The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Mervin Tweed): Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply has been dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
We are on Resolution 3.4 Agricultural Development and Marketing (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $129,700.
* (1450)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, the livestock industry is a very important industry to the economy of Manitoba. We have seen a lot of changes with different species coming into production in this province, but we have also seen a difference in techniques that are being used. One of the techniques that is quite new that has come up in my area of the province is using chips and bark and, in fact, waste from the Louisiana-Pacific mill for livestock bedding.
There has been a lot of discussion on the merits of this as bedding, and I would like to ask the minister what work had been done by his department with respect to this product, whether there was testing in other parts of the country where it was found as a valuable source of bedding, or whether his department had any input into this decision to use it as a bedding product, or if that was just a choice of producers. Has any research been done on this as a source of bedding?
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I believe that the answer to that question from the honourable member is simply that livestock producers who found that product available to them as other livestock producers, particularly for instance in the poultry sector, have for many years availed themselves of the use of wood processing by-products, sawdust, the likes, for floor coverings in the old-fashioned kind of poultry barns that I know my colleague--not to be unkind to her, but I am sure that while sitting at her mother's knee she might have learned of that practice that poultry farmers used to find it very convenient to contract or to buy or to sometimes get for nothing, simply for the removal, bales or loads of sawdust, wood particles for this kind of use as litter for livestock, poultry operations. More recently, the situation in the Swan River Valley with the event of the Louisiana-Pacific people coming into that part of the world, obviously some of the livestock producers are continuing that practice. It is a convenient, easy-to-handle, absorbent material that lends itself to that use.
What we have not done--and I will take this as good advice or suggestion--two things. I do not think we have done any testing or research as to what occurs when some of this material is subsequently spread on the land. Is there any additive value? Is it putting back some organic matter into the land that could be of value? We would want to be concerned, of course, if there are any toxic problems that might be associated with this particular waste, particularly coming from an operation that is being carried on at Louisiana-Pacific. To that extent I will ask my officials to take that question as notice. It may be worthy of doing some research to ensure that the product, when combined with the waste manure of livestock operations, can in fact be beneficially applied to the land, as has been the practice when more conventional straw is used for bedding purposes.
Ms. Wowchuk: There are actually two separate issues here that have to be raised. One of them is the use of this material for livestock bedding. I have to say that those livestock producers who are using the material are quite happy with it, and I have no problem with its being used for livestock bedding if there is not a problem with water, but I do not agree with its being stored or used in areas where there is water.
I guess yesterday I was at the citizens liaison committee. As the minister is aware, I raised this issue a few weeks ago in the House, and Department of Environment staff went out to check the sites where the material was being spread. I was quite surprised that the Department of Environment is using the livestock waste management regulations to determine where this material can be spread. They are saying that, if this is now being used for livestock bedding, it can follow the same guidelines as the livestock waste, which say 50 metres from water.
As I say, I have no problem with its being used as a bedding, but I have a concern when we start to play games with guidelines which say this falls under the livestock waste material because what they are actually doing is moving it off the Louisiana-Pacific yard and into areas where water is running; for example, areas that were flooded. I have a concern with the way the livestock regulations are being used to now say it is okay to move this material off the Louisiana-Pacific yard because it is now a livestock waste.
I guess I would ask the minister how he would read this act; whether this act was actually intended where it could be used as an excuse to move material off the yard. It is not a livestock waste, and it will not be considered the same as manure until sometime later when it has been used as bedding, so I would ask the minister for his opinion as to whether he believes that it is acceptable to use this act or these regulations as a way to move the material into cattle yards and consider it a livestock waste rather than a waste from a mill.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, we have to in Agriculture to some extent rely on the judgment that the environmental officers from the Department of Environment make with respect to the nature of this material, if in fact in their judgment it is equal to or no different in terms of composition other than instead of straw fibres there are wood fibres involved. Then I would assume that the same regulations ought to apply.
I am prepared to acknowledge, I know that there should be a determination and a satisfaction, determine that there is in fact no toxic issue involved. I am aware that unlike the particle board plant that is being constructed in the Elie area from cereal straws--that operation proposes no chemical uses, no uses of the chemical formaldehyde for instance, which is used predominantly in the conventional processing or manufacturing of particle board, which is the case with the Louisiana-Pacific operation. The use of that chemical in the manufacturing process gives us reason to be concerned that any product coming out of that plant is free of that potential source of difficulty for the environment.
I think we will take it as notice within the Livestock branch and I certainly will ask staff to take note of the question that we have that confidence. I must say that I assume that that is the case. I honestly believe that the Department of Environment would not have given us a clear signal to use the guidelines for the distribution of this material on the land that make it equal to the conventional manure disposal on land, that those conditions in fact comply that the material is benign.
* (1500)
Ms. Wowchuk: I do not want the minister to assume that I am saying that there are contaminants in this. What we are concerned about is the natural leachates in the material and that material getting into waterways. We had a good example of this last weekend where material had been put in the cattle yard in a low area. The river flooded and the material got washed down the river, but I am not saying that this is material that is processed material. It is the natural leachates that we are talking about.
Going on from that, one of the recommendations from the Department of Environment, a request had been made by Louisiana-Pacific to use it for spreading on soil on cultivated fields. My understanding is that that request has gone to the Department of Agriculture to ask whether it can be put on soil. Studies are apparently being done or the Department of Agriculture is looking at this as whether it is a viable option to incorporate this into the soil.
There has been a concern raised that the decomposition of this material requires more nitrogen than is actually in the soil, and perhaps I should--I see the minister looking up and perhaps I should just save this for under the Soils section, and we can deal with it there. If that would be better, I will just leave this question for it to go under the Soils section, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am aware that my director of the Soils and Crops branch is quite prepared to respond and provide me with some advice on that matter when we proceed along the schedule of Estimates before us. I do not have any further information at this point to provide.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, after I had started to ask the question, I realized that it was the wrong staff that is down here, and I will raise that a little bit later.
I want to ask the minister then going into another section, and that is one that we have had lots of discussion about. That is the minister's proposal to start the elk industry in this province. The minister brought forward regulations early in the year that caused farmers, hunting associations and, in fact, the livestock growers' association concern because a clause was put into the regulations that the people who were involved in the drafting of the regulations were not aware that this was coming in. One of the regulations allows for those people who were holding elk without licence to have an amnesty period and have the ability to register these animals without having any consequences, without being charged for having taken illegal animals or holding animals without a licence.
That issue was raised with the minister. The minister indicated to the Elk Growers' Association that he would address it and it would be changed. Can the minister at this time indicate whether that regulation has been changed or whether those people who were holding elk without a licence were allowed to register their animals?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I well recall the meeting that I had with representatives of the fledgling Manitoba Elk Growers' Association that met with me and expressed some of those concerns that the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is expressing. The concern really boiled down to was not so much a question with the regulation, but it was a question of what they considered equity in terms of how animals and at what costs were they going to be registered with the Department of Agriculture for the commencement of domestic elk farming.
As I stated on some other occasion--I do not recall whether it was in a response to your question at Question Period--there were, in fact, no elk captured that could then avail themselves under the thousand-dollar clause to be simply registered with the Department of Agriculture for inclusion in the program. There were two types of animals that we are talking about. Number one were the ones that have always been known to exist and permitted by government in one form or another by the Department of Natural Resources. These are what we refer to as elk that were held in captivity under some kind of permit. I have to expand a little bit about in describing these animals. These animals were, rightly or wrongly--and I do not want to rehash history. It is a 12-, 14-, 15-year history that involves not just my government but the government of the honourable member's party that is now in opposition. That is of no avail, but they consist of animals that a handful of individuals were allowed to have in captivity. They were allowed to breed them and to maintain these animals. They fed them, of course, looked after them all these period of years.
They also included, I might say, animals that these permitted holders were allowed to purchase from different areas. A number of them purchased some of the animals from places like the Winnipeg zoo, for instance, who found themselves with surplus animals and then made arrangements and purchased animals from the Winnipeg zoo. I also believe there was no doubt some animals might have been purchased from places where the purchase of elk was legal like Saskatchewan, and that some of them might have moved into these herds.
The bulk of the animals that these permits hold are a result of the natural growth of the their own progeny that somebody was permitted to have four or five, seven, 18 elk legally back in 1984 or '85, today reported to us their numbers which are being carefully checked, catalogued, placed into our inventory, and they are being treated entirely separately. They simply have to pay a modest certification fee for the farm itself of some $100, I believe, and for each animal simply to recover the costs of some $50 that makes the program reasonably cost recovery.
(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Now the other set of animals we contemplated catching and taking from the wild. This is where the controversy has stirred up. These animals that are currently being held in captivity--I believe I offered the member some numbers earlier on; she has that sheet--those animals we are currently in the process of making application forms available to would-be elk farmers in the province of Manitoba. We have not quite yet decided, as we speak, exactly the final details of what I will refer to as the Manitoba formula perhaps of how we are going to make them available to these ranchers.
I have been authorized, as I have indicated before, to sell them at somewhat below market price, 80 percent. It is not that easy to establish what is indeed a fair market price, not quite the same as just looking at the sales that have occurred in Saskatchewan, Alberta and elsewhere that have had legalized elk farming for a number of years, because those animals coming through those sales reps have a track record. Not unlike cattle or beef cattle, the females are being sold as bred or pregnancy tested. The males have a track record of the kind of performance that genetically that one can expect from the antlers, the velvet that they consistently produce. No different than a good purebred bull has a track record of dropping a type of desired calf and consequently his price is considerably inflated.
* (1510)
These animals coming out of the wild will be sold gate run. There will be no guarantee of pregnancy of the females. We are working with the industry right now, with the Elk Association, seeking their advice. We have talked originally, maybe in groups of four, three females and a male. Some say that that is too small a grouping in terms of giving the elk farmer a chance to really get started, that we should be thinking of a minimal of five or six animals. Then we have to look at what is the make-up, should we be putting two mature animals with perhaps a couple of younger heifers together in that package.
We have a number of male animals, spikers they call them, young yearling bulls. We have unbred young yearling heifer calves. We have calves born in captivity. So it is somewhat complicated to--not complicated, but it takes a bit of thought to come about and establish a fair Manitoba formula.
That price could range--I am just using the figures--from $3,000 to $8,000 or $9,000 depending on the kind of animal, you know, $3,000 for calves maybe or $4,000 for spikers or in that range, $7,000 or $8,000 for a cow. Remember, we do not know whether she is pregnant or whether she can conceive, but let us assume that we are going to be in that range, let us say, $7,500.
My commitment to the Elk Growers' Association was, nobody is going to get into the program without being more or less in line with that program. In other words, somebody that has mistakenly thought, and this is just rumour, that he went out and captured or closed a fence around some animals and now could register for $1,000 would be in the same category. That is my commitment that I made was not going to happen. I am pleased to report, Mr. Chairman, that that in fact did not happen.
We had a few cases, two or three cases where individual families had taken in an individual orphan elk, and they reported them to the department. They have been put into our compound, and for them, if they want to do that, if they wanted to retain them, a registration fee of $1,000 is not unjust. I am advised that they do not particularly want to keep the elk. You know, for one elk it is not worthwhile to get into the costly business of fencing. They would not get approval from the Department of Agriculture to keep the elk. But they may wish to put that elk, because they have a personal attachment to it, in with a neighbour or somebody in the area that in fact is going to go into elk ranching. So this was meant to accommodate that to some extent.
The parties that have made some headline news about it, I will name them, put them on the record, Mr. Pat Houde, for instance, who, it has been suggested, has been receiving favoured treatment, that is simply not the case. We have documentation from him that indicated that he has purchased his elk, did not capture them from the wild. That purchase price that he purchased plus the application of the $1,000 I am satisfied will make his registration of his animals come into the program at the Manitoba formula, not at $1,000, but at something that approaches $7,000 or $8,000 or 9,000, depending again on the class of animals.
Now, I said two kinds of animals. I should have said three. The third group of animals, and that is an area that has presented and continues to represent a challenge, although I happen to be pretty positive about resolving some of the issues, is the group of animals that were held in captivity by a First Nations group. That will be the Keesee group at Elphinstone, right beside the park. We were aware of that.
The Department of Natural Resources was aware that they were assembling a significant group, 40-odd-plus animals. The Department of Natural Resources on several occasions when making enquiries with the Ministry of Justice whether or not there was--I mean, they had a concern about these animals who technically were not permitted. They had never asked for nor were they granted a permit from the Department of Natural Resources, yet they had these animals under captivity.
