Manitoba Committee Hansard — LOU Committee, Sitting 5 (30th Legislature, 3rd Session)

30-3-lou5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARINGS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE Acting Chairman James Walding, M.L.A. Constituency of St. Vital Thompson, Manitoba - 10:00 a.m., Thursday, February 5, 1976 Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA SPECIAL C OMMI TTEE ON LAND OWNERSHIP AND USE THOMP SON, MANITOBA 10 a.m., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1976 Acting Chairman: Mr. James Walding Clerk: Mr. Jack Reeves 101 MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please. The meeting will come to order. This Special Commit tee on Land Use has been authorized by the Legislature to conduct hearings between sessions and make a report to the upcoming session. The committee has held two hearings so far, one in Winnipeg and one in Virden. Perhaps I can introduce to you your committee.

Starting at my far left is the Honourable Sid Green, Minister of Mines; next to him is Pete Adam, the MLA for Ste. Rose; Harry Graham, MLA for Birtle-Russell; next to him is Dave Blake, MLA for Minne dosa; Tom Barrow, MLA for Flin Flon; Gordon Johnston, MLA for Portage la Prairie; Minist er of Agriculture, Sam Uskiw; George Minaker, MLA for St. James; and on his right Warner Jorgenson, MLA for Morris. In the front is Harry Enns, the MLA for Lakeside; and the Honourable Harvey Bostrom, Minister of Renewable Resources. My name is Jim Walding, I'm the MLA for St. Vital. I have an indication here that Mr.

John Clarke wishes to read a brief to the commit tee. Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to make representation to the committee this morning? If so, would you come forward to the microphone please and give me your name. MR . BRIAN CAMPB ELL: I'm Brian Campbell; I'm Past President of the Thompson Chamber of Commerce. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Campbell. Anyone else wish to speak to the committee this morning? M:R • • • · . : briefs were invited. I'd just like to say that I was not aware that After this meeting I may have some things I would like to say later on. MR . CHAIRMAN: That's fine. HON.

SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C.: Mr. Chairman, maybe you can make it clear that if anybody wishes to say anything without presenting a brief, they can do that as well. MR . CHAIRMAN: We try to be as informal and as easy on you as possible. Accomrodating was the word I was looking for. Mr. Jorgenson. MR . WARNER JORGENSON: It may be helpful if it was pointed out that the commit tee will be meeting again this afternoon, so if anyone is desirous of presenting a brief he'll at least be given the opportunity of preparing it during the morning, or during the lunch hour.

Since our flight does not leave here until eight o'clock tonight we will have a little bit of time to sit here in the afternoon, MR . CHAIRMAN: If there is no one else wishing to speak to the committee this morning, I'll call upon Mr. John Clarke to come forward. Is Mr. Clarke here this morning? Mr. Clarke turned in his written brief to me; I don't know whether there's more than one copy. Is it your wish we have this distributed to the committee? Thank you. Mr. Green. MR GREEN: Well, Mr. Chairman, we can have it distributed but I think that if Mr. Campbell wanted to say something then perhaps Mr.

Clarke1 who is late, which would not be unusual, it's sometimes the case. lVIR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. Mr. Campbell, would you come forward please. MR . BRIAN CAMPBE LL: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ministers, and gentlemen . I have no formal brief. We had discussed this briefly in the Chamber, the hearing that you're holding in Thompson . We do feel that the main points of concern to us will be covered by Mr.

Clarke who is representing the NorMan Tourist Association, which is a sub committee of the NorMan Regional Development Group, and the Chamber of Comm erce which is pretty well the same people with the same interests and concerns.

102 February 5, 1976 (MR. CAMPBELL cont'

d) Our main concern that I would like to make to this committee - I assure you, I'm not presenting any brief - is the possibility of people who are located in particular parts of the north here who do not have or cannot have tenure or freehold on the enterprises they're developing. This is primarily people in the tourist business and people who are into other parts of resource development or service industry that may or may not have a lengthy tenure in certain areas of the north.

I must agree with the policy of the parks and the natural resources people1 that they do not want helter-skelter development of land and uncontrolled development through the north, but in the case where a person or a company that is developing a facility in the north where there is considerable money involved, I do feel that freehold is the most equitable way to develop it. There may be reasons that government have not disclosed, or the department, that they do not desire freehold operations throughout the north but we do feel that this is a point worthy of consideration by your committee.

We also have a concern that adequate facilities for recreation be provided in your land use and the development of your facilities in the various recreation areas for the people that live in the north. Our retail people in Thompson stay open until six o'clock on Saturday night and it's almost impossible for any of them to go camping to any of the campsites because they're all full up. The development of park facilities has fallen far behind the needs of the people of the north and the tourists.

I know that promotion of tourism is considered a good thing but there also should be facilities for people who choose to live in the north to use the amenities or the lakes and streams and parks that are up here for their own use and they shouldn't have to take a back seat to someone who comes from Iowa, or somewhere like that.

I don't want to discourage the foreign money coming in but I think that you must look after your own people first because the climate up here is a little tougher than it is down south and those six weeks we have in the middle of the summ er we certainly enjoy them and we like to make the most of them, and we do appeal to this committee on land use that adequate land be made available and that it be developed for the use of the people of the north primarily; the others, if you have any money left over you can look after them. I may have some further remarks later on. I had hoped that Mr.

Clarke would initially be here to present his brief because I'm sure he'll cover most of these concerns when he has a chance to talk. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have an indication there are some questions of Mr. Campbell. Mr. Blake. MR. DAVID BLAKE: Mr. Campbell, I was interested in your remarks on the need for additional campsites with the local resident in mind more so than the tourist. Do you feel that the local residents here could develop a plan that would meet their needs rather than an overall plan that was developed by the Indian government agency?

Do you feel that this would be something that they could look after in their own interests without massive government inputs, or would this be something that would have to be developed by maybe a government agency? MR. CAMPBELL: Park planners have developed plans to give additional campsites in the north, some of them at very minimal cost, and quite acceptable plans. The only problem is that those fellows down on Broadway, they divert all this money down to the Whiteshell or to Birds Hill, or somewhere out there near Birtle and. . . Minnedosa, that's another offender. MR. BLAKE: Yes, we're getting our share too.

MR. CAMPBELL: Sure we have a planner up here, a fellow named Wong - he was here for years - he had a pile that thick of plans he'd developed and had rejected by Broadway. But surely the local people would be pleased to have an input and make suggestions. As a matter of fact, we've made a lot of suggestions - waysides.

Some magazine writer down in the States went and put a glowing report of the clear water and the great fishing up in the Churchill last year and, you know, we're in business and we supply these people but it was really an embarrassment; they went up north there and there wasn't even a two-holer along the road. You know, these facilities have got to be made available and there must have been a hundred campers came through here in June last year. We can't advertise tourism and not have facilities for these tourists, to say nothing of the people that live here. I hope . . .

February 5, 1976 MR . BIAKE: That's fine, that's what I was looking for, your views on that. MR . CHA.ffiMAN: Mr. Adam. 103 MR . PETE ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Campbell, I'm pleased that you have indicated your satisfaction on what the parks have been doing so far. MR . CAMPBELL: Not what they've been doing, what their planners have proposed that should be done. And you have started improvement on Paint Lake; you've given us a great many additional campsites, but at the same time you've taken out of service the ones that are sort of rundown and it's been a net loss rather than a gain.

You know, progress is indicated but it's very slow. MR . ADAM: I see. MR . CAMPBELL: You know, you've got some very able people in your department that have been with your department for a long time; they're well trained but without the backing of the elected people to direct moneys and policies toward them, they can't do anything. I'm sorry if I sound . . . MR . ADAM: Your reference on input, like more input by local people in the development of recreational areas, and you understand that this is one of the reasons we're here, is to have your views and the views of other people who wish to express them.

I was wondering if you consider it desirable to have, say - you didn't mention this in your comments - development for cottage owners? MR . CAMPBE LL: I was referring to campsites for . . . MR . ADAM: Yes, I know, you mentioned campsites, but what would your views be, say, if there were some legal subdivisions with lots where people could go and. . . MR . CAMPBELL: I'm not that familiar with the situation on lots right at the moment; mostly all the lakeside ones are, I think, occupied now. There is a program to open more, I don't know . . . I'm not in a position to speak on that because I'm not aware of it.

There are chaps here from your department that you could . . MR . ADAM: Yes. Do you think this is a desirable thing? I'm interested in your views rather than somebody from the department. MR . CAMPBELL: I would think it is desirable because to attract people to come north is difficult and to keep them here is even more difficult. People don't choose willingly to come north. You know, I've been up here 30-odd years on and off, and to me this is home and I don't look upon these fleshpots down south as being the be-all and end-all.

I think you can make a home up here and have a better life up here with less hustle and hassle than you do down south, but this is not shared by a lot of our young people. They come up here and take a look around; the pubs aren't noisy and they want to get back down to the mall. The first thing, you know, they've put their 19 shifts in, or whatever it is, and they're gone again, I think you've got to improve the whole quality of life up in the north, and recreation is one of the more important things. Initially a chap coming up here is not going to build himself a summer cottage.

It takes him a little while to get established, probably pay off his debts and get himself a home, and they usually end up with a car, skidoo, and boat, and this takes time. But I think that these things are attainable to a fellow, and this is available to just the ordinary working stiff that wants to come up here and keep his nose to the grindstone for 10 years. Generally speaking a fellow can never get along that well down south in a given period of time. I think that anything the government can do to encourage people to stay in the north is going to be of benefit to you in the south.

The Nickel Company Commission, the Hedlin-Menzies, a group of economists a number of years ago made an impact study on the economy of Manitoba and Canada of this Thompson operation. There's a supplement that was prepared here in '73 which indicates the amount of taxes and one thing and another paid by people in the north, and purchases by mining companies in the north, and this indicates, you know, that the balance sheet is very much in favour of southern Manitoba.

These developments here do much to encourage employment in industry and service business down south, and I do think that if you want Manitoba to grow economically, or the economic base of Manitoba to improve and employment to improve, you've got to pay attention to the north and encourage development in the north. I don't think that the average businessman up here wants any kind of a handout, he just wants - I'm starting to wander a little bit now - but he just wants an equal chance with the fellow that takes all the purchasing agents down along Portage A venue out

104 February 5, 1976 (MR. CAMPBELL cont'd) .. .. . to dinner and is right there if there's an order to be written. No, our problem is land and this is what we should be talking about. But, I think, perhaps that's what we need, more facilities, if that's what you're .. . MR. ADAM: Mr. Campbell, from time to time we southerners hear that there's uncontrolled building of cottages in different areas, different lakes and remote areas, and if this is correct, and which I can't verify and I don't know, but if this does happen what are your views on that? MR.

CAMPBELL: Well, if a fellow wants to go and fly supplies out ah undred miles and build himself a cottage, I think he should be let do it, but I don't think there's very much of it,. and the Land's people keep a pretty good eye on it if it, I imagine, like any other development there is the odd one, a hunting camp, that someone has away out on a hidden bay somewhere that they know about and the owner knows about, and that's about all.

But it's not a bad thing to have these around the country because travellers quite often are in need of shelter, and if there's a cottage or a cabin along the way - they're very seldom locked - and it's . . . MR . ADAM: I would imagine that the registered trap line operators would have probably their camps at one end of their trap lines. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. The average traveller, by canoe or boat, are not likely to even see these trappers' cabins. They're usually . . . MR . ADAM: ... inland. They'd probably be inland more ... MR. CAMPBELL: .. . concealed. No, they're not ... MR. ADAM: Maybe not either MR.

CAMPBELL: Yes. MR . ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAlRMAN: Mr. Johnston. MR. GORDON JOHNSTON: Mr. Campbell, about recreational sites: I take it that places like Paint Lake and others around here have lots of potential, like there's no shortage of a place within easy reach of Thompso n to develop more camp sites. Is that true? lVIR. CAMPBELL: No. MR . JOHNSTON: Like, it's not a huge expensive proposition to build expensive roads. MR . CAMPBELL: Well mind you, any road building in the north is very expensive. MR. JOHNSTON: But the road out to Paint Lake, would it service more sites easily? MR.

