Manitoba Committee Hansard — 10 February 1975 (LO Committee, Sitting 4, 30th Legislature, 2nd Session)

30-2-lo4

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 Arborg - Monday, February 10, 1975 Printed by R. S. Evans- Queen's Printer for Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA FOURTH MEETING OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LAN D OWNERS IDP - ARBORG FEBRUARY 10, 1975 Chairman: Mr. Harry Shafransky. 207 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a quorum. We may proceed. I have two people on the list indicating that they will be presenting briefs. Is there anybody else who will be presenting a brief this morning ? Mr. J ohannson. MR. WALLY JOHANNSON: Perhaps it might be in order to introduce the members of the committee to the audience. MR. CHAIRMAN: I shall do that, Mr. Johannson. Thank you very much.

Once the people are settled down and I have the briefs, I will proceed on that basis. Is there anyone else here who will be presenting a brief ? If not, before I proceed I would like to introduce the members of the committee. Starting on my left: Wally Johannson, Member for St. Matthews; Harvey Bostrom, the Member for Rupertsland, the Minister of Co-o perative and Renewable resources; Tom Barrow, the Member for Flin Flon; Pete Adam, Member for Ste. Rose; Ken Dillen, the Member for Thompson.

On my right: Warner Jorgenson, the Member for Nwrris; Harry Graham, Member for Birtle-Ru ssell; Jim Ferguson, the Member for Gladstone; Dave Blake , Member for Minnedosa� George Henderson, Member for Pembina; Gordon Johnston, Member for Portage la Prairie; Sid Green, Member for Inkster, Minister of Mines, Resources, and Environmental Management; Sam Uskiw, the Minister of Agriculture. And I•m Harry Shafransky, Member for Radisson. We have Terry Eyjolfson, Manitoba Cow-Ca lf Producers Association ; and Donna Steinthorson , a rancher's wife. Mr. Eyjolfson . . . A MEMBER: Maybe there are others. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else ? Mr. Palamarchuk. Donna Steinthorson; and you are from Silver. Mrs. Steinthorson , you may come forward please; you can take the chair there. --(Interjection)-- Yes, you may proceed. There are some copies that have been distributed� I don•t believe there is one for every member, but you can share it. MRS. DONNA STEINTHORSON : Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, Ladies and Gentlemen: I• m Donna Steinthorson, Registered Nurse, of necessity, presently employed at Eriksdale Hospital, as well as being a rancher's wife.

I represent a group of ranchers from Siglunes Municipality .· The Working Paper "In Search of a Land Policy" is a rambling document contrived with one goal which is to prove that the real salvation for agriculture is government-purchased land leased back to the individual farmers. In typical fashion only the positive side is shown through argument and statistics, but the very basic and easily distinguishable follies of such a plan are ignored totally.

While no one can state that there are grave problems with the present system in agri culture , we must also freely admit that any government intervention over the past 30 or 40 years, be it federal or provincial, has had dismal results.

The federal dairy quotas, the program to take land out of grain production, the incentive programs to enlarge cattle herds, and finally the Egg Marketing Board, will prove to any un biased observer that governmental agricultural policies have been short- sighted, lacking in perception, usually carried out by people totally lacking in true insight into agriculture, and always disastrous to the agricultural sector that they are supposed to benefit. Are we not headed for the most colossal blunder imaginable , the takeover by the Provincial Government of all farmland.

If this sounds strongly worded it would still seem the likely outcome of any land purchase scheme. While the arguments presented for such a system may at first glance seem to be very rational, those who have lived on farms can under stand the economic situation , those who manage farms can understand the economic situation , and those who manage farms and must do so efficien tly to stay viable, quickly see the weak and impractical side of government ownership.

208 February 10, 197 5 (MRS . STEIN THORSON cont'

d) History teaches us lessons and one gain from the middle ages is that tenement farming leads to subjugation of those renting the land. While we do not be so extreme as to draw a total comparison between today's mechanized farming and the feudal system, yet some of the natural outcome would be an opportunity for the government of the day to lord it over the individual , to display favouritism in allocating land, to make final decisions in land use detri mental from an agricultural standpoint but rather controlled by recreation or commercial con sideration .

We feel that this is putting a lot of power into the hands of a few people . This power would be controlled by people to whom farming is an alien way of life . The Working Paper states on Page 62 that "owner" rather than "operator" captures all of the major part of the benefits of economic rent. This applies to government ownership but it applies to other areas of ownership . What would make it different?

After the 20-year period of five percent rental, rentals would represent the pr ofits to government while the tenement farmer would finance all investments, improvements and expenses, and take all the risks from weather, world markets and general economic conditions. The variables of such thinking become boundless when we attempt to project what the distant future of the land policy might be , Governments come and governments go, What type of leadership will we have by the year 2000 ? Can anyone predict the ideology or actions of those empowered to govern our province .

Land ownership could become no longer a vehicle to enable farmers to get started and be viable but instead a means to control production both to quantity and type ... manipu lating holdings to extremely large to very small farms, and in general wrestle any freedom from the agricultural populous . A natural lack of incentive would follow such restrictive moves and the farm community would not be able to produce to full extent. This lesson is also taught to us by countries now employing state owned farms.

During a recent speech here in Manitoba, Agriculture Minister Eugene Whelan , expressed the opinion that private ownership was the greatest incentive to food production. No amount of arguing can disregard that our farming industry has been superior to all others in efficiency . We have over-produced and thus have created a poor economic climate in such areas as beef. In our particular industry, beef cattle, long hours of hard work are necessary. The general populous is unaware of the rugged life we on farms must in most cases endure . Apparently about five percent of the population are farmers.

It would be very easy then for a govern- ment to neglect such a numerously small percentage of the population in decision making. Our contention is that since by all reports the farm community rejects government ownership almost 100 percent, it is most unfair to implement such a policy. Why not apply such a policy to small businesses, in city lots and dwellings . All your arguments presented in the Working Paper could be applied equally to these segments, We feel that purchasing a home in the city, a business, hotel, small store, etc. , is no different fhan buying a farm. Why distinguish in human rights.

Only by owning our property will we have any bargaining power. We re spectfully suggest the government follow the lead of other provinces in going slow in making final decisions. A government land takeover would be against all wishes, making it discriminatory. A freeze should be put on all foreign ownership until the situation has been clarified, More time is definitely needed to form a true picture, We do not deny that a land use policy is necessary but we feel that a more complete study is very important; before decisions are made wishes of those directly involved must be considered. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mrs. Steinthorson. Are there any questions ? Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mrs. Steinthorson how she assumes that government is proposing to take over all the land in the province . That seems to be an assumption built into the submission, and on what basis - that•s not what the paper said, the Working Paper does not indicate that, it merely draws comparisons between foreign ownership, private ownership , public ownership , etc. How do you draw the conclusion that the paper suggested there be a policy that the government buy out all the farms in Manitoba ? MRS.

STEINTHORSON: Mr. Uskiw, I believe that some of your own figures from your government offices have stated that government purchased land in the last 15 months has been somewhere in the 63, 000 acres. Is this not true? MR. USKIW: Are you familiar with the program ? MRS. STEINTHORSON: I can't say that I am completely familiar with the program, no . That I am going partly by some of the facts that I have got and partly by some of the things that I have read.

February 10, 1975 209 MR. USKIW: Yes . All right. So obviously you don•t know the purpose of the govern- ment involving itself in land acquisition. Perhaps maybe it might be appropriate then for me to indicate to you that that is a voluntary program wherein people who wish to sell land to the Crown may do so and people who wish to lease it back may also do so, but no one is compelling them to do either. That is optional to both parties.

And the people that are using the program are people that otherwise could not either expand their farm holdings because of lack of financing, the inability to raise mortgage money , or a young person who is just starting out and can•t accumulate enough assets on which to borrow money; these are the kind of people that it's meant for. Now there is an option to purchase eventually , after five years, under the lease arrange ment. Therefore how do you draw the conclusion that those lands become public properties for ever and a day ?

It really depends on the individual who is using the program as to whether they are going to buy those lands or they're not, or whatever . You're obviously not familiar with the program then I take it? MRS. STEINT HORSON: I have admitted that I am not completely familiar with the pro gram; I have also stated that I have some knowledge of it, and the conclusions that I have come to on it are that the government is buying the land, you can lease it back or you can purchase it back - not back from the government, you can purchase it from the government.

That are there not other ways in which the government could help a young farmer to get started in farming rather than taking the land and owning the land and really taking away the incentive to buy the land. You don't, I believe, in your policy state when the agreement is entered into what the purchase price would be at the five years - the purchase price , I believe is the price that it would retail for at that time. There is no established price . MR. USKIW: The price of land at any given time, ye s. MRS . STEINTHORSON: There is no established price. MR. USKIW: Yes , that's correct.

Let me then ask you this following question: If you were the owner of a large block of land and I was leasing it from you for five years with an option to buy it, would you write in five years in advance the value at which I would buy that land - or would you say well whatever the market value is at the time , that is what the price will be ? MRS. STEINTHORSON: In other words, according to that I gather that the government is speculating when they are taking over this land. MR. USKIW: But you see you•re saying taking over, the government is not forcing any one to sell the land. MRS.

STEINTHORSON: I retract that statement. When the government is purchasing this land, they are speculating then. Am I not correct? MR. USKIW: No, the government responds to a request from someone who wishes to sell land, as to whether the government is interested in buying it. On the other hand, it res ponds to a request from someone that wants to lease land, and therefore it's a response mechanism. We are not banking land hopefully to get enough lessees to use it, we aren't buying it indiscriminately . In fact we•ve turned down about 59 percent of the people asking government to buy their properties.

I think we're buying about 41 percent of the offers. MRS. STEINTHORSON: May I ask why you are buying that percentage, what makes the difference . . . MR. USKIW: The lack of agreement on price , etc. , there's no agreement that•s all. In other words, we•re not that hungry for land that we are prepared to offer any price in order that the government get control of land; it has to be within reasonable market value . And it has to be a need that is demonstrated through someone who wishes to sell and someone who wishes to lease. At that stage we become the vehicle for those two individuals.

And it could be a father-son arrangement for example , where the father wishes to retire but needs his money for retirement purposes, can•t afford to give his farm to his son, and therefore the Crown pays the father, leases the land to the son who can at some point in time buy it if he wishes to. MRS. STEINT HORSON: This to me is another reason that the farmers are in trouble righ t now; that you have just stated that the father cannot afford, after a lifetime of working, to be able to retire. MR. USKIW: That has nothing to do with land policy though ... MRS.

STEIN THORSON: Anything to do with land policy has to do with agriculture .

210 February 10, 1975 MR. CH AIRMAN: Mr. Henderson. MR. HENDERSON: Could I say something, on a point of privilege . I don't think that Mr. Uskiw means to do it, but when he was giving the information, not only to the witness but as to the crowd, he said is at market value at that time. I have a lease in front of me here and it says "the higher of either of the two" . And when you were speaking to the crowd you said "at market value" . MR.

USKIW: Yes, what the lease says is that the Crown will not lose money; that in other words, the Crown could not be bound to sell land at a given time when the market is low no different than a private individual who may not want to sell land at the time that the market is down in land. In other words, the Crown is not going to take a loss. So they are saying either we get our money back or at the market value , which ever is the highest. MRS. STEINT HORSON: In other words they are speculating. MR.

USKIW: And that means that we are not going to use taxpayers' money to subsidize the program - that's all that means; we are not going to risk taxpayers' money to subsidize the program, We are insuring to that contract that if land prices went down to zero because of some catastrophe that at that point in time we would not be prepared to give up our land for nothing, and we would want to wait until the land values were back where they should be . So we are protecting the public purse in making that division. --(Interjection)-- MRS, STEINTHORSON: To the government. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Graham- -(Interjec tion)--I1ll put you on the list and you can , otherwise it does not mean very much on the transcript. --(Interjection)-- Yes I shall . MR . USKIW: The other point that you raised, Madam, is, why the discrimination; why aren't we involved in the urban sector, home ownership, business, entrepreneurship , and so on. Are you not aware that the Province of Manitoba has been involved in the expenditures of, oh I would say in excess of $120 million in the last four years, or five years in building low rental homes or apartment dwellings for people who can 't afford to buy their own home .

