The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Mervin Tweed): Good afternoon. Would the Committee of Supply come to order, please.
This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber. When they do, we will acknowledge them. We are on Resolution 3.4 4. Agricultural Development and Marketing (d) Soils and Crops (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,322,300.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I know that the minister would very much like to have this passed so that he could then go out and join those people who are out doing the sandbagging, very important work, and I am sure all of his staff would be prepared to. If we can work through some of these issues quickly, perhaps we will all be able to get to that very soon.
Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions on this area with respect to the Soils and Crops branch. One of the areas that I would like to talk--the first question I would talk about is under the Expected Results of the department. It says provide support and develop economic opportunities for the utilization of cereal and flax straw and, of course, we have the Isobord plant that is being built here.
I want to ask the minister what role this department played in that. What kind of work has been done with respect to whether any consideration has been given to the impact on soil by removing this amount of fibre from the soil, whether his department has given consideration to whether or not it would have been more beneficial to the rural communities that we had looked at building smaller-sized strawboard plants instead of one large plant in the Elie area and whether or not those kinds of things are taken into consideration.
I know that this is a way to address the burning of straw, which has been a serious problem in the area. But when we look at sustainable agriculture as well, we need to work fibre back into the soil. I am not suggesting in any way that there is not the extra fibre there that can be used. What I would like to know is what work the department has done as to, can it be continuous that this straw can be removed and not have a negative impact on the soil? Are there varying heights that we have to look at, of cutting the straw to ensure that there is enough fibre to work back into the soil? What has been the discussion and what would the minister consider, whether there are any negatives when you start to remove this fibre and use it for another product?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I am particularly pleased that I can make some comments with respect to this whole exciting development that is taking place in the southern part of my constituency at the community of Elie. I remind the honourable members and members of the committee, and the member for Swan River alluded to it, this really grew out of the role that the department took with respect to curtailing the burning of excess straw. Back in '88 and '89, it became an increasingly bigger environmental concern, particularly to residents here in the city of Winnipeg.
I forget exactly what year it was that my predecessor, now Minister of Highways, I believe was the minister responsible when the actual regulations came into law that set out pretty specific rules about the burning of straw with attached penalties. I must say, as a long-time observer of the scene, that I did not, quite frankly, expect to see the day that we would be sending out RCMP officers to lay charges and in fact bring to court and convict farmers for doing something that has been just about a tradition in prairie agriculture.
Having said that, I am of course aware that there has always been a concern about that practice among the Soils and Crops people about the loss of organic matter that that provided. At the same time, we understood there were times and conditions, particularly in certain areas, where the working of the straw into the land was difficult and presented problems. For that reason, this straw-burning tradition persisted.
At the same time that those regulations were drawn out, we committed ourselves as a government, and particularly the Department of Agriculture, that we would look for alternative uses for that straw that we had now banned the farmers from burning, to some extent. That committee consisted of people from within the department, along with some people, no doubt, from the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism. They worked diligently and sought out different proposals that were drifting around on the landscape.
* (1450)
The honourable member may recall we had--and the Sustainable Development Committee did support a Mr. Wong, who suggested that straw fibre could be used for paper production. We actually supported that initiative. We sent samples of straw out. I believe some sample paper making occurred in Alberta at a small paper mill that was leased or rented for those purposes. That worked. By the way, it is still going on in different ways. It did not prove out successful or to a conclusion here in Manitoba, but my understanding is that is still ongoing research on the Prairies in trying to develop a viable alternative use for straw fibre into the paper business.
In Manitoba, it began to focus more seriously on the proposition that an enterprising gentleman by the name of Gary Gall, from Manitoba originally, from Belmont, I believe, in that southern part of the province, along with a partner, Mr. Simon, from Switzerland, had that began to intrigue us, the use of straw fibre for a particle board plant. That then took on a life of its own, and a great deal of hard work, with which the Department of Agriculture played a major supportive role, particularly in working with the farmers in assessing the amount of straw that could be had within an area, the helping in the creation of what they call a straw co-op which involves some 200-250 individual farmers, I believe.
It spreads in quite a circle. I thought initially it would just be within the immediate 10-15 mile range of the proposed plant site which was being considered for Elie, but it reaches well into the Red River and it reaches across into the eastern portion of the Red River Valley that have come together to provide the first thing, to commit the 200,000 tonnes annually of straw that the plant that was being proposed will require.
The questions that the honourable member raises are ones that our department, and particularly Soils and Crops, are very much aware of. They have done and will continue to do work that will determine the importance of ensuring that it is not adverse to the long-term sustainability of cereal crop production in this area. They will be doing specific work on the different soil zones. It is questionable, I am advised, in the heavy clay zones that this will have any negative impact, but it is possible that in other soil zones, as we hope the plant succeeds, and after different years of production, that this utilization of the straw will expand.
You can be assured of the fact that the Department of Agriculture will always have the sustainability of agriculture first and foremost in mind. As we focus and address more and more of our time and attention on that very question in various ways, whether it is through zero till operations, whether it is through the cultivation practices that are employed or the kind of fertilizer application required, sustainability has become a byword with respect to this issue. I want to assure the honourable member that this will be the case.
A few specific facts though that will also help her in understanding this: In the first instance, this supply of straw takes up about 15 percent, between 10 and 15 percent, of the wheat straw that is grown in the area. I am personally familiar with significant numbers of those that have contracted to supply the straw. Many of these producers are farming on 1,000, 2,000, 3,000 acres of land. They have committed 100 acres or 200 acres to this project, so each, on their own individual farms, that is a concern. If the advice they are getting from the Department of Agriculture is that we are concerned about the sustainability and the return of fibre to the soil that they can rotate on their own land, as they probably will just simply in their normal rotation practices, that the straw will not be taken off, year after year, that same 100 acres or 200 acres.
Certainly, there are a number of relatively easy and straightforward methods of determining even if there is a consideration. Perhaps lifting the table a little higher at time of harvest or of swathing. The farmer has to, and we will have to be part of our extension service. He will have to accept perhaps a little lower yield in straw tonnage, but I am sure that if the extension work is right, if that is important to the sustainability of the soil, then those would be the recommendations. Those kinds of recommendations could in fact become regulations in the future, if it were deemed necessary, Mr. Chairman.
But, understandably, I am extremely excited about that alternative use for the straw residue that had become a problem when the more traditional means of getting rid of it was used: burning. It certainly provides--I do not want to exaggerate, and that is a matter that will be, I am sure, constant negotiations from time to time as to whether the return is satisfactory to the producer. But let us recall, Mr. Chairman, that I believe the company is approaching this in a very professional and businesslike way. They recognize these are aggressive and progressive farmers. They do not want a bunch of straw holding up their field activity or their fall fertilizer application, something like that. A first-class group of pieces of machinery are being assembled. This is going to be a separate contract that will be taking this straw off. I am told that that straw will be off virtually at the same time the last load of grain goes off these fields. Pretty sophisticated pieces of equipment are being assembled to haul the straw off the fields, sensitive to the factor of land compaction in terms of the nature of the equipment. This is all being done in a pretty first-class manner, at least what has been presented to us so far.
As for the actual return, I do not want to put figures on the table, but I think they range in the order of between $7 and $10 a tonne. If an acre yields two tonnes of straw or a tonne and a half of straw yield, that helps pay the fuel costs. That helps pay the fertilizer costs. That helps pay some of the harvest costs which the producer otherwise did not have. I see a great future for that kind of business developing in that area. Indeed, I think the most encouraging thing is that virtually the full first five years production of that plan has in fact been presold. I think they held back a portion, 20 percent or 25 percent, because they do not want to dedicate all of their product to one or two markets. But there seems to be virtually an insatiable demand for this kind of a product, particularly in the furniture and the cabinet industries both here and the United States.
* (1500)
Most of the product has been presold to an American company that, after taking a long hard look at the samples that we submitted, they submitted them to all kinds of tests--water resistant, moisture resistant, malleability, how the product was to work with respect to putting in screws and hinges and so forth, how did it fit into today's furniture manufacturing needs.
From all reports it superseded all expectations, enough so that fixed and firm contracts were signed which include prices that make the whole operation viable. It has of course the other great attraction which is peculiar and unique to this product, that it is a new technique. It does not use the conventional formaldehyde and chemical solutions that are conventional in the particle board manufacturing around the world, such as for instance employed at Louisiana-Pacific.
I am advised that not unlike how we became environmentally sensitive to such things like lead in paints, particularly for interior walls, particularly for health institutions--and we have taken the lead out of the paints--the kind of particle board that is manufactured in the conventional way with the use of chemicals and formaldehyde, in particular, requires coatings to be put on those sheets before they can be used for interior, particularly, installations.
I believe not only do they have a unique product, they have I think a built-in market advantage and a sustainable supply. That part of Manitoba will, for as long as the sun shines and not too much water comes, but the appropriate amount of water comes, that part of the world and in that rich part of agri-Manitoba will produce huge quantities of the grain and along with it, the straw that is going to be utilized in this fashion.
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to say that I, too, am very pleased that we found an alternate use for a product that is a renewable resource, that we can have some secondary industry developed out of it, rather than having it go up in smoke and cause hardship for many people in the surrounding area. I am pleased that the department has done work on it, and from what the minister is saying, if I understand him correctly, their figures show them that this is a viable industry and one that will result in long-term jobs.
I want to know whether the government did look at the pros and cons of perhaps a large plant like this in one area and whether or not they looked at whether it would be more economical to have smaller plants built across the province. I realize that the government cannot tell a person how big of a mill they should be building, but I understand that there are other people that are looking at this process as well on a much smaller scale. Of course, we want to see economic development in all parts of the province, and I recognize that there is a large concentration of straw in this area where the plant is being built right now.
However, has the department looked at the economic viability of perhaps encouraging the construction of smaller facilities throughout the province or in parts of the province? There are several parts of the province where there is also very good soil and a high concentration of straw that is not being used right now.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the honourable member that the department will and, in fact, is responding to requests wherever they come from and in whatever size. We are asked often to provide some basic data as to the potential viability, the economic viability, of a proposal large or small. We are currently engaged with--the honourable member will know, at least two that I am aware of--fairly extensive plans in the Killarney area for a smaller plant. I am not quite sure whether it is just talking about exactly the same technique but, in general, the same business of turning surplus cereal straw into some kind of a particle board.
The interest is also there in her backyard, in the Swan River Valley, for a similar opportunity that this may occur. The honourable member is correct. These particular individuals thought big. They had the vision. I might say it is also probably one of the reasons why it was a very complicated financial package to put together. It took the better part of four years to accomplish that with about four or five principal shareholders that are putting together the required 140 millions of dollars that is going into this plant.
The province has provided assistance because of its uniqueness of a loan through my colleague, the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey), of $15 million, all of it repayable. There is no outright grant of taxpayers' money involved. The federal government, not directly but through the agency of the federal credit corporation and in conjunction with and in co-operation with the 200 or the different--with the number of farmers are providing what amounts to the equivalent of about $11 million, I believe, $11 million or $12 million, that will also have to be repaid of course, and so the project is in my opinion soundly based.
