Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply come to order, please. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber at this time.

We are on resolution 3.2 (a) Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation (1) Administration $4,458,300. Shall the item pass?

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, I still have a few questions under this section. One of the issues that I would like to talk about is a couple of years ago there was a Crop Insurance Review report done, and several recommendations were made for changes on how Manitoba Crop Insurance should operate. Some were fairly significant recommendations, some to do with how the appeal process was handled and other issues.

Can the minister indicate to what extent those recommendations that were made under the Manitoba Crop Insurance Review Committee have been implemented and whether or not there are some recommendations that are causing difficulty and will not be able to be implemented?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I am advised that that committee did a fairly extensive review of the overall Crop Insurance Program. It made a host of recommendations. I am told they numbered over a hundred, 122 recommendations. Senior staff advised me that a good many of them have been implemented in the normal course of revisions to the program that Crop Insurance is always engaged in. A lot of them had to do with the methodology that the corporation employed in arriving at yield figures, probable yield figures and the likes of that. I do not have a breakdown of that extensive review that she refers to.

I know that there were other items in there, particularly as a result of last year's 85 percent production figure, that the return to 100 percent was among the recommendations, but I can indicate to her that a good number of those review issues have been dealt with.

* (1430)

Ms. Wowchuk: One of the issues that has caused over the years a lot of concern under Crop Insurance is when we start to get split policies where husbands and wives who choose to farm separately have separate policies. I know there was a real move on Manitoba Crop Insurance to try to join those policies.

I believe there was a court case in one instance, and I have talked to many young people who are--I should not say many, but several young people who have indicated that they are trying to set up their own separate farm operations. In some cases, it is a daughter who is trying to set up an operation separate from her father, and in cases it has even been a son.

Manitoba Crop Insurance has insisted that those be combined, and those people feel very resentful because they feel that they are setting up their own operations. They should be treated as separate policies, so I would like to ask the minister what is happening. Is consideration being given to the fact that many times, although people share equipment, it is not feasible for both people to buy equipment, but they still do run separate operations? Can the minister indicate whether this is still an issue? If it is still an issue, how many instances have you got that there may be challenges in court or still a dispute over the fact whether or not these people will be allowed to carry separate policies?

Mr. Enns: Just to provide some background, the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation has developed a process to determine the degree of independence of each applicant for contract eligibility. In fact, there is a formal eligibility review committee that is operating within the corporation comprised mainly of Manitoba Agriculture staff, and they help to determine the degree of independence. That is the question, you know, as to whether or not on a single farm operation that chooses, you might say, to split the risk in this manner, or whether there are truly independent operations that can be viewed in such a manner by the corporation.

Conditional contracts allow applicants who are not totally independent to receive a contract. Another assessment of independence is then required within a three-year period. Conditional contracts recognize that the development of a totally independent farm operation is a gradual process. So we, I think, are sensitive to father, son or the daughter wishing to begin to establish a truly independent and a separate operation in terms of eligibility for a separate and distinct, if we like, contract with the corporation.

There is an appeal process that is in place. Applicants viewed by the committee as dependent or another farm operation can appeal the decision to amalgamate directly to the Manitoba Crop Insurance Board of Directors, and quite a few of these come before the board. In 1996, some 498 applications were considered. The number of amalgamations of the total numbered some 20 percent or 98; 18 of these were appealed directly to the Board of Directors.

Manitoba Crop Insurance has lowered the scoring criteria required to receive a conditional and an independent contract. We recognize that times are changing out there in the land, but we still need to assure ourselves that they are, in fact, independent operations. The kind of three-year conditional acceptance of an independent contract, I think, recognizes that that independence may not be established totally immediately, but you know that, I think, is being understood. Within the management of the corporation, changes result in a significant increase in the contracts that are granted on the basis that the honourable member for Swan River refers to.

Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification, the minister is indicating that now if a husband and wife want to separate their operations, or a young person is coming in, they are on a three-year trial period to prove that they are, or three years when the government recognizes that it takes some time to set up an independent operation. Then after that three years, if they want to continue with the crop insurance, they would have to be set up completely as a separate entity. If that is the case, if that is what the minister is saying, does this mean that they would only have to have set up separate grain storage facilities or does it mean separate operations altogether? Surely the government would not be saying, you know, that you are not allowed to share equipment or things like that.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, what the corporation is saying is that they have to meet certain basic criteria before they will even be considered for separate and independent contracts. I think what I am hearing from the corporation is that if the applicant can convince the corporation that they are in fact operating independently even though that independence is not total--perhaps something like what the member suggests, some sharing of equipment and so forth, but the basic criterion is that they be separate farm ventures, and the corporation, if they are satisfied that they are indeed separate, will provide either an outright separate contract if that separation is total and complete, or if it is somewhat blurred, not totally independent. That is when this conditional kind of three-year contract is offered to them and would be reviewed within that time period, and if during that period of time the separation becomes more clear and is total, then of course a separate contract will be provided to those kinds of operations.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate some of the operations that are very large and who take contracts with the corporation? Can the minister indicate whether there are exceptions made, or--I guess what I am trying to get at is all of the crop is averaged out underneath a contract, but on very large operations it might be in different municipalities, different zones. Can one corporation, or large operation, very large farm, get separate contracts, or can one operator get separate contracts if they are in a large operation that spreads over different municipalities or over different soil zones?

* (1440)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that there is no exception. They are all treated in the same manner, large or small, and whether or not an operation crosses into different municipalities or areas it is considered a contract; the same rules apply.

Ms. Wowchuk: In talking with people in my constituency, Mr. Chairman, people have indicated this as one of the problems with the crop insurance, that they operate over different soil classes and when all the crops have to be pooled these individuals have suggested that consideration has to be given to individual field averages instead of the whole operation averages. Is this a valid suggestion, and is it something that the board has looked at? If they have looked at it, what comments can the minister share as far as the corporation's view on this idea?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the corporation is cognizant of the different yields, different soil types, and they are taking it into account in assessing the premium for that farm, but they are all rolled together into one premium structure. I am advised that to do otherwise, what the honourable member is suggesting, would boil down to providing individual field coverage. It would create quite a different premium structure, considerably higher; one that I am sure would cause considerable more difficulties for the producers than the current system employed.

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

There is sensitivity to the different soil types in the making up of the premium, but overall, the premium structure is based on providing a joint or combined premium for the whole farm operation. Because of the size of some of these operations or the fact that they span different soil zones that may bring on the concern that the honourable member raises, it would not be advisable to change the methodology currently employed.

Ms. Wowchuk: Last spring, farmers faced real problems with planning their crops with the flood in the Red River Valley and in other parts of the province. We are going to be facing that same situation again or so it appears unless the good Lord looks down on us in a very special way and takes away that water that is coming down the river. As a result, that is going to cause problems for farmers in the area and delay seeding.

Has the corporation considered at all what the impact of this flooding is going to be? I know last year there was no consideration to extending the deadline. Is the corporation having any discussions as to whether or not there should be an extension of the deadline? I know it is premature at this point to think about that, and I guess I would ask the minister whether any work is being done with suggestions of alternate crops and other material being provided for farmers, as they wait in anticipation of the flood and consider what they are going to be doing as far as cropping this spring.

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly I was aware of the concern that the honourable member raises. Last year, just about this time or a little later when we, regrettably, had in the Red River Valley and other places, I might say, serious problems with too much moisture, and requests were coming into the corporation and to my office about whether or not we would consider setting back the seeding deadline dates that the corporation has struck, we resisted those requests last year, as the member is aware.

I am happy to report to you, Mr. Chairman, that even with the high waters and the flooding situation that we had in the Red River Valley, virtually all of the crop was planted within those deadlines, which I remind members of the committee are June 15 for most of the crops that we put in the ground. Some special crops like Polish canola have an additional five days, June 20.

That seemed to address the issue last year. There is, understandably, a reluctance for very good reasons for the corporation not to diddle with these dates. It puts in jeopardy the costs that are then imposed on all producers, not just the region that is impacted. These dates are not plucked out of the air. They are set by accumulation of good, sound agronomic data that over the years tells us that the probability of successful planting, growing and harvesting prior to killing frosts and the likes of that. These dates have to be adhered to to enable the corporation to run an actuarially sound insurance program.

It is my hope that we will be able to experience a similar situation this year. Certainly, from all reports, at least, the Red River Valley will find itself in a nip-and-tuck situation in terms of the seeding dates.