What 11m saying is, that we are doing it in other sectors; you are saying, why aren't we ? I' m just making the observation that we are . MRS. STEINTH ORSON : Well I would disagree with you on that; that is not a business. MR. USKIW: Pardon me ? MRS. STEINT HORSON: That is not a business. Farming is a business, is it not? MR.

USKIW: No , but home ownership is also, government-ownership of the home and a rental arrangement, and that's the parallel that I1m drawing there: where people can 't afford to buy a home , or a piece of property with a home, they have the option of entering a low rental unit through the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation. It' s analogous to that extent, city, MR. GREEN: See , you have referred to it, MR. USKIW: In your paper you have referred to it, MRS. STEINTHORSON: Yes . Right. MR. GREEN: ... a private dwelling , the same way private dwelling ... home in the MR.

USKIW: So we are doing that and have been doing it for five years. Now the next point you raised had to do with government involvement in agriculture generally . Do I take it from those comments that you would prefer that government not be involved ? You have very negative comments on government involvement and you make some point of the egg marketing system and a few others where you feel that government shouldn't have a role there. What are you trying to say, that government should completely divorce itself from the agricultural community? MRS.

STEINTHORSON: I' m saying that in the agricultural sector that the government should be more careful who is going to be benefitting by the incentive programs which you put out; whether they are really to benefit the people in agriculture, or if they are for a cheap food policy , which seems to be both a world, federal and provincial policy . MR. USKIW: You mention in here specifically the egg marketing situation. What do you mean by that? What is the importance of mentioning the Egg Marketing Board's operation. I mean, how do you see the operation that you raise as a problem to you ? MRS.

STEINT HORSON: It 's a problem to me ? MR. USKIW: Yes, in your brief you mention that there's a very serious problem in the egg industry and it's because of government involvement, and I would want you to illustrate

February 10, 19 75 211 (MR. USKIW cont'd) ..... for me , what is the nature of the problem, or why is it, in your opinion, a serious problem? What is the problem in the egg industry as you understand it? MRS. STEINTHORSON: That the farmers just certainly aren't making their fa ir returns on their investment. MR. USKIW: Oh , I see, you1re of the opinion that notwithstanding the setting up of a national marketing board, that that has done nothing to stabilize prices; is that what you are saying? You1re saying it has done the farmer a disadvantage ?

See, the reason why I ask you that is that the opposite is true, that the controversy over egg marketing was because of the dumping of eggs rather than the lowering of the price of eggs to the farmer; and that to me says it was a successful venture from the standpoint of protecting the farmer' s investment. MR. GRAHAM: That's not true. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham , would you like to intervene at this time and make your comments so we can understand and have it on the record what you mean by it not being true. MR. GRAHAM: If I may, please . MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, ple ase.

Order, please . Mr. Graham, do you wish to be on the list at this time? You seem to be interrupting. I will put you on the list and Mr. Uskiw you can wait until Mr. Graham explains what is not true so that we can all understand it. MR. USKIW: Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that Mr. Graham should have the floor at this point. I 'm not through with my .. . MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If you do not wish to yield, then proceed Mr. Uskiw. I 'll put you on the li st, Mr. Graham. MR .

USKIW: Is it not a fact that despite over-production of eggs in Canada, that the producer of eggs have enjoyed a high price which normally under an open marketing system would have been a disaster price , under those surplus conditions ? MRS. STEINTHORSON: It' s just that I think like in many other instances it's rather controversial and according to the facts and figures they can be made to read as you want them to be made to read. MR.

USKIW: No, but it is a statistical fact; I mean it's not something we1re pulling out of the air, the egg producers of Canada have done very well price-w ise, but because the prices were so good they also did a bit of cheating, they produced more than they were allowed to in accordance with their quotas. And it's the over-prod uction that1s been the controversy; it wasn 1t the fact that the price was wrong to the producer .

So to that extent they were success ful in the pricing side but obviously they had a great incentive to over-produce and that has been the problem, magnified by the fact that we count eggs in singles now rather than in dozens. We like to dwell on 28 million eggs, which is about two days production in Canada, or something like that. Is it true then that your impressions are based on sort of the image rather than the facts on those points that you raise, that it's really impressions that you have rather than factual information? MRS. STEINT HORSON: Mr.

Uskiw, I rather object to your line of questioning on some of this because obviously you are in a much better position, you do this type of thing quite frequently. I' ve come here with a disagreement that we have; we are very serious in our dis agreement on the land use. MR. USKIW: What are we disagreeing on, if you would tell me? MRS. STEINTHORSON: You feel that it's all right for the government to be taking over 63, 000 acres - or not taking over, pardon me , I retract that- buying 63, 000 acres ... MR. USKIW: On the request of those that want to sell and want to lease - the response. MRS.

STEINTHORSON: This is true, but it is also the fact that we disagree that the government should not own the land . . . MR. USKIW: All right. Then if that is so ... MRS . STEINTHORSON: ... and if this is the policy that it should be given a longer look-at before it1s agreed on. MR. USKIW: If that is so, then you would agree with me that the right to purchase, which is built into the agreement, is a good provision, that ultimately the lessee can take the land back into private ownership ...

212 February 10 , 19 75 MRS. STEINTHORSON: Definitely. MR. USKIW: .•• if they choose to do so. MRS. STEINTHORSON: I definitely agree that farmers should own their land. MR. USKIW: All right. So if that is true, then how do you continue saying, on what basis do you continue putting the idea that government is retaining the ownership of land? That would only be true if there was no option to purchase. MRS. STEINTHORSON: Because to be able to buy the land you have to be able to make a profit before you are going to be able to have the money to buy it. MR. USKIW: That•s correct.

That's correct whether you're buying it from the govern ment or whether you're buying it from your neighbour •• MRS. STEINTHORSON: Right. MR. USKIW: .•. that doesn't change the picture. But is it not true that the only way government could end up owning all of the land through the lease program is if there was no option to buy, but in fact there is an option to buy and therefore that cannot happen unless, unless all of the people in Manitoba that lease land don't exercise that option.

Now I should like to illustrate for you that in Ontario the option to buy is not for ten years, ours is after five; and in that sense we are more liberal on that question, or, shall we say, open on that question than our counterparts in Ontario. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. USKIW: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw. MR. USKIW: You then in your summation here suggest that we freeze land sales to foreigners. Why do you object to someone outside of Canada owning land?

Or at least you •re not objecting, you're saying let's not sell anymore for awhile, let•s legislate a freeze until we know what we want to do; that•s really what you're saying. Why do you feel we should do that. MRS. STEINTHORSON: Because I think that it's something that warrants taking a longer look at before we let anymore of our land go to people who do not live in our country. MR. USKIW: Do you feel that there is something wrong if someone from outside of Canada owns land in Canada? MRS. STEINTHORSON: And does not live in Canada and spend their money in Canada. MR. USKIW: You feel that is a bad thing? MRS.

STEINTHORSON: Yes I do. MR. USKIW: I see. Why? What • .. MRS. STEINTHORSON: This is my personal opinion. MR. USKIW: .•. what problems does it create for Canada when that happens? MRS. STEINTHORSON: Well I would say mainly that the money from agriculture there is going out of the country. MR. USKIW: Well let•s assume that somebody in Aust ralia owned all the land around Arborg, what would be wrong with that from your point of view? MRS. STEINTHORSON: If he didn't live in Arborg? MR. USKIW: No, he would live in Aust ralia but he would own it here and lease it to you and your neighbours.

Or do nothing with it; maybe he wouldn •t do a thing with it, he would just let it go back into its natural state. What would be wrong with that, from your point of view? MRS. STEINTHORSON: From my point of view, it seems to me that agricultural land is supposed to be used to produce food and if foreign ownership, if they did not produce food on our agricultural land, that Canada as well as other countries are going to be going pretty hungry. MR. USKIW: Well how would that be different from a Canadian who bought all the land around Arborg and let it go back into its natural state. What would be the difference?

I mean you said that if the foreigner owned it and didn•t make it produce agricultural products that would be bad because the world needs food; but if I owned it all and I didn•t produce any food, what would be the difference between my ownership and the owner in Aust ralia? MRS. STEINTHORSON: Well I don't think there is really that much difference. I feel that agricultural land should be used to produce agricultural products. MR. USKIW: There's no disagreement there. We•re only talking about the foreign ownership question. MRS. STEINTHORSON: What is the disagreement then? MR.

USKIW: That's what I want to know from you. So far we•re in agreement.

February 10, 197 5 213 MRS. STEIN THORSON: Then I am stating that a freeze should be put on all foreign ownership until the situation can be clarified for our land use in general. If you agree with me, what is the point of the question? MR. USKIW : No , I1ve agreed with you that agricultural land should produce food, it shouldn •t be idle . The pr oblem I have is in understanding why you think the Australian should not own it and a Manitoban should own it, even though neither of them are producing food. --(Int erjection)-- MRS. STEIN THORSON: If Mr.

Green has a question, I would appreciate hearing what he has to say, too. MR. USKIW: No . I think he simply points out there could be the situation where the Australian might be producing food by leasing it to you and your neighbours, by leasing the land then you would be pro ducing it, and a Canadian may not, a Canadian may decide that we won't put this land into production , we want to have it for hunting, or build some ponds on it for some ducks. You know. you have all sorts of possibilities. MRS. STEINTH ORSON: Defini tely . MR.

USKIW: So that wherein lies the reasoning that somehow there should be something said against the foreigner who wants to own land, since either can misuse it. Aren't you really talking about the misuse of land now rather than who owns it? MRS. STEIN THORSON: I1m referring in here to the foreign ownership in our land and also that the owner of the land is the one who captures all of the major part of the benefits of the economics then. MR. USKIW : Yes . Right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Steinthorson , you do not have to answer the question if you feel that you don•t wish to get into it because of others involved.

You're not obligated to answer questions. That is all, we •ll just proceed to the next person . MR. USKIW: All right. Then my last point. If all of the economic rent accrues to the foreign owner, why is it bad that the economic rent should accrue to the foreigner and good that the economic rent should accrue to my friend who lives in the City of Winnipeg who wants to own all the land in Arborg ? What is the difference ? MRS. STEINT HORSON: The person that lives in Canada usually spends their money in Canada . Isn•t it better, isn •t it usually better for the economy of Canada.

Now I feel that I am out of my dep ths here by arguing with you on a point that- I am a rancher's wife, I am not a politician , I am not a lawyer, and I feel that you •re trying to draw me into an argument on something that I do not have the facts and statistics to answer ... MR. USKIW: I appreciate that and I' m not trying to put you on the spot, I simply want to . MRS. STEINTHORSON: I feel you are. MR.

USKIW : Well I want to draw from you why it is you have these opinions, because unless I can get that from you then your brief has no substance ; it really means that we can't take recognition of the reasoning in your brief, other than some intuition, or perhaps you•ve been sold on an idea, that you 're not really sure why you feel that way, whether it•s an image thing.

You know, if you have real concrete reasons why you make these strong points about foreign ownership versus Canadian ownership, then it's good for the committee and for the record to know what in your opinion is a bad thing about foreign ownership, what is a bad thing about absenteeism ownership in Canada, if it exists, or whether it is, and so on. So it's from that point of view that we are trying to elicit from you the opinion - we're not trying to put you on the spot. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mrs.

Steinthorson, I must say that we are trying to get information and when you appear before a committee, we are asking questions in order to get that type of information to get your ideas on the record so that we can consider. There has not been to my knowledge any type of legisl ation prepared and it is on the basis of these meetings that we are hoping eventually to derive at some type of conclusions on the question of land use . This is the whole purpose .