By that I mean it is not based on the strength of grant money that has put this package together. It had to fly on its own in the sense that the product that was proposed to be manufactured was salable, that they in fact had sales contracts that were valid enough to convince the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, for instance, to put up $50 million, or the Miralta Group, which is a fund manager. Interesting enough, Ontario Teachers Pension Fund is in the project along with such other investment agencies that we have in Manitoba like our Crocus people. So, along with these other major partners, that is what is putting together the capital requirement for this plant.
I cannot pass judgment. These are hard and fast business decisions. What we were challenged within the department is, was the straw available in the area? Could the requirements of a plant of that size be sustained over a long period of time? Of course we were concerned about the potential impact it had on the land, as I have already discussed.
Elie is a small, aggressive community, one that I have been very proud of to represent in this Chamber, but to provide upwards to 110-120 permanent jobs, anywhere up to 1,000 jobs during the construction period--the construction has already proceeded, the piles have all been driven in, the dirt had been moved off last fall--there is a great deal of excitement in and around the little community of Elie.
* (1510)
We recognize Elie is a commutable distance. There are people from Portage la Prairie that will find employment there, people from Winnipeg. It is a short, 40-minute ride on a good highway, Trans-Canada Highway, to get to Elie. Of course the city fathers of Elie, I think, correctly are also assuming and planning that as people find work there that many of them will decide that Elie is not a bad place to live, and they will buy homes, build homes and generally add in that way to the economic well-being of the R.M. of Cartier, which is the municipality that Elie is in.
So I am looking forward to a tremendous opportunity for that part of Manitoba, that part of the constituency and really a model, and I am very, very proud that the Department of Agriculture has such a nice--it does not always work this way, but we said to ourselves, we are going to impose penalties on farmers or we are going to make it harder for them to burn straw. We are going to try to rid Manitoba agriculture of that practice. It is not agronomically sound to be burning stubble, yet at the same time we were sensitive to the kind of request of just putting stiffer penalties, and sicking the RCMP and the police on our farmers did not sit well with this department, as you would expect. We set to work right at the same time in trying to find an alternative use for that straw and, in this particular instance, that certainly succeeded. The ring has come together very nicely, and I commend those who worked within the department to make this happen.
I would like to think that if it can succeed in Elie then it can succeed in Killarney, it can succeed in Swan River, different scales, different levels, but I think you will find what some of us hope and certainly those that are putting their time and money into this really feel, that this product could kind of really establish itself as a premier product in the furniture industry that requires this, and I do not fool myself, as a former resource minister, the pressure on fibre from forests, from wood fibre is constant and will not diminish. If anything it will grow. I really think there is an opportunity for us in the Prairies, not just Manitoba, but us in the Prairies to essentially capture significant share of a market that formerly was totally reliant on obtaining that from the more traditional forests and wood fibres.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that there was money that came from I, T and T and from the federal government. From the Department of Agriculture then, there is no financial commitment, no loan guarantees, and no other supports other than the research and the work that is being done by this branch.
Mr. Enns: The honourable member is correct. There is no direct funding from the department for the project, as it is now proceeding. There were in the very initial stages small, modest, $20,000-$30,000 grants that were provided to help the initial feasibility studies, to help with initial investigations of the soundness of this proposal. I recall one coming from the Sustainable Development Fund. I think we have also an agricultural development source for the modest funding for initial investigations when the department is faced with considering proposals of this nature. The Department of Agriculture is not, in any way, involved nor through its agency, like the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation is not involved in any funding of the actual project. The only funding from the Manitoba government is, as I have already alluded to, coming from my colleague the Minister of Industry (Mr. Downey).
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, this is a renewable resource, and we are looking at other crops that will provide fibre for, hopefully, wood production or fabric production. When we did Estimates last year we had discussion about the trial plots of hemp in this province. I wonder if the minister can just give us briefly a summary of what has been happening with hemp and whether there are regulations by the federal government that restrict the growth of hemp as a fibre. The minister and I both had the opportunity to attend a conference in Vancouver where we saw many different products being produced from hemp and also a lot of interest, people considering this as, again, another source of fibre that is a renewable resource and another source of fibre that will take tremendous pressure, if it is successful, off our forests.
Can the minister indicate where the hemp testing is in Manitoba, how successful it was and what steps his department is taking, if any, to contact the federal government to allow this to become a legal crop in Manitoba?
Mr. Enns: I was delighted to spend a bit of time at that interesting conference in Vancouver on the subject of hemp. I was surprised and delighted to see my critic in Agriculture also attending that conference along with, I might say, a number of Manitobans. There must have been seven, eight or nine Manitobans attending that conference. Of course, our Mr. Moes, Jack Moes, was making a presentation to that convention or to that meeting. I take some pride in having encouraged the department a few years ago to take a more serious look at the potential for hemp. We have had several hemp sample plots grown in the province now for a year, like last year. We are again planning--I will just put on the record what we are doing in the coming year with respect to further development and investigation of that ancient crop.
Our current plans are that there will be ongoing evaluation sites at Wawanesa and Morden. The honourable member will recall that there was a great deal of discussion about the different seeds that are available, and which were applicable to what types of soil regions and climate. We have 12 varieties to test of which nine are new to us. We are a little concerned. We have had good support in the work of a federal research gentleman by the name of Mr. Ferdinand Kiehn on this project. But we are petitioning his boss, I guess, Dr. Jim Bole at the Morden station to continue to free up Mr. Kiehn to help us do this research.
We are proposing several sites again for the coming year; a two-acre trial site at Fannystelle. This is interesting, because at that same Vancouver meeting, there was a representative there from Industry, Trade and Tourism that was specifically there on behalf of Isobord, to investigate the potential interest that Isobord could have as additional fibre.
For different reasons the nature of the fibre, hemp is identified as among nature's strongest and toughest fibres. We heard interesting representations from the pulp and paper industry, if the member will recall at that meeting, that indicated that one of the problems that the paper industry is facing as they try to respond to the requirements of recycling more and more paper, that with every recycling, it loses some of its qualities.
* (1520)
The pulp and paper industry representatives from the Carolinas, I believe that were attending that conference, indicated that it is possible that a product like hemp could be of interest to the pulp and paper mill. I am aware they make pulp and paper out of hemp, but they were looking at it simply as an additive, maybe 10 percent or 15 percent, to add to the recycling pulp that is going through to restore some of the integrity to the recycled paper in terms of strength and the kind of quality factors that the industry requires.
So that site at Fannystelle is particularly there to provide material for evaluation by Isobord Enterprises Incorporated for their possible future interest in the crop. They are, as I have said, thinking about it as an additive to enhance their wheat strawboard product.
Other sites will be located at Virden and at Lowe Farm. It is the intent to cultivate hemp for certified organic seed, familiarize organic growers with the crop and provide material for evaluation by Hempola, an Ontario company that already retails a hempseed oil pressed from inviable, imported Chinese hempseed. It appears that a market for certified organic hempseed is readily accessible and chaffing at the bit for Canadian-grown seed.
Her question about what are we doing with respect--and she is well aware in Ottawa--again Dr. Moes is providing us information that he is intending to be present at a consultation hosted in Ottawa by Health Canada Bureau of Drug Surveillance. This consultation was the first public step by Health Canada to develop a regulatory mechanism allowing for commercial hemp cultivation. The honourable member will recall that was really in the final analysis, the bottom-line issue, with many members at the conference, with Health Canada, would we amend or provide the appropriate regulations that would allow for this crop to be grown, encouraged and cultivated in Canada?
At current, it is a complicated procedure. You have to get a permit even for our test plots. We have to work with the RCMP. We have to go through a number of hoops that obviously, unless we can address the regulatory question, all we can hope to do in the next number of years is do just what we are doing, doing a bit of experimental work, a bit of research work. But we certainly could not consider it or encourage producers to consider it as a viable, diversified alternative crop in Manitoba.
So, Mr. Chairman, these are the things that we are doing with respect to hemp. I personally have a very strong feeling for it. I enjoyed myself at that conference. It was a nice coming together of learned plant scientists and industry people, along with what I call the kind of the late flowering of the '60s generation that believe that the world looked much brighter and rosier through the misty haze of a related product to the product that was under discussion in that conference.
I, myself, being of innocent, pure, white as driven snow, have no understanding of what those other people were walking around there with funny clothes and things like that were talking about, but for me it is always a learning experience, one which I hope that I shall never cease to lust after.
Ms. Wowchuk: I have to say, Mr. Chairman, that I also found it a very educational experience, and I was quite surprised at the fabrics and the many, many products that were made from hemp fibre. I must say that it was the fabrics that I found most interesting, and also I had not realized how many other products there were, especially oils. I found the session on oils and the work that is being done in some of the--I believe it was Iceland--Scandinavian countries anyway on the pressing of oil and the products and the health benefits from it, so I found it very interesting. I look forward to hearing the results of the testing of the crops and the testing that is being done here in Manitoba. I am pleased also that Isobord has expressed an interest. As an alternate fibre, it makes the possibility of a future for this crop. We are always looking for new crops that farmers can diversify, but I guess I have to also recognize that it is a crop that is also going to have challenges as well with chemicals and weed control. It is not just going to be a crop that you can grow without challenges, and I am sure the department will be working to address those.
The other crop that has some challenges as well, the other area of challenge, is the one I raised with the minister the other day and that is when we look at genetically altered seeds. I raised it with the minister the other day, the fact that canola--there is a canola that has been genetically altered and had to be taken off the market and had calls from some people in the canola industry who expressed a sincere concern that somehow this had slipped through. The question was: Is there not enough regulation on controlling how these genetically altered seeds are getting into the market?
The people that had called me were talking about the value of the canola industry. I think it is a $3-billion industry across western Canada, $500 million or half a billion dollars in Manitoba. They were expressing a concern that if we are having genetically altered seeds here and if it is not properly regulated, we could end up putting a very important industry at risk. So I want to ask the minister: Does this department do any work on following the development of seeds? Is it completely in federal hands, that the federal government regulates, and ensures that these seeds would, before they get to market, are properly inspected to ensure that there are not any problems with it to put the industry at risk, or does the crops branch have any input, or is any work done with these to ensure that we do not have a variety of seed that gets into the market?
I understand that with this seed that is in--and I have forgotten the exact number of it, the one that is put out by Lema seeds--it got to the point where there are areas in Alberta where it has been seeded, and some of it will have to be worked under. So had it not been caught where it was--and it was the company that caught it and pulled it off the market--but I would ask if there is any role for the Crops branch or whether the Crops branch plays any part in checking out these genetically altered seeds and whether or not the minister sees this as an issue as do some people who are in the canola industry.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, in the first instance, staff from the Department of Agriculture in Manitoba work very closely with the specific commodity organization that is involved in this case, the canola growers, and then very closely with the federal people who have the regulatory jurisdiction in the questions of licensing and so forth. But allow me to put a few things on the record.
The Canadian federal government agencies have, through 10 years of consultation with interested stakeholders, developed a very rigorous regulatory process for the introduction of these kind of plants. This process requires a step-wise approach to releasing such plants in the environment: first to carefully control confined field testing, then following a full environmental assessment to field production without confinement. Information and test requirements that are necessary to evaluate plants with novel traits were also developed through this 10-year period. So it is a very rigorous program.
