COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 3.4.(d)(1) on page 15 of the Estimates book.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, when we look at the Expected Results of this department, there is an indication that there is a complete detailed soil inventory on land, inventory maps. Can the minister indicate who does those maps, whether there is any connection with the data information that is done through Manitoba Crop Insurance or whether this is a separate set of inventory that is done; and, if it is, who does that work, whether it is done in-house or whether it is someone else who does that work?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, there is a joint federal-provincial unit, and has been of some long standing, called the federal soil survey unit that undertakes this responsibility and has provided the data to organizations such as our Crop Insurance Corporation. It is done entirely separate from the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation.

* (1510)

Ms. Wowchuk: I did not quite understand the minister. Is that work done then by employees of the Manitoba Department of Agriculture, or is it work that is done by someone outside of government?

Mr. Enns: I am advised that it is done by government staff, but, again, federal and provincial. Manitoba Crop Insurance has, over its 20-odd year history, developed pretty sophisticated data with respect to yield production of various crops and crop husbandry procedures and so forth on which premiums are based. The base soil information that categorizes the different soil classifications is done by this joint federal-provincial unit, and it is, I am advised, a government operation.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate, of the crop samples that are done for disease testing and herbicide and insect damage, are those tests done by the Department of Agriculture or is this something that is offered by an outside firm? Can he also indicate what the fee structure is for this? Would it be billed back to producers, and has there been a change in the rate of fees that is billed back to producers?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, my director of Soils and Crops indicates that they do, within the branch, the agricultural samples themselves for which there is no charge. There is a charge, a $10 fee, for nonagricultural samples, gardens and the likes of that.

Ms. Wowchuk: The publications that are done by this section, are those publications done in-house or within the Department of Agriculture, or is this work contracted out to an outside source to do publications?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, again I am advised that staff, of course, those who have the specific disciplines regarding a particular subject matter, do provide the writing, the make up of the material that gets into these brochures, but then the actual printing is contracted out as a rule.

There are some instances, as you would expect, where there is a fair amount of co-operation and co-ordination between other provinces, particularly on the prairies, with respect to information that is germane to the region, to the prairie agriculture. So there are some instances where we will use or co-ordinate, or our material will be used in other provinces where there is co-operation between the different provinces.

I would have to just surmise, but inasmuch as that the Queen's Printer as we once used to know, which was an essentially in-house publishing and printing shop which no longer is in existence as such, that departments like my Department of Agriculture have, under tender, normal contracting procedures avail themselves of outside printing houses for most of the actual printing work.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate then whether there would be one contract that is let for the whole year for the Department of Agriculture or whether each separate job is tendered out? If there is one contract that is let out, who does the printing for the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. Enns: As the honourable member would understand, the many different printing firms are anxious to have a portion of that business. We are directed, I believe through Central Administration for publishing work, to tender out. What will happen sometimes is several, two or three items might be tendered out together as a package for maximum efficiency in terms of pricing.

There is no single contractor, and we do not contract out the total requirements of the Department of Agriculture per se. We do not operate that way. We operate as the demand for a particular brochure, publication, is decided upon or that demand is required. Then we follow the same kinds of procedures that are probably dictated to us by some shop like Government Services that tells us--and there are specific criteria; I do not have them in front of me--that if the contract is for in excess of a figure, whether it is $5,000 or $10,000, then it must be tendered out, there must be a number of bids received and so forth.

The normal practices are followed by the Department of Agriculture, but to answer your question directly, we do not have a printer providing all the printing services for the Department of Agriculture in any given year.

Ms. Wowchuk: So when we look at the Soil and Crops branch, it would not be the Soil and Crops branch that would decide who would do the printing for them. That package would be requested, it would go to Government Services, Government Services would let the tender?

Mr. Enns: I am advised that the appropriate shop is actually Information Services. It is that branch or division of Government Services that contracts out and assures that the criteria for public purchasing is fair and equitable, of all information, and it is also the same organization that, for instance, will from time to time when television or radio advertisements time needs to be purchased, that is the branch of Government Services that provides that.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister give an indication of this branch out of the budget how much would be spent on printing and on advertising? Is there a figure available in the proposed expenditures that you anticipate will go for printing of material and promotional advertising?

Mr. Enns: There are some that would say that all governments print too much material. This branch is involved in providing, in the main, factual cropping information that today's farmers require. We co-operate with partners. I know, for instance, one of the major publications is the annual seed catalogue, and selection which I have to marvel at as the growth of the number of varieties, the options open to a producer when he plans which particular variety of seed he wants to use. It is not just a matter of deciding to buy canola seed but which ones of some 30-40 varieties now that are available. That is fairly extensive, likely one of our most major printing jobs that this branch would be responsible for.

We have always received excellent co-operation from other partners in terms of providing some advertising dollars in that same publication. I would like to particularly single out the co-operation that we have received in the distribution of Manitoba's major--in fact, I call it the one and only--regular farm publication, the Co-operator, which at the appropriate time early in the spring helps in the distribution of this important seed information by using their subscription list which goes to pretty well every farm family in the province of Manitoba. Everybody gets the Co-operator and that is how we manage to save considerable monies in the distribution of the document and provide I think a pretty significant service to our farmers.

I do want to acknowledge the support of the Manitoba Co-operator, which is, of course, the child of Manitoba Pool, that assists the department in providing this agricultural service.

* (1520)

Ms. Wowchuk: So the minister is indicating that there is no breakdown in this budget as to what would be anticipated to be spent on printing and advertising and providing information to producers.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I think the member would have to maybe--we do not use that format too much any more, although I think it is still available to her--request for an Order for Return to determine that kind of--somebody would have to go through the printing budgets of half a dozen branches, whether it is the Animal branch, the Crop branch, the Veterinary branch. We could find out what the total amount would be, but I do not have it available.

Ms. Wowchuk: I was looking to the minister for--there is a line, Communication, that is $140,000. Is that money that is spent on printing and advertising and getting information to producers? That is the question.

Mr. Enns: My deputy advises me that of the $140,000 that she specifically refers to, about $30,000 to $40,000 may be actually devoted to printing. It also includes all other forms of communications, telephone costs and other communication costs that are involved, I suspect, including from time to time maybe getting notices out on radio or television.

Ms. Wowchuk: I had asked earlier about chargebacks to producers for diagnostic services. Can the minister indicate what is the anticipated amount of revenue that this department would expect to collect back from producers in fees for services?

Mr. Enns: Are we talking back about the seed or the diagnostic lab? This is not a big-ticket item. From the agricultural producers, nothing, because it is a service that we provide, and we generate a modest sum of about $2,000, my director tells me, from the samplings that we are asked to pass judgment on, inspection on from the nonagricultural community.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put on the record that during the lunch time, I had a chance to visit with my chief agricultural critic from the New Democratic Party, and she assured me that she would treat me gently and kindly for the remainder of this examination of Estimates, she would not cast any disparaging remarks about my parentage, most particularly about my mother. I just want to indicate to her that I expect her to live up to that commitment that she made to me just a few hours ago at lunch.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the minister also agreed in that discussion that he would give short and brief answers so that we could proceed very quickly through these Estimates and complete them at some point this afternoon. I think we can both hold up our end of the bargain and hope to complete the Agriculture Estimates this afternoon.

Basically, the minister is saying, in this particular area, the service to farmers is provided free of charge. There is no fee for service.

Mr. Enns: That is right.

Ms. Wowchuk: Of the expenditures for 1995-96, the estimated amount was $683,000 that was budgeted. Can the minister indicate whether that amount was spent or whether there was a surplus, whether we did not spend that amount in this department?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the monies that were projected to be spent were, in fact, spent.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions on the Soils and Crops branch.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.4. Agricultural Development and Marketing (d) Soils and Crops (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,310,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $684,600--pass.

Item 3.4.(e) Marketing and Farm Business Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, again in this section, I would like to ask a few questions with regard to services that are provided to producers. There is a lot of work, as I understand, working to develop farm management resource material. The minister indicated earlier on that there was lots of work done with marketing clubs.