I take this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to commend our farmers who, in a truly amazing way with the expertise that they have, helped with the kind of equipment that they now have, that within a very few, short days thousands and millions of acres get seeded in time to meet the deadlines for the corporation. To answer the honourable member specifically, we are not considering changing the deadline seeding dates at this time. I suspect that will not stop appeals from being made in this regard. We will, you know, look at the requests. We will look at the situation. I am advised that these dates are not, you know--they have been moved back and forth on different crop varieties.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Certainly, the corporation has to be sensitive to new varieties that come on the scene, different changes that have been brought about by plant breeders that create different varieties that enable us to put a later date on some varieties. This is done with considerable care and caution, because a miscalculation really does jeopardize and hurt the majority of producers whose premium structure would be impacted if as a result of setting dates back too far--then having a serious problem in terms of successfully harvesting their crop because of timelines, weather related. Those costs have to be spread and borne by all the contract holders of the corporation.

* (1450)

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I am very pleased to see Crop Insurance here today in the Estimates. We have on a number of occasions discussed not only the deadlines for seeding but also for the areas identified where coverage will be extended to certain varieties of beans. I think the Rhineland-Montcalm boundary is now the current boundary that exists for given varieties of beans. I would wonder, Mr. Chairman, in light of the fact that the sugar beet industry, putting some 25,000-26,000 additional acres into some other crop varieties, will be needed to ensure that area that was formerly producing a very valuable crop in this province and supporting a major industry will now have to be diverted to some other crops. Beans seem to be the crop that is identified by many farmers as an acceptable crop that can be used in a rotational manner as well as utilizing the equipment for row crop that was used for sugar beets.

Of course, Montcalm and even areas extending beyond Montcalm are where the sugar beets were grown. It would appear that the changes in designation of boundaries for various varieties should seriously be considered in light of this, that these farmers could in fact, in an orderly manner, change their rotational practices as well as cropping practices to utilize the huge investment that they have sitting in their farmyards, which is worth virtually zero if they cannot move into some other crop. I think there needs to be some consideration made of this.

So I am wondering, Mr. Minister, whether you and your corporation have given serious consideration to extending those areas for bean production of given varieties beyond the current areas that exist.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much my colleague's intervention and suggestions on this issue, and have senior Crop Insurance people present to hear directly from him. It allows me to do two things, to put on the record, firstly, that it would appear that Manitoba may become the pre-eminent grower of beans in the coming crop year, taking that title away from Ontario. We are expecting to put upwards of 80,000 acres, 90,000 acres into bean production this year compared to some 60,000-70,000 acres in our sister province, Ontario. This would, for the first time, make Manitoba the bean capital of the country, Mr. Chairperson.

The other item is not, of course, that positive that I choose to reflect on for a moment. That is the regrettable loss of the sugar beet acreage that my colleague himself was directly involved along with about 280 or 300 other producers. It is with a great deal of sadness that I see the demise, have to accept the demise, at least for the moment, of the sugar beet industry. Not that it was a major crop in the province of Manitoba, but it was the kind of crop that I often enjoyed using as a model in occasions where I had the chance to speak to different public meetings and public audiences.

It was a crop that called for the best out of our producers. It was an intensively managed crop that required pretty intensive farming methods, special equipment, costly equipment. It then also resulted in a crop that, however, was a cash crop, did not have to await the quota restrictions. It was a contractual arrangement with the processor, and that was the beauty. We had the value-adding right here in the province. It provided 100-150 jobs here at Fort Garry and the southern part of the city of Winnipeg, with the value-added jobs that then saw the primary product grown by our farmers produced into high-quality sugars and molasses.

Indeed, as a cattleman, I can recall taking my half-ton to the plant and filling it up with sugar beet pulp. That was another by-product of the sugar beet industry that was a very useful and valuable feed-additive in cattle rations, both the molasses that is used for supplement feeding with various minerals added to it or the dried beet pulp that was the by-product, the meal if you like, of the sugar beet processing program.

I am told by the corporation, to answer more directly the member's question, that we take our advice on this crop from the Pulse Growers Association. We take advice, again, from the various agricultural, agronomic experts with respect to where the lines ought to be drawn. It is always a difficulty where you are drawing lines. A line has to be drawn somewhere I suppose in terms of soil types and for particular crops. I am going to ask, I am going to challenge the corporation. This development within the sugar beet industry, of course, just happened in the past two or three months.

I think the position that the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) puts forward, not just on his behalf but on behalf of the sugar beet growers who are in exactly the same position, who have specialized equipment sitting idle and could well be looking at pretty serious economic loss if no utilization of this equipment can be found, it is not as though a sugar beet farmer was going out of business trying to sell a piece of equipment. That kind of trade has always gone on with our American friends where there is a healthy sugar beet industry. But when you have the whole sugar beet industry collapse, you cannot move overnight, over the season, the kind of equipment that is on our sugar beet farms.

Certainly if some of it can be adapted because of the type of cropping situation for a crop-like bean production, then it is understandable that some of them are going to look at that alternative. I do not know whether specifically, Mr. General Manager of the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation, since the demise of the crop insurance industry have we taken that into account, and if not, will we take it into account to challenge the experts that we get this advice from, the Pulse Growers Association, the other people in Agriculture who can perhaps help us determine whether or not those current boundary lines should be reviewed?

I can certainly understand that, and specifically directed to where sugar beets were grown. If this is an alternative crop, if sugar beet growers are looking at beans as an alternative crop, then it is, I think, a fair request to make of the corporation to take a hard look at whether or not in the Portage area, the Niverville area and the south Red River Valley area those lines are defensible as they now stand.

Mr. Penner: I am pleased to hear that you are directing that there be reconsideration given to the establishment or the re-establishment of boundary in light of the fact that we have lost a very valuable crop simply because a political process was not willing to designate a policy in this country that would have maintained a semblance of supply of sweetener products and basically sugar in this country. We could have expanded that crop by some 300 percent and not had to worry about the agronomics within the province, and therefore there was a tremendous opportunity for expansion of the sugar beet industry simply based on a pure and simple policy decision in Ottawa.

However, I think we are in the same sort of a situation with the event of the bean industry in this province. I think, and I agree with you, that there is a tremendous opportunity for expansion of this crop. The potential for job creation in the agricultural community through the bean industry is probably greater than the sugar beet industry, and the opportunities there are substantial in creating smaller processing plants to process beans even beyond the cleaning and packaging. I think there are some real opportunities here, but in order to allow that, in order to expand upon those opportunities, I think there has to be a recognition within government, in our government agencies, that the agronomics have changed very dramatically in the last 10 years. Production techniques and varieties, even within given varieties, there have been varietal changes and a shortening of growing periods within breeding trials.

* (1500)

Those of us who have been in the bean industry for a number of years and have grown beans in areas that have not been insured, and most of our beans, quite frankly, Mr. Minister, over the last number of years have not been insured, and we have still taken the chance to grow them because the economics are there. However, it does put a very significant risk on those farmers who are starting out especially, who do not have the economic base to take a loss.

But there are opportunities to raise black beans, red beans, Mexican beans, cranberry beans, which we have all grown in the Montcalm area, which are not insured or insurable. They do extremely well in those areas, and we have yet to raise a crop that would not have met Crop Insurance standards in the last five years of those varieties. Therefore, I think we have some data that can be provided by bean growers in those areas to expand the area of bean production very dramatically in this province.

I think the heat utilization and heat unit evaluation in the province should be used to a greater extent than we have, recognizing that beans are normally not seeded until later on, and they can very easily be seeded much sooner than we normally do, and therefore the harvesting period at the end of the year which is the critical one, it does not come into play.

That is why I say the agronomics of the production cycle in Manitoba have changed very dramatically in the last year simply based on experience of the bean production, and that is where I think Crop Insurance needs to take a real hard look at expanding the boundaries in the areas. That is the argument that certainly the bean producers would make and I am making on their behalf in asking for that reconsideration of those boundaries.

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy at the early start of every year to join with the Manitoba Seed Growers Association and others and my department officials along with a number of organizations from the private sector that are in the seed business. In fact, in the last few years I have been privileged to host a little reception for them down in the legislative dining room where we produce, in co-operation with The Manitoba Co-Operator and the Department of Agriculture, the annual seed guidebook or the directory, and it just amazes me to watch that growth of the varieties that our producers have to choose from as to what they put into the ground. Canola alone, I think, has some 45-46 varieties available, and that is not going to diminish. That has greater emphasis on specialized end-product results requiring different types of seed that will proliferate as we constantly put our best minds to producing those varieties that will do best in our soil conditions, in our weather conditions.

I think you will recall, and this is still a touchy issue with some people in a philosophical sense, certainly with our members opposite, the monies, private monies and public monies, that are being put into developing different varieties because of the patent laws now in existence having spurred on major companies, United Grain Growers, other companies into putting real dollars into the ongoing research and development of new seed varieties. The facility that I think UGG runs not that far from the honourable member's farm at Jordan, I believe it is, extensive pot trials of very successful seed research stations. Many producers enjoy an annual visit to the facility to see first-hand the crops in their seed pots as they are developing and the new ones that are being introduced.

