Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that

WHEREAS recent policy changes by the Federal Government, such as the elimination of the Western Grain Transportation benefit, cuts to agriculture research and other cuts will increase financial uncertainty facing Manitoba farm communities; and

WHEREAS the Gross Revenue Insurance Program is coming to an end; and

WHEREAS national insurance programs, such as NISA, do not provide adequate protection for farmers; and

WHEREAS enrollment in the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation programs has declined because farmers believe that the programs offered do not meet their needs; and

WHEREAS many recommendations to the Manitoba Crop Insurance Review Committee have not been implemented; and

WHEREAS farmers must have the ability to protect themselves from disaster.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Provincial Government to consider enhancing crop insurance programs so that they will provide adequate coverage for Manitoba farmers and correct the shortcomings in the current coverage which they have identified.

Motion presented.

Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, there has long been discussion about an Enhanced Crop Insurance Program, and there was discussion about setting up a federal, a national program, a support program that would be national in scope and provide for a level type of support for the agriculture producers of this country. We heard about this national safety net program or Enhanced Crop Insurance Program that was going to come forward, but as I understand it, the negotiations broke down and now we have each province doing its own crop insurance.

Now, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has put forward an Enhanced Crop Insurance Program, and that was announced in December of 1995, so the minister I know when he gets up he will say that, yes, he has put forward an Enhanced Crop Insurance Program, but the crop insurance program and the policies under crop insurance that this government has put forward have many shortcomings. The government in their announcement put forward different levels of coverage that you could get, and one of them was a 50 percent coverage, a coverage that would offer a 50 percent of long-term yields with no premium charge to producers.

However, producers would also have the option of selecting higher coverage of 70 percent and 80 percent of eligible crops. Well, I have spoken to many, and I know the minister is going to say that he has addressed the concerns, but there were many recommendations that were put forward by the Crop Insurance Review Committee that have not been addressed, and I have talked to many producers who have said that the 50 percent is not offering them any coverage. It is not a good program. Producers are telling me that coverage is not adequate. I encourage the minister to recognize that, although he has put a program forward, he has to listen to producers, and the program that he has right now is not meeting the producers' needs. Many producers are saying that the additional coverage is very expensive and they cannot afford it. So they do not have adequate coverage.

There are other areas that I want to address, Madam Speaker, and I think that government is not meeting their obligation to producers. They have put in place a crop review committee, and that committee put forward many recommendations, and although some of them have been addressed--and one of them that was addressed was the one on the appeals process that producers can take part in when they have a concern with crop insurance. I think the amendment that the minister has brought forward under the crop insurance legislation this time, that part addresses the concerns of producers quite well, and we will look to see how that can be improved as well.

There are other shortcomings, and one of the shortcomings, Madam Speaker, is the coverage on hay. That program has been cancelled, and although the minister said that there was poor participation in the program, that was one of the reasons for cancellation, the minister has to, if that is not adequate, then look at another program. There is no coverage for wild hay, and this year we see many producers suffering because of that. We have raised this issue with the minister, we have raised it with the minister of disaster assistance. There has to be a way. If you are not going to offer a program of crop insurance on wild hay, then the government should be able to meet with these producers, and I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has met with them, but not only meet with them, come to a solution and offer them some assistance. Other times there was a program to help producers move hay. These farmers have called and said they are in desperate need of help. They have to make a decision as to whether they are going to reduce their herds or buy hay. They cannot keep their herds and buy hay as well. The government could step in, as they have in other times, and help the producers get the hay that they need to ensure that we do not lose the herds that we have.