CAMPBELL: Well, there are other lakes that are accessible from there that wouldn't be possibly too difficult to develop, and the road north here - there are other lakes that are further north - that could be developed from that highway. There's a very great need for development of camp sites further north here because the fishing is better up on the Churchill - I don't want this to be reported, Mr. Lowrey - but the waters of the Churchill are generally better at fishing than they are here.

But for those that are avid fishermen they get them anytime. -- (Interjection) Some of them will be coming now. -- (Interjection) -- No, but there is a great .. I would say, all you fellows have got to do is make the moneys available to these parks people, they'll develop them. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, what you're saying is, you want a northern Whiteshell; you want to be able to lease land for cottage lots and have more camping. MR. CAMPBELL: Well, why shouldn't we? MR. JOHNSTON: Sure. MR.

CAMPBELL: You know, we should have access to camping facilities, not necessarily as elaborate as the Whiteshell or Birds Hill, but we've got to have better than we've got. You know, we're not the poor relations. MR. JOHNSTON: You're the rich ones. You mentioned earlier that the most desirable route for a private enterpriser to develop a tourist facility is to give him the freehold right. going. MR. CAMPBELL: As a free enterpriser, I think this is the way we should be

February 5, 1976 105 MK JOHNSTON: Yes. Would you all be satisfied with a long term lease? In other words, does long term leases discourage the obtaining of mortgage money or loans? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. You know, in order to get mortgage money you must have either a freehold or a good long lease. Personally I like freehold, but I'm speaking for myself in this respect. MR . JOHNSTON: Does a long term lease, which as I presume is the way it is done now, has this discouraged people from trying or bringing in money? In other words, is the present system holding back development? MR CAMPBELL: It's pretty hard to assess.

Personally, I would think it might have a tendency to do so. I think they should have the alternative. But I must say that the Government of Manitoba's policy over the years has kept quite an orderly development of the remote lands. While I feel that for certain developments they should give freehold, I don't think they should turn it wide open or anything of that nature. I think we can be proud of the development of the north in that it's not all fragmented into shack towns and everything else.

I'm afraid I'm not of too much help there; that's a personal bias I feel, that if I were into lodge development, I'd prefer it on a freehold basis rather than a long term lease. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bostrom. MR . HARVEY BOSTROM: Th ank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Campbell, just on that last point, why exactly do you desire freehold over a long term tenure by lease? Does it tend to give you more security you feel, or is it for resale value? MR . CAMPBE LL: Both.

Personally I always feel insecure about seeing property, or particularly a business developed on a lease; you always feel that you are at the whim of someone that might want to change the rules or they might put restrictions on it more so than they would on freehold. MR . BOSTROM: In the case of resale, or resale of the facility at least that you would have on the land, do you have any particular views on the selling of land or, in fact, lodges, resources such as fishing lodges, tourist lodges, etc., to people other than Manitobans or other than Canadians? Do you have any particular . . .

MR CAMPBELL: I'm very much a nationalist. I would like to see some form of legislation possibly like P. E. I., which isn't too popular in some quarters, but I think that our land should be owned by our own people. MR .. BOSTROM: So that you have a desire to restrict a sale to those who are, at least Canadians, if not Manitobans. MR . CAMPBELL: Most certainly. Yes. MR .

BOSTROM: I'm interested in your views on the park question, I represent a northern constituency, Rupertsland, which has had some possibly unfortunate experiences in the development of parks over the last decade or so, with the consequence that parks . . . the word "park" tends to be considered a four letter word there, mainly I believe because the people living in the area affected by park development tend to feel that the planning is out of their control; it's done by people that are out of their area and there's the danger that park facilities, etc. , will be established without them having an input and without them really truly benefiting from the development.

MR . CAMPBELL: Pardon me. Are you referring to a national park in your case? MR . BOSTROM: No, both provincial and national, and in fact, there's not too much discrimination made, although the national tends to be even less of a desirable develop ment than the provincial.

I tended to get that same impression from other areas in northern Manitoba in meetings I've held in Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids, with local residents, etc. , I tended to get the same feeling that parks were, in fact, not necessarily that desirous a develop ment, and particularly if the development was to take place without, you know, real local input and without some obvious benefit to residents of the north.

In fact, I throw this out for your comment and response, because the general feed back I'm getting from northern residents in general is that even tourism is, other than to the local businessman - I'm talking about the general populace - that tourism is not a really desirous thing to proceed with, and I think you touched on it partly when you said that people are feeling that they're being crowded out of their own camp grounds. MR . CAMPBELL: That is happening, yes.

106 February 5, 1976 MR . BOSTROM: So that the feeling tends to be that if we're going to have tourism then it has to be controlled. MR . CAMPBELL: Well, not necessarily controlled, but you people have got to spend some money and make facilities available. You can't go and invite half the United States up here and not have any place for them to go. You opened an office in Denver the other day, and sure, they'll come up to these fly-in camps, but if they come up with campers and that, where are they going to go? We haven't even got places for our campers to go on a Saturday night. MR. BOSTROM: Uh hmm.

Well, the other concern I've heard relative to that is not only being crowded out of the camp grounds but in fact being crowded out from the use of the resources. I mean, there's already expressions of concern in the Leaf Rapids Lynn Lake area where a road was only, in recent years, put in; concerns are being expressed about the tourists reaping more benefits from the resource base than the local residents. I'm getting the feedback that there's a building negative feeling towards tourism in general, and developments in general, which will encourage more tourists to come. MR . CAMPBE LL: Yes. MR .

BOSTROM: You know, I get the feeling that local residents of the north want to have more of a say in how tourist developments are actually developed, how parks are designed, camp grounds designed, where they should go, etc., and that there should also be a definite plan, and a definite idea as to how the local people will benefit from the resource development. Do you get that same feeling? MR . CAMPBELL: Yes, very much. But I do feel that you've got to even make facilities at the present time for those that are here without even planning anything further. I think you have some able planners.

I know in the Chamber we had a lot of dialogue with your last planner up here and there's a new one here now - I think he's afraid to come around - but they know what's needed and they've had a lot of input from the local people, but if you won't back them up from Broadway, you know, they might as well quit. You've got to listen to their recommendations and you've got to implement some of them, and I'm very pleased to hear, Mr.

Bostrom, that this feeling that things are not well in the camp sites and the parks and so on in the north is getting through your department up to your level, and perhaps now with the little bit of needling from the rest of your assembly there that it might get some attention. MR . BOSTROM: Well, these are observations, really, that have not necessarily come from my department but those I've received through meetings in various towns and communities in the north.

I believe that the general feeling that's coming through is that the local residents in the north, the local governments in the north, their town, reserve or remote community, are becoming more interested in having a say as to how develop ment takes place in the area around their communities or towns, and that they would like to be involved in the initial stages of planning of camp grounds, cottages, subdivisions, tourist developments, etc c , and that they would like to, in some cases, even manage some of these developments so that they would be ensured that the people most concerned, those who must live and work in the area, receive the most benefit from developments that take place.

MR . CAMPBELL: Mind you, you don't want to get carried too much away with some of these committees. You know, we're getting a race of people in the north that are permanent committee attenders. You meet them every Tuesday and Friday at the airport, going back and forth to meetings in Winnipeg. Now, there's a limit to this, too, you know. Input is good, but let's keep it within reason. MR . BOSTROM: Do you agree with that general principle that the local govern ments, at whatever level in the north, should actually have more of a say in how develop ment takes place c MR . CAMPBELL: That's better.

I think local government are the people that you should be looking to and get their You may have to prod them because like most municipal people they only have so much time; you may have to go and almost send your planners out with questionnaires to cover the areas involved, but they certainly must be consulted and they can give very helpful input.

February 5, 1976 107 MR . BOSTROM: Thank you very much. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Campbell, I have four more members wishing to ask you questions. If you prefer to sit down we can adjust the microphone for you. MR . CAMPBELL: I can talk better on my feet, but anyhow .. . maybe I can get a smoke if I can find an ashtray. MR . CHAffiMAN: Mr. Green. MR . CAMPBE LL: I'm just a visitor here today. MR . BOSTROM: Without Mr. Campbell, I think it would have been a dull meeting MR . GREEN: Well, Mr. Campbell, I think the reason that you're so popular is that you're the only one around here.

I wanted to ask you a couple of questions, and I guess I'm going to start with .

Since you are sort of a confirmed Nationalist as you've put it to us, I'd like to ask you: what is the difference vis-a-vis Canada if a piece of land - forget the tourist land and let's talk about agricultural land now where it's usually come up - is held by a man in Noyes, Minnesota, who is renting it out to a farmer in Manitoba, or a piece of land is held by a man who lives in Sydney, Nova Scotia, or Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, is rented out to a farmer in the Province of Manitoba, well what is the difference economically, or in any other way, socially, politically, etc. , to Canadians? MR . CAMPBELL: Mr.

Green, you're touching on sort of a sore point here. You know, I'm not much of an economist, but, as I understand, the development of industry and railroads, such as in the States, was made on money from Germany and England on a bond basis; they sold long-term bonds in those countries to develop their country. When it was all over the bonds were retired and the Americans owned the railroads and they owned the canals and they owned the factories.

Well, here the Americans - this is getting a little far from parks - the Americans are coming in here and they're investing in equity in farming, in land, and in industry, and they're ending up owning this. Now, they're fine people.

My two sisters are both American citizens and, you know, the rela tives I have acquired down there I think are fine people, but they're Americans, and if this fellow in Noyes, Minne sota, or one of those places, is owning land up here and renting it, he is taking part of the wealth that is developed from that farm or, say, in the case of a mine or anything else, that wealth is going back to the States to develop their country and we haven't got very much to start with, and if we start giving it away to these people we're going to have a damned sight less. MR .

GREEN: I assure you that I don't want to give anything away to anybody. But I want to know by what rule of logic you come to the conclusion that the American will take the money out of Canada and the Canadian will leave it here? My impression has been that the Canadian will invest it wherever he can get the highest return, and that the American will do likewise. But if that were the problem, one could make a rule that the money not be invested outside of the country, and if you made that rule would you make it for us patriotic Canadians as well as those "damned Yankees", as Mr.

Enns has put it, because that would seem to be the solution to your problem. MR . CAMPBELL: It's not my problem, it' s your problem; it's everybody's prob- lem. MR. GREEN: Well, you see I didn't raise this as a problem, Mr. Campbell, and I, therefore, have identified it as your problem. I still would like to know if the Canadian owners of Versatile Manufacturers want to build a plant with the money that they've earned in Canada in North Dakota, how are they better citizens to Canada than the Sheller-Globe fudustries who are Americans and want to build a plant in Morris, Manitoba? MR .

CA MPBELL: Well, all I can say to you, Mr. Green, is, you're probably more familiar with your sources of information from your Provincial fudustry and Commerce and Federal as to how this is turning out, but the net result of all this is that more and more of our country is being .9wned by somebody else. At one time , I understand, that we used to own most of this country. MR . GREEN: But there is a way of protecting that, and I ... MR . CAMPBELL: Well, we're not doing it whatever is happening. MR .

GREEN: Well, I can assure you there is a way of protecting that, but I want to know how I protect it by saying that E. P. Taylor will own all of the industries of

108 February 5, 1976 (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... Manitoba - if he wanted to, and if he wanted to make that kind of investment - that E. P. Taylor would do it instead of Nelson Rockefeller, now how am I better off if E. P. Taylor does it than if Nelson Rockefeller does it? Let's say they own everything. MR. CAMPBELL: I think you're getting a little bit out of my league. MR. GREEN: All right. Well, I don't want to get out of your league, so I'll leave the question. I don't really . . . MR CAMPBELL: Smarter men than you and I have tried to find an answer to it. MR.