The advice that the then Minister of Natural Resources and the current Minister of Natural Resources received from Justice is that there was possibly nothing under the law that could be done about them. The First Nations people could argue, and it was believed successfully, that these animals were being held in captivity for food production at some future date, and the interpretation of the courts of treaty and constitutional rights of First Nations would sustain that belief.
On the other hand, I wanted to bring them into the elk program, because I wanted to ensure that if we have an elk farming program in Manitoba, it has to be just a single-tier program. We cannot have a set of rules that apply to non-native people and work on a separate and a different elk program for the aboriginal community, a position that spokespersons for the First Nations people have tended to support. They indicate that they are more than prepared to play within the rules that have been passed by this House. The act, the regulations that have been drafted by the department, those will be the regulations that will apply to any elk held in captivity in the business of domestic elk farming.
But how do I bring them into the program? I want to be careful, because it gets so easily to be misinterpreted in this area, but I happen to believe genuinely, and that was the motivation, quite frankly, for the $1,000 regulation fee, the $1,000 figure put into the regulations fee. So, in realistic and practical and doable terms, I could say to the Keesee people at Elphinstone, look it, come on into the program, register your animals, get them tagged, inventoried by our Animal Industry Branch people, and it will cost you a thousand dollars per animal or kind. You do not have to give us the cash because we will be for the next three years in the business of distributing elk to would-be elk farmers. If coming up with $40,000 or $50,000 in cash is a difficulty, as I can well appreciate it may well be a difficulty for a First Nations band, then provide us with four or five animals that come close to that figure in value, and we will consider that acceptable for the purposes of registration.
That, Mr. Chairman, is what is happening. That is how I am trying to introduce the business. If there is to be--let me say it up front--certainly for those numbers who have for whatever reasons which, again I do not want to attempt to defend or get into, have been permitted to hold elk and, in effect, begin a domestic elk program, even though domestic elk farming was not legal in the province of Manitoba, they certainly have an advantage in a sense that they are being brought into the program. But remember, they did not take these animals from the wild; in some cases, they purchased them. Originally, they may have come from the wild, but that was permitted for one reason or another by the ministers of Natural Resources from this government, ministers of Natural Resources from the New Democratic Party government when it was in power. It also must be remembered these people have nurtured, cared for these animals for many, many years.
Most of the animals were born in captivity, were not taken out of the wild. Some of them were purchased from different sources, as I mentioned, from places like the Winnipeg zoo for whatever prices, I do not know. That is not for me to be concerned about. Again, they were not from the wild. Mr. Bill Hart, for instance, I think, just last summer purchased three or four animals from the Winnipeg zoo. It is really not, in my opinion, government's business or Department of Agriculture's business to try to place him in the same category of what the controversy was. The controversy was that we were creating a situation where people were running out there capturing animals from the wild during this so-called amnesty period and then letting them get into this program at a bargain price. That is not happening at all.
* (1520)
I want to assure the honourable member for Swan River, because I really want her co-operation for several reasons, that we do this right and we get this program started. We do want to, hopefully, in the next two or three years, get our act a little bit better together and substantially reduce the resident elk population problem that is causing some of her farmers so much difficulty in the valley and at the same time enable that to kick-start this industry in a serious way. That means the capture of 300, 400 or 500, 700, 800 animals over the next three years to reduce that problem, not all from that area, understandably, but so that we can say we have materially reduced the crop depredation that is taking place, remembering that it is costing all of us who take crop insurance a considerable amount of money. In excess of a million dollars is being paid out. So we solve that problem.
I want to do this as equitably, as fairly, and take this moment to refute absolutely the thought that, if you have connections through the Ministry of Agriculture, if you happen to be a friend of this government, there are any separate or special or favourite deals being worked out. It is simply not happening. I would not tolerate it; my government would not tolerate it; and my Premier (Mr. Filmon) would not tolerate it. I would not subject my staff to the indignity of having to work or introduce a program under those circumstances. Regrettably, there has been some loose talk and a lot of gossip and a lot of coffee shop talk about what in fact was taking place. I do not have to repeat all of that here. I mean, I read it in the paper in shock that upwards to a thousand animals were being captured in this manner, but none of that is true.
The member for Swan River (Mrs. Wowchuk), particularly the member for Swan River, and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), despite the fact that you do not have to be in agreement with domestic elk farming, can help in ensuring that not disinformation but correct information is, in fact, introduced into the debate rather than some of the very wild and very unsubstantiated gossip, quite frankly, that currently dominates the question in too many quarters.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I would like to assure the minister that it was neither myself nor my colleague the member for Dauphin who put those figures on the table or into the media about the number of elk that were being held in captivity and were assumed to be illegally held elk. People had come to us with a concern when the regulations were brought forward, and, as I indicated to the minister, it was members of the Manitoba Elk Growers' Association, who want to see the industry grow and who are part of drafting the regulations, who were concerned with the regulation that gave an amnesty to certain people
Now the minister said there was a feeling that there was going to be elk captured during this amnesty period. I do not think that that was the feeling at all. The concern was that some people had elk that were not registered, and many had assumed that these elk were illegally taken elk. They did not expect that they would be taking more elk during the amnesty period, but that they would be given special treatment because they had elk that were not registered, would be able to register them and not pay the consequences, as would other people.
The issue that was brought to our attention was that there were people, one person in Roblin and another person in Foxwarren, who had taken a calf elk, an orphan elk, and were raising it, not that their intention was to get into elk ranching, but this was an orphan elk. They took it and they were then being--not by the minister's department, it was through Natural Resources--told that you are not supposed to have this animal and you could be charged with $10,000 and the animal was taken away from them.
Now, I do not know if those animals have been returned, but it appeared that there were two standards, two sets of rules. There was a set of rules for those people who had taken elk from the wild, and the minister says that all of these people who have registered these elk have not taken them from the wild, that they have purchased them. Well, it would be interesting to know whether they had purchased Manitoba elk that were taken from the wild by somebody else or under what circumstances they got those elk.
So there is a lot of concern out there, and we brought that issue to the minister's attention because what we said is that, if this industry is going to get started, then it has to get started on a level playing field, that there should not be certain advantages for some people who happen to have animals by whatever way they got them and other people having to get them either by auction or being part of a draw, and that is something we want to discuss.
But that was the reason for raising the issue and wanting to ensure that everything was above board because the information that was coming to us by people in the industry was that things were not above board, and certain people were having certain advantages. We do not want to see that. If this industry is going to go, it has got to be on a level playing field for everybody.
With that I would like to ask--the minister says he has checked the list of all the animals that are registered here, or declared, I should say, and can the minister indicate whether or not--he says the ones that are held outside permit holders--whether those animals were brought in from outside the province, or were they purchased within the province? Did these people purchase them? Because the minister also had said that animals could be brought in from other provinces. I did not know that we could bring in animals to the province.
There are three of them in particular on the list: Richard Bone, Mervin Farmer, Hans Spies and Pat Houde The other two just have two animals. Is the minister quite comfortable that those animals were purchased? Were they purchased in the province, or were they brought in from other provinces?
Mr. Enns: The honourable member has the list that I, too, am reading from at this moment. I can indicate to her in response to her first question is that the individuals that she was speaking about--Margaret Jerome and I believe it is a Mr. Swereda--the individual cases where they were looking after the orphaned calves--one was taken in '96; the other one was in the fall of '95. But you see that opportunity to register brought them to our attention, or else they would not have been.
This is important--although I cannot speak for the Department of Natural Resources--but it is my understanding that henceforth there will be only two kinds of elk by definition in the province; hopefully our herds in the wild and the domestic program. The Department of Natural Resources, I do not believe, has intention to continue some form of permitting in between. The distinction will be wild or in the agricultural program.
So people like the ones that have looked after this orphaned calf, the Jerome family up in the Roblin area, the Swereda family--I do not know exactly, but I believe they are also from the same area--who had one animal taken in '95 under similar circumstances. They would be in difficulty with the law because I think from here on forth the enforcement will be easier for Natural Resources, and the future of these animals is that we are certainly prepared to deal with them and recognize the fact that they would not be alive if they would not have taken them and nurtured them to their present state of health and development. They were found as very young orphaned calves in the wild, mother possibly shot or what have you.
I know at least in the one case, the Jerome case, they have expressed an interest just as I described. They do not want the animal back, but they would like very much to be able to follow the animal, would like to have the animal placed and know where the animal is placed with a domestic elk farmer so that they can have some continued enjoyment. Now just how we will recognize her ownership--and of course with the kind of very specific identification and inventory--it would not be difficult to have that animal in there registered to Mrs. Jerome but in the care of a registered elk ranch that meets all the other regulations. That, for me, seems to be an equitable way of dealing with it.
I do not think I feel fair in demanding of that person, this Mrs. Margaret Jerome who took this little baby elk and no doubt saved it from dying, bottle-fed it, nurtured it, raised it for two years. Now a government comes and swoops it away. I am not prepared to charge her the same prices I am charging everybody else that is bidding the $7,000, $8,000, or $9,000 that wants to get into the elk ranches. I am prepared to acknowledge that. That is only two cases that we have like that, involving two animals.
* (1530)
My understanding in the case of Mr. Farmer, for instance, who is known to me in the south Interlake, I believe, is that he will become one of our premier elk farmers in due course because most things that he does, he takes on very seriously. I have not been to his facilities, but I have heard reports that they are first class. He has been involved in the purchase of elk, not in Manitoba but in northern Ontario. My understanding is that these 12 animals that he is involved with, some of them at least we know he has purchased from a permitted holder, not from the wild. Some he may also have purchased, I understand, from the zoo. So it is a combination of things again.
Again, these animals were not taken from the wild, and so I will argue very vehemently that they ought not to be treated as though we are treating the animals from the wild, and there is nothing unfair about that. We will have and we are getting this kind of information that indicates that obviously they paid market prices for these animals if he is purchasing now. Some are female heifer calves, where he was paying $4,000 or $5,000 for them. That is probably the range that he was paying for.
Mr. Houde is the same situation. The 23 animals that he reports, he has one animal raised that was from an orphan state. It ran around his feedlot for three or four years and is well documented. The department knew about it but, because he is not a permitted, they did not do anything about it. He then purchased an additional 18 animals, I believe, and I think there are about three that were born now, so that is what makes the numbers 23. I can report to you that Mr. Houde has co-operated with the department. He has paid his $1,000, is allowing his animals to be tagged. When we add that together with the purchase price for these animals, we will find that his cost of getting into the elk farming program runs around the $8,000 or $9,000 an animal, and that is the commitment that I am making to all Manitobans, that nobody gets into the program with a bargain, a deal.
Mr. Bone is Keesee. That is the Elphinstone band, the First Nations herd of animals that we are talking about. I want not to avoid being as open and direct as I can, but the responsibility of arranging an acceptable and satisfactory set of, a protocol if you like, about how First Nations people will access this herd and how they will deal with the possible, some additional accessing of additional animals from the wild will essentially be the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings).
The Minister of Natural Resources is responsible for the administration of The Wildlife Act; the Department of Natural Resources is responsible for the jurisdiction of wildlife. It obviously would be a government policy about how we address this situation, but it will be led by the Minister of Natural Resources. I would encourage the honourable member to pursue further questions directly with the Minister of Natural Resources with respect to the First Nations entre, if you like, into the elk program.
Once they have been accepted by us in Agriculture, then they will play by our rules, strictly by our rules. Everything will have to be in terms of health, in terms of transportation, in terms of sale, prohibition of sale, in terms of how the velveting procedure will be done, in terms of where they can bring animals from. The prohibitions will be there from certain jurisdictions, not from the United States, not from Ontario. They have to play it totally and strictly by the Department of Agriculture's rules, and there is in my opinion some very good thinking taking place.
A small committee has been struck that involves--we did that in co-operation right with the most senior people of the First Nations people, involvement of the Grand Chief, Mr. Fontaine. They are discussing the possibility of having a First Nations group, whether it is Keesee or somebody else, two in fact so that the arrangements do not have to be duplicated with five or 10 or different ones, that one First Nations group or a tribal council or a group of them be involved under the direction and with the supervision of the Department of Natural Resources, be permitted to bring together a herd of elk from which other First Nations can then get their requirements.
If Crane River wants elk, if Pine Creek wants some elk and qualifies, after upon inspection they have the appropriate fencing requirements, equipment requirements that would qualify them for a domestic Manitoba elk farming certificate, they could then access through an arrangement that has been agreed to by the Department of Natural Resources to First Nations people into accessing this program. As I said otherwise, I am hopeful and I am very supportive of being able to provide a sound economic opportunity for some of our First Nations people through this program.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could just clarify what he has indicated. The minister has indicated that through Natural Resources there would be a capture of a pool that would possibly then be distributed amongst various bands that were interested, but will the people who then establish these elk ranches fall under the same guidelines as other people who elk ranch in Manitoba? There is an attempt through Natural Resources to establish a special capture and the question is whether or not after the capture and they are established as elk ranchers, whether they will fall under the same guidelines as everybody else in Manitoba.
(Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Enns: That is very much the case. What is being discussed with Natural Resources people is the possibility, again, to be sensitive to and to have an understanding of the economic capability of some of our First Nations people, that in managing or in acquiring this herd with a First Nations group that they can earn some sweat equity, if you like, that if in the maintenance, if they help and they assist in the capture of future elk, that some will be provided to the provincial pool. Others, they will have earned the right to some elk if they are holding--and I am certainly wanting to, we have some of our elk being held at Crane River and others at Pine Creek--that, again, just as we have, we will provide essentially the same terms of contract type of payments that we are making to the person who is holding the elk for us in Grunthal, for instance. But the First Nations people have told us that they are more interested in kind in return rather than money, but by this means earn their way into their first actual elk animal.
* (1540)
So I think this is positive, but I want to emphasize again and the proof will be in the pudding, but they will find out to their distress, quite frankly, we are not about to in any way allow for some different set of rules to apply because we believe that we are on very sound legal grounds--if I may put it this way--because we are not now talking about First Nations people being able to access game for their immediate food requirements, which is quite a different issue. We are now talking about them running a commercial agricultural enterprise, nothing that is in their treaties nor in their constitutional kind of rights, if you like, and we are satisfied the courts will support us in the strict administration of the regulations that this Legislature has passed and the act that this Legislature has passed and that Dr. John Taylor is going to have to administer on behalf of this exciting new industry in Manitoba.
Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for the information. One of the reasons I raised the issue about a special capture and who is going to do it, is the Pine Creek Band, I believe, contacted the minister. They were very frustrated because they were trying to be the people who would be doing the capturing in the Duck Mountain area, and they did not get a response. It ended up being someone else.
Now, the Pine Creek Band tells me that they talked to the Minister of Agriculture about it and the minister says it comes under Natural Resources. Could it be that the Pine Creek Band should have been talking to the Department of Natural Resources if they were interested and not the Minister of Agriculture? If that was the case, why did the minister not put them in that direction when they sent the letter to his office some time ago and got nowhere with it?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I am just questioning myself about that last comment about the letter from Pine Creek. I am aware Pine Creek has been involved in a program, but I will double check. I do not recall that piece of correspondence coming to me in that kind of a direct manner. If they were part of the, what is it, the western travel group that has talked to us about it--but in any event, I will double check.
The member is absolutely correct. Quite frankly, I share some of the frustrations about the capture program. My hope, my understanding is that the learning curve is now over, and that we will be able to address it in a more effective and efficient manner.
Certainly, let me repeat, although I have senior staff that co-ordinates and works with the Department of Natural Resources, the issue is strictly under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), the Department of Natural Resources that has full and sole jurisdiction over these animals that are covered by The Wildlife Act, animals in the wild. It is not really until they get transferred formally onto the property of a registered elk farm that they become, henceforth, the sole responsibility, in terms of administration, in terms of supervision, of the Department of Agriculture. My advice to anybody that wants to offer advice and services in terms of a future capture of elk, is those arrangements will have to be made by the Department of Natural Resources.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will also endeavour to get that piece of correspondence, because that was the information that was given to me, that they had been in contact with the Minister of Agriculture's department and had no response and were feeling as though the Department of Agriculture was saying they wanted them to be involved in the industry but they were not included in this particular capture. So I will try to get a little bit more information on that.
The minister says that the responsibility for the animals is now--even those that are being held at Grunthal and Crane River and Pine Creek, they are still the responsibility of the Department of Natural Resources until they are distributed, or does the Department of Agriculture have some responsibilities such as paying the costs of maintaining these herds?
Mr. Enns: I suppose, to answer more fully would be now that they are in captivity, there is a kind of co-operative responsibility. Regrettably, we are paying the bills, but officially, because they are not transferred out, they are still classified as wild animals. Officially, they are still under the jurisdiction of Natural Resources.
I think Agriculture will want to take a more, you know--but I think it is fair to say that it was Natural Resources that made the arrangements for housing the elk in the various places like Grunthal and places like that. Natural Resources wrote out the terms of the contract. In the future, we may want to take a little further interest in those contracts if we are, in fact, paying for them.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take this occasion to remind the committee that we speak of costs, and certainly costs are being incurred, and they are not insignificant. These are animals that require special care, and not a great deal of feed, but they also require feed, as you would imagine, and so forth. But all of these dollars we have obligated ourselves. Well, more specifically put, my fine and capable deputy minister Don Zasada has obligated himself to our Treasury people that we can do all of this with our share of the funds when we begin selling some of the elk.
I repeat just for the record, the provision is that 50 percent of the proceeds will be returned directly to the taxpayers of Manitoba, back to general revenue. The other 50 percent is to be made available to the departments of Natural Resources and Agriculture to do several things, to provide the necessary dollars for their start-up costs of this program, to provide the Department of Natural Resources for some enhanced programming, particularly in the big game field of wildlife extension, perhaps future programs that would help keep elk out of agricultural lands in Swan River Valley, with feeding programs or some clearing programs or other wildlife enhancement programs that would do two things, ensure the continued end of development and maintenance of healthy herds in the wild, and, hopefully, programs that will mesh more closely with agricultural concerns and try to, in the long haul, bring down the level of crop depredation.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, as we look at the numbers of elk that were in captivity, unless I am calculating it wrong, it only appears that there were 23 calves born last year. I want to ask the minister whether or not that is an accurate number and whether his veterinarian staff or Dr. Taylor had a chance to review that as to whether this would be the normal calving rate, or whether there was not a good calving rate because of stress of capture and whether or not it appears that those animals that are in captivity, now going into their second calving season, whether it appears that there will be a better calving rate.
If that is the rate of calving, if I am looking at it accurately, then that causes serious concern because our understanding is that the calving rate should be a lot better than that.
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member raises an issue that probably better than I describes why it is a little bit more complicated to establish what constitutes a fair market price for these animals.
It is one thing to have, say, a female elk animal that has for the last two or three years consistently dropped a fine healthy calf on a Saskatchewan elk farm and is then put up for sale in Lloydminster or at the Regina Agribition, two of the areas that I know have regular elk sales, and commands very strong prices of $11,000, $12,000, $14,000, $15,000 or to have an animal like this, to fairly ask a Manitoba resident to pay for an animal that comes out of the gate, has no track record.
* (1550)
If she is familiar with livestock production, it is not a given that every female animal conceives. You can easily end up having a barren cow that is not capable of conceiving and birthing a live calf. It is a big difference to be charging somebody $12,000 for that kind of an animal or a more realistic figure that reflects figure that reflects not much more than the meat value, quite frankly, or in the case of the male, the value of the antler.
These animals, of course, were also, you have to acknowledge, moved around, shipped at times, whether that contributed to a lower calving rate. Regrettably, we had some mortalities, and also we do not have the full--we tend to talk about males and females. I do not know the exact history, how many unbred, yearling females we are talking about. I would certainly think that that average under domestic conditions can be considerably improved. I am advised by people from Saskatchewan, from Alberta, that fairly close to domestic cattle conception rates and successful calving rates can be achieved.
I am looking at my director of the Animal Industry Branch to see whether I am close to being correct. Can an elk rancher with a 20-elk count or with some reasonable assurance look to achieving 80 percent and 85 percent or 90 percent calf crops? He is shaking his head, and he is saying yes. So I think that what we have here really is the kind of circumstances under which this group of animals in captivity were captured, and it is a little better than what the member puts on record.
I have just been told that we have 29 calves born out of 48 females. Now we are talking about a 60 percent rate, and you have to consider that these animals, captured in the wild, are under a pretty stressful situation. Some animals, one or two animals, as you know, wounded themselves, hurt themselves, in the capture, got trucked long distances and then brought into strange circumstances, and I do not know, that may be a fair average in the wild, running around. It is, after all, different.
In domestic circumstances, we will ensure that the proper bull power or stag power is there with the right number of females and that they are under the right circumstances, that they will be fed or flushed a little bit at the appropriate time after calving--at least I do that with my beef cattle--to maintain conception rates. That is all part of the management that good livestock farmers and managers will bring to this industry, and then those figures, I am advised, can be 90 percent, 85 percent, 95 percent, not unlike what good managers of beef cattle can expect.
Ms. Wowchuk: It is my understanding that applications are going to be ready this spring, and information provided to those people who are interested in purchasing animals will be available.
Can the minister give an indication of what is happening right now? I think he said earlier somebody had their fences up, when he talked about Pine Creek, and their fences met the requirements. Can the minister indicate where the process is right now? How many people have made application? What process will be used to determine whether or not they qualify or meet the requirements, because surely you cannot expect everybody to put up their fences and then have them inspected if you are not going to be getting any animals?
Also, what has been the decision on purchasing animals? The minister talked about putting the animals into lots of three, four or five, and that has not been determined yet. Is the minister still looking at auctioning, or is the price going to be fixed on them?
The other issue is, there are people who already have elk and have been established as elk ranchers. Is the minister looking to allow these animals that are now available to go to different people to start up operations, or will the people who already have elk also be able to qualify to purchase some of the animals that are in this pool right now?
I have put several questions at the same time, but I thought I would do that, Mr. Chairman, since the minister tends to cover a lot of areas and give very long answers. I thought I would try to get as many of my questions in at once, and maybe he can give a well-rounded answer as to how he proposes to dispose of these animals and how people will qualify.
Mr. Enns: Well, I accept the compliment when the honourable member suggests that I give well-rounded answers to her poignant questions.
The member would be interested to know that we have some four--I see four, but my director calls that five--elk ranches established in Manitoba. I do not mind putting them on the record; one Mr. Bruce Johnston in the Hamiota area and Mr. Kevin McIntosh in the Eriksdale area. We have a Rene Cadieux in the Binscarth area, and we have a Glen Steinwalt in the Russell area.
These farms have elk on them that they imported from Saskatchewan, likely, or other places. They had been issued conditional licences. Upon inspection, they had been advised that some additional changes had to be made to their premises. [interjection] Well, I am told that in all, 12 farms are licensed, so the licensing process is beginning.
Some enterprising individuals in Manitoba proceeded with doing the fencing last fall, last summer obviously, on the faith and the hope they had that this Legislature would pass the legislation and the following regulations. There had been fairly widespread discussion about the regulations, about such things as the nature of the fencing required under the regulations. I know we had quite a debate whether or not it ought to be nine feet high or seven feet high. We chose the eight-foot level as the regulations called for and so forth, so this information was out there among those who were interested. I was aware that there were a number of these people proceeding in the hope that this time the government of Manitoba would persevere and bring this to a successful conclusion, even though we had not dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's.
So, Mr. Chairman, we now have 12 licensed elk farms in Manitoba. My hope is to see that number grow. I do not fool myself. This is not for everybody. We will not have thousands of them, but we will have, I think, in relatively short order, several hundred elk farmers in the province of Manitoba, we hope. That is why we are running the capture program, to get them kind of kick-started.
* (1600)
The question that she asked about the permanent holders, out of a sense of fairness in getting these new start-up people a little break or a better chance, the current holders, that is the people that have been permitted and have elk, will be excluded from the draw, will not be permitted for the draw, at least in the first stages of it. If we find ourselves with more elk and not enough applicants to take up the inventory of elk that we have, then, of course, I think we would reserve for ourselves the right to dispose of them as well, because we do not want to keep them any longer than we have to at government expense.
But my intention is, in fact, to have a bit of a revolving thing, if, in fact, we have more applicants than we have elk, that we will have our first draw. That first draw could take place fairly soon. It could be within the next month, not necessarily that the animals will move, because they will be in a stage of late pregnancy or just calving, and the animals, in all likelihood, will not physically move, at least not the new mothers. The late pregnant mothers will not move until fall. Lighter animals could be moved earlier. That is the thinking.
But if we have more applicants and we draw out more names than we have animals for, then, again, in the sense of fairness, those who got some animals in the first draw will have to wait their turn until next year's people's names get a chance in the draw. Believe me, I want to make this as fair as possible, and, of course, my object--my object is sublime; I shall achieve in time--is to use this opportunity to get as many started as possible.