* (1530)
The specific issue here on the product that the honourable member refers to, yes, the Canadian food inspection agency suspended that particular variety, LG33115, due to a possible varietal purity question, not really an environmental issue. The company was not happy. In fact, the company detected the varietal impurity and voluntarily withdrew it. With the variety registration suspension in place, it is illegal to sell, import or advertise for sale this variety. The company is also investigating the purity question of variety LG3295. This is an ongoing kind of investigation and self-discipline that is imposed on the providers of this seed stock because they, of course, want to be absolutely sure that what they are recommending for sale and for use and are applying licences for from Canada meet every part of these recommendations.
There is the question that the honourable member, by innuendo at least, I think, raises. Are there any implications for human health and safety as a result of the variety suspension just getting through? The answer is a very vigorous no. At no time was human health or safety or the environment at risk. No product is allowed to enter the food chain in Canada unless it first receives the food safety approval from Health Canada. This is not a question of health and food issue. It was a question of the product not living up to the company's own standards of varietal purity.
I appreciate the issue of genetically altered--genetics period in agriculture is of some concern, generally speaking, in our society and there are those who see a great deal of reasons to be concerned. I happen to have a great deal more faith in the appropriate checks and balances that are in our system, in this instance primarily housed with the manner and way in which Agriculture Canada regulates all of these things, including the additives, for instance, to enhance milk production which, the honourable member knows, has been a raging debate in the dairy industry, but still to be employed, despite the fact that scientific evidence indicates that it is absolutely safe to do so. In other jurisdictions, in fact, it has been used for a number of times.
There will always be a considerable amount of politics surrounding the issue, but I am comfortable with the fact that it can at the same time offset, and this has an ironic twist to it, many of them, particularly in the crop production and like in the canola production. The genetic engineering, if you like, that is going on very often leads to less use of chemicals, less use of herbicides, the potato being a prime example. The age-old Colorado beetle that is the main foe of potato production is now being controlled, not by heavy applications of chemicals but by a genetically altered potato plant.
So I think that this is causing some, well, at least it should cause some internal debate within the "environmentalist" community, who tend to be the watchdogs on this kind of agriculture development. On the one hand, we are pressing and moving our plant scientists to producing and creating and researching products that are less and less reliant on various chemicals, herbicides, for their commercial production in agriculture, which certainly should be welcomed by us all. The less of this stuff we put on our foodstuffs I think the better we all feel about it. But then, on the other hand, if this is being done by some pretty sophisticated genetic altering of the basic plant, some would see the downside of it. I do not. I think it augurs a whole new field of opportunities for agriculture.
Of course, that has been the story of agriculture development from Day One. I mean, we, in the state of nature, crossbreeding plant, you know, characteristics get transferred over a period of time from plant to plant. We have employed some of our best plant scientists constantly at work to make relatively small but significant alterations to different varieties of grains, wheat, to offset rust and to offset other problems that they grow. That has been ongoing all the time.
In my simple mind I suppose you could call all of that some form of genetic altering, man-made interference in Mother Nature when we ask our scientists at the University of Manitoba to find us a variety of wheat that, after having grown it successfully for a number of years, we find it becoming more and more susceptible to some of the age-old problems that we have in the cereal production, rust, just to name one. They come up with a new variety that for a time being appears to be more resistant and grown more successfully on our farms. Then 10 years later we find that variety succumbing to some other diseases or the same diseases, and we keep asking our scientists to address these issues.
I see the kind of genetic altering of various crops just an understandable and further progression of what in fact has been going on in agriculture.
Ms. Wowchuk: I think that the minister will agree that crossbreeding of varieties, as we have seen with crops, is much different than genetically altering crops. There is a huge, huge difference. We could spend a lot of time doing that, but my time that I have to spend on these Estimates is quite limited, so I will move on to some of the other areas that I would like to ask the minister for some information on.
When I just started the Estimates I started to ask about where we were on electronic hookup with the various Ag offices. The minister said that there was money that was put in place. I believe he said it was $120,000 over the next three years that was put in, I believe, by the federal government, that would allow for better communication, computers, websites and home pages.
But on this particular issue, I think I asked the minister about what was happening with all of the various Ag offices. If I recall correctly, he said that they are not all hooked up with computers yet. I wanted to ask: What role is the Department of Agriculture playing with providing this kind of information? Are there any hookups to schools to ensure that there is better communication and information available for students? What are the steps that are being taken to ensure that? Through this modern technology, are we having any courses being offered to farmers through computer or through distance education?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, much of this work is done through a shared Ottawa-Manitoba agreement under our farm management program, the objectives being that benefits of site-specific farming technology are to improve productivity, reduce costs, optimize equipment efficiency.
We have the Internet utilization and resource development. This project has been divided into two separate initiatives. Project A will develop a Manitoba Agriculture website with a marketing of Manitoba food products thrust. Project B is the establishment of a regional Internet resource and training initiative targeted at Manitoba farmers. We have some specific dollars; we had some $53,000 in last year's budget. That has been bumped up somewhat to $76,000 in the current budget before us and a further $76,000 in the coming year scheduled for that program.
We hope through hosting of seminars in various locations around the province to get more and more individual producers to familiarize themselves and encourage them to take advantage of hooking up to our website. The same thing is being made available to the schools. Teachers or resource teachers can hook up and are encouraged to hook up to our website to provide the kind of information that we have available from that source for education purposes. Manitoba Agriculture staff is working with a post-secondary committee as well as regional school consortiums to investigate utilization of the school technologies.
* (1540)
In addition to this, a small, modest program that I take some delight in encouraging the department to continue to be part of is the Ag in the Classroom program. This is a group of independent people who have become concerned and I think rightly so. At an early stage in our elementary classrooms they are currently targeting the Grade 5 level, but they provide material to the elementary schools throughout the province, simply providing basic, good information about agriculture into our classroom. I do get concerned that, as I know members heard me in the past, as we become more and more urbanized, is there adequate understanding of agriculture at least in a nominal way being made available through our school systems?
That is a program that has been developed and carried on for the last 10 years. It has largely received considerable support from various people within the agricultural industry in Manitoba. They have received modest support from the department through such programs like CMASS, which is the joint federal-provincial program again, so these are efforts that we are undertaking in the department, first of all of course, to hopefully reach out to more and more of our clients, our farmers, our producers to hook into the newer technologies available out of the Department of Agriculture. As I said initially, this is all kind of being co-ordinated and directed through the farm management program. It is through that program that we get some shared federal dollars. We are hopeful that this will keep both the department and more and more of our clients in step with today's modern information technology.
Ms. Wowchuk: I have to say that I agree that we have to do much more to educate children across the province about the value of food production in this province and in all provinces. I only wish that it was the program that the minister talks about, the Agriculture in the Classroom, that is offered I believe as he said at the Grade 5 level, that he would talk to his Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and make that course mandatory, because right now as I understand it the material is provided to the schools but it is not mandatory that it be included in the curriculum. I think that that would be a very important step to take to ensure that all children at a particular grade level had the opportunity to learn about agriculture in the classroom.
We talk about education. It is very important, as we have changing agricultural practices and we have increased livestock production and many changes in agriculture, that we also give the opportunity to our farmers to upgrade themselves and avail themselves of the information that is out there. There used to be courses that were offered through Assiniboine Community College and other areas to help farmers get the education that they needed but those courses are not available now.
So I would like to ask the minister what his staff is doing through the regional offices or through his department to ensure that farmers do get the information and have the opportunity to take the courses they need to upgrade their skills to be the best possible farmers that they can be?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the honourable member for Swan River that I appreciate those comments of support for the importance of the role of agriculture in our classrooms, and I just wanted to expand on that a bit.
They are at different times making this material available to Grades 3, 5 and 10, so it is just a little more extensive than I earlier indicated. I met with that group just this week. I did in fact undertake to speak to the Minister of Education because I believe, not only the Department of Agriculture but I believe it is a legitimate, a modest acceptance of responsibility of this program--it can be the legitimate responsibility of the Department of Education. But then you know how difficult my Minister of Education can be to speak to from time to time. Your colleague knows that, but I will try. I made that commitment. We try, and we continue with the management group at the Farm Management division of the department to provide these training courses for producers and farm workers, and they are available throughout the province.
Most courses are developed and delivered by the Assiniboine Community College in concert with Manitoba Agriculture. There is a tuition fee that is involved and covers only some 25 to 30 percent of the cost. Child care assistance is available. The remaining costs are paid for by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada through the Canada-Manitoba Farm Business Management program and managed by the Farm Business Management training program by the Department of Agriculture here in Manitoba.
We host a number of seminars to try to encourage better participation by farmers in these courses. We zero in on such things like agriculture tax planning, farm accounting with computers, entrepreneurship in agriculture, managing for excellence, effective training, grain marketing analysis, beef market analysis, demystifying futures and options, unleash the power of technicals, global market focus for farm profits, and so forth. There is a growing list of subject matter that is of course available and important for our producers to become ever more familiar with.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I guess I want to ask the minister then: Has the focus of the training that you are offering changed? I listened to the programs that the minister was talking about, and it is marketing and demystifying marketing. The programs that used to be offered before, and I do not know whether they have--they are no longer available. It was more hands-on programs to help farmers with building their livestock herds and how they should be feeding their livestock herds. Of course, there are other varieties of livestock, but the focus of the training that is offered right now seems to be focused more on marketing than actually producing the product.
* (1550)
So I am asking the minister then: Is there a change in direction in what the government is prepared to offer farmers for training, or is it all related towards marketing, or is there any of the programming and training that used to be in place a few years ago?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I would have to advise the honourable member for Swan River that it is true, the focus on the farm management within the farm management groups in the courses they are doing are perhaps reaching out into some of the more sophisticated and market analysis type of information, but I want to assure the honourable member that we continue very much through our general extension work and through the general programming of the Department of Agriculture to provide all kinds more traditional, if you like, information, hands-on information that she alludes to.
Events, for instance--I was just going to read some of the things that were held this year by the department at the Ag Centre. It gives the number of people who attended on an organic marketing seminar, wheat and barley workshop, herd health, farming corporation workshop, just kind of maintenance workshop things that farmers can be helped with, Manitoba sheep workshop. But we are in the computer age--agriculture Internet workshops, Westman beef seminars, ag sprayers, dealing with the whole gamut of the day-to-day physical things that farmers and producers have to cope with.
We try to make our various extension programs that we take to producers throughout the province as timely and as meaningful to those whom we are seeking to reach out to and to come and attend our meetings. I would suspect that these are often driven by the kind of information that our field staff reports to us, the ag reps. The people say this is what in this area is really of concern to some producers, and if you could get a couple of experts in to come and tell us how best to utilize a new technique, a new piece of machinery, or you can get somebody to talk to us about this subject or that matter, we are in that way a facilitator.
We try to keep our ears to what we hear in our communities and arrange then through the resources, limited as they may be from time to time, to put together the best that we can find, experts to come and sit down with a group, whether it is 24 or 34 or 44. I note here they have different people, and we could have anything from 20,000 people attending our very growing and successful Ag days in Brandon to 11 people or 44 people or 34 people attending the different meetings throughout the list. I will just hold up a list. These are the activities that our department carried on during the course of the year throughout the province on a whole host of subjects.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity to see a copy of the document or manual that was prepared by this department, The Farm Family Business Advisor manual. I look at it, and this manual is designed primarily for the professionals and advisers. It is not a manual that is designed for farmers and farm families to be using. I wonder why the decision was made that the Department of Agriculture would have to put a manual together for professionals and advisers, people such as accountants and insurance brokers, lenders, rather than putting together a manual that would be one that farm families could use. When the document was sent out, it was clearly spelled out in the document, the covering letter, that this was for professionals and other advisers.
I would ask the minister why the decision was made to put this manual together, whether it was a direction that came from the department, from Marketing and Farm Business, whether it was a request from farmers to have advice for their accountants and financial advisers, or was it a request from the professional people for this type of manual to be developed. If the minister could also tell us--I know the manual is being sold--whether there was a cost to this or whether this is a full-cost-recovery project?
Mr. Enns: I am advised that there is support involved again from the Farm Management Program, but we are attempting to recover some of the costs and whether that represents half, I would have to await for some further advice from staff.
I want to tell the honourable member that, yes--and she answers her own question--that particular guide that she speaks of was requested by the professionals. They are getting more and more answers or questions and calls--the accountants, the lawyers, bookkeepers. It was specifically designed for the professionals. An earlier project is more family-oriented towards the issues as a farm family would see them. This was directed at a different audience.
Farm family transfers: We have strategies for transferring from the family farm, a six-week intensive course with follow-up consultations offered to family farms. We have a number of--24 family units participated this year; 80 family units in the previous two years. So we are working with relatively small groups but reaching out to those--you know, it is a voluntary program. We are finding those families that are taking advantage of this information are becoming quite wrapped up in it.
We are pleased to have partners that work with us in the development of these programs, people like our own Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation of course, the Sill Streuber Fiske & Co.--I take it that that is maybe an accounting firm--Manitoba Credit Union Central, Canadian Bankers' Association. All of this works under the kind of co-ordination and management of the Farm Business Management section.
I can recall attending a gathering in the course of the year that was really quite impressive in the sense that you bring together these different elements--bankers, accountants, lawyers--that you do not normally see in a farm audience. Yet farming has become, whether we like it or not, it has become--particularly in the difficult task sometimes of successfully transferring to succeeding generations in a manner and a way which is fair to both generations. The retiring generation that needs to be able to retire with the understanding that in today's world they may have a fairly lengthy retirement and need resources to retire on and yet, at the same time, to be able to pass on to a second generation, to their children, the successful operation of the farm enterprise. You know, the old adage that we farmers live modestly and die rich is still very much the case. I suppose part of the difference is that farmers farmed, crawled off their tractor one day and died, and that is how junior got the farm or something like that. That is not really a successful transfer to the second generation.
What is needed now is for the farmers my age to be able to retire with some dignity and grace and look forward to enjoying maybe living for another several decades or so, hopefully, with the enjoyment of watching the second generation carry on and succeed with the farm venture. It requires sophisticated estate and financial planning to enable that to happen. Professionals are asking the Department of Agriculture, through our farm management people, to provide them with the kind of appropriate base information and knowledge that they can better advise their clients who are going through this exercise.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, can the minister indicate what the cost of this is? Is there a figure that is attached to this from the Department of Agriculture? Was the cost also shared by--is that half the cost that the Department of Agriculture paid to get this manual put together?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, we can certainly find the specific figures for the honourable member, as staff does not have them for me. What they indicated to me is that we have provided the material in kind, the development of the course material. The charges that are being applied to the book essentially cover the actual cost of the production of the book, but, in fairness, there is obviously a fair bit of professional time on the part of staff within the farm management group, within the department or wherever we source it, that provides the background material.
Ms. Wowchuk: If the minister at some point can provide that for me, that would be helpful.
Just before finishing up this line, this section, I am looking at the grant assistance, and when I look at grant assistance in 1986-87, it says, in the Estimates book, there are $783,000; then when we look at the '97-98 book, the expenditures for grants and assistance was only $451,000. Can the minister indicate if the amount budgeted in 1986-87 was $783,000 but only $451,000 was spent or where that difference in dollars comes from?
* (1600)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, my staff advises me that there in fact is no change from last year's. What has caused the change in the numbers that the honourable member refers to is that the grant that was previously provided to the PAMI organization, the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute--that is where they drive tractors up and down and cultivators up and down, and they pull a lever and if the cultivator goes into the ground, they find out if it actually cultivates the ground. That organization that we have supported along with some of our sister provinces for a number of years used to be in this column, and now is being provided elsewhere.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, can the minister indicate then whether that whole amount is PAMI that is different, or whether there have been any different changes to funding for the Agriculture Societies which I understand all come under here, whether there are changes or whether the funding to the organizations such as the Ag Societies and fairs and Women's Institute are basically staying the same? I do not want the minister to start reading the whole comparisons through, but whether those are basically staying the same and the only change in this grant is in fact that PAMI has been moved over to another line.
Mr. Enns: I can assure the honourable member that they are all the same. I can also indicate to the honourable member that they have also requested that they perhaps be improved somewhat. A number of them, pretty well all of them fell under the kind of budget procedures that called for a 5 percent reduction in budgets past, and from time to time, particularly organizations like the Ag Societies remind me that it would be nice if they could see a slight improvement in these grant structures. But that is not the case in the Estimates before us for consideration, but I can assure the honourable member that the grant structures remain as they were last year.
Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In previous years, there was a payment that was made to the Keystone Centre in Brandon. That came out of the budget last year. It does not appear in this year's budget, but we know that at the beginning of April the government announced that there was again going to be funding for the Keystone Centre. It was previously under the Department of Agriculture. It does not appear to be in there. Can the minister explain whether it has gone to another department, what has happened to it, and what the decision was, why it was removed and then added back in again?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that that agreement concluded last year, but there may still be some ongoing involvement. In any event, it is not contained within the Department of Agriculture but was transferred to the Department of Rural Development. My colleague Mr. Derkach is responsible for any ongoing or further liabilities to the Keystone Centre.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, as we look at Irrigation Development, we see a fairly substantial increase in the amount of money that is available for Irrigation Development, I believe somewhere over a $300,000 increase. When we look at the activities, one of the Identified Activities is to provide interest-rate reductions and loan guarantees for loans for irrigation associations or off farm irrigation infrastructure program.
I have two questions here. One of them is, there is a fairly substantial increase in the amount, is there going to be an increase in activities? Could the minister give us an indication of how many irrigation associations were in place last year, whether or not there is a plan for more irrigation associations to be formed or why has it been necessary to increase the funding in this area? We have not seen an increase in very many, in fact none of the areas of agriculture, but in this one we have. So why is it necessary to have that kind of increase? The other part of the question is on the loan guarantees. Can the minister indicate what this loan guarantee means? Are they similar to loan guarantees that are provided through the loan diversification program or the feeder association program? If that is the same kind of thing, is it administered by MACC or how is this administered?
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member will be well aware that the department sees the opportunities in potato production as being certainly one of those areas of potential growth. The commitment by both our processors that we have in the province, the McCain people in Portage and the Mid-West Food Products people at Carberry, to the ongoing expansion of their plants certainly puts a particular responsibility on the Department of Agriculture to ensure that we are doing everything we can to see that these companies have the supply of the product that they require. That is fairly significant. It is estimated that the McCain expansion alone, that we are looking at the requirement of some 30,000 additional acres for potato production. To meet the demands of the industry, to meet the quality that is demanded of this production, they have to be irrigable acres.
The department has responded to this challenge. We have a fairly ambitious program that is in the magnitude of some $16 million, $18 million. We hope to involve the federal government of course through PFRA , as was already indicated by the honourable member. We ourselves will carry our fair share of the development costs, and also of course the producer will and is willing to make a sizeable contribution to the provision of irrigation for future expanded potato production.
The hope is that together, with a sizeable producer cash down payment, if you like, of upwards to $450 an acre of his intended potato production, together with the assistance from both senior levels of government, that we can put together a package and interest to a private lending institute, a credit union or a bank, to in effect provide the capital for these projects.
* (1610)
That is the direction. We are not there yet. We have on our own been involved with one particular group of potato producers in this south-central part of the province known as the Agassiz group, where in fact what we are doing there is maximizing the opportunity of gathering surface waters into large dugouts that then can irrigate the various sizes, acreages of potatoes, quarter sections, half sections of potatoes. This is an aggressive group. They form an association and then apply for these funds.
The department is currently carrying on planning in four to five other regions of the province, the concept being that we would be able to interest a group to form an association. We do not define how big that association should be--three, four, five, eight producers who would be interested in potato production form an association and then be eligible for support through this program.
It is a challenge that we take very seriously in the department, because the expansion work and the processing plans are ongoing as we speak. The demand for the additional product will be coming on line starting next year and the years to come. We think that there are very serious opportunities for expansion in potato production in Manitoba. The quality of our product is certainly being recognized as a product that has market potential throughout the world. I am pleased to say that the quality of our producers is such that they have demonstrated that they can produce a product--and it gets into more intensive agriculture when you are dealing with crops like potatoes.
Certainly, we are privileged to have world-class, world-marketing-class--and that is probably the important part--processors who are not shy at knocking on doors in Tokyo and Taipei and Seoul, Korea, and Chicago or Milwaukee, around the world, marketing our Manitoba potatoes, as part of the overall strategy in this post-Crow era. Every quarter section that goes into potato production is a quarter section of wheat or barley that we are not having to pay the now humongous freight rates to try to get them to market either at the West Coast or East Coast. So it fits in with the overall agricultural strategy of the province, and I am hopeful that we can put all the pieces together; they are not quite there yet.
It was believed as we conceived the plan that we might have to have organizations like our Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation play a role, a guarantor role, to help or to nudge the private sector to free up the necessary credit and capital that is required for any one of these projects. We also recognize, and we are finding out as we are in these discussions, that the private sector is quite interested, and for good reasons.
First of all, you know, farmers are putting up a pretty good chunk of equity right to begin with, which is collateral, bankable. You have further support that is being provided by the federal and provincial government. Why would a bank or a credit union then not sit down together, particularly if they come, not as an individual, but as an association. They come with the management support of the Department of Agriculture personnel. Our field specialists, you know, are often with them at the table, trying to complete the arrangement. Now it is not determined yet. The role of the government having to play a guarantor role is not for certain. There seem to be some indications that it may not be necessary. In that case, there would be no role for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to play, but we are trying different ideas on for size right now. What we know we have to do is we have to develop at least the opportunities for upwards to 30,000 acres of potatoes to be irrigated, and it is more than just the 30,000 acres of actual new potato production that we are talking about. In the business of rotation, you might be having to talk about having the capacity of irrigating 100,000 acres in different areas.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister was saying that none of these loans are in place yet. Is that what the minister is saying? None of the irrigation associations have applied for loans that have been guaranteed by the government?
Mr. Enns: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that we have provided for some of the--some of the producers are anxious to get going and some in fact have provided and worked on this concept prior to any involvement of the Department of Agriculture or any government agency. Under the program we have provided it calls for up to 2 to 8 percent interest relief, with the proponent undertaking the project themselves, and to that extent we have supported some of the programs that have been developed in the Winkler general area, south area, south-central area. They call themselves the Agassiz Irrigators Association.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, could these people have gotten their loan guarantees through the loan diversification program, through Agricultural Credit Corporation? If they have, then I am wondering why there is a separate loan set up that is not administered by MACC. If it is available, if they could have gotten their money through the loan diversification program, which is a loan guarantee program, why it is necessary to set up a separate program?
* (1620)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could consider a five-minute break, so I could further impair my health.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Agreed? [agreed]
The committee recessed at 4:20 p.m.
The committee resumed at 4:28 p.m.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): I believe that at the conclusion we had a question put.
Mr. Enns: You should understand, you have been with us now for a little while, that when a difficult question is put, I find a reason to avoid it and call for a little break, and by that time I hope that the questioner has forgotten the question, and I do not have to answer the question. You are telling me that that old strategy that I have used over these years is not working with you in the Chair?
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): It works for me, Mr. Minister.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would really like to finish these Estimates today, so if we could just get some answers to these questions, then the minister could let his staff go sandbagging. So if we could get some answers to some of the questions that would be really helpful.
What I had asked was, if there is a loan diversification program and irrigation projects qualify under the loan diversification program, why then do we have another loan guarantee program under Irrigation Development?
* (1630)
Mr. Enns: There is a very good reason. The projects that we are talking about under the irrigation proposal that we have been talking about are off farm. They are not necessarily part of an individual potato growers farm site and, as such, could not be considered under the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation's Guaranteed Loan Program, which in its traditional way will provide support and has provided startup support for several potato producers, but on the basis of the collateral that they need, land base, other matters that form the necessary collateral base for the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to support that kind of individual applicant for guaranteed support for any kind of venture, whether it is expanded hog production for instance or into some other area of specialty crops. The modest guaranteed program that Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation has available with a limit of some 10 millions of dollars is an extension of their role in providing support to individual producers who require it.
This is a program really that is providing the necessary capital dollars for the infrastructure development of water retention ponds that several farmers, the association, will tap into and use. This also enables us, hopefully, to access and I understand from my associate deputy minister, Mr. Donaghy, that negotiations are proceeding positively with Ottawa with PFRA, that they will put their dollars that they have just recently earmarked for irrigation in Manitoba out of the $26-million fund that we have talked about at some length in this Chamber--that that will be made available to come together with the dollars that the province has prepared and then that, together with producers, will be able to support associations of potato producers that developed these off farm, if you like, infrastructure projects to capture surface water wherever it is available.
Ms. Wowchuk: Is the minister then saying that this loan program would be very similar to the Feeder Association Program which is handled outside Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation but then they would have some responsibility if a loan gets into default and Manitoba Credit Corporation would then play a role in covering--well, they probably would not play a role in guaranteeing the loan, because the money is available through this department, but the minister indicated that Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation could play some role in this. So is it similar to the feed lot--
Mr. Enns: First of all, with the feeder association program, the guarantor role played by the credit corporation is direct. It assumes a 25 percent obligation of potential losses, and as we discussed a little while earlier in these Estimates, we have had some failures in that regard. This is different in the sense that, first of all, it has not been determined whether or not the credit corporation will have any role in it. It is being suggested as a possibility if it is required.
We are hopeful, quite frankly, that, with the combination of the potato producers, the association members themselves putting down a significant capital in equity along with the support from federal government and provincial government, that in itself will enable us to get these associations off the ground and secure the financing from the private lending institutions.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate who the lead person within the department would be that will be heading this up, or the contact person if somebody wants information on it?
Mr. Enns: Certainly any groups that are interested should be in direct contact with Dr. Barry Todd, the director of Soils and Crops. Then there are additional staff people that will provide further follow-up in the assistance to a group of producers who are thinking about potato production who would avail themselves of the services of the department.
I take the opportunity to acknowledge and to thank, quite frankly, the services of a long-time employee of the Department of Agriculture, Mr. Garth Stone, who retired in the past year. Mr. Stone, affectionately known as Mr. Potatoes in Manitoba to many potato producers, was also our director of Horticulture, but certainly Mr. Stone's activity, work, very dedicated work with the potato producers of Manitoba can enjoy, and I hope he is enjoying his retirement, with the knowledge that he made a singular contribution to the status of potato production in Manitoba today.
I had the opportunity just yesterday to have representatives of the Vegetable Growers' Association in my office, and I always find it very satisfying, not to me personally--well to me personally as well, but as spokesperson for the department, when producers come into my office not with a litany of complaints but with some serious issues that they want to take up with the department, with the minister's office, but then in doing so take the time to acknowledge sometimes the individual contribution of staff members. That certainly was the case with respect to Garth Stone just yesterday in my office.
That is a position that we are in the process of filling. That was one of the requests of the vegetable growers that we ensure that that, in fact, happens. I am advised by Dr. Todd that we are currently interviewing potential candidates for that position, but it is through Dr. Todd's office, the Soils and Crops directorate, plus the staff that he has, that people should be in direct contact with for further information on the potential development of potato associations in the province. And I must say other vegetables. I take this opportunity and I commend and congratulate the Manitoba vegetable growers. They are expanding and experimenting with a host of vegetables, many of them that are more commonly known and seen in Asian markets but are becoming increasingly popular not just with our growing Asian populations on the West Coast and other places but for all of us. They are new and somewhat exotic to us and our department. Again, the Soils and Crops department is working with individual producers in seeing to what extent and what success we can have in introducing some of these additional vegetables to Manitoba that heretofore have not been grown in this part of the province.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I too on behalf of my colleagues would like to extend our best wishes to Mr. Stone in his retirement and commend him on the amount of work that he has done to build the vegetable industry in this province. It is, as with other diversification crops, an industry that is growing and one that I hope to take the opportunity to familiarize myself. The vegetable industry is not an important industry in my part of the province, but in the southern part of the province it is.
I just have one more question to ask in this area. I do not know whether I am in the right section, but I am sure the minister will correct me if I am not. There is an association called MRAC, Manitoba Rural Adaptation Council, and I understand that the Department of Agriculture was involved in establishing this council and was involved in the preliminary meetings that took place in Portage, I believe, a couple of years ago. The government felt it was important that such a council be established because, I believe, they did quite a bit of work. The council has received funding from the federal government to carry on their activities, and part of their activity is to work to help farmers adjust to the changes that have taken place because of changes in federal policy with respect to Crow and transportation.
Can the minister indicate what role his government is playing with the activities of the council right now? The federal government has put money into the council. Is the province putting any money into the council, or does the minister feel that his department has taken as much responsibility as they need to take in setting up the council and now they are on their own?
* (1640)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the member for Swan River is basically correct in her description of this organization. It is an organization that is largely the creation of the Keystone Agricultural Producers Organization, the KAP, the farm organization group that has brought this group together. They had their founding meetings in Portage. The Department of Agriculture has of course been involved in support and staff and also with respect to an initial support grant of $25,000 to help in the establishment of the organization. They are, though, essentially an organization that will deal with the programming and the allocation of some future federal initiatives in the province. The federal government in its wisdom has chosen this path to work with farm organizations as their vehicle to undertake some of the adaptation programs that come forward from the federal government. This is the course that they have taken in Ontario and other provinces.
The member is right. They were just recently advised of some fairly significant dollars, upwards to some, I believe, $5 million that will be in the control and hands of this organization. They have recently hired Dr. Ed Tyrchniewicz to be their executive director, I believe. Mr. Tyrchniewicz works out of the Sustainable Development Institute, but my understanding is that they are in the process of developing criteria and guidelines as to how they will be expending these funds. I really cannot speculate much further about that.
I do not mind putting on the record, Mr. Chairman, that I would have preferred that perhaps there would have been a little closer relationship with the provinces. I think in order to maximize the effectiveness of programing, we should be, wherever possible, working together, the federal government, the provincial governments, particularly in these days of budget restraint.
It is my hope, for instance, that some of these dollars or something like that could come into the programs that we are offering, the irrigation programs and the likes of that. The member asks about our ongoing, that is the Manitoba Department of Agriculture's or the government of Manitoba's ongoing co-ordination with this group.
Our Assistant Deputy Minister Mr. Les Baseraba is a representative, ex-officio member of the Directorate of MRAC, as well as a Mr. Larry Martin from Rural Development, our two senior Manitoba government officials that are joined with a group, although not as voting members but they sit as ex-officio members of the Directorate of the MRAC group. So they will help hopefully to co-ordinate federal and provincial programs in the future.
That is the status of that organization at the current time. They have yet to announce or to show us precisely what it is and what they intend to do with the dollars that they have received from the federal government. We will have to await the development of their programs before we can offer any comment on them.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister said there were two departmental people on them. Are those departmental people playing an active role in the committee to help them develop their guidelines as to how they are going to distribute this money, and are they playing an active role in trying to pull federal and provincial programs together?
Mr. Enns: The official status of the Manitoba government's representatives, that is Mr. Baseraba and Mr. Martin, is an advisory capacity, nonvoting capacity. That is not at our call. That is how Manitoba government was invited to have some representation with this group. They will certainly, knowing the qualities of these two gentlemen--certainly speaking on behalf of Mr. Baseraba, I would expect him to actively keep the Department of Agriculture of Manitoba fully informed and to the extent possibly help influence programming on the part of this new organization that dovetails in with the priorities and with the kind of direction that we are taking in the Department of Agriculture here.
Certainly, I will be using him as my vehicle to, from time to time, try to ensure that those dollars are not going off on a tangent by themselves but in fact are to some extent marching in step with the priorities that my capable staff and the Department of Agriculture have put forward from time to time as being the appropriate ones for us to be engaged in, particularly when we are talking about the use of public monies. The fact that this is federal dollars is not really different than if it is provincial dollars. The dollars come from the same taxpayer, and I think our responsibility is that these dollars be used with care and prudently, and hopefully where we can see some positive results, that will do what the broad outlines of the rationale for the program in its initial purpose statement calls for; that is, to help Manitoba producers adapt to the changing circumstances of the post-Crow era, to help Manitoba's producers and our organizations adapt to some of the new opportunities that the post-Crow era represents to agricultural production in Manitoba.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I do not quite understand what is happening then, because the government played an active role in setting up MRAC. They were quite involved in the initial process and those initial meetings. My understanding from the people who are on the board or some of them have indicated that--where is the government now? They were active then, we have federal money, we are waiting to see what kind of a commitment the Manitoba government is going to make to MRAC to have them operate in a viable way.
Has the government changed their mind about the value of having a council like this if they were involved earlier and now only have people in an advisory capacity? Yet I have people saying to me that, well, we are waiting for the province to take some position and make some commitment, show their commitment to this council.