GREEN: Okay, I will agree with that too, and I say that they have not found an answer, and I have virtually asked at almost every committee meeting - the people who have raise d foreign ownership as distinct from private ownership, as the problem, that it's the foreigner and not the private person, I've asked them how we are better off if a man from the Yukon Territory owns land in the Province of Manitoba as against the man from Noyes, Minnesota, and they have all said the same as you, "You're out of my league," or "I can't answer that question," or they say, "That it makes no difference." So, since you have sort of put yourself forward as a confirmed Nationalist, I hoped that I would get an answer, but I obviously have not been able to get one. -- (Interjection) Yes, exactly, I believe that it is the use of land and I believe that, you know, there are ways of ensuring the use of land without -- (Interjection) -- That's right.

MR. JORGENSON: ... you know, his comments are very pertinent. MR. GREEN: That's right. -- (Interjection) -- We'll get Mr. Wright. A MEMBER: That's Grant Wright, the local pu blisher of the paper . . MR. JORGENSON: I think that you have to understand that the proceedings are being recorded and we would like to have all of those comments on the record, if that's possible. I'm not trying to stop you; in fact, I want to encourage you. MR. GREEN: It may scare the hell out of Mr. Wright to know that I agree exactly with what he said.

How he will get to the position of doing it, he may find it's not as tasteful to him as he would like. But it is not, in my opinion, by dealing with the question of foreigners and non-foreigners, it is dealing with whether the public will have a say as to what the land is used for or whether they will not have a say. But I don't want to sort of get hung up on that point. The other interesting feature that you were mentioning, and this is an important point, is the question of tenure and title.

Well, I'm not sure how it is that Paint Lake - possibly I should know - but in many of the provincial -- (Interjection) -- Well, in many of the Provincial Parks areas in the Province of Manitoba it is one-year permits, and I imagine that some people have built on one-year permits in Paint Lake - cottages.

The Tourist Department used to have an option of either a one-year permit, a year to-year permit or a 21-year lease, which you could renew at the end of it, and much to my surprise being a lawyer and sort of trying to protect clients, I found that people in the Whiteshell, for instance, built very expensive cottages on one-year permits; and what makes them do that? MR. CAMPBELL: They've got to have. tr,st. MR.

GREEN: Well, I reall y believe that that is so, that probably the one-year permit, if one would analyze it, because it is given by the public, who are generally much more subject to criticism if they've dealt unfairly with the person on the premises, is probably the securest form of land holding in the Province of Manitoba, and yet it has almost never been disturbed to my knowledge. MR. CAMPBELL: I've never heard of anyone having had theirs cancelled providing they, you know, have built under the regulations. MR. GREEN: So what we are talking about is .

When we talk about tenure we are talking about faith, because a person who builds with a Torrens title - we have certainly disturbed more Torrens titles, what you call freehold, than we have disturbed one-year permits.

So isn't it amazing that people will build a $40,000 cottage - well, maybe that's a little extravagant, but certainly not now --(Interjection)-- Well, whatever the case may be - that some of these things or many of them, as I understand it, are built at least on 21 year leases or on one-year permits, doesn't that say something for the people's sort of trust, as you have put it, in the public doing right by them if they have built on a one-year permit? It's not the title that is important, it's how they feel they are going to be treated.

February 5, 1976 109 MR. CAMPBELL: I'm the son of a civil servant, Sid, and I feel that we've had one of the more stable and better civil servants' services of any of the provincial governments, and there seems to be a feeling of faith in this province, that is not to be shared in some other provinces . MR.

GREEN: You know, whether it's Tory, Liberal or New Democrat, I think that the public is not really placing their faith in the civil servants; what they are placing their faith in is that their representatives are not going to let them build a cottage on a one-year permit and then disqualify it and give it to somebody else, that the government wouldn't behave that way. Now, isn't it also true that, you know, I don't know what Mr .. •. lodge is built on. I also am aware that some businesses are built on one-year permits. MR .

CAMPBELL: That's the point I was trying to make, is that for businesses to go on a short term lease it's not a very secure way, and it's very difficult to get mort gage money, that a freehold would be much preferable and as mentioned here, a long term lease. MR. GREEN: Have you ever heard of one of these people building on a one-year permit, and being disturbed on it? MR. CAMPBELL: No, but the bank sure disturbs you when you approach them for money on a land permit. MR.

GREEN: I appreciate it, but the fact is, that if the banks looked at the history they will also find that these one-year permits have proved to be pretty good titles. So that, in any event, what I am driving at is that tenure given through the public has proved to be something which the people who have had it have had great confidence in, and the history shows for good reason. I'd like to deal lastly with the points that were being made about tourism.

Now, I imagine that the people in Northern Manitoba want to buy cotton goods, that they want to buy tobacco, that they want to buy tobacco, that they want to buy steel or fabricated steel products, that they want to buy bananas and fruit which is generally not grown in Canada, and the only way they can buy these things is by having export dollars obtained either through exports or through the dollars coming into our province by tourists, that there is no way of buying goods that we are not sufficient in unless we have . . . the export dollar is the most important dollar that the Province of Manitoba can receive in terms of satisfying the needs of its own citizens.

Would you not agree with that? MR. CAMPBELL: Yes. However, if you'll give me a moment to point out that stack over there that's belching out all that stuff . . . MR , GREEN: All right. MR. CAMPBELL: ... that's probably the biggest earner of export dollars around. MR. GREEN: Right. MR. CAMPBELL: And in order to keep that thing belching you've got to have people around here that are going to make it run, and you've got to have facilities for them for fueir recreation. MR. GREEN: Right. MR.

CAMPBELL: And I'm sure that the people here are not beingniggardous or dog in the manger, sort of, to promote their resources here. This country's got millions of acres of moose pasture here and a lot of it's good recreation ground, but you've got to get to it and you've got to have the odd fireplace there. We're not asking you to put up big facilities like you do in the Whiteshell; give them roads into them and give them campsites. This is all the people are asking.

You know, if you come up with a camper from Winnipeg to here, when you leave Grand Rapids, you know, there's nothing on the road, the place at Ponton, and then another at Sasagiu, and there's just not the number of campsites there for the people that are travelling. MR. GREEN: Yes. Mr. Campbell, please don't make me an opponent of having greater recreational facilities in northern Manitoba or in southern Manitoba . MR CAMPBELL: That's what you're saying, though, that you're going to stop people coming up here and spending tourist money. We're glad to see them, but we've got to have something for them.

MK GREEN: I don't believe that we should have less recreational facilities in

110 February 5, 1976 (MR GREEN cont'd) . . . . . Northern Manitoba. I do not believe that anything on the record will show that I made such a statement. What I question is the notion that tourism is creating a problem in the use of the facilities to the people who live in our province. I know what when I go down to the United States that there are tourist facilities available to me and they make me feel very at home there, and I believe that the tourist who comes up to Manitoba we should also welcome and try to accommodate without infring ing on our own citizens' rights to also enjoy our resources.

MR CAMPBELL: Yes, but you've got to even have a well for these people when they come. You know, they're not used to tipping out of the lake for, you know, their water for cooking and drinking.. You know, these facilities have got to be provided . Our own people would like them, let alone the tourists. MR . GREEN: Right, all right .. MR. CAMPBELL: That's where Mr. Bostrom's MR .

GREEN: I'm of the impression that shortly after the City of Thompson took hold that the administration (and at that time it was the Conservative administration) developed a fairly decent recreational facility at Paint Lake - developed cottage sites and the recreational facility, and I think that it was right to do. I don't think that there's any argument about that. I do say that the tourist dollar is important to the citizens of Northern Manitoba who are wanting to buy things that this country does not produce. MR . CAMPBELL: True. Oh, we're in agreement, it was just a matter of how much. MR. CHAffiMAN: Mr .

Enns. MR. ENNS: Mr. Campbell, I think we have a bit of time this morning to deal a little further with the question of freehold and security . . . MR . CAMPBELL: You're not going to let me go? MR. ENNS: . . . of tenure. You likely are aware that this committee in particular, and in the south generally, we've debated the issue of the land tenure and types of land tenure pretty hotly sometimes. There are enough government spokesmen on this commit tee, and indeed I think we have the chairman of the Manitoba Agricultural Corp oration with us here this morning, that would support . . . MR .

CAMPBELL: Would you identify him, sir? MR . ENNS: Mr. Max Hofford. MR . GREEN: He's not on the committee. MR. ENNS: He's not on the committee, I say he's with us in the room. MR. JORGENSON: He's not here to buy government land. MR. ENNS: But I think the government spokesmen with me on this committee would agree with my observation that the position that we offer to the farmers and to the people generally in the south is that one of choice.

Most of us agree, some more so and some not so much so, that private ownership of land - and I refer now specifically for a farmer, occuper-owner of his land - is desirable, but on the other hand Mr. Green and his colleagues with the aid of Mr. Hofford will offer that same farmer a different choice, that is of leasing farm land through the Land Lease Program. I think that's a position that I don't think anybody is going to quarrel with here.

Would you suggest as a north erner that what you are asking for in terms of freehold is similar treatment in the North to some extent particularly in the development of industry, whether it's tourism or others? In other words, are you chafing again - you see, in the south this government is prepared to give the farmer the choice, freehold or a lease. Are you really saying, treat us just about the same in the North as they are prepared to treat you in the south? MR . CAMPBELL: Well I am unalterably opposed to government owning land.

You know, most of our west here was developed by kulaks that came over here in the hope of getting land You know, that's what attracted all these fellows in the sheepskin coats to come out, and even up around Chatfield, there was some of your people, Sid, that settled there in hopes of getting land. God knows they couldn't have given then a worst part but MR. GREEN: They have that trouble with other places, too. Golda Meir said that Moses took the Jews to the only place in the Middle East that has no oil. MR.

ENNS: But since then succeeding leaders have expanded those boundaries considerably which makes up for that oil.

February 5, 1976 111 (MR. ENNS cont'

d) Now coming back to the question at hand. You know, you made the opening obser vation, and I think we recognize that we are going to be talking a great deal of recreational facilities and parks, but I think you also indicated J you brought up the question of security of tenure and your preference to having some consideration given to freehold rights for northern citizens, for northern business people and northern development. Is that correct? MR CAMPBELL: I think so, particularly business operations. I do feel they're much sounder based if they're on freehold.

You know, I think they made a very good arrangement here within the townsite where this is declared an area of freehold property, and under controls land was sold for houses and shops and what-not and I often wonder if we'll ever see another development as well run and as well planned as this one. They made mistakes but I think they made mistakes with the people's town at Leaf, too. So, you know, it's all a matter of your philosophy, isn't it? Personally, I am a freeholder and I don't really . . .

The intrusion of government into our lives from day to day is getting increasingly more obvious and I don't feel it's desirable. The number of people that are employed by governments are getting completely out of hand, you know, it's getting unreal. I took a look at your provincial telephone directory yesterday and I was comparing it to the one that was put out in 1954; the one in '54 had something like 16 or 20 pages, while your present one, I think, has 100 pages. You know, these are people that are being maintained by the taxpayer. This is not really anything to do with land use, is it? MR .

ENNS: Coming back to land use. You know, the committee has travelled all this way up to Thompson and I think, and as Mr. Green had indicated he has asked a similar question repeatedly to virtually every person appearing before this committee, that one of attempting to sort out the difference between various owners of land, be they foreign, or be they absent Canadians. I think the point that Mr. Green is getting at doesn't escape most members of the committee; the question that he is, of course, asking is public versus private ownership of land.

I think we've also, you know, we've come to that conclusion and I think that in this one instance you northerners have something that we in the south are probably about to get, public ownership of land, period. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. MR. ADAM: I'll pass, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR . USKIW: Yes, I'm very interested in your comments on that particular question. You have thrown in something of almost a hybrid type of question.

You sug gested to us that you preferred the freehold system but yet you wanted some measure of government control in order to provide for orderly development and the sort of not allow ing the building up of shack towns and things of that nature. MR . ENNS: Regulation not control. MR. USKIW: Well that's the same thing, there's no difference.

