Manitoba Committee Hansard — 20 January 1975 (LO Committee, Sitting 1, 30th Legislature, 2nd Session)

30-2-lo1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARINGS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LAND OWNERSHIP Chairman Mr. Harry Shafransky, M.L.A. Constituency of Radisson Monday, January 20, 1975 Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA SPE CIAL COMMITTEE ON LAND OWNERSHIP FIRST MEETING, JANUARY 20, 19 75 MR . CLER K: Gentlem en, if I may have your attent ion, we•ll call this meeting to order. 1 Your first item of busine ss will be the election of your chairman. Are there any nominati ons ? A MEMBER: Mr . Shafransky . MR . CLERK: Mr. Shafransky has been nominat ed . Are there any further nominations? Hearing none , I would ask Mr. Shafransky to take the Chair . MR . CHAIRMAN: Good morning . Before we proceed I believe the first order of business should be to establish a quorum for the committ ee .

There are 15 members on the committee. What is your will and pleasure ? A MEMBER: Ei ght, Mr. Chairman. MR . CHAIRMAN: Ei ght members will form the quorum . I notice that there have been a number of dates already established and I understand that it is by mutual agreement between the other parties and the three dates have been set for--well this one today, on the 27th and on the 30th in Brandon and Dauphin. We have the recording equipme nt . Is it the desire that we have the proceedings recorded and transcribed? A MEMBER: So moved. MR .

CHAIRMAN: Moved that we have the proceedings recorded and transcribed. believe it might be--(Interjecti on)--Oh, pardon me , all in favour; opp osed; carried. Now the three dates that have been set, it•s possible that there might be some desire to have further meetings . Is there any exp ression on this ? Mr. A dam . MR . A . R. (Fete) ADAM: I would like to move that the Chair be given the authority to call any additional meetings if it deems necessary . MR . CHAIRMAN: It has been moved that the Chair have the authority to call further meetings if it is deemed necessary. Mr . Jorgenson, MR .

WARNERJ ORGENSON : Mr . Chairman, the committee is the body that guides its own meetings and I don't know whether I would want to approve of the Chairman being given that responsibili ty. I think the committee themselves make that decision as to whether or not there are going to be further meetings that would be held. As a matter of fact, the lateness with which this meeting is called has made it, I think, almost necessary that further meetings should be held . Many of the municipalities who were given this document that we now have before us received it only a few days ago .

They have not had an apportunity to hold council meetings to determi ne whether or not they are going to present a brief, and many of them do because I have received communications from several municipalities who are interested in presenting briefs , and it will require some meetings on the part of those bodies in order to prepare and present briefs . I would suggest that the meetings be held open long enough so that they will be given at least half an opportunity to prepare the kind of material that they would like to present before us . I don•t know why this hearing was delayed so late .

The resolutio n was passed in June last and there has been ample opportunity to hold at least an organization meeting prior to that time and perhaps several other meetin gs. The difficulty with trying to cram the en tire stretch of the meetings into a week or so is that many people who may wa nt to appear before this com mittee will not have that opportunity , and I think that we owe it to the people who are interested the opportunity to not only present briefs before this committee but be given sufficien t oppor tunity to prepare these briefs . MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr . Henderson. MR . GEORGE HENDERSON: Thanks, Mr .

Chairman . Well I was going to say some thing like Warner , but another point I wanted to make was that if there is going to be further hearings , I•d like the southern part of Manitoba considered because this is the area you are talking about quite a bit is around Carman and that area there , where we have right from there to the western border and I think there should be a meeting held in the southern part before this is decid ed. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uskiw . HON . SAMUEL USKIW: Ye s, I think there is a misimp ression on the part of the

2 January 20, 1975 (MR . USKIW cont•d) .•.•. Member for Morris. It•s obvious that as public demand arises we will want to facilitate that demand so that we wouldn't want to restrict the hearings to three, four, half a dozen or a dozen , and I think that it is presumptuous to think that we can do all of this within a matter of a week as Mr. Jorgenson suggests .

It•s obvious that if necessary we will have to go for months with these hearings and my suggestion is that rather than the Chair deciding on when and where these hearings will take place that the Chair simply inform the com mittee as to the desire of communities for this committee to meet in those areas of the pro vince and as to his recommendations as to where we should go and we could proceed in that way . I don 't think we want to by-pass the committee but that the Chair should be allowed to raise the que stion from tim e to time to propose a

schedule of meetings . MR . CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed ? All in favour - Mr. Graham . MR . HARRY GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman , before we agree on that, I would like to ask the Minister if what he is saying is probably a proposal to follow a forum such as has been estab lished in Alberta where they have set up a land use forum that has been meeting for approxi mately a year . Is that the intention of the Minist er ? MR . USKIW: I should like to respond, Mr. Chairman, to the effect that we have our work very well planned for us by the. resolution of the Legislature of the last Session; we know what we must do .

And I think only the public participation will determine whether we deviate from the course of action that we have already undertaken; but we•re certainly very flexible on the need to have full public participation on this subject. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham . MR .

GRAHAM: A second question: at the present time the federal government is holding hearings throughout the Province of Manit oba dealing with land use in respect to the Riding Mountain Natio nal Park and the forum that they have set forward there is a sort of a three phase program where they hold initial public hearings just to more or less acquaint people with the problems then a second round of meetings which is the official presentati on, and then after they have made their recommendat ions , those recommendations are again taken back to the people for the reaction of the publi c.

Is this the type of format that the Minister is intending to follow ? MR . USKIW: Well I think, Mr. Chairman, the Member for Bi rtle-Russell is trying to presume that the governme nt, the department or the Chair can decid e for this committee as to what the recommendations can be in advance of the hearings and I think that we should forego any discussion on that point until after we have had a series of hearings and that there are representations made to further pursue this question either by reference to the Legislature or otherwise . MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Spivak. MR .

SIDNEY SPIVAK : Well I only have one comment to make . The Minister referred to the resolution of the Legislature and I think it should be drawn to the attention of the Chairman and to the Mi nister and the members of the committee that the resolution is all embracing. The White Paper produced by the government essentia lly deals with farm land; the resolution dealt with recreational land and dealt with land in the urban areas . And I think that the objecti ve of public participation is one which the committee would want to adhere to and would certainly have the unanimous support of all.

But I think it must be recognized that of necessity the White Paper wil l mean that the attention I think of the public will be devoted in the main to the problems relating to farm land - and I think this is necessary and I•m not in any way taking away from that- but I think if we are going to have full public participation there will be the requirement to deal with the issues of land in the urban areas and recreational land as well.

And that may very well require addi tional information be ing provided to the committee and a fair amount of notice to the community of Manitoba that we are dealing with that area as well. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green . HON . SIDNEY GRE EN: Mr . Chairman, I think that with regard to the Leader of the Oppositi on's remarks , it should be underlined that the paper is not intended to give the para meters of any discussion.

The paper is a basis upon which people can discuss those issues that were raised in the Legislature , and raised very forcefully by my recollection, the Member for Portage la Prairie , the Member for Assiniboia, certain members in the New Democratic Party caucus--! can't recall that it was considered - and I say this wi thout criticism considered a crucial issue by members of the Conservative caucus because I think I took much the same position . But nevertheless I do not think that there should be criticism of the fact

January 20, 19 75 3 (MR. GREEN cont'd) ..... that somebody prepared a piece upon which discussion could commence and that•s all it is .

As to whether the committee will have avai lable to it any infor mation, it is always the committ ee'S prerogative to say that they would like whatever facilities are avai lable - which is the bureaucracy, to supply material and I thin k that that has been co operated in the past, I think that the Minister has done the committee a service by having something on the table that you start from, but it•s not intended to either define or inhibit - and I am certain that it will not inhibit the Leader of the Opposition who has already discussed the differences between ownership by German Nation als as against ownership of the Public of Manitoba as being one of the important issues, he appears to prefer the former rather than the latter .

MR . SPIVAK : Mr. Chairm an, on a point of order . You know, Mr . Green has already started a controversy, or attempts to start a controversy within this committ ee . MR . GR EEN: You made the statem ent . MR . SPIV AK: I did not make the statement . . . MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR . SPIVAK : On a point of order, Mr . Chairm an. MR . CHAIRMAN: Proceed. MR . SPIVAK : I think for the ben efit of this comm ittee, and I don't think there is anyone in Manitoba who would deny this, that it would be important at this point to know fully the government 's in volveme nt in the purchase of land in this province . MR .

GRE EN: They're all done by 0/C, they•re all done by 0/C . MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please, Mr . Green . MR. SPIVAK : Mr. Chairman, I think as a matter of--the matters may be of public record but so is the information that 's essentially contained in the report .

The government saw to it that they selectively brought together information that they themselves thought were important , and it would seem to me that there are many people in Manitoba who would con sider the policy of the governmen t in not loaning money to farmers but insisting that they must only lease the land by the government buying the land if they are to get a participation by the government, is a policy that could in fact be questioned and certain ly should be considered by this committ ee . However. Mr. Chairman, I must say Mr.

Green in his statement has already deliberately distorted three remarks that have been made by myself. There is no question, Mr. Chairman, of in any way referring to this report in any derogatory way but realisti cally to assist the committee in its deliberat ion s .

And I must say that certai nly my office has been one that has been contacted by many who were under the impression that this committee had nothing to do with consideration of land in the urban areas , that this committee would only be concerned about farm land in Manitoba , because the White Paper produced by the government only concerned itself with that. And of course that is not the terms of reference of this com mittee and I would suggest , Mr .

Chairman, that there will be and should be an opportunity for public notice to be given that in fact the urban area problems are to be considered by this committee so that those who have a concern about it are in a position to express it before this committee where all consideration of land use should be undertaken and then a policy which would involve not just farm land but urban and recreational land be undertake n. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr . Uskiw . MR . USKIW: Yes . First of all, Mr .

Chairman, I should like to draw to the attention of the committee that this document before us is not a White Paper , it's a working paper; the Opposition keeps referring to it as a White Paper . The second point that was raised by the Leader of the Opposition has to do with the scope of the hearings that we are now contemplating . I should like to draw to the attention of members here that it is our intent to pursue the urban and recreational questions as well.

I don •t think that it's advisable to try to get all of this done all at one time , that we should probably not have a mix of representation but we should deal with it by sector; and in this instance the first sector that we want to deal with by this committee and through this committee is the questio n of rural land ownership and its use. So that the other sectors will be brought before you at a later stage with more information in other documents supplied to the members .

I should like to also address myself to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to government policy; I do think that his statement was out of order but I should like to respond accordin gly.

4 MR. JORGENSON : By being out of order too . MR . USKIW: That's right . A MEMBER: By being out of order. January 20, 19 75 MR . USKIW : That the previous administration before 1969 went out of the mortgage business as far as the financ ing of farm purchases in this province is concerned, so that he should not draw to the attention of this committee that this is the area of negligence on the part of the government sin ce 19 69.

Their reasons were the right ones--our reasons were the right ones, namely that we didn •t want duplication of the financing of farm lands in this province , that is through the Government of Canada and the Government of Manitoba, or that the two agencies shouldn't compete , and in particular because financing from the Government of Canada to the farmers of Canada provided at a much lower interest rate and therefore it made no sense for the province to continue that policy. I only say this be cause it was raised here as a diversion ... MR . CHAIRMAN: Right . You're both out of order on those points . Mr.

Johnston. MR . GORDON JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I think before we start , it would be a good idea if today it could be established where other meetings would be held an d when. The reason I sugge st that is that there are people here , I noti ce, in the audience from a distan ce, perhaps some of them may believe that this will be one of their few chances to have their ideas and their observations recorded. So I would like if you would see fit, Mr.