The other area, Madam Speaker, that I am awfully disappointed in this government with respect to crop insurance, is their lack of action on big game damage. Now this is an issue that has been raised many, many times, and we have spent a lot of time discussing it in the House. Again, it is fall and there are still crops out on the field in our part of the province and in many parts of the province, and we are starting to get big game damage, lots of elk, lots of deer on the land, and the coverage that the government offers is inadequate. The producers feel that they should have 100 percent coverage on this. They do not have 100 percent coverage. In fact, the coverage that they do get is very low in comparison to what their input costs are, and I have to say that I agree with the producers that if the government who is the owner of the wildlife, of the deer and the elk and the moose, if the government is not going to listen to the producers and take into consideration the many recommendations that producers have made as to how the wildlife damage can be controlled, then they have the responsibility to compensate these farmers.

* (1640)

The government is quite willing and negotiating with the federal government to compensate for wildlife waterfowl damage, we should be looking at how you can compensate for big game damage. These are the people who did not agree with the government last winter when they decided that the way that they would control wildlife is by setting up elk ranching and capturing elk. That did not solve the problem. There are still huge numbers of elk, and I have to tell the minister, even if he decides to proceed with the capturing of elk again, which I know he will, that will still not solve the problem. The numbers--you have to look at other ways and you have to take into consideration that these farmers have to change their farming practices because of the number of elk. The minister is a livestock producer, and I am sure he has heard of the practice of row grazing that some farmers are using, and they leave their hay out in rows so the livestock can graze, feed out in the field, and they would not have all the waste pile up in the yard or in their pens when it is still very wet in the fall, and it is a cost-saving measure because you do not have to bale the hay, but these farmers cannot take part in that practice because of high numbers.

So, Madam Speaker, there are many things that the government should be doing. I know the minister is going to get up and read his press release saying that, yes, they have introduced a new crop insurance program. They have made some changes and some of them are good, but the minister has not--if you listen to the producers, the coverage that is offered right now is not good.

What we also feel that the minister should have pushed much harder on is to have a national safety net crop insurance program, and we heard the minister say many times that he was in favour or that. I am not sure, the minister has not given us clear indication why that whole system broke down, but I think this government was one of the first ones to go ahead and announce their own crop insurance program.

An Honourable Member: The last.

Ms. Wowchuk: The minister says they were the last. I will look for the comments from the minister, but he should be able to tell us why we do not have a better crop, an enhanced crop insurance.

The minister has brought in, as I say, crop insurance. I hope the minister will take the time during the time out of session to listen to producers and recognize that the crop insurance program that has been brought in with the 50 percent coverage is not meeting the needs of producers. Although it does not cost very much money, there is no return on it either so producers are finding that side of it disappointing.

We have to look at ways that we can work with the farming community to give them the security that they need. Farmers spend a lot of money putting in crops, and there are farmers this year who have put in, invested, and the minister knows full well that it costs a lot of money to put in a crop. Fuel, seed, fertilizer, chemical, all of those bills have to be paid, but the farmers have not many--I would say about 25 percent in my part of the province have not taken off the crop. Will crop insurance pay out on these crops?

They will have to wait till spring to harvest them, and I am not saying that you should be paying out on a crop that is sitting out in the field, but we have to work together and you, as a minister, have to work, meet with the producers. When recommendations are made by committees, if you put a committee in place and you send a committee out to work on this, then take seriously their recommendations.

I know there are financial consequences that come with them, and the minister talks about financial restraints, but I am sure that if you came forward with a crop insurance program that looked at cost of production, what it costs the farmer to put that crop in, and where a farmer was able to ensure that he was going to get some of his or her costs back, they would be much happier with a program like that. Those are the things that the minister has to look at, Madam Speaker.

As we have heard this government say many times, the agriculture industry is very important to the economy of this province. Farmers invest huge amounts of money into producing the crop and producing the food that feeds us all, and that is something we have to remember, that it is farming that feeds us all. It is not Safeway that feeds us, it is not Shop Easy that feeds us, it is the farmers that produce the food, and the farmers, when you look at their bottom dollar, are some of the lowest-paid people. They do it because they enjoy the work and they take pride in being able to produce food. Yes, we do, farmers do make a living as well, but we as a government and this government has a responsibility to see that farmers have some of the securities that they need as well. What they need is a crop insurance program that will give them some of those securities, that will give them some comfort that, should they be faced with a disaster, they will be given a reasonable return.