Now presumably what you are saying when you say that is that you do not think that the free market should be the regulatory body, that we should not indiscriminately allow ten motels to be built side by side to service the tourist industry, that you're really saying we should have a control to determine how many would be viable. MR . CAMPBELL: No, no, the marketplace will look after that. MR. USKIW: No, but you said, sir, that you didn't think we should allow inordinate development, that we don't want the shack town developments, and anything . . . MR .

CAMPBELL: No, you can do that through regulations such as zoning or minimum standards. MR . USKIW: No, but my point is that if there is room for five tourist facilities in this area and because we have no means of preventing that there are no more than five, that we will have 25 built with investments of private and public funds or whatever. So they all cannot make any money; you end up with a shack situation, you end up with an unviable situation, and the whole thing has to deteriorate. MR . CAMP BELL: I don't think they'll be built if there's no viable market for them.

They won't be able to get the money, you know, they won't build them if they're in their right minds unless they have access to someone that's giving money away.

112 February 5, 1976 MR . MINAKER: We know people that do, though. MR . USKIW: Then you are telling me, sir - and I want to pursue this because it is very interesting - you are now telling me that we should not have a liquor franchise, that we should allow any number of beverage rooms to be built in the City of Thompson, that we should open it up for Mr. Blake, Mr. Jorgenson ... MR . JORGENSON: No, I don't want to run one. MR . USKIW: Whoever wants to build a hotel should get a license .. that there should not be any regulation; that is what you are saying.

And we have developed the hotel motel tourist industry on the basis of severe restriction and severe demand on the part of the governments, whoever they were, as to the kind of facility that is built, as to the maintenance standards and so on. Isn't it a regressive step to now roll that back if we were to follow the sort of market control system that you are advocating? MR . CAMPBELL: Well, I didn't bring in the liquor part of it. MR . USKIW: No, but that's part of tourism; that is a very important part of our tourist industry, the beverage room, the motel, the overnight accommodation.

MR, CAMPBELL: Well I think the regulations that you have administered by a body that meets in public has been relatively successful. MR. USKIW: But it is not a free market system, that's my point. MR. CAMPBELL: No, there's bound to be a certain amount of regulation. We have, as free people, requested this. However, getting back to liquor, here's a point we made to your Premier that the local Chamber of Commerce had written to them with reference to siting a liquor outlet at Grand Rapids. You know where the thing is?

Right behind the counter at the Esso Station, and you know what a trucker does, he takes on 80 gallons of Esso, and MR . GREEN: It's a good mix. MR . CAMPBELL: And, you know, they say, well this is the only place. Well why don't they locate it in a hotel? You know, we run a p. s. v. operation and it's tough enough to go and run trucks day and night over these roads without having a li .. ::_uor store right in the middle of the bloody place where they put gas in. Now why couldn't you have put that in the hotel? MR.

USKIW: Sir, I really want to follow this because it is a contradiction that I want to satisfy in my own mind that can be resolved. You have alluded to the fact that you operate a p. s. v. , a trucking operation. . . MR . CAMPBELL: That's right. MR. USKIW: All right. That is a franchise system and the franchise is given by the Crown, that is a restricted market system. Do you suggest that we should disband that and allow anyone that can own a truck and has a driver's licence to provide that service to this community? MR.

CAMPBELL: Well with the opposition that you get from the Winnipeg truckers with the massive rights that they have operating out of there, you might as well because competition . . . MR . USKIW: No, but seriously do you really propose that we disband the franchise system on anything? one. MR . CAMPBELL: The franchise system has been in a long time and it's a good MR. USKIW: Oh I know it is a good one. So then you are not convinced that the free market system is the only way in which we should organize our society. MR . CAMPBELL: Well you modify the free enterprise system.

You're not going to regulate as to what time we get up in the morning. MR . USKIW: That is correct. MR . CAMPBELL: I went into the Liquor Store the other day and they wouldn't sell my any Parrl brandy. You know, they are telling me what I can drink now. You know, this is getting ridiculous when you start going into that sort of regulation. MR . JOHNSTON: Did you buy Russian vodka? MR .

USKIW: My problem, sir, is that on the one hand you have advocated the marketplace to be the governing agency to sort of govern our lives and our activites; on the other hand you say you want some privileges that are not obtainable by everyone in society, and therein lies our problem. Now that we have bastardized the free market

February 5, 1976 113 (MR. USKIW cont'd) . . . . . system through regulation and control of one sort or another, and we only allow so many trucking franchises and so many hotel licences or beverage licences, and because we have restricted the market so, there is a capital gain that accrues to everyone who holds such a licence over a period of time. MR. CAMPBELL: We have not found it but there are others who have. MR. USKIW: Well all right, maybe you will yet.

Who should that capital gain accrue to: the individual who got a free licence from the state, a monopoly position, or should that capital gain then revert back to the Crown who gave the licence in the first place ? -- (Interjection) -- Herein lies the problem of the presentation this morning. MR. CAMPBELL: It's your problem. MR. USKIW: It's not my problem , no, no. I want to see .•. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order ple�e. MR.

USKIW: I want to see whether or not those that advocate a free market system as being the governing system, whether they would go all the way with it or whether they really do want government control to protect their investment at the expense and the denial of other people's rights and freedoms. And that's what we have when we have a franchise system. MR. CAMPBELL: Yes, but other people that feel they can provide that service, they are quite at liberty to petition to get those rights, and I dares ay the Highway Traffic Board will consider the need in their proposal just as they did ours. MR.

USKIW: I agree with that, sir; I just wanted to test you whether you concur with what we are doing in that respect. MR. CAMPBELL: Well it's not you ... MR. USKIW: No, I mean all governments have. Yes, that's right . MR CAMPBELL: This has been done for .. . those rights go back maybe 35 years. MR. USKIW: That is correct, but that is not a free market economy. MR. CAMPBELL: It sure is when you go to quote rates I can tell you. MR. USKIW: All right, we'll get on to the next point.

You have indi cated that you were concerned about the extent of govArnment intervention or interference in society or in our lives, I believe, are the words you used - and, you know, it occurred to me that I guess that situation is as old as history itself .

I don't think it's newly developed or newly developing as was implied in your remarks , For example, when the Queen of En gland handed out huge land grants to the CPR and the Hudson 's Bay Company, I'm not aware that the history books would indicate that the native people of North America were consulted before those land grants were made, and they had presumably land rights, but were not considered at the time.

And I'm getting at the position that the free market is the one that is functioning and should function, but in this instance a state agency has taken land away from a people without compensation and handed it over to a private group or individual, histor ically, and this goes back a long time in our history. I only raise that because you said a moment ago that you are concerned about government interference, and I think we have less of that kind of interference today than we had then. I think we have improved a lot in trying to give people more freedom of thought and expression and action .

At that particular time there was no consultation at all as between the powers that be and the p3ople who dominated or were the largest settlement group on this continent or in North Ame rica, certainly in Canada.

They were not consulted whatever and yet their land was taken away from them and given to some one else and in turn we, as I recall history, had to buy it back in order to allow Manitoba's entry into Confederation So that, you know, these are the contradictions that I suppose we will always have to live with but it just, you know, as an observation, points out that we really have less intrusion rather than more intrusion in our time because of what I think someone called more participation on the part of people in the governing process. MR. CAMPBELL: But you'r e talking about 300 years ago. MR.

USKIW: Well it doesn't matter when, I mean, the suggestion on your part was if we have greater government interference today and that you were concerned about, and that I am trying to suggest to you that we had much greater government interference them days than we have today. It is much less today. It is more participatory today

114 February 5, 1976 (MR. USKIW cont'd) . . . . . with the people involved . There's more consensus on decisions today even though it's through government than it was ever during that period of time in our history. MR. CAMPBELL: Mind you half our problems over in our office are to do with keeping track of taxes we collect on your behalf to remit to you. There seems to be no end to this form filling out and taxing of government agencies of business and individuals . You know, the load is getting heavier all the time in order to get these services .

I'm questioning whether society can continue to ca rry this type of a load. MR. USKIW: All right. Let me take you up on that one beca use a moment ago you said that what we really are doing in Manitoba in terms of parks and recreational policy is sort of starving this area with respect to tourism facilitie s. And now your position is that government is so large and it takes so much of our paycheck that we find it unbearable and therefore we would want government to reduce their spending.

And this is the dilemma that we politicians , of course, have to deal with, and I simply want to respond to you on that point because I think it's worthy to reflect on the recent history of the development of Northern Manitoba, that is, within the last ten years . And I recall spending some time in Thompson some four, five or six years ago and the messat;e I got then was that , you know, if we could just get that road put through we would all be happy , that we needed a link with Winnipeg by a road that was meaningful , that was efficient, you know, that wasn't of a pioneer standard but a good paved highway.

And, you know, I don't know , I think Joe Borowski would tell you how many millions of dollars went into that of public money. But I think our response at that time was the ri ght response. We put the highway through beca use we believed that to be in the interests of this community in particular as well as the rest of Manitoba. And so our priorities of spending have to be in ca tching up Northern Manitoba with what the south already had taken for granted , transportation , communication , etc . And then, of course, we had the other problem. We had the problem of the remote communities that had to be dealt with.

The problem of a person in a remote community where there is no access by roads not being able to make use of his or her medicare card . The value of hospitalization or medicare to people , citizens living in those remote communities was virtually nil in a crisis situation. And so - well Joe says it's a living. He may be right; he knows the area better than I do and I respect his opinion . But, you know, we're talkin g about the dollars allocated to parks. MR. MINAKER: Is this land use? MR.

USKIW: Well I just want to point out that Rome wasn't built in a day and the City of Thompson, the City of Thompson and the communities of Northern Manitoba, especially the isolated ones, made huge demands on the government, at least since I've been in office, and I'm sure much longer than that, much before that period of time; and the big thing was transportation , communica tion . The telephone system had to be put in, the airstrips had to be put in, so that we can give meaning to that medicare privilege that the rest of us enjoyed and took for granted in the rest of Manitoba.

And so I don't regret that those were the priorities of government spending and if that took away from the development of cottage lots at a pace which some people would have preferred, you know, that was a sacrifice that I think was worthwhile . But having built all of that infrastructure - and I think we are now in a position to move in the direction that you are suggesting - but I don't think that we should have built cottage lots ahead of linking up the communities with roads and the sirstrips and air ambulance . MR. WALDING: Mr. Enns , on a point of order. MR. USKIW: What is the point of order? MR.

ENNS: With all due respect to the Minister, and I certainly don't mind listening to him at great length , in fact I can look forward to it when the House opens but perhaps that would be the tim e and pla ce . We'r e here as a committee, Mr. Chairman, to listen to representations from people from the north, not to hear ourselves speak and I suggest with respect to you, Mr. Chairman, that that privilege could be abused . . . MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, •.. MR. CAMPBELL: I've been guilty. MR. USKIW: I think we can reca ll that Mr .

Campbell certainly did indica te that he wanted the government to look at the question of parks and cottage development, lake

February 5, 1976 115 (MR. USKIW con t'd) . . . . . development and resort development, and that he thought we were insuff icie nt in that respect up until this point in time , and was hoping that he could influe nce this committee on that question . And I think it was in order for me to respond to him as to the sequence and priority of development that we had to undertake up till this point in time but keeping in mind that his inte rests are the real and honest points , I believe that we have to look at at this point in time. I don't think we're out of context unless we accuse both of us, or equally there . MR.

WALDING: Just before you continue, Mr. Campbell , we do like to permit the members as much leeway as possible but I would ask them to keep their questions to the point . Someone indicated to me that we have another six people waiting to make representations to the committee, so we don't have unlimited time. MR. CAMPBE LL: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think just in sum- ming up my ... MR. WALDING: Mr. Uskiw, did you have any other questions ? MR. USKIW: No, I think I've covered the waterfro nt . MR. WALDING: Mr. Barrow. MR. TOM BARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Campbell , I think you should have been warned that the first person to present a brief gets the barrage , and that's happening again today . MR, CAMPBE LL: I just got up here to start the thing off. MR TOM BARROW: We appreciate it. I'm interested in your leasing of land versus ownership because I attended a meeting with the Chamber of Commerce . . . cabin owners, chaired by Mr. Jobin. It was a tourism meeting and one of the participants said exactly what you said, that he preferred to own his own land than to lease it. Mr. Jobin took an opposite view altogether, he preferred the lease to ownership.

I know two such opposing views by two people who play in the same league, I know it 's hard to. . . MR. CAMPBE LL: He's a politician though. MR. BARROW: Pardon? MR. CAMPBE LL: He's a politician. MR BARROW: Well, aren't you? MR CAMPBE LL: No, no, I'm retired. MR. BARROW: I don't blame you. I think most of us have to use as an example what has happened in this north country that pertains towards new development. I give you two examples of what's happened in my area , and if you're familiar with Bakers Narrows they have a lodge there, built by the government, under the guidance , but it didn't work.

For various reasons it wasn't suitable for the area. Now the government are going, or planning on developing that at great expense - I think a million and a half dollars they're going to put in there. Now everyone in Flin Flon is opposed to this method of attracting tourism. And this leave s me in a dilemma because for six years I've been fighting against it and yet we're going to go ahead and develop it . It puts me in quite a spot. Now the second example I would use and that is Snow Lake. . . Snow Lake is a mining town, very similar to Thompson only of course much smaller.

I was in when it started and in thos e days there was no railroad and no road. We are on the Grassy River chain on Wekusko Lake, Big Hole Lake and it was beautiful for anyone that was interested in fishing and hunting. The fish limit was caught, pickerel, trout, whatever you wanted. The moose situation was beautiful , the Grassy you didn't hunt, you went down and got one. This is the way it was. Now what happened the re , a road came in of course and the railroad , which was necessary, but then we got the tourists . And now the hunt ing is not th ere, the moose aren't there, the fish aren't there.

And what the people of Snow Lake are telling me in no uncertain terms, we would be quite happy if no tourists crossed the 54th parallel, and I am inclined to agree with them, for what the tourist gives our business , and so on, there' s more detriment to our country. (Interje ction) -- Pardon me talking , Mr. Chairman , I'm being so rudely interrupted. MR. WALDING: Order please. MR. BLAKE: We' re just waiting for your question, Tom, that's all. MR. BARROW: Well the question is this : Is the tourist industry so important to the north; are they more beneficial than they are otherwise?

Could you make a comment on that ?

116 February 5, 1976 MR . CAMPBELL: I'm not that involved in your district, Mr . Barrow. I didn't question the adverti sing that referred to the tourist in the north before we had facilities . Now that ot her thing I think would be much better answered by Mr . Clarke when he comes to present his petition on behalf of the tourism group of Northern Manitoba. think at that time you could probably get a better answer from someone who' s actually involved in servicing tour ists . He owns a lodge and has considerable experience in tourism in the north. I think whether you want tourists up here or not, put that to Mr .

Clarke please. MR. BARROW: Very good. Thank you. MR. CAMPBE LL: I think just in summing it up, Mr. Chairman, we feel that facilities must be made available to the people that are in the north and we certainly appreciate that the government in its wisdom has seen fit to give roads and airstri ps, and what not, as Mr. Uskiw has pointed out. However, those should have come even sooner but we did appreciate them coming. But the balance sheet is very much in the favour of southern Manitoba.

You've taken taxes of one kind or another, hundreds of millions of dollars out of here , more than is put back in and I think that the time has come that you look to putting more in here; and we look at developments like the White shell and Birds Hill and we feel that we are being short-changed. I'd like to leave it at that . Thank you very much , gentlemen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you , Mr. Campbell. Mr. John Clarke, please. Would you proceed, Mr. Clarke, please ? MR. JOHN CL ARKE: What would you like me to do ? Read my brief ? MR CHAIRMAN: Yes, please. MR CLARKE: Very well.

This is a brief presented to the committee . A preface: I have lived in Northern Manitoba for nearly 20 years . During this time I have travelled the north widely and frequently. The criticisms I make are not made out of rancour nor are they partisan in nature . When I criticize the Civil Service , it is not criticism of individuals, but rather of the system. The object of my writing is to show where our system is failing and some general moves which may bring remedy. I am not a lawyer nor an economist and I trust my carte blanche suggestions do not upset these people.

The tenure under which land around an urban sprawl is held can be a very engrossing problem. Similarly, the purchasing of farm or recrea tional land, in noticeable quantities , by foreig ners can produce within the citizenry a feeling of alarm and res entment. It is obvious even to the casual observer that guidelines for ownership and use are essential. Historic ally land ownership in Canada has been a cherished rig ht of the people. The concept of ownership is not without faultJ but what are the alternatives?

The choice is either total collective ownership or collective ownership with lease privileges extended to land users at the government's sole discre tion . In the latter case, the government assumes the position of the owner's trustee who administrates at its own disc retion and not that of the owner . Those who advocate public land ownership instead of private land ownership ignore some very important truths . When a person holds deeded land so long as the taxes are paid , except for war or expropriati on, the land cannot be taken away. However, with leased land the case is quite different .

Leas es are drawn for a specific length of time and usually for a specific purpose. Leases may be cancelled, shortened, the terms changed and/or not renewed . Obviously a land lease makes a poor foundation for stability and people who are confronted with a terminating land lease are sometimes painfully aware. For an individual citizen, a land lease instead of ownership is a curtailment of individual freedom . Northern Manitobans have been for quite some time exposed to a government controlled land lease program. The program is not satisfactory and it is oppressive.

At present in the north the government decides where cottage developments will be, the size of each parcel of land, the type of building, and, yes, in some cases how much time per annum one may spend living in their cottage. Land ownership would allow for greater input by the people and would delete some of government's dictatorial powers. Regulation No thinking person will deny the need for laws and regulations. Although the

February 5, 1976 117 (MR . CLARKE cont'd) . . . . . question may be: laws and regulations made by who and for whom? At the present time, the laws and regulations relating to land ownership, development, and management , are made by people who live 400 miles south of us. These people have an urban mentality and are not affected by the decisions or policy they exact upon people living in the north . Land Speculation In a free marketplace, the laws of supply and demand inevitably increase the price of some land beyond its true value or at least beyond the price the average citizen can afford.

Therefore, it is obvious that provisions are required to prevent land specu lation and foreign ownership. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is necessary for the govermnent to attempt to become the predominant land owner in the province. The gov ermnent has the right of legislation and taxation. Surely with these two extremely potent weapons a govermnent of any political stripe within a democratic system can provide land management for the common good. Govermn ent that wishes to deny the people the right of land owners hip can be viewed with a certain am ount of suspicion.

The Excuse to the Northern People An excuse of long standing for the absence of land ownership in Northern Manitoba is that the sale of land might impede progress. e. g. It isn't desirable to allow settlements where later on, a mine or a road or a hydro project might take place , or any other goverm nent sanctioned project for that matter. In other words, the land needs of the northern residents is of the lowest priority. Indeed the argument is good and, indeed, if you do not live in the north the argument is perfect.

But one may quer,;tion the cost of such policy in terms of the quality of life to the northern resident. Our land policy, which hasn 't changed significantly for the past 15 years or more, does little or nothing to induce newcomers to the north to settle and stay. Possibly, if many people had each owned a little land the government of the day wouldn't have given the then Churchill Forest Industries such an immense reserve . Later in history maybe land owners would have complained about the laying waste of 1000 miles of shoreline of the once majestic Churchill River.

The Small Communities Many of the people in the small communities in Northern Manitoba don't own their land, some don't even have a lease. Can you imagine how different the financial settlement of Southern Indian Lake may have been if the people had deeded title to their land? The matter must have impressed the govermn ent, for the people living in the new townsite at Southern Indian Lake don't even have deeds to the land upon which their new houses sit. What excuse can govermnent have for denying these long time inhabitants the right of land ownership?

Recreational Business Development with Govermnent at the Helm Because the government controls all of the land in Northern Manitoba, save the organized communities and the Indian reserves, no business operation can take place without a tremendous an'lount of gover mnent involvement . With reference to recreational facilit ies, unforttmately government now has manipulated the power to dicate the amount of capital investment, the type of facility, and where it will be placed .

This is a great pity for it has led to the virtual termination of small business development outside of the organized areas in Northern Manitoba. Under a desirable system, any person or business entity would be able to buy a parcel of land in an appropriate location and develop a small business which would be within their financial capabilities and within the market potenti al. Under gover mnent pressure there seems to be a great tendency to over capit alize. A strong accent is put on the formal dining room and the serving of alcoholic beverages.

The services offered are not always those which the public seek or expect to find. There is no effort to make the architecture of the establishment appear remotely indigenous to the area. Instead of wood, harsh cement blocks are used, and the results look like a little city establishment dropped in the middle of nowhere. The government must slacken the rein in Northern Manitoba to allow development which will represent and identify with the north One Solution For the foreseeable future there will be a demand for campground facilities to

118 February 5, 1976 (MR. CLARKE cont'd) •.••. accommodate recreational vehicles . The government admits that it does not have the funds to establish the necessary campgrounds. Then why not invite local citizens to buy some property in appropriate places for the purpose of developing some of the desired facilities ? An Example of Dis advantage It would appear that there is a fair opportunity to have fish rais ing ponds in the north . This may be done in natural ponds or in ponds that are man-made.

Under some cir cumstances the government will co-op erate by issui ng a permit to fish farm and give sanction to the opera tion . However, because you don't own the land around the pond, you can't stop anybody from fishing for your fish . In the south the situation is not the same . Quite a few farmers have fish ponds under licences and they have no similar problems because they own the pond and they own the land. Ar e we different Canadians in the north ? Do we not at least deserve the same rights as our counterparts in the south ?

There are opportunities for fish hatcheries , game preser ves, agricu lture and others, but nothing will happen until the people are given greater access to the land. The Decis ion Making Process As I have said before , decisio ns for land use in No rthern Manitoba are made in Winnipeg . It is true civil servants stationed in the north make input, so, too, do the politicians . Unfortu nately a major decis ion making role is played by senior civil ser vants who reside in Winnipeg and have no intentions of living in the north .

One may seriously question if there is not a need for other avenues of input to the land use and ownership question . Do we, for instance, need some government directors who are fond enough of the north to be full-time resi dents, making rec ommendations to our ministers ? How can we as northern res idents accept the sincerity and judgment of civil servants who ascend in the ser vice and as rapidly as possi ble migrate to Winnipeg. I am not at all sure that what is good for the Whiteshell is necess arily good for Northern Manitoba.

The public in the north may be better ser ved if local ci tizens were elected to local boards . Such boards could help in the decis ion making proc ess for the parks and campgrounds of the local area . The Provision for Integrity Maps of Northern Manitoba showing proposed land use are not readily available to the public . Upon enquiring about land set aside for parks, I was advised that the information may be confidential . If such is the case there exists a good opportunity for a breach of integrity by government departments .

Here is how: You decide upon a piece of land for a specific use and file an application to the government agency . The agency has the opportunity to grab the land for itself or allot it to a party of its choice . In order to serve the public better, all applications for land use, including use by the government, should be advertised, followed by a hearing and then a public announcement . Thank you, Mr . Chairman. And I'd like to announce that as the heading states, this brief was pres ented by John Clarke , and as an individuaL I'm repres enting just simply as a citiz en. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you . Mr.

Enns, you have a question ? MR. ENNS: Yes, Mr . Chairman, just one question to Mr. Clarke . It comes from a line that you have on the very first page of your brief . You suggest that curtailment of the right to ownership of land can be construed to be a curtailment on individual freedom or rights . So it's not facetiously that I ask you ••• that under the human rights legis lation passed by this government,

Section 5 deals with disc rimination prohibited in the purchase of property and it says, "No person shall deny to any perso n the opportunity to purchase or otherwise acquire land or interest in land because of race, nationality, religion, colour, sex, age, marital status, ethnic or national origin of that person ." My question is : Should we amend this Act to put an exemption, "Except that he be a northerner. " MR. CL ARKE : No, no.