I say all this because this puts a tremendous challenge on the corporation. They have to stay up to speed with this development and, Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that I believe that they are listening to what is being said. They are certainly, I am aware--I am reminded by staff as the member was speaking that we rely heavily on the formal organizations, in this case, like the Pulse Growers organization for ongoing advice, and certainly I invite that kind of crossover intelligence sharing to continue to take place. If anything, it has to increase because, you know, our people are not the researchers themselves. We essentially work with numbers and with data and with figures. We have to be shown what the features of a particular variety are that our experts can and this corporation can translate into numbers, can translate yields into probabilities and then ascertain a fair premium coverage for these crops, fairer, that is, to the individual producer, fairer because there is a collectivity involved here, fairer to all producers in the province.

Not unlike the question of a late seeding date, they try to provide that support for a minority of producers because of a particular situation but then expect the whole to shoulder the costs. We have to rely on the good judgment and the data that is collected by the Crop Insurance Corporation that our premium structure, as fairly as it is possible, represents our best effort, or else we invite challenges.

Those challenges have come to us from time to time when it was felt that the Crop Insurance Corporation was not sensitive enough to some of the differences and some of the facts as growers experienced them over the years in terms of soil types, in terms of climate types and so forth that factored into the production records of a given contract holder and how all this data combined came up with a premium, but I again welcome those comments from my friend for whom I have a great deal of respect. He happens to be one of those aggressive farmers, along with his sons, who has produced a great variety of crops, and I am sure he will continue to do so.

* (1510)

Mr. Penner: I respect, Mr. Minister, certainly the corporation's willingness, first of all, to review and consult with the industry and also to be open enough to discussions on change. I believe that there is a tremendous opportunity in this province for the expansion of the whole speciality crops area.

We have an area in the province that has not aggressively searched out opportunities to the extent that I think is possible in new crop development, in areas such as our spices and other high-value crops. I would challenge you, Mr. Minister, as well as the total department and Crop Insurance included, that we approach this whole next decade with a very open mind toward change.

This is basically not a question. I am making this more as a statement and recommendation, and hopefully this will lead toward further discussion, but certainly a much greater ability to encourage change, and our whole value-added sector I think has some tremendous opportunities to search out new production probabilities and possibilities in many parts of our province, and they need not only be centred in southern Manitoba.

I think there are some really great opportunities in the whole spice area. I think we have looked at cranberry and caraway seed and all those kinds of things. Some farmers have done extremely well in those commodities where processing plants have sprung up to process these specialty crops. I think there is a much greater opportunity in the future to do this, and even to utilize some of those products within our manufacturing sector within our province has some real possibilities.

So, therefore, I think the Department of Agriculture I would like to call maybe the department of food processing production, because I think that is the real value that should be identified in the future. I think there are some real opportunities for our Department of Agriculture especially to expand its horizons and meet some of these challenges aggressively and help search out those opportunities in moving into the next decade.

Therein I think lies, Mr. Minister, an opportunity for this province, for this government as a whole to look at this whole value-added sector from a primary source production base, but that will need the consideration and maybe even taking some chances at some point in time on some of these things which would apply to all producers. Maybe we as a government want to look at it a bit differently than we have in the past and say, if we want to become a bit daring, if we want to search out some of these new opportunities, these are some of the chances that need to be taken without involving direct grant payments and those kinds of things.

So I would hope, Mr. Minister, that you and your department would take those kinds of considerations simply as a friendly recommendation for the department's future endeavours.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate very much those comments and, as the member indicated, there was not really a question asked but simply some good advice given to the Minister of Agriculture and to his senior staff. Allow me to indicate to you, although before I do so, I do not want to leave on the record that we have given up totally on the question of sugar beet production in the province of Manitoba. In fact, we are meeting tomorrow with American Crystal, with whom we have had some ongoing discussions about the possibility of perhaps, even if the processing cannot take place here, is there some way that we could encourage, if not for this year but a coming year, some continued sugar beet production in the province?

If we could come to some arrangement and have American Crystal do the processing for us, the haul, the freight is not that much of a factor either coming to Winnipeg or going across to the plants there. If we could do that, that would allow the departments of Rural Development, Industry and Trade, and Agriculture to perhaps over a period of time, three or four years, develop a situation where we could reintroduce the processing of sugar in Manitoba.

If we could resolve some of the small "p" politics that are involved in industry, if we could get all of us to understand that on a sensitive item like sugar which has a volatile price history attached to it, rationed in time of need when traditional sources are no longer here, it would be prudent policy in a country like Canada to say that we should maintain some degree, 15 percent, 20 percent of a capacity to produce that product in Manitoba.

But, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member for Emerson's interjection reminds me of the first time I had the privilege of introducing the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture into this very Chamber some 31 years ago, 1966. There was a different process at that period of time. Regrettably I was bereft staff could not come into the Chamber. They had to stay up in the higher reaches of the public gallery and if a minister was really faltering and making some serious errors you would see a waving of heads back and forth up there telling the minister that he was getting himself in deep trouble or, indeed, the minister was halfway right, there would be a nodding of heads and that would encourage the minister to carry on. What was happening in the Chamber though, we had a lively debate about principles and about policies of programs.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot do anything about it, but I regret, of course, that agriculture, which is, despite its being represented by some 3 percent of our population in our country and not as attention-grabbing as when young thugs and murderers walk out of our remand centres, you know that is what captures the attention of the television sets and the cameras that watch us at Question Period or the understandable daily onslaught and concern for the No. 1 issues of health and education and family services.

I have become accustomed to even my honourable friend the Ag critic of Her Majesty's official opposition not questioning me about agricultural issues but rising from her place and asking issues about rural health matters, the assumption being, gentlemen, that all is well in the Department of Agriculture, that you are administering it the way it ought to be administered and this little minister is representing it in the manner that it should be represented.

That is, of course, not exactly true. The fact of the matter is that I know that the fight for space time, when we capture the media's attention, is not on agriculture, it is on these other issues. I regret that because what we are seeing just a little bit this afternoon is that this should be the occasion. We have the time of this Chamber now where we should be discussing not just from that side but from this side the agricultural issues of the day. It is important that not only the minister but my senior staff here that are directly from the different regions of the country, from the Swan River Valley, from the Red River Valley, from other portions like that so that it is both supportive and constructively critical of what we do in agriculture. We do not spend enough time doing that, quite frankly.

That is always helpful, certainly always helpful to me as minister, and I know it is helpful to my deputy minister and to other senior members of staff when they hear directly about what is causing members of the Legislature who represent different farming regions of the province when they hear what they think about what is wrong with our credit policies, what is wrong with our Ag rep, our extension services, what is wrong or what is right or where we should be doing things differently in our Crop Insurance Corporation. It is, I believe, extremely helpful to them to have that kind of debate take place form time to time in this Chamber by the legislators of the province.

* (1520)

That is why I think we ought to, and I always invite and look forward to--I know that we have kind of moved into the regime where it becomes virtually the sole prerogative of the official critic to look into the affairs of the department on a line-by-line basis, but certainly I invite my friend the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), who has a unique background in agriculture, coming as he does from Elmwood, my friend the critic from St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), who if not directly involved in agriculture but whose two brothers watch over me in St. Laurent and make sure that I feed their cattle properly after I buy their calves at inflated prices from him, at liberal prices, and I invite my friend the member from Crescentwood to join in on the debates on what is, what truly is the most important thing we do, food production.

Just think about it. There would be no lawyers, there would be no doctors, there would be no teachers, plus there would be no politicians if agriculture did not just produce food for ourselves. That is what we humans did for two millions years. It took us all day and half the night, and half the time we starved because we could not do enough of it. It is only in the last 20,000 to 30,000 years when agriculture started producing surplus foods that pyramids got built, that there was time for poets, for musicians, doctors, lawyers, teachers and universities. So agriculture is the base of everything that we do. I command some respect for that.

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I am sure that the minister was waiting for a long time to get that off his chest and tell us how important agriculture was. I can assure him that I recognize how important it is too in my part of the constituency. I welcome all members, his colleague the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) to raise important issues on the matter. It is open to all members as well.

But we do, on this side of the House, recognize how important agriculture is. Unfortunately, the government goes so far astray on so many other issues that are important to society that the food productions which we know will go on sometimes takes a back track to some of the very important issues of the day-to-day life of people. We know we will have food to eat. We do not know whether we are going to have a health care system, an education system or many of the other services that government is responsible to provide. If this government would address some of those issues in a better manner, then we would be able to have more time for those basic, down-to-earth food production issues that are so important to this province.

Mr. Chairperson, when I gave up the floor to the member for Emerson, we were talking about whether or not consideration was being given to extending the deadlines in the different areas that could be affected by flood. I can understand the minister's answer on that. The member for Emerson talked about many of the crops that are grown but are not covered by crop insurance--there is no crop insurance available--and adjustment to boundaries. I think that as we go into this change in agriculture that we are going to see, because of the change of the Crow, a new variety of crops that will be grown throughout the province, not only in the southern part of the province. There is going to have to be serious consideration given to that whole matter on how insurances will be provided for producers across the province.

