotiations. That is, people have to take responsibility for their actions. The members of the unions that have not accepted this‑‑they are democratic unions. The people who run those unions answer to them, and they have that responsibility to go to their leaders within that union and demand that they have the opportunity to accept that offer.

Point of Order

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we do not need a sanctimonious lecture from the Minister of Labour. He attempted to solve the dispute in the Manitoba Sugar case. All we are asking is that they attempt‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order.

* (1415)

Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts

Closure

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

Last night there was a meeting at the Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts out in St. James, Mr. Speaker, at which approximately 40 to 50 seniors who are residents of that personal care home and their loved ones were in attendance, and that was the product of a decision made three years ago.

I want to table correspondence dated May 24 of this year that went to the residents and families and indicates that three years ago the Health Services Commission indicated to the Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts that, in fact, they had to upgrade or close that facility. Over that period of time, there were negotiations, and ultimately the decision was to close that facility. Last night, residents were told for the first time that it may be taken down this fall.

My question for the Minister of Health: What role is he going to take in ensuring that those residents are properly placed and have time to become properly placed in adequate housing, Mr. Speaker, given that the waiting list for some of these personal care homes is two and three years?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable member for raising the question about Kiwanis Courts. The board indeed did make its intentions known last evening, but there were a few areas where I think some clarification would be helpful for those residents. Neither the board nor the Department of Health has any intention of having people leave the facility until and unless perfectly appropriate arrangements are made for those residents.

So the reference to this fall, I do not know where that comes from, but certainly‑‑[interjection] Yes, I know that. I know it was said at the meeting last night, but it does not come from me. There is no such time line that we are driving from the Department of Health. This facility will not be closed until every single resident's care needs are adequately taken care of.

Mr. Edwards: That assurance is timely and, I am sure, will be appreciated, Mr. Speaker, by the residents and their families.

By way of supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister on this same issue: As this correspondence indicates, there have been three years of negotiations. Was the Department of Health involved in those negotiations, and why has it gone three years before the residents and their families have been brought into this process to understand what the repercussions might be?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I can only ask the honourable member perhaps to direct that question to the board of Kiwanis Courts with respect to the time it has taken.

Certainly, the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) has been extremely active and‑‑

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): He did not say anything last night.

Mr. McCrae: Well, the honourable member for Inkster makes some comment. What the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek has been doing has been to put the needs and concerns of the residents of Kiwanis Courts first and foremost and making sure that he has spared no effort to make sure I understood the point of view of the residents and the citizens of the community with respect to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we are very mindful that over the years, friendships develop in a personal care home setting. As our department assists in finding placements for the residents, we will be very mindful of that fact, as well, that this has been home for these people for a number of years.

But the years have taken their toll on the building itself, and that is something I think everybody recognizes. As the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) knows, we are looking at issues relating to safety and care being provided in our personal care homes, and one of the important features of all of that is the actual physical plant itself.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, finally for the minister: Last night at the meeting there were Department of Health officials there who, I am sure, although well intentioned, were simply unable to give adequate answers to calm people who were there.

For the minister: Given that the Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts board is going to be issuing Friday‑‑which coincidentally is Seniors Day‑‑their plans for relocation in dealing with the closing of this facility, can the minister give assurance that he will be involved, his department will be involved, given what he said today, in developing those plans to make sure that they are plans which calm people's anxieties and ensure, as he has said today, that everyone is going to be placed as much as possible with the least amount of disruption to these seniors, some of whom have been in this home years and years and years?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, if my own assurance is not good enough, let me tell you the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) is not going to rest until he is given every assurance that the people involved are treated sensitively and their future care needs are adequately taken care of.

I am very interested in that, too, and we will make every effort to ensure that the transition for these residents is as smooth as it can be made.

* (1420)

Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts

Closure

Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, on the same issue: When the Manitoba Health Services Commission made a decision three years ago, they consulted with everybody else except the residents who are directly affected by the decision. This is like a medical doctor deciding unilaterally to make a life‑or‑death operation, consulting with everybody else but the patient himself.

Can I ask the honourable Minister of Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) or the honourable Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) what reasons there are why the residents were not notified?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, surely, the honourable member is not being critical in the sense that people should be kept in facilities that time has rendered of a quality that is becoming a problem. Surely, the honourable member for Broadway is not suggesting that.

The relationship in personal care situations is a relationship between the community, the board and the staff of these organizations. I think the question, as I said previously to the honourable Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards), is one that is a community question that ought to be answered in the community.

While I am a big supporter of consultation, I am not in the business of going around scaring people which honourable members opposite engage in daily. In fact, I have made it my business to ensure that the residents and their families are very well aware of the extent to which the Seniors Directorate, the Department of Health, the Housing department, are all willing to make themselves available to make the transition as smooth as we can make it.

Mr. Santos: Can the honourable minister tell this House and the people of Manitoba what alternative plans his department has in order to find suitable accommodations for the seniors, particularly the 89‑ and 90‑year‑old residents of that Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware‑‑although he does not attend these functions‑‑but since 1988, 350 new personal care home spaces have been created in the city of Winnipeg.

The honourable member may be interested in knowing that tomorrow we will be announcing the opening of another 100 personal care spaces in the city of Winnipeg. We are very pleased to be able to respond to the need that clearly is there and is going to be there.

As I said earlier, not one resident will be asked to leave the personal care home without having a plan. As I said, those plans will take into account relationships that have developed over the years as well.

Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, given that there is a two‑year waiting list for senior citizens to get into personal care homes, can the honourable minister make a personal guarantee, an assurance today that the seniors will not be left alone, ejected into the street in the concrete jungle, that they will be found suitable accommodations?

Mr. McCrae: Before the honourable member asks questions like that he should do some research, and he would know that the waiting list is much shorter today than it was when he and his colleagues were in government in this province.

This kind of service has done nothing but improve in the last few years in Manitoba. I just finished telling the honourable member about the creation of all these new personal care home spaces, and I also just finished telling the honourable member that not one resident will be asked to leave until a suitable placement is available. I do not really know what more I can say that would respond to the question, except that that is what does respond to the question.

* (1425)

Breast Implant Lawsuit

Information Release

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, June 17, which is just over two weeks away, is the deadline for women in Manitoba who have had silicone breast implants to decide if they want to accept the global settlement package being offered in the United States, a settlement which does not provide fair compensation for the pain, suffering, and potential and actual health hazards experienced by these women. Manitoba women have received virtually no information on the implications of this vital decision.

Will the government officially notify the 6,000 Manitoba women who have received implants about the legal and financial options available to them so they have a chance to make an informed decision before June 17?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are attempting to do, but we feel somewhat restricted by that June 17 date that was laid down by the judge in Alabama.

I made available to the honourable member a copy of a letter I have sent to the federal Minister of Health, the Honourable Diane Marleau, asking the federal Government of Canada‑‑which is the appropriate jurisdiction in a situation like this‑‑to intervene, and as requested I believe by the judge in Alabama, to make our views known. So on behalf of Canadian women, we are asking the federal Minister Diane Marleau to extend that date.

In the meantime, yes, we are making efforts to inform all Manitoba women about this. In fact, I was pleased to see a telephone number actually published in the newspaper already so that women can access some information.

The problem is, is that enough time for women to make informed decisions about this? I am not sure that it is, and that is why we have asked the federal minister to attempt to get that date extended.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the work the minister has already done.

I would like to again ask the Minister of Health if he will assure the House today that not only through the number in the newspaper that has been published, but will he direct his department and other departments of the government to, officially, individually notify those 6,000 women so that they have an opportunity to make that decision before June 17, because we do not know and we have no assurance that that date will be extended.

Most likely, the women of Manitoba will have to make that vital decision before June 17. Most of them do not even know they have the decision to make.

Mr. McCrae: I know it is true not everybody reads the paper, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes that is a good thing.

Mr. Speaker, I hear what the honourable member is saying. The Women's Health Branch of my department is very well aware of the concern she raises, and we are already doing that.

Meeting Request

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, on May 12, over two weeks ago, the I Know Network which deals with this issue, wrote the Premier and the Ministers of Health and Justice asking for a meeting to discuss the short‑ and long‑term issues arising out of this situation and facing those who have had these implants.

Why has there been no response on behalf of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of Health or the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) to these women when the government knows the urgency and the depth and the importance of these social, political, health and economic decisions that women have to make and the implications that this implant problem has for government, as well as for individual women? Why have they not met?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my daily meeting with my secretary about my calendar got put off till this afternoon. I have no doubt that we will be looking at that request later this afternoon when I work on my calendar with my secretary.

Louisiana‑Pacific Co.

Emission Controls

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, when it was first announced that Louisiana‑Pacific was proposing to build an OSB plant in Swan River, the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) gave the people of the area the assurance that the company would be required to build a state‑of‑the‑art plant with the most modern emission controls.

The company said that they would abide by these regulations as well. However, in their proposal, Louisiana‑Pacific is suggesting that they will use E‑Tube emission controls instead of the RTO, regenerative thermal oxidation emission controls as recommended by the American Environmental Protection Agency.

I want to ask the Acting Minister of Environment why he is not recommending that Louisiana‑Pacific install the most up‑to‑date and most efficient emission controls in the plant that is being proposed for Swan River to protect the people of the area who want jobs but also want clean air.

* (1430)

Hon. Clayton Manness (Acting Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, Louisiana‑Pacific is well aware that they will have to put into place a plant that meets standards that are proven state of the art. They are well known and understanding of that fact.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the question is, why, when Louisiana‑Pacific is improving their plants to state‑of‑the‑art standards in the States, they are using the RTO emission controls, here in Manitoba they are recommending the E‑Tube emission controls which are being eliminated in the States? Why are we having a lower standard of controls here in Manitoba than in the United States?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, the member makes an assumption, and the assumption is that what they are trying to bring into the States has proven to be better than the state of the art. If that is indeed proven, that is what Louisiana‑Pacific will put into place in Swan River.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister then whether his department or members of the Environment branch have met with the EPA to discuss that issue of which controls are better and have discussed with them why they are insisting on the RTO emission controls and why this government is going for a lesser standard which could put the health of the workers and the people in the area at risk. Why are we accepting a lower standard here in Manitoba?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, again, the member for Swan River is fearmongering. This government is not going for lesser standards. This government is going for the highest proven standards that exist, and I know the department‑‑I do not know whether they have met in person, but there are ongoing weekly discussions by way of other telecommunication process. I say that those discussions have taken place, No. 1, and No. 2, once it is proven, or whatever is proven to be the highest standards are those that Louisiana‑Pacific will be expected to have put into place in Swan River.

I think the member is doing a disservice to her constituents in raising fears around this process.

Manitoba Lotteries Corporation

Review

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Crown Corporations Council released its annual report current to the end of 1993, December 31, '93. For the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation, in that report, page 6, they review that corporation. I want to read one quote. They indicate: "There is a mounting concern about the negative consequences of gaming in the media and in the opinion of a segment of the population of Manitoba. These negative consequences represent a business risk which, if not addressed, has the potential to limit MLC's ability to carry out its strategic plan."

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister: A number of people in the community, the independent group from the University of Manitoba and many others have called consistently for a review of gaming activities in Manitoba and a full public debate. We now have a business reason for that in addition to the social reasons.

My question for the minister: Will he now accept the advice of even his own Crown Corporations Council and have that full public review and debate about the operations of this corporation?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, as the member quite appropriately identifies, that report was as of the end of March 1993. The Lotteries Corporation at that time employed Dr. Rachel Volberg to do an analysis, as was suggested by the Crown Corporations Council. As a result of the Volberg study, which was released in June of 1993, the Lotteries Corporation put into place, in concert with the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba, a plan to train nine dedicated staff, to provide $2.5 million in funding in order to treat problem gamblers, in order to create an awareness program and to create an education program. All those things that were recommended have been done.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this report was tabled yesterday; it is dated December 31, 1993. Another question is why we have only received that at this point.

My further question for the minister: Given that this report specifically further states, the council recommends that the Lotteries Corporation continue to review all its products, to identify opportunities to improve its response to social issues, will the minister take the advice of this Crown Corporations Council and start to listen to the public and tell the public what the true social cost and financial cost of this level of gaming in this province are?

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, those exact things are occurring on a regular basis with the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. We meet regularly with the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba. We try and assess what the meaning of the kind of response we get to the 1‑800 hot line is. We try and assess, at the same time, whether we are providing adequate funding, adequate resources towards the potential for problem gambling. All those things are being reviewed on an ongoing basis.

We have yet to complete a year of the new bingo halls that were constructed, and we have yet to complete a year with VLTs in Winnipeg. Ongoing assessment is taking place, and, once that year is up and we have had a chance to assess a full year's operations, we will review it again.

Mr. Edwards: Finally, for the same minister. There has been one response to this: the $548,000 public relations campaign by the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.

My final question for this minister: How much is it going to take? The Crown Corporations Council, the petition tabled in this Legislature recently, 1,500 names on it, the independent University of Manitoba study‑‑how many independent studies from Minnesota or other jurisdictions is it going to take before this government calls a halt to this and does a full review of the real cost of gambling in this community in terms of the addiction, in terms of the social cost and in terms of the lost revenue to other businesses in this community?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, we issued a moratorium on November 3, 1993. With respect to the other issues that the member raises, they are ongoing. We are reviewing them on a regular basis, taking cognizance of the fact that as information arises‑‑and my honourable friend makes all kinds of accusations and tends to jump to conclusions that are, by and large, unfounded. We are attempting to deal with the facts as they arise.

Berens River Fishermen

Meeting Request

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

The minister will recall that, on behalf of the Berens River fishermen, I have previously asked the minister, I believe it was on May 17, to meet with the fishermen concerning the proposed line changes on Lake Winnipeg. The Berens River fishermen had hoped to have that meeting yesterday prior to the opening of the new season today.

When will the minister meet with these fishermen to discuss this matter, and did he indeed have a representative at that meeting yesterday?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the request that has been coming, not from just one community but from various communities, for boundary changes and the fishing boundaries, is a very complex issue. There are many elements and communities involved in this. I have undertaken and instructed staff to start doing a review of it, but there is very little percentage in meeting with the various groups until we have had some further discussion among ourselves with the staff. I have instructed my deputy to be in touch with the various communities to inform them what the status is.