Chairman, to call on the Clerk to tell us when and where he advertised the meetings so that we know what parts of the province have not been covered adequately by the writte n or the media word and then we could perhaps establish where else in the province we should hold hearin gs such as we •re going to begin here today . I notice in the resolution that set up the committee that the words in the fourth "whereas" and I•ll quote : • The Government of Manitoba wishes to hear the views of citize ns with respect to the regulation of property rights and lands within the provin ce.

" Now my unde rstanding of that paragraph is that it is not necessarily related to farm land, it•s related to urban property, farm property, Crown land and all the uses put to such properties. So I think that while in the beginning some members thought that we were dealing strictly with the use of farm land and the ownership thereof, we •re really dealing with all aspects of land ownership and that the urban people--this should be made known to them. I don't think it has been properly.

Before the meetings were held I received a call from the Minister •s office asking me for some suggestions of areas where we should hold such meeti ngs and I made a few suggestio ns , I felt that not only the southern parts of the province but also the western parts of the province and also as far north as at least Sw an River .

And I noti ce, wi th some disa ppointment--! received another phone call from a gentleman from the Minister's office and he stated that it was the view of one of the other parties that the scope of meetings should be restricted to Brandon, Winnipeg and Dauphin; and I wish at this time to object to the line that has been taken and the fact that only three meetings have been called in those centres and other centres have been ignored .

I think Swan River should be in cluded, The area around Russell should be included; perhaps Carman and Altona area; Portage la Prairie; the Inter lake area where the problems we are about to discuss is a problem up there . I think that the hearin gs should be made known to every citiz en who has any interest whatsoever whether it be in the urban area or the farm land area or recreational area , so that all groups, wildlife groups, farm grou ps, people interested in urban affairs , should have the opportunity to appear before this committ ee . And I would repeat again, Mr.

Chairman, that today I be lieve that it would be an idea worth consid ering to establish the areas where the meetings are going to be held, give proper advertising to those areas so the people don't have to come 100 or 150 miles and then only on very short notice . I am astounded to hear that Mr . J orgenson reports that some of the coun cils have only recently - very recently received copies of the governme nt 's working paper. I thin k this could be corrected by setting some meetin gs in the other areas well in advan ce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR . USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I should raise a point of order here . . . MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw on a point of order. MR. USKIW: I thin k the comments by Mr. Johnston are well taken with one exception, and that is the impli cation on one of the political parties that they somehow did not want to proceed with more than three meetin gs . I think to correct that impression I should like to

Ja nuary 20, 19 75 5 (MR . USKIW co nt•d) .. ... indicate to Mr. Johnston that a member of the Conservative Party indicated to me that while they could agree with the initial three, that the calling of future meetin gs would have to depend on the decision of this committee , so that really they were quite generous in facilitatin g the calling of the first three meeti ngs without having to con vene the first meeting and I think we should be fair in that respect . MR . CHAIRMAN: Okay.

I beli eve , gentlemen, you have a motion with regard to future meeti ngs based on that information which will be coming forth from the various areas . Then we can establish those dates. Mr . Spivak. MR . SPIVAK : This arises out of Mr . Uskiw's earlier statement that the document produced by the government is a working paper as opposed to White Paper , and I want to have from him some understanding. There was an undertaking given in the Legislature on May 30th by Mr. Uskiw that a White Paper would be produced and that representation could be made by people and proposals to vary the paper itself could be made .

I am now quoting his exact words . Is he now sugge sting that the government has not produced that paper and that this is just a working statistical paper , and is the government then considerin g producing a White Paper ? MR . USKIW: Well, I think this is something that can be deter min ed, Mr. Chairman , after the Committee has had its hearings as to what the next step should be , and the next step should follow any one of those lines, namely it could be a working paper for further discussion, or it could be a recommendation that a bill be drafted. and referred back to the public for dis cussion.

There are many ways of approachin g this question, so that I think at this point in the game we are quite flexible. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Spivak - on the same point ? MR . SPIVAK : On the same point . Then what you are suggesting is that the government has not in fact produced a White Paper ? MR . USKIW: That is in fact what we are saying, MR . SPIVAK : So the undertaking given to the Legislature has not been met ? MR . USKIW: At this stage of the game you are quite right . MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr .

Spivak, I believe the Minister indicated that this is a working paper , that there will be following the meetin g some paper . Mr. Green . MR . GRE EN: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that there are some people here who wish to make presentation, and that we all agree, or at least I think we all agree , that those presen tations should be heard, Can we not use the prime time , that is when people are here waiting to discuss these questions which will have to be dis cussed in any event, and proceed immedi ately to hearin g the people who are here and would like to get away •.. and then at the end of the meetin g discuss these que stions which are not predicated on what these people who are presentin g briefs are saying.

So I would urge the Committee that we now proceed to hear briefs , knowing that at the end of that that we will reserve time for the procedural questions that have to be decided afterwards . MR . CHAIRMAN: Well do you want to proceed with the que stion on the motio n? Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORG ENSON: Just one point I would like to have clarified before we do , and I agree with Mr .

Green that we should perhaps be hearin g some of the representations that are here today, but that is presumin g_ I am now assumin g something that maybe I should not assume , that the committee is not going to be sitting as was origin ally intended. I think Mr . Uskiw said that we •d be sittin g until all the briefs had been heard today . That may not be possible , We may be sittin g here quite late in the evenin g, which would preclude any dis cussion on procedural matters. MR . GRE EN: Which will make the discussion shorter. MR .

JORGENSO N: And I think many of the people who are here may want to have a little more time to prepare briefs as well, and if we can have those who are ready to present b riefs now and not preclude them from the opportunity of comin g back maybe at a later date , because this has been somewhat rushed, on that condition I wouldn't object at all to proceeding forth with to the consideration of the briefs that are now here . MR . CHAIRMAN: Question on ayes. Mr. Adam . MR . ADAM: Mr.

Chairman, I believe there is a consensus of approval on my motion and I think it would only be a matter of having ayes and nays question on it and that•s it. MR . CHAIRMAN: All those in favour of the motion that the Chair establish the dates

6 January 20, 1975 (MR. CHAIRMAN cont'd) .•.•. and locations of any future meeti ngs as they may be required, based on the feedback from the various areas. MR . GR EEN: That we present them to Committee and try to get .. . MR. USKIW: The Chair would recommend to the Committee, as I understand it. MR . GR EEN: That's right. MR. USKIW: We would agree with that, Peter, if you would agree to amend that motion accordingly, we can then accept that motion. MR. CHAffiM..l\.N: Is that agreed? All in favour? Opposed? Carried. I have a number of people listed here who have indicated their papers to be presented.

Is there anyone else in the audience - would you come forward, give your name to the Clerk, and I will have you added to the list. We have the Manitoba Farm Bureau, Mrs. C. J. Colson, Peter H. Klassen, Pat Yarema, Pembina Valley Development Corporation, Peter N. Friesen, Farmers from Eastern Region. We have six briefs that are going to be presented now. Are there any other briefs to be presented. Would you please come forward, give your name and the organization or if you are representing yourself. You can use the mike . I'll just add you to the list. MR . MORTON H. NEMY: Yes . Morton H. Nemy, Winnipeg. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Morton H . . . . . ? MR . NEMY: Nemy - N - E - M - Y . MR . CHAffiMAN: And you are from Winnipeg? MR . NEMY: Ri ght. MR . CHAIRMAN: Representing .. ... .. ... ? MR . NEMY: Representing Morton H. Nemy. MR . CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any others? Thank you. MR . NEMY: Thank you. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: There may be people attending the meeting after we adjourn at lunch time. Could you then again ask for names of people that wish to appear. I don't think we should preclude anyone that doesn't happen to be here at this particular time. MR . CHAIRMAN: Okay. Sir. MR . J.

OMICHINSKI: Gentlemen, we don't have a brief prepared on behalf of the Rural Municip ality of Portage la Prairie but we intend to. We just got this working paper, I think it's a week ago Tuesday, and we didn't have the opportunity to study it and prepare a sensible brief. We'd like to have the opportunity at a future date . MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. MR . E . KLASSEN: I'm here also with the Farm Bureau, not myself, but with the Farm Bureau group. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay . Thank you. All right then we shall proceed - there's one more? MR . JACK HARE: Mr. Chairman, my name is Jack Hare.

I am representing the Agricultural Committee of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and I would like to reiterate the statement made by the gentleman just before me, that we received these documents on Friday. It was too late at that time for us to make any presentation whatsoever. The Committee spent the weekend working on it but we don't feel that this is sufficient time to make any presentation and we would recommend that ano ther meeting of this type be held here in Winnipeg as we were planning to have to go to either Brandon or Dauphin on the present schedule. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR .

GREEN: I just have a question to Mr. Hare. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hare? MR . HARE: Yes. MR. GR EE N: Again, without any criticism or otherwise with regard to the shortness of the receipt of the paper, is it not the Chamber of Commerce's - did they not have any position or considera tion on this question before this document was published? Have they never sort of given consideration to this question? MR . HARE: Certainly.

The Agricultural Committee of the Chamber has been involved in every land use discussion that I can recall in the 9 or ten years that I've been here and yet, I'm not sure when this document was mailed out, but from a straight administration stand point it was not possible for us to get together on it until Friday and we feel that the

January 20, 1975 7 (MR. HARE cont'd) .. ... Agricultural Committee of the Chamber is probably one of the most broadly speaking groups, it has been named in the document as having certain ideas and we certainly want to have a representation and feel that our having to go to Brandon or Dauphin is rather ridiculous. MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. We can proceed then to the Manitoba Farm Bureau. Sir, do you have any prepared brief that can be made available to the Committee. MR. LORNE PARKER: Ye s, we do , Mr . Chairman. I believe it's being circulated. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Your name, Sir. MR.

PARKER: My name is Lorne Parker, from Ste . Agathe, Manitoba. Just while the brief is being circulated I might say a few words of introduction. First, I would like to bring the regrets of our newly elected President, Mr. Bert Hall. Mr. Hall is from Manitou. He became the President of the Manitoba Farm Bureau on January 8th last. Just previous to his election, and before knowing that these hearings were coming up, he and his wife had arranged an overseas trip and I'm happy to report that this morning he is somewhere in New Zealand. In his absence, I shall read the brief as one of the Bureau's Vice-Presidents.

Also with us this morning is our second Vice-President, Mr. Ed Klassen from Homewood, whom I'd like to introduce to the Committee now. Would you mind standing Ed ? And our Executive Secretary, Mr. Bob Douglas. Bob. I might also add that sprin kled through the audience are several members of various commodity groups that are associated with the Bureau. They are here as observers this morning and I have no doubt that some of those individual groups will be presenting individual briefs from their commodity groups at successive hearings. I might refer now to the brief itself and I'll go into reading it.

Land policy in Manitoba is receiving a great deal of attention at the present time and the Manitoba Farm Bureau wishes to commend the Government of Manitoba on its deci sion to establish this Special Committee of the Legislature to enquire into matters relating to property rights and lands within the province. The Bureau also welcomes the opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss the views of farm people in Man itoba relating to land policy.

The Farm Bureau is a federation of seventeen agricultural commodity, co-operative and rurally oriented educational groups, which represents most farm people in Manitoba on matters of agricul tural policy. A list of the member groups comprising the Farm Bureau has been appended to this submission to indicate the scope of the inte rest represented by the Bureau. The Farm Bureau, as the provincial affiliate of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, has been involved over the past year in attempting to docum ent the issues relating to land use and ownership in Canada.