Can the minister indicate whether in this department if all the work that is done is done in-house, whether the services of market development and other work, for example, work that is done in preparation for trade missions, that sort of thing, are all done in-house, or whether there is a need to bring in outside services, whether there is any contracting out in this department?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, allow me to welcome and introduce Ms. Dori Gingera, who is the director for this branch, to the table. She advises me that this kind of work that the member refers to is done in-house by government. Where possible and where the opportunity arises, we certainly avail ourselves of the services of Agriculture Canada, particularly in the offshore trade missions the member referred to.

We have on different occasions included representatives of Agriculture Canada on some of these missions. For instance, it was of particular interest to us to have an understanding of the health and sanitation requirements of some of the countries that we are doing increasing business with, so on one of the trade missions we had Dr. Craddock, for instance, from Agriculture Canada, the chief inspector for Ag Canada, along on one of those trips. As you expect, under those situations, we do get support from Agriculture Canada.

The short answer is it is done either totally by ourselves or a combination of Agriculture Canada, the federal government, and the provincial government. I should indicate, the minister was just here, we, of course, utilize the support both in staff in kind and in dollars from time to time of different departments of government like Industry, Trade and Tourism, with Industry, Trade being a major player in the promotion of our trading relationships around the world.

Ms. Wowchuk: As regards the services that are provided to producers, the marketing clubs and various farm businesses that receive technical support, is all of this work done gratis to the people involved, or are there any fees charged to people who access services from this branch?

Mr. Enns: There is no revenue generated by the branch in this activity. Monies come to us through the support program again under the Canada-Manitoba Farm Management Program. There will be some costs associated from time to time that have to be spent in the holding of various producer meetings if it is deemed appropriate to have private or outside resource people help with the development of a sound program on any given subject matter, but they are not costs that we charge to participants in these various clubs.

* (1530)

Ms. Wowchuk: Is it accurate to assume, as well, that there are no outside agencies brought in in any of the programs that are offered? For example, in the training of farm families, there was a program, I am not sure if it comes under this area, a transition program for farmers transferring their farm from one partner to another. Is all of that work done by department staff? At no time are outside people brought in to help with those kinds of programs?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the particular program that the honourable member refers to again was kind of developed jointly with us and the federal government, ran initially by the Federal Business Development Bank, and I am aware, for instance, that for some period of time a former deputy minister of this department had a role. I believe Mr. Cormack was employed in that area for awhile.

I am advised that that program is no longer operating in that manner and is now run more directly by our branch, our provincial organization, in association with the Canadian Bankers' Association, so there is an outside agency in that event assisting us in coming up with some of the costs in providing this service to farm families who are in transition or who find it useful to avail themselves of the expertise that we can provide them with in making decisions.

Ms. Wowchuk: In that case, Mr. Chairman, would the Canadian Bankers' Association be there because they want to be there, or are they on contract with the government to carry out part of this program?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, we are not contracting the Canadian Bankers' Association in a way. I am advised that the levels of support may be restricted to perhaps providing coffee breaks or lunches at these seminars.

I have to accept at face value their similar interest to ours in providing for orderly transfers from one generation to the next generation of farms. It is in their interests that these transfers are accompanied smoothly and, hopefully, for their continued opportunities to do business with different farm families, so it is an extension service that the association provides in conjunction with the provincial Department of Agriculture.

The program grew out of the regrettable understanding that transferring from one generation to the next generation has its own pitfalls, and all too often is not done successfully. That is not exclusive to agriculture. The same applies to small businesses and other endeavours in the province.

We identified it as an area where we could provide some help as we recognize--you know, we look at the average age of our farm families and a number of transitions are taking place and, tax laws tending to grow in complexity, it is the kind of operation, the kind of how to make that transfer and still at the same time provide reasonable security for the retiring family head that is passing on his or her operation to the next operation, let it be done in the smartest possible way, both fiscally and socially.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate whether this is the branch of his department that would have worked on the Working for Value Task Force meetings? Can the minister indicate whether he has the figure available as to what was the cost to the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. Enns: Honourable members should be aware, and I think we have certainly made every effort to make it very public, that the Working for Value Task Force, the rural group chaired by my three colleagues from Morris and from Emerson and from Turtle Mountain, was essentially a government caucus initiative.

Certainly I am delighted that members of the Department of Agriculture, along with the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism and Rural Development assisted and participated in what I consider to be a highly successful series of meetings throughout Manitoba. We visited some 26 communities. We had within the three sponsoring departments, that is, the three departments that I just mentioned, allocated in a proportionate share roughly around $200,000 for the complete costs associated. Those monies have not been totally spent, and of course the work of the task force is not quite completed.

The final report is under compilation and consideration at this time. A draft report, which I believe the member would have received a copy of, was issued. I commend the task force. They made specific efforts to get back to the communities that they visited to indicate to them what it was that we had heard during our day long sessions. So that is how that initiative was carried out and funded. There is no specific line under the department's Estimates. A portion of it, our share of it might have come out of our communications budget. But I will ask my deputy minister.

I am advised that we have identified a cost item of around $39,000 or $40,000 that was expended from this department in the '95 Estimates and because it was not, as I mentioned, closed off, there is another roughly speaking $5,800 that will be charged against the Department of Agriculture to conclude the working of that group.

* (1540)

Ms. Wowchuk: The department also provides support to the Women's Institute and indicates other farm women's organizations. Can the minister indicate whether it is financial support that is provided to the Women's Institute, whether it remains the same as it has been in the past? Can he please indicate what the other farm women's organizations are that this department provides support to?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the only ongoing and financial support provided by the department is to the Women's Institute. It is somewhat reduced, although not much this year, by $500 or $600. It was at the $36,000 level; it is $35,000-something now. I do not fully understand the reason for that slight reduction. We also, of course, provide additional support in staff resources in helping to provide services during their meetings.

There are other farm women's organizations, one particular group that has an annual meeting, a conference of farm women, but they receive no financial support. Again, our staff of people, particularly in our Home Economics branch, and other branches depending on what subject matter they are particularly interested in, will provide support in personnel and resources. We will help and assist in the organization of the various meetings. There are some regional farm women's groups that meet on a fairly regular basis. Again, our department and this branch are often called upon to provide assistance, but I am advised that there is no financial assistance provided. The only financially budgeted regular support is to the Women's Institute at about $35,000.

Ms. Wowchuk: When you say farm women's organizations, there are no other specific farmer organizations other than the rural Farm Women's Conference that is held on an annual basis in the fall, is that the only other organization?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, that is the only other one that is, I think, can be identified as a formal organization that does as the member says, has been meeting or having a conference every fall.

I am advised by my director that there are other smaller regional meetings, whether they are a kind of satellites of these different organizations or whether it is just--there are other farm women that get together from time to time in different parts of the province, but these are the two kinds of provincial where they host a one-day or two-day annual meeting.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate, with the change to working for value or value-added jobs and the focus on more diversification, whether there has been any restructuring of this department and new people brought in or new responsibilities given to people?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that, to reflect the added emphasis that the department wishes to place on value-added and economic expansion of various agri-food initiatives, five existing staff people have been reassigned. If you like, their work descriptions have somewhat changed to reflect this new emphasis. There have been no additional people hired, perhaps with the exception of the one position that was filled. [interjection] I am advised, no, we are just working within the existing group of people.

By the way, the Department of Agriculture has--and I commend management and staff. We have shown, I believe, certainly in these last half a dozen years, where budget had not allowed for any significant increase in staff, a remarkable adaptability and resilience. They are taking on new directions, new challenges. With existing staff, we provided that service to the Manitoba Crop Insurance when the major new safety net program like GRIP was introduced.

A lot of our people did not have in their work description originally that of being agents of the Manitoba Crop Insurance, but they, on short notice, pitched in to help introduce this major farm support program to the producers in Manitoba. It is no secret, we believe that we are facing, in fact, we are experiencing a very significant added increase in the livestock production, and I do not mind at all acknowledging that I intend to push or promote the fact that I want to see that reflected in the Department of Agriculture.