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the minister will realize that the season is very short and that fishermen are having a great deal of difficulty making a living currently. Could the minister make this issue a priority?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I think probably most of the members are aware that in the past few years the fishing industry has had setbacks because of cost or the lack of prices that are basically taking place. When this happens, concern gets raised by all elements of the fishing industry, and this is what has happened here.

I want to tell the member that the commercial fishing season has been opened and there will not be any changes to the boundaries for the fishing season that is in effect right now. We will be reviewing it, and we will be making our decisions later on in the fall.

* (1440)

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry, according to the fishermen, has been regarded as being no different than farming.

Will the minister directly communicate the comments that he has made in this House to the fishermen of Berens River and elsewhere on Lake Winnipeg?

Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I will give that undertaking.

Legislative Building

Wheelchair Access

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Government Services.

Yesterday, the minister admitted in the House that he is spending $752,000 replacing the steps to the Legislature just one year after building a ramp at the side of this building for wheelchair access.

I ask the minister, would he check his briefing notes and tell the House when the current project was first approved, and why he did not combine these two projects so that the wheelchair ramp could be built in front of this building as it should have been?

Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the ramp that was built at the back was in consultation with the handicapped people, along with the Speaker, in addressing the handicapped upstairs. If you take a look at the stairs yourself, you will see that the front steps‑‑you would almost need a ramp all the way to Broadway Avenue to get up the two levels of steps that occur.

If he would like to review the ramp on the west side, he will see there is a button to get inside that automatically opens the door. The ramp is at an access that these people can get in and out, as the person upstairs who is reviewing the Question Period today was unable to do under the previous administration.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, is this minister now telling the House that disabled people will have to wait another 75 years before a ramp at the front of this building will be incorporated in the future replacement of those steps? Do we have to wait another 75 years?

Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, I am just amazed that the member would get up and ask and talk about years when their government did absolutely nothing to this for the people to get into this building, absolutely nothing.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the Minister responsible for Government Services, and the minister responsible for evading the issue: What disabled‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member that these are all honourable members, and you refer to the minister as the honourable minister responsible for.

Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, what disabled organizations did this minister consult with before he approved of spending $750,000 to replace the steps on this building?

Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, the only one who evaded the issue was the previous administration who were here for 16 years.

The particular project that we did, we had a proposal call with approximately seven or eight consulting engineers who looked at the building when we were having this problem. We are not going to ignore the safety of this building because the member wants to get a couple of points on the floor of the House.

Hepatitis C Virus

Blood Supply Tracing

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.

The Red Cross has apparently made a decision to trace the blood supply of individuals who have received blood transfusions in order to notify individuals who may have been infected with the potentially deadly hepatitis C virus.

Can the minister advise this House what the provincial policy is with respect to aiding the Red Cross in the tracing of this blood, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. James Downey (Acting Minister of Health): I will take that question as notice for the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister also advise this House as to what the provincial policy is with respect to compensating hospitals which will have to carry out the bulk of this work in order to trace the blood supply?

Mr. Downey: I will take that as notice for the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Chomiak: My final supplementary: Can the minister advise this House when we will be receiving a decision from the government with respect to their policy, what their definitive policy will be with respect to the tracing of blood for individuals who may have been infected with the potentially serious and deadly hepatitis C virus, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Downey: I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Mr. Speaker.

Education System Reform

Report Tabling Request

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

The other day in the Estimates, the Minister of Education was starting to back down on his commitment to table a document on education reform in the month of June. I would like for the Minister of Education to reaffirm to the many interest groups that he has indicated that he was anticipating having that document in the month of June, to reaffirm that commitment from this government to bring down the educational reform package in the month of June.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, that is the most idiotic question I have heard for a week.

As I have said over and over again, my target is to try and have this before the public by the end of June. I cannot make a commitment to do the impossible if it is impossible.

But, Mr. Speaker, I am working towards that deadline. I am hoping I can deliver that day, and nobody will be angrier than I will with myself if I do not attain that.

If the member is asking me to commit it and to sign an oath in blood that I have to have this down by the end of June, I will not do that.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

Manitoba Children's Museum Opening

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Wellington have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, today, June 1, marks the official opening of the Manitoba Children's Museum at The Forks. I would like to extend my congratulations and also the congratulations of our caucus on this remarkable achievement.

Mr. Speaker, I have a personal connection with the Manitoba Children's Museum, as the woman whose idea this was who spent 10 years of her life bringing this idea to fruition, Linda Isitt, was my next‑door neighbour in 1982. She came over on a Sunday afternoon and shared with me her idea which was at the very beginning of it. I was one of the first chairs of the Manitoba Children's Museum when we moved into the Pacific Avenue location.

I think, Mr. Speaker, for all the province of Manitoba, this museum is a remarkable achievement. At the beginning in 1984, when it first opened its doors on Pacific Avenue to today's official opening at the B & B Building at The Forks, it is a remarkable achievement for all of the people of Manitoba.

The community has followed behind this organization. The various levels of government, the New Democrats and now the Conservatives have supported greatly this museum. The business community, nonprofit organizations, individuals have all worked together to make this museum arguably the best Children's Museum in the world.

We should as Manitobans be very proud of this achievement. It should go on our record as being one of the high points of any visitor to the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba in the future, and I wish the Children's Museum and all those who have spent 12 years working on it the best of luck in the future.

Charity Bicycle Trip

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Emerson have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago, a young native‑‑formerly of Altona, Manitoba, by the name of Albert Martens, who as a missionary at the Black Forest Academy in southern Germany, took it upon himself to take a bicycle trip across Germany to raise money for education and social services in Russia. Mr. Martens, last Sunday, finished his journey of a thousand kilometres with an injured ankle‑‑a taped‑up ankle‑‑and finished the journey and raised $100,000 to help the needy people in Russia to provide both social services and education for their children.

I want to congratulate Mr. Martens today for the effort that he single‑handedly took to improve the situation of young people in other countries.

Manitoba Children's Museum Opening

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to acknowledge the opening to the public today of the Children's Museum at The Forks. The official ribbon cutting and opening was held yesterday with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and officials from the city in attendance.

I can confirm through a visit to the museum that this is a tremendous addition to The Forks complex and would urge all members to take the opportunity to visit that museum in the near future. This is a world‑renowned Children's Museum, and we are very pleased we have been able to support the construction. I am sure all visitors to The Forks will remark on this and value it as a very important landmark and an addition to that Forks complex.

* (1450)

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Crescentwood have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave? [agreed]

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleagues on both sides of the House in congratulating the official opening of the Children's Museum at The Forks. Although I have not had the opportunity as of yet to see the facilities, certainly the news reports and indications from neighbours of mine whose children were there, indicate it is a wonderful facility.

I think the many years of work that have gone into this museum by countless volunteers attest to the willingness of the people of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba to put forth a world‑class museum. I think we are very fortunate in the province of Manitoba. We have so many organizations who are willing to develop a museum such as this. We have a wonderful cultural life in this province and I think the addition of the Children's Museum certainly will make this province a better place to live.

I look forward to visiting the museum very soon and ensuring that my young nieces and nephews have that opportunity as well. So I congratulate all of the individuals who have put so much work into the Children's Museum.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the House leaders have had discussions, again, with regard to Estimates consideration and so on. I think if you would canvass the House you would find a willingness to waive private members' hour today.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour today?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: That is agreed.

Mr. Ernst: I wonder if you would canvass the House to seek if there was unanimous consent to change the sitting hours this evening from currently 7 to 11 p.m. until 7 till 10 p.m. and that subrule 65(9) would apply between five and six and between seven and 10 as opposed to seven and 11 which was previously agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for what has just been said? So now, apparently, we are sitting between the hours of 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. What was previously agreed to was between the hours of 7 p.m. and 11 p.m., but now we are sitting from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.? That is agreed? There is agreement? Okay. And that Rule 65.(9) will apply.

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I would like to announce that the committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Thursday, June 9, at 10 a.m., to consider the 1993 Annual Report of Manitoba Hydro.

Mr. Speaker, the committee on Municipal Affairs will meet on the 14th of June, Tuesday, to consider the Annual Report of The Forks Renewal Corporation.

The committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on Tuesday, June 21, to consider the 1993 Annual Report of the Workers Compensation Board.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable minister for that information.

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the Clerk has advised me I neglected to say that all of those committee meetings, that is the 9th of June for Manitoba Hydro, the 14th for The Forks Renewal Corporation and the 21st of June for the Workers Compensation Board all will start at 10 a.m.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Justice.

* (1500)

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.(b)(1) on page 16 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Yesterday, when we reached six o'clock, we were in the process of discussing the plans that the Manitoba pork producers and the government have. I was asking the minister about the progress in the plans that the government is working on, on a processing facility for hogs here in Manitoba. The minister's answer was interrupted at that time. Perhaps we could go back to that, and the minister could fill us in on at what stage those plans are and when he anticipates we will hear an announcement or the results of the study.

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I was somewhat passionately getting myself involved in was my enthusiasm for the opportunities that in fact exist in the value‑added, job‑creating expansion of our hog industry and pork processing. I certainly want to acknowledge that I would trust honourable members opposite share in some of those opportunities.

The hog industry is one of the sectors of our livestock industry that, for various reasons, not least of which are‑‑and I take this opportunity to commend the hog producers of Manitoba and all those engaged in hog production in Manitoba, including those officials within the Department of Manitoba Agriculture. We have gained a reputation of producing some of the finest quality hogs and pork in the world, in the country, and that is important, because what we are now talking about is whether or not it is worth our while in Manitoba to seriously make the effort to produce for the export market. Let us be very clear about that. We are talking about competing with other major pork producers in the world, notably Denmark, our American neighbours, of course.

There seems to be a defined need for additional quality pork, certainly in the Pacific Rim countries and within our own market as well, but particularly in the expanding opportunities that Manitoba Pork and individual processors have found, with growing success, in places like California, for instance. We anticipate, we have reason to believe, a significant movement of processed red meats of all varieties into the Mexican market.

So it is for these reasons that marketing people within the Department of Agriculture, private‑sector people, and‑‑quite frankly, it should be noted that Manitoba is not the only jurisdiction that has come to this conclusion.

My colleague the Honourable Darrel Cunningham, the Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Saskatchewan, if members had been reading some of the farm press in the last little while, hardly a week goes by that there is not an article in those papers that indicates Saskatchewan's keen desire to participate in this hog expansion for the same reasons that Manitoba has: to find a home for feed grains, feed barley; and to possibly anticipate a greater problem showing up in the movement of these grains should there be fundamental changes to such long‑standing programs of support, like the Crow benefit, that take place.

Of course, what rises above everything else and those of us who are in the political field certainly understand, every public opinion poll that is taken for the last several years, particularly during the last economic setback in Canada, the recession, places job creations as the No. 1 item of concern among Canadians, and Manitobans are not excluded from that.

Officials will have multiplier effects for me, and I will ask them for a moment, but every thousand hogs produced on the farm provides, of course, employment in rural Manitoba in the trucking and in the movement of grain and in our growing feed manufacturing industry. We have a number of feed mills that are producing ever more sophisticated, in larger quantities, tonnages of prepared feed mixes for the livestock industry, and all of these people employ Manitobans.

Even more to the point, with respect to job creation, is that for every thousand hogs, I look for my officials to correct me there, about 6.4, 6.3 jobs created in the processing end of it. Those are jobs essentially in the urban centres, in Winnipeg, talking about the facilities at Schneider's, at Burns, Forgan's, and jobs that smaller processors across the province can create. That is the climate, members of the committee, that induces me, as minister of the department at this point in time, to encourage increased activity in this field.

Also, the recognition is there that there is associated with this particular form of livestock production very real and legitimate concerns about the impact it may have on our environment. For that reason, as I indicated in the closing moments when last the committee met, that a considerable amount of my time, the time of senior members of staff of the department, along with a very wide range of other interested parties, including help from the academic community, from the universities, from our agricultural producers group, like the Keystone Agricultural Producers group, from Manitoba Pork itself, from the processors, from actual hog producers, has gone in the last four or five months into developing the very detailed and specific not only guidelines but actual regulations that have the force of law, backed by statute, that clearly set out how we intend to deal with the environmental issues raised in the production of hogs and why, quite frankly, we feel confident that we can do this, without jeopardizing the natural environment. I want to assure honourable members of the committee that it is as near and dear to any person living in rural Manitoba as it is anywhere else in the country. It just makes sense.

Some of us live next to and have to live with these operations, and we do not want to see our ground water supplies polluted or threatened for ourselves and future generations of our children. We have confidence in believing‑‑in fact, it will be a responsibility that the Animal Industry Branch of the Department of Agriculture, along with our sister department, the Environment department, which has more of the regulatory enforcement powers within its mandate, and always watched with care and concern by a department that I have some experience with, the Department of Natural Resources, which has the prime responsibility of locating and studying and collecting data on ground water supplies, on the mapping of underground aquifer conditions, of having and passing on that expert information to our agricultural engineers, who are then responsible for the monitoring and the design and the writing the specifications, many of which you see in that book that I passed out the other day, that have found themselves into these regulations.

* (1510)

This is all what has happening in the hog industry. Now, specifically, let me be very clear. That comes to a question that the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) raised with me in the House just the other day. Should the government, should the department, should we be arbitrarily deciding what constitutes an acceptable scale or size of hog operation? Should we say, you can have 500 hogs but not more in an individual building? Or a thousand and not more? I have to say to her and my own members of the committee, I am sorry, this government does not feel itself competent nor should we philosophically interfere with those kind of market‑driven decisions.