The concern the producers have is the number. It is not based on 100 percent of the crop, it is only based on 80 percent. You start figuring out what you are going to get covered for, you are going to get covered for 80 percent and then you are going to get 50 percent of 80 percent and it ends up that the farmer gets very little money. I refer back again to those farmers who are losing their crop and their hay because of big-game damage. Those are the ones, as well, that have their coverage return from crop insurance very low, and they become desperate. We know of one farmer who took matters into his own hands and shot one of these animals and said, here, you take it. That is just an indication of how frustrated people have become with the system.

So I urge the minister to recognize that farmers were looking for a national crop insurance program, and I would encourage the minister to pursue that further. From what I understand from what the minister has said at an earlier date, that is gone now. But since we have a provincial crop insurance program we have to look at how we can enhance it and truly enhance it because, although the minister's title says, new, Enhanced Crop Insurance, the coverages, as I say, are not meeting the needs of producers.

Producers are telling me that there is a lot of red tape and that the 50 percent one, they are not going to get any coverage. They are not happy with what they are getting, with the way the formula is calculated and how their return is figured out, and they are not happy with the way this government is dealing with big game damage. That also is under crop insurance.

The minister has a review that has been put forward that suggests 100 percent compensation for producers who lose their crop to big game damage. That is supported I believe by farm organizations across the province who believe that that is the kind of coverage that we should have. So the minister has to look at that. The minister also has to look at whether or not there should be a program for hay insurance for producers and whether there should be emergency programs and whether that comes under crop insurance or whether that comes under another part of Agriculture.

But there are many aspects where farmers are at the risk of the elements, and their fate is determined by the weather in many cases. Even though they can make the best decisions on their farming practices, it is the weather that in the end determines whether or not we harvest that crop or whether there is feed for those cattle.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would just like to say again that we have to remember that this is a primary industry in the province. It is very important to the economy. We have to do much more to promote the fact that it is farmers that do feed us all, and they are a very important link.

They do not only feed us all, the spin-off industries that are here in the city are affected. As agriculture goes, so go many of the other industries, and you feel that when the grain industry is bad or the cattle industry is bad, you see the impacts. Farm machinery is not bought, various things are not bought, and we have to ensure that those people who, as I say, feed us, people who work the land, people who produce our food, we have to ensure that we have adequate programs for them.

At the present time I do not believe that the crop insurance program that this government has put forward is in fact a real enhancement to what can be offered to farmers. I urge the minister to meet with producers and to spend the winter looking at how this program can be improved. But I especially want to urge him to look at the big game compensation package and look at the damages that farmers are facing and ensure that some of these--

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1650)

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, in speaking to the resolution put forward by the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), what first and foremost it points out is one of the difficulties with the arrangement that we have in this Chamber.

I am aware that the honourable member put this resolution on the order paper in the fall of '95 prior to some very fundamental changes to the crop insurance program that were just then being considered and put in place for the '96 crop year. So I will not be unkind to the honourable member for Swan River and take advantage of that fact simply because our arrangement was such that she had to put this resolution on the order paper some time ago, and quite frankly it is not current today. I think, to some extent, the honourable member alluded to that and recognizes that.

I am troubled, Madam Speaker, because I have a great deal of respect for the honourable member for Swan River. I know that she and her husband are active farmers in the Swan River Valley and I have had the pleasure of meeting her husband. I know that she speaks with on-hands experience when she stands up in this Legislature and speaks of agricultural matters. I am just somewhat surprised that she does not grasp some of the things that have taken place with respect to crop insurance in the province of Manitoba.

