Manitoba Hansard — 30 April 2004 (Sitting 30C, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-30c

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LV No. 30C - 10 a.m., Friday, April 30, 2004

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon. Minto N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St.

Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon. Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

1365 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, April 30, 2004 The House met at 10 a.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL INITIATIVES * (10:00) Mr. Chairperson (H arry Schellenberg): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives. Consideration of these Estimates left off on Resolution 3.2. Risk Management and Income Support Programs. The staff can come forward. The floor is open for questions. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Mr. Chairperson, I had a bit of an opportunity last night to talk to a number of producers in the province. This really had nothing to do with crop insurance, but, to say the least, I got an earful last night about the taxation and on property and all those kinds of things.

It appears to me as if there is an organization coming up of an event that might not be very pretty. It has, I believe, Madam Minister, everything to do with the huge drop in income that the agriculture community has seen in this last year. In large part, a number of these producers, I should say two of these producers I talked to last night, felt a sense of abandonment, but not so much from the lack of what government has done and action that government has taken, but because of what they perceive as the deceptive way government has portrayed it.

One of them mentioned specifically advertising $180- million programs when, in fact, many of the cow-calf operators have received virtually nothing, no support at all. I think that is a problem we have, Mr. Chair, in creating expectations and then not delivering on those programs. I think that is unfortunate that happened, and I think it leads to an attitude out there that is not healthy. It leads to a perception of gov- ernment that does not reflect well on all of us. I think the other thing that they are starting to see now, they are getting a bit of an indication as to what kind of legislation is coming down.

One of them specifically referred to The Water Protection Act and the discussion in that act about the minister having the ability to remove whole farm operations from an area that would be seen as no-go zones for the protection of whatever the minister would choose to use as an excuse.

I want to ask the minister this–and I want to do this under the auspices of Crop Insurance because I think this will have a lot to do about the kind of design changes that I see that are going to have to come in much of our programming in the province–if we in fact are going to use ministerial powers or give ministers powers to remove. I think that is tremendously dangerous, quite frankly, from an attitudinal standpoint, because we need good, sound, solid attitudes in rural Manitoba to keep the growth going in that sector.

If we create a negative effect or a negative mindset in agricultural producers and the industry that goes along with it, including the financial institutions that support the industry, I think we are going to find ourselves in a situation that we might not want to be in. So I want to ask the minister whether she has had any discussions or whether she and her col- league, the minister in charge of water now, had any discussions prior to the drafting of The Water Protection Act.

I would like to also ask her what kind of discussion she has had in regard to The Planning Act and many of the changes that are being brought about under The Planning Act. Thirdly, the reason I am asking this at this time is: Has she given any consid eration as to how that will affect the need for some kind of underpinning of the agricultural community, whether that is through the APF program or whether that is through Crop Insurance? I understand the name Crop Insurance is gone. It is now production insurance, is that correct?

1366 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 Has the name changed? It will be the production insurance corporation? Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Let us keep the conversation to the resolution so that it is relevant. Yesterday we agreed to speak to Resolution 3.2. Just a caution. Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minis ter of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Chairman, the program is called production insurance; the name of the corporation is the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation and will remain the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation. Mr. Penner: Well, thank you very much, Madam Minister.

Just so I understand that, I think there is a bit of a misconception out there that the corporation will actually be renamed to a production insurance corporation, and I was of the same opinion, quite frankly, that that might be the case, that there might be a name change. So can the minister then answer the question that I put out there?

Has she had discussions with her Cabinet and/or Cabinet colleagues of the impact of the changes that are coming about in legislation that are going to create significant unknowns to many of the producers in this province, and how will the negative impact of that be reflected in the need for a greater degree of government support and funding through organizations such as the Manitoba Crop Insurance and the federal-provincial governments through CAIS and other programs? * (10:10) Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairperson, the member started out his comments by talking about cow-calf operators not getting any money from the program. I want to tell the member that the programs that were in place were designed in consultation with the Manitoba Cattle Producers, and cow-calf producers did get money from the program. They got money from the Manitoba cow-cull program. They got money from the federal cow-cull program. The Drought Assistance Program was available to cow- calf operators, as well as the feeder assistance because many cow-calf operators were feeding cattle on their farms.

The earlier programs that were designed to move the fat animals out went to some cow-calf operators if they were feeding cattle on their farm, and many of them do on a smaller scale than feedlots, but the other programs were available. With respect to the legislation, I can tell the member that I have had very extensive discussion with my colleagues on The Planning Act and on The Water Protection Act. We have had extensive discussions with Keystone Agriculture Producers, with AMM, the Association of Manitoba Muni- cipalities.

I can also say that I was at a rural forum where Keystone Agriculture Producers, along with a waterfowl association, hosted a discussion on alter- nate land use. As I listened to this discussion, many producers who were in the room talked about the need to do more to protect our water, looking at ways you can take marginal land out of production. Municipalities have been doing development plans and are continuing to work on development plans. So, yes, I have had many and lengthy discussions on this issue. Mr. Penner: That is encouraging from one aspect.

However, I find that relatively interesting because many of the producers are very concerned. When I look at the aquifers that we have in southeast Manitoba and much of eastern Manitoba, and most of them are flowing aquifers, that has been well established, I have to raise the concern that some of the producers in the southeast region have expressed of the ability of a minister to make the decision as to whether operations, or indeed communities, can be moved out of areas that would be deemed as either riparian or impacting our natural water reservoirs, such as aquifers and/or lakes, rivers and streams.

When I read the statement that the Minister of Water (Mr. Ashton) made in regard to how the effect of the streams and rivers feeding our lake systems and how the Churchill Basin watershed area was being affected by runoff and by livestock operations, especially in the southeast area, I have grave con- cerns that this Government and the minister might even consider moving whole communities.

The minister sort of scowls, but put into effect the realization that there are some communities in southeast Manitoba that have tapped into an overflowing well that was giving us a lot of problems back in 1988 when I first became the minister. We looked at that. We stuck three pipes into those over- flowing areas. Since then they have been tapped by communities west of the Landmark area. Those are clearly very significant ar eas in the province where

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1367 natural discharges out of those aquifers are coming from, and water supplies are being drawn from those areas to supply via pipeline water to communities west of the discharge area. There are large livestock operations, many livestock operations, right on top of that aquifer. If I take th e minister's word verbatim, then I would suspect we can expect that the minister will look at that area and make the decision of whether he needs to move even the whole com- munities to protect, as he says, that area and call it a no-go zone.

That act is giving him the right to make that decision. Have you had that discussion, Madam Minister, as a Minister of Agriculture, as to the impact to the agricultural community and the agricultural industry in this province of Manitoba? Have we actually done proper research to define how manure actually is now called a pollutant when not many years ago it was seen as the best organic fertilizer you could buy? Mr. Chair, it is because of this minister and her colleague's rhetoric prior to being elected to government that I think in large

part led to the change in attitude about manure being an organic fertilizer and now being seen as a pollutant, and driven largely by such organizations as Hog Watch, which she was very supportive of way back and I can read her back her speech that she gave in the House. Do you want me to read the exact words that you put on the record? Well, they are all there. Sometimes we have to reflect on what we said in the past. I think, Mr.

Chair, the minister owes the farmers of this province an explanation as to what she is contemplating and how she sees the agricultural community being dealt with by this current NDP government and in legislation that they are putting forward. How will that reflect, Madam Minister, economically, and how will Crop Insurance and others be involved in the compensation packages that would obviously have to be developed?

When farm operations are either downsized or not allowed to use fertility products, and that seems to be the case here, the minister will have the right to say you cannot use fertilizer, or you cannot spread manure on a given area. The minister will have that right. What will that do to the productive values of those properties and how will Crop Insurance be impacted by the reduction of that level of production when those orders come down? Can the minister answer that? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, with respect to Crop Insurance and the acts that the member is referring to, Crop Insurance covers natural losses due to natural perils. If the farmer makes a decision to use less fertilizer, then his production average will go down and Crop Insurance will deal with it as they do now, but we do not anticipate that these two pieces of legislation will have an impact on the operations of Crop Insurance. Mr.

Penner: Well, I am somewhat surprised at the minister's answers because we have never seen a piece of legislation that would allow a minister to order the reduction of fertility products in a given farm operation. We have never seen that before. We have never seen those kinds of powers before. They are called managerial powers, and these two acts clearly allow for that. I do not know how staff feels about that, but it will put staff into a relatively difficult position because they will have to define whether reduction in production is due to ministerial orders, government orders or whether it is a natural cause.

That judgment will have to be made by the corporation and the staff of the corporation. It will put them in a very difficult position, because once the order comes down to not allow fertility products to be put on land, the pro- duction of that land will go down dramatically. There is no question in my mind. What I find most interesting in this whole debate about the protection of water, I think it is largely an excuse, a political one, to drive an agenda, but that is, of course, up to this Government and how they want to portray the agricultural industry.

I think that the portrayal of the agricultural industry is really what is in question here, and how negative that effect will eventually be. Let that be as it may. The minister and her Government will have to bear the brunt of that. Mr. Chair, I think what is really in question here is has government made any consideration of the Crop Insurance Corporation, or have they given any directive to the Crop Insurance Corporation as to how to deal with those kinds of ministerial orders when they come down and how to deal with the reduction in the productive capacity of those farms when those orders do come down.

1368 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 * (10:20) Ms. Wowchuk: The member is talking about a completely hypothetical situation. It is a completely hypothetical situation, and Crop Insurance will con- tinue to operate the way it operates. If a producer uses less fertilizer and thei r production average goes down, and their coverage goes down. The member is not being accurate in his comments and addressing a completely hypothetical situation. Many acts have ministerial powers in them. If he looks at the legislation that his Government passed in other areas, there is ministerial power in them.

I think the member is taking things to an extreme here. I can tell him, as I said, I was at rural forum where Keystone Agricultural Producers and the waterfowl group talked about the need for all of us to look at the quality of our water. There is a recog- nition that our water is a precious resource and some of the water, particularly in Lake Winnipeg, is not in very good condition, and we have to make changes there. These changes will involve all sectors of society but to portray that the minister is going to be making heavy-handed decisions, I think he is being a bit extreme. Mr.

Penner: Clearly, either the minister has not read The Water Protection Act and the ministerial powers given under that act, because never before in the history of this province have we seen a minister being given the right of expropriation without compensation under

an act for entire removal of an industry and/or an agriculture production operation or, for that matter, a community. Never have we seen government taking the right to remove from an area that might be deemed as detrimental to the water quality, never have we seen government having been given the power to remove, clear entire areas of human habitation. That is, apparently, the case under this act. There is no question about that. As a matter of fact, I met with the Keystone Agriculture Producers organization and we went through parts of the act wi th the corporation.