We are asking Manitoba hog producers to compete on a global scale with operations that are 30,000, 40,000, 50,000 in size in Arkansas or in Missouri or in Taiwan or in Denmark. We are asking only‑‑but we have standards. We are insisting that they be carried out in a manner that does not compromise our environment. To do anything less, quite frankly, we would not see, in my judgment, in my opinion and that of the experts that advise me, the growth that has taken place in the past number of years in Manitoba continue to take place if we begin to arbitrarily, with the heavy hand of government, interfere in these kind of market decisions.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, several things will happen. We also believe, and I believe this with absolute conviction, that it is a distortion of these market forces if we as government, by way of special program, attempt to lure or artificially develop processing plants or encourage hog production in the province of Manitoba. Those kinds of programs, quite frankly, have been tried in the past, where we perhaps, by an outright grant, provide a couple of thousand dollars or whatever to a prospective hog farmer to induce him to get into hog production.

We had, just previous to dealing with this section, the senior management of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. We will do everything we can to provide advice. We will do everything we can to provide access to normal credit channels for this expansion, but as a government we do not believe that it is appropriate, particularly at this time when resources are under a great deal of pressure and, quite frankly, would not be prioritized in this way.

If extra dollars are available, this government has time and time again demonstrated‑‑and I speak with some all too real memories of that. Departments such as Agriculture, such as Natural Resources and other departments willingly contribute to the priorities established by this government in those high‑cost areas of Health, Education and Family Services.

We are not going to be talking about luring industries. It is a development, quite frankly, that I am pleased to hear, whether or not all governments will live up to it, but First Ministers' conferences, recent western ministers' conferences have dwelt on the subject that it is not an appropriate use of taxpayers' funds, public funds, to try to lure a particular processing firm or company to come and to locate in Manitoba with a pocketful of taxpayers' money to start up a plant.

I am not so sure that may or may not take place in some jurisdictions. Manitoba and this government is not prepared to travel that road. What we are prepared to do is that we are prepared to put in the full resources of the department staff. We are prepared to pass the necessary legislation and regulations to safeguard the environment; and we are prepared to devote a considerable amount of our energies within our Marketing Branch‑‑and that is the branch that we are now dealing with, Agricultural Development and Marketing‑‑to welcome visitors who come to us on trade missions. We expend a considerable amount of our travel budget in this department on sending trade missions to Japan, to Korea, to the United States, to Mexico, in the hope of expanding marketing opportunities for the anticipated expansion in the hogs.

I will stop my monologue here because I do appreciate this is an opportunity for opposition members to ask their questions, but again talking about size, in our neighbouring province of Saskatchewan, it is rumoured that they are seeking‑‑and I read with some concern, despite what I just said a moment ago‑‑that there are some reports indicating that there could well be some outright governmental assistance in providing, finding the investment funds. They are seeking investment funds to create hog operations of the order of 100,000 each. We are talking about a different style of hog production.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in conclusion, we will in Manitoba have a variety of hog productions, some small and medium family‑size hog operations. What we would call family‑size operations will always be there, and I hope they always will be there. They consist right now of about 30 percent, 35 percent of the hogs produced in the province of Manitoba.

We have another distinct grouping of hog producers that I am very familiar with because I have a great deal of them, a concentration of them, in fact, in the constituency of Lakeside. Those are the Hutterite communities that produce, again, virtually up to 35 percent, I believe, 34, 35 percent. [interjection] Pardon. I am corrected. It is 37 percent of all the hogs. Of the 2.4 million hogs produced in Manitoba, 37 percent are produced on the farms of our Hutterite brothers and sisters.

Then we have another group‑‑and these are probably the groups that have attracted most notoriety in the past few years‑‑and these are also the very large commercial operations. Some are somewhat integrated with feed companies, but my understanding is most of them are independent operations. They may have some kind of management contracts that involve feed and to bring about a superior hog production that use their size to get all the genetic benefits of the best possible hog productions into Manitoba, as well as feed conversions and so forth. They produce the remaining 30 or 35 percent of the hog producers.

So you have your kind of three levels of hog productions in place right now, although you should really lump the 37 percent of Hutterite hog production in with the commercial hog productions, because they are not producing on the scale of what we would call the average or medium‑size, small‑size family farm. They are sophisticated, major hog producers in million‑dollar barns, and of course they are involving 20 or 30 families as a unit in these productions.

It is in the commercial section‑‑well, not exclusively‑‑most of the expansion of growth will take place. There has been an interesting development in the last just few years by a group that is promoting quite a different approach to hog production. They have come out with the kit kind of and proposals for what we call the biotech barns. They are low cost, low‑capital cost, do not deal with the wet hog manure. It is not involved in any lagoons or barns. These are kind of, like, open housing in the cattle industry. The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) will know what I speak of. Quite frankly, they represent considerably less of an environmental challenge to deal with in the sense that it is dry manure, and there are certainly less problems associated with runoff or indeed distribution on the land.

To what extent these will succeed is an open jury. I think there would have to be some considerable monitoring to find whether or not they can compete with the more controlled environment of the more capital‑intensive barns that we are familiar with, whether or not in our 30 and 35 and 40 below weather on a sustained basis their feed conversions would equal the quite remarkable feed conversions that are now being experienced in some of these sophisticated organizations.

They are marvelous. I am advised that they now have feed conversions down to about 3 lbs. of feed to a pound of pork and even below that in some of the barns to 2.8. On a consistent basis, is that‑‑my director of the Animal Industry branch, who by the way I take pleasure in introducing, is Dr. John Taylor who directs the Animal Industry branch, and joins us along with Dr. Neufeld, whom I introduced the other afternoon.

* (1520)

I think I have left the honourable members enough of a background, but I do and I will promise to behave myself and restrain myself in the future and not make unfounded allegations or doubt or question by innuendo motives from the opposition, because I will tell you, it is extremely important in my opinion because we do have‑‑and the hog producers understand it, the people at Manitoba Pork understand it, and we in the department understand it‑‑a very fundamental public relations problem on our hands. It would be, quite frankly, too bad if we allowed it to take the upper hand and thus deny our farmers and our economic well‑being in the province this tremendous opportunity. Thank you.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister for all of that information. However, there was a specific question that I was asking. I wanted to know where the province was in their plans, along with Manitoba Pork, to build a facility here in Manitoba.

The minister talked about the importance of the hog industry and all livestock industry, the importance to rural Manitoba and to the urban centres. I have to say that I agree with him. That is something our party has always agreed with, that we do have to have economic growth. Certainly, by getting value‑added jobs from both the pork and the beef industry, it will help us replace some of those jobs that we have lost in other areas in this province, both in the city and rural centres.

We have to have economic growth. The hog industry is important. The minister talked about the environmental standards and other issues, but I would, first of all, like to talk about the plant and where those plans are. When would we expect to see an answer on it, some information to whether this is a possibility or not?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it should be understood that a minister, when he chooses not to answer a specific question that is directed at him, he does so by eloquently and sincerely talking about everything else but the question he is asked in the hope that if he does it with enough conviction, the questioner will have forgotten the original question asked. To her credit, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has not been taken in by this. That has served me so well on many occasions, I might say.

There is, as the member is aware, a feasibility study that has been entered into under the sponsorship of Manitoba Pork and with the co‑operation of the four processors: Schneider's, Burns, Forgan's, and the new Springhill plant at Neepawa. They have received modest support from my colleague the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and the REDI program, a $25,000 grant.

What they are really doing in the next month or two, and we have set them a fairly short time line, is to see whether or not there is feasibility or possibility to, either with the co‑operation of the existing processors that are there, these four firms that I mentioned‑‑that is why I am co‑operating with them‑‑to consider the feasibilities of what we call a world‑class hog‑killing plant that could considerably reduce the costs of hog killing. I am told they are considerable. We are competing with some of these larger plants, both in Alberta and in Toronto, that are moving through considerably more hogs than our four relatively medium‑sized facilities are handling. Our killing costs may be upwards to $7, $7.50, $8 per hog, as compared to $2.50 or $3 a hog elsewhere in the international marketplace.

So they are examining that, although that is not the only reason. They are also saying, right now it is a question of using‑‑I will use a firm like Schneider's, for instance. Burns is just concluding a fairly major expansion, and they, of course, are a major player in this business. But for a plant like Schneider's or for Forgan's, for them to be dedicating space for a kill operation, they may be better off to co‑operate with one killing plant and then in fact use that. That is where the job creation comes, and buy the‑‑I am looking for my colleague the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), who has an experience in the meat industry as a former meat inspector‑‑when a firm like Schneider's would buy the carcass from a killing plant and add further processing in their current plant.

Of course, it is in the further processing that we add further value, we add further jobs. That is the extent of the provincial government's involvement, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, through you, to the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), with respect to looking at the processing question.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate whether he knows which sites are being considered in this feasibility, and I think about the‑‑is Minnedosa one of the sites that is in consideration, since the Springhill plant is already there?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is premature to suggest that this feasibility study‑‑it is not even in their terms of reference that we are looking at sitings at this point yet. What really is, first of all, is setting out some broad criteria of whether or not there is a possibility of co‑operation between our existing processing firms to engage‑‑after all, you are asking quite a bit; these are individual private firms in a competitive market situation‑‑whether or not in their corporate strategy, they are prepared to share in the capital required.

Is Burns prepared to share in the capital required to build a plant that Schneider's and Forgan's are going to be part of, is the major question. It may prove, and I do not wish to speculate on what the feasibility study will bring out, but it may well be that in fact it is not possible to do that. It may be indeed that the obstacles are just too difficult to overcome and that if indeed further processing expansion were to take place in Manitoba, it would come from one of the existing firms, whether a company like Burns or Schneider's or somebody else or, indeed, there are other major players interested from eastern Canada and from the States who could well be interested in building a super world‑class killing plant here in Manitoba. We have not restricted ourselves to anybody. I know that inquiries have been made to Denmark, for instance, who know a great deal about hog production and hog processing. They have indicated that at this juncture they are not interested in establishing North American processing facilities, but that is just to give some scope of where we are at right now.

The fact of the matter is, and this ties back to the expansion of hogs, we will not seriously look at an expanded hog processing industry in Manitoba with the attendant‑‑and I am not exaggerating, I want honourable members to know. If it were only coming from me then perhaps you could believe it, but this comes from departmental experts, economic people in the processing fields. If we were to double our hog production to the four and a half million hogs, we are talking about an additional 7,000 or 8,000 jobs in Manitoba.

The point that I was trying to make is a world‑class facility of the kind that we are talking about needs those amounts of hogs before they would be interested in expending the capital and building the processing plant here. Now they would not have to come entirely from Manitoba. We might be drawing some from North Dakota. We might be drawing from Saskatchewan, but as we are thinking about this, Saskatchewan is wanting to do precisely the opposite.

I have to be concerned about the fact that if that plant is not located in Manitoba, if it is located in Saskatchewan, particularly in eastern Saskatchewan, say in the Regina area or east of Regina, many of our hogs would be now moving to Saskatchewan for processing and with them the jobs, just as our concern is right now that upwards to 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 hogs a week are leaving Manitoba to Toronto, to Ontario for processing. That is a situation that troubles us greatly.

* (1530)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has indicated that there is some urgency in getting the results of this feasibility study to see whether there is potential to establish the industry here in Manitoba, a much needed industry, to create as the minister says, many jobs, jobs that will certainly stimulate the Manitoba economy to a better level than it is right now.

So then in what time frame are we looking at? When do we expect that there will be results from this study? Are the results of the study to be presented to government or where will the results of the feasibility study go?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the government has some time ago established a senior three‑person committee consisting of Dr. Clay Gilson whom some of you will know from the University of Manitoba, assisted by my assistant deputy minister Dave Donaghy from the Department of Agriculture and Mr. Gerry Moore from the Economic Development Committee Secretariat.

Those three gentlemen have worked diligently over the past two or three months, four months‑‑since January‑‑in bringing about discussions with the various interested parties, with the hog producers themselves through Manitoba Pork, with the processing industry, with us in government, and although this is an internal committee, they are of course providing continuing advice to myself as the minister and to the government as a whole. Part of their work is the result of the feasibility study that is now underway, which is being done largely under the sponsorship, I would say, of Manitoba Pork and the processors, the searching out the possibilities of one world‑class killing plant. Again, as I said earlier, they have been asked to report in a fairly short time line within a one‑ to two‑month period from now. So we will expect some decisions to be taken some time in the summertime.

There are a number of decisions, I think, that have to be addressed, including the one that is of considerable concern to us, as I indicated just a few moments ago, and that is what needs to be done to ensure that the maximum number of hogs that are produced in Manitoba are in fact processed in Manitoba.

Ms. Wowchuk: Just on that, the minister had indicated that there are some 3,000 to 5,000 hogs weekly on average leaving this province to be processed out of province. Can the minister tell us why that is occurring, why they are by‑passing the central‑‑are they by‑passing the central desk selling, and why is this happening that these hogs are leaving the province unprocessed or in the live stage?

Mr. Enns: That is a very legitimate question, when you place that next to the instructions that went out from Manitoba Pork to our existing processors, that because of a hog shortage in Manitoba, they will only be able to supply Schneider's, Burns and Forgan's with 80 percent of their requirements. As a result, we are in the process‑‑in some instances, some individuals have been laid off in our processing industry because we cannot supply enough hogs to keep the jobs in Manitoba. Meantime, hogs are leaving Manitoba, 3,000 or 4,000 a week, to be processed in Ontario and providing the jobs, of course, for the workers in Ontario. That, I am sure, is as unacceptable to members of the committee as it is to me.

So these are some of the hard questions that the committee that I referred to has been examining. Ostensibly, on the surface, the reason is simply a matter of price. These are some of our premium hogs being produced by some of our premium producers, mostly producers in the constituency of my colleague the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), and La Verendrye, that are getting and receiving premium prices over that which is paid or what they would receive in Manitoba through our hog marketing process. So they are leaving it. It is a free market.

We, of course, ship some hogs live to the United States as well. That shipment movement does not worry us quite as much, because in the main, it is in the mature, the sow and the boar market, and quite frankly I think our producers are well served, that we have that outlet into the American market for these mature hog animals.

The question of, at the same time, having our processors by court order not getting sufficient hogs that they have markets for and orders for here and would like to keep Manitobans fully employed is a deeply troubling one. I will not speculate again, because the jury is out on what some of the recommended changes ought to be, whether or not we need to look very hard at the manner and way in which we market our hogs. We have the single‑selling desk that the member is familiar with.

