Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): If I can recommend to the committee that we consider the issues relating to Manitoba Crop Insurance, Mr. Neil Hamilton, president and general manager of Crop Insurance is with us, as well as following the examination of the crop insurance, we have the general manager and president of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. So I just give that as information to the honourable member.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Thank you, Mr. Minister. I would just like to remind you here that we are on Resolution 3.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, given that we do have the staff from Manitoba Crop Insurance here, I would be prepared to ask the questions that I have on crop insurance and then go back to the other area, and then staff can go on with the business that they have to do, and that is provide us with good crop insurance.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): That is fine.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a couple of questions on crop insurance. One of the first ones that I would like to ask relates to the bill that has been put forward. I raised the issues with the minister the other day when we were discussing the bill, and that is the section of the bill that has been brought forward that allows the corporation to seek reinsurance outside of the federal or provincial government. Now, my understanding is that at the present time, reinsurance is done through the federal government. There is a five-year agreement in place, and I am wondering why the steps are being taken now to look for other opportunities to reinsure when we are in a five-year agreement with the federal government.
Mr. Enns: Staff advises me that that particular clause, that I recall caught the interest of the honourable member for Swan River when the bill was before this Chamber at second reading, is there as an enabling clause, a permissive clause, if you like, in the event that it is deemed by management of Crop Insurance to exercise it, they will. They are after all charged with running the most cost-effective, efficient crop insurance system that they can for Manitoba farmers.
I can also indicate and the chairman just made that very clear to me that there are no plans at the moment, currently, for us to let Ottawa off the hook, if you like, on continuing to provide the reinsurance policy. Certainly I will be pressing for that to be included in the next five-year agreement for, as we discussed, the safety nets at our conference later on this July.
I am also advised that the reinsurance responsibilities for the overall basic crop insurance is correct. We work with Ottawa, but the hail policy is covered entirely by the province, and the corporation wants to have the flexibility, if you like, to be able to examine if there are from time to time opportunities in the private market that can provide the kind of security and coverage that in the judgment of the managers at Manitoba Crop Insurance is an appropriate action. This clause would enable them to do that some time in the future if they thought it was worthwhile.
I also remind the honourable member that there have been little ripples from Ottawa occasionally that they want to exit out of reinsurance and that has disturbed me. It has caused some anxiety I am sure at the management level of Manitoba Crop Insurance, so I think you would have to describe this as prudent action to have in place in the event it is needed. But I will be going down and I have made it very clear to federal authorities, we believe that they have a major role to continue playing in this program, not only in the premium structure but in providing this reinsurance that has been a feature of crop insurance in Canada since its introduction.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have to say that I disagree with the minister. I do not see any need for putting this legislation in place, if you are comfortable with the federal government playing the role that it is. To me this appears as an exit for them.
* (1440)
I want to ask the minister, at most times when we start to reinsure with someone outside of government and move towards the private sector the fear that farmers have may come to a reality and that is that once you go into the private sector, you are going to see an increase of costs that will then have to be passed on to the farmers. Can the minister indicate whether there has been any analysis done of what the impact would be to move into the private sector for reinsurance?
Mr. Enns: On the basic crop insurance program, there have been no discussions undertaken with the private sector. There have been some discussions taken with respect to hail insurance reinsurance which is totally and always has been the province's responsibility.
By the way, I am not all that comfortable with everything the federal government does. I am very uncomfortable with some of the very significant offloading that the federal government, particularly Ag Canada has engaged in, in a number of critical areas in agriculture, and the services that they have provided that have been traditionally the responsibility of Manitoba. We have touched on a few, inspection, health and other issues. I need not remind the honourable member that, with respect to insurance, the insurance envelope that was formerly the responsibility of the federal government has been substantially reduced and capped, which I think is unfair, unjust, because crop insurance is a customer-, client-driven program.
It is no different, quite frankly, if my colleague in the Ministry of Health said we can only do X number of blood tests for this or this reason and put an absolute cap on it. We do our best job in estimating as we present these Estimates to you. We challenge the corporation to give us their best estimate of what the provincial share of the premium will be. We have mixed that together with what the federal contribution will be, and that then determines what the producer contribution will be, but we cannot absolutely tell my Treasury Board or Ottawa's Treasury Board what the finite figure will be.
As we have discussed earlier, with some justifiable pride, we are pleased that we have, I believe, Mr. Chairman, we can say probably the highest subscribed-to Crop Insurance program in the country. I think that says a great deal about the management of the corporation under Mr. Hamilton and his staff. It says something about the design of the program that we have been offering in the last year or two here in Manitoba.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, a few years ago a review of crop insurance was done and there were recommendations that were made on how crop insurance could be improved. One of the areas that I specifically remember was when farmers raised the concern about how difficult and intimidating the appeal process was. I recall a particular farmer telling me that he went there to state his case and was greeted by lawyers who created a very intimidating environment. That was one of the recommendations that came out of the Crop Insurance Review, that the appeal process be changed so that it be more friendly.
I would like to ask the minister: what has been done? I also would like to ask the minister how he is addressing the challenge that his department is facing with the representatives on the appeal tribunal having resigned. Have those people been replaced? Can he give an explanation as to--do we have an appeal tribunal? Are there people in there? Have the people who resigned been replaced? Can he give us some reason for what is going on with that whole process?
Mr. Enns: Well, here I am torn, put in one of those positions where I should take the good advice of my staff or really fess up and tell my honourable friend the member for Swan River everything. I passed on those concerns about the appeal tribunal that the honourable member for Swan River had directly to them, and they all up and quit on me. No, not really. Mr. Chairman, the issue that the honourable member raises is one that has caused us, not major concern, because I would have to say right at the start that I think this is one of the boards that has not had a great deal of activity in the course of its years of operation, and, again, that speaks to the program.
There was a particular situation which I recently received, and the honourable member will have perhaps read it in the newspapers, a situation where an individual contractholder took issue with how he was treated by Crop Insurance, used his rights to appeal the decision by taking it to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board made a ruling essentially upholding the corporation's decision. However, this client, as is also his right, took the issue then to the Provincial Ombudsman. The Provincial Ombudsman, in his wisdom and with his staff and his investigative powers, looked at the situation and decided to rule in favour of the contractholder.
Mr. Chairman, the issue was not a major claim. I think it was in the order of $1,200-$1,300. My advice that I received from my senior management, particularly from my deputy minister, was that in this instance it was not, you know, we as a department and I think as a government, we all have a responsibility to accept or look at the Ombudsman's rulings from time to time very seriously. I am delighted that this department does not have all that much interface with the Ombudsman, that we do not have cases before the Ombudsman on a regular basis. But when the Ombudsman made his ruling, in this instance against the Appeal Board's decision, against the management of the Crop Insurance Board's decision, in favour of the farmer, I accepted that decision on the part of the Ombudsman.
I can understand the Appeal Board's feeling somewhat upset about that fact. It was certainly meant to bestow or show nonconfidence in the Appeal Board, no more so than anybody at Manitoba Crop Insurance should feel that way. I did not lose Mr. Hamilton on that account, although he thinks I made a mistake and he thinks that the Ombudsman made a mistake or else his original decision with respect to that particular situation would not have been what it was. But we set up these processes from time and time, and it was overall I think deemed more important not to get into a fight with the Ombudsman on this instance and to allow his decision, which was in favour of the farmer, to stand.
Yes, the tribunal board is in the process of being replaced. I have had some--for reasons of getting the appropriate names, it is my intention, for instance, to, and I do not mind telling her that we have kind of decided that I am very pleased to indicate to the honourable member that a former chairman of the board of the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation has agreed to serve on this tribunal board, which brings a great deal of experience to that and to her reminding me of the discussion we had last year on this issue. Yes, we do want to make some procedural changes that will make that appeal tribunal a little more friendly when individual farmers are faced with and try to take some of the kind of courtroom legalese surrounding these appeals and separate them from when the farmer makes his direct contact with the Appeal Board. Yes, those revisions in practice, I would call them, more so than anything else are being considered.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, last year, because of the flood, seeding deadlines were extended. I was making some inquiries this year about whether or not seeding deadlines would have to be extended again, and it is my understanding that there have been some changes made, and there is no longer the ability to extend seeding dates.
Can the minister explain what those changes are and what the reason was for making them?
* (1450)
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member for Swan River will recall that we did have quite a debate on this issue, and of course it was a pressing issue last year with the knowledge that in the Red River Valley it was going to be difficult to get the crop in in the seeding deadline dates that were in place. We did extend the deadline dates for the last crop year. Surprisingly and amazingly, the vast majority of the acreage was seeded within the existing deadline dates so that that extension was not required. But I can recall that the issue that bothered me a little bit or that I challenged the corporation to examine was did it have to be a kind of an all or nothing, black or white situation, if you did not meet the deadline date for whatever reasons you were out of crop insurance. I am very pleased to report to the House that the crop insurance people took this situation under advisement and have, for instance, in this seeding year, this crop year, provided a program that creates a greater flexibility. They provide an additional 10-day extension to the dates but with a corresponding reduction in coverage, 20 percent reduction in coverage which I am assuming is done so for sound actuarial reasons that the data that Crop Insurance has that shows this is--you know, when seeding is done that late in the season, over the year's average does bring about those projected reductions in anticipated yield and that has to be reflected in the premium structure.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister, with regard to wildlife damage compensation, there has been a lot of dissatisfaction with the amount of coverage and the procedures that are followed when wildlife compensation is being--when people make applications there is, my understanding, a lot of farmers are not satisfied with the level of compensation that they get and the people who are the--it is hay damage in many cases and some crops.
