Manitoba Hansard — 3 June 1985 (Sitting 61B, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-61b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 3 June, 1985. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - GOVERNMENT SER VICES MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. We are on item No. 4.(a)(1), 4.(a)

(2) Project Services, Executive Administration: Salaries and Project Services, Executive Administration: Other Expenditures - the Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BL AKE: I think under this section, Mr. Chairman, we could discuss the policy of the government with regard to the payment of accounts submitted to them. Is it a policy now to require no interest be added to invoices until after 60 days? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I understand that our turnaround time for payment of accounts is an average of 30 days.

However, I believe the Department of Finance has a policy that interest will be paid after 60 days. I believe that's correct. MR. D. BLAKE: I wonder if the Minister could tell me when this policy was instituted. HON. J. PLOHMAN: As I said, Mr. Chairman, I believe that is the policy of the Department of Finance and would most appropriately be answered by the Minister of Finance. It's been in place, I believe, for a couple of years. I don't know that it's changed recently. It certainly hasn't been extended.

I'll see if we can find that information, but it isn't directly a policy of Government Services; it's the policy of the Department of Finance, which we follow. MR. D. BLAKE: It was brought to my attention today, Mr. Chairman, on a purchase order from the Department of Government Services that was stamped, invoice must be original, must be submitted promptly and must not bear interest until after 60 days. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I didn't dispute that that's perhaps the policy that was set in place by the Department of Finance and I believe that has been in place for some time.

As I said, our turnaround time in the Department of Government Services has been going down and it's in the 30-day range, as opposed to 60 days, on average. MR. D. BLAKE: It would appear then from the information that was forwarded to me, Mr. Chairman, that interest was paid after 30 days previously. Now I could be subject to correction on that understanding.

The philosophy of it I can understand but also looking at it from the point of view of the person that's providing services, with the tight financial circumstances that everyone in the business community is faced, we're just wondering if it's fair to expect them to wait 60 days for payment. It would appear to them that the government is financing at their expense. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for raising that. I have similar concerns in that suppliers to the government should receive the same treatment that they would put in place for us.

Certainly it seems that it's fair that we do pay interest on outstanding accounts after a set period of time. Whether the 60 days is a fair period or not, I understand that not too long ago there was no interest paid by government on outstanding accounts, so certainly if it is 60 days at the present time, that's a step in the right direction. As I said earlier, we do not take 60 days to pay our accounts so that no one is in the kind of hardship that the member is talking about for even 60 days. It's an average of 30.

So I believe that the average for overall government, the information I have is about 38 days and Government Services is lower than that. MR. D. BLAKE: Well, in some exceptional cases, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister might be prepared, if the supplier is getting 30 days net from his wholesalers, if payment was not going to be forthcoming within 60 days, if the government would be prepared to forward a letter to those wholesale suppliers to indicate that payment would be forthcoming. It would take some heat off the merchants who are supplying the goods and services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, if there were instances of specific hardship where a particular company was in danger of perhaps going under because of the demands being made and they approached our staff and asked for some assistance in this regard such as a letter indicating that payment was forthcoming, we wouldn't have any problem with that. If it was every account, it would obviously present a bit of a problem, but if it's in an isolated situation we wouldn't have a problem doing that. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I know we do take a fair degree of latitude in jumping around and I would like to get down into the Land Acquisition part. I have been asked by the Member for Portage to raise a question where, I believe, there was a notice in the paper - the tenders closed on the 30th of April - dealing with several parcels of land which were with the Manitoba ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order, please. We made that special consideration one time because we anticipate a member will not be here, but we cannot do all this jumping around, because we need the staff, we need the necessary information and analysis. 2553

Monday, 3 June, 1985 MR. H. GRAHAM: Very well, Mr. Chairman. No, no just go ahead. Pass 4.(

a) and 4.(b). MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Items 4.(a)( 1) to 4.(c)(2) were each read and passed. 4.(d)( 1) Land Acquisition: Salaries; 4.(d)

(2) Other Expenditures, 4.(d)

(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, in Portage we understand that they are closing out some of the activities there in the developmental centre and there were several parcels of land that were advertised. The tenders closed on the 30th of April for Parcel No. 1 which was the west half of the northeast quarter and part of the east half of the northwest quarter of

Section 12. 12(7) west of the Principal Meridian. There was Parcel 2, Parcel 3, Parcel 4. Could the Min ister ind icate how many tenders were received for that particular advertisement that appeared in the papers? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I could not just right at this moment provide that information. I would certainly be prepared to provide it for the member, but we do not have that particular transaction in terms of the number of tenders and so on right here at this moment. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, could the Mini ster also, when he's looking into that, ind icate whether it was the highest price that was the one that was accepted on the lease tender? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I certainly could provide that and the reasons for the awarding. If they were awarded, who they were awarded to, and why? MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Min ister also ind icate in that information who was the successful bidder in that particular tender notice? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I ind icated that who and why would be information we could give. However it's possible that they have not even been awarded as yet.