I compliment the people who operate the Manitoba Pork Board, as we used to call it. They have made some significant changes in their method of selling. They have adopted new and more innovative formulations based on international and the U.S. market in pork trends that seems to have found favour with the processors. Obviously, there are still some things to be done. I am not satisfied because it has also been reported to me that in some instances these hogs that are leaving Manitoba and not going through our hog commission‑‑as I call it from the days that I remember it‑‑although I want to be careful and not paint them all with the same brush, but some of them are not paying the levy that the Manitoba Pork raises.

It is a checkoff. I say every hog raised and grown in Manitoba ought to pay that levy, because the board does many things in the generic interests of the hog industry, in the pork industry in Manitoba. They promote the product. They help in the marketing of the product. They help in the education, and in my judgment, have even a bigger task ahead.

We have to now educate our pork producers on the farm of the seriousness of these regulations, that if some of them have conducted themselves in the past in a manner that is not acceptable, and some of them have, it is not acceptable to be careless in how you handle the mortalities, the deaths, in an operation. You cannot throw them in a snowbank in the wintertime beside a creek in a ditch and then be surprised if neighbours and other people are extremely disturbed when they find them in the spring melt, decomposing bodies that are indeed a threat to the natural environment, to the runoff of water, something like that.

So that book tells you that you have to have refrigerated facilities on your farm where your deaths and mortalities go into and then can be picked up by rendering companies so that they are dealt with properly, or other specifications that are built into it. Quite frankly, it is a very major education task that the department will have to undertake, but we view Manitoba Pork and the pork industry being part of that and for that they need funds.

I think that every hog grown and produced in a province should contribute to that fund. It should not be the general taxpayer. They are quite happy to do that, but it disturbs me when I find out that some of these 3,000, 4,000 hogs that are leaving the province in by‑passing the commission are not paying that levy. There has been some voluntary payment. There has been a commitment to paying that. So these are some of the things that I have to address in the next little while.

* (1540)

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister does a good job of anticipating next questions that are coming. One of the concerns I had raised to me from some of the pork producers is the fact that those people who are by‑passing the single‑desk selling are not paying their fair share to the Manitoba Pork, but are able to take advantage of all of the promotion that the association does for pork producers across the province.

I do not quite understand why the minister indicates that the plants here are operating below capacity and have had to lay off people, that there is a shortage of hogs here in Manitoba to operate these facilities at the present time, and yet there are still hogs leaving the province. Is it because of price? Why would they choose to ship them out of the province if there is a facility here in a province that can process?

Mr. Enns: I am sure, to the honourable member, and she will understand this too as a primary producer, because if somebody is offering you $7 or $8 or $10 or $12 more for the hog, that tends to make that market decision fairly easy. Now, it is more complicated than that. There are some suggestions that I receive that this is because of a current somewhat shortage.

These are going to one large plant, Fearman's plant in the Toronto area and in Ontario. They are running a very full double shift, and it is economic for them to offer to these premium Manitoba hogs this extra premium, even though it is only maybe 5 percent of their overall requirements, but it keeps those shifts running full tilt, the economies achieve in so doing, that they intend to do that‑‑not easy answers as to how to combat that.

As the honourable member will recall from yesterday's Question Period, I am basically a free trader, and none of this expansion would be possible if we were not talking about our ability to trade beyond our borders. So it is very hard to talk in those terms about our export opportunities to California, to Japan, to Mexico, but then at the same time, attempt to by either legislation or some other government edict, curtail the Manitoba producer from selling and searching out those markets that he feels are best for him. In this case, regrettably, you have to be in Ontario.

But I say with concern, there could be six months from now, well, not six months, but there could be a couple of years from now, Saskatchewan or North Dakota. There seems to be a consensus that agricultural economists, people much more learned than myself, have suggested that because of the fact that we have some very unique advantages in the production of hogs and pork in this part of the world, because we already produce a superior product that is recognized internationally, because we have an abundant feed supply in this general area, and I speak of Manitoba, North Dakota, Saskatchewan, has capacity, has room for a major world‑class killing facility that would need several millions of hogs, would need hogs far in excess of what we now have.

My advisors tell me that there is reason that we should be concerned about that happening, or at least Manitoba should be putting itself forward in the best possible position that if indeed it does happen, it should happen here rather than in another jurisdiction, because we will continue to have hog production in the province, but we will not be maximizing the job opportunities, the economic opportunities, particularly in our urban centres if for one reason or another, we fail to do everything in our powers. I say we are not about to try to coerce or influence a decision here in the injudicious use of grant money or anything like that. It has to be market driven, but we see these forces at play.

We are aware that neighbouring jurisdictions are talking to people who have an interest in this matter. We see, particularly in the last seven or eight months, the coming together of a very substantial capacity in Alberta where the government, after having taken a failed plant off the hands of one‑‑who was that gentlemen?

An Honourable Member: Pocklington.

Mr. Enns: Oh, that friend of the Great One. Mr. Pocklington and Gainers, but the point being that it has come under the control of Burns people. In other words, there is that world‑class capacity developing on the Alberta scene.

That is of considerable concern to us because having experienced the loss of essentially the beef processing out of Manitoba, we simply think it is prudent to do everything we can to ensure that, if anything, the hog processing opportunities will be enhanced in Manitoba and not reduced.

Ms. Wowchuk: I guess I can only say that we hope that this government will move quickly and pursue attracting some business, some company here, or encourage the development of one of the existing processors here in Manitoba that we can begin to process many more of those hogs in Manitoba, that the minister anticipates we will see an expansion of this in the province so that we can have the value‑added jobs.

We now have regulations for the hog industry which were tabled yesterday. We understand that there will be very soon regulations for the beef industry that are being prepared or designed right now.

I want to ask the minister: How does he anticipate implementing these regulations? What are the implications going to be on existing operations? Are there any implications, and how will those be implemented? Are there going to have to be extra people hired to see that the hog operations, and in the future beef operations, are following guidelines as set out by the government?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the honourable member is correct. A similar set of regulations specific to the production of beef are coming up very shortly. They will contain in essence much the same form, but, of course, there are differences in the manner and the way in which the beef herds are managed and the feedlots, you know, are run in Manitoba.

(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

The concern there will be‑‑and that is why every effort has been made to include actual producers, whether it was hogs and the formal organizations that represent farmers in Manitoba, like the Keystone Agricultural Producers organization, in the development of these hogs, that they not be developed solely from within the Department of Agriculture or within the Department of Environment.

Quite frankly, I will accept the criticism from some that perhaps in some instances the regulations do not go far enough. This is a first‑time introduction of some of these regulations to the farm community, and my job is not to make farming more complex. I want to make it a practice that is acceptable to our natural environment. If some of my critics from the militant environmental movement wish to take me to task for not, maybe, making these as stringent as they would like them to see, it is a free country. It is their right to make that criticism.

* (1550)

I would like, again, to think that of those members in the opposition who have an understanding of the farm site and who have an agricultural background, they will understand that a Minister of Agriculture in the province of Manitoba, first and foremost, has the concern of his primary producers at heart. I am satisfied that these are legitimate regulations that are being drawn up.

To answer the member's final question, you know, in a sense of fairness, it is very hard to‑‑there may well be farm operations going on right now, particularly because there are very specific regulations that would come to the beef and livestock, ones about how far you have to be away from a well or how many animals you can have close to a well. People in good faith did not have any idea that these regulations may or may not develop, where we are providing grandfathering clauses.

These are meant essentially for all new operations that come into being. Certainly, I am sure that many, including myself‑‑when I went through these regulations I did a bit of a mental calculation and found myself that I am at odds with the regulations I am about to pass into law, because all too often the practice was to have on a farm‑‑if you recall, to have the cattle come close to where your well was pumping and you had the old‑fashioned trough. Now, many of those kinds of things would be in contravention, firstly, against the guidelines. It makes sense that we are again worrying about the pollution of ground water sources.

To answer the honourable member's question, there are grandfathering clauses in here for existing operations.

Ms. Wowchuk: I think that is reasonable. I think it would be impossible to go back and change every operation to come into compliance with the regulations, but there are some regulations that existing operations will have to follow.

I guess what I want to know is how does the minister anticipate making people who are in existing operations and new operations aware of the regulations, and does he anticipate that it is going to require extra staff to implement the regulations? Is there going to be a regular check? Will there be checks on farms as they are establishing themselves, operations are getting started? The existing ones are there, but I am looking at new operations when they are being established. How will we have assurances that the regulations are being abided by?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there will be a calling on a variety of sources for essentially undertaking a pretty substantial education program on the farm. Again, within the Department of Agriculture we have swine specialists, we have other livestock specialist people. We intend to make our ag generalists like our ag representatives pretty well up to date on these regulations.

The department does not know this yet, but it is my intention, for instance, to ask particularly in some of the key municipalities to have our ag reps or livestock specialists to actually book 10 or 15 minutes time with the next meeting of the regular municipal council meeting to sit down and personally go over some of the new regulations, but more importantly, simply to advise the council that these regulations are now in place and that the Department of Agriculture and others are there to help disseminate this information when inquiries come in about them.

We will certainly use such other organizations like the formal structure of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities. In fact, I am asking their executive to come in to visit with me very shortly, again, to kind of formally present them with the fact that these regulations are now in circulation, that they will be sent to all municipalities, that they should familiarize themselves with them.

I would like to also think that within the industry itself‑‑we are fortunate that we have growing sophisticated organizations. The Manitoba Cattle Producers Association are an active, vibrant organization. They had a very successful annual meeting just earlier this winter in the north Interlake area, in the Ashern area, well attended.

The same thing can be said of the pork and hog producers. They had their annual meeting here in Winnipeg not so long ago. Through the agencies that the industry and the producers themselves have with the support of departmental staff, with every attempt to make this information more readily available at municipal offices as well as our ag rep offices, that is the manner in which we will try to get the information out.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want to move on to another area and that is with the cattle industry, the milk producing industry. We have had letters of concern from some people in the province who have heard that there is a move to increase the production of milk with the use of chemicals, and I have forgotten the specific name of the chemical at the present time.

I want to know what work, whether any research has been done on that here in the province and whether we are going to see any movement on that here in this province.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the honourable member refers to the BST question in dairy. If the member is not aware, the federal government has placed a two‑year moratorium on any possibility of its introduction into Manitoba. During that period of time, we will certainly be availing ourselves of the monitoring of the data that is being collected right now as a result of the introduction of this growth hormone into the American market.

There is much concern, you know, that it is‑‑quite aside from what it does to the production of milk or increase in the production of milk is simply also the question of consumer concerns in this regard and the consumer's reaction to the milk product that is raised, developed and grown under these circumstances.

This will and, of course, comes under the aegis of Ag Canada, animal health, and will be determined for us by that federal agency at some time. We are not specifically engaged in research. It would be an unnecessary doubling up of talents and efforts that are already undergoing in the federal jurisdiction, but we certainly will be monitoring and attending and making available to us all, all the information that is forthcoming on the subject matter. But the clock is ticking on that issue for at least the next two years.

* (1600)

Ms. Wowchuk: What I was looking for is whether there was any work being done, research, on that particular hormone, on that product, here in Manitoba. But since the minister has indicated that it is under federal jurisdiction, I guess we will have to wait to see what further direction we get from the federal government on that.

Another issue that has been raised by the cattle producers is the fact that the federal government is allowing additional offshore beef to come into Canada, and that is having an impact on the cattle industry here in Manitoba. The federal government has raised the level of the amount of beef that can be brought in from offshore into the country, and the cattle producers are concerned that this is going to have a negative impact on them.

Has the department done any work on that to research the implications of the additional offshore beef coming into the market and the impacts that that will have on the beef industry here in Manitoba?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am certainly aware that, as you would expect, organizations like the Canadian Cattlemen's Association and others directly involved in the industry note these kinds of changes and make their protestations, but in the main, there is, particularly within the beef industry, probably a higher level of support for open borders, for absolutely free and liberal trade. That feeling is held the strongest within the cattle industry despite the fact that they from time to time make their objections as to the amount of offshore beef, particularly if it is, when I say offshore, it is offshore meaning Australia or other sources.

The relationship between the American cattle people and the Canadian cattle people has been a mutually advantageous one, and that is deeply felt within the cattle community. I speak personally. The presence of an American calf buyer at an auction ring is very welcome to add a little competition to the Ontario calf buyer or the Saskatchewan or Alberta calf buyer or the Manitoba calf buyer.

I have not asked the department to do anything specifically in this regard, although we suspect that, as in all these matters, we look at them under the new‑‑we are all learning to live with the new fine print in the trade obligations that we have entered into under GATT. We ought not to be giving up anything without getting something or getting consideration in another area, and I think it is in this context that our marketing people, again principally our federal people, will be looking at this situation.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister talks about pork production and beef production. It is my understanding that the government provides a grant to the Manitoba Pork Producers or to the Manitoba Pork Association for the promotion of pork sales. However, there is no incentive or no grant given to the beef industry for promotion, and this is something that the beef producers indicate that they have asked for in the past and they continue to lobby for.

Is there any reason why the government would choose to support the pork industry but has not found it favourable to support the promotion of beef?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, staff advise that the honourable member is correct. We do support the marketing of pork hogs through a Canadian pork international organization, and they receive $10,000 worth of assistance from the province. They, as well, receive additional promotional money from within their various producer organizations.

We do support a modest amount to the Canadian Beef Export Federation. We have a growing presence. This is a federation that presents and promotes Canadian beef in offshore countries and particularly in some of the trade missions to Japan and places like that, and they receive kind of a per capita, I guess, based on our population, of a modest $2,400 from the province of Manitoba.

I am not aware‑‑the honourable member says the beef people in Manitoba have petitioned for greater support in this area. What they have done is, they are looking to the use of some of the funds that have formerly gone into the tripartite support monies, to go into what they loosely define as a development fund. Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba are doing that. That could be a significant development fund, development of and research in aid of the beef industry, not just in marketing, but in animal health research and feed conversions and so forth, but I suspect a lot of it is going to be outright promotion of North American or western beef into the marketplace.