My question to the minister is: We talk about beans having been grown for some time, but coverage has not been applied to them. Can the minister indicate what time frame we look at to how long producers have to grow a crop in a particular area or when they change crops, how long it is required before Crop Insurance will consider whether it is a valid crop and whether insurance will be provided for this particular crop in another part of the province?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, staff certainly advises me that as long as it is an economically feasible crop and if there are sufficient producers that are prepared to grow them, we will in the Crop Insurance Corporation endeavour to provide a program to provide this very important safety net of crop insurance. I certainly want to agree with her. I think 10 years from now you are going to see a different Manitoba crop-wise, not just in some of the areas that we have been accustomed to where specialty crops have been grown. Full impact of the loss of the Crow has yet to really sink in on the landscape. It is going to present just a tremendous challenge to this corporation.

I would seek honourable members not only on that side, but it sometimes helps if I get some help from that side, but I need it from this side as well. That also means an extra strain on their resources in order to provide an ever-larger catalogue of crop insurance coverage which brings with it some additional administrative costs for the corporation. The administrative needs of the corporation need to be addressed, certainly by myself, the first party with respect to responsibility. It needs to be understood by all of us in government that as we push and press the corporation to provide an ever greater range of coverage for different, new and exotic crops that have not perhaps not had a long track record in the province, the corporation will need the support from all of us.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister then: Is there an ongoing review of boundaries or is there a set time--are boundaries reviewed perhaps every 10 years, or are boundaries changed with respect to the crop varieties as the demand is brought forward by producers?

Again, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) indicated that there were bean varieties that were not insured. Now, the minister says when there is a demand there, it would appear that there is a demand there but the insurance is not available. So how long does the demand have to be there? How many requests? Do you wait and see if there was a trial period that the crop is successful? If that is the case, does crop insurance do monitoring of crops in an area before they make a decision as to whether or not it is acceptable to allow this crop to be insured?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this is really an ongoing operation within the corporation, that is, constant monitoring of crops that are grown, not just those that we insure but those that are uninsured. That all goes into the data that the research divisions of the corporation take into account in coming to these dates, boundaries and yield figures that provide the data that feeds in to what establish eventually a premium for a particular crop, constantly meeting with different commodity organizations.

I remind the honourable member and all of us, and I congratulate, most of the crops have good, strong organizations that are in place to exclusively represent the interests of that crop, whether it is a Corn Growers Association--we do not have much corn acreage planted in the province, but we have a vibrant and alive Corn Growers Association. We have the Pulse Growers Association that look after a lot of the specialty crops, the lentil crops, just as we had a Sugar Beet Growers' Association, a very strong and vibrant group of individuals. We have the wheat growers as such represented essentially through the pool organizations in the cereal crop production organizations. In addition to that, we have strong canola associations, flax associations.

* (1530)

All of these people are people who are often among the first to make representations to the Crop Insurance. We would be the first to go to these organizations if changes are being contemplated or if new varieties are being introduced. We want to get the data from them with respect to the testing and the yield results that they have before they have registered or introduced a new yield.

In addition to that, I have certainly encouraged and I am pleased to report that the corporation has always responded to it, held numerous public forums. Usually they do this during the winter season, both as a courtesy to the producers who are then not actively engaged in their fields. They will be held in different places throughout the province. I continue to encourage that this be a practice of the corporation where they can hear directly from producers about the concerns they have about how the corporation is being managed.

So it is an amalgam of information that constantly feeds into the corporation that the corporation listens to. It then has its own in-house, qualified professional people who take in all this information and try to translate that into insurance programs that over the period of time have proven to have stood up to the projections and, at the same time, have offered an increasing level of acceptable insurance. When I say increasing, particularly in these last few years with our enhanced program, upwards to--well, not upwards to--80 percent of the seeded acreage in the province is in fact covered by insurance, I think that is an accomplishment that the corporation can justly be proud of.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, we spoke about the people in the Red River Valley who had difficulty last spring and hopefully will not have difficulty this spring. In another part of the province there are people who had a different problem, and that is, although they got their crop in on time, they were not able to harvest it. There are a large number of acres that are covered by crop insurance that have not been harvested. A large number of those acres have been very heavily damaged by wildlife.

Is it the policy, or will the corporation require that each of those fields be harvested before they are able to put in their claim or will consideration be given to those in those situations where the crop is damaged to the extent where it is not salvageable that it can be disposed of in another way rather than having the farmer run through the crop adding additional expense? The minister is well aware of the high expenses the farmers are paying at this time with fuel costs. What is the policy with regard to those crops that are out there and the steps that farmers must go through in order to have their claim processed?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, just before I respond to the honourable member's questions just by further way of example, the member will have been aware and I think has received the indication notice about a new or reintroduction of insurance for native hay that the corporation looked at. She has maybe received the little notice from Manitoba Crop Insurance. That again is an example. That came about having discussed the problem areas with the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association visiting the areas, to listening to the different briefs and the corporation responds. It is a program that I think will be helpful, particularly some of those areas that have had some difficulties in the past few years of high water and unavailability of getting onto the land for hay production, and hopefully it will be of some help to some of those producers.

The honourable member talks about the unharvested crop. I am aware that she represents a district where probably 80 percent of the unharvested crop is in. I am advised that it is a pretty standard procedure on the part of the corporation. They will make an assessment anytime now as to the extent of damage. Then it is up to the individual operator. If he chooses not to harvest, he will be paid out on the basis of that assessment. If he chooses to harvest, that is a choice that he has to make.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister must anticipate what my next questions are, because I wanted to talk briefly about the native hay program. I want to say that I am very pleased that the minister has and the corporation has recognized the problem that faces many of the cattle producers along Lake Manitoba who suffered the most last year.

The question that went to the minister last year was whether or not the minister would consider bringing back in the freight assistance program to bring hay into the region and help those producers who really suffered very badly last year because of the high waters along the lake and had very, very little hay. The minister, I believe, made a commitment when he visited close to the Ste. Rose area talking to producers that he would be addressing that situation.

We have a native hay program that will hopefully be helpful in the upcoming year, but what steps did the minister take to address the problem that faced producers and cattlemen who were writing letters to the minister saying that without assistance they were going to be having to reduce their herds? I know in many cases that did happen because there was a shortage of hay. They were not able to get enough hay. We have a native hay program now which will hopefully be helpful for the upcoming years. What did the minister do with the commitment that he made last summer to those people in the Ste. Rose area in particular who brought it to his attention?

Mr. Enns: Madam Speaker, the honourable member reminds me of an actually very enjoyable day that I had along with my deputy minister meeting some of our staff in that area north of Ste. Rose, along Lake Winnipegosis, where we had the occasion to visit with some cattle producers and personally view and inspect some of the difficulties that the honourable member refers to. They certainly were serious difficulties.

I indicated to them at that time that the longer term solution would be that I would challenge the corporation to revisit the native hay program. I accepted my fair share of responsibility. The corporation did have a native hay program in place for a number of years but for different reasons it had its difficulties to the point where towards '93, '94, it became a questionable program to operate actuarially, obviously a program that was not meeting with the demands of the cattle producers in the sense that the participation rate had fallen off dramatically to the point that I made the decision to terminate that program.

I want to acknowledge, and I appreciate very much that coming back from that trip, I indicated to Crop Insurance, let us go at it again. Let us take another look at what we can do with respect to native hay; they have and spent the time over the winter and developed this program.

I am not supportive and will not provide a transportation assistance program. I have personally seen and experienced these programs in the past. Quite frankly the main benefit went to the truckers who hauled hay around from one region to another. That is maybe being a bit too harsh on it. It is building up also a kind of reliance. We had a program, as the member knows--the department at least knows--that ran for all too many years in a particular area where we had just about annual chronic flooding in the Fairford area that we kept trucking feed up to, and no incentive provided to the cattle producers to find alternative means of bringing their herds through the winter.

* (1540)

I want to particularly note and commend staff in the northwest region who did a good job I am told under the direction of our director, Mr. Roger Chychota, I believe, working out of Dauphin area, that was there to help and assist the producers with the formulation of alternative rations, often utilizing straw that was available from not too distant areas in the Dauphin area. Dauphin area had harvested a reasonably good crop. As late as last Saturday when I was opening the sale at the Douglas, Manitoba, bull test station at Douglas, I had an opportunity of speaking with some of the producers from that area as well as some of our livestock specialists. Mr. Norm Hemstad, who was there, I asked specifically whether or not there was any serious downsizing of cattle herds from those flood-affected areas. The response that I got was no, there had not been, that most if not all of the ranchers had--certainly there were some sold. Most or all ranchers had taken advantage of the support and advice that the department offered in providing alternative means of wintering these cattle through. I am pleased to hear that.