Copies of the CFA's working paper on Land Use Policy are pro vided for the members of the Committee. And that's the orange document that is in front of you and was circulated. The Bureau hopes this Special Committee will not be bound too rigidly to the terms of reference as stated in the resolution, and I quote: "To enquire into matters relating to property rights in lands within the province". We say this because we are of the opinion that the major issue requiring attention is the matter of "land use" and that matters of land owner ship and property rights are se condary segments of this larger issue.

If the intention was to deal only with matters relating to property rights, then we have taken some liberty in this presentation in discussing points beyond what may be considered to be the terms of reference of the Committee. The problems in "land use" are, of the many possible uses for a piece of land, which is the best, and how and by whom is this decision made ? For example, to indicate the possibili ties, a specific piece of property might be used for many purposes. Amongst them: 1 . Farming-- the production of food. 2. Recrea tion - e. g. a golf course, a park, snowmobiling trails, etc. 3.

Urban Development, such as housing, industry or services - stores, garages. 4. Might be subdivided into 5, 20, or 40 acre lots to be used as homes or weekend retreats for city people wishing to live in the country. 5. Utilities such as roads, airport, sewage disposal plant. 6. Or finally, it might be left in the natural state as a wildlife habitat. In many instances a choice must be made between alternative s. What is the wisest use of this

8 January 20, 1975 (MR. PARKER cont'd) ....• piece of property considering long range global requirements and not just immediate personal considerations? This in a nutshell is the "land use" problem. Obviously many very important decisions have been made, and are being made, about alter native uses for land in Manitoba without due consideration to all the interests involved. In addition to the decision about the best use for the specific piece of property the way the land is actually used is also a concern; e. g. if it is used for farming, are proper safe guards taken to ensure proper conservation?

Are all environmental and ecological implica tions considered? Wise land use planning should integrate the Canada Land Inventory physical capability data with information on mineral and water resources and the economic and social deter minants of land use to formulate regional land-use plans, which can serve as guidelines for the orderly and effective development of a region's land resources. The need for such plans is particularly urgent at this time because the demands made on our land resources are rapidly increasing and environmental problems such as air and water pollution are becoming more serious.

On May 30, 1974, the Honourable Mr. Uskiw, in proposing the resolution which resulted in the establishment of this Committee, indicated that the Department of Agriculture would be "providing for the committee and for public discussion some time later this year before the committee is convened, or when the committee is convened, a White Paper on the subject matter (property rights) which will serve as a basis for discus sion and on which people may make representations and perhaps proposals to vary from the Paper itself".

Copies of the document, "In Search of a Land Policy for Manitoba" which is, for the most part a background document prepared by the Manitoba Department of Agriculture dealing with the matter of the ownership of farm lands in Manitoba, became available roughly one week ago. After studying this document, we submit that the inform ation therein is inadequate in terms of being of assistance to the public in discus sing all the issues relating to land policy in Manitoba . Further, we are of the opinion that it is unfortunate that this paper was made available such a short time prior to the hearings of this Committee.

Certainly this is not consistent with the achievement of the fourth major objective of the provincial government in its "Guidelines for the Sevent ie s": That is, and we quote "promotion of public participation in the process of government and more particularly, in the development decisions which will affect all Manitobans in the years ahead".

With this in mind, the Manitoba Farm Bureau strongly recommends that the Special Committee seriously consider recommending the establishment of a "Land Use and Ownership Commission", and that this Commissi on be given a period of at least one year to: first of all, assemble and publish adequate information; secondly, to encourage public con sideration of all land use and ownership issues; and thirdly, to prepare recommendations on land use and ownership for the provincial government. In this regard we might well take direc tion from the Province of Alberta where a four- phase program has been implemented .

The program involves: 1. the assembly of all the pertinent background information ; 2. the presentation of this information to the public through extensive public mee tings ; 3. the holding of public hearings on the issues; and 4. the compliation and consider ation of public views in the preparation of a final report and recommendations to the Alberta government. We believe, because of the size and complexity of land policy issues, that if such a program is not adopted, a great many citizens will misunderst and many of the decisions which may be made, regardless of their having merit .

Some members of this Special Committee may well recall that in appearing before the Standing Committee on Agriculture of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, in Carman, back on March 3, 1972 the Bureau questioned the value and effectiveness of such hearings, unless adequate information and time are provided to allow citizens to adequately consider issues before making their views known.

The Farm Bureau also recommends that during the forthcoming session of the Legislative Assembly the necessary legislative amendments be adopted to change the present methods of recording land ownership so as to provide more accurate informa tion on who actually does own land in Manitoba . The Farm Bureau is of the opinion that a great deal more information must be assembled regarding the extent of "foreign" ownership, non-farm cor porate and private ownership, absentee and non-resident ownership, etc. , before trends can

January 20, 1975 9 (MR. PARKER cont'd) .. ... be clearly identified. Other provinces have recognized this deficiency and have taken steps to record the citizenship and other pertinent information about land owners. In the event that the Manitoba Government is not prepared to accept our recommendation that a Land Use and Ownership Commission be established with sufficient time to provide for effective public considerat ion of the issues, we feel strongly that the following concerns and recommendations should be considered.

As we indicated earlier, we are of the opinion that the major issue relating to land policy is that of "land use". In this regard all interests must be considered; agricultural, recrea tional, ecological, etc. In the view of the Farm Bureau it will prove to be in the long term interests of the province, the nation and the world to protect Manitob a's prime agricultural land and any land with potential for agricultural production, from any development which might restrict future development of natural resources or seriously interfere with the ecology.

Most of the necessary information to do an efficient job of land use planning is available from such programs as the "Canada Land Inventory". The Farm Bureau acknowledges the need for a comprehensive "land use planning authority" to provide the means of co-ordinating priorities of land utilization, both public and private.

While there is need for comprehensive planning, action taken in this direction must: 1. give full emphasis to agricultural needs, 2. be structured such that all related legislation and policies of other government departments are subject, to it, 3. provide adequate methods and procedures, 4. provide for effective citizen participation, and 5. develop and administer policies on a non-partisan basis.

We were disappointed that the Manitoba Department of Agriculture's Working Paper did not deal with the matter of "urban sprawl", including small holdings (5-40 acres) for residences, which is a major consumer of prime agricultural land and as such is a significant problem warranting extensive consideration. The Farm Bureau does not consider the need for land zoning and/or classification to be an urgent problem except in those areas surrounding the larger urban areas.

We could not support the implementation of land zoning unless the govern ment is also prepared to implement a program providing for the producer's rights to com pensation in the event of imputed loss due to government restrictions on the sale of his land. This was achieved in British Columbia through the adoption of an Income Assurance Act. In addition, steps are being taken in B. C. to exempt most farm and Crown land from taxation. These points are, in our estimation, the chief reasons why B. C. farmers are prepared to accept the B. C. Land Commission.

It is reported that both land zoning and income assurance legislation will be introduced shortly in the Province of Quebec. In recent months a great deal of attention has been focused, for a variety of reasons, on the question of how land should be owned in Manitoba. Traditionally, the accepted form of land tenure in Manitoba has been through private ownership. This is the result of the province's having been largely settled by means of homesteading. More recently, many people have migrated to Manitoba in order to be able to own land.

Associated with private ownership is the widely held myth that a person can use "his" land in any way he pleases. But, can a per son establish an intensive poultry, hog, or feed lot operation without a licence from the Clean Environment Commission? Can a person let weeds grow on his property and allow the seeds to blow onto his neighbour's land without the possibility of being taken to task? The answer to these questions is, of course, "no". In countless ways a person's land is regulated. The owner of farm land cannot claim to have absolute rights in connect ion with his land.

Ownership involves the granting of a bundle of rights from the state and such rights may be altered from time to time by the state. However, private ownership is viewed by most farm people as being the most desirable method of assuring their right to decide what will be done with their land, including the disposition of it. As such, a great deal of personal pride has been placed on the owning of farm land and many people suggest that it is ownership which fixes responsibility for the way the land is used and cared for.

While the myth of "absolute property rights" on land continues to be held by a large seg ment of our society, increasing numbers of people now feel that land is a resource which must be managed in the interests of all citizens and is not just a commodity to be bought and sold. There are those who oppose the concept of private ownership of land because of the supposed

10 January 20, 1975 (MR. PARKER cont'd) •.... restriction of rights and privileges to other segments of society. It is argued by some that our traditional method of private ownership could result in an un desi rable concentration of ownership in the hands of a very few people. Arguments are being advanced to support the concept that food producing lands should be held by the public at large with farmers leasing land from the government to carry on the business of farming.

The Manitoba Farm Bureau suggests that any major move towards public ownership of farm land would be unaccep table to a vast majority of the farmers in Manitoba. While we know of no data to indicate whether public or private ownership is more desirable in terms of food pro duction or conservation of the soil, we suggest that society could ill afford to take the risk of finding out. We contend that the interests of the province, the nation and the world will best be served by doing everything possible to leave the ownership of farm lands in the hands of family farm operators.

The Farm Bureau believes that any proposals which would place severe restrictions on farmers without full compensation for the altering of private property rights would be unacceptable. If there were to be extensive zoning by means of a planning authority, farmers would not only demand an adequate income assurance program but would also insist, and rightly so, on compensation for any loss of land rights. We understand that a land planning bill has been prepared for consideration by the next legislative session . It is not clear to us how this proposed legislation correlates with the work of this Committee.

In the matter of public ownership of farm land, the Farm Bureau is of the opinion that any move by the provincial government to intervene significantly in the land market must be tempered with great caution and should only be considered after careful study. The Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation has made a start towards public ownership with the purchase and leasing of more than one hundred and fifty parcels of land in 1974. This amounted to more than sixty thousand acres at an expenditure of approximately four and one half million dollars.

The Bureau suggests that consideration be given to recommending that the land pur chase and leasing program be separated from the credit repayment aspect of M. A. C. C. In this regard a careful study should be made of the advantages and disadvantages of the Saskatchewan Land Bank program. In addition to the controversy between private versus public ownership of farm land a great deal of concern and emotion has been generated in discus sions of "foreign" ownership, "non-farm corporate" ownership, "absentee" ownership, and/or "non- resident" ownership.

In our opinion, the term "foreign" ownership is being used with a wide variation in interpre tation. A number of purchases of farm land in Manitoba by non-C anadians have taken place in recent years. When these sales have been reported by word of mouth the details may have been somewhat distorted. However, these reports have invoked mixed feelings amongst rural people. As was ment ioned earlier, our met hods of recording land ownership do not readily lend themselves to a clear identific ation of how much foreign ownership there is in Manitoba.

While the amount of land presently held by owners who are citizens of countries outside Canada is only approximately 1% of our total farm lands, the rate at which purchases by such people appears to be increasing indicates a need for careful scrutiny. (It would appear that the data in the background paper did not take into consideration the sales of Manitoba farm land from one foreigner to another.) We do not want to imply that the purchase of land by foreigners who desire to migrate to Canada to become active farmers is undesirable. The problem is the purchase of land by foreigners for speculative purposes.

We feel it is unfortunate that in the Working Paper residents of Brandon and Winnipeg are grouped with other non-resident land owners and foreigners with the intimat ion that this is undesirable. The Manitoba Farm Bureau suggests that careful consideration be made of the advantages and disadvantages of such controls as the Saskatchewan Farm Ownership Act passed in 1974.

