COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 254, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 4.(d)(1) on page 17 of the Estimates book and on page 54 of the yellow supplement book. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, when we left this committee last night, we were having a discussion on irrigation and the minister was providing us with some information. One of the projects he spoke about was the Agassiz irrigation association, to which he indicated some $800,000 in funding was provided, and a certain amount of that is coming from the Department of Agriculture through this branch, I believe he indicated.

Can the minister indicate whether there are any other groups in the province similar to the Agassiz irrigation association that are receiving funding from the department?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, as I indicated when last the committee met, there are no other specific irrigation projects as such being funded by the government. There are individual irrigation associations. I know there is the Manitoba irrigators association that from time to time receives some support from this department as well as from the Department of Natural Resources under their water resources shop specifically to do monitoring of certain aquifers, to do testing.

The honourable member will recall, particularly a few years ago, when the issue of transferring some waters from the Carberry aquifer to the Plumas area. Generally speaking, there was considerable debate as to whether or not that should occur. Subsequently, the project was deferred, but that whole issue raised considerable concern. I can recall at that time as Minister of Natural Resources that I was certainly prepared to provide and add to our knowledge, data base, as to the condition, as to the quality, in other words, further ground water studies.

I know the Department of Natural Resources has an ongoing role to play in this area. I think, if I recall, it was funded to about some-hundred thousand dollars for a cataloguing, if you like, inventorying of ground water supplies throughout agri-Manitoba. Staff advises me that there are no specific programs or projects that could be described as directly involved in irrigation as such that are being supported currently by the department.

Ms. Wowchuk: I believe the minister indicated that the Manitoba irrigators association gets funds on an annual basis to do this cataloguing? I thought he said $100,000, but can the minister indicate whether that is the amount that the Manitoba irrigators association gets on an annual basis from this department?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is, from our department it is minimal support from time to time for specific areas for some further ground water studies.

Again, I am advised that it is more of the monitoring-management kind of studies. The kind of work that we are directly involved with is again through the Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre at Carberry that can be generally described as researching ground water conditions, ground water supplies.

I am going by memory, and I would invite the honourable member for Swan River to make a note to ask my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) more specifically about it. But at the time that I was Minister of Natural Resources, we had a group within Water Resources department or branch that studied ground water. They had a multiyear plan of test drilling and evaluation assessment determining size, capacity of aquifers, so that the Department of Agriculture, when asked, could make proper determinations as to how much water could be withdrawn from a specific aquifer when we received requests for irrigation purposes. That was an ongoing program of the value roughly of $100,000 per annum that was spent.

It was not a grant to any organization. It was spent internally by the engineers, ground water experts, technicians, who built up this data base on ground water supplies throughout agri-Manitoba. It could not be correct to describe that as a grant to any outside agency or to any individual irrigator or groups of irrigators. This was an ongoing departmental expense under the Department of Natural Resources. To my knowledge, that is still ongoing, but again I speak just from memory, I would invite the member to make a note and request specific information from the responsible minister, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger).

* (1440)

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister is saying that there is no direct funding from the Department of Agriculture to the Manitoba irrigators association to carry on their activities.

Mr. Enns: I believe that is correct, there is not. There are different types of conservation programs going on. We have a fairly significant program involving different local conservation organizations who access relatively small funds with which they do a number of projects. Some do monitoring with respect to fertilizer leeching down through the ground water to see what problems might occur. Others do a number of projects that involve water and agriculture. But again, this is generally a local area-wide group that wants further information. This is not the kind of support, I think, that the member is asking for where the department is directly funding a specific irrigation project or an irrigator farmer or somebody who is going into irrigation.

Mr. Chairman, allow me simply while we are speaking with irrigation to clearly indicate to the honourable member and the committee that we are, as I have alluded to in some of my other comments, facing some very challenging and exciting demands for future requirements for irrigation coming principally at this time from the potato industry. We have been served notice. While this information is not generally in the public domain, we have been put on notice, if you like, by our two major processors, namely the McCain operation out of Portage la Prairie and the Nestle-Simplot operation at Carberry that would require significant expansion of our irrigation capacity. McCain's alone is looking, to meet their market obligations, at some additional 23,000 acres in potato production. Their request, quite frankly, is that all of that be irrigable.

In other words, they are prepared to offer to Manitoba producers this kind of an expansion in potato production if we can provide the extension work to encourage new entries into the potato growing field which, as I said earlier when we were discussing Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation's operations, requires significant capital on the part of the would-be potato farmer.

Of course, while we are dealing with the subject that we are discussing, irrigation, it is a challenge to both the Department of Natural Resources, principally their Water Resources staff, and the Department of Agriculture to cite and then to allocate the water for these additional acres that will be coming into production very shortly. The areas where the McCain expansion is expected to take place is in the general Portage plains area but also into the south central part of the province.

Therefore, there will be considerable pressure, if you like, on the Agassiz group to continue to provide water in the manner and the way they found it, by tapping surplus surface waters for irrigation purposes. It is estimated that in that area alone some 5,000 to 6,000 additional acres of potato contracts would be let if the water is available and if we can find entrepreneurial farmers who are prepared to change, to diversify their farming operation to get into potato operation.

From an overall provincial economical point of view, it is good news. It is the kind of thing that in the post-WGTA era, whether it is potatoes, whether it is forage, whether it is 101 other specialty crops, every acre that we take out of cereal grain production in this manner, we lessen the impact of the excessive freight costs that our straight grain farming economy will face post-August 1st of this year, in other words, as we move into the new crop year.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister has raised some important issues that will face Manitobans as we face the changes of the WGTA, and one of the areas is the expansion of potato production. That certainly has been successful for farmers and certainly successful for McCain's and other companies in the area. As we look at this expansion, I think we have to look very carefully, and I would hope that the minister's department and this department is looking at the quality of the impact on the soil as we change the cropping patterns of the area, look at the availability of the water. The minister talks about ponding and that type of irrigation, and certainly we have to look in that direction in order that we are not using just ground water.

I think, first of all, above all we have to ensure that there is water available for communities, for human consumption, that that is not sacrificed for irrigation. First and foremost, there has to be a water supply for human consumption.

The minister talks about expansion of the irrigation capacity. I wonder whether the minister feels that there is a further role for government to play in providing the irrigation projects or whether he feels it should be at the expense of the benefactors, whether that be the producers or the company, because when we have limited resources, I would not want to see public money being put into irrigation projects. I think that there should be the technical services provided and loans being made available for people that want to expand, but I do not think that we should be spending public money on projects such as this. I would like to hear the minister's views on that, whether he feels that the expansion of irrigation should be done at the expense of the public purse.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I take the advice offered by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) seriously, and she is quite correct. Water is an extremely valuable public resource and needs to be treated with a great deal of respect.

It was my privilege, as Minister of Natural Resources, for the first time in the province of Manitoba to institute a program that called for compulsory metering of all wells sourcing ground water for irrigation purposes. That is, in my opinion, the first step in bringing about a much tighter regime to the use of water. While I do not want to unnecessarily alarm current users of irrigation waters, it is my personal view and a view that I have expressed to my government colleagues that some reasonable charge for the use of the water, if it in fact is demonstrably, as it is, providing specific benefit to the user of that water, in this case the production of higher-value specialty crops like potatoes, then I think we are moving and taking the necessary steps forward to introduce some cost recovery from those who are using this public resource for their own benefit.

I do not want to be that narrow about it. A profitable potato farmer, profitable firms like McCain or Nestle-Simplot that employ upwards to 1,200 people in rural Manitoba and are extremely beneficial to the province as a whole, but I concur with the honourable member in that I believe that, as we move particularly under this pressure to expand our irrigable acres, it will be a challenge to the departments, both those officials housed in Natural Resources and in Agriculture, to prudently devise the kind of regulatory framework that does two things: that allows us to use that resource in a sustainable way; and that allows us to ensure that we leave our other major resource, our rich and fertile soil resources in such a way that we can, with some confidence, pass them on to future generations of farmers and primary producers that will come after we are long gone from the scene.

* (1450)

I take this opportunity, though, to encourage the honourable member not to join the ecoterrorists or the militant environmentalists who are all too quick to attack governments or any proponents of the judicious use of these natural resources that the province has provided us with. Again, this spring we have experienced the fact that the water is there in abundant supply. The fact that we have not been able to manage it better is our problem, but we ought not to cloud the image to suggest that we hold back development in this very, very lucrative--for both the primary producer, for the industrial plants that are producing world-quality potato products in Manitoba. There are tremendous opportunities for further expansion, particularly for these rural communities and our rural people living in those areas.

Let us not cloud our image for the kind of alarmist preservation of this resource. It is there in bountiful supply, and I think it is appropriate, as regards those who are trusted from time to time to manage it or have stewardship over it, whether they are ministers or whatever government they represent, that they be constantly held accountable and questioned, that our experts that we hire in the various disciplines are challenged to look at it from a sustainable point of view.

Having met all those criteria, then let us get on with it, and let us provide the job opportunities in this province. So I seek the honourable member's support in this instance. She may wish to distance herself from some of her colleagues within her own group that from time to time tend to want to curtail this kind of legitimate human endeavour. It is noble, it is worthy, and she would do herself a favour politically if she, in this instance, joined me on this.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure what triggered that response from the minister. I was asking the minister--at no point did I say we should not be using irrigation.

I said that if we were going to expand irrigation it had to be done responsibly, that we had to be concerned about the quality of the soil and whether the types of soil where we were carrying on irrigation could be sustained, that we would not create problems, that the water supply was there and always to be conscious of human consumption first.

But the question I was asking the minister was, does he believe that the expansion of irrigation into some of these areas should be at the expense of the public purse, or what does he see the public, the government, contributing? Is it technical services, or does the minister feel that there is a role for government to play in the expansion of irrigation services other than providing loans to those people who are farmers who are interested in expanding irrigation and technical services? What is this minister prepared--does he see his government responsible when it comes to expansion of irrigation in this particular kind of aspect?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I see it, due to the combination of things, not least of all our geography and our climate, and the fact that we often resolve several issues at the same time that it will be a combination of things. In the kind of situations that we have in Manitoba that we just experienced this spring again, water sourcing or water impounding measures have very often a greater public benefit in terms of flood protection.

Certainly the works that were done on our major dam and diversion works were for that reason and benefited either the 600,000 people in the city of Winnipeg, as the Winnipeg floodway does, the combination with the Portage Diversion and the Shellmouth Dam, but in doing so it also has enabled a significant number of acres to be irrigated in the Portage plains area using that slight impoundment of water that the Portage Diversion structure affords.

There have been suggestions, and they are entertained from time to time, that we could further expand the use of these structures, public structures that were built for multiple use or flooding use such as the Portage Diversion. Perhaps schemes have been entertained that we could contain some water in it during the summer growing season and allow irrigation waters to be drawn out of those kinds of facilities. So it would be a combination of both, but I certainly see a significant contribution coming from those who benefit, the private sector, the potato growers, indeed the companies involved.

Ms. Wowchuk: Considering the limited resources that we have in this province, or we hear the government speak about limited resources, I would prefer that if we are spending government dollars in expansion of water services, if we are expanding water for human consumption, I support government involvement in that.

If we are expanding services, in this case, for agricultural uses, I could see technical services, but I would not want to see large amounts of money put into the establishment of systems of irrigation services, considering, as the minister has said many times, we have very limited resources, and we have to think about human consumption and human services such as education, health care and those types of things.

I want to ask a question. He had talked a bit about the Roblin irrigation project, the test project there. Can the minister indicate what kind of funds are allocated for that project and what the costs are, whether there are provincial and federal dollars spent there and whether there is staff, full time, that is hired to man that project and a little bit of detail about what is happening in Roblin.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, my advice is that the funding in the Roblin area is part and parcel of the Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre's operation. The Crop Diversification Centre is essentially a federally funded operation. Our support is some additional staff that we have seconded to them.

The specific projects that are undertaken at a place like Roblin, in the first instance, there was again some funding through the Canada-Manitoba agreement for the infrastructural costs and setting up the operations at Roblin, but the actual funding is related to a specific project. Again, they would receive some modest funding through the Canada-Manitoba agricultural sustainable act or program. In the year before us, we see funding for the Roblin station being split $66,700 by Canada; a similar amount, $66,700 by Manitoba, for a total amount of $133,400.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate then is there full-time staff at Roblin or is it just handled out of the Carberry area?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there is no full-time staff stationed at Roblin that is directly associated with the Crop Diversification Centre, but our ag rep office at Roblin and our soils specialist in that area take a leadership role working in conjunction with what I would consider to be probably the project managers who would come from the Carberry station, from the Crop Diversification Centre.