All in all, I am pleased to note that Manitoba is one of the few provinces, virtually the only province, jurisdiction, that has not downsized, has not gone through a serious downsizing of our beef cattle numbers during these last two or three, four pretty difficult years in the cattle industry. We have now record numbers of beef cows in Manitoba, some 660-odd-thousand and are well positioned to take advantage of what all the exports tell me, that we have probably rounded the corner in terms of poor cattle prices. Certainly the markets are beginning to reflect it and that we are looking forward to a pretty strong cycle in the beef cattle industry which would, in my opinion, encourage Manitoba producers to maximize those opportunities.

I happen to be a minister that believes we ought to be running a million cows in this province. That just about sounds like an election slogan for me. Was there not an election slogan that once went, you know, a chicken in every pot? I mean, this minister would like to run on the thing, a cow for every Manitoban. We have a million Manitobans; everyone should have a cow, to be personally identified with it. I think there is that opportunity for considerable expansion in the livestock.

See? I even got the attention of the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). If all of a sudden the member for Elmwood thought that his 17,000 constituents in Elmwood would be able to graze a nice little cow in front of the front lawn instead of doing the unfriendly--[interjection] Hey?

Mr. Chairman, I am getting carried away. I apologize.

Ms. Wowchuk: I listened to the minister's answer with interest. The minister said that there has been no downsizing in herds. My understanding is completely different, that there has been some downsizing in herds. I have to say to the minister that I do not think that the people of this region were looking for handouts or for an ongoing program. They came to government because their situation was desperate. Because of the high water on Lake Manitoba, they could not harvest their hay. The minister says he was not prepared to move in hay. That is fine, but if he did work with the producers in another fashion to ensure that they were able to maintain their herds, well then that is what the Department of Agriculture is supposed to be doing. We want to see the cattle herds grow. We do not want to see producers have to sell off the hay because they have got into a difficult situation because of forces of which they have no control.

Nobody is looking for a long term, and I know these producers are not looking for a handout that is going to have hay delivered to them every year. That is not what they are looking for. They were looking to the minister for some help to get their herds through the winter. If that was provided then that is fine, but I would not want the minister to put on the record that these people were somehow looking for long-term assistance and wanted hay to be brought into their yards every year to maintain the herds because that is completely untrue.

These are hard working people who have worked very hard to build up their herds and had come to the department for solutions to a problem, not for handouts. If the solution was that the government worked with them to find a better way of feeding hay and working with them to feed straw, then that is what the department is supposed to be doing.

I want to ask the minister a question with regard to the new hay program. There was a native hay program that the minister indicated he ended because the participation was low. We have a new hay program now. Can the minister tell us what is different between the new hay program and the old one that makes the minister think that this will be a more successful program?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I want to very quickly acknowledge that I certainly would not want to leave on the record any other impression other than what the honourable member just indicated about the particular producers that we were just talking about. They received myself and my deputy minister and other members of staff with courtesy. They undoubtedly were facing a difficult situation. They showed us large areas of land that they simply could not get on to hay. This was in mid-August or the latter part of August and, obviously, within the weather times they were not going to be getting on much of that land, and that does not surprise me, because nobody is more resourceful than a determined cattle person who is facing winter. He will find some way of getting supplies of hay where perhaps one would think it would be next to impossible. That certainly happened. The assistance of the department certainly helped, and I am sure some downsizing did occur on some individual herds but not in a manner that you could say reflected the whole region.

Those were the particular questions that I asked, but I certainly want to associate myself with the comments that the honourable member for Swan River makes with respect to these producers. They asked for some longer term solutions, and I specifically spoke to them and they were looking forward to it that this was one response that they got as a result of that visit. They also looked and pointed out to some other very hard to solve, longer term solutions that had to do with respect to the overall lake levels. There is a lot of water up in that country. They pointed out areas where they thought channels could be dug between Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba. These are, as the honourable member appreciates, not easy solutions, even if the dollars and resources were there. But with today's environmental concerns, one does not transfer waters that easily without a great deal of thought.

The simple fact of the matter is that regrettably we are into a period of high water, high water, by the way, that is not new to that country. Over a longer period of time, there are cycles of high water. Those lakes are adjoined with very flat kind of marsh to hay land, you know, the kind of pastures that lend themselves a half a foot of water. A foot of extra elevation on those lakes covers a lot of land that in drier years in the '80s was very suitable for hay production. We looked and we examined what we could forgo, and I think we did some forgiveness of Crown rental rates with respect to a lot of the land that was held under lease, but we were quickly told that that was really very small, not really a factor in terms of trying to resolve or help the problem. Those were the kind of things that we learned.

* (1550)

I am hopeful that significant numbers of them will take advantage of this program. I suppose what was adding greater pressure and difficulty to the situation was that this was all coinciding with a very serious collapse in the cattle market. It is one thing to downsize when cattle market and cattle prices are strong. You do not feel quite that bad about maybe sizing down your herd by 40 or 50 cows but if you are only getting rock-bottom prices for them, that made that decision even more difficult. Fortunately, those prices are rebounding pretty satisfactorily, and I am hopeful that having come through this difficult winter that they will be looking to a better and brighter future.

Mr. Chairman, I have just about talked long enough so I forgot what her question was. When I read my answer in Hansard tomorrow, I will probably think it was a pretty good answer anyway to a question that I have forgotten.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess? [agreed]

The committee recessed at 3:51 p.m.

The committee resumed at 3:59 p.m.

Mr. Chairperson: The committee will come to order.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate the difference between the native hay program that he cancelled versus the new one that he has brought in? He said that the old one the registration was too low. What has changed in this program that will make it more attractive for producers to participate in?

Mr. Enns: I do apologize to the honourable member for not responding directly to her question, but, you see, I am going to be attending Gilbert and Sullivan's finest tonight at the Pantages with the rendition of The Mikado among whose tunes is: My brain it teems with endless schemes both good and new for Manitoba. I was carried away with my own rhetoric for a moment.

The main and fundamental difference is--and this is an important one because in my judgment this is what caused the failure, if you like, of the old program--it was regionally based. The honourable member, with a solid farm background, knows that these regionally based programs, not unlike the original support programs that were carried out by PFRA many years ago, a kind of predecessor to the crop insurance base, is that that did not ensure that--the way moisture comes--the farmer, because the region had sufficient production, the program did not pay out, and yet individual farmers could have suffered a severe drought or lack of production under that program. Over time, that was one of the factors that caused its demise.

This program, the new program, is individually based; that is the fundamental difference. I think we will find considerably greater acceptance by producers who have native hay as part of regular production for their livestock herds.

* (1600)

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate the cost of this program? What I am looking for is, what has the corporation budgeted as a cost for this program, or does the minister anticipate that it will be revenue neutral? What are you budgeting for this year?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the program will be identical to the other crop insurance programs that are being offered. First, the 50 percent coverage will be relatively premium free. There will be the administrative cost of entering the program that is applicable to all contract holders with a corporation, then levels of 60, 70 and 80 percent of yield will be offered, and the projected Manitoba costs to the corporation is some $116,000. That is our share which will be shared on a 60-40 ratio--well, give or take, that roughly the same proportion share as the other crops are insured with Ottawa.

So, to answer directly the question, the costs of the introduction of this program, our best estimate as to take-up on the program will be about $116,000.

Ms. Wowchuk: Could the minister indicate, does the program follow the same registration cut-off dates as other crop insurance programs, or are there different dates for registration?

Mr. Enns: Obviously, there are some differences in the sense that we are talking about native hay that is not seeded annually as other crops are. Otherwise, some of the conditions are the same. The sign-up date will have to be adhered to, April 30 for the cut-off date. The evaluation date is October 1; if producers under the program feel they have a claim to make, the assessment will be made after October 1.

Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to revert. We talked yesterday about the wildlife and waterfowl compensation program. I know that the minister had a letter from a Marlene, Sales and Marketing about a product that is being tested in Saskatchewan, Orange TKO, that is used to deter game from coming into crops. It is being tested there, and my understanding is that, according to what I have heard, it has been successful in keeping big game away from haystacks. Of course, if we can keep big game away from haystacks, we would be saving money in compensation costs. We would be saving farmers a lot of heartache, because you know that when you have compensation, you do not ever recover what you have really lost. I am wondering if the minister has taken this product seriously, and whether or not Manitoba Crop Insurance or any other department of Agriculture has looked at it and run some tests.