I would like to ask the minister whether there is any--there have been changes to crop insurance--whether any review has been done of the wildlife compensation and whether the corporation is coming forward with any recommendations that would make changes to the program that would be more appealing to the farmers.
Mr. Enns: Yes, you know, I am again pleased to indicate that the Province of Manitoba and the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation pays the highest level of crop damage for damage done by wildlife than any other jurisdiction in the country. So our farmers are by far the best served farmers in this respect.
The issue is the claim that we are now--we are both right in a sense, those who continue to criticize the program and the Manitoba Crop Insurance, myself and the government when we say we pay 100 percent of the damage. But that is the damage of the price that Crop Insurance establishes, as they establish for all their insurance rates. We have to file this with Ottawa, who after all, are co-insurers with us. What that sometimes means, and I will not argue that, on a given year or something like that, depending on price, that 100 percent may be 90 percent or 95 percent or 85 percent of current market value. You have to recall where we have come from. We were paying 80 percent of that benchmark figure before. We are now paying 100 percent. As I mentioned, the closest jurisdiction to us is 85 percent of the same formula stated on the benchmark price, which makes Manitoba's program by far the richest in the land.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the legislation that I spoke about earlier also legitimizes the sale of data from Manitoba Crop Insurance, and I understand that it is quite a sophisticated system that we have at the corporation. Can the minister indicate: is there any connection between Crop Insurance and Linnet or are they completely separate in the collection of this data or the sale of the data?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I can indicate to the honourable member that no, we have no work on contract or arrangement with Linnet. I was asking the Chairman what kind of potential sales opportunities there are that we would, that, in fact, the corporation has engaged in, in the past, only it has not been specifically provided for in our legislation, but it is potential that in the future and in the past that there would be various chemical fertilizer companies that would be interested in some of the very sophisticated data that we have. Mr. Hamilton tells me that it is the most sophisticated kind of crop and land data that any organization has in the world, and Mr. Hamilton has never lied to me. I believe him. The point that should be made, it is by far the most important obligation of a corporation to provide this data back to the customers, to the farmers, and we, of course, are extremely sensitive that any sales of any of this data would only be done in the aggregate. We have rigid programs in place to assure the confidentiality of any individual subscriber. We would not want to violate the privacy of his operation on his or her land.
Ms. Wowchuk: I understand that this is very high-tech equipment. I wonder whether the minister can indicate whether this equipment can only be used to pick up different kinds of crop varieties or will the equipment, the technology be able to be used to, for example, pick up if there was an overuse of chemicals, to look at soils as well as crops, or one of the issues we talk about manure spreading, increased manure spreading. Is this technology sophisticated enough to be able to be used in the future to do those kinds of things?
* (1500)
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, the member for Swan River who has in her own family life a long farming background understands that when over the years all of that data that individual farmers, large and small, all the things they do to their land, they put on their land, how they work their land, the reported yields of that land, stretching over now 20- and 25-year period, the soil testing that takes place on a growing number of producers who take advantage of, for reasons to ascertain the appropriate fertilizer applications, all of that kind of data, they have the capacity of overlaying on a printout and providing that kind of information, specific to what a customer may be looking for, so it is an increasingly sophisticated data bank on our soils. I might just take this occasion, although it has not to do with Manitoba Crop Insurance but it is an issue that I feel is extremely important for another reason, that is a reason that I know concerns all of us, including the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), is when we in growing livestock, and in particular hog operations, put more and more organic fertilizer on our lands, there is the concern that is legitimate and needs to be addressed about who is monitoring, how are we sure that the amount of application of this fertilizer is being properly absorbed by the soil and by the crops grown thereof and not leaching into ground water levels and so forth.
So I consider the mandatory soil testing that producers now have to undertake in the manure management plan, under the new regulations that are now in force since April 1 of this year, to be extremely important. They will add data, which I am advising the corporation they should keep a watchful eye on that data, because it is yet another piece of data that will be valuable to the overall information about the health, if you like, of our land, the status of our land. We are, I think, calling for them to test to soil depths of one foot, two feet, one foot, and that could be done on an annual basis. So in the future, five years from now, 10 years from now, somebody is saying that the putting of hog manure on this land is in any way detrimental to the land, we will have scientific evidence to say, you know, whether that is in fact happening or whether it is not happening.
Mr. David Faurschou, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
We will have scientific direction to help future ministers of Agriculture or environmental departments to pass the appropriate regulations as to how we can best husband that resource, but I do remind the honourable member that we put about $200 million worth of chemical fertilizer on our land. We believe in agriculture that we can replace $100 million of that. Fifty percent of what our farmers do not have to lay out, they simply have to make an arrangement with a hog operator in their vicinity and have that organic fertilizer, whose fumes waft so wispfully over the morning air as the sun is rising and the flowers are blooming, and do away with that manmade chemical that is depleting the finite resources of this planet Earth.
The hog is there. It will always do what it does naturally. If you feed it in the front end, something comes out of the back end. Sooner or later the phosphorous will run out in the mines that we mine, and so I appeal to the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) to come and join with me in this crusade to help the environment in this instance.
Ms. Wowchuk: I understand the minister's enthusiasm. I understand, but I think he has just gotten a little off track, because I was just trying to get some information on how the system works. Is he indicating then that it will be Manitoba Crop Insurance, through the information data system that they have, that will then collect and be the source of information for the Department of Environment, or for anyone else that he is talking about or is it information that is for the Department of Environment?
I know the minister is very enthusiastic about organic fertilizer. I, too, have to say I think it is a very good source of fertilizer, but my question is more to what information is the role that Manitoba Crop Insurance collects? Do they collect the crop or a pattern of crops or is it their role to collect information on the amount of fertilizer that might be left in the ground or the depletion of soils in certain areas? What is their actual role or purpose? What are they trying to collect?
Mr. Enns: I want to make it very clear that Manitoba Crop Insurance gets its material from the customers, the farmers that deal with Manitoba Crop Insurance. They may in the future include additional soil information from some of these new and different kinds of data collection that are taking place by agencies like the Manure Management Initiative. That is something in the future, but certainly right now in essence the kind of data we are talking about is the kind of data that, over the years, has come to Manitoba Crop Insurance from servicing their clients.
Ms. Wowchuk: Maybe I am asking about a different system. I understand that within the government, between Natural Resources department or the Department of Agriculture, there is a satellite system where you can monitor different kinds of crops. There is this technology available that through satellite you can look at a particular quarter of land and know exactly what kind of crop is going there. I was under the impression this is what you were talking about, that Manitoba Crop Insurance had this kind of data and collected it. That is what I am looking for.
If the system is not in the Department of Agriculture, if it is somewhere else that we have this satellite system that collects data, then I am in the wrong department. I am asking whether that is through the Manitoba Crop Insurance, or, if it is not, where is it?
Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Enns: Yes, I am very familiar with the program that the member talks about, and it is housed in the Department of Natural Resources. It is a satellite operation that provides for very interesting data on the conditions with infrared mapping. It will show drought conditions. Forestry uses it to help them in their forest fire fighting. Agriculture is interested in it because it will show us a great deal about what is happening to our cropping lands, you know, general moisture conditions, crop cover, how the crop is growing. It also even helps us in intelligence guiding. That is why agencies like the Canadian Wheat Board are from time to time customers of that, because this satellite, as it travels over the globe, will pick up the similar kind of information from the grain growing parts of the Soviet Union, for instance. If the maps indicate a serious drought or some other disaster occurring on the landscape, that alerts agencies like the Canadian Wheat Board that our country may be in the position for some major purchases, and that just gives them a little heads up on that.
But that is not incorporated at all within the system that we are talking about here, and it does not have the kind of--it is more geographic in nature. It can tell you whether it is wet or dry or something like that, but it will not tell you what a particular soil type, soil zone will yield and how it will respond to a dozen different crops over a prolonged period of years. That is the kind of data that makes the data that we are talking about in Crop Insurance so specific and valuable.
* (1510)
Ms. Wowchuk: I just wanted to ask one more question on Crop Insurance. One of the issues that farmers raise many times is that they are not getting adequate return. If you start to look at what it costs to put a crop in and the return that we are getting for crops right now, it is very difficult for farmers that are grain producers. I know farmers are diversifying into other crops, but they are looking for a better level. Many times we have heard farmers say that we have to look at a program that is based on cost of production.