So with those few comments, Madam Speaker, let me first of all acknowledge--and I say this very sincerely--let me take this opportunity that this resolution provides me to acknowledge and to pay tribute quite frankly to the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation of Manitoba, the management, the senior management. Some honourable members of the House may not be aware of it but, regrettably, we lost our CEO, Mr. Brian Manning, to the fair province of Alberta, and Mr. Neil Hamilton is now the current acting general manager, president of the organization.

To the entire staff and as well to the board that has conducted the policy matters for the Crop Insurance Corporation over these past number of years, I would like to particularly take this occasion to acknowledge the nigh on eight years of service that one Mr. Terry Johnson, the chairman of the board from Virden, provided in unstinting efforts to provide and bring the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation through some challenging and changing times. He is a farmer in his own right from the Virden area and regrettably tendered his resignation just a short while ago to look more seriously at the affairs of his own farm, and I certainly wish him well.

Let me also tell honourable members of this House that I was pleased just this morning to appoint a very worthy successor, in my opinion, none other than Charles Meyer, former federal Minister of Agriculture, to become the new chair of the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation. Mr. Meyer brings a host of experience, again as a farmer in his own right, a diversified farmer, a farmer who grew potatoes, cattle, grain and of course had that distinct and unique privilege of having served the country as Minister of Agriculture for a period of time. So I am pleased to announce to honourable members opposite and take this first public occasion to indicate that he is our new chairman of the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation.

Madam Speaker, the honourable member in the resolution talks about some of the recent changes that have taken place and there have been some very fundamental changes that have taken place. I want to acknowledge, while I am in the acknowledging mood, in the tribute-paying mood, the dedication quite frankly and the work done by my predecessor, now the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), for instance, at a time when the grains industry faced very serious price collapse in the late '80s, '88-89. It has only really been my last several years of association with my peers at the national level that I realized to what extent Manitoba played--and the Minister of Highways and Transportation when he was Minister of Agriculture--in the formulation of what the member for Swan River talks about, a truly national program, the GRIP program that came to the aid of grain farmers at that period time.

It did come to the aid of grain farmers in a very formidable way. Nationally, it called for the expenditure of some $4 billions of dollars. Provincially, the five-year program meant some $800 millions of dollars of federal, provincial and producer--I always include the producer, as the member knows, the significant premium that the producer paid in this revenue insurance scheme, but, nonetheless, it provided a significant level of support for our grain producers during a very difficult period in their production cycles. But, Madam Speaker, I feel that Manitoba's dedication and Manitoba's concern and Manitoba's awareness of (a) the importance of agriculture and what governments could do and should do, both federal and provincial, to support that industry is second to none in this country.

The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) wants to look hard and do some reading at about how, for instance, the Crop Insurance Corporation is being run and organized in our neighbouring province of Saskatchewan. She wants to look hard at some of the programs of support that that province--I do not say that simply because the government of the day in Saskatchewan happens to be of her political persuasion. It was not different when it was under the persuasion of my political party. But she knows full well that in Saskatchewan there is no big game compensation paid, or very little, for crops damaged. She knows that very well because her constituency borders and neighbours to the province of Saskatchewan.

I get letters from Saskatchewan farmers saying, and I get requests from Saskatchewan political leaders wanting to know, about the big game compensation program that we offer in Manitoba because the Saskatchewan farmers hear of it. They cannot believe that Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation will pay out some million dollars in big claim damage.

She is right. We have to look at how we can resolve this issue. I am not quite happy that we are facing that situation. It is not simply an answer of improving the payout from 75 to 80 or to 100 percent. But what are some longer-term resolutions to the problem? Should we not be using those dollars that are now currently being paid out in compensation to resolve with the co-operation of the farmers themselves, some program that would enable us to overcome that kind of expenditure of public money?