* (1500)

Ms. Wowchuk: Another program that runs out of this department, I believe, is the Farming for Tomorrow and that is also federal-provincial shared. Can the minister indicate how many years there are left in that program and the annual allocation of funds, how much the government puts into that program?

Mr. Enns: The joint program of the federal and provincial governments is a four-year program. We did really our first major series of programs throughout the province last year, and so we are now into our second year of this four-year program.

The amounts I will give you in a moment for the program. By the way, the Canada-Manitoba agreement on sustainable agriculture was signed on June 4, 1993. It was a program calling for a total of $20.8 million to be, as I said, delivered over a four-year period. My understanding, and I would ask staff to correct me if I am wrong, is that a portion of that $20.8 million is administered by the Department of Natural Resources as well. I recall them having about an $8 million or $9 million, $7 million share in this program.

Ms. Wowchuk: I believe this is a follow-up to another federal-provincial agreement on conservation. I cannot remember the name of the previous program, but under that program and this one, we have an involvement from Ducks Unlimited, and there has been restoration of wildlife habitat and sloughs in an attempt to enhance the number of birds that are nesting here in this province.

I want to ask the minister: We have been able to enhance the number of birds, but can the minister indicate what the impact has been in farming in that--I have heard comments from farmers in certain parts of the province indicating that along with enhancing the wildlife habitat, the bird habitat, we have also increased the amount of crop damage that comes under wildlife damage. Has there been any indication that is in fact true and we are seeing more waterfowl damage because of the increase in bird population in the areas?

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be joined by my learned colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), who now is personally responsible for all the ducks and the geese--

Ms. Wowchuk: But you are responsible for the farmers.

Mr. Enns: --and the elk and the deer and the beaver that wreak any havoc or damage on our fields, and I am sure that when his Estimates are up, you will be able to hold him fully accountable for Her Majesty's livestock that roam at will across our fair province.

Mr. Chairman, I am reminded with some pride and pleasure that signing the agreement that the member alludes to--it was a very ambitious program that is administered as part of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. In Manitoba we use an existing corporation that--I give the credit--the previous administration established, the Heritage Habitat Corporation that manages that plan or the portion of that plan for us in Manitoba. It is centrally designated in that southwestern portion of the province. Ducks Unlimited is a partner in that plan along with many other partners including Canada, including other private agencies. It receives through this plan about $600,000 of provincial monies annually, $645,000, unless my learned friend, Mr. Driedger, has reduced that program. He shakes his head, he has not. It is, from all indications, I think, a successful program.

Now, these programs are ambitious programs. When man, with all his faults, undertakes to try to correct some of the abuses that we have visited on the landscape, it will not be done in a year or two or simply by applying a bit of money. It calls for attitudinal change. It calls for agriculture and wildlife interests coming together and learning to live together in a much more compatible way.

I am pleased to report that that, in fact, is happening. I recall, and I am sure the current minister enjoys the opportunities when we have had field days and visitations in some of these areas, well attended, I might say, by local and participating land owners, both townspeople and farmers. I think we are making a difference. They have ambitious targets of X number of acres that they are trying to bring back under better, more wildlife-friendly habitat circumstances.

They are trying to attitudinally change the drive in agriculture to drain every last pothole that a farmer comes upon in that part of the country which is internationally famous for the prairie duck factory, if you like, for the entire North American continent. There is no question that Mother Nature has come along providentially to help and assist this program with the added moisture that we have had in the last few years.

In initial reports, and again, I speak outside of my jurisdiction, and the Minister of Natural Resources will have these figures more readily at hand when his estimates are under review, but indications certainly are that the populations of ducks are improving, that the habitat has improved noticeably for them and that the fundamental goals or objectives of the program are being achieved.

I find it laudable that in North America we can work co-operatively in this kind of program. We are getting significant, not quite as much as I would like, but significant American dollars to help us in this program, because we have viewed this, quite correctly, as a continental resource.

If we want to ensure that our grandchildren and great grandchildren will see and enjoy the flocks of geese and ducks flying on their spring and autumn migration routes, then we have to view this as a continental resource. The governments of Mexico, the governments of the United States, the governments of Canada are partners in this major conservation program.

Now, I, as Minister of Agriculture, quickly state and make the point that this is all laudable. I think that we as a society want to see a healthy wildlife population. In this case we are talking about waterfowl, but it should not be done on the farmer's back. The farmer should not be charged with the entire feeding bill because of the late harvest or something like that--waterfowl descend on a farmer's unharvested crop and do considerable damage.

* (1510)

So we have, currently, again, working in co-operation with other departments, notably Natural Resources, a wildlife committee reviewing the waterfowl damage programs. Currently, the program pays about 80 percent, I believe, of the crop loss as assessed by the Crop Insurance people who are in the business of assessing crop loss, whether it is from hail or drought, or for other reasons, and 80 percent of the losses are being paid that a farmer loses as a result of crop depredation from waterfowl.

For my position, I would like to enhance that. I think that if we want to maintain that kind of enthusiasm and that co-operative support that I believe is there from Agriculture in a way that was not there 20 years ago or 50 years ago even, then we should be looking at full compensation, 100 percent compensation for crop loss that results from these circumstances. That is a personal objective that I state. Whether or not I can achieve it is open to conjecture.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that we received substantial amounts of money from across the border via Ducks Unlimited--

Mr. Enns: I wish to correct that.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister.

Mr. Enns: That is not quite correct. The American Congress, the American government voted in what I consider to be quite an historic bill; it passed an appropriation in excess of $1 billion, of which a major portion of it was to be spent in a foreign country, in Canada. That is really--when you stop and think about it, would we be passing that kind of legislation that said we will vote, we will use $1 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money to be spent in the United States for wetland and soil and wildlife conservation projects? I do want to put that on record. The vehicle that is used, not the same vehicle by the way, in Manitoba the agency that is used to expend this American source of funding is Ducks Unlimited Canada.

Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for that information, and I was accurate to say that into Manitoba that money comes through Ducks Unlimited.

I have no trouble--in fact, I think we should be enhancing our wildlife habitat. It has been, partly due to farmers trying to make a living, that many of our wildlife sloughs and things like that have been damaged. They should be restored. I am pleased to see that the funding is there. But where I have a little bit of difficulty--there are two things. I think that if they are going to put funding into improving the habitat, which will result in increased bird stocks, we also have to look at whether or not they are prepared to contribute to the compensation. As the minister indicated, farmers should not be solely responsible for feeding these birds when they come on the land.

What I do have difficulty with is that we restore our land and provide habitat and then those birds go back down south and they are used as an object of recreational targets. That is where I have a bit of difficulty. We in Canada give our land and we enjoy them, but I have a bit of problem with the end result when we see some of these videos and read in sports magazines about the quality of life of these birds when they go back for hunting purposes.

I think we should be looking at, as well, using American funds to improve the habitat for wildlife. There should be ways that they should also be looking at compensating for--making a contribution to the crop losses that result for farmers as the bird population increases. I wonder whether the minister would comment on that, whether he would think it is fair that they should also have to contribute to the compensation.

An Honourable Member: Maybe we should send Rock down there, so they would register their guns down there.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, my colleague reminds me we could turn this into a gun debate, I suppose, if the honourable member wishes gun registration.

Ms. Wowchuk: No, let us not.

Mr. Enns: Let me assure the honourable member, and again I do not pose as a wildlife biologist expert or anything, but I am aware of the fact that habitat loss, predator loss by coyotes, foxes something like that far outweigh the annual harvest taken by hunters.

The kind of self-discipline that has been imposed by various governments, state and provincial here that restrict bag limits--I read one stats just recently with respect to the anticipated production in the coming year, that of the increased duck production in this year. About 11.5 percent of them will be harvested, will be hunted, will meet their end in that manner. Many more are predatored by foxes and by skunks and by simply loss of habitat where there are not sufficient water resources to raise the duck populations.

But I will desist from getting into a philosophical argument with our honourable colleague about recreational hunting. I am a modest hunter myself. I can respect and appreciate those who choose not to hunt or indeed who find it offensive, but I would also ask that that similar respect be shown to those who over the ages and over the generations have enjoyed the recreational hunting that we can responsibly afford and manage in this province and indeed throughout most of North America.

I might also add that those who hunt pay dearly for that privilege through various user fees, not the least of them are the licences that we impose, the licence that we impose on nonresidents. As such, just as the honourable member indicated a little while ago, if persons want to use water for irrigation purposes they ought to be paying something for that privilege, let me assure you that the hunting public pays significantly and substantially in the support of both private and governmental conservation programs, Ducks Unlimited, by the way, being one of the prime examples.

Ms. Wowchuk: Just to set the record straight, I want to assure the minister that these comments were not meant as objection to hunters, because I also happen to be a modest hunter and I enjoy wildlife. So I want to assure the minister that was not my objective. My objective was that if we are increasing the wildlife habitat and there is financial contribution from out of country to increase habitat, we should also be looking, if it is possible from these resources, to use them also to compensate farmers when it is their crop that happens to be the source of food for these birds. My comments have nothing to do with whether or not people should be hunting or not. I wanted to put that on the record.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, and I want to put on the record that in this instance my official critic and I are in total agreement that agricultural farmers should be fully and adequately compensated for the loss by wildlife, you know, under these circumstances. I thank her for that expression of opinion, and hopefully perhaps in the not-too-distant future she will have an opportunity to demonstrate support for that program if I bring forward a measure that would ensure that would take place. We are doing a reasonably adequate job of providing some relief and support when crop damage occurs, but I concur with the honourable member for Swan River, I think we can do better.

Ms. Wowchuk: Another question under the Canada-Manitoba Agreement, and again this is a follow-up program, a federal-provincial agreement. In the previous agreement there were funds that were set aside or were available for headwaters storage or water retention to protect farmland, and there was a project that was very near and dear to my heart, but under the other agreement or when this government came into power that particular project was scrapped; somehow the funding seemed to disappear along the way.

I want to ask the minister whether under this agreement there are any funds that are available or are there any studies being done on headwater storage or retention of water on rivers to protect farmland. The minister talks about diverting water for ponding, storing water with heavy run-off. In this agreement, are there funds available?

* (1520)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am well aware of the specific kinds of projects that the honourable member has alluded to, indeed the specific one that she alludes to. I can advise her that for those kinds of water storage or flood protection measures there are no funds available in this agreement. Under this agreement there are modest sums for small, localized conservation ponds.

We have different soil groups, one particular one comes to mind that has done quite a good job. The Pembina Escarpment and Deerwood Soil Association have in their local area built a number of two-foot, three-foot earthen dams that slow down the water after a heavy rain coming off the escarpment causing erosion on the land, backfills maybe five, ten acres of impoundment which some of them have been able to use for additional water supplies for cattle and so forth.

The kinds of projects that she is talking about, there is no specific funding under this agreement designated for that purpose. I take this occasion, because I know that my colleague who just left us, minister responsible for water resources, is very keen to develop and arrive at a new agreement that would in fact make it possible for the province, jointly with Canada, to consider the kinds of projects that are of the $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, $8 million order that would cover off the circumstances that I know are of continuing concern and importance to the honourable member for Swan River.

That is all, Mr. Chairman. I can carry on with a little more description of the kinds of conversation dams that I alluded to but these are what you would call the flatland dams in the chronic water-short areas of the south, the southwest where for very little investment, little coulees, little creeks can be slowed in their spring run-off and retain some relatively modest water-retention ponds.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate then how this comes about? If there were that section in the previous agreement where there were funds available for major headwater storages and now there is another agreement that does not have those funds, is it the responsibility of the government to negotiate those and, if so, why did his government decide when they were negotiating this agreement not to include the particular kind of projects which were included under the last Canada-Manitoba agreement?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the information that I have been providing the committee is correct. The past agreement that the honourable member alludes to, there was a specific add-on, if you like, that covered specific projects, about half a dozen--Jackson Dam, the Stephenfield reservoir. There were about five or six that I recall. I recall the honourable member then lobbying me because her particular project, Duck Mountain project, was not on that list.

This agreement is of a much broader, general conservation-type agreement that, with respect to water and water impoundment--for instance, under the agreement they are expecting to build 60 dams, but they are all of 40 acre-feet and less, which is very little water. These are all little earthen structures built very often for three, four or five thousand dollars in place of getting a municipal piece of machinery in or even the local farmer working under the supervision of a conservation CMAAS district will concur, will approve of the spending of these projects dotted throughout the flatland areas of the southwest.

There are potentially some monies that could be available to the Dauphin Lake Advisory Board, because there are some specific, in my judgment, waterworks that have to occur on that basin as we, over the next decade, work to improve the overall environment of the lake and surrounding area. By the way, that is an ambitious undertaking.

I commend and congratulate the multiple organizations that are involved and that give of their time and energy to serve on the Dauphin Lake Advisory Board. I had some hand in developing it in its initial years. It took many, many years to bring conflicting interests, cottage owners versus farmers and commercial fishermen versus sports fishermen and all these conflicting issues to have them serve together on the board was not done overnight. I commend those people who are working on that organization.

As I can recall stating in a meeting in Dauphin some years ago, when we had the first inaugural meeting, I am convinced that 10 years from now or 50 years from now, Lake Dauphin and surrounding area will have a better environment than it currently is. We will arrest the deterioration of siltation and other problems that affect the lake.

There are some significant project dollars that are required for channelization. There is the potential for a major wetland development there. In my opinion, the resolution to some of the flooding and water problems is, quite frankly, to encourage the government and/or other agencies--Habitat Heritage Corporation, for instance--to consider putting together a 5,000, 6,000-acre wetlands development in that region, that would, in my opinion, be the better management for some of those marginal and flood-prone lands in and around Lake Dauphin. That again takes money, and it takes a lot of consultation. But, if we could develop eventually to the point where we have some security in the knowledge that we have reduced the siltation coming into the lake by works on the streams that contributed, streams like where they come down from the escarpment that wash in the new heavy loads of siltation after very major rain or the spring runoffs, and if we can then improve the outlet stream out of Lake Dauphin so that we can effect some better management of the lake levels to levels that are mutually decided upon, both for recreational reasons and for flood protection reasons, you eventually end up with a much better environment.

We convince our farmers, agriculturalists, to back off from cultivating right next to the creeks and the little rivers that contribute to that watershed, but, in fact, put that down, put strips, put 10, 20, 30 meter strips of permanent cover in those areas to act as a filter before these streams keep getting loaded up with siltation. These are the kinds of programs that the Dauphin Lake Advisory Board is working on, and there are some funds, some dollars in this overall agreement, not modest, but it is done incrementally, $28,000. I believe they have applied for an additional $75,000. We are now looking this year, '94-95, at $70,000 expenditures in that area. They are asking for that to be repeated in the years '95-96, '96-97, so we have in this one little program some $210,000 earmarked for the Dauphin Lake area for this type of conservation work, as I describe it.

I think these are commendable programs. The credit, quite frankly, has to be extended very much to the local people involved because without that willingness to concur in our work it was easier, quite frankly, for senior governments to do nothing and that is precisely what was done for many years. I do not fault any government for doing that. There needs to be the willingness at the local scene, at that local level, to have a game plan and then try to stick to it over a period of years.

* (1530)

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated, I guess this agreement will run until 1996-97, somewhere in that range. I want to ask the minister, I am sure that there will be another agreement that will be ongoing from this one between the federal and provincial governments. Can the minister indicate whether it would be people from the Soils and Water Branch or who would be the people that would be negotiating that agreement?

The reason I ask that question is I am quite concerned with, as the minister has indicated, head water storage and the terrain along the Duck Mountains and in other areas of the province. There is need for a specific type of water control. The issues that the minister addressed that are being dealt with under this federal- provincial agreement will be addressing one type of problem. There are other problems, and we have to look at reserving the soil in other parts of the province, as well.

I am wanting to know if the minister can tell us whether it is under this branch, under the Soils and Water Branch, or who is it from the Department of Agriculture that would be doing the negotiating or drawing up the plan as to what goes into an agreement. Who negotiated to get this agreement put together on Manitoba's behalf?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I wish I could express the same certainty that the member for Swan River does that this agreement will be continued.

Ms. Wowchuk: I am hopeful; I am an optimist.

Mr. Enns: I would like to share that optimism. Certainly, there is a likelihood, I think, because it is multi-discipline that touches on environmental issues for which there seems to be a considerable amount of support, generally speaking, in the general population that we could look to some continuation of some kind of a program.

The kind of program that she speaks of in the future, I certainly would want the Department of Agriculture to be front, right and centre in leading the negotiations for that kind of an agreement, but I am a realist. I do not fool myself. That, quite frankly, I do not see in the current climate of fiscal restraint in Ottawa. They are facing very difficult decisions and have forewarned us that they are reducing fundings in such high priority items like health and post-secondary education that we in Agriculture, as deserving as we are, will not necessarily have an opportunity to get into a multimillion dollar--it would have to be a multimillion dollar agreement, perhaps with an agency like PFRA, which, in my understanding, is struggling for its own survival within the scheme of things.

To speak with some degree of confidence that we have the political will in this nation, in this province, to generate the kind of funds that the honourable member alludes to, I am disappointed about that. I wonder at it sometimes. For instance, if it were deemed appropriate, and, quite frankly, if the government of Ontario had not backed out of a hydro deal that my Premier, my government, signed with the then-government, we would be likely spending $2 billion to build a dam for hydro and general electric purposes.

Quite frankly, I am troubled why we cannot exert that same kind of political pressure to find $500 million to resolve some of the longstanding issues that the honourable member alludes to--$7 million or $8 million for the Duck Mountain project and a few other projects. So I share with the committee and the honourable member, you know, some of my disappointments in this regard, because I happen to again concur totally with her.

I think that we can--you see, and this is what I mentioned a little while ago--these projects always, always tend to have a multipurpose to them once they are in place. Lake of the Prairies, for instance, behind the Shellmouth Dam, has become one of our premier recreational areas.

On a July weekend, upwards to three thousand anglers from all across the province and Saskatchewan vie for angling positions on that man-made body of water.

It is being used--it certainly is a guarantor of water supply for the cities of Brandon and Portage la Prairie that take their entire municipal water consumption out of those river flows. When the engineer at Brandon tells us that the municipal engineer, the city engineer tells him that he is getting a little concerned about the level of the Assiniboine in August because of the positioning of the intake pipes that the Brandon water system takes for the supplying for the city of Brandon's water, we turn up a little valve and let an extra 200 or 300 feet of water out of Shellmouth structure.

Most Manitobans do not understand to what extent that structure can be, and is, and has been used for the last twenty years.

When there was a tragic drowning at Portage La Prairie in the little reservoir that has formed just above the intake to the Portage diversion, and at the request from the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies who could not recover the body, they asked us to shut down the flow for a little while, which we did, and the body was recovered, for instance.

That is how sensitively the Assiniboine River can be managed. But, if you read Val Werier, of course, and the other militant environmentalists, this is way above them, and I always use this occasion to solicit support occasionally from my colleague from Swan River who, I know, deep down in her heart, is actually pretty supportive of the kinds of things that we are talking about. She could use her growing seniority in the ranks of the official opposition to convince some of the neophytes, like the new member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), before he gets corrupted by the other members within his group to the righteousness of certain courses of action.

(Mr. Frank Pitura, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chair, I have only one more question to ask on this area before I turn it over to my colleague. Part of the activities carried on by this department is investigation and demonstration of new field crops, and one of the crops that people have made some inquiries about--and I understand that Australia is now looking into it--is the production of hemp. As we look at the need for more fibre and alternate sources of fibre with the decrease in forest products and the harvesting that we have of the forest, there have been inquiries made.

I wonder whether the minister can indicate whether there has been any research done by this department. I realize that there is going to have to be work done to change some of the qualities of this product before it can be grown on a commercial scale. So can the minister indicate whether any work has been done on it and what the possibility is of this at some point becoming a commercial crop that can be used, as I understand, for several products--for oil, but most importantly for fibre?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is absolutely correct. Hemp is, of course, perhaps one of the oldest crops known to man, and there are some very interesting data coming out of current possibilities for the use that are available to us from the production of hemp. Soils and Crops branch and the regional staff have consulted with two specific Manitoba groups and have applied for research grants. It is a crop in which experimentation has to be done with considerable sensitivity.

The bureau of dangerous drugs has issued, however, five permits for the evaluation of fibre hemp in Manitoba, and these are in conjunction with a particular Manitoba hemp alliance group, an association, a group of enthusiasts who would like to see the department carry out some trials and some experimentation to confirm whether it is a crop that would be suitable for our environment and our climate. Without getting too far ahead of the horses or, for that matter, the cart, to that extent the department is actively pursuing the opportunities with respect to growing of this crop.

* (1540)

I would seek some advice from my honourable friend the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), in this attempt of mine throughout these Estimates to develop alliances and bridges with Her Majesty's loyal opposition. There is, as I said, some sensitivity about the crop. The variety that is now being made available should not be confused with the marijuana product that causes the concern in the general public. In fact, it has been reported to me that, in certain areas of the States, law enforcement officers use this genetic variety of the hemp plant as a means of control in the sense that when it cross-pollinates with the illegal plants it debases their hallucinatory value and such. It takes away the value from the marijuana plants that are grown illegally in different parts of the planet and different parts of this province as well.

Should we develop this area of new crop production further, I would look for understanding and support from the honourable member that this is, in my opinion, a very worthwhile alternative cropping method. I am advised that potential cash yields equal that of potatoes and higher if suitable markets can be developed, both in the fabric industry, which is very attracted to the fibres that are available from the hemp plant, as well as some of the extra specialty products in the health food business that can be made out of the crushing of the hemp seed, various oils and other products that could be made, along with paper and along with twine of different kinds.

I have had some inquiries from ranchers who repeatedly get tired of the use of plastic twine on our bales, the degradability problems with it, whether or not a suitable alternative could not be found. It could lie in affordable twine coming from a product like hemp. I do not know, but I am satisfied that there is a wide range of potential uses for the plant.

I am looking forward to the special crops section under the direction of Dr. Barry Todd, to work with these people who are showing some interest in this area, to have--I think we were talking several--roughly three or four small test plot areas that would be undertaken in the coming crop year under the direct supervision of the branch.

Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for that information. I am pleased to hear that the research is going on, because there has been a fair amount of interest. In fact, there are clothes that are made out of the product right now. If it is a diversification, then we would be very supportive.

The minister indicated that there was money applied for research grants, or research grants provided to several people to do some work. Can the minister indicate how much has been set aside for research? Is there a specific amount?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, final approval has yet to be granted, but there is a modest request for some $20,000 to $25,000 before the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund, that seems to be the suitable kind of fund. We did not have it within the regular appropriations of Agriculture. We are currently before the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund for I believe it is in the order of $25,000 that would help essentially to purchase the seed, for instance.

This is rather expensive seed, I am advised. Is it imported from Europe? [interjection] I am advised essentially mainly from Poland.

It is to provide the kind of additional costs--the department had not planned on this as part of their work--and to cover some of the actual monitoring and the supervision of the plots.

Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification, can the minister indicate, will those test plots be done this year, or is this just in preparation and you have applied for permits, and, if permits are obtained, it will be done next year?

Mr. Enns: The intention is--we have done a fair bit of advanced work in terms of getting the necessary permits from Ottawa, procuring the seed--that we would be in a position, pending final approval, that we could proceed this year, this coming crop year. Apparently the seeding deadline times are still available to us to do it on a modest scale. I am talking test plots only.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I want to begin by complimenting the minister on his perceptiveness. I do feel that I am being corrupted by my fellow New Democrats in the caucus. I get this feeling that I am sinking into a spirit of teamwork, co-operation, a whole room of common sense, but I am sure that if I start slipping too far I can come and knock on his door anytime and he will bring me back down to earth. I appreciate your help there.

I also want to congratulate the minister on identifying the problems surrounding the Dauphin Lake Advisory Board. I want to also recognize his part that he played in the construction of that board and the work that went into bringing together the interests of the Dauphin Lake Advisory Board and all the people who have leisure or recreation income and other activities that are associated with that board. I am glad that there will be some type of move towards addressing the concerns of these groups in the future.

I want to ask some questions that lead out of some questions that I asked last night about irrigation. Last night, we talked about a total of around $800,000 going towards irrigation. I want to be a little more specific and ask how much of that $800,000 is going towards the southwest irrigators, the irrigation groups that are drawing from the Oak Lake aquifer.

* (1550)

Mr. Enns: Senior staff advise me that none of that funding, none of that $800,000 the member refers to is available to any project other than the Agassiz group that is in the south-central part of the province, the Morden-Winkler area, and these are specific project identified. These are the group that, as we talked last night, are building what I call these enlarged dugouts to capture surface run-off in the spring and in fact are also available to some auxiliary pumping, when the water is available, into these dugouts for water. But all of the $800,000, that $800,000, I think, represents, if I recall, a provincial government contribution to the $2.8 million or something in that range that the projected development costs of these enlarged dugouts for irrigation purposes will cost. I am going by memory. I used to know the organization better when I was with Natural Resources and I had the occasion to meet with them on occasion, but I know that there is a fairly heavy subscription, personal commitment on the part of the farmers involved, I believe in the order of $50,000. Most of the dugouts are being built, of course, on farms on private land, it is my understanding. There is not, in that area, Crown or public land available so it is a combination.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

However, they have formed themselves into a formal organization called Agassiz irrigation association. They are incorporated. They deal as an incorporated entity that can formally administer the ongoing supervision and management of these ponds. Certainly, as I recall from an ongoing concern, particularly as expressed by some of the senior management people in the department of Water Resources, the positioning and the availability of water, even in this case mostly surface water, is critical. You know if somebody has invested his dollars and his efforts, $100,000, $200,000 in building his large pond and then a neighbour builds one a half mile upstream from him and captures the water before his can fill in, we are concerned about the ongoing management of these ponds, that we do not end up with water wars of some kind developing.

To date, they seem to be a fairly aggressive and progressive organization that have availed themselves of the engineering advice from organizations like PFRA who are, by the way, also contributors as I understand. So when you have organizations like PFRA, who have a long history in water management in the Prairies in the province of Manitoba, and our own Department of Natural Resources water resources people involved, you have some comfort level that they know what they are doing.

To answer directly, the monies refer to specifically that project and there is no spillover to any other project.

Mr. Struthers: Maybe in the late hours of last night I misunderstood what was going on with this program, and that part of it comes from Rural Development, part of that $800,000, and part of it does come from your department.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I can just again for purpose of clarity specifically break down the $800,000. I want to indicate that the rationale for public participation in the program is as much for demonstration purposes. We want to, and our water engineers and soils people want to, collect the kind of data to understand whether this kind of water entrapment, which is relatively low cost and considerably less intrusive on the landscape than say, for instance, building dams, we would like to have a better understanding about whether or not they will work satisfactory over the long term.

I know my colleague the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) does not think they will and he argues with me about them from time to time. But it is an open book. PFRA engineers or water resources engineers want to get a better handle on how to manage these kind of water impoundments under those kind of soil conditions. So that is a big part of the rationale for government, the public supporting it. Any concerns can be laid to rest if they are proving to be working effectively and efficiently for the intended purpose, then we could expect to see and we with confidence could advise and counsel individual farmers or groups of farmers to proceed on their own in further development of these down the road.

But the actual $800,000 in question that the Agassiz irrigator group are receiving this year, the $200,000 comes from the Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre and that is essentially the federal contribution. Then there is a further joint Canada-Manitoba agreement under the agriculture sustainability account for $210,000. Then there is the contribution from my colleague the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) in their Rural Economic Development Initiative, another $300,000 contribution. So that is a totally provincial contribution, $300,000. Then there is a contribution from the Manitoba Natural Resources Branch, my colleague Mr. Driedger's department, for $100,000.

The Manitoba Department of Agriculture has no money in it other than the kind of money that we associate ourselves with when we talk about the Manitoba Crop Diversification Centre, but our contribution to the Carberry centre is in kind in staff and it is seconded staff not money. So those dollars that I initially said are in fact federal dollars as well. That makes up the $800,000.

Mr. Struthers: Your department then has nothing to do with the southwest irrigators, no money, no technical advice that is passed on to them. Is there any relationship at all with your department and the southwest irrigators?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member refers to another organization. Now we are talking about the southwest group, which has a satellite irrigation centre, a spin-off from the Carberry Diversification Centre.

That group will receive this year a hundred thousand dollars from the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund, not from Agriculture, but it is Manitoba, it is government of Manitoba money to establish and set up the satellite operation that will hopefully encourage what has been a modest start to potato production, irrigation in that portion of the province.

I can indicate to you as I indicated to the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) that as Minister of Agriculture I am pleased to see the economic opportunities of expanded production in a crop like potatoes to be expanded to different parts of the province, certainly the southwestern part of the province, which by and large, because of its rainfall, because of its soil and other conditions has not been able to diversify to the same degree as the south-central, the Morden, Winkler, Altona triangle has or the kind of diversification that you have seen take place on the Portage plains.

It is the hope that this kind of initiative will be the kind of starting gun to help that area that has had chronic water shortages over the years. With this kind of experimental work in finding out what supplementary water can provide and what kind of crops can be grown in that area, it is my hope that that part of the province will too begin to blossom.

Quite frankly it is part of the problem that is of perhaps the most serious concern to us. The rate of depopulation is the highest of anywhere in the province of Manitoba. I think it is a specific responsibility on Agriculture to provide some sustaining and new opportunities in agriculture that will help change that curve, that depopulating curve.

* (1600)

Mr. Struthers: Certainly the area that we talk about is one of the drier parts of the province. I am sure the producers in that area are looking very much towards the future and towards becoming more productive than what they already are.

One of the concerns that we need to consider when we talk about irrigation is soil degradation. Have there been any reports or any specific cases brought to the attention of you or your department in terms of specific areas of soil degradation?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, my director of Soils and Crops reassures me that very concern has been a focus of a good deal of their activity in their soil management. They focus on those areas that have had irrigation over the last number of years, but partly because of the degree of irrigation they require.

As I said earlier, we are fortunate in Manitoba that we are not Imperial Valley in California or other areas or the Middle East where crops are only grown because of constant irrigation. We require just supplemental application of, in some years, very little additional water. I have asked the director specifically, could I take the member to a site that, for instance, has been under fairly regular irrigation management for the last 15 or 20 years. Could we visit a site on an acre, a section or quarter section, that has suffered soil degradation? The response is that we really do not have that kind of situation in Manitoba.

That should not lead us into complacency, and particularly as it is the intention if I am given the opportunity to pursue it, to intensify the opportunities for irrigation in Manitoba, responding to the kind of market initiative signals that we are getting, particularly from the potato and some other special crop areas. We have to maintain our vigilance in ensuring that in fact what the member is concerned about does not happen.

I would be the first to want to respond to any reports that come forward to my office about that being the case, that is anybody reporting other than the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), because he reports to my office on an all too regular and frequent basis as it is.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, certainly I would never turn down a chance to go on a road trip with the Minister for the Department of Agriculture. Maybe we could co-ordinate on the same day that I talk to him, once I feel myself slipping too far into the clutches of the NDP caucus, as he mentioned before. We could kill two birds with one stone that way.

In relation to the irrigation that is taking place on the Oak Lake aquifer by the southwest irrigation group, were there any public hearings held before the group began drawing water from the aquifer?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, not to avoid the question, but simply to advise, for absolute correctness in the reply, that question should be asked to my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), who is, among other things, the licensing agency for irrigators' applications.

The information we have in the Department of Agriculture, that particular operation does not draw on ground water or from the aquifer, but from the Souris River. The member's question may still be the same, but to my knowledge there has been no call for, no demand for public hearings in this instance, but the source of the water that is being used in this instance is what we would call from a renewable stream.

I might just as an adjunct and as an acknowledgement to a former Minister of Natural Resources that I have a great deal of respect for and despite what I put on the record about his persistence, the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), I can recall that the honourable member for Emerson was criticized in some quarters for not standing up more vociferously against the then government of Saskatchewan who had the audacity to build the kind of structures that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) has been asking me to build, a good portion of this afternoon, up in her part of the region. I am referring to the Rafferty-Alameda dam. Well, you can recall--[interjection]

Well, no, to be fair to the member for Dauphin, he was not here, but the honourable member for Swan River was here when all dire predictions were made the Souris River would never see water again. Now we are irrigating from the Souris River water and I suspect, and I know as a matter of fact, that we will have a more dependable supply on the Souris River water that will enable farmers to irrigate their potato crops to the economic well-being of this province, but again the ecoterrorists of the time engaged in the most damaging and harmful accusations about what was happening to the landscape. My colleague carried part of the brunt of it at that particular time.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 4. Agricultural Development and Marketing (d) Soils and Crops (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,312,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $677,100--pass.

4.(e) Marketing and Farm Business Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,543,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,105,300--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $440,700--pass.

4.(f) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($47,200)--pass.

Resolution 3.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,592,600 for Agriculture, Agricultural Development and Marketing, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

5. Regional Agricultural Services (a) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,936,000.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I do not have very many questions to ask under Regional Agricultural Services. However there is one project that I am particularly interested in and that is the 4-H projects across the province which have been very useful in educational clubs and have been supported by the Department of Agriculture, although there was some cutback in funding in supports for 4-H over the past few years.

* (1610)

I do not think there have been any changes, but I understand that the department had looked at setting up some different types of technology to communicate with and set up teleconferencing, to work with 4-H leaders. It is a new project, and I wonder if the minister can indicate how successful that was, what the participation was like and whether or not it is something that will be continued, or was there not an interest in this as far as 4-H clubs go?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, staff advises me that the honourable member's memory is correct. We were the recipients of a one-time-only grant, $10,000, from the Esso people, petroleum people. We used that to run a long-distance type program, focusing on food production, safety of food production, and so forth. It was well received, and well over 200 participants worked on this satellite hookup that demonstrated, among other things, the wonders of modern communications and how we could, by using out of a central station, reach out to, in this instance, some 14 sites and over 200 participants in the program. Regrettably, it was just that, a one-shot effort, but it was received with considerable enthusiasm.

It is our intention, just as they are in education, for instance, to pursue the opportunities that this new technology makes available to us and often helps offset tighter budgets nonetheless to provide programming of interest to our 4-H organizations throughout the province of Manitoba that, under current budget restrictions, are more difficult to carry on, when even such things as travel and availability of staff are an issue.

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I am pleased to hear that it was a success. As the minister indicates, there are many parts of the province that it is difficult for children to access, especially if there are activities held in a central location. It emphasizes the importance that we have to put on distance education, and I hope the minister will encourage his colleagues to further enhance that.

Can the minister indicate that this was a success? Has his department budgeted to have a conference like this again this year?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised, now that we have had a bit of experience with technology we know that we can develop a program and make it even more attractive and more accessible to our 4-H'ers across the province. It is our intention to again apply for similar funding or perhaps somewhat increased funding to the Canadian 4-H Council from which this original funding--I identified it as coming directly from Esso but it came through the Canadian 4-H Council. It is our hope that kind of funding will once again be available to us.

Mr. Chairman, just while I am here allow me to introduce another member of our senior staff, Mr. Roger Chychota, who is a senior Agriculture person, director of the Northwest Region stationed in Dauphin.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that this project was offered at 14 sites. Are those the only sites that were accessible to distance education, or are those the areas where there was interest from 4-H clubs?

Mr. Enns: It was a combination where, first of all, we had the interest in the local 4-H groups to participate, and also there were some technological barriers in the sense that in instances we did not have the two-way communication capacity, just the one-way receiving, and so the specific 14 sites were chosen as much for that reason than any other reason.

The technology, the network of interconnected computer capacity, information highway capacity is forever expanding, and certainly our capacity in providing this kind of technology to different parts of the province will increase from year to year.

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Chairman, I am really pleased to hear that the honourable minister is so intent on ensuring that the viability of the agricultural industry in this province will be maintained, and not only maintained but enhanced, and that the diversification process is a priority in his department.

It is extremely important, in my view, to note that since the event of the dissolution of the Crow benefit there will be some very detrimental effects to the grain industry in many parts of this province and therefore will cause many of the people that have been dependent on grain production as such to look at other means of income and securing more stable income for their farms. That of course will lead to a greater need by the Department of Agriculture to look at different ways of doing business out in the landscape. I think the role of the support staff in many of the regions of this province will be significantly enhanced in that manner; therefore, their presence will be required, maybe even to a much greater degree than what we have today.

I say this, Mr. Minister, in regard to the fact that in my region we have had an ag rep that has been seconded or moved to another part of the department for a while, and that office still remains empty in the Altona area.

The Altona area, of course, has always been noted as being in the front of crop diversification and development of new crops, new crop varieties, new crops grown.

I note that simply because the watermelon crop in our area just went in, and some people might smile to hear me say that the watermelon crop just went in a couple of weeks ago, and it is doing very well, by the way. There are, I believe, some 20 acres of commercial watermelons grown in the province of Manitoba and they are all grown within 10 miles of where I live. There is a small portion of them that are being irrigated; some are being grown without irrigation. But that crop has been shown to be a very economically viable crop to grow in the southern part of this province in most years.

I think we could expand that crop very significantly if we had the will and if we had people that had significantly more knowledge of that crop, as other crops, such as saskatoons. There are a number of commercial operators now growing saskatoons within 20 or 30 miles of where I live, raspberries, strawberries. Mechanical harvesting of raspberries is proving to be a viable option of harvesting instead of hand-picking.

So all those kinds of things are being experimented with by individual farmers, and I think the significance of bringing a new person into the ag rep's office is of a great deal of importance, especially somebody who would have the ability and the knowledge in some of those areas or the will to go out and learn what all this entailed in this new kind of direction that is going to be required.

* (1620)

I bring that to the attention of the minister and this committee because we have a much greater need now or will have a much greater need now to look at that kind of approach right across this province. That is not to say we can grow watermelons or saskatoons or raspberries or strawberries or monarda or dill commercially in all parts of this province, but it does lead us to rethink where we are and how we strategically station staff and how knowledgeable those staff should be in other areas than what we have become accustomed to, such as livestock production, grain production and those kinds of specialty crops production, specifically such as canola, sunflowers and the traditional crops such as sugar beets.

I think there is a real need to search out and bring a new person on staff in the Altona area as quickly as possible. My question to the minister is, what actions has he or his department taken to ensure that that position will be filled and filled soon because we are really missing that void there.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I thank the honourable member for those comments, and I believe very sincerely that the senior staff appreciates hearing directly from a member of the Legislature and an active primary producer like yourself that the services we provide from time to time throughout agri-Manitoba are required and are appreciated.

You touched on my Achilles' heel. I do not know whether it is a compliment, I would like to think it is a compliment to the calibre of staff that we generally have in the Department of Agriculture that persons keep getting hired away from us. Maybe it has something to do about the pay freeze that we put on them for the last three years. Some of them even get elected to public office, and we are empty again of an ag rep's office, so currently I acknowledge that it is something that needs to be addressed.

The specific issue at Altona that the member alludes to, while it is not quite official yet, but we have designated a person, gentleman by the name of Kevin Johnson who will be filling in that position initially in a term position, but the office will be filled very shortly. What does very shortly mean? He is one of mine, and I cannot string him along, I have got to have the straight goods. Ten days, I am advised by my assistant deputy minister, Mr. Les Baseraba.

Mr. Penner: Thank you very much, Mr. Minister, and I certainly appreciate the candidness with which your staff deals with these matters. I also want to compliment the staff and the department and those that have consistently supported agriculture the way they have in your department. The agricultural community, specifically in my constituency--and I want to address only my constituency, because I know the agricultural community is much broader than that. My constituency certainly has a tremendous amount to offer. There are some tremendous opportunities that are going to avail themselves, and there are discussions currently going on to expanding very dramatically our feeder cattle capacity within our province, specifically within our region. How that is done I think is going to be of extreme importance to this province.

It has always been the farming community's view that we missed a number years ago, under previous administrations, an opportunity to keep a slaughter industry very active in this province. We missed it. There was a very significant amount of economic involvement by other provinces to entice that industry out of this province.

It is many people's view today that under the new terms and conditions that are going to be relegated upon us by the federal government in doing away with the Crow benefit, that those economics will again return to the province of Manitoba, and it will be much more difficult this time around to put enough money into place in other provinces to relegate us noncompetitive in the processing industry. It would be my view that within a decade or so we might well see the movement back to this province of that industry.

I think there are those primary producers now that are looking at those kinds of opportunities and seeing, being futuristic enough in their visioning, that they are actually contemplating feeding out cattle and finishing them here. Similarly in the hog production sector and other livestock sectors, I think there are some tremendous opportunities here which will, in my view, put into jeopardy some of the traditional mechanisms that we have held dear for many times. Supply management might be one of them. It might well put ourselves and our producers in this province in a very competitive-type of a position vis-à-vis the export competitiveness with our American friends and/or others in such countries as the Pacific Rim countries and those kinds of things, if we only allow ourselves to think positively enough and far enough ahead to see the opportunities.

My question to the minister is, have people within your department had those kinds of discussions contemplating these kinds of opportunities, and what is being done within your department to look at those kinds of opportunities from a trade perspective? Are we analysing properly what the Americans are doing with their programs such as the Export Enhancement Program, their soil conservation programs, their loans programs, their transportation assistance program and all those kinds of things? Are we analyzing properly, are we keeping proper tabs on ensuring that we have full knowledge of what some of the decisions are contemplated to be in the next budgetary process in the U.S., and specifically their farm bill? I will let you answer that question before I go on to the next one.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I again thank the honourable member for Emerson for his words of support for agriculture in general and for the department in general. I never miss the opportunity of reminding either my own colleagues or my own cabinet and caucus on any public platform from time to time, and I quite frankly like to do it on occasion in front of my staff because it needs to be said from time to time. Agriculture continues to be the driving economic engine of this province despite, you know, the advances of the information age and the information highways and secondary manufacturing, but that simply is a case not in dispute.

I offer this not in a way of argument or condemnation of what has happened but simply stating it as a fact. When I was first privileged to be the Minister of Agriculture for the Department of Agriculture in the Province of Manitoba that department received the respect and, more importantly, the money, totalling 6 percent of the total tax revenues generated by the province. Six percent of the total tax revenues generated by the province went to the Department of Agriculture when I was first privileged to be its minister. Today, some 29 years later, with the tremendous challenges that the member just alluded to--diverse nature of agriculture, competitive world that we live in, major trading partners engaged in subsidy wars--this department received a half of 1 percent of the total tax revenues of the province to meet its obligations.

So this department and agriculture generally needs friends, allies and support from whatever quarter at all times. It is part of the price that we pay for having become such a minority group. The fact that modern agriculture has made it possible that 4 percent or 5 percent of the population can provide ample food stocks, safe food stocks, for not only our own population but to make it profitable to provide it for export around the world, you know, has brought us into that political situation.

* (1630)

I make that statement not in a partisan way. I am a democrat. I understand that most or the majority of the members of the Legislature that we serve on come from the city of Winnipeg and are engrossed in the problems that big city living brings with it--crime, social problems, all the other issues that come when people tend to congregate in such manner. The price tag to agriculture, in my opinion, has been that we have to fight harder, be smarter, strategically ally ourselves with wherever alliances can be formed in the entire agri field to ensure that we get the reasonable kind of attention by legislators and policy makers of whatever political description from time to time. So I welcome those general remarks made by the member for Emerson.

I have been busy building bridges with my colleague from Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). I have even reached out to the new member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) in the hopes that I could subtly subvert him to the cause of support of agriculture, and I think he will be a supporter of agriculture. The honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), although I always had doubts about him because his two brothers farm just kitty-corner from me and I occasionally buy feeder cattle from them, I know that I can always reach him when I really have to. Excuse me, I am not making light of the remarks I set out to make.

To more directly answer your question, yes, we are occupying a great deal of our time in trying to respond to those very kinds of issues, the ongoing kind of trade talks that are taking place with our biggest trading partner. I am encouraged by reports that the international commission that was studying the grains question seems to have come at least to an agreement among themselves as to what they are going to recommend to their respective governments. I read that as a bit of a plus. I read that perhaps that we may not see another cap placed on importations of Canadian grain into the American market. That would be my most sincere hope. Even if it was only for a temporary period of time it would certainly give us some relief as we make some of that transition period that is being forced on us by the elimination of the Crow.

The challenge to the department is going to be just as you have said, that we broaden our focus. We have tended to look at Manitoba in the diversification field at fairly specific areas of the province. You know, the Portage plains area, the Morden-Winkler-Altona area, they have been kind the identified areas where diversification has advanced at a considerable pace, but the challenge now will be that we look at all other parts of the province, and as you say, not that we can grow watermelons or should we grow watermelons in all parts of the province. Whatever we can do in different parts of the province, how can we utilize and optimize our opportunities? That will be, I think, a challenge that the professionals in the department will accept with some degree of enthusiasm.

Just prior to your coming into the committee room we had a slight discussion about the possible reintroduction of an age-old crop like hemp and its possibilities for an alternative cash crop for some of our producers. I think we have to unblinker ourselves, and that means looking at our institutions that were very often established with rules that were set in place to deal with the problems of 1960 or even 1970, but this is now 1995. The day August 1, 1995 will be a very important, historical date in agriculture in the prairie regions. The longest agricultural support program that agriculture has seen in Canada comes to an end, totally and finally, on that date.

I think this is an exciting time for all of us in agriculture, and I look for the continued support from the members at this committee to help us devise those kinds of programs that can most adequately position our producers to come up with the challenges that we know are there for them. The biggest challenge is, of course--by far, the biggest challenge-- the realization, and this again--I say this in a nonpartisan way, but the simple fact of the matter is that for too long, too many of our producers of different commodities have relied on different percentage levels but are as high as up to 35 and some cases 40 percent of their income coming from government sources or government programs. In other words, not coming from the market.

The writing is on the wall. We are seeing it from Minister Goodale in Ottawa. We are seeing it from our own provincial ministries across this land. Our producers have to be directed to essentially getting their incomes from the market. That means, in some instances, adjusting the way we do business. Those kinds of fiscal resources are simply not going to be there. The general public has decided that they are earmarked for other items. I do not have to describe them. We hear them described every day in the Legislature, health, education, social services.

Mr. Penner: I have two other items that I want to raise with you. One of them, of course, and the trade discussion is leading into this, is our sugar beet industry in this province. I am gravely concerned that the actions that the Americans have taken limiting the flow of sugar into the United States and Canada not doing anything in retaliation in regards to creating a proper balance of the flows of sweetener and sweetened goods or products, in regard to that, I wonder whether it would be possible, Mr. Minister, or maybe feasible, if we as a province directly had some discussion with our American friends in Washington to lay before them our concerns from the Manitoba perspective on this issue.

I think it is noteworthy that the Americans are allowed free access, virtually, to our sweetener market in this province and in this country, and that the Americans have a system whereby they support, through the implementation of tariffs, up to 16 cents a pound on sugar and sugar products coming into their country and to a certain amount of levee at the same time paying back the refiners that 16 cent tariff if and when they process and export those sugars.

I think it would be advantageous if we had a dialogue with the Americans on their turf about the impact of that and whether it would be possible for them to support the initiation of a similar type of program in Canada of tariffication at the same levels and utilizing the NAFTA agreement and the terms under NAFTA under a North American trade pact and that they be applied to sweetened goods and sweetened products and sugars similarly in Canada as they are in the United States. I wonder what your department and your thinking is along those lines to ensure that we not only retain the sugar beet industry and the sugar refining industry in this province but that we could actually build upon it and expand it.

* (1640)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, just let me begin by responding in the following manner, that the member and other members of the committee are aware that I will be speaking directly to the committee on grain and grain transportation, standing committee of the House of Commons, on Thursday. I also have a meeting with Minister Goodale that same morning, but in my presentation I make the simple statement that the quotas imposed on exports of refined white sugar of Canadian origin must be removed. There is no justification for the United States restrictions on the import of Canadian beet sugar. That is simply adding into, taking the opportunity to indicate, because it is part of the WGTA process.

Partly, I am appearing before the committee, I am being asked how are Manitoban farmers, how are we going to respond in the removal of the WGTA? What opportunities, what actions can the federal government take? Well, they can help us in this particular instance. I suspect that there will be little action taken by the federal government on this issue until the overall question that the member himself alluded to of supply management, which, as the member is well aware, is a matter of major concern in the trade talks between us and the United States, is resolved to some extent.

I concur wholeheartedly that we ought not to sit back and await, doing nothing in the meantime. We also ought not to allow our fate to be entirely settled in the hands of the owners of the sugar plant in the province of Manitoba, whose interests are not necessarily Manitoba's first. They have plants in other parts of the province. They rely on a good portion of their product, importation of various forms of sugar. I have asked for, and we are striking a committee, a sugar task force, that will be meeting with Mr. Bob Bergland, who was Secretary of Agriculture under President Carter, to discuss the problem. We are in fact under the Economic Development Committee of Cabinet forming a little task force to do much of what the member requests.