The Saskatchewan legislation places some restriction on the ownership of farm land by non- residents of Saskatchewan, but does not prevent such non-residents from buying land in Saskatchewan providing they intend to become residents of the province within three years of purchase. A synthesis of this legislation is appended to this submission. Information on the amount of farm land owned by non-farm corporations in Manitoba is not known. However, the success record of non-farm corporate endeavou rs in farming in Canada has not been impre ssive.

The Farm Bureau suggests that more information be secured on the non-farm corporate ownership of land in Manitoba and that the situation be closely monitored in order that we may be aware of the development of serious problems in this area.

January 20, 1975 11 (MR. PARKER cont'

d) In

Chapter IV of the Department of Agriculture's Working Paper some attempt is made to develop the argument for the advantages of smaller farms. The

interpretation of the data is, to say the least, misleading. Farms with less than 70 acres, with high returns per acre, are obviously highly specialized units. If the author's reasoning were followed to the ultimate we should divide Manitoba's 19 million acres presently in farming into 6-1/3 million, 3 acre lots, all involved in highly specialized, intensive food producing operations. The potential market for this type of production has been totally ignored. Further, if you consider improved acres, the returns per acre actually increase beyond 1, 600 acres.

The observation that as farms grow larger in size a less intensive use is made of the land is not valid for the size of farms included in the data. We do not believe that statistics such as these should be used in an attempt to develop a case on farm size because there are so many variables to be considered. In

Chapter IV of the Department of Agriculture's Working Paper it is suggested that under some circumstances renting and rental arrangements are very unsatisfactory. We do not necessarily believe this to be the case. In fact, the renting of a part of the land for farming operations has been a good arrangement for many operators and in turn has kept a great deal of local, private capital in farming industry. However, we believe that the tradi tional crop share style of agreement has outlived its usefulness.

Many other countries have given attention to the development of a variety of alternative rental agreements to cover all situations and to best serve the parties involved. We respectfully suggest that this informa tion on alternative comprehensive agreements, including long term agreements, be secured, adapted to Manitoba conditions and made available to all interested parties. In recent years improvements have been made in the Crown Land Leasing program. Detailed proposed additional recommendations will be presented by beef producers at later hearings of this Committee.

Increased amounts of capital are required to establish farms which are viable, economic units. This is true whether land and equipment are purchased, rented or leased. A part of the reason for this situation is that over the past two decades competing credit agencies have on some occasions made too much credit available thus driving up land prices and capitaliza tion requirements. All of this makes it much more difficult for someone to begin a farm operation. The position is frequently advanced that anyone should be able to start farming any time he wishes. We are unable to accept this position.

Such a situation does not apply in any other business and there is no logical reason why it should apply in agriculture. At this time a group of very important proposed amendments to the Farm Credit Corporation Act which will facilitate inter-generational transfers of farms is before Parliament. These amendments will be of particular assistance to young persons who wish to become farm operators. The Farm Bureau recommends that further amendments are required in the Estate Tax Act and the Revenue Tax Act to permit transfers within a family without capital gains.

In the Manitoba Department of Agriculture's Working Paper (p78-79) the assumptions contained in the three examples of alternate forms of farm tenure are obviously presented in a manner designed to support an argument for government ownership of farm land. Regret fully, in the first example no effort is made to show the capital assets which are accumulated. In the third example, the costs of capital to acquire the land are not included.

We oppose the exclusion of the capital costs because of the implications for a "cheap food policy", although a case might be made for this position if it is an attempt to maintain our competitive position in international markets. The information contained in Appendix "A" of the Working Paper provides an adequate rendering of measures taken in other jurisdictions to control the use and ownership of land. However, the Bureau has some concern that Appendix "A" does not contain a sufficient overview of the total situation from which these measures were evolved.

We would refer the members of the Committee again to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture's documentation for a more complete description of some of the circumstances involved. We raise this point because we feel it is very important that policy decisions taken relative to issues of the importance of land use and ownership be made from a clear and comprehensive understanding of the total situation.

12 January 20, 1975 (MR. PARKER cont•

d) In !t consideration of land use policy the matter of property taxes on farm land must be considered. The basic position of farmers is that "services to property" should be charged to property but that "services to people" should be raised in some other manner. It is our under standing that with the land zoning, ownership and farm income legislation implemented in British Columbia the government is in the process of exempting most farm land from taxation. The provincial government of Manitoba has implemented the Property Tax Credit Plan and the Cost of Living Tax Credit Plan.

However, these plans have not produced significant relief to most farmers. A very major part of rural property taxes raised for local education costs are now paid by farm land and businesses. In those communities that are primarily agricultural farmers pay most of the business tax indirectly. Therefore, the major part of the municipal tax. load is being carried by farmers. The Manitoba Farm Bureau suggests that some further thought be given to lightening the tax load on farm land.

We agree with the Working Paper that purchases of land by foreigners, primarily for speculative purposes, at higher prices will increase assessments and in turn property taxes. We respectfully suggest that significant intervention by the government in land purchases could have the same effect. In conclusion, we would like to re-emphasize the importance of providing adequate oppor tunity for people to be involved in the process of reaching those decisions on land policy which may significantly affect them.

With this in mind the Manitoba Farm Bureau strongly reiterates the suggestion that this Committee recommend the establishment of a Commission on land use and ownership with sufficient resources and time to effectively inform and consult all interested parties. We appreciate having the opportunity of presenting our views to your Committee, and if we can be of further assistance to the Committee, we trust that you will consult with us. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Iarker. I have one person on the list to ask questions. Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Parker, under the program that you referred to that's presently in effect whereby the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Union can purchase land, I take it that the only purchases that they can make are when somebody wishes to sell parts of land that they have no expropriation powers ? MR. PARKER: They have no expropriation powers other than the normal expropriation powers that government has, I presume. MR. GREEN: But the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation has no expropriation powers that you are aware of? MR. PARKER: Right. MR. GREEN: Or that I am aware of. MR. PARKER: Right. MR.

GREEN: So that any land that they have purchased would be because a farmer wanted to sell his land to the Manitoba Agricultural Credit. MR. PARKER: And a farmer will normally sell land to the highest bidder. MR. GREEN: Well in any event the farmer who sells land to the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation is a willing vendor to a willing purchaser. Is that correct? MR. PARKER: Right. MR. GREEN: You haven't heard of any Manitoba Government expropriation of farm lands for the purpose of removing them from one farmer and giving them to another? MR. PARKER: No. MR.

GREEN: Nothing of that nature has come to your knowledge? MR. PARKER: Not that we're aware of. MR. GREEN: So that when you say in your paper that you agree that private ownership of land as being the most desirable method of assuring the right to decide what will be done with their land, including the disposition of it, would you include in the words "including the disposition of it" the sale of it to the public if they wish? Or would you say that a farmer should not have that right? MR.

PARKER: No, we think the farmer, and we say it in the paper, that the farmer should have the right to dispose of his land as he so wishes. I think it's pretty clear. MR. GREEN: Including to the public? MR. PARKER: You added those words, I didn't. We say he should .. .

January 20, 1975 MR. GREEN: Well then I want to know whether you would exclude those words, that a farm er can sell to anybody except the public? MR. PARKER: No, no. MR. GREEN: And despite the fact that I have added them, you agree with them? MR . PARKER: Yes, I think that's correct. MR . GREEN: Well I' m glad that I did not add anything that you did not agree to.

Now I would like to know whether there is any suggestion anywhere in this document, 13 which has been referred to as a White Paper or Working Paper, whether there are any suggestions of proposals which would place severe restrictions on farmers without full com pensation. "For the altering of private property rights would be unacceptable?" What are you referring to ? I mean is there something that you know of that you are concerned with in this respect ? MR . PARKER: I might ask, Mr. Chairman, can I bring our other Vice-President in on this discussion if it's agreeable to the committee ? MR .

CHAIRMAN: I believe the committee is agreeable. MR . GREEN: Do you want to take a crack at that one, Ed ? MR . KLA SSEN: Yes. When you reduce the number of buyers . MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you please identify yourself. MR. KLASSEN: My name is Ed Klassen, the second Vice-President of the Manitoba Farm Bureau. MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Klassen. MR . KLASSEN: I'd like to reply to Mr.

Green, that if you reduce the number of buyers then you also depress the price of that land, and I could cite many examples at the turn of the decade when the non-resident buyer was not there and many people were locked into poverty, people that had reached retirement age could not sell their land at a realistic price and were obliged to remain on that land and could not retire in dignity, especially on small lots of land. This represents their retirement equity, they need this money and they need to sell on an open market if they have to go into town and buy at an open market. This is what we mean here. MR .

GREEN: So what you're saying is that ideally or preferably there should be no reduction in the number of buyers because that would reduce the price of the land, and ideally that there should be more buyers because that would increase the price of the land? MR. KLASSEN: This is correct. MR . GREEN: So would you then agree that the government and foreigners and every body else should be in the market buying land to increase the price of the land? MR.

KLA SSEN: I think we have stated that very explicitly in our presentation that we should look at the Saskatchewan Land Commission and this is what they' re doing, so we have no quarrel with you on that at all. MR . GREEN: Do you have any concern for the person who wishes to become a farmer, rather than the person who is a farmer and is selling his land? MR. KLASSEN: Yes, we certainly do, and we also recommend the government on the program that they do have presently in facilitating the entry of worthy aspiring farmers to the program that you're engaged in or undertaking at this time. MR.

GREEN: But I gather from your earlier remarks that you wanted the price of land to increase to provide an equity for the existing farmer? MR . KLA SSEN: Well we believe in a free market. MR. GREEN: But I think you've also said that you would like the price of land to be low for a person who wanted to come into farming? MR. KLA SSEN: I didn't say that. MR . GREEN: Oh, I think you said that you wanted him "assisted" to come into farming. MR. KLA SSEN: That's right. MR. GREEN: Well what assistance are you talking about ? MR .

KLA SSEN: Well, you have a lease agreement and he can come in under that lease agreement and I would like that option to buy to remain also in this program, and I' ve heard some rumours to the effect that this could be removed in the future and then you would have a move to more and more state ownership and the option to buy . MR . GREEN: Who has told you that that will be removed ? MR. KLA SSEN: I said it was a rumour. MR . GREEN: Oh, I see, it was a rumour.

14 January 20, 1975 (1\ffi. GREEN cont1d) I am really trying to determine from you whether you think that the price of land should be as speculative as possible so that it will go up by having the government as a buyer, the foreign owner as a buyer, the non-user resident of an urban area as a buyer of farm lands which he has no intention to go on, to increase the price to the existing farmer so that he will have a higher equity. How do you reco ncile that with a person wanting to get into farming and paying these types of prices? 1\ffi.

KLA SSEN: Okay, I'll hand it over to • . • I'd like to respond to this though that .. 1\ffi. GREEN: Wouldn't the public have to subsidize this new farmer? 1\ffi. KLASSEN: I have seen too often when the government intervenes, when the farmer experiences a boom period then the government intervenes and tries to suppress the price for the farmer, but he has to depend on his own in periods of depression, and this is the point I'm getting at. That if we' re going to be in a free market, let• s have it uniformly applied to all levels.

If we're going to have government intervention that also has to be applied uniformly. 1\ffi. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Parker. 1\ffi. PARKER: Your first question, Mr. Green, was in regard to compensa:tion. What in effect we were attempting to say there is in the area around Winnipeg or around Brandon or any large centre, if we go into zoning and you zone land out as agriculture which previously had a speculative value, then the landholder, in most cases the farmer, is going to look for some thing in the way of compensation. I think that's part of what we were trying to say.