No, I feel that any Canadian citizen who has the intentions of bec oming a northern res ident that he should be able to own a parcel of land, and if it's simply for recreational use then the parcel of land need not be large, but it should be of his own choosi ng where he wants it put or where he wants to buy the land. And then I think - now as I say I'm not a lawyer, I don't know - but it would seem to me a fairly simple thing to pass regulations to prevent speculation. In other words, you can put an assessed fixed value on the land and his property, you can do assess ment.

February 5, 1976 119 MR. ENNS: The point, Mr . Clarke, that I read out of the brief that you view it though as somewhat disc riminatory to you as a northern res ident not to have the same privileges as a southern res ident who has the option of purchasing his land. MR. CLA RKE : When I say that it's a curtailment of freedom, for instance, a person who owns his land is freer than one who has a piece of leased land. He has the freedom of choice and he cannot be leaned upon as heavily by government agencies . That was the context that I was thinking of. MR.

ENNS: You 're aware that in the south, again, particularly to the farming community, we as a governm ent offerDr the government offers the farmer the choice of freehold of owner ship or of leasing arrangements . MR. CL ARKE : Ye s, I'm aware but I'm afraid as time goes by that there will be an erosion, that the government will lease the land and then there will be more and more strings attached, more stipulations, you will . . . MR. ENNS: I'm afraid of that, too, but the question is, at least down south we have a choice .

I think what your brief is telling us here, up in the north you haven't even got that choice . MR. CLARKE: That's right, that is correct, we don't have . MR. ENNS: Thank you . MR. CH AIRMAN: Mr. Johnston . MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, Mr. Clarke, on the introduction on Page 1 if some changes were made to gove rnment policy to go from leasing into some form of se lling of land in this area, would there be any great harm or long-term effects on the native or the Indian people, in other words, people who have been accustomed to travelling and trapping and not being kept out, so to speak. Would this be a factor ? MR.

CL ARKE: I expect that if land became purchasable in the north that a lot of the Indian and Metis people would purchase land. As far as trapping is concerned, the amounts of land that would be sold even over the next say 50 to 100 years would not have a significant effect upon the trap lines . No, it wouldn't hurt. MR. JOHNSTON: Do you not think that long term leases wo uld almost fierve the same purpose in the wilderne ss areas, I'm thinking about a 99 year lease . MR. CLARKE: No, sir, it's an abdication of principle .

I believe it's a Canadian citizen 's right to own land, and it's definitely not; a 99- year lease isn't worth the paper it's written on because any government can come along and say, "Well, we 've decided to cancel the lease ." It was clone at Bakers Narrows and Flin Flon . Th ere were 99 year leases that were cancelled to 21 year leases . MR. JOHNSTON: Go ve rnments have the right; they can make a law if the law doesn't exist, but ce rtainly the Province of Manitoba has the right to expropriate . MR. CL ARKE: Exactly, but expropriation ••. Pardon? -- (Interjection) -- That's right.

Expropriation is a lot more difficult, sir, expropriation is a lot more difficult than the cance llation of a lease . I can't argue with you, you're a lawyer. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please . One at a time . Mr. Johnston . MR. JOHNSTON: Well the point I'm trying to make is that under a long-term lease the gove rnment has final control and presen tly government has final control over land that's privately owned through zoning, through . . . MR. CL ARKE: May I answer you, Mr . Green. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Green is next on the list . MR. CL AR KE: Well you made the comment . I'd like to answer you . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. Mr. Green is next on the list . Mr . Johnston is asking the question . MR. JOHNSTON: Other than the gut feeling that you have about owning the property rather than leasing, what difference is there between a 99 -year lease and ownership . MR. CL ARKE: There is a lot of difference inasmuch as ... MR. JOHNSTON: . . . in the way you use the land under control ? MR. CL ARKE: ..• the Civil Service exercises a lot more control over leased land than they would over owned land.

Now, the most common thing if you get into a ruckus with the gove rnment over your leased land is , well, we 'll snap a lock on your door until you smarten up or we '11 cancel your lease. If you owned the land, sir, I suggest that you've got to go to court and it's a hell of a lot more difficult.

120 Febr uary 5, 1976 MR. JOHNSTON: Well give me an example where this mythical civil servant would come in and say, We're going to close you out because you're not doing, or you are doing something. Give me an example that would frighten me . MR. CLARKE: I can give you an example but it's a lengthy arrangement and I don't wish to at this time . There are examples existing, and in private I'll give you some examples if you want, I don't wish to give them publicly . I'll show you :t letter if you wish, Mr . Johnston. MR. JOHNSTON: Well that 's fine.

I'm just trying to find out what would inhibit a person investing on a long term lease because my understanding what's happened histor ically in Manitoba is that leases have always been honoured and they 've ne ver been tampered with or they've never been changed except with some just cause, not at a whim, cer tainly . MR.

CLARKE : No, I'm not suggesting they're changed at a whim, but they are changed and I think that, for instance, if you develop a piece of land and it 's a lease and then you attempt to sell - and I'm not talking about excessi ve capital gain or specu lation, I'm talking about the normal pro cess of sale because you 're moving or because you're old, or some such thing - on your leased land you will not or do not stand the same chance of getting a fair equitable return as if you owned the land, it's not the same .

This is the first thing the buyer says , "Well you've got a lease, you don't own the land." And everybody makes that differentiation. Now if leased land and owned land were synonymous people wouldn't bother making that differentiation. But they make it, believe me . MR. JOHNSTON: Are you familiar with the leasing for cottage sites in the White shell, Falcon Lake area ? MR. CL ARKE: No, sir, I'm not . MR.

JOHNSTON: Well to the memory, I'm sure , of anyone on this committee no one's ever been unjustly disturbed through this lease, he can buy and sell his cottage, or he can make improvements under regulation; he must build according to a control. MR. CL ARKE: That's right . Yes, he doesn't have that .•. MR. G. JOHNSTON: That doesn't satisfy you ? MR. CL ARKE: ... and also, too, his lease is picked out for him, like he is told where he's going to go. MR. JOHNSTON: No . MR. CLARKE: You mean that you can go anywhere in the Whiteshell now and ... MR. JOHNSTON: Well presently there 's nothing available .

I underst and the govern- ment's developing a new area but pres ently there 's a scarc ity, there 's no place to go unless you buy someone out . MR. CL ARKE: Am I correct in assuming that when the government picks out these new places that the government will pick out the land si tes , they 'll survey them into lots , and then when someone applies they say, "Here , you go into that square ." MR. JOHNSTON: No . The way it was done in my particular case it was done by lot and then you bid, it was a closed bid . MR. CLARKE: Yes, you pick out a lot though.

In other wo rds you have to go to a lot, you don't decide that you're going to go to some island or you're going to go to some other place; you don't have that freedom of choice . MR. JOHNSTON: No . No . It's controlled, and I think it's good it's controlled because it can ruin the lakes or it can overpopulate cer tain areas, causing pollution. Anyway we differ there . Do you have another point to make ? MR. CLARKE: Yes .

I'l l submit to you the idea that putting people in lots and in groups and developing a rec reational area that has a fairly high population density that it's very ecologically hard on the area, that you diminish the fishing quality - someone else pointed out about Snow Lake, you just about eradicate the hunting, and that sort of thing. It would be much better if we spread people out. -- (Interjection) -- Pardon? No, it doesn't take that much, Mr . Green . MR.

JOHNSTON: Well before I move on to the next subject, I believe from my travels and what I've seen around Canada, that Manitoba has one of the finest parks systems in Canada, and it's controlled, it's not helter skelter and anybody can do what they please . MR. CLARKE: You're talking about The Pas .

February 5, 1976 12 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I believe that there should be development and certainly in the north, particularly in the north, and it can be done with the type of control that will be compatible with the concerns of Mr. Bostrom when he says some of the native people are a little bit afraid of having their envi ronment irreparably damaged or des troyed, or them crowded back . Mr. Campbell, and the thrust of his remarks, I think, was that, do for us what you've done else where and we'll be satisfied . Make it an easier place to li ve.

Now to arrive at these goals , taking into account the poor network or the lack of a network of transport and communication, these developments can only take place in the fore seeable future and in certain areas . So would you not be satisfied if the governme nt policy moved in that direction but still retained final control of a land and an environment that is fairly fragile . MR. CLARKE : No, I don't accept that. No, I believe that the citizens of the province - certainly there 's a lot of room for an educational aspect - there 's no doubt, but the citizens of the province are not a bunch of fools .

If you suggest that an individual isn't capable of managing three acres of land or so by himself, that he has to have the great hand of government over him so he doesn't louse it up, I don 't bu y thai: . No, I can't buy that at all. MR. JOHNSTON: Another question: You talk about leases, you say leases may be cancelled, shortened, terms changed and/or not renewed . Have you any knowledge of this happening ? Has this happened ? MR.

CL ARKE : I believe in Alberta and Banff, the Federal National Park there , believe they cancelled a bunch of leases, they did not renew them; the people had busine ss es tablishments upon that leased land and they were just simply terminated . MR. JOHNSTON: Well in that particular case wasn't the contention because the government said the national park is for all of the people, it must be maintained in a near natural state, it's not intended for a few busines smen out of Calgary to sell leases back and forth and make quite a bit of money out of it, wasn't that really the difference of opinion there ? MR.

CLARKE : No, I think we were discussi ng The question was , you asked me if I knew if any leased had been cancelled . Now I answered you ye s, I know of some leases that have been cancelled, and I gave you one example . Now are you asking me another ques tion based on that question ? MR. JOHNSTON: No, you're talking about the advance situation . Is it not a fact that no leases were cancelled but a person could not turn around and sell his lease ? He could finish out his lease if there was a 21 -year lease . . • MR. CL ARKE : That's right, but he didn't have the right of sale . MR.

JOHNSTON: Well he couldn 't sell something he didn't own . He only had a 21 -year lease . MR. CL ARKE : Right, that's the problem, that's the point, that is the point . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. JOHNSTON: Well that's a national park situation . We 're talking about a provincial park situation where there 's allowance for busine ss to be in parks and there 's no thought of changing that. But anyway, do you have any knowledge in Manitoba, and in particular in your area, where leases have been cancelled, shortened, terms changed or not renewed ? MR.

CLARKE: Yes, Bakers Narrows , there were some 99 -year leases over there that were shortened to 21 -year leases . MR. JOHNSTON: Well did that harm whoever was in the busin ess ? MR. CLARKE : It cut their lease privilege by 80 perc ent . MR. JOHNSTON: Ar e you talking about the lodge there ? MR. CLARKE: No, I'm talking about - there were cer tain cabins over there . MR. JOHNSTON: Are they still in busin ess ? MR. CL ARKE : No, they were private cabins . MR. JOHNSTON: They weren 't forced out of busin ess ? MR. CL ARKE : They weren't in busin ess, sir, they were private cabins . MR.

JOHNSTON: But they still have the private cabins, do they ? MR. CL ARKE: Well, yes • • • MR. JOHNSTON: But on a shorter lease. MR. CL ARKE: That's right, and some of these leases are coming up for termina tion . Now where do you think a man stands when he's se lling his $20, 000 establishment

122 February 5, 1976 (MR. CI ARKE cont'd) ....• which is sitting on a land lease which is about to expire in three years, and he goes to the government and the government says, "Don't worry, it will be renewed." Now can you believe after what you've seen throughout the wo11ld like how governments come and go, they change, and they change their ideas and, you know, just like anybody else. MR. JOHNSTON: Well I'll let one of the ministers answer that question, but I find it hard to believe that what you're suggesting will happen here in Manitoba . MR.

ENNS: .•• Gordon, it's been a long time since you were government . MR. JOHNSTON: Well my friend Mr. Enns has given me a friendly jab, and I take that in the sense that it was offered, but at least my problems are not coming into government, I wasn't kicked out, I came in in Opposition, I wasn't thrown out of government.