I think we should be talking bilaterally with our American friends. We are aware, for instance, of some very basic facts, that there is not a surplus of sugar being produced by the American farmers or by Canadian farmers. We produce 8 or 9 percent of our domestic requirements, I understand, and the American farmers not much better. The fact is that the American sugarbeet grower has, quite frankly, a legitimate trade grievance, when Third World countries are using Canada to access the American market in a backdoor fashion. And I do applaud Minister Goodale and the federal government that, after considerable plodding, there are, as the member would be aware of, discussions underway right now. We are taking the Americans, examining our situation. We are looking at possible dumping violations taking place with respect to some of this Third World sugar that is coming into Canada and then finding its way to the U.S. market; that is triggering this response by the Americans.

In any event, we should be associating ourselves with what I like to loosely call the Red River Valley sugar beet producers. Indications have it, some pretty credible economic studies have indicated that we are among the lowest-cost sugar producers in the world, with the possible exception of Chile. Surely, under these circumstances, you know, we are not asking our fellow taxpayers to bale out a high-cost, inefficient industry. We are asking for action to be taken that costs no public money, no tax money, simply some regulatory enforcement of the type set--perhaps the honourable member suggested we should be examining the opportunities and provisions offered to us under new trade agreements, NAFTA. I am not satisfied that we Canadians--you know, we sit back and gripe at the Americans when they read all the fine print in the agreements. But these are the same agreements and these same provisions are available to us if we address them with the same aggressive style.

I would like to perhaps, particularly in view of the honourable member's personal background in sugar beet production, invite him to be a part of that task force and let us see what we can do in preserving that industry. It is an industry, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that should see a doubling, a tripling of acreage. We are planting in the order of 27,000, 28,000 acres now, have come close to 30,000 acres in good years.

It is not only the actual people involved in the planting of sugar beets, I am advised that much of the special equipment is manufactured right here in Manitoba, not the heavy motive, but much of the kind of specialized equipment used in the harvesting of sugar beets, not to speak of that we have the refinery operation operating here. It is the kind of classic example of where we should be at in agriculture. I mean, that is where we should be with durum wheat. Our durum wheat should be produced profitably by our farmers. It should not leave our province. It should go into a pasta-producing plant, and it should only leave our province at full retail price levels as a fully processed product.

We are doing that with sugar and it is a tragedy that we are in jeopardy of losing that. So I welcome that kind of advice from the honourable member, and I think we should--you know, we seem to have a two-year peace in the sense of at least planting intentions, in the sense I think there is a two-year contract that has been offered to the sugar growers. Let us utilize the next 18 months as best we can to try to sort out a more stable future for the sugar beet industry in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Penner: One final question, Mr. Chairman, and it pertains to our GRIP program and crop insurance. It appears that the federal government in their budgetary considerations are going to be moving away from the kind of support mechanisms that we have been used to. Not only does it appear, it is very evident that they are. It would appear that programs such as GRIP and a few others are going to be history within the very near future. I would ask, Mr. Minister, whether you are giving any consideration to adding something to crop insurance, whether you call it a top-up type of provision within crop insurance to allow for expanded crop insurance coverage levels with adequate premiums and a compensatory mechanism initiated within that program that would allow for farmers to make the choice to both secure through an insurance program price as well as volume of production as a replacement to what we have known as the GRIP program.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member, understandably, as we all are moving around to different committees, was not present when we had an excellent discussion on that very subject with the senior management of the Crop Insurance executive, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and some other committee members.

I make the assertion that it would be my objective to make our crop insurance program the primary safety net program for our producers. I acknowledge that for whatever reasons, although it is an adequate program in many senses, the participation rate is not where I would like it to be. I would like to enhance the crop insurance program so that it becomes so attractive to our producers that virtually all of them will want to be enrolled in the program.

I am challenging the Crop Insurance Corporation to--in fact, before we lose a handle on some of those GRIP premium monies that we have for the last five and perhaps six years, if we go around for another year, committed to the GRIP program, which I remind honourable members of the committee are significant--they are of the order of $34 million, $36 millions of dollars annually--that is provincial share--if we took some of those dollars--I do not fool myself--I suspect the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) will be looking for some of them if that program terminates. I want to indicate to the member that I am 10 steps ahead of him in having challenged the Crop Insurance Corporation that before we lose a handle on those monies, let us see what we can do with some of those monies in putting the icing on the current crop insurance program that offers some more attractive alternatives to the purchasers.

I, quite frankly, would like to just about be able to bring the crop insurance program to a level of acceptability that would enable me to do what some of the American people are talking about doing in making crop insurance compulsory with respect to participation in other agri-programs. Now that can only be done if the crop insurance program is designed in such a way that it is of that kind of universal acceptance.

To answer your question directly, it is very much my intention and crop insurance is well advanced in the planning stages for that.

Now a decision to withdraw from GRIP is yet to be made. You are well aware that we, last year, took the sunset clause that would have eliminated GRIP out, but we did that for good reasons, so that we could have this extra year or two without undue high premium increases to bring the account into a revenue situation, and that is very close to being accomplished, a very significant portion of a very significant debt that the program was under as a result of the difficult harvest year of '93 has been met.

* (1650)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 3.5 Regional Agricultural Services (a) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,936,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $635,500--pass.

3.5(b) Southwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,977,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $457,300--pass.

3.5(c) Central Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,055,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $523,600--pass.

3.5(d) Eastern/Interlake Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,438,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $722,200--pass.

3.5(e) Agricultural Crown Lands (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, over the last couple of days we have been discussing the diversification of the farming economy because of the changes to the WGTA and expansion into cattle and other livestock, and, of course, with the expansion there is going to be more interest in Crown land. I am sure that there will be more applications.

I understand there have been some changes made in the policy of this department and that being up until now you could not have a value attached to--when an individual who had private land and Crown land, when he was selling his private land, he or she could not put a value on their Crown land. When they were selling that, that was appraised, so there was a clear indication of whether they were inflating their prices to cover the Crown land, but there has been a change in policy and now that assessment is no longer there. There is the opportunity now for individuals who had been leasing land to now profit from the transfer of that land, so they can increase the price accordingly.

I would like to ask the minister what the rationale was behind that decision to change and thus put a value on Crown lands that are being released?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I have come to that conclusion to some extent of my background experience as being Minister of the Department of Natural Resources. We find ourselves in those circumstances, not in any way inhibiting or penalizing or restricting persons who enjoy tenancy on Crown land, and who, for instance, have built a summer cottage at a lake site on one of our many fine lakes that we have, over 4,000 summer cottages, and winter cottages I might add, scattered throughout our recreational land. The value of the land really has not changed or appreciated much, but I will tell you the difference between being on a desirable lakefront lot and being in the hinterland can be the difference of $20,000 and $30,000 to a modest cottage in the Whiteshell. You can call that personal gain from the person or the party that is selling that kind of property.

I am also aware of a policy that we used to have in the Department of Natural Resources with selling Crown land for recreational purposes, particularly where we had a deliberate clause in there that prohibited a potential land developer from purchasing Crown land for recreational purposes. I acknowledge that not a great deal of land is moved or transferred in this way, but it has. Particularly in the last decade, there has been more recreational land sold, principally in the eastern part of the province.

There was a provision that was in the selling of Crown land under these circumstances that would call for restriction on the owner--I believe it was five years--that he could not turn around and resell it at a profit. That was deemed to be speculating with a Crown asset or something like that, but that is all it was. If eight years down the road or 10 years down the road, there were no penalties or no restrictions placed on that kind of activity, I take no offence to the fact that what we are attempting to do is maintain economic cattle farming, livestock production units.

There are only two circumstances that apply. Number one, the aim of the land is to maintain the economic livestock operation which includes the land base, and that can only be transferred to an incoming legitimate cattle producer. If that is the case, if the existing owner derives some benefit out of the fact that he has packaged together, along together with Crown lands, along with his private lands and somebody wishes to place a higher value on his own private land as a result of that, I have some trouble with the state wanting to interfere in that kind of transaction.

Ms. Wowchuk: I do not know why the minister would have a problem with the state interfering if the state owns the land, because the person who is leasing--

Mr. Enns: We are not selling the state's land. There is no question of selling the Crown land being involved. We are talking about private land.

If I have a quarter section of private land that somebody wants to offer me $100 for it, I call it interference when the state says, no, Mr. Enns, you can only get $75 for it, because I happen to have two-quarters of Crown land beside it.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chair, I would like the minister to clarify then: the individual who has that land should be free to sell his own land. It should not be tied to the Crown land, because in my opinion what this does is--the minister talks about people expanding into agriculture, diversifying.

We hope that there will be young farmers who will be getting started, and of course it is the young farmers who are going to have the most difficulty in raising assets. By allowing a value to be put on the Crown land and tied into the private land, we are going to see that the majority of that land is going to be in all likelihood taken up by well-established farmers and will hinder the ability for young farmers who do not have the resources to start up and pay high prices for land.

I want to put it on the record that I think the move this minister and his government has made, in this case, allowing the price of the private land to be inflated to such a level that it will actually put a value on the Crown land is wrong.

I am just telling the minister that if is he sincere about helping young farmers get established and those young farmers who are in need of acquiring land to expand their herds, I do not think that this move by the department in this instance will be beneficial to those people who are trying to get started in the livestock industry.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, allow me, as has been my custom to continue introducing senior staff as they arrive, let me introduce Mr. Bert Fleming, who is chief of the Field Services Section of the Agriculture Crown Lands branch that we are now discussing. Welcome Bert.

I respect the honourable member for Swan River's point of view on this issue. In the first instance, there are conditions that have to be met. We have, in a deliberate policy way, made it more acceptable and more possible for the kind of orderly transfer, if you like, of livestock units and the land base surrounding that, that provides some stability to that.

* (1700)

It is not a given, by any chance, that the Crown land stays forever married to that particular parcel of private land that is involved in the sale. For different reasons, that Crown land can be, and from time to time is, taken away from lessees for various violations or different circumstances that appear.

I choose to take the attitude that the stability that this action brings to the livestock operations ensures for a greater opportunity of successful transfers, that is, if we want to see a healthy, growing and successful expansion of our cattle and livestock opportunities in this province. That will come from the people who are equipped and who can in fact access the finances to do it in a significant substantive way.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate, with the growth in the livestock industry and cattle and the PMU industry, what kind of an increase of demand there has been for Crown lands? Are there a lot of people who are on waiting lists to acquire land, or are there a lot of people in competition for the same pieces of land?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, while staff will provide me with some specific information, just on a general basis here are these few comments. I am pleased as the minister to be able to report to the committee that it would appear likely that this is the first year that we will be setting an all-time record number of beef cattle in the province of Manitoba. That in itself is not all that great. It means we are just catching up to where we were in 1974. We had virtually two decades of declining cattle numbers and now over the last eight or nine years a slow but steady climb back up. This year I am advised that we will have a beef herd in excess of 600,000, and that is certainly adding some additional pressures to Crown lands. In addition, we maintain a very substantial horse herd in the province that are competing for very often the same kind of pasture land and grazing land.

Members earlier on in the deliberations of these Estimates heard me refer to the small but nonetheless growing number of bison producers that we have in the province, now numbering in the order of 50 with some 5,000 head. All of this undoubtedly is putting some additional pressure on the Crown Lands branch.

We have for instance advertised some 300 parcels of Crown land that were vacant the last year, 118 of which were not applied for. There still is not that kind of extreme pressure on the land base that would leave well over a hundred parcels of land not applied for.

On the earlier questions--and I am not going to pursue that particularly--but I did want to acknowledge that the branch really has not received any significant number of complaints with respect to that change in sales policy. My Assistant Deputy Minister Mr. Baseraba informs me in fact one of the last particular instances where we had a sale of this kind crossing our desk, the evaluation of the property was $20,000 below what we had evaluated. In other words, if we would have insisted on our evaluation of it then the party would have had to pay $20,000 more. It leads me to believe that there will not be the kind of abuse--I am sensitive to what the honourable member is referring to taking place.

I would simply think though that--I was visiting my brother, the judge, at the Big Whiteshell Lake. He has a modest little cottage. I asked him, John, what do you think this cottage sells for, and well, he had it appraised the other day for $110,000. It was just a little shack, but it happened to be perched on a lovely rock outcrop on Big Whiteshell Lake, the sun setting, and a fine staff of Natural Resources provincial parks people looking after his property and ploughing his road and picking up his garbage. He will sell that property for $90,000 that would be hard-pressed to sell for $25,000 in terms of the building value. But we do not impose that kind of state intervention on that kind of a transaction.