In that fund, we have in this year's budget set aside $150,000, monies that normally would have flowed to the beef industry under our obligations to the tripartite support program, but because they terminated that program, we left a program that cost us substantially more, in the order of $1.4 million, in that neighbourhood.

The request was, of course, that we should maintain our same level of funding, but I spoke to that directly at their annual meeting, and I think they understood that in these times, it is difficult to kind of park that kind of money while other departments are in need, and what we did do though was put $150,000 which is in the budgets, in the Estimates that are before you, for development purposes for the beef industry.

* (1610)

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want to very briefly put a few comments on the record, as well as ask a question or two of the minister.

First of all, let me say to the minister that I believe that he and his department have done an admirable job this year in promoting agriculture in general, not only through programs that they have initiated in this province, but through actions that they have taken both through the international trade process and the discussion that they have had with Ottawa in regard to this, as well as some of the discussions that are ongoing now to try and do away with some of the what I call trade‑distorting measures that are currently being negotiated interprovincially. I think it is admirable that the department has taken the position that it has on many of the issues and would encourage it to proceed as quickly as it can to set aside some of these interprovincial trade‑distorting measures and move to a much more open trade relationship with other provinces in this country.

I have always had, as you know, Mr. Minister, an interest in the promotion of our agricultural products, not only in this province or in this country, but internationally as well. I am wondering, Mr. Minister, if you are considering taking any actions either jointly with other provinces or by yourself and your department to initiate not only research but marketing of either new products or products that we currently produce in this province, such as beef, pork, poultry products, the raw resource products we produce.

I am wondering whether you are contemplating utilizing some of the financial resources within your department and redirecting them to encourage the formation of partnerships between the private sector and government to enhance our ability to further process some of the products that we are currently producing, but maybe, even more importantly, to try to develop more research or funnel more money into research that will see new products being brought on stream through either the University of Manitoba research department or the Morden research station, the Brandon research station. I think the market development wing of your department certainly could be involved in some of those areas.

I am wondering, Mr. Minister, whether there has been any action taken or whether you are contemplating taking some action in that regard.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thank the honourable member for Emerson. I think he broadens the scope of the discussion on our Estimates in a very valuable way. I think that is very much the function of the department, and I can tell the honourable member that it was just the other morning that I had the opportunity just to slip out for a little visit to our Soils and Crops Branch, which, as the member will be aware, is housed, is located, in Carman. Nothing special, just an opportunity to visit with staff and some of the specialists and people that we have who are engaged in many of the things that the honourable member makes references to.

I found out, for instance, that we have small but nonetheless kind of interesting and exciting efforts, and taken up by more and more individual producers, not on a big scale, but in the various opportunities that horticulture provides. We have people interested in doing a bit more in a more commercial way with that great native prairie berry, the saskatoon. There was a specialist at Carman that is helping and working with some producers to see whether or not any of these things have an opportunity of flying.

We worry about why all of a sudden we have kind of lost out in our production of buckwheat, which was at a higher level. I was interested to learn, again, from this brief staff meeting that somebody in the department is making it their business to worry about it. I think that is entirely appropriate.

I think the honourable member comes from that part of Manitoba, which, quite frankly, was a surprise and a bit of an eye opener to me, when I had the privilege of touring part of his constituency earlier in the year to see to what degree the expansion, for instance, in what we call the "pulse crops" in Manitoba.

To see huge warehouses full of peas and beans of different varieties, for somebody that has not been near that aspect of agriculture, it is extremely interesting and, I think, quite exciting. Now that tells me that the department has, in fact, over the years tried to respond to these initiatives and has had people in place.

Whether we have done that in sufficient capacity, I think, is always open to legitimate questioning. Of course, I do not make any great deal of‑‑do not hide the fact that I think this department is underfunded, that it requires some more dollars to do some of these things, simply because I think that the returns to the provinces as a whole are not always appreciated by our ever growing urban population, which, by the way, includes our ever growing majority of urban MLAs, of whatever political stripe, that come together and examine these Estimates from time to time.

We dedicate so much of our time in this business of governing our province, not just in Manitoba, but in Canada, in how to distribute wealth. We do not present enough time, in my opinion, on how to create wealth, and, of course, nowhere is the creation of wealth more readily evident and apparent than in agriculture.

The farmers right now, and some of them are doing it for the second time, I know, because of weather conditions, are putting two bushels of seed in the ground and are going to be harvesting 70 or 80 or maybe even 90 or 100.

Somebody that is investing time, effort and knowledge and doing this is creating wealth. I do not create wealth as a politician. Lawyers do not create wealth. They move it around a lot and a lot of it sticks to them.

The only wealth that I will create is when I turn out my four Charolais bulls into my cow herd. If 14, 15 months later, they will be a thousand pound or 1,100 pound steer or heifer as a result. That is wealth creation. That is why I think that what the member refers to is that we should be bold, we should be imaginative and we should have the kind of resources that even‑‑like many of these initiatives, they start with very small beginnings. It means having somebody in the department have some time to correlate the information, do some on‑farm visiting, do some of that research. You may only get the take‑up of two or three or four farmers to begin with, but that is how all of these diversified crops developed.

We do, of course, have some very specific challenges that we know of where the commercial opportunities already exist. They exist in the expansion of our potato industry, for instance, and in a more broadly spread area across the province. We are short of potatoes in this province, believe it or not. They are a good cash crop, but we have to do certain things. We have to use water judiciously to do that.

Whether or not the honourable member is going to press me now as to whether or not I will authorize the growing of hemp or cannabis in the province, you know, I might even do that, but I would not want to accused of‑‑well, I better stop right there.

Mr. Penner: Thank you for the response, Mr. Minister. As you are aware, there are a number of new products being produced in my part of the world, my part of the province. They are saskatoons. I have a fellow like Dave Sawatzky, for instance, who is growing five and a half acres of commercial saskatoons. By the way, the crop this spring looks very promising. Similarly, there are a number of small fruit growers in that area, and again, some of these people are looking at ways and means of adding value to some of those products such as raspberries, strawberries, saskatoons, plums, crabapples and others. By the way, we also grow some very good eating apples in that area.

But the question that I directed before is more specific. I believe we have a tremendous opportunity, Mr. Minister, in enhancing and encouraging the enhancement of such crops as vegetable crops, whether it be horseradish or other root‑type crops that can be grown in that southeastern part of the province. Many times we talk about the availability of water as being the key ingredient to either being able to industrialize parts of our more arid parts of the province and/or use water for irrigation, and we have a part of the province I believe in southeast Manitoba that has that ingredient, that has more water, an abundance of water, and probably some of the best quality of water found anywhere in North America.

* (1620)

It is, I believe, imperative that we encourage some of the producers in that area to start thinking of diversifying their operations beyond the grain operations and/or livestock operations into vegetable production or small fruit production or those kinds of things. I think there is a tremendous opportunity in that southeast part of the province not only for potato production but certainly vegetable production.

It would appear that your department would be well positioned to cause that diversification to happen if they took some steps. I am wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you are encouraging your department through‑‑and it does not take a huge amount of money to do these kinds of things‑‑discussions with people like Wally Happychuk at Vita who is an excellent ag rep and who has done marvels and wonders in that area to cause alfalfa to now be grown commercially in that area.

There is even an operation that is looking at cubing and pelletizing alfalfa for the export market in that area. That is just one example as to what a person in that area can do if are they given the encouragement to cause some of this diversification to happen.

I think we should utilize the resources that we have within your department. I believe that you have within your department some of the best people currently available to do that, and given a bit of additional resources could certainly see quite a cause and change in some of that area. I would suspect that not only would you see watermelons grown commercially as they are in the Altona area now and muskmelons commercially grown as they are in Altona in that southeast area, as well as some of the other crops that we described such as asparagus or carrots or cauliflower, or any one of those crops could very, very easily be very commercially grown in that area, if a bit of that encouragement was there.

So I am wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you are looking at, or whether you are having those kinds of discussions with your department that would see that kind of development being encouraged.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, let me in the first instance say that I think it is valuable for the department to hear these kinds of comments at a committee hearing such as this when their Estimates are being examined. I think the challenge for any minister, and that happens to be me at this particular time, is to do precisely what the member suggests, that we really examine every difficulty with the resources that we have, and, are they in fact being focused and directed in as an imaginative way as possible.

I think one of the legitimate questions that I keep asking of the department, and we as members of this committee have every reason to ask of the department, is the acknowledgement that we have a level or strata of what I call the very successful commercial farming operations that require less and less of the department's day‑to‑day attention, but are we in fact still addressing, attributing a substantial portion of our department's efforts to that area.

This is a hard question for the professional staff in the department to address as well. I will ask them to not be offended by anything I say because on the one hand professional staff, along with being there to help the start‑up farmer and help the problem farmer, to help everybody else, they like to be associated with the successful and most driving and energetic aggressive sector in that top 20 percent range of our farm operations. I am not suggesting that they will not continue to have that association, but within the departmental budgets are we, without necessarily going for extra dollars, looking at, as the member says, not with big dollars, but with focused and individual staff decisions here and there finding the necessary time to look at some of these new and different opportunities that exist.

I would like to suggest to the honourable member for his evening reading, once he gets past that fine picture of the minister himself on the front page and that of the deputy, that there are some of these thoughts expressed in this Vision document of where we see the department turning most of its attention to. We certainly talk about the kinds of things the member has mentioned, and I challenge the department to constantly keep this in their minds, particularly, as we look at those resources that are available to us.

I know that agriculture continues to change. We have had over the last number years, several decades now, a growing horse population in the province, for instance, in the pleasure riding. Some people sometimes forget, there are just many more horses. Many of the people that we welcome into rural Manitoba on small acreages come to rural Manitoba because they can keep a horse or two for their riding pleasure or just, you know, whatever‑‑along with the kind of existing racing industry that we have and along with, of course, the very significant PMU industry that we have. But we have not had a horse specialist within the department, and I have asked Dr. Taylor to address that issue particularly.

I think staff need to be encouraged, particularly management of the department need to be encouraged in the manner that the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) is doing. I do not fault them when they are somewhat reluctant in these budget times to say, well, gee, can we allocate these dollars for saskatoons or for horticulture or something like. They represent only a small wedge in the overall clientele that we service.

Yet I would like to think, within reason, and not to take things out of balance, I would like to challenge our department that we build into it the professional capacity that we can respond to inquiries of the kind that the member mentions, that we say to ourselves that, as in all matters of research, the dollars and the results do not flow immediately, but if there is sufficient justification to devote some time to a specialty crop that may be quite untraditional for Manitoba. Nonetheless, we should be prepared to expend some time and effort to it, and in most instances, be able to do so by examining very hard where we are now spending some of the resources and in fact a lateral transfer within the department to accommodate.

Mr. Penner: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just one more brief question, and I want to expand on what we have discussed up till now. I think there are some real opportunities that would present themselves if we chose to‑‑and we might, as the department, we might be searching out these opportunities. I am wondering, Mr. Minister, what your department is doing, or has done in the past year or so, to search out opportunities, be they either product opportunities and/or markets and/or other things, in other countries, whether you spend some effort trying to search out the needs of consumers in other countries that we might target in either changing our production methods or targeting our production towards other products that other consumers in other countries utilize, or products that they utilize.

How much time do we spend as a department visiting the countries of Japan, Malaysia, Arabia or what other exotic countries there are, trying to find out what the needs of those consumers in those countries are and to see whether it is possible for us to target our production initiatives to meet the needs of those countries and the consumers in those countries, and/or whether it would be possible to add value to what we do currently to provide a finished product into those markets and those areas? Is there any significant amount of time spent by your department searching out these kinds of opportunities?

* (1630)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the short answer is, yes, indeed there is, but again let me acknowledge there is, I think in my judgment, a need to co‑ordinate perhaps more fully, or at least constantly to be on guard for the co‑ordination because, you know, we have a sister department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, we have the federal government, we have private organizations themselves that are also engaged in this. Then we have collectively set up organizations I think that are promoting beef or pork or some of these things that are established there.

I, of course, think that if the other departments would simply give me the money, we would do a better job of it and more of my senior people would enjoy travelling around the country. We would be better salesmen because we are basically decent, honest, agricultural people. They trust us compared to some of the smoothies that are sent over by other departments. So I think we should be the recipients of more of this.

Just to give the honourable member an example, we have sent, you know, for incoming trade missions‑‑and this was a real eye opener to me, to appreciate that a number of incoming trade missions are coming into our country. That really should be telling us, if the customer is coming we really do have opportunities.

Many of them come, of course, to the Ministry of Agriculture and we end up visiting with them. We have, for instance, nine incoming trade missions from Japan alone this year dealing with pork, turkey, honey, wild boar, beef, chicken, buckwheat‑‑except we do not have buckwheat any more‑‑breedings, swine and assorted food products, and for that we have a modest $12,150 to wine and dine them, quite frankly.

I was able to take a Japanese delegation, who was a very serious representative of one of the largest retail organizations in Japan, and I took them to the opening Jets game. It was a great experience for some of them. For many of them, it was their first hockey game that they experienced. Most of them were not knowledgeable in the English language, although I did notice that they caught up in the game pretty fast. By the second inning, when the Washington Capitals were scoring on our team‑‑it was now our team‑‑the Japanese delegations knew enough that when Washington scored on our goalie, he would say, oh, shit, you know, and we were crossing the cultural bridge in a very significant way.

From the Philippines, we have three incoming missions: swine, breeding stock again, canola meal; from Mexico, we have a mission coming in on breeding stock and beef and dairy breeding stock, and again canola meal; from Malaysia, we have three missions coming in interested in swine breeding stock and other livestock; from China, we have a mission coming in on swine, beef and dairy; Thailand, five missions coming in on swine; from the U.S.A., three missions coming in on vegetables, breeding stock again, and forages in general.

There is a developing market and opportunities growing, and the member would be aware of it again from his location in his riding, for firm and continuing sales of forage products into the American market. Hong Kong, we have delegations coming in for grain and forages; one from Russia with respect to pork.

These were all missions coming into the country.

