ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature oflhe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 29 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXVlll No. 688 - 8:00 p.m., THURSDAY, 29 MAY, 1980 Printed by W. T.Melwichyne, o.-.s Printer, Province of Menitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY Thirty -First Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, A. R. (Pete) ANDERSON, Bob BANMAN, Hon. Robert (Bob) BARROW, Tom BLAKE, David BOSTROM, Harvey BOYCE, J. R. (Bud) BROWN, Arnold CHERNIACK, Q.C., Saul CORRIN, Brian COSENS, Hon. Keith A. COWAN, Jay CRAIK, Hon. Donald W. DESJARDINS, Laurent L. DOERN, Russell DOMINO, Len DOWNEY, Hon. Jim DRIEDGER, Albert EINARSON, Henry J. ENNS, Hon. Harry J. EVANS, Leonard S. FERGUSON, James R. FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GALBRAITH, Jim GOURLAY, Hon. Doug GRAHAM, Hon. Harry E.

GREEN, Q.C., Sidney HANUSCHAK, Ben HYDE, Lloyd G. JENKINS, William JOHNSTON, Hon. J. Frank JORGENSON, Hon. Warner H. KOVNATS, Abe LYON, Hon. Sterling R. MacMASTER, Hon. Ken MALINOWSKI, Donald McBRYDE, Ronald McGILL, Hon. Edward McGREGOR, Morris McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., Hon. Gerald W. J. MILLER, Saul A. MINAKER, Hon. George ORCHARD, Hon. Donald PARASIUK, Wilson PAWLEY, Q.C., Howard PRICE, Hon. Norma RANSOM, Hon. Brian SCHROEDER, Vic SHERMAN, Hon. L. R. (Bud) STEEN, Warren URUSKI, Billie USKIW, Samuel WALDING, D. James WESTBURY, June WILSON, Robert G. Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield La Verendrye Flin Flon Minnedosa Rupertsland Winnipeg Centre Rhineland St. Johns Wellington Gimli Churchill Riel St. Boniface Elmwood St. Matthews Arthur Emerson Rock Lake Lakeside Brandon East Gladstone River Heights Kildonan Dauphin Swan River Birtle-Russell lnkster Burrows Portage la Prairie Logan Sturgeon Creek Morris Radisson Charleswood Thompson Point Douglas The Pas Brandon West Virden Roblin Osborne Seven Oaks St. James Pembina Transcona Selkirk Assiniboia Souris-Killarney Rossmere Fort Garry Crescentwood St. George Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Fort Rouge Wolseley Party NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP PC PC PC Ind NOP PC NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP NOP Lib PC

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 29 May, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMM ITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGr egor (Virden): I call the Committee to order. Resolution 12, 7.(d) (1) ­ pass; 7.(d)(2) -pass; 7.(e)(1) - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAM USKIW: Mr. Chairman, we are still on (

d) I think. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I passed it. MR. USKIW: It is recorded but . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: That is all I go by. MR. USKIW: We are going to have to . MR. CH AIRMAN: Okay, we will ma ke the exception. Return to 7(d)(2). MR. USKIW: What is the quorum, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: There isn't really . A MEMBER: No quorum. MR. USKIW: Is that the rule? MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right. You don't count by numb ers here. MR. USKIW: You mean you can go with one person, just with the Mini ster? MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe so. MR. USKIW: Heavens, we've got to change the rules. MR. CHAIRMAN: pass (d)( 1) and (2), three more.

Seriously, 7(d)(2). You are lucky you just let me when I really was on to two or MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know - do I have the floor, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: I would like to know what the Other Expenditures are in Agricultural Crown Lands, 1. 10 9 million? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Min ister. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Chairman, I will have the reply as soon as I get my paper work organ ized here. MR. USKIW: If he are not organized we are going to pass these items. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, if I could have the member repeat the question again please? MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the Other Expenditu res under Agricultural Crown Lands amounting to 1.1 million, what is that for? What is the program for this year? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the moneys that he is asking is for Crown land improvement programs, which is a consistent amount with last year. That is basically the additional planned expenditures, Mr. Chairman, are for Crown land improvement. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, would the Min ister tell us jus t what the formula is for retiring th e improvement costs then, as it reflects itself through the lease rates over a period of time, and (

b) for those that don't use public funds for improvement of Crown lands, what is their formula for recovery of these capital costs on improvements? MR. DOWNEY: First of all, the Crown retains ownership of the improvement where we do the improvement, and recovers the investment through the rentals on the developed areas. MR. US K IW: Mr. Chairman, does the Crown continue to charge rates, rental rates, in perpetuity on the basis of the improvement costs, or does it phase down after the capital costs are recovered from the lease rates over a period of years? MR. DOWNEY: The rental, Mr.

Chairman, is based on the animal units that the unit will carry, and improved land will carry more than the unim proved land, so it is repaid because of the ability to carry more liv estock. MR. USKIW: So that in essence the charges are in perpetuity related to productivity. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. USKIW: That is true, Mr. Chairman, if you use the land for the production of meat. But if you are using it for other purposes, then I believe there is a different system if I am not mistaken. At least there is with respect to Crown lands which are improved by the lessee at his expense.

There is a two-tiered, not two-tiered, there is a system of lease rates that reflects that additional investment on the part of the lessee for a time period. In other words, a dis counted rate for a time period, after which there are then full rental rates applied. So I am wondering whether there is a difference in the way this operates between Crown impr ovements and lessee improvements? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the member refers to a difference between the two types of recovering of funds basically is what he is sayi ng, whether the 4153

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 indiv idua l puts the moneys in or whether the province does. The specific difference I will have checked out, Mr. Chairman, but the basic objective is to recover on a fair and equitable basis the input costs over a period of time so that there aren't any major difficulties put on those people who are trying to farm the land. MR.

USKIW: Yes, but with respect those lands that are improved at the lessee's cost, where the Crown is not paying for the improvements in other words, as I recall it there was a system in place where for a time period, a numb er of years, the lease rates were set at a rate to account for the fact that the lessee paid for his own improvements, and those were depreciated over a period of time, after which full rental rates were then instituted. I am trying to recall that formula and I want to know if it still exists or MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, basically the ind ividual who develops Crown land, those development costs are reduced from his rent that he -(Int erjection)- Over a period of years, that's right. There's been no change in the formula or the policy, Mr. Chairman. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether I should take satisfaction from that or not because I don't know if that was a good system. I know it was set up during our term in government and the fact that it is still the same rules, I suppose it has withstood the test of time. At least I hope it has.

I was never satisfied that we were completely right in terms of how to arrive at those rates. I thought we were reasonably right, but you could never get a confirmation from farm people as to whether your rates were too high or too low, especially you would never get them to say they were too low. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think the objective, as far as the basic objective, is to make sure that the land is being developed and the people that are developing, whether they are paying it or not, that they have the opportunity to do so and pay the cost of doing so over a period of time.

It's like the actual purchase of a piece of property, that to charge it all against one year could cause a hardship. So basically, Mr. Chairman, I think the program as it is being carried out is working in the favor of the farming community and still being responsible to the taxpayers of the province. MR. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, now to get into the aspect of the meat price formula, has there been any change in that formula at all, or is it still the same one that was there three years ago? MR. DOWNEY: No change, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. just wanted to go back to some of the questions that I raised before supper and ask the Min ister whether there is a time limit for an appeal against an allocation made by the Crown Lands Section? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, yes, there is a time limit. If a person applies to lease Crown land, or if it has been allocated and other farmers appeal agains t that alloca tion, there is a time limit to notify the department. I believe it is 30 days, Mr. Chairman. Yes, it is 30 days. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, if the matter of non­ notification of the change in allocation in terms of the change of the way the land is to be leased is alleged and there is no knowledge of it and the land is allocated and has been leased, for example for one year now, would there be an opportunity to appeal, or what is the mechanism to bring this problem forward? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is an opportunity to appeal.

For example - I think you are referring to if there is a change in the actual classification or the type of permit - you are asking the question could in fact indiv iduals who were not, at least they allege that they were not notified, that there would be no way other than them requesting, I guess, what the status of it is because the land would be advertised. Yes, they would be informed, because if the status of it is changed, the land is readvertised as that new type of lease. And if it was allocated, then those people who had applied would be notified if they weren't happy with the ini tial alloca tion.

So there would be a form of notification going out when the land status changed. MR. URUSKI: It is also my und erstand ing that before a longer term lease is entered into, if there is a change of lessee, a one-year trial period is normally put into place. If the land use in effect, the land type lease is changed, is that normally the case, Mr. Chairman, that if the type of lease changes, there is usually a one-year waiting period before the use and, of course, lease is changed. MR. DOWNEY: No, Mr.

Chairman, if there is a lack of use or any particular evidence appears that the individu al is not using the land, or for some other purpose that wouldn't be along the lines of what the land was leased on, then the lease could be revoked, the same as anybody else. But, really, there is no trial period. If he enters into a long-term lease agreement, that's a long-term lease. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, is the department able to allocate a change in lease pattern without - and what I'm referring to is from, say, a casual hay permit to a renewable hay permit - without advertising it for the benefit of other farmers?

Can that lease be made directly to a farmer who is leasing it or about to lease the land, automatically? Is that normal practice? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(dX2) - the Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A.R. (Pete) ADAM: I wanted to ask one more question on the allocations, which is, the allocations are done on a point system and the department is doing that. They are looking at the point system and 4154

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 they decide which person has the most points and should qualify for that land. MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. ADAM: If they are doing that, why then are there so many changes when the appeals are made? Is the advisory committee not following that rule of the point system? Is it that the department is unable to read the point system correctly? I find it odd that there are so many changes after the department made a recommendation. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, some of the reasons that sometimes cause the appeal committee to make the cha nge, is that it is possible more information is brought to the surface at those particular hearings. I really don't know why that would be the case. It's the committee that hears the case and they make their judgment. MR. ADAM: Out of 72 appeals that were made last year, 40 were changed, and I find that an extraordinary large numb er of changes for the department. -(Int erjection)- Well, you know, I find it odd that if the department people, the staff people are out in the field -(I nterjection)- Somebody is wrong somewhere.

MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman -(l nterjection)­ MR. CHAIRMAN: The Min ister was speaking. Maybe he wanted to clear -(I nterjection)- Well, I thought he quit and I recognized the Min ister. One speaker at a time. The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: The person out in the field, Mr. Chair man, is the fellow tha t makes the first recommendations, the gu y tha t goes out and interviews. He is out there every day or every week, and he's out in the field talking to farmers.

He kno ws them all by their first names and so on and so forth, and he makes the recommendations, which come into Winni peg, and they make the final decisions. I want to know why the staff is making so many errors that the advisory board is supposed to correct. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be brought to the member's attention that the board that made that change to reverse the department's decision were still the board that was carried over from the last government. The new board was appointed on January 1, 19 79. In 19 79-80 appeals, we saw 65 appeals heard and 23 reversed. MR. ADAM: In 1979?