I don't recall that we've actually signed and sealed that particular transaction, but we will look into that, and if it hasn't been awarded as yet, obviously that information would be coming after the decision is made. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, seeing as how the land involved was agricultural land, and because we are now in the first week in June, I would assume that unless the government wishes to see that land sit vacant for the entire year that they would in all probability have arrived at a successful tender on this project and would have awarded the land to some bidder, of some nature; otherwise, there's a very distinct possibility that the land may be sitting vacant for the entire year. We do und erstand that agricu ltur al land should be preserved for agricultural use and should be utilized for agricultural use wherever possible. HON.

J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, without having the details on the pieces of land that we're talking about, in terms of what was the status of them in previous years as opposed to this year, and whether they were being leased or used by adjacent farm owners, there's a possibility that was the case, but I don't have the details now so I wouldn't know whether that would be applicable in this particular case. Obviously we would want to avoid the land having to sit idle; however, I can't comment on the details of this particular one because I don't have the details here. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I had thought that because we had a break for several days in the Estimates of the Minister that probably he would have had the opportunity to bone up on the various segments of his Estimates which still had not been dealt with, and I was hoping that we would be able to get answers to the questions that so many members would no doubt want to ask. There are many other questions I would like to ask under Land Acquisition, but if the Mini ster doesn't have the information available perhaps we may have to wait. Has the Mini ster any information available at all on Land Acquisition at the present time? HON.

J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr . Chairman, I have information on the general handling of the Land Acquisition branch, its operations and programs but in terms of individ ual transactions that take place, there are many many of those in each year, and the Min ister is not specifically involv ed in the day-to-day transactions. This is from a previous annual report'83- 84, the branch has been involved in 20,800 property purchase agreements. Since July 1965, I believe in '83-84 there were 564 property purchase agreements negotiated.

So there's an awful lot of them and I do not have the details in each one of those here for the Estimates process. If the member was interested in pursuing specific ones I would have appreciated a notice on those individual ones. He could have given me a list and I could have had them here for discussion purposes tonight. I think that would have been a reasonable way to proceed. However, in the absence of that we have to go back and search out the records for specific cases and then bring it forward.

I think that would be expected and I don't think any Min ister or MLA here would be under the impression that the Minister would have the details of each of those transactions in detail here. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can ask a few general questions dealing with Land Acquisition. I know the Minister, through his department, is responsible for the acquisition of land for many departments of government; some of them are for hospitals, some of them for housing projects, some of them are for roads, some of them are for MACC.

But altogether in the acquisition end, after a specific period of time, does there ever appear a point where government says, well, we have no further need for this land that we have acquired and we are now prepared to dispose of some of the holdings that we have? Does that ever happen? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, that certainly does happen when there are parcels of land that no government department is interested in. The intent of 2554

Monday, 3 June, 1985 Government Services is circulated to all departments that we intend to sell off that piece of land. The departments are given an opportunity to indic ate any interest that they might have, or any potential use they might have, and of they do not have any potential use, then it is made available for purchase to the public. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, perhaps, I should get down to some specifics. I again refer to his department report, his annual report, where he said, yes, they had negotiated some 20,800 property purchase agreements over the last 20 years.

Could the Min ister ind icate, out of those 20,000 purchase agreements, how many pieces of property they have sold in the same period of time? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we have the Director of the Land Acquistion Branch who will be here very shortly and, perhaps, will be able to supply that kind of information in terms of the specific numbers. I don't have the exact numbers or the relationship there might be in those at this particular time.

In relation to the total number of transactions that we are talking about, it would be rather small in number in comparison, perhaps 5 to 10 per year, as opposed to 564 purchases. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared to wait until that director does get here but, in the meantime, I think there are quite a number of other questions that can be asked. Some of them we may have to wait for answers for; others, I think the Min ister probably can give us some general information.

Again, I refer to the annual report where, in probably the next paragraph, there is a reference made to the di sposal of abandoned railway right-of-way in station grounds. Can the Min ister update us on the status of abandoned railway rights-of-way and station grounds and what has transpired in that field? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I believe to this point there has only been two that have been officially turned over that we have received title to from the Federal Government under the agreement that we had.

We are cont inuing to negotiate with the adja cent lando wners to have the title turned over to the adjacent landowners. The titles have been rather slow in coming from the Federal Government under this agreement that we have and we have been frustrated in that process because of that. But, as they are turned over, and I believe there were two as of last year - there has been one more recently - a total of three, I think, the total of the abandoned rights-of-way that have been turned over under the agreement.