For outgoing missions, we have allocated‑‑now, we do that all for a modest sum of $20,325, and the honourable member will appreciate that that is not really spending a great deal of money of our $100‑million budget in terms of trying to accommodate and trying to impress and trying to make welcome people who could end up being extremely important customers for Manitoba and for Manitoba's primary producers.

On outgoing trade missions, we have three missions scheduled this year to the United States, again on vegetables, dairy and swine for a total cost of $4,500. We have three missions going to Japan on forages, chilled pork and assorted food products.

The honourable member mentioned, what are we doing in terms of really assessing what the customer needs? In the Pacific particularly, we need to change our technology in pork to develop the chilled pork process which extends shelf life, prevents‑‑that is, the product does not go over frozen. It is essentially unfrozen which means a lot to the customer. He does not want a frozen product, but still we have to overcome the problem of shelf life and the maintenance of freshness.

So we have had a pilot project that was undertaken, in co‑operation with one of our major processors, with the Burns people, with ourselves, the federal government co‑operating, and brought in Japanese customers to see how we were making out in this regard. Then again we have two further missions, one going to Taiwan and one going to Mexico. This gives the member a flavour of what the department is doing in this regard. If the member's feeling is that we are not doing enough, that is probably correct. It should be said that this is added to by those efforts that are taken by other agencies of government. We are in co‑ordination with them, but this is the way of the future.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like to put a few comments in regard to what has been said for the last couple of hours in Estimates here yesterday and today. I found it very interesting, the statistics and the words of the minister in regard to the hog producers in Manitoba.

I think we are well aware‑‑if we looked into the Legislature, I think all 57 of the legislators here are in favour of job creation and having jobs, and I think the statistics that were put on yesterday were great statistics coming from the minister. I was invited last Sunday to go to Komarno in regard to that rally that was put up for Sunday afternoon. I did not stay until the end, but I stayed for a few presentations, good presentations. There was a dairy farmer there that did put some concerns, but I did not think he was necessarily against hog producers or hog farming. But my feeling and in talking to a few farmers there was the fact that they did not have enough information. To me, I felt it was a one‑sided affair. It was just negative to me as far as hog farming.

My question to the minister is, how can we deal with these things? How is he dealing with these people that have not got maybe the statistics required to work with the government, to work with the hog producers, to have a positive effect in the end so that we can go forward and encourage the hog farmers in the area?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we simply have to redouble our efforts. Pardon me, withdraw that. I think it is fair to say that we are really commencing our effort, maybe somewhat late in the day. We should have been perhaps doing more of it as a department and as a government and as the industry itself in ensuring that there was greater self‑policing and self‑discipline involved in terms of how the hog producers operate their farms. With the benefit of hindsight, certainly it would have been helpful, I suppose, had those regulations been passed five years ago or 10 years ago, but it serves no purpose.

We start from today, and I appreciate the approach that the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) is taking. He is asking the right questions about where we go from here. He is aware: he has listened to some of the concerns that are being expressed at different meetings; he reads the papers; he knows what is going on. But the issue is that we are now in a much more determined way, with some legislative and regulatory tools in place that were not there even just four or five months ago. We can often talk directly with the people to answer some of the questions.

* (1640)

You see the very difficult position, and I have appreciated that on the part of municipalities, despite the fact that I have the knowledge and senior departmental people have the knowledge that anybody in the last two or three years, last five years, who was going to build a new hog operation, was in contact with the department in most instances. They would find out what the latest technology or the requirements with respect to lagoon building and so forth, and, in most instances, they met or exceeded the guidelines

There was no legal requirement, quite frankly, there for them to do it, so that, you know, if there was an emotional meeting at a local council, as there have been many across the province, and somebody who was concerned, legitimately concerned‑‑I am not suggesting that just because people have expressed a concern about ground water and about pollution that they are not sincere and that they should not be taken seriously. The difficulty that the municipal council was put into, the difficulty that the person or the party that was proposing the hog operation was put into, if somebody just got up and asked a simple question, he said, show me, or is there a regulation that says that you will not directly discharge your hog manure into a running creek or into the ditch or something like that? The truth of the matter is, whether it was a departmental representative or a councillor or somebody else, there was no regulation in law that prevented it.

That is not quite right. There were always regulations with respect to the environment, but on some of the other issues, like regulations with respect to how you can spread manure, the distances that you should remain from residential houses, the actual physical constructions of the lagoon and so forth as they apply to agriculture, they simply were not there.

Of course, once that answer was given, then emotions, imaginations run amuck.

So in defence of the industry, I think in fairness to the department, we were simply not in a position up until virtually today, now, that we have the regulations before us, to forcibly go out to the community and say, lookit, we believe that your ground water is safe. Furthermore, the Department of Environment inspectors‑‑and they do and they will‑‑will come out every week and monitor a situation if they feel there is reason to complain. Furthermore, and this is the final step, if in fact there is a pollution occurring, then that operation will be dealt with very quickly with the full force of law.

Really, quite frankly, is that any different from the hundred‑and‑thousand‑odd service stations and petroleum dealers that we have across the province that have buried underneath the ground over aquifers, near ground water‑‑nobody questions that‑‑thousands of gallons, millions of litres, of gas and diesel fuel, and the reason why we have regulations in place that force the little service station owner in St. Laurent or in Winnipeg‑‑every day he has to go and dip his tank, to measure his tank, because that has to jibe with his sales and the amount of gas that the wholesaler, the oil company put into that tank at the beginning of the week, just to make sure that we know for sure that tank underground is not leaking. We have had cases where gasoline and fuel have leaked and contaminated ground water supplies. We had a bad situation several years ago in the community of Neepawa. We had one in the town of Stonewall some years ago as well.

I say to myself, and I would ask to reason with my friends and neighbours, I would ask members of the opposition parties to reason with friends and neighbours, if we can manage a much more toxic substance like diesel fuel and gasoline in underground storage tanks, surely our agricultural engineers, and inspected and regulated by the Department of Environment regulators, can operate lagoons holding not a toxic substance like gasoline or diesel fuel but what some people would call a very valuable, if properly applied, fertilizer, and do it in such a manner that it does not harm the environment.

We have farmers‑‑your colleague raised a particular issue with respect to an operation in the Interlake area near the community of Malonton. My information has it that, yes, there was an initial problem with that operation‑‑before these regulations were in place, by the way. Our environmental officers and our departmental people were there immediately. The person acknowledged that he had a difficulty. In the course of a heavy rainstorm there was an overspillage of lagoon material into an adjacent ditch. He was ordered to rectify it. It has been rectified, and there has been no further difficulty on that particular farm. Furthermore, the information I have‑‑of course, opponents to the hog industry never tell you that‑‑that there is ample, some 6,000 acres of agricultural land adjacent to this operation. They are vying with each other to get the fertilizer, you know, the manure as spread on their land as a fertilizer. Our agricultural representatives indicate significant improvements in the forage production, in the alfalfa in the forage productions, in that particular area. So all I am saying is that reason ought to prevail, and we could make this into a win‑win situation.

Mr. Gaudry: Yes, one of the presenters, who was a dairy farmer from Chatfield, was saying that one of the hog farmers was going to be established about two and a half miles from his place, and he expressed concerns for the water because over the last four years during the winter he ran out of water and he had to draw in water from the city or something. Has this been addressed, this issue, or is it going to be looked at at another date? Have you been approached in regard to that problem?

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Enns: I am advised, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, through you to the member for St. Boniface, that specific instance is being currently reviewed by the technical team within the department, and we will be contacting him directly to provide him with the information that he is requesting. I do not know if this is a particular situation, but we had one situation where it was simply a question of the party involved having a very shallow well, a 9‑, 10‑foot well which we do have, whereas his neighbours have wells of 70, 80, and 100 feet. He was indicating the shortness of water. I suspect it had nothing to do with the operation of the farm, but that is being reviewed by the technical research team.

Certainly, with very few exceptions, and one of the exceptions occurred in the community of my friend the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), and I recall this is very carefully reviewed by the water experts in the Department of Natural Resources. We certainly raise the flag of any operation that will mine a water aquifer, that will draw more water out of the aquifer than it has the capacity to naturally sustain itself with. Although these operations appear to be large, particularly in our Interlake country, the sourcing of water is not at all a problem. The problem more is the potential, you know, and the concern is there because again of the geography and the nature of the soil and the close‑to‑the‑surface presence of limestone structures and so forth that there may be reason to be cautious about the potential pollution of ground water supplies. But an operation would not be permitted and licensed‑‑and now it requires to be permitted‑‑would not receive a permit that independent‑‑what I have seen of the experts from the Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources branch, in their opinion, it would be, in fact, impacting negatively on surrounding wells or indeed we call it mining, where we take more out than is naturally sustainable.

* (1650)

Mr. Gaudry: Veux‑tu que je parle en français un peu, tu vas traduire au moment?

[Translation]

Do you want me to speak French a little, and you will translate simultaneously?

[English]

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the answers from the minister because when I went out there on Sunday I felt that there was a lot of one‑sided thing, and we did not have the other side of the story or the comments from the department, let us say, and this dairy farmer, like I said, did not say that they were using the water yet. He was expressing concern that he had run out of water over the last four years twice.

My other question‑‑the fact they brought these concerns also was the big trucks that were going to be hauling feed and every transportation on the highways, and if on the highways, then they were going to be destroyed in no time.

Has this been addressed? Has it been discussed with the hog producers and with the communities in regard to transportation?

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you know, I suppose that is always an understandable concern, but the question is, do you welcome economic activity and the resources and the wealth that it creates for use by government to provide for, in the first instance, better roads and better highways in that area? That, quite frankly, very often is the first push, to get a particular road upgraded or built to higher standards or indeed paved.

Now, I appreciate that somebody does not necessarily always appreciate that, who is maybe adjacent to or living alongside a road that will see increased traffic. I am sure there are residents along Kenaston Boulevard here in the city of Winnipeg who are not jumping for joy at the thought of the federal government and the provincial government turning Kenaston Boulevard into a four‑lane facility to accommodate the anticipated additional flow of particularly truck traffic to the Winnipeg International Airport. It has always been thus.

I think the other side of that coin is, and it really has to be appreciated, and it is not being appreciated ever since under the leadership of that visionary Minister of Municipal Affairs or Rural Development my colleague Mr. Penner brought in the amendments to the assessment act, whereby we tax farm buildings and all farm facilities which we did not do up to now, am I not right, so consequently what we had in Manitoba, we had multimillion dollar operations operating on a relatively small acreage, and relative to their overall economic activity paid very little property tax, particularly if it was a farm structure.

That is no longer the case, and particularly, municipalities or LGDs like I have in the Interlake that I am all too familiar with, that are already strapped for a tax base and strapped for an assessment base and need quite frankly every dollar they can get, it is a little difficult for me to conceive why they, on the one hand, have, in my opinion, far too many substandard roads and gravel roads, you know, compared to other portions of the province, why they would defer and not look more aggressively and progressively at bringing in operations like these hog operations that would bring thousands upon thousands of dollars to the cash‑strapped LGDs of that part of the province.

That is now possible because of the action of my colleague the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) changing the assessment act in 1989, I believe.

Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would just like to thank the minister for his answers here. Like I say, I appreciated going out there, being asked to go to that meeting. My concern at that point was the fact that there was not enough information coming out from these people or given to these people. As I can see with the regulation, I think if we would have had that even on Sunday, when we were there, it would have made a difference and if we discuss it positively with our colleagues in the Legislature.

I had a call, for example, from my brother on Sunday night, and he says, where were you today? I could not get a hold of you. I said, I was out in Komarno, and he asked me, what for? I told him I was at the rally, and he said, you mean to say you are against it? I says, yes, and he says, well, I will phone the minister, and I will sell him my farm here so they can build that hog farm right next door. But he would have the same problem. He is two miles from Lake Manitoba, so he would have the people from Lake Manitoba criticizing a hog farm next to his. So I would like to thank the minister.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the honourable member's comments, and I simply want to take this opportunity to put this on the record, which really is a very big part of the communications problem and represents a very serious gulf in the difference of understanding about what it is that we are up to.

My understanding is that the statement that drew the loudest applause from one of the speakers was when he concluded his comments with this punch line to the 60 or 70 or 80 people that were gathered at Crabby Steve's barn: And you know, ladies and gentlemen, none of you are going to get to eat any of this pork; it is all going to the Pacific Rim countries. Then somebody jumped up in the back and said, yes, and some of it is going to Japan as well.

But understand what I am saying. The idea is that there are people in Manitoba today, educated people, who think that we ought not to produce anything more other than what we need to eat, and if they are thinking that, then we had better talk about closing universities; we had better talk about closing hospitals; we had better talk about closing schools, because this country, this province thrives and lives and our standard of living is there because of our export capacity, because of our trading capacity.

Can the member say‑‑that statement was apparently made at that meeting and it received a thundering round of applause. The idea that we should be producing pork in Manitoba for anybody else's use was just totally unacceptable to that audience. The idea that we should be selling a bit of pork to the United States was totally unaccepted. Far less the evil spectre that we were actually going to send some pork to the Pacific Rim countries that included Japan was inconceivable to that audience. And I would say in that audience, there were Ph.D.s, there were university degree people, there were teachers, there were former politicians sitting in that audience applauding that statement. That is mind boggling.

Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I stayed there only till four o'clock. I was not there for the last two, three speakers. I understand one of our MLAs from the Legislature here, they took a strip out of him when he went out there, so in effect I am probably glad that I was gone. But I think if I would have gone and spoken in Komarno, I would have spoken very positively in regards to jobs and what it did to the economy of Manitoba and talking about the fact there was information lacking within that meeting that they‑‑and that is my observation. Like I say, I speak very positively in job creation and what it does for the economy of rural Manitoba. I think we care for rural Manitoba, I think we all do, but at times we want to play politics, and with something like this, I do not think we should.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that from those comments we recognize that we have to do much more, and the department has to do much more to educate and promote the agriculture industry and make people more aware that it is very necessary if we are going to have a viable economy in rural Manitoba and an economy in all of Manitoba, that it is very important that we promote the industry and that we definitely not only have to look at exporting wheat, which we have been doing for many years; we have to look at exporting many, many of the other products that we have the ability to produce here in Manitoba.