They told me very clearly they had not taken a great deal of time to look at this. They had spent most of their time looking at The Planning Act and they were concerned about many areas of The Planning Act and the powers given under that act. I said take a look under The Water Act and you will see real powers being given. So they are going to do that. They were going to get back to us as soon as they had taken a look at it. They have not gotten back to us yet. So, from an organizational standpoint, we also met with the dairy producers and asked them the same question.

We met with the hog industry and have asked them the same question. From the hog industry and from the dairy industry we got the same reaction, "Sorry, we have not taken a look at that. We did not really reflect a great deal on The Water Protection Act." They thought it was simply water protection. It is much, much deeper than that and we all know that. So, Mr.

Chairperson, I ask the minister: Has she had a significant involvement in developing that act and has she raised the concern of the agricultural community and the ability of the minister to remove very significant numbers of operations from a given area of this province, and how will that affect the agricultural production in this province? Has she given any consideration or was she involved in that discussion? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would encourage the member to talk about The Planning Act when he is in the Intergovernmental Affairs Estimates. The Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr.

Ashton) will be having his Estimates very soon. There will be debate on The Planning Act. I do not know whether the member has asked for a briefing on the act yet, but that is available to him. With respect to Crop Insurance, Mr. Chair, I believe the member is portraying a hypothetical situation, and we do not see the impact that he is portraying on Crop Insurance. I can assure him that I have had very thorough discussions and have been involved with the legislation.

With respect to Crop Insurance that we are discussing now, this Crop Insurance's responsibility is to deal with natural losses due to natural perils. Mr. Penner: I appreciate the candidness of those remarks. I also appreciate the Government's attitude towards the primary producer s in certain areas and taking the right to remove producers at will. If she supports that, that is of course her prerogative and we respect that. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister whether the levels of coverage in crop insurance this year have been lowered because of last year's crop

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1369 prices and forecasted crop pr ices and if she and/or the corporation have given any consideration as to the dramatic increase in prices that we have seen in many of the commodities after the new year? Are they going to reflect and change their coverage rates because of the significant increases in the price of many of the commodities? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the prices are set by the federal government. We get our prices in December, the prices that we always use, year in and year out.

This is set in order to be able to get the information out early enough right across to pro- ducers to make decisions. You cannot change those prices. That is a contractual agreement that the prices that are set are the ones that you use. In some years the prices are set higher th an they actually are. In fact, that is what happened last year. We used the December price and then the price dropped and farmers got paid higher than the actual value of the crop.

This year the price has increased somewhat from the price that was set in December, but there will be no changes in this price just as there was no change last year when there was a drop in the value. It is not a tradition to change the prices. We have a contractual agreement that we have to live by– Mr. Penner: Can the– Ms. Wowchuk: and of course, if I could finish, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: Right. I will let you. Ms. Wowchuk: We still do not know what the price will be by the time the farmers are doing their harvesting.

We all hope that the prices will be higher but you have to make a decision where you are setting your price. The prices have been set, and that is what we will live with. Mr. Penner: Can the minister indicate whether there will be livestock insurance available this year? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chair, there will be no insurance for 2004, but there has been interest in livestock insurance. There has been a review. There was a meeting in Brandon last fall with producers to talk about that and the federal government is doing a review of the information that was collected at that meeting.

It will be discussed for the following year, but for this year there is no livestock insurance. Mr. Penner: Can the minister explain the percentage or give us an indication at what the percentage of increase will be in producer cost sharing those, insuring those levels that were insured previously at the 50% level? What will the percentage of increase be to the producers that were insured at the 50% level until now? * (10:30) Ms. Wowchuk: Last year the producers that took 50% coverage paid no premium but they paid a 25- cent admin cost.

This year they are going to be paying 17 percent of the premium, but they will not have the 25-cent admin cost. So there will be a slight increase over what they were paying previously. But the switch is no change in the admin fee to a premium base. Mr. Penner: Could the minister tell me what the percentage of increase will be? Ms. Wowchuk: Last year the producer paid 31.6 percent. This year they will be paying 36.1 percent. Mr. Penner: Will the minister tell me what the percentage amount constituted last year? What was the actual cost on a per-acre basis? What was it, 36 percent you said?

What was the actual cost per acre of insuring at the 50% coverage level, last year? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, in the total budget which was 1.6 million, the producers' share was 32.6– Mr. Penner: That is not what I am talking about. What I am asking for is I want to know what the cost of an acre of insurance was last year at the 50% level. It was at an admin fee of what, 25 cents an acre? Ms. Wowchuk: The cost last year for the 50% insurance was zero premium but 25 cents per acre administration. That was the cost of the 50% insurance last year. Mr.

Penner: What will the cost be of insuring at that 50% coverage level this year to the producer per acre? Ms. Wowchuk: On average, it will be 65 cents per acre but that will vary from crop to crop, but the average is 65 cents per acre.

1370 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 Mr. Penner: So that is roughly about 130 percent higher than last year, the cost of insuring an acre at 50% level. Ms. Wowchuk: There was about 9.2 million acres insured. There was about 1.8 that were insured at the 50 percent, so when you figure out the average, the member is picking the highest number, because this is averaged out over all of the acres. Mr. Penner: All I am saying is those producers that insured at the 50% level last year are going to see an increase of roughly about 130% increase in costs of insuring at the 50% level. Is that correct? Ms.

Wowchuk: The costs to those people who have been doing the 50% coverage have gone up about two-and-a-half times. They have gone up, but I want the member to also understand that we are required to make these changes as we move forward with the APF. Mr. Penner: So, there will be, Mr. Chairman, a significant number of changes and cost increases as we move into the APF program. Ms. Wowchuk: By 2006, the producer is required to pick up 40 percent of the cost of insurance. So it has to move up. It is the same thing that happens in every other province. Mr.

Penner: It is really irrelevant to me what happens in the other provinces. My jurisdiction is this province and my producers live in Manitoba and operate in Manitoba, and it is your responsibility as minister to make sure that the best interest of the Manitoba farmers are served. I think it is important that we provide the information to farmers that they can do planning for the future based on real numbers and not artificial numbers and incorrect numbers such as happened to the BSE industry when the minister advertised for a long time $180 million had gone to the BSE live- stock producers in this province.

In fact, and we will get into this when MACC comes to the table, much, much less than that was delivered to the farmers, relatively large amounts less than what the minister advertised. I do not want that kind of incorrect information going out to my producers again. I want my producers in this province to have the ability to make decisions on real numbers, on good, sound information that is relevant well enough into the future that we can do some long-term planning.

I think it is about time that government started to do some long-term planning as well and indicate to farmers clearly what the programs are going to be, what they are going to cost and how they are going to be impacted by these new programs.

I have a great deal of concern that some of the underlying things that we have not discussed and have sort of hidden behind the CAIS discussion are the environmental costs, the increases there, some of the planning costs, some of the planning restrictions, some of the legislation that is coming down on water and those restrictions contained within that, the fertility restrictions that are going to be placed on farmers, and the kind of management decisions that government is going to impose on farmers through the minister. I think it is time that the farmers were told the truth.

Can you give me an explanation today as to how some of those things are going to impact our farm community and how will Crop Insurance deal with it? Ms. Wowchuk: During the process of developing the APF we had a very open process of discussion with producers. Producers are well aware that we are moving to a 40%, 40/60 split, and by 2006 producers will be paying 40 percent of the premiums. This was necessary in order to move towards a demand-driven program and we have to have consistency across the country. This is a national program and I beg to differ with the member on the details of the program.

I can tell you that there was discussion with all com- modity groups on this. * (10:40) Mr. Penner: Well, I believe the minister is either out in fairyland somewhere or she does not realize the damage to her reputation that has been done by the advertising campaign that she has led.

Then, getting up at the rural forum the other day and saying to the people at the rural forum that a cash-advance system and a loans program were the same thing, farmers are shrugging their should ers, saying, "Does this minister not know any better?" I believe it is a deliberate attempt to mislead the people of the province of Manitoba. Farmers are very sceptical, they simply do not believe you anymore,

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1371 Madam Minister. I am sorry about that, but that is the way it is. That is your own fault; it is your own deliberate attempt to discredit what you have said and what you are portraying. Mr. Chair, I believe the corporation when they say crop insurance at the lowest level will increase two-and-a-half times. That is being honest and that is what farmers want to hear. They want the honest truth.

They want the simple, honest truth that they can make plans based on reality, not an airy-fairy bunch of numbers that have been put out to raise the image of the Government when, in fact, they are not true. I think it is time that we get some honesty out of this minister's office and that we get some honesty out of the Premier's (Mr. Doer) office. We have seen very little of that lately. I think whether it is in agriculture or whether it is in health care, or whether it is in education, all we get is a simple matter of deceptive kind of rhetoric.

It is time that we get some honest answers out of these ministers' offices. Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to inform the member, if he is not aware of this yet, our board, the Manitoba Crop Insurance Board, holds public meetings. It meets with any commodity group that wants to meet with them and talk about changes to the programs. Each producer has been sent a package about the programs and the costs of the programs. There is full discussion on the issues.

So, for the member to imply that producers have not been informed, he is being inaccurate, because produ cers have each received their package and we had thorough discussion with the producers and commodity groups as we were developing the program and moving through the new risk managements that are under the APF. Mr. Penner: My colleague the Member for Lakeside is wanting to ask a question as well. Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): On page 31 of the Insurance Corporation, Mr. Chair, they make refer- ence to 1.5 million in compensation to producers who incur losses due to big game, waterfowl and livestock predation.

Over on page 32, the wildlife damage compensation is 749,000. Can you explain the discrepancy here for me? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, if you look at it, you have the admin fee, the difference is the federal portion of it that is not recorded here. Mr. Eichler: So this is your 40 percent? Is that what I am led to be understood? Ms. Wowchuk: Yes. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, I want to go back to 32, No. 3 on 32: "The decrease is due to reduction in compensation levels from 100% of losses in 2003/04 to 80% of losses in 2004/05 as well as a decrease in most crop values." Can the minister explain that line? Ms.

Wowchuk: The wildlife damage is now part of the APF and the federal government will only cost- share 80 percent. They will not give any credit for any top-ups. So that is why there is a reduction in the coverage now. Mr. Penner: Well, would the province not have the prerogative of unilaterally paying out the 20 percent between the 80 and the 100? Is there any restriction on that? Ms. Wowchuk: If I recall, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Murray) indicated to us, in his budget comments, that we were spending too much money and that we should look for places where we could save money.