When did the board change in 1979? MR. DOWNEY: The board was changed Janua ry 1 of 1979. In the year prior to that, the year of which that particular time falls, we had 72 appeals with 40 reversals. MR. ADAM: January 1, 1979? MR. DOWNEY: That's right. Let's take the time period from 19 78-79, in which there were 72 appeals heard and 40 were reversed. In 19 78-79, 72 appeals with 40 reversals. In the period of 19 79-80, we had 65 appeals with 23 reversals. MR. ADAM: So it's getting better; it's improving. MR. DOWNEY: I don't know the argument the member is trying to make. MR.

ADAM: The point is that I think that if the allocations are properly done by the staff, there shouldn't be that much need for changes. MR. DOWNEY: It appears, Mr. Chairman, that the staff are doing their best, and it is indi cated to me that there is more in formation that is broug ht forward to the appeal committee. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, just on that point, to satisfy the Member for Ste. Rose, perhaps it might be worthwhile finding out what percentage of the allocations were appealed successfully prior to this government.

I suspect what he is trying to say is, there's a departure. I don't know that there is; there may not be and I don't recollect the figures. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I use the only figures that I have available to me here. We can provide them; there's not difficulty in doing so. But an appeal tribunal or an appeal mechanism is a body that is put in place to make their decision on certain evidence put before them. I have no question of them. I think they do their job, whoever is in office, that there job is to make their judgement to the best ability with the information available. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, it is very easy to conjure up some ideas and revel ations on why events take place. The Minis ter indic ates that this high rate of successful appeals occurred prior to the change of the board. I would hope that we aren't concluding from that that there was something happening that should have not been happening.

You know, one could draw the conclusion, with the new government in power, that there were preferences made at the staff level, friends of the Minis ter type of idea, or friends of the government type of idea, which was then bounced by the appeal board, over which then the appeal board was dismis sed and replaced by a new appeal board. You know, one could make that comment. Now, whether it is valid or not, I wouldn't be prepared to make that statement, Mr. Chairman. But I think that's really what is perhaps behind the question of the Member for Ste.

Rose is, is it coincidental, or is there a hi story of that high a percentage of successful appeals right back to when the program was launched. If it is so, then we can remove that doubt. Otherwise, I suppose it is always in doubt. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, there certainly wasn't any intent to ind icate anything else. I believe it was a matter of the committee's time had expired, their date had expired and there was a change. But, you know, the questioning coming from the Member for Ste.

Rose would almost lead me to believe that he was trying to make some kind of a case for some deviation from normal practice one way or the other, 4155

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 and that isn't the case. As I ind icated, when a committee is put in place, it is to judge on the information that's made available, and that's how it is handled. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Mi nister whether or not there has been any change in policy with respect to assignment. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Ch airman, the policy, as ind icated from the staff, they have been carrying out the same as prior. There is no change, other than there is a unit transfer, an in -family transfer. MR. USKIW: I am just trying to und erstand what the unit transfer impl ies.

Is that a case where someone wants to retire or leave the ind ustry, in which case the person's assets are sold and the buyer then assumes the lease rights. And the question that arises there, and this is what we always try to prevent , is whether or not the vendor is attempting to capital gain on the assets of the Crown. I know it's a problem, and I don't know that you can entirely prevent it. My question is whether or not the government is encouraging that, or whether at least they are consistent with policies that were adopted some years ago in trying to remove that element to the extent that it's possible.

MR. DOWNEY: There's been no change in policy there, Mr. Chairman. That is, it's a matter of trying to keep together a viable unit on the retirement of . . . MR. USKIW: No, I understand that, a valid reason MR. DOWNEY: ... basically there's no change in policy. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the reason I raise that is, I recall an incident prior to the firming up of regulations in this connec tion, where we witnessed an actual figure shown on the face of a lease for assignment privil eges, which was contrary to our regula tions, but which was approved by the government at that time.

And that's when we came to realize that there is a problem here and that, if it's widespread, it could end up with leases being sold as private land without the individ uals having in vested a dollar into them in the first place. You know, which is selling public assets, in other words, or the use of them. And therefore we try to im press upon our lessees that it may be that the Crown has to have the option of requiring the return of that lease as opposed to an automatic assignment provision if there is some feeling that there are assi gnment benefits in the price of the transaction.

That doesn't mean that you can prevent it entirely, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that, but I think the psychology has to be very negative towards that practice to the extent that one can make it known and persist with it. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it was more of a statement than a question. MR. USKIW: I just hope that we're on the same wavelength, that's all. MR. DOWNEY: There's not many wavelengths, we're not on many of the same wavelengths, but in this particular item , I have in di cated that there haven 't been any changes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just on another item . . MR. DOWNEY: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. It's Mr. Chairman, not Mr. Speaker. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems that you're incurring the wrath of some members of this committee, Mr. Chairman, that you likely don't deserve, Sir. I want to ask, through you, Sir, the Min ister, whether or not there is any expansion of the community pastures contemplated in this year. MR. DOWNEY: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, there was at one time at least some thought of one in the interlake, where there is sufficient Crown land in the vicinity - I believe the pasture's name is Sylvandale communi ty pasture - where there were Crown lands withheld from lease because of the possi bility of expansion of the pasture. As a result, the land was not really being used to its full capacity because, although it was offered to lease to some farmers but on a very short period of time, not allowing for any developmental work to be done on the leases, is there any expansion going on at all?

Was there any expansion, say, in the year 1979, and we see nothing in 19 80. What is the thinking of your government in this respect in areas where there are lands that are available in terms of Crown lands that could be developed to a greater extent? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, in a general sense, not on a regional basis, coming into this particular spring, as I ind icated, we had somewhat of a surplus of spaces available in our community pastures, and had, with the somewhat decline in livestock numbers that we've seen in the past, we in fact have not seen the need to go ahead and expand in the communi ty pastures. However, I think that's one of the areas that there is room for some development to look at in a year or so, particularly when we run into seasons like this.

It isn't a bad idea to have a fair amount of reserve range land on hand and through the communi ty pasture program is one of tho se programs that we can expand to in fact do that. Plus encourage more of the marginal land that could be used for pasture to be done on the community pasture program. I think that's an economical type system, I think it's a good livestock management program, that more people probably will use in the future, as the more developed lands become more intensiv ely farmed and less livestock kept on them. It gi ves the people an oppor tunit y to have div ersified operations.

So it's not that we aren't looking at it . . . in fact there is one area in the southeast corner that has been looked at and a possi bility of moving on, one that has been proposed some time ago but just hasn't been moved on. But 4156

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 again, I think it's a good idea, it's a good concept, and we'll be proce eding as the need appears to be there, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: I presume, Mr. Chairman, that funds in terms of allocation for the development of land could be utilized for either community pasture or for the approvals that are now under taken on Crown land leases. Some of that could be likely shared in terms of the total budget. Is it expected that the entire amount of money that is being allocated for other expenditures in terms of the development of Crown lands will be utilized this coming year?

Are there expectations and applications to cover that amount, or is there likely to be more applications than funds to cover development? MR. DOWNEY : Mr. Chairman, it pretty well balances off, the funds that we have available are about the amount of applications that we've been getting, so it seems to be pretty well In balance at that number. MR. URUSKI: The applications that you have been receiving have been fairly consistent year in and year out and you've been moving on that.

Have any of the funds in this budget been used at any time, or is this where you would use funds for developmental work on community pastures for expansion of community pastures? Where you don't have to actually purchase land, where say, Crown land is available and you would be just having to do the developmental work and the fencing and things like that. MR. DOWNEY: Not for community pastures, Mr. Chairman. These funds wou ldn't be used for development of the community pastures. These are basically for the Crown lands and development programs. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(d)(2) - the Member for Ste. Rose. MR.

ADAM: I want to get back to the allocations on which the Minister said that . . . what I am reading here was the former appeal board. I would like to read it out, because it says here that the Agriculture Crown Lands Advisory commi ttee was established by Order-in-Council in December of 19 78, not January of 19 79, and to replace the agricultural Crown land allocation appeal advisory board and its resp onsibil ities are similar to the former appeal board, and include the hearing of appeals for agriculture Crown land allocation and the board, it goes on to say how many they . . . MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, if I didn't indicate earlier, I should have indicated the effective time for the appeal comm ittee was January 1, 1979. That was the effective period. If I didn't say, I should have said effective period. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(d)(2)- pass; 7(e)( 1) - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister explain the nature of the expenditure here in the agricultural land utilization section? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, · Mr. Chairman. The appropriation here is for the soil survey and for conservation districts. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister indicating watershed conservat ion districts?

What kind of conservation districts are we talking about, and could he explain whether there have been any set up or what are we talking about? MR. DOWNEY: There haven 't been any new conservation districts set up, Mr. Chairman, this last year. First of all, they were trans ferred from the Department of Natural Resources to the Department of Agriculture. They were formerly in the Department of Natural Resources and this just basically covers their salaries. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I'm assuming those are the watershed conservation dis tricts that I'm speaking about? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, there are several now in existence, I believe the White Mud was the first one that was established, I think in 1975, somewhere around that year, and I think the Turtle Mountain Conservation District, there are two or thr ee, I believe, that are now in existence. Are there any discussions that the Minister can tell us for other conservation districts under way now? Is there any thought of establishing others in this coming year? MR. DOWNEY: At the present time, Mr.

Chairman, there aren't any discussions with my department on any more conservation districts, but not to say that there wouldn't be before the end of this year, but at this particular point, there haven 't been any discussions on any more conserv ation districts with my department. MR. URUSKI: Would this

section also fund some of the cost-sharing with respect to the province's input in the administration of those districts at all? MR. DOWNEY: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: What about the staff from Water Resou rces Branch that were handling th e conservation? That money is in this

section as well. Could the Minister indicate the extent of the soil survey that is being under taken and conducted? To what extent has the work been carried out? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the member asks to what extent it has been carried out. It's been basically carried out in the area of some of the central parts of the province, in th e extreme northwest part of the province.

When I say that, I am ref erring to the Swan River area, and when I say the central part, we're referring to the west Portage Ia Prairie area, the south Riding Mountain planning district, the west interlake planning district, town of Swan River, town of Dau phin. th e area of Hadashville. the Rat River area, and in the Whiteshell Provincial Park area. Those are basically the last year's soil survey program. 4157

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I am assuming that this is the province-wide soil survey that is to provide soil resource data and information for the planning districts for their land use policies. Is there a program, while at the present time you are lik ely surv eying soils in areas that may be devel oping planning dis trict on sort of a priority basis, but is the intent to complete and update the data for the entire agricultural portion of the province, or does it go beyond just the agricultural portion of the province? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, it goes beyond the Agricultural Department and services the Departments of Muni cipa l Affairs and other departments that land surveys would be needed in - the area of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy, and those basic areas, as well as the agricultural soils for agriculture purposes. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, is there a target for the extent of the program in this coming year? Has the department some analysis and target that they are looking towards? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, some of the work that is planned will be to complete some of the projects tha t I mentione d . They weren't all completed.

That's the majority of the work that would be done. There is a new area to do some resurveying and some ongoing projects. The field work, as the members are aware, a lot of the field work is done in the summertime, the documentation being done during the winter months. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, is there a target in terms of the number of, I guess the word now is hectares, but in acres, does it vary from year to year, or to what extent do you propose to proceed this year? MR. DOWNEY: Basic ally, Mr.

Chairman, the num bers of acres, and I refer to them as acres rather than hectares, because I think the majority - at least I have a better understanding of what I am talking about - basically the program is fairly consistent and last year there was in the neigh bourho od of a qua rter of a million acres surveyed and the same kind of target is in place for this year. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know from the Min ister just how this whole program encom passes water management, because as I unde rstand the old conservation districts under resources included the whole bundle, including water management.

Ho w are we tying in with water resources? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, that is still within the other department, although we're in the process of making the transfer from Natural Resources to Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: No, the staff man years is what we are showing here. These are the agronomists, not the Water people, not the engine ers. We feel it is in the best interest of delivering of the programs that the agronomists be in the Department of Agriculture and, of course, work with the other department very closely, through the comm ittee system, on the deliv ery of the program. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, as I understood the program, it in volved a numb er of mun icipal corporations in the setting up of districts for soil and water and resource management, if you like. Water Management, though, was a very hectic component of the packet. Who is the operating department here now? Is it Agriculture or is it still Resources? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it is still Resources. MR. USKIW: Okay, just a split function? I see. I'm not sure if it makes sense, but maybe it does. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Henry J. Einarson (Rock Lake): 7.(e) (1 )- pass ; 7.(e )(2 )- pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, there is an incr ease of approximately 46,000 in Other Expenditures. Is there any signif icance with respect to that increase? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the in crease is basically to pay for the publication of one of the areas on soil survey. MR. URUSKI: Just to un derstand that, the report that the department will compile will be publis hed and it will cost roughly 40,000.00? MR. DOWNEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 7.(e)(2)- pass; 7.(f)(1)­ pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, could the Min ister give us a report on the workings of the Agricultural Lands Protection Board in this last year. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that there was an annual report publis hed at one time, I believe, of the board, but I don't recall seeing one from the board, or at least a report from the board that has been made avai lable to members, Mr. Chairman. Could the Mi nister, when he makes his comments, clarify that. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I understand the report was made available last - June, is when it has to be made. I think that's the time that the report has to be in.

It is not in the Act to have it tabled in the House, but I think that's the reporting time; the last report was out last June. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman , is there a report that the Mini ster can give us on the workings of the board, to bring us up-to-date before they publish their annual report? MR. DOWNEY: Well, I guess the main items to report on are the fact that we have had some concern from the board, first of all that they were in need of an investigative officer to investigate some of the land purchases. That position has been filled and is now supporting the di rector and the board.

Certain concerns from the board: It was brought to my attention, and from other areas of the agricultural 4158

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 community, that there was need to review the Act, and certain areas of concern that were brought to my attention. I think it's the num bers that the individua l is looking for; the numb ers of land transfers in the last year were in the neighborhood of just over 5,000, and that was approximately the sam� as the year prior, with a million, one hundred­ and-nome-thousand acres being transferred, for a total of 297 million, almost 298 million for the calendar year.

I go back to some of the concerns of the Farm Land Protection Board, and that was the fact that there were some corporations who they were finding hard to identify whether they were in fact Canadian or not. I ind icated that we would review the legislation, and in fact we are now in the position of finalizing our decision on whether or not we will proceed this particular year to make amendments. I think, again, the major concern was to identify if in fact they were Canadians, or landed immigrants, who were desirous of, or actually buying land. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, of those 5,000-odd land transactions, can the Mini ster tell me how many of those were by owner-operator farmers? MR. DOWNEY: No, I haven't got that information, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman , what kind of information does the Farmlands Protection Board collect when they are investigating a land transfer? What kind of information do they seek from the prospective buyers of Manitoba farmland? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the purchaser has to fill out a declaration stating - well, the declaration is a public document - I can provide it if the member wishes that I do so.

I haven't got one with me, but I can get it. It totally lists everything that has to be stated before the board. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the reason I asked the question, I would like to know from the Minister as to the how this 1. 1 million acres that has changed hands, how the changing of the hands affects the character of the holdings and the pattern of who is holding the land within the province of Manitoba. Are we now annually gong to transfer in excess of one million acres to non-resident farmers, whether they be corporations, whether they be foreigners, or whether they be owner-operator farmers? Mr.

Chairman, the Minister himself has indicated that he believes that the best type of farming is done by the owner-operator resident on the farmland. I think there is general agreement in the Legislature from all sides that that is likely the best form of land tenure and operation and holding that one could have within this province. However, we are unable to find out which way the land is moving. Is land being purchased? You know, it's a fairly sizeable amount. In this past year over one million acres at an average value, it seems, of close to 300 an acre as an average price of land.

It may be slightly less, but if you look at the amount of money that changed hands, the increase in land prices, I would have to guess at this point, far exceeds its productive capacity in terms of what the land can return the investor, because I am sure of those one million acres, a good portion of that land will be very marginal land which would not even be productive land by our standards. I would like the Mini ster to tell us what kind of an analysis he is doing and what monitoring he is having of these land sales? MR.

DOWNEY: The member asks what kind of an analysis, I think it is a matter of No. (1) the fact that we have been controlling to the best of the Board's ability and the system available to prohibit non­ resident investment in agricultural land.

Without having the specific details here with me, I would suggest that the majority of the land transfers have been from farmer to farmer transfer, retiring farmer, or that basically being it, but some new entrance into the agricultural community and we can go back to some of the figures that we talked about during the loans put through the Manitoba Credit Corporation, that there is a good indication of the numbers in that particular area that are buying farm land.

Basically the majority of the land transfers, I am sure without going too far out on a limb, I can assure him that there are from farmer-to-farmer transfer and that is why we are considering making changes in The Farmlands Protection Act to assure them that they aren't subject to unfair competition from foreign investors who are not going to be residents of this country, and who have sources of capital that our farming community don't have available to them.

As far as his comments on the fact that the average price being close to 300 an acre is above the productive value of th.e land, I would think that in certain areas we have seen that particular situation develop, but mainly in an area where a farmer might be adding an additional quarter or a half-section onto his present holdings and the additional land bought is not expected to totally pay back the amount of money that is invested in it, that in fact it is spread over a larger holding of land that is already either owned or partially paid for by those particular individuals, and they aren't in fact depending on that one particular newly-purchased piece of property to totally pay for itself.

MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, that is certainly an interesting comment from the Minis ter. He doesn't have the figures and I hope that he gets them, because he knows that we won't be on this

section all night and yet he tells us he believes without going too far out on the limb that most of the transactions are from farmer to farmer. However, he also says that he is going to amend The Farmlands Protection Act. If his earlier statements was correct, that the transactions are from farmer to farmer, then what is the reason for amending The Farmlands Protection Act -(Int erjection)- Well, Mr.

Chairman, most, if they are most then likely there isn't great concern or there shouldn't be great concern on behalf of the government that there isn't an unduly great shift in the land ownership within this province. But we know, Mr. Chairman, that the latest, or at least the latest statistics that I have been able to - there must be some later ones - that as of five years ago we had approximately a million-and-a-half acres of Manitoba agricultural land owned by people who were not residing on that land, or were not farming that land, they were non-resident owners. 4159

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 I would venture to say that trend has ever in creased, and yet the Mini ster, I believe, is concerned, because he is contemplating changes in The Farmlands Protection Act. I believe the changes that he brought about in terms of reversing and allowing corporations, Canadian corporations, to purchase the land, he is now realizing that move was very detrimental in terms of having farmlands owned and operated by farmers, because I believe he has not been able to pinpoint and be able to reveal who the prime movers behind Canadian corporations are.

Because frankly the Canadian corporations could very well be dummy companies fronting for foreign capital and the department and The Farmlands Protection Act would have a very di fficult time and I think are having a very difficulty time in tracing the ownership or the source of capital and who the real backers are of these corporations. I hope that the Min ister would be candid in this area and say, yes, this is the greatest problem that we face, we can't pin down the type of corporations. We really don't know how much land has been bought by non-r esident owners and we are very concerned about that.

I thi nk, Mr. Chairman, the Mini ster, if he believes that farming should be in the hands of owner-operator farmers, that he has a duty and I belie ve there should be clear government policy to say it is our intention to keep farmland in the hands of farmers and we will then do and provide whatever government policy is necessary to achieve those means.

If he says that is not a great priority on behalf of his government, he is prepared to allow farmland prices to escalate, and likely they will even between farmers, that there should be thoughts given to changing government policy as to which way he deems agricultural land to go. He also mentioned, Mr . Chairman, that - (Interje ction)- Mr. Chairman, the Memb er for Emerson says we will straighten it out. Mr.

Chairman, I believe that we have really screwed it up in the last two years with the change s in The Farmlands Protection Act because we have now got such a hodgepodge that we really don't know where the land is going. Mr. Chairman, the Min ister ind icated that he would like to have farmland farmed by farmers, but it appears the way the system is going, there will be fewer and fewer opportunities for young farmers to enter the farming business primarily because of the way we are allowing farmland prices to escalate.

In other countries there have been moves to control the price of land, if we are really interested in allowing new people into the farming area, because what we will find, Mr. Chairman, is that we will have eventually in this country the very same situation as our ancestors had when they moved from Europe. The land will be controlled by fewer and fewer people, and certainly the way the legislation is now set up certainly is escalating that process and will prevent young people from entering farming. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 7.(f)(2)-pa ss. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chai rman . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: finished.

I thought you were MR. URUSKI: No. It appears the Mini ster isn't about to provide any information as to . . . MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George has been making statement, is making a speech, and he has been expressing his own views. I have not heard him ask a question, and the Min ister has not been asked any questions in the past couple of min utes. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Min ister to provide details on the basis of the transactions that - he ind icated we had 1. 1 million acres. I wanted to know how many of those were purchased by corporations.

He in dicated that he thought - he thought - that the bulk of the transfers of farmland were from farmer to farmer. What are the statistics? What are the problems that The Farmlands Protection Act has found that he wants to amend the act? In what way is he thinking of amending the legislation? What problems has he foreseen in the last year of operation of the legislation and the problems that the board has seen? Those are the kind of questions and the resume that we would have want ed, that we ha ven't gotten from the Mini ster, Mr. Chairman. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: I was just saying, on a point of order to the Member for St. George, he spoke for the last about seven min utes and he is making a speech expressing his own views. I thought the purpose of this Committee is to seek information and I did not hear the member ask any questions. Now if the member has questions to ask, I will then turn it over to the Mini ster. The Honourable Min ister. MR. SAUL M. CHER NIACK (St. Johns): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Honour abl e Member for St. Johns on a point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, I don't know where the idea came about that the purpose of this Committee is to ask questions. I have never heard until this moment that a member of the Committee may not express his opin ion on any su bject whatsoever dealing with the resolutions before us. Are you sa ying that is not in order? I need clarification from you. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Let me say to the Honourable Member for St. Johns that I will give him a clarification. MR. CHERNIACK: Good. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: After the Member for St.

George had spoken for about seven min utes, he was expressing his own views, I did not hear him ask one single que stion of the Mi n ister. He was expressing his views, so then I went on to carry on with the Estimates. The Member for St. George then int errupted me and sa id, just a minu te, Mr . Chairman, I am looking for answers from the Min ister. He did not ask a question, so I thought that we would carry on. There is a di fference in expressing your own views as opposed to seeking 4160

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 information by way of questioning. That is all I am saying. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, if you will check the record you will find, I believe, that you said the purpose of this Committee is to ask questions, not to make speeches. I think that is what you said and if you agree with me that that is an inco rrect statement, then I will drop it. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: No. To answer the Member for St. Joh ns, I have not given any indicatio n tha t anyone is not allo wed to make comments to their choosing, but the Member for St.

George interrupted me when I was going to proceed with the Estimates and I un derstood he was making comments, he was not asking for information. When the Member for St. George interrupted me on proceeding with this thin g, then I said to the Member for St. George if you want answers, information, then by all means asks questions. I was not deterring the Member for St. George to making his views known any way he wanted. I hope that is clear to the Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it very much. It is clear and it is important that it be clear. Thank you. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: That's fine. So 7.(f)(2)­ pass - the Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Could I ask the Minis ter, in The Land Protection Act, where are the weaknesses in the Act? Does it allow non-resident buyers, foreigners, to purchase land? What do we have to do close it? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The Honourabl e Mini ster. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the changes made in 19 78 strengthened the Act in certain area, one by reducing the num bers of acres that foreign inv estors could purchase and that was reduced from 160 down to 20 acres, because they were buying it in multiples of 160 acres and we weren't accomplishing what the in itial intent of the Act was. The main problem that has been identified at this particular time is to clearly keep track of the Canadian corporation buyers, or tho se people who are desirous of purchasing farmland. That's the basic area that has to be strengthened. As far as the Member for St.

George is concerned, and his comme nts about the fact of whethe r in formation is available, he has last year's report from the Farmlands Protection Act. I have ind icated that that will be available from the board of directors this coming year. I don't have a complete update at this particular time. I suggested that those people who were buying land, the majority of them were farmers.

He goes off on his hypocritical path of suggesting that Manitoba farmers don't have the right to buy farms, tha t they are going to be restricted from buying farms. -(I nterjection)- Well, I believe that's what he said in his comments. Let me just lay it on the individual who hi mself is involved in a particular type of farming that is very restricted, and why is it restricted? It is restricted to give him protection, Mr. Chairman, and how many farmers in Manitoba can get into the production of dairy or into the production of poultry or eggs.

I don't say it's totally wrong that there shouldn't be some protection for those producers, but, you know, when he suggests that we are restricting or that there isn't an opportunity, it's fairly lim ited what certain individuals can get into, not only because The Farmland Protection Act is maybe not working the best way it could, but let me assure the honourable member that I am doing everything I can to make sure that the opportunities are available for farm people in Manitoba to buy land. I believe that we are doing so and we will continue to do so.

I strongly support the concept of the family farm but I also believe, Mr. Chairman, that as an individual who is a Canadian, that the resources that are in this country, such as land, if he wants to buy land in another provinc e, that he has the right to do so. I think that is what I feel strongly about and will protect. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: Does the Minis ter intend to bring in legislation at this session to tighten up this Act in regard to Canadian corporations? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, that decision has to be made yet, but I said I am giving consideration to it and when the decision is made, will proceed on that basis, and it would be at this particular time, or very shortly, that we would be proceeding on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, while the Mini ster has given us some general information, he indi cates that the report will be out very soon, there must be some basis to his statements that he makes in order to want to change The Farmlands Protection Act. I agree that there has to be change s, Mr.

Chairman, because I think the Min ister now recognizes that the amendments made have not worked. In fact, they just opened the door to the purchase of farmland by no n-resident farmers, whether they be from Ma nitoba , whether th ey be from anywhere in Canada , whether they be from across the ocean, Mr. Chairman. That amendment, because of the way the legislation is set up, the Mini ster, it appears, doesn 't want to be very candid with us to tell us that, look, we blotched it.

While we tried to raise the flag in Ma nitoba against the spectre of foreign ownership, we opened the door to corporate takeover of farmland in this provinc e, to the detriment of all the producers, and now he is trying to find a way around his dilemma and doesn't want to really say and come out clear as to what the problems are. How much of those 1.1 million acres were by corporate purchases? How much were they from farmer to farmer? He speculates, or at least he says, I won't be far out. At most, the majority of those transfers were made from farmer to farmer. If they are made from farmer to farmer, then, Mr.

Ch airman, there is no need for The Farmlands Protection Act to change, because then hi s legislation will be working very well, because the intent of the legislation was to allow farmlands to remain in the hands of farmers. It appears, Mr. 4161

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 Chairman, he is trying to back out of a difficult situation, but he doesn 't want to give members of the committee to be candid with them and say, Look, there are problems. What are the problems, Mr. Chairman? He admits that there are problems.

But at least be candid with the committee and come clean and ind icate what the problems are, how much of that land went into corporate holdings, who those corporations are, what are the problems with those corporations, why can't we trace the origin of those corporations, or the origin of the funds behind the corporations, and come clean with the commi ttee, Mr. Chairman. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I have ind icated , and if we go back to the 1978 amendments to The Farmlands Protection Act, we have in fact made changes that were far in the best interests of the agricultural community by reducing the num bers of acres that a non-resident could buy from 160 to 20, and that has, to a large extent, curtailed a Jot of the foreign investment. I make it very plain that I don't believe that it is in the best in terests of Canada, or as an individual in this country, that an individual should be restricted from investing in this country.

I can also in dicate to the member that when he suggests that what we have done has in fact opened up the door, I would say it has very much done the opposite. We have moved, Mr. Chairman, to make amendments that are in the best int erests of the agricultural community, by restricting from 160 to 20 acres for non-residents, and that's the objective of the bill, Mr. Chairman, to stop foreign in vestment, that's number one. Number two, we have moved to hire, and have hired a farmland inv estigator, which was not in place several months ago.

We have had the Fa rml and Protection Board make recommendations on the strengthening of the Act to further clearly identi fy those Canadian citizens or landed immi grants who are in fact eligible to buy Manitoba farmland. Those are the areas that we have to move in, Mr. Chairman, and moves have been made and we will continue to make them so that we have the Act so that it does in fact prohibit non-resident foreign owners hip of Ma ni toba agriculture land. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, the Mi nis ter kind of hung his hat on his main thrust on the changes to foreign ownership, reducing the acreage of 160 to 20 acres as being very significant. What he failed to tell us, Mr. Chairman, is that change, coupled with the all owance of corporations to purchase farmland , as the Member for Ste. Rose mentioned to me, he plugged a hole and opened the flood gates, Mr. Chairman. The 20 acres was a real red herring, Mr. Chairman.

If we are really inte rested in farmland being farmed by resident owners, that's the kind of amendment we should have, that farmland shall be purchased by resident operators. Mr. Chairman, then I don't think we have to worry where they come from. If they are going to come and live on our farms in Manitoba and farm them, because most of our ancestors, of all of us, come from some where outside of Canada. We are all foreigners, Mr. Chairman. Now, I believe that 20 acres is a red herring.

If we are saying that farmland is for farmers of Manitoba, then we should not restrict to any citizenship, provided that citizen comes to this country and is prepared to reside on the farm and farm it. It should be open for wherever the person comes from, if he comes to reside and live in the province of Manit oba and farm that land, it should be open to him. But now we restrict that, Mr. Chairman. What we have done, Mr. Chairman, is that we have allo wed the non-resident ownership, in effect, to multiply by the virture that corporations are allo wed to purchase land.

Now an individual doesn't have to - he can still get around the residency by setting up a dummy Canadian corporation, and I think that's the problem but the Mi n ister won't admit it - (I nterjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that farmers of Manitoba . . . the only persons who should be able to own farmland. In the long run, we will come to that position.

We will come to that position that only resident farmers are the ones that will own farmland. -(I nterjection)- Whether he calls himself a corporation or whatever he wants, as long as he is living on the farm, he can call himself whatever he likes, I don't care, provided he is living on the land and going to farm it. We will come to that position, Mr. Chairman. We may not agree on it today, but I venture to say in the next number of years, we will come to that posit ion, because farmland will be controlled by fewer and fewer people.

It will come to that the majority of the farmland will be controlled by people who have no interest in the direct operations of the farm. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Rock Lake says, What about the Hutterites? If ever there was a resident ownership of farmlands, of owner-operator operations of farmland, there is the true operations of owner-operator, Mr. Chairman. There is no doubt about it. In terms of the amount of land per individual on farmland, the Hutterites probably own the least amount per individual per colony. Mr.

Chairman, I would say for the number of families that are supported by the farm unit in a Hutterite colony, it is far greater per acre of land than the majority of other farmers in this province. There are many one­ owner farmers, Mr. Chairman, in the province, that are 3,000 to 4,000 acre farms, by one family. There are very few Hutterite colonies, Mr. Chairman, that I believe have in excess of 4,000 acres, and there are usually 15 to 20 famil ies in a colony, approximately, I would say, 100 people who are supported by 3,000 to 4,000 acres or even less, Mr. Chairman.

I know the colony near my home, they own approximately, I think, less than 2,000 acres and there's roughly 70 people who are farming less than 2,000 acres and are supporting themselves. Mr. Chairman, you know, there are lots of red herrings that are coming across the way, but I believe the Min ister should really in dic ate what information he has. He is being very very secretive in terms of really coming clean and telling us what the problem in terms of his legislation is. And what is the basic problem? Why does he want to amend The Farmlands Protection Act?

Where has he seen the pitfalls in the legislation and what is the problem? I want to agree with him that there likely has to be amendments, but let him tell us what the problem is, because he has told us that most of the transactions are from farmer to farmer. If that's the case, why are 4162

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 we amending the Act, or why are we talking about amending the legislation? MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(f)(2)-pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Does the Minister need time to provide this committee with the information that I have asked, Mr. Chairman, or does he have no intention of providing that information that we have asked? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I have indicated to him that the last report for the Farmlands Protec tion Board is available. We haven't got the update; it doesn't have to be reported until the end of June, I believe.

I can read from last year's report, if he wou ld like to, it's on Page 6. The board has indicated identifiable trends from board records, and I'll quote from the report: The agricultural land purchases by non-farming Manitobans do not seem to have any significant effect on land prices. Large Canadian corporations, insu rance companies, banks and agri-business companies do not appear in the board's records as buying agricultural land. That information is available to him in the report, and it's available to the commit tee.

I'll continue on: In the short term, there is low return on investment for these corporations in purchasing land. As a result, large institutional investors and pension funds have not been putting money into farmland. That was last year's report that I quote from. It's available to him. I have indicated to him since that time 1 have had input from the board, I have had input from the Farm Bureau. I have had submissions from the different organizations suggesting that they have identified problems with the administration.

Let me assure the member that I am giving it serious consideration and as soon as it is prepared and a decision is finalized on the necessary changes to block the loopholes, if in fact it is possible, and I'm sure it is, that in fact we will move. Now let me also assure the member that when he suggests that we're all foreigners, I don't feel that we're all foreigners. I think we're all pretty much Canadian. I think that's one of the basic things as an individual, that we have the right to do, and that is invest in this country and become an individual who wants to farm or not farm.

He makes certain statements that all the land will some day be owned by fewer and fewer people. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that to be the case. In fact, 1 believe that the times we're going through at this particular juncture in the agricultural industry, we are in fact seei ng the key to long term sound business investment in the agriculture community is a diversified agriculture, that we can't measure the strength of an agricultural unit in size of acres.

I think we have to measure the strength of an agriculture unit in the numbers of diversified crops or livestock units that are associated with that farm, and he uses an example of the Hutterlte colonies.

There is two things involved there; one is the fact they are operating on a communal type basis and a lot of families living on one particular enterprise, but they are pretty much diversified and self-sus taining, and I think that has been the traditional history of a lot of our original family farm operations, of which I would have to say I am pretty pleased and proud of being a part of, that in fact the stability in the farm that 1 was born and raised on, for the honourable member's information, was one that we milked cows, we kept chickens and we kept hogs and we were very much a self-su pporting type operation, something that I think has been removed from the agricultural industry.

In the days of specialization, we have become more dependent upon outside elements, but the more self-sustained a farm operation is, the more self-su stained the unit is and the more diversified it is, the more stable it is, and that goes back to the basic principle that I support throughout the full agriculture community, is to encourage that kind of diversification so that in fact we can see those family farm units operate and operate in the protection of their own self-ins urance kind of programs. 1 think - and what I can see taking place in the next few years, that we will see people become more conscious of becoming more self- supporting, that some of the larger units will become more vulnerable to difficulties in financing their operations, that the key of course, and we've made our change in direction as far as the government is concerned, and it's somewhat oppo site to the pol icies of the philosophy of the members opposite, that instead of the government buying farm land and becoming another competitor to that young fam ily farm operator, -(I nterje ction)- well, Mr.

Chairman, the Member for Ste. Rose says, come on - well, really with a state farm program that they were offering to the farm communit y, and for the first two or three years, Mr. Chairman, there wasn't an option for that young farmer to buy it. They had to move on to that farm that was owned by the govern ment, there wasn't a dollar to put into that farmer's pocket on a loan basis, no, Mr. Chairman, it was a straight purchase with the objective of becoming the big land owner. The resources of this province were to be taken away· from the farm community and kept in a land bank. -(I nterject ion)- No, Mr.

Chairman, there was no freedom of choice. The Member for Ste. Rose says there was a freedom of choice. They co uldn't buy agriculture Crown land. We have allowed them to buy agriculture Crown land. They couldn't borrow money from the province to buy land. And if they did, Mr. Chairman, it was for machinery or livestock. It wasn't lor the purchase of land. We have changed that whole policy 18 0 degrees, Mr. Chairman. We now have farmers coming - well, Mr. Chairman, we sure have. You can now go and borrow money from the province to buy land from a farmer. Mr.

Chairman, the other point that I want to make is, that now they can borrow money from the government to buy land. They couldn't from the last government. And I think that's a pretty important principle that we want to debate here tonight. Another point I want to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the simple fact that when we're talking about the foreign land investment . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister. One man at a time. MR. DOWNEY: The fact, Mr. Chairman, that we have got in place

an Act, that I will agree, and I said it in 1978 when we made the amendment, may have 4163

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 to have further changes made. I think the members will agree when they introd uced it that they didn't intr oduce a perfect piece of legislation. I don't know what government ever has. We ind icated at that time, and I'm sure it's on the record, that we said if there were further amendments needed that we would make those amendments. But let's make this point, too, Mr. Chairman, that for every buyer of farm land, there is a farm seller; and, Mr. Chairman, is the Member for St.

George advocating that those particular farm people who are retiring do not deserve to receive a fair and equitable return for what I consider their li fetime savings? Mr. Chairman, I think we have to keep the thing in balance, and that's really what we're looking at. I think we can keep it in balance within our own country, within our own nation, but it is uncontrollable when we have the influence of people from offshore that have other sources of funds that our farm people don't have. But let us remember that basic point, Mr .

Chairman, that in most cases, those people who are buying land, those people, be they whoever, and it's desirous that they're new farm people, the best system and the best kind of community we could have is if every

section of land in this country had a farm family on it. I think that's a ni ce objective, and I think we have to work, the more land we have occupied by farm people, the better off it is. But Mr. Chairman, I don't believe there is an abilit y to legislate that. You can encourage it through trying to div ersify your agricultural indu stry, by trying to encourage people to stay on the land, to not cause undu e hardships on them , but give them th e opportunity to, and I believe, Mr. Chairman, they will remain. But you cannot legislate people on or off land.

I think you can create a balance that will help those people who are desirous of selling and retiring, and you can also encourage those young people who, I feel it's desirous to have on the land, and I say, Canadian, I don't think they should be strictly reserved for Manitobans, I think that Canadians, it's one of the basic rights that we have, it's a freedom we have in this country, and I believe that we should retain that.

I don't think we should continue to draw barriers or put up barriers between the different provincial jur isdiction s when it comes to the movement of agriculture goods, when it comes to buying or owning of agriculture land. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have to broaden our scope just a little bit when it comes to the overall long term best in terests of the nation and the agricultur e community. I think, Mr. Chairman, we can do that, and I would suggest we are going to do it through the kinds of pol icies that we are impl ementing and seeing supported in the province.

But to go back to the basic principle of restricting non-resident foreign inv estment in land, I feel very strongly about it, fhat we are going to move, when we make the move, we want to make sure that we acc ompli sh - (I nterjection)- well, we made one in 19 78, Mr. Chairman, at least it was a better move than what was made before that time. MR. URUSKI: And what did you stop? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, we stopped the province buying land in strict competition to the young farmers.

That's No. 1 No. 2, we reduced the numb ers of acres that an individual foreign in vestor could buy from 16 0 to 20, -(I nterjection)- the member says, well, it's a red herring. It wasn't a red herring, Mr. Chairman, it worked very well. The di rectors have ind icated in last year's report. I, Mr. Chairman, feel very strongly that we have a very competent board, we have a very competent director, we've added investigation staff, we are prepared to finalize the decision on the changes that further have to be made, and Mr.

Chairman, I will guarantee, or assure that as far as I am concerned, every move will be made to further restrict, in fact, completely elimi nate, non-r esident foreign inv estment in Manitoba agriculture land. MR. ADAM: I heard the Minis ter in Dauphin say that the land- lease program was a good program, the land lease program that we had introduced, and I'm sure there were 400 or 500 people that heard the Minis ter make the same statement as I heard.

And the Min ister is trying to tell us, and he's been telling us tha t for a numb er of years, tha t we were somehow, with the land-le ase program, inflating the price of land. And the average price of land, as I recall, a couple of years ago, the average price was around 11 0 an acre. MR. DOWNEY: You're trying to steal it from the farmers. MR. ADAM: Now he says, we're trying to steal it from the farmers. Mr. Chairman, now he says that we were trying to steal land. The land that we were purchasing, Mr.

Chairman, was marginal land, land to a value of 60,000, I think it was, whatever, and it was a very successful program. It was aimed at a certain group of people who could not get financing, people who would not have been farming otherwise. The fellow that's farming my land today, part of my land, because I farm some of it, but there's a fellow tha t does rent some acres from me, and Mr. Chairman, this fellow would not be farming today had it not been for the farm land lease program that we introduced before this government was elected.

And he is now farming about 2,000 acres, he probably outfarms a lot of these fellows here, he's got big machinery with eight tires on that are like this, I don't know what they call these big tractors, but they steer from the back and the front, four wheel drives and eight tires, and he's just bought an air drill that's worth about 25,000, 30,000 behind it, he's just bought 100,000 worth of equipment this spring. That fellow is in farming because of that program Mr. Chairman ,, and he's very successful and he's a very good farmer. And he produces good, too. -(I nterjection)- No, I didn't.

No, of course I didn't sell land to the government. He's leasing from me. He's leasing some land from me. This fellow that originally bought this land through the land lease program has sold it to his brother. He sold it to his brother, Mr. Chairman, and here we have to listen to a lot of garbage from the Min ister of Agriculture. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. 4164

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 MR. UR USKI: Mr. Chairman, some of the statements that the Minis ter has made certainly, not only is away out in left field, it's totally wrong. What's really happened in the province of Manitoba over the years in terms of size of farms. The Mi nister says that the government was going to become the biggest land owner in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Chairman, all we have to do, and I hope and pray it doesn't occur, but frankly the cash position that most farmers are in at the present time in the province of Manitoba, who actually, in effect, owns all the land, Mr. Chairman?

The lending institution own the bulk of the land. What will happen is that we will have one big -(Interje ction)- Mr. Chairman, we will have, should a real crunch come into play in terms of declining incomes - and it's certainly evident, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the situation in the cattle indu stry, in the hog ind ustry - should all those loans have to be called, Mr. Chairman, I wonder where this Mini ster will be in terms of helping those farmers out. He has made statements to the effect that we expect the banking institutions will not repossess the land. Mr.

Chairman, I want the Min ister to assure me and the farmers of Manitoba that when a loan comes due that he can show me how he intends to prevent that very thing from happening in terms of the repossession of the bulk of the farms in the province of Manitoba should the situation worsen beyond where we are today, Mr. Chairman. What has really happened over the years, Mr. Chairman, in terms of the size of farms? You know, the Min ister says the family farm is the most optimum size. When we look at the size of farms, Mr. Chairman, for example, farms around 3,000 acres or more, those are not small family farms, Mr.

Chairman, but they have more tha n practically tripled in the num bers from 1961 to date. We have more of the large farms over the 3,000 acre per farm size, from 1961 to date we have three times as many of those farms, but what do we have in terms of farms of the one

section or less, Mr. Chairman? There has been a decrease in the numb ers of farms of one

section or less. Well, Mr. Chairman, but the Minis ter ind icates that it is his target to allow the family farm to flourish. Exactly the opposite has been happening, Mr. Chairman. What we have is the consolidation of land into fewer and fewer hands, so the family farm that he speaks is di sappeari ng, Mr. Chairman. Is dis appeari ng because, Mr. Chairman, one of the policies was an option was taken away from people in terms of getting into farmland, an option. Mr. Chairman, the Mi nister said there was a new principle this government established that they could borrow money from the government. Mr.

Chairman, is the Mini ster telling me that loan capital is not available from the government and never has been? Mr. Chairman, we have the Federal Farm Credit Corporation has always been in the lending business, the government, whether it be the provincial or the federal, it is still the government. Moneys were always made available to borrow and buy land, in terms, from the government, whether it be provincial or federal. -(In terjection)- Mr. Chairman, the Member for Emerson says you took the provincial away. Mr. Chairman, that was a duplication and now we are duplicating, but, Mr.

Chairman, there was no one, and now there is no one, to allow the transfer of land from the retiring farmers who may have a viable unit, who may have a

section of land or less and are wanting to retire, but are unable to sell; or if they sell they have to sell to someone who lik ely is either consolidating into the larger and larger units, or if it is a young farmer he is not able to set up because he does not have the capital. If he has the capital, Mr. Chairman, he requires that capital to put it into equipment and machi nery to farm that land. We have taken away an option, Mr. Chairman, a real viable option, where we have allowed more than 500 families over the numb er of years to start farming. Now we are going to reduce them. Mr.