If the honourable member is asking me is it fair, well, the world is not really meant to be fair at all times.

Ms. Wowchuk: It should be.

Mr. Chair, I think that the minister compares his brother who happens to be fortunate enough to own a very substantial cottage on some Crown land at some lake, and that is fine, he is very fortunate, but my concern with this is that we are putting pressure on farmers who in many cases have much less means than judges do to acquire property. I am concerned about the young farmers, again, who are trying to get themselves established. I do not agree with this policy is what I am telling the minister, and I am hoping that his department will monitor. The minister has indicated that up to this point there has not been a change, and it has not inflated the value of land, and the value of the leased land has not been built in up to this point. This is only a new policy. It has not been in place for a year I do not believe.

So I would ask if the minister would direct his staff to monitor the situation, and should we see that there is an inflation in value and it is going to hinder the ability of some of our more modest farmers in their ability to acquire land, then that this be followed and consideration be given to changing the policy.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, that is an imminently fair request, and staff is present. I would ask them to do precisely that. I think, having been specifically asked for that, we will be prepared when next the department appears before this committee and specifically respond to that.

Just a little bit of further information on the Crown lands question. For instance, in 1993, there were some 49 transfers involving 232 individual parcels of land. That compares to 38 transfers in '94 involving 178 transfers. Unit transfers--I do not know precisely what that means--17 transfers, 27 transfers. In 1993, we advertised 237 parcels; in 1994, 336 parcels. It seems that every year there are a certain number of parcels that remain vacant for the lack of applicants: 77 in '93; 118, as I stated earlier, this year.

* (1710)

There are reasons for cancellations. There were six cancellations of leases in '93 for reasons of nonpayment. One cancellation was for reasons of nonuse, the land was not used on the condition of lease. In '94 there were some further cancellations, 11 cancellations of the lease for nonpayment and another one for nonuse. This kind of movement does take place, although in the overall out of an inventory of some 1.6 million acres of land that indicates to me a fairly stable regime out there with the lessees that are occupying this land.

Ms. Wowchuk: There was a policy, an attempt being made by the department I guess in conjunction with Natural Resources, there was the exchanges made of lands, there was land close to--I think this is a Natural Resources question. I am in the wrong committee. I will leave that question. I just realized that I am in the wrong department. That is fine.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 5. Regional Agricultural Services (e) Agricultural Crown Lands (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,231,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $558,300--pass.

5.(f) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations $653,100--pass.

Resolution 3.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $11,882,300 for Agriculture, Regional Agricultural Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

Item 6. Policy and Economics (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $124,500--(pass).

6.(a)(2) Other Expenditures.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have several questions under Policy and Economics. I wonder if it would be all right if we asked a few of them and then pass the lines along.

The first area that I want to ask questions on is under Boards and Commissions, if that would be suitable.

One of the boards and commissions that I have questions on is the Milk Prices Review Commission. I want to ask the minister, and I hope I am in the right department, there is concern that has been raised in my part of my constituency, and I know it is a concern in other rural areas, in the pricing of milk products. These are not the same in all parts of the province. Milk being what one would call almost an essential product, this causes some concern. I wonder if the minister, through his staff, could indicate what the policy is and why there is such a discrepancy in pricing.

I know the particular businessperson that brought it to my attention is very frustrated because he was concerned that milk that was being brought to his establishment was much more expensive. This is just a corner store where there is higher pricing in a corner store than in some of the larger stores. He was also concerned at the price of milk just across the Saskatchewan border, so that is a concern. I was led to believe prior to this that there was a standard price for milk and it was equal pricing across the province. If the minister, here this afternoon, can say what the policy is, and whether there is any way we can address that issue that has been raised by some people in the public.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, it is not quite that straightforward in terms of having a uniform price across the province. The member will recall we used to have a fairly rigid system controlling both maximum and minimum prices, and that prevented retailers, from time to time, that would want to sell milk at considerably lower prices than the regulations provided for. It was a constant case of agitation for the removal of the minimum requirement. There was some understanding on the part of governments wishing to regulate the maximum allowable price for the milk, but why should we stand in the way if somebody wants to sell milk cheaper?

So some three or four years ago, I believe in '88, the minimum benchmark was removed, but we have and we continue to maintain the maximum. There are conditions attached to it that apply to, for instance, the large volumes that are sold in the supermarket-type settings compared to the smaller volumes, but who provide considerable greater service at all hours of the day perhaps that enables for that price to be somewhat higher. I am advised the zones area depending on the distance from the milk plant supplying the milk that allows for some graduation of price.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

I appreciate the fact that the circles around which the Swan River people, for instance, in the valley are served with their food/milk requirements. From the Brandon area your pricing is in effect some 6 cents or 7 cents a litre higher than it would be in Brandon, so there is not uniformity of price across the province, but it is still a regulated process which the member can take issue with. We have a prices review commission that reviews the milk pricing structure not only for the retailers but also for the processors, as well as for the producers. On a regular basis, an annual basis, it reviews the cost of production. It reviews cost increases that processors are faced, for instance, in the containers and the products that are going into the containers for milk and then establishes these price ranges.

Let me at this time, as has been the practice, introduce some further additional senior members of staff: Mr. Gord MacKenzie, immediately to my Assistant Deputy Minister Craig Lee's left; Mr. Lorne Martin, chief Policy section; Mr. Greg Fearn, director of economic branch. Of course, Mr. Donaghy has been introduced before.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister clarify, was there always a variation in the prices across the province, or did this variation come about as [inaudible] came with the minimum pricing? Did the change to the minimum pricing have an impact on the prices of milk, at the [inaudible] of milk?

Mr. Enns: No, Mr. Chairman, senior staff advises that it had no such impact. The only action that was taken in '88 was the removal of the minimum pricing mechanism and it, by itself, did not impact on the varied price structure that had been established prior to and was in existence while that provision was also part of the pricing structure.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, is it accurate to say that the elimination of the minimum pricing enabled the discounts that we now have when larger operations buy a volume and that has put the small corner stores at a disadvantage? Is that one of the impacts of the changing to minimum pricing?

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am being advised that we had a situation that originally initiated the need for the government of the day to introduce a minimum pricing mechanism into the business of selling of milk because of a unique situation where we had a very serious price war going on, the kind that it was obvious to the policymakers of the day that what was at stake here was predatory pricing to drive somebody, quite frankly, right out of business.

* (1720)

It was deemed under those circumstances by those involved--it was not my government at the time--to introduce the regulation for regulating the minimum price of milk.

When that situation no longer prevailed among the large-volume producers of milk, the supermarkets, the Safeways, the SuperValu stores, the need for the minimum pricing mechanism disappeared. Quite frankly its removal has worked pretty satisfactorily. We have not returned to that price-cutting, predatory type of activity on the part of either of the major chains. That has made the price of milk relatively stable in the supermarkets.

I suspect, I look for advice, that there is some advantage to buying in the large volumes that is being passed on by the processors to the large-volume buyers that is not available to the corner grocery store that buys very small volumes, but that pricing differential is simply a fact of real life. It is not necessarily saying that party that is charging six or seven cents more for a litre of milk is making any more for that litre of milk than the supermarket that sells for six or seven cents less.

Ms. Wowchuk: In fact that corner store owner is probably making less because of the hours it stays open and things like that. I want to move on. I have a question on the Agriculture Producers organization certification.

Mr. Enns: I thought you would ask a question like that.

Ms. Wowchuk: It is my understanding that in the past year there has been more than one organization that has applied for certification. There has been at least one other organization that applied for certification here in Manitoba and was denied. Can the minister indicate which other organization applied, and what was the reason for denying?

Mr. Enns: The honourable member's information is correct. There was an additional application that is additional to the one that is currently accredited, the Keystone Agricultural Producers organization. We did receive an application for certification by a group calling themselves Manitoba Independent Agricultural Producers.

Now the committee that oversees and makes the decision as to which group to accredit or appropriate to receive the checked-off funds, as is their practice, wrote to both organizations asking for their membership list. The information that Mr. McKenzie provides me is that the Manitoba Independent Agricultural Producers never responded to that request, which was an understandable request on the part of the department to find out who they were, required by the act, I am advised.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate the act required that a total list of membership was recorded, or does it require the executive make this attempt?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised--and I must confess that I myself am not all that personally knowledgeable about the act. I was not the minister involved in the passing of the original legislation, but my Assistant Deputy Minister Mr. Lee tells me it is a requirement of the act that the total membership list has to be reported and that the committee makes the determination based quite frankly on the group. If two or three organizations make application for certification they are asked to supply the membership list. The organization with the largest membership list is certified.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairperson, I understand that the minister will be making some amendments to that act. We have heard first reading of it in the House. In the interest of time I am not going to spend too much time because if we are going to be discussing amendments to a bill, we will have lots of opportunity to discuss the minister's reasons for making the amendments. I am not going to take too much time to discuss that particular issue, but I am sure we are going to have a lengthy discussion on the minister's reasons for changing the act. We will open up much discussion.

Mr. Enns: I just want to put on the record, the actual act, The Agricultural Producers' Organization Funding Act, reads that the organization, as a certifying organization, which in the opinion of the agency represents the greatest number of producers in Manitoba. It is written right in the act.

There is a little room for leeway on the part of that group of Manitobans that sit on that committee that makes that determination. They study the validity of the application. I suspect if there is a dispute they try to determine the validity of the membership and the membership list as being reported. Other than that the certification is fairly straightforward.

It is also that same committee--I just wanted to say this thing pertaining to the amended change of the act. It makes it possible for other commodity organizations, like the canola growers, to approach the certification committee and request the cheque of funds to be directed to them as a group of canola producers for the purposes that they deem fit for their organization.

Quite frankly, the urgency and some of the pressure that I am under for making the amendments to the act is to accommodate precisely the canola growers that I am most vitally interested in.

We have a proud history in the development of canola in this province. A lot of it has been through the kind of research support that we and the private sector have provided to our own people, the Faculty of Agriculture campus at the University of Manitoba. We are currently pleased to house the Institute of Canola in Manitoba in Winnipeg, but we are under subtle but increasing pressure to have that institute moved out of Manitoba to Saskatoon, partially because we are quite frankly not carrying our weight.

Both Alberta and Saskatchewan, larger canola producing provinces than we are, and Ontario have the kind of check-off legislation that is required that can enable the industry to help finance, help contribute to some of their own affairs and their business but most importantly also help to leverage the kind of dollars out of the federal government for ongoing research opportunities that that particular crop requires.

* (1730)

I know that the people at the campus are extremely concerned about losing those research dollars. The federal government has changed its funding mechanism for research. They have put $35 million on the table and said to organizations like the wheat growers, the barley growers, sugarbeet growers, canola growers, here, if you can match it, if you put up a million dollars of your money for research, we will put up a million dollars. But if you have not got the million dollars you cannot attach the federal research dollars. Alberta can, Saskatchewan can, Manitoba can.

So I do appeal to the honourable member to take very seriously the problems that the canola growers find themselves in in this instance and give some consideration to passage of that act.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister on his canola growers was leading me into another question that I wanted to ask. But I want to revert just to the agricultural producers agency and the act that makes possible the Keystone Agriculture Producers to be the organization representing farmers.

Can the minister indicate whether there are, through this act, and I am sure that I can going to familiarize myself with it very soon when the amendments start to come forward, is there any provision for government to provide funds to an organization other than the funds that they collect themselves from the membership?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I do not suspect, I do not believe that there is anything in the act that makes that possible, nor should there be. But as an organization like any other organization, it has every access to various different government programs, programs that the different development programs may offer from time to time if they wish to pursue a particular area of research.

Ms. Wowchuk: The next area the minister talked about, the research that the canola growers want to do and the value of the canola crop in this province, we talk about the whole area of diversification, and many times through these Estimates we have talked about the need to diversify and the changes that we are going to have to face in this province and in western Canada because of the changes to the WGTA. For those changes to take place, there is going to have to be much more done as far as research goes, and the minister talked about private funding for research and the cutbacks to agriculture research by the federal government. I also think that the provincial government has a major role to play in the research for the farmers of this province, and I know that the minister is going to get into the funding that they have spent upgrading the buildings at the university. It is fine to upgrade buildings, but we also have to have people working in those buildings and we have to do research there.