On Page 2 at the bottom of the page under the subheading "T he Excuse to the Northern People" and the bottom line: ''In other words the land needs of northe rn resi dents is of the lowest priorit y, " and you're suggesting that because of government priorities for hydro or possible mine sites that there has been an exclusion of, or a denial of people who have asked for the right to go in to either buy or lea se . Has there actually been a denial of people that go to an area to open a camp or . . . ? MR.

CI ARKE: ••. everywhere - which now that it 's history, now everyone can say it's sensible - but everywhere where hydro figured they were going to flood, all of this land was held out . And, for instance, you may apply to lease a piece of land on some, you know, remote lake and you may well be denied on the basis that government declares they are going to put a park there . You don't know whether they are going to put a park there or whether they just suggest that 's a good thing to tell you so you can't put a place there . MR. JOHNSTON: You say this may happen, has it happen ed ? MR.

CI ARKE: I don't know because I'm not in government, how can I tell ? You know, it 's not unreasonable to be suspicious about it . MR. JOHNSTON: You mentioned as a possible solution that where government has moved towards constructing campsites and places of that nature, that private pe::>ple should be able to acquire land - presently it 's only by lease, I know - but should be able to acquire land and build modest undertakings that don't include liquor licences and high priced motel and hotel rooms .

Do you know of anybody that has approached government and said, "We would like to lease a certain site and put it into a private campsite ." MR. CIARKE : Yes, yes, I do . MR. JOHNSTON: And were they denied ? MR. CIARKE: Yes . MR. JOHNSTON: Do you know why they were denied ? MR.

CI ARKE: The thing was worked around .•• The person that initially took the piece of land wanted to put in a bake shop and a few cabins, which was economically sensible and viable/ like a ma and pa operation, the person may have worked for Inco, or some such thing , and in the summertime they run thi s thing on a family premise, just a small family business which would provide the service . But that 's not the way it happened.

What has happened, a $300 ,0 00 investment, $27 0, 000 of government funds , and the thing won't function because the traffic flow isn't correct, it's in the wrong place for the kind of development. MR. JOHNSTON: Is this a government financed operation ? MR. CI ARKE: This is hearsay but I unders tand that it's government money . Like, for instance, the Development Fund, the Development Co rporation, and they had some federal funds too . MR.

JOHNSTON: Finally, you state that a person may deci de upon a piece of land for a specific use and file application to a government agency and then the government agency has the opportunity to grab the land for itself or allot it to a party of its choic e; in your knowl edge, has this happened? MR. CI ARKE: Again, I don't know. I would have to know all the inner wo rkings of government, but from the way things are set up this is a possibility and MR. JOHNSTON: Well do you expect it 's happened ? MR. CIARKE: Well it could happen, yes, it ce rtainly could happen. For instance,

February 5, 1976 123 (MR. CLARKE cont'd) •• ••• look all along the roads; the very best pieces of land which may have done for development, they put a public campsite, and as Mr. Barrows, I believe said, he didn't care if there were any tourists up here - well those sort of tourists quite possibly - they cost the taxpayers of the province money because they simply come and sit in your public campsite, they contribute nothing, and you have to pay, the public has to pay to look after the campgr ound.

And instead of turning it over, of letting someone buy the thing, develop it to something worthwhile, and someone earns a living out of it, this is what I am saying . MR. JOHNSTON: Well I make the observation, so many northern members, or not so many, I believe two have raised objections publicly today, that there are mixed feelings about tourists coming in north of 54 . Perhaps some of the ministers here should pass on word to Mr.

Toupin and tell him in his advertising dow n in the States to say that;b ecause it's a bad situation - and I'm not kidding - it's a bad situation when one department's spending money to attract foreign dollars and touriste and members on the government side who represent those areas have fixed feelings about that. I think that's rather odd . MR. CLARK: I think - and now we're getting away from the subject of landowners here - but I think that Mr .

Barrow's import is correct, just the wide open solicitation, "Come see us, come take what you want and then leave again" and spending lots of money and having lots of civil servants usually rUlllling around the Norquay Building building up this advertising is a waste of public funds, but the specific type of destination vacation where someone is coming to Northern Manitoba and he is going to stay at a specific establishment or site, and he is going to spend money and create employment and the resource is not going to be over-h arvested, then it's a good idea . MR. BARROW: It's utopia . MR. CLARKE: No, it is not.

It is something that can certainly shock . It is not utopia. MR. CH AffiMAN: Have you finished, Mr. Johnston? MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you. MR. CHAffiMAN: Mr. Green . MR. GREEN: Mr . Clarke, you seem to feel that the cancellation of a lease is easier than the expropriation of a piece of land. MR. CLARKE: Yes, I'm of that opinion. As I stated in my opening statement, that I'm not a lawyer, sir, you are, so consequently you may have a bit of an advantage over me to discuss this. MR.

GREEN: Well I am going to suggest to you that the government can expropri ate a piece of land merely by filing a notice of expropriation, and it's then expropriated . MR. CLARKE: All right, so • . • MR. GREEN: Just let me talk. The only question then is determining the amount of comp ensation. That is a f airly lengthy process but the cancellation of ownership is a very simple process, and it is so simple that the government would generally if they had a binding lease, would sooner expropriate the lease than cancelling the lease which requires a statement of claim and going to court .

They would rather expropriate the lease because expropriation is easier than cancellation. MR. CLARKE: Then, Mr . Green, if such is the case why don't we revert to the old way of letting people own land if it is simpler, as you say, for the government, and it would make an awful lot of people feel a lot better. MR. GREEN: Well we're going to go into that, I just wanted to first of all deal with your proposition that cancellation is easier than expropriation. Now I gather that what you are saying is that the ownership of land is a sign of individual freedom and liberty. MR. CLARKE: Yes, I believe that. MR.

GREEN: The more people that own land, the more people have individual freedom and liberty. MR. CLARKE: I believe that. Yes, I think that it goes for the establishment and satellited areas . MR. GREEN: possibility of owning MR. CLARKE: The less people that own land, to the extent that people have no land, that is a deprivation of their individual liberty and freedom . The ownership of land should be an individual prerogative to

124 February 5, 1976 (MR. CL ARKE cont'd) ••••• exerci se . Now there are many people through philosoph ical reasons or others that wouldn't wish to own any land. However, if a person wishes to own land, they should have that right. MR. GREEN: Well my suggestion to you is that if - let us as sume there were 200� a million people in the Province of Manitoba, and 10, 000 of them owned all the land in the province and did not wish to dispose of it, there would be 990, 000 people who were being denied individual freedom . MR. CLARKE: Correct.

Now there are not at this point in time 200 million people, sir, in this province • • • MR. GREEN: I said one million people . MR. CLARKE : Pardon? MR. GRE EN: I believe I said ••• if I didn't, I'm incorrect, I said one million people in the province; 10, 000 owning all the land, that there would be 990, 000 who were being denied their individual freedom. MR. CLARKE : Okay, sure, that's right. MR. GREEN: So that if there were 20, 000 who owned the land, then we would only have 980, 000 being denied their individual freedom. MR. CLARKE: Correct. MR.

GREEN: And if there were 100, 000 who owned the land, then there would only be 900 ,0 00 who were being denied individual freedoms; and since we want more and more individual freedoms, we want more and more people to own the land. MR . CLARKE: No, that's your suggestion, that. I'm not suggesting that. I said that there were a lot of people • • . MR. GREEN: Well then I will turn it around, if 200, 000 people owned the land; but you believe in individual freedom, at least I do, don't you ••• MR. CLARKE : Yes, I do . MR. GREEN: ••• and you believe that it's right for people to have individual freedom? MR.

CLARKE : As I said in my paper, with limitations . There is no such thing as total individual freedom, is there ? There is no point in going to Winnipeg and crying that I want to own a piece of land on Portage and Main, because it's already owned. MR. GREEN: But the more individual freedom, the better . MR. CLARKE: No, I didn't say that, you said that. MR. GREEN: You think that the less individual freedom the better ? MR. CLARKE : No, I said that we have to have laws and regulations MR. GRE EN: I agree with you but would you not ••• MR. CLARKE: • . • which will inhibit to a degree . MR.

GREEN: Then I am suggesting that I believe that the more individual freedom that the people of Manitoba have, the better. Would you di spute that? Would you say that that 's not true? MR. CLARKE: Yes, I would, yes . I think that all freedom is a relative thing. MR. GREEN: Well then if we are agreed on that point that what I believe in is more individual freedom for the people of the Province of Manitoba and you believe that there should be less individual freedom for the people of Manitoba • • • MR. CLARKE : No, I didn't say that. MR. GREEN: .•. and that's what the brief amounts to, then I won't go any further.

All right, then I am asking you again, I repeat, I believe that there should be more individual freedom for the people of the Province of Manitoba. Do you disagree with that ? MR. CLARKE : Sir, I'm talking about land ownership . Now you're talking generally about freedom . . • MR. GRE EN: To the extent that land ownership is an extension of individual freedom, do you not believe that there should be more individual freedom for the people of the Province of Manitoba ? MR. CLARKE: Mr. Green, I wish to speak about land ownership in Northern Manitoba, well specifically for rec reational use .

I am suggesting to you at this point in time in Manitoba there is ample land, all kinds of land, that everybody can own a little bit . You and I will be buried under before the time comes that people will be

February 5, 1976 125 (MR. CLARKE cont'd) .••.. squabbling that there is no land left, and besides the government can sell an adequate amount of land and we'll still have tracts and tracts and tracts of land left to exer cise this freedom upon the people who don't wish to buy any land . MR. GREE N: Well, Mr. Clarke, I really know that with some discussions there is a philosophical chasm that cannot be crossed, and I don't want to go that much further with it .

I belie ve that the ownership of land is an extension of individua l freedom, and I believe that therefore the people of Manitoba, to have as much individual freedom as possi ble, sho uld have as much opportunit y to own land as possible. MR . CLARKE : Now will you clarify one thing for me. Do you mean that they should own the land individually or collectively? MR . GREEN: I would want to use the best form of having the individual people of the Province of Manit oba owning as much land as they can. It seems to me that the levelling is not on the other side .

There is a suggestion here that land ownership is an extension of individual freedom and therefore to the extent that people do not have the opportunity of land ownership, they are losing their individual freedom . MR. CLARKE : Everybody in Northern Man itoba , if the government so wished, could provide that extension of freedom to allow everybody to own a little piece of land . MR. GREEN: All right .

Now that's what I was coming to, that if we had a million people that the way of insuring individual freedom to all of these million people which you have just said, is that everybody would own a little piece of land, these one million people, then they would all have freedom . Now what if a baby came on the scene, what do you do then? MR. CLARKE : You do the same thing as you did before MR . GREEN: Do you then take a look, at least, of everybo dy's land and give it to the baby? MR. CLARKE : You ask ed me a question, I'll attempt to answer it . MR. GREEN: Yes . MR.

CLARKE : We haven't reached your hypothetical point yet in the province and we 're not about to for hundreds of yea rs . MR. GREEN: B•1t we are now talking about philosophical concept . MR . CLARKE : I'm not . I'm here to try and get land ownershi p, si r. MR. GREEN: Mr. Clarke, then it is not a philosophical concept that you have present ed when you said for an individual citizen a land lease instead of ownership is a curtailment of individual feeling . That is not a philosophical concept. MR. CLARKE : That's the truth. MR. GREEN: Is it a philosophical concept?

If we have no means, if there are no words upon which we can engage in a dialogu e, I won't go any further . I mean, if you say that this paper does not involve philosophical concept, then I really have no di scussion - no point in di scus si ng any of those thin gs. MR. CLARKE : All right . I don't think you have • MR. GREEN: All rig ht . Now you say that when you have a lea se you are curta iled, when you have land ownership you are not curtail ed . My understanding is that the people in Thompson all have Torrens title to their land . MR. CLARKE : I believe that this hearing is called recreational land? MR.