I want to see the birth of 150, 250 elk farms starting in Manitoba. That is why I rejected the concept of going to a public auction and having Jane's husband come down here--you know Jane's husband; you know him well--and buy all the elk, just like that. Jane's hubby, that fellow Turner that runs the CNN network, he is the biggest bison farmer. He runs 10,000 bison in Montana, you know, and I did not want him to come and buy up all our elk, even though that money-conscious colleague of mine the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) with his glinty blue eyes suggested that that is exactly what I should do, and it would have saved me, quite frankly, a lot of trouble.
Public auction sale--nobody can accuse this minister or the government of showing any favouritism. It is a very fair and open way, a normal way of disposing of particularly public property. But what would have happened--and I took the advice from my own senior staff; I took the advice from other people who knew something about the elk-ranching industry--is that if we would have offered our premium elk at the public auction sale, very few of them would likely have stayed in Manitoba. The ranchers who were aware of the genetic superiority of our elk, the established ranchers in Alberta, in Saskatchewan or the United States, would have been there buying our elk, even if we would have required that they would have to be Manitoba's residents only. It is not that difficult to get a Manitoban to front for somebody if someone else is putting up the dollars.
We put some very specific regulations in that included--the most prohibitive one, quite frankly, is that these elk that are being provided at somewhat less than market costs to Manitoba ranchers cannot, in fact, leave the province for a period of years, three years or four years. Again, the regulations I am not quite sure of, but five years perhaps that they cannot leave, because, first of all, we want to maintain that edge that we have with, what everybody tells us, the superiority, the genetics of our elk. We want to get a good basic herd established in Manitoba before they get sold off to Saskatchewan or the United States or Alberta or elsewhere, and we want to do everything possible to give Manitoba--even though we are the late entries into this field, that five years from now, 10 years from now, Manitoba will be the premier jurisdiction with respect to elk farming.
Ms. Wowchuk: To the minister, is the minister saying that the four or five people who have conditional licences are people who, in anticipation of elk ranching getting started here, put up their fences, and then when the legislation passed, they then purchased elk from Saskatchewan and brought them in, and that is how they got their conditional licences once the regulations were passed, because if they purchased the elk before the registration and before the February 1 deadline, they would have probably shown up on this other list here? Is it after the deadline?
Mr. Enns: Yes, Mr. Chairman, these are outside of any listings that the honourable member has there. These are people who since February 14 were eligible, because of their circumstances are eligible for inspection and registration. In all cases, all these animals are imported, and with many of them, there are very specific conditions. They are under a 60-day quarantine, cannot be moved for 60 days to meet Ag Canada's and our Manitoba health requirements under our regulations.
Persons engaging in this industry will come to realize and some, quite frankly, will be upset about the degree of regulation and supervision that will accompany the business of elk farming, but we do it for the very good reasons that this industry has been attacked for. We want to ensure that health is not an issue with the introduction of domestic ranching into Manitoba. We want to ensure that we are not importing health problems into the province, not just for the elk herds, but for the multimillion-dollar livestock industry that we have flourishing in this province. So there are very specific and some would call restrictive regulations that will govern the business of elk farming in Manitoba.
I can answer the honourable member though that all of these come in that category of not having--that is why they were able to be in it now ahead of the draw. They are even ahead of the established permitted owners because we have not quite concluded our examination of all those animals that we will enter into the program as I previously described.
If some of the permanent holders, including a Mr. Eisner or a Mr. Taylor, some of these, cannot satisfy us that the animals on their premises can be traced and tracked to the animals that were originally permitted or allowed or by purchase or can somehow be tracked in that manner, if there are an additional four or five or half a dozen animals that cannot be so tracked, then they will have to come in at the Manitoba formula price, not at $50 or $1,000. In fact, they would be returned. They would be removed from their premises and put into the compound and put into the draw for distribution when the draw takes place.
Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for that because that is one of the issues that has been raised by people who are feeling that there is a two-tier system and there are unfair advantages for people who have been holding elk under permit, and I am pleased that the department is going to do the tracking on those animals and ensure that they actually do come from the lines that they are supposed to come from and that we have the ability to track that.
There are two people who are capturing elk, who were under contract to capture elk, so they were given a share of elk for their capture, but they do not appear on this list anywhere, and that is Jerry Dushanek and Les Nelson who had contracts. So they now have the ability to hold elk. Can the minister indicate why then they would not appear somewhere on these lists as people who are now holding elk in captivity for agriculture purposes?
* (1610)
Mr. Enns: Again, not to avoid the question, but it would more appropriately be directed to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings).
My understanding is that they were asked by the Department of Natural Resources to assist them in the capture program. My understanding is that there is an arrangement again worked out, not unlike the kind of arrangement that I am talking about for the aboriginal people, that there would be an opportunity for--obviously there is a cost involved to persons doing this and that either dollars exchange hands or they earn the retention of some elk in the capture program.
But I am simply not responsible, and I am not apprised of what the details are, and I would invite the honourable member to pursue it with the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Ms. Wowchuk: I can appreciate that. If it is a Natural Resources issue, I will take it up with the Minister of Natural Resources, but I would assume that if we have an elk ranching program in this province, that any elk that will be held in captivity will have to come under this program.
I guess what I was looking for from the minister is will every elk that is held in captivity, other than elk that are being held for viewing purposes in zoos and in similar things, will all of those elk have to be registered under this program?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I think I indicated earlier, clearly with any and all animals that are being held in captivity for the purposes that we describe as domestic elk farming, that is for the sale of female breeding stock, for the sale of velvet potentially in the future--and the act covers this even though it is in the future--there will be elk from time to time that will have to be put down for different reasons, injuries and so forth, so the act also contemplates the kind of regime that would be necessary with the sale of elk meat. All of those activities, any elk kept anyplace in Manitoba, would have to fall solely and comply totally with the regulations that apply to the elk farming program.
Again, the Minister responsible for wildlife will, as he does now, make the decision with respect to any form of other elk that might be held in captivity. I suspect that there would be some special class created for zoos, an established zoo, but even there, I think the honourable member is familiar with the fact that a too loose definition of that kind of got us into some of the difficulties here, what things were called. If I read through some of the old permits, they were viewing licences, educational purposes, something like that.
It is my discussion with representatives of the Department of Natural Resources that they, quite frankly, want to get out of that business, and that other than for well-recognized, pretty acceptable criteria for somewhere like the Winnipeg Zoo, they will not be handing out permits or starting another class of animals held in captivity that would kind of hover in between our domestic elk farming program and the wild herds. I simply do not see that happening, and, quite frankly, I would object to it because it would make our job more difficult to enforce the regulations of the program, and, Mr. Chairman, my staff and I recognize that that will be a constant challenge to those who administer this program.
We have good, healthy elk herds of superior quality, superior genetic quality. There will always be the temptation on both sides of the issue; for instance, for some who will see it as an opportunity of turning a fast dollar by capturing elk in the wild and for somebody that is involved in the program trying to acquire an animal perhaps under the table, in the black-market trade, for something considerably less than the market value of these elk. That situation will exist.
I am satisfied that the penalties that are contemplated, not contemplated, but are, in fact, law, are such that it will not be a difficult issue to enforce. I say this for several reasons and I can say that, I think, with some greater integrity in Manitoba than I could if I were the minister of the Saskatchewan program or the Alberta program, because we have taken the issue of identity one quantum leap further by going through not just the physical identification of ear tagging or some kind of branding that could be altered, but we have gone through the DNA testing for inventory, which really cannot be tinkered with. Increasingly, people's lives are at risk on the integrity of the DNA method of identification.
So it is not going to be any great problem for the Department of Agriculture who, the regulation says, once a year at least can come onto the premises of any elk farmer and do an inventory check, and if there is an animal there that should not be there according to the inventory records that we have that they are compelled by law to file with us, that farmer is in deep, deep trouble. Again, I think the honourable member should be aware of it. That should form part of the coffee shop gossip and rumour because entire farms can be lost if that occurs.
So I honestly believe and senior management people in the Department of Natural Resources believe that with the introduction of elk ranching under these circumstances, under these rules, it will make it considerably easier to cut down on poaching in elk; that is, poaching particularly for animals that we cannot prove but animals that have been poached knowing that there was elk ranching going on in other parts of the country and in the States, that other than poaching for meat slaughter--I cannot stop that--but elk poaching for trade in live animals will be considerably easier to control once the domestic elk farming is in full progress.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister is right, that poaching can be controlled because, certainly, that has been one of the concerns, but what it also takes is the will to enforce the law and ensure that regulations are followed. When I see what has happened over the last little while with the disposal of waste in sensitive areas and the way the regulations were being enforced there, I have a little bit of concern.
So I hope that the minister is very firm with his staff and ensures that the law is enforced and we do not see poaching because, as I say, that is one of the concerns that people have, and the minister has heard people across the province say that this will increase poaching. I hope that the regulations are there to control it because, certainly, we do not want to see what we have seen with other species, for example, bear. We do not want to see that happen with elk.
* (1620)
I had raised the issue of how people were being compensated for capture, and the minister says that comes under Natural Resources, but the housing of the animals comes under the Department of Agriculture. Can the minister indicate whether the animals at Grunthal or Pine Creek, whether there is a cash payment for housing these animals, and if it is a cash payment, what the rate is, or is there any agreement that there will be a sharing of the calf crop as payment for housing those animals?
Mr. Enns: Let met report to the honourable member that, no, with the Grunthal facility it is like a commercial custom feedlot holding of animals. They are being paid at the rate of $1.50 a day, I believe, and I do not have those figures before me. I think the Department of Natural Resources in this instance initially helped with some additional fencing that was required, but that is the arrangement with Grunthal, and there is no capacity on the part of the owners at the Grunthal facility to earn, in kind, elk.
But with the Pine Creek situation, that, I am just being advised, is under negotiation. They are talking such things like a minimum cash payment of $50 a day for the group, and what they are looking for is to earn 10 elk. Pardon me, they are holding 10 elk for us. But the aboriginal community would like--I am aware that whether it is Crane River or Pine Creek, they would like in the future and even with the ones that they are holding for us now to earn some opportunity to acquire animals.
So I think what you will find happening is that they would be satisfied to take kind of the minimum requirements that they need in cash that they actually require to lay out for food, for hay, for feed, or for some minimal maintenance or fencing cost and then reserve the rest of their earnings from holding cattle that they can convert to elk. We obviously would have to make a deal with anybody else, First Nations people, that would be commensurate or would more or less equal the arrangement that we made in Grunthal. We will not be able to have discriminatory rates, nor should we.
As a cattle person, I think the arrangements with Grunthal are fairly generous, but then I also understand it is an onerous responsibility. It is not like keeping a herd of a hundred of your neighbour's beef animals in captivity. These things have the potential of having harassing neighbours come in or animal rights interveners. There is the responsibility of heightened security that is very real. It is of particular concern to all of us. There is a different regime, fencing requirements and so forth, that is required. So I believe the arrangement is fair and one that will replicate itself with others.
I want to indicate to the honourable member that when I indicated the Department of Agriculture would take a little more hand in this co-management, if you like, of these animals in this in-between stage, I am not particularly pleased. In my opinion, we have too many animals in the one compound. If we are going to capture 200 or maybe 250 or 300 animals in the future, I would like to see them in lots of 40 or 30 or 50 spread in different parts of the province for several reasons, but one of the most important ones is that, you know, they all go through tests. They all go through TB tests, brucellosis testing and things like that.
As the member is fully aware, if an animal should show positive and goes down, then I am in trouble with the entire herd, and that causes me as a cattle producer of some experience some concern. I have indicated and passed it on to the department and particularly Natural Resources that I do not think we should be lumping too many of these animals in one group. We have really no way of knowing when we capture them what is out there.
Those of us who propose this kind of domestic use of the animals from the wild, we are sometimes challenged that we are going to bring all kinds of disease to the wild herds. Well, quite frankly, there is just as much of a case to be made for it to be the other way around. We know what disease levels we have to cope with in our domestic herds, whether it is cattle, swine or poultry. We have done a magnificent job, thanks to the works of the kind of people like Dr. Jim Neufeld here in the Veterinary Services branch, in eradicating some of the principal diseases in our livestock industries, that we are not plagued with something like hoof and mouth disease that the little island country of Taiwan is facing up to right now.