In terms of the station grounds, we are having some difficulty there with the policy and the program because the original intent was that the land used for agricultural purposes would be turned over at less than cost in terms of the overall adminis trative costs - $75 a parcel - but the parcels in towns and villa ges, the station grounds, would be turned over at market value so that it would supplement the program and overall we would not have a net cost to government of admin istrating this program.

This has been disputed somewhat in some areas and we are looking at having this land reappraised again because land values have gone down in the last couple of years and this should mean that the prices we are asking for station grounds will be somewhat lower than it was a couple of years ago. So that is taking place at the present time and then we intend to discuss this further with the towns and villages in those areas to see whether they are interested in purchasing the station grounds at market value. There haven't been any, I don't believe, that have been turned over as yet in terms of the station grounds.

MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister has ind icated that there is probably a degree of willingness on the part of government to transfer over station grounds to the various towns and villages at market value; but at the same time the Min ister has ind icated that because of the transfer of agricultural ground - and I presume he meant the farmers on right-of-way - at less than cost, that the added burden of that was going to be upfront loaded onto the towns and villages.

Can the Min ister give us a little further explanation of the rationale that was used to add above and beyond the market value the upfront costs that were going to be loaded off onto the towns and villages for station grounds? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I did not say that there would be additional costs added on. What I did say is that if they were disposed of at market value that there would be sufficient revenue from that source to offset the administrative costs beyond the $75 of turning over the agricultural pieces of land to the farmers. That's what I said.

There was no additional costs added on above and beyond the market value. It was simply a matter of using market value as the criteria for disposing of the land in the towns and villages for station grounds. The idea was that insofar as the agricultural parcels are concerned, they would be turned over at less than the market value for a nominal cost of $75, so there would be some contribution. But we wanted to be assured that they would indeed be taken up by adjacent land owners rather than having some haggling over pri ce, because obviously they are no good to government in isolated parcels as they would sit.

There would be difficulty with weed control and that kind of thing and it would be in our best interests to have 100 percent take-up of those lands along the rights-of-way to the adjacent farm owners. That was the reason behind the policy. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, can I ask the Min ister if this comes under his jurisdiction as Minister of Hig hways and Tran sportation or Mi n ister of Government Services?

In other words, is the Ministry of Government Services implementing an acquisition policy framework for which has been determined by Cabi net thr ough the Mi n istry of High ways and Transportation; or if the actual policy questions relating to these activities of the Land Acquisition Branch come under the Department of Government Services? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, this program is admin istered through the Department of Hig hways and 2555

Monday, 3 June, 1985 Transportat ion, not through the Department of Government Services. It has been set up through recommendations from the Department of Hig hways and Transportation to the Provincial Land Use Committee of Cabinet, chaired by the Mini ster of Agriculture. But Government Services is merely carrying out the program for acquisition and sale of the land on behalf of the Department of Highways and Transportation. HON. A. ANSTETT: Then I raise a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, because I have a concern that if we continue this line of questioning then the activities of all the departments which are being implemented by the Department of Government Services with regard to land acquisition will now become the subject of debate here in the committee when really the subject of these Estima tes is the provision of a vehicl e for land acquisition and not an opportunity, nor should the Minister of Government Services be required to have available at his fingertips all of the information regarding all of the policies regarding land acquisition of the various departments which he facilitates as Minister of Government Services.

I have no objection to his providing the information as a courtesy because of his double portfolio with regard to abandoned highway rights-of-way and abandoned station grounds, but I would caution you, Mr. Chairman, that the allowance of this on a continuing basis could involve the activities of a variety of Min isters and really be unfair, both to the critic of the official opposition and to the Minister, in getting into areas in which Government Services does not have dir ect policy responsibility. This is a facilitating branch and nothing more. MR. CHAIRMAN: On the same point of order, the Member for Virden.

MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to argue with the Minister of Municipal Affairs but if the point of order that the Min ister of Municipal Affairs raises, then the Minister of Government Services is definitely out of order in placing all of that information in his annual report, because it's in his annual report. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Min ister, on the same point of order. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Insofar as the annual report, that is simply a statement of the transactions carried out on behalf of other departments insofar as the activities of the Land Acquisition Branch.