* (1700)

There is a way to do it, and I think that it is by educating people and getting out the information, more information perhaps, as the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) has indicated. There was a lot of misinformation or lack of information at that meeting on Sunday. We can all recognize as rural members that we have a tremendous amount of work to do to promote the products that we grow in this province and produce.

I want to get back to a particular group of people who also want to promote their product. We were talking about the Cattle Association and the minister had indicated‑‑I was asking about the industrial development fund, and the cattle producers in their comments had indicated that the money was not in place yet. The minister I believe said that the money is going to be transferred. So I ask, is the money transferred to the industrial development fund, and who will be in charge of managing or disbursing of that money?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is a western Canadian fund that other provinces will be participating in. We have committed ourselves to participating in that fund. We are looking forward to providing this development assistance to the beef industry in western Canada for Manitoba farmers.

It involves issues like quality assurance, providing the type of information, video, television slots, like that about the assurance about the quality of beef grown in western Canada.

It will be specific to such things like tenderness. It will involve some of the industry's research issues that are an aid to the production of beef. There is talk in the industry about introducing an electronic identification process for following of feed lot cattle through the process of being finished and fed right through to the processing plant; different programs with respect to pasture to plate, to safety, its real critical points along the food production distribution chain; carcass washing, setting up an industry task force steering committee; a lot of the kind of industry and government interaction work that has to be done, so industry feels it is getting the kind of regulations whether it is health, whether it is transportation and things like that that are important to the industry.

Specific education initiatives that involve, again, to the producer, the importance of proper handling. The welfare of animals is extremely growing in more and more importance on the farm. Such things, again‑‑just educating cattle producers that tacky cattle, bringing cattle to market with mud and manure and hide and so forth is a no‑no, and it costs the producer money, and it gives the industry a bad reputation. Different education tools, information packages, again through video, contract through commercial communication sectors.

Then there will be some of this money set aside for the infrastructure that is important to the beef industry. Various government/university facilities should be used, example at Leduc or at Portage, for the processing of new products and packaging. We have that Portage food research centre, and we obviously have one in Leduc, Alberta that they specifically indicated.

This is the kind of scope of programming that the fund will support. This is being supported, this is what is being asked by our cattle producers. It will be done in concert with Saskatchewan and Alberta and British Columbia producers. The other provinces are putting in pretty significant pieces of money. Just what the total bill will be, I am not in a position to say. Our full $150,000 will be going to this end. It represents a portion of those monies that heretofore we had dedicated to the tripartite support program in the beef industry.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicates it is $150,000 per year. Is that for a specific length of time that that money will be committed? And the other question is, is this fund used for market development or outreach work into other countries where there is a potential of markets?

Mr. Enns: We consider ourselves‑‑and I commend the negotiating skills of my deputy minister and other senior staff who have enabled us to be part of this development fund, even though we are not putting in the same amounts proportionate than our partners, Saskatchewan and Alberta and British Columbia. They have more or less dedicated the whole amount of what they had previously been putting into the tripartite support program into this fund, which is significant.

We were able to negotiate a full position, you know, on this on behalf of our cattlemen with our commitment of a three‑year program: $150,000 in the first year; $208,000, the next year; followed by another $208,000‑‑a total commitment of $566,000. So what the member and committee members should see is that the beef industry, certainly as one sector of the livestock industry, is taking extremely seriously what they believe to be the future of their industry in the worldwide marketing of their product. They are prepared to ask governments to put these kinds of dollars that heretofore flowed directly to them in years of need for support programs into research and marketing.

The other point being, of course, and the significance of this‑‑and I congratulate the cattle producers. They are well aware that in this sense they are sensitive more so than some of the other producers. This kind of support is not countervailable, and our trading partners accept this kind of infrastructure support, this kind of marketing, this kind of research as not attracting countervailable by our major trading partners, namely Americans, and I, for one, congratulate them for that.

I am not so sure that in the hog industry, which, particularly in eastern Canada, still is wanting that direct, price‑supported governmental support program which does attract countervailable today. In the jargon of international trade‑‑now I am looking to my officials for some help‑‑we refer to programs as being green, as being amber, and as being red. Red is that the flag is up, that there is fairly highly likely that someone of our trading partners will, under the trading agreements, take an action against us. Amber is that we might get away with it for a while, but green is the direction that we should be moving in terms of our major farm support programs. The cattle industry has recognized it and has moved in that direction.

* (1710)

Ms. Wowchuk: This is as a result of the Tripartite Stabilization programs coming to an end that the funds are being channelled now into this industry development fund. The minister indicates that this is a good direction to go in, and I do agree with him that we have to develop the industry. But there are other stabilization programs that are coming to an end as well, so are there similar funds being established for other commodities as well or is this something that is specific to the beef industry?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, staff advises that there is one additional fund for lands in Saskatchewan, I believe, and Saskatchewan has chosen to put their unused tripartite support money for hogs into a similar industry development fund as in cattle. It is noteworthy to take note of that. It tells me how serious Saskatchewan is in terms of promoting the hog industry within the province. It gives the government considerable leeway as to how those fairly significant dollars can be used in terms of direct initiatives to expand Saskatchewan's hog industry.

But Manitoba and all the others have chosen and have requested their governments to use the remaining funds as a kind of initial or getting an earlier start into the NISA program, support program, that is in the process of being developed, and that is what we have done in Manitoba.

Ms. Wowchuk: I realize that I was probably asking that question under the wrong section, and I have a few more, but I will leave them until we get into the line where we are dealing with the stabilization programs.

In the area of Animal Industry, I want to ask the minister where we are going with the cream production industry in Manitoba. I know that a large amount or maybe all‑‑a good portion‑‑of the cream quota has been changed over to milk quota and that there are cream producers who are still very unhappy with what is happening here, and they feel that they are being squeezed out of the business. There are processors in Manitoba‑‑I think particularly of the Inwood Creamery that is in difficulty. I believe the Minnedosa Creamery has had to close because it has not been able to get an adequate cream supply.

The cream production is a small part of the agriculture industry in Manitoba where we have some farmers who are supplementing their income on a very small scale, but it is a very important part of that farm's economy, and there seems to have been a dramatic change in the direction that we are going in the cream processing here in Manitoba. I would like the minister to comment on that, and where we are, and what he sees as the future of cream producers in Manitoba.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member correctly points out some of the difficulties that those remaining cream producers are experiencing in the province. I can put on the record some of this information for the member's benefit that may be of general assistance.

Certainly, the number of creameries in Manitoba has declined from what it used to be, some 35 to about three, and now located in places like Notre Dame, Inwood and Fraserwood, over the past 20 years, due mainly to producers shipping milk to large industrial milk plants in cheese and powder rather than farm‑separated cream to small creameries.

It has been a relatively natural development, I am advised, that simply the economics of the dairy industry has brought upon themselves.

Cream volume throughput and margins in remaining creameries are low. More creameries, quite frankly, are expected to close. We only have three left.

Manitoba Milk Producers has a program in place to permit existing cream producers to shift to milk shipment, if they wish, and the number of cream shippers in Manitoba has been reduced from some 956 in 1991 to 270 as of February 1, 1994. Now, that is a very dramatic change. In 1991, we still had some 956 cream shippers, and three short years later, in February 1, 1994, we have 270.

Dairy section staff advise cream producers on regulatory requirements for shipping milk. The remaining creameries are asking the Manitoba Milk Producers for compensation on causing the drastic reduction in farm‑separated cream supply.

The member will appreciate, very much of the decision making is in the hands of the Manitoba Milk Producers' Marketing Board. While of course they stand accused in the eyes of some of the remaining creameries that they have been responsible for that drastic reduction in the number of cream shippers, I would have to suggest though that it is obvious to me that the traditional operation of separating cream on the farm level versus the shipment of straight milk to various larger plants for the use of butter or whatever production, for the production of cheese and powder, and of course fluid milk itself has been simply more attractive to the producers involved.

In any event, that is where the situation is. Inspection staff are of course aware of the problems faced by the small creamery operators but must insist that minimal facilities‑‑and this is part of the problem‑‑as declining and as minimal as some of these operations are, they have to, for health reasons and sanitation reasons meet the kind of standards that today's consumer demands.

Just some further information, the board has made arrangements with Notre Dame Creamery to source butterfat from industrial milk plants. This is the other point that some of the existing creameries that are still operating can avail themselves of. They can get their butterfat requirements from some of the plants where the whole milk is now going and continue operation. That is not always an acceptable alternative to them, but it is certainly there for them and they can do that.

I understand that arrangement has in fact been made for the Notre Dame Creamery to get their butterfat from other industrial milk plants. The other creameries have been made similar offers but have not taken these up. As of March 1, 1994, there are some 326 registered cream producers with an annual quota of 243,890 kilograms as compared to 746 cream producers with an annual quota of 847,067 kilograms just a year ago March 1.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I hope that the above information will be of some help to the honourable member in telling her where we are with the cream industry in the province of Manitoba.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated in his comments that this was just changing times; it was sort of a natural evolution of things, and this is the way it happened. But that is not exactly true.

There was some direction that came from the milk board, there was direction coming from somewhere that the quota should be converted from cream quota to milk quota, and people are being encouraged to change over to milk production rather than cream production. That is the direction of the department or the Canada milk‑‑either the federal or provincial governments‑‑someone is giving that direction, it is not a natural evolution of things.

* (1720)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to assure the honourable member for Swan River and members of the committee that there is no direction given from the department as such, from the minister certainly, from this government or from the department itself, but what has happened, and I say that this is again a kind of a natural occurrence.

What has happened is that there has been an opening up of the quota for additional whole milk deliveries to the plants. It may well be that farm management specialists in the department or the ag rep or somebody else has come and in fact that there is considerably more value to be derived from shipping milk in that way, which may in not all circumstances be immediately evident to the producer who is traditionally accustomed to separating his cream on the farm and feeding out a couple of pail bunders [phonetic] with the Schliesamilch [phonetic], we called it in my language, the skimmed milk. But the simple fact is when the system opened up quota, creamery producers in large numbers saw that it was an economic advantage for them to shift, and they did just that. That has accounted for that dramatic drop in the numbers of cream producers.

Now you say that is not a natural event. I say it is. I can understand the position of a creamery owner who all of a sudden looks around, and last year in March he still had 736 active creamery producers, and a year later there are only 220 or 230 cream producers. He views that as somebody directing it, somebody, perhaps government or a board or a marketing board, that is forcing these changes. I still maintain what in fact happened was that there was in the whole milk system an opportunity and a desire and a need for more product. They opened up the quotas, and the existing creamery producers made their individual decisions.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister in other areas talked about the importance of value‑added jobs from every product that we produce here in Manitoba, and other provinces are looking at it as well. What has been happening in the dairy industry? Do we continue to produce‑‑we have shifted from cream to milk production. As I understand, in the rural area, we are producing less butter than we were. I know of areas where we are producing less cheese than we were. What is happening to the value‑added jobs from dairy products? Are we still producing cheese? Are we producing yogurt here in Manitoba? Are we processing as much butter? Are we gaining or losing in these jobs?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, allow me just to further introduce a senior staff member, Mr. Gordon McKenzie. He is Director of our Boards & Commissions Support Services, the Department of Agriculture. Gordon has just joined us in the front.

I am advised by my director of the Animal Industry branch that in fact the overall production and value‑added products from our dairy industry has in fact been steadily increasing, and some new participants have entered into it. A new plant has been just in the last month I believe approved in the Morris area for the production of specialty ethnic cheeses. There has been‑‑for the development in the processing of goat's milk at New Bothwell, the existing plants, if anything, facilities‑‑certainly the Lucerne facility at Safeway, Beatrice, and others are in fact expanding and developing into larger production units throughout the province of Manitoba. Is that right? [interjection]

My director says it is right, it has to be right. If you want to question Dr. Taylor, you are in trouble.

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I am pleased to hear that we are staying at a level or even gaining in that area because I know that we have lost in cheese production. I think of a plant that closed down in, I believe, the Dauphin area and then moved out to Saskatchewan. We are not producing that now.

I wonder, are we producing any yogurt? Is anybody producing yogurt in Manitoba or is that all imported?

Mr. Enns: Apparently we do not manufacture yogurt in the province. We have an arrangement, or some of the plants here have an arrangement with the production centre in western Alberta, at Lethbridge, that brings yogurt into some of our facilities in bulk form and then it gets packaged here. I would think that an operation like Safeway‑‑it has an in‑house dairy facility through their Lucerne branch‑‑would probably be quite involved in that kind of processing operation, as well as some of the other dairies.

Ms. Wowchuk: If our system does not allow us to produce all of the products here, are there any dairy products that we produce here in bulk and then ship out to another province, in a type of an exchange, where we would have the value‑added jobs here from that?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am told that there are in fact different kinds of co‑operative ventures going on. The old Co‑op plant that ran into economic difficulties some years ago and was taken over by an employers' group has, through a government‑guided program, received contracts to produce all the cream cheeses for western Canada. That is a plus for us. Now that is being controlled through the rationalization of the creamery, quote, as in subsidy dollars that were directed to that portion of the industry.

They can bring about that kind of an arrangement that enables an operation like the old Co‑op plant to do this, but that is certainly a plus for us in this instance. We are doing the processing and sending the product out to our neighbouring western provinces.

* (1730)

Ms. Wowchuk: Getting back to the milk quota, I understand that one of the reasons that the cream quota was converted over to the milk quota was because there was not a need, or there was a surplus of butterfat being produced in Manitoba. We were producing more than our share of it. Where do we fit into the scale with other provinces right now in the amount of butterfat that we produce in Manitoba? Is there a surplus of butterfat in Manitoba?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, staff may or may not try to find some specific information on that question, but to give the members of the committee a general overview of the value, and I always find this is interesting because that then enables us to compare that to other sectors of the agriculture economy that we are in. We can then sometimes compare a little bit as to the kind of attention it receives from government.