It has been a very difficult bud- get. We want to keep in line with the programs that are offered under the APF and work towards the 60- 40 share that is part of the APF. This is one of the steps that will bring us in line with getting full credit for the costs that we shar e with the federal govern- ment. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for those comments because it gives me an opportunity to read back to her what she said in 1999.

I think the minister referred to the fore cast that we had made in 1999 when we said the provincial government would see an increase of over a billion dollars in revenue through tax increases and/or revenue increases of all kind and that those levels of revenues would rise within the next five years to a billion dollars. We said that we would make sure that the taxpayers of this province would get 50 percent of that back and the rest of it would be invested in such things as health care, education, family service and other matters. Mr.

Chairperson, I think the minister ridiculed, in her speech, the statement that the government of the day made in its forecasting. I think we were dead

1372 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 on. We were more than accurate in our forecasting because I believe the revenue increase to this province has, over the last four year, been better than 1.2 billion, probably closer to 1.3. We projected that, knew that that would happen. The ministers, of course, and the then-opposition party, the NDP, had no way of knowing that, but they could have done a bit of research and, again, put forward an honest position during the election cam- paign.

They chose not to do it and are now, again, being ridiculed by the people, the voters of this province, after having given them a second chance and just portraying the needs of the province being so great. However, I want to say this to you, Madam Minister, you were elected to government and you appointed Cabinet to make real decisions, to make careful decisions. The underpaying of the primary sector– Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to take a moment and remind all honourable members, on both sides of the table, to please address their questions to the Chair.

I respectfully ask for the co- operation of all honourable members in this matter. * (10:50) Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I ap ologize for not having done that. I will, however, direct my com- ments to the Chair. The minister ridiculed the previous government for making the projections of a billion dollars. She did this in a speech to the Assembly and she did this in her own riding and she has done this all over the province, and the people have heard her. However, the honesty of the Progressive Conservative govern- ment of the day I think is very evident in the por- trayal of reality.

I would suggest to the minister that she and her ministerial colleagues that were appointed to govern need to make some hard decisions, that is, where we are going to invest money that will give us the greatest degree of return. Nowhere could they invest it more wisely than in the primary sector that indeed generates a huge amount of revenue for the province, indeed generates a huge amount of jobs for the province and generates an economic benefit to all Manitobans. Mr. Chairperson, some of the losses that are incurred by producers from the wildlife sector are to no fault of the producer .

They are because the province wants to maintain a wildlife herd of elk, deer and other animals, wants to maintain a flock of birds in this province so we can attract the tourism industry. We want to maintain a healthy fish industry. However, this minister chooses to reduce the spending on agriculture at every chance she gets. I believe she is simply not able to convince, has not got the strength in Cabinet to convince, her col- leagues in Cabinet that agriculture is important and/or that wildlife damage should be borne by the general public that benefits by wildlife.

If we make a policy decision then that policy decision must be carried out by the government of the day and supported from a financial positioning of the day. I respect the line that says these are the reasons why, but I think the minister has a choice to make, and that is to underpin to the 100% level the wildlife damages that are incurred by wildlife to the primary producers. Ms. Wowchuk: It is really interesting about the comments about our Government and our support for the agriculture industry. I want to take this oppor- tunity to thank our Premier (Mr.

Doer), to thank the members of our caucus, our Cabinet for the support that they have given me personally through this whole challenging year. I want to give credit to the Premier for the stance he has taken in addressing these every important issues. Mr. Chairperson, the member talks about a reduction in support. I would encourage him to look at the Estimates books on page 30. The Estimates book says last year we spent $78.9 million on Risk Management and Income Support. This year we are spending $81 million. I am sorry, but by my calcu- lation that is an increase in support for business risk management.

The member can talk as much as he wants about our Government not understanding agriculture. I believe in many cases there is a much better under- tanding in the members of our Cabinet and caucus than there are from some of those on the other side of the House. People may not be involved in agri- culture, but they have certainly been ready to learn about the industry and they recognize the value of

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1373 the industry and what the contribution of agriculture is to this province. We are in the APF. We have to get to a 60-40 by 2006. We are moving in that direction. I think the people of Manitoba would want us to use our money in a way that we would best leverage support from the federal government. These changes will help us to get credit from the fe deral government for the federal dollars that are in the program. Mr. Penner: I thank the minister for that response, because finally I think we are getting to the real numbers.

The minister has just admitted that they falsely advertised $180 million to the livestock industry in this province through the BSE and other programs when in fact her whole expenditure was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $70-somewhat million. I think those are honest and real numbers being portrayed by her department. I would suggest to her that she should look at the real numbers in her department and use those real numbers, and when we get into MACC we will go there as well.

But it is, clearly, a portrayal of her Government's misleading approaches to information that they provide to the producers and the general public, not only the producers. I think this is extremely important for the farmers of this Government, to be able to trust their minister. To be able to trust what she says, and what she delivers, is important. But, when she says one thing and delivers another thing, that creates a level of mistrust and not a good, healthy situation for the producers of this province.

I want to warn the minister that they have walked on dangerously thin ice over the last year and it is being reflected in the attitude of the farmers of this province. I want to ask the minister, Mr. Chair, whether the Crop Insurance program will have to be changed significantly to meet the requirements of the CAIS program. Ms. Wowchuk: Before I address that question, I want to address the member's comments about our expenditure. I am really surprised at the member's comments, given that he has been around this building for a long time. He has been, in fact, in Cabinet for a period of time. He should understand.

He has seen many budget books. He should under- stand that this part of the Budget is dealing with risk management and income support programs. This is not dealing with the money that the programs, that we paid out through the BSE crisis. That was one-time funding that we brought in through emergency expenditure because the Budget was set before the BSE crisis. This is the funding for on-going programming. So to say that we are misleading–but the member has a habit of saying that, "Oh, the Government is not putting accurate numbers in the books." He is well aware.

It has been explained fully that the almost $190 million that was made available for producers, the money was made available, some of it through loan programs, some of it through direct payments through the producers. But our Govern- ment stood by the cattle industry and made money available to help them through the crisis. With respect to the linkages, anticipation is that this will be handled the same way that GRIP was handled, so that if a producer chooses not to take crop insurance when they have a claim, it will be settled as though they had taken the option of pro- tecting themselves through crop insurance.

That is with respect to the negative margins. If the negative-margin clause goes through then that will be the linkage that is there. It will be assumed that you have protected yourself by taking crop insurance. * (11:00) Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I think that the minister is coming closer to the truth today than we have seen over the last couple of years from this Government. I stand by what I said and the advertisements will need only be read that are clearly in print and will tell the story.

I suggest to the mini ster that she has a lot to answer for to her producers and the misleading advertising that they have done for purely a political reason, and we do not know why. It certainly was not, I believe, the department's intent to put that kind of misleading information out there and never have I seen that advertising come out of Manitoba Crop Insurance because I think we would have seen a different approach to it. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that her government's political rhetoric and misleading advertising is catching up to them, and will.

Can the minister explain what the impact will be in a given-case scenario, where a payout will have to

1374 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 be made or will be triggered from the CAIS and, should a person be insured in crop insurance, how will the contribution of a crop insurance payment be seen in the calculation of CAIS payouts? Will it be deducted from the CAIS payout? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chair, under CAIS, the crop insurance premium will be counted as an expense and the crop insurance payment will be counted as revenue. That is what the calculation would be. I want to go back to the other comments that the member made with regard to political advertising.

We have looked at records and we know what programs the previous administration used, but there were a lot of things happening. There was a lot of information that needed to be provided. In fact, his colleague the Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire) took out ads in his local newspaper saying that if you want more information about the BSE program, call my office. Mr. Chair, our Government took out ads to indicate to producers what programs were available and the amount of money that was available.

Indeed, we had made available in the range of $180 million, some of it through loans, some of it through direct payments to the producer. I think people very much appreciated being aware of what programs were available and where they could apply. From the information that I have and the producers that I talked to they were appreciative of getting information, because, as I say, they wanted to know what programs were available to them and how they could access them. Mr. Penner: Mr.

Chairman, I thank the minister for that comment, and I thank the minister for refer- encing the advertisement that my honorable member did. I would suggest that if she reflected properly on that, the answers that they got from phoning the minister's office were significantly different than what had been advertised. The advertisements were out there for $15- million programs. When the program was finally finalized, it was 6.3 million. Then the questions came back. Well, how come the program was terminated when the 15 million was not even delivered? That is part of the problem.

That was the biggest part of the problem. That has been a consistent approach that this Government has taken. They tell you one thing, by advertising and portraying programs that they announce, and when the final delivery comes, it is simply not there. The trust that people had in this NDP government has totally disappeared and has largely disappeared for the Minister of Agriculture. There is very little trust out there for you, Madam. That saddens me to say that, because it reflects on all of us as politicians.

Each and every one of us is affected by what you have done in how we as politicians are seen and are portrayed. People are cynical. That saddens me, because we as politicians should at least have the forthrightness with our taxpayers to tell them the way it is. That is our job. If we betray that trust, then how do we expect people to come to the polls and vote for us when we lack the ability to be honest with them? That is the sad part of it. Ms. Wowchuk: I want to correct the record again for the member when he talks about putting in the Province's allocation of $15 million not being paid out.

When we have completed the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program and the Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program, there will be the total share and there are a couple of outstanding issues in the incen- tive component of the program. We will have paid out $14.7 million of the $15 million. So I do not think that the member should mislead people either that we put in place a program that we did not pay out on. Mr. Chairperson, we started out with $15 million on the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program. Money was not flowing in Manitoba. The Manitoba Cattle Producers came to us and said, "We cannot sell our cattle.

Can we change some of this money to the Feeder Assistance Program?" The member opposite may not work with producers that way, but we did. We worked in a very close consultation with the industry on this one. We changed some of the money to the Feeder Assistance Program, but they were always aware that we were working within the $15-million program that was set in place. The provincial approved funds were $15 million and, as I say, by the time we are done with it, with those few outstanding issues, we will have paid $14.7 million. Mr. Penner: Well, Mr.

Chair, I am more confused now than ever, but maybe that is only me. I think the minister is also a bit confused. The Manitoba Feeder

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1375 Assistance Program , the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program was a $460-million program with 40 percent required to be paid by the provinces. The Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program, the total amount of federal and provincial funding that was put out was $18 million, according to you, the numbers I got out of your office. The number of animals slaughtered approved under the program was approximately 38 904. According to your numbers, the paid-out portion was $7.8 million from Manitoba. The amount announced was $460 million.

Combin- ing federal and provincial contributions at 40 percent would be $184 million required from the provinces of that $460 million. Now, 10 percent of that was $18 million, right? Roughly our industry is about 10 percent of the national average. That is the federal one. You go back to the Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program, when the Premier withdrew from the Canada- Manitoba BSE Recovery Program. He withdrew from that, he said, because it was not working for Manitoba. You, Madam Minister, also said it was not working for Manitoba producers. Those are your words.

So you withdrew from the program and announced a $15-million Manitoba Feeder Assist- ance Program. Of that Manitoba $15 million, Madam Minister, you delivered $6.2 million Manitoba-only because it was only a Manitoba program, 6.2, not 6.3, as I said before. You are correct, I made a mistake. It was 6.2, not 6.3. Those are your numbers, Madam Minister, not mine. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would like to take a moment and remind all honourable members on both sides of the table, please address their questions through the Chair. Again, please address your questions through the Chair.

I respectfully ask for the co-operation of all honourable members in this matter. Thank you. * (11:10) Ms. Wowchuk: The member talks about an allocation by Province. We did not get an allocation by Province. This is what we asked the federal government for. The member said that 10 percent of the industry was in Manitoba so we should have 10 percent of the money. We tried to get an allocation. The federal government would not agree to that. Mr. Chairperson, the slaughter deficiency component of the program was $18.2 million plus administration.

The Manitoba BSE Recovery Pro- gram, the slaughter deficiency component had a total payment of $18.2 million plus .2 for administration for a total of 18.6. The federal share of that was 11.2. The provincial share was 7.4. When you add the packing incentive program, we get to $8.2 million. That is what the provincial share was. On the Feeder Assistance Program, Mr. Chair, which was part of that program, as I indicated in the past and I will repeat again, the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association came to us and said, "The program is not working for us. We cannot get ani- mals into slaughter.

Will you change the program to allow for a feeder assistance program?" Within the program we then did a Feeder Assistance Program. On that we spent $6.5 million for a total of $14.7 million, which I think is pretty close to the $15 mil- lion that was allocated for the program. Mr. Penner: I get back to where we were before.

I think what the minister just spoke into the record is going to be read by farmers and going to confuse them even further, because what she is doing is combining the federal-provincial program that was announced initially, which the Province withdrew from and then said they were doing a special draw from Treasury Board by warrant of $17 million. Those were the news releases.

Of $17 million, $15 million would be the feeder assistance program, $2 million would be to enhance and promote and pro- vide special funding, additional funding, to promote development of home-grown processing and restruc- turing of the cattle industry. We have not seen one plant utilize money to expand their operation. That is neither here nor there, but the problem was that there was a special program announced, $15 million for feeder assistance, $2 million for slaughter enhancement and home-grown processing.

Marketing, I think, was included in that if I remember correctly, and the minister is now trying to portray the payout of $6.2 million, add that to the $7.8 million and portray it as a $14-million payout. How much more misleading does she want to be? I think it is unfortunate that this Government has continued with those kind of misleading tactics to try and portray something that is not there. I am saddened by it. Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. Both sides have used the word "misleading." It could be, it depends

1376 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 how it is used, parliamentary, it could be unpar- liamentary. It is on the border. I would like to take a moment to caution all honourable members on their language here in committee today. While I recognize that at times discussion in committee can become heated, I would ask that members keep their remarks tempered and worthy of this Assembly and the office that we all hold. Thank you. Mr.

Penner: Well, can I ask the Chairperson then how do you portray or what language would you like me to use to say the minister is wrong and is putting words on the record that are misleading? How else would you want me to portray this. Misleading is misleading, and I am sorry. She is wrong in her remarks she made, and that has to be corrected or else that will stay out in the general public, Mr. Chairman, and the people will read this and say, "Well, where did that money stay?" There were two programs.

One delivered 7.8; the other program, when they withdrew from the federal and provincial program, was initiated at 15 million, which delivered 6.2. These are the minister's own department's numbers. How can she try and roll those into one now? Again, I think it is unfortunate that the minister is attempting to portray this as a $14-million or better-than-$14-million payment to producers when it was only 7.8. Sorry about that. My arithmetic does not work that way, neither does my calculator. All I am asking for is honesty, Mr. Chairperson.

All I am asking for is blatant, honest answers so that the people of Manitoba can see what actually happened. I do not want all this airy-fairy stuff. Mr. Chairperson: I just want to say that we could use statements like "difference of opinion," "inac- curate statements." The word "misleading" can cause disruptions. It is on the borderline. I am not ruling it as unparliamentary, but it is on the borderline. Just a caution. Ms. Wowchuk: The member may not understand this but the producers understand. I can assure you that producers understand. We had the Canada- Manitoba BSE Recovery Program.

That program was developed when the BSE crisis started and people could not get their cattle to market. They asked for some support to get them to slaughter. Mr. Chairperson, the program was not working in Manitoba because we do not have slaughter capacity and our animals were not getting into the packing plants in Alberta and so producers came back to us and said, "The program is not working. Money is not flowing to the producers." In fact, when we made the change, very few animals had flown. They asked us for feeder assistance. They did not ask us for new money.

They asked us if we would re-profile the money that was in the BSE Recovery Program, which was the federal-provincial program. We reprofiled it, Mr. Chair. We took Manitoba's money and created the feeder assistance program, and under that program, we paid $6.5 million to producers in Manitoba, strictly provincial money. Under the BSE Recovery Program, the slaughter- deficiency component and the inventory price incen- tive component, we will pay out $8.2 million.

That brings us to a total of $14.7 million under the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program and we had budgeted, we anticipated our share would be about $15 million. We ended up paying out $14.7 million under that program. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, this is the last statement I am going to make, and this is again according to the minister's number. The Canada- Manitoba BSE Recovery Program totalled $18 million federal-provincial funding. The number of animals slaughtered were 38,904. The average pay- ment per animal $18 million divide by 38,904 was $462.

Paid-out portion 40 percent Manitoba was $7.8 million under that $18 million program. Mr. Chair, $7.8 million. Sorry about that, that is the way it comes out. Then the minister withdrew from the program. Then she reconfigured the pro- gram and they announced $15 million which they said was moved out of the Canada, was Manitoba's portion that was moved into the Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program. That was the announcement. That was a news release. They approved $15 million from the Canada-Manitoba BSE program and an- nounced it as a Manitoba one. That program, Mr. Chairperson, paid out $6.2 million.

If I add $6.2 million and $7.8 million that is $14 million that has been paid out under both

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1377 programs. But the announcements were, to the general public, $18 million first and $15 million again. That is $33 million. It was only $14 million that was delivered. Mr. Chairperson, all I am saying is you announce $15 million under the Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program and you paid out $6.2 million. No more than that. Sorry about it. You announce $2 million as a slaughter assistance program to the slaughter houses and to promote Manitoba beef and I do not know how much of that has been paid out. That is reality. Mr.

Chairperson, if the minister cannot do her own numbers, then I have difficulty not asking her again for her resignation as I have done a few times in the House. But this is clearly– * (11:20) Ms. Wowchuk: It is the member who has just spoken who is not understanding what happened. We were very clear. I have the same paper that he has in his hand, and it says Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program reconfigured program within Manitoba's approved $15 million from the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program. [interjection] Mr. Chairperson: Order. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want people in this room and people across Manitoba to know that the total program, if you add up the federal and the provincial program, $27 million went in to producers' hands. Producers were facing serious challenges. They continue to face significant chal- lenges. But $27 million in federal and provincial support went into it. We tried to get the federal government to cost- share the Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program. They would not. That is why that program is only funded by the federal government–by the provincial govern- ment, I should say, not the federal government. Mr.

Chairperson, I would encourage the member to read the notes that were provided for him. I can tell you that there has been some change because there have been additional payments that had been made and administration is not included. But, if you read these notes, you will see that Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program is a reconfigured program within Manitoba's approved $15 million from the Canada- Manitoba BSE Recovery Program. He may not understand that but when the cattle producers were in meetings with us, they understood that.

The cattle producers also approved the exten- tion, Manitoba's Slaughter Deficiency Program , which Manitoba put in place. They also appreciated the Drought Assistance Program that we put in place and the cull-cow program that we put in place before other provinces and before, before the federal gov- ernment, I should say. They also appreciate the loan programs that we have put in place. In fact, people are still accessing that program. Mr. Penner: Well, thank you very much, Mr.

Chairperson, and now she has got me more confused than ever, because there is $18 million at the top of the page, and then there is $15 million. Then there is the Manitoba Slaughter Deficiency Program; there is another $10 million. All those three are now part of this equation of the $14 million. Or how does the minister configure that one? It is also an extension of the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chair, the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program and the Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program are part of the first program that was put up, the $15 million.

The Manitoba Slaughter Deficiency Program was a Manitoba-only program, which we put in place only without the federal government, to continue to support our producers. Mr. Penner: Then why is the minister saying it is an extension of the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program? Why is the minister saying that? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chair, the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program came to an end. We decided to extend it. We had hoped that the federal govern- ment would contribute to that program as well, so it is just a time extension.

We allocated $10 million there, the federal government did not come on board with us, we spent $9.6 million when you include the administration. Mr. Penner: The more we get into it, the more it is obvious that the minister is trying to cover her political tracks, and I will just end with one comment

1378 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 and that is, "Oh, what tangled webs we weave when we try to deceive," and I think the minister has clearly demonstrated that today in her responses. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I think that it is unparliamentary. I believe he used the word "deceive," and I take exception to that comment. I have never attempted to deceive anyone. I have worked very hard with the producers, and I think the producers of Manitoba appreciate far more what we have done for them than the member is trying to indicate here.

During the height of this crisis, we met with the producers on a weekly basis and continue to have discussions with them, but certainly, the programs that we have put in place have helped the producers of this province. Mr. Chairperson: I would like to take a moment here to caution all honourable members on their language in committee here today. I would caution about using the word "deceive." While I recognize that at times discussions get heated, I would like you to keep your remarks tempered and worthy of this Assembly and the office we all hold.

So I would caution all people the way they use the word "deceive" or use it here in this debate. * (11:30) Mr. Eichler: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of everybody to kind of calm down a little bit, maybe the minister could just put on the record exactly where her $180-million calculation came from with her announcements of $18 million, $15 million, $10 million, $2 million and so on. Maybe she should just lay that on the table because that seems to be the real crunch of the problem. We do know what she has paid out through the federal program, what she has paid out through the provincial program.

To me, it seems as if the programs are very much overlapped, and the figures that have been announced are somewhat misleading, Mr. Chairman. If she would do that, I think it may come around to clearing the minister of any wrongdoing. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chair, I will refer to the programs that are being delivered by the Crop Insurance Corporation, the various programs under the Canada-Manitoba BSE Recovery Program and the Manitoba Feeder Assistance Program. The total program was $27 million, Mr. Chair. The provincial share was $14.7 million. Under the Slaughter Deficiency Program we allocated $10 mil- lion.

The total program paid out $9.6 million. Under the Manitoba Drought Assistance Program we put in place $12 million. Under the Manitoba Cull Animal Program we put in place $6 million. Mr. Penner: Could the minister tell us what she paid out under the Drought Assistance Program? Ms. Wowchuk: Yes, sorry. We paid out $4.2 million under the Drought Assistance Program. Under the Manitoba Cull Animal Program we put in place $6 million, I believe; of the $6 million and we paid out $5.3 million. Under the dead stock removal program, we put in place–I believe we put in $600,000. We have paid $400,000 out of it. Mr.

Penner: Can the minister tell me whether the dead stock pickup program has been terminated? Ms. Wowchuk: Everything that is booked has already been picked up, so we anticipate that by the end of month it will be completed. My understanding is that we have picked up a fairly large number of animals and there are very few additional bookings. Mr. Penner: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I received three calls yesterday from producers saying they were surprised that the program had been terminated, and they had fairly significant numbers of dead stock in their yards and were not able to have it picked up.

I suggested to them that they should call Rothesay and pay the price to get it picked up. Quite frankly, one of them was already digging a hole and burying them. So I do not know whether we want that sort of a situation in the province, all over the province, where dead animals are being buried on farms and/or dealt with some other way, or just left there. I think that is a danger. I would suggest to the minister that she reconsider reopening that program if it has been teterminated to ensure that all dead stock is moved. We will have more dead stock as the summer goes on and the borders remain closed.

I would suggest that this should be an ongoing program to help producers get rid of the stock, or else where are you

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1379 going to put it. It is going to end up in the backyards being buried. I do not think that is environmentally friendly. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated that people who had registered their dead stock, it is my understanding that those have been picked up. If the member has names of individuals who have not had their stock picked up I would ask him to pass on that they should call Rothesay. There is still money avail- able in the program. Call Rothesay and have them picked up.

We all know that this is an important issue, but I can also tell the member that there are plans in place and discussions taking place with the municipalities of how we will deal with dead stock on an ongoing basis. There are new ventures that people are looking at and how they might be able to be involved in this process. But with the particular people that he has raised, I would encourage them to call Rothesay or share those names with me and we can address it. Mr. Penner: The people that I talked to yesterday had called Rothesay and they said that the program had ended.

As a matter of fact, the Rothesay truck drove right by this one person's farmyard on the way to another person. I guess this person had not booked previously and I guess when he heard the termination announcement of the program, he made a call to Rothesay and they said, "Sorry, the program has ended." So, if the minister has any different advice for the producers, I think she should make sure that the producers are aware of that. Ms. Wowchuk: Again I would ask the member to provide us with the names of those individuals and we will see what we can do to help them. Mr. Penner: Mr.

Chairperson, I want to indicate to the minister that I think that is all that we have on the BSE situation with the Crop Insurance Corporation. I want to, however, Mr. Chair, ask whether the hail insurance that will be subscribed to by many farmers, and any payouts from a private hail insurance company to the farmer, will that also be considered income to the CAIS program or will those deductions be made from the CAIS payout as well? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the premium will be considered an expense, and the payout will be considered income. Mr.

Penner: I wonder whether the Government is recommending that farmers should buy hail insur- ance and whether they should be enrolled in crop insurance in light of the fact that the CAIS program covers the global amount of the margins that have been indicated, the long-term margins. One would wonder what the actual net impact will be to the farm operation let us say over a two or three year period, whether the premiums might, in fact, be net costs to the farmer, or whether there might actually be a net benefit to farmers other than maintaining their margin levels at a higher level.

If you roll this into year after year after year of crop insurance participation and/or hail insurance participation and the cost to the producer, I wonder at the end of a five-year program if any calculations have been done to see whether the producer might, in fact, be better off not subscribing to crop insurance and/or hail insurance because the margins will be maintained. For no other purposes–and I should say maybe the only benefit is to maintain the margin levels at a higher level. I do not know. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, producers have always recognized crop insurance as a very impor- tant tool, a tool that offers very good protection, and I would hope that producers would continue to recognize the value of it, particularly based on the discussion that we had earlier this morning, with the linkages between crop insurance and the CAIS program. There is the need for that extra protection that you will not have if you do not carry crop insurance. That helps to cover the cash costs that producers have. So, I see crop insurance as a very valuable program.

When I listen to what the various banking institutes are talking about CAIS, certainly they are recommending that they participate in CAIS as well. There are improvements in this program compared to what we had under the previous program. By pur- chasing the production insurance, this helps maintain some of the CAIS refere nce margin. Crop insurance is also required for people who want to take their spring cash advances. So there are reasons to continue to stay in crop insurance. Certainly, I would hope that we would see participation in CAIS as well because it is an enhancement.

It is a protection for the producers. If the farmer wants to be fully protected, and that is what farmers are looking for, they have to be in

1380 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 both programs because without being in crop insurance there is that margin that will not be covered under CAIS. Mr. Penner: Is the minister, then, telling us that they are considering mandatory crop insurance involve- ment by all producers? * (11:40) Ms. Wowchuk: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that the farmer will make the decision. The farmer will make the business decision on what kind of protection they want to take for themselves.

They will make the decision of whether they just want to have CAIS, with the understanding that if they do not take crop insurance there is a portion that will not be covered. Ultimately, it is a business decision that the farmer will make. Mr. Penner: I concur with what the minister said. It will be a business decision.

I think farmers will make the decision whether they should spend an extra $10 to $15 an acre buying crop insurance and hail insurance and the only end-of-the-program benefit that they will have had is maintaining a higher mar- gin level because the deduction of the contributions by the Crop Insurance Corporation to a downturn in yields will be deducted from the CAIS payout as well as, if there is a hail go through the farm, the hail insurance payouts will be deducted from the CAIS program.

Therefore the only benefit at the end of the day, at the end of the year, will be the maintenance of the margin levels at a given level. Secondly, the other benefit is that the farmer will get cash in hand earlier than they will th rough the CAIS program. Those are the only true benefits that I can see: the maintenance of the margin levels over the long period of time and the cash in hand earlier on in the year. I think farmers will have to make the business decision whether they are going to spend the $10 to $15 an acre to keep those margin levels at a signifi- cant level.

For a farmer with, 4000 acres, that is a $60,000 touch. I think the business decision will be made on the availability of cash to make those decisions. Ms. Wowchuk: I do not think that the member is being accurate in what he is saying because crop insurance covers all parts of the producers' losses. CAIS covers a percentage of them. It will help maintain average, as the member has indicated, but if the farmer does not have crop insurance, then there are those cash costs that will not be covered. It will be the positive margin that is covered under CAIS, but negative margin will not be covered.

If you look at a farmer having total loss of his farm, if he does not have crop insurance, he will only get the coverage that is covered by CAIS but he will not get the part that would have been covered by crop insurance. That is the discussion we had earlier about the linkage. Your crop insurance is linked to your CAIS. You will have to take into consideration how you could have protected yourself and that will be accounted for so I see an advantage to having both crop insurance and CAIS. Mr. Penner: Thank you very much.

We have asked this question time and time again: Will the Province of Manitoba cover negative margins? I think we have just heard the answer. If the farmers are willing to pay the premium, we will cover the negative margins through crop insurance. That, in my view, Mr. Chair, forces Manitoba farmers to seriously consider buying into crop insurance. Again I say, Mr. Chair, that farmers will have to make the decision whether they want to take the gamble.

It is almost like asking farmers to put money into a slot machine to pay $10 to $15 an acre and take the gamble to see whether there will be a payout on the $10 to $15 an acre of premium that they are going to be paying. To do what? To cover the nega- tive margins which other provinces will be covering under their programs. I think it is unfortunate that this Government is trying to use a premium-payment process to cover negative margins. I will leave it at that. Ms. Wowchuk: Again, the member is wrong. The program will be a national program.

If there is an agreement to cover negative margins, they will be covered the same in every province. At this point there is not that agreement. Nobody has that program to this point. Mr. Penner: Well, thank you, but it was very clear from the minister's comments, or is she saying that negative margins will only be covered through the application or the subscription to the crop insurance program in this province, or is she saying that all provinces will be required to buy crop insurance if they want negative margin coverage?

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1381 Ms. Wowchuk: Nothing is changing in crop insurance. Negative margins related to production costs have always been covered by crop insurance and that is what happens right across the country. That is the kind of program we have. Negative margins related to price declines and issues like that will be covered under CAIS, if there is an agreement by provinces to move forward with negative margin coverage. But what is in crop insurance now will continue to stay in crop insur- ance. Producers will make a decision whether they want to be in crop insurance and in CAIS.

If they are not in crop insurance, that is where an adjustment will be made because they are not participating. There is that kind of linkage between the programs. So, if you are not in crop insurance, your negative margins for production losses will not be covered, as it is now. That is where the linkage comes in. But, if you are in CAIS, you will get your negative margins covered for price losses. * (11:50) Mr. Penner: Well, then I think, Mr. Chairperson, we have had our final question on crop insurance.

I think we have a clear answer that if farmers in this province want full negative margin coverage, they are going to have to buy crop insurance. That is very obvious, and that again is a government decision that the Government has made. But I believe that will only pertain to this Government and we will see what kind of negotiated settlement comes out of the dis- cussions that are there. I find it extremely unfortunate that governments cannot make up their minds as to what kind of program they want to deliver before they require farmers to sign on to the program.

I was quite pleased that the federal minister decided to allow for a June delay for farmers to finalize their com- mitments. However, it does create a significant amount of uncertainty in the farm community at the present time. They have no idea whether there is going to be a CAIS program or there is not going to be a CAIS program, and what it is going to look like at the end of the day. I think that is unfortunate. But it is, I guess, an ability of ministers to be able to negotiate and come to terms with their federal counterparts.

I would suspect that that is one of the key problems that we have had and seen in the last five years of the NDP administration. So be it. It is very clear that farmers in this province want full negative margin coverage, even if there is an agreement by the federal government to cover negative margins. That will only be price fluctuation negative margins according to our minister, and that the negative margins reduced production levels will be deemed to be a management decision on their own farms.

So I guess weather-related kind of crop reductions would only be covered under negative margins, and there would be deductions made on the decision that the farmers made not to be in crop insurance. I find that kind of a response a very uncertain kind of response. I find it very interesting that the minister would even want to put that on the record. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, this is a national program with national rules. There are no different rules applying to Manitoba than there are to any other provinces. With respect to the linkage, this is a national decision that will be made for all provinces.