We have pulled people around. We have placed greater emphasis on such things as horses within the department. We are freeing up some of our staff time, our livestock specialists' time, to work more closely with the expanding pork and hog industry in the province. We have a major undertaking in what we call the PRE-HACCP program of ensuring that that extension educational work is done right down at the farm level that will really underline the very important question of proper use of the feed additives and medication in all our livestock operations, if we hope to maintain and enhance our confidence in the safety of our food, not only for our own consumers here in Manitoba, in Canada, but, of course, particularly for the export markets.

This kind of realigning is taking place from time to time in the department, but we have managed, by and large, to do that from within the existing staff and the existing resource dollars.

Ms. Wowchuk: Are there any vacancies in this department right now or are all positions filled?

Mr. Enns: We are on a direction from Treasury Board, and I am probably giving away a state secret here that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) would forever hold against me, but we are operating roughly around the 4 percent, 5 percent vacancy rate within the department. Seven percent, I am told. It grieves me.

Ms. Wowchuk: It grieves me as well, Mr. Minister. Could the minister indicate, is he saying that that is just in this branch, or is it a 7 percent vacancy across the Department of Agriculture?

Mr. Enns: I was still grieving, Mr. Chairman, and I failed to get the full impact of the honourable member's question.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I did not hear the minister and his answer. Is that across the department, 7 percent, or are you saying there is a 7 percent vacancy in this department?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, it is across the department.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, we have a line in this department that is Grants and Transfer Payments, and I can see a decrease. I recognize that there is a decrease because of the final payment to the Keystone Centre, but that still leaves $783,000 that is available for grants. We talked about one grant, and that goes to the Women's Institute. I would assume that there would also be money in here that would go for 4-H travel.

Can the minister indicate what the majority of the money that is available for grants is used for in this department?

* (1550)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, for the honourable member's information, we have the following grants that are provided, some $40,000, to what we call the Asia Pacific Foundation. It is a Winnipeg-based office which helps in the co-ordination and information provision of the growing and continuing involvement with Asian countries in our trade initiatives.

One significant grant is of some $332,500 to the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute, PAMI, as it is referred to, our share, our portion of the prairie provinces' support for that institute, which as the member is well familiar with helps test and develop farm equipment, farm machinery, particularly adaptable to the prairie scene.

The member already alluded to $35,300 to the Women's Institute. There would be under this, as well, the provisions to support the 4-H Council, Canadian 4-H Council, some $7,000, $12,600 to the various clubs. Another major portion of this grant is to the fairs, some $207,600, to assist with prize money for approved classes of fairs and exhibitions that are operated throughout the province of Manitoba. There are some specific grants that are made available to ensure that appropriate judges can be hired at these various fairs and exhibits. These are the kind of grants that are provided under this section of the Estimates.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated funds for the Asia Pacific Foundation. Is that money for staff? I understand there is a staffperson who is allocated to that, or is this in addition to staff money, promotional money?

Mr. Enns: This grant is comprised of in kind and direct financial support toward the administrative costs of the Asia Pacific Foundation's Winnipeg-based office. So this department shares with other departments the overall costs of operating the Canada Asia Foundation. I am aware, for instance, that I believe the Department of Education and the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism are also participatory supporters of the institute. We justify our participation because so much of our economic developments with Asia are in the agricultural sector, and so we are asked to participate in the running of this operation.

Ms. Wowchuk: Have there been staff people that have been seconded from the Department of Agriculture to work at that office?

Mr. Enns: The answer is no.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.4. Agricultural Development and Marketing (e) Marketing and Farm Business Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,563,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,129,200--pass; (3) Agricultural Societies Grant Assistance $368,400--pass; (5) Other Grant Assistance $415,100--pass.

Item 3.4.(f) Irrigation Development $500,000.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, we have the Irrigation Development section of this budget, which is a new section. I would like to ask the minister, what is the status of this new program, is it in operation, and what is required to qualify to access support from this fund?

Mr. Enns: This is a program very much in its developmental stage. This figure represents a contribution that the Department of Agriculture will provide to that program when it is off and running.

It is being developed jointly again with the Economic Development Committee of Cabinet and the sister departments of Rural Development and Industry, Trade and Tourism. It is in direct response to the knowledge that with the very significant expansion of potato processing capacity in the province, as announced by our two processors, McCain and Nestle-Simplot, that upwards of 30,000 additional acres of irrigable land for potato production will be required in the very near future. The initiative has still to be approved, I might add. It has not gone through all the hoops there, meetings being held with the industry people, with potato growers, with municipal officials.

The concept is that we do not envisage at this stage any dramatic building of major water retention dams or reservoirs but, in fact, to utilize wherever possible surface waters in relatively modest-sized capacities, bringing together groups of four or five, six producers to form an association who would then be in a position to access water from such kind of a surface water retention pond, would be able to access credit through the increased strength of this association to get some of the necessary capital that is required.

It is a costly venture to get into potato production in this day and age. Some estimates range as much as about $3,000 per acre, or $3,000 or $4,000 per acre that is required in equipment and land development, and part of it is, of course, the requirement that the processors are placing on us that these be essentially all irrigable potatoes that this program is being designed in lockstep with the announced expansions of the potato industry in the province.

Ms. Wowchuk: Does the minister anticipate then when the program is off and running that there will be also funds that will be available from Industry, Trade and Tourism and Rural Development to create a larger pool of money that will be available?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I need to be somewhat cautious because the program, as I indicated, has yet to be fully developed, but we are talking about a program that has as some achievable target some 18 millions of dollars, much of it to be financed by the private sector through payback arrangements by the producers who directly benefit from this investment.

The actual flow of provincial or governmental dollars is not that--every amount is significant but not significant in the overall cost of the project. The support from government will be largely to help organize, to help work with municipal authorities to get the authorization to where a particular area of impoundment lends itself. There may be some planning or local municipal officials who have to be dealt with. It is always a tricky matter when you are dealing with the impoundment of water, even on a modest scale.

* (1600)

The direct beneficiaries, that would be new potato producers and those who are expanding, will be expected to take on most of the financial responsibility themselves through a 10-year kind of amortization loan arrangements. Quite frankly, we will take this capital needs package out to various lending institutions, including credit unions and private banks, to see whether they will underwrite or provide the monies for that project.

Ms. Wowchuk: Does the minister anticipate that this program will be fully developed and operational within this year or is it at still an infant stage where you do not expect it will be ready to go this year?

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, we certainly are working diligently to try, and I appreciate that the year is advancing, but certainly to have us be in a position to have the program capable of being started by this fall.

This is the kind of work that lends itself--usually some earth work has to be done, usually best in the fall to then be in a position to capture and to retain some of the spring runoffs where this is advisable. We are intending to spend, this is our commitment, $500,000, to be matched by the federal government with a further $500,000. So there will be upwards to $1 million that we are hoping can be spent on this initiative in this year to begin this process.

As I say, we have met with different existing potato producers. We are looking at different parts of the province, Portage area, Carberry plains area, the Winkler area, the southwest areas for potential utilization of this program, but we are not putting any parameters on it. Where it will put farmers, four or five farmers, who in this post-Crow era want to take advantage of some of the expanded potato acreages that will be called for by the processors and enter into contract arrangements, they can utilize this program to help them succeed.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate, would there not have been money available through MACC for projects such as this, or is there a restriction on lending money to potato growers? Why was it necessary to set up a new program if we already have a lending institute that can lend money to producers?

Mr. Enns: I certainly have indicated to the management at MACC that potatoes are a growth sector within the agricultural community.

Firstly, through their normal lending program, I am positive, I know that they are very interested in supporting this program. I think we talked briefly about it when we had MACC before us, that the two areas of that new--although it is part of the $10 million diversification program, the emphasis is probably placed on hogs and potatoes, so in that area MACC will be involved.

Also, MACC's role in this may be again as a guarantor in some instances. If a project calls for $2 million or $3 million, they are not going to get it all from us. The four or five farmers or producers that are coming together in the association need to make a financial commitment, get a loan from the bank or the credit union. As we develop the program, we may find that to make it doable is to provide a 15, 20 percent government guarantee to help make the program fly, so the monies flow more easily and the project gets off the ground.

So there will be certainly a role for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to play.

Ms. Wowchuk: If I understand correctly then, this money that is here will not be used for capital expenditures. It will be used to help organizations get set up. It will be used to offer as guarantees on loans that people go for to the bank, so if that is what it is going to be used for, the question that I still ask is, why was it necessary to set up a separate program? Could these people have not just gone through the diversification loan program the minister spoke about or through MACC?

I am just trying to clarify why it was necessary to set up another program and the role the minister sees here because I understand you to be saying, Mr. Minister, that this is not for capital. It is set-up money to get people organized. Could you clarify what the money will be used for?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, one of the other reasons of course for treating this in a somewhat separate manner is to hopefully involve the federal government through an agency like PFRA who, quite frankly, have shown a great deal of interest and are wanting to get involved in some of this kind of work which fits very precisely within their mandate. To help agriculture through water development projects has been their role since their creation.

The honourable member is right, these governmental monies, the actual capital project monies will have to be stand-alone loans that these associations have to borrow. We have set aside monies to provide the area management to buy some of the initial investigation and planning. This is, in some cases, technical and engineering advice. It gives us some indication of what the potential of a specific site has in terms of acre or feet that could be impounded, professional services that would be provided. There is considerable importance being laid on monitoring the whole program.

Irrigation is a valuable asset, particularly in this area of agriculture production, but it has to be done right. Again, the members and those who have reservations about irrigation per se they have a point to be made when irrigation is handled in an irresponsible manner. Water is a valuable resource. Irrigation, particularly in Manitoba where we need not huge amounts of irrigation which sometimes is envisioned when that word is used--California Imperial Valley and places like that--we, because of our normal rainfall patterns, rely very often on just a very supplemental increase in water that is applied to the crop at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner.

Our soil scientists, our soil people, we expect to learn a lot and gain valuable data for our own future management of soils in the province and to position the department to provide the best of possible advice.

There is also a provision here, which I already indicated, for losses. For instance, a loan guarantee, it costs money. This is where MACC would come in. Now, we do not know what that figure will be.

I just want to conclude by saying that I am not describing a program that is already in place. This has received approval from cabinet to be vetted through Treasury Board and then taken out into the field to see whether or not, over the course of the summer months, we cannot finalize the program. Hopefully, it is my hope that we have several associations in a position to utilize the program when the construction season is appropriate in the fall.

* (1610)

I am advised by my assistant deputy minister that we have yet to receive an indication that the federal government is, in fact, prepared to associate themselves with this program. It is my hope that they will be. The federal government, it should always be reminded, receives the greatest benefit from the economic activity by a Nestle or by a McCain. The province is second in line; the municipality is third.

Ms. Wowchuk: If the federal government does not decide to participate in this project, does that mean that the province will not go ahead with it?

Mr. Enns: I am sorry.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, if the federal government decides or does not agree to fund this project, does the minister anticipate that that will be the end of this project?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I, when one lives, would like to move optimistically in this direction, but, in the final analysis, the expansion is taking place in Manitoba. The demand for additional potato acreages is going to be realized, and the Department of Agriculture and the Manitoba government will have to respond to that need.

If the federal government does not participate, the kind of program that I described may be altered or may be scaled back to something that we believe is affordable by the province, but I, at this point, would not want to speculate that we will not get some federal involvement through some of their programs. I mentioned the agency which I believe, and I know, are anxious to be involved, and that is the PFRA organization.

Ms. Wowchuk: Well, I hope that the minister's department will continue to pursue. We have seen a dramatic decrease in the support for agriculture from the federal government and the reduction in supports to the farming community with the change to the Crow benefit.

The federal government does have a responsibility. They have always played a role in the development of water supply in rural Manitoba. I would hope that they would continue to live up to that and that we can get the money from the federal government which is duly due to us.

Mr. Enns: I could not have said it better.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.4.(e)(4) Keystone Centre Grant Assistance nil--pass.

Item 3.4.(f) Irrigation Development $500,000--pass.

Item 3.4.(g) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations nil--pass.

Resolution 3.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $11,576,300 for Agriculture, Agricultural Development and Marketing, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

Item 3.5. Regional Agricultural Services (a) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,943,100.

Ms. Wowchuk: The regional offices play a very important role. They are the closest contact of the Department of Agriculture to the farming community and provide services. There has been, however, frustration on the part of some sectors of the agriculture community when in particular we heard from the people in livestock industry during the time of the implementation of GRIP, around that time, frustration that the regional offices did not have the staff to provide the services that were normally there because so many people had been seconded out to do other jobs. That program is finished.

Earlier on, the minister indicated that most of the staff was back to doing their normal jobs. Can the minister give an indication of the regions in general as to what the status is, whether there are a lot of vacancies in staff or whether in each of the regions staffing is up to its full complement?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, my Assistant Deputy Minister Mr. Les Basaraba, who is in charge of the regional services, informs me that as a policy we do place a special emphasis on filling what we call kind of our front line people who are active out in the field directed by the regional offices that we are now talking about, so that the vacancy level for instance which I spoke of would not be as high in that area. We have and continue to have from time to time difficulties in filling certain positions. Right now, there are several home economist positions that are vacant and being sought for replacement, but, in general, as a policy we attempt to make sure that our field officers staff are more or less kept in place.

In a general way, certainly the member would be aware that we have reduced our overall core staffing over the past half dozen years, from what probably was in the order of 670, close to 700 department staff six years ago, to some 580 or thereabouts. So a significant downsizing of departmental staff has, in fact, taken place over these past half dozen years, but that is not unique to the Department of Agriculture. Other departments of government, as the member is fully aware of, have experienced similar reductions in staff.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister mentioned the home economists. The minister has had letters as we have had letters about one particular home economist. That is the one in the Boissevain area who has been seconded to work in another area and has not been replaced. The Women's Institute has expressed concern about the lack of services that are being provided in that office. They are also very concerned with the impact this is going to have on 4-H. We heard the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) in her Estimates talk about the importance of the 4-H clubs and 4-H clubs offering many of the things that are not offered through the home ec programs and the other programs in the school.

Has the minister's staff addressed that situation, and when does he anticipate that home ec position will be filled?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the member's information is correct, that we have reassigned that particular person, who is now taking on some additional responsibilities here in Winnipeg and, to that extent, that position is not vacant as such. But we have also reassigned the workload for the home economist within that region, and it is my understanding that the essential work carried out in that region by the home economist service branch is continuing. That situation will prevail likely for the remainder of this year.

I, like the member, am certainly receiving letters from that part of Manitoba, that community, and I will challenge the department, the managers, to monitor and review the situation as to whether or not a change needs to be made or whether or not the existing arrangement that has been worked out can adequately provide the level of service that we are capable of providing, commensurate with our resources.

* (1620)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the information that I have been given is that the service that is there right now is not adequate. There seems to be a rotation of people who are coming in. One home economist will come in for awhile, or they are coming in from another area, and there is not a continuity of services, and, as a result, programs get started, and then there is not any follow-up.

Hopefully, the minister would recognize that home economists do a very important job in providing services for the people in the rural community, and there must be a way to resolve this situation and put a home economist--if this person has been seconded to do another job here in Winnipeg, there must be another home economist that can be brought in, whether it is short term until this secondment is completed, but there is a problem that has been identified.

The people of the area feel that they are not getting the service, they are not getting the supports that are normally there from the Department of Agriculture, and I would ask the minister to look at other possibilities. Is that a possibility, that someone could be brought in on a term position until such time as the person who has been seconded can be brought back to her regular job?

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that certainly the preference for any region and community that would like to have the continuity of a full-time person within their community providing this service, and I have often said both publicly and privately that I regard this aspect of the department's responsibilities to rural Manitoba as extremely important.

The Department of Agriculture is not simply about producing tonnes of wheat and pork and beef and eggs and dairy and chickens. We play a significant role in rural life, and when somebody like a home economist leaves an area, this minister and the office gets forcefully reminded of that.

I consider the programming for this area of the department, the 4-H work that we do, the community work that often is associated with the services these agricultural staff members bring to the local fairs, the local activities within a given region as extremely important to making what we like to generally describe as one of the reasons why it is worthwhile to live in rural Manitoba.

So I take the member's advice to heart. Staff is here to listen to that. I might suggest to her that she should perhaps just lean on her colleague the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) a little bit and see if she cannot get her to propose a resolution that we would just take some of the crumbs off the table of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) in the running of that large department and expenditure of public money. Then we would find the dollars to provide and ensure that the level of service was here.

Ms. Wowchuk: Although the minister may pressure the member for Wellington, I think that the minister should recognize that as Minister of Agriculture, it is his responsibility to pressure his members of cabinet to recognize how important the agriculture industry is in rural Manitoba. He should also recognize that rural Manitoba has been suffering tremendously with cutbacks in budgets from departments, and we have not the services that we need in rural Manitoba.

A good example is this lack of will on the part of this minister to insist that all home economic positions are filled. All of those positions that provide services for people in rural Manitoba in the agricultural industry within his department, he should be insisting that those positions are filled so that people who are making great adjustments to the changes that we are facing because of the cutbacks we have had from the federal government, there should be support.

I would urge this minister to insist that all of these positions be filled and there be the best possible service for people in rural Manitoba as they make adjustments to the transitions that are necessary. As the minister has indicated many times, rural Manitoba, particularly Manitobans, are going to face tremendous challenges as they adjust to the post-Crow era. We are going to have to diversify into livestock, and we are going to have to have the necessary people in the department to help make those adjustments. We are going to have to have the resources.

I do not accept the argument from the minister that it is money being drained off from other departments. It is his responsibility to take the challenge and ensure that the department that he is responsible for has the best possible staff so that people in rural Manitoba can make the adjustments, and we can have the flourish of the growth in the rural community that will result in lots of tax revenue for the government.

The minister has to have faith in that rural community, that the rural community is going to grow, we are going to have economic development, it will increase, and he will not have to worry that it has been a bad choice to put in place the funds to fill those positions.

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I accept the honourable member's advice and admonishment. I take no issue with it. I simply point out that the task that the person who is undertaking it, the former home economist from Boissevain, is working on a very important initiative in terms of developing ag curriculum for the Department of Education.

As long as the member knows that it is extremely important that our ever-increasing urbanized society has a better understanding of agriculture. My deputy minister acknowledges to me that we are certainly sensitive to the fact that we have a situation there that needs to be monitored very carefully, and we will attempt to see whether we cannot resolve it in a manner that is acceptable to the people of that community.

Ms. Wowchuk: I wonder if the minister could indicate, if we look at the Northwest Region, for example, are there positions there that are budgeted for that are vacant?

(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, staff advise me that in that region we are operating with just a single vacancy, one vacancy.

Ms. Wowchuk: What would that vacancy be?

Mr. Enns: The position that is currently vacant is a grassland specialist.

I am sure this has not escaped the honourable member's attention that in essence the Estimates that I am seeking approval of are virtually the same as the ones presented last year so that reflects a virtual status quo, if you like, in terms of staffing and resources available through the different Estimates.

The only significant change in these Estimates is, of course, the $10 million, $11 million, no longer required for the GRIP program. If you look singly at the items staff finds us, aside from some very small minor dollar adjustments, they pretty well reflect the same budget line as the year '94-95.

* (1630)

Ms. Wowchuk: I recognize that, but the minister earlier indicated that there were some home economist positions, some positions that were not filled. I know there is one position that is not filled in the southwest region. I am looking for whether there are other positions where there are home economists or ag reps that are vacant in the same status as the one in the southwest region who has been seconded and not being replaced.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, staff underline the point that it is not a question of deliberately keeping a particular position vacant. Out of the sizable staff we have in the Department of Agriculture, there is a constant number of retirements that take place. There is an early retirement incentive program for which we have to maintain the dollars to pay that incentive, 40 weeks in some instances. Of that kind of nature there are about 15 of the vacancies across the department that fall into that category.

Certainly, as I indicated when we started discussion on the regions, we make every attempt to ensure that the service providers at the field level, in the regional levels, livestock specialists, grassland specialists, home economists, are, in fact, filled with all due dispatch. We will continue to try to ensure that is the case.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I indicated yesterday that we would not have very many questions under Agricultural Crown Lands and there was no need to bring in additional staff, but my colleague from the Interlake, as I had indicated earlier, had a few questions and I will defer to him to put his questions to the minister.

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Chair, I would appreciate responses from the minister, and I would like to clarify a few things when it comes to leasing and/or sale of agricultural Crown land.

I would like the minister to sort of put me through the steps. If I was one that wanted to lease Crown land, let us say, a section of Crown land, what procedure would I have to go through, and what would be the criteria for me to obtain a lease on four quarters of Crown land?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, Crown land has been designated by the Department of Natural Resources, within whose shop the overall management of all Crown lands resides, but there has been, as a result of land classification and practice, a significant amount, I believe some five to six million acres in total, of land as owned by the Crown that has been designated as appropriate for agricultural use. Most of it is grazing land, land that the honourable member for Interlake is quite familiar with, although there are other sections of land that is cropped, although it represents a relatively small portion of that.

The criteria for eligibility are relatively straightforward. It requires that the proposed lessee be actively engaged in farming and qualify under the various criteria to acquire a Crown land lease. Now, there are a number of different kinds of leases available. There are forage leases, of which for instance there are some 2,394 in the province this year encompassing some 1,600,000 acres.

Then we have straight cash rental agricultural leases. These are about 162, or 155 in 1995, have leases of that kind involving some 26,000 acres. This would be cultivated acres of land for crop production. Then we have a significant number of people, about 844, that get renewable hay permits. Then we have people that get casual hay permits, and then we have people with simply grazing permits.

So there is a fairly wide range of leases available. The branch assesses the carrying capacity of the leases. Rental rates are based on a per animal unit per month carrying capacity of that particular land. Upwards of 75 percent of the cost of administering the forestries programs is recovered through the fees charged.

For the honourable member's information, our rates are certainly comparable to neighbouring provinces like Saskatchewan and Alberta, and we offer an important support program through the agricultural leases to particularly our livestock industry, although it is in difficulty right now but has shown very significant and sustained growth for the last four or five years.

It is my hope as Minister of Agriculture that when a price recovery is made that that growth will continue in the livestock industry. There are those within my department, and I share their view that we can continue to expand our beef herds in terms of the capacity that we have on our landscape.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chair, some of the criteria that would be required of me to apply for leasing of, let us say, forage would be a certain requirement of livestock, and, of course, certain ongoing production as such to be able to maintain that lease land, and if for some reason I did not continue under their criteria, what would occur with my lease land? Is there a time limit that is required for a producer to maintain the criteria of the lease?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the various different levels of leases, of course, in some instances are self-explanatory, the cash rental ones, the annual ones. They are renewable every year or every several years under the specific guidelines that Crown Lands administration operates with. The long-term lessee, that eligibility again is spelled out in the regulations, is somebody that first of all to be eligible for a long-term lease, you have to be an existing farmer. You have to have livestock, and you have to have farmed in that area, I believe, for at least two years before you can apply.

I think the member earlier asked how can he apply for a section of lease land today or tomorrow. You have to be actively involved in farming for a period of two years, and there are points in the original allocation. Over the years, a relatively sophisticated allocation system developed that takes into account the need. It takes into account proximity, it takes into account age, it takes into account--and the member may say some of these are arbitrary, but that is a system that has not been really altered or changed much, certainly not in the last half dozen years or certainly not during the period of my involvement coming back to the Department of Agriculture.

* (1640)

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Back in 1977 or thereabouts, '75-77, it was adopted as a government policy to allow and to indeed actively facilitate the sale of some of the Crown lands to the holders of the long-term leases. It was done in the belief by the government of the day that this helped solidify or provide a strengthened economic base to the operations, that there would be a greater willingness on the part of ranchers and livestock producers to make additional capital improvements not just to the land but to the whole operation and would generally benefit the livestock production.

That policy has been in place, I believe, since about '76-77. It has been carried on by successive governments, I might say, both of differing political persuasion, and is still in effect today. That enables a long-term lessee of land to have first option to purchase the land, and the criteria for how that is managed is set out in a registration manual.

I believe it is Natural Resources that make the assessment of the land, and that land then is made, if otherwise not required, that is if the Department of Natural Resources, for instance, does not raise objections, say, for wildlife reasons--I know that there are lands that are leased for agricultural purposes that are within wildlife management areas. These lands are seldom, at least not to my experience, offered up for sale because of the prior interest of wildlife on these lands.

Other lands, another parcel of land, may or may not be offered up for sale if the Department of Highways has information that leads it to believe that there are significant or important aggregate gravel deposits under that piece of land, and that land is not to be put up for sale because Highways has kind of put a caveat on it for future road or construction purposes, but failing all of this, if there are no objections, the land is offered for sale to the long-term lessor.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, getting back to what the minister said as far as some of the criteria, that I as an existing farmer in the area, producer, have to be around for a certain amount of years before I can apply, make sure I am well on my way to continuing my operation. It has to be maintained at a certain level, and age comes into play.

But if I have four quarters that I am leasing, I am 60 or 65, I want to purchase that land, I have cattle, and I have been a producer for 25-30 years, I am eligible to purchase that Crown land if I so want to apply for it. If I decide not to continue and get rid of my livestock, then how long am I able to carry on that lease?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, that is at the call of the director of the Crown Lands branch. I know that there are now specific time lines indicated. We have situations where a farmer, a livestock producer, no fault of his own, finds himself without any livestock on his premises, and these situations have arrived, serious disease outbreak, he has been advised by the Veterinary branch to remove his cattle, to start afresh if you like.

Indeed, there have been other occasions, different cattle cycles where for different reasons, management reasons, not all of the requirements that are normally in place, you know, are in existence. We do not rush out and cancel leases at the drop of the hat. There is certainly a period of time allowed for where a producer can make different and more suitable arrangements to indeed fulfill and carry out the obligations of the lease.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, but if I decide to sell off my livestock and not renew the herd as such but sell it off, I have a couple of years to perhaps get back into it if I so wish. There is a little bit of leeway, but in the meantime, while there is leeway, if I do not do some of the necessary work, fencing, et cetera, that is in the criteria when I have gotten the lease for that particular four quarters, then I am also subject to losing my lease at that point too as one of the criteria that would say to me that, unless I stay within the limits and the boundaries of the lease agreement, there is a chance that I would lose my leaseholding on that.

Now, I know that there have been issues and cases where that has occurred where some of the producers, after leasing two or three or four quarters for a specific reason have not done what the criteria stipulated that they had to do within a certain period of time, were subject to losing their leases. If I decide all that is done though and I have sold off my livestock, I have four quarters of Crown land, can I as a producer who still has a lease on this, can I rent the four quarters to my neighbour? Is that under the criteria?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, there is provision made with the original leasing documents for subleasing of land. It is a requirement, I believe, under the regulations that the branch be informed of that arrangement. Indeed, under those circumstances the branch may alter the lease, may demand a somewhat different payment clause within the lease, but it has happened.

I am aware of some circumstances where a lessor for some reason or other has not been himself able to operate with cattle on the lease and has subleased portions or part of his lease. Travelling along with one of the rights and conditions of the long-term lease is some greater security, security which involves also the opportunity for the purchase of the lease.

Mr. Clif Evans: So if I want to rent the four quarters of land to my neighbour, I have had a hundred head, I do not have them anymore, I have not been using that Crown land, that lease land, for a couple of years, and if I do not let your department know, then I am in breach of the contract, am I not, breach of the lease? If I am renting out Crown land to others that I am leasing, and I rent it out without the department knowing, that is a breach of the contract, is it not?

Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer, and I am not privy to precise interpretation of any portion of a regulatory requirement. The department may well--and I do not know, I am going from memory, I happen to be a long-term lessee of Crown lands so I have some direct information with respect to various provisions in it. I do not know whether or not, and I do not know what constitutes the degree of noncompliance with the lease. I know, for instance, that the lease may well say that calls for X number of animal units to be held on this lease, but the department, one would hope, is understanding and understands agriculture that if in a given year or for other reasons that I already mentioned that perhaps for a period of a year or two years or three years that the land is, in fact, undergrazed, so technically may be not in compliance with the lease, that would not be reason to cancel the lease.

There are, in other words, different levels of what you call compliance. I know for instance that my leasing of agriculture Crown lands does not permit me to log it. I have run into that personally where I have had a neighbour, somebody else wanting to cut down trees just for firewood, mind you, on a leased quarter. I indicated to him, well, I did not really feel comfortable, certainly I could not give him that authority or permission to do that.

I asked him to make inquiries. I asked him to make inquiries of the branch as to whether or not that would be permitted. I understand that permission was granted, the person did, in fact, cut down firewood on a leased quarter or mine. But now if that happens, and I assumed that the person was going to contact the branch, I would like to think that if that permission was called for and was not given, that, for instance, would not necessarily cause a cancellation of my lease when I was not involved. In other words, there are different levels of compliance is what I am suggesting.

Mr. Clif Evans: I appreciate what the minister is saying about different levels of compliance. However, he did indicate prior to the last question that I asked that basically what I am hearing and what I heard from the minister is that if I want to rent out some lease land to my neighbour, I have to let the department know for it to be within the compliance of the agreement.

Now, I would think, and I am not a lawyer, that would have to be in writing and also not only in writing between the person renting and the person who is going to rent the land out, so what is the minister telling me? Are there certain situations that you do not have to go to the department to let them know, or do they have to let them know regardless of what the compliance or what the situation is?

I would certainly think that if from what I have been told many, many times over, and I have not seen it, but that you cannot rent, as a person who is leasing Crown land, that land to another producer. The minister is saying he can under certain situations, but no matter what, he has to let the department know. Is that what I am hearing?

* (1650)

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am aware that there have been arrangements, indications--although it is not encouraged and not certainly part and parcel of the lease, but where subletting of land has, in fact, occurred. Now, I would have to double-check with the Agricultural Crown Lands branch, and possibly there is an appeal board that tends to supervise disputes and differences of opinion as to when a lease is being properly managed or not. I must indicate to you and to the committee it is of course partly because of the expansion that has occurred in the livestock industry.

We are for the first time this year exceeding all previous records in terms of beef cows on the range. There is an increased demand and competition for lease land throughout the province, not just for agricultural purposes but from other potential users including recreational users. That has brought this into greater focus, I suppose, but I want to make it very clear that the policy, it is certainly a discriminatory policy but one that was deliberately put in that way, and this government has not seen fit to change it.

I might say that the government of Howard Pawley, the New Democrats, in six years had not seen fit to change it when it was introduced back in the mid-'70s, that favoured, the long-term lessee, somebody who had a long-term lease, 10, 15, 20, 30 years, that he was given every opportunity to purchase that land in preference to anybody else.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Chairman, I can agree with the minister on that point. The point is, is the producer who has been leasing it for 10 or 15 years wanting to purchase those four quarters--let us say myself wanting, after 15 years, to purchase that to make sure that I have a long-term viability for my farm or for my production and continue for my children's sake.

But if I do not have any of that and I decide to retire, why would I have the eligibility to purchase those four quarters when I want to retire and not use the land for anything at all? If there is, and the minister said that there is, certain competition for lease land, for Crown land, then why would I want to maintain or purchase my leaseholdings if I am not in the livestock production? I have decided to retire. I have no family that wants to take over the operation. Why would I want to do that even though the option is there for me? Why would I want to do that if I want to get out?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I cannot presume to plumb people's minds why they want to do something. I am just pointing out that under established policy that long-term lessee has this right.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I acknowledge and I am prepared to indicate that every policy, every program, should be subject to some review for a period of time. I think that the whole policy with respect to the administration of Crown lands, specifically those that involve this department, it may indeed be appropriate that we review our policies that are currently in existence, that we review the regulations that are in place.