* (1650)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, let me take this opportunity to correct, obviously, an impression that some people have that is not quite correct. At best it can be said that we played a supportive role, as you would expect. When Manitoba's premier umbrella farm organization comes to the department or to government, we of course sit down and listen and discuss the issues that are of concern to them. They came to this government some time ago, it was about a year ago in July, with this concept that they had about forming a rural adaptation council to address the issues facing Manitoba farmers in the post-Crow era. We certainly indicated to them that we see no difficulty with that. We, you know, are supportive of that, although we pointed out to them very clearly that we were not sitting with our wheels idling.
We as a government, we as a Department of Agriculture understood the impact of the loss of the Crow. We had introduced, we are introducing programs that take that into account. We are actively pursuing programs through such agencies that we had, like the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, like our emphasis on pork production that was well into mid-gear, I might say, at that point in time. That was the point that I was making. However, if president Les Jacobson felt that he wanted to use his organization to bring together a council of Manitobans to talk about the problems facing rural Manitoba in the post-Crow era, fine.
We indicated our support. We would help them, you know, with a modest $25,000 support to allow that organization to do some things that they felt were necessary to bring about this council which, I suspect, helped lead them up to holding the meeting that she already referred to in Portage la Prairie. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, that is it. That is the extent of Manitoba government's role in this organization. Quite frankly, one ought not to be surprised that it is not anymore, if we cannot even participate in the council to the extent of having voting members with voting privileges on that council.
It should be understood that this is a federal initiative that is using the MRAC council--and God bless them. I am only hoping, and I am pleased--and I am going to challenge my representative, not mine but the Department of Agriculture's representative on that board along with Mr. Martin from Rural Development--that, to the extent possible, we can help influence them in the direction of spending, programming and the actual spending of program dollars. That is in step with some of the priorities that we are firmly establishing in Manitoba, and that is firmly and clearly the mandate of the Department of Agriculture to do in Manitoba. If this council can play a supportive role, then I certainly welcome them. I have the greatest respect for them and I wish them well, but there should be no illusion going on there. Any programming dollars that I have, we have programs on the way.
This was done without consultation with the Province of Manitoba. This was not done on a basis that the federal government will give this council $5 million and that we will give them any matching dollars. There was no process of consultation involved. I would have to take from the estimates that you see right before us--and I would ask the honourable member: If she wants me to contribute a million dollars or $2 million to MRAC, then does she want Dr. Barry Todd's job and his whole department, or should we move out of some other area? Should we cancel the 4-H program, or should we do some of those other things?
These are the kinds of decisions, however, that in fact would be forced upon the Department of Agriculture if we would be automatically just asked to come up with $2 million or $3 million because of a federal initiative that decided to shower this money on a new organization. I, quite frankly--and I put it on the record--think there were better ways of spending those $5 million of tax money in co-operation, in co-ordination with what is going on in Manitoba, and I would have invited Keystone. I would have invited many of the same people in the council to help share that with us.
But these are strange times, Mr. Chairman. I am aware that election fever does strange things from time to time. We have seen the manifestation of that just the other day when, just about sitting where the honourable member is now sitting, in that short while, resurrection of the Liberal Party in Manitoba under Madam Carstairs. The honourable member might remember, where a learned colleague of ours--I say learned because I think he is a faculty professor at the University of Manitoba, one Mr. Len--Mr. Evans suggested that really the proper way of running crop insurance would be retroactively. Like, you should only pay your premium, you should only take out your coverage after--[interjection] No, no.
An Honourable Member: You said Len Evans.
Mr. Enns: No, Evans, representative of the Liberal Party. Laurie Evans. That is kind of what is being offered to, regrettably, my producers in the Red River Valley right now, is that the Crop Insurance Corporation should now provide them with unseeded insurance. That program has been available for many, many years. Some have availed themselves of it. Some 80,000 to 90,000 acres of Red River Valley land that is going to regrettably be under water is insured if in fact they cannot seed it, but it would hardly be fair if I, now, retroactively made it available to everybody as I am being urged to do by Mr. Lloyd Axworthy and by Mr. Ralph Goodale. It would be hardly fair to those farmers that had difficulty in seeding acreages when the upper Assiniboine flooded badly in '95 and they could not get crops in.
Mr. Chairman, you had difficulty in your area in '94-95, the Turtle Mountain area and Pilot Mound area, with excessive moisture in the spring of '94-95, I believe, where you and other farmers from your area were petitioning Crop Insurance to delay seeding deadline dates and the likes of that. I have, regrettably--and my deputy minister, in company with other senior staff, visited all too many of the Manitoba cattle producers in the Lake Winnipegosis, the upper end of Lake Manitoba, that did not get last year's hay crop off, are likely not going to get this year's hay crop off. I am pleased that we are going to be able to offer them a native hay insurance program this year, which I expect most of them will take advantage of, that will be of some support to them, not currently but in the coming year.
But I take this opportunity to express a little of my chagrin at some of the antics that are currently taking place emanating from the east, from the far east.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): 3.4.(d) Soils and Crops (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,322,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $704,200--pass.
(e) Marketing and Farm Business Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,500,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,121,700--pass; (3) Agricultural Societies Grant Assistance $368,400--pass; (4) Other Grant Assistance $82,600--pass.
(f) Irrigation Development $822,500--pass.
* (1700)
Resolution 3.4: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $11,482,000 for Agriculture, Agricultural Development and Marketing, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
5. Regional Agricultural Services (a) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,944,100--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $660,600--pass.
(b) Southwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,133,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $540,600--pass.
(c) Central Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,060,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $508,800--pass.
(d) Eastern/Interlake Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,935,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $941,200--pass.
(e) Agricultural Crown Lands (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Ms. Wowchuk: I just want to say that we have passed several areas here with respect to the Regional Agricultural Services, and it is not that there are not some questions that I could be asking the minister about this, but in the interests of time I am sure that the questions we have, we can address to the minister's staff at another time.
However, under Ag Crown Lands, there are several issues that I want to raise. I just want to ask the minister whether there has been a change in policy with how agriculture land is put up for sale or for lease. There have been a few people in my constituency who have raised this concern, and one of them who is in the Slater area has applied to purchase some Crown land that he has been leasing. He has now been told that it has to go back to the Provincial Land Use policy.
I am wanting to know what the changes--basically it appears that there is now--it has to do with the wood on the land, and there has to be a decision as to whether or not that wood can be harvested. There is an added value on. They do not mind the added value on, but it seems to be that there is stalling in the ability for these people to purchase the land. The last I heard, it was now the Provincial Land Use policy committee that was making some decisions as to whether or not the land should now be available for sale. There are several people involved in purchase of Crown lands who are having the decisions on the property that they are interested in, delayed. Could the minister tell us what has happened and why this change is being made?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, allow me to introduce further senior staff that have joined us: Roger Chychota, who is our director for the Northwest Region, as well as, our director of Agriculture Crown Lands Branch; and Mr. Robert Fleming, the manager of Program Delivery of Agriculture Crown Lands Branch; Les Baseraba, I think I may have introduced before, is our assistant deputy minister.
I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that the issue that the honourable member raises is tied up with the pressures on land that to some extent have resulted with the arrival of the Louisiana-Pacific people and the greater significance of what, quite frankly, up to now was not all that great economic value to us, the standing poplar hardwood that covers most of these Crown lands. The issue has not been resolved. It is true that while Agricultural Crown Lands is heavily involved in the day-to-day management of those same agricultural Crown lands, this is a decision that is essentially being tossed about within the Department of Natural Resources, and I would ask that the member direct her inquiry to that branch. That is about the extent to which I can respond to it at this time.
I can indicate to her that there have not been, to my knowledge, any specific or fundamental changes to the basic policies that have been in place for some time with respect to the lessees' opportunities for the purchasing of Crown land. Crown, I suppose, has always reserved certain rights with respect to that policy and have exercised them from time to time. If other interests, Crown interests are deemed to be preeminent, that will preclude the recommendation for sale of that property. In some instances, it has involved the wildlife interests and so forth.
The basic principles of the sale of Crown land, which my good friend and colleague now of late, the desk mate of the member for Swan River, helped put in place in that great year of 1977, which will be marked in history as a benchmark year for agriculture in Manitoba when he moved into that office that I now occupy and created, among other things, with some minor amendments over the years, these basic principles: The purchaser much qualify under The Crown Lands Act and Agricultural Land Protection Act. The applicant must have held the land under a long-term lease for at least two years prior to the date of transfer. Land must be usable for agriculture and generally to be Class 5 or better. The Provincial Land Use Committee, PLUC, as it is affectionately known, is final authority for the agricultural Crown Land Sales Program. This is to protect the public interest. Sale price includes raw land value, plus any capital the province may have invested in its improvements. The value of land is derived through a formula using assessment value and adjustments for such items as forestry value and agricultural development.
So the question of forestry value has always been there. What has changed is the value of the forest that is on that land, as I acknowledge, has changed considerably with the advent of Louisiana-Pacific coming on the scene.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the people who are interested in purchasing land recognize that there is an additional value that is put on for the timber that is on it. Although many of them do not agree with having to have to pay the increased price, they can accept that. But the problem is the delay. There seems to be a stall. For some people, they have made plans to change their agriculture practices, to expand their agriculture practices, and they are now being put on hold.
The minister said that I should take this concern to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), but does the Department of Agriculture not have representation on the Provincial Land Use Committee, and, if so, what steps are being taken by the Department of Agriculture to ensure that Crown lands that have been in long-term lease and part of somebody's agriculture operation are not going to be now withheld from them when they want to make the purchase which is legitimate for them in the guidelines that the minister just read into the record?
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to be very clear. As far as I am concerned, the party that the honourable member speaks of--they are clients of us, the Department of Agriculture, and, quite frankly, my responsibility is to them first and foremost. I would be more than happy to move this matter along if it has been delayed for what I understand, and I do not have the information, is a debate going on in the sister Department of Natural Resources.
That is not necessarily quite fair to the clients who are leasing this land. I will undertake to ask staff for an update on this. I want to put on the record, I hear about different issues with respect to Crown land. I have not heard about this specific issue, as such. It has not been brought to my attention, but my capable senior staff are here to listen to this concern directly, and I am sure that within short order I will find out exactly what is causing that delay.
I might put on the record that the land is available to the lessor, continues to be available to them for their use as it has been for these past number of years that they have leased it. I would have to say, just thinking on my feet, that there is some policy debate going on within the Department of Natural Resources in lieu of the changed circumstances and the changed value of the timber on this land that is taking place, and the result, regrettably, is nonaction on the part of moving this forward.
* (1710)
But I will undertake to check with Natural Resources and see what the delay and what the holdup is.
Ms. Wowchuk: I take it then that the minister, when he has that information, will provide me with the information on this one.
The other issue within Crown Lands that has been brought to my attention is the appeal process and, in particular, a situation where an applicant made application to purchase land in one year. The deal did not go through, so then they advertised the land the following--let me get this straight now; I am going to get this whole problem on the record wrong. The people who made applications, the numbers were not considered in that particular year. They decided to advertise the land again in another year when another person was interested, and then the numbers--it is based on a point system. In the first year, the person who was interested in the land had higher points, but then the next year when Crown Lands did not allow that land to be sold, they allowed it to carry over another year, the whole number system changed.