There is nothing different happening in Manitoba than is happening in other provinces. There is a tool for producers to make a decision to protect them- selves under crop insurance. If they choose not to protect themselves under crop insurance, I do not think producers would expect that they would get full coverage under another program. That is the purpose of the linkage. I think the linkage is the right decision to be made. The member is talking about the cost of negative margins. It is producer groups who are asking for additional costs, to have the negative margin.

They have said they would be willing to pay for negative margins coverage. They have asked. An Honourable Member: Which producer organi- zations said that? You name it. Ms. Wowchuk: Producer groups have been wanting negative margins. An Honourable Member: Which ones? Mr. Chairperson: The speaker has the floor right now. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the member would follow some of the farm leaders, he will know that this is one of the key issues that has been raised by farm organizations. Listen to farm

1382 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 leaders like from CFA, from the corn producers. They have all indicated that they would like to see negative margins. To say that producers do not want negative margins, I recall discussion s that I have had, there are producers that would like to see negative margins covered. I am, in fact, anticipating that is what the member opposite is also asking for when he is asking us why we are not signing on to the negative margin portion of the amendment of the APF. We have an APF agreement in this province.

There is an amendment that is on the table that will introduce coverage of negative margins. I assumed that the member was supportive of that, given the questions he has asked in the House. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, a few minutes ago the minister said farm organizations were calling for negative margins and were willing to pay extra for it. Name the organization that said that. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairperson, I have had a lot of discussions with producers who have asked and encouraged us to participate in negative margins and I would assume that the member opposite also sup- ports coverage of negative margins, given the fact that a couple of times now, when he has asked them a question on agriculture, he has asked about nega- tive margins and raising the cap on payments as well. Mr. Penner: I will ask one more time. The minister said producer groups had indicated their willingness to pay premiums for negative margins.

Who are the farm organizations that said that, that they were willing to pay premiums for negative margin cover- age? Name the organizations. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairperson, farmers are very good businesspeople. They make decisions and I do not anticipate that there ar e any producers that think they would get additional coverage without some premium being paid. Mr. Penner: Name the organization, Madam Minister. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairperson, I have answered the question. If the member has another question, I would be prepared to answer it. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, that will be all.

We are willing to move to the Agricultural Credit Corpo- ration as the minister indicated yesterday. Mr. Chairperson: I would just like to ask the members here of the committee, "Are we complete with Resolution 3.2 Risk Management and Income Support Programs?" Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, I do not believe that we want to vote on any of these or pass any of these bills until the end of the Estimates process. We might want to, at some point in time, come back and ask these questions. So we will not pass these lines until we have finalized the Estimates process in agriculture. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, we came to an agreement with the member opposite that we would deal with the corporations at the beginning so that we could have staff here that are from out of the city. The member has said he has completed his ques- tioning on the corporation, and I think it is the proper process to proceed to pass that line and then move on to the next line. If the member has questions that arise later, we would be quite prepared to add to them, but I think that to give certainty to the staff who are from out of town we should pass this particular line. * (12:00) Mr.

Chairperson: The committee has to agree if you want a global discussion and pass the resolution at the end, or go from start to finish, line by line, or resolution by resolution. The committee should come to an agreement on this issue. Is it the will of the committee to go global and pass all the resolutions at the end? Is that the will of the committee? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, I want to be clear that I am prepared to go global, but, out of respect for staff and for sa ving costs, I want the member to know that I am not prepared to have staff come from out of town every day of Estimates to answer ques- tions and sit here and wait to see whether he might decide he wants to ask some additional detailed questions on crop insurance or the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I think that is completely disrespectful for staff and when we consider the costs.

I am prepared to go global, but I want the member to know that there will not be staff sitting here to be at his whim when he might want to go back to those questions. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairperson, obviously, the minister has not been here as long as some of us have

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1383 been here, but never have we requested, when we went global in various departments from over the years that we have been here, all staff to sit here throughout the Estimates process. The minister knows that, and she is just being frivolous with her remarks. I think it is unfortunate that she takes that approach, but let her. We will notify her in advance if we have any further questions from crop insurance.

We will also notify her in all other areas in advance whether there are any other questions that we want answered, and if we have, then one or two of the staff might come back. If not, her deputy minister might have the ability to answer them if the minister does not have the ability to answer the questions. You would think that as long as she has been the minister now, almost five years, that she might have enough knowledge to be able to answer some of the questions without staff, even. But, obviously, that is not the case, and we respect that.

Not all ministers have the same amount of knowledge and ability to retain knowledg We will make sure that the minister will be notified well in advance, Mr. Chairperson, that if there are further questions with regard to the CAIS program and/or crop insurance that we believe Crop Insurance needs to be invo lved in those discussions, we will notify the minister with adequate time to bring them back here. I hear the minister saying we will not bring staff back, and I respect that, too. All I am saying, then, the minister will have the answers for us. I have no problem with that. Mr.

Chairperson: Let us just clarify how we are going to do things. Is it the will of the committee to have a global discussion and vote on the resolution at the end, but you will notify– Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to just clarify for the record that we are prepared to go global. I do not think we have to go into the other details. We are prepared to go global. Mr. Chairperson: I will state the question again: Is it the will of the committee to go global and have the resolutions passed at the end?

Is that the will of the committee? [Agreed] The floor is open for qu estions, but I assume we will go on with Resolution 3.3 Agricultural Credit Corporation. Is that correct? [Agreed] The floor is open for questions. Mr. Penner: We have been told on numerous occasions through advertisements and other means that the Province of Manitoba has put in place $100 million for loans to be approved due to the BSE crisis and to support farmers. We had, Mr.

Chairperson, indicated clearly at the outset, that we thought one of the best ways to address the BSE crisis and the shortfall in revenues was to put in place a cash advance system similar to what had been used in the grains-oilseed sector and many of the specialty crop sectors su ch as corn, sunflowers and others, and I believe even beans are now, although I am not quite positive of that, whether beans are registered now for cash advances. But, obviously, the minister chose not to do that and decided rather to put out revenue-bearing loans to farmers.

I would like to ask the minister, when I look at her Estimates, where she has made the provisions and where she has made the indication that the $100 million was put in place through the Agricultural Credit Corporation for the extension of the loans to the cattle producers. Under what line here is that indicated, and will those loans be continued to the cattle producers under this current budget year? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, that provision is made under loan authority, and what has to be provided for is a level of what the possible losses are.

So it is under loan authority that the corporation has the ability to put forward this very important pro- gram that we have put in place for the producers. Mr. Penner: Well, could the minister tell me what the total loan authority is for the MACC corporation right now? Ms. Wowchuk: They have the ability to provide loan and loan guarantee profiled in the range of $575 million. That is what they have the ability to lend. The loan authority requirement for this year is $198.4 million. Mr. Penner: Can the minister tell me exactly how much has been extended under the BSE program to farmers? Ms.

Wowchuk: As of April 26, under the BSE Recovery Program, $59 million has been loaned out. There continue to be applications that are reviewed on an ongoing basis.

1384 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 * (12:10) Mr. Penner: Have any of the loans been repaid to this point? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that any of the loans have been paid back. I would be able to get the member more details on that. How- ever, there are some peopl e who have loans who are looking to extend their loan into the higher level. Mr. Penner: Can the minister indicate to this committee what the interest rates on those loans are right now? Ms.

Wowchuk: For the first year, th e interest rate is set at MACC's one-year cost of borrowing when the program was initiated at 3.25 percent. There is an additional 1% reduction if the producer is under 40. Mr. Penner: That brings me to the question that I was going to ask. What is the Young Farmer Rebate program today? What is the interest rate reduction on the Young Farmer Rebate program today? Ms. Wowchuk: The interest rate that the young farmer gets, he is eligible to receive a 2% rebate on the first $100,000 of an MACC loan for the first five full years of payment and principal and interest.

Whatever the going rate is there is a 2% rebate. Mr. Penner: Can the minister tell me when the interest rate rebate reduction took place? The interest rate rebate was higher than 2 percent a number of years ago. Ms. Wowchuk: The interest rate, rebate rate has not changed for young farmers. It was set at 2 percent and the rebate has not changed. If there is something different to that, I will report to the member at our next day's Estimates, but I do not believe that the interest rate has changed. Mr. Penner: So any producer over 40 years of age is paying 3.25% interest on the BSE loans? Ms.

Wowchuk: On the BSE recovery loan, yes, anyone over 40 will be paying 3.2 percent for the first year. A producer under 40 at the time of application will have a further reduction of 1 percent. The interest rate in the second year will be set at 1.5 less than the MACC's prevailing one-year term rate, effective on the first anniversary of the program. The interest rate for the young producer will be reduced a further 1 percent. Mr. Penner: So that means that the interest rate will actually drop the second year into the program. Ms. Wowchuk: No.

It is 1.5 percent less than the prevailing rate for a one-y ear term loan. It would depend on the prevailing rate that the corporation has. We all know that interest rates are quite low right now. Mr. Penner: I believe if I am correct, and I stand corrected on this one, the Government of Manitoba can today borrow money at less than 3.25% interest. Ms. Wowchuk: The rates on the BSE recovery loan are based on MACC's lending rate, and then there is a reduction on that.

The program was initiated at 3.25 with a further reductio n, and as it comes to the anniversary of what rates are, then that is how the decision will be made on what the rate is for the second year. Mr. Penner: The point I was trying to make is that the Province of Manitoba is making money on these loans, and I find it interesting that governments would actually try and make money on the backs of farmers that are in a disastrous kind of situation. That is the only reason I raise this. Ms. Wowchuk: No, the member is not accurate on that.

I mean, there has been a provision made for the reduction in interest that farmers have been reduced by. The MACC is at the cost of borrowing. This adjustment has been made. There is no intention to make money on producers on this. There has been a provision made in the loan authority to allow for this additional cost that the MACC will have to pay here, so it is not in the intention to make money on the producers. The intention here is to get money to producers at as low a cost as possible. Mr. Penner: Can the minister tell this committee how many producers have subscribed to the loans program? Ms.

Wowchuk: As of March 31, 1455 people have taken advantage of the loan and, as I indicated, people continue to apply for it. [interjection] 1455. Mr. Penner: So, at $56 million, that would mean roughly about $40,000 per loan? Not quite.

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1385 Ms. Wowchuk: The numbers that I gave the member were as of March 31, and at that time there was about 54 million. Since then, there have been additional ones, but it woul d be on an average of $37,000 per loan. * (12:20) Mr. Penner: Can the minister tell this House how much farmers would have saved and how much the Government might have saved–and I say might–if they would have adopted the cash advance program to the producers? I will explain, Mr. Chair, how the cash advance program works for the grains and the special crops sector.