I can report to her that in collaboration with my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), we have just this week agreed to involve farm community leaders from her constituency to come in and visit with us about how we can address the issues that particular area faces, which is, and I acknowledge, unique in the province of Manitoba. Unique in the sense that on the one hand Swan River Valley is unquestionably one of the most fertile pieces of real estate that we have in this province, speaking agriculturally. It is a beautiful valley and capable of tremendous production of crops and food. It is blessed because of its diverse geography with an abundance of wildlife and the adjacent parks and just in the landscape generally. So there is a conflict, and somehow we have to be smart enough to resolve it.

* (1700)

My resolution, part of the resolution, was to help reduce the depredating activities of Her Majesty's beef, elk, for a period of time by changing ownership from Her Majesty to farmers in a domestic elk farming program. She and her party takes great offence at that action although that is a logical and a reasonable way of addressing part of the problem and at the same time helping some other enterprising young farmers who wish to take advantage and have an opportunity as they are being taken advantage of in Saskatchewan or in Alberta. [interjection]

Pardon? Well, Madam Speaker, I am not speaking about the producer. I am talking about the objections on the part of this member, the member for Swan River (Mrs. Wowchuk), and her party to a partial resolution of the problem by engaging in a capture program that would remove some of the elk that have become in fact resident animals on the farmlands that she is expressing concern for in this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I am being diverted by the honourable member's speech because there are other issues. Since the demise of that GRIP program, I was fortunate to have the active support of my colleagues and my cabinet, that we could transfer a significant portion of the resources dedicated to the GRIP program which, in its final years, on a provincial level alone, was in the order of $32 million, $34 million, to transfer that some $18 million dollars and, at the same time, convince the federal government to transfer their portion to match at a 60 percent level our $18 million for the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program.

Madam Speaker, if the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) wants to call that insignificant, then I beg to ask, where has she been? That is a major, major improvement to the program. More importantly, the fact that 80 percent of the seeded acreage of Manitoba is covered by crop insurance, an all-time-ever level, never achieved before, tells me more importantly than anybody else, anybody that can tell me in this House, that the enhanced program that I introduced for this coming crop year by and large was a success.

It has its shortcomings. One of the shortcomings has been, for instance, that because of the federal government's capping on their contribution and significant downsizing of their overall dedication towards the safety net program, we had felt that we had to, for reasons of maintaining the integrity of the program, put an 85 percent payout cap on the losses. That was not a move that I particularly enjoyed making.

I am hopeful that I may be able to, when final figures come out and final budgets are struck, that I can restore it back to the 100 percent payout level, because the honourable member is quite right, when we were talking about--we got all those figures put down where you are ensuring 70 percent or 80 percent or 60 precent, and then if it is only 80 percent of the 60 percent then the figures do become less significant.

So I am mindful of those issues that the member raises, and it is my intention to try and do something about it, but driven as I am by the realization that it is highly questionable whether or not at the national level or at the provincial level there will be that readiness or willingness, that political willingness to enter into ad hoc agricultural support programs as we have had in the past. I am talking about the big ones, the billion-dollar programs for drought relief. That is why I felt very strongly going into these safety net discussions with my colleagues from across the land and with the federal minister that we ought to have a national program.

I want to tell the honourable members and the House that I tried, and we tried for years to bring that about. In fairness to my colleague the federal minister, Minister Goodale, he also tried for the better part of a year. It is no secret. These meetings are public meetings. Two significant provinces, Quebec and Alberta, were the holdouts. They were the two provinces that simply refused to enter into a kind of a national program that many of us were seeking. Failing that or finally recognizing last year in Victoria the federal government was persuaded to begin to move into bilateral agreements with individual provinces and, regrettably, that is the scene in that sense.

What we have to do is try to make the best of the world that we face and we have tried to do that. I have tried to insist that the federal government maintain some of the resources that they had to the GRIP program to our Enhanced Crop Insurance Program, and I was able to convince my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I understand--I was not in the Chamber, but the honourable member talked and referred to make references to the surplus count that is left in the GRIP program. First of all let me say thank God there is a surplus, that we had a management.