The minister is going into new negotiations, and I know the minister has had a committee that has been making recommendations on safety net programs. Is there any consideration being given to improving crop insurance so that farmers get better coverage for the money that they are putting into it, and is there any consideration being given to look at ways that we could tie crop insurance or look at other safety net programs that could give farmers some of the cushion that they need, because the minister--we have talked about this before.
We are heading into a difficult time with all the transition money gone, high input costs and low grain returns. It is going to be very tough for some farmers. I know the minister is going to say they have to diversify, and many of them are looking at ways to diversify. That does not happen overnight. To diversify it takes major dollars of investment. In the meantime, there are families who are living on farms, who want to continue to live on farms but are becoming very strapped for cash.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, everything the honourable member says is absolutely true. We are in a very serious situation with the pricing of our major cereal crops, and I wish there was a solution to it. I have had the privilege--pardon me, I did not have it; my staff had and other members had. I was regrettably tied up. But an important visitor from Europe was in our city just in the last few days, Dr. Franz Fischler, who is the chief agricultural Pooh-Bah, you know, of the European Commission, and he pulled no punches with our people, whether it was with the Wheat Board or with the executive of KAP.
He simply said, look, in Europe their governments are prepared to massively support agriculture to a level that is mind-boggling, upwards to $180 a tonne in government subsidies to grow barley or to grow wheat, when the price we sell it for is $130, well, about that, $135 a tonne, and he gave us no assurances that Europe would not from time to time use those surplus grains produced with this massive government support, subsidized support to market them wherever in the world.
I do not know. Is the Minister of Education prepared to downsize her department by $500 million? Are her teachers so content that I can take $500 million away from Education and maybe my other good friend--the honourable member for Swan River will know him too. He is a nice fellow. He sits right beside me in the House. Our young Minister of Health. Can we take an extra $500 million away from him and give them to Neil Hamilton, and then he can do what I asked him to do, and what the honourable member is asking me to do, is to introduce a revenue component to the insurance that would take into consideration some element of cost of production.
I make obvious exaggerations. The honourable member knows that is not going to happen. In fact, I will chastise my official critic of Agriculture in this House. You are still the critic of Agriculture. Half the time you do not criticize myself or my department over what we are doing in Agriculture. You go and pick on my young friend the Minister of Health or the Minister of Education, because you realize where the votes are, so you talk about health and education instead of banging us in Agriculture over the head to help me get some of those additional dollars that you are now asking for.
I know that there is, and we are walking into, a very serious problem, but I want to tell, Mr. Chairman, I want to be very candid. I do not see a massive commitment on the part of the federal government, and I must say even within my own provincial government, to yet again find the very major dollars, and we talked, the GRIP program was, in terms of provincial commitment, in the order of $500 million. I am looking at my officials whether I am in the ballpark--[interjection] It would take again those kinds of dollars to bring about that kind of revenue support that the GRIP program provided, which was substantial. It was not very close to the billion-dollar range. I am advised that the GRIP program in the course of its five years paid out some $800 million, a very significant support for the grain farmers at the time they very badly needed it.
It is my hope that we are not going into that kind of a protracted situation again, but I cannot guarantee that that is the case. That is, of course, part of the reason. Even though I am aware that diversification is not for everyone, it will not be there. To the extent that we can, let us avoid the $30, the $40 freight rates and let us support a growing and expanded livestock industry here in the province that at least can provide some shelter from these lower prices, because I will tell the honourable member there is nobody in the hog industry, for instance, or in the cattle industry, in the feedlot industry paying less than $2.40, $2.50, $2.60 for a bushel of barley today when the stated elevator prices are barely over a dollar and where the final price that we might get through marketing it after all costs are off is certainly not going to be satisfactory to any grain producer. So those are the reasons. I need the support of the honourable member opposite to understand that it is not a fixation with livestock or with hogs. It is as much the problem I have with respect to what answer do we have here in Manitoba. Manitoba is most impacted by that.
I repeat the story that involves one of her constituents, a letter that I received not so long ago, several months ago from one of your constituents. He sold, Mr. Chairman, two producer carloads of malt barley. That is the premium barley. That is the barley that makes the fuzzy-suzzy stuff, you know, that gets a little bit more. The producer sends me a heartbreaking letter with the invoices attached. One full carload of the barley was not enough to pay the freight, not enough to pay the freight. [interjection] From Benito. It took a little more than the whole carload to cover the freight costs. He says to me, Mr. Minister of Agriculture, what are you going to do about it? And what can I do about it? I cannot guarantee him that that freight bill may not be a little higher next year after Judge Estey and company get through with whatever they are doing.
What I can tell him to do though is do not be the first one to line up at your municipal council hall when somebody proposes a hog barn in your area, because then you may have an opportunity of shipping that barley just 25 miles off your farm, certainly at a more reasonable price. I do not expect to build a livestock industry on the back of the grain farmer. I think our livestock industry can and should be able to, and can I now be able to support reasonable prices for cereal grain production.
* (1520)
But the handling costs and the freight costs. I mean, we are talking upwards to $9, $11 a tonne handling costs when it goes through this system. Then we add on the $35, $40, if you are up in Swan River Valley, freight costs handling system. All of that can be avoided if we use more of the grain internally in the province of Manitoba through increased beef production, through increased pork production. Yes, through increased feather production, and even in some of the nontraditional areas that are becoming more and more interesting for some of our producers like bison, elk and the likes.
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to move on, but I want to say to the minister he often is critical of us on this side of the House when we raise the issues of health care and education, but I have to remind the minister that farmers do need health care and farmers want their children to get a good education. It all ties together.
I regret that we do not have the money that we should have for agriculture, but I think that we, the provincial governments, have really let the federal government off the hook. I am not sure how you can convince them to put more money into it. I think the federal government has let farmers down when they were so quick to go to the table to give away all our safety nets, to have everything, all programs green when we see that other countries are quite prepared to support their farmers. In Europe, in the United States, subsidies are not gone. There are still subsidies being provided and a lot more support for the farming community than we do see in Canada. Canada, I do not understand why they were so anxious to give up some of the safety nets and indicate that we could not have any programs. I think it is going to be very difficult when we see Europe subsidizing to the level that we have.
The minister indicated that the price of grain--barley, I believe he said--was $2.40 to $2.60 a bushel, and I really hope that that is going to happen. But in speaking to some of the farmers who are selling grain right now, the price is not up there. In most cases, they are selling the barley for very little more than what they would be getting after freight is deducted off it. So there are things that have to happen in that sense yet, and I guess as the demand increases, farmers will get a better return for the product.
But I think we really have to think about when we are going to the next round of talks on agriculture, and there is talk about our marketing boards now being at risk of being given away. So I worry about Canadians being so anxious to level out the playing field, and I would encourage the minister when he goes to this next round to do whatever he can to ensure that Manitobans get a fair share and that Canadians are also not the first ones to be--we have to put up a good fight for our Canadian farmers. It is an important industry.
With those comments, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to move to the next section.
Mr. Enns: We will go to the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): We would like to move on to the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. Okay.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I do not have very many questions in this area, but I would like to ask the minister--through the Manitoba Agricultural Corporation, there were loans available for flood-proofing.
Can the minister indicate whether--there was an allowance of $800,000, I believe, made available for that program, and I would like to ask the minister whether that money has been used up, whether there has been a lot of application for funding under that program, and whether that amount of money is going to be adequate.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Gill Shaw, our general manager and Ms. Karen McEachen, director of Finance and Administration, have joined us at the table here.
I am very pleased and proud of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, how they, on very short order, responded to the emergency situations in the Red River Valley last summer. We were called in kind of late in the day to see what we could do to provide some additional help in the financing that was going to be required under some of the programs--even with the significant support that was being provided by both federal and provincial governments--but once restoration and the cleanup and the fixing had to be done, it was decided that MACC had the capacity and the resources people-wise and was the most direct and straightforward way in terms of providing provincial banking services, if you like, to these people in need. I can indicate to the honourable member that in very short order, we had over 305 applicants, several were withdrawn, but that is a very significant total of the some 3,000 people who were impacted by the flood in a damaging kind of a way. There was over $6 million provided in loans for a house; another 70 farm applications accounted for another $2.5 million; small business, we had 26 of those loans for an additional just about $1.931 million, for a total of $10.435 million that MACC has out on loans to the people within the Red River Valley. All of this done at minimal cost. Again, you know, for the amount of effort and under the circumstances--the honourable member would appreciate, you are working with and counselling people under considerable stress, people that needed a great deal of advice, particularly financial advice at this point in time.
This service placed an additional $684,000 of administrative and interest charges on the corporation but, while MACC has its mandate to service the farm and agriculture community, it showed a great deal of flexibility in this instance to--on very short order, we moved staff into the flood-prone area; we worked with the other agencies and were able to provide that level of support in the Red River Valley, again some $10 million worth.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, can the minister indicate whether these loans are on similar terms to other loans or whether there is any forgiveness to the loans?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, we are not a charitable organization at MACC. It is a straight business loan with some benefits. First of all, we provide the lowest interest available for any loans in the province, and I am just asking staff to write up some of the kinds of specific conditions that enabled that $10 million to be flowed.