I would ask then if a piece of land is put up for sale by Crown Lands in one particular year, do they consider the applicants as they come in next year, or if the numbers are not favourable for what the Crown Lands branch wants, then do they advertise again and then not take into consideration those first numbers?
In this particular case, one of the people did not own land adjacent to it, but he bought land in the following year, so the numbers were all changed, the point system. That causes frustration for the people because the Crown Lands branch does not seem to be consistent in how they put land up for sale or carry through on it.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I do want to again assure the honourable member that the system has not changed, but I can also say, as Mr. Fleming reported to me not so long ago, we are experiencing greater interest, greater pressure on our lands with the renewed and ongoing interest in livestock generally for everything from horses to bison to the increased numbers of beef cattle that we expect and the soon-to-come numbers of elk animals that will not be on Crown land but competing for land.
This is a situation where--I understand it happened in the Ethelbert area. Is that the situation that she is referring to, where two individuals made a proposal for land? I am advised they were marginal eligibility in both instances. They felt amongst themselves that they could resolve it, and the department stepped back for a year. However, the issue was not resolved between them amicably, and it is only under those circumstances that we took a harder look and indeed revised actually, really, on the kind of actual farm experience and farm data that then altered or changed those numbers. That is what was going to the advisory committee, and on that basis they made the award.
Mr. Chairman, there is obviously a winner and a loser in a situation of two people after the same piece of land. To the largest extent possible, I am well advised, and I try not to interject or intervene in these circumstances. Just on that issue, just the latest information, in that case there was not a loser actually. Both got some land. They did not get exactly all the land that both wanted, but both ended up, in fact, with some of the Crown lands.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just on that, it is the person who made the first application who ends up being unhappy, and I guess the question is then, is there any appeal process? Has Mr. Heemy [phonetic] exhausted all his avenues to appeal this, or does he still have the ability to appeal and try to get the section of land that he was more interested in and the one he originally wanted?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, there is an appeal board and an appeal process available to persons who feel that they have not been fairly or appropriately dealt with. I am advised that this issue did go to appeal. A group of individual Manitobans, most of them with some farm background, from different parts of the province sit on that appeal board. They are not part and parcel of the Department of Agriculture, of the Crown Lands section.
So we view their common-sense adjudication as being reasonably fair. They look at the facts and review the case. In some instances, although not many, there perhaps have been reversals, but that was not the case in this case. They upheld the decision of the branch and awarded the property in the manner and the way it was. I can, just for the record, indicate to you who the current members of the agricultural Crown Lands Advisory Committee are: Mr. Jim Pollock from Neepawa, who is the chair; Mr. Lavern Elliott from Grandview, who is the vice-chairman; Mr. Bill Skogan from Teulon; Mr. William Tkachuk from Menasino; and Mr. Jack Cruise from Lundar in the Interlake area.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item3.5.(e) Agricultural Crown Lands (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $567,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $249,100--pass.
5.(f) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($130,000)--pass.
Resolution 3.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,411,000 for Regional Agricultural Services for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
Item 3.6. Policy and Economics (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $127,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $31,000--pass.
6.(b) Economics (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $877,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $213,000--pass.
6.(c) Boards and Commissions Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $353,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $494,600--pass.
6.(d) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($60,000).
Ms. Wowchuk: I wanted to ask a question under Boards and Commissions, and I am sure that the minister will still be prepared to accept it.
* (1720)
What I wanted to ask the minister about was we had the checkoff implemented under recent legislation for KAP and Cattle Producers, and I understand that there are some problems with the cattle producer checkoff. There is not the proper system for tracking. Money gets sent in but without the identification of where the money is coming from, or else the money comes in from an auction mart, and you have a number of head of cattle but not identified to a producer.
I want to ask the minister if he is aware of these problems that have resulted with this checkoff and whether he is looking at how it can be resolved. It is a fairly substantial amount of money that ends up going to the Manitoba Cattle Producers, and it should be properly controlled for the producers if they want to have a refund, but as I understand it right now, as the system is in place, it is not working as it should.
I wonder if the minister is aware of this problem and what steps can be taken to rectify it.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the information that the honourable member provides. The short and sweet answer is no, I am not aware of it, but I note that my deputy minister is making note of the question, and I want to assure the honourable member that I will pursue that.
I am very concerned that the levies or the checkoffs that are so collected are, in fact, appropriately administered in every way. I accept some responsibility for having proposed them and fostered them by legislation in this Chamber, that it is an ongoing department of the ministry to ensure that that is, in fact, the case. Let me assure the honourable member that I will make every effort to pursue the issue that she raises.
I can also just put on the record, we have had some dissatisfaction expressed with another checkoff, the checkoff that KAP applies, and the honourable member is, I am sure, aware of it and will be raising an issue about it.
Might I just also take this opportunity to introduce further senior staff who have helped and guided me through the shoals of agriculture in this last year: Mr. Gordon MacKenzie, who tends to look after all of our supply-managed activities--boards, commissions, marketing boards--works closely with the Manitoba Marketing Council and is our liaison and co-ordinator with the various marketing boards throughout the province of Manitoba; Mr. Lorne Martin, who works with us in the Policy and Economics branch in association with my associate deputy, Mr. Craig Lee, who heads up the Policy and Economics branch of the department.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that there were also problems with the KAP checkoff and with the rate that was being returned to producers. I have had a few calls in my office, and I have to say that that was one of the instances, when I called the KAP office, that I was not satisfied with the way they responded or their attitude to people making inquiries about having funds refunded. I was quite disappointed in the response that I got there.
The minister is aware that there are problems there in the turnaround time and refunds, and I want to ask the minister again, what steps are being taken with KAP to ensure that refunds are being made properly and that there is not so much duplication, and if the minister would outline what other concerns he has because that is the one that has been brought to my attention, as I indicated, the one with the cattle checkoff and the problems that were there, and I will share more details of that one, but also with the KAP checkoff.
I guess I would ask the minister then if he is comfortable or satisfied with the activities of these organizations since they are getting substantial amounts of money from farmers and are supposed to be representing them. Manitoba Cattle Producers is supposed to be carrying on activities, and I had the details on how much the funds were, but I do not have them at my fingertips right now, but is the minister satisfied with the activities of these organizations and what they are doing in what should be in the best interests of farmers now that they have these funds to work with?
Mr. Enns: I want to acknowledge that the honourable member is correct, that, certainly, there were some serious problems, start-up problems, with the KAP checkoff. The two issues were, one, that there was no cap on it. Under the system, pretty significant dollars could--even though the membership only called for a hundred dollar total contribution, individual producers could have quite a bit more taken off their cheques.
The other thing was the turnaround time of return. I am advised by senior staff that those issues have been corrected and have been addressed, and, certainly, I was receiving calls as she similarly was receiving calls and members of my caucus were receiving calls, although corrections seems to have aided or diminished those complaints.
I am not fooling myself that there are, no doubt, a number of people who take objection to it, but I can also indicate that the kind of real difficulty that was beginning to circulate with respect to KAP, in my opinion, has changed. Their actual membership is up, and the amount of returns is somewhat higher than I think we anticipated, but within reason.
Am I satisfied with what they are doing with these newfound funds? The jury is out on that. I am certainly going to be prepared, and I think individual producers, of course, should be holding them accountable and to task at their regional and annual meetings constantly, as we are held accountable in this Chamber by the general electorate.
I am looking forward to how they will respond to some of the issues. For instance, I mentioned just a little while ago about having had the representatives from Ag in the Classroom in my office. They were looking for a very modest little bit of funding support, $5,000, to help them with bringing the agricultural message into the classrooms of Manitoba. I quite frankly think, and so advised them, that the Manitoba Cattle Producers organization, Manitoba Pork, KAP--and these are significant amounts of monies that are accumulating in their accounts as a result of this checkoff legislation. These are the first and primary organizations that should be interested that agriculture is understood in our schools, particularly in the Animal Industry branch which is often attacked by various animal rights groups, and sometimes these thoughts are harboured more strenuously in our educational system.
So when she asks me if am I satisfied with how Cattle Producers are spending their money, I really cannot answer that question. I will know better a year from now when I look at their statement and say, what have they done with those dollars? How have they generally and generically helped promote the beef industry in Manitoba? Have they undertaken some worthwhile research that is of some help and some meaning to the cattle producers? Those are the kinds of answers that I think I quite honestly cannot answer to the honourable member for Swan River, but that is precisely the question that needs to be asked, asked of me, more specifically asked of the directors of the organizations that are running these facilities.
* (1730
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicates that their membership has gone up, and there have not been that many applications for refunds. That was fully expected. That is what you have when you have a negative option. It has happened in every other place when your membership is automatically checked off. We could go through that whole debate again. The minister knows where we are on this side of the House. We do not support the negative option checkoff, and I do not support it in farm organizations.
I believe that a farm organization should work really hard to represent the producers of the province, and if they do a good job of that and hold their district meetings and annual meetings, the membership will be taken up. I look forward to seeing what happens in a year's time when we get the reports, because I think it is very important that now that these organizations are getting these amounts of funds, that they do the work in promoting the agriculture industry, in doing research, and in standing up for farmers on many issues. I, too, with the minister look forward to seeing what the end result will be on this. I guess the option is there for farmers, and if they are not doing it, the farmers will let them know that they are not happy with the work they are doing.
The other change that the government made in the last year was under The Farm Lands Ownership Act, changes that would allow more non-Canadians to purchase land in the province. At the time, we raised the concern that this would drive the price of land up, and I have to tell the minister that the amount of foreign land purchases, although maybe not substantial, but there are areas in the province and in my area where people have said to me that there are people from outside the country coming in and buying the land and restricting the ability of local farmers to expand their operation.
I guess I would like to ask the minister what he sees as the impact of this change in the legislation, whether there has been more--I guess there would be less application under The Farm Lands Ownership Act, but whether there has been any tracking done by his department to see what kind of an increase there has been in foreign purchases in this province.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am hesitant to answer the honourable member for Swan River. I told my mother I would always tell the truth, you see, and despite the fact of 31 years in politics I am still trying to do that. It is a good policy, by the way. If you tell the truth it is easier to remember tomorrow.
So I can answer her that there has been no impact by the changes of this act because the act has not been proclaimed yet.
Ms. Wowchuk: Since the act has not been proclaimed, then I guess the board that approves application for foreign ownership continues to approve all the applications that are made to the board, and, of course, we probably will not see very much change in the activities because over the past several years it is my understanding that all or almost all--I believe all applications by foreigners to purchase land in this province have been approved. Then you have to beg the question of why we bothered even changing the legislation, because the board was, in fact, approving all the applications for foreign ownership as they were.
So I apologize for not having known that the act was not proclaimed, but activities are going on as they were before the act was changed, and even without the act there is no control. The board is not deterring foreigners from purchasing land.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, having been around when the initial act was introduced by a New Democratic Party government in the mid-'70s, I believe, let us understand and be very clear, the act was never designed as a prohibition on people outside of Canada coming to buy farmland. The act was designed to prevent people from outside of Canada speculating with Manitoba farmland, buying it and having no intention of coming to Manitoba or to Canada, and that is what the act was designed to prevent from happening.