Madam Speaker, I realize that my time is out, but I will continue this debate with the honourable member on another occasion. Thank you.

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Thursday, November 7, at 9 a.m. be amended as follows: the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton); the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) for the member The Pas (Mr. Lathlin).

Motion agreed to.

Within the resolution itself, there are a couple of WHEREASes I think that I would have to say that I disagree with in terms of the enrollment in the Manitoba crop insurance programs, of which I will make the argument for, that it has not declined, it has increased, and also in respect to the recommendations of the Manitoba Crop Insurance Review Committee, that it claimed to not have been implemented, and make that argument as well that it has been implemented. I think in the THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that really the identification of the federal government is important to consider in that BE IT RESOLVED section.

So upon that, Madam Speaker, I would like to address some of the things that are happening in terms of the crop insurance programs in Manitoba, particularly the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program which was brought in for the first time this year. I believe that as far as the results are concerned, this new program was very well received by producers in Manitoba and that the anticipated acres that were--or projected acres that we thought would be enrolled in the program, the number of actual acres enrolled far exceeded our anticipated numbers and, as well, exceed those acres enrolled in the Gross Revenue Insurance program or the GRIP program, as it is normally referred to.

The total number of acres insured under the new Enhanced Crop Insurance Program for 1996 was 8,045,194 acres. The total number of tame hay insured acres for 1996 was 299,732. I think that speaks well for the program because we have, if memory serves me correct, about 10 million acres of cultivated land in Manitoba; so we had 80 percent of the acreage signed up. If memory again serves me correct, the Tame Hay Insurance Program within the province had declined, and so the acreage for 1996 is certainly a very positive move in getting that acreage up again.

I would just like to share, as well, with members that in the coverage levels that were available were at the 50 percent rate to 70 and in the 80 percent rate. I point out to all members that at the 50 percent coverage, that basically producers in Manitoba did not have to pay any premium with the exception of an administration fee per acre for the program. So he essentially gave them a 50 percent coverage at little or no cost, and under that coverage level the all-risk acres that were covered were 2.312 million acres and tame hay acres under that program were 254,697.

However, at the 70 percent coverage level, which producers then had to pay a premium for their coverage, the all-risk acres was actually higher at 2.556 million acres. At that level as well the tame hay acres had dropped dramatically down to approximately 31,500 acres. At the 80 percent coverage level, the all-risk acres again increased to 3.163 million acres and again the tame hay acres at that level dropped again, because most producers probably felt that in regard to insuring tame hay that a 50 percent coverage level was adequate for their needs. However, in the all-risk area of insurance, it seemed to be that producers preferred the 70 and 80 percent coverage to that of the 50 percent coverage.

One of the other interesting items for this year, which I would like to share with members, is the number of claims that have come through this system for this year. This year there was a total of 573 reseed claims registered with an excess of $2 million being paid as compared to 1995 when only 134 reseed claims were registered for a total of $288,000. And that is directly traced back to the kind of spring conditions we had this year where it was a relatively cold late spring and a number of the crops that were seeded did not get off to a very healthy start.

Madam Speaker, there were 2,375 additional hill claims registered this year. This year most of the claims were registered in the western side of the province and payout to date is about $3 million. As a result of more severe storms in the past year, they had less additional hail claims but the total payout was over $2 million more. This year, in terms of post-harvest claims, which is the all-risk insurance, 884 claims have been registered throughout the province. I guess the anticipated number is expected to go up over the next couple of months. I know that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) indicated that a number of the crops in her area were still out in the field over winter.

Of course, in terms of adjustment under the program, they cannot be done until next spring at which time it will be determined how much of the crop they can actually harvest, what the quality will be like, and then the claims will be paid out. However, Madam Speaker, compared to last year where there was over 7,000 claims and about $20 million paid out, I would say that this year with regard to insurance has been a good one from the standpoint of the corporation with respect to the amount of coverage that was out there, the amount of exposure that the corporation had to paying out coverage, this year has been a much better year than some of the years past.

