Manitoba Committee Hansard — LO Committee, Sitting 3 (30th Legislature, 2nd Session)

30-2-lo3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Legislative Assembly of Manitoba HEARINGS OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LAND OWNERSHIP Chairman Mr. Harry Shafransky, M.L.A. Constituency of Radisson Brandon - Thursday, January 30, 1975 Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANI TOBA THIRD MEETING OF SPE CIA L COMMITTEE ON LAND OWNERS HIP BRAND ON, JANUARY 30, 1975 CHAIRMA N: MR . H. SHA FRA NSKY. MR . CHAIRM A N: We have a quorum. We shall proceed with the meeting into the question of land us e and matters related to property rights in Manitoba. Mr. Walding. 129 MR. WA LDING: Mr. Chairman, I will move that the name of Mr. Dillen be substituted for that of the Honourable Mr. Boyce as a member of this committee. MR. CHAIRMA N: It has been moved that Mr. Dillen subst itute for the name of Mr. Boyce. An y question ? Ag reed? Ag reed. Fine.

I have a number of people who have indicated a desire to present a brief to the committee and I shall read over them. The Manitoba As so ciation of Calf Produc ers, the Rural Municipalities of Birtle, Miniota, Ellice, Si lver Creek, Shoal Lake and Emerson, and there was a letter to that effect from Mr. Fulton. The Western Man itoba Farm Bus iness As sociation. Now I don't know if this is the same one as the Manitoba Farm Bus iness As sociation from Mr. Kingdon, a letter from Mr. Kingdon, whether those are two separate groups or the same one. Is Mr. Kingdon here ? So I assume then that it's two separate groups.

The Rural Munic ipality of Morton and the Town of Bo issevain. Jerry Ac kerman, Univers ity of Manitoba Ag ricultural Economist. Gerry Hawhaw, Ri vers, Man itoba. Herb Mcintosh, Farmer from Carberry. R. Cameron. An d there's a letter - poss ibly I may read it at this time unless Mr. Cameron also wishes to speak to the committee. He has a very short letter. "Dear Sir: I would like to submit a brief on property rights of land.

I' m in the Brandon area." An d he has a sort of a resolution that present or future governments at no time own a higher percentage of agricultural farm lands than two percent and all programs lead as much as poss ible to ownership by the farmer and his family, and it is signed by Mr. Cameron, farmer from Mi nnedosa. Is Mr. Cameron here? Then I believe that that is his brief. He has just made a resolution. We also have from the Manitoba Farm Business Asso ciation, and Mr. Kingdon has written a letter. I assume that he - is Mr. Kingdon here ? Poss ibly he'll be here in the afternoon.

Is there anyone else in the audience who wishes to present a brief to the Committee? Would you please give us your name at this time and we can add it to the list. Yes, sir. -- (Interjection) -- Yes. You wish to speak to the committee. Okay I'll put you on the list. Mr. Black. Is there anyone else? Po ss ibly before I proceed to the first presentation I should introduce the members of the Committee for the benefit of those people who might not be familiar with them. On my left Mr. Graham, Member for Birtle-R uss ell; Mr.

Harvey Bostrom, Member for Ru pertsland, Mi nister for Co- operatives and Renewable RBsources; Tom Barrow, Member for Flin Flon; Wally Johannson, Member for St. Matthews; Sid Green, Mi nister of Mines, Re sources and Environmental Management; Gordon Johnston, Member for Portage la Prairie; Pete Ad am, Member for Ste. Rose ; Ken Dillen, Member for Thompson. On my right, Jim Ferguson, Member for Gladstone; Warner Jorgenson, Member for Morris; Dave Blake, Member for Mi nnedosa; George Henderson, Member for Pembina; Jim Walding, Member for St. Vital; and the Minis ter of Ag riculture, Sam Uskiw. We also have the.

A MEMBER : Who are you ? MR. CHAIRMA N: I'm Harry Shafransky, Chairman, and Member for Radisson Constituency. We have the Clerk and the Assistant Clerk, Mr. Jack Re eves and Mr. An stett from the Clerk's office, and the Deputy Mi nister of Ag riculture Mr. Jans sen. The first brief Manitoba As sociation of Cow-Calf Produc ers. Would you please come forward. Do you have a brief? Is there someone present? All right then we'll leave that for the time being. Second one, the Rural Municipalities of Birtle, Min iota, Ellice, Silver Creek, Shoal Lake and Rossb urn, and Mr. Fulton. He is not present?

The third one, the Western Manitoba Farm Bus iness As sociation. I have - the Western - You are ... MR. MA NNS: Yes, I represent the Western Manitoba Farm Bus iness Ass ociation.

130 MR. CHAIRM AN : What is your name, sir? MR . MANNS: Bob Manns . January 30, 197 5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Manns, you're up. First one. Mr. Manns. You have some briefs for the committee? MR . MANNS: Yes, we do. MR . CHAIRM A N: Al l right they will be distributed to the members of the Committee. I might mention that there will be future meetings of the Committee and the likely places that upon confirmation with the Clerk, the likely places will be Ar borg, Steinbach or Beausejour and Morden, and in addition to that one in Winnipeg as one of the last, poss ibly the last ones.

The dates I will be checking but tentatively I have, well I shouldn't mention it because the press will put in the wrong dates as they did the last time put the Brandon meet ing first and the Dauphin meeting last, in the last issue. Mr. Manns. MR . MA NNS: Mr. Chairman, as spokesman for the Western Manitoba Farm Bus iness As sociation and the Southwestern Farm Bus iness As sociation, I'm presenting this brief on their behalf. Mr.

Chairman, we thank you for the opportunity to present this brief to the Special Committee of the Legislative As sembly for the Province of Manitoba inquiring into property rights in Manitoba. On behalf of the Western and Southwestern Manitoba Farm Bus iness As sociation we would take this opportunity to outline our proposals on land use, ownership and property rights. Fi rstly, however, we feel it is important to point out that our two groups are composed of people actively engaged in farming.

Our membership is drawn from a wide area stretching from the Ri ding Mountains on the North, Saskatchewan boundary on the West, the U. S. Boundary on the South and on the East by a line running approximately north and south through Neepawa. We are a group of farmers formed into an assoc iation for the pooling of ideas in farm policy to help promote a better farming community, both for ourselves and for our fellow farmers. A serious effort is put into keeping of accurate farm account records to help make management decis ions for the betterment of their farming enterprises.

We certainly cannot claim to represent the entire farming population of this area but we can report a general feeling of scepticism and alarm among farmers to recent rumours of government ownership of farm lands. We say rumours since this is mainly what information has been filtering down to the farm level. We therefore cannot help but be critical of the general lack of information and publicity of these hearings. We would therefore as our first recommendation strongly urge this committee to carefully cons ider the Manitoba Farm Bureau's ninth recommendation .

This recommendation calls for the establishment of a land use and ownership corn mis- s ion, and that this corn miss ion be given a period of at least one year to: (1) ass emble.and publish adequate information; (2) encourage public consideration of all land use and ownership issues, and (3) prepare recommendations on land use and ownership for the Provincial Government. In regard to the subject of foreign ownership of lands it has been our experience that there are many differing views among the farming public on this subject.

A few points that we did agree on were, that foreign ownership is acceptable provided the purchaser is required to take up residence in Manitoba and obtain Canadian citizenship within a short period of time, say three years. The majority of us are after all foreigners to this country. We are however disturbed about foreign ownership and think that there should be con trols as to the amount of land that can be owned by a foreigner who is not about to become a Canadian citizen.

The difference in exchanges of foreign currency in itself is a matter that puts a Canadian buyer at a disadvantage and forces him to pay higher prices for land. We cannot find too much criticism of the Saskatchewan Farm Ownership Ac t. This type of legis lation would in our opinion be acceptable to most Manitoba farmers. On reading the report In Search of a Land Policy for Manitoba we had the feeling that the writer favours government ownership of all farm lands. On Pages 78 and 79 an example is illustrated favouring government ownership and the lessee over-buying through FCC or rent ing from a landlord.

Firstly, we will state that we favour an individual buying and owning equity in his farm

January 30, 197 5 131 (MR. MANN S cont'd) ..... as opposed to the government getting into land ownership and lease-back. It is our belief that an individual would be more interested, more ecologically minded, and do a better job of farming, if he has equity in his own farm. Our forbears came to this country to own a piece of land; in a good many cases hom esteaded it through hard times. We believe that the majority of farmers want to own their own land. The farmers of Manitoba have a good record of productivity and have proved to be very efficient.

There are countries that are striving to reach our productivity and we don't believe that we can afford to change our syst em. If we study the exercises that are presented on Pages 78 and 79 we find that the difference is only $432. 00 between the two systems and this is the amount of equity that the person puts into the plan.

As sum ing the prospective buyer has 25, 000 cash and uses this money to buy $20 , 000 worth of machinery and $5, 000 to reduce his operational and li\·ing expenses to $11, 000, he could purchase his farm with no down payment and his payments would be: under our plan, plan A, a mortgage for 30 years at 9-1 /4 percent on $G4, 000 would be $6, 352 . 14; 12 percent on $11, 000 operating and living expenses, would be $1, 320, taxes $960, for a total of 8, 632. 14. Take a look at the MA CC Plan, Plan B, rent at 5 percent on G4, 000, or 3, 200, 12 percent on 11, 000 is 1, 320, taxes 960 , for 5, 48 0.

We see that his total payment to buy the property is 8, 63 2 and to rent would be 5, 480, but there is a $2, 720 grant for subsidy here, 4-1 /4 percent interest on 64, 000. If this money is subtracted from the purchase price it would leave a difference of 5, 912 for the purchaser to pay, which is only $432. 00 greater and represents his equity in the property. If we go at it the other way, if we take 9-1 /4 percent on 64, 000 it comes up to $5, 920 in interest, his loan payments amortized over 30 years are 6, 35 2. 14. This means a difference of 6, 352, less 5, 920, or $432. 00.

So, gentlemen, we can see that if the chap can pay 5, 920 in interest or rent, then for $432. 00 more he can buy the farm. Carrying on one step farther through MA CC, if the chap after five years takes up his purchase option the way it stands now he has to pay back the subsidized interest, along with the purchase price of the farm, in cash. His price to MA CC is G4, 000, plus five years times $2, 720 equals 77, 600 , or a higher land evaluation. We ask you gentlemen, is this what we want ?

We suggest that there be set up a Crown corporation to subs idize interest rates of young prospective farmers who meet certain requirements as to their ability to farm successfully but who lack enough credit to get started. This subsidy could be of short duration, five years and could be partly recovered or partly forgiven after 20 years. Because there is always a shortage of mortgage money there would be a plan whereby a retiring farmer could reinvest part of his money at going interest rates into farm mortgages that could be government backed.

This brings us to another point, namely that of where does the Manitoba Government obtain the moneys that it uses to purchase land. It is our understanding that the government obtains these large blocks of capital in the money markets of the world, New York, or wherever. This being the cas e,we have strong objections to the government ownership of land as this really blows the theory that the money is staying in Manitoba.

In actual fact what is happening in this case is that the farmer pays his rent to the government, which in turn uses this rent money, plus additional taxpayer money, to pay the interest on the borrowed capital. In our opinion Manitobans would therefore be better served by the absentee landlord who lives in Winnipeg. Brandon, etc. It is also our opinion that the farmer who is working the land would much prefer to deal with the absentee landlord who in most cases is a person that is known to him rather than with a government body which is prone to change with elections. etc.

Our suggestion here might be that the government could provide a good ser vice by bringing its agricultural representatives up-to-date on land-lease agreements. Some thought should also be given to allowing young farmers at their outset into farming to use their equity payments as a registered fund and have a tax saving. This would have to be at their career outset because to allow the older established farmer this concession could encourage the buying of land as a tax concessi on and force the price of land up.

The laws on capital gains, gift taxes, etc. on the passing on of farm lands to succeeding generations that are going to actively farm the land should be abolished. Our group would also like to endorse the eleventh recommendation of the Farm Bureau, namely that during the Fourth coming Sess ion of the Legislative Ass embly the necessary

132 January 30, 1975 (MR. MANNS cont'd) .. ... legislative amendments be adopted to change the present methods of recording land ownership so as to provide more accurate information on who actually does own land in Manitoba. In conclusion, we thank the government for the chance to present our views and hope that we have shown that there can be alternate solutions to helping young farmers get established. MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Manns. Is there anyone wishes to direct a question to Mr. Manns ? Mr. Green. MR . GRE EN: Mr.