So when the questions are being asked, if you cannot answer - I believe you stated you feel- well there is nothing to be embarrassed about the fact, but we are trying to get some dialogue in order to ge t some understanding what it is - the whole question what the problem is in deriving a policy on land use. Mr. Graham , on a point of order. MR . GRAHAM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman . Am I to understand the Minister of Agriculture correctly , that if he doesn •t get the answer he wants from a witness that the brief will not be considered in any way.

214 February 10, 1975 MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman ..• MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham, I 1ve just explained the whole situation and I do not believe that that has been the type of dialogue that was being discussed here. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on a point of ... MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I would like that question answered. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege.

That is not the proposition I put forward, I said that what I wanted was clarification so that we as a committee can properly understand the views of the people making their representations here today; and unless we have an exchange of questions based on their material we are not going to be equipped to give their brief any consideration, because the brief itself, this particular one, does not tell us why the individual is opposed or in favour of certain positions.

That is the important part of our consideration, is to determine the reasoning behind the brief, and certainly the more clarifi cation we get on the record the better position the committee will be in to make its final recommendation. So I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the intrusions of my friends to the right are unwarranted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Further on that point , Mr. Chairman, then am I to assume that all written briefs that have been submitted are .not going to be considered at all because they haven't had the chance to find out why? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr.

Graham, that is not what you are to assume; there has never been any indication that that has been the position taken. There have been presentations made and there are questions of clarification in order to get the meaning of that brief on the record. Mr. Green, on a point of order? MR. GREEN: Yes , I wish to speak on a point of order. I think that each committee member saw within himself to take whatever position with regard to a brief or whatever position with regard to whether it contained substance or doesn't contain substance as any other member, and I know that Mr. Graham is not suggesting to him that Mr.

Uskiw can dictate to Mr. Jorgenson, Mr. Graham, Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Blake, Mr. Henderson, Mr. Johnston or any other member of this committee , as to how he will deal with a brief. So therefore, unless I misunderstand Mr. Graham, that he now thinks that Mr. Uskiw can dictate to him what he shall think, which I never understood to be Mr. Graham 1s position; he is not making a valid point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Uskiw, you may proceed. MR. USKIW: I've completed my ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ferguson. MR. FERGUSON: Yes, thanks , Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Steinthorson, I have only a couple of questions I'd like to ask you.

The first would be: in your immediate area how many takeovers or how many farms have the government purchased, shall we say, in the past 15 months? Roughly, I mean you don't ..• MRS. STEINTHORSON: This is something that I have not got the knowledge of. I believe in the In Search of a Land Policy for Manitoba you have stated it is very difficult for you to find out who the true owner of land is , so I don't really think that you should expect me to know who owns the land in our area. MR. FERGUSON: No, what I meant was in your immediate area, neighbours and friends possibly that you knew about transactions .

This is fine. And has it been your experience at any time that MACC have been bidding against local people in buying of this land? MRS. STEINTHORSON: I have heard this but I have no facts or figures on it so I would prefer not to make any statements on that. MR. FERGUSON: Okay. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham. MR. GRAHAM: Really, Mr. Chairman, my argument was with the Minister and as far as the person who has presented this brief . . . I would like to ask one comment though. When Mr.

Uskiw was talking about the higher price which a person could purchase at, in the purchase after a five year lease, we do know that there have been no leases that have run the five years yet so we can only assume what is going to happen at the first period when these things will happen. But I believe he stated that it would be at the "higher price" of either the market value or the original purchase price. So that really would you not agree that there is no way

February 10, 19 75 215 (MR. GRAHAM cont'd) ..... the government will be losing money in this deal? MRS. STEINTHORSON: Yes , I would definitely agree with you on that. MR. GRAHAM: It would more or less mean there would be a guaranteed profit for the government? MRS. STEINTHORSON: Yes , I would agree with you on that. MR. GRAHAM: In this winner-loser deal then, it would probably be the farmer that would be the loser; is that right? MRS. STEINTHORSON: In my estimation I feel that it likely would be. MR. GRAHAM: That's all. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Mrs.

Steinthorson, I am very interested in some of your positions with regard to generally public intervention in the agricultural economy, because I must admit that I am a city person and I try to interest myself in rural matters, particularly within the last 13 years or so, and I have always had the impression that the rural people are very much interested in the public having an involvement in their affairs, and if that1s wrong then I want to sort of have my views on this shaken because I don•t want to have views about the rural population which are not correct.

You say that over the last 30 years government intervention has had dismal results. Of course our government has only been in existence five years, so you're saying quite a few things about other governments and being partisan I'm very happy that you are criticizing them, but some of the things that they did I thought were pretty good. For instance, do you think that the cash advances on farm stored grain were bad for the farmers? It was a program of Mr. Diefenbaker. MRS. STEINTHORSON: Not having been a grain farmer and not really knowing that. much about this I would decline to answer that. MR.

GREEN: You say that any government intervention over the past 30 or 40 years, be it federal or provincial, has had dismal results, but you wouldn1t include in that, any govern ment intervention , cash advances on farm stored grain? MRS. STEINTHORSON: I did not say that , I said that I did not have an opinion on that specifically. MR. GREEN: So then you wouldn't include it as being one of the ones that had dismal results? MRS. STEINTHORSON: No, I did not say that. I said that I would not say whether it was for or against because I did not have definite information on that specific thing. MR.

GREEN: I•m really trying to find out what you1re position is because you say any government intervention has had dismal results. Now, would you call cash advances on farm stored grain a government intervention? --(Interjectio n)-- Oh, no but she •s talking about ... --(Interj ection) -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR.

GREEN: You know, this woman, to me, is far more intelligent than the people to my right, I find her brief to be much more helpful than the answers I•m getting from the people to my right, and therefore I want - because she did not refer to ranch policy, and land use policy in many cases has nothing to do with ranchers, in many cases it•s grain farmers, and this woman speaks very well on agricultural problems as a whole, and you people don •t have to protect her, she•s doing fine. --(Interject ion) --As a matter of fact she's giving me much more help than you are - or have ever given me.

I•m dealing with your statement that the present system in agriculture, and you•re not talking about ranching; we must also freely admit that any government intervention over the past 30 or 40 years, be it federal or provincial, has had dismal results. Now I'm suggesting to you that in my mind - and maybe I •m wrong about this - cash advances on farm stored grain was a government intervention that was wanted by the agricultural community in Canada. Now do you agree that that is a government intervention? MRS. STEINTHORSON: I have already stated that this is something that I don•t have knowledge of. MR.

GREEN: All right. Then when you say "any government intervention" you were not referring to cash . . . MRS. STEINTHORSON: I was not being specific, and you are.

216 February 10, 1975 MR. GREEN: Well exactly. Mrs. Steinthorson you would not want me to just ignore that. If you were able to tell me for instance, that cash advances on farm stored grain had dismal results , that would shake my thinking and I would want to hear from you. But you are not able to tell me that . MRS. STEINTHORSON: Possibly there is someone who has helped me prepare this brief who has more knowledge of grain farming • . . MR. GREEN: Mrs.

Steinthorson, I1m really not trying to do anything other than find out - some of the things that I believed were good, I •m trying to find out whether they were good. For instance . . . MRS. STEINTHORSON: Then why will you not allow me to call someone who has .. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no objection .•. MR. GREEN: I want to deal with you, and I will have no objection to asking and being informed by any person here, but I'm asking you because you presented a brief that said "any government intervention has had dismal results".

I have believed that cash advances on farm stored grain was a government intervention, I did not think it had dismal results and I was trying to find out - and if you don•t know, that•s fine, I won't pursue it, MRS. STEINTHORSON: I am stating that- you will notice that I represent a group of ranchers. Now I presented this for them and if there are some who are with me that have any better knowledge specifically on this I would request that I be allowed to call them and they can . MR. GREEN: Certainly. They will be able to come up afterwards ... MR.

CHAIRMAN: This is allowed, and you may call on any of your people who helped in the presentation you may call them to assist you. There has never been any objection to that. MR. GREEN: Absolutely. I think that you are doing better , by the way, than possibly some others who have come so you shouldn1t feel so defensive about your own capability , I think you are doing very well. But we can say that when you presented a brief on behalf of those people that you did not specifically relate it to cash advances on farm stored grain? MR. CHAIRMAN: Your name, sir? You are going to ... MR.

GREEN: Now in 1957 the Diefenbaker administration paid every grain farmer, believe it was, an acreage payment of $1. 00 per acre, up to $200 .0 0, which I believed was an intervention by the public in agriculture, and although I didn't think it was the best thing, it was certainly better than nothing, in my opinion. Do you consider the acreage payments by the Diefenbaker administration to have had dismal results? MRS. STEINTHORSON: Would you please repeat that? MR.

GREEN: Between 1957 and 1958 , no it was between '57 - I believe it was just before the 158 election - that the public, the Diefenbaker administration, Conservative administration, because there was a problem with regard to price in agriculture, made an acreage payment of $1 . 00 an acre up to a maximum of $200 .00 to all grain farmers. I thought at the . . • --(Interjection) -- MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham, on a point of order. MR. GRAHAM: I think Mr. Green is trying to interpret the decisions that Mr. Diefen baker made at that time MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, Mr. Graham .•. MR.

GRAHAM: ... and he1s perfectly entitled to put whatever

interpretation he wants on them, but I think Mr. Diefenbaker can well . • . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Graham, that is not a point of order, that is not a point of order. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I sincerely- you know other members of this committee will not believe me, but I would like to really have some information as to how this public involvement has hurt the farmers in this country, and if this woman can provide me with that- I did not really believe in the acreage payments but they were better--(I nterjection)-- no, I want the young lady to help me. You know, Mr.

Jorgenson and I have discussed it on many occasions and I really did not get help from him, but now I have a--(Interjection) -- No it's not I who am in difficulty, Mr. Jorgenson; the problem that I have is reconciling the statement and this is a young lady who says that over the past 30 years only five of which - never federal New Democrats, only five New Democrats provincially here - there have been government inter vention in the agricultural economy with dismal results. She is therefore giving me some fuel

February 10, 1975 217 (MR. GREEN cont1d) ..... with which I can attack the Conservative administration, although thus far I still agree with Diefenbaker and not with her - thus far - but I am trying to find out whether Mr. Diefenbaker was in fact wrong with the acreage payment program. MRS. STEINTHORSON: Would it be permissible for my colleague to answer? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, what is your name, sir? MR. STEINTHORSON: Lorne Steinthorson. MR. CHAIRMAN: Lorne Steinthorson. Okay, Mr. Steinthorson. Proceed. You may answer. MR.

STEINTHORSON: In answer to your question as to whether the acreage payment was beneficial, I would say this was a very short- term policy, a crash policy, more or less to save the western economy. MR. GREEN: I agree with you. Did it have dismal results ... I agree with you. That• s what I've been telling Mr. Jorgenson. MR. STEINTHORSON: I think what Mrs.

Ste inthorson is trying to get across is the fact that some of these long range programs for instance - and she•s not implying that it's a total reason for what we are faced with today, but it is a prime factor - that anything that creates a false economy has dismal results in them at the marketplace. MR. GREEN: Then I1d like to know, I hope ... MR. STEINTHORSON: When any industry is in real trouble that really affects the total economy and the welfare of all in the country, I see nothing wrong with any government doing something to save the economy after all.

But you know something that•s long range, for instance , that will affect the people directly involved should be considered very closely before it's administered as policy. MR. GREEN: You know, I agree with you entirely, I don't disagree; I only take from the brief, you know, and I have to go with what has been presented to me and what I have been told by rural people all over in the last 20 years. • . MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes. MR. GREEN: ... and it says, "any government interve ntion over the past 30 or 40 years, be it federal or provincial, has had dismal results".

Now I gather that you don't mean "any government intervention" because you say that the acreage payments . . . MR. STEINTHORSON: I1m just saying that the particular subject that you chose to speak on was a crash program . . . MR. GREEN: I dealt with cash advances on farm stored grain, I dealt with ... MR. STEINTHORSON: .. . because the economy was in such a state. MR. GREEN: Well, Mr.

Steinthorson, are you aware of any agricultural community in Western Europe, United States or Canada that doesn't have as a long-range program public intervention , such as the Benson program in the United States which guaranteed prices to farmers, such as the programs in France, and in Germany and in Italy which guarantees price stability and tariffs to farmers to protect the viability of the rural economy; are you aware of any places where these do not exist? Perhaps maybe in some of the Asian countries they existed for many years, but I don•t think that it profited greatly the Asian farmer as I saw it. MR.

STEINTHORSON: Well would you consider that agriculture on a world-wide basis is good? MR. GREEN: Mr. Steinthorson ... MR. STEINTHORSON: You have the information . MR. GREEN: Let me put it to you this way. That where the public has been involved in agriculture and in dealing with agriculture, it has not been worse than where they have not been involved. That• s my opinion, but I would welcome you showing me where Irm wrong. In other words, you have said that this is incorrect, and I would welcome .. . MR.

STEINTHORSON: What we•re mainly concerned with, as a small group, and like my wife said, possibly not that well-i nformed because after all - but I•m not trying to find excuses for being not involved, or not knowing bett er, maybe we should, but I •m merely saying that in our society anytime that there is a false economy created-- (Interject ion) --No, I •m not knocking anybody but l'm saying just what affects us as citizens in the cow- calf business, because this is what we are in, that it does affect us and you will have to admit that when you create a false economy by dumping money into the hands of the individual that this is exactly what it creates, and whoever does it in governments that is neither here nor there as far as we were concerned.

218 February 10, 1975 MR. GREEN: Well, Mr. Steinthorson. MR. STEINTHORSON: I don't know •.• It seems to me we•re getting off the subject, maybe I •m wrong. MR. GREEN: It seems to me that you are getting off the subject. I•m willing to accept, and I respect it because I have sort of firm beliefs one way or the other, and I respect firm belief coming the other way, but when the beliefs are based on misunderstandings of fact , then I•m trying to find out whether that is so.

I think it's quite legitimate for people to believe that the least government involvement the better, that is a legitimate belief which I respect. There are others who believe that more public involvement to the benefit of everybody is a better thing, and I would ask you to respect my belief in that question.

So when we say - now then we start coming to the specifics, I want to find out which government intervention has had dismal results, and I know of, you know, the following government intervention, which we didn •t start; the cash advances on farm stored grain, the acreage payments , the Federal Credit Corporation, the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corpora tion, all of which I thought have been some benefit, and which have been used, by the way, the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Federal Credit Corporation have been used by people in this area to a great extent, and if they are having dismal results for the people in this area and they don•t want the ARDA programs and the FRED programs and the Agricul tural Credit Corporation programs and the cash advance, then I want to know if that is the view of the people in this area.

I•ve always thought it to be the contrary. MR. STEINTHORSON: I would say that when you implement a program that it should be, very sincere thought put into the long-range effects of anything like that. Like, for instance, if governments - when I use the plural form, I just mean just that ... MR. GREEN: Mr. Steinthorson, I am going to try and cut you short because .•. I am going to try, I mean I really just wanted answers to the questions because the philosophy that you are putting, you know, I think is well presented by the representation in the Legislature and I perfectly understand the difference in belief.

I would like to stick to the brief and ask questions if you don •t mind. If you do want to continue with a general discussion on the philo sophy I•ll listen but I•d like to stick to the brief and ask questions because we don•t have all year. May I continue with my questions? MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes. MR. GREEN: Okay. I have recently been advised that the beef producers are asking the Manitoba Government for a grant - is that correct? - of $100. 00 per head for all of the beef producers in the province, the cow-calf producers.

Do I gather that you would consider this to be a government intervention with dismal results and that it should be ignored by the Minister of Agriculture? MR. STEINTHORSON: You fail to recall my answer from previous was that when the economy is at stake, and we were talking about long-range programs. MR. GREEN: Okay. That•s fine. Then you say that this is okay on a short-term basis but the long-range should try to avoid such programs, and I would agree with you. MR.

STEINTHORSON: I•m just looking at it from an economic standpoint what the long range program would do; if it's good, it's good, but if it's not I th ink anybody should be able to admit that. MR. GREEN: Now I have a long-range program, this is a long-range program which is called, "Targets for Economic Development"; it was prepared in 1969 by the Conservative administration. This was filed in the House by the Conservative administration as a policy document, prepared under the auspices of the Minister of Industry and Commerce, then Mr. Sidney Spivak.

Here is a long-range program and I want to ask you whether I should worry about this program and try and do something about it. He says, "Because of the uncer tainty about 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 in 1969 my understanding is that there were approximately 40, 000 commercial farms, and the target for economic development is that there should be 20; which means that there should be half the number of the commercial farmers in the Province of Manitoba by 1980 than there were by 1970. Now I have felt that that is a problem that we are reducing our farmers by 50 percent, and this is long-range. Do you think that I should be concerned with that problem, or do you not consider it a problem?

February 10, 19 75 219 MR . STEINTHORSON: Well, it all depends just what overall government policy would be regard ing the importance of agriculture , and if the farm numbe rs, the farm communities suffer, I think economics is the big reason for . . . MR. GREEN: It would not then be of concern . MR. STEINTHORSON: If you are concerned to have the farm numbers up, does that mean there will be more production, or what is the aim , what would be the aim for . .. MR. GREEN: Yes .

I have to tell you that I believe that it is better rather than worse that there be a greater number of people living on the farms , producing, and producing more , than that there should be a lesser number of people on the farms. MR. STEINTHORSON: Ye s. I think there should be a happy medium arrived at there . I don't know exactly where it would be; l'm not knowledgeable ... Do you know where it should be ? MR .

GREEN: Well, let me put it to you this way: if somebody told you that bet ween 1970 and 1980 the target was to reduce the farm population by 50 percent, or the commercial farms by 50 percent, would you consider that a probl em? MR . CH AIRMAN: Mr . Jorgenson, Point of order . MR. WARNER JORGENSON: On a point of order. I don ' t know. l ' m not sure that Mr . Green is doing this deliberatel y , or whether he is just misinform ed, but he refers to a reduction of 50 percent.

I 1d like to point out to him that in 1966, which was the census year upon which these figures were based, the figures that he refers to in the "Targets for Ec onomic Develo pme nt" , the number of census farms that particular year was 39 , 747, while the commercial farms were 27 , 372 . Now I want to make the dist inction between the commer cial and a census farm . A census farm is a farm with one acre or more , with sales of more than $50 , 00. NowBverybody knows that a farm with sales of $5 0,00 is not a comm ercial farm, that nobody 's endeavo uring to make a living on that farm .

A commercial farm is also a census farm with sales of over $2, 500, 00 . You don 1t reach a commercial farm until the sales from that farm is over $2, 500 . DO. And at that time there was only 27, 000 of those farms, not 40, 000 as Mr . Green sugge sted . MR. GREEN: I thank Mr. Jorgenson because I don't want to use a statistic that is incorrect, and if it is 27, 000 to 20, 000, then I regret having used the term 40 .

I would then think there would be an equivalent, if not even great er, reduction in statistics in the non commercial farm, because the non-comme rcial farm if econom ically in greater difficulty would disappear faster than the commercial farm . But in any event, I •m happy to have a statist ic correcte d. You say that the economics of the sit uation should govern and if the re is a required reduction in the farm population that that is not somet hing that should be the key facto r, the key factor should be the economic viability and the number of people who are producing it . MR. JORGE NSON: Quality of life .

MR. GREEN: In order to have a quality of life you have to have the life to start with . think that the gentle man is not saying quality of life , I thi nk that he is saying economics should be the gove rning factor . That may be right but he•s cert ainly not saying quali ty of life . MRS. STEINTHORSON: Is there not a pre tty close comparison between quality of life and economics ? MR. GREEN: I believe so. I thought it was your husband who - then I misunder - stand him, I thought it was your husband who said that the economic factor should be the one that should govern. If that•s not correct, then I take it back.

I though t that's what he said , that we shouldn 't be concerned with the fact that 7. 000 people who have had the quality of life of being engaged in commercial rural farming disapp ear , that that •s not the probl em, the problem is the economics of the farming viabil it y . I agree wi th you, not with your husband. I mean, are you now disagreeing with your husband ? MR. STEINTHORSON: I thought it was just norma lly underst ood that you couldn 't have quality of life without a reaso nable inc ome . MR. GREEN: Then we have to agree , yes.

Would you consider that it would be better if 27, 000 commercial farme rs had a good income , and therefore a good quality of life , rather than 20, 000 commercial farmers with a good income and a good quality of life ? MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes , but how are you going to implement this ? MR. GREEN: Let•s assume , yes , that•s real ly the question. You do agree it would be bet ter ?

22 0 February 10, 1975 MR. STEINTH ORSON: Yes, I would say so, MR. GREEN: Then what we as your elected representatives should be doing, would be trying to implement good economics for the people who are now engaged in agriculture so that they could enjoy a quality of life , rather than having some of them disappear so that the others could enjoy a quality of life . Do you agree with that? MR. STEINTHORSON: Would you agree ... MR. GREEN: I agree with you too, yes. I mean, you agree with that? Well that's one of the things that Mr. Uskiw1s paper is trying to deal with - and then I want to get to Mrs.

Steinthorson because she was the one who raised it. Mr. Uskiw says, or the Department of Agriculture paper says, "that one of the problems facing agriculture is that there are going to be more non-resident land owners." He1s worried about the same thing as you are, he says, "a tenant farmer is not going to be the best possible situation"; he sa ys , but more and more people are owning land who are not on the farms and they are going to rent it out and this is going to create a lot of tenants. Now would that be a problem to you ?

Because when you talk about history teaches us a lesson and one gain from the Middle Ages is that the tenant farmer leads to subjugation of those renting the land, now would I be correct in saying, that the tenant farmer in the Middle Ages was always renting from a feudal or other private land owner, that it was not a tenant farmer of the public ? And if Mr. Uskiw thought that we were tending in the direction of having huge landlords , private landlords, leasing out all of the land in Manitoba to tenant farmers, would you consider that a problem ? MR. STEINTHORSON: Just repeat that again, please . MR.

GREEN: Well, Mr . Henderson says it would be no worse than having a public land lord. You know, that's his opinion. My opinion is that the problem is that there are going to be tenants, that there are going to be huge landowners , like Mr . Henderson, that there will be fewer and fewer of them, and that there will be more and more tenant farmers, which is what you say is the problem and where we are going to the Middle Ages. And what Mr.

Uskiw says is that if there are going to be tenants, and we are not going to try to create them, but if there are going to be tenants it is better that there be tenants who have a role to play in what the landlord says, that is tenants who can have a role in the government, rather than tenants who can only speak to Mr. Henderson, That's the difference , --(Interjection)-- Well, Mr . Henderson says that they are better speaking to him , but I can tell you that I would rather have my tenant as the public who I could throw out than be a tenant to Mr.

Henderson, who have nothing to say about it.--(Inter je ction)--No, I can't throw Mr. Henderson out; he is going to be the owner of that land like the feudal landlord who says that you will be my serf;

whereas the public I have a right to throw out the representatives, I have the right to beat them in an election . --(Inter jection)-- MR, CHAIRMAN: Mr. Henderson, please ... MR. GREEN: No , not at all. Mr. Uskiw says that one of the problems that you are going to face is non-resident landlords who are going to rent out to more and more tenants; which you say is a bad thing . Now should he not then be concerned with having some control over these landlords; and he says that the public as a landlord is controlled by the people . MR.

STEINTHORSON: Yes, but isn't it a fact when land owned by a landlord, like you say, or private individuals, you say there's a danger of them owning too much land. Are you saying that they wouldn't be competitive ?

Let's say the economy of farming gets to the point that you can't pay 5 percent, or you can 1t - let's say the rent goes up to 9 or 10 percent and the economy just can't stand it, so you go to your landlord and say - well, what do you say, it's just too high I' m not paying that fee under this contract, and he won't accept this, so I pack my bags and I leave--(Interjection)--just a minute, just a minute, can I finish ? MR. GREEN: Itm sorry. MR. STEINTH ORSON: That's bargaining ... MR. GREEN: You're not getting answers to the question. MR.

STEINTHORSON: Well I' m giving you the same answer the same way as you asked it, with an explanation. MR. GREEN: Go ahead, I believe , Mr. Chairman, that Mr .... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, plea se. MR. GREEN: .•. and these gentlemen are not getting the answers they want. MR. HENDERSON: No , you .•. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please . Mr . Henderson, I believe you are trying to cramp

February 10, 19 75 (MR . CHAIRMAN cont1d) the list. the type of answers--(Interjection)-- Yes , I •11 put you on MR. GREEN: That's right. And you said to get the man to answer the question. MR. STEINTHORSON: Well, I •m trying, if I were given a chance, an opportunity. MR. GREEN: Go ahead. A ME MBER: There 's too much interference . 221 MR. STEINTHORSON: This is what I mean by bargaining power . To me , I feel it would be hard for me to compete with government owning land because it could become vacant then I suppose , but a private individual he more or less has to get something out of the land.

So if I went to him and said I can•t pay 8 or 9 percent he might come down to 4 or 5 or 6 or 7, that I could maybe bargain depending on the position or the way the economy was in that particular product. Maybe I am wrong. This is my feeling. MR. GREEN: I will not say that you are right or wrong, I will only tell you that you like to say that history has taught you things. I would say that history has shown that a tenant farmer in Ireland did exactly what you say; they tried to bargain with the private landlords, they tried to remove themselves from the land and not pay, and the government put them in jail.

That is what happened. The government came to the assistance of the private landlord and put them in jail . They put a member of parliament in jail , Mr. Parnell, because he or ganized a tenant's league to try to bargain with the landlords. MR. STEIN THORSON: I know nothing about •.. MR. GREEN: And you should be aware of it. MR. CHAIRMAN: That•s history and that is history referring to . MR. GREEN: I really have no more questions, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johannson. MR. STEINTHORSON: Mr. Green, I would like to make a comment on that.

You said that the government put this man in jail because he tried to bargain for the landlord ? MR. GREEN: No , he tried to bargain with the private landlords . The land was owned by private landlords, there were Irish tenants on it, the tenants formed a land league to try to bargain with their private landlords, and the government, which was in the hands of the land owners, put Mr. Parnell and others in jail for forming a conspiracy to injure the landlords. Which governments have done in protection of private interests. The landlords owned the government. And they will own the government here too .•• MRS.

STEIN THORSON: Could they not have been voted out of power then too? MR. GREEN : .•. if you let them own all the land. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Johannson. MR. JOHANNSON: Yes . Mrs. Steinthorson, you express a concern about takeover of all land by the Provincial Government and you indicate that you feel that the Working Paper is a justification, or attempts a justification of government ownership of land. Now I' m interested in finding out why you have this concern, that you feel that the Provincial Government is trying to take over all farmland. I1m concerned because I find it a bit difficult to understand.

I know that Conservative politicians have been running around the province claiming that we are trying to do this, but I1d like to find out, you know, why you feel that we are trying to do this. Now you cited the fact that in 15 months MACC had purchased 63 ,000 acr es. I think actually the figure is 66. Do you feel that this is an indication of an aggressive policy to try to take over all farmland ? MR. STEINTHORSON: It seems to me that it's quite a bit.

That divided into the number of acres available for agri culture, I don't have statistics, I don•t know the figu-.;es as to how many years it would take to own all the land at this rate. There is nothing in there that tells me that it won•t happen or that it will happen, but at that rate how long would it take, you have the statistics probably , how long would it take to own all the agricultural land at that rate. --(Int erjection)-- MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman, I• m being interrupted here by one of my members.

That figure 66, 000 represents one-third of one percent of the farmland in the province , and at that rate - and that's making some assumptions1it would take well over a hundred years to pur chase all of the land in the province . And that assumes a couple of things: it assumes (1 ) that lessees will not take up the option to buy ; and it assumes (2 ) that the farmers who you say are 100 percent opposed to government owning the land, will be willing to sell. Now I don't expect to live that long, but do you consider that a very aggressive policy to buy up farmland - to take over the land ?

222 February 10, 19 75 MR. STEINTHORSON: Well what in comparison with other of those large land owners that we should be concerned with, what would be the comparison with that? MR. JOHANNSON: One point three million. MRS. STEINTHORSON: Over what period of time ? MR. USKIW: Twenty-five percent of that in the last 30 months. MR. STEINTHORS ON: Beg pardon ? MR. USKIW: Twenty-five percent of that figure in the last 30 months, MR. CHAIRMAN: The figure was stated as 25 percent, being in the last 30 months . MR. JOHANNSON: Mr. Chairman ••• MR. USKIW: I think Mr . Johannson has the chair. MR. JOHANNSON: Mr.

Chairman, can I proceed ? Now to me . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Green. MR. GREEN: Just so that I will be able to do it, Mr. Johannson, I just want to make sure of the statistic, if I heard it correctly . Three tenths of one percent is the amount that has been purchased ? MR. JOHANNSON : Yes, one-third of one percent. MR. GREEN: Well one percent would take 100 years, so I gather three-tenths of one percent would take 300 years. Unless I• m wrong. MR. JOHANNS ON: Oh, I• m sorry, l' m wrong, yes. It would take 300 years .

Now some members of our party wouldn't consider our Minister of Agriculture a very flaming socialist if he is moving that slowly . Now do you think that•s an aggressive policy ? MR. STEINTHORSON: Well compared with other types of purchases, how does that compare with, let•s say foreign ownership. MR. JOHANNSON : Well I understand that recently foreign ownership has amounted to one percent in roughly an equivalent period, but I• m not really concerned about that aspect right now.

What I• m concerned about is your fear that the government is trying to take over all the land, and I would like to see what evidence there is that we•re trying to do this. And my reading of this would be that this sounds like an extremely conservative government. MR. STEINT HORSON: I think the disagreement in our paper, it was decided, was more that we felt the government shouldn't own the land, it should stay in the hands of the farmer. I don•t think you can argue the fact that we can't produce the way we are now.

Why would by government owning land do you suppose that we would get more production, or what is the ultimate reason other than to try to help farmers get going. And if it was only to help farmers to get started in business, or young farmers, or whatever it is, that if there was some alter native method that could be used rather than owning the land , Now if owning the land was the only way that is different, that is absolutely different; and if that was the case I would not oppose it.

But it seems to me that that is maybe going a little bit too far for government to own the land, because to a farmer, as I understand it talking to my Dad who is getting to be a real old man, has farmed all his life here in Manitoba, that I think that owning the land meant something to him and I think there •s something to patriotism and so on , I don't know, maybe I• m wrong, this is my own personal feeling , MR. JOHANNSON: Mr .

Steinthorson I consider myself a person who believes in some principles but I don•t consider that l' m totally dogmatic, For example , I don•t totally disap prove of - I don't disapprove in principle of private ownership, I don't disapprove in principle of public ownership. I think that sometimes you have to be pragmatic . And I understand one of the primary reasons for this program, the land lease program which involves government ownership and leased back to young farmers is to enable young farmers who haven•t got col lateral to put up to banks to be able to start in farming.

Now this is my understanding that this is one of the major reasons for this program and that it is one option of a number of young farmers, and this option is designed princip ally for this group . But I want to get back to this question, this worry of yours about public ownership. Again, the MACC as I understand it, makes no approach to farme rs to buy land, they don• t go out trying to buy land, they only accept applications. As I understand it ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please . I have checked it out. MR.

JOHANNSON: The MACC does not go out to farmers trying to buy their land, it only takes applications, and it has only accepted about 40 or 41 percent of those who have applied to sell their land , Now does this sound like a terribly aggressive campaign to buy up all the farmland ?

February 10, 197 5 223 MR. ST EINTHORSON: No, that doesn 't sound aggressiv e, but this is not the question that's in my min d. MR. JOHANNS ON: You're totally oppo sed to any public owne rship of farmland ? MR. STEINTHORSON: My own personal brief, I don1t speak for everybody that we were discussi ng this brief with , but personally I don •t think that public owne rship of land in our societ y as it is to day is really going to solve that much .

I think productivit y and so on - as far as ge tting a young farmer going in busine ss, if there isn 1t an alt ernative or a different met hod - like possi bly when he first gets going, it's the first five years no doubt that give him the harde st time to buy, and it's yet to be seen if he can pos sibly afford to buy the land off MACC in five years time . I mean, we •ve got to wait and see . MR.

JOHANNSON: But if your concern is productivit y , surel y if a young farmer doesn•t have - in those fir st five years if he doesn 1t have to put a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand dollars to buy land and he can put the capital that he has into machinery , into what ever else is needed to make the land productive , doesn't thi s make him a more productive farmer ? MR . STEINTH ORSON: I agree with that, if thi s were the only way that it could be done . l' m just merely saying that if thi s were the only way then it's fine , but there 's a pos sibilit y that it isn't just the only way.

Now l' m not going to argue that poi nt . MR. JOHANNSON: I woul dn't say it 's the only way eit her. I agree with you there . MR. STEINTH ORSON: Yes. Well okay then we•re in agreement. Okay? MR. CHAIRM AN: Mrs . Steint horson. MRS. STEINTHORSON: I think I•d like to make a point here , if you don •t mind . We have stated here that we do not deny that a land-use policy is necessary, but we feel that a more complete study is import ant, and we feel that before the decisions are made wishes of tho se direc tly involved must be conside red. This is mainly the point of our bri ef. MR. CH AIRMAN: Thank you.

This is why we do appreciat e having you present a brief, and I think it has been a very inter es ting discussion . Mr. Dillen do you wish ... MR. KE N DILLEN: I just have a couple of question s. You know, ofte ntimes people get into discussions on questions of government policy regardle ss of where it happens to be , whether it's in a mee ting of some sort. Where did you get the impression that the government was atte mpting to buy up all of the available agricultural land in the province - how did you arrive at that ? MR .

STEINTHORSON: Well it appears to me that after speaking to the gentleman at the far end of the table that it's going to take 300 years and seeing as how I don 't really believe that owning the land is the only way to get a farmer started in busine ss, that government owner ship of land is like I said bef ore, if that was the only way to get the young farmer going that's fine , and thi s is evident ly what you claim is what thi s is all about. But it's not. This is also land use , eh?

I believe that agri cultural land should be used for agricult ure , and as these dangers arise , that I think there should be legislat ion with a lot of thought to guard against any land that is capable of producing anything should be maintained at all costs , because agric ulture land when you - and it says right in this book that we only got so many acres of that in the worl d, and when you hear of starvation, I am in full agreement, like it says at the end of thi s brief, that we do not deny that a land-use policy is neces sary.

And I repeat that that was really unanimous and I think if there is anybody that feels any different has got to take a second look at what's going on in the world around us .

But how it1s done , how it 's implemented - like for myself, I feel like l'm a very small minorit y in our societ y today , and is there anybody here that can deny that, that we don't represent very many people , and therefore I am much more concerned than pos sibly an urban dweller because I know in our societ y that the votes count and thi s is why, the bigge st reason that we are really concerne d, that we don 1t really count when it comes down to the vote . Li ke you might say if we don •t like a policy kick us out. We are not in that position, and we realize it, there 's no use kidding ourselve s.

I don 't know if I answered your question . I get a little emot ional on this , but I do feel worried on thi s account. MR. DI LLEN: I have some figures here that state foreign and absentee owner ship in the province amounts to 1. 3 million acres as compared to the provi nce 1s holdings at the present time of about 66, 000 acres. MR . GREEN: I think Mr . Dillen that wouldn 't be correct eit her, I believe that that is

224 February 10, 1975 (MR . GREEN cont•d) ..... the purchases. I gather that we would have more public hold ings than just those . . . MR. DILLEN: Oh, that's what we have purchased, MR. GREEN: ... and furthermore, 75 percent of the land in the province of Manitoba thank God belongs to you and me and the general public; 75 percent of the land. MR. STEINTHO RSON : That is a fact, is it ? MR . DIL LEN: That•s the total land mass of the province. And 25 percent of that 1.3 million has been obtained in the past 30 months .

So the amount of non-resident ownership in the province has increased in the last 30 months by much more than what the province is in volved in - I could get you those figures but ... Does that not pose a greater threat to you as an individual farmer to have that amount of foreign or absentee ownership as opposed to the small amount that the government has ? MR. STEIN THORSON : I believe if you check on the second last paragraph , we have stated a freeze should be put on all foreign ownership until the situation has been clarified.

In other words, we thought that this needed a lot of further study before we allow any more of our land - I• m not saying that it's good or bad for foreign ownership because I don•t think that we •re right now - at least the general public is not right now in a position to decide . I think that this is something that before we do lose it, because if we do lose it out of the country , it's going to be, I think, more difficult to buy back than if its by a Canadian citizen, This needs to be looked at a lot more closely before any :(UOre is sold out of the country. MR. DILLEN: Okay . MRS.

STEIN THORSON : I could be wrong on this but these are my personal views on it, that it should be studied very carefully . MR. DILL EN: If you had the opportunity of disposing of your land, if you felt that you wanted to dispose of it now and you had a choice between a foreign buyer from Florida , or the Province of Manitoba, what would your reaction be to choosing the person who you would sell your land to, given that the prices were equal ? MR. STEIN THORSON : And they're all offering the same price , is what you say? l' d sell it to a resident buyer, if it didn 1t mean ... MR.

DILLEN: Well, there •s no resident buyer that can meet the price , we 'll use that . MR. STEINT HORSON : I beg your pardon. MR. DILLEN: We •ll assume that there is no resident buyer, or neighbour, or somebody in the vicinity who can meet the price , that the only two people that can meet the price are the Province -- (Interjection) -- or somebody from out of province . MRS. STEINTHORS ON : MACC or out of province , from Florida , or MACC, MR. STEI NTHORS ON: I suppose to be fair we •d have to have an auction sale . I mean, I don't think that I should choose. MR.

DILLEN: Then you would say that the price should be bid up ? MR. STEINTHORSON: Well according to that, I wouldn't want to be unfair, I wouldn't want to ... time. MR. DIL LEN: You see, I• m trying to arrive at a problem that has puzzled me for some MR. STEINTHORSON: No . I think you•re trying to put me on the spot here . MR. DILL EN: No , no. MR. STEIN THORSON : You want me to lose money to be patriotic, or something . don't know. MR. DILLEN: Well now you're getting close . See when we're dealing with land policy and land use . .. MR.

STEI NTHORSON : That's exactly what we•re dealing with, is land use and I think we should stay within that right now. MR. DILL EN: Today we're dealing with agricultural land and I have to be clear in my mind whether we should consider the use of agricultural land any differently than we would consider the use of recreational or wooded areas, or whatever, I• m talking, you know, particularly of the northern part of the province . MRS. STEIN THORSON : Do you mean to say that you really feel that - I call this recrea tional, that •s for fun . Right ? MR. DILLEN: Yes . MRS. STEINT HORSON: Okay , Now don't you ...

February 10, 19 75 MR. DILLEN: But it's going to provide a return to the owner. MRS. STEINTHORSON: I beg your pardon ? 225 MR. DILLEN: It's an investment in that developed recreational land will show a return to the owner. MRS. STEINTHORSON: Yes , but doesn't agriculture , feeding the country, hasn•t that got priority ? MR. DILLE N: Yes. MRS.

STEINTHORSON: And would it have always if - you're dealing with human beings, people with faults, and if you put people wi th faults in control, I am afraid that I am just not all that trusting that I want to gamble on something as important as that to possibly - as I stated in here , this power would be co ntrolled by people to whom farming is an alien way of life , and it's in the hands of too few people . MR. DILLEN: Okay . Can you clarify that a wee bit. MRS. STEINTHORSON : What would you like specifically for me to clarity ? MR.

DILLEN: Well to elaborate a little bit on what you mean by this - oh, something to do with not trusting. Are you saying that you distrust the public as an owner ? MRS. STEINTHORSON: I1m saying that I don't trust when a lot of control is put in the hands of a few people . It takes a while to vote a government out, doesn't it ? And if a few people , such as in agriculture are concerned, we really don1t have too much power, do we ? MR. DILLEN: I think you underestimate yourself ... MR.

STEINT HORSON: Let's say the pressure ; I tried to explain that to you, and it's such a fact that we are such - I said this before -w e are such a small minority that if it comes to politics, we don1t even count but all we can rely on is the real fairness and the understanding from our agricultural people . How can we use a political threat? This is im possible, and we don1t kid ourselves, at least I don1t, maybe some of the other farmers do but I don •t. I realize that the power is in the other 95 percent of the voting public.

Right now I realize we are in a position where we have to rely - and you cannot deny this, this is a fact, and we have to pretty well rel y on the big-heart edness of our direct representatives and of the whole province, and of the whole country for that matter, and I think if it was worldwide, I think it's all the same. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. A MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, how many briefs do you have now ? MR. CHAIRMAN: We have one more, Mr. John Palamarchuk. Mr. Jorgenson. MR.

JORGENSON: I hestitate to impose on the witnesses, they've been here a long time , but I would like to ask a couple of questions, and let me say at the outset ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Jorgenson, proceed. MR. JORGENSON: ... let me say at the outset, we farmers understand one another; I know we have some difficulty getdng these city sUckers to understand the farmer' s point of view. I can understand what you mean when you say you have some fear about government ownership. That, I think, is inherent in a good many farmers, and I1m not going to question you on that.

I accept what you say in your brief without any serious reservations. I may have some questions about clarification, or something like that, but when a person comes before this committee and presents a brief whether or not I disagree with it I accept his point of view, and I don •t intend to cross-examine you at any great length on that brief. What I understand, if I read your brief correctly , you make a clear distinction between ownership and land- use .

You have separated, as far as I can see, the question of land-use , which I think is very important, as opposed to the question of foreign or absenteeism owner ship. MR . STEIN THORSON: That's right. MR. JORGENSON: That's right. And you do have some reservations about foreign ownership, although I don •t think you 1re entirely opposed to it you do suggest that there should be a freeze on farm ownership.

I would want to pursue that by asking you how you propose that we can do that because we have two statutes that are very clear, one of them is contained in the Canadian Citizenship Act, which says that foreigners or aliens have the right to pur chase, to own, and to dispose of property in this country in the same way as a natural-born Canadian citizen . And we have a statute right here in the Province of Manitoba, "The Law of Property Act" ,

Section 2 of that Act, which says almost precisely the same thing. Now in order to impose a freeze , as you suggest, on farmland you would be contravening these two

226 February 10, 19 75 (MR. JORGENSON cont1d) ...•. sections, or if you were to deny these foreigners from purchasing land in this province you would be denying the provisions of these two Acts. I won der how you would suggest that we could circumvent these two statutes in order to give effect to the suggestion that you make. MR.

STEINTHORSON: If foreign ownership is proven to be a problem, if this is what it is, I myself, due to the fact that I am a Canadian citizen and I am a patriotic Canadian, that if foreign ownership has any detrimental effect on our great country - this is why we put this in - till the time that it is established one way or the other without any doubt in anybody's mind, that we put a freeze on it and I don't think it would insult anybody. MR. JORGENSON: But you don 't have that fear now, you don •t feel that that problem has been created right now ? MR.

STEINTHORSON: It seems that we read a lot about it and in this White Paper it does ... MR. JORGENSON: Foreign ownership represents less than 1 percent of the total farm- land in the province . Do you consider that a serious problem ? MR. STEINTHORSON: No . No , not ... MR. JORGENSON: When would you suggest that the problem becomes serious ? MR. STEINTHORSON: With world situations as it is today, for instance, we don't want to - what else does the country sell to,like foreign own ership .

I wouldn't want to see them sell some of our rights to our natural resources, probably invest money in them but I wouldn't want to see them buy. MR. JORGENSON: I don't think there's any danger of that since most of our natural resources are located in areas that are owned by the Crown in any case. MR. STEINTHORSON: What we •re really concerned with is land use and if somebody were to buy land I would suggest that he should farm that land as long as there is people around to eat the product.

As long as he can get a fair return then we should be able to have a stand ard of living comparable to other people in this society. MR. JORGENSON: Now, Mr . Steinthorson, I understand, and this was evidence that was given before this committee on our first meeting in Winnipeg on the 20th of January.

It was suggested to us there by legal counsel who had been handling a good many of the transac tions of sales of farmland to German interests in Germany that 75 percent of those Germans were in the process of taking out citizenship or had already, were in the process or already applied for Canadian citizenship and had intended to come into this country and farm the land that they're buying . Do you have any serious objection to that? MR. STEIN THORSON: No , not if they are bona fide farmers and keep that land in pro duction.

I support that even if we run into a surplus but I think, as we mentioned bef ore, that is a cheap food policy that I think is general throughout the world with any government to tell you the truth. MR. JORGENSON: I• m not quite sure I follow you when you say a cheap food policy. MR. STEINTHORSON: I merely said that I• m convinced that land, all agricultural land, should be used for agriculture.

In other words, an airport or something like that built on prime agricultural land I think is absolute insanity, that it should be moved out into some place less productive and some means of transportation used from that into the heart of any given centre or wherever the people are •.. MR . JORGENSON: You agree then with Beryl Plumptre , who perhaps makes more sense coming out of Ottawa than everybody else down there cause that•s what she stated. MR . STEINT HORSON : Yes. Well she said that if Canadians are going to have cheap food in the future that we should do this.

I don't agree with that particular part of it, but I believe that agricultural land should be kept for agriculture . MR. JORGENSON: Yes . I•m inclined to agree with you that what we require more than wasting time on the question of who owns the land is what the ultimate use of that land is going to be. MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes. I think it's very very important. MR. JORGENSON: Yes . Ilm inclined to agree with that. Now there's one other point I want to raise and I want to deal with that particular question Mr.

Green raised on the excerpts that he listed out of the Targets for Economic Development in which he implied that the Conservative Party were in favour of reducing the number of far mers by, he said, 50 percent. He acknowledged very graciously that he had been in error

February 10 , 19 75 (MR. JORGENSON cont'd) ..... with his figures, but he neglected to point out that con tained in that same presentation was that the target for net income in agriculture was to be raised to $1 0, 000 per farm. Would you agree with that? A MEMBER: Ten thousand dollars is not enough now. 227 MR . JORGENSON: Well that was when the targets were published in 196 9 . I' m not sug gesting that that is adequate today but at that time it looked like a reasonable target when you consider that most of the farms at that time, that is the commercial farms, were less than 3, 000 at that particular time.

That meant that they were recommending an increase of $7, 000 per farm in income. Is that an unreasonable proposition or was that one that you would sup port ? That farm income s per farm be increased from 3, 000 to 10, 000 dollars. MR. STEINTHORSON: Well I' ll come back with a question. How was this to be done ? This is exactly what we got into •.• MR. JORGENSON : You see that was one of the points that I was going to raise. MR. STEI NT HORSON: Like incentive programs create a false economy in surpluses. If they want to give food away in forms of foreign aid I donrt think that we should subsidize it. MR .

JORGENSON: Mr. Steinthorson, believe me , I am not talking about government intervention, what I am talking about is the straight economics of farming . If you want to raise farm income up to $1 0, 000 if at the present time it is only $3, 000, one of two ways you can do it. You're either going to intensify your type of production or you're going to increase your holdings in order to increase your income, you've got one of the two choices.

Perhaps what will happen is that we'll have a combination of both, that farmers will take use of what technology is available to them and intensify production, if that is possible,take into consideration the vagaries of nature, or you will be increasing your holdings . And if you increase your holdings, if you raise your average farm acreage from 600 to 90 0 acres, thatvs naturally going to increase your income, will it not? And if you do that, that means that there are going to be fewer farmers. That's natural. MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes, that's natural. MR .

JORGENSON : So a reduction of the number of farmers in order to achieve the ini tial objective of $10, 000 income per farm, it does not seem to be an unreasonable proposition, does it? MR. STEI NTHO RSON: No, thatrs not unreasonable . I think thatrs been the policy, as far as I know and as far as I could remember is a viable unit. Itrs decided for us what the viable unit should be . MR. JORGENSON: Well you say it's been decided for you.

I think most farmers decide for themselves if they have the opportunity to decide for themselves, and I think most farmers, if I may say so, are far more intelligent about determining what is a viable unit than some of the so-called experts who go around telling us . MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes. I think it should be left up to the individual, yes. MR. JORGENSON: That's right, and there should be no undue pre ssure placed on the farmer financially, economically, or any other way, to determine, or to help him determine what size of a farm he should run. He knows that in his own mind.

He knows what he can handle ; he knows what his labour resources are ; he knows what his financial resources are, and whatrs most important he knows the kind of a debt that he can withstand; he knows how far he wants to get into debt. One of the great problems that we have today is that too many far mers are forced to go into debt too much, far beyond their capacity.

There 1S some farmers who can go into debt to a considerable extent and know how to get out of it because they have that kind of a manage1·ial ability, others can't and every farmer must for himself decide how far he wants to go into debt, Would you not agree with that? MR. STEIN THORSON: Yes, I would go along with that. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Steinthorson, there is one other point, and I raise this just as an aside, on the Targets for Ec onomic Devel opment. When that particular document was printed the firm of Hedlin-Menzies was the firm that took the responsibility of drafting that particular

section of the report dealing with agriculture. It just may not be significant but I think I should point out to Mr. Green - perhaps he didn't know that - that the present Deputy Minister of Agriculture was working for the firm of Hedlin- Menzies and he had a large

part in drafting that particular

section of the report. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr . Adam . MR. ADAM: Thank you, Mr . Chairman, Mr . and Mrs. Steinthorson, I appreciate your

228 February 10, 1975 (MR. ADAM cont'd) .•.•• patience in listening to us. Really we are trying to get in depth your views on your brief as you presented and in large

part I believe the questions arise from the comments that you made in your brief. I am quite sure that when you indicated in your brief that the government involvement had a very dismal effect over the last 34 years, I am sure that you were not trying to make a blanket statement on that, that you were more relating that to your own particular vocation, and that is of ranching perhaps.

Because I know that there are many government programs that have come in over the years and I could mention many that I believe have been beneficial to farm population and I could mention the temporary wheat agreement which was brought in- proposed by the Manitoba Farmers' Union back in 1955 I believe it was •.. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen, on my right would you please restrain yourself. MR. ADAM: You know, it is interesting, Mr.

Chairman, that the cackling always comes from the Conservative side - this happens in the House and happens here - and if anybody wants to go and lay an egg let him go out somewhere and let's get on with . . . They do this to try and break the train of conversation. The fact is that a temporary wheat agreement was proposed by the Manitoba Farmers' Union back in 19 55, whereby the public would pick up some of the farm storage in elevators on grain, over a certain number of bushels that the Federal Government would pay for the storage, This has brought in perhaps 150 to 200 million dollars over the years.

Those have been good programs. The water and sewer program, farm water and sewer that was brought in in 19 71 in Manitoba where 8, 000 farmers have availed themselves of this, has been a good program. PRFA. There's been many good programs which I believe are beneficial; so I know that you are not trying to make a blanket statement on all programs. Itll let you answer that. MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes, I would just like to say this. You know you speak of these programs - I have no statistics to support what you have said in dollars and cents per person.

I am merely saying that these programs - like you speak of all the good ones - let's speak of some bad ones, eh. I like to speak to, you know, a political representative that when he has made a mistake that he is willing to admit that he made a mistake. I will sit here and admit that I have made a mistake; this is the way I would like to see governments operate. Like no body is going to tell me that these grass incentive programs that were administered through Western Canada and then money borrowed and dished out to farmers to put on that grass and eat it, certainly hasn't done us cattle men any good.

Now maybe at the time that it seemed good because meat was selling for $2 5.0 0 a pound in Japan. This is quite possible. I am not saying that it wasn't done with good intentions, but right now looking at hindsight that it just isn't, to me it doesn't make too much sense. Right now we have a fantastic surplus and it wasn't too long ago that we had too much grain, so they ploughed a bunch of money into seeding grass.

Now the way I feel if I were maybe sitting behind the desk which will likely never happen- I would recommend that the Government should put that enormous amount of money that you are talking about into grain storage instead of taking the land out of production. This is what we are talking about.is "land-use " and people are starving. This, to me, is important- much more so than a lot of things that have been discussed here today.

If there is danger in who should own the land and who shouldn't own the land possibly I think what we said here I think you should be in agreement with, that we should put a freeze on it or stop it till everybody knows what is going on, if it is a problem. I am not saying that these programs that you are talking about if somebody wants a well drilled or something or a dugout dug or something like that, because we know a farm product is worth something - isn't it?

Don't you think that if you want to buy a quart of milk or a cackleberry or whatever you want to call it- that I know that when I wasn't in agriculture there was a period that I wasn't- that I would say that I would be glad to pay the right price at any time for any product.

And the right price for any product tells me that I should be able to afford - if I need a well to water my cattle that goes into the cost against that particular pro duct , that at the ultimate end whoever eats it has to pay for it, The thing is that when you are forever giving me a grant the thing is that when I stand up to face people that I am considered somebody that gets a handout and this reflects on my personality, I am already a minority . . . . . . • .

I must have got it clear to you that government incentive programs - these crash programs are done merely to save the economy at that particular time , because how in the Hell can a grain farmer pay his taxes possibly on a three bushel quota or something?

February 10, 19 75 229 (MR . STEINTHORSON cont•d) . . • . . There has got to be something done - because let•s face it you can't be without farmers. We can be without just about anything but this is some thing we can't be without . My reasoning is our own economic problem. We don't have voting power. Do you agree or disagree as a farmer ? MR. ADAM: I am a farmer too. MR. STEINTHORSON: Okay, then you tell me . Do you agree or disagree ? MR.

ADAM : I agree that the number of farmers are down to about 5 or 6 percent of the people actually on farms, commercial operators, but I also consider that there are many towns, communities where, say for instance Ste. Rose, 1, 000 -1, 200 population that that town survives mainly on agriculture - you know on agriculture as a viable economy for their sur vival.

Dauphin is the same, Brandon is the same and I think that the people while they are no longer farmers, they may be just consumers, I think generally speaking the people can't be considered as really urbanized as they are in the city and I think that we get a lot of sympathy for to have good land policies, viable income for farmers) and that is really what we are here about isn•t it . MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes. MR. ADAM: I think that the reason that the government's involved in leasing land to farmers is because there has been a problem for somebody to get in to farming, otherwise we wouldn't be in it . MR.

STEINTHORSON: And why is it a problem ? MR. ADAM: Because of land prices. MR. STEINTHORSON: Land prices ? MR. ADAM: This is my opinion, that the people of Canada . MR. STEINTHORSON: Itts the product prices. Oh, yes, we are talking about marketing - that's a different problem though. MR. ADAM : But it is all related isn't it ? MR. STEINTHORSON: No, not exactly, that •s a • MR. ADAM: Yes it is. MR. STEINTHORSON: That•s a different problem though MRS. STEINTHORSON: If you could make enough of a profit on your product then the purchase price of the land would not be a problem would it ? MR.

ADAM: It would always keep going up though, it would always keep going up be cause I would be competing with . • • MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes, but in any other business - d o you have any business besides farming? MR. ADAM: I was in business for 20 years. MR. STEINTHORSON: Like besides farming? -- (Interjection) -- What did you do ? MR . ADAM: I was an implement dealer . MR. STEINTHORSON: Implement dealer. When you were budgetting for the year or selling something you had a rough estimate . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR . ADAM: I think we are getting off the ••• could I bring it back ... MR.

CHAIRMAN: You can have that personal conversation privately - right now we are concerned about the brief that has been presented by Mr. A dam. I would like you to - I should have possibly cautioned other people to refer your questions or keep your questions strictly to the brief before us. MR. ADAM : Okay, Mr. Chairman. I will ask Mr. and Mrs. Steinthorson - I want to comment on what Mr. Jorgenson mentioned. He mentioned something about the Canada Citizens i Act, which says that an alien has just as much right to own land as a Canadian citizen.

I think what has happened is that some provinces have got around that by passing legislation that would prevent non-resident ownership. They don't talk about aliens; they just talk about non-resident owners. Now in P.E. I. Prince Edward Island, they are far more con cerned than we are here as far as land ownership is concerned because they have lost practi cally all their land already to foreign owners, and so on, non-resident owners. My under standing is that the legislation there is that 11.0 non-resident is allowed to have more than ten acres of land.

There are two Americans that chall.enged this legislation in the courts and the courts upheld that the province has a right -- (Interjection) -- I•m talking about land ownership as it applies to ••• and I will not be pressured by the Chairman, in all due respect Mr. Chairman •.•

230 February 10, 1975 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I will refer you to asking questions from the brief, Mr. Adam. MR. ADAM: Well it came up through the questioning of Mr. Jorgenson and I want to comment on it because Mr. Jorgenson brought it up. And that this is being challenged in the courts and the courts upheld that the province had the right to say that no non-resident could own more than 10 acres, and they have appealed this to the Supreme Court and a decision hasn't been brought down yet.

My understanding is - we talked about how long it would take for the people of Manitoba to buy up all the land at the present rate and it is brought out that it was 300 years. My figures on foreign ownership , at the rate that it is going now, would take about 97 years. The question I believe that we have to face here in Manitoba is which do we prefer; that in 97 years no local farmers will own any land, it will all be foreign owned if it continues all in that speed. We have to make up our minds which way we want. MR.

STEINTHORSON: We stated in our brief that if this is a problem then we should put a freeze on foreign ownership till everything is clarified- until we all know. You know, you just shouldn't jump at conclusions, I suppose, and if this is a problem I think it should be well known to the public so that everybody knows and then act on it. Until then if there is a suspi cion that there is a problem this is why we decided, and we suggest that you put a freeze on foreign ownership.

And as far as, like a government ownership of land, like if it is only a third of one percent or whatever it is, 300 years, I am certainly not worried personally. I suppose if you looked at it this way there is nothing stopping that from escalating; isn't this true ? MR. ADAM : That would only come about if the lessee . MR. STEINTHORSON: •.. doesn't buy the land back. MR. ADAM: Doesn't buy it ? MR. STEINTHORSON: Yes . MR. ADAM: So the government may never have the land, but we are just using . theoretically. Okay, Mr. Chairman. MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. and Mrs. Steinthorson. Gentlemen, we have Mr.

John Palamarchuk. What is your will and pleasure ? What is the time now ? MR. JORGENSON: Mr . Chairman, I suggest we break for lunch because I suspect there will be a number of people who will be wanting to come back this afternoon in any case. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have no other person on the list at this time . MR. PALAMARCHUK: Mr. Chairman •.. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Palamarchuk. Yes . MR. PALAMARCHUK: Mr.

Chairman, I go along with the gentleman's wish that we recess for lunch and so forth, but I wish to point out also that I have previous appointment, that I have to leave from here at about 3:00 o'clock at the latest and therefore I am not going to leave myself in a tight squeeze, because after all I was not to blame for the interrogation which lasted three hours. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Palamarchuk I want to assure that it will not happen; you will be away by 3:00 o'clock. It is always the first witness that catches the brunt of the questioning, it never fails. MR.

USKIW: I would think then we should come back very quickly if we are going to facilitate Mr . Palamarchuk. MR . PALAMARCHUK: Well, I wish that you would take me into consideration gentlemen, because really I do have to leave. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1:30 ? Okay. * * * * * *

February 10, 1975 1:: 1 J P. M. 231 MR. CH AIRMAN: Order please. Order please. We have a quorum, we shall proceed with the meeting. First person on is Mr . John Palamarchuk. Is there anyone else present who wishes to make a presen tation this aftern oon? Your name, sir ? Simundson ? MR . SIMUNDSON: I don't have a brief. MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine. Mr . Palamarchuk. MR. PALAMARCHUK: Mr . Chairman, gentlemen, and ladies and gentlemen of the audien ce.

I am glad of the opport unity to speak on the land-use is sue as in my opinion due to the present developments in the rapidly-changing frust rated world it surely merits a priority rating of the people and their government to enable the formulation of land-use policy hereto fore lack ing in the provin ce, and so ev iden tly needed now.

This lack of implement ing a land- use policy by governments of the pro vince in the past has in our day caused diverse probl ems, some of serious proportions, which by their very nature point up the urgency of the neces sity for implementation of a meaningful land-use policy to direct the bountiful heritage for the benefit of posterity, to wit, these are the prob lems : (1 ) indis criminate urban sprawls, pouring asphalt over evermore fertile agricultural land ; (2) depopulation of rural areas due entirely to federal polic ie s abetted by the provincial government of the day completely favouring the agri-busine ss lobby pressures only.

That' s the reason. (3) abuse and misuse of Crown lands to the det riment of wildlife and ecological concer ns; (4) overdraining and clearing all land of everything in sig ht, creating a number of prob lems as a result, soil erosion for instance, moisture deficiency, lack of shelter for birds a natural deterrent of insects. And I may add as a sideline, Mr . Chairman, that instead of that we are being definitely encou raged by the system that is always projecting itself in the lime light of being a friend to agriculture, buy more insecticide so that yo u will get a better effi ciency in crop production.

Well this bears examining. (5) favouring and encouraging large holdings as the only viable farm operation through poli cies, at the same time fostering a policy of agricu ltural objective for the '7 0s to be - and I was at one of tho se seminars in Brandon some years, '6 5, '6 6, '6 7, I forget, but that 's the time that we were there for a week, 35 of us - about 7 of us were really bona fide farmers and the rest were Vice-Presi dents of various trust companies, banks ; the Winni peg Exchange President was there, and all that sort of thing.

Thirty-five of them were discussi ng for a week the objectivity of objectives for agriculture in the '7 0s, and this is what we came up with. A policy of agricultural objective for the '7 0s to be abundance of low-cost foo d. And I was the only one in that 35 that couldn' t take it anymore so I got up to my feet and questioned them, and I says "Where the devil do you find the reas oning and the logic to come out with this in terms of comparison with anything else in an economy that you can name ?

What other economy comes out that the objective of that economy should be abundance of low-cost something or another ." And they gave in; they were ashamed of themselve s. So they says, "All rig ht, we 'll change that to reason able, " and they left it at that. That was the objecti vity of the type that a farmer had to listen to from the frien ds of the farmer . No serious effort, or even thought, given to how the land is used, by whom, and why.

And I'm going to ask some of your parliamentarians or legislators, how much thought did you givelsome of these old-timers of youJt o this particular is sue during the years that you have been represen ting your farmers ?

Living in a glory of the past that 's all we were, that there is too much of everyt hing everywhere so who really gives a damn anyhow, and why take time off making a fast buck worrying about it; or why endanger the voter s' list rocking the boat, or why step on some important to es; why not just live in a foo l's paradise of enco uraging further growth that we hear so much about of Jack in the Beanstock variety; introduce recreation instead of procreation, fun and games, and keep everybody happy though ignorant, the more ignorant the happier.

However the hens have a habit of coming home to roost and the local boys from the farms after being polluted in the asphalt jungle want to come home to your clean life in the barnyard. But it' s denied them because the land prices soared out of their sig ht and the system says to them, "You have to have $1 00, 000 to go farming now, no other way is a viable way. " That word ' viable again. We have no farmers now we only have factory farms and they produce

232 February 10 , 1975 (MR. PALAMARCHUK cont'd) ..... under contract, as everything should be in a free enterprise, with futures thrown in on exchange for good market. This is the kind of thought, and I don't think that any of you boys are going to challenge me on that score today - I'm warning you, if you do . Under these conditions it has to be a courageous government to come to grips with planning a meaningful land-use policy, and it is the lot of this government to pioneer that event.

I wish them well and keep my fingers crossed because they will have to break down barriers of attitudes based on greed, selfish motives, lust for power to function at will, all in the name of freedom and human rights. That' s what they are going to come . human rights, freedom. Bit where are the human rights of the young fellow wishing to go back to the farm ? Well, maybe the ad appearing in a recent Manitoba Co-o perator will shed a light, and I'm quoting from it, an advertisement in a Co-op paper.

"C orporation requires permanent ranch foreman, 45 miles northwest Portage to supervise 200 animal cow herd, including pasture management, etc. , etc. , etc. " That lad that I' m talking about, his rights to farm heritage, or his rights to farm that spread have been denied him in the name of free enterprise in our province. His heritage is usurped by someone, anyone from West Germany or U. S. A. , or Ali Baba from Arab countries or even worse by one, Jim Richardson from corner of Portage and Main who could as of now very well lay claim to being a farmer.

To create a meaningful land-u se policy at this point in time requires statesmanship - a quality not held in high esteem by the present-day electorate who are used to and even pro grammed for a number of decades to think in terms of what's there in it for me. And that especially applies to a goodly number of farmer s; and I know farmers.

The attempt has to be made however, and I submit herewith the most important fundamentals to be considered in my opinion: ( 1) Land is a finite resource and humans are only stewards, not masters, on it - and that concept should be deeply ingrained in one who wants to be sincere and meaningful about land-use polic ies. A MEMBER: It's in the Bible . MR. PALAMARCHUK:

(2) As stewards humans have to, and that's by force of circum stances now that are devel oping, pressures that are developing today not tomorrow, as stewards humans have to come to terms with their environment on the basis that all living things, flora and fauna, complement each other and creation of imbalance by man may bring about the downfall of the whole structure, including man.

(3) Farming industry has to be left only to farmers who love the land, not only for what it provides but as a way of life, and they have come in '7 5 not to be ashamed of that phrase. Do you know that? It used to be about 10 years ago they'd say, "F or goodness sake why are you so naive, doggone it you yokel ? What's a way of life ? It's a standard of life that you should be looking at not the way of life. " But the world is changing and in that fast-c hanging world there are changes in attitudes and decisions on the part of a lot of people. Today they are not ashamed to say that the way of life is important, in fact, I heard it from this end of the table of all places this morning.

(4) To bring that about farmers should be licensed, provisions of which should be manda tory that a farmer lives on the land and off the land, that's a farmer. That will provide a logical definition to an open question as of now, who is a farmer ? That's it. And by virtue of the license, by mandatory license, that would be provided to anyone now that doubts it and says, Cl! my goodness look at what they'r e going to do, they're going to license the farmers even. Why not, I'm asking you ? That's the only loophole that a lot of boys have today because the farmer is not licensed. If he were, the loophole would have been closed.

(5) Now there's a good one, and I believe I'm the original man that will first come out on the arena, public arena, with this one. I believe in it. Nl one man should own more than a

section of land. You know why? Because you damn well possibly cannot be able to work a

section yourself, more than a section; you'll have one hell of a time working it yourself, even with all the technological help that we've got now, and I talk from experience. No one man should own more than a

section and farm intensively rather than extensively. Large holdings should be discouraged and farm factories prohibited. The idle boast of one farmer being able to feed more people by becoming more efficient should be exposed for what it really is, a farce. And we don't want to create a feudal manor system,' or do we ?

(6) Pouring asphalt on agricultural land should be prohibited by law; expansion of urban

February 10, 1975 233 (MR. PALAMARCHUK cont'd) ..... centres curtailed to present perimeters; further expansion to be allowed only on lands not fit for agricultural purposes; zoning as to potential of soils is an urgent matter in the province. And these are very contentious problems, gentlemen, as you will recognize, and no wonder I'm going to be keeping my fingers crossed for the sake of the government that's going to tackle those problems. It's not an easy thing. Now this - I was on what, potential of soils is an urgent matter in the province, zoning ? All right now.

And further expansion of the cities, of urban centres, to be allowed only on lands not fit for agricultural purposes. And that may be 35, 40, 50 miles away but that should be no problem in this day and age . Transportation is the least that we should worry about. That in turn would bring about decentralization of industry which has its own advantages. ( 7) Management instead of exploitation of renewable resources is imperative - and I do hope that you translate this the way that I mean it. For example: if there is a stand of timber, keep it as such for posterity.

Do not try to make a pasture out of it, or a field, or just waste land, like we are fond of doing now. In that way we will maintain the balance in nature by utilizing our land resource to the best advantage according to its natural potential. ( 8) Management rather than exploitation in an area of oil and mineral resources is equally necessary. There, however, the courage has to be found in the collective wisdom of the people to explode the myth of free enterprise only able to do a better job.

(9) Our educational system has to include in its curriculum the necessity of conservation and preservation being taught to children from square one through all levels to graduation from secondary schools, as a separate important subject. That at present is lacking and is urgently required . ( 10) That the various departments of the government that have responsibilities in res pect of land-use and resource development have effective co-ordination among them with a view to integrate their planning to the advantage of rational development. That will wind up everything I have to say to you, gentlemen.

Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMA.N: Thank you Mr. Palamarchuk. Mr. Jorgenson. MR. JORGENS ON: Well, Mr. Palamarchuk, I don't think you're going to find any dis agreement amongst the members of the committee as to your suggestions that there should be a land-use policy. That has been the theme of practically every one of the representations that has been made before this committee since we started our hear ings.

There is no doubt about the need for land-use, particularly in an age when we now are beginning to see the shortages of food that can develop in a very short-term basis, and so the conservation of our food producing resources seems to be a point upon which we can all agree. There may be some disagreement as to method ; there may be some disagreement as to the techniques that are used in order to achieve this objective, and I don' t disagree with many of the suggestions that you have made, particularly as it applies to the building of cities and factories on our best farmland.

I have long advocated that, that we stop this practice. What I want to ask you, and this relates more to the subject matter of our discussions here today, is - you made the suggestion that insofar as it is possible land should be retained on the farm by resident farm operators. That's a very desirable objective as well. I wonder if you could just elaborate for a few moments as to how you think that can best be done. With out disagreeing with the objective, would you mind just simply explaining, giving us your opinions as to how they can best be done ? I am not going to quarrel . . . MR.

PALAMARCHUK: You mean by retaining people, farm people on a farm ? MR. JffiGENSON: Yes, that's right. MR. PALAMARCHUK: Yes, well very simply. You see there are no obstacles outside of one area of obstacles and in that area there is someone that wants to be, well, on the ground floor and being in control of agricultural production, because anybody could have seen years ago the writing on the wall that food will become a very important economic factor in the world. And preparations years ago as you will remember, Mr.

Jorgenson, when you were a director of the Manitoba Farmers' Union at one time - you were on the right track then of course - that the farmers, organized farmers, have proclaimed that fact loud and long ago, but the trouble was with the farmers that they never really properly understand what's taking place around them. And I regret to point to an example, but I will because I'm a forthright person as many people who

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-2-lo4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 2nd hansardpdf lo4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b5bf27ae92fda6113f1ef1f484bada89dcb246e1

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