My understanding is this product may also work as a deterrent of coyotes and has been experimented at Swift Current--it will be experimented, using it in Swift Current. It says that in Swift Current they tried it. It has been used to deter deer from eating shrubs. It looks like it could be a valuable product to be used and could save producers a lot of money. It could save the corporation money if it was valuable. So I am wondering whether or not there has been any testing done on this product by the department in any department, whether Crop Insurance has looked at it, because, certainly, it would be this corporation who would benefit if there was a natural product that could be used to deter big game from coming in to hay yards and other such things.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I can recall catching an item on television, whether it was on the Manitoba Farm Report that the MTN station regularly features on the weekends, or Canada Report, where I saw that product being distributed in and around farmer's hay that was stored in his yard to keep deer from coming onto that property. My experts are not giving me corresponding shakes of head one way or the other. I see my livestock director there who I would have thought would have been perhaps aware of this if this was a product that was well known. Certainly this is one of the locations where we will take the member's drawing this matter to our attention, and I know that we would be of interest. Certainly, it would be of interest to the corporation. We are paying out, I am told, upwards to $1.3 million, $1.4 million in claims. By the way, the 100 percent ratio is applicable to last year's crop, the '96. There is a retroactive feature to that so that it would certainly be in the interests of the corporation to examine any means that could reduce that crop. I would look to my chief, an extension, Mr. Les Baseraba, to investigate the matter. I cannot recall particularly getting the letter that the honourable member refers to, but I can recall seeing the product talked about and actually used on a Manitoba farm on one of the farm television programs just three or four weeks ago when the question of crop hay depredation, in this case, was the subject matter of this television program. So it is something that we will be looking at.

It leads me into one other item. I have asked--and we have made a kind of commitment as with all compensation programs. One of the issues, perhaps, that I had the greatest difficulty in persuading my colleagues, particularly at Treasury Board, to accept in going to the 100 percent was, well, if we are paying out 100 percent compensation for losses of this kind, what incentive is there to the farmer to better manage his feed supplies to prevent these losses? That was a bit of a difficult argument to respond to. Despite the fact that I am sure the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) will quickly respond that while we speak of 100 percent, farmers do not necessarily view it as 100 percent. We put, I think realistic but nonetheless arbitrary, figures as to the value of hay or other crops, and then say we will pay 100 percent to the value that we establish. The farmer looks at it a little differently. If his hay is chewed up and we are paying $30 a ton to replace it, but this time of year if he has to pay $50 to $60 a ton to replace it, you know, that is not 100 percent to him, and I recognize it.

* (1610)

Nonetheless, we gave an undertaking to government and to Treasury Board that the Crop Insurance Corporation would look very hard at the kind of repeat losses, year over year, that we may well insist, instead of paying out the 100 percent compensation loss the third year in a row, that some of those monies be used in fact as preventative measures. It could be fencing. It could be this product. It could be other measures of how crop is stored or under what circumstances that would help reduce this expense to the corporation, because again, we have to constantly remind ourselves that if we do not make a serious attempt at addressing these unacceptably high wildlife losses, those costs will have to be borne and will be reflected in the premium structure for all. That is not really fair either, because these losses tend to be area specific and sometimes very severe in particular locales, and some efforts have to be made by us who administer the program and by the individual farmers to see whether we cannot, in the longer haul, enact management measures, procedures that reduce the incidence of this kind of loss.

That is, of course, one of the reasons, not the driving or the principle reason but certainly one of the reasons, why when we are introducing a new program like elk farming, game farming, that we particularly targeted an area like the Swan River Valley, or areas where the combination of an abundance of these animals that are causing a depredation are there, that it seemed to be prudent and common sense to accomplish two things, to help start a new industry, namely elk farming, and at the same time reduce the liability that Crop Insurance faces, the liability that the farmers face in unacceptably high wildlife depredation costs. That was part of the thinking why perhaps with the benefit of hindsight it would have been certainly less politically charged if we, for instance, would not have entered into a capture program last year, if we would have delayed attempting to address the depredation question that these wildlife are causing in an area like Swan River and awaited the formal passage of the bill and the setting up of the program before we attempted it. But we are not always right in all the things that we do. I do not apologize for it as we have a good group of animals to start the program with, and hopefully we can continue with more success and greater co-operation.

The mandate that I have from my cabinet, that is, to carry out a five-year capture program, and a five-year capture program is really meant to address the fact that, as the honourable member well knows, we have a significant resident herd of elk that are not going back to the parks and are not going back, they are staying right on that agricultural land. Whether it is 700, 800 or 1,000, as some people indicate, that herd has to be sizeably reduced. It can be reduced in different ways. They can be reduced simply by inviting and encouraging much heavier hunting pressure in that area. It can be reduced, as has been in the past not all that successfully, by the Department of Natural Resources' capture programs and relocating elk in different parts of the province where they do not create a problem. One of the ways of reducing that problem, particularly having made the decision to move into elk farming, was to take advantage of the situation, if you like, by reducing that herd that was causing the problem in Swan River Valley and helping us get an elk farming industry started.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have to tell the minister that he says, you know, maybe hindsight is 20-20 vision, and maybe they should have done it different, and I have to say I agree with him. They should have done it different. We should have seen the legislation before the capture started.

But I have to also tell the minister that the elk that they are capturing in the Swan River Valley this year are not the problem elk. The Department of Natural Resources has hired people to set up pens that are capturing elk along the fringe of the forest. The elk that are in the valley are still in the valley. You should be saying, yes, we wanted to start elk ranching and, yes, we were going to capture them. But to say that you are solving the problem in the Swan River Valley by capturing elk is not true because those elk will still be there, and the elk that are being captured, if you talk to local people they will tell you, that these are elk that are up in the mountain, the majority of them. The minister is right in the sense that the ones that were captured in the Thunder Hill area, the smallest percentage of them, I believe somewhere around 20 of the ones that were captured, were problem elk. The rest are elk that are being attracted out of the mountain area. Those are not the problem elk. Mind you, I did not want to get into elk ranching at this time. I thought we would do it a little later on.

What I want to talk about is this issue of crop insurance, and I will provide the minister with the information that I have on this Orange TKO, and I really believe that Crop Insurance should be looking at this. The minister tells us that there was a research branch in crop insurance, and these are the things that would be very helpful. My understanding is that people who have tried it on a very small basis have been very successful with it. We spend a lot of money on wildlife depredation costs. Farmers do not set themselves up on purpose to have the elk or the deer come into their fields. There are some farmers who may leave their bales out in the field. Those are not covered by insurance. Farmers generally want to store their hay for their cattle, because, as the minister indicates, when you collect big game damage you do not recover your costs. You are recovering, I believe, 80 percent. Although it is 100 percent, it is still not full cost. The costs that go into that hay are much higher than what you recover, and if you are buying it in the spring it is even higher than it would be in the fall when you are putting up your own hay.

So they do not do it on purpose. They want help. This would be an opportunity where we would be doing something if it would work. Certainly if it was tested by the Department of Agriculture, by Crop Insurance, then it may be something that the corporation could say, here is a product; this is part of your preventative practices; try it out. I would encourage the minister to direct his staff to, indeed, do some testing on this product and see whether it is a viable option, whether it is worthwhile. It may not be, but from what I heard there might be an opportunity here. Let us do some testing; see whether we can, indeed, save farmers some money and save the corporation some money.

Mr. Enns: I just repeat, I appreciate the honourable member's advice on this matter. I would ask her to either send the material that she has directly to me or directly to the corporation. Certainly we will examine and investigate if there is a benefit that can be established. One can only establish that by putting it to test and giving a trial. The honourable member is absolutely right. When you are spending the kind of dollars that we are spending, we can certainly do some experimental testing on a product to find out whether that can appreciably prevent future damage.

I thank the honourable member for that advice and look forward to receiving that information from her.

Ms. Wowchuk: I will have copies of the information when we return to Estimates--tomorrow, I would assume.

Farm safety net programs are an important part of the farming community, although there are much less safety nets. Basically the safety nets we have now are Crop Insurance and NISA. I talked yesterday a little bit about my concerns about NISA, and perhaps we can address them again. My understanding is that there are ongoing discussions on safety net programs, and 1999 is the next year when we are supposed to be seeing a new round of safety net programs. Can the minister indicate what discussions have taken place so far, and what direction the provincial government is going in as we move towards the safety net discussions of 1999?

* (1620)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that at this particular time we are just putting together the kind of preliminary efforts to put together a working group, that will look towards the future with the idea that they will have something to present to us at the next annual ministers of Agriculture meeting that takes place every year in, I believe, the first week of July.

We are concerned. I am concerned that the time line for the current programs that we can offer has a '99 date attached to them. I am concerned for two reasons: if Agriculture Canada and the federal government in Ottawa--and I believe they ought to be in terms of the importance of the agriculture industry to the country as a whole--continue to be a player in support of agriculture, then our corporations, our farmers, deserve better than just a kind of a three-year approach to this very important part of providing some stability and safety net support to our primary producers. I am concerned when I view the budget-setting process that has taken place under the current federal administration, and that has raised questions like the federal government's ongoing participation in the reinsurance question. It is a very important issue for us, the reinsurance question, and one, of course ,that impacts directly on potential liability for the provincial Treasury and one that we are nervously asked about by the provincial Treasury.

So we have taken strong positions. When I say "we," particularly the western provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan along with myself have clearly indicated to Minister Goodale that we expect and demand that a federal presence remain in the reinsurance program, and we are going to be pressing very hard as we move into the year '97, because '99 is not that long away from here. We will be wanting some assurances that we can, with confidence, certainly provide the services that we are currently providing, and one hopes that, as the fiscal situation improves, not just for our own province but nationally, for the country as a whole, agriculture will receive reasonable consideration from the federal Treasury that will enable us to offer these programs.

I am concerned, and the honourable member is quite right to flag it at this point in time. I think we have to be very sensitive to the question that one does not take things for granted. We believe that we have a very sound program right now, but it would certainly be fundamentally altered and weakened if there should be arbitrary or unilateral decisions made in Ottawa that would seriously impact on our ability and the corporation's ability to offer a program that is currently available to Manitoba producers.

So the concern is there. I seek her support and her support nationally. If I believe the news stories that I heard over the weekend that emanated from Regina, the New Democratic Party nationally had a very successful convention. They are looking forward to restoring their numbers to some of their traditional numbers that they used to have, which numbered as high as 43, need I remind you, Mr. Chairman, which is a formidable force in Ottawa. I for one would welcome the re-emergence of what I would call the more level-headed and nation-building politics that a strong New Democratic Party presence in Ottawa, a strong national Conservative Party in Ottawa could bring to the debates in Ottawa.

It is really quite bizarre what is happening in Ottawa today. We have as a group, you know, the 50 M.P.s that name themselves, and we pay them as Her Majesty's official opposition, members who, in most other countries, would be charged with treason. We have another group that is equally large that has difficulty deciding whom and what they represent, and certainly have great difficulty in representing more than regional aspects of this country.

I do not share my honourable friend's political beliefs, but I certainly share the role that the New Democratic Party nationally has played in policy formulation on the federal scene, in farm policy, in health policy, in education policy, and, quite frankly. that is what has been missing in Ottawa. We are not debating those kinds of policies; quite frankly, right now we have, under those circumstances, a determined federal Minister of Finance who is trying to bring his house to order, and we have seen the brunt of it in agriculture. I have said that before. We focus on the reductions in the social programs, health being the principal one, but agriculture has received a massive downsizing of support from Ottawa. I take this opportunity to invite the honourable member to let that agricultural concern be heard on the national scene by the current nine members, and we have one member from Manitoba, and particularly so, if after the anticipated election her party should be sitting in the House of Commons with greater representation than they now have.

Ms. Wowchuk: I can assure the honourable member that, when we do have official party status in Ottawa, we will continue to raise the important issues of agriculture that have seriously been neglected by the federal government, and I have to say that there is also concern with the amount of reduction in budget that we have seen by the provincial government under this administration. We have seen agriculture funding reduced, not to the extent that it has been reduced by the federal government, but provincially we have seen a lack of commitment to agriculture by this government. So I want the minister to know that he carries some responsibility as well for the lack of support for agriculture.

But the question I was getting to the minister was with safety nets, and the safety net program that we have is the NISA program. I raised my concern yesterday as well that, although there is a substantial amount of money that goes into the NISA program, it is not being fairly distributed, and it ends up that there are many young farmers who are not participating. I have talked to these people and basically they say they have not got the money; they cannot afford the money to put into the program to attract the federal funding. So I think that what we have to look at, as this government and this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) work towards the next round of safety net programs, are ways that we can establish programs that we will ensure that young farmers are attracted to the program and have the ability to participate because that is a very serious problem that we have right now with the NISA program. The participation numbers, as I understand it, are that close to 50 percent of participants have $2,000 or less, and they have 2.9 percent of the total funds. I made some calls this morning to a few farmers just to check and see how accurate this was, and basically they are saying we do not have the money to set aside.

* (1630)

So what I am urging the minister to do is, as you prepare for this next round and, as the minister says, 1999 is not very far away; we have to start doing the groundwork, that we look to ensure that those programs we put in place meet the needs of the farmers who are most in need. We do not have to be putting the majority of money into the larger operations. As I understand it, only 0.3 percent of the participants have $100,000 or more in their account. So you have a very small percentage of the farmers having a large amount of the funds put into their accounts, and a large majority of the farmers who are struggling for whatever reason--because of high input costs, because they are just getting started and they have to pay the banks so that they can stay alive or they have to feed their families, whatever--those are the ones who are not able to access the funds. So I would urge the minister to take that into consideration as the next round is being developed and ensure that whatever program is developed meets those needs because if we are not able to help those most in need, we are going to see those people leaving the farm. Whenever a person leaves the farm, that affects our rural communities, and the rural communities are very important to the economy of this province.

I have not put a question there, but just a comment to the minister. I just want to ask: on the NISA account, there is a substantial increase, over $3 million increased funding into the program, can the minister indicate whether there is a breakdown of--a similar question that I asked yesterday. The minister may not have it at his hands today, but if we could get a breakdown of where money is going, not by name, but percentages of accounts in Manitoba, whether we can see from those where the increase is, the additional $3 million that is going into accounts for producers. Can we get a breakdown of whether it is, in actual fact, the majority of it, going into the very large accounts, or whether there is an increase in participation at the bottom end of the scale?

(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Enns: The increase in the NISA allocation is across the board. It affects all participants in the program. A good portion of that is a result of--the 1 percent contribution rate is based on sales. The fact that the sales are higher this year has caused the increase to go from last year's contribution, some $13.5 million, to this year's $16.5 million, mostly because that 1 percent, when applied to the sales and the sales are higher, accounts for that increase. The other portion of the increase is based on the share of the bonus interest, which is also increased by some $300,000, roughly speaking, in this account.

Just a little correction to the honourable member that indicated a moment ago that fully 50 percent of the participants were in the 2,000 or less category. Our information has it that that is not quite correct. That category of 2,000-and-under represents about 25 percent of the participants in the program, and from there on in it fits, you know, in the next range, from 2,000 to 50,000 takes in the bulk. The percentage terms are 19-14, 19-18. I am not all that good with math on my feet, but that represents the bulk. Mr. Chairman, 70 percent, 80 percent of the participants are under $50,000, and from $50,000 to the $2,000, to the $3,000 range.

I suppose, I think, what we ought to be doing is we should be doing a better job at providing information, a better job at education. We should be doing this more aggressively like the private-money people do this time of year with respect to selling RRSPs. We all know the story, and I am a prime example of it. I would be better off today if I would have, with my first job, meagre as the pay cheque was, if I would have put $5 away a month or $10 a month into an account. This is, in effect, a government-assisted RRSP program, and a good one, where both the province and the federal governments add to the contribution that you put away. Mr. Acting Chair, you would like an RRSP program that way. We are providing under this program, a program for the farmers that, if they put $500 into the RRSP program, it is matched by the province putting $500 in and the federal government putting $750 in. That is a pretty nice, enriched RRSP program.

Now I understand perfectly, we are all human beings. We put off putting it in because we maintain we do not have the money--and I do not dispute that for a moment--but it is not good financial planning on the part of the very farmers that she speaks of. I asked her, we talked about maybe how we could encourage that.

We know a lot of the farmers received some extra payments that they perhaps were not expecting, payouts on the Crow for instance, acreage payments. In some cases, again, they were level in terms of the amount to whether it was a large producer or a small producer. But I know that in the case of somebody farming 3,000, 4,000, 5,000 acres he got a very sizable payout on the Crow payout, with the acreage payments of anywhere up to $28, $30 an acre.

But it would have been advisable, particularly for the smaller start-up producer, to take some of these monies and to put it into this program and to discipline himself to put these dollars away. People that do manage this successfully, even very modest--we have many examples of very modest Canadian wage earners that have never held down big and high-paying jobs or got into businesses that yielded big returns, but who systematically disciplined themselves to put $5 out of every pay cheque into an RRSP or into some investment--annuity or fund--when they started, when they entered the workforce as youngsters 20, 25 or 22 years of age. They find themselves in a position now with having reasonably good investment portfolios that can help them through difficult times and certainly help them in their retirement years.

I was the first one to put up my hand. I am not a participant in the NISA program, not that I should not be. I should be. I, particularly, should be because I am that high-risk category that my off-farm income is constantly at risk by the electors of Manitoba who are always there ready to throw me out of office. Mind you, they have not done that yet, but they could tomorrow. If that coincides with your poor cattle prices, then it is tough luck. I and other producers like myself should be the first ones to enter this program. I seek advice. What can we do?