Manns, there's one aspect of this thing that has always interested me particularly, and that is why there would be in your view an advantage to a non-resident owner in British Columbia, or in New Brunswick, owning four sections of Manitoba land as against a non-res ident owner in North Dakota owning four sections of Manitoba land. What is the advantage in your eyes for the people of Manitoba ? MR.

MANNS: I really can't answer one way or the other as I represent a group of individuals, and I think we expressed this in our -- or tried to at least in our paper, that some people said okay, that's all right and other people said, you know, we don't like that. So it was hard and I think I tried to indicate in there that this is why we feel we need more meetings is to get a general over-all consensus of what is the feeling. I wouldn't want like to say we favour it and I wouldn't like to say that we don't favour it. MR .

GREEN: But you do express an opinion in favour of the Saskatchewan Farm Ownership Ac t and of the concept that a non-Canadian be required to take up residence in Manitoba if he owns land in Manitoba? MR . MANNS: Yes, that's right. That seemed to be one of the things that did come out in our discuss ions with people was that they would like to see people take up residency and . MR .

GR EEN: So then I think it's fair that I ask you the question - why do you say that a man from North Dakota who buys four sections of Manitoba land be required to take up res idence in Manitoba, or residence in Canada, perhaps move to Victoria, in which case he can keep the land, but a person in New Brunswich who buys four sections of Manitoba land can continue to live in Moncton till he dies. MR . GRA HA M: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR . CHAI RMAN : Yes, Mr. Graham, on a point of order. MR. GRA HA M: On the point of order, Mr.

Chairman, the witness has indicated that he is representing a g roup and the Minister is trying to get the man to give a personal opinion on his views on foreign ownership versus non-foreign ownership. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham, that is not a point of order. I believe that the question is being directed and is not expressing an opinion. Mr. Manns is indicating that he is representing a group and that it has been the expressi on of their group. The question is si mply for Mr. Green's clarification as to the reasons . MR. GREEN : Mr. Chairman, and I am certain that Mr.

Manns will tell me, and he appears to be quite able to take care of himse lf, that either he has an op inion or he does n't have an op inion. I am sincerely interested in this question.

You are a person who obviously being asked to represent this group has some feelings or knowledge, and if you haven't I expect that you will tell me, but for the life of me I have tried and asked numerous people to give me their reasons for being of the opinion that a foreigner who lives outs ide Manitoba should not be able to own Manitoba land, but a fellow from New Bruns wick should be able to own Manitoba land, and I am only asking whether you can give me your opinion as to the two, and if you can't of course that's fine. But your organization ... MR .

MANNS: Pers onally I have no objection to people outs ide of Manitoba within the boundaries of Canada owning Manitoba land. That's only my personal ... MR. GRE EN: An d I have appreciated that. Now I am asking you, you do have an ob jection to a person from North Dakota who intends to continue to reside in North Dakota own ing four sections of land in Manitoba, apparently from your brief. MR . MANNS: Yes, this is what is in the brief and again ... MR . GR EEN: Is that also your ... MR . MANNS: No, not necessarily my own opinion.

I feel that if we can't compete then we're going to have let them farm it, but that's only my personal opinion. I come from the northern part of this district and I'm not affected by the problem of Ame rican farmers coming across and I am sure, I didn't get time to look around today when I came in, but I am sure there are members here from the Southwest Farm Bus iness As sociation who are directly

January 30, 197 5 (MR. MA NNS cont'd) ..... affected by this problem and if there are any, I would like to hear their comments. 133 MR . GRE EN: I'm afraid that it's poss ibly my own inability to get through the question to you. I'm not talking about somebody who wants to come across and farm. I'm talking about a man in North Dakota owning four sections of land in Canada, renting it out to you and continuing to live in North Dakota. Your brief is against that ? MR . MA NNS: That's right, yes . MR .

GR EEN: But your brief takes no opinion against a man in New Brunswick owning four sections of Manitoba land and renting it out to you. You appear to say that the one is not acceptable, that is the North Dakota man, but the New Bruns wick man is acceptable. MR . MANNS: Well I wouldn't deny that this is probably what our brief says but I think that really it was more of an oversight, in the hurried effort that we had in putting this brief together we probably didn't consider this problem, this whole problem and it brings up some thing that will have to be discussed, I'm sure, by ... MR.

GRE EN: Well do you then consider that a person from New Brun swick who has no intention of coming to Manitoba should be in the same pos ition as a person in North Dakota who has no intention in coming to Manitoba, with regard to the ownership of Manitoba land? MR . MANNS: Well I really couldn't again offer an opinion as to what the over-all consensus of our group would be on that particular thing. MR . GREEN : Fine, that's fair enough. You are aware that a farm resident of Manitoba can own land or can buy a farm in North Dakota and continue to reside in Manitoba and rent that farm out in North Dakota.

I mean you're aware that that can happen now? MR . MA NNS: Yes. MR . GR EEN: You think that's a bad policy for North Dakota? Or you don't want to comment on the policies of North Dakota - which is legitimate. MR . MA NNS: No, I think that they will look after that situation if it arises. MR . GRE EN: Okay. Mr. Manns , would you not consider the real problem as to how land in Man itoba is used, as to whether it's used for the benefit of the people of the Province or is not used for the benefit of the people, that the real question is one of the us e of land and not the ownership of land ? MR .

MA NNS: Yes, I think that generally speaking our group is concerned about the use of land. MR . GR EEN: An d I think to be fair to your position, you are of the opinion or your group has put the opinion, that ownership is a very important if not essential ingredient to the best us e of farmlands. Would that be fair? MR . MANNS: I think that's fair, yes, that ownership ... MR . GRE EN: An d would you not feel that the more farmers in Manitoba who own their own farms, the better for the people of Manitoba ? MR . MA NNS: Not necessarily.

I think that our group would like to see a kind of a blending if possible of owned land, a farmer would own a block of land, a secure block, but there's no objection I don't think to anybody I've spoken to in our group to renting land as to an additional thing. I don't think we necessarily want to own all of our land. I don't think this is the intention. MR .

GRE EN: But am I not right in thinking - and if I'm wrong I want to be quickly told -a m I not right in thinking that the brief says that ownership is important because a per son who owns his own land practises the best form of husbandry, also builds up some equity in the land ? MR. MANNS: That's right, yes. MR . GRE EN: So would it not be an extension of that - and again if it's not tell me so that it would be better if more farmers own their own land rather than less farmers own their own land? MR . MANNS: The floor is open. MR . GRE EN: Som ebody says to you to say yes.

It's not me, I wouldn't tell you what to say, but somebody in the audience is encouraging you to say yes . MR . MANNS: Yes, I think that we would like to see more ownership, I think that's .. MR . GRE EN: Now if you had a report prepared by the Conservative administration called Targets for Economic Development, prepared under the auspices of the Department of Industry and Commerce, at that time Mini ster Mr. Sidney Sp ivak saying, that the target of 20, 000 farms by 1980 and an agricultural labour force of 30, 000 mean that fewer people will

134 January 30, 1975 (MR . GRE EN cont'd) .. .. . be living on farms and depending directly upon farming for their income than at present and the decline should be faster than the natural attrition rate and therefore people will have to seek new employment. Now the target suggested in the TED Re port is 20, 000 commercial farms. Because of the uncertainty of how many non- commercial farms there will be by 1980, the target for 20, 000 commercial farms should be set, but it should not be a matter of concern if farm numbers as defined by the census are higher.

Now given the fact that at that time there were over 35, 000 commercial farms and the target being set at 20, 000, would it not be of some concern to you that the target for 1980 would be less farmers owning their own farms rather than more farmers owning their own farms? MR . MANNS: I don't quite follow you that there would be -- I certainly follow that there are les s farmers but I don't follow that there would be less farmers owning their own farms. MR .

GREEN : Well if one talks about 35, 000 corn mercial farms in 1969 and 20, 000 commercial farms in 1980, would it not follow that less farmers are owning their own farms ? MR . MANNS: Not in my opinion. The 20, 000 that are remaining have maybe bought out the 15, 000 that dropped out, but it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't own -- you know, it could be the same amount of ownership, just we've got fewer farmers, that's all. MR . GR EEN: Well fewer farmers owning then. MR. MANNS: Fewer farmers owning it, yes. MR . GR EEN: That's the only conclusion that I tried to draw. MR . MANNS: Oh, okay, fine. MR .

GRE EN: Would that not be of some concern to you that some suggestion is being made that instead of there being 35, 000 farmers owning farms that there be 20, 000 farmers owning farms. MR . MANNS: To me personally, no, but I know that this is quite an issue, the decline of the farm population. But to me personally, no, I don't. MR . GR EEN: So then it is not of concern. Well would it ... MR .

MANNS: I certainly wouldn't want to speak on behalf of the group but I know that this is an issue that has been kicked around a great deal, that we must preserve and keep as many people on the farm as pos sible, but from my personal view to farm is not a God-given right. MR . GRE EN: Let's, Mr. Manns, take that a little further because I think you're the first person who's had the frankness and foresightness to come out and say that you don't care if there are less farmers on the farm. I don't think that that has been heard by the committee before. MR . MANNS: I don't want to appear callous but ... MR .

GRE EN: I welcome your frankness. Now let us assume that we go down to 10, 000 farmers from the 20, 000. That would also be not of concern to you? MR . MANNS: No, ... MR . GREEN : An d if we go from 10, 000 to 5, 000 that would also not be of concern to you ? MR . MANNS: Well I don't think that this situation will ever come to pass. Well I suppose, you know, the natural conclusion is you're going to get down to one farmer and then of course I would be concerned I suppose. MR . GREEN : Going from two to one is when you start being concerned? MR . MANNS: Ri ght.

But I don't think the situation is likely to come about and I'm not concerned about that. MR. GR EEN: I would have to say, Mr. Manus, that one of the concerns of certain members of this committee is that there is an inherent good way of life in farming which is available through the resources of Manitoba and one of the concerns of certain members of this committee is that that good way of life with a fair return to the people who are engaged in it be preserved for as many Manitobans as possible. But that is not one of your personal concerns ? MR .

MANNS: No, I think that in our brief here we certainly outline that we like to encourage more young farmers in there and this belief of mine that I'm not all that concerned about the loss of people from the farm is as I say only my own personal, callous if you would, but not the views of the Farm Business As sociation at all. MR . GRE EN: But those people who are concerned that more people be producing at a

January 30, 197 5 135 (MR . GREEN cont'd) ..... return which enables them to live a decent life, that people having that concern would then not be able to adopt some of the propositions that you have put forward. MR. MA NNS: I'm afraid you kind of lost me there, I didn't catch what you were ... MR . GRE EN: That's possibly not fair. Some of the personal propositions that you have put forward. That some of the personal propositions that you have put forward are that the sort of diminution of the farm population into bigger units with less farmers is not a problem as far as you're concerned. MR .

MA NNS: Not really, no. MR . GR E EN: An d, of course, I think that you have indicated to me that despite the brief that you have presented that you are not able to give me any real distinction between a New Brunswick non-resi dent owner of four sections of land and a North Dakota non-res ident owner of four sections of land, that you aren't able to really see any distinction between the two. MR . MA NNS: No, other than in our brief we have stated that the person be required to, you know, take out Canadian citizenship, which of course is going to predicate against the chap from North Dakota. MR .

GR EEN: Yes I understand that's what your briefs say, but then I try to find out from you why there would be this distinction, and I believe it's fair to say that you haven't been able to give me a real reason as to why there should be a distinction, other than one is a Canadian and one is a foreigner. MR . MA NNS: Well that's pos sibly true, you know. There are so many grey areas I suppose, and you get talking about a thing like this and that the quest:ons never really come up a lot of time in the discussion to enlighten a person on them. MR . GR E EN: Now, Mr.