Chairman, we have, we are handling agriculture in the way that the Conservatives want to handle it and have handled it. Mr. Chairman, there is no Conservative policy that says that the family farm shall continue. The statistics don't bear it out. We look at the decline in numb ers of farms, Mr. Chairman, in the province of Manitoba over the last number of years. Our decline in the numb er of farms is four times that of the province of Saska tchewan and the province of Al berta, the numb er of farmers dec lining, Mr. Chairman. That is what is happening by the Conservative policies.

Are we against the farmer who wants a fair and equitable return on retirement, Mr. Chairman? I believe that every farmer, he would, I believe, and I think if you talked to a farmer he would be far far better prepared to receive an adequate return for his produce that he produces and have an adequate income during his lifetime, than to be poor all his li fe and retire a mill ionaire, because that is the position that farmers in Manitoba are being put into. They may be paupers during their lifetime and when they die they are rich as hell, Mr. Chairman.

A helluva lot of good that money will do them when they are retiring and dying, rather than having an adequate return on their investment throughout their years, an adequate in come. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, what we see in the legislation, the Min ister says we are going to cover the loopholes in The Farmlands Protection Act. He is not saying what loopholes there are, but we kno w there are loopholes, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: One member at a time. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, what we will see is the continual - by the lack of direction by this government in the land use policy - we will see the further decline of the family farm. We will see, as we are seeing in the statistics that we have before us, that the numb ers of farms will decline, the numb ers of farms of 3,000 acres or more per farm will incr ease, and we will have a greater and greater consolidation of farmland in fewer and fewer hands, not to the expansion of the family farm, but to the detriment of the family farm. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, I don't often di sagree with the Member for St. George, but this time I think I am going to, because he suggests that this Min ister is not at all sympathetic towards family farming 4165

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 enterprises. I don't think th at is an accurate assessment, but I think there is quite a distincition between the perception of what a family farm enterprise is on the part of the members on this side, as compared with members on the other side. Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Minis ter that what the Member for St. George is probably alluding to is the fact that if you want to use some illus trations that, you know, the Romanov family in Russia were family farmers. It was a family operation.

The Ha psburg family was a family operation in the Austrian-Hungarian Empire, and all of the nobility of Europe were family enterprises, and so that is perhaps what separates the thoughts of the Mini ster as compared with the thoughts of the Member for Ste. Rose. Mr. Chairman, I think that is the true distinction. The Min ister is sincere when he is suggesting that he prefers family enterprises. The only problem with that is that his family, one or two families might want to gobble up half of the province and that is the area of debate, Mr. Chairman. I think that the Min ister is right, I think the Member for St.

George is wrong. The Minis ter believes in family enterprises, but the size of those enterprises are not what is sort of commonly accepted in the prairie region or in Manitoba, the size of those enterprises is not something that is acceptable to the majority of people. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(f)(2)- pass - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I was wanting the Minis ter to at least give us some rationale for the continuation of this legislation, just what is attempted to be achieved by his department here?

Why do we need that kind of intrusion into the marketplace system with respect to the question of land sales? I raise this point, Mr. Chairman, for obvious reasons, and that is that there is a case to be made for the proposition that some farmers put forward and that is they are poor all of their working years, and then when they want to cash in by selling their assets the state then int erferes with their right to receive the highest return for those assets that are available in the marketplace. There is some validity to that criticism, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to know from this government -(I nterjection)- Oh, I have always known it, Mr. Chairman. I was not the greatest enthusia st of the legislation that we brought in, I can assure my friends opposite, but notwithstanding that it was brought in. I am not sure that ultima tely it is the right thing, because you are interfering with the marketplace to the extent - you know, if you are in a marketplace system all of your life and then you want to realize on your assets and you are taken out of the system, there is some argument to be made that maybe it's a bit much.

I have talked to a number of people who don't like the market system, but since they live under it they don't want to be precluded from gaining from it as well when the occasion arises. Tha t is not what this legislation does, this legislation prevents the Member for Emerson from selling his property to the hig hest bidder, you see. It is restrictive in that sense. I don't know that what it is going to achieve is going to be worth the sacrifice that the Member for Emerson has to make.

So I would like to ask the Mi nister, in brief, just what his assumptions are as to what might be achieved by the continuation of this kind of legislation as far as his thoughts are concerned, as far as his thoughts go. MR. DOWNEY: It is unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, that the member was not in the room when I made my speech a few minu tes ago on this point. MR. USKIW: It wasn't very clear. MR. DOWNEY: As far as the concept of him suggesting what my concept of a family farm or my feelings what a family farm mean, I would have to somewhat dis agree.

I think probably you can not measure a size of a farm by the numb ers of acres that we are talking about.

I think you have to measure - I went through the whole outline of what I felt was somewhat the best kind of a family farm operation that is probably in the best interests of the agricultu ral commun ity and the province of Manitoba, that a div ersified agricultural ind ustry or a farm that is made up of, whether it be one or two or three different enterprises on that particular farm, but basically and mainly controlle d by th ose individuals who are a part of that family, whether they be father-son arrangements, whether they be brother-sister, or any combination of that kind, or an extension of that kind of a system.

The member asks me what I feel is the intent or what should be the in tent of the leg islati on. I ind icated some time ago in the debate tonight that for all those people who were, in fact, buying land there had to be a seller, and it was a matter of trying to keep a balance in place that cou ld, in fact, continue to encourage people to remain on the land and be people who are involv ed in agriculture produc tion; and yet affording those people the opportunity to retire who were desirous of retiring, that we had to not totally restrict the opportuniti es that were available to them.

I again suggested the way that I see would be, and are proceeding to move, is the allowing of individuals to sell, first of all, to Canadians.

I think that basically is the principl e which I feel strongly about, that has to be subscribed to; that we have to retain that freedom for not only Manitobans but all Canadians; that, in fact, the legisla tion, as it is in place now, is to restrict individuals who have sources of capital available to them from other sources, from outside of thi s country, that will, in fact, remove from the total community the title of the property and probably the way in which that land is used. The direction of the production may somewhat not be in th e best interests of the total provincial communi ty.

I think it is important that a government try and maintain that balance, and that is basically what we are doing. We are continuing to put in pla ce legislation that will protect the farm communi ty, will protect the people who are trying to continue on in the agricultural communi ty without being put out of business or restricted from entering into the busine ss with individuals that have an available source of capital that aren't available to our Manitoba farm people. It is a matter of clearly putting in place the kinds of restrictions that will accommodate that without 4166

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 leaving what you may refer to as loopholes that appear to have been used by individuals who can put in place mechanisms, whether it be mechanisms or systems, that may circumvent that Act and not live up to the spirit of it. It's difficult to do, as I'm sure the Member for Lac du Bonnet has indic ated. He, numb er one, did not support in total the basic introduction of it. I, Mr.

Chairman, support it on the fact that I believe that there is an obligation by the government to restrict those people, again, who have avai lable sources of capital and who are not going to become a part of the Canadian community and the Manitoba agricultural community. That's basically the balanc e that I think we have to try and accomplish. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply ask the Minis ter whether he truly believes, that since his amendments have become operative, that he has prevented from occurring what he says the legislation is intended to prevent.

Does he truly believe that his legislation is not being circumvented at this stage? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the information available is that it has curtailed to a large extent. I have no factual, documented material available to me, that's been presented to me, that the Act has been circumvented. There are suspicions or the board has felt in certain cases that there has been a possibility but haven't really been able to press or document the kinds of things that there is a feeling that it is taking place. That, Mr.

Chairman, as I have said earlier, is one of the areas that we are prepared to move on to strengthen the board's hand. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I guess what the Min ister is saying is that he doesn't really know, and I suppose that's fair enough. I'm not suggesting that he could know. My impression is that nothing has changed. From the people that I have dis cussed the issues with, I'm led to believe that the sales are just as heavy, foreign capital is pouring in to th e marketplace for land in Manitoba as much as it ever has done. MR. DOWNEY: . . . document it. MR.

USKIW: Well, I know, the Minis ter says, yes, but you've got to document it, and that's just what I am talking about. I don't know that the Minis ter has an airtight system; I don't believe he has. I just wanted to know whether he belie ved he had an airtight system. MR. DOWNEY: Not at this point. MR. USKIW: He admits that he hasn't and that's really not surprising to me, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(f)(2)- pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum no t exceeding 4, 10 8, 100 for Agriculture- pass - the Member for lnk ster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Is this the last item? MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

Resolution 13, 8. - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, could the Min ister ind icate the nature of the agreement? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the Canada­ Manitoba Value-Added Crops Production Agreement basically is split into two major components, really, the one being drainage programs, which would be admin istered by the Department of Natural Resources, which make up about half of the initial agreement that was introduced.

The component which falls within the Department of Agriculture is basically made up of expanded crop production, a variety of crops to be produced, with the objective of providing a greater opportunity for the agricultural communi ty to produce a wider variety of crops to further expand the processing of those crops produced in the province and to further expand the red meat ind ustry, or the livestock ind ustry, through the use of those crops, further utilizing the resources tha t we have in the province, creating job opportunities for the total Manitoba commu nity, whether it be through job creation in processing ind ustries, transportation, or related areas.

I think the delivery of the program has been very successful.

We have worked very closely with the Un iversity of Manitoba in the use of their staff that are available in the demonstration of different crop varieties throughout the province to inform the farmers of the different types or varieties that are capable of being grown in the different regions, and expansion of, again, I'll ind icate some specific crops, in the area of expansion of such crops as development of soy beans, which I would have to indic ate last year was a difficult year to try any new crops; but on the other hand, I think it's a good kind of a year, it was an extreme year to try some of the crops that may be able to be grown in the province.

If it had been an ideal year, then we might have run into some difficult times and the extent of the difficulties that farmers could have run into years down the road, we are finding out in the beginning stages. I think it is also important that the development of our irrigation technology to further expand the production of our forage crops and other crops that can be irrigated, the types of soils that are available for irrigation, are a pretty major part of the overall thrust.

The continua tion of some of the grassland projects tha t were carried forward from the previous government, those kinds of programs now fall within the Agri-Man Agreement, on a cost-shared basis; programs that will have a major impact on the types and varieties of forages available to the livestock indu stry, again with the objective of further encouraging the total development of the Manitoba economy. I think it's the base ind ustry of agriculture that we can do it through and these are the kinds of programs that support that kind of objective. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Albert Driedger (Emerson): The Member for St.

George. MR. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, specifically with respect to the amount, can the Min ister break out the various amounts as they relate to, say, crops, li vestock and the various com ponents of that agreement? Is it a very long list, Mr. Chairman? I'm 4167

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 not talking about the specific areas, but the various segments of that agreement. MR. DOWNEY: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, it's a matter of trying to keep a balance between the difficult agricultur al produc ti on sectors, th at emphasis is placed on crop production that will encourage further processing. I guess I could say that we are looking at, as I ind icated earlier, the drainage programs, not of the moneys we are indicating here but of the total Agri-Man Agreement, which is 18 .-some million over a five-year period. It is approximately a 50-50 split.

But to be specific on this last amount of money we are looking at, or the amount of money we are looking at here, I would say on a percentage basis that we would be looking at probably close to a 50-50 split on those directed at li vestock produc ti on, or related to livestock production, and 50 percent going to crops, that some of them could find there way into livestock production but basically more directed at further processing, whether it be in the oil seed crops or the potato indu stry or those kinds of crops. Basically it works out to about a 50-50 split. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (a)- pass.

Resolution 13: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 1, 363,400 for Agriculture­ pass. Resolution 14, Item 9. Acquisition/C onstruction of Physical Assets. 9.(a) - the Honourable Mini ster. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the main amount of moneys that we have here are for sewer and water funds, Water Services Board. Basically that's it, plus the drug purchases, semen purchase and those kinds of ... MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Can we just get the breakout for each group in global dollars. They don't have to be . . . just rounded off. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, to do with the sewer and water, we are looking at approximately two­ thirds of it to go into sewer and water. MR. URUSKI: 6 million? MR. DOWNEY: In that neighborhood, 6.5 million to 7 million. Drug purchases, semen purchases. That's basically it, Mr. Chairman. MR. URUSKI: The remainder amount of 1.3, roughly, for drug and semen purchase. MR. DOWNEY: No, I should indi cate, Mr . Chairman, there is 1 million for the lease of the hopper cars in here too. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (a)- pass; (b)- pass; (c)- pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, could the Min ister ind icate the Northlands Agreement. MR. DOWNEY: That, Mr. Chairman, is all sewer and water for the northern commun ities. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (b)- pass; (c)- pass. Resolution 14: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 8,305,000 for Agriculture- pass. We revert back to Res olution 6, Item 1. (

a) Mini ster's Salary-pass - the Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, it's really not a very important question, but I was away from the city and I think I read, and I just want to check with the Mini ster, that the Mini ster is expending 40,000, I bel ieve, with regard to control of rats. Is that correct? MR. DOWNEY: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. We have had requests from the Union of Municipali ties over the last two years to implement a rat control program, and that is the initial amount of funds to start that program, Mr. Chairman. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Chairman, are we to assume that since the Conservatives took power, Manitoba has become a rat-infested nest? MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Honourable Min ister. MR. DOWNEY: No, Mr. Chairman. It's being put in place so that it cannot return to being a rat-infested province. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: (a)- pass - the Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, what we have seen in the estima tes of the Department of Agriculture this even ing is that we are finding that the programs that have been in place over the last number of years are not changing.

In fact, very little has changed in terms of the di rection of the Department of Agriculture. Mr. Chairman, there are a few areas that I believe that I bel ieve that while the Mi nister and this government is basically continuing the programs that have been in place, it's a stand pat department with respect to ongoing programs. With respect to dir ection and inno va tion, Mr. Chairman, and assistance to farmers in general, this Minis ter is one that can be criticized roundly by members of the Legislature, especially by members of his own party. What we see, Mr.

Chairman, is, we have the hog ind ustry in great difficulty, and I, with respect to this Min ister, was one who went around and wanted to encourage the production in all sectors of livestock industry, and he wanted all kinds of expansion in the marketplace before he would sign any agreements in this country in terms of market share agreements, he wanted his farmers to gain the bulk of the production. Now, what we see, Mr. Chairman, is, we have as one example, we have the hog indu stry in trouble.

And this Mini ster comes before the Legislature and says, look, it's really not my responsibility; it's really an Ottawa respo nsibili ty and we're really after national stabilization plans and that's where the 4168

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 problem should lie and that's who the prime mover should be. Mr. Chairman, I have to agree with the Mi nis ter, but his members that we haven 't heard a word about, especially the Member for Rock Lake, with respect to assist ing of farmers, you recall in 1975 the plight of the cattle producers in this province, and I think the members opposite should recall some of their words with respect to actions to be taken or not to be taken by the province of Ma nitoba. Now, we have the Conservative caucus mum.

They're not going to help the hog producers; they're not going to help the cattle producers. What did they say in 1975, Mr. Chairman? The Member for Rock Lake, on April 10th, he's one of them, Mr. Chairman, To preface my question, and I quote from Hansard, Page 11 29, Mr. Speaker, but I unde rstand the Mi ni ster of Agricul ture, I'd like to ask him, if during his discussions with the federal Min ister, did he deal with the problems of beef producers, and particularly cow-calf producers of Manitoba?

And then he says, I then di rect a definite question to the Minis ter then, and ask, in sofar as the cow-calf operation, has the Mini ster anything to report in the way of providing them assistance at this time? And then he goes on, he said, I thought the Mi nis ter understood the Intent of my question. I'm not concerned about Ottawa now. I am asking the Min ister of Agriculture of the province of Manitoba if he has any intentions of making any assistance to the cow-calf operators of the province of Manitoba at this time? Can you imagine, Mr. Chairman, the position of the Conservative caucus in 19 75?

What do we hear from them now, Mr. Chairman? We have the Min ister of Government Services of the province of Manitoba, and he says but I know the Minis ter knows that it's a cri tical situation for cow producers, time is of essence. Can he ind icate, a lot of people will be out of business. What is he going to do to help the cow­ calf producers of this province? The Mini ster of Government Services. Then we have, Mr. Chairman, again the Member for Rock Lake. He was the most vociferous of the Conservative caucus, Mr. Chairman, and I want to ind icate the position that he took.

And we haven 't heard a word from him. And I quote, on March 5, 19 75, he in dicated, I'd lik e to get back to the Mi ni ster of Agricultur e and ask him one further question. Could the Mi nister advise this House whether or not he is going to bring, or can bring in legislation providing for funds tha t cow-calf producers have requested, which is similar legislation that he brought in a few years ago with regard to acreage payments? Can he state whether he's going to bring in this kind of legislation to provide those funds for this session? Mr.

Chairman, that has been the position of the Conservative caucus with respect to whether the federal government has been and should become involved in stabiliz ation programs. Mr. Chairman, what do we hear from the Minis ter of Agriculture and the Cons ervative caucus today? Well, farmers of Manitoba, you know, we really think that the income stabilization program is not so good, so we're getting rid of it, but really it's an Ottawa responsibility and we really don't intend to do anything now. Mr.

Chairman, of all the hypocritical positions that we can find in this legislature today, we have the Conservative caucus mum, not saying a word, with the hog producers facing near bankrup tcy with respect to the low prices, asking for assistance in terms of income support, and what do we hear from the Min ister? He's going to go to Ottawa. He's going to go to Ottawa and ask the federal Minis ter of Agriculture, and not only that, he has tried to take credit for an Ottawa payment with respect to the hog ind ustry.

That's the kind of assistance the farmers of this province are receiving from this -Mini ster of Agriculture. That's the position this Mi nister takes to the farmers of Manitoba. We are going to give you absolutely nothing, that is his position. You deserve nothing, you supported us in the election, but we're going to give you exactly what you deserve, sweet nothing. And that has been the basic position of the Conservative gov ernment in the province of Manitoba. Wha t do we see with respect to the beef producers, Mr. Chairman? What do we see with respect to corpora te Intrusion in farmin g, Mr Chairman?

The Min ister gets up and says, well we hope that the packers will not take advantage of the pricing situation and the dis tress that farmers are placed in. The market drops, what does the Minis ter say to that? Well, he really can't Interfere in the open marketplace. He certainly has no intention on not calling in the corporate sector, Cargill Grain, and say, look, we don't believe that you should be invo lved in vertical integration of the hog indu stry, Mr . Chairman. No, he's not prepared to do that. Because he says, I'm a friend of the farmer, and the farmers can take that competition.

He is continuing the move that farmers, you know, they can withstand all this market depression that they have been faced with in the last year, and Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the policy of the Conservative government, to tell the farmers of Manitoba that they can expect from them, in terms of good policy and good government, especially, nothing. Mr. Chairman, in grave areas with respect to transportation, we have this government now waffling on their position with respect to transportation.

With respect to the Crowsnest rates, we have this Min ister of Agriculture, now that the Conservatives are out of power in Ottawa, completely reverse his position, Mr. Chairman, completely reverse his position. In July of 19 79, this Mi n ister of Ag ricultur e, when the Conservatives were in office in Ottawa, what did he state with respect to the Crows rate? He said, the Crow benefit would be paid directly to western farmers. That was his government's position. What did he say the other night, Mr. Chairman? Exactly the opposite.

He no longer now wanted the farmers of western Canada to lose that benefit, and he felt that the Crow benefit, if there was going to be any subsidy, it should be paid to the railways. Well, Mr. Chairman, that's what he told us the other night. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mi nister on a point of order. MR. DOWNEY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I will not leave left on the record what that member has just ind icated, because what he said is not correct at all. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Mi nister can squirm all he likes. The other night in this committee, 4169

Thursd&J, 29 MaJ, 1980 and he can deny what he said, he was not prepared, he said, farmers of western Canada should have the total benefit of the Crow rate, they should not pay any additional cost, and in terms of a simpler system, that there should not be in excess of 100,000 cheques mailed out in terms of subsidies to the farmers. -(I nterjection)- Well, Mr. Chairman, now the Mini ster says, he didn't say that. Well, Mr. Chairman, he has reverted his position. I want to tell you why he has reverted his position. He will want to use the federal government as the whipping boy in any issue that they can have, Mr.

Chairman, because now we have a provincial government that is in trouble with its own producers; we have a provincial government that is prepared to do nothing for their producers in terms of assistance, so what is the next best move to try and take the heat off themselves? We can blame big brother. We can blame Ottawa for not being prepared to help our producers in a time of need; we can blame Ottawa for screwing up the transportation system, we can say, well, we've been fighting, and to try and make themselves look good in a bad situation, they will use the federal government as their scapegoat, Mr. Chairman.

That wi ll be the policy of th e Conservatives in Manitoba. They will use the federal government as a whipping boy in terms of trying to salvage their position to rural Manitoba. The total lack of direction, Mr. Chairman, that this Minis ter has given with respect to the problems that we face with respect to transportation issues; the problems that we face with respect to the plant breeders rights issue, Mr. Chairman; the problems that we face with orderly marketing of grain and the positions that have been taken by this Mi nister and this government, can be summed up in saying, no less than disastrous, Mr.

Chairman. They will lead to the detriment of all producers of Manitoba in terms of loss of income, in terms of the plant breeders rights; it can only mean that in the long run. Mr. Chairman, this Min ister has denied it. He indicates that he will support plant breeders rights legislation, and it can only lead in the long term, not only to farmers, Mr. Chairman, to higher cost of seeds to farmers, but in the long term effect of the cost of food in this country, Mr. Chairman. Not only in this country, but around the world. Mr.

Chairman, I believe that this Min ister has failed in his task to provide leao:·rship to the farmers of Manitoba in terms of direction taken. He has fought every progressive move that farmers have tried to make with respect to strengthening of their position in the marketplace, of providing themselves with decent incomes based on their inp uts into production. He has been backward in all t!'ese issues. All that he has done, Mr. Chairman, is, he has left in place, and he has not been able to, even though he is philo sophically opposed to many of the programs that are in place, he has still left those in place. Mr.

Chairman, this department, I believe, will continue to float along with the traditional programs without any definite direction, and if anything, a backward stance in terms of providing leadership for the farmers of Manitoba. MR. CHAIRMAN: (1 )(a)-pass - the Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: I gather from the comments of the Memb er for St. George that the jury on that indic tment ought to be on this side of the table, but in any event, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask one or two final questions before we complete the estimates. The Min ister indi cated that he would be reviewing his position with respect to BIAP.

He said in the House this afternoon that we would have a chance to discuss it here. I don't believe it was discussed, so I presume the Mi nister has some statement to make.

Secondly, I think that we're probably in a position at this time to get some idea from the Mini ster, at least, or from the department, as to what their expectations are with respect to the dollar damage of the current drought, and what expectations the department has with respect to what that will mean in terms of compensation to agriculture in 1980, some time later this year, in terms of programs that may be imp lemented or that the Mi nister is considering implementing. ..

I think everyone appreciates the fact that it's now virtually the last day of May and that if we are going to get any amount of moisture that will salvage the situation, it's going to have to come fairly soon, without which we have a very, very serious disaster. There's no question about that. The Member for Rock Lake says it's only another week and it's all over, well practically. I think it is not far out.

Perhaps the Mi nister has some comment as to what he is thinking in terms of how to cope with that problem should we not receive an adequate rainfall in the next several days, what he anticipates that he might do in order to alleviate the economic problems that will ensue as a result. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, to answer the last question. First, to quantify the numbers of dollars that may be lost because of drought conditions, it is too early at this particular time . . . MR. USKIW: It is not lost, it is cost to the province. MR. DOWNEY: Cost to the province, it is too early to quantify them. That is No. 1.

I think really we are in a position and particularly, the Member for Rock Lake had asked earlier of the loss of the rye crop, which may have taken place or at least parts of the province could have been affected.

We are still, of course, in a position of having several days yet as far as the deadlines on the seeding of crops under crop insurance are concerned, and I think we have also seen the last two or three days some rainfall in certain parts of the province, in different regions, that will have alleviated some of the problems in those immed iate areas, not totally, but it will give us a first hay crop of alfalfa in those areas where rainfall has been in the neighbourhood of an inch of rain. MR. USKIW: A small percentage of the province. MR.

DOWNEY: I think we have still have seen certain areas of the province that haven't received any rain and when you assess the overall impact, I think that assessment won't be able to be done until probably two to three weeks, well into June until we see what is happening with the weather conditions, or what will happen with the weather conditions over the next few days. 4170 ' ...

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 I think that the other question, if I can refer to the Beef Income Assurance Program, the deadline has come for the producers to make the decision as far as opting out and paying up their accounts. There has been no change to this particular point, we have assessed it, there could be some individuals who maybe somewhat strapped for cash.

I think if those individuals can indic ate to department staff that they are totally up against it, that their intent is to pay, or can ind icate that there is some means being worked out to provide payment, then, in fact, they aren't going to be in a position of being put out of busi ness because of that payback to the province, I can assure him.

There has been no basic change in policy in that particular area, although we did review it and we have seen, I believe, a different situation develop in the last few days that we, as I ind icated, wouldn't force people to go out of business because they had to make that particular payment. However, it is just a matter of the deadline ha s to be established and we have reached that particular point.

Again, I know, as the member has ind icated, we suggested we would review it and I ind icate right now that we still have 24 hours left to make any change, but still have a bit of time to get an ind ication, if there is any ind ividuals that have indi cated today that they are having trouble meeting that commitment in a large way, then we will have to deal with it immediately. Does the member have another question before I sum up on the . . . MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, if the Mi nister wants to sum up, I don't mind him having the last word.

I just want to draw to his attention that the Conservatives, in opposition, were much wiser men in 1977 than they are now in government, because in 1977, during the course of the Budget Debate around the 5th of April, the Leader of your government or your party at that time, now the Premier, ind icated a great deal of dissatisfaction over the fact that wa were not able to quantify the cost of the drought in 1977 and what that would do to provincial revenues and what that would do with respect to production and compensation programs for the lack of production, and so on. This was April of 1977.

It made for a very interesting Budget Debate, but his expectations at that time were that we should have shown a huge deficit to cover th ose expected sh ortcom ings because of the expected drought of 1977, which by the way didn't materialize to any significant degree, but that was April.

We are now on the verge of the 1st of June and the Mini ster is not able to tell us in 1980 just where he is at in terms of the damage that has already occurred, even though he agreed that it has occurred, or what he might expect in the next several days, and what that will do to the provincial economy and what that will do to revenues to his farmer clients, and what that might do with respect to necessary compensation programs. I just point it out that two years down the road, with two years of experience in government, they are not quite as wise as they were in 1977. MR. DOWNEY: Mr .

Chairman, in conc luding, without - the Chairman says, without creating any con troversy. The Mem ber for Ste. Rose has a comment he would like to make. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ste. Rose. MR. ADAM: I wanted to ask the Minis ter if the department made a study on the branding of cattle last year? The Mini ster shakes his head in the negative, and it is my un derstanding that a survey was made last year when the brand registration applications were sent out. Now the Mini ster is nodding his head, so I believe now that he is saying that there was a study made. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, there was a leaflet went out with the brand registration forms requesting some information, as far as a study is concerned, I wouldn't classify it as a study. I would suggest that it was a matter of collecting some information from those people who have brand registration. MR. ADAM: There was a kind of a questionnaire with a survey being made and asking questions as to people who had branded their cattle, how many they had lost, and how many had been recovered, and it was found, I believe, that those cattle that were branded showed a smaller number of losses than those that were not branded.

Some of the members are asking, not myself particularly, on behalf of some of the members who are not in this Committee, we are wondering what type of program does the Min ister envisage in allocating some funds to the Cattle Producers Associa tion? Could the Min ister elaborate on the programs of 33,000, I believe, all ocated to an outside group, farming out some work that perhaps could be under taken by the Mini ster?

I understand that the cattle producers are going to undertake to study when they hold their annual meeting in the different regions, and that they are not going to be actually ha ving any extra hearings to look into identification of cattle, but rather they are going to do their studying and they are asking people to make suggestions at their regional meetings. Actually there will be no cost involved as I can see to the Cattle Producers Association to make these studies.

The questions that some of the members are asking, as to why this money is being allocated, rather than not having been done by the department; the second question I would ask is that - I think the Member for St. George has raised this question before - I received two or three complaints from people who are trying to get back their checkoffs and they have not been able to get the checkoffs back, because they don't have the forms in place, they are not getting their refunds. My advice to members who object to the Association is to stay in it, regardless of whether they like it or not.

They are better to be a part of it, since they are going to be financing it anyway, they might as well be part of it, if you can't beat them, join them, and take it over or do what you like with it. Anyway, this is my advice to them. At least when you are there you can see what is going on, if you are out they are going to use your money and you won't have any chance to make any decisions on it. 4171

Thursday, 29 May, 1980 If the Min ister could perhaps gi ve us some enlightenment on the two or three questions that I have asked him? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, again to answer the last question first, the point on the sending out of the checkoff funds. I can assure him, as I assured the Member for St. George, that I will be . urging the Association to make sure that they carry out that particular part of the Act, they are compelled to do that. I, Mr. Chairman, am going to proceed to commun icate that informaton to them, so that people who are desirous of getting their funds back can do so. No. 2, Mr.

Chairman, as far as the identification study that is being done for the livestock indus try through the Cattle Producers Association, I am sure the member is well aware, through his question ing, that he has questioned the Ho use earlier, his concern for any loss of livestock that cattle producers incur or anything that may help and assist the RCMP or the law enforcement officers, that we should be, in fact, proceeding to look at or implement a program of security for those people.

The reason for the using of the Cattle Producers Associa tion, they have a good broad representation, they are the people that are goin g to have to be a part of the overall program. They have a good understanding and good input from all their membership on those kinds of thin gs, and it is a matter of us working with them to meet the targets that should be met. I think the overall report that they give us will be probably more accurate and have more meaning than one that would be done by any other group. I think that is the basic reason and they are more qualified to do it. MR.

ADAM: I know that the legislation that is in place in other provinces, such as Saskatchewan and Alberta, is avai lable, and I think I have a copy of the Saskatchewan one somewhere in my files, and there may be copies here of the legislation on file with staff. The information is already there available to the Minis ter, all he has to do is get it from Saskatchewan, what has happened in tho se provinces, other jurisdictions, as to the best method of trying to control rustling of livestock. There is a reluctance on the part of the RCMP to investigate cattle rustling anyway, they don't want to do it.

A MEMBER: You've got to bring back the hanging system. MR. ADAM: You know, he better not speak too loud that you bring back the hanging, because if I told him who some of the rustlers were in this province he better watch out, he might lose some strong supporters. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the only comment I have to that is that it takes one to know one. MR. ADAM: Mr. Chairman, on that point. I am glad the Min ister has made that comment because he is giving 33,000 to the Cattleman's Assocation to find rustlers, and I say he hires a thief to find a thief. Is that what he is saying, Mr.

Chairman, because cattle disappear among farmers most of the time. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I some time ago in the Es tima tes suggested that I had copies of the PAMI Report, which I will distribute to the members of the Committee. I would like to just thank the members of the committee for some construct ive debate, in general, but I would have to go back to making reference, in concluding my remarks, and I guess I would have to say this for the benefit of the Member for St.

George in his comments and not agreeing with what we are doing, a well-respected past Mini ster of Agricultur e for the province of Manitoba and a well-r espected Premier of the province of the Manitoba had suggested to me, and it's in the person of D.L. Campbell, who I certainly respect, who suggested that as long as the members of the NOP Party were in opposition to what we were doing in agriculture, then we were pretty well doing the right things and he fully supported us. I would take his comments a lo t more seriously, Mr. Chairman, than I would the Member for St. George. So with those, Mr.

Chairman, I thank the members for their participation in the estimates. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(a)- pass. Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 2,067, 100 for Agriculture- pass. Committee rise. SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR. CH AIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson ): Committee will come to order. I would di rect the honourable members' attention to Page 39 of the Main Estima tes, Department of Educa tion. Resolution No. 50, item under discussion is 1. (

b) General Admin istration,

(1) Salaries- pass. The item under discussion is still response to the Minis ter's Salary. The Hono urable Member for Churchill was going to speak. -(I nterjection)- Well, I think we will pass and we'll get onto the actual item at hand. The item is (b)( 1) Salaries - the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Honour able Mini ster knows that I am anxious to discuss with him his manner of dis charge of a certain case. I asked the question earlier today as to whether he has fired anybody in the last 12 months summarily. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister. HON.

KE ITH A. COSENS (Gimli): No, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, then I would ask him whether he fired Dr. Marvin Blauer in a

summary fashion? MR. COSENS: Mr. Chairman, the Member for St. Johns refers to a former member of the department, who was dism issed. He is quite correc