I think our extension shop should worry about as much as this as about providing them with the best animal husbandry information or cropping information. Farmers need, our producers need, good sound financial planning advice. This is an excellent program. Our urban people would be very envious of this kind of a program being offered to them, because it is a program that, in a relatively few short years, can all of a sudden provide that individual farm family, that individual farm base, with an independent investment fund that is growing and yet which they can access under the prescribed rules. If they need it, they have fallen into a difficult year, fall into a different pricing situation for some of their price commodities, they can take those dollars to help tide the farm operation over a difficult period of time.

* (1640)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I want to finish off this section under Crop Insurance before we finish the day. Rather than discuss this further, I just want to say to the minister, I have identified a problem. I hope that he will consider it, that his department will look at how we can improve this as the next round of safety nets develops. I wonder if the minister might be able to table the breakdown or provide me at another time with a breakdown of the participation, because it appears that the figures that I have and figures that the minister is referring to are different. I would like that.

There are a couple of other areas that I would like to go through quickly. We have two programs under Crop Insurance that are ending. There is the Tripartite Sugar Beet Stabilization program, and indeed it is unfortunate that our sugar industry is going where it is. Hopefully, at another point, we can take a little bit more time to talk about the sugar industry and what role the department played in trying to work out saving the plant.

What I want to ask the minister specifically on this one--the program ended. Last year, there was $674,000 in that program, and also in the Cattle Stabilization program, there was money of $202,000. Can the minister indicate whether those funds were expended and how they were dispersed, or whether there is a surplus of any of those funds left?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Chairman, I am advised that the dollars that were remaining in the cattle fund, the honourable member may recall, at the request of the cattle industry and the cattle producers, those dollars were committed to a development fund at the rate of, I think, $150,000 a year or something. Anyway, it was staged over several years, which accounted for the dispersal of dollars remaining in that tripartite support program.

With respect to the sugar dollars, she is correct. The $600,000-odd will be utilized. There will be a payout triggered for the '96 crop, and you will have to ask me about the dispersal of that this time next year, whether that will disperse the amounts completely or whether there will be some residue. I can indicate to her now that we have been asked by the Manitoba sugar beet growers and other parties interested in the industry that, if we are requiring some feasibility study monies to see whether we can resurrect the industry or whether we have other options, we have access to modest amounts of that money in the hope that perhaps some further thing can be done with respect to the sugar beet industry.

There are some interesting developments taking place, and on a different item, perhaps towards conclusion on my Minister's Salary, if it is not a particular line in here that would be appropriate, I would certainly welcome a brief discussion and my sharing with the committee what steps have been taken, what steps are being taken. I indicated a little while ago that there are meetings with the Manitoba sugar people, with American Crystal tomorrow. There have been some innovative thoughts about how we can maintain some portion or part of the sugar industry, which looks very much like it will be lost to us as far as this season is concerned.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would welcome that opportunity at a later time because I certainly believe that the sugar industry is very important, not only to the agricultural economy, but also to the economy of the city of Winnipeg. There were well over 100 jobs, I believe, that were lost because of the closure of that plant, and much work. It is very unfortunate that it had developed the way it did, that the producers will not be sowing sugar beets this spring. I hope that, by working together and looking for alternate solutions, that crop will be produced again and perhaps by working together we may even see them processed, although I know that there have been some efforts made in that direction but that they have not been successful. So I would raise that again with the minister under the Minister's Salary, just with respect to the cattle development fund.

Now, can the minister indicate, that is not the Manitoba Cattle Producers that would be administering that fund. Is it the Canadian Cattle Association? Does the province have any input into how that fund is spent, or does it go directly to the association and they decide on how it is spent? Does the government have any role in the decision making of that fund?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Chairman, I am advised that this is a federal plan or set-up together with the federal government, the Canadian and provincial cattle-producing associations. We as a government have one member on that committee that is using these dollars for market development essentially, some research development, that impact directly on the cattle industry, on the beef industry.

Ms. Wowchuk: Who is your member?

Mr. Enns: A gentleman by the name of Mr. Rob McNabb, who is associated in our livestock branch, has been the departmental person involved in the stocker and feeder programs that we have operated in the province in conjunction with the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. I can also indicate that Manitoba is represented on the committee by a Mr. Marlin Beever, president of the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association, and as I already indicated, Mr. Robert McNabb of the Animal Industry Branch of Manitoba Agriculture.

They provide different research and information with respect to the cattle industry. It is this committee that is involved, particularly with the efforts Canada-wide at improving our export of beef to offshore markets, it is this committee that is looking at all the different technologies that are coming to the fore with respect to production of beef cattle. It was at the recommendation of the cattle industry that those residue dollars of the tripartite fund be used in this way, and that is what is occurring.

* (1650)

Ms. Wowchuk: One last area that I would like to address under this line, Mr. Acting Chairperson, and that is the employees at Manitoba Crop Insurance. I understand that Manitoba Crop Insurance employees do not fall under the same pay scale or the same category as other government employees. In some cases this leads to a problem, and particularly it leads to problems when Manitoba Agriculture employees and Crop Insurance employees work in the same office.

Can the minister indicate whether he sees this as a problem or whether there is any consideration being given to address the concern that has been raised by employees of Manitoba Crop Insurance who, as I say, fall under different pay scales than other Department of Agriculture employees? It was a real problem when Agriculture employees were coming over to help with GRIP. As I say, it has been brought to my attention as being a source of contention when Crop Insurance people and Agriculture staff work in the same building. Could the minister shed some light on his views on this issue?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member correctly describes the situation. For whatever reasons there were at the time, the employees of both Crown corporations, the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, I believe, and the Crop Insurance Corporation, were not brought into conformity with the pay equity provisions that had been adopted by the government. I, for one, have asked senior staff to management to address that issue.

I am not particularly happy with that situation. The honourable member is correct, that particularly in a department like Agriculture where the association and the working together of the two Crowns often happens, and particularly happened on such specific programs that she mentioned, like the introduction and the bringing to our producers the program like the GRIP program, really kind of focused on that issue, where we would have the Department of Agriculture staff working side by side with the Crown corporation staff. There would be, in my judgment, unacceptable pay differences that often understandably did not help the morale under these circumstances.

My information from my senior management staff here is that it is an issue that is currently in front of us as part of the bargaining that is taking place. My deputy minister always gets nervous when he hears his minister say, go ahead and do it, because it costs dollars and he is under restraint by what the dollars are here. I, for one, would like very much to see that we can address this issue.

I understand, I think it is a little too complicated to try to resolve on the floor of the House, but there are some innovative recommendations coming forward from management that could address those situations. It has to do with some past practices in the corporation of payout of bonuses under certain circumstances which management now suggests--I am talking about the Crop Insurance Corporation which is perhaps really not as applicable as they once were under the way the program is now being administered--that if we could trade a little bit on some of these items, there would be sufficient resources within the corporation to resolve the pay equity situation.

At any event, the best I can do is to indicate to her that we are aware of it. I am aware of it. In both corporations I would certainly like to see it resolved, preferably sooner rather than later. It would give me some measure of satisfaction if that issue could be resolved in the next relatively short period of time. Governments across this country--most notably, I suppose, in the news today is the issue of the problem the government of Newfoundland faces.

We adopt principles of certain legislation, in this case the question of pay equity. We have managed to build that into our budgets for most of the 14,000,15,000 public servants who work in one capacity or another within the government service. But there are some anomalies that are still there, and they exist in my department, Crop Insurance and in Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation.

Ms. Wowchuk: I want to thank the minister for giving this matter his serious attention. As I said, I am prepared to pass this line, but I would perhaps like to maybe talk to some people later about what exactly this would cost, whether the department has done the work on what it would require, funds to meet this need within the corporation of Manitoba Crop Insurance. I am sure the minister has looked at that. I know it is a successful corporation. I know that the minister wants to see his staff treated fairly, so I am prepared to pass this line, but would like the opportunity to discuss this further with the corporation.

Mr. Enns: I want to assure the honourable member that she has asked not many but she has asked several specific questions for some greater information, distribution of where the NISA monies are. I think that there were several other questions that she asked yesterday in a similar vein. It is my practice, and I will ask that my staff make sure that this happens, that I will be providing her with responses to those questions that I was unable to answer during the discussion of this item. But we will be forwarding this information on to her.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Item 2. Risk Management and Income Support Programs (a) Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation (1) Administration $4,458,300--pass; (2) Premiums $31,900,000--pass; (3) Wildlife/Waterfowl Damage Compensation $1,283,000--pass.

2. (b) Net Income Stabilization Account $18,234,000--pass; (c) Tripartite Stabilization Plans, zero--pass.

Resolution 3.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $55,875,300 for Agriculture, Risk Management and Income Support Programs, $55,875,300 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

Item 3. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation $7,914,600.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have several questions in this area and, considering the time that it is--we only have one minute till five o'clock, if that--there is not time for the minister to get his staff into the Chamber. So I think it would be fair to say that we would start on this line tomorrow.

* (1700)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.