One of the important points about the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation--and I would support my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) with regard to paying tribute to the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation for the excellent, excellent work it has done over the past number of years and its initiative now to offer quality service to the customers. I believe that the corporation has been dramatically going in a direction to provide a high level of service to customers that deal with them, and of course they have tested it or surveyed their customers and apparently 95 percent of the producers said that they were happy to very happy with the service they receive in both the agency and of course my alma mater, the ag rep offices. Well, we always thought as ag rep offices that we did an excellent job of servicing the farmers anyway. Customer service was second to none. We always knew we gave good service.

Madam Speaker, going on to the extent of crop insurance--and I hope before my time is up I would like to share an idea with members here in terms of crop insurance. I think that the Minister of Agriculture pointed out a very important action that was taken by the federal government in terms of capping the number of dollars it now puts into provincial crop insurance programs. So that means if we happen to incur a very disastrous type crop situation in Manitoba in any particular year that the federal government will be limited to the amount of dollars they put in the program. The province, on the other hand, their share of that funding will have to go up dramatically to offset that capping, and of course that is something that we--in terms of being able to put a program together--have to keep in context of being able to offer a program that can take that kind of a wild fluctuation on the provincial funding side and still maintain the program credibility.

Manitoba, in agreement with the federal government, was able to negotiate an assistance of approximately $30 million over a three-year period and that, in effect, allowed the introduction of the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program and Manitoba has committed $57 million in total to the safety nets for our farmers. Now this has gained us a full federal funding under the 60 percent federal, 40 percent provincial funding formula but this amount of money, I have to point out, is only there for three years. So for the next two years after this one, we will still be able to offer producers in the province the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program. Of course, the question mark is what happens in the fourth year when the federal transition payments are not there any longer to help put this enhanced program in place? I will finish off with that idea in terms of insurance.

GRIP was terminated this last year. I realize that just a while ago we just went through a third reading of a bill with respect to the GRIP termination act. I was going to put a few comments on the record there. I did not realize that these resolutions were coming up, and I thought, well, this is a perfect place to put some comments.

* (1720)

But, Madam Speaker, the GRIP program in Manitoba, the Gross Revenue Insurance program that came into effect, I believe it was '91--I could stand to be corrected on that--but it was a program that actually came into place when there was a tremendous amount of subsidy wars going on in the international community. As a result the Canadian, or the Manitoba farmer in particular, was being devastated in terms of low-crop prices as a result of the subsidy wars that went on between United States and the European economic community, with the U.S. EEP program, the Export Enhancement Program, resulting in much reduced prices so that in those ensuing years when the GRIP program came in that it was a very important program from the standpoint that it put a lot of dollars into the agricultural economy and actually helped producers in the province keep their cash flow at a more or less constant level over the next four to five years.

This was very important because for the first three years of the program, as I recall, producers got a tremendously large payout under the program, and in the fourth and fifth years the program started to get back some of the money that it had paid out. So in the last year of the program, Madam Speaker, the program actually ended up with a surplus in the account as a result of the fact that the crops were good and that the prices had improved considerably.

Right in here the GRIP surplus of $19 million that is producer money, I understand it is to be dispersed back to producers in February of 1997. If you take a look at $19 million, I believe that is somewhere in the neighbourhood of roughly $2 an acre payback to farmers. I know that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) spoke before about the necessary dollars to go into research, talking about federal dollars and provincial dollars.

I agree with the member for Swan River that research is very important in agriculture and that the federal government portion of the money that was--what, $19 million, I think you indicated that was available--that rather than going back to the federal treasury that should be coming back into Manitoba in terms of--could be a research foundation, so that the interest is used on an annual basis to fund research. I think that our government, and if we can get together and put some sort of concerted effort towards the federal government to try and make them good on their promise, that would be a great thing.

I would also like to at this time support the member in saying that the $16 million of provincial money that is left over could also well be used to fund research in Manitoba.

And I am not going to get my last point in. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I, too, want to thank you for the opportunity to put a few comments on record. In thinking of the whole area of crop insurance, the Enhanced Crop Insurance, and what my comments would be, I like the phrase that the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) uses on an ongoing basis. He is a modest cattle producer, and I would like to term myself as being a modest grain producer.

Mr. Enns: I never know whether it is my cattle that are modest or that I am modest.

Mr. Dyck: I am just being given a little more information here as to the modesty of it, so thank you, Madam Speaker.

I will proceed as one who has been involved in the production of grains, one who has had the opportunity to use crop insurance for many years. In fact, when I go back to specifically 1988, the year that we had a drought in this province, certainly it was beneficial to have been involved and to have had a good crop insurance program within this province.

Madam Speaker, I believe that as time went on and I know that my previous speakers have made mention of the fact that GRIP was introduced, and certainly the GRIP program was there to aid the producers during the time when commodity prices were extremely low. It allowed them to balance it so that producers would be able to meet the commitments that they had financially, and with that in mind I would also like to say that I do hope and trust that we will not again reach those periods of time when we have the low commodity prices. I guess in the last little while, it is interesting to see how these commodity prices have in fact been going down, but I trust and I hope that is something that is temporary and that we will not be going back in that same direction again.

Madam Speaker, the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program, and it is a new program, I think that we all recognize that, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture recognizes that as well, and whereas maybe it is not a totally perfect program, certainly it is a program that has helped and has assisted the farmers this past year. I know that on our farm we participated in this program, and certainly, as in all insurance programs, you hope that you will never need to access and to use and benefit from the program. Yet, though, you need something that will tide you through the difficult times.

The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) mentioned that in their area, Swan River area, there is about 60 percent of the crop, I believe she mentioned, 25 percent of the crop was out. I talked to one of my friends who was farming up in the Swan River area, I just talked to him three days ago, and he himself indicated that part of his crop was still out, and certainly a program such as this is designed to fill the gap so that the farmers are able to meet their commitments and at least cover their costs.

And, yes, the member indicated that 50 percent crop insurance coverage was something that was possibly not an adequate insurance program. I think though I need to--and the member knows this well--indicate too that there is the opportunity to take the 50 percent coverage or the 70 percent coverage or 80 percent coverage, whichever the producer so desires, and this again is a decision that the individual producer needs to make. I also recognize the fact that in business as in farming that everyone's situation is a unique situation and not everyone has the capability to cover costs or possibly has the reserves to cover the costs of production. So that is why the Enhanced Crop Insurance Program was introduced in order to allow those who wanted to participate and to participate at whatever the level they chose to be able to benefit from the payouts should they arise.

Again, Madam Speaker, I believe that this is something that the farmers certainly have an opportunity to participate in. I know that the minister indicated the number of producers who had enrolled in this program this past year that certainly they were taking advantage of it, and it has much surpassed those who had been involved in the GRIP program.

Again, when I speak of the--and I represent the Pembina area, I know that many of the producers that I talked to were pleased with the program that had come out and did avail themselves of this opportunity and enrolled in it. Specifically, I would not know from the southern area as to the coverage level they took, though I know that they felt that this would be something that would tide them through the difficult times should there in fact be a period where the crops would be minimal, be that due to drought or be that due to flooding or whatever the reason might be. Just further to that, I want to indicate that again we were fortunate in the southern area that, as far as I know, 100 percent of the crops were taken off, and so they will not need to access the crop insurance program. But that is again where this program is so beneficial, where all producers in the province participate in the paying of their premiums and do assist those farmers, those in business who are not as fortunate and which crops are out there--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) will have nine minutes remaining.

The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Thursday).