Manns, I take it that you agree that the difficulties involved with capital investments necessary to go into farming, and in particular one of them being the price of land, make it necessary to have some type of subsidy program for people wanting to get into the business; a subs idized interest rate I think you referred to. MR . MA NNS: Well I don't know that we actually referred to this . This was just taking an example that was in the red book and carrying it one step further. That's all. A different use of the same capital. We didn't change anything really, we just moved it around in a little different .. .

MR. GRE EN: I'm not trying to be unfair to you. Going to Page 4, "we suggest that there be set up a Crown Corporation to subsidize the interest rate of young prospective farmers". So I am suggesting to you that you do believe that there is so mething necessary to subs idize young farmers, and one of the things that you referred to is a subs idized interest rate. MR. MA NNS: Yes that was one of the things.

It was merely, I think, or mainly a carry-over from the previous example, and we were looking at it as if the government had more or less suggested - in fact, this appears to be the program now that they will in effect subsidize the individual by means of letting him lease land back at 5 percent, so we're just simply saying well let's use it in a little different way and let him own that, for a mere $432. 00 a year more let's let him own that land. MR . GRE EN: Well,but let's get your preferences because I want to be certain of this. Would you prefer that we subs idize nothing ?

In other words, if you didn't have our example would you say that there should be no subsidy for a person going into farmland, because you do make the suggestion that there be a subs idized interest rate. You now tell me that that was really just to sort of have a preference to what has been done with the leases , but if you had your druthers, as we say, would you not subsi dize them at all ? MR . MA NNS: I think probably I would prefer to see no subsidy because evmy time that the government comes in with a subsidy, or some other program, we lose something else. We lose somewhere along the system .

Either we have rights taken away or it's going to cost us dearly somewhere else, and I think a good example of this probably is the beef industry at the present time. The more we get hand fed from the government, the more then we've become dependent and I don't really think that -- (Interjection) -- this is mentioned in here, and again I'm afraid that I'm overstepping my limits in saying that I'm not all that ... MR. GR EEN: You're not personally in favour of the injection of ... MR. MA NNS: . subs idies as such because they always have got something tacked along with them and . . .

136 January 30, 1975 MR . GR E EN: Well, then, would I be correct in saying that as far as your personal thinking is concerned that the program under the Farm Credit Corporation should be eliminated and the program under the MA CC should be eliminated because both of them involved government-supported interest rates, publicly supported interest rates ? An d I understand that there are more farmers in this area on a percentage basis who have made use of those two programs than in any other part of the Pr ovince of Manitoba. Would you say that those programs sh ould be eliminated ? MR.

MA NNS: No, I don't think that they should. I just merely stated that every time a new government program comes along we're going to lose something, and I think that the Manitoba Ag Credit and Federal Farm Credit both have been accused o� because of making money more readily available they have forced the land up; so it I think can be argued both ways as to whether they in actual fact were a benefit to the farmers. I realize full well that almost, I don't know, maybe 90 percent of the farms in this area that have a mortgage on them are either with FCC or MA CC.I don't dispute that ... MR .

GR EEN: Well I won't pursue it further. I mean you've indicated that personally you would not have any of these subsidies in exist ence. But then you've also said that you wouldn't care if we went down to 5, 000 farmers. MR . MA NNS: That's right. That again, as I say, is my personal opinion and certainly I wouldn't want to speak for the rest of the group. You could I'm sure talk to another person in this room from our group and get an altogether different answer and this is . . . MR . GRE EN: I understand. I understand that, Mr.

Manns, and I say I appreciate the forthrightness in which you're giving these answers. I know I'm taking a bit of time but I have been, and for many years have been so interested in these questions that I hope you'll forgive me if I pursue them. Now you appear to agree that holdings need not necessarily be all owned, that a farmer can have an option to lease, and of course many farmers in Manitoba have leased land from different sources for many many years. There's nothing wrong with the farmer leasing land. MR . MA NNS: Not in my opinion and I think in ... MR .

GR EEN: An d would you say that a farmer should have a choice of from whom he leases land ? MR . MA NNS: Probably preferable, yes I suppos e. MR . GRE EN: An d would you say a farmer should have a choice of to whom he sells his land? MR. MANN S: Oh certainly, yes. MR . GRE EN: An d you wouldn't discriminate against either the buyer or the landlord as to who should be the buyer or who should be the landlord? MR. MA NNS: I would discriminate against the buyer if it's going to be the government buying with my tax money. MR . G RE EN: Well can you tell me, Mr.

Mann, when you say that the buyer is buying with your tax money, are you certain that your tax money that you're talking about is worth more than the land that the money is going into ? Af ter all, money is one form of asset, land is another form of asse t. If someone was able to convince you that your tax money is going to depreciate in value and your land owned by you as a taxpayer is going to increase in value, would you still say that as a taxpayer you would prefer to hold money than land ? An d as a busines sman - because it's merely the transfer of one asset to another.

If I, as your public representative, had $100. 00 of your money and I could be dead sure, which of course I never can be, that having that money in land would make sure that it's worth $200. 00, having it in money, as you say, will result in it being worth $50. 00, would I as your public representative act in your benefit if I kept it in money rather than in land ? Some people say you should say no. I'm not telling you what to say, that's right. MR . MA NNS: I'm afraid you've lost me. MR . GREEN : I believe that there are other people who want to answer the question for you.

They apparently think that, not like me I think that you are very capable of answering, but there are some people who think that you can't answer. I'll repeat it. If the Province of Manitoba in dealing with your tax dollar, in dealing with the treasury, knew that it was holding a million dollars in either cash or credit, and knew that that million dollars was going to depreciate to be worth half a million, and knew that land would continue at a million, would your elected representative do you a justice by keeping the million dollars in cash or in land?

January 30, 1975 137 MR . MA NNS: Well I doubt very much in the first place that they would have the million dollars kicking around. From my experience, or at least ... MR. GR EEN: I said cash or credit. MR . MA NNS: Why should government want to go out and invest its money in land in Manitoba. I personally just can't see this. If there are programs for the people, welfare or whatever, then this is maybe surely where it should spend its money, but to go out and buy up farmland in Manitoba to me is n't right. MR. GR EEN: Then I gather, Mr.

Manns,that your answer to the question is that you discri minate against no landlord unless it is the public, and that you discriminate against no buyer unless it is the public. MR . MA NNS: Yes . MR. GR EEN: You'll accept any landlord except the public ? You'll accept any purchaser except the public ? MR. MANNS: I don't think in our brief we said that we would accept any landlord or any buyer as such. We did try to indicate in there that we wanted to see people take up residency in Manitoba and become Canadian citizens . There was that limitation in there. MR .

GREEN: Would you then give me this one, let's say meeting of mind, although I'm not sure that I will get it from you, that as far as you are concerned the public of Manitoba is as good an owner of land as a foreign non- resident of Manitoba, or would you prefer a foreign non-resi dent to the public of Manitoba. Somebody is answering for you, a foreign non- resident; again they don't feel that you can answer the question. MR . MA NNS: Well this of course is the position that I find myself in.

If I answer one way - you know, I'm trying to answer on behalf of the group, and as I said at the outset the views of the group are many and varied and I really can't, and I'm afraid I've gone far too far today in answering things as I personally feel. No I don't really see any objection personally to foreign ownership of the land. MR . GR EEN: So then you would prefer a foreign non-r esident to public ownership. MR . MA NNS: No I don't really want to see either if at all possible.

I would much prefer, I would much prefer the situation that I happen to be in at home where I'm renting land from a retired gentleman, lives down the road, and he lives in Minnedosa. And the rent money that I pay him, I don't know, he may go and spend it in the pub,but at least it stays in that immediate area. MR . GREEN : Mr. Manns, we're trying to determine a land po licy for the Prov ince of :Manitoba and one of the things that has come up is whether we should restrict foreign owner ship .

An d you people have indicated that you should restrict foreign ownership if it doesn't result in residency in a period of three years. Residency being anywhere in Canada. or be comes a citizen of Canada. Now would you say that you would prefer - you prefer neither foreign ownership or public ownership. Would you prefer a private resident of New Brunswick who never came to the Pr ovince of Manitoba, non-resident ownership, to public ownership of land. MR . MANN: Yes, I think so. MR . GR EEN: Thank you. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Henderson. MR . HENDERSO N: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr.

Mann I want to assure you that I won't give you as rough ... MR . MA NNS: Excuse me, the name is Manns, M A N N S. MR . HENDERSON : M A NZ ? MR . MANNS: M AN N S. MR . HENDERSON : Thank you. Well I certainly won't give you as rough a time as Mr. Green did because he's a very capable lawyer and my only worry is that if he's going to badger every witness that gets up to express his opinion that there won't be people want to get up. MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR . HENDERSO N: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's fair that a professional lawyer . MR . CHAIRMAN: Order please. Order please. Order please. Mr.

Henderson you have a question to be directed. I don't believe there was any badgering. If you have a question you can redirect the question to the person appearing, and I don't think that there is any need for that type of a start of your questions. Mr. Green on a point of privilege. MR . GREEN : Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege. You know I'm not going to

138 January 30, 19 75 (MR . GR EEN cont'd) ..... comment on the intelligence or the lack of intelligence of Mr. Henderson's questions . I believe that I asked the questions that I asked because they are questions which people in Manitoba are concerned with, and which I as an elected representa tive are concerned with. But if we are to continue this I may have to comment on the intelli gence of Mr. Henderson's questions and they may not be to his advantage. MR . CHAIRMA N: Mr. Henderson you may proceed. MR. HENDERSO N: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of privilege. MR . CHAIRMA N: Mr.

Henderson, on a point of privilege. MR . HENDERSO N: I don't say that Mr. Green isn't trying to do a thorough job. MR . GRE EN: Then don't say that I'm badgering. MR . HENDERSON: But by using the legal tactics that you do,I don't believe . . . On the same point of privilege. He spoke on his point of privilege and I believe I should be given the same right. MR . CHAIRMAN: Proceed on your point of privilege, Mr. Henderson. MR .

HENDERS ON: An d I think that if we are wanting the public to participate in these hearings that we should be a little careful and not just badger a witness, as you could say, so as you can embarrass them. MR . CHAI RMAN : Mr. Henderson that is not a point of privilege. You may proceed with your questions. MR. GR EEN: Mr. Chairman, I would like Mr. Manns to tell this committee, or to tell the people in this room, whether he feels that I have been unfair with him. MR. MA NNS: I was expecting it. MR .

CHAIRMA N: Well I believe we are trying to find out the answers to the question which has been raised in the Legislature, and this is the whole purpose for this forum. Whether you're expecting it or not I believe you came forward to give some information to the committee. Therefore we shall proceed. Mr. Henderson, your questions. MR . HENDERSON: Okay. Mr. Manns did you know that the TED Report was not written by Mr. Spivak and just Conservatives, that it was written by business men of all the communi ties and people from all different political parties ? MR .

MA NNS: I'm not aware of what is in the TED Report or who wrote it, or anything else really. MR. HENDERSON: Well the TED Report was written by a group of busines smen who were being picked by the government of the day to recommend targets for economic develop ment. My only further question is that what you are opposed to, as I see it, is you are not opposed to landlords living in towns and renting to other people, what you are opposed to is the government owning too much land and renting it back to people under their option plan, as they call it. MR .

MA NNS: I think this was the general feeling of our group, that there is scepticis m and alarm among the people that the government is coming in and taking over this land. MR . HE NDERSO N: An d you are really more worried about that than you are about foreign ownership or non-reside nt landlords ? MR . MA NNS: Pe rsonally, yes, because foreign ownership is really not a problem in our area. MR. HENDERSO N: An d you represent a group of people right from the border up to the north ? MR . MA NNS: Yes. MR . HENDERS ON: Thank you. MR . CHAIRMA N: Mr. Uskiw. MR . USKIW: Yes. Mr.

Manns, during the course of our experience in the credit corporation's activities since 1969, we found that we had to reject most of the applicants for mortgage credit because of their lack of viability, their lack of personal assets to get them started, ancl the land-lea se program developed from the consideration of those people that were denied entry into agriculture.

Do you believe in your opinion that the only way in which people should get their foot in the door of agriculture, get control of a parcel of land, is through mortgage financing, or do you think there should be flexibility on the part of govern ment programs so that all the needs of the rural people can be met, even those who cannot raise mortgage money.