We have for so many, many years. I can recall I was just commencing my livestock career on a south Interlake farm when the brucellosis eradication program was just in its final stages. We, in Manitoba and Canada, now count ourselves as brucellosis-free which is of tremendous import in the movement of cattle. Cattle can move more freely between jurisdictions with us and the United States. We have eradicated in essence--eradication is probably too strong a word. There are occasional outbreaks that occur--the tuberculosis, TB disease in cattle. When an isolated outbreak occurs, the full forces of Ag Canada and the Department of Agriculture come to bear on the issue. The problem is isolated, and we maintain our status. So, in this case, we are making sure, and you would expect us to make sure since these animals are being sold under the auspices of government, that we are not knowingly or willingly passing on diseased animals, that these animals have tested TB-free, have tested brucellosis-free, and can to that extent provide some confidence to future purchasers.
Ms. Wowchuk: Indeed, we do want to see a disease-free herd. The minister talks about disease. One of the concerns when the herd was being put at Grunthal was the possibility of brain worm in the deer in that area. I wonder whether the minister has taken that as a serious consideration and whether any testing has been done, or whether the minister feels that there is any risk to that herd because of the possibility of the carriers of brain worm being in the soil in that area.
Mr. Enns: The member is correct. The issue of brain worm is an issue that involves a species. It is one of the reasons why we have been careful about from whence we will allow importation of animals, which jurisdictions where we feel there is a higher incidence, although that is in dispute to some extent. Some say there is more of this prevalent than in Ontario; others say it is not that serious. But I can report to the House that all these animals in captivity have undergone the test for brain worm, and all have passed with a clean bill of health.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, the minister earlier indicated that when they were looking at where the various animals came from, I think he indicated that one of the people who have elk in captivity had brought their animals in from Ontario. Ontario is one of the areas where the regulations do not allow them to come in from. So I want to ask the minister, what steps have been taken to address that, whether those animals that did come from Ontario will have to go back, or whether the testing has been done to ensure that they are not a risk to the other animals in captivity?
* (1630)
Mr. Enns: I think I may have misled my honourable colleague by indicating in the instance of the one party that we referred to, a Mr. Mervin Farmer, who has interests and has been involved with another gentleman in Northern Ontario with elk, but he has not brought any elk in. The elk that he has acquired here are purchased, to the best of our knowledge, and we have it from a Manitoba permit holder, Mr. Peter Kalden, who I think is known to her, and from the zoo, I believe, from the zoo. None of these animals have come in, and they are not permitted to come in from Ontario. I have a request, quite frankly on my desk requesting that that be permitted, but we simply cannot accommodate it.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I was listening actually to the debate downstairs, got somewhat sidetracked because I had a visitor, and so the minister will have to excuse me. No doubt he has probably answered, maybe in different forms, these questions.
Elk farming has been somewhat of a controversy over the last little while, as many avid hunters are watching very closely in terms of what the government is doing and how they are capturing the animals, how many have actually been captured and so forth. I had a couple of fairly specific questions. Some of it is just strictly confirmation.
From what I understand to date, the government has 234 elk, is it, that have been caught? Actually, not caught; 212 were caught, of which we now have 234 because of birth?
Mr. Enns: The honourable member is correct, roughly, although that number changes because calves are being born while in captivity. We had 29 calves born from the captured animals last year, and I suspect--I am looking at my Australian expert on elk and all manners of livestock. When do the elk mothers normally calf? In May, June? Mid-May and June. So within another month or two we will again increase the numbers of elk that we have in captivity.
Mr. Lamoureux: Is the government currently capturing elk, or is that complete? We have caught the elk that we are going to be catching?
Mr. Enns: Again, Mr. Chairman, there is a right time and a wrong time to capture elk. Obviously, we do not want to disturb elk. If we were to capture them at this time of the year in the wild, they are late in pregnancy. The stress put on late, heavily pregnant female elk would not be advisable. It would run contrary to our concern for animal welfare. So the ideal time I think to engage in a capture program is mid-winter, maybe earlier in winter. But the problem is it is mid-winter, particularly if it is a hard winter, the elk start coming out to feed, depredate and feed on farmers' feed supplies that makes the capture possible.
So I think our capture concluded pretty well on about the 1st of March or a few days thereafter. We extended it a bit. We were probably pushing the time line a little bit. Wildlife specialists on something like that would like to say that we should not be disturbing those animals any time after February.
Mr. Lamoureux: Does the government have an overall number of wild elk that they anticipate on catching over the next number of years?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, no, we do not have a specific number. I have been given, or the elk ranching farming program has been given specific cabinet direction and authority to entertain a five-year capture program. We have been involved now in two years, so that, by my count, will enable us to conduct a capture program for an additional three years.
I can also tell the honourable member that in certain specific areas, like the Swan River Valley, where our Crop Insurance Corporation is paying out very significant dollars in crop loss because of big game damage, wildlife damage--just to give the honourable member an idea, we are paying likely $1,400,000 in cash compensation for bales of hay that have been and ruined crop. Regrettably, it is also in that area, because it is in the northern part of our agri-Manitoba land, that all too often, sometimes because of early onslaught of winter, still has a significant amount of unharvested grain lying in swaths in the field. These get severely damaged during the winter.
Wildlife, deer, elk find that very convenient, restaurant style, to have the farmers roll out the hay and the big bales, put them in nice rows, the barley and the wheat in nice rows. That can be well identified by even a blind elk walking through, because he stumbles onto the stubble. Then he just has to nuzzle the snow a little bit, and he has got fine feed in front of him.
We are paying out a $1,400,000 in that kind of damage. Different experts tell us that there are anywhere up to 700 to 800 elk that are resident on that farmland. These are animals that are not going back into the parks or into the bush. They have become accustomed to that environment, are dropping their calves in that environment. We see this as an opportunity of doing two things at once, of starting an industry and at the same time reducing those costs that are significant, that have to be borne by all farmers in their crop insurance premiums.
So, if you are asking me for a target, my personal target is, yes, to capture in the neighbourhood of a thousand elk in this five-year period. We are not going to do that if we capture them at this rate. We have captured, I think in the first year, something like 127 perhaps, in that area. This year it is somewhat less; we have about 92, 93 animals. So we will have to do a bit better in the succeeding years.
I want to assure the honourable member--and I want to assure those interested in recreational sport hunting of elk; I want to assure those who simply enjoy seeing these majestic animals in our wild--that we have, and wildlife biologists report, a healthy population of elk numbering in the 10,000 to 12,000. They are propagating themselves, maintaining themselves, dropping calves. Taking several hundred elk out of this 10,000, 12,000 herd of elk, in my humble opinion, is not in any way seriously jeopardizing the future of the wild herds, is not in any way significantly reducing the hunting opportunities for those who find a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction in engaging in that activity. For those who want to simply enjoy coming upon some of these animals in the wild and do not do either of those things, there will be opportunities for them to continue enjoying them as well.
* (1640)
Furthermore, I say this advisedly because in some instances some of the kind of indiscriminate taking of these animals, and whether it is, in some instances, by our aboriginal community; regrettably there have been some serious instances of this. They know it, and we are not, of course, intruding on their aboriginal rights and treaty rights to do so. An aboriginal person can hunt an elk 365 days of the year, and some of them do. I suspect--and it is just a feeling--that some of them might look at that elk a little differently before they carry out that treaty right. They may want to say, well, you know, I have a different attitude about that animal. That animal is worth considerably more money if I engage in elk farming, or if I use the animal in that way, rather than hunting in excess of what they may need or hunting under circumstances where it is not really a matter of food, as is their traditional right, but simply sometimes a case of demonstrating that they have the right to hunt and to take the animal at any time. I think you might see a little shift in that attitude and create a further conservation measure for the species themselves.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, during the throne speech, I had indicated to the minister that one of the things that I heard was--and, again, it is more rumour, but I would not bring it if I did not think that there might have been some credibility with respect to it--that we have elk that are being brought from the province of Manitoba, in particular, into Saskatchewan. Has the ministry heard anything to the effect of elk being taken out of Manitoba into Saskatchewan?
Now, whether there are dead carcasses or if they are transporting them live, I am not really too sure, but I was definitely given the impression that we have had elk, not walking across the border, but being taken across the border, and if the minister might be able to address that particular concern.
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak with certainty, but certainly, I think, one of the impelling reasons for Manitoba to consider that it was now time for us to get into elk farming was that it was legal and had been legal for some time in Ontario; it was legal in the United States; it is legal in Saskatchewan and Alberta--in other words, legal all around us. Yet we have what? It is not Harry Enns saying this, but what our animal biologists say and, more importantly, what the marketplace demonstrates, we probably, by an act of geography, partly due to our isolation, something like that, have the best elk on the continent.
It is safe to say we have the best elk in the world because elk are not indigenous to all countries of the world, and with those circumstances, I would, and I know, I mean I cannot document it, but we were setting ourselves up, if you like, for animals being poached, taken out of the province of Manitoba and trucked, transported, sold to these other jurisdictions. To what extent that took place, I do not know, and, as I say, cannot document it. Certainly, Natural Resources was in a position and did. If elk were being transported without permit, without the necessary papers, they were in defiance of all kinds of regulations in The Wildlife Act, but I am not from Missouri, I do not fool myself. I am sure that some of that did in fact take place.
Today, now, whatever elk is transported to other jurisdictions is under the full and total control of the regulations that have been approved by this House, and I can report to the member that there are some animals, there is one animal right in the last little while that is moving from Manitoba, under permit from a permit holder, to a Saskatchewan buyer. There are animals coming, as I indicated earlier, 77 animals that have been purchased. Some of our would-be elk farmers, eagerly awaiting for the completion and the passage of this bill, have purchased elk in Saskatchewan, and under our regulations they are now being held in quarantine for a 60-day period before they can be moved into Manitoba.
I can report to my friend that none other than my former good friend, Ken Foster, the chairman of Manitoba Pork, not that he has given up or lost any confidence in pork, but is moving into the elk farming business with his sons. He is one of those gentlemen, one of the those parties, that has purchased elk and now was inquiring, could he move them at any time now? I said, no, they have to comply with the quarantine regulations, and when they have fulfilled the quarantine regulations, meet all the health inspections, then they will be moved onto the farm.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I would be somewhat concerned if in fact the department is aware. This particular constituent indicated that it is a significant number of elk, and there are some people from within the department that are familiar potentially with what is going on. I think that there is an onus on the department to at least investigate this, see if in fact it is a legitimate complaint, and if so take some sort of action to rectify it, especially if you have a relatively small group of individuals that might be doing it.
I was wanting to move on to asking some questions with respect to the number of elk in captivity. The government has caught elk. We used to have elk farming a number of years ago. Were all those elk, for example, disposed of in some fashion? How many elk would we actually have, what we would classify as in captivity, on a farm, outside of the 200-plus that the government currently has? Can the minister indicate whether it might be on reserves, private land, how many elk we are we talking about?
Mr. Enns: We have a total of some 250 elk that are held by the kind of operations that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) describes; people that were at one point in time encouraged, in one specific case, to do a pilot test run in elk ranching in 1985, and then the program was withdrawn. But we have in total some one, two, three, four, five what we call permit holders. They have some 250 elk under those permits.
They are a Mr. John Eisner, in association with a Mr. McKay, I understand, who possess some 82 animals on their premises; Bill Hart, who possesses some 47 animals on his premises; Mr. Janz, the gentleman that is housing our animals in Grunthal, has also had, under permit, five animals, always has had them; a Dr. Peter Kalden, who is in the north Interlake, Davis Point outfitters--I think they call themselves--have different wildlife animals, or nontraditional livestock animals from wild boar to bison and to elk. He has some 48 animals registered with us. Mr. Kelly Taylor, who has come from the south central and southwest Oak Lake area of the province, has some 73 animals registered with us.
These are, what I call, the kind of residue, or the leftovers, from a previous attempt to start elk ranching. But these operations all were doing this with the awareness of government. They had a permit to keep these animals. In many instances--and this is what is going on right now--they had seven, eight, or five or six original animals, of which they were allowed to keep progeny, but this in some cases dates back to '73, '84, '85.
This is now 1997, and we are determining whether or not the numbers that are now accounted for can be traced back to those original numbers. So the bulk of these animals would no longer--while some of the originals came from the wild, where else do they come from--the bulk of these numbers were born in captivity, raised, nurtured, and fed at the expense of these individuals.
Mr. Lamoureux: So using the government's numbers then, we have in captivity, approximately, through the private sector, if you like, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 255; the government, somewhere in the neighbourhood of 234, which account for about 489. Is it then safe to say that in Manitoba we have 489, approximately give or take 10, 12 depending on calves and so forth, in captivity? The remainder or the balance would be in fact in the wild?
* (1650)
Mr. Enns: Just about, but not quite. In addition to that we just had a discussion. We have the four or five elk ranches that we have just permitted. As we speak they are out buying elk, some of them, not waiting for our draw program or not waiting to inquire. They have made purchases of elk in Saskatchewan or in Alberta, and, certainly, the list that I had here indicated that there were another four or five operators with about six or seven animals each. These were not Manitoba animals; they were Saskatchewan animals. So we would have to add that to it.
Essentially, the honourable member is right. We have that 250-odd--55 that belong to the original permit holders, the original people that kind of started elk ranching years back, you add that to the ones we have now captured, the 220 or 230. So you have your 400-plus animals that are in captivity today. The balance of the 10,000, 12,000 elk in the province are in the wild.
Mr. Lamoureux: Does the minister believe, to any extent, that there are wild elk that might have been captured from people outside of the programs, for example, that the minister has talked about, that are in captivity? The reason why I ask that is one of the numbers that at least had been reported in part from the media was that Manitoba has probably closer to 900 wild elk in captivity. So I would ask if the minister could maybe just expand if he believes there are, in fact, other wild elk that maybe his department is not aware of in captivity.
Mr. Enns: I cannot say with certainty that there are not additional wild elk that somebody may or may not have captured. I would suggest that they are going to have some problems. First of all, they are certainly subject to the full laws that are in existence under The Wildlife Act and administered by the Department of Natural Resources for holding in captivity wild animals that they are not permitted to do so.
Secondly, the whole purpose of having a day, February 14, as we chose on, was to determine whether or not any elk of the nature that the honourable member was describing were out there. I am satisfied with the numbers that have been reported. We have had no incidence. We have had two incidents of people reporting orphans calves that they as a family saved, found in the wild and nurtured as young and raised in the Roblin-Russell; they have been reported to us. There are two other instances of people who were not permitted: one Mr. Patrick Houde from the Elm Creek area, and a Mr. Merv Farmer, whom I know well, who bought some animals and then reported to us.
I can tell you this much, that anybody coming up, there is no other reason for holding animals other than if he wants to engage in what is becoming the more and more dicey business of poaching. Poachers will, regrettably, always be with us. We are doing our best to restrict it and hopefully to eliminate it. They will not be able to enter our program. Nobody coming forward a month from now, six months from now, is going to be able to show up with a dozen or 10 or 12 or 15 elk and apply to register with the department's program. That opportunity is lost; it is gone for all time. They had to do that by February 14.
February 14, that period was not an amnesty period. It was an opportunity for people to report elk that they had. I did not know for certain. I heard the same rumours. I did not know for certain whether or not there was a fair bit of this action taking place. I sighed a collective sigh of relief, I think, with a lot of people in my department, who were also subject to these rumours when, in fact, these animals did not materialize. It was really the figment of somebody's imagination and the energetic report or writing of a Free Press reporter. Well, I have to admit that, you know, so-called friends and relatives that like to call you Uncle Harry did not help the matter a great deal. But Lord preserve us from our friends and so-called relatives from time to time. But I answer not facetiously. The simple fact of the matter is that, yes, that caused myself, that caused my government, it caused, I think, the department a considerable degree of, you know, unnecessary angst and concern about how we were running the affairs with respect to this program.
But I say with absolute sincerity that these things simply did not materialize. That is not to say--I mean, Mr. Pat Houde jumped the gun. There is no question about it. He was not authorized to go out and buy elk at this time.
Neither was a single business authorized to stay open on Remembrance Day, last Remembrance Day, and thousands did. What was the response of the law, of the Justice department, the courts and the Winnipeg police? They said the Legislature had indicated its intention of what they wanted to do that enabled all businesses to open from one o'clock on Remembrance Day, as is now the law; and nobody pressed charges. In effect, we were being advised--hey, we had indicated 12 months in advance that we were going to start elk farming. So a farmer jumps the gun a little bit and buys some elk--did not, not a question of poaching elk out of the wild, stealing elk out of the wild, or capturing elk. He went and bought elk out of the wild, you know, just as other farmers were buying elk from Saskatchewan. Other farmers were buying elk and holding them in Ontario. What court in this land is going to seriously take on that case? That is part of my problem.
I would pursue Mr. Houde with the full intensity of the law if, in fact, it could be demonstrated, if we can show, Natural Resources officers can physically show that he participated in the capture of animals illegally in the wild and acquired those animals that way, if it can be shown that Mr. Farmer acquired his animals in that way, but it is not. Mr. Farmer is a straightforward, long-time, respectable businessman in the south Interlake, came to the department, showed us, I bought these animals from somebody that your government has permitted to have these animals and permitted to sell these animals. We cannot take him to court, but he technically kind of jumped the gun a little bit. But everybody is applying by the rules, and they will have to apply by the rules, or they shall face the wrath of one Mr. John Taylor, who will whiplash them into shape.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chair, so if I am driving out in rural communities and I see an elk in captivity, it is then safe for me to assume that the government would be aware of it, because that person would in fact have a permit of some sort. If there were elk where the government did not provide a permit, because it is deemed as a wild animal, it would be illegal then for them to have that animal in captivity; and if they did, the government then would be obligated to take him to court. I understand that is what I am hearing, and I guess I would move on. When the minister stands up to answer my next question, maybe he could just reaffirm that I am correct in what I just stated.
The other issue is where it is that we are actually capturing the elk. The minister made reference to that he could see potentially up to a thousand over a five-year period. We are into year two, which means there is going to be potentially a lot more elk that are going to be caught over the next three years. Last year when I asked the minister this particular question I was told, trust me. I think he said "Kevie" or something of that nature, in Hansard, and it was not the current minister, he was a former minister, only to find out within a couple of weeks that the minister was wrong, that in fact there were elk that were being caught in other areas.
Does the minister have a policy of where the elk can be caught and as opposed to maybe explaining to me in great detail--the minister can explain it also--but if I could be provided at some point in time a map of the catchment area where wild elk are going to be caught?
Mr. Enns: The short answer to the member's initial or first question is, yes, that elk is being held illegally under captivity. It should be either under our program, or it is in the wild. Now, I would ask him again to confirm that with the Natural Resources department, because they have the jurisdiction over that. Just generally speaking, policy-wise, as I said in response to the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), the policy is to try and combine the benefits of reducing the populations where they create problems for farmers, for crop depredation; that is where we would prefer to do our capture. The honourable minister when he answered that question--you know, we wanted to do that last year in the first capture.
* (1700)
Regrettably, we had a public relations problem with these very same farmers that we were trying to help with the crop depredation problem. They had other issues like compensation values that were being paid for; wildlife damage should be raised from 75 percent or 80 percent to 100 percent, which we did. But it created a kind of a standoff at O.K. Corral in the Swan River Valley, and the Natural Resources people under those circumstances withdrew and captured elk elsewhere other than where he had kind of indicated to the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) he would do that. But I think we are overcoming that. But, just generally speaking, it just makes good common sense that we want to take those elk from areas where they have a track record of creating problems for farmers, where, obviously, they are in numbers more than can be sustained in the surrounding wildlife area, in the bush area, and are systematically and regularly coming out on the farmland to cause the crop depredation that I spoke of, which is in the millions of dollars, $1,400,000 this year.
So that is what kind of direction that I give to Natural Resources under whose supervision the capture program is undertaken. We in Agriculture will tell them, these are the areas in the province where our crop insurance records show we have inordinately high crop depredation taking place from elk. We would appreciate it, from Agriculture's point of view, never mind telling them anything about the elk ranching, in Agri we would appreciate it if you would do something about reducing the number of elk in those areas.
In previous years we did different things. We simply increased the hunting pressure on them and sold more hunting licenses. We have engaged in the past, not too often, but I can recall in one instance, and my area was the recipient, where we captured elk, I believe, out of Swan River Valley and transferred them all the way over into the Interlake area to my part of the world where we virtually had no elk. I can report to honourable members of the committee, we have now a pretty good herd of elk in the central and northern Interlake. You know, some numbering 400-500, which, to a large extent, were developed by moving some 40-some elk out of Swan River and moving them physically to the Interlake. We have moved deer--and we have done this to other species--from some areas and moved them all the way to St. Malo in the southern part of the province. These are costly programs, as the honourable member would appreciate. What I want to do is combine the benefit of--I am telling Natural Resources, in Agriculture we are paying for it, that we will take some of these crop depredators off your hands and start what I know will be a $50-million, $60-million industry in five or six years.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I myself am not a hunter, but I appreciate the fact that I have not only a great deal of constituents, but I acknowledge there are a great deal of Manitobans that enjoy hunting and derive a lot of sportsmanship, if I can put it in that fashion, and I think that there is a bit of concern in terms of, with the government's policy, what sort of an impact is that going to have on the wildlife of our elk into the future. You know, currently we have somewhere between 10,000 to 12,000 wild elk. Does the ministry see that number being somewhat static? Has the minister had any discussions, for example, with the Manitoba Wildlife Federation? If so, what sorts of reassurances are you giving to those that rely on wild elk, whether it is as a livelihood from our aboriginal community, to those that enjoy going out and hunting and testing their skills, to the interest groups such as the Manitoba Wildlife Association? Has the minister had that sort of discussion? Maybe he can just enlighten us in a few minutes as to what the outcome of that is.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, you would appreciate that certainly the people in the Department of Natural Resources, the wildlife biologists would be comfortable with the program that is being carried out, that it is from this species point of view sustainable, that it is not one that would lead to a crash in the long-term populations of the elk that we have in this province. I am satisfied, from my background as a former Minister of Natural Resources and having had the privilege of working with some of the people in that department, that that is absolutely true.
Allow me to say this thing. We sometimes are far too hard on ourselves in terms of not fully acknowledging how successful actually agriculture, wildlife and the settlement patterns that we have, you know, not just in Manitoba, but I say about the North America continent. We are doing it reasonably right--not in all instances, we have some problem areas--but it can be said in some species that have followed settlement. The white-tailed deer were not as numerous in this part of the world prior to settlement. Some species, beaver and others are as numerous today as the day that Christopher Columbus first set sail to come to the New World. I think North America generally has done, through progressive legislation that enhanced the sustainability of our migratory game birds--our ducks and our geese, yes, they suffer from drought periods and so forth, but the numbers of our noble Canada geese and our duck populations are there presettlement levels--through massive organizations like the very people that he speaks about.
The interested wildlife organizations, the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, Canadian Wildlife Federation, departments of governments, Natural Resources, a host of private interested groups, everything from organizations like World Wildlife organization, that pressure governments to set aside and move into programs like the Endangered Spaces Program that this government is committed to, that says that for all time we will set aside certain bits of our real estate for future conservation and wildlife purposes.
Our national parks system, a parks system here in Canada, I think it is kind of--you know, just in Manitoba, we farmers, we cultivate some 11 million, 12 million acres of land. We have nine million acres set aside for parks, and that is not counting another six million acres set aside for wildlife management areas where wildlife have the first preserve over cattle and other agricultural pursuits. In addition to that, we are setting aside big chunks of property into the Endangered Spaces Program. That says to me, an organization like Ducks Unlimited and other organizations put a great deal of private money into these efforts. In the southwest part of the province, we have targeted, four years ago, since I signed that agreement, to take 500,000 acres out of agricultural production and put it into wetlands.
All of this has resulted in what I think is an unreally appreciated balance of development of agriculture living with the resources of the wild and ensuring that my grandchildren, their children and their children after them will have much the same environment that we enjoy today. I am, quite frankly, pretty proud of that. A lot of public civil servants deserve recognition for having accomplished that. In many instances they fought with not all that amenable politicians to make it happen, but because of their professional status, they helped make it happen. A lot of private organizations helped make it happen.
* (1710)
I think we, as a people, when we look at and we drive through this beautiful country of ours, and I extend that to a big portion of the United States as well, and I say that with the privilege of having had the opportunity of travelling in different parts of the world, that cannot be said of all parts of the continent. In Asia they have given up the ghost. The wildlife that you see in Tokyo, in Japan is the little bird, the gentleman, a party carries and sits on a bench somewhere that we are sending over sunflower seeds in increasing amounts to feed.
Regrettably, in that beautiful, from a wildlife point of view, continent of Africa, things are not going in the right direction. In Europe, what wildlife there is--reserved for the remnants of the aristocracy or the very rich. You do not pick up a hunting licence for $35 and go off in the bush and hunt a deer or an elk anywhere in Europe, and they do not have all that much wildlife. We in North America have done it right in this respect, and I take a measure of satisfaction in having been, for the past few years, involved in two particular departments, Natural Resources and Agriculture, that have been instrumental in doing this. So endeth that lesson today.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister just indicated why it is so important that we do preserve that wildlife that we have in this province and in this country, and one of the reasons that there was such objection to the elk ranching starting in this province was exactly that reason--people wanted to see our wildlife preserved and not become held in captivity on farms. I think that had the government decided to proceed with elk ranching without capturing elk in Manitoba, they would have met much less resistance.
The minister talks about the capture having been very expensive, and it was, but there were also many other suggestions put forward by people as to how the problem of depredation elk could be addressed, and people suggested that they do increase hunting. People suggested that they continue to establish herds. The minister talks about the herd that was established in the Interlake area. Well, there are still other people who were asking for herds to be established in their areas. There is a band in my area, the Shoal River Band, that has asked that a herd be established, and although the government was on that track, they put all of that aside in the name of elk ranching and capturing elk for ranching.
The Elk Management Board in the Swan River Valley has also suggested other things. The minister has said that there are people who are now starting elk ranching here in Manitoba who are bringing elk in from the other provinces. So we have some elk that are being held by people who had permits; we have some 300 elk that are now in captivity; we have elk that are being imported from other provinces. The question I put to the minister is does the minister see that the industry can grow with those animals that are there and animals that can be imported without capturing any more animals from the wild.
Then addressing the concern that many people have is that the wild herd will be put in jeopardy. I know that there are large numbers out there, but with the Department of Natural Resources looking at other ways to address the numbers and then having the industry grow just from the animals that are in captivity now and the ones that--and they are coming in from other provinces because the minister indicated that there are some people who brought them in already--would the minister see that as a viable option to have the elk industry grow in this province without having further capture from the wild?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, I do have a lot of respect for the honourable member for Swan River. She comes from the farm. She knows that, intuitively, we tend to look at things in a pretty common sense kind of way. You tell me, what makes more sense, to encourage somebody to buy a $35 licence and shoot an elk, or to allow that elk to live in grace and dignity for virtually all of its life in the comforting arms of agriculture, and, in doing so, solve the problem of reducing depredation and provide an alternative livelihood for somebody.
I can expect if she were a militant animal rights advocate, which I know she is not because she comes from good basic farm stock, and understands that the animals, although always treated properly and with their welfare in mind, have a contribution to make to our collective being on this planet Earth.
I am not so sure about my friend the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers). He is a little iffy on these issues, you know. That is because he does not come from that farming background. He is a school teacher, you see, and that is always--well, no, I had better be careful because I could get myself into trouble here.
I can assure, as I indicated to the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), department wildlife biologists would be the first to raise the flags if our capture program exceeded that benchmark where the wildlife herd was being jeopardized. Let us be sensible about this. We are talking about--we say conservatively, 12,000--it could well be 15,000 elk out there, but say 12,000 elk, and we are taking 90 elk, 100 elk, or 200 elk. That is going to jeopardize that herd. No, Mr. Chairman.
Other things may, and I cannot account for that. Some natural serious change in habitat, some disease that occurs naturally; these things are what could perhaps put that herd in jeopardy, but not the activity associated with the introduction of domestic elk farming in Manitoba. So I ask her to accept that.
Ms. Wowchuk: I accept the minister's comments, but he did not answer what I was asking and that was: Did he think that the industry could grow in Manitoba without the capturing of elk seeing that we have some in captivity? We have elk that can be brought in from other provinces where there are large herds. My question was: Is it necessary? I was not talking about the jeopardy of the herd. I was referring to other issues that other people have brought. Does the minister feel the industry can grow? We will set that aside; I think we have talked enough about elk for one day.
I would like to move on to another area in the livestock industry, Mr. Chairman, that being the hog industry. There has been some discussion about pseudo rabies, and the fact that Canada is free of this disease, and the American farmers have serious problems with the disease. Currently, live hogs imported into Canada must be quarantined. My understanding is that there is pressure from American people to bring live hogs into this province for slaughter. There is a concern by Manitoba hog producers that this puts our industry at risk. Although this would probably come under federal jurisdiction, I would like to ask the minister the position of his department, whether he has any concerns about live animals from the United States being imported live into Canada, and whether he feels there is a risk to the Manitoba hog industry, in particular, hogs they are wanting to bring in to slaughter, into Manitoba, and whether he feels there is a risk to the Manitoba hog industry and in particular hogs that they are wanting to bring in to slaughter into Manitoba and whether he feels there is a risk to the Manitoba Hog Producers.
Mr. Enns: I think that is always a matter of concern that we do not take lightly the movement of animals, particularly from areas that have a disease problem. The honourable member is correct. There is a concern about this pseudo rabies problem that has been identified in some of the American herds, and Ag Canada is very much on top of the situation.
* (1720)
On a more general note--and certainly our American friends remind us of this sometimes--we do not allow a movement of animals back across our border, despite the fact that, as honourable members know, a very significant amount of hogs are moving across the border from Canada to the south. Just as recently as a few weeks ago when we had a group of American congressmen and senators visit us, this was one of their issues of concern, a trade irritant, if you like, was the fact that the border was a one-way border.
I am advised by senior staff that Ag Canada is currently negotiating with Americans. Generally the manner and way in which these border obstacles get overcome is by first of all establishing specific areas, states maybe, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, that can demonstrate to our satisfaction and meet the health requirements that would make it possible from that area to possibly allow animals coming across.
None of that is in place, but I simply indicate that there are pressures both sides of the border for that to happen. Quite frankly, from a trade perspective, I would prefer--whereas I think we will always be moving considerably more animals, to our advantage, south of the border, there is always the possibility of irritating the Americans to the point where they react with countervailing actions or countervailing duties, and it would be helpful quite frankly to be able to point out, well, look it, if our market conditions are such that or other reasons induce you to send your markets across the border the other way, that is free trade. As the honourable member knows, I am a proponent of free trade. I know she is not, but I am.
Ms. Wowchuk: And indeed there will be trade both ways and there should be if there is a market for the product, but if they are not disease free and have not met the requirements, we cannot risk our hog industry in this province. We have to be sure that steps are taken to ensure that the hogs that are coming in here, whether it be for slaughter or for whatever purpose, meet the requirements so that we do not risk the industry.
The federal Minister of Agriculture has addressed this, and I know that there have been resolutions passed by the Canadian Swine Association that we should not be allowing these animals to come into Canada for slaughter purposes without first meeting the requirements of at least one year without infection of the swine. Is there any role for the provincial government to play in this, and has the minister's department had any study on this or must it purely be addressed by the federal government?
Mr. Enns: I think we can make it very, very abundantly clear that we totally concur with what the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is indicating. Certainly it would be irresponsible for us to, in any way, encourage the importation of swine in this instance from areas that we are not absolutely satisfied meet all the prescribed required circumstances and we--Dr. Neufeld's office would be monitoring that on behalf of Manitoba producers with Ag Canada. We offer our support wherever we can. There are circumstances where Ag Canada officials were co-operating with provincial departments. If the services of our laboratory centre at the U of M can provide any support, it would be there for them to do so. But, Mr. Chairman, let the record show that I accept fully the admonition from the honourable member for Swan River, that there can be no halfway measures, you know, and certainly trade or anything else like that should not be allowed to soften a position. The overall importance of the hog industry in Manitoba is one that we would be very foolish to take any chances with respect to possible introduction of disease problems that we currently do not have and would certainly not want to introduce to our populations.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, again, related to the hog industry and with meat inspections, I wonder if the minister can indicate--and I probably should know this--whether meat inspections are done by federal or provincial inspectors. The issue that has been brought to my attention is something called PSE, pale, soft, watery tissue. I understand that this is not a meat there is any problem with eating. It is just that when it is cooked, its appearance is not what it should be. It is a very pale, watery looking meat. The case that was brought to my attention is where some of this ended up in a grocery store. Again when those kinds of things happen, it is a negative sign to the hog industry and can certainly cause problems if it gets into the wrong market. This happened to be local, but if it gets into our Japanese market or our foreign markets that are very important to us then it could be quite negative.
Can the minister indicate then who would do this inspection; is it provincial inspectors that inspect meat or is it federal inspectors that inspect meat, and what the procedure is when this kind of meat comes up? Is it taken off the market or is there--although they tell me there is no problem with eating it, appearance wise it is not right. So where should this have been caught? Is it provincial or federal inspectors, or how does this meat get through the system?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, it is and continues to be the responsibility of Ag Canada officials to do the inspection, and it is essentially as much an economic marketing problem. As the honourable member describes, it is just unacceptable in terms of visual appearance of the meat and/or of the texture and the quality of it. It is certainly not any toxic hazard. You know, it is not an introduction.
We have greater concerns about--and I know the honourable member will want to ask me what progress we are making--ensuring the elimination of any antibiotic residues in processed meat, in hog meat, that are used in the care for hogs in the normal management of today's pork industry. I am advised that the PSE, which is a common problem in the pork industry and one that is--its sorest contribution is the fact that there is strong evidence that genetics plays a role in it. I have one of Manitoba's premier hog producers--Mr. Paul Riese will make a strong case that his brand, the duroc, the red hog, has a propensity for if used in cross-breeding programs will reduce the incidence of PSE in hogs. I am not a salesman for Mr. Riese and his brand of hogs, but he makes the case very strongly, certainly, when he markets them abroad as breeding stock to different parts of the world, and as rapidly, as honourable members will recall, he was one of the few Manitobans that were granted a fairly significant contract in the recent Canada trade mission that the First Minister travelled with the Prime Minister and others for a significant order of his genetic duroc hogs out of Selkirk, Manitoba, that are going to Asia.
* (1730)
The other factor, and the honourable member will not believe me, but the other factor had a role to play, not a major role, but a role to play in my decision to abolish the single-selling desk at Manitoba Pork. Because the other factor, and one that is considered very real is any unnecessary stress put on the hogs during movement or shipment or any unnecessary stress, and it has been argued by some of our better breeders, the stress of putting hogs into the system, of moving them into the central yard at Manitoba Pork where they get milled around. First of all they are pushed on their trucks, then get dropped off in St. Boniface, then milled around and counted and put on another truck to get to the packers. That is adding to the PSE problem, and some of our superior breeders, they gently want to see those hogs move out of their slaughter barns when they are ready as quietly as possible onto a truck and onto the killing floor. Manitoba Pork is arguing that they, and they have of course, they make possible direct shipments.
The Quebec marketing board, for instance, has no central-selling desk. Quebec marketing board, a very powerful, strong, single-selling agency for all hogs in Quebec, never sees a hog. The hogs all go from the farms direct to the packing house, and this is part of the reason. Any animal, I think, and again, the honourable member has a farm background, whether it is beef or any animal should be handled carefully with the minimum stress. In cattle it causes situations where it discolours. Dark blood can occur in the slaughter when animals are slaughtered in a hyper state of stress and ventilation. Hunters will know that you hope for a good clean shot and a good clean kill with deer, but if you have to stalk that stag five, ten miles through the bush, that is different, that is tougher meat that you end up--argument has been put forward that the PSE problem is related to that kind of stress, and when dealing with the issue of marketing in hogs, that was an issue that arose.
So I do not know whether that helps the honourable member. We certainly will want to continue and I would hope--I certainly challenge the industry. They have, as you know, while I created a more flexible marketing system, I certainly made every effort to ensure that appropriate research and development dollars are available to the pork industry. The universal levy--I, quite frankly, am taken somewhat aback because of the criticism emanating from Manitoba Pork, citing that as a problem, as an additional cost to the Manitoba pork producers, but let me remind them for marketing three million hogs, that is providing $3 million annually to Manitoba Pork. It certainly enables them to run very sophisticated research programs as to whether or not PSE is genetic, period, or if it is stress related, what handling regime should they recommend to their pork producers to reduce the incidence. It would certainly enhance our position, particularly for Manitoba it is extremely important, where 80 percent and any future expansion 100 percent of every additional barn that we build is for the export trade where we are competing with the best in the world, and if we could lower the incidence of PSE in our herds just makes the Manitoba advantage go up one more notch. Manitoba Pork has all the opportunities and the dollars to undertake that kind of research before I reduce the levy to 50 cents if the dollar is too oppressive, and of course the levy was not meant simply to accumulate in bank accounts.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicates that Manitoba Pork has a responsibility to do research, and certainly I believe that they will be doing research because they have indicated that that is their intent for part of this money. Can the minister indicate though whether there is any other research that is being done or whether the Department of Agriculture is collecting any data to see whether this is a more serious problem in Manitoba where we have single-desk selling or whether in other provinces where they do not have single-desk selling it is a lesser problem? Is there any data collected on different breeds of hogs that are less susceptible to this condition?
Mr. Enns: The member raises several interesting points. Certainly, I think it would be worthwhile to do some kind of checking. The Department of Agriculture, as such, is not actively engaged in that specific kind of research. We do not have the capacity to do so. It is something, though, that I think, when we develop the appropriate structure for those research dollars that these Estimates contain, $3.4 million, could well be the subject matter of some research. Anything that impacts on the pork industry in Manitoba is worthwhile pursuing. It is simply that important.
I know that it is a factor. When I am abroad, when I am talking about Manitoba Pork to our customers, PSE comes up. I think we ought to be able to more definitively establish whether genetics really is maybe 80 percent, 90 percent of the cause of PSE. Then that research work should be pursued.
I always consider it a little difficult if you have one breeder or one breed that cites genetic advantage. We are all from Missouri to some extent, and is it just breed promotion or is it fact? But that is what research programs, in my opinion, ought to be designed to establish. So I think that what we are going to have to do is to really look at focusing on any of the issues that are in any way holding back or giving our pork reputation anything other than the highest marks. Certainly, I will be encouraging, whether it is Manitoba Pork, I will be encouraging the Faculty of Agriculture at the University of Manitoba and others. I encourage the federal government to use the resources available to them at, regrettably, their diminishing research capacity in Manitoba, whether it is at Brandon or other places like that where we did have some swine research taking place, to research that matter. But I tend to accept the direction from the honourable member. We in Manitoba have a specific reason to try to resolve it.
Ms. Wowchuk: We are an exporting country of hogs and an exporting country of beef. The beef industry as well is trying to increase the amount of beef that they export to other countries and into the Pacific Rim in particular. Again, there is a concern by consumers in the Pacific Rim about various diseases as well, that the food supply could be contaminated. The one issue that I want to raise, one disease we had talked about, the mad cow disease, and the concern that there could be contaminants in the Canadian beef. Although they appeared to be unfounded, there is still a concern in the Pacific Rim countries whether or not they should be increasing their imports. Just as it is important that we do increase those exports of hogs to these countries, it is also important that we increase the exports of livestock, because, as the minister has indicated many times, we are going to see an increase in the number of cattle that we produce in this province. We cannot consume them all here; we have to look for foreign markets.
So I guess what I would look for is what work is being done to get rid of the myth that this is a concern, or I would like to hear the minister's, the department's views on whether or not it is actually a myth or there is any concern about this disease being anywhere in the Canadian herds, as is a concern by some of the foreign countries. I am not trying to create a problem. I am looking at how the department addresses this particular issue to ensure that our livestock, our cattle industry is not at risk.
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly welcome this opportunity to help dispel a myth. There is nonetheless always every reason to take even hyped-up concerns seriously and try to address them. Just for the record and for honourable member's information, the BSE was confirmed in a purebred beef cow in a herd near Red Deer, Alberta, in December of 1993. The owner was notified; the animal was put to rest.
* (1740)
Since then, all U.K. imports into Canada between 1982 to 1990 were traced. That is going back over 14 years, and any remaining animals were slaughtered, a total of 67. All in-contact animals from the herd were also slaughtered. You know, this is a result of one animal being identified in '93 in a herd in Alberta. The animals were incinerated.
One of these animals was in a herd at Ashville, here in Manitoba, of those animals that had been in potential contact. This animal was incinerated at the Manitoba Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Manitoba campus, and in all, a total of 363 head were slaughtered for a total compensation cost of some $410,000.
Threatened bans by foreign countries of Canadian imports were averted as a result of this kind of immediate action. That is why, you know, we live in not a perfect world, but we can be thankful that we have programs in place, we have staff in place that can respond and react to it.
We believe that in 1996 the Government of Canada moved to amend regulations--this is important--governing the rendering of animal protein. They proposed to prohibit the recycling of ruminant protein back to ruminants as feed. I think of some of the news and how sound it is or not, but it is bothersome to a lot of people to have animal protein used in animal feed in the sourcing of that animal protein, dead and diseased animals, perhaps, you know. This measure is being taken to further reduce the risk of BSE ever occurring in Canada.
I want to emphasize that all imports between 1982 and 1990 from the United Kingdom and all contacts with the Red Deer BSE case have been traced and slaughtered. There have been no question marks left in the pursuit of that one incident that we saw. Ag Canada is now surveying all provincial labs on a continuous basis to ensure there is no evidence anywhere in Canada, and I think we can say with some confidence that that matter is being addressed as you would expect it to be and as we want it to be.
Just on a more general note, yes, certainly, I am encouraging the department to look very hard at the beef industry as a whole. We believe that we can have some very encouraging opportunities for our producers in the raising of beef cattle. Manitoba is one of the few jurisdictions that suffered virtually no decrease in the downsizing of the herds where that was happening everywhere else in the country and in the United States or on the continent.
So we are well positioned to move with our record number of beef cows that we now have on our farms to take full advantage of what I hope will be an encouraging market cycle that we face. So I am encouraging the department to look eternally, look hard at all our programs to kind of place the same kind of emphasis on beef production as we have placed on pork production in the past year. I get gently chided sometimes when I am travelling through the countryside by particularly people who raise beef cattle who say: Remind me, Enns, you know there is something other than pork in this province, and we are a little surprised--they know that I am modestly involved in beef cattle--why you seem to be losing sight of that.
Well, I want to ensure my honourable friends opposite and farmers and cattle producers of Manitoba that I have not. I think with some very gratifying and specific results, my Marketing division, people within the department, we have associated ourselves with a host of partners in focusing our efforts in what we call the Manitoba Pork Advantage. I am challenging the department in the year '97 to put our same similar kinds of efforts and strengths in focusing on the Manitoba Beef Advantage. We think there are some advantages and that we want to ride to, what would appear to be, the signals that we are getting from the market, a strong beef market in the foreseeable number of years and make sure that Manitoba producers avail themselves of every opportunity during that cycle.
Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for sharing that information. I think that people should be made aware of the fact that, yes, the problem was addressed and our herds here in Canada are free of the disease.
The federal government also does testing on TB on livestock, and we moved towards having TB-free herds across the country. I would ask the minister whether there have been any incidents in the last year of herds that have been tested positively with TB and whether any herds have had to be put down.
Mr. Enns: Staff advises me that we had no such incidents occurring in our herds in this last year, no reported cases of TB and no herds that had to be put down.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just getting back to the previous question on the disease, the mad cow disease. When those herds were put down, were they compensated under the federal government in the same way that if it was a herd contaminated with TB?
Mr. Enns: Yes, to the honourable member, they were compensated under the program that is administered by Ag Canada. I think the upper limit is about $2,000 per animal.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): 3.4. Agricultural Development and Marketing (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $129,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $31,000--pass.
3.4.(b) Animal Industry (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,568,300--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $392,700--pass.
3.4.(c) Veterinary Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,468,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $502,400--pass; (3) Grant Assistance $467,100--pass.
3.4.(d) Soils and Crops (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,322,300.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, I started to talk earlier about the issue that had come up in our area about whether or not it was viable to put wastes of wood onto agriculture lands. My understanding is that the request has come to the Department of Environment, and the Department of Environment has referred it to the Department of Agriculture to see whether this is a viable use for this product. The concern is that in some areas, in some types of soil, as I understand it, you would end up having to use extra nitrogen. So there really would not be any benefit to putting it into the soil.
I guess, I would like to ask the minister: What work is being done in the Soils branch to look at whether or not this is a viable way to use this product, and at what stage the decision is as to whether this should be allowed or not?
* (1750)
Mr. Enns: Allow me to put some adjoining senior staff immediately to work looking up some information on that question, but prior to doing that, introduce Dr. Barry Todd. He is director of our Soils and Crops branch which operates out of the Carman facility; just an excellent guy to get to know in terms of any of your special soils and crops requirements that you might have. He kind of specializes in the Turtle Mountain region, among others. Ms. Dori Gingera, director of Marketing and Farm Business Management branch, who is I think no stranger to this House, having been in this position for several years.
I have to accept the fact that the information the honourable member apprised us of is factual, that the issue has been referred to the Department of Agriculture, but my director of Crops and Soils tells me that we are not engaged in a specific research project to determine the nature of applying this particular product to the land. We have other information that has been available to us and is out of the Soils and Crops branch as well, that entitles the use of wood bark and waste for soil improvement. Farmers may be interested in the addition of wood waste or bark to degraded agricultural land, or build organic matter, improve soil physical characteristics. There are a number of conditions that are of interest.
The question of using wood bark, wood fibre is not new to the Department of Agriculture. They clearly point out that on a number of issues further research should be done, and perhaps kind of pushed and prodded by what is happening in the Swan River Valley with respect to Louisiana-Pacific, that that research might be prodded into action. There are questions such as how much nitrogen should be applied for optimum decomposition of hardwood bark. Studies show that a total of should be raised from 0.6 percent to 1.12 percent. In this particular study, this would equate to the adding of 6 kg of nitrogen per tonne of waste bark on a dry-matter basis. Does using this wood waste as cattle bedding fulfill the requirements of composting and of end supplementation, I think more specific to the issues that she raises?
We are concerned that it is not just a simple balancing of nitrogen . . . with fertilizer. Much of the carbon in wood waste is not readily decomposible. Due to particle size and high lignin content, breakdown will occur over an extended period of time and not all the nitrogen is required at once. Nitrogen additions to rates to prevent crop yield reductions are dependent upon soil nitrogen levels. Crop growing--example, cereals versus legumes, and the wood application rates, so there are I think, what I am simply indicating that within the department there are a number of questions that have been raised, some that are being addressed, but I think we would be the first ones to acknowledge that some specific research is called for.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister then: What is the process then? The Department of Environment has gone to the Department of Agriculture and says, what is your recommendation on this? Is it necessary that research be done first before a recommendation is made, or does the department have a whole bunch of questions that have to be answered there?
I guess I am looking for specifically, are you saying then that it can be spread on agriculture land now, or are you saying that more work has to be done before it can be spread on soil as an additive to build up fibre? If it is necessary to do more research, who will do that? Where will it be under this department of Soils and Crops that we will be doing some research to find out what the benefits of this are, or is it somewhere else?
Mr. Enns: Yes, I can I think, in a more satisfactory way, provide the honourable member with some additional information. My understanding is that the direction that this has gone has, in fact, gone more and more specifically to the fact that Agriculture at the University of Manitoba, particularly Dr. David Burton is heading up the interest in this. We, of course, tend to use and we are very pleased to have that kind of association over many years. The Faculty of Agriculture is a bit of our research arm of the department. We fund it every year and the same funding is available in these Estimates again, some $750,000 that we provide for research purposes to the Faculty of Agriculture. So it is not uncommon for this kind of a research-based question gets referred to the Faculty of Agriculture. I think out of that will come some of the answers that we are looking for in this instance.
I invite the honourable member to speak, to avail herself to the Faculty of Agriculture people in the person of Dr. Burton. On the other hand, I can certainly indicate to Dean Elliott that this was an issue of interest and concern expressed in the Legislature. I am sure he would be more than willing to provide us with what is happening, what is the faculty doing with this request from Environment, and where are we heading in this direction.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will certainly call Dr. Burton up. Now that we have got this issue, does the department ever do test plots, or would that fall under the jurisdiction of Dr. Burton's research? The other issue is has the minister looked at other provinces to see whether this is being tested in any other provinces, and if it is, perhaps we could obtain those results rather than duplicating the research?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Chairman, staff advise me that the member is quite right. We do not find reasons to keep reinventing the wheel if research is being carried out in other jurisdictions, and I am advised that a considerable amount of research in this area has been carried out, as the member would suspect, in provinces like Quebec and Ontario where you have a fairly significant wood industry, wood processing industry, and a significant farming, agricultural industry as well. We are availing ourselves of that kind of information.
The actual operations of running the kind of research that might be carried on here would possibly be done, could certainly be entertained by the Faculty of Agriculture who have and do plot work from time to time on different projects. But I do not want to leave the impression that there is more work being done than there is. Quite frankly, I am not aware. I will make myself aware in the next few days to see precisely where the Department of Environment's request of Agriculture--when I say Agriculture, I include the Faculty of Agriculture--where that issue stands. I do not fully understand. I have to know particularly what did the Department of Environment ask, what is the information that the Department of Environment is seeking from Agriculture to fulfill what the requirements are.
I think staff will note that it would appear that if the Department of Environment has indicated that they can apply this product under the same general rules and regulations that exist for hog or other animal waste manure, then I think we will be interested in pursuing that.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Tweed): Order, please. The time now being six o'clock, committee rise. Call in the Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Tweed): The hour now being six o'clock, this House is adjourned and shall stand adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).