* (1530)
The honourable member may or may not be familiar with the programs that are being administered by my colleagues the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura) and to some extent by Water Resources minister, Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings). We were in a kind of a complicated program of providing grants to the restoration of their buildings, if they went along with the flood proofing at the same time. There was a $40,000 kind of cap on the individual floodproofing efforts that went along there. This is what put that extra strain on. They had to come up with the money up front, even though they were going to get 75 percent of it reimbursed through the federal and provincial flood programs. So what this in effect is--although $10 million has flowed, only 25 percent has to be repaid by the people, but it enabled the people to get on with life and get on with the restoration of their property.
In addition to that, we did such other things like not impose--we just did not. We forgot about the interest in the first year or deferred the interest for the first year, because again in the circumstances that they were under, in many instances individuals had their own pay disrupted or finances disrupted. Everything was done to make it as sensitive to their needs as possible, but certainly one can readily see the kind of restoration work and the flood protection work would have been considerably hindered and held back had this $10 million not been made available.
Ms. Wowchuk: So, as I understand it then, it was just sort of a--it helped with a flow through of money. I have to say that if that was a program that would help the farmers get their money from the federal and provincial money, and if it helped with their cash flow, I think that is a very good investment on the part of the corporation.
I have one area that I want to question the minister on, and that is with the Young Farmers Rebate. I want to ask the minister: I understand that there is a clause within the Young Farmers Rebate loan, that if they are late with their payment, then they lose their rebate or a portion of their rebate. I have had one case in particular that has been brought to my attention where a person was changing banks, and not that he did not have the money but did not make his payment on time, and as a result has lost his rebate. I can understand if somebody is going under and is not going to survive, but when you are wanting young farmers to stay in the agriculture business, it seems that this clause seems to be quite restrictive. So I wonder if that is in actual fact what the intent of the program was: if people who have applied for this program face some difficulty in making their payments on time, that they would lose their rebate?
Mr. Enns: Has the member for Swan River ever heard the story about the banker with a glass eye, and how you can tell the difference? My banker was just looking at me, and I was trying to determine which of his eyes was glass. Then it finally dawned on me that it was the one that winked a little bit. The other one is coldhearted, fist, drive, misses a date, out, off the top. It is a good story. I do not tell it well.
Ms. Wowchuk: The glass eye was the one with compassion in it, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Enns: I think that is the way it goes. You can tell the banker with a glass eye because it is the eye that has the compassion showing in it.
Ms. Wowchuk: No compassion there.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Shaw is winking at me with both eyes right now to make sure that I am not making any mistakes here.
Mr. Chairman, the program with respect to repayment has flexibility in it. There are, I am advised, upwards to four dates that are called for on the repayment schedule. If for some reason a member, a young farmer, misses the first date there is a 25 percent loss of the benefit, and it escalates to full loss. I am further advised that the department makes every effort, phone calls, to try to indicate or to find out what the circumstances may be for not meeting the dates. I will publicly encourage the corporation to be as flexible as they can be in this regard and to make allowances for inadvertent difficulties that may have arisen. On the other hand, these are the kinds of situations that, if not tended to in a business-like way, begin to reflect on the overall corporation. I have taken the corporation to task in a kindly way, because it is certainly a compliment to the corporation, to the management of the corporation and how it is conducting business when their write-offs on their multimillion-dollar loan portfolio are of the order of 0.01 percent. I suspect that very few private banks and very few credit unions are achieving that.
I see the same kind of frown that is appearing on the honourable member for Swan River's head as appeared on me when I saw that stat. Are we being the credit lending agency of last resort often that we are supposed to be? Are we taking sufficient risk, particularly with young farmers and start-up farmers, to carry out the mandate of the corporation? I have encouraged senior management at MACC that they should re-examine their policies. While prudent management of public funds is certainly an issue of very high priority, I certainly believe that the overall direction of the corporation, particularly in these times of difficult entry into farming--the corporation must be challenged to take some risks. It is always a question of what are the acceptable risks, particularly when we are dealing with your tax dollars and my tax dollars, public money, and the corporation of course is held accountable to all the other regulatory and supervisory agencies such as Treasury Board, et cetera, in the overall scheme of things.
In 1998, 98.1 percent of the rebates were made. That compares, for instance, to 97.7 percent last year. Last year was the same, 98.6 percent. We are talking about a little over 1,200 eligible clients. It has been dropping steadily from a few years ago. In 1996, we had some 1,623 clients. In 1998, this rebate amounted to in excess of a million dollars, $1.8 million. That is a significant support, and I appreciate the young farmers' concerns when they miss out on that rebate.
I also recall when that rebate was somewhat higher. I would, from time to time, look at whether we should not be looking at methods of enhancing this program. But it certainly indicates a relatively high take-up. It is 98.8 percent, 98.6 percent. It is only a relatively small, 1, 1.5 percent of the young farmers who, for different reasons, you know, of the eligible farmers, do not avail themselves of the support that is available to them.
* (1540)
Ms. Wowchuk: When the minister made his opening comments, he referred to aquaculture as one of the diversifications. Under Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, there used to be a fish-farming loan, and I do not see it anymore. Can the minister indicate why that has been discontinued and what efforts his department is doing to promote aquaculture? The minister talks about diversification. Are there any efforts being made to promote that kind of diversification in this province?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, under our loan diversification program, we have, in fact, approved an aquaculture operation project, and we would consider more. We certainly consider that a legitimate form of alternative farm enterprises anywhere in rural Manitoba.
The honourable member might remember back some years ago when MACC also carried the commercial fishermen's loans policy. That, of course, has been transferred right out of the MACC's operations to the northern economic development corporation of some description.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, we are always looking for new ways of diversifying and to create economic growth in the rural community. I have had a constituent come to me with a very unique suggestion. When I mentioned it to a few people, they thought the fellow might be joking, but this fellow is very serious in his proposed venture. In fact, what he has done is there is a hog barn in our area, and if the member is well aware of what hog barns look like, the pens are like tanks. Unfortunately, this particular hog barn no longer has hogs in it. So he has done a lot of work and intends to raise lobster. I had talked about this to the chairman of Manitoba Crop Insurance, Agricultural Credit Corporation, as well, and that is a very unique different type of diversification.
So I wonder whether the minister would consider that kind of a venture, an agriculture venture, and it would qualify for support under Manitoba Agriculture, or we would have to go to another department. I have to say to the minister that the person who is doing this has made major investments. He is not looking for money to invest, but he is going to need some money for cash flow from the time he purchases the first lobster and puts in the tanks. It is a year until they are ready. So he has made a very major investment but may need to be looking for some cash flow to help him through.
So I wonder if this would fall under Agriculture or whether we have to go to the other departments for support.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, my general manager advises me we would certainly be prepared to sit down with that person, that is, the corporation, and look at his proposal and his plans. I would certainly challenge the corporation to look at whether or not it could be a program that the corporation could respond to. If not, certainly we work very closely, and we have numerous situations where we find that for the regulatory regime that the corporation works under, they cannot respond to it but perhaps can work closely with either people in the Rural Development shop which have programs like REDI and, of course, the Grow Bonds support program in that department, and also with the type of small business development programs that my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) has available to him in that shop. So there are, in my opinion, different sources.
Now I happen to believe, and I do not mind indicating to the honourable member, that I will challenge the corporation that we have to take our blinkers off about what constitutes traditional agriculture in this post-Crow era. What may have sounded something quite off the wall a few years ago, even now, needs to be taken seriously and needs to be examined. In this instance, lobsters are not indigenous to this region. A lot of Manitobans eat lobster; prairie people eat lobster, and I assume they are all being flown and transported in from the East or West Coast.
If a business case can be made, I think a lot of the resource people that the MACC has would be excellent people to float this kind of a proposal through. I certainly want to indicate to the member that she should not discourage her constituent, but he should feel free to come forward and make his concerns known to us.
Ms. Wowchuk: I appreciate that. I should make the minister aware that this man is presently raising tropical fish and exporting them out of the Swan River Valley, and tropical plants. The building he is proposing would encompass all of these. He has found markets. It is a very unique proposal, and we will be talking further to various departments to see what we can do to promote it.
* (1550)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Is it the will of the committee to pass some of these lines now, or do you want to wait until you are finished? [interjection] Okay.
3.1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $441,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $68,300--pass; (3) Policy Studies $71,200--pass.
3.1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $708,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $529,800--pass.
3.1.(d) Information and Technology Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $347,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $43,800--pass.
3.1.(e) Human Resource Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $240,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $41,100--pass.
3.2. Risk Management and Support Programs (a) Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation (1) Administration $4,228,100--pass; (2) Premiums $29,500,000--pass; (3) Wildlife Damage Compensation $1,283,000--pass.
3.2.(b) Net Income Stabilization Account--$17,329,000--pass.