January 30, 1975 139 MR . MA NNS: I am afraid I'm just at a loss to know just how to go about answering that question. I certainly realize that there are a lot of problems with young people who want to get established in farming, having the money to do it, and again I suppose I would have to come back to my statement that, you know, it's not a God-given right. Nobody starts up in the clothing business or any other bus iness without some financial help probably from his father or somebody, he gets into the bus iness in this way, and farming, in my opinion, is a busines s.

It's really no different than any other and that, you know ... MR. USKIW: Al l right. Let me pose the other question. Is it a God-gi ven right that only those people that have already ass embled some financing of their own should be given further financing by government institutions as a means of gaining control of land? MR. MA NNS: Probably not. MR . US KIW: Al l right. So then both rights are not God-gi ven? MR. MA NNS: No. MR .

US KIW: If that is the case, is it not fair that public policy should accommodate both needs; the one that has some ability on his own to acquire a land holding as well as the one that aspires to do that but at the moment is unable to raise his capital? MR . MA NNS: Yes, I think that in our brief we indicate that, you know, for the person who is genuinely interested in getting established in farming that we have said that some form of help should be available.

We don't personally think that the leasing system is the one, we would like to see, as we have suggested, just, you know, turn the thing around a little bit; we don't feel that MA CC need get back into the lending bus iness but if they could work out some agreement with say FCC whereby a young chap could maybe get 100 percent financing on a parcel of land and get a break on the interest rate for the first five years and go along on this basis - possib ly. This is just a suggestion.

I'm sure that there are lots of others and probably better, but the lease-back arrangement we don't -- we feel at least that it's loaded against the chap ever owning that piece of land and we come back to the thing that - a lot of times there isn't a heck of a lot in this farming bus iness, it gets pretty skinny - and it comes back to pride of ownership and if you had a fellow just leasing that land, I think lots of times he might just say to heck with it and pull out. MR .

USKIW: Well then let me ask the following question: Why is it that our more sophistic ated farmers, those that are categorized as the farmers who own substantial quanti ties of land, the larger operators, by and large tend to lease more land than do the smaller owners of farmland ? Why is it that the more sophisticated larger operators take the option of leasing additional quantities of land? MR . MA NNS: Well I suppose they have the capital tied up in equipment and one thing and another and it provides a good means of expanding their business to lease more land rather than tie their capital up in it. MR.

USKIW: But doesn't that then more so just ify that the one that doesn't have any money not tie up any capital in land but rather tie it up in productivity, buildings, equipment, livestock. Ar en't you fortifying the pos ition that it is wrong to overload a beginner with a heavy mortgage? MR. MA NNS: When you come back to this point that you mentioned about buildings, this is one thing that has been brought up, of where in the world is the fellow going to get any money from anybody to erect buildings on these properties if it's all leased, you know, to do any improvements.

What encouragement is he going to have to make improvements to this property if it is in fact all leased? MR . USKIW: You are obviously cons idering a private lease arrangement only when you make that comment. MR . MA NNS: No, I'm talking about government leases. The information that I have, maybe it's sketchy, but the individual would only actually own maybe the small building site that he occupies and there's no way that any lending institution is going to consider lending him money unless he has a terrific record. MR.

USKIW: Well the point is, if he has security of tenure, why would he not want to build his hog barn or his poultry barn; why wouldn't he want to improve the soil, the product ivity; why wouldn't he want to erect his home? If he has security of tenure for a lifetime whether it's through the option to purchase or through a continuation of his lease till he's old enough to retire and with the provis ion that he may even pass that on to his descendants, why would he not have the confidence to invest those sums of money that are required to make that farm productive?

140 January 30, 1975 MR . MA NNS: I think by virtue of the fact that it is a lease and like any farmer here, am sure he's reluctant to make improvements on land that he leases from no matter who, whether it's the government or whoever; and, you know, the government as we mention is prone to change with elections and the view of the people is that, you know, these leases) you may say that they are long-term leases but the cottage owners in Clear Lake are finding out that their long-term lease isn't so long term now, and there's no difference in our opinion, I don't think. MR .

USKIW: Well if his security of tenure was assu red to him by contract, what is the difficulty in him investing money for the productivity of that farm in the same way that he would if he owned the land ? MR . MA NNS: Because I don't think that you can really assure him of security of tenure .. MR . USKIW: Why can't we assure him of that? MR . MA NNS: ... under a lease, because of the things that I mentioned earlier. That subject to changes of government, and certainly we all know that there are whims of politicians that get into these things . . . MR .

USKIW: You don't respect the law of contract as being binding enough ? MR . MA NNS: Not that particular -- not a contract on a lease, because as I have men tioned, that the cottage owners at Clear Lake thought that they had 99-year leases and one thing and another and my understanding is that they are finding that this is not the case. MR . USKIW: But I am putting to you this question. That if his security of tenure is as assured as it would be if he owned his own land, in other words ... MR .

MA NNS: I don't really believe that the farming public of Manitoba would feel that a lease was as secure as a mortgage, you know, owning the property and having a mortgage. Certainly he stands the chance of losing it if he falls behind in payments, recognize this . But you do the same thing in a lease too. MR . USKIW: What I am trying to bring out here is that (

a) he is not an eligible borrower under the normal way of doing busines s. That is he cannot accumulate mortgage funds. He has been already turned down by the FCC, that's the character that we're talking about. He is the son of one of you in this room who wants to far m; his father does not want to retire, his father does not want to donate him a farm but he wants to farm as a career.

So therefore we're not talking about a person that has alternatives and which are the better alternatives, we'l'e talking about that group of people that have no alternatives but to exit out of agriculture or to enter agriculture via a different system of tenure, be it temporary or permanent, which would depend on their own performance. MR . MA NNS: Well maybe I've lost touch with what is going on in my district and that. I don't really feel that the si tuation is that desperate, that the young fellow is being forced out simply because he can't find the money.

I think if there is a genuine desire on his part to get established that he'll find some land and he'll get going so mehow or other. MR . USKIW: Somehow or other? MR . MA NNS: Right. I don't think you'll find any farmland in Manitoba that is not being farmed at the present time. MR. USKIW: You're suggesting to that individual that has a desire to farm, that if the credit system cannot facilitate him that he really has to opt out of the occupation that he would prefer? MR . MA NNS: If he has the genuine desire to get established in farming I don't think that the present situation would stop him.

I know of lots of young farmers that are getting established with very little backing and . . . MR . USKIW: If that is correct then why is the Federal Credit Corporation not facilitat ing thousands of young farmers who want to get in but who are told you don't have enough assets, you are not qualified under our regulations , until you accumulate a certain amount of equity we cannot do business with you. MR . MA NNS: Ar e they in fact turning thousands of Manitoba farmers away ? MR. USKIW: Well I don't have a figure on it but I ... MR . MA NNS: I don't either but ... MR .

USKIW: I would hazard a guess that there are many people that are not eligible for a loan, a mortgage loan, to the FCC because of their own financial posi tion. MR . MA NNS: Ri ght. I'm aware of this. I worked for five years as a credit agent

January 30, 1975 141 (MR . MANNS Cont'd) ..... with the Manitoba Ag Credit Corporation and I have some idea of the problems that these young fellows do have in getting established, but in working with them I found that if the fellow had the genuine desire to get going that usually something could be worked out, some arrangement, we could find some land to get hi m started somewhere - he would rent from a neighbour or something like this. MR . USKIW: In your illustration you indicate that the difference between leasing and ownership is some $43 2, but that is additional to a government grant of $2, 720 annually ?

MR . MA NNS: That's right, yes . MR . USKIW: That is correct? Why do you think that if I have money and I can arrange for a mortgage with the FCC, that I should not get $2, 720 grant per year to bu�· my farm, but the one that doesn't have any money should be eligible to get an annual grant of $2, 720, which is an expense of the people of Manitoba. MR . MA NNS: Well of course we have put this forward as a suggestion and this . MR .

USKIW: No, but isn't that unfair to myself who can arrange mortgage financing and who has to pay an interest rate, current whatever it is, isn't that unfair, one farmer against another, that one should be eligible for a grant of $2, 720 per year in the purchase of his farm where the neighbour would not be eligible. MR . MA NNS: Well of course any time you break a ruling and dra\\' a line there's going to be some people that are going to get hurt and your government is suggesting that the young fellow needs help but that the more established individual doesn't need help.

So we are just, you know, really following that line of reasoning along. I know that there are going to be young fellows who have got money that maybe aren't going to be able to qualify for this and that's unfortunate but that's the ball game and they're going to have to live with it I guess. MR. USKIW: But you realize the point I'm making. MR. MA NNS: Oh yes, I think. MR. USKI W: That is that in the Land Lease Program the government hopes not to lose any money; in your propositi on we would have to put up millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and give it away. MR.

MA NNS: How do you reason that the government is not going to lose money, be cause the money that you us e to buy that land is certainly going to have to carry with it interest of somewhere, you're going to borrow the money, you're only going to receive back 5 percent interest on that money, so say approximately 4- 1/2 or· 4-1 /4 percent inter est is going to have to be paid somewhere. Now we've suggested that probably the 5 percent plus the 4-1 /2 or 4-1 /4 is going to go into the New York money market or wherever you obtain your money, so it's lost from the Province of Man itoba. MR .

USKIW: Well it is n't lost in that the government for its risk capital is acquiring an asset, a long- term ass et, if the individual does not opt to purchase the land. If the individual opts to purchase the land, the government gets repaid to the pen ny its investment in that land. MR .

MA NNS: But this brings up the point that we were trying to rais e, at least in our brief, that you really are not trying to establish the individual in the ownership of that land, you're loading it so heavily against him that after 5 years time he's got the interest for 5 years added on to the thing, it brings him up to , in this example, 77, 000- odd dollars, or a higher land evaluation. He can't even freeze the price of the land - you know, if he buys it today and then 5 years down the road he decides to take over the ownership he can't freeze it at that 64, 000 - it might be 80, it might be 90, 000. MR .

USKIW: That's right. But the point is the public is going to realize hopefully , we think it will, every penny that it has put into that program whether the person exercises the option to buy or whether the person exercises his option to continue his lease, only that the government return will be an increase in its ass ets or the value of its assets on the one hand, or a recovery of cash on the other hand. So there is no risk to the people of Manitoba.

Now what I gather from you is that you would want to have the government consider a discr iminatory policy whereby one person living on the right side of the road could get a 2, 700-d ollar grant per year in order that he might buy a farm, while you would deny that same privilege to the fellow across the road because he happens to have accumulated a few dollars of his own. That's really what you are saying ? MR . MA NNS: Yes , basically, I suppos e, and is that not the case right at the present time, that the well- established farmer could not go to your department and have them buy a

142 January 30, 1975 MR. MA NNS Cont'd). piece of property for them and rent it back at 5 percent? MR. USKIW: Yes, there are ... MR. MA NNS: So you are actually discrim inating now ... MR. USKIW: But not by way of a grant. The discrimination is only as to whether one can use the program but not as to whether one should receive a subsidy. They are both equal on that score. MR. MA NNS: I'm afraid you've lost me on that one, that's kind of thin as to whether he receives th e grant or not; he certainly would be receiving the grant if he was allowed to rent the land at 5 percent. MR.

USKIW: That's assum ing that the asse t never increased in value or in fact depre- ciated in value. On that assumption you would be right. Are you assumi ng then that the publ ic is taking undue risk in that the value of land will go down over the next 20 or 30 or 50 years or the lifetime of our contract with a les see and that therefore in fact the public will be !os ing money ? MR. MANNS: No, I really hadn't even cons idered whether the public was going to lose money or not in the ownership of land. MR .

USKIW: Would you think that they are going to make money when the lesse e exer cises his option to purchase- or if he does ? MR . MANNS: Well I suppose it would depend entirely on what the farm economy is going to do and how long the chap takes to exercise his option. MR. CHAIRMA N: Mr. Johnston. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Manns, in your brief you state that you would like to see some legislation restricting foreign ownership when you were discuss ing it with Mr. Green. Is the real reason because foreign money would upset the land values ? Is that one of the reasons ? If there was an excess ... MR.