It has done that. When the honourable member says that the current board is approving most of the applications, indeed, that is true, because most of the applications, and, more importantly, those people, those land agents who are often representing the buyers of this land, everybody understands the rules.
You can only buy the land if you meet the criteria and the conditions of the act that say that somebody living in France or in Italy or in Germany who applies, wants to buy farmland, and is committed to becoming a landed immigrant, achieve landed immigrant status, within a fixed time, as fixed within the act, is to be approved. That, in fact, is what is taking place.
I am familiar with some of them, not all of them, but there are not that many. There are a few of them who kind of specialize in these kinds of land sales, and they walk around with this act in their hip pocket. They know the act. They do not waste time trying to find a European buyer for land who does not fit the criteria, and that is acceptable.
The other changes, as the member knows, are that it broadens Canadian access to land, and that accounts for some of the changes in the numbers as well.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 3.6(d) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($60,000)--pass.
Resolution 3.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,037,300 for Policy and Economics for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
Item 3.7 Agriculture Research and Development (a) Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, we have under this line a new initiative on the part of the government, a fairly substantial initiative of $3.4 million, funds that are supposed to be used for agriculture development, agriculture research and value-added opportunities.
I must say that I was very pleased to see this announcement in the budget. We have been long calling for the department to increase their funding for agriculture research, particularly in light of the fact that we have seen the federal government cut back on agriculture research, and Manitoba has been a big loser. We have had cutbacks at Morden. We have had cutbacks at the Brandon Research Station, and we are seeing Saskatchewan become the centre for agriculture research at the expense of Manitoba.
I very strongly believe that we have to have research in this province to meet the needs of Manitoba farmers and have the industry grow. Whether it be in the production of food or in the processing of food, we have to have work done here in Manitoba. So I am pleased that we have the announcement of a program, but we have very little detail on how the government proposes to use this money.
I wonder if the minister can tell us when there will be details available on how this money will be used. I guess, in the same section, we see the university grant there as well. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether this money will be used at the various research centres or whether the University of Manitoba will tap into it and what the criteria is for applying for these funds.
* (1740)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, first of all, allow me to acknowledge another senior member of my staff, Mr. Greg Fearn, assistant director of the Program and Policy branch.
I could not agree more with the honourable member for Swan River for everything she has to say about this item, and I want to put on the record and, in fact, express my appreciation to her because she has consistently supported the Department of Agriculture and agriculture generally about the importance of paying more attention to research in this province. She correctly notes that in the last few years we have seen an erosion taking place that, certainly, we are not happy with. The very good staff, the very good people in the Morden facility and in the Brandon facility are particularly concerned that here we are, Manitoba being impacted the most in the post-Crow era.
We are challenging our Soils and Crops people to redouble their efforts to find alternate diversified crops, help with their development. We need that kind of research work that came, particularly in that area, out of the Morden Station, a beautiful station. The federal government spent considerable money in both Brandon and Morden of recent years, and to see them underutilized is really just too bad.
Then in the Brandon situation, I am particularly sensitive to the fact that some of the research capacity in pork, in swine of all things, has been taken from us in Manitoba to a province where the hog production declined 7 percent last year, and we are leading the nation in terms of pork expansion, pork production, here in Manitoba.
So those are areas that concern me deeply, and I appreciate the fact that my official critic of the opposition party on this item--we have disagreed on other items, but on this item she has consistently supported a call for more attention, and I have always acknowledged that support and want to do so today.
So, yes, I am pleased that we were able to convince our Treasury and my government to put forward a new initiative of $3.4 million specifically for research and development. It is my very sincere hope, and senior staff people are currently negotiating in Ottawa, that that can be matched, perhaps, in similar dollars.
Quite frankly, a little while ago on another issue, we talked about the use of federal dollars, or any dollars, for agriculture. I will be very annoyed, quite frankly, if Ottawa cannot match that $3.4 million on this important item of research, yet find $5 million for a more questionable allocation, I might say, at this point. I do not want to prejudge, but this has been a longstanding and growing issue of importance, not just by us here in this Chamber but by the various commodity organizations and by faculty people at the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Manitoba.
It is recognized that we cannot continue to be moving our agriculture forward and stay at the cutting edge or near to it if we fail to put some dollars back in research. So, representative of the Liberal Party here in this Chamber, I want you to kind of take on that task; I want you to listen with diligence to the wisdom of my critic, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), and your humble little minister here, and I want you to prevail all your influences in Ottawa that this important research item in Manitoba gets attended to.
She asked what is it going to do. Our challenge right now, quite frankly, to our own--we are instructed to come back to Treasury Board, to government, to now put the flesh on an organization that will administer these dollars. Certainly you can expect, it would be taken for granted that someone like Dean Elliott from the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Manitoba, is extremely interested in this item. He would like it all at the faculty.
He will certainly be part of it, but I envisage that we will be putting together a responsible representative group of academic and agricultural players that in the end will administer these funds after we have worked out a set of ground rules, criteria, that sets out the kinds of research and development issues that these dollars should be directed to.
I cannot tell her any more except that I invite her to offer some recommendations as to what this group should be doing, but certainly I have great expectations of this program, both in the fact that I want to see it grow in number size by matching federal dollars and then perhaps even going out and canvassing some additional dollars from the private sector.
It would be nice to have, particularly because Agriculture as a department is buffeted by the priorities that we as a society set for ourselves, and they manifest themselves in this Chamber. Health, education, family services, those are the issues that get the attention and get the dollars, and I want to secure for Agriculture some stability and some security of this research fund. I would like to put it in a trust fund and have it administered so that I can with some assurance tell the agricultural industry that these research dollars are there, so that I can tell the faculty people at the university that there are some research dollars here, not just year one, year two, but they are there for a long time.
When it is administered properly and it has integrity, you would be surprised how a fund like this attracts from various sources additional funds. After all, that is how our major foundations have been established. If they are operated soundly and they are producing, different organizations will add, top it off with a million dollars or $2 million. Before you know it, we have a $10-million, $15-million, $20-million fund which principal can stay intact but which interest can provide a host of very worthwhile and needed agricultural research.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, one minute for a question and asking the minister: When we posed the question about the federal government's offer to provide assistance for farmers that would be flooding, the minister said, well, he was given no notice, and he would have appreciated some sort of notice for those matching dollars.
Now we have research, and the minister is asking that the federal government should be matching. I am wondering if he gave the federal government any notice, and if, in fact, he did give them some notice, did he request matching funds?
Mr. Enns: Absolutely, weeks and months of notice. Senior staff are visiting in Ottawa, talking with them, and we asked permission from Ottawa before we entertained putting the line in our budget. We showed that courtesy to a partner that we hope to be working for. So that is the short answer to that question.
Ms. Wowchuk: I look forward to more details on this. I look forward to seeing who the minister puts on this responsible group of producers who are going to administer the program. I would hope that, along with academics, he would have representation from the agriculture community, but, most certainly, we have to look to the federal government to have research dollars come back to the province and recover some of the losses that we have had in this province, both at Morden and Brandon.
I am pleased that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has expressed an interest in agriculture, and I hope that he will use his influence, as well, to ensure that we recover some of the agriculture research dollars that we have lost. I wonder whether the minister would consider the possibility of--he mentions other organizations, and we just recently talked about the funds that were in Keystone Agricultural Producers and the funds that Cattle Producers have, funds that Manitoba Pork has, whether or not there is a way to work together with these organizations so that by pooling resources we do not end up duplicating.
But we have to have research for the growth of the hog industry, the growth of the cattle industry and the vegetable industries. There are lots of areas where we have to have research. We have lost on that, so I would suggest to the minister that those are the things that we have to look at, is how we can pull other people together so that we are not doing duplicate research. I look forward to the minister's further announcements of this program, and, of course, as well, work with the institutions, the universities.
I wonder whether the minister might feel that there is a role for community colleges, as well, to play. They are another section of education. We have Assiniboine Community College, Red River Community College. Does the minister feel that some of this money can also be used for research and education that is carried on by those facilities as well?
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that we are ending up the review of the departmental Estimates on such a positive note, that I can find nothing but complimentary remarks to say about my member opposite. We have every intention of utilizing, as she just suggested, certainly all of those organizations, commodities that have checkoff, that there should be a pooling of some of their dollars. I hope to make this attractive enough that they would want to do that.
Additional private institutions, we have some very major and big players. I am pleased to say, and the honourable member is aware, that they certainly dug deep in their pockets when we were able to provide a spanking brand new faculty building for the Department of Agriculture on campus; came up with some $4 million, $5 million, you know, the Cargills, the Richardsons, these people who draw lots of wealth and benefit out of agriculture in Manitoba and who have shown in the past they are prepared to put some back into it. These are the people who I would like to think, along with the organizations that she mentions, should be contributing to research, in general to agriculture.
Her discussion about involving the community colleges is an excellent one, and we will consider all of these suggestions.
* (1750)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 7. Agriculture Research and Development (a) Canada-Manitoba Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability $1,040,000--pass; (b) Agri-Food Research and Development Initiative $3,400,000--pass; (c) Grant to the University of Manitoba $768,300--pass; (d) Grant to the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute $332,500--pass.
Resolution 3.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,540,800 for Agriculture Research and Development for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary, as we see the minister's staff leaving.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take a few minutes to thank the minister for the information that he has provided and his staff who have been very informative and also thank them for the co-operation that we have throughout the year when we raise issues with them.
I want to say to the minister that there are issues that we do not agree on, but we face many challenges within the livestock industry and within the agriculture industry many changes, and I would hope that the minister will keep an open mind and look to see the agriculture industry develop in harmony, that the people who work in the agriculture industry can work in harmony with the other people in the community and work to resolve conflicts.
The industry is very important to Manitoba, but as it grows there are going to be conflicts, and we talked about this, where there are areas of environmental issues that we have to work very hard to resolve. The Department of Agriculture, I believe, has to be very open and do a lot of preliminary work to ensure that the public understands what is going on, why various livestock operations are expanding the way they are.
That is the one area where there is a conflict, so I would encourage the minister to be very conscious of that and ensure that we can have the growths in the industry that are very important to the food production of this province and around the world and that the people of Manitoba who live in this province but are not involved in the industry understand the industry and can appreciate the value of it and that we can dispel the myths that the agriculture industry has negative effects, and in areas where there is a potential for negative effects from agriculture production, that we work through those in the best interests of the people of Manitoba.
I want to thank the minister for his answers, and, hopefully, he will get back to us on some of the issues that we raised that he did not have answers for, and I look forward to having him tell us when he is going to implement The Farm Lands Ownership Act, or maybe he is not going to. I apologize for not having known that that bill was not proclaimed at the time, but I thank him for his answers.
Mr. Enns: I very briefly just want to assure her that it is my practice that staff will be providing her with a written response to those several specific questions which she asked for which an answer was not given.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Item 3.1.(a) Minister's Salary $25,700--pass.
Resolution 3.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,464,300 for Administration and Finance for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
That concludes the Estimates for Agriculture. What is the will of the committee? Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tweed): Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? [agreed]
The hour now being six o'clock, the House shall adjourn and remain adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).