The cash advance is made normally after a crop is harvested, and based on your inventory and the limits set under the program, farmers are able to draw on the cash advance program an amount of money that is interest free to the producer, basically cost free. When the producer sells the inventory, whether that is a month after the cash advance is made or whether it is three months or six months after the cash advance is made, the deduction from the sale of the commodity is made and paid back to the cash advance program. By the time you have terminated your inventory the cash advance is fully repaid. Mr.

Chairperson, this program has worked extremely well for crops such as wheat, barley, oats, canola, corn, sunflowers and other crops, but they are designated. The corn producers administer their pro- gram for corn producers, as well as the sunflower program. The Wheat Board administers the barley and wheat program, and the others are administered by various associations. It is amazing how accurately the money comes back to the associations.

There is no cost to government of the administration, of the advancement of this money, other than the interest costs that would be incurred from the borrowing that the Government would have to make. Or if they had cash they could have withdrawn it, and that is why we made the suggestion. They could have withdrawn the $50 million from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund–that is why those funds were established–and advan ced it to farmers.

Much of the money that they would have advanced would have already come back because many of the cattle that would have been put under a cash advance sys- tem would have been paid back. It would have done two things. It would have allowed the marketplace to act normally. It would have encouraged the packers to buy at market prices instead of deducting or lowering prices, as some have accused packers of doing because of programs initiated; and it would have allowed the management to be left in the hands of the producer.

If they needed the money on the cash advance, they could have gone to their association and said, "You know, I would like to make a draw on my inventory as a cash advance and when my cattle are going to market you are going to get your money back." So it would remain a revolving fund. Mr. Chairperson, it works extremely well in the grain industry. It would work extremely well in the cattle industry or the livestock industry in general.

I am quite amazed that governments have not chosen to use that tool to encourage a greater degree of stability and management ability from a financial standpoint in the livestock industry. This would have been a perfect opportunity for the ministry to put in place that kind of process to encourage good, sound management decisions on the farm. It made so much sense to us when we made the suggestions to the minister to use the cash advance system.

It would have saved farmers a 3.25% interest cost which will now be strapped to the backs of those farmers that are already in deep financial difficulty, and it would have allowed them to manage their inventory in a much different manner than they have now. I am convinced that the beneficial effect of that would have been substantive to the economy of Manitoba and, indeed, encouraged the continued production of livestock in this province in a much more organized manner than we have seen now, and in a much more certain manner than we have seen now.

I would ask the minister whether she could give us any sound financial reason why she would not have put in place a cash advance program at this time, instead of strapping or forcing farmers to bor- row money and pay interest on those loans to the Province of Manitoba. Ms. Wowchuk: The authority that the member talked about, the member talked about grains and corn and other crops that have organizations that offer a cash advance. He knows that that authority rests with the federal gove rnment. They are the ones that provide the funding for it. There is no authority

1386 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 under that policy to provide funding for livestock production. That is under review right now. I would remind the member that it was his leader, when we were in this crisis, who suggested that we come forward with a loan program or a cash advance. He suggested both of them. We had to do something quickly. We had to get money in pro- ducers' hands. We had the authority to do loans through the Agricultural Credit Corporation. We got the extra authority so that we could do it, just as his Government did during the flood.

There was a need for cash for producers and they put in place the producer recovery loan. That loan was not interest- free and in fact it was at a higher rate. There was no discount on the interest for producers in the program for producer recovery loan. It was a program, it was a good program. It helped people with their cash flow just as this program is helping people with their cash flow. As I said, there is no authority to provide for cash advances under the legi slation that allows cash advance on grain and other commodities. That is under review.

We have rais ed it with the federal government, cattle producers have raised it with the federal government and, hopefully, steps will take place that will allow for a cash advance on livestock. That is certainly an issue. The program that we put in place that was criticized by the Opposition, along with all of the other programs, did put money into people's hands, did help them pay their bills and get through the difficulty that they were in, but I want to assure the member that we recognize how serious the situation is. I am very pleased that some product is starting to move.

I am looking forward to hearing how soon the U. S. government is going to open the border. I am looking forward to seeing the results of the efforts of farmers in Manitoba to increase the slaughter capa- city in this province beca use those are all important issues. It is not just the issue of how we get money into farmers' hands. It is a matter of how we bring back a more normal situation for the producers in this province because there is no doubt it has been very difficult for not only the cattle producers but for the producers of all species. Mr.

Chair, all ruminant producers have been facing real challenges, and we have to look at this and see how we can create new opportunities. I see a tremendous opportunity in adding further value. We moved from adding value to grain products by starting to produce more live- stock. Now we have to take the opportunity to take the next step, and how we can use that important resource to add more value and create more jobs in this province. Mr.

Penner: I think it is unfortunate that the minister would not have taken the opportunity to demonstrate to other provinces how a province could take a leadership role and play a leadership role in designating a fund that would not be interest bearing– An Honourable Member: Just as you did. Mr. Penner: –and used a cash-advance concept as a process of advancing money. I want to indicate to the minister that floods and an imal crises are too very different things. Farmers and people in the province of Manitoba were asking for loans to give them bridge funding till the Government chose– Mr.

Chairperson: The hour being 12:30 p.m., the committee rise. HEALTH * (10:00) Madam Chairperson (Bonnie Korzeniowski): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning this

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will be continuing with consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Health. When the committee last met there had been agreement to consider thes e Estimates in a global manner. The floor is now open for questions. Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Madam Chairperson, yesterday the minister indicated that today he would let us know where I believe his name is Jean-Guy Bourgeois has ended up after he left his office. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Yes, Madam Chairperson, I did indicate that I would do that today for the Member for Charleswood.

Mr. Bourgeois is in the process of moving from the Department of Health to the Department of Finance.

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1387 Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister indicate if that is a direct appointment? Mr. Chomiak: Yes, Madam Chairperson, it is an Order-in-Council that is in the process of being developed. Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister tell us what position he is going to be taking in the Department of Finance? Mr. Chomiak: No. Mrs. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau) indicated yesterday that he had to leave a little bit earlier today. I thought maybe we could just start there and ask him some questions about his new role.

I wonder if either of the ministers can explain how it is actually working out operationally. They both appear to be at the same level in the organizational chart. I guess I would ask the Minister of Healthy Living: Is his ministry considered equal to that of the Minister of Health? Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I will answer that question because I think it is appropriate insofar as I have occupied the position for a period of time and the honourable memb er has acquired a new portfolio. It is considered an equal Cabinet, a role and function as any other ministry.

There are several instances across the country where there is a concept of junior and senior ministers. The most common example that I can cite is the recent experience in British Columbia where they had four ministers of Health, two that were actually in the status of full members of the Privy Council of Cabinet, and two that were, effectively, to use a federal term, secretaries of state who were sort of co-junior ministers and I do not believe had full status around the Cabinet table.

In fact, the model that we have adopted, and I note, and I want to make it very clear that it is still a developing role in transition. The department is still transitioning, as is indicated in the notes, to several factors with respect to having another minister. While it is in transition, but it is very clear that in terms of the status of a minister, the honourable member has the same Cabinet status reporting to the Cabinet as I do. Mrs. Driedger: Can the minister explain then if the Minister of Healthy Living is considered a junior minister? Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, we do not have a concept of junior ministries in the province of Manitoba. Mrs. Driedger: But, technically, is that how it actually operates? Mr. Chomiak: No. Mrs. Driedger: Well, if the Minister of Healthy Living is considered to be of having full status around the Cabinet table and if the minister is not considered a junior minister, why is he not answering for himself? Mr. Chomiak: The member can ask any questions that the member wants and can make any opinion that the member wants.

The member can make any opinion and often does, often inaccurately, and the member asked about the status. I personally wanted to make it very clear what I thought of the position and I think the member concurs. The Member for Charleswood can have her opinions on status. We do not have a system of senior and junior ministers in this Government.

I am not sure what the experience was when the member was assistant to the Minister of Health in the previous administration but the fact is that we have now two ministers of Health with responsibilities that are some mutual, some different, but this is a developing role that we are continuing to work on. Mrs. Driedger: Well, I would suggest to the Minister of Health if he wants me to have accurate information and put forward accurate information, it is his obligation in this set of Estimates to provide accurate answers.

It is difficult to try to ask questions when the minister tends to want to twist the questions and get in a few little shots here. I am just looking and a lot of people are looking becaus e there is some lack of clarity out there in the general public about the two roles of the Minister of Health and the Minister of Healthy Living. The way it is set up on this organizational chart, Madam Chairperson, it does appear that they are

1388 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 both of equal stature in terms of they are on the same line, and yet yesterday when the Minister of Healthy Living was asked how many staff he had in his office, he turned to the Minister of Health to help him figure out what that answer should be and the Minister of Health answered that question. So it certainly set this up to come across a little bit awkwardly. All I am looking for is some clarity in terms of the two roles and the differences and the sameness.

So I am told now that they are equal, that one is not a junior minister, that it is an evolving ministry, that the Minister of Healthy Living has full status around the Cabinet table. I would ask the Minister of Healthy Living: Is his ministerial salary the same as the ministerial salary for the Minister of Health? Mr. Chomiak: I am glad the member, in answering the response, indicated that she actually compre- hended the response I had given to her question. It shows we are making progress. I can turn it over to the Minister of Healthy Living. * (10:10) Mrs.

Driedger: Just before the Minister of Healthy Living does answer that question, I would just like to say to the Minister of Health at the beginning of Estimates because we go through this every year, I am really getting tired of his bullying tactics. He does this time and time again– An Honourable Member: It is sexist, but that is okay. Mrs. Driedger: Madam Chair, it does not serve any purpose well for the Minister of Health to sit there like a little bully against the questions that I ask and, as my colleague sitting beside me said, "It is sexist." Yes, it probably is and I take offence to it.

I am tired of it and I think the minister has a bigger obligation here to the people of Manitoba, to the tax- payers who are footing all these bills that are coming forward to them to have some degree of respect for the questions that are being put to him. That is my job here and I try to do it the best I can. And for him to behave like a bully over and over again–what is this, my fourth set of Estimates? I am very tired of it. I think the minister at this point in time could be a little more respectful.

The Minister of Healthy Living, if he would like to answer the question, and it was: "Is his ministerial salary the same as that for the Minister of Health?" Mr. Chomiak: Yes, I heard the comments of the member and I think that mutual respect is something very important in this Chamber. I always consider it appropriate to answer the questions as precisely as they are asked and in as much detail as is asked, and I would have the member reflect upon her comments as well. I think we all should reflect upon the com- ments of the member when we get into the thrust of debate around this Chamber. Hon.