In terms of the criteria and so on that is used in arriving at the policies that led to those transactions, of course, the Minister of Municipal Affairs is correct, that it comes under the departments that are clients to the Department of Government Services. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden on the same point. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, no, I wanted to carry on if I may. MR. CHAIRMAN: The member can carry on if it is relevant to this department. This is the Department of Government Services. The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister had made the statement that the sale of rights-of-way was at a flat $75 fee for agricultural-land, but he also made the statement that the market value that was placed on station grounds and their sale to towns and villages would offset the cost which he said the sale was a subsidized sale of rights-of-way at $75 a parcel. So I want to ask the Min ister, how they determined the market value for station grounds in the various towns and villages so that they would arrive at a value that would be sufficient to offset the losses on the sale of rights-of-way for agricultural land. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, what the department would use is the similar parcels of land in the neighbourhood of a particular community. If there were other parcels of land that could be used as a benchmark, they would certainly be used and appraisals would be done of the property. There would be no consideration given to the fact that this has to subsidize the sale of the agricultural parcels, that doesn't enter into the equation at all.

It's a fact that market value would be sufficient, in our opinion, to sufficiently offset the adminis trative costs of undertaking the many transactions with regard to the agricultural land on a $75 per parcel basis to the adjacent lando wners. That was the theory behind the policy. But there is no consideration given to the fact that the government is interested in having this offset those admi nistrative costs for the agricultural land ; that doesn't enter into it. The generally accepted practices of appraisal are used in determining the market value of station grounds. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I think I've looked through the assessment practices. How do you assess the value or appraise the value of, say, a station ground which had a definite market value as long as there was a railway there, but once you remove the railway how do you assess the market value and compare it with anything else? As the Minister said, they would compare it with other properties of comparable value. How do you arrive at a market value for a station ground once the railway has been removed? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, obviously the land appraisers have certain criteria and skills with regard to the appraisal of land in various areas of the province under different circumstances. Certainly the amount that the land could fetch on the market is one of the most im portant criteria. What can this land be reasonably expected to be sold for in a particular community? You can get some idea from, as I ind icated, what the market value or the going rate is for land in a near location. Certainly that is the basic way of determining the value of the land in that area.

The actual improvements on the land, of course, would have to be considered if they're being sold, as well; if there are station buildings, again, they would have to be considered in terms of their depreciated value at the particular time that they're sold, or if there isn't much value placed on the existing buildings, it's primarily the 2556

Monday, 3 June, 1985 land that they're concerned with. I've stated the general criteria, as I see it, and from the department's point of view, and the appraisers would take into consideration the market values in the particular town. As I ind icated earlier, they've gone down somewhat in many rural communities and this is being considered, that's why they're being reappraised at this time. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, that is probably the point that I'm trying to get at.

We know that as long as there was a railway in place, the fact that there was railway there and it was opera ting, it enhanced the value of a surrounding property. But, once you removed the railway and the property that was attached to that railway, the station grounds in particular, is that still an asset or does it start to become a liabili ty, because the railway has been removed? And what had, at one point enhanced the value of the property, now certainly detracted from the value of the property, because the very thing that made it valuable has been removed.

And I just want the Min ister to try and tell us how it is they arrive at a market value for station property when the main factor that made it a valuable property has been removed? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, I don't believe that that necessary holds true that the main factor that made it valuable property was that the railway was next to it. It's quite possible that, once the railway is gone, that it will become more valuable, in terms of, for example, housing developments, or as a hospital sight, it depends on the zoning.

If there's a railway next to it, it's not suitable for certain kinds of development; but it may be if the railway is gone, and it could make it more valuable. But those matters are considered and certainly taken into consideration, the fact the railway is no longer there, obviously, in terms of the going market value for comparable land in that vicini ty. Sometimes they're located in the best possible location in the downtown area of a town or village; they can be very valuable property. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the direction the questioning of the Member for Virden and as I'm familiar with this matter, to a limited degree because of my responsibilities, I would like to comment very briefly on them. I think there are two communities which I have become familiar the last while where these issues have been raised with me, Hartney and Hamiota, and in both cases, the value of the station grounds is totally contin gent upon what else is happ ening in the community. And you could have a situation where the railway was the total razz on death of the community.

And where the absence of the railway renders, not only the station grounds, but most of the other commercial property in the downtown core of the community of somewhat reduced value. On the other hand, I think, the Minister is quite correct in pointing out that for a housing development, or recreational complex, or something else, the availability of that land so close to the commercial core and the heart of a small community, could render it as having a greater value.

And I think very clearly the ind ications within those communities are that they place a very high value on the land because they have been lobbying government very aggressively in pursuit of acquisition of that land. So clearly, the value of other commercial property, where you're dealing in a townsite, there are exchanges of property in those townsites and you do get property references. The local community, themselves, by zoning the property - and they have control over zoning - can affect the values quite directly themselves for whatever purpose they wish to put the land.

But I know in both of those communities, Hamiota and Hartney, the interest of the local community is based upon the prospect, at least in part, of some community use. So the land is perