Manitoba Committee Hansard — 3 February 1976 (LOU Committee, Sitting 4, 30th Legislature, 3rd Session)

30-3-lou4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARINGS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE Virden ON LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE Chairman Harry Shafransky, M.L.A. Constituency of Radisson 2:00p.m., Tuesday, February 3, 1976. Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA MEETING OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE 2:00 p.m., TU ESDAY, FEBRUA RY 3, 1976 VIRDEN, MANITOBA Chairman: Mr. Harry Shafransky MR. CHAIRMAN: We shall proceed with the meeting and call upon Mr. Clark Robson, Deleau, Manitoba, personal brief. Mr. Robson. 75 MR. CLARK ROBSON: Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am glad to be able to make this presentation to the representatives of our Legislature here at this committee hearing on land. Land use questions are complicated and controversial.

It goes against traditional feeling to tell people how they can use their own land, and yet no one should use his land in a way which will harm his neighbour; no one has a right to pollute other people's air or water; everyone has a responsibility not to decrease the world food supply, It is a fact that private ownership and use of land in light of the needs of the whole human popu lation is coming into critical question.

It is being asked has the private owner of any kind of land the right to use that land to his own benefit without any responsibility towards anyone elser The answer is simply no, anyone holding that view is not facing the reality of life. Every human, animal and plant depends on the soil for its sutenance, What then can we do to assure all of us of the food base that is our most i:tllportant need?

What have we humans done in the great development that has occurred between the time when our ancestors were almost completely dependent on the meat obtained by hunting and the present technology of land holding and food production? It is the opinion of an ever-growing number of people that the small portion of our population now engaged in food production must be encouraged to keep on producing food in ever increasing amounts. This small part of our population must be treated pretty generously in future if they are to continue being depended upon.

There are, however, some serious forces at work affecting this inJPortant part of our population. One of the results of these forces is the continuing depletion of the nun1ber of our population engaged in food production. This depletion must stop. If this trend toward rural depopulation which is resulting in the ownership of food production being transferred into fewer hands is not reversed, we, the rest of the population, will soon discover that food will become so scarce as to be unobtainable, This can happen here in North America, it is a fact in the over-populated countries.

Certainly as soon as a large part of our population cannot get food then we will, at that time, declare ourselves, our country to be over-populated. What can be done to reverse rural depopulation? If the present rules of society are left untouched. then we can look forward to a continuation of rural depopulation, If it is deemed necessary to keep people in agriculture as owner-operators and encourage them to keep producing food, then we must pass legislation to change some of the present rules in order to bring about the desired results. Land holding is a basic matter relating to rural depopulation.

As rules are today, anyone may acquire land, they may do anything they choose once they own it, They may take it out of food production if they like; they may place it under cement or dig it up and completely destroy it for future food production. This is irresponsible use of land. Said another way, it is use of land for selfish purposes without regard to the consequences to others. A change in the rules to remove some of the irresponsible use of land. would be to insist that land be sold only to those who will live on it and farm it.

A rule of this kind would lessen or prevent land purchase for purely investment and speculative purposes. The implementation of this rule would reduce the inflationary pressure on land values. It would mean land purchasing for use; it would mean a move toward making land,regarded as a resource rather than a commodity, to be bought and sold at a profit; it would tend to bring the dollar value of land into some better kind of relation with the dollar value · of production of that land which should result in the viability of any kind of land use enter prise.

76 February 3, 1976 (MR. ROBSON cont'd) • • • • • I frequently hear remarks levelled against farm operators. Many farmers them selves complain about neighbours who .have doubled or tripled their land holding in recent years. Now I feel the observer of this phenomena tends to pass judgment on these various situations through their own eyes and experience. I don't feel this is a bad criticism; in fact, this criticism points up a kind of injustice. It means that those who are expanding their enterprises are doing so at the expense of some other potential far mer who in real terms is no longer farming.

Of course the advent of ever larger machines ts a contributing factor in this rural depopulation exercise but so is the drive for ever larger amounts of ownership of land. This kind of greed is only bad if one equates it with the fact that others will be denied access to that which is already owned. To any people who choose to ignore the results of this phenomena, I say shame. If one man owned the whole world, he still would not live any longer because of it. This must change. We must find ways of giving people the degree of security they seek in other ways than by individual or private ownership of land.

While it is believed that ownership gives ecurity and that individual ownership gives individual security, it also follows that collective ownership can give collective security, and if our society chooses to have the benefits of ownership for all of its members then it will have to deny the benefits of ownership to its individuals on a private basis. What most farmers want is security of tenure; that is the knwoledge they can use that land just as long as they are able and wish to farm. This can be accomplished equally well by the lifetime lease as through ownership.

There are benefits by the life time leasehold that do not prevail through ownership. This benefit is that the farmer does not have to use some of his earned wealth for other purposes. The lifetime lease should not have a rental or fee; all the lessee should be required to do is produce food in sufficient quantities to satisy the needs of the people. This would mean farmers would be encouraged to continue production with the san1e motivations as at present. This would not discourage efficiency or diligence or resourcefulness or pride or anything else.

It would more than likely improve the quality of life, partly because the farmer could use the benefits of his production as he acquired those benefits rather than having to wait until he retires or is too old to enjoy them. We have heard the statement that the farmer lives poor and dies rich; that statement is the result of the ownership of land coupled with the inadequate returns that have been the lot of those who farm. When we turn our attention to another facet of farm size we are confronted with the capacity of the farmer to perform the management and labour.

If food is the most in1portant product then the amount produced per management unit depends on the various components brought together, that is land, machines, other inputs and labour management. Land, machines and other inputs are the raw materials; labour management are the activators. The size of the units of farm produ ction properly planned should be deter mined by the capacity of the activators, that is the management and labour.

A unit of farm production small enough that one man can provide the management and labour will of necessity, produce less than a unit of farm production where two or more men provide the labour management. Herein lies a key to a rule or law which can have a bearing on rural depopulation. We, as a society, demand that all those who work and produce in agriculture shall be management operators and labour. This changeover in farm units is already under way. One frequently sees when driving in the country farmsteads with two homes, and it is surprising how many of those places are partnerships.

They are often brought on by economic necessity but they are there; they are there and farming because of the management labour advantage of the two-man unit. We also see farm units where many men perform the work and do not enjoy all the benefits of that work. Those farm units are . using hired labour; these hired people who are obliged for many reasons to . accept less than their share of their contribution to production unit, or on occasions the hired people get most of the benefits from the production unit and the farmer is left holding the empty bag.

Legislation is a must which will encourage farm size to be related to the number of people who will provide the labour and management on an organized full-time basis with all those people involved sharing in the labour-management, benefits, frustrations

Fe bruary 3, 1976 77 (MR. ROBSON cont'd) • • • • • and losses, etc. There is good reasons for the above rule to be phased into practice gradually so that people have time to make the necessary adjustments with the least amount of hardship. I am pleased to have had this opportunity to make my contribution to this hearing on land. This is a democratic process for which I am very thankful. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Robson. Are there any questions ? Mr. Enns. MR. HARRY E. ENNS : Mr. Chairman, Mr.

Robson, we unfortunately don't have the brief that you presented before us so we can only recall just one or two of the items that your interesting brief left an impression with . I raise this point because the thread of this has run through several briefs that we've heard today; that is putting together the problem of rural depopulation alongside of the problem of food production as such, the neces sity and importance of food production. Would you agree that they are two separate problems, that they need not be necessa rily coupled in the manner that they have been coupled all too often today ? MR.

ROBSON : I'm not sure that I understand your question clearly. Is it that you feel, you're asking me that on the one hand depopulation is meaning that fewer people are on the land and that therefore there will be less production from that land? MR. ENNS : Well the implied suggestion seemed to be and I think we 'd all be concerned, with the continued rural depopulation there would be the spectre of scarcity of food production eventually.

I think you mentioned that in your brief that we come to the point where we don't produce enough food for our own needs here in North America then we would consi der ourselves over-populated, I think you said something like that. MR. ROBS ON : Yes. I feel that bigness doesn't necessa rily mean efficiency so that large faru1 operations with the attendant smaller nu mber of people doesn't necessa rily mean that the operation is producing more food or even as much food as it was before. MR.

ENNS : Yes, I'm just trying to separate that because it would seem to be - and I think even my colleague the Minister of Agriculture would agree with me - that all too often in North America7. over-production of food and surpluses of food have presented certain problems distribution- wise than lack of production, and I think the world bears witness to the fact that the marketplace - and somebody referred to that as a nasty word - that we have in North America by and large seems to be the reservoir, the granary to which the hungry world has to turn to from time to tin1e for its foodstuffs.

You know food production as such is another problem as compared to the very serious problem that I share, as a rural member, with the general problem of rural depopulation, in terms of what it means to our schools, what it means to the life of our communities and every thing else. I don't see the two necessa rily coupled together to the same extent that you seem to do. MR.

ROBSON : I think that you could differentiate a little if you choose but as I said I think that bigness of an operation doesn't necessa rily make it efficient, therefore, with the fewer number of people on the land obviously we don 't necessa rily have as much food production. The marketplace you refer to is some kind of faceless monster that bears no concern or is completely ignorant or innocent of being concerned with people's needs. The suggestion that we've had too much food production can only be agreed to if one accepts the platitudes about the market system as we've known it.

We know that mankind has been starving in other countries, if not right in our own, for years and years, and I suppose if he's been starving it's because he hasn't got the food and a mar ket system that pays no attention to man's needs1needs to be overhauled. MR. ENNS : Well I just attempted to draw a different conclusion than you are, partly because you have also indicated that, you know, the food base is the most import ant need.

Now I see in other jurisdictions where the rural depopulation hasn't occurred, where a very large segment of the population is involved in agriculture but whose food production has not in any commiserate way increased to the extent that we have managed to increase and provide food production in this continent. You know, you mentioned its platitude s but I think the millions of bu shels of grain and wheat that the USSR right now is purchasing from us can't be passed off as a platitude . It's there in actual bu shels, it 's there in actual food production.

I think if the people of Bangladesh or India are looking for foodstuffs to feed them, .they are looking to this system to provide it, not to the system that has as many arable acres and many more people working on the land.

78 February 3, 1976 MR. ROBSON: It's a sad commentary, isn't it, to think that the people of India and other countries like Bangladesh where they're starving from food continue to keep on expecting that this market system of ours might supply them when in fact it has refused. The market system is not a reasoning thing, is not a thing with any responsibility, it's some kind of faceless monster, as I suggested, that pays no attention to human needs. MR. ENNS: Well you keep calling it a faceless monster.

I'm just drawing your attention to the fact that this faceless monster countinues to produce huge mountains of food which other more structured societies�living under no threats of private land owner ship, under no threats of foreign ownership of land, under rigid supply management by government, by legislation, and I refer specifically to the USSR, have difficulty in shouldering any of its responsibilities towards the third world that requires help, humane help, if you will, the kind of help I'm sure that the United Church would like to see us give to some of these underprivileged people. MR.

ROBSON: Well while you do remark and refer to the USSR as some kind of an example of supply management, I fail to see that that's a very good way of turning off our situation as being an ideal one where in fact we produce - how many products that are in surplus to our own needs? One or two perhaps, three perhaps if you include forestry; wheat and rapeseed perhaps. MR. ENNS: 3000, 000, 000 pounds of milk powder now in storage; 50 million pounds of butter now in storage; 28 million dozen eggs that we destroyed a few years ago; cattle that are ••• MR. ROBSON: That's okay. That's fine.

We haven't got all of our problems licked, but to suggest that we have a surplus of milk products it's very temporary, We know that in the flush of summer we get a great deal more production so it's got to pile up a bit, and thank goodness it does because on towards spring we'll need some of that sort of thing. And that sort of process needs to be ironed out. The price of the product ought not to be attached to natural fluctuations because of the productivity of our - result of our climatic conditions. MR. ENNS: One final question, Mr. Robson.

Do I read into your brief, do you endorse the continued private ownership of land or did your brief suggest to the commit tee that you would prefer to see the land transferred to the public sector? MR.

ROBSON: Well my intent in this brief is to suggest that I think that in fact this nation should turn away from private ownership of land because of the fact that the process that's going on now is that the ownership of land coming into fewer and fewer hands,and I view that as a mistake, because then you have a segment of the population having a control over food production that is an ever smaller portion of that population. So I really do prefer that we should go to a leasehold system. MR. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairnnn. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any other questions? Mr. Adam, MR. PETE ADAM: Thank you, Mr.

Chairn1an, Mr. Clerk. I just wanted to, Mr. Robson, to comment on the remarks made by my eo-legislator, Mr. Enns, when he says that we are in a surplus position on many commodities. I believe the reverse is correct, that we are net in1porters of almost every farm commodity with the exception of grain and very few other items. But if you will check the records you will find that we are net in1porters on almost every farm commodity. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Robson. The South West Farm Business Association. Glen Franklin, You may proceed, Mr. Franklin. MR. GLEN FRANKLIN: Mr. Chairman and Member of the Committee.

The South Western Farm Business Association wishes to acknowledge its opportunity to express some beliefs and opinions with respect to land use and property rights in the Province of Manitoba. The South Western Farm Business Association is made up of thirty-six farm fan1i lies engaged in the business of agriculture in the South-Western area of the province bordered approxin1ately by the Saskatchewan boundary on the West, the United States boundary to the south, Killarney district to the east and the Trans-Canada Highway to the north.

We wish to point out to you that "Agriculture is the mother and nurse of the other arts, for when agriculture flourishes all other arts are in full vigour." This was

February 3, 1976 (MR. FRANKLIN cont'd) • • • • • a statement of Socrates who lived from 469 BC to 399 BC. I think it has something to bear with us today. As the South Western Farm Business Association is one of the members of the Manitoba Farm Bureau we feel that we have an obligation to reiterate to this committee some of the concerns raised by that non-constitutionalized body, as well as some of our own. We are in agreement with the Manitoba Farm Bureau that:

a) a Land use and Ownership Commission be established and made up of non- elected, non-partisan persons with staff and resources to: 1. assemble and publis adequate factual information 2. encourage public consideration of all land use and ownership issues 3. provide for the input of public opinions; and 79 4. prepare recommendations on Land Use and Ownership for the provincial govern ment.

b) there is something to be learned from the Province of Alberta in this regard and I quote again from their brief to you some few days ago. "In 1973 the three-member Alberta Land Use Forum was established to carry out a four-phase progran1.

In phase one, the Forum produced or commissioned the preparation of seventeen background informational documents on subjects including: the family farm, recreation on agricultural land, wildlife management systems on private land, recreation and miscellaneous land uses, urban residential land development, countryside residential survey, an overview of rural subdivision, future land needs for agriculture, rural land tenure, rural land ownership, an investigation into rural property ownership, vertical integration in agriculture, land use policy - population growth, land ownership rights, general land use statistics, structure of Alberta farms, and use of lakes and lakeshore lands.

In phase two the Land Use Forum contracted with the Rural Education and Develop ment Association, the educational arm of Alberta farm organization, to hold meetings in 80 rural communities to distribute the information referred to above. Through the field workers conducting the meetings, Land Use Advocate Committees were established to register community responses to land use questions. During phase three, public hearings were held at various locations throughout the province to provide individuals and organizations with the opportunity to express their views on land use and ownership to the Forum.

In phase four the views of the public, expressed at the public hearings, were com piled and considered in the preparation of a final report and accompanying recommendations for presentation to the provincial government. And (

c) refers back to (a). A conm1ission be established separate from partisan politics in an attempt to establish more public assurance and participation in the consider ation and understanding of the information necessary to establish sound land use and ownership policy. Number 4 of our brief: In the opinion of the South Western Farm Business Associa tion our members farm to provide their families with a way of life and an attitude to living things, including the soil, seldom found in our urban societies of today.

As indi viduals and as a group of people we have been brought up to be responsible with the rights that have been given us by God and Her Majesty's Governments, so that when we feel that some of our rights are being infringed on we must speak out.

This is not to say that we do not believe in orderly controls such as selling agencies and purchasing agencies, for exan1Ple, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Manitoba Hog Marketing Commission, or Federated Co-operatives and our Co-operative grain companies; but it is to say that as a people we want to have a voice separate from the partisan political voice of government in the establishment of production and selling commissions in our country. What is of greatest concern to the South Western Farm Business Association is the creation of wise land use planning.

This is not just in regard to agricultural land but land which has been set aside for road allowances, drains, etc., by municipal and provincial governments as well as lands for urban development, forestry, harvesting, trapping and so forth. In our communities we have become alarmed by the high water levels in lakes, streams and potholes. This in turn changes the land classification anywhere from Class 3

80 February 3, 1976 (MR. FRANKLIN cont'd) • • • • • land to Class 7. Candidly there is a concern that local and provincial government bodies are irresponsible in some cases on land use. Proper drains of marshes have been blocked in dry years and now private and publicly owned cultivated hay and pasture lands around these marshes are under water because drains have not been kept open and control dan1s installed. We also feel that rented lands have been used to maximize profit at the expense of the land. Erosion, leaching, and build up of saline levels have moved some rented lands from good agricultural productivity to limited agricultural productivity,

whereas as close as across the road, land owned has been maintained or improved because the "owner" took an interest. With respect to farm people involved in large feeder cattle operations and hog enterprises there has been concern of wastes being leached into water ways and contaminat ing them. Land use is again involved; the land for the feedlot and the cultivated and pasture lands upon which the wastes are disposed. Such enterprises are necessary and waste disposal from this is a cheap source of fertilizer to neighbouring farm lands.

In regard to non-agricultural lands we realize that ownership is largely vested in the Crown. We are nevertheless concerned by report s which we hear about changes in land use of large areas of our province from natural forest and wildlife reserves to water. We hear that the incomes of people living in these areas may be cut off and that several communities may be forced to move. This is not to say that we are necessarily against such projects. After all, we need inexpensive wood products and cheap sources of electrical power as does the rest of the province.

Manitoba's urban centres are expanding at the expense of agricultural land. Farm families are displaced and more land is taken out of production each year to go into new housing and industry. As farm people, we see large waste in this, particularly, for exan1ple, in light of the fact that just 50 miles east of Winnipeg is land of a very marginal agricultural base but would probably be as suitable if not more suitable for the site of a large urban centre.

Our association is saying that a permanent commission on land use and environ mental control should be established, zoning lands with respect to the needs of the people of Manitoba. To do this local hearings shall be necessary to achieve what is best for the farmer or businessman, as well as his neighbours. The Commission must be non partisan and appeals to its rulings would be through the courts of the land since it must have power over zoning and land use of government lands as well as private.

Its powers must be wide for it must: 1. see that the needs of primary production are met; 2. have authority over government departments but within the guidelines of pro- vincial law; 3. be prepared to use data and input from the Canada Land Inventory, and 4. have respect for the needs of the people it serves. Since we are a group of farm people, we are concerned with agricultural production. In particular, we are concerned with the emotional issue of land ownership.

To sincere farm people, land ownership is a right given by the Creator for the production of food - providing a living for the fan1ily and surplus to be shared by those who do not have the same privileges. This land is, so to speak, held in trust by the farmer and his family for the benefit of all. Land purchasing and land transfers are the physical tools for acquiring more land or passing it on from one generation to the next. The land is held sacred and is the mother of life. Anyone who considers the land otherwise is a speculator and not to be trusted.

Briefly we see the problems of land ownership as described below: (

a) The young farmer wishing to start farming is caught in the present high cost of farm land price squeezes. (

b) People leaving the farm wish to sell at the highest possible prices. (

c) Land prices have been pushed up by land speculators and non-resident, that is not living in the local area of the land, interests. In some cases, government interests supposedly have pushed up the price of land. (

d) Some farmers are able to expand excessively while others cannot. As farm people, no one is greater concerned about the above problems than we are, They affect our daily life.

February 3, 1976 81 (MR. FRANKLIN cont'd) • • • • • Therefore as an interested party, the South Western Farm Business Association has a number of recommendations to be presented to you, the committee: (

a) As previously stated, and while we respect the sincerity of committee members to carry out their assigned task; we feel that a commission should be established to look into land use and property rights independent of the legislative body. By such a com mission the democratic process is completed. (

b) An Act or Acts shall need to be passed by the Legislative Assembly with respect to zoning of lands and land uses.

This Act or Acts is, or are, necessary to: i. control the ever increasing use of prime agricultural land toward the construction of urban centres. ii. see that the needs of the urban community, with respect to land, are cared for. iii. protect the rights of rural Manitobans, the land, wildlife and forest reserves with respect to huge industrial development such as hydro electric power sites, mines, forest harvesting companies and huge agricultural interests. (This is not to say that development should always be stopped,) and iv. set up an authority to see that the Act is carried out in a judicious and non partisan manner.

An Act shall need to be passed by the Legislative Assembly with respect to land ownership in the Province of Manitoba. We suggest that

an Act similar to the Land Ownership Act in Saskatchewan be passed. We wish to suggest that in the body of the legislation there be a provision sin1ilar to

an Act before the United States Senate (the Young Farmers Homestead Act of 1975) where the government may purchase land but where the farmer must buy it back within seven years at 75 percent of the appraised mar ket value at the time of sale, or the purchase price, whichever is larger. With respect to the proposed laws, we wish to go on record as supporting the basis of land tenure where the resident farmer owns his holding. It is our feeling that for agricultural production, the most benefits are to be received by all by the farm family owning their land.

I might point out here, and we do not have this written in the brief, but we realize that this may not always be attained even at this time or in the future, particularly on marginal cultivated acreages such as pasture, hayland, this sort of thing. you. Once again we wish to acknowledge this opportunity to present some of our views to Respectfully submitted by the South Western Farm Business Association. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Franklin. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: I'm sorry. I didn't get the name, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Franklin. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Franklin, I think almost everybody appears to agree that the most desirable form of holding would be the resident farmer having a Torrens title which is presently considered by that farmer to be private ownership. Would you say that a farmer should have an option of being able to rent from somebody who has a Torrens title, if he wants to? MR. FRANKLIN: I think under the Saskatchewan legislation there are going to be occasions where that happens, yes. MR. GREEN: I'm not talking about the Saskatchewan legislation. Do you believe that a farmer should have an option to rent a piece of land from Mr.

Henderson who owns the land? Should he be prohibited from doing that? MR. FRANKLIN: No I don't see how you can do that. MR. GREEN: So you don't think that a farmer should be prohibited from renting land from another farmer. MR. FRANKLIN: No. MR. GREEN: Do you think a farmer should be prohibited from renting land from the public? MR. FRANKLIN: No. MR. GREEN: So although you say that land ownership of the individual farmer with a Torrens title, which is what we call private ownership, is the most desirable, you see no objection to him having an option of renting it from another farmer or from the public?

82 February 3, 1976 MR. FRANKLIN: No I think, sir, that in the future we may not always be able to necessarily own our own land. That could be a distinct possibility. So, you know, although we feel that the basis of land ownership may be at its optimum might be land ownership, because we feel that ·as a group of people and considering the land that people will probably look after the land better if it is their own, so to speak. Okay? MR.

GREEN: I thank you for your answer and I want to indicate to you, if it's of any consequence, that I agree with you entirely that ownership with Torrens title of a resident farmer is probably the best system but that a farmer should have an option to rent from somebody else or to rent from the public, which is what you appear to be saying. MR. FRANKLIN: Oh yes. MR. GREEN: So we are in accord. I don't know whether that puts me in a diffi cult position or you in a difficult position. Now there are places where I am going to indicate that we are not in accord.

One of the most difficult areas is where you talk about this non-partisan committee, and you point to Alberta. Now, are you really of the opinion that if Mr. Lougheed appointed such a committee and didn't know what any of them thought and they heard all the evidence and they heard all the experrs, all the statistics, and they told Mr. Lougheed that he should take public ownership of all the land in the Province of Alberta, that Mr. Lougheed would do that, or should he do that? MR. FRANKLIN: I think, sir, you have some idea of what I'm getting at though.

What I am attempting to say is it doesn't matter who it is that sits on this commission or committee, that they have biases. They most certainly do. And that in an attempt to look after these biases, and that each one of us has these biases, that in an attempt to be the most honest with the people of Manitoba that such a commission �ay be the most optimum method of attaining the information to set up proper legislation. MR. GREEN: What do you really have against the proposition that those people who are elected by the public to make this decision should not be the ones who you are dis qualifying from making it?

You say that take anybody except those whom the public have elected, anybody but the politicians are all right; politicians who have been entrusted and who have gone to the public, who have displayed their biases, who said that if you elect me I am going to do this - you are excluding those people as being the only ones that you will not let determine land policy. Anybody who has not sort of declared hinl self, who has not pushed his position is considered acceptable but those are not acceptable.

And I'll pursue it a little furthero My honourable friends, and they are my friends, although they are my political opponents, have fairly well indicated that if they are elected to office they are going to try to discontinue public purchasing of land and they are going to try to see to it that all land that has been purchased has been put into the own ership rather than the leasing of the farm. I hope I haven't misstated that. I think that that is broadly their position.

If they were elected to office would it not be a breach of faith with the public if they then proceeded not to do it or proceeded to set up a committee who would tell them to do something entirely different and they were bound by the decision of that so-called non partisan, non-political, non-minded - Mr. Enns throws in, the first ten Liberals that you could get. I'm sorry, Mr. Johnston who is also my friend is on this committee, but you know we are able to handle this kind of thing and still enjoy each other.

But the fact is that that's the kind of suggestion that you appear to be making, and my impression is that in the past it has often been the case that such commissions have been set up by the government choosing people - and I'm not saying this in a sinister way - whom, they expect will generally bring back the kind of recommendations that they would themselves enact; and isn't that just deflecting the responsibility for making the decision? MR. FRANKLIN: Sir, I'm not too sure just which end I should begin at first. MR. GREEN: Take your choice. MR. FRANKLIN: I can partially agree with you.

I think this committee here today is a very good thing. It's not very often that • o MR. GREEN: I only legislate it because we have a majority on it. MR. FRANKLIN: That's fine. MR. GREEN: Not right now. We have some people in a snowbank but we can handle that. That's right.

February 3, 1976 83 MR. FRANKLIN: Let's put it this way. We very seldom as a group of people find the Legislative Assembly as a committee in the rural areas or even gathered together in the city. I think this is too bad that we do not see your faces more often; not necessarily with such an important topic as today, maybe for other things. I think it's important that you come out and discuss with us such weighty matters as this.

However, when it comes to the formation of legislation I think there also has to be - and I'll get around to that word again that you're concerned about, "a non-partisan commission", and I say that because there are people here today unfortunately - and I say very unfortunately who are afraid to meet some of you committee members. MR. BARROW: Why? MR. FRANKLIN: I don't know why. But I was mentioning to one of my friends, we have a fairly strong NFU local here that would strongly disagree with some of these other locals to the north of us and they are not here today.

I think this is too bad, and I wonder if they would not have met with a non-partisan commission. I don't know. But I an1 concerned about this, sir. MR.

GREEN: Wouldn't you agree - I mean the people who are sitting before you, of all the political parties, are people who have generally been steeped in community affairs for man y many years; they meet with their own people, they have mostly gone into public life because they feel they are trying to fulfill as representatives some of the aspirations of their constituents; and if you take that role away from them by saying once you have been elected you have shown yourself to be partisan and therefore incapable of acting for us - although that appears to me to be a contradiction - we elect you so that you will be incapable of acting.

MR. FRANKLIN: But, sir, that's really not what I'm saying is it? MR. GREEN: Well I'm afraid - if I'm being unfair to you then I'm sorry - but I'm afraid that that's the kind of thing that we have been getting.

The reason for the com mittee going out, and I, too, have enjoyed this and I hope I have learned something, is that in all parties and in the Legislature, there were concerns about ownership and concerns about foreign ownership, concerns about land holding, in which I think none of the parties had clearcut positions and in order to have a dialogue with the public in Manitoba we decided that this is a good forum. I think it's been useful; I think that there has been lots of learning.

But I think that the notion that a so-called non-partisan body would make and draft better legislation than the elected representatives of the peo ple, using primarily the kind of philosophy which brought them in to office, is not one which appeals to me very much. If. I really thought that and I wanted to do things I would not run for office, I would try to get my way into these non-partisan commissions, because that's where the power would be. MR. FRANKLIN: You see, sir, I am not saying that this committee is a bad thing.

What I an1 saying is that I think in conjunction with it there should be a group of people in the country as well maybe meeting more often than yourselves have, talking to other people that aren't here today. MR. ENNS: I agree with you as long as I can appoint it. MR. GREEN: I think that you've been very helpful, I think that your brief is a useful one and I want to thank you. I do hope that you would consider what you are saying; it has a ring of appeal to it but I think it's a very dangerous concept. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Well I think Sid covered that aspect of it.

I would sin1ply make the observation that if government was to function that way then that is an abdication of the responsibility that they were indeed entrusted with by the people who have elected the government, and therefore I think one is not able to shirk the responsibility• We have to appreciate the fact that we have made commitments to the electorate during a particu lar election campaign and surely you would not suggest that as we did in the last election campaign, we said that we are going to move into a new policy with respect to land utilization in the province; we are going to provide an opportunity for people who can't borrow money to buy land; we're going to supply an opportunity through the lease option.

Now since we got elected would you not expect that we should carry out that commitment? Do you think we should go back on that commitment because some group that we appointed suggested that maybe we shouldn't do that? I mean what is the basis of democratic

84 February 3, 1976 (MR. USKIW cont'd) ••••• process if that is the way we function. That is the dilem ma that your suggestion puts us in. MR. FRANKLIN: Sir, I think I see what you're attempting to say and I realize your sincerity on this, but what I am trying to say is that I know we have our good Conservative gentlemen here and that you are New Democrats and so forth. MR. GREEN: There is a Liberal too. MR. FRANKLIN: Well okay, a Liberal too. That there are people not represented here today, unfortunately, in our midst that maybe would have talked to somebody else other than yourselves.

Unfortunately - I say that this is very unfo rtunate and that I can agree with you that not everything that comes out of a commission is the best for legislation - we've probably been through that one lots of times before and seen some perfectly useless commissions. But I say that they probably would come up with some things perhaps from their hearings that you would not be able to find. MR. USKIW: Let me then pose the question: if we were to adopt your suggestion, you know, in your view, your mind, you have decided what an independent body would look like to you.

In my mind I will decide what an independent body looks like to me and the two may conflict and hence we will never satisfy you that any body we appoint is truly independent. The other point I wish to make is that if they had no mi nd whatever then I don't think they should run the affairs of the province, if they have no opinions on anything. I would hope that the people that I would appoint to administer our progranl had some opinions over which I had a great deal of respect, maybe not necessarily concurrence but a great deal of respect.

Really I'm troubled by the suggestion that somehow there is a magic way of runn ing a government program with people that have no views. There isn't anyone in my opinion that - anyone that is active in the community at least - that has no views. They all have views. I hope they do. , MR. FRANKLIN: Sir, I'm not asking for that am I? Because after all you got elected on a certain platform and you convinced enough people that that platform was inlportant and I don't think that any of us here can argue with that. You know we may not agree with the platform but that is how you got there. MR. USKIW: All right.

But you're now in my position and I have to appoint this independent body to satisfy you who don't quite go along with the politicians doing these things or making these decisions, you know, who anl I going to appoint in your mind? MR. FRANKLIN: That commission is going to have to wear more than one political shirt. MR. USKIW: Then you are saying that we indeed have to define the body that make up that commission in accordance with their political stripe. MR. FRANKLIN: Well, this is a very political world isn't it? MR.

USKIW: Let me assure you, you know, just to arrest your concern, let me assure you that I would venture to say that on almost every board or commission that we have appointed since 1969, if not all, almost all, that we have representatives that are identified in the community as other than New Democrat, and they are only there because we have a lot of respect for their ability. You know, just last week the Minister of Mines appointed Mr. Arpin to the MDC Board, and I believe he's one of the most prominent Tories in Winnipeg, but I don't think that that is the reason he was appointed.

I think he was appointed because he's a very capable lawyer. And that's the kind of peo ple we have to have help government run the affairs of state. MR. BARROW: Let's be fair. We appointed him because •• MR. USKIW: Oh, I would hope so. So really, you know, it's not as if government don't recognize the need to have a good image vis-a-vis the public. You know, I would have to search the record to know whether any New Democrats were on boards of commissions of the previous administration but I sinlply want to point out to you that this is a current practice and always has been of this government. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Barrow. MR. BARROW: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The point you brought up really interests me, that you have different unions or different members who would not appear in front of this hearing or board. This is not only an isolated case in your case; we have the same thing in our trade movement. In fact some of the most strong-minded, articulate people

February 3, 1976 85 (MR. BARROW cont'd) • • • • • don't do their talking in the right places. I suggest to you that if they don't feel strong enough on this particular legislation or problem that they don't deserve to be heard at all. Would you like to speak on that? I mean we are not here to be offensive to anyone or to insult them and they're perfectly welcome what ever view they may have whether it's positive or negative. MR.

FRANKLIN: Sir, I think we shall be fair about this and say that last year that at some of your meetings some people got a great deal of criticism because of particular things that they said from this body, not wishing to hurt anyone here, and that these peo ple went home and they do not feel that they want to come back, And it is not a case that they don't feel strongly about this but that they found that this body, or members of this committee, were so strong in their views that they did not wish to hear what these people had to say. MR.

BARROW: Well the only thing I suggest to you, we had to put the blame on the Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I can say, Mr. Franklin, that there was some views ex pressed that would not always agree to every member of the committee but neither did the members presenting it were expected to agree with the members of the committee. Now it just works both ways, so there was the exchange, and I never saw anywhere the type of situation you're describing, that they refused to come back because of some fear, think they've already expressed their views and it's doubtful if they would change it. Mr. Johannson. MR.

JOHANNSON: Yes, Mr. Franklin, Harry Truman once said that if you don't like the heat you should stay out of the kitchen. Don't you think this little adage might apply to your friends who are afraid to come here? The political process is not a par lour tea party, strong views are sometimes exchanged and there were some strong views exchanged last year by some people who made briefs before this committee. Now this is the democratic process. MR.

FRANKLIN: Yes, sir, I have to agree with you and then I guess I get back to this business of, well maybe we need some other body at times to look after some of these people because I think that they have something to say, And, okay, I can go back - we can all go back to Mr. Truman's statement because I think it has some weight. "If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen", there's something to that but sometimes people have a fear about this, they say, "Well gee I can't stand up in public and say what I want to say," you know, any number of things. MR.

JOHANNSON: Do you think that the fair process is that someone should be able to stand up in public and say anything they want to someone else and that person should not be permitted to replyt Is this your idea of the way the democratic process should operate? MR. FRANKLIN: Well I think you know the answer to that so ••• the answer is certainly not, everybody has an equal right to say what his views are on a particular subject. It dones't say that we are necessarily right, either one of us either way. MR. JOHANNSON: I want to get back to your idea of the independent commission.

Premier Lougheed in Alberta, who some people on this committee would think is a very find man, very independent of mind, non-bias, non-partisan, Premier Lougheed instructed the West Germans that he did not want them to buy any more land in Alberta. MR. FRANKLIN: It's going to do a lot to keep them out isn't it? MR. JOHANNSON: Well he informed them that he did not want them buying any land in Alberta, which in effect is the adoption of a position, I presume, by his government, or at least the indication of adoption of a position.

The independent commission that he appointed some time before that has now come out with a final report and one of its recommendations is that foreigners not beprohibited from buying farm land. Now the independent, non-partisan, non-bias, non-political commission has come out in opposition to the Premier of Alberta. Does this mean that the Premier should now adopt their position? MR. FRANKLIN: Oh, Mr.

Chairm an, in speaking to this group of men I think I should point out that I am not against this committee and their feeling of coming around to the country and gathering opinion and attempting to come to some terms of agreement on legislation, I think this is a very good thing, as I pointed out before. At the same time

86 February 3, 1976 (MR. FRANKLIN cont'd) • • • • • I feel that there is a need for the establishment of a commission who may go to other communities, more communities perhaps than this body is doing, and talk to other groups of people. See, we don't have a rural municipality so far as I know of on that list mentioned today that is presenting a brief. I am sure that they must have something to say to this body; if they don't there's something drastically wrong in our political process. We don't have a Chamber of Commerce represented. MR. BARROW: That's no loss. MR. FRANKLIN: Well maybe not.

That's okay for you to say, sir, but you know I'm sure that these people must have something that they feel is of concern. For example, I know that the Rural Municipality Associations are concerned about what's going to happen in 25 or 30 years when the provincial government in the form of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation may own vast tracts of land and suddenly decide that because it's Crown land it doesn't need to be taxed any longer and so they lose quite a large source of income to operate their rural municipalities.

I'm quite sure we can get around this at some point in time and that the due political process of this province will take care of that. There's no brief here today. Now maybe you got one somewhere else .• MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we did have briefs from municipalities last year when we were going around, we were in Morden and I believe it was the Morden Chamber of Commerce - it was in Morden and in Brandon, we did have presentations from the various other groups such as the Chamber of Commerce in the various municipalities.

Today there has not been any, you are the first one with the Farm Business Association, the NFU has presented briefs. You were here this morning so • • • MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman, if I may get back to the brief. Of course any body has the right to make a presentation, it has been publicly advertised and we welcome briefs from anyone. But you say in the last page of your brief, ''We feel that a com mission should be established to look into land use and property rights independent of the legislative body of this province;' which really scares me.

You say that by such a com mission the democratic process is completed. My understanding of the parliamentary sys tem seems to be totally different from yours, because I have always understood that an elected government is responsible for its acts, through the Legislature, that the members of the government have to face re-election, they have to answer for their acts to the people, and that this is the democratic process. You are telling me, are you, that this is not the democratic process, that the way to make the process democratic is to elect people and then take power of government away from them.

Is this your idea of the democratic process? MR. FRANKLIN: No, sir, no. I think you fully realize that as well that it is not, but as I have said time and again before that we need a separate body, as well as yourselves, and what you may come up with may be the major bulk of the legislation but that they may have some points come out of the hearings that they would present when you meet together that may be important to that legislation that you as a group were unable to get from the people that you met.

I think that is all I can say from this, I think that we aren't going to get together on this any further and that perhaps we should go to some thing else, if there are any other questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blake. MR. BLAKE: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabour it either but I hear so much today about communication or lack of it, I think what Mr, Franklin is trying to say in appointing a non-partisan body, if you can define that, is that it's another means of people communicating with their elected representatives or with the government.

We all know people that won't even get up in their own little community club where they're with friends and neighbours and say anything and they're certainly not going to appear before this body to say anything. I believe that's what you're getting at. You want another means of getting to those people and getting their views to feed them into a committee like this by someone a little more articulate maybe in stating their views. is this the way I read your brief? MR. FRANKLIN: That is correct, yes. Right, MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Franklin. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: I assure you I won't prolong this.

I am very concerned, Do you feel that you have been treated courteously here today?

February 3, 1976 87 MR. FRANKLIN: Oh, yes, you don 't need to worry about that on my part. MR. GREEN: I want you to know that there has been no different treatment of you than there has been of anybody who has ever appeared before this committee in two years. The problem has occurred when somebody has come in and attacked, there has been res ponse, but the way in which you have presented it - and other people who have come here today, they've been treated in the same way as people have always been treated before this committee. MR.

FRAN KLIN: Thank you, sir, again for being here with you and, no, I can say that I don 't feel that I've been treated unfair ly, but that we had a feeling that there were certain things that should maybe be done so that other people could take

part in this maybe in other places. Thank you very much, MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Fran klin , You do realize that people can send in their submissions to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, if they do not appear they can still send them in and they'll be made available to the members of the committee. So if you know of people who wish to express a view they can certainly send it on to the Clerk and he will have those copies made available to the members. Mr. Bell. Peter Galawan, Oak Lake, farmer. MR. GALAWAN: Mr. Chairman, Honour able Ministers, Members of the Legislative Assembly, ladies and gentlemen.

As a farmer who was born and raised on the presently occupied farm and who out side a two-year absence has contin uously worked on that farm, I welcome the opportunity to share my views with members of the special legislative committee, In deliberating the broad issue of the use and ownership of agricultural and recrea tional lands in Manitoba, I prefer to confine this presentation to the ownership of agri cultural land as I believe this is the overriding issue.

I use the adjective overriding because the decisions made on the ownership of Manitoba farmlands today will have a pro found effect in determining who will have the resources to purchase or expand his land holding tomorrow. I maintain very strongly that the long term ownership of agricultural land in Manitoba should be confined to residents of Manitoba. More specifically, I feel this ownership should be restricted to those persons who derive their chief source of income from agri culture, hereinafter referred to as farmers.

I might further add that I would be most unhappy if Manito ba's new land ownership policy went much beyond accommodating farm family companies, again whose chief source of income was derived from agriculture. Now that I have enunciated very briefly the basic policy proposal I wish to break down my thoughts into several areas and provide supporting reasons for my viewpoint in those areas.

Firstly, I have only harsh words for those members of the legislative committee that, on the one hand, judiciously espouse to be responsible to their electors, who by defini tion in the Elections Act must meet a residency clause, and yet on the other hand, are prepared to tolerate or even worse, uphold the right of foreigners, particularly those residing beyond Cana da's borders, to own a part of my province. It's my content ion that MLAs who consider distant foreigners on the same footing as Manitoba residents are about to embark on

an act of irresponsibility. Indeed, I suggest that MLAs who continue to treat electors and non-e lectors alike are showing cause for a hasty dismissal by their electorate. Just as an employee is expected to be loyal, so should, I maintain, an MLA be consistently loyal to his electors. There is yet another equally disturbing aspect to distant foreign ownership. If I park my car, for example on a supermarket's parking lot, I am required to patronize those premises.

Sin1ilarly, if a foreigner, be that person an Austrian, American or West German considers it advisable to own a part of my province, I submit he should be pre pared to patronize my province. He should be prepared to buy his food, shelter, clothing and other necessities in it; he should be prepared to share with fellow Manitobans the prosperity and the hardship, the blessings and the sacrific es. Otherwise, I maintain most strenuously our MLAs have not only a responsibility but an obligation to encourage him to release his ownership on farmland in my province.

Now let us examine still another reason for an eviction notice. Why should a foreigner seek ownership of Manitoba farmland? Perhaps because of an excess of capital

88 February 3, 1976 (MR. GALAWAN cont'd) ••••• or perhaps for speculative purposes. Contemplate for a moment, gentlemen, the inflating effect on land value s when available capital is vir tually limitless. Contemplate too on the chances of the cost-price squeezed farmer or would-be-farm er competing successfully against such capital. In summarizing my view point this far, I clearly believe legislators should in no way remain silen t while an elector's right to own a part of his province is being impeded, if not denied, by distant foreigners.

Turning a moment to reflect on the ownership of agricultural land in Manitoba by resident non-farm ers - e.g. accountants, contractors, or non-farmer groups - e.g . feed ma nufacturers, meat packing companies, food processors, who for definition purposes I would describe those who derive their chief source of income from non-farm ventures, I again wish to register another strong objection. Like foreign irwestment, capital input gained from non-farming sources distorts land value s and again most unfortunately need not reflect in any way the productive potential of that farmland .

I emphasize the words "distorts " and "need not reflect" because it is so much easier to make that profit faster - faster and easier, because the non-farm sec tor of our economy has always enjoyed a distinct advantage over the farm sector by continuously being in a position to set its own prices on its output of goods or services. Fa rmers, on the contrary, I must emphatically stress are not and have never been in a position to set prices on their farm outputs and by comparison, profit for them is a re mote exception rather than the rule.

Therefore, contemplate once more on farn1ers' competitive dis advantage from yet another angle. My greatest apprehension is the movement of big bu siness food processors closer to the source of supply of their product requirements . McCain Foods Limited of New Brunswick, for exan1ple, at the outset contracted its potato requirements from area far mers, later bought land and grew its own potatoes. As a result of the company move into potato production the growers under contract previously are now almost totally at the mercy of the McCain empire, with no bargaining power and virtually no alternative sales outlet.

A heavy investm ent in machinery, etc. has compounded the local farmers' prob lem. My final appeal is on humanitarian grounds. Envisage a farm youth with an exclu sive farm background, with very limited other interests because of boyhood responsibilities in1posed upon him, and frequently lacking an adequate education for the san1e reason - yes, envisage his feelings at being unfairly deprived, deprived of his only opportunity of total self-fulfilment , deprived of an opportunity to do his thing, deprived of the opportunity to serve his fellow man in his most capable capacity.

I ask you, as citiz ens ' elected representatives, is such severe deprivation not somewhat alien to our province ? Consider also the role farmers play in the maintenance of our economic system for yet another reason, for my new farmland ownership policy proposal. Of all economic sectors farmers unque stionably work the longest and hardest, sometin1es against great odds, while reque sting virtually nothing substantial from the rest of society. Fa rmers have never received an unreaso nable return for their output ; farmers have never partici pated in lock-ou ts ; farmers have never conspired to fix prices.

Unlike organized workers, professional people and busine ss, Manitoba 's farmers have never disrupted the provincial economy. How then may government and society in general show appreciation in a land owner ship policy? More explicitly, how do we deal with the current ownership problem so much in evidence in all parts of Manitoba ? I submit legislators must encourage the repatriation of Manitoba farmlands from foreigners, resident non-fa rmers and non-farmer groups.

Perhaps one course of action worthy of consideration might be a stiff property tax surcharge which hits hardest at all foreigners residing beyond Canada 's borders. Foreign companies situated beyond Canad a's borders should be subject to a no less severe penalty. Then proceeding on a diminishing basis, surcharge-wise, I would include the following in the order listed: Non-farmer groups with headquarters in other Canadian provinces and non-farmers residing in other Canadian provinces. Non-farmer groups headquartered in Manitoba and non-farm ers residing in Manitoba .

I should indicate now, as I indicated earlier regarding foreign ownership, that if

February 3, 1976 89 (MR. GALAWAN cont'd) •• , •• resident non-farmers or resident non-farmer groups wish to become landowners, they would be free to do so providing they, of course, di vested themselves of non-farm interests to the extent that their chief source of income was derived from farming.

Top off the new Manitoba land ownership policy with legis lation totally and completely prohibiting further inroads into the ownership of Manitoba farmlands by all aforementioned individuals or groups, and Manitoba farmers will be assured of an advanced and forward-looking policy tailored to meet the needs of the last quarter of the twentieth century. Equally in1portant, the necessity for the current transitional ownership of Manitoba farmland by government could become less acute.

Yes, gentlemen, just as doctoring is left to the doctors, policing is left to the policemen, so farming and farm ownership should be left to resident farmers. Respectfully submitted by myself. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Galawan. Are there any questions? Mr. Enns, MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Galawan, your last paragraph intrigues me. You are sug- gesting a closed shop then for farmers in this province. That's a rather interesting proposition, because in my own home town there are four doctors; one of them is a local doctor, one is from India and two of them are from Trinidad.

You suggest that those three should be kicked out and the only one to remain is the Canadian doctor, and if your thesis was to be followed through, I suppose that in the City of New York there would have been no policemen were it not for the immigrant Irishmen. Surely you don't mean that the only people who should be allowed to farm in this country are those who have been on the farm for years, and that people who want to come to this country to farm should be denied that opportunity. MR. GALAWAN: That is not what I said, sir.

I indicated very concretely here, that if those people wish to become residents of this province, fine, good and well, they are entitled to ownership , But if they're not residents of this province I do not feel they're entitled to ownership of my province. MR. JORGENSON: Well, your last paragraph then does not carry out that intent, because it says, "so farming and farm ownership should be left to resident farmers," MR . GALAWAN: Well, you talk about closed shops. Are you suggesting we have no closed shops in the non-farming sector? MR. JORGENSON: Oh, I'm not suggesting that at all.

I am just asking you if you believe that that should be a closed shop, that ownership of farm land in this province should be closed to only residents of this province. MR. GALAWAN: Yes, I believe it should. Other sectors of society are enjoying the san1e privileges and I see no reason why we as farmers cannot enjoy those privileges too. MR . JORGENSON: That's all, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. ENNS: Just on the same last paragraph.

I mean, are you really telling us, sir, that when the good Lord makes little green apples and babies, he makes doctors, policemen and farmers, and I suppose Autopac insurance agents, and that even I, born as a Conservative, could never hope to aspire to become a New Democrat ? You know it is very tightly wri tten. I think I know what you're getting at, but what about the doctor's son that wants to go into farming? What about the, you know, the policema n's son or the doctor's son that wants to go into policeman's work ?

Surely that's not the kind of format of the society that you honestly and truly are suggesting that we should bring into legislation. MR . GALAWAN: I think, Mr. Enns, you're misr eading this. I am indicating that if a person wants to become a farm owner, fine good and well, but he should derive his basic source of income from farming. I've explained this in several areas. MR. ENNS: One further question then of a serious nature.

You're also then very much aware, having been engaged in the farming process, that all too often it may take a period of time before, particularly a young farmer starting up, can derive his chief source of income from farming. I suppose in the case of some farmer members of the Legislature we would be barred under your legislation from carrying on with our farms because during our short interval of time that we're in public office we're not necessarily deriving our chief source of income from our farming operation.

90 February 3, 1976 MR. GALAWAN: Well, you mentioned doctors, and I daresay that a doctor's son, you know, should have quite a bit more capital than the son of a farmer to begin farming, believe me. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Yes. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the submission here has been somewhat misunderstood.

As I un derstand it, the brief follows very closely on the recommendations of other briefs that have been presented here today; Namely, that a person should have an interest and, in fact, actively work the land and earn income there from as opposed to having an investment interest only and living somewhere else in the country or outside of the country. That's what I read in this brief. Now, if I an1 wrong would you correct me , sir, on that ? MR. GALAWAN: No, you are not wrong. No, you are right, Mr. Uskiw. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. MR. A.R . (Pete) ADAM: Thank you , Mr. Chairman, just one question.

I interpret the gist of your brief that you would probably like to see anyone engaging in farming to be licenced farmers, that yo u'd have to be licenced to be a farmer - no other person would be able to get into farming unless he's a bonafide farmer ? MR. GALAWAN: Well, as I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the doctors have had these privileges, the teaching profession has these privileges, the lawyers have these privileges, and I see no reason, you know, in some distant future that we farmers maybe shouldn't have the same privileges. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Green. MR.

GREEN: I'm sort of stuck with that last answer - privilege of buying a licence. What you 're really saying is privilege of keeping others from not buying a licence. MR. GALAWAN: Mr. Green, I think you know that if this is reserved for ••• MR. GREEN: By the way, I don't deny that that is the privilege. I merely want to emphasize that the privilege is not to buy a licence, but the privilege to keep othe rs from having a licence. That' s what the doctors have. You know, I'm not very happy when I buy my licence, I want to tell you.

But what I am happy is that a lot of other people cannot buy the licence and compete with me. Now, just so that we understand each other, that is the privilege --(Interjection)-- oh, yes, that is the privilege that we are talking about. I'm not arguing with you at this point, I'm really trying to define the privilege of limi ting the nun1ber of the people who will have such a licence.

We have said in fishing on Lake Winnipeg that we are going to limit the number of fishermen so that a certain number of people will make a reasonable living, rather than a lot of people working and nobody making any kind of a living. That' s what you're talking about, isn't it ? MR. GALAWAN: Uh hmm. MR. GREEN: Okay.

I don't think I misunderstood what you said, but there was one part of it that at least I would like to raise with you, because I think everybody sort of feels that they 're working hard and that they 're contributing to society in the best way they can, and you have tried to say that the farmer works harder than anybody else and really is the most humanitarian in not trying to raise his price, not trying to do these things now.

It seems to me that the farmer, like everybody else, would like to get a good price for his product, and that from time to time there is arguments, but from time to tin1e marketing boards are set up for the purpose of - to use a euphemism - stabilizing the price. Is that right ? MR. GALAWAN: Yes, I follow you. MR. GREEN: So I don't think that we can, sort of, fault the worker as against the farmer, that he is trying to organize himself to stabilize the price and the farmer does the san1e thing. MR. GALAWAN: No. MR.

GR EEN: And although you have indicated that you want me to agree that of all economic sectors, farmers unquestionably work the longest and the hardest. I don't want to take anything away from the efforts that are put in by farmers, but I think that you would have to appreciate that a man going into the packinghouse every morning at eight o' clock and leaving at five, and doing this for 30 years of his life, with two weeks vacation or three weeks vacation at the most every year, is working long and hard, and probably in a less self-fulfilling kind of operation than farming.

February 3, 1976 MR. GALAWAN: Yes, I appreciate him getting - I'm not quarrelling with you - but there's been occasions, much of the summertime I'm up at six and I'm not in until about eleven, so I think you know • • • 91 MR. GREEN: Please, I really didn't intend to indicate that you are lazy and shiftless. I think that you work very hard. I would only ask you to recognize that the employees working in. industrial plants and other people working in the cities, they work hard, too, and therefore it's not --(Interjection) -- Well I didn't include them, you know, because I thin!( that we do have it a little easier.

But the fact is that, I don't think that you can ask us to accept carte blanche, and I don't want to take anything away from you that the farmer is the hardest working person in our society; he works hard and he contributes. I agree with that. MR. GALAWAN: I would just add, you know, I think some of the problems on the farm, as maybe perhaps, Mr.

Green, you've in a round about way suggested, really are the problems of farmers themselves, and I think that farmers have not made full use of the resources which a society offers itself to in1prove their bargaining powers, so • I don't mean to single out other groups as, you know, as enjoying some powers that are exclusively theirs. It's merely the fact that the situation is what it is, and unless us farmers are able to get together and do something about this, then I think the problem will remain for some time in the future. MR. GREEN: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR.

JORGENSON: I would like to ask Mr. Galawan one or two further questions. I take it you're a full time farmer and you derive all of your income from farming. MR. GALAWAN: Right. MR. JORGENSON: I presume that you realize that there are a number of farmers who do not do that.

There are a number of farmers who love the farm life, they have small holdings, but they prefer to spend part of their tin1e working in industry during the day and do their farming in the evening or weekends, or maybe having their wife run the tractor or something like that; they much prefer to live that kind of a mixed existence rather than full tin1e farming. Do you see anything wrong with that? MR. GALAWAN: No, and as a matter of fact, I think my brief does accommodate those people. It merely says that we should restrict this to those who derive their chief source of income from agriculture. MR.

JORGENSON: Let's assun1e then you have - the case of yourself, you derive all of your income from farming. You have another group who derive part of their income from farming, perhaps the lesser part, more from farming and less from indust rial occupation.

You may have another group that split that 50-50, and you may have another group that earns more at their job in the city or in the factory than they do on the farm; Would you want to place yourself in the positio:a or this body be in the posi tion to say to those people, you must quit that kind of life; you must either earn all of your living from farming or not at all. MR. GALAWAN: This is not what I said that we should earn all our living from farming, my friend. I said we should merely have them getting their chief source of in come from agriculture. I an1 not excluding them. MR.

JORGENSON: What I an1 suggesting is that there are a good many that do not earn their chief income from farming, that a good many of them, at least in the 'area where I come from, because of the proximity to !about employment in the city they earn the chief an10unt of their income from working in industry, and yet they prefer the life on the farm and they commute daily. Would you suggest they should be either removed off the farm or that their job should be discontinued in the city? MR.

GALAWAN: I work on the philosophy, hold down one job, do it well rather than holding down a number and doing them only half well. This is the philosophy that I hold and I think, you know, that if we confined our thinking to that, I think • • • MR. JORGENSON: Well many of the people that I know who do that do both jobs well, they are considered very good employees in the industries in which they work, Versatile as an exan1ple, the sugar beet factory is another example ••• MR. GREEN: Flyer Coach. MR. JORGENSON: Flyer Coach Industries. And they're also very good farmers.

92 February 3, 1976 (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) ••••• Their productivity on the farm is about the highest that you can find. Now I again repeat the question: Would you want them denied the opportunity to live that life the way they choose ? MR. GALAWAN: Well again I bring up the point, Mr. Chairman, if a person has a reaso nable way of making a living off the farm, I think that should be sufficient. I take the position, you know, there are a lot of farm boys that know nothing else, that have been raised on the farm, that have been tied to the farm the year around and you're, in effect, now going to displace them.

I ask you the question: How fair is that? MR. JORGENSON: Well, you know, I'm not here to give the answers, we're trying to find that out from you and I just want to know if you were a legislator and you were in our position, if you would want to be place� in the position of making that decision, going to this farmer and say, "No, you are going to stop farming, you are going to move into the city;" and to the other one say, "No, you are going to quit working in the city, you are going to go out on the farm and work. " MR. GALAWAN: Again, I think you're misreading this brief altogether. MR .

JORGENSON: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Galawan. Mr. Archibald. Sylvia Hanlin, Mr. Archibald? MR. DOUG LELOND: This is Doug Lelond speaking for Sylvia Hanlin, I guess I don't look much like her, eh? Well is Archibald coming first, sir? MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he's not present apparently. Sylvia Hanlin. MR . LELOND: And furthermore, we lost our brief so we can't do very much about it. But I'd like to throw out a couple of comments if I may, Mr. Chairman ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well you can make some comments and you can mail your brief into the Clerk of the Legislative Ass embly, MR .

LELOND: The comments I would like to make are brief and very much like most of them here today but there are a couple of things that were not mentioned. And one thing is • • • MR . CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, your name, sir. MR. LELOND: Doug Lelond L-E- L-0-N-D One thing going through these briefs today, we're all concerned about depopulation, that was the main thing in our Focus brief. We're not too alarmed about foreigners, we're not too alarmed about people living in the city any more than we're alarmed about large grain farmers; they're just as detrimental to the rural depopulation scheme as any thing.

Furthermore, our brief consisted quite a bit on taking care of the soil, it doesn't matter a hell of a lot who owns it in 25 or 100 years time if we don't take care of it, and I don't think large grain farmers can take care of the soil, Furthermore, I haven't too much more to say from memory other than in 1935 the marketing of grain became an emergency; R.B . Bennett, a Tory, got busy and did something about it. I think they've got an emergency here right now, gentlemen, and I hope you fellows get busy and do something about it. Thank you. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blake., MR. BLAKE : Mr.

Lelond, what would you consider to be a large grain farmer ? MR. LELOND: We would have to zone the soil first, and then in this computerized age I don't think it should be too hard to figure out what acrm ge is required to make a decent standard of living. MR. BLAKE : And who would set the standard of living, the farmer or some other body? MR . LELOND: I would hope a farmer would have a say in it plus our so-called politicians. Some people , you know, are very scared of politicians. I don't blame them for being scared of politicians, the kind we had up until the last five or six years. MR .

BLAKE : A lot of politicians are more sca red of wives than vice versa. MR. LELOND: You really don't want a repeat of all this reading, do you, because we've had it all today anyway pretty well, Our 1974 Miniota Focus group was organized to discuss local rural problems. One sure thought came out of all this talking, It's time to quit talking and come up with some concrete suggestions to save our rural way of life. Two specific problems seemed to be of great concern: depopulation and lack of services. We taped opinions of our rural people, We found complacency in some. Most people didn't want farms to get larger.

Fe bruary 3, 1976 (MR. LELOND cont'd) ••••• Several young farmers were emphatic that, without government backed loans they could not have become established. We had one farmer suggesting owners renting to young farmers as he was. I know a story of two young fellows who bought machinery and rented land at first option to buy. The next year the price of the land esca lated to a figure they could not meet. The land was sold from under them and they were left with debt and machinery and no land. 93 Then we had those farmers who thought government ownership of our land was a last resort.

But they had no answers, except to wave some sort of a magic wand, it seemed. We agreed that land lease was more acceptable than larger farms, with all the problems that come with rural depopulation. Some are very concerned about foreign ownership, others about fellow Canadians, hobby farmers and speculators buying land. There is really not too much trouble dispos ing of them. Don't let them own land. Farmers can't get licences to be doctors or lawyers. Why should they have a licence to farm?

The answer to the above problem is zone all land for its proper use - grain, special crops, hay, pasture, yes even urban and industrial needs. Municipalitie s would lend assistance for this job. As for size of farm s, it shouldn't be hard, in the day of compu ters to figure out how much land would be required to give a family a dec ent standard of living. Only re sident farmers should be allowed to farm. To be up to da te, I would just repeat what the Saskatchewan Fed eration of Agriculture stated this year. On very large farms in Saskatchewan the soil is being mined.

Fertilizing and sun1mer £allowing is bringing about a lowered yield per acre . With no livestock and burning of straw, the soil is being depleted of its humus. The answer is smaller farms, grass rotation and livestock. I suggest as a solution to depopulation and lack of service s, smaller farms, with practical conservation policies applied and government involvement and assistance. In theory, this would be no more difficult than when R. B. Bennett took the grain off the free enterprise market and established the Canadian Wheat Board. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR .

ENNS : Again, you know, this question of largeness has been repeated in several briefs and you're bringing it up again. Can we explore with you again just a little bit the ide a of what my colleague , David Blake, was trying to ask: What is a large farm ? Are you suggesting that maybe we should be spending tin1e in this committee to define and we should be hearing briefs about what constitutes enough or what is a large farm, you know, that seems to be a major concern certainly in the briefs that we've heard today. MR . LE LOND: Well if depopulation is a major concern, yes.

I know a few years ago you got the ide a of bringing little factories out into the rural areas . The only rea son tho se things ever can1e out was a tax dodge plus cheap labour and they back away after they don't get the cheap labour so that was no solution. The best solution is farmers on the land. MR. ENNS: But you don't care to define further for us what constitute s a large farm or a level of income which could be adjusted upward year to year, if we have cost of living increases, you know • • • MR .

LELOND: Well I could go into quite a large story on my own behalf, that I have an investment of about • o • MR. ENNS: $15, 000, $20, 000? MR. LELOND: Pardon? MR . ENNS : $15 ,0 00, $20, 000 gross income MR. LELOND: I was going to mention my own circun1stances. Probably I an1 a miracle man, I have an asses sment of $10, 000 and I pay income tax up towards $1, 000, so start figuring that out. MR. ENNS: And would you care to suggest that that would be a kind of a model that we should legislate around? You see, I am being serious about thi s. You know, one of the things that we're dealing with is (

a) the ownership of land, and we've dealt with that to quite an extent, we've had various numbers of opinions expressed. Mr. Green keeps asking the question, correctly so, whether it really matters who owns the land; I

94 February 3, 1976 (MR. ENNS cont'd) ••••• think how the land is being used is equally important ; the question of food production, you know, as such comes into it, but certainly today the question of size of operation, largeness of farm - and you, sir, perhaps said it better than anybody else, you said it doesn't really matter whether they're Arabs, West Germans or city businessmen, you said just plain large farmers are as much a detriment to the problem that we're faced with. MR. LELOND: That's my belief, yes. MR.

ENNS : Yes, but that means then that we have to start defining what is accept able in terms of, you know, the definition of "large", and nobody is really telling us that, you're not telling us that in terms of acreage, for instanc e, or you're not telling us that in terms of gross incomes. MR.

LELOND: Well there again I can only say from experience that about three or four years ago on a farm union get together, we were trying to arrive at the size of farms, and at that time we came up with, I believe, people from the Isabella area, which is a fairly good area - you'll know it, Charlie - there's farmers there, and a good Tory finally agreed that somewhere in the neighbourhood of between $16, 000 and $20, 000 assess ment.

There's no use talking acreage because a grain farmer on poor land has got to, you know, we can't talk acres or quarter sections so that figure was thrown out at be tween $16, 000 and $20, 000 asses sment. Mind you, before this thing would get done it might end up at $24, 000, or it might end up at $12, 000, I don't know where it would end but MR. ENNS : But you would like it established somewhere ? MR. LELOND : Definitely. If we really mean what we say about rural depopulation, otherwise we're wasting our tin1e, even these hearings are wasting our tin1e if we don't consider rural depopulation. MR.

ENNS : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW : Yes, I'm trying to pursue the same point in my mind. Do you believe we have to have legislation to lin1it the size of a farm or do you think it would suffice to simply allow opportunities for people to get into agriculture that could not normally do so as we do through land lease, whether that would not sort itself out if we simply maintain that option, or do you really think we have to legislate? MR. LELOND: This legislation would be suicide to any political party, I do believe, to start legislating the size of land.

Your cow-calf insurance scheme is a step in the right direction ! stopping it off at 70 head. Your property tax rebate, when it comes in the neighbourhood of $200 to my taxes, it is quite a lift. To a guy that has got two or three sections, I suppose he thinks it peanuts, laughs at it, eh? It's all steps in the right direction. And then we still have the old ability to work inc ome tax. MR. USKIW : So then you're not arguing that we need legislation but we need govern ment policy that would stimulate more people in rural Manitoba as opposed to less? MR. LELOND: I think that's about the only thing you could do.

I wouldn't mind suggesting that you put a freeze on what's going on right now though or there will be nothing left. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you very much, Mr. Lelond. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: I'm not asking a question but before you call the next person, per haps an observation.

I think this is the first meeting that we've started talking about how much land a person should have, and I think that for members of the committee and members of the audience there is a very definitive short story on how much land does a man need written by Tolstoy o I commend it to the members and they will find out how much land a person needso MR. ENNS : I don't believe it's really fair to have Mr. Green indicate to us or to suggest to us his recommendation of how much land a man needs as indicated by the short story written by Mr. Tolstoy. For the information of all, it was six feet. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The NFU Local 531. That concludes the presentations. I thank you very much. Mr. U skiw has a point to comment on. MR. USKIW : Mr. Chairman, before we adjourn I would hope to have a decision made on the part of the committee as to --(Interjection)-- Oh, somebody has a brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, fine. Come on. You are •••

February 3, 1976 95 MR. DALLAS ROWAN: I don't know how my name got left off the list. My name is Dallas Rowan. MR. CHAIRMAN: You are on here but I never called you to present your brief, I am sorry. MR . USKIW : No, you did call. MR. CHAIRMAN: You came forward with somebody else, I had your name down here but I thought you were presenting the brief with the other gentleman. MR. ROWAN: I misunderstood then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, proceed. MR. ROWAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Your name is •• , ? MR. ROWAN: Dallas Rowan. MR. CHAIRMAN: Dallas Rowan, from •• ? MR. ROWAN: Miniota. MR. CHAIRMAN: Miniota. Proceed. MR.

ROWAN: Mr. Ch airman and members of thi s commission. The heading of my brief is United States adopts Land Bank, borrowed from an

article in the Free Press report on farming. This

article states and I quote: "Sask atchewan Land Bank Program has been used as the basis for legislation introduced in December 1975 in the USA to create a sin1ilar progran1 there. " The purpose of bringing this America n Land Progr an1 now known as Young Farmers' Homestead Act of 1975 before you is twofold: first, to express the America n opinion of why land bank in that country is necessary; and second, to take a look at this new land bank idea or Homestead Act in comparison with what Manitoba and Saskatchewan offer now to young farmers in Western Canada. First, the necessity for this Act in the USA .

The reasons sound very much like Canada today. I am quoting Senator McGovern: "The fact is that there are almost in surmountable obstacles facing a young family that would like to acquire and operate a farm or a ranch as a farm unit. In the se days of high land value s, expensive machinery, now high energy costs, the tripling of the price of fertiliz er and other farm chemic als, it is simply impossible for many young farmers to meet conventional credit concepts of incurring a sizable indebtedness. This indebtedness stems from two factors: first, land acquisition costs, and second, the operational capital.

" I'll now quote in abbreviated form as follows : "It costs one-quarter of a million dollars to get started in a viable unit. The average age of an American farmer is 50. Fa rm unit numbers are steadily dec lining. The reason? - younger fan1ilies just cannot get started in farming. " Then Senator Mc Govern says : "I am not suggesting that we replace our credit agencies but simply deal with the real problem. It is not only New York City that is having trouble meeting its bills the se days.

" Then the Senator enlarges on his trip to Saskatchewan where he interviewed some of the 1, 400 farm families under the land bank. Then Senator Nelson gave some pertinent facts which show clearly the concern and the reason for in1mediate action. People are always an1azed to learn that the single largest industry is agriculture from New York to California. Our farmers are leaving the land and not being replaced. A few facts from the State of Wisc onsin: Today there are 51, 000 dairy farms compared to 127, 000 in 1953; over 80 percent of these farmers are now over 45 years old.

That is an1az ing in view of the fact that over one-half of the America ns living today were born after 1945. The time is fast approaching when our nation will not be self-sufficient in the production of milk and other dairy products. To sun1marize briefly what the America n Senators supporting the Homestead Act are saying is : "We will not be self-sufficient unless we recognize the problem and deve lop long-range farm programs that break the boom and bust cycles that plague all our farmers. " The Americans see the fan1ily farm disappearing and agri-business taking over.

In 1970, lOO, 000 farms were lost and the loss co ntinue s. A farming operation today may well mean an investment of $200, 000; a new tractor alone costs $20, 000 or $30, 000. And so on these senators talked. One could very well think they were talking about Canada. Then they presented the second part of their brief, and mine, the Homestead Act of 1975, I have it here but we'll just mention the more important parts

96 Fe bruary 3, 1976 (MR. ROWAN cont'd) ••••• of it as follows. There will, of course, be a board specially designated to execute the functions of the corporation in charge of the Act. In no case will the board pay more than $200, 000 for a unit but a large unit can be broken down into units of desirable size� Any farm unit acquired shall be made available for lease and subsequently for sale.

A farm unit may be leased to an eligible applicant for a period of not less than 2 and not more than 7 years, The amount of rent charged for the rental of any farm unit shall be determined by the corporation so as to cover the cost of the real est ate or other taxes levied against such farm unit during the term of the lease, by Federal or State taxing authoritie s plus an amount sufficient to reimburse the Corporation for debt service charges incurred in acquiring the units. It shall be charged and collected on an annual basis as determined by the corporation.

Authority is gr anted the corporation to adopt various rental schemes to take into con sideration both bountiful and natural disaster conditions. The lessee can make improvements to the farm which I could enlarge on if you wish but, generally speaking, he cannot sublease the farm, The corporation may terminate the lease and the corporation shall have a lien on all unharvested crops to cover all the lessee owes the corporation. The total term of the lease may not exceed 7 years.

The Board shall, when a lessee applies to buy the unit, decide on the basis of the farmer 's operation of his farm, determine if they will sell the unit to him. The selling price of the farm unit, owned by the corporation, shall be determined at 75 per cent of the appraised fair market value at the time of sale OR the purchase cost whichever is larger. In addition, capital gains realized in the 5 years subsequent to sale shall be ve sted at the rate of 20 per cent per year to the purchase. That is almost too brief a coverage of a lengthy bill but several questions come to mind which I will now raise.

Is the American bill better than what either Saskatchewan or Manitoba have ? Some Canadians don't like the idea of leasing at all; others want to be able to buy, what about the buying part of the lease being compulsory? Then again is the sales contract in the U. S.A . more favourable to the farmer than Manitoba' s? And should Manitoba take a second look at helping to finance young farmers who want to buy leased land? Again I wonder, by selling the leased land in the U.S.

A. in a compulsory way, are you automatically adding to the burdens of a yet un born genera tion of farmers who will find themselves, in turn, faced with land again on a free market and the same old boom and bust cycle? It appears by now that I came here to ask the questions instead of you fellows. In a sense that is true because I and many other young farmers are watching with great interest the struggles of government at the various levels, to cope with inflation and the complications it leads to. I welcome questions and, more particularly, discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR . CHAIRMAN : Mr. Green. Mr.

Enns. MR. ENNS: I just have a direct question to you through the Chairman. As a young farmer would you prefer to own your land? MR . ROWAN: In a monetary sense if I could make a comparable income with that of some of my friends who go to the city to work; if that was possible, I would say yes. But if not I would consider some other type of an arrangement of using the land, having tenure to the land. MR. ENNS: Just a follow-up question. I think we all recognize the load,that attempting to gain equity in land is onerous on particularly young farmers as it is on any body.

I gather then from your answer that your position on the question of land owner ship or land leasing stems principally on eco nomic matters, not any other particular feelings or attachment that you have on the subject matter. MR. ROWAN: Well basically economic and secondly social because if myself I can happen to do this , to have ownership through private ownership but - let me see now. I've lost track of my thought. MR. ENNS: Maybe I can try it from the other side. Would you support the con cept of public ownership of land with appropriate leasing arrangements for young farmers ••• ? MR. ROWAN: Yes I do.

Certainly yes I do. MR. ENNS : You would hold that in preference to private ownership of land.

Fe bruary 3, 1976 MR. ROWAN: Well again, as I stated, it' s an eco nomic decision and as a social decision, like if I have no other neighbours who can farm in the same way as myself, 97 that is, if I find myself the only person who is fanning, I mean what's the point when the community is dying because everyone wants to leave the land and go to the city, it's more ec onomically benefi cial to go to the city, So the land lease program I think is very use ful and to me is good. MR. USKIW: You want neighbours. MR. ROWAN: Right, I like to have neighbours, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to take up from where Mr. Enns left off. He's put it to you, would you prefer to own or would you prefer to rent.

Now if we look at it from an ec onomic point of view, and let's assume that there were no subsidies involved - and in the presen t lease program there is an interest subsidy, but let's assume that there wasn't - the diff erence between owning and leasing would be that one party would be inve sting part of his income into creating equity in the land and the other party would be getting that income and presumably living on it or invest ing some place else, That would be the only eco nomic diffe rence as I see it - I don't intend to hold you to that but that's the diffe rence as I see it.

In exchange for putting the equity into the land rather than utilizing it, what the owner gets is a chance of that land being worth much more than what he paid for it. In other words , he 's investing in the futu re enhanced value of the land which the lessee will not get because he hasn't made that investment. Now I don't know whether anybody can tell me which is better because that's a matter of judgment. Do you believe that a person should have a choice of doing one or the other? MR. ROWAN: Ce rtainly you should have a choice. MR.

GREEN: And that is really the featur e of the program that at the present time somebody has a choice of either inve sting his income into equity - and he will get some thing for that, at least I hope he will - or using his income for either en joying today, which some people want to do, or investing in another place. Now what you're saying is that regardle ss of what judgment a person makes that it would be preferable if he has the choice rather than not having the choice, MR. ROWAN: Ce rtainly, I agree with you. MR. CHAIRW.IAN: Mr. Minaker. MR. GEORGE MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Rowan.

You indi cated that your concern was with regards to the economic s of whether the young far mer had the opportunity to own his own land or pos sibly lease it as our colleague, Mr. Green, indicated, I think there is also another alternative which I'd like to ask you - would you consider the economics of maybe just working as a salaried for a state-owned farm ver sus the re sponsibility of paying the lease every year and paying the payments on the machinery and so on. I'm curious on your answer originally that it was more of an ec onomic consideration on the question of land ownership or leas ing and so forth.

MR. ROWAN: All I can say, I think there are some people who would feel a very strong desire to have like a kinship with the soil in that they see what they are putting into the soil is like they are creating something from the soil and they are a part of it) when they take their produc t and sell it, that is like an extension of themselves that they are selling,

whereas the person who works on like a corporate farm who would merely draw a salary, I mean, coald it not maybe aff ect the quality of the product, If he doesn't particularly have any stake in the quality and the given price of the product per haps it doesn't make any diffe rence to him if the farm is actually paying as long as he gets his salary. In my opinion I would not want to be under that type of a system. I would prefer to be able to take my own product and say, I want such and such for this product, I believe it's a good product and I think it's worth so much. MR. MINAKER: Ye s, Mr.

Chairman, the other reason I raised the question was today we've had presen tation that the depopulation or the decreasi ng population of farm ers in our province has sort of been related to in the briefs, the largene ss of farms and the bigness and so on, and I'm wondering is it not also possi bly that young people such as yourself on the farm find that they can go to the city and make considerable salary and wage and hav e the amenities of the big city life , rest aurants and bars and shows and so forth that you don't necess arily get in the rural life , but also they can do this without

98 February 3, 1976 (MR. MINAKER con t'd) ••• responsi bilities of having to meet that lease and pay for the equipment and so on. Do you think this might have a bearing on the young people in our co mmunity rural life going to the big city to get away from this economic responsibility that many of our farmers are now faced with - more so than say the bigness of the farmo oo ? MR. ROWAN: I think I follow you. I don't really have anything more to say. I think I do agree with you that • • • MR.

MINAKER: In othe r words, if I understand you right, there is more to it than just the fact that farms are getting bigger and so forth that the young j)80ple are going to the city ? MR.

ROWAN: Well the reason that the people are going to the city is because the farms need to be bigger in order just to pay for the land; you have to farm more land, you have to make a bigger paymen t because actually - well right now the price is not too bad - for the product is not too bad but the price of the commodi tie s that he has to use, that he has to put into producing the product is very gradually, very quickly climbing up to a point where he 's not making any money , his profit is so small that he again is just placing it all into paying for what he's using to farm the land, his machinery, his fertilizer, etc. as well as the price of the land itself.

He has nothing left over to have for a few luxuries of life that many people in other types of industry can afford. MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Rowan. Then you feel that if the actual capi tal outl ay for land was taken away that the capital cost of rolling stock and other equipment that' s related to the production of our agricultural product on the farm would not be that large it would deter young farmers from co ntinuing on the farm. MR. ROWAN: I would think so.

Do you mean like if I didn't have to pay for the land as well as the machinery - do you mean at the time that I begin to farm • • • MR. MINAKER: Do you feel that you could afford the capital cos t of the tractors and the combine s and so on and so on ? MR. ROWAN: I think so. That is quite a good deal smaller part of the overall capital outlay , of the initial outlay to begin. It's got to make quite a difference. I think prices for quart ers in our area is $15, 000 perhaps you know for • • • so maybe for fairly good land you would need at least a section, so that' � well $60, 000. It's a lot of money . yes. MR.

MINAKER: What would the equipment cost to run that ? MR. ROWAN: I would say ••• MR. MINAKER: Fo rty thou sand ? MR. ROWAN: I would think so. Fo rty thou sand would cover pretty well everything, MR. MINAKER: Okay. Thank you , Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Row an. MR. GAMEY: ••• ask one further question before you quit. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Gamey. MR. GAMEY: Thank you.

One thing that has run through our cou rse of question ing today is we've spent a lot of time on the respon sibility of the farmer to the public, or his responsible use of land, and one thing that I would certainly like to question you members of this commiss ion on is what responsibility do agri-busine ss have to the farm er then.

If we as farmers are going to take a great deal of responsi bility or concern of the use of public land or the use of our land in the public good, are we going to in turn get any credit or any cons ideration that the things that we buy or the people that we deal with are treating us in the public good or treating us indirectly in the good of the co mmunity. Could anyone give me any indication on this? I think this should be a two-way street sho uldn't it? MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman , I'm with Mr. Jorgenson; you kno-w, we are coming to ask you the questions .

I think that yo u're putting a rhetorical question ; you know the answer. The answer is that traditionally society is supposed to be ju stly based and from time to time different groups have felt that they have all the respons ibility and none of the benefits. I ass ure you that other people feel that way too. But the answer to your ques tion, yes, society should be equitable. MR. GAMEY: Thank you. One question that yw asked, Mr. Green, was that you couldn't think of anything that didn't come from the land. I would like to comment on that;

Fe bruary 3, 1976 99 (MR. GREEN cont'd) ••• that pos sibly you're undere stimating fa rmers, that I think quality is the only thing that doesn't come from the land and I think it' s somet hing we have to be very conscious of. Probably, as we all are well aware, Mr. Stanfie ld 's wool under wear may be quality but if the farmer didn't keep the wolves away from the sheep I'm sure even Mr. Stanfield couldn't make good underwear out of wolve s. MR. GREE N: But you see even we and the quality that is with us come from the land. MR.

GAME Y: But the free enterprise system which we have doesn't make the wool out of the wolves , you will notice. MR. GREE N: He will reap ashes to ashe s, dust to du st. MR. GA MEY: I think we must value the intelligence as far mers, as they work with things on the land to make quality out of it. MR. MacDONALD (?): There was one other issue that was raised this afte rnoon by Mr. Franklin that I wish to conm1ent on. (Mr. Chairman, point of order) MR. CHAIRMAN : Well we do not go into rebuttals. MR. MacDONALD: No this is not a rebuttal. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.

The previous speaker really strayed beyond our rules of order • • • MR. GREEN: The fellows will talk to you, don't worry. MR. JOHANNSON: You can talk to any of the gentlemen here afte r we adjourn. MR. MacDONALD: No, this has to do with the issue we 're dealing with. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order again. This gentleman has made his pres entation; we asked questions • • • MR. MacDONALD: We asked if we would have the right to comment at dinnertin1e and the Chairman assured us that we would. MR. CHAIRMAN : I didn't think you said to comment.

I believe you did mention that there was one matter that you had neglected off your brief, and now you are making referen ce, so I think we will have to call this. Thank you very much. cess. MR. MacDONALD: Well we are learning how to participate in the democ ratic pro- MR. CHAIRMAN : It is democ ratic . Everybody had the same opportunity when they can1e up. MR . MacDONALD: Okay. I apprec iate that. Would you members ••• ? MR. CHAIRMAN : No, no. Go ahead. MR . MacDONALD : No, the comment I wanted to make was: do you agree that the land base should remain in the control of those who operate it?

Do we want to in1plement policies to facil itate this process ? What I'm getting at is , do we change with the course of history or do we change the course of history. It is my feeling that we have a res pons ibility to act as participants in the democratic society - I'll repeat that. I feel people have a res ponsibility to participate in the democ ratic system, As an exan1ple , I use our own organization, MFU. This morning I stated I was a member. There was a reason for that. I am also the district director.

We had a meeting of our board and members ; it was decided that the locals would pres ent their positions at this hearing. Two of the locals have decided to make pres entations here today. They must take the respo nsibility for their submissions. Two of the locals did not decide to make their pres entations here today, They must take resp onsibility for that action. That is all. MR. GREEN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN : Thank you. I wish to thank the members of the audience and those people making pres entations for your time and interest in coming out. On behalf of the members of the committee I thank you all.

Meet ing adjourned.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-3-lou4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 3rd hansardpdf lou4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8917c4a49275efbaf1af34609f9293af9f6e27da

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