I continue to believe that despite the current setback that the beef industry is suffering that there will be nonetheless a recovery. My hope is that it will be sooner rather than later and that the demand on them and the call on the greater utilization of our land base, in this case agricultural Crown land, will increase and not decrease, so perhaps it is timely that we constitute and we take a hard look at the policies currently in effect with respect to the administration of agricultural Crown lands.

Mr. Clif Evans: I will have that opportunity to purchase after 15 or 20 years of leasing, and I have the opportunity of purchasing it now.

As I said earlier, I may not want to or have any reason as far as production goes, but I may want to maintain it as an asset for my grandchildren perhaps or whatever, but if I in a period of time wanted to continue, then I can understand that, but if I did not want to continue, and over a period of time I made it well aware that I was retiring, sold my machinery off, put my land up for sale and the four quarters that I am leasing, publicly put it up for sale and in the meantime also, as the minister said, I would have to let the department know that I am renting out lease land to my neighbour, why would the department allow me to apply and purchase that land?

Mr. Enns: Quite simply, because he is eligible to do that. The practice, tradition of the eligibility for a long-term lessee to have first opportunity to purchase his lease then has been established somewhere, sometime in the mid-'70s, carried on by successive governments certainly for the last 25, 24 years.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.5. Regional Agricultural Services (a) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,943,100--pass; 5.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $628,400--pass.

Item 3.5.(b) Southwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,072,600--pass; 5.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $538,000--pass.

Item 3.5.(c) Central Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,045,300--pass; 5.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $556,900--pass.

Item 3.5.(d) Eastern/Interlake Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,952,400--pass; 5.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $940,000--pass.

Item 3.5.(e) Agricultural Crown Lands (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $573,700--pass; 5.(e)(2) Other Expenditures $269,200--pass.

Item 3.5.(f) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($100,000)--pass.

Resolution 3.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,419,600 for Agriculture, Regional Agricultural Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

Item 3.6. Policy and Economics (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $125,500.

* (1700)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, it is in this section that we deal with the economics of the department, and I am looking for some information. I want to ask whether it is in this section, where there is any tracking or analysis done of how much fees are collected from the various departments of the government. I am looking particularly at a line in the revenues of the department, where I see that there are agriculture fees and then sundries that come as revenue. I have been trying to find out through the Department of Finance clarification of what those monies mean or where they come from.

So I am looking to see whether it is in this department that there is any tracking or analysis or bookkeeping done on how fees are collected and what these other costs are. Can the minister tell me whether this is an appropriate place to ask these kinds of questions, or do I have to find this kind of information from the Department of Finance?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I apologize for the delay in answering this question. The principal amount is from the fees, the lease money we receive from the agricultural Crown lands. That is $1,900,000, just about $2 million. The other $692,000 composed of all the other fees that we get, again, of that group, the principal amount coming from our diagnostic lab facilities, a lot of it coming from not nonagriculture but the companion animals, as we call them, the pet animals, for which we have a full recovery charge, a fee-for-service arrangement.

The agricultural diagnoses that are carried out, the recovery is only about at the 20 percent level, I believe, but it includes such items, some publication that we have a charge for, a seed guide book that we sell for $3 or $5, all of that amalgam of little revenues that the department gets. I have listed the two important revenue generators, Crown land fees, lease monies, and the diagnostic lab.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, has the minister or the department projected that there will be an increase? Is there any area in particular that the department is anticipating increased revenues in the upcoming year?

Mr. Enns: I am advised that, for instance, if we proceed with the elk initiative--and that accounts for that rather significant difference from last year's print to this year's print. We anticipate getting revenue from the sale of the elk that will be used in turn to operate the program.

Ms. Wowchuk: So the minister, I believe, earlier indicated that there would be a sharing of the revenue. Half would go to the Department of Natural Resources, half would go to the Department of Agriculture. So the minister is anticipating that there would be somewhere well over a million dollars in revenue from the sale of elk in this year?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, again, and I do not wish to mislead the honourable member, because it is a moving figure, because I am advised that the elk that we have in captivity--you remember where it is, at my colleague's friend's farm close to Grunthal there--that they are now multiplying. Babies are arriving, and these little babies are worth money.

We do not know, of course, how many cows will actually be calving, but there are some 114-115 elk currently there, saleable elk. There could be another 30 or 40 or 20 or 25, you know, calves born in the next month, at different values, and I must say it has yet to be determined. Of course, the bill has yet to be passed, but certainly at market values of $10,000 an adult animal or $8,000 an adult animal you very quickly get to a million dollars.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, when you have amounts of fees that are over a million dollars that are billed to consumers in the province, is there difficulty in collecting these fees, and has the department had to use any collection agencies to follow up on collection of these fees? Has any specific collection agency been used to collect fees?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that the department does not use any collection agencies. It is my understanding that the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation has on occasion used an outside collection agency. We have, you know, the only significant amounts--I do not know whether that is even the right word, but we have had some uncollectable accounts on our books from Crown land lessees that have simply left the province and have not paid them from time to time, not unlike other departments of government, you know. The Department of Finance sometimes has to write off certain uncollectable accounts from businesses that no longer are in existence or have disappeared, have gone bankrupt perhaps owing the province some sales tax revenues.

I know that in my previous department, Natural Resources, we regrettably used to have a difficulty with the thing like hunting and fishing licences. Often there would be considerable turnover or change of retail outlets that were supplying these and, from time to time, we simply had to write off an account that was proven to be uncollectable. But our incidence is not high. The area that we do have some call, some uncollectable accounts from time to time, would be in the Crown land lessee program.

* (1710)

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, there are many questions that we could ask in this area, but considering the time, I would like to move along. I still have a few more questions that I would like to ask about the role of this area.

One of the areas I want to ask some questions about is the role of the Farm Lands Ownership Board. That board was put in place to insure that lands were maintained in the province for Manitoba farmers, and it restricted the ability for an out-of-country person to purchase land. I understand that that board, that act, is not being carried through very diligently, and, in fact, there are many, many pieces of land that are being sold to outside the province.

Can the minister give me some information on that as to the number of applications we have had under that board, the number of applications that have been denied and the number that have been approved?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, just in responding, I should indicate to the honourable member that she is aware of course that there are amendments being proposed to the Farm Lands Ownership Board, and that act is currently in the House at second reading. The board has dealt with some 254 applications for exemption in the year '95 as compared to 234 last year, 263 the year before, so it seems to run in that area. Most of the applications were approved, 249. Exemptions in four of them, when the full information was established, were not required. Application for another one was simply tabled for some further information.

What the exemptions usually call for are where we provide--we have assurances that landed immigrant status is going to be achieved by the party purchasing the farmland. Quite frankly, we welcome that kind of addition to our farming community.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, in the last year the minister made some changes to the Manitoba Pork status. It changed from single desk selling to orderly marketing.

There are other farm groups that come under supply management commodities, and I would ask the minister whether his department is doing any review of the other marketing boards such as the Turkey Marketing Board and the Egg Producers' Marketing Board, Manitoba Milk, whether any review is being done of these and whether he has any anticipation of changing the role of the marketing boards?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate very strongly that the answer is no, but I do want to, in saying that, indicate to you that the Manitoba Marketing Council, chaired by Mr. Howard Motheral, and the group that is primarily responsible for the supervision, if you like, of the supply-managed marketing boards in the province is currently undertaking a review of the Manitoba Vegetable Marketing Board at the request of a number of vegetable producers that made a direct request to the Manitoba Marketing Council to do that.

The Manitoba Marketing Council has met with the directors of the Vegetable Board and some of the producers who wish to see some changes. They have agreed to the hiring of an outside consultant to do an overview of the operations of the board specifically as it relates to the sale of table potatoes and the opportunities of export markets outside of the province.