Because in the interval, he's beEm paying increasingly higher land taxes in attempting to farm that land. Now if all of a sudden you come along and say no longer, this is zoned for something else ... 1\ffi. GREEN: But in the earlier part of your paper, Mr. Parker ... 1\ffi. PARKER: Now let me respond to one of your other questions and this is in regard to whether there is adequate sources of credit and what not, and we indicated in this paper that you should be aware of the new amendments coming forward in the Farm Credit Corporation legislation - amendments that are in the works in Ottawa now.

This does increase the limits for beginningfarmers under

Part Ill to 150, 000 from a hundred; it does make it possible that they can borrow up to 90 percent of the productive value of that land, and I think another amendment to it - I've forgotten at the present time time - but there are moves in that direction to make it possible for young people to get started into farming. 1\ffi. GREEN: Mr. Parker, I really have to pursue this now because I've heard so many complaints. Maybe the farmers who have complained to me have not been telling me the general situation, maybe been telling an individual situation. If land that used to sell for $50, 000 a

section • . • 1\ffi. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green, pardon me, would you speak into the mike please. 1\ffi. GREEN: ... was bid up by foreigners and the government and city residents and all of the people that you want in the market to provide the equity for the existing farmer to be able to retire, then let's say the land that was selling for $50, 000 a

section goes up to $150, 000 a

section and I don't think Pm being outrageous in my figure, then the new farmer, borrower or otherwise - and some of them, what they've complained of is that they have borrowed so much - that if they borrow $1 40, 000 which is - well it would be - 135 would be 90 percent of this 150 - and pay current interest rates at 10 percent, then they're going to have to pay $14, 500 in interest before they make anything, and some farmers have told me that that is their problem. Now maybe they have not told me the truth; or is that their problem? 1\ffi. PARKER: This depends on the individual, does it not? 1\ffi.

GREEN: But the one who you say the Credit Corporation is going to give 90 percent of the price of the land, which means that he is going to borrow $135, 000 to operate a piece of land that's now selling for 150, that sold for $50, 000 - that the farmer who bought it, who pre viously had it, had for 50, 000 and was farming it on the basis of that capital investment, he's going to have to operate it on a capital investment of $135, 000 and pay - you say it depends on the individual. Is that a problem for one or two farmers in the Province of Manitoba? 1\ffi. PARKER: Is precisely what a problem? 1\ffi.

GREEN: The fact that his capital investment in the land is so high and the amount that he has borrowed is so high that he can't make any money because of his debt. 1\ffi. PARKER: I have no question that it is a problem with some farmers and it will depend on their abilities as managers, I presume, on that farm. It also depends, does it not, on the current price levels on various commodities.

January 20, 1975 15 MR. ENNS: Depends on whether you are selling five dollar wheat, Sidney, or two dollar wheat, or . • . for thirty cents each. MR. CHAIRlVU\N: Order, Mr. Enns. MR. GREEN: But wouldn't the bidding up of the land to provide an equity to the owner, which you have referred to before, make that capital investment much higher? MR . PARKER: Yes, I think we made the point in the brief that we have some reserva tions on the foreign purchases of land, because we refer to what it does if they hold it for speculative reasons.

At the same time, I think the Bureau's position is quite emphatic that in no way should we totally exclude people from outside of Manitoba, whether they be from Ontario or from West Germany, from the purchase of land. The requirement is though, or we think it should be, is that they should actually become resident within a certain period of time and become operators of that land. I think that's the gist of what we're saying. MR. GREEN: You agree with Mr. Uskiw more than I do. MR . PARKER: I think I am very close to what Mr. Uskiw says on this one - not on everything, but on this one, Mr. Minister. MR .

GREEN: May I ask you this. You say that zoning interferes with the use of land, but you appear earlier in your brief to accept the fact that there is no such thing as complete freedom of land, and for instance, the Clean Environment Commission can and has, I suppose, not granted a license for a hog ranch--(Interjection)--and by the way - let me continue - a man prior to the Clean Environment Commission coming in could build that hog ranch. When that limitation came in that he had to get a license, there was no compensation paid to the owner even though a right of his was affected.

Now isn't that identical to zoning and isn' t that the same with every resident of Winnipeg, that before a zoning law, before a zoning law they could presumably build an abattoir on what would appear to be residential land; a zoning law came in, they couldn't do it. Would you say that everybody - and by the way no compensation was paid - would you say that every Winnipegger who was in that position, whose rights were res tricted because of zoning and planning should be compensated for what he no longer could do on that land ? MR.

PARKER: If an urban centre grows out around the farmer who has already been in business and land eventually is zoned for urban development, then we think there should be compensation. But the point we're trying to make in the brief is we'll agree with zoning legis lation but, top priority - and it's made in the background paper that, you know, agricultural land is limited, not just in Manitoba but across the world, and it's high time that the public recognized the fact that arable land is finite.

So any land use policy, any land use commission or what have you, should be well represented by agricultural people and agriculture better have top priority. I don't know whether I've made the point effectively but this certainly is what we're trying to say in the documentation. MR . GREEN: The point that you've made to me is that now that there is a different government you would prefer that this be administered by somebody else than the government. That's the point that you've made to me but I'm not going to pursue to it. I'll just pursue two questions and then I'll yield to the others.

One is that you say that there is a problem of the purchase of land by foreigners for speculative purposes. Now I would like to know what the difference is in the problem if my friend in North Dakota purchases a

section of land near Neepawa because he wants to hold it thinking that it will go up, and Sid Green in Winnipeg doing the same thing. Neither of us having any intention of ever going there. What is the difference? Why is one a problem and the other not a problem? MR . PARKER: Well the one difference is that any lease money goes to Sid Green who happens to live in Manitoba, so I think that's number one, I would prefer that to the money going outside of the country. MR. GREEN: Yes, but what if I spend it in North Dakota and the North Dakotan spends it in Manitoba? MR.

PARKER: Well I don't think anybody is going to tell anyone of us in this room how to spend our money. MR. GREEN: Right. So you have no assurance that I'm going to spend that money in Manitoba. MR . PARKER: That's true. The other thing, I think from the renter' s point of view, and I think I speak for the majority of farmers in the Province of Manitoba on this one, is that they would sooner lease land from a private individual than from any other agency.

16 January 20, 1975 MR . GREEN: I'm sorry, I didn't get that. MR . PARKER: I think that the majority of farmers would prefer to lease from private parties, because usually it's from the father, usually it's from the neighbour, and many of the people that show up as non-resident ownerships in this paper of course are retired farmers that happen to be living in Winnipeg or Brand on. I can't, you know, I can't give you quantities but I think that I am right on that statement. MR . GREEN: But you said that the farmer would prefer to lease from a private individual rather than . . . MR .

PARKER: Any government ..• MR . GREEN: That's fine. I really wan•t talking about that. I'm not sure, but I think he'd prefer to lease from whoever charges him the least rent. But the fact is that if the individual lives in North Dakota as against living in Winnipeg, wouldn't really his preference be the guy he gets along with better rather than the guy being in North Dakota or Winnipeg ? MR . PARKER: Yes, but if we carry that one to the limit, if we're leasing from private individuals, we've got a choice with who we• re going to lease from.

We have a great variety of leasehold agreements, and we make this point in here in the brief, I think, that some farmers, but unfortunately not all, are aware of the various kinds of lease agreements that are available and we make the point most emphatically that one thing, for example, the Department of Agriculture could do through the Extension Division is make this kind of infor mation more widely available. MR . GREEN: Mr. Parker, perhaps I've not properly made you understand the question. I'm referring to page 10 of the brief. MR . CHAffiMAN: Mr. Green, would you use the microphone please. MR .

GREEN: Referring to page 10 of the brief, "the problem is the purchase of the . MR. PARKER: What paragraph? MR . GREEN: The first paragraph, the last sentence in the first paragraph, you indicate that there is a problem in the purchase of land by foreigners for speculative purposes and I'm just wondering why it would be any better if it was purchased by me for speculative pur poses, or wouldn' t the sentence make exactly the same sense if it said "the problem is the purchase of land for speculative purposes." Or is there a difference ? MR. PARKER: Not really.

There's a lot of free money flying around - of course I'm thinking of the Arab money on this one, and I think you know, too, Mr. Green, that if they took a notion that they wanted to come into Manitoba and pay $1, 000 an acre for land, they could do so. I don't see that kind of money being offered by Manitobans. It's that kind of a thing . . MR . GREEN: Now, now, Mr. Parker, I understand that, but ten minutes ago you said that reducing the price of land by excluding a buyer is harming the farmer who wants to increase the equity in his land.

Now you say you want to . . . away that billion dollars of good grabbing, I mean bear money which is going to increase the price of his land and do out the farmer whose land you wanted to increase in value ten minutes ago. MR . PARKER: I'm not too sure I said precisely that, but, you and I will never settle the conflict between the guy who's buying and the guy who's selling. The man who• s selling if he has no son following on and has no real concern of what• s going to happen, I suppose will go after the highest price, eh? The guy who• s buying has another . . . MR .

GREEN: Well I guess that if you did not say what I attributed to you then I am wrong and your present answer changes, yes. MR . CHAffiMAN: Mr. Johnston. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Rl.rker, on page 9, paragraph 17, you express what I would call a non-opinion on the matter of public ownership of farmland. You say the Farm Bureau is of the opinion any move by the Provincial Government to intervene signifi cantly in the land market must be tempered with great caution and should only be considered after careful study.

Now does the Farm Bureau to date approve of the method in which the Manitoba Agricultural Corporation has purchased land to lease or rent or resell to other farmers. From what you know of the program to date, are you in favour of it or do you want it changed or do you not like it ? MR . PARKER: I think you're trying to put me on the spot, Mr. Johnston, but I will answer that question.

The thing that concerned us most about the MACC program was strictly a lack of information, a lack of knowledge of the regulations and how they would be applied and there was great misunderstanding I think around the province as to, you know, really how

January 20, 1975 17 (MR. PARKER cont•d) ••.•. this thing was supposed to work. This lack of communication has certainly been a concern with the farm community, and that is the prime concern. MR. G. JOHNSTON: In any of the land transactions that have taken place in this field, has there been competition for the land or has the government agency purchased land that no one was really interested in, or did they purchase land that other farmers in the area would have liked to have got a hold of? MR.

PARKER: I think I could identify one or two cases if I was pressed on that one, but I don' t think the Bureau is uptight on this one. I'l l give you one example if you wish. We know of one instance where father and son were farming this land and there was a tentative arrangement with a neighbour that the son, when the neighbour retired, could buy this piece of property. And in the midst of these negotiations the Land Lease Program became availa ble. It wasn' t fully understood. The MAC C ended up in buying the land at an advantag eous price that had been arranged between the two families and the son leased it.

He didn' t really unders tand that he would have to pay the higher of the two prices when he picked up the option to purchase. This is what I meallt when we said that the program wasn' t fully understood. Now I think a real effort has been made in recent months or weeks to get it understood and it' s most unfortunate that some of these cases occurred. MR . GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham, on a point of order. MR. GRAHAM: We have heard several repres entations or references made to agree ments with the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation.

Is it possi ble for this committee to obtain copies of the agreements of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation so we would be more familiar with the terms that are invo lved in those agreements? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well there was a question asked about getting the agreements of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corpora tion, if it would be possible that it be made available to the committee. MR. USKIW: I see no problem there. MR. CHAIRMAN: The form of the agreements is what you're referring to? Fine. Are there any other ques tions, Mr. Johnston, to Mr . Parker. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, through Mr.

Parker, if Mr. Omichinsk i is a mem ber of your delegation, he indicated that he would like to supply some information to the question I asked you. By leave of the Chair, Mr. Omichinski could answer that. MR. CHAIRMAN: I notice Mr. Omichinski wanted to get into this discussion. He has not indicated--are you p;:t.rt of the Farm Bureau ? MR. OMICHINSKI: Yes, I'm part of the delegation of the Farm Bureau. MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine, Mr. Omi�hins ki. MR. OMICffiNSKI: And I just wond ered if it was permissible for me to get into the argument ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I don' t know if we're getting into any arguments.

I think it is questions of clarification. Mr. Omichi nski. MR. OMICHINSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'll remember it. I think I would not want to get into discussion with Mr. Green because Mr. Green is very much more informed in law than I am, but actually what I am trying to get! by all the pros and cons of discussi ons you've had prior to this - I am a farmer but I feel--I would like to ask two questions . One is a comment probably and the other one's a question.

We're in an inflationary period and it' s not only - wheat' s worth probably $4. 82 a bushel, I think this is what averaged here this year, what happens within two years if our wheat goes down to $2. 00 a bushel and the land today is worth twice and probably three times as much as its productivity will be two years from now. Who' s going to bail the Manitoba Government out that purchases all this land ? It will be the taxpayer, nobody else. I think, gentlemen, you have to take your time and think about this and not rush into it.

I've just come back from the Province of Saskatchewan, we had a Western Agricultural Conference. Believe me, it was not as rosy there as you think it is. I kind of think this is one comment I would like to make. I suppose the Government of Manitoba knows what it's doing but I happen to be a taxpayer and I was just wondering if they do. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mr. Omic hinski, since you have asked a ques tion, I will ask you who will be called upon to bail the farmer out when that occurs ? Has not the taxpayer been called upon

18 January 20, 1975 (MR. GREE N cont'd) •...• on occasions when this has occurred, through cash advanc es on farm stored grain, through the acreage payments, through other forms of subsidized credit, been called upon to bail out the individual farmer ? MR. OMICHINSKI: I don't think the Manitoba Governmen t' s bailed the individual farmer out too much. Right now I think yes • . . MR. GREE N: But did the taxpayer have to do that ? MR. OMICHINSKI: No, not today. MR.

GREEN: I suggested that the farmer did ask for that, still does in many commodi ties, ask for and received - mind you he received it belatedly - a two-price system after the price went higher than the base price, he was then given it - but these kinds of things have been needed for the individual farmer in any event. MR. OMICHINSKI: My opinion is right now I think you should lea ve land at private enterprise, the same as it has been. Where it' s necessa ry, I believe the government should buy but should not be in competition with people. This is my opinion.

We're going to get our selves in a dilemma and I kind of think the taxpayer, yourselves, will have to bail us out. I'm a taxpayer and by God, we're the highest--r ight now we're paying the highest of any pro vince in Canada. Let's get down a little bit and be reali stic. This isn' t going to last forever. Jus t a comment ••. -- (Interjec tion: That' s not true) MR. : The highest medical premiums . MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an opinion. Mr . Parker, do you have any . MR. PARKER: No comment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw would like to direct a question to Mr. Omichi nski.

I felt that this would be rather out of order because we'r e getting away from the actual presen tation, but since we allowed it, Mr . Uskiw. you have a ques tion of Mr. Omichins ki? MR. USKIW: Yes. I think the gentleman makes a very good observation and that is what does happen two or three years down the roa d if in fact, as some people believe, that prices of farm commodities will come back to what they consider a more normal level, if that is the term, and people in the meantime have locked themselves into huge capital investments, that is the new people entering agriculture.

That' s a very valid question, a very important one which we are trying to address ourselves to. My question to you, Sir, is that given the free market as you prefer it to be, that situation will still be with us if indeed farm commodity prices drop. I would like to kniDw from you, Sir, what we should be doing, if the question of land owne rship is not one of the things that we should be dealing with as it relates to the pressu res on land valu es because of the inter vention of foreign buyers, what is the answer to the problem that you pose, Sir ? What should government be doing ? MR .

OMICHINSKI: I think land use is one of the most important problems we have right now, it' s not land own ership. I think land use is important and these are the ones that we should pursue and we should pursue that through the munic:ipal plruming which right ncrw is in effeot at the present time. I think more of that should be done. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr. Omichinski, the whole purp ose of the committee is on this very topic of land use. MR. OMICHINSKI: That' s right. But it was land purchase that got in here with Mr . Green. This is one of the reasons why I'm in here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr.

Johnston, have you finished ? MR. PARKER: May I respond to Mr. Uskiw' s question? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Th.rker. MR . PARKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think, Mr. Minister, this is one place where we made a plea for a thorough look at lease arrangements. What we're saying here is that there can be flexibility built into lease arrangements which many farmers are not aware of. I know of leases that have been written for five years or more and where the actual cash payment, you know, is negotiated each year depending on commodity values and what not.

What we're saying is that you can come up with leases that are fair to both parties, the owner and the lender, but there are many many farmers in the Province of Manitoba that haven' t had the kind of assis tance they need to develop this kind of a lease. That's one answ er. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR . USKIW: Are you implying, Mr. Parker, then that government should consider some sort of legis lation that would impose certain regulations on lease arrangements as

January 20, 1975 (MR. USKIW cont' d) .•... between government and the farmer, as between the private land owner and the lessee? 19 MR. PARKER: No, I didn't say anything at all about legislation. but public awareness - yes. MR. CHAffiMAN: Mr. Johnston, you may proceed with your questions. Sorry for the interruption. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Parker, one of your recommendations to this committee or to the government, I guess, is that the government establish a commission on land use and ownership with sufficient resources and time to effectively inform and consult all interested parties.

Are you satisfied that this legislative committee fulfils that function, or are you talking about after the government may or may not bring in new laws with respect to land use and la.nd ownership? Are you talking about the proceeding that we're at now or the stage we're at now in the proceedings? MR. PARKER: We doubt that this committee can really fill the role that we envisage.

We 'drew the parallel with what has been happening in Alberta and we've got some of the docu mentation that they have here. lt' s a massive amount of work that they've done ;and if I under stand it they have so far this winter, or will this winter, conduct eighty meetings around the province where there is, you know, farmer participation.

I could see a land use commission structured with a topnotch economist somewhere in there, probably as chairman, a municip3.l man and a prodllcer, and you might want to name one or two more, but it' s that kind of vehicle, I believe, that the Farm Bureau is talking about, taking at least a year and perhaps two years to come up with a rep:lrt and recommendation to government. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Enns. MR. HARRY ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Green at the outset so skillfully drew such a red herring across this whole discussion and I'm having trouble finding the trail. Nonetheless, Mr.

Parker, I read through your brief kind of a recurring emphasis that you have, or the Bureau has, with respect to land use. Is it a fair question to ask that the Bureau is more concerned, or at least is equally concerned with land use as to the question of land ownership? MR. PARKER: Yes, I think that's correct, Mr. Enns. MR.

ENNS: So that when yotl talk ahout placing agriculture a.t1d the whole qLiestion of the priority of food production in future land use determinations that your Bureau is asking, you know, either through means of the commission that you refer to, the proposed commission that you refer to, a pretty imp:lrtant input from the agricultural community on that. MR. PARKER: We emphasize that point very strongly. MR. ENNS: It' s your view that this commission would be instrumental in determining land use whether it be by the Crown, by municipalities or by private residents, private individuals?

I'm just drawing up a little list of all the things that, you know, the Crown uses land for, you know, recreation, wildlife, national parks, provincial parks, the various government departments, building of highways, drainage projects, hydro impoundments, all these things are done by Crown agencies. To some extent they'r e duplicated by municipali ties, and of course in some instances a private individual will also have a determination on the use of the land. This commission as you envisage it would have some powers of regula tion as to the final determination of this land use? MR.

PARKER: No, the commission that we suggest in here has no powers of regula tions, it' s just an investigatory commission with the power to make recommendations to government. That's as far as we went, I think, in the argument in the brief. This is what's going on in Alberta at the present time. MR. ENNS: The Bureau then doesn't concur with Mr. Green's suggestion that it's only because of this government that you have some concerns, but you would want that to hold true for any government, of whatever . • . ? MR. PARKER: Absolutely. MR. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Parker. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGEN SON: Mr.

Chairman, I have another question ... I wanted to deal with two positions that you take in your brief and you were questioned at some length by Mr. Green on them. One of them is the question of bidders on farmland. You made the statement, and

20 January 20, 1975 (MR. JORGEN SON cont'd) .•..• I don' t disagree with it, that the more bidders there are the better price there is likely to be for the product to be sold. But do you make a distinction between a person who is bidding with his own money or money that he has borrowed and is going to have to pay interest on, and a government that is using somebody el se' s money, the taxpayer's money. Is there not some inequality between those two types of bidders for farmlan ds ? MR.

PARKER: I could very easily answer, I suppose, yes, there is a difference; it depends entirely on what government 's intentions are. If government intends to be fully com petitive and they want to pay $5. 00 an acre more I presume that they can go and do it; but I have to be fair, it depends entirely on how you go about it. MR. JO RGENSON: But does that not place the other bidders, the people who are com peting for that farmland as farmers themselves and private individu als, does not that place them in somewhat of a disadvantage ? MR. PARKER: It would appear that way.

You know, I refer back to the FCC loan limits, we're always going to be looking at a limit in the amount of money we can borrow. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Parker, you mention farmland being bought by speculators, and this was touched on by Mr. Omichinski. Do you believe that farmland prices are going to con tinue to rise ? MR. PARKER: Well if we think back on this one a minute, farmland prices rose pretty rapidly in the mid sixties, when grain movement tightened up, they fell pretty dramatically in 1969, 1970, and now we're right back up or maybe somewhat higher.

It really depends, does it not, on how freely grain and ess entially grain moves out of Western Canada, and at what price ? MR. JORGENSON: Yes. MR. PARKER: Okay, so I have to come back to that one . We're in a very precarious position on a global basis on grain. The latest reports indicate that we'll be four million tons short on wheat in the 1975 year. However, we can' t just jump to conclusions that that means we are going to see $5. 00 wheat for the next five or ten years. Can buying countries afford to pay? Probably it depends how much money the Ar abs put up.

You know, there's too many variables in this thing for me really to answer the question. MR. JORGENSON: Yes, but the point I want to make, Mr. Parker, is that a person that is buying the land today and speculating, as some people think they're doing, there is no guarantee that that person is going to sell that land for more than he paid for it. There is a good possibility that he could lose money by that very speculation as welL MR. PARKER: There is cer tainly no guarantee in a short run. MR. JORGENSON: That's right.

Al though the governments have guaranteed under the terms of their agreement that they don' t lose any money, which is unlike the private speculator or the private buyer. A MEM BER: A better businessman. MR. JORGENSON: A better busines sman, yes. I could be a good business man, too, on somebody el se' s money if I didn' t have to worry about where I got it from. Mr. Chairman, though, I wanted to come back to the ques tion of the additional zones which is the one that you mentioned about compensation.

You were talking about areas close to the City of Winnipeg, or to urban areas that are expanding, where the city does have con trol of development in those areas and yet that land is, at the present time, being used for agricultural purposes. The difficulty as I see it - and I want you to correct me if I'm wrong - is that under the present policy land taxes in those areas and asses sment is based primarily on what the price of the most recent parcel of land was sold for.

That means that in many ins tances people who have land just on the periphery of the city who are still under the control of land zoning of the City of Winnipeg find themselves in the position where the municipal government has decreed that no development will be taking place in that area, but people who hav e farmland in that area are going to have to pay taxes which are assessed at the value of the last parcel of land that was sold there and it might have been a piece of land sold for speculat ive purposes. How can a farmer continue to farm under those circumstances?