The total farm cash receipts for milk and cream in '92‑93 were some 122 millions of dollars, value of livestock, semen and embryo sales were estimated at an additional $20 million for a total of $142 million. There is a constant and steady trade in the breeding stock of our very good dairy animals, principally the Holstein‑Friesian stock that we have, and some of that, quite frankly, finds itself to some pretty exotic places, Mexico and other places, both in the form of semen and of actual heifer stock. Value of finished product of sale, that would be the butter, the powdered cheeses and powdered milk in the cheese is about $250 million annually. That gives you some idea, if you combine the 142 with the 250, that is just about a $400‑million industry to the province of Manitoba, engaged in by about 900, just under a thousand people who are active as primary producers in the dairy industry.

Ms. Wowchuk: Since the minister does not have the answer to that question, perhaps we can move on to another area, and he can get back with that information at another time.

I want to move on to another section of the animal industry and certainly one that has created a lot of discussion, and that is the PMU industry, certainly a very valuable industry in our province, one that has created a great amount of economic development. I see that development in our area of the province.

I wonder, what services does the department offer to PMU producers? Does the department do any research in this or is most of the work as far as breeding stock? I want to know also, if there is any research done by the department on AI breeding of mares and whether the government staff does any research on feed qualities. What supports are there to the PMU industry from the Animal Industry Branch?

Mr. Enns: We provide ongoing advice and assistance in the whole area of nutrition and general welfare of the horses involved. We are concerned and call into place the full services of our veterinarian division when we have areas of difficulty or spot areas of difficulty. As the member knows, we have some concern with what is referred to in the horse jargon as swamp fever, that has impacted pretty severely on one or two areas, I think some of the areas in the honourable member's constituency. That led to some direct action on my part.

As the honourable member knows, there is a compensation program in place for livestock when animals are put down for reasons of a disease. It was felt that the compensation level that was in place for the horses was a long way off from reality in terms of what had happened in the marketplaces for the mares that were being required to be put down. Because of the low level of compensation, that was in fact inhibiting the Veterinary branch from actively pursuing the eradication of the disease, farmers‑‑because it is the kind of disease that does not necessarily show up all that drastically, the horse just is not doing as well as it should be doing. It does not mean that it cannot be contained or produce for some time yet. But farmers were reluctant to report incidents of the disease because they were so dissatisfied with the compensation package when they were put down.

That generated correspondence between myself and the federal Department of Agriculture directly to the minister, Minister Goodale, and I believe that the compensation levels were changed just in the last little while. I am mistaken; I might just have read my own correspondence again where I was asking for it to be changed. That could have been the case. And no doubt I was impressed by my own correspondence, because it sounded like a very legitimate request on behalf of the producers of Manitoba.

Other than that, as I indicated previously, I think that the department will be providing additional assistance. I have asked the department‑‑I think the deputy minister will acknowledge that‑‑that it is in my judgment that it is time that we had some additional capacity for the growing horse population in the province in the sense that we have swine specialists and we have beef specialists and we used to have sheep and lamb specialists even though our sheep and lamb population is only possibly about 15,000 relative to the 50,000 or 60,000 horses that, I think, we probably have in the province. Would somebody venture a guess as to how many horses we have in the province?

Dr. Taylor informs me that there are 38,000 horses in the PMU barns on line. So, when you take, in addition to that, the pleasure horses, racing horses here that provide entertainment to the betting community in the summer, and just the number of private and individual pleasure horses that are there in growing numbers throughout the farms, I think an estimate of some 60,000 to 65,000 horses is most probable. I have asked the department, and they have agreed, we are looking to providing some additional professional assistance in developing the kind of programs that this horse population requires.

I might say that we have been specifically petitioned. There is a horse council that has organized in Manitoba that encompasses all horses, whether it is the PMU operators, the horse‑racing people, the pleasure horses, the different breed groups, and they have requested some assistance in helping them define and grow and develop a code of ethics, guideline for the raising of animals.

* (1740)

I am constantly reminded by senior staff that one of the new‑‑in dealing with livestock, the department is very sensitive that animal welfare‑‑and I use that term specifically, not to be confused with animal rights or that kind of terminology. It is animal welfare that is being taken with increasing seriousness by the department. It is appropriate that we do so, and that is why we encourage organizations, whether it is the PMU operators‑‑we were certainly instrumental in helping them to develop their code of ethics that they have imposed upon themselves. The honourable member will be aware, again, because they are dealing with one company, Ayerst Organics of Brandon. The company itself is extremely sensitive to overall public relations of their business, which very much includes the welfare of the horses. They have within their company‑driven program field people that make regular inspections of the barns. They have a very close working arrangement with the producers, and I know this of my own personal knowledge.

The company simply does not tolerate operators, and they do not have to, because there is a line‑up of some 1,200 to 1,500 people that would like to get into the business. They simply do not have to. They do not tolerate nor do they put up with an operator that is running a less than acceptable, a shoddy operation, whether it is in the manner in which he is housing the animals, whether it is the manner in which he is looking after them in terms of their nutrition, or whether it is in the way that he is treating his animals. It is taken that seriously by everybody within the industry, and that is why I think it is‑‑you know, I call upon our member. There has been enough said about some of the actions by one of her colleagues, but you know there is an old adage that my‑‑well, I was going to say my grandfather once told me, but that would be telling a lie, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because I am a Mennonite and we are pacifists and we do not carry firearms. But this old adage came to mind anyway, that if you fly with the crows, do not be surprised if you get shot as a crow, you know. That is what you are in jeopardy of, my good friend from Swan River.

If you allow members from your group, from the opposition group to talk disparagingly about the PMU industry, then you cannot hold up your hand at some convenient point in time and say, but it is not me that is making these remarks, or it is not me that has challenged the industry. You have to use your influence, you have to use your powers of persuasion to tell an otherwise decent and understanding person like Becky Barrett that the PMU business is a worthwhile business, that we treat our animals with respect, and that it is important to your industry. That is what has to be done.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can assure the minister that I have done my part. Members of my caucus recognize the value of the industry and are supportive of the industry. I think that is something that the minister should not have to worry about. As far as the industry in Manitoba, we are very supportive of it.

The minister covered a wide range of issues. He talked about the letters he had written to the federal minister, and he must have been reading his own letter and a response. I have been reading my own letters because I have not gotten anywhere with a response from the federal Minister of Agriculture with regard to the compensation package for the swamp fever, and that is a very important issue. It is again in my area of the province that this is a most prevalent problem, and I think that we have to continue to lobby to have that level of support increased to a comparable level to what the support is for the cattle industry. When an animal, as the minister has indicated a beef animal or a dairy animal, has to be put down because of disease, those people are compensated at a much better level than the people that are raising horses.

The minister indicated that there perhaps will be a horse specialist, or that there has been a horse specialist brought into the department, and that is certainly a good move and something that will be appreciated, if it has happened. If it has not happened yet, then I hope that the minister will pursue to have that specialist brought in. It is something that the people who are in the PMU industry have been lobbying for, for some time.

The minister also talked about the humane treatment of animals. That is something that I, having visited several PMU operations, I recognize that these people who run the operation, the same as people who raise cattle or poultry or whatever, realize, know that an animal has to be healthy to be at its full production, and certainly these people are no different than any other producer, people who handle livestock. In most cases, in the ones that I have seen, the animals are treated very well and fed very well, but there are always people who ask questions, and I think that when those questions are asked, we have to provide them with the information. I want to ask if there have been any cases in the last year where there have been reports made that horses have not been treated and that the inspections have had to be made under the humane treatment of animals. Have there been any cases of that?

Mr. Enns: Dr. Neufeld reports to me that we are not aware of any reportable incidents that have been made with respect to the PMU industry. We regrettably always seem to have several of them in various livestock operations or fields, but none in the PMU industry.

Allow me to just correct, put on the record, I knew I had seen somewhere that the federal government or Ag Canada had increased its compensation to animals that had to be put down for one reason or another, and where they had increased the compensation was for the very few. There were one or two animals that had to be put down for what they refer to as the mad cow disease, and that compensation package level was increased for that category of livestock, but regret that they have not to date made any change to the horse compensation package.

It is one that is I think before the federal government and the federal minister. I note that the compensation package that is offered by Agriculture Canada for purebred animals is being objected to by representatives of the various purebred breeders of animals as no longer reflecting today's kind of commercial value of their animals, and they are asking for those limits to be increased as well.

So I would suspect that it is an issue that we may have an opportunity to discuss a bit at our coming agriculture ministers' meeting commencing in July and use that occasion, although the agenda will be heavy with some of the other major issues that are before us, but nonetheless perhaps an opportunity to lobby Agriculture Canada for some upwards revision.

Ms. Wowchuk: Earlier the minister talked about the work that was being done, outreach work to other countries for the sale of various products and developing markets. With the increased number of animals on the line in the PMU industry, there are an increasing number of horses that are available for slaughter. I understand that there are markets, there are people who are looking at developing slaughtering facilities in Manitoba. Some work, as I understand it, has been done to try to tap into that market in Japan again. Is the department doing any work or are there any supports provided to those people who are looking at developing that market?

* (1750)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to the honourable member, I am aware of my own contacts within the horse community, that it is a fairly tightly controlled business when it comes to the use of horses for offshore purposes, human consumption purposes and meat purposes.

There are only two major buyers in the field with processing facilities, one at Fort Macleod, Alberta, and the other one‑‑and I regret to report there are some difficulties in that area right now with a further processing plant in Quebec. I am aware of another processing plant in Connecticut that some of our horses are currently being shipped to for processing and then eventual shipment to principally France, Belgium, Italy, and some limited ones going to Japan.

I would have to say that while we are aware, and the department co‑operates with people, particularly from I, T and T in the Economic Development branch, there have been some overtures made about the possibility of that. We ask ourselves the question, if we have the preponderance, we have the majority of the horses here on Manitoba farms, why are we moving them off to either Fort Macleod, Alberta for processing or to Quebec or to Connecticut?

I know that the honourable member has parties interested in her region that have talked about the potential of developing a processing plant here in Manitoba. People in the Interlake have spoken about that as well, and to that extent, we have provided background information and assistance to our economic development people.

But in the main, I think the member would understand that our main focus and attention within the branch in terms of market development, particularly inasmuch as it is not a product that we use here in Canada, that our focus and efforts are on the more traditional pork, beef, poultry, and the likes of that.

Ms. Wowchuk: Just one other question on this industry.

The minister has just provided us with guidelines for hog production, and we were working on guidelines for beef production. The PMU industry, as the minister had indicated, has its code of ethics that it operates under. Is there any need, and is the department looking at developing provincial guidelines with regard to the PMU industry? I know that there is the code of ethics that is in place. Was there government input into those developments, and how do they compare? Are they as extensive as what we have in the guidelines that are now being put in place for hogs and beef production?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have not had the occasion to specifically address that with staff, but I can say that certainly from the minister's point of view, I would presume that in time we will develop and put into regulations for all our major livestock. We have chosen hogs to be the priority regulations to be worked on simply because they were the species that there was the greatest controversy and the greatest concern within the general public, and specifically with the producers themselves, with the people engaged in that activity. We are now, as we indicated, moving to the next set of regulations, where we will deal specifically with beef cattle.

I have no problem, although I have not discussed this with the PMU producers or that much with the department, I have no trouble with looking at the code of ethics that the industry has drawn up for themselves and at some point in time recommending that we bring them into a formal set of regulations applying to animals. It is in the interests of the government, it is in the interests of the Department of Agriculture that we have not just informal guidelines, but that we have sound and fast regulations that look to the welfare of the animals that are in any way connected with agriculture, and some of the problems, whether it is waste products, whether it is the handling of manure, whether it is other things that are peculiar and particular to that species.

I have no doubt, I do not think that this would be seen as intrusive by the company or by the producers. All of us, believe me, are in the business of wanting to provide‑‑we would, I think, look at that as providing additional assurances to the general public that, in fact, the animals that are associated with the PMU business are under some form of regulatory control that is fitting and in keeping with the concerns we have both from the animal's welfare point of view and/or the potential of problems associated with the natural environment that the particular species may have.

Now, having said that, we would certainly want to assure existing producers, the company that this would be done in full consultation with them, and they would be asked to be participants in the working group that would develop these regulations with respect to horses, just as we have asked hog producers and other people involved in the pork industry to be very much part of the group that developed those hog regulations.

Ms. Wowchuk: I think that would be a good direction to go. I think one of the questions we are asked many times is when people question us about the PMU industry. They suggest that it is a very private industry, that there are no regulations in place for it. Even though there is a code of ethics, there is a sense it is an industry that is controlled by one company, but the health of the animals could be at risk. I think that it would be a good direction, and something that the minister should consider is looking at the code of ethics that is there, and working with the industry, as the department did with the hog industry and is working now with the beef industry, working along with this industry to develop guidelines and standards as well.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Swan River is, of course, paying a deserved compliment to the Department of Agriculture, and I accept that on behalf of the department. I think that is and continues to be an ongoing rationale for the place in the sun for the Department of Agriculture. We are looked upon, and understandably so, as nonsubjective, not caring for vested interests, particularly the case with the PMU business, and that is not said in any way in a derogatory fashion of Ayerst Organic.

It is a one‑company industry, and it is a very tightly controlled industry as such, and I certainly can accept the kind of concern that is expressed by people who have no knowledge of the industry who say that, well, you know, that is a pretty tidy little in‑house club that the company has with the 280 PMU producers. That is why I say, I think the company and I think the PMU industry would welcome the department, when we get that into our priority package, to develop the same kind of regulations for horses as we have now for hogs. I think the industry would welcome as putting‑‑again not wanting to have it taken out of context, but it would give the current what they call code of ethics a higher level of credibility, and they would have the assurance that they would be what a company or a group of producers‑‑all that could happen, I suppose, under the current situation, is that a field man from the company may or may not decide to take a producer to task if he breaks the code of ethics. But we have no way of knowing. The general public has no way of knowing it, whereas if a producer is breaking one of the governmental or departmental regulations, then in due course the full force of the law of the land comes into play. One would like to think that it is meted out in fairness and objectively and appropriately when it is called for. So I welcome that suggestion from the honourable member.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 6 p.m., I am interrupting the proceedings of the committee. The Committee of Supply will resume consideration at 7 p.m. this evening.