I question, at a time when we have this great change coming about, why the government did not see fit to raise the amount of money that is going to research. I do not expect the provincial government to be able to pick up all of the offsets of the federal government, but I do think that they have room to move. The minister indicated that at the present time the agricultural budget is minimal, not even 1 percent of the total revenues. I would ask that he give consideration and give some explanation as to why there is not being more money put into research. There are a few specific areas that I would like to address, but on the whole I think that it is a responsibility of this department to do that and show the leadership. I believe this is one area that we could have seen an increase in spending in this department, and I would ask the minister's views on that.

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, on the straightforward expression of concern that there is not more money being provided for research, I quite frankly cannot take issue with the honourable member. I share with her there is probably no more urgent time than right now where those of us engaged in policymaking, and that includes all of our senior staff in the department and others, we are making speeches about diversification encouraging farmers to divert into many new and innovative crops, and we quite frankly could use a great deal more sound research data in the hopes that when we give counsel, when we develop policies that steer producers in certain directions, that it is done with the best of academic research, research with integrity to it that we at least feel absolutely comfortable with as policymakers in devising these kind of new directions for agriculture as we move into the year 2000.

Mr. Chairman, when you have to administer a department that at the same time is being asked to do with less--and when I mean less I mean throughout the departments--you look at the staff components that the department had eight or nine years ago. They are all working with less. Even though in the aggregate some of the agricultural budgets, agriculture seems reasonably well served, but that is only because of the inclusion of the very substantial safety net programs like the GRIP programs or the former tripartite programs and the NISA-type programs that appear to make the overall agricultural budget look not too hard done by. But when you strip down and look at the actual operating functions among the staff people who we have in this division here in the policymaking sections, we are short. You can say that about every division throughout the branch. When you are imposing that kind of discipline on the department--and if you ask my senior managers, they are, even under these circumstances, being pressured by Treasury Board to operate with higher than usual vacancy rates--we do not rush in to fill a job every time a job is vacant, partially because it is our ongoing contribution, if you like, to the total effort to bring about a balanced budget situation in the province of Manitoba.

I as an individual minister am not particularly enthusiastic about it, but I accept it--that is part of my job--but then it is difficult to sort out a particular area, like the research grant going to the Faculty of Agriculture, and that is where the principal amount of it goes, the $784,000. It is difficult to single out one section, one activity of the department, for perhaps a bumped-up 5, 10 or 15 percent grant which they may well be worthy of, but under those circumstances if you do not do it you find, quite frankly, it is easier to maintain morale in the department if at least we--I hate to say this, Mr. Chair, will you strike it from the record after I have said it?--spread the misery equally, not showing favouritism to one section or one division of the department.

I do not particularly like administrating that way, because there always ought to be times for recognizing priorities within a department when a particular section should be getting more funds, and we try to do that and we will challenge our managers to do more of that, but in the main it was for that reason that we could not and did not single out greater research dollars in this particular budget.

There are additional monies that could be attached to research that are spent through the Sustainable Development Fund through the Canada-Manitoba agreements. There is, for instance, $443,000 that come under what we call the conservation agreements, the CMASS agreements that are, in effect, research programs that are scattered throughout the landscape of the province of Manitoba. There is another additional one to what we call the Prairie Agriculture Machinery Institute; there is our contribution to that organization, which essentially does research into machinery development most applicable to the prairie agriculture scene, so other research dollars are being done at this time. But in the main that is the situation, and we have to live with it.

* (1740)

Ms. Wowchuk: One of the changes in Manitoba, and as I indicated, the change to the Crow benefit will have a tremendous impact on agriculture and on the people of this province. Has the department directed or is anybody in the Department of Agriculture research doing the research on the impacts on Manitoba and on the Crow benefit and the impacts, from their suggestions, about the future of Manitoba?

I think this is very important when you consider the changes, positive or negative, that are going to happen because of it, but we do have to have some work done and some preparation and some information for the department on how they should be dealing with it. I would like to know whether anybody has been designated to do that work?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I can attest to the fact that a considerable amount of additional workload on staff, particularly senior staff, at this time is directly related to the WGTA and its removal.

We have been meeting and conferencing with other provinces in this regard. We are looking to the future shape of some of our safety-net programs in the post-WGTA era. We have an ongoing relationship with our colleagues in Highways and Transportation, because transportation becomes an issue involved here in terms of the changed circumstances that will see grain move in the province.

We have a specific task force set up within the department to deal with, bring together the WGTA concerns in the removal of that program. Its concerns, I recall my Assistant Deputy Mr. Baseraba just indicated to me a little while ago.

Some of the specific things that we are concerned about are the ongoing expansion in the hog industry as a result of the lower feed costs and looking at that point of view. We are looking at any increase in the backgrounding or in the feeding of beef. There has been a very steady and noticeable increase in recovering the beef-feeding industry again in the province of Manitoba.

Shifts to higher-value crop and rotation, increased interest on farm value-added diversification activities, the increased movement of trucks by grain. There will be a considerably different movement of grain within the province. Particularly, if the federal government is successful in removing the cap on the access to the American border, then you will see that catchment area that extends for different crops in quite an area, and you will see that grain essentially moving by truck in most instances.

I also hold out that you will see quite a different movement in the catchment area, if all things are going right, to a potential far greater utilization of the Port of Churchill.

Anyway, these are some of the specific issues of the task force that we have established. The group consists of our Farm Management people. We have regional representatives from the various regions on it. We have Policy; Soils and Crops; Animal Industry people. At Crown Lands we have picked out senior people from within the department to work. They have had their first meeting on May 2 and are now receiving confirmation that regional and other representatives are beginning to identify what the needs are in their areas.

They are specifically working under the two co-chairs of Mr. Irvin Wiebe and Allen Sturko who have been assigned the task of kind of addressing the department's talents and the talents of other departments wherever we can co-op them to how we can better equip ourselves to provide the kind of policy directions in the post-WGTA era.

Ms. Wowchuk: I think this is a very important section of the department, and I think that there is an important role for government to play in funding research. The minister indicated that there were various organizations, chemical companies and the like, that contribute money to research, but there is a need for research to be done by the public sector. I would hope that the minister would look at this and ensure that we do have the necessary research done to put supports in place, so that we can adjust and have the resources and the information there for farmers to make the adjustments to the changes.

There are many opportunities. There is our food processing industry. There is the value-added jobs that we could hope to get from the production of ethanol. But in the interest of time, I am sure that if we have additional questions in these areas that the minister will avail his staff to us so that we can deal with them at another time. I just want to emphasize what we feel is very important, and that is that there be research done by the public sector that is for the benefit of all people in the province and in the country. With that, we are prepared to pass this section.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 6. Policy and Economics (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $124,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $24,100--pass.

6.(b) Economics (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $806,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $195,500--pass.

6.(c) Boards and Commissions Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $247,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $191,800--pass.

6.(d) Agricultural Research - Grant to the University of Manitoba $784,000--pass.

6.(e) Manitoba Farm Mediation Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $194,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $359,100--pass.

6.(f) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($94,300)--pass.

Resolution 3.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,832,800 for Agriculture, Policy and Economics, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

7. Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability $1,040,000--pass.

Resolution 3.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,040,000 for Agriculture, Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

8. Income Insurance and Support Program (a) Administration--pass; (b) Tripartite Cattle Stabilization Plan $208,500--pass; (c) Tripartite Hog Stabilization Plan--pass; (d) Tripartite Sugar Beet Stabilization Plan $674,700--pass; (e) Tripartite Lamb Stabilization Plan--pass; (f) Tripartite Honey Stabilization Plan--pass.

8.(g) Net Income Stabilization Account $16,106,900.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, again, I realize we want to pass this in a very short time, but I just want to raise a couple of issues on the Income Stabilization program, that being the fact that again a program like this is set up for those who have resources, and those who have very little income are having difficulty accessing the funds.

If the minister could indicate for information how many accounts there are in the NISA account and how many of those accounts have funds in them less than a thousand dollars--let us go less than $2,000.

* (1750)

Mr. Enns: As of April 7, 1995, we have some 6,565 contracts or 39 percent that are less than $2,000; then we move up, 2,690 accounts that are between $2,000 and $4000; and we have 1,700 accounts, $4,000 and $6,000; another 2,000 just about, 1,993, that are $6,000 to $10,000; another 2,000 that are in the $10,000 to $20,000 bracket; and we have 1,162 that have accounts in excess of $20,000.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicates in excess of $20,000. Can the minister indicate what the top end of the scale of accounts are?

Mr. Enns: We do not have that information at this point. I suppose perhaps the program is too young.

Ms. Wowchuk: When you look at the numbers, you can see that the majority of the accounts have the lowest resources or the amounts in them. Whereas if you compare the dollars, the majority of the funds are concentrated in the accounts of fewer people. This is a concern, because I have talked to many young farmers who are busy trying to pay off their bank loans and their fertilizer bills and their chemical bills and they do not have the ability to put money away. I think this is a problem, and I believe it is an issue that has to be addressed.

If this is the kind of program that we are going to have in place for farmers, then we have to look at a way to distribute the funds better. When we talk about having limited government resources, I do believe that we have to look at capping the amount that will go into a particular account and distribute the funds more equally. That is something that I believe has to be addressed.

All in all, I think that what the department and government should be working for is helping farmers earn a better income from the workplace, from the commodities that they produce so that then they do have the ability to set some money aside. Also, as the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) indicated, we do have to work towards developing a better crop insurance program so that there is the support for farmers.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the member correctly identifies the weakness in this program, an otherwise good program. I have a lot of respect for the NISA program. I think it is basically a good program. I like the focus of the program on the individual farm units, the discipline within the program that it is the individual farmer that--where government's money often gets wasted when we provide help on a regional basis and all the situations where parties then are receiving dollars that had quite a good year. There is discipline built in to the NISA-type program that I appreciate, at the same time providing this kind of focused assistance.

But it has troubled us, it has troubled the ministers when we have talked about it, the entry, the young farmer, the start-up farmer. They are, I can indicate to the honourable member, looking at ways of enhancing that first introduction or first year or two. Whether or not when we move out of other safety programs like the GRIP program, if we can maybe allocate some of those dollars on the part of the federal government and our provincial governments to help in that first entering a program, make that a little bit more attractive, or perhaps, as the member indicates, providing caps at the other end of the program, using some of those dollars that would otherwise accrue to the costs there and transfer them over to help the entry farmer into it. That is a concern of the program and it continues to receive attention.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 8. Income Insurance and Support Program (g) Net Income Stabilization Account $16,106,900--pass.

Resolution 3.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $16,990,100 for Agriculture, Income Insurance and Support Program, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

9. Lotteries Funded Programs (a) Agricultural Societies Grant Assistance (1) Operating $274,900--pass; (2) $99,000--pass.

9.(b) Keystone Centre Grant Assistance $150,000--pass.

Resolution 3.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $523,900 for Agriculture, Lotteries Funded Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture is 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $22,800.

At this point we request the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state briefly that I want to thank the minister and his staff for the co-operation we have had at these committee hearings. I think the minister has been very open with information. There are many areas that in the interest of time we have not been able to cover. I hope when we look for that information the minister will avail his staff to us.

It is often the tradition to ask for a reduction in the Minister's Salary. We are not going to bother with that.

We do want to say to the minister that we would encourage him to prevail on his cabinet colleagues the importance of agriculture to the economy of this province and look for resources that are available to help to enhance the equality of agriculture. I want to wish the minister well at his presentation in Ottawa. I hope he will take a strong stand and ensure that Manitobans get the best possible deal that they can--that we are forced into because of decisions made by the federal government.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, allow me to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to all members of the committee, particularly to the critic of the opposition. I know that staff derives considerable assistance in hearing a different point of view, a point of view that they know, nonetheless, is spoken directly and sincerely from people that have elected her in the great agricultural community and constituency of Swan River. I have a lot of respect for the credentials that you bring to the table. I say that very directly and honestly.

I welcome the contribution made by other members, the member for Dauphin, to these Estimates. I pass at least some empathy on to you. You have a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of yourselves and a few others in terms of persons who have direct and some immediate agricultural background and experience. I have the other problem. I have a wealth of agriculturists and people who know a great deal more about agriculture in my caucus in my cabinet, and I have to be able to work with them as best I can from time to time.

I do express my appreciation for this exercise. I apologize to the members of the committee if on occasion I have injected a note of levity into these discussions, but next June it will be nigh on 30 years that I have been doing this and if I do not make that break occasionally I begin to question my own sanity about all of this. Thank you very much.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $22,800--pass.

Resolution 3.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,557,700 for Agriculture, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March 1996.

This completes the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. The next Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

The hour being 6 p.m., committee rise.