MANNS: I would think that's got to be one of the reasons. Yes. MR . G. JOHNSTON: If there were a modest amount of foreign buying and selling, which has gone on in Canada from day one I sup pose. It hasn't really affected land values or the market in all of Canada excepting perhaps in some recreational areas where wealthy Am ericans pay high prices for recreational land. But you are concerned about the future, not perhaps the present but in the future, false values enter into the market? MR.

MA NNS: Well yes, this is certainly I think one of the things that we are concerned about and we, you know, look around and B. C. has a program, and most of the other provinces have some sort of legislation that at least limits foreign ownership, and we might end up being the only island in Canada where this could flood in and with the tremendous amounts of money that is being accumulated by the OP EC countries it's entirely poss ible that they could if they chose come in. I could stand corrected on the solvencies in other provinces but I understand that at least some of them have a program. MR. G.

JOHNSTON: Of course you realize the intention of the hearings is if the government gets enough feedback and feeling that they would bring in legislation to restrict or control a foreign ownership, and basically you think that's not a bad idea. Is that correct? MR. MANNS: Yes, I think that the feeling of the group was that control, some control of foreign ownership,at least make them respons ible enough that they're going to have to take out Canadian citizenship, and poss ibly residency in Manitoba, I don't know. MR. G.

JOHNSTON: To turn to the other subject that is under discuss ion, and that is the fact that the government has a program to go out and purchase land and either lease it back or resell it to young farmers, or to farmers in general. Your brief states that you don't approve of that idea. Is that correct ? MR. MA NNS: I think that certainly would be the general feeling of the members of our group that they don't like to see the government ... MR. G.

JOHNSTON: Well in your experience with your neighbours and with your assoc iation, do you know of any government purchases that have taken place that have not helped so meone. What I'm asking is, has government competed for the land, or did they buy land as a last resort to help someone else get into the busine ss ? MR. MANNS : In my immediate area I can't think of any case where the government has come in and bought land. MR. G. JOHNSTON: So you don't know of any particular case? MR. MANNS: I don't know of any particular case but I'm sure there are probably others in the group that do.

January 30, 1975 143 MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Manns, would it be helpful to you and other s in this room, and I notice Mr . Max Hofford is in the room, the Ch airm an of MA CC, if the comm ittee wer e to ask him to appear before us so tJoat he could answer ques tions . Would that be helpful ? MR. MANNS : You mean at this partic ular mee ting ? MR. G. JOHNSTON: Yes , he's here in the roo m. Would it be hel pful for him to ex pla in the progra ms that he is attempting to car ry out on behalf of the gover nme nt ?

In other words , you have said her e that you don't - you' re cr itical of lack of general information about the government enter ing into this prog ram. Would it be helpful if Mr. Hofford were to make a pre s entation and mem bers of the commit tee could ask him questions, which in turn would be giving some information out to the people he re? MR. MA NNS: Well I would be happy to hear what Mr. Ho fford has to say.

Unfortunately I don't know how many other people there are waiting to pre sent br iefs her e today and I cer tainly wouldn 't want to indicate that he should, or that he shouldn 't, until these other people at least are heard. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Ch air man. MR. CHAIRMA N: Mr. Walding. MR . WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Ch airm an. Mr. Manns, you've been very patient with the com m ittee, I'll try not to keep you too much longer. I' m a city MLA and I know very little about far ming, so you'll please be patient with me with the questions I wanted to ask .

My const ituency is an urban one; there are no fa rms in the cons tituency. Just as a point of interest or information to you, you me ntion on Page 2 that the purchaser should take out Canadian cit izenship within three years . I believe the Citizenship Ac t requires a landed imm igrant to be in the country for five years before he can take out his citizenship. The memb ers of your ass oc iation would they be most ly far mers in the district - far m owne rs ? MR . MA NNS: Oh yes .

We' re all actively engaged in fa rm ing and I would say that we all own our land and a good per centage re nt land, and in most cases re nt it from people that live or res ide in the neighbour ing town, or wherever, but generally speaking from people that are right in the distric t. MR . WALDING : An d when the time come s for them to retire they would pres umably want to get the best pr ice for their land that's poss ible? MR.

MANNS: I suppose a far me r is a kind of a funny beast in that my exper ience has been that oftentime s a fa rme r will se ll out to a tl'eighbour, the neighbour 's son, or some th ing like th is, and give him a pretty fair break in the pr ice to help him get establ ished and get him going. So I don't really think you can say that they generally sell out for the higher price.

Ce rtainly there are far ms that se ll for the highest price but in a lot of case s I think that there ar e a lot of far ms that change hands at values below what they really could have got for them if they'd really gone out and adver tise d the m. MR. WALDING: I'm rather surpr ised to hear that. I would expect a man about to re- tire would want to accumulate the biggest nest egg he could to provi de for his retired years . MR .

MA NNS: As I say, a far mer is a kind of a funny cat in that he-does n't always ask that high pr ice, and I think that the stat istics that ar e quoted in your book would tend to in dicate th is. If he's selling to a foreigner certainly the price is going to be up as high as he can get it, but if he happens to be se ll ing to the neighbour 's son, or some th ing like this , chances are that land value isn't going to be as high as what it normally could have been. Now that's a perso nal op inion again and I could stand corre cted by other people in th is roo m. MR.

WALDING : If we wer e to bring in restr ictions on the sale of land what it would me an, that th ose fa rmers who wanted to get the highest am ount that they could would not have that right to sell to foreigners who might have a fat cheque book to pay an inflated pr ice for far ms. Is this what you would have us do to your me mber s, to take away th is right? MR . MANNS: I think the me mbers have indicated that the y're not in favour of foreign ers corn ing in to buy.

Now they may have - maybe on the other side of the fence come the day they want to se ll and the foreigner happens to want to buy, but at the prese nt time as far mers that are go ing on far ming I think that they feel that foreign intervention, unless that per son is interes ted in co ming over here and far m ing, and I think that there are certainly a lot of people in other countries that probably could come and teach us a lot about far ming too. I wouldn 't. .. MR . WALDING: We've heard no obj ection to that from anybody by the way. It's just fa rm res idents I believe.

144 January 30, 1975 MR . MA NNS: No. Ri ght. MR . WA LDING: I wanted to touch on another point, where you said you didn't want your tax money, or anybody else's tax money, to be paid out by the government for the ownership of land, and that would include my constituents, too, yet at the same time you said that you thought it would be a good idea if the public through my constituents' tax dollars were to subsidize farmers to help them buy a farm. MR . MANNS: Yes .

You know, I'm in the position of answering on behalf of an assoc ia tion and yet I have my own personal views on this and I don't really like to see any more government intervention in the thing than we can pos sibly - you know, if we can poss ibly eliminate it. Yet at the same time I would of course like to see young farmers coming into the farming, but I see them coming in now and I' m really wondering whether there is any need for all this. MR . WA LDING: There was a subsidy mentioned in your brief and ... MR . MA NNS: Yes.

Well it was just in reference to the example that was used in the book and we assumed it would be a subsidy of 27 hundred-odd dollars. MR . WA LDING: So what your members are saying in effect is that it's all right for the taxpayers of St. Vital through their tax dollars to subs idize the purchase of a farm for one farmer but it's not all right for the taxpayers of St. Vital themselves to become a part owner through their tax dollars? MR. MA NNS: Yes, I think that's fair. MR . WA LDING: Thank you. MR . CHAIRMAN: Mr. Blake. MR . BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Manns, I'd like to personally thank you for taking time, you and your group, to present the brief on the short notice that you've had and ... MR . CHAIRMA N: Mr. Blake, I don't know what the relevance is of this short notice that you had, I believe you can proceed with your questions. MR . BLAKE: I'm just prefacing my question, Mr. Chairman. It's unfortunate that we've kept you so long, and I hope that that doesn't discourage anyone else that has a brief to present this morning. My question, Mr.

Manns , is if the neighbour's boy down the road from you on your farm was a fine young man who would like to go into farming but he developed an allergy or some th ing from farm dust that would not al low him to continue farming, do you think your group would be in favour of the government us ing public funds to buy the clothing store in town and lease it to him in order that he might get into business ? MR. MANNS: Maybe that's the way we're headed but I don't really think that our group would be in favour of it. MR . BLA KE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Manns. Mr. Walding. I mean Mr. Johannson. MR .

JOHA NNSON: Mr. Manns, your submiss ion is on behalf of the Western and South western Farm Business As sociations. Did you hold a general membership meeting to draft this submiss ion ? MR.

MANNS: Yes, we did get together and kick these ideas around and then unfortun ately it fell on a few to kind of collect them and put them down, and this is why I want to make the point that I feel that there is a need for more meetings and that there are differences of opinion within our group, and I've tried to, or a few of us that wrote this tried to hit the points that there was some agreement on, and I noticed there is within this report things that contradict one another. I knew that when I wrote it but I was trying to express the feelings that came out in the meeting that we did have. MR .

JOHA NNSON: You mention on Page 2 of your brief that there have been rumours in the farm community. Do you usually make decisions as a farmer or a busine ssm an ? Do you run your business this way ? MR . MA NNS: Well I try not to but ... MR . JOHA NNSON: You try not to. MR .

MA NNS: I know that in our particular area that there are a lot of farmers that just aren't, you know, they aren't prepared to come out to a meeting like this and yet I feel that they would be strongly opposed to government ownership of the land and they're afraid to get up here, frankly they're afraid to get up here in front of the mike and try to defend what they believe in, and it's unfortunate but that's the case.

January 30, 1975 145 MR. JOHANNSON: That is unfortunate. We haven't encountered that in most com muni ties . Does your organization usually make policy statem ents on the ba sis of rumour ? Is this the way you opera te? MR. MANNS: No, not on the bas is of rumour, certainly not.

We' re just stating that this is -- there are rumours and sc epticism going through the farm co m munity, and I think this is probably a fa ir statement that there is rumour and sc ept icism becaus e, you know, the far ming populat ion haven't had acces s to this book, or ha ven't had any infor mation as to what the government program is as far as purch as e of land and yet they are going ahead buying land. MR . JOHANNSON: Well the purpos e, Mr. Manns, of the comm ittee me etings is to help in the formulation of policy. MR . MANNS: Right. MR.

JOHANNSON: You make the statem ent on Page 2 of your brief, and this is in the last paragraph: "We had the feeling that the writer favours governm ent owuership of all fa rm lands ." Could you give me one statement from the Working Paper, one statement that would support that statement that you make ? MR . MANNS: Oh, no , I couldn't give you one statement. I say that the general feeling, and I think that all of the people that have read that will concur that that's the general feeling of that ... MR . JOHA NNSON: That's not what we read out of it so . MR . MANNS: I guess the -- I better ... MR .

CHAIRMA N: Order pleas e. MR. MA NNS: ... change my glasses then I gues s, I don't know. MR. JOHANNSON: Yes, we've had some peculiar readings of the brief. MR . MA NNS: It's a peculiar brief. MR . JOHANNSON: You've expresse d the -- you say it's a peculiar brief. You expresse d the view, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you generally favour lim iting foreign ownership of farmland in the province but that if it were a question of publ ic ownershi p or foreign ownership you would prefer foreign ownership but you have rather a negative feeling towards both. MR . MANNS: That 's ri ght, yes . MR. JOHANNSON: Okay.

The brief indicates that there is some thing like one percent foreign owne rshi p of far mland in the province and if I'm correct, I unders tand that there is roughly one-third of one percent, or roughly a third as much land owned by MA CC under the land lease progra m, and I stand to be correc ted if my figures are wrong, but roughly a third of one percent. Now if this figure is accurate, why ar e you so alar med ? MR .

MA NNS : Because MA CC is just starting into the bus iness and we don't know how far they plan on going and certainly they could put in legislation to stop foreign ownership and go right ahead with their own program and the re's no way that the farmers of Manitoba are going to be able to compete if they want to buy the land - well they're going to buy it. MR. JOHA NNSON: But the foreign buying in the province also starte d rather re cently and my understanding is that the buyers - I'm talking about the recent purchases ... MR . CHAIRMA N: Mr. Graham, you will have your opportunity. MR .