Jim Rondeau (Minister responsible for Healthy Living): Yes. Mrs. Driedger: It is refreshing to have a direct answer. Can the Minister of Healthy Living then indicate how the relationship works, then, between him and the Minister of Health in terms of dividing up the various roles? Madam Chairperson, I appreciate that in a transition period there are a lo t of complexities as to what is going to move over and the speed at which it will. I understand that. I am not here to criticize the speed of which things happen, because I realize the largeness of what is happening here.

But in all of this evolution there are a certain number of tasks that have been given over to the Minister of Healthy Living. In all of those tasks can the Minister of Healthy Living indicate what his accountability is toward the Minister of Health in taking on those new roles? Mr. Rondeau: In my opening comments I explained in general terms what my responsibilities and roles were and what areas of function that I was working within. Mrs. Driedger: But the question was how is the minister accountable to th e Minister of Health in terms of working with these new roles. Mr.

Chomiak: As I indicated yesterday, Madam Chairperson, the fact that the Minister of Healthy Living and the Minister of Health both have the same deputy minister that functions as the administrative

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1389 co-ordinator and responsibilities for both of those functions is the linchpin in terms of the structure and the relationship. Mrs. Driedger: Does the Minister of Healthy Living take any direction from the Minister of Health? Mr. Chomiak: As the Minister of Healthy Living has indicated to me, it is a co-operative relationship. Mrs. Driedger: Well, I wonder if the Minister of Healthy Living can answer that. Does he take any direction from the Minister of Health? Mr.

Rondeau: We have a wonderful co-operative relationship moving forward all the initiatives within the Government. Mrs. Driedger: It is nice to see that there is a co- operative relationship happening here, Madam Chair, and the Minister of Healthy Living has certainly picked up on the minister's words very co-opera- tively. But I think it is a direct question. There is an answer that is easily said with the question: "Can the Minister of Healthy Living indicate if he takes any direction from the Minister of Health in a co-operative way?" Mr.

Chomiak: The question was does the Minister of Healthy Living take direction from the Minister of Health. We both indicated that it is a co-operative relationship. I am not su re what the member is attempting to establish from the question. This is not a top-down approach, this is a co-operative approach. I am not sure how familiar the member is with a team approach to dealing with issues and to dealing with items, but in fact that is the approach taken.

Taking direction is a term of hierarchical organi- zations, and I am not sure if that is what the member is trying to get at, but we have already both indicated that we have a co-operative working relationship in a team function. There are occasions wh en the Minister of Healthy Living (Mr. Rondeau) has provided me with advice, and there have been occasions when I have provided the Minister of Healthy Living with advice. I do not know how further to elaborate the relationship. Mrs.

Driedger: When the Minister of Health is asking, "What am I attempting to establish?" it has become apparent already in the few short hours that we have been into Estimates that the Minister of Health is answering most of the questions that are coming forward and not really letting the Minister of Healthy Living jump in readily and right off the hop to answer some of the questions. The Minister of Health seems to be setting up the direction of where those answers should go.

So what I am trying to do, because of what is being demonstrated already, which does not make sense for the way the organizational chart is set up, I am trying to establish whether the Minister of Healthy Living takes direction from the Minister of Health in doing his job. Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chair, that is the opinion of the member, and I do not think it is an accurate opinion nor is it a reflection of what has happened in these Estimates.

If the member will note, the opening statement was made by the Minister of Healthy Living, who very clearly outlined the roles and responsibility taken by the minister, and as usual, the member offers opinions that I think are inaccurate. So, without offending the member, I would simply say that her opinion is not accurate nor is it an accurate reflection of the discussion that has occurred during the course of these Estimates. The member is fully at liberty, as she does on all many occasions, to form her ow n opinions. That is her opinion. Mrs.

Driedger: Well, the minister puts forward that my opinion is inaccurate, and yet he refuses to allow the Minister of Healthy Living to answer a direct question as to whether or not the Minister of Healthy Living takes direction from the Minister of Health. So he sits here, the Minister of Health does, and accuses me of putting forward inaccurate opinions or inaccurate comments, and yet he does not make any attempt to provide the accurate information. Well, what am I supposed to take from all of this?

How am I supposed to understand this if the Minister of Health is deliberately avoiding a direct answer and will not even allow the Minister of Healthy Living to provide a direct answer to this question? Then he sits there and takes pot shots at me. Well, it makes it very convenient for the Minister of Health then to trash my credibility whenever he feels like it, but he sets it up so that that happens. I think that is a very devious way to handle Estimates or to handle professionalism in this business. I would like to ask the Minister of Healthy Living: Does he vet everything he does or even a lot

1390 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 30, 2004 of the things, or some of the things through the Minister of Health? * (10:20) Mr. Rondeau: I do not vet everything to the Minister of Health. As he has explained, what happens is we have certain roles and responsibilities. We sometimes share projects that we are working together, but we have distinct responsibilities. They are evolving, and we work very well in a co- operative fashion together. We also work through the same deputy, so a lot of the same projects do have the administrative support through one person–that is, Milt Sussman. Mrs.

Driedger: Does the Minister of Healthy Living make all decisions related to his department on his own without consulting the Minister of Health? Mr. Rondeau: Madam Chairperson, I have already answered that question. Wh at happens is we have specific responsibilities that we deal with. We do collaborate on certain files, we have certain respon- sibilities, things are evolving, and we work through the same deputy minister. Mrs. Driedger: Can the Minister of Healthy Living indicate if he has anything to do with the RHAs? Mr. Rondeau: Yes, we share lots of files together. Some of that is health promotion and so, yes.

Mrs. Driedger: I find it interesting that the Minister of Health is telling the Minister of Healthy Living the answers to every question prior to the Minister of Healthy Living answering them. It becomes obvious that the Minister of Healthy Living is certainly not as independent from the Minister of Health as the Minister of Health is trying to paint him to be. I note that the Minister of Healthy Living was appointed on November 4, 2003. He did get a small office next to the Minister of Health.

He did indicate to somebody just this week, I believe, that he was hired to do six things, and that was a quote, "hired to do six things." Can the Minister of Healthy Living, just in a nutshell, and I know he went through this in greater detail in his opening statement, but in a nutshell, can he summarize what those six things are? Mr. Rondeau: Madam Chair, I wanted to provide a little clarification. I was not hired to do six things. I was appointed to improve the health outcome. So what I am doing is I am working in areas that will do health promotion. I am looking at injury prevention.

What I have done is once I was appointed, I spent time looking at outcomes, things that would improve the health outcomes of Manitobans. I chose six areas which would improve the areas of health outcomes for Manitobans. The areas, as I explained, were chronic disease prevention, and that is working with the alliance and other groups to alleviate chronic disease such as diabetes, heart conditions, things like that. Number 2 was injury prevention, and I am pleased to inform the member that we just made an announcement on injury prevention.

We had a conference and we are working to move forward on prevention of injuries. I encourage all people not to mention accidents, it is injury prevention. We are working together with the non-smoking, so we have put forward Bill 21, which is The Non- Smokers Health Protection Act, which was a co- operative venture all-party task force. We are moving forward with that as the member knows. We are also working on reproductive sexual health initi- atives in that area. We have also done healthy living and lifestyles which was talking about the whole food, nutrition, et cetera.

You will also note that we also moved forward with vaccines. We are also working within the seniors' population to improve the whole con- ditions, health and outcomes in collaboration with seniors. Mrs. Driedger: I would like to touch on these areas each separately, the six areas that the minister has outlined. The first one was active living. Can the minister indicate exactly what he is doing in the area of active living? Have there been new programs he has started or is he responsible for the running of any of those programs out there? Mr.

Rondeau: I am pleased to inform the member that, just a little while ago, we made an announce- ment at the Reh-Fit Centre. It was a $1.2-million announcement. It was in co-operation with the federal government and is helping the Reh-Fit with the money that a community member put forward. It means it is moving forward to the almost $6 million

April 30, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1391 that allows this project to go forward. That was one of the initiatives. I have also met with PACOM which is the Physical Activity Coalition of Manitoba to develop strategies along with the Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson) and others. Mrs. Driedger: He has had one meeting with one group and he has been involved in giving money to the Reh-Fit. Are there other initiatives that are being developed in this area? It is a huge area. It is a huge undertaking. There are certa inly some challenges in getting people involved in active living.

I am pleased to see the initiatives that are going on at the Reh-Fit Centre. It was my constituent, Mr. Paul Albrechtsen, who put in the $3 million towards the further expan- sion of the Reh-Fit. I think he has made a huge commitment to the province as an individual entrepreneur. I am glad to see that the Government is also thinking that was a good thing that was happening. So the minister has met with this one group. Can you give us an indication with the group in terms of what initiatives might be forthcoming from that meeting? Mr.

Rondeau: Just for further clarification, what I did was explain one or two or three of the things we have done. We have done multiple other things. I was giving examples. In looking at the time, I did not want to take up half an hour explaining all the areas and all the functions that we have done in this area of active living and nutrition. For the member's information, I have met with the Breakfast for Learning. I have met with numbers of other groups, phys ed teachers coalition. I have been very active on the file and we have worked with multiple partners.

I have met with the Physical Activity Coalition more than once but in one of the meetings I was stopping in to listen to their initial meeting to go forward. I think the answer to you is what we have to do is work with multiple partners in multiple areas to move the whole file forward. We have done a lot of good work in this. We are moving forward in getting the agenda so that people understand the importance of active living and good nutrition.

In fact, it was interesting to note that in the opening of the Safeway just last week in my constituency, they were highlighting proper, healthy food, the new displays of food, et cetera. So it is not just one area, it is multiple areas that you have to look at. When you are looking at nutrition, it is not just Breakfast for Le arning. It is not just day cares. It is everyone and I pleased to inform the member that it was not just one meeting. It has been multiple meetings with multiple partners because I think the approach has to be a general approach.

You want to deal with multiple partners, not just one group. * (10:30) Mrs. Driedger: I certainly saw the minister's picture at the Safeway. It was a good photo-op. I hope he is not taking credit for where Safeway is going with their new initiatives. When the minister is saying he is meeting with groups, what is he hoping to achieve? Is he there as somebody persuading certain things to happen? Is he looking at policy that he is going to bring in? Is he looking at legislation in these areas or is he just attending a bunch of meetings to be seen? What can he do with all of these efforts and all of these meetings?

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-30c
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf 30c.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a0e632e63962d143b7fa2188bde6d81e9385762f

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).