GREEN: The fact is that you have dealt with - if you want to rest rict me in that way, should I ignore anyt hing that is in your brief which relates to the native people not owning the land in their communitie s, like the South Indian Lake and the is olated communities, which you started, not I. MR. CLARKE : If you wish to divide it up into segments, we could handle one segment at a time, like talk first about recreational land and then we'll go on to the native people, and then • • . MR. GREEN: Yes . Mr.

Clarke, you !mow I didn't direct you - because I don 't like curtailing individual freedom - as to how you should present your brief, and I would prefer that you allow me my individual freedom as to how I put my questi ons. MR. CLARKE : You 're giving me a hard time . MR . GREEN: Yes, I certainl y am , I certainly am, and the reason is, that you've come in and you ask ed for a hard time . Now, I am asking you the question. You are the one who told me that I should

126 February 5, 1976 (MR. GREEN co nt'd) • . • • • stick to recreational land; but your brief deals with much more than recreational land, does it not? MR. CLARKE: That 's right . That 's right . MR. GREEN: So then don't tell me to stick to recreational land. MR. CLARKE: Well, I didn't tell you, I asked you . MR. GREEN: Yes, I will go to your brief, and your brief says that there is no opportunity of northern people to own land.

I believe that most of the land in Thompson, on which there are the se dwellings, are held by Torrens tit le, the same type of title on which I own my house, whic h gi ves me my individual freedom in the Ci ty of Winnipeg. MR. CLARKE: Right . MR. GREEN: And that in the isolated community, that in the last five years there has been an attempt to transfer title from vir tually no holding, no lease, nothing else, to Torrens tit le , that this has been going on in isolated communities in Northern Manitoba . MR.

CLARKE: As far as I could find out, to the best of my knowledge, the re is no intention to sell the land to the people at Southern Indian Lake. Some of them don't even as yet have a lease, and I understand that they were considering leased land. Now, all my information has to be hearsay because I am not in the government. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr . Clarke, I will admit to you that I am not aware as to what particularly is going to be done at South Indian Lake. I know that those people had no title whatsoever, not lease, not tit le , not any kind of tenure ..• MR. CLARKE: That 's right . MR.

GREEN: • • • up until now, and that there is an attempt now in isolated communities to provide for holding of these lands . Now, isn't that an improvement ? (Interject ion) -- You know, when you want to make your brief you will get up then . MR. CLARKE: Yes, yes, it is an improvement . MR. GREEN: Yes, all right . MR. CLARKE: But it's not a good enough improvement, because I don't see why they won't sell those people the lots up there . MR . GREEN: Well, I assure you, sir, Mr .

C larke, that in most cases in the isolated communities they 're going to do better than sell them, they are trying to turn over title to the people in the area . MR. CLARKE: Is that individual or collective ? MR. GREEN: Individual type . MR. CLARKE : Well, I'm glad to hear it . MR. GREEN: Now, are you aware that in the south there is no difference than in the north. There is no sale of recreational land. MR. CLARKE� Yes, I'm aware of it. MR. GREEN: All right . You are suggesting that we sell the recreational land in southern and Northern Manitoba. MR. CLARKE: May I speak on that question that you're asking ? MR.

GREEN: Yes . MR. CLARKE: Now, for instance, when you talk about recreational land, in the south the majority of the land, I believe, is privately owned by way of farms and that sort of thing, consequently there is a limited amount of land for public recreational land. Is that correct, sir ? MR. GREEN: When you say the south, you know, all of the White shell is generally, or much of it, is Crown land. The area around where Mr .

Johnston is, south of Lake Manitoba, and much of it is owned by private people and the complaints are that the public cannot util ize that land, that it should never have been turned over to private people . But there is recreational land in southe rn Manitoba, south of 53, that is owned by the public and retained by the public . Are you suggesting that we turn that recreational land over to private people so that I cannot fish in their lake, as you put it ? MR. CLARKE : No, sir . No, I'm not suggesting that . MR. GREEN: That 's fine. I have no further questions . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Barrow. MR.

BARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . Mr . Clarke, your .•. on your land renewal, a 21 -year lease compared to a 99-year lease, well, as a miner I want to own a cabin - now I'll just give you a picture of what pertains to most people - I picked out

February 5, 1976 127 (MR. BARROW cont'd) ..••• a place I thought I would like to build on, it was there , I got the lot, but it was no trouble, and we're doing it by stages , clearing it off one year, and built the floor the next year, and so on, this is how I got my cabin . I was concerned about the 21 versus the 99- year lease, but no one else in my area was, but I did go to the Lands Branch or the people that pertained to that in The Pa s, and asked why the lease would be cut from 99 to 21 .

Well, for various reasons, but one reason is that people do take lots and don't develop, or they build a cabin then forsake it or deser t it, and so on, and that was the reason . I said, I can renew rc�.y lease every 21 years, and they said that's right . I see n othing wrong with that, and I've had no complaints on th at . Are you allowed construction ? I'm interested in that angle . Do you think that cabins should be constructed of logs and reso rts of logs, and use them .•. ? MR.

CL ARKE : I ce rtainly think that the architecture in the north could more clearly identify with the area, you know, when you build - well, this is primarily commercial, but when you build a commercial place in a wilderness setting the architecture should identify, you know, with the surroundings, and quite probably be some private . But I think, when it comes to a private ownership, you know the private cabins , the indi vidual should be given as much latitude as possi ble .

If he wants to put up logs or if he wants to make it out of dung, whatever he likes to make it out of, it should be his right, you know, as long as he doesn't constitute a health hazard. MR. BARROW: Well, are you aware they have a machine now for log-con struction ••• MR. CLAR KE : Ye s, yes I am . I unders tand the thing produces about eight logs an hour with about 20 men working on it. MR. BARROW: Well, it isn't so . MR. CLARKE : Pardon ? Then it's not true ? Well, somebody told me that. MR. BARROW: No, it's quite satisfactory. MR. CLARKE: Yes, but the houses are quite expensive, aren't they?

The net result or the end result , isn't it rather high-priced ? MR. BARROW: Well I don't believe it myself . They say that you build a cabin, 26 by 28 with four walls • • • I find it hard to believe that. MR. CLARKE : Just the four walls ? MR. BARROW: Just the four walls MR. CLARKE : Well that might be, I don't know. MR. BARROW: That's all. MR. CL ARKE : But, you know, the four walls are actually, you know, are not the total thing that you build, there 's the foundation and rooms ••• MR. BARROW: I grant you that, but even so, it 's a step towards ... MR. CL AR KE : Yes , I agree, yes . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Bostrom . MR. BOSTROM : Ye s, I have a number of questions ... (inaudible) MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam, on a point of order . MR. ADAM: I'm just wondering, I don't want to interfere with the honourable minister's questions , but I know these gentlemen have been standing for quite while and it's 12:30, I just wondered whether we 're going to break for lunch, and come back after . There are still several briefs to hear. You know, are we going to go right through or are we going to cut off for lunch ? MR. CH AIRMAN: Does that have the approval of the committee to • . . Mr. Bostrom. MR.

BOSTROM : You make the statement on the bottom of, I believe it's Page 1 of the introduction, that there are restrictions on how much time per annum one may spend living in their cottage . Now, I would be conce rned if this were true, and do you have any specific examples of this ? MR. CL ARKE: I think there are people here from the Parks Branch, and you can ask them, direct the question to them, that can a person in Thompson live in their cottage at Paint Lake 365 days of the year. MR. BOSTROM : Well, is it a restriction on the living ? MR. CL ARKE : That's right . MR.

BOSTROM: The actual occupation of that • . .

128 February 5, 19 76 MR. CLARKE : The home owner is not allowed to occupy it 365 days of the year . MR. BOSTROM: What is the reason? MR. CLARKE : Government bureaucracy . MR. BOSTROM: Well is there anyone here from Parks who could verify that? (Inaudible) Well are they prevented from occupying their cottage as a recreational cottage? -- (Interjec tion) -- I see . So that is the di stinction that's made . MR. CLARKE: Yes, but the thing is if it 's a cottage they can't live in it as long as they want to . Isn't that right ?

It doesn't matter what the building is, you're going to call it a recreational cottage, aren't you, if it's in the -- (Interjection) -- That's right, but they can't .•• so that means if it's not their permanent residence they can't live in it as long as they want, and that's exactly what I said . -- (Interjection) -- Just a minute. Now that place, Paint Lake, was turned into a Provincial Park after the development started, and without any discussio n with the people of Thompson on anything, it was just decided that was what they'd want. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Green. MR.

GREEN: What is being said is that you can't set up a pe rmanent residence in a park because then you have to start providing schools for the children who live in that perma nent residence, and if it became a res idential district you'd have to have local improvement taxes, and everything else . So it's not the restriction on your using your cottage MR. CLARKE : Yes, it is . MR. GREEN: Well you say it is, but I say ••• MR. CLARKE : There's lots of people who say that about • MR. GREEN: That it is, Mr .

Chairman, something that has nothing to do with politics, it has something to do with the fact that if Paint Lake became a residential area you'd have to start providing schools , hospitals and other things which are necessary for residential areas . They don't prevent you from going in and out, but you have to have a residence, this is your cottage site, you have to show that you have a resi dence somewhere else which is your permanent residence . You cannot save municipal taxes by living at Paint Lake, that's all we 're saying. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Bostrom. MR.

BOSTROM: Well, on the next page you make the point on land speculation that it's obvious that provisions are required to prevent land speculation and foreign ownership . Now you make the point generally in your brief that you would like to have recreational land sold to individuals . Now how do you propose that you accomplish prevention of land specula tion and foreign ownership on private holdings of recreational land? MR. CLARKE: By a

schedule of taxation. MR. BOSTROM: A

schedule of taxation. MR. CLARKE : That's right. MR. CAMPBELL: Mr . Chairman, on a point of order from the audience . I don't want to interfere, we'd like you to call a recess, because you're going to go all afternoon and John has been standing on his feet for about four hours , I'm sure . I really think that if . MR. USKIW: I was outvoted . MR. CAMPBE LL: Yes . But the audience here I think -- (Interjection) -- MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the committee is prepared to recess for lunch very shortly. Proceed, Mr . Uskiw . MR. USKIW: Thank you.

I was just going to suggest that there's an indication from the committee members that they want to pursue questioning for some length of time, then it might be advisable to adjourn for lunch. But if that's the last speaker, then I suggest we complete it . MR . ADAM: Mr . Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Adam . MR. ADAM: Could we have an indication from the members of the committee who have further questions of Mr . Clarke ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we could have an indication from Mr . Bostrom,he's the last speaker on my list . MR. BOSTROM: Well I have two or three more questions . MR. • make it two. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr .

Bostrom.

February 5, 1976 129 MR. BOSTROM: All right . The point that you 're making in your brief, and I think many of the points you make here deserve comments and questions. the one point you 're making as your • . • to northern people, that the land needs of northern reside nts is of the lowest priority.

Now, I don't know if you're aware or not, but there is in place in Manitoba a Northern Affairs Act which gives northern communities, remote communities in particular, and their local gove rnments authority over the land use and zoning within their communities and within a particular radius around their communities, and the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Co rporation and the CMH C through agencies such as NACC and RANC OM have been developing housing in northern communities and the land is made available to northern resi dents as a top priority, not the lowest priority, so that they not only have land use capability in terms of dec iding what happens to the land within their communities, but they're given first access to this land for housing requirements, which I'm sure you'll agree is the most urgent requirement in northern Manitoba, above recreational facilities .

My only quest ion is in making this statement, are you aware of those provisio ns ? MR. CL ARKE : I wasn't spec ifically aware that there had been a periphery drawn aro und each community, nor am I yet aware of the extent, like when you talk, but are they in terms of miles . Like for instance the community of Souther

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-3-lou5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 3rd hansardpdf lou5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8b24f0dc978c8662dbe1aeec845fc3ac8d2ec2d7

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