Now, that was an initiative not undertaken by myself or the department but one, in the normal course of carrying out their responsibilities, the Manitoba Marketing Council has responded to. That investigation or that review of the Manitoba Vegetable Board is underway at this time, it is my understanding.

Ms. Wowchuk: If the producers request a review, then I guess it warrants the request, but I guess I refer back to Manitoba Pork. In that case, the pork producers did not request a review, but the minister initiated one on his own and made changes to the organization against the will of the producers.

He is indicating, then, that is the only one that is being reviewed right now, is the vegetable growers, and that would be Peak Vegetable Sales. Would that be what is considered the vegetable growers association?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, to the honourable member for Swan River, ministers are moved to act in wondrous and strange ways from time to time, and what particularly impels a minister to make a decision this way or that way has yet to be divined by those who make a habit of studying ministers, but I can assure the honourable member that it is the Peak Vegetable board that is being looked at, as I repeat, not at my initiation but by the action of the Manitoba Marketing Council.

Ms. Wowchuk: During the last year, we had a lot of discussion about the funding for agricultural organizations, and the minister brought legislation which would result in compulsory checkoff to farm organizations.

The main farm organization that would benefit from that funding checkoff is the Keystone Agricultural Producers, and although I disagree with that and we put those comments on the record that we disagreed with the steps that the minister was taking to put this legislation in place, it is in place.

We have not seen regulations for the checkoff. Can the minister indicate, does he anticipate bringing in those regulations soon or are there problems with the regulations that the minister can share with us?

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, let me first of all indicate that I am very pleased to indicate to the committee that the canola growers of Manitoba have successfully produced the required regulations that the amended act enables them to do, and my understanding is that was indeed approved by cabinet not so long ago, a few weeks ago, and that checkoff is operating. My understanding is that the forage seed growers are moving along the same path utilizing that act, and I want to indicate that they are extremely pleased that the new legislation makes this avenue of supporting their respective associations viewed in a very positive, very supportive way.

There is a difficulty that I am prepared to acknowledge with respect to the funding mechanism that is being considered for the Keystone Agricultural Producers organization. I can report to you that just this morning I had discussions with the chairman of the certifying agency that is spelled out under The Agricultural Producers' Organizations Funding Act, Mr. Dean Elliot, the Dean of the Faculty of Agriculture who is the chair of that group.

There is a difficulty in the means or the process that involves the checkoff being proposed for the major farm group from grain sales. The grain companies are concerned about the mechanics, costs, the administration of it. I have a concern about that, and I have asked both those parties to sit down together in the same room and see whether they cannot resolve the issues and come to some understanding.

I am pleased that that is taking place right now. My senior marketing person, Mr. Gordon MacKenzie, whom I am pleased to invite to the table, indicates to me that that committee is, in fact, taking place this Friday, so I acknowledge that there has been no movement, and certainly no regulations have been in place for the cap checkoff.

* (1720)

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate whether in other provinces where there is a checkoff such as this, the grain companies who do the work are offered anything for their services? As I remember the committee hearings, the people that made their presentations here said that they did not think that they should be doing this work, that they should be compensated for their effort. I am looking for some comparison as to other provinces.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, staff advises me that, no, there is no mechanism for compensation to grain companies taking the various checkoffs in different jurisdictions, but I am also advised that there is no umbrella general farm organization that is asking for the kind of more complicated checkoff that is being asked for here in Manitoba.

The grain companies, I take it, whether they are particularly--I suppose no organization likes additional work or additional paperwork, but, for instance, the checkoff on the canola is quite straightforward and fairly simple to administer. It is 50 cents a tonne, and there is no worrying about when you reach a certain dollar figure. If you sell 50,000 tonnes of canola, you pay 50,000 times 50 cents. What makes it complicated with the KAP proposal is because they are not looking to increase their fee, their $100 farm membership fee, but farmers deliver grains to all kinds of different outlets and different companies and it gets to be a complicated system then of monitoring and ensuring that, when you have paid beyond your $100 fee, the monies are properly returned.

I acknowledge that is a difficulty. I think we all acknowledge that. I read about it in the farm press. I am hearing from my farm colleagues and certainly in my caucus that there is a concern being expressed about how that is supposed to work. The companies at this point in juncture are saying, it is a costly administrative procedure, and whether I accept that at face value is another issue.

My inclination, quite frankly, is to say that--I look to my staff here whether or not my recollection is correct--any reference to the possibility of remuneration or compensation for the collection of a levy is couched in the language “may”; it is not a direct assertion in the act. My inclination is to say there that there shall not be any compensation paid and that perhaps that will drive both forces to work out a simpler--or to find a simpler solution. I do not know whether that is possible or not, but we are having some difficulty with that coming to a workable, acceptable means of collecting that levy.

Ms. Wowchuk: I guess I would like to close by saying the simpler solution would have been to leave it alone and let the organization collect their fees the way they were collecting and you would not have had all of these problems because clearly it is not, again, something that farmers support.

Many farmers feel that they should not be forced into joining an organization. It should be their choice, and it is a negative option checkoff that is there. I guess the minister could clearly have avoided this problem had he listened to the producers and not brought in this legislation. If it is not going to work out, maybe it will be the minister who will have to rescind the legislation.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.6. Policy and Economics (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $125,500--pass. (2) Other Expenditures $30,900--pass.

Item 3.6.(b) Economics (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $895,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $212,800--pass.

Item 3.6.(c) Boards and Commissions Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $354,000--pass; 6.(c)(2) Other Expenditures $524,500--pass.

Item 3.6.(d) Agricultural Research - Grant to the University of Manitoba $768,300--pass.

Item 3.6.(e) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($90,000)--pass.

Resolution 3.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,821,200 for Agriculture, Policy and Economics, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

Item 3.7. Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability $1,040,000--pass.

Resolution 3.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,040,000 for Agriculture, Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

Item 3.8. Income Insurance and Support Program (a) Tripartite Cattle Stabilization Plan.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I know we are going to pass these Estimates today, but I have a few questions that I would like to ask with respect to the Stabilization Plan, and I wonder whether the minister will avail his staff at some other time where I can have a discussion with them to discuss where the funds are going, particularly in the Cattle Stabilization fund and some of the NISA funds. Rather than extend the Estimates, I would like to discuss that at a later time.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I would be more than willing to arrange for a visitation to my office with the honourable member or any other members that wish to join us and to have a specific explanation and the dollar amounts that are being requested in this Estimates. I would suggest doing that prior to the session ending, which would mean probably early next week.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 8. Income Insurance and Support Program (a) Tripartite Cattle Stabilization Plan $202,300--pass; 8.(b) Tripartite Sugar Beet Stabilization Plan $674,700--pass; 8.(c) Net Income Stabilization Account $15,000,000--pass.

Resolution 3.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $15,877,000 for Agriculture, Income Insurance and Support Program, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

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

At this point, we request the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item. The honourable member for St. Boniface, with about half a minute.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): I would like to increase the Minister's Salary for supporting Schneider's in St. Boniface.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can we just ignore the clock for a couple of minutes as we finish this up?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am sorry, we cannot.

Item 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $25,200.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank the minister for his offer to have his staff sit down to discuss any of the issues that we have not had the time to do in these Estimates.

I indicated there was a section under the stabilization funds, but there are also a few other areas. I have to say that we would encourage the minister to take a stronger stand on some of the issues that we have talked about, particularly research and other areas, to ensure that agriculture in Manitoba gets the support that it needs.

Mr. Enns: I thank honourable members, particularly the member for Swan River, for the diligent perusal of the departmental Estimates. I look forward to hopefully presiding over the affairs of agriculture now that the sun is shining, good cropping conditions around the corner, and hopefully when next we meet we can report that 1996 was a good year for agriculture.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 3.1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $25,200--pass.

Resolution 3.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,578,900 for Agriculture, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1997.

This completes the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture.

The hour being 5:30 p.m., committee rise.