Resolution 3.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $52,340,100 for Agriculture, Risk Management and Income Support Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1999.
3.3. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, Administration $3,375,600--pass.
Net Interest Cost and Loan Guarantees $2,700,000--pass.
Provision for Impaired Loans $800,000--pass.
Special Farm Assistance $100,000--pass.
Flood Proofing Loan Assistance--$800,000--pass.
Resolution 3.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $7,775,600 for Agriculture, Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.
3.4. Agricultural Development and Marketing
Ms. Wowchuk: I believe this is the section that I wanted to ask some questions about the Food Development Centre and the work that is being done there. We have to look at--am I in the right section, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Enns: I might tell the honourable member that that is not being carried out by this department but under Rural Development.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will wait until we get into concurrence, and I can ask those questions of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach).
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask some questions with respect, then, to the Animal Industry and the work that is being done by the department to encourage--I understand that there has been work, that people have gone to the Netherlands, to Holland, to try to attract hog producers to come to Canada. I would like to ask the minister what has happened with that--there have been, I understand, a couple of trips gone over--and whether there have, in fact, been any families who have moved to Manitoba as a result of that. Can the minister indicate as well what role the department plays in attracting them? For example, is there any financial assistance that is being offered to encourage them to come to Canada, or what role does the department play?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be joined by my assistant deputy minister, part-time author, Dave Donaghy, and the director of Marketing, Dori Gingera. Ms. Gingera was leader of our trade mission to the Netherlands just a short while ago. It is fairly appropriate that the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) raises these issues at this time. Just a very short thing for the record. The reason why we in Agriculture in Manitoba and why our Marketing Branch particularly sought out or made decisions to travel to a country like Holland--I think it is a legitimate question to ask. We do not just look on the map and say, gee, it would be nice to go to this part of the world or that part of the world. There is always a reason why specific areas are singled out for us to spend and direct some of our marketing efforts on any given commodity or issue.
The current situation in the Netherlands is that the Dutch government has legislated a 25 percent reduction in hog population by the year 2003. Consequently, there will be a substantial number of Dutch farmers investigating their options, one of which will be immigration to countries with potential opportunities for hog production. These are young farmers who have been excellent hog producers, but now, by law, by legislation in their country, are facing a pretty bleak future. Manitoba's hog industry is in need of managers and of people who are knowledgeable with respect to intensive hog raising. Europe can be a good source for this labour. Currently many Manitoba companies have advertised, explored and are in fact hiring individuals from England, Ireland and the Netherlands.
Europeans are also interested in pursuing other opportunities, such as dairy farming and potato production, and Manitoba can be an obvious choice for both of these commodities. European agribusinesses, breeding companies, for example, equipment companies, et cetera, are considering diversifying their operations, and, therefore, Manitoba should be profiled as an obvious choice.
So it is for these kinds of reasons that we sent the trade delegation into the Netherlands and to Denmark and have found a great deal of interest. I am advised that in comparison to some of the other delegations and trade missions that the department has been engaged in and some that I have participated in myself that this was extremely successful in terms of interest shown.
I can indicate to the honourable member that individual members and companies have since contacted Manitoba and have been coming to this part of the world. I would take that as a direct result of some of the successful efforts on the part of our Marketing branch, headed by Ms. Dori Gingera.
For instance, since November of '97 the following visits to Manitoba have taken place: some 10 Dutch farmers in January of '98; in March of '98 an additional four farmers came to visit us; in April, we had a group of 28 Dutch farmers visiting us; in May, two; and then we had Dutch agrologists, agriculturalists coming to visit us also in May. We are called upon by the Dutch Consulate to see whether we can be of help as some of their citizens approach their governments to see how they can maintain and continue in hog production.
We have tentative plans for hosting some 40 Belgian farmers plus a television crew to visit us this summer in August of 1998. In October of '98 a mission to the Netherlands and Belgium will again show off and show our advantages to this part of the world. What the Europeans are particularly interested in visiting when coming to Manitoba are our hog farms, our potato farms, our dairy farms, and they are interested in the various feed companies and the feed industry as it is established in Manitoba. Of course, they take a very hard look at what rural Manitoba can provide in the form of community life, the amenities that we can offer new immigrants, new farmers, new entries to rural Manitoba.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, over the last few days, we have heard a lot of concern, although it is a federal issue, with the food inspections and with the whole issue of antibiotics and various medicines being traced in food, and there is criticism of the level of inspections that are taking place.
I would like to ask the minister how his department is dealing with that. Although it is a federal issue, we have to be concerned about quality of food in Manitoba. Is there any work being done in Manitoba or any testing, is there a requirement, I should say, by the provincial government to ensure that the food that we produce here in Manitoba is of a high enough quality? Have there been incidents in Manitoba that we have seen residues in the meat? We always talk about our high quality of food and where we are targeting foreign markets. If we have any traces of antibiotics--there was an incident, I believe, of a needle in the meat. If that is going to happen, we are going to put at risk our export industry.
* (1600)
So I would like to ask the minister how we are dealing with that here in Manitoba. Are there implications of the lack of federal inspection in Manitoba? How is his department dealing with that issue?
Mr. Enns: This is an important area and a complicated one and one that sometimes involves various jurisdictions, which even complicates it further, city, municipal, provincial, and federal. We have different levels of classification, for instance, of our processing companies in the province. If you are trading only within the province or if you are wanting to trade, then provincial standards have to be met; if you are trading internationally, nationally, then federal standards have to be met. A great deal of work is being done right now to try to mesh these together and do so in a way that is sensitive to the capacity of a relatively small processor in Dauphin or in Beausejour, as compared to a $112-million processor that is being built in Brandon or a $40-million Schneider plant that is built, to meet the most stringent export requirements.
At issue is safety of our food. That does not vary, whether it is in Dauphin or whether it is Brandon or Schneider, we all want the same high quality. The Department of Agriculture's main effort and concern here though is in the delivery of those programs and in the education programs that ensure safety and appropriate use of medicines from time to time, when they are used, or antibiotics and things like that at the farm gate. We have to accept that. I accept that as the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture. As it moves up the chain in the processing, then other departments like the Department of Health takes on a bigger lead role for the inspection that is required. It is quite frankly, and when you listen to the efforts that a committee that is established--
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Mr. Minister, if I could interrupt you for a moment. We had a visitor here, Howard Hampton, who is the member for Rainy River in Ontario, but I am sorry, he has just left. Sorry, Mr. Minister, carry on.
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I do apologize. It is, when I am running off at the mouth, that even the visitors who come to visit us, you know, leave us.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Minister. Carry on.
Mr. Enns: That is all right, Mr. Chairman. Our director of the Animal Industry Branch, livestock branch, Mr. Taylor, is part of a national committee that has been working on this for the last several years, I believe--since '94, I am advised--and it is a tremendously complicated issue, when you look at the regulatory regime that has been built up, the different jurisdictional responsibility. Yet there is a pressing need for us to clean up our act because, as we move more and more aggressively into the export field, the trade demands it.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions on Marketing. I want to ask a couple of questions on the animal industry, and one of the areas I want to ask some questions on is a new industry in Manitoba, that being the elk industry. I wanted to ask the minister--there was some discussion about the different species with the elk and the level of birth rates of the animals that were kept in captivity. I wonder if the minister can indicate the number of cows that were captured in the--well, it would be only the one year that they would have been calved out--what kind of a calf crop there was and whether there were any problems with that particular calf crop? My understanding is that the birth rate was fairly low, so whether the minister can indicate whether there was a problem, or is this normally the level of birth that we see in elk or other nondomestic species that are in captivity?
Mr. Enns: I am delighted to talk about one of Manitoba's newest livestock industries, first of all, to indicate to her that we do have some 72 registered elk farms in Manitoba. When you consider that that is from a standing start just a little over a year ago, that is really quite amazing.
I am advised that, contrary to the honourable member for Swan River's information, in some instances the birth rates were very acceptable in the range of 80 percent, and that as a member who is familiar with the livestock, domestic livestock industry, she would appreciate that that is not bad results at all. Now these are the animals that were dispersed. We do not have the kind of complete data that will be available to us, say, at year's end or even in the fall when we do our first inventory check, but in the main, producers seem to be off to a good start.
I am disappointed in the inability for having been able to bring about a more successful capture this last winter. It is my hope that in the coming winter my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), whose responsibility it is to carry out the capture program to provide the seed stock for this industry, will have resolved some of the difficulties that are still plaguing him in that area, and bring about--we are committed, as the honourable member knows, for several more--you know, two more, three more years of capture. We believe that, without at all damaging the natural and the wild herd, we can carry that out and ensure a good kickstart to the elk industry here.
On a more serious note, I do not take particular pleasure in indicating to the honourable member or to the House that this situation has occurred, but I do want to indicate that a number of charges had been laid against one Mr. Pat Houde for failing to comply with the regulations of this act. The honourable member will indicate that I am not--inappropriate for me to discuss in detail or in greater length. These charges will now proceed to court.