JOHA NNSON: My understanding is that the buyers have been Am ericans and West Germ ans. Now a number of people have expressed this alarm about the Ar abs co m ing in. Co uld you tell me why the Ar abs would want to come in here ? MR . MA NNS: Not today; it's too cold. MR . JOHA NNSON: I didn't catch your remark. MR . MA NNS: Pardon ? MR. JOHANNSON: I didn't catch your remark. MR . MANNS: It's too cold today; I don't think they would be interested today. MR .

JOHA NNSON: Ge nerally you've expre sse d a reluctance to have government in volved in far ming operat ions, you seem to indicate a prefer ence for as free an operation as poss ible by the far mer. MR . MANNS: I think that 's a fa ir statement, yes . MR . JOHANNSON: And yet you expresse d to Mr. Walding your feeling that you still would limit, you would restr ict the far me r's freedom to se ll to the public, and you have an inclination also to restr ict the far mer's freedom to sell his property to a foreign buyer . MR .

MA NNS: Yes , I suppos e that--I think really the feeling is not a matter of rest ric tion of who he could sell to but let's just take the foreign buyer and the government buyer out of the picture altogether.

146 January 30, 1975 MR. JOHA NNSON: So you're removing the freedom that the farmer has right now, if he can get a higher price, you're removing his freedom to get a higher price from a foreign buyer for his land; you're removing his freedom to make the choice, the voluntary choice, of selling his land for a higher price to the public, and you're willing to do that, are you ? MR. MA NNS: I think that the group would probably favour that, although, you know, you may run again into a lot of controversy in the group.

I don't think the group as a whole favors government ownership of farmland nor foreign ownership if the person is not going to res ide in Canada, or at least in Manitoba. MR . JOHANNSON: So you do believe though in a public subsidy for private ownership ? MR . MA NNS: Well my own personal opinion is no. MR . JOHA NNSON: But your group wants or has ... MR . MA NNS: Certain persons in the group, I think, feel that way and that it's expressed there.

As I say, we were us ing the example that you cited here where there is a 27 hundred dollar subsidy, or whatever you want to call it, going in there; we're just merely suggesting let's us e it in a little different way, that's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR . GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have several questions I'd like to ask Mr. Manns . Mr.

Manns, in the last hundred years we've had foreigners coming into Canada and into Manitoba purchas ing land, and over a hundred years they have purchased approximately one percent, or slightly less than one percent of Manitoba land, and yet by the testimony of the previous member of the committee, the Agri cultural Credit Corporation has purchased pro bably one-third as much as that in the space of one year. Is that what really concerns you ? If that trend continues, it would ... MR .

MA NNS: Yes, I think that--we 're not, I don't think, really concerned about the amount of land that the Manitoba Ag Credit has at the present time, you know, it's really what do they plan on doing in the future. A re they going to push this thing much harder? We've heard of cases where MACC has gone in and outbid local people and by a few dollars an acre, and the individual that had the initial bid in, I understand, wasn't even consulted. The thing was all wrapped up before he even had a chance to come back with . . . MR .

GRAHAM: And your concern might arise from the fact that he is us ing that same man's, taxpayer's dollar to bid again himself? Is that .. . MR . MA NNS: This is a view that has been expressed, yes. MR . GRA HAM: Ano ther question I would like to ask you is, in the opinion of your group is the us e of land more important than the ownership of the land ? MR . MA NNS: Yes, I think that certainly was expressed, and unfortunately I didn't carry it out too well in this brief, but certainly the us e of land is I think something that's very im portant. MR .

GRA HA M: Have you been familiar at all with hearings held by the Government of Canada in this area dealing with the us e of land in particular dealing with the use of the Ri ding Mountain National Park ? Have you been familiar with any of those hearings ? MR . MA NNS: Nothing more than press coverage. I have never attended any of the meetings or anything of that nature. MR.

GRAHAM: Well the Government of Canada held an initial round of hearings during January and they are holding a second round of hearings later on and then, as I understand it, they are formulating proposals which they will then bring back to the people for a third round of hearings. Would you like to see that type of format adopted by this committee where there would be continuing dialogue before any final decisions were made? MR . MA NNS: Yes , very definitely, I think we need a lot more before any clear- cut ideas are going to surfaceJ I think we're going to have to have a lot more dialogue on this . MR .

GRAH AM: Are you familiar with the procedure that is taking place in Al berta where they have set up a land commiss ion which has been meeting for approximately a year and holding repeated dialogues with the people on the problem of land use there? MR . MA NNS: I've heard of it and heard that they are holding these--just about what you have said actually is about all I have heard about the program. MR .

GRAHAM: Then your group would strongly urge this committee to follow a pro cedure somewhat similar to either Al berta or the Federal Government in dealing with the pro blems of land use in the Province of Manitoba?

January 30, 197 5 147 MR. MA NNS: I don't think that as far as our group is concerned, we have any spec ific ideas as to what type of me etings should be held so long as ther e's a real cons c ious effort made to get out and get to all of the people and I don't know--you can't get to all of the people, but at least to try to get as many express ions as you can. As I said ea rlier there ar e a gr eat many people out there, ne ighbours of mine and neighbours of other people her e today, that have feelings on this but they ar e just afr aid to get up here and el\:press them . MR .

GRA HAM: Well, sir, I have had a concern that just by com ing out and holding me etings of this nature and never going back to the people again really won't have too much input from the com munity into policy dec isions. Is that a view that is some what sim ilar to yours ? MR . MA NNS: Yes , I think that there needs to be follow-up. Certainly people ar e going to go home from this meeting today and the re's going to be a lot of talk in the country, and I think that a follow-up meeting would certainly bring forth, you know, maybe some altoge ther new ideas from what have been expre sse d here today. MR .

GRA HA M: Thank you, Mr . Chair ma n. MR. CHA IRMA N: Mr. Dillen. MR. DILLEN: Mr. Man ns, when we're attempting to get information upon which to form ulate a policy on land use and ownership and what have you, I think that you will agree with me that the policy cannot apply unequally thr oughout the province. I come, for example, fr om a northern riding and if this policy, if a policy is formu lated it should apply equally across the province, the province as a whole.

What I would like you to tell me is whether or not you have cons idered a policy, or at least some suggestion as to how we should resist the pres sur e of foreign owner ship on that portion of the land that is presen tly owned by the Crown ? MR . MA NNS: Press ur e from whom ? Are you thinking of the Indian populat ion? MR. DILLEN: No, no, the pressure that we ar e receiv ing, at least from OPEC countr ies, from the Am er icans for tour ist develop me nt, and those types of things which have an effect on depleting a reso urce. Do you think that the same policy sh ould apply equally if a policy is formulated? MR .

MA NNS: Well of cou rse this is an area that was n't discus sed in our me etings, and I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to what an opinion would be on behalf of our group . I would think that they probably would agree that the policy should be unifor m for Man itoba, and just a guess is that the y probably would not favor foreign owner ship of some of these things but aga in tha t's some thing I'm just purely guess ing on. MR .

DILLEN: lf then a Manitoban chose to establ ish a tour ist facil ity in Northern Manitoba, a multi-mil lion dollar hotel, beverage room, swimm ing pool type of an ac com moda tion, that would acc ommo date in the mai n the Ame ri can tour ist, do you think then that we should provide that Manitoban with a subsidy to esta blish that form of recre ation fac ility? MR . MA NNS: No, not really, no I don't see that a subsidy would be necessary, but I' m really unfa miliar with that bus iness.

Ce rtainly he would recei ve a form of subsidy thro ugh adve rtis ing by the Province of Manitoba, you know, come to Man itoba as the recreation ce ntre of North A m erica, or some thing of this nature . But direct financial assist ance, I' m afraid I really can't se e the need for it but then maybe there is lots of justification for it on the other hand too. MR . DILL EN: Would you agree with me as a miner then, that the Province of Man itoba through its ability to tax is providing a for m of subsidy now for far me rs in the form of roads and telephone extensions and hydro and ditches ? MR .

MA NNS: In my opinion tha t's where our tax mo ney on our property was going is to provide these roads and I think that the area here that ha sn't been brought up here today is the taxload that the farm ca rr ies for sch oo ls. I think that it's felt by the farm population that an unfa ir taxload is ca rr ied by the far mland, but that 's some thing that I don't really have too much to comm ent on and I wouldn 't want to get into it. MR . DI LLEN: I will try and be very brie f.

I would like to know if you could voice an opinion, if you can visual ize the Province of Man itoba, and would you like to hazard a guess on how much of the total land mass in Man itoba is now publicly owned ? MR. MA NNS: Oh, probably 75 to 80 pe rcent. MR . DILLEN: I'm searching for answe rs, as I am sur e many of the far me rs are. If you objected that strongly to the Province of Manitoba being involved in land ownership,

148 January 30, 1975 (MR. DILLEN cont'd) . . would you object equally as strongly to property being owned by the munic ipality ? MR . MA NNS: Yes, I think that probably the majority of farmers would not want to see the property owned by the municipality, but at least in the case of the municipality it's an entity that is located fairly close to you and you can get a hold of your councillor, or your reeve, and, you know, talk to them, but when it's off in Winnipeg, you know, we go in and start pounding doors here and there to find out . . . MR . DILLEN: Okay.

You made reference in one case where you advised this committee that the MA CC had purpos ely bid up the price of land. Could you supply this committee with that instance where MA CC had increased . . . ? MR. MA NNS: I said that but I believe it was presented at the hearing in Winnipeg, this particular example, and I only cited . . . MR .

DI LLEN: Now reference has been made here by one other member of the committee that we should have continuing dialogue of this type, and would you agree with me that having continual dialogue for years and years and not coming up with any decisive policy on the question of land, only allows additional time for the foreign ownership and the takeover of land or, in your words, allow the MA CC, the ability to continue in their present method, if that is a threat to you? MR. MA NNS: Well we have stated in our brief that we think a period of pos sibly one year.

No, we don't think it should go on and on forever by any means, but we do think that there is a need for as many meetings as poss ible and hopefully the committee would eventually come to some conclus ion that, you know, they're hearing the same arguments over and over again; now we've got to make a decision but at least, you know, let's have some assurance that there are going to be a lot of meetings in various areas and not just in the larger centres, but le t's get them out in smaller areas and let's maybe have smaller groups meet with them.

I don't think that there probably is the need for the large number of people that are involved. MR . DILLEN: If this committee were to meet in the middle of Manitoba, in the northern

section of the province, do you think that your farm group would be interested in coming there to hear the views of the res idents of Northern Manitoba with regard to land policy there? MR. MA NNS: Well of course we would be interested in hearing the views I think of any group, and this is I think what we are trying to say here.

Now whether we would be prepared to drive up to Thompson or something to hear a meeting, I think this is the idea that we're trying to get across is that there should be a committee of some sort to do this moving around and get a cons ensus of opinion, and it's going to be a tough decision to make, where you are going to have to draw these lines and who you are going to allow to buy land and who not. But we feel that there should be. . . MR .

DILLEN: Well you asked for a committee here, so I would assume that - or a land use ownership commissi on - and I would assume then that you would want that commiss ion made up or heavily in favor of farm owners< Do you think . . . MR . MA NNS: No, we don't state that in there. I think that so long as the people . . MR . DILLEN: They're balanced. MR . MA NNS: Well, yes, the people on it are fair and equitable and willing to listen to the people, don't come with ideas already formed.

This is what I'm afraid we've got here, you see, is that one side says public ownership and the other side - and each of you are trying to get me to say exactly what you want me to say. MR . DI LLEN: Mr. Manns, I can assu re you that anything that you are saying, I hope is being said of your own free will . . . MR . MA NNS: Oh, yes, I fully realize. MR . DI LLEN: That I'm not trying to get you to say anything that you don't want to say. MR .

MANNS: No, I appreciate that but I have the feeling - and I'm not trying to be more critical of one group than the other - but just the way the questions are coming out that one group is naturally taking one view and . . . MR . DILLEN: I get that feeling at times when I have difficulty protecting my position. I want to get back to your feelings about Crown land that is presently owned in the north. As you know, there's been some extensions of roads to very valuable recreation areas. Would it be your feeling that the province should sell that land as well ? MR .

MANNS: The majority of it I'm sure you couldn't even give it away, you know. Maybe I'm wrong but . . .

January 30, 1975 MR . DILLEN: Tha t's fine. Thank you, Mr. Manns . MR . CHAIRMA N: Thank you. Mr. Uskiw. 149 MR . USKIW: You said a moment ago, sir, that in your opinion that there were precon cei ved views on the part of the comm ittee members, they may vary but they were preconce ived, and what the com m ittee was really trying to get to you to do is to allude or adm it to some of thos e ideas . What led you to believe that there are definitive op inions on the part of any com mittee mem ber or divis ion thereof as to the policy or legislation that should flow from thes e hear ings. How do you arrive at that ?

MR . MANNS: It's just the general feeling that I get from answering the questions that som e poss ibly favor some of the arguments that we put forward on pr ivate ownership while others se em to be more attacking them than .. . MR . USKIW: Do you as an individual in debating a certain policy or issue never take on the role of a, as the ter m goes "devil 's advocate" to extract from the person with whom you' re debating the information you want ? MR . MANNS: I would hope that you're extracting information that would be useful, but whether it's necessar ily--whether it's what you want to hear or, you know ...

I kind of have the feelin g that the information that you want from me is the information you want to hear. MR . USKIW: Do you think any of the questions that have been put were unfa ir or wrong questions given the ter ms of refer ence of this comm ittee ? M R. MANNS: No, I certainly can't obj ect. MR . USKIW: Are you aware as to how the setting up of this commit tee was arr ived at ? MR . MANNS: Nothing more than what was in the booklet that was published. MR .

USKIW: No, but are you aware that a year ago, at the last Sess ion of the Legislature, that certain mem bers of the Legislatur e of all groups gave views as to whether there is need to legislate on the question of ownership of land, and essentially on the question of foreign ownership, and that opinions on that que st ion were expressed from all parties in the House, and because there was no policy on the part of any party, including the government, that it was decided that we have th es e hearin gs. Are you aware that that is the reason that we are here today ? MR.

MANNS: Not really, not expresse d just as you have expres sed it. I was aware that the government didn't have a policy ... MR . USKIW: And my point, sir, is, I want to assure you that there is no policy as far as I am aware on the part of this comm ittee as to its recomm endat ions to the Legislature, and therefore you should rest assured that we are not trying to extract from you answerE> that we already feel we want or need to substantiate our pos ition, because we have no position. MR. MA NNS: I'm pleased to hear that. MR . CHAIRMA N: Thank you, Mr. Manns . MR . MA NNS : Thank you. MR .

CHAI RM A N: That was a lengthy pres entat ion. We shall proceed with the next person, the Man itoba As so ciation of Cow-C alf Prod uc ers . Is there anyone pres ent here. -- (Interjection) -- Fine. To prepare some mate rial ? Okay. The R. M's of Birtle, Min iota, Ellice, Silver Cree k, Shoal Lake and Ro ssburn. Mr. Fulton. Is he pres ent ? Mr . Fult on ? Okay. You are up. I believe it will be the intention of the comm ittee to have this br ief pres ented at this time and then we come back after lunch, if there is going to be any questions, then we proceed right after lunch. Mr. Fulton, you may proceed. MR .

FULTON: Fine. Mr. Chair man, I' m here speaking on behalf of the Re eves of six municipalities, Birtle, Min iota, Ellice, Silver Cre ek, Shoal Lake and Ros sburn. The Re eves have discussed the matter as much as poss ible in the short time available with their cou ncillors, but since they haven't had an opportunity to hold meetin gs with the counc il on the substance of the brief they are only pres enting it in their na mes, although I believe when all of them signed they felt they were represen ting the opinion that their councillors would have given had they had the opportunity to meet on the subject formally.

Now since lunch hour has arr ived, I'll attempt quickly to go through--we directed ourselves pr imarily to the Working Paper and what I'l l do is go through the--we have a se ries of summarize d points beginning on page 12 of our brief which I think I should probably sim ply go thro ugh in view of the hour and I think that in doing so we will cover the

15 0 January 30, 197 5 (MR . FULT ON cont'd ) ..... essence of the points that we had to make and probably if any of the points, you know, require further explanation then they can be examined in detail later. Okay. The first few points are directed to the first

chapter of the working paper which deals with a series of objectives and general matters of policy on which Man itobans are assu med to be in agreem ent, or at least this is the impression that the working paper sug gests ; and the Re eves felt that this was an error, that there wasn't consensus on several of these policy matter s. An d briefly, the first was we rejected the suggestion that the objects of the working paper should be to seek obj ectives for rural Mani toba to which the major ity of Man itobans would subscribe.

Our feeling was that the obj ectives sought should be those for which the major ity of rural Ma nitobans would subscribe. It is felt that since rural Manit obans are the ones who are going to live in the areas and have to live with the policies with which they are being confronted, that it is the wishes of a majority of them which should be observed. There was a quotation from the Guidelines for the Sevent ies setting out a series of, I believe it was four general poli cy obj ectives. We felt that we did not agree with the first two of these without some reservation.

The first one was maximiz ing the welfare of Man itobans I think, or som ething in that general wording. The paper went on to suggest that the test for maximization of the welfare of Manit obans would be the greatest good for the greatest number although achieved by any one of a number of tactics. Our feeling was that we could accept this with the reservation that there be the observance of certain fundamental civil rights and human freedom. In other words , the greatest good for the greatest number we reject as a proposition for good government.

Se condly, there was suggestion in the paper, the second guideline, that there should be a more equal distr ibution of income. This we regarded as a misnomer, we're sure that they meant a greater equality in the distr ibution of income, and we felt again that we didn't entirely concur with this, that we felt there should be equality of opportunity to earn a decent income and to a decent standard of living but that the equality should lie in the opportunity rather than in the simplistic redistr ibution of income wi thout regard to what a man chooses to do with his opportunity.

We recognize rural depopulation as a concern and the paper indicates that they felt, or at least that this could be best accomplish ed through intensive farming as opposed to extensive farming, our feeling was that this is a relatively simplistic--well it' s a highly simplistic observation, it presupposes that there is an unlimited market for the products of intens ive farms and as the price of beef plummets below 30, 40 cents a pound it seems fairly difficult to accept that there is an unlimited market for products of intensive farms, which we con cluded must mean farms producing livestock as well as grain.

Fi nally, this was the final general objective on which we found disagreem ent, was the question of the greater equality in the distr ibution of farmland. Our feeling was that the amount of farmland required by a spec ific farming operation varies dependin g on (1) the farmer and (2) the nature of the operation. So we felt that there was no way you could just simply say that a greater equality of distr ibution of farmland is necessarily going to prove better farming or more intens ive farming. Now that is particularly true of grain farms.

We did, however , favor four of the points that were raise d at the end of the first chapter, or three of the points. That is, an easier access to farming, a tenure system that tends to minimize mortgage and rent payments and a tenure system that assures continuity. The second

chapter went on to set out statistics on foreign ownership and non-res ident ownership in general and we felt that there was some basic flaws in these statistics .

One of the problems we encountered was that there was really no definition of farmland so it was unclear from the way the statistics had been gleaned, from the methodology used in other words, whether or not the land bein g purchased by non- residents was land of marginal econ omic value or whether it was arable farmland, and it's absolutely vital to know in order to access the impact of foreign ownership and people purchasing farmland, it's vital to know the kind of land they' re purchasing in order to asse ss whether or not that is indeed driving up the price of good arable farmland.

We felt that land in general is a valuable resource and that this value should be reflected in the marketplace. In other words, if land is highly valued, that the best poss ible compromise is reached between a des ire on the one part to produce as much as poss ible from that land and a des ire on the other hand to preserve the land as a valuable asse t. We felt that if the price

Ja nuary 30, 1975 151 (MR . FULTON cont'd) ... .. of land was lowered excess ively through some artificial means that you might indeed induce people to effectively mine the land; in other words, to use it for short-te r m inco me rather than preservi ng it as a long term, highly productive asse t. But we also felt in this regard that there should be some limitation on strict land speculation, conce ivably a speculation tax simi lar to that in effect in On tar io at this time.

Although we have relatively little information on the tax, it seems that they have come up with a satisfactory definition for speculation and if one could be found then we would favor limitations on speculat ion. The paper suggested that higher land prices meant higher lease prices . This as a simplisti c observation; obviously if a man is renting on a share crop basis the price of the land is not in any way going to affect the price of his lease.

We thought also that if it came to a time when the foreign ownership or non-res ident ownership of land pos ed a problem, it might be a wis e solution to limit rents to a maximum of a one-third share of the crop, but this we submit with some reservations partly because of the difficult mechanics of implement ing such a solution, and the other becaus e we're not certain if the situation demands it at this time .

On the question of foreign ownership we did feel some sympathy for the stateme nt quoted in the appendix from the Alberta hearings on the question of the com mon-law right of an indiv idual to sell to who mever he wis hed.

We felt, however, that a foreign owner of land, in other words a non-Canadian owner, although the paper never--I think the paper is di rected more to a question of land us e and really doesn't go after the question of foreign ownership--we felt that a foreign owner buying land in Ca nada isn't paying for services that make the land valuable, he does not pay for services bas ically that are subsidize d through inco me tax or taxes that aren't collected by the municipality.

So we felt that the fairest way of compensating would be a surtax on the land, tax on the municipal tax to compe nsate for the services that the man was getting that he virtually is not paying for. In other words, it's all right for a foreign owner to own land in Manitoba but he shouldn't be able to own it at the expense of Manitoban taxpa yers. Now this situation applies to a limited extent to non-Man itoban owners as well and we have some reservations here. Like obviously a non-Man itoban owner of land does not pay Manito ba income taxes and therefore isn't paying for Man itoba provided service s .

But the difficulty we encountered is - the only reservation we have on that which would effectively mean a lesser surtax, becaus e they do pay Canadian income tax obviously, is that it would probably induce reciprocal legislation from other provinces and might have a somewhat deleterious effect on the kind of unity of the nation in general, you know, the kind of unity of being Ca nadians and able to move wi th freedom from province to province and presumably buy as well.

We felt that the most difficult problem raise d by high land prices is that of gett ing young farmers into farming and we felt that high ratio loans, mortgage loans - or at least low interest loans on a high ratio basis would be no more costly to the province than leas ing at 5 percent of the capital cost. We felt that if they loaned the money and charged 5 percent interest it' s no different than expending the capital and making 5 percent on your investment by charging 5 percent of the capital cost as a lease price. The other advantage in loaning is of course that you get your capital back.

We also favoured young farmers ownin g their farms because we felt that there were certa in soc ially des irable - well not soc ially so much as certain benefits insofar as the relationship between a farmer and his land, between a man who is holding an as set for himself maybe for future members of his family; we feel that there are des irable benefits in terms of rural stability as well that accrue from the young man owning his own farm and for that reason we favoured that over the lease , although adm ittedly the statistics provided in the exa mple pose d at about page 79 or so of the Working Paper compared three possibilities, a Farm Cre dit Cor poration loan at 9 3 /4, I believe. and a leas e at $20 an acre cash rent and a MA CC lease at 5 percent.

Obviously the MA CC is better; I mean anyone who will lease something at a 5 percent return on investm ent is doing somebody a favor these days . We felt as well that in the high �atio low interest mortgage that it was important that there be crop failure protection. It's im possible really in farming to guarantee a crop in every year, so we felt that there should be a provis ion whereby a third of the crop would suffice in any year of a crop failure, and that interest payments would be waived for that year.

152 Jan uary 30, 1975 (MR. FULTON cont'd ) . . . . . This we felt was des irable for Manitoba as a whole simply because a series of two or three crop failures could vi rtually push half the farmers in rural areas to the verge of bankruptcy. O ne final point perhaps that we felt we should raise concerns the stat istics used on tables 26 and 27. These certainly consti tuted an abuse of figures really, they attempted at least to compare - actually table 26 less so than table 27 - they attempt to establish two po ints as I recall.

One is that productivity on farms had not increased as dramatic ally as everyone attempts to make out. They point out that return on $10 0 capital investment had act ually decline d 37 perce nt. Now the difficulty I have with this is that you' re talking about a time span of 20 years and during that time the value of a dollar dropped so you' re clearly not talking about return on $100 capital , unless you compare it on the terms on which it was compar ed; which was dollar income per volume, per unit, in other words per farm unit.

But our position is that in comparin g output from farms you' re not compar ing dollar income but you' re comparing volume of goods produced. I mean surely that is the test of whether or not a farm has become more effective over a time is whether or not it's producing a greater volume.

Now you will not ice that the - well any one with even a reas onable memory will recall that barley was changing hands for 30 cents a bushel in 19 71, so clearly farms that were say esse ntially fairly intensive grain farms were showing a pretty low dollar return per capital investme nt and for the acr eage of land but it submitted, if you look to 1974, and this is partic ularly with reference to table 27 , you would see a dramatic difference with farms with over - about 817 average improved.

We felt that those stat istics were introduced poss ibly to make a point and we felt that the point that they were trying to make was that this obser vation of intensive versus extens ive farming, that intensive was somehow better. But we felt that the statistics didn't confirm that - you know, it may be poss ible that such statistics could be obtained but those stat istics certainly didn't do it. The final point we had was that if you're going to repopulate rural areas we felt that it would be better to encourage the location of agr icultural process ing industries in rural areas .

This in turn would bring with it intensive farming, you know in the area of the particular facility whatever it might be, but to simply encourage farmers to reduce their acr eage and invest more capital in a plant that would produce greater volumes of livestock and this kind of thing was not wise. That is the substance of our report, so I guess we can leave it stand. MR . CHAIRMA N: Yes , thank you very much Mr . Fulton. I believe it would be a good opportunity now to reces s. I have a number of people on my list, so we come back at 2:00 o' clock.

I might mention that, for those people wish ing to avail themselves, there's a dining room downsta irs, a meal is being served from 12 to 1 p. m. Com mittee rise . 2:00 o'cl ock. * * * * * * * * 2:0 0 p. m. MR . CHAIRMA N: Order please. We shall proceed. We have Mr. Fulton who had presented the brief this morning. Mr. Fulton. Would you please come forward. I have a number of people on the list. Mr. Walding. MR. WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fulton, I wanted to deal with just one point that you brought up on page 14 of your brief where the Re eve suggests a surtax on foreign-owned land.

I want to make sure that I've got this quite clear, what you're suggesting. If there should be two farms in the Brandon area one of which is owned by a man in Windsor and one of which is owned by a man in Detroit, are you suggest ing that a surtax be levied on the man in Detroit but not the surcharge on the man in Windsor ? MR .

FULTON: What we were suggesting there is that a surtax be levied on the man in Detroit to pay for the services provided through Canadian income tax that he does not pay, and we suggested that since he does not pay Manitoba tax you may want to cons ider a smaller surtax on Canadian residents, non-Man itobans who don't pay any Manitoba income tax yet there's also residual kind of social services paid through Manitoba income tax that wouldn't necessar ily be paid by an Onta rio resident.

But we did express a reservation there; that is that that tends to limit mobility within the bound aries of Can ada, and in general we would prefer to see Can adian non-res idents not pay a surtax at all, simply to facil itate easier movement wit hin Can ada and perhaps to avoid the prospect of other provinces enacting reciprocal legislation or something like that.

January 30, 1975 153 MR. WA LDING : I see. In this particular cas e that I just �ave you, what would be your reaction if the man in Windsor was an Am erican citi zen and the man in Detroit was a Canadian citi zen ? MR . FULTON: We looked upon it primarily as a question of econ omics.

In other words, as I mentioned in my presentation, we wis hed to preserve the com mon-law right of the indiv idual to sell to whomever he wished, so we would prefer not to dist inguish between people on the ba sis of nationality but rather on the ba sis of the actual econ omic contribution they make to the services which give their land value. MR . WALDING : That 's the point that I was getting at, that what you' re talking about is rather non-res idents than foreigners. Would that be correct? MR . FULTO N: No, no.

Well shall we say we're not distin guishing on nationality so much as non-res idents in Ca nada, yes, non payment of Canadian. MR . WALDING: That 's what I meant. MR . FULTON: Yes . Like the paper talks about non-res idents including Winn ipeg and Brandon people who own land in the RM of Birtle, for exa mple. I wouldn't include them. MR . WALDING: In your brief you used the two express ions, foreign-owned and non res ident. I take it that you would understand those to be the same thing. That a Canadian citize n living in Los Angeles would be subject to the same surtax as a US citi zen livin g in Los Angeles .

MR . FULTON: The question being whether or not the Can adian citi zen living in Los An geles was filing a Canadian Income Tax return or an Am erican one, I guess. MR. WALDING: Thank you. MR . CH AI RMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR . USKIW: Yes. Mr. Fulton, I wonder whether or not you can elaborate more on the po int you make on page 3 about a greater equality of opportunity that you are des irous of bringing about within the rural com munity. Just what do you foresee there as a mechanism to bring that about.

An d I put it to you in this context: Let's assume that you have three or four buyers of land, one of which is a buyer that has very limited access to capital, the other three of which have unlimited access to capita l. How do you propose to deal with the need to improve the inequ ality of opportunity in that situat ion ? MR . FULTON: The paper really actually provides for this it seems to me through the mechan ism of a high-ratio low interest loan. Furthermore, we never spec ifically denounced the MA CC Lease Progra m.

We adm itted that it is an alternative that's very reas onable in te rms of financial prop os it ions. We thought that there might be some deleterious effects in terms of the actual use of the land and we felt there should be an option to own the property, from MA CC ... MR. WA LDING: There is. MR . FULTON: At a comparable interest rate, and again we favour the high-ratio mortgage loan with crop failure protection. I don't believe MA CC provides protection for crop failure. MR .

USKIW: Do you believe that we should have added protection for that group of people who would be high risk borrowers over and above the normal prote ction that is now provided to people generally, namely through the crop insurance program. -- (Interjection )- Don't tell him what to say. I think the man should speak his mind. MR. CHAIRMA N: Yes , please. I would wish that if anybody wishes to make a presenta tion they can come forward, put their na me down.

I beli eve the person that comes forward to make a presentat ion would prefer to be able to make that answer one way or the other on his own without the feeling that there's somebody sitting behind him saying what he should say. MR . FULTON: Yes.

We felt that the problem with the crop insurance program I guess as such is that it perhaps - well we felt that the most you would want to take in any given year of serious crop failure would be a one-third share of the crop, or the value of a one-third share of the crop, and we felt this might place less of an econo mic burden on the indiv idual than simply requiring to make his payment from the crop insurance progra m. MR. USKIW: But are you then not setting up a double standard between two groups of owners as to the insurability of his production and his income ?

An d how could we run a double standard in the Province of Man itoba . Once you move that route you would virtually have to abolish crop insurance as it is known, would you not ? MR. FULTON: Lots of farmers who don't have MA CC mortgages carry crop insurance.

15 4 January 30, 1975 (MR . FULTON cont'd) ..... You know it's good protection for a number of re asons, but I don't think I would be unduly concerned about the fact that young farmers getting into farming through MACC were somehow in a slightly better position than young farmers who perhaps had adequate financial backin g and could get in wit hout the necess ity of a high-ratio loan. I wouldn 't personally be too concerned about that. I mean he's got an advantage anyway if he's borrow ing money at 5 percent instead of 9 1/4 from FCC. MR. USKIW: Now let's get back to the equality of opportunity.

If the foreign land buyer is prepared to invest two or three or five times the value of your land on a long term pro positi on for whatever reason, your neighbour is one of very marginal financial means, are you suggest ing that the Crown should su bsidize the difference between what your neighbour is able to raise himse lf and what his competition is through the foreign buyer and that the taxpayer of Man itoba pick up that difference? MR.

FULTON: The Farm Cre dit Corporation as you probably are well aware have their own appraisers for land and in deter mining what they will offer for a partic ular piece of land in the way of mortgage money they had their appraise r set a value upon the land. Cl early you can't lend money with a completely blind eye to the econ omic validit y of the pro position. MR . USKIW: Yes. I want to put it in proper context. Throughout the world land values vary very dramatically.

For exa mple, you have areas where land is worth four or five thousand dollars an acre, another area is a thousand, fifteen hundred, other are as five hundred to a thousand. Here in Man itoba. in the ball park of 200 is a good price. An d because your land bas e is fixed and because the demand for land is increasin g every year can't you foresee that over a period of years into the next three or four decades that it's obvious that land values will come under more pressure and logically become m ore valuable.

An d as that Joappens more people will not be able to own land if we allow only the financial market, the private system to deter mine who shall own land on the basis of his eligibility to borrow land. An d hence my question then, wher ein lies the equal opportunity for those people that we are concerned about. MR. FULTON: Fi rst of all, I don't accept that it's obvious that land is going to increase in value. You know having seen it drop as much as 30 percent as recently as two or three years ago I don't hold it as obvious that it's going to increase in value.

Furthermore, there are some safeguards built into the proposal that we make insofar as it 's going to become less viable for a foreigner to own land as a non-res ident if he's payin g his surtax every year in munic ipal taxes . Furthermore, we provide in here that if the situat ion came that it was impossible to sustain this, or that foreign ownership became so extens ive that it was impos sible for the farmer to bargain reasonably in lease prices, we suggested regulating it with a maximum of one-third share of the crop. MR.

USKIW: Are you say ing that a foreign owner is anyone that is not an owner in Man itoba, or what is your definit ion? MR. FULTON: No, I mean by nationality living outside of the country. In other words, I' m assum ing we're talking about a German cartel or even a German citiz en living in Ger many. MR . USKIW: You wouldn't impose that on Mr. Green's friend who lives in New Bruns- wi ck. MR . FULTON: No, you see we discussed this a moment ago and as I said, I felt that there could be deleter ious effects on Co nfederation if the provinces start enactin g rec iprocal legislation to prevent the . MR.

USKIW: All right, then let me get down to the ba sic question. Wby do you think that it is bad to have foreigners own land in your munici pality ? MR . FULTON: I don't. All I think is that they should pay their fair share of the cost of susta ining that land and provid ing it with the services that gi ve it value. MR . USKIW: Okay. But that normally is done through a lessee. The landlord never pays,

a) for the property nor for the taxes imposed on it. MR . FULTON: Most landlords I know pay the taxes . MR. USKIW: It's the lesse e that eventually does the paying, and therefore if a landlord is a resident of Belgium . . MR . FULTON: How does the lesse e eventually do the pay ing if his lease is limited to a maxi mum of a one-third share of the crop ? MR . USKIW: If his which ?

January 30, 1975 155 MR. FULTON: If the maximum lease payment he can make is a one-third share of the crop. MR. USKIW: Oh, now you're sayin g that we should legis late the terms of the lease then ? MR. FULTON: Well what I sai d was that if the situation became serious we would cons ider the poss ibility of limiting lease payments to a one-third share of the crop maximum. MR. USKIW: Should we impose that regulation on a transaction between two Man itoba farmers - one who owns land and one who leases land ? MR.

FULTON: If it came to the ti me that you were enactin g such legislation I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be universal. MR . USKIW: My po int is, would you differentiate between the foreign owner and the Man itoba owner on that question ? MR . FULTON: You see we're concerned here about the us e of land, as I understand it, and we would see - at least I'd see it and I think those who are with me probably would as well - that it would be better for the man - like it makes no difference to him who he leases the land from if you're talking about a man who's leasing land.

So therefore if you're going to pass legislation to limit the amount - I mean there have been laws in usury so I mean clearly it's perfectly, you know there are lots of historical precedents for limiting the amount of profit a man can make in a contract, and we could see limiting it to a one-third share of the crop. An d that would apply across the board I would assume. MR . USKIW: You wouldn't then agree with the proposition that there should be some limitation on the amount of land that can be owned by foreigners. MR . FULTON: This time, no. MR . USKIW: No. Al l right.

So that means that there is no discrim inatory feeling on your part as to foreign ownership of land. MR . FULTON: No. I thi nk personally, and I don't know about members who are with me so I speak on my own count on this matter, but national ism is a kind of dangerous senti ment really; I just think that peo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-2-lo3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 2nd hansardpdf lo3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	abca2760b37d399b2457be774e666240558a875f

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