What you are suggesting, are you not, is that compensation for the additional taxes that he mu st pay as a result of this kind of an asses sing practise should be made in the event that that land is permanently zoned as agri cul tural land ?

January 20, 1975 21 MR . PARKER: Yes, that' s the whole point of the issue. These people have continued to pay the rising taxes because they thought at some day they would have the chance to sell this land. Now if we adopt the position that this land should be frozen into agriculture - we're not saying whether it should or it shouldn' t but we make the point that land is limited - if all of a sudden you do freeze it in, then compensation should be made. MR .

JORGE NSO N: And in the meantime that farmer has been paying taxes far in excess of what he would normally be pa ying if it was agricultural land outside of the jurisdict ion of the City of Winnipeg. That is a situation that is created by government, is it not, and one that should be resolved by government ... ? MR . PARKER: I don' t know who created it but I know that we're paying the taxes. l\ffi. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bostrom. Mr. Jorgenson, are you finished ? MR . JORGENSON: No, that's all. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bostrom. MR . HARVEY BOSTROM: Yes, Mr .

Parker, you mentioned that one of your main con cerns is that of land use. However, in your brief you attempt to discount the argument that non- resident ownership of farmlan d is a problem. I'm wondering how you reconcile those two considering the fact that non-resi dent, non-farm owners may tend to take ·farmland out of pro duction. they may tend to make use of it in the ways that you mention on page 2 in your brief to a greater extent.

For example, recreation; the advent of the snowmobile has made snow mobiling such a popular sport that people may tend to take land out of agricultural use for that recreational purpose. They may also take it out for larger personal retreats of 20, 50 acres as you mentioned, or just simply wildlife habitats. Do you not see that trend towards non resident own ership, non-farm own ership as being a problem with respect to land use? MR.

PARKER: Well we've always got the conflict of intere st as to how the land should be used so this is why we raise the issue of land use and we think some priorities should be set and that the farm community should be involved. Whether you draw distinction between. you know, overseas own ership, ownership from the City of Winnipeg or not, I'm not so--w ell let' s put it this way; we make the point in the brief that we are concerned about foreign pur chases to the extent that if they buy that land they better become resident in the Province of Manitoba. We've gone that far..

I don' t know whether I can add anything more to that, Mr. Bostrom. I would refer you to the Sas katchewan situation where anybody can buy Saskatchewan land yet, but within three years they have to become resident. I think that's the regulation. Or resell. MR . BOSTROM: My question is is that sufficient protection for the consumer who requires food production at the maximum and the cheapest possible price. Are we looking at a situation where more and more of our agricul tural land will be taken out of production because of the trend towards non- resident own ership.

Are you saying that you don' t see this as a problem ? MR . PARKER: You raise a very interes ting point. If the saw-off, you know, is--if by government ownership of land that the farm community is going to farm, if the saw- off on that one is a cheap food policy then we start to back away pretty fast, you know. You raised it, I didn' t. MR .

BOSTROM: What I meant to say really is that the maximum agricultural land in the province should be put into full agricul tural production, and I think you would agree with that, but the non-resi dent owne rship of that farmland could tend towards taking it out of production. in whi ch case it would tend to very greatly increase the price of food to the consumer because there is less food on the market simply because there is less agricultural land in production. MR . PARKER: But not necessa rily so.

If it goes under concrete, it's out; if it's used for wildlife habitat, or recreation purposes for the next ten years, it could still be brought back into agriculture. It depends entirely on how it is used. MR . BOSTROM: You make the point that zoning could possibly be one method of deter mining how land is use d but that cannot be used in telling somebody how they can use their land. If somebody wants to take it out of farming he can, can he not , even if you have it zoned for one use or the other ? MR . PARKER: I'm not sure that I can answer the ques tion directly. MR .

BOSTROM: If someone doesn' t want to farm that land, he is not required to farm it?

22 January 20, 1975 MR . CHAffiMAN: Mr . Klassen. MR . KLASSEN: Yes, I'd like to respond to this in part at least. We have made reference to this in our brief, we're concerned about urban sprawl. This is where I think the problem that you are enunciating takes place. Out in the area where I live, further out, 40, 50 miles out of Winnipeg, this would be no problem, because if you're paying $200. 00 an acre for land, you will make sure it's productive . It has to have return on inve stment.

But there's another point that I picked up in your comments and represents the consumer viewpoint ; that we want to produce to the maximum of our capability in the interests of cheaper food for the consumer. This is a thing that I believe really scares the farmer; this is why we insist on it that we be managers of our own industry because of the preponderance of political power of consumers in Canada where farmers are outnumbered 20 to 1 and where decisions if they're made by the government are made on the basis of political expediency to the advantage of the consumer.

I know too many farmers who had to produce cheap food for the consumer and had to commute back and forth to Winn ipeg in a job to make a livelihood for themselves and I' d hate to see the day come back where we had to do this again. We are now getting more remunerative prices for our products but it's not due to govern ment policy, it's due to a product inventory shortage or a balance, a delicate balanc e, and this is why the prices went up. And I daresay that if there's a bit of a surplus then we'll go back again to this cheap food policy because of the political weight of the consumer.

And over a long term inter est, it is also to the advantage of the consumer that the farmer be paid remu nerative prices , because we all know that we've had some real difficulty in attracting young people into the farming industry. So this has to be taken into account. I really resent that term "cheap food for the consumer" because I've experienced too much of this. MR.

BOSTROM: Well my concern in that respect is that given that we have a province of 13 6 million acres and only 19 of which is possible for food production and we are in a situa tion in the world today of a food hungry world that I' m sure the farmers would share the con cern of consumers across the world that all of that land be kept in production as much as pos sible .

And the trend towards non- resident owner ship of that land could in fact mitigate again st that, it could in fact be bringing land out of production which ordinarily should be in production, in full production to produce food for a hungry world. If a policy can be maintained where all of the prime agricultural land is in production, it's in the best interests of all invo lved, I'm sure you'll agree. MR .

KLASSEN : Yes, I would reiterate though that any non- resident owner would be very in teres ted on return on investment, it has to provide a reaso nable return on investment, and in the area that I live in at least it would exclusi vely be used for food production, I feel. MR. CHAffiMAN: Mr. Parker. MR . PARKER: I would add one point, Mr. Bostrom. You mentioned a figure of 19 mil lion acres. We kind of wonder about that figure. We think the arable acreage is considerably higher in Manitoba and we think it's closer to 30 million according to the Canada land inventor y figures .

But that makes one point that, you know, this thing is so complicated and this com mittee is going to have so much difficulty in getting all of the facts on any one of these issues in front of them that we go back and say we think it should be a commission that works for a year or perhaps two years. MR . BOSTROM: Che further point, one further question. I note that in your brief you make mention of speculation as being a problem, and particularly I think your main concern is with foreign speculation.

However, I was a bit disappointed that nothing was mentioned on th� kinds of figures that were presented in the working paper; however, I accept your argu ment that you never had really time to peruse it. But do you not recognize just from the figures presented there that the non- resident inclusion in the market in such a massive way particularly in the last 30 months has been quite a large factor in producing higher prices on the farm?

If you just look at the report - in 1972 local purchases were $43. 00 an acre, they went up in '7 3 to $75. 00 an acre - local purchase that is - and in 1974 the same local purchases were up to $87. 00 an acre. Now there was something putting press ure on the local purchases. I would suggest that to a certain extent the non-resident and foreign inclusion in the markets did drive that price up. In 1972 the non- resi dent purchases were in the average price of $55. 00 an acre; in '73 they were $79. 00 an acre, and in 1974 they were $10 8. 00 an acre. MR . JORGENSON: In 1969 you couldn' t even give a farm away.

January 20, 1975 23 MR . BOSTROM: In the same period you mention in your brief and the only real figures that you've used .•• MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. MR. BOSTROM: ..• was with respect to government purchasing of property. You make the point that 150 parcels of land in 1974 were purchased and it amounted to approximately 60 thousand acres. Just doing some fast figuring on that, that wor ks out to be around, in the seventies of dollars an acre, somewhere in there, which is at least $30. 00 less than the non res ident price, the non- resident people were paying for the land in the marketplace.

So that do you not recognize from this that it is not the government MACC involvement in purchasing property that's driving up the price but rather the non- resident inclusion in the marketplace - the non- resident push that's driving up the price ? lVffi. PARKER: Mr. Bos trom, it' s a sum total of all ; and probably the main factor has been the increase in commodity prices. I personally am renting land and have bought some land myself. I have to compete with my neighbours in both those cases, and up till now my neighbours have been local people and not foreign purchasers.

Now if I went 20 miles away to Brunkild and Sanford this is where many of your West German people have been coming in. It' s very hard to pin down how much effect the foreign purchasers have had - what is the total ? - one percent or some figure thereabout - but I don' t think we can establi sh trends on the basis of, you know, one year or a year and a half or two years. We are concerned, and we said so in the brief. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR . USKIW: Yes. I wonder, Mr.

Parker, whether you would indicate to the committee whether or not you feel there should be legisl ative provision to determine the use, the owne r ship of land, and what are the motivations behind your organization in wanting, if you do want, such a policy enshrined in legislati on? What are the problems that you see with respect to the present situation, if we could define those in particular, and let' s deal with the own ership side for the moment, then I would follow with another ques tion or two. MR . PARKER: Well the thing that we are watching is what happened in B.

C. , what has happened in Sas katchewan, what is about to happen in Quebec . If Mani toba is left as the isla nd with, you know, no restrictions at all, you could probably foresee a situation some years down the road where foreign money will flood in. MR. USKIW: What is wrong with that is what I want you to tell me . What do you see wrong wit h the fact that somebody in Germany or England or Aust ralia is going to buy up a chunk of Manitoba - what. would be wrong with that ? MR . PARKER: Nothing if they are going to come here and farm it. And I want to make that point most emphatically.

But if they are simply inve sting in it then we are reluctant to see all the money going out of the country. That's one point. And the fact that there is free money floating around in the world today, we know what this could mean. And not ju st for farmland in Can ada but for any indus try here or on this continent for that matter, eh? MR. USKIW: But what are the negative effects of that kind of competition for land, as you see them. What is wrong locally within the area where land is being bought up, what prob lem is created ? MR . PARKER: Let me tackle that one from a global basis, if I may first.

The OPEC countries have been throwing their weight around in the case of oil. One thing that we have - and I don' t know the right word to use - to bargain with, is food. Now we better be aware of where that money is likely to go. And I re-emphasize, if other provinces in Canada are bringing in some kind of restrictions we better be aware of wha t's going on, but more impor tantly, let' s not jump before the farm community is fully clued in and has had time to react. Because I don' t care what you do as a government, we feel you' ll be in trouble unless it' s thoroughly discussed first. MR .

USKIW: No, but - again to get back to my question. What do you see wrong in the idea of outsiders buying up half of Manitoba, a quarter of it, an eighth of it, a tenth of it, what are the negative implications, or are there any in your mind, or in the min9 of the organiza- tion which you represent ? · MR . PARKER: All the rental money goes out of Manitoba, for one thing. #�;: :.·�t�� ·,� � ._,,;.

24 January 20, J.975 MR. KLASSEN: Maybe I should respond to this question because in the area in which I farm I am surrounded by farmland that has been sold to foreigners. Some of these have come in and are residing on these farms and are going to school with my children where they are lea rning the English language. Some of them we do not know exactly who the owners are.

On the short term interests I don' t really see any disadvantages because they are buying this land at about 200, 225 dollars an acre and leasing it back at 15 and even down to 13 dollars an acre, I have seen some contracts, so it' s really not a very lucrat ive type of investment, as your Paper states that the return on investment is but 1. 5 percent if you go back right up to 1949, I believe it is, so really it' s not a very lucrat ive proposition. I think it's sort of a hypothetical question because I feel it is beginning to taper off.

Some offers were made earlier in winter and they have come back with offers much lower, so the intere st is waning from out side interests, because the cost of production is going up, and also because the price has been firming up. So again the market seems to sort out these things on its own.

But over the long term, I think Lorne has stated this very emphatically, that we are concerned because we are in a very unique situation - there's a huge transfer of money into the OPEC countries and we conceivably see that there could be large scale purchases made, and surely the governm ent would have to intervene in this. MR . USKIW: Well why, I mean, that's what I'm looking for, why should we intervene, why do you want us to in tervene ? MR . KLASSEN: We don' t want a large part of Manitoba to be owned by foreigners, non resid ent foreigners. I think this is ... MR .

US KIW: What would be wrong with that - outside of the fact that money would flow out of the country ? What would be wrong with that in terms of the person that leases that land from that absentee owner, what is wrong with him leasing from an absentee own er ? MR . KLASSEN: Well for one thing, there is no security of tenure. If the prices that we are experiencing now are maint ained then, you know, again it' s a hypothetical ques tion just as to what the future is . But I can see that we could have a repeat of history.

In the 1920s large tracts of land were sold in my area also to Americans and they, as I say, to use the expressio n, "lost their shirt on it" and it was sold back to local people for taxes. So we have this infusion of money and eventually it' s bought back at bargain prices by local people ; so this could again happen.

I think that it should be properly resea rched, I think our main concern is that we don't overreact, don't bring in legislation that is over- restrictive at this time, because it hasn' t been properly researched; your paper its elf indicates it is only one percent, a little over one percent is involved here. This is, I think, our position. MR . USKIW: We' re dealing with a principle here, Mr . Klassen, the principle of an absentee owner, and whether the effects of absentee ownership are good or bad on the com munity as a whole. That' s what we are trying to determine . MR .

KLASSEN: Well when you use the word "absentee owne rs" then you're taking in the people, I assume, from Brandon and Winni peg and there I have different views. MR. USKIW: That' s my point. What is the difference on the community or on the individual who leases from an absentee owner, as to whether his landlord lives in Winni peg or in Germany ? To him, what is the difference ? MR . KLASSEN: I think Lorne explained this. The money remains in Man itoba, this is one difference. MR .

US KIW: That's the difference to Manitoba, but what is the difference to the com munity where there is an aw ful lot of land being leased, or to the individual involved in the contract ? MR . KLASSEN: Well one difference again is that - you know we are very concerned about the depopulation taking place in the rural areas and although - economics again dictate the size of farms, but when it is owned by huge corporations they can afford to take their losses for a number of years where an individual farmer could not.

I think we agree with your Paper on this respect, that we also are very reluctant to see this depopulation, this out migration from the rural areas. It is hurting the communities, but I don' t know what the answer to that is because it seems to be dictated by economics and I don' t think that we can legislate people. You speak about the "s tay option", but a lot of older people had to stay there, they are locked into poverty when there are no buyers there to buy the land ;1�) stated before. This concerns me also.

So I think you have to take into consideration both the buyer and the seller in developing a land policy.

January 20 , 1975 25 MR . USKIW: So your main point then is the lack of sec urity of tenure as far as the lessee is concerned - as I read your comments ? MR . KLASSEN : This is one of the concerns. MR .

USKIW: That does then indicate that you have a preference for local controL That though does not remove the point that we tried to make earlier, and that is that therefore if you legislate don' t you have to legislate uniformly so that you don' t have a difference of approach as between the absentee owner who happens to be a citizen of Manitoba versus the absentee owner who does not happen to be a citizen of Manitoba. The effects on the community are the same. MR. KLASSEN: I like this term "uniformly" .

I am afraid, again, that a double stan- dard might be applied, that we may have one legislation that pertains to rural areas and another for the urban areas and I wonder how much foreign purchases are being undertaken in the urban areas. I would like to see a uniform standard applied all across the province. MR. CHAIRMAN : Mr. Henderson . MR. HENDERSON: Yes, I would like to ask Mr.

Parker, in connection with absentee ownership if he doesn' t feel that it's better for people in Winni peg or Brandon or any other village, to own the property and to lease it to a farmer rather than the Arabs, shall we say; and on the other hand, do you not think it is fairer to the taxpayers that if this man in Winnipeg or Brandon is speculating on land and the price drops, he loses it, and nobody suffers, but if Manitoba Farm Credit go into the purchasing the way they are doing now that it' s the taxpayers of all Manitoba that have to subsidi ze those high prices ? MR.

PARKER: I think we made the point before that we had no real obj ections to people in Met ro Winnipeg or Brandon owning land, and we gave our reasons for it. I have to keep coming back to the lease itself. How aware is the farm community about all the provisions that should be in lea ses . It really doesn' t matter whether you are dealing with your neig hbour, somebody in Winnipeg or if it happens to be a foreign owner, it would apply to the foreign owner too. It' s the detail of lea se. Many leases, as you know, have an option to purchase.

If you are dealing with a neighbour or you 1re dealing with Dad who moved to town. What other questions did you have, Mr. Henderson. MR . HENDERSON : Well I'm trying to make a point. Like where the Manitoba Farm Credit will purchase land for $200 an acre and then land values drop, suppose they drop dras tic ally ; they have the option of selling it back to the person at the assessment of the day or else whatever they put into it plus interest costs and all the rest. Which means that the government it self is going to lose a lot of money and that this is going to be paid by the tax payers . MR .

PARKER: No, not really, because the way I read the regulations now, the MACC has to recover the higher of the two figures, there is no indication that the price will be dropped. If prices drop well then land would stay with MAC C. MR . HENDERSON: Yes, and in that case the taxpayers of Manitoba would be paying an excessive amount of interest rate to somebody, whoever they get their money from, and they don' t get it for five percent. MR . CHAIRMA N: Mr. Walding. MR . WALDING: Mr.

Parker, on page 5 you say the Bureau is of the opinion that a great deal more information must be ass embled regarding the extent of foreign ownership, etc. You say that other provinces have recognized this deficiency and have taken steps to record the citizenship, etc. Does the Bureau have any recommendation as to how citizenship would be determined when ownership was with a corporation rather than an individual ? MR . PARKER: I don' t know how to answer that one.

If you're talking about corpora tions, I think the Bureau would probably after thinking about it awhile come up and say that we think at least 60% or 65%, or some such figure, should at least be resident and probably active farmers as shareholders in that corporation . And please don' t pin me down to the figure, because I don' t think that' s one that we have reall y debated . But it would be that type of a stipulation; that a certain percent age should be resident and should be active farmers . I might draw your attention to what they did in B. C. In B.

C. they passed a Land Regis try Act in June of 197 4, which I think says that citizenship has to be declared before you get Title. And there is similar legislation in Alberta that was passed in 19 74, called the Land Titles Amendment Act . I have not read them thoroughly, but that' s the intent of those pieces of legislation.

26 January 20, 1975 MR. WALDING: We hear, for example, that a great deal of the raw land in the Winnipeg area is owned through various holding companies by a Belgian company. I wonder if the Bureau would have any feelings on that, as to whether that would constitute local own ership or foreign ownership. MR . PARKER: You are taking us a li ttle bit out of our field, I'm not prepared to com ment on that one. MR. WALDING: I see. Thank you. On page 7 you say that associated with private ownership is the widely held myth that a person can use his land in any way he pleases.

But later on on the same page you say that owner ship invo lves the granting of a bundle of rights from a State and such rights may be altered from time to time by the State. Would you agree with me that the government doesn' t confer any rights on anybody, that the rights go with the ownership of that land subject to such curtailments as have been put in place by various levels of government ? MR . PARKER: I think that' s right. The key ques tion here, of course, is what curtail ment. MR . WALDING: Well you mention various things here about the Clean Envi ronment Commiss ion and weeds and zoning and . . . MR .

PARKER: Yes, we have a Weed Control Act and of course it was actually the farmers who put pressure on government to get that legislation. We had to have it. MR . WALDING: But the fact is that the gove rnment takes away rights from people, it doesn' t give rights to the farmers or anybody else. But I take it from what you said that the Bureau is prepared to agree to a further rest riction of a farmer's rights in to whom he may or may not sell his land. MR . PARKER: Depending on what those res trictions are and after they are thoroughly discussed. MR . WALDING: Very good.

On page 14 where you comment on the burden of taxation by farmers and you suggest that some further thought be given to lightening the tax load, has the Bureau any sugges tions to municipalities as to how they might replace tax revenues lost by lightening the tax load on farmers ? MR . PARKER: It's most unfortunate that our Preside nt, Mr. Bert Hall, is not here this morning, because that's his field of expertise, certainly not mine. I wond er, would you allow me to ask our Executive Secretary to comment on this one - Mr. Bob Douglas ? MR . WALDING: By all means . MR .

CHAIRMAN : Would you please identify yourself so we'll have it for the transcript. MR. BOB DOUGLAS: Bob Douglas, Executive Secretary of the Farm Bureau. Would you mind repeating the ques tion, I just . . • ? MR. WALDING: Yes. On the comment that you make about lightening the tax load on farmland, does the Bureau have any sugges tions as to how municipalities would make up that lost revenue if they did decrease the taxes on farmland ? MR. DO UGLAS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure it's the res ponsibility of the municipality because there's more inv olved.

The two senior levels of government, both the Federal and the Provincial, have a very complex situation where you've got the Federal-Pr ovincial cost sharing arrangements, and I think members of this committee are well aware that the Urban Ass ociation, the Mani toba Municipal Ass ociation, the farm or ganizations and the Trustees Assoc iation just two years ago made major represen tation, said that the cost of education on farmland shouldn' t be more than 20 percent of the total that' s collected.

The basic contention we put forth in the submission here is that the services to property should be paid by property and the services to people should be paid from some other source, and the basic ques tion here is that we're again now creeping out of that situation where those who are producing farm products with a larg e farmland base are paying a great deal more proportionately in taxes in the rural areas and it really is a matter of those services other than the services to property that's getting us into the difficulty, primarily education and those minor health services and other things attached to farmland in rural areas.

So I•m suggesting it' s just not a simple clear answer, that it is the res ponsibility of the municipal corporation. MR. WALDING: Are you suggesting that of the total amount that a munici pality needs in a year to carry on its duties, that a smaller percentage of that be borne by property taxes, or are you suggesting that the total amount be reduced by putting it on to some other level of government ?

January 20 , 1975 27 MR. DOUGLAS: Well, Mr. Walding, it depends entirely on what the municipalit y's required to raise and if the municipali ty• s required to raise other moneys other than the ser vices to that community, that is roads and snowplowing and so on, then there has to be some arrangement worked out between the two levels of government. And when I say two levels, I'm speaking now of the municipal level and the Provincial Government.

Then the question then really arises as to what portion of those tax dolla rs, eh; the question is it' s really a mutual kind of a negotiation between the province because the province really imposes the whole ques tion of educational tax on the municipalities and they have to raise it, eh. So it' s arrange ments within the Department of Education, budgets and that kind of thing, that gets us into diffi

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-2-lo1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 2nd hansardpdf lo1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	96b7951258d7e7ef61a08cf8160ffdf35786d6d9

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