Ms. Wowchuk: I could not hear very clearly all of the minister's answer, but I was asking about not the animals that were dispersed in the last year, but the animals who were kept over one winter at Grunthal. That was the herd I was asking about is what the success rate was of that herd that was kept in captivity.
Mr. Enns: I cast no particular blame for this. We were all on a bit of a learning curve in this area. The ones that we kept over in captivity had disappointing birth rates. We believe that is attributable to several things--the late bringing in of the bulls. I think there was a nutritional factor that my livestock specialists tell me that we were not fully up to speed on in terms of the requirements for putting the animals into a recycling, reproductive position. So, yes, and there is no question--and we have been advised--we have been told from other sources and other jurisdictions, when you capture elk and take elk out of the wild, it is a stressful transition for that animal to accommodate itself to beginning life anew in the corral and behind a fence. Any of these factors will contribute to poor reproduction levels.
* (1610)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the minister has often talked about the growth of the hog industry in this province. I would like to ask the minister if his department can indicate how many hog barns we now have. Are they doing any monitoring of how many hog barns we now have in Manitoba and what level of employment we would have in those barns?
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, there are occasions where I will ask my staff to undertake, as we have done on other occasions in the department, to provide the honourable member for Swan River with a fairly specific updating of the information that we have. I can tell her, in general terms, that the expansion is unabated in Manitoba, that organizations are proceeding, major--some of the significant players, whether it is Hutterian Brethren folk who are major hog producers in the province, producing--about 34 percent, 35 percent of the hogs are produced by that group of farmers and people. They are continuing to expand as their colonies expand.
They have long ago, of course, found out that to shelter themselves from price fluctuations of grain, and things like that, when they put their grains off their 5,000-acre farms through various forms of livestock, whether it is geese, birds, chicken, eggs and hogs, that they have, on a regular basis 85 percent, 90 percent of the grain that they grow on their farms is used by them on the farms. They do not pay CNR or CPR big freight bills for moving grain around; they do not pay the elevator companies big storage charges, $9 a tonne handling charges to have the grain stored in their facilities. No, they feed them directly off the field into their own storage and into value-added forms of agriculture.
I do not want the honourable member to confuse me. I mean there is a difference between a Hutterite and a Mennonite, although some people have trouble making that differentiation, but they are, in many respects, they point, particularly in this post-Crow era, to a way of resolving our issue of what do we do with the huge amounts of feed grain that are now virtually economically, you know, impossible to move out of this province.
I can also indicate to you that other major players like our corporate players, the Elite Swine group, for instance, are planning 60 additional barns this year in the province of Manitoba. I am aware that the other big operator, the Puratone group, are continuing their expansion programs.
We have some indication here of the value of hog production in millions of dollars. In 1994, some $302 million was spent; in 1995, $353 million was spent; this is at the farm level, farm gate; in 1996, $466 million; in 1997, $512 million was spent. So there is this steady growth taking place. I want to indicate and make it very clear, it is not being pushed and promoted by myself or the Department of Agriculture or by my government. It is a reality that producers are making choices of their own of how they best see their way out of a serious dilemma on the farm. We, of course, have a responsibility that, through our extension, through our regulations, it is being done responsibly and properly, that it is done with a concern for the environment, that it is done with concern for sustainability, and it has been done in a way that hopefully will make it more neighbourly friendly, more user friendly, in a way that will allow this industry to flourish.
I just lost one of my biggest supporters in caucus and cabinet. I was hoping to tap into that modest budget of hers so that my Animal Industry Branch could get a few extra dollars in the coming budget, but we will have to wait till next year.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, what I was looking for from the minister, and if his staff could provide us that he had indicated they were prepared to provide some data on the number of barns and the amount of employment, what kind of employment is created in various barns, and the other question that I asked the other day of the minister as well. I do not know whether he has had any opportunity to get that answer, but these are very large barns, many of them. There are going to be jobs created, and I wanted to know whether they fall under the Labour Board or is agriculture exempt from labour standards, or does Workplace Safety and Health come into it and Workers Compensation.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, on the educational question, I regret that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) has just left, but I am delighted that we have worked co-operatively with the Department of Education to provide and are now offering needed and good programs that provide the training and background for young persons who wish to get into the hog business at various levels and various capacities. Some of these positions are providing very attractive jobs in rural Manitoba. I think we have some 1,200 positions at our community colleges, Assiniboine particularly, that are providing these openings. Here is a little bit more on the question of jobs. It is estimated, for instance, for every million market hogs, it requires 300 technical people and 75 barn managers to provide that. These managing jobs are paying $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 annually and the technical jobs, call it labour if you like, something like that, are anywhere in the $16,000, $18,000 to $20,000, $25,000 range for youngsters who up to now have often no other call but to come to the city or elsewhere for a job if they are youngsters in rural Manitoba.
On the question of some of the farm employment regulations, Employment Insurance, for instance. A regulation change in '96, every hour of employment in Canada is insurable. No exemption for farming. It includes family members that you employ in a situation where you would otherwise hire someone to fulfill the position. It is available and it is compulsory.
Labour standards, Workers Compensation. Not relevant to size of operation; may be compulsory in certain types of operation, i.e., where the operation is providing a service for someone else. So I would take it that these corporate barns would be covered under Workers Compensation. Where the operation is providing service to someone else, such as seed cleaning, hauling grain, for someone other than yourself, processing a certain commodity on your farm, et cetera. I would say a lot of investors-owned hogs on a farm would fall into this category. It is an income insurance option. There are two different rates, depending on the type of operation. The straight family operation, as the honourable member for Swan River and I would understand it, the issue of workers compensation is an optional one, one that we can I think voluntarily inscribe for the program. The kind of barns I think that you are specifically referring to would be compulsory. That is what the note says. That is why it is in--it says in some cases. It depends on the ownership structure. I am told that it is voluntary or optional in most instances, but that is liable to change in the future. She asked about the application of the Workplace Safety regs. Yes, they compulsorily apply to these facilities.
* (1620)
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister talks about these jobs for young people in rural Manitoba. I know that there are many people who do not want to come to the city to work. They want to work in rural Manitoba. They come from farm backgrounds; they want to farm. What I am looking for, I want these people who come to work in these farms to have good jobs and to have safe jobs and ensure that they would have the same benefits that urban people have, like vacation pay, pay for overtime and those kinds of benefits. The minister had indicated that the Workplace Safety and Health applies, but the question is: who administers it? Is it administered by the Department of Agriculture or is it administered by the Department of Labour?
Mr. Enns: I think that question would be more appropriately directed to the Department of Labour who has those particular inspections for something like that. But I want to point out, and my staff advises me, that this is not compulsory in many of these situations, although I am advised that, in most instances, they voluntarily subscribe and exceed any of the standards that the regulations call for.
But I want to remind and take this occasion, the honourable member is absolutely right that our rural youth, our young people in rural Manitoba, are entitled to and should have the same kind of protection or have the same kind of opportunity to work in reasonably safe workplaces that we have over the years developed or try to continue to develop and improve for all our people working in Manitoba, that they have a healthy place to work, something like that, but they want something else, Mr. Chairman, and this is very important to understand in this whole debate. They want regular time off, they want to enjoy weekends, they want to enjoy holidays, and this is what is not available to the individual family farmer involved in livestock.
That is why he is disappearing, and that is the biggest reason, not why he is disappearing off the scene. Because if you are that kind of nostalgic and traditional livestock farmer who both she and I would like to call upon or remember, that means having those 40 hogs in the back barn and maybe 10 or 15 cows, maybe even milking a few, and then 250 chickens running around the yard. It is that kind of lifestyle that kept you on the farm seven days a week, 365 days a year, including Christmas and New Year's, and probably most important, the morning after last night's party.
What has happened over the years, the youngsters have come home from colleges, from universities, and they said, Dad, get rid of those 40 cows and get rid of those few chickens. That is what is stopping you from joining that parade that we sometimes enviously watch. I am a little envious when I am running around in my little alfalfa field on my tractor, and I see on the weekends at four o'clock in the afternoon sometimes all my city cousins streaming off to my colleague the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), to their cottage on Lake Manitoba, to begin enjoying the long weekend, and I am still running around the alfalfa field, and when I get home, I have to feed a few chickens.
My greatest chagrin is my dear wife, Eleanor, who has made the tragic mistake of listening to the Minister of Agriculture once too often--you know, when I talk about diversification--and now I have sheep and goats to attend to when I get home. While it was all right with me last fall when I had viewed it as an aid to the maintenance of some of the grass and the brush around the five-acre yardsite, but not my Eleanor. There had to be a ram, and there had to be a buck put into those animals; of course, now little kiddies and little lambies being born. There you have the Minister of Agriculture running out in his nightgown at midnight, making sure that little Mary's lamb is being safely brought into this world, and it sometimes even happens.
Then she made another investment into alternative livestock which was not quite that successful. I refer to it as the airborne division. We bought some surplus peacock from the Winnipeg Zoo, and we were maintaining them in the barn, but doors tend to be left open when they should not be left open and the airborne division just disappeared on us one day. I comfort her and myself that we have given them their freedom. I have even kind of joined the kind of animal rights group in that respect. That maybe gives me some credits with them. Some of them do not like me too much from the days when I was Minister of Natural Resources or that I allowed the elk to be penned in behind fences, but maybe that will give me some credits by letting this airborne division take off into the sunset.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I try to be as explicit in my answers as I can to the issues that are raised.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): The honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), shall we pass the Agricultural Development and Marketing?
3.4. Agricultural Development and Marketing (a) Marketing and Farm Business Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,705,500--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,190,200--pass; (3) Agricultural Societies Grant Assistance $368,400--pass; (4) Other Grant Assistance $82,600--pass.
3.4.(b) Animal Industry (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,582,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $403,600--pass.
3.4.(c) Veterinary Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,716,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $660,800--pass; (3) Grant Assistance - Operating $467,100--pass; (4) Grant Assistance - Capital $300,000--pass.
3.4.(d) Soils and Crops (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,374,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $764,200--pass.
3.4.(e) Irrigation Development $822,500--pass.
Resolution 3.4.: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,438,800 for Agriculture, Agricultural Development and Marketing, (for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999).
3.5. Regional Agricultural Services (a) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,962,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $747,500--pass.
3.5.(b) Southwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,204,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $574,900--pass.
3.5.(c) Central Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,075,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $581,900--pass.
3.5.(d) Eastern/Interlake Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $3,017,200--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,107,800--pass.
3.5.(e) Agricultural Crown Lands (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $591,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $251,500--pass.
3.5.(f) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($68,000)--pass.
Resolution 3.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $13,047,200 for Agriculture, Regional Agricultural Services, (for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999).
3.6. Policy and Economics (a) Economics (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Ms. Wowchuk: What section are you on? I am sorry.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): I am on Section 3.6, Policy and Economics, page 17.
* (1630)
Ms. Wowchuk: In this book? No.
As the livestock industry grows, we talked an awful lot about hog production, but there are also many people who are interested in diversifying and raising more livestock, cattle, that type of animal, but one of the challenges that we have is the ability to acquire more Crown land for pasture use.
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
There are people in my constituency who have been trying very hard to get some agriculture Crown land, but what they find is that there seems to be a policy that land that is now being used for agriculture purposes, if the individual gives it up, it will not be for agricultural use anymore. So I would like to know why the policy is that if you have land that is being used for hay or for pasture right now and if it is not going to stay in the family, if it is going to be leased out to somebody else, there is a risk of that land coming out of agriculture use and going over to Natural Resources use for wildlife habitat.
Mr. Enns: I want to fully agree with the honourable member for Swan River and I, myself, having a modest beef cattle operation at the farm, agree totally with some of my livestock specialists who feel that there is some significant room for growth with the beef cattle here in Manitoba. We are at all-time high records in our beef numbers right now, approaching the 600,000 mature beef cows here in the province of Manitoba. That is higher than we have ever been before. It exceeds the highs that were back in the early '70s, '72-74, when we had numbers approaching that.
We were the one jurisdiction in Canada virtually that maintained these numbers, despite we had three or four difficult years that we had a cyclical downturn in prices. So we are well poised to move that, and I do not particularly like to put target figures. Other people do that for me when we talk about doubling hog production, or some number, but there are those that believe that we could easily sustain a million beef cows in this province.
We will not rival Alberta who have 60 percent of Canada's beef herds in their province, but certainly that kind of an increase would be extremely significant for Manitoba's economic well-being and could, particularly if that is accompanied with greater utilization of our feed to fatten and finish our calves here, rather than sending them to Alberta and elsewhere. My hope certainly would be, it might not come in my time, but certainly to see the creation of a major beef-killing plant back here in Manitoba once again.
When you consider what we had in the '60s and the better part of the first half of the century, we were the Chicago of the North. We had five major plants, upwards to 6,000 people, gainfully employed in St. Boniface: Swifts, Burns, Canada Packers, then major independents like East-West Packing and so forth, to the fact that we now virtually have none. That is something that is a challenge for us in Manitoba and a challenge for us in agriculture, so I agree with her.
I am disturbed. I am advised, my deputy minister tells me that there is no policy change that has taken place that specifically alludes to what the member puts on the table, that is, when a current user of agriculturally designated Crown land leaves it, it is kind of automatically snapped up by the wildlife and then the Department of Natural Resources, then it is taken out of agricultural use. I would ask her to bring some specific examples to our attention, because I do not dispute it, because I am hearing the same kinds of things too often. I have scheduled a meeting with my colleague the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) and let us put it on the table.
If there is a policy or a supposed, a perceived process being carried out in some regions of the province, that is possible. There has always been a bit of a conflict between the departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture. The Department of Natural Resources would like to see all of this Crown land as wildlife management areas and game reserves, and we have to be reasonable about it. I quite frankly want to challenge the department, and I seek the honourable member's support.
We have some 7.5 million acres of the kind of land that could carry substantial cattle herds tucked aside that we do not touch, that are set aside in wildlife management areas. As a former Minister of Natural Resources, nobody has to lecture me about the importance of sustaining our wildlife herds, and I certainly support that policy, but, as a practical rancher and farmer, I am also aware that there is compatibility there simply because some common use of ground by domestic and wild species is quite compatible with good wildlife management.
I think that is a challenge that the government, the Minister of Agriculture should be looking at seriously. That would provide some of that relief valve, if you like, that would enable some of her constituents and others who are planning expansions of their livestock herds to be able to do so on a sustainable basis.
I repeat, over 7.5 million acres have been set aside in what I still call agro-Manitoba as wildlife management areas. Well, there are some exceptions. Some of those are in the further northern areas, but a good portion of them--certainly I, as an Interlaker, you know, see a great deal of that land being set aside like that. I get that criticism as an MLA from that area. Communities say: lookit, we are not against the designation of wildlife management areas, but limited or controlled or partial use of some of these lands for sustenance of the beef industry, in my opinion, could and should be seriously considered.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister says there is no policy. I can tell the minister clearly that there are two people in the Barrows area, and I know the minister is well aware of where Barrows is. You would not expect to have too much agriculture there, but there are some people who are trying to raise cattle in the area and wanting a little bit of land. One piece of land that--an elderly gentleman is hanging onto it and letting them cut hay on this land because, if he lets it go, it is going to go back into maybe it is a wildlife management area, but it is going to go out of agriculture. I have worked through this with people in the Dauphin office and people in the Swan River office. They say, if it is leased, if it goes back, it is going to go back to natural resources; it will not be available for agriculture. These two young men are looking for an additional piece of land in the area. I realize, and the minister knows it, in that area of the province there is not that much land, but surely we should be able to find some way to have a little bit, out of those, what did you say, 700 million acres, a large number of acres. Surely we should be able to work along with them.
We have a similar situation in the Ethelbert area, where an individual had a quarter, there was a quarter of land that was being used for pasture. The farm changed hands, a son-in-law took over the farm and now wants to have that land as pasture. He said he is quite prepared not to cultivate the land and leave it in its natural state for pasture. We know that there is wildlife there, but cows and deer and moose have lived together for years. We do not have to set this particular piece of land aside and prevent somebody from making a living. It fits into what we have been talking about, and that is diversifying.
* (1640)
In this particular area, in the Ethelbert--first of all, in the Barrows area, you cannot grow grain. These guys do not have any, but they want to make a living for themselves. You know we are always encouraging people to try to get on their own feet and provide for their own families on their own, and they are being restricted in that.
In the Ethelbert area, Dennis Burdeniuy is the fellow who wants the land and wants to raise a few cattle to supplement his income. He has taken over a very--the minister talks about a modest farm. Well, this is a modest farm. I am sorry, the gentleman's name is not Dennis Burdeniuy, it is Jim Burdeniuy, a different fellow. But these people want to use the land. They do not want to exploit the land. They want to use it so that they can provide for their families, and it is not happening.
So I am letting the minister know that there is a problem between the two departments, and somehow I would encourage the minister to work it out. I can provide more detail on it. I can get you the exact names of the people.
In Barrows, there is Wallace Genaille, who has been trying for a long time to get some land; the Chamberlains have been trying to get some land and just are getting nowhere. You know, these are very small operations. They have started out with one and two cows. They never intend to even raise 30 cows. They want a little bit of land so they can be farmers and earn some money from it.
So I would say to the minister: what do we have to do? How can we do this? Is he prepared to work with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings)? Should I be providing the exact specifics of these individual cases, then, so that his department can work on them? What suggestions does he give on that?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, senior staff have taken note of the honourable member's comments, and I thank the honourable member for those comments. We will, as I indicated earlier, take the issues seriously and pursue them. We will keep the honourable member informed. If these cases have already been dealt with, are kind of in the system, or if you have been dealing with some of our people in Dauphin or through other ways of contacting the department, their names will be known to us, but, if not, we now have them on the record and we will certainly pursue it.
In general terms, I agree with the honourable member. Look, we have emptied out rural Manitoba massively from 50, 60 years ago. We are, you know, but a quarter of what we once were in terms of intrusion on the landscape, so it is difficult for me to accept that we cannot find a quarter section or a hundred acres for some individuals who choose and wish to raise a modest number of livestock. I have a great deal of empathy for the position put forward by the honourable member.
Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
It is a position that I, perhaps not successfully, but I will continue to argue with some of the wildlife specialists that I was privileged to work with in the Department of Natural Resources who maintained, all too often, adamantly that there is no compatibility between, no compromise between domestic and wildlife species.
All my experience in my 37, 38 years in the south Interlake, the deer come out first in the spring to where my cattle last year grazed it off to get the fresh green shoots as they come out of the ground. They are not in the back where it takes a while for the new grasses to shoot through years of old bottom hays and grasses that they have to fight their way through. It is common knowledge, in my judgment, that some of our wildlife management practices have a lot to answer for.
Our Riding Mountain National Park is no longer a good habitat for wildlife. That is why they are all on our farmers' fields and causing crop depredation because we have not allowed nature, we have not allowed fires to come through these facilities and clean up some of the deadfall, some of the old grasses, to allow regeneration of new willows and new shoots and new things that provide the healthy habitat for livestock. In some instances, a controlled use of these lands by our domestic cattle produces some of that kind of action that in my opinion is beneficial to wildlife. It is a battle that I have not succeeded in winning to date, and I welcome and invite the honourable member for Swan River to help me fight it.
I think particularly in the next few years, some better understanding of the utilization of this kind of land is a legitimate direction for agriculture to proceed with. I hasten to put on the record, because I do not want to alarm my environment or naturalist friends. I do not say that this needs to be done at the expense of the maintenance of good and sound and healthy sustainable wildlife herds.
Ms. Wowchuk: I have to agree with the minister. I think that cattle out on pasture can live in harmony with livestock. If you go to an intense livestock operation where you are going to have a feedlot, then that is a different situation, but the land that we are looking for here is marginal land.
Mr. Enns: Bush pasture.
Ms. Wowchuk: Bush pasture, as the minister says, that if you put cattle on it for a couple of years, you will end up having more pasture or natural habitat for the wild herds to feed on as well, and both will benefit. You certainly cannot get too intense, and certainly there has to be that buffer which is not going to be open for domestic livestock. But the people that I am talking about--and I am sure there are similar situations in the Interlake where they do not want all the land--they are looking for land in close proximity to their farms right now, and I think that work can be done. I am pleased to hear that the minister is prepared to look at ways to address that.
Continuing on in Crown lands, there is a policy, I believe, that allows individuals who are leasing Crown land to purchase it after a certain length of time. I do not know what the restrictions are, but what I have had brought to my attention, I believe I brought this to the minister's attention last year, is the length of time that it is taking to process the purchase of land. I guess it became more of an issue after the wood was all allocated off Crown land for harvesting, and so there was a delay. They did not want to sell that land until they decided how much the wood was worth and things like that, but there are people south of Swan River and the Ethelbert-Garland area, who have been leasing land for some time and want to purchase it and have had applications into purchasing this land for a couple of years now, and nothing is happening with it.
So I want to know if it is agriculture Crown land why there is such a delay in processing these applications. I know in other parts of the province, if an individual is leasing some land and chooses to purchase it, there is a process that they follow through and are able to do that, but there seems to be a problem in other parts of the province.
* (1650)
Mr. Enns: Just a few matters that may be of interest to the honourable member, particularly in the area of Swan River. We are, as a department, doing some experimental work where we have got lands that are being currently harvested for the Louisiana-Pacific particle board plant, and then to see what kind of regime, what kind of regulations need to be developed that would then provide some pasturing opportunities for cattle on these lands.
At the same time, it is the presence of Louisiana-Pacific--and I am not the minister responsible for the administration of our forestry policies, but I am aware, as is the honourable member, that to bring Louisiana-Pacific to the Swan River Valley, they were given allocation rights of certain lands which includes a great deal of Crown lands, and that may be a complicating factor in the sale of those kinds of lands in that area. I am not for certain. I would ask her to pursue this with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), and I will pursue it with the Minister of Natural Resources. Although, again, you are talking about land that is in the agricultural Crown land thing. Well, then I think we have to accept the responsibility, and we will pursue it more diligently. I am aware that there are problems around that that are unduly holding up the sale of these lands.
Just to give the honourable member some indication of the activity in this area, in 1996, for instance, we had received applications for sale of 190 parcels; in '97 for 99 parcels, and 85 parcels were sold, one parcel disallowed. We have sold, in total, since this program started back in '77 some 1,403 parcels of land. Now these are parcels. That could be multiquarter sections that are involved.
The rules are fairly straightforward. Ownership requirement says you have to have been a two-year lessor of the land, and here are the specific conditions. The purchaser must qualify under The Crown Lands Act and The Agricultural Lands Protection Act, that is, he must be a farmer or a cattle producer who is active in the area. The applicant must have held land under a long-term lease for at least two years before an application will be considered for sale. Land must be usable for agriculture and generally be classified or better. That is one of the reasons that often is an obstacle.
The Crown has different reasons for not selling land from time to time--maybe provide to lease it--but we have a land classification group that has people of different disciplines from Natural Resources, from Highways, from Agriculture. They determine if, for instance, a piece of Crown land that a farmer may have leased and pastured his cattle on for many years but has extremely good aggregate deposits on it, when that land comes up for sale, the Department of Highways says, no, it is not in the public interest to sell that land. We may, in the future, need that aggregate. Now that is a little hard to make a farmer understand, but that is I think done and done correctly in pursuing what is indeed the public interest.
Then, finally, if a provision of this land use committee that I speak of disallows a partial sale, there is a cabinet committee called Provincial Land Use Committee that has the final authority for the agriculture Crown land sales program. This is brought then to a subcommittee of cabinet which I am a member of. We have about five members of cabinet who are members of that committee and we deal with, not too many, but we deal with four or five appeals every three or four months that come to us for consideration.
Sale price includes the raw land value plus any capital the province may have invested in the land improvements. Value of the land is derived through a formula using assessment value with the adjustments for such items as forestry value and agricultural development. That policy is in place; it has been in place. I will undertake to do a particular examination of the Swan River area, because it is my belief that there may be some special wrinkles there that the Louisiana-Pacific commitment is creating for our lessors. If so, I want to examine them and then see if they are appropriate or if we were not fully cognizant of what we were signing off on.
I think it is one thing to maintain a commitment to sell certain allocations to a commercial firm like Louisiana-Pacific, but that does not necessarily impact on the ownership of the land. It is the wood supply that we were obligated to provide to a company. If a suitable arrangement can be made, I would see no reason why the landowner who wants to buy it--if Louisiana-Pacific wants to buy the wood, I am sure he will let him sell it, and he will get his land cleared. But, again, I would invite the member that, if she wants to provide us with some specific names, either now or on another occasion, we would be more than welcome to take these issues seriously.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will do that. I will get the specifics and the land locations that the people are trying to buy. I have no problem with putting the value of the wood on the land, because the person who is getting the land is getting the wood. I have no difficulty with that, but I think it is unfair to these people who got into an agriculture lease with the understanding that in two years' time, if they should so choose, they would have the opportunity to buy the land. Their decisions, their plans are being put on hold because of, as the minister says, wrinkles that have developed in the system, but I think it is unfair to them. I would hope that we could work it out, so I will also provide the specifics of that, and perhaps in that way we can resolve this and help those people out.
The minister talked about the ability of an individual to purchase land after they have leased it for a couple of years and the requirements that they have livestock. Are there ever exemptions made to that, that a person does not have to have livestock but is still able to purchase Crown land?
Mr. Enns: The policy is that you have to be in a position to qualify for and meet the criteria that are set out in the rules and regulations with respect to Crown land sales, but there are extenuating circumstances that in some instances allow for some flexibility in this instance. We have had situations where, through no fault of their own, there has been, in some cases, a death in the family; or an estate has been cleaned up and the land has lain bare and empty for a year, in some cases two years and perhaps even more years. These are far and few between, but there have been cases. A case was made to the department that while an estate was being sorted--I know of one particular situation in the Ste. Rose area where this is the case. I was criticized for it and looked at it.
I know that in other instances there were cases where a person was obviously maybe retiring and getting off the land, but he had invested the better part of 25 years of a lot of sweat equity on his part, cleared up stone off Crown land and so forth, and then was positioning himself to retire, and perhaps did not qualify with a sufficient number of cattle on that land when the sale actually was made, but I do not deem them as being transgressions against the policy but having shown some flexibility in the solution.
We have had some particular arguments, of course, and, as often happens, land is land. We have had cases going to the Ombudsman, who has made some critical comment on how the policy is being administered. It is not the easiest call always for our field officials to make when they are out in the field.
* (1700)
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): The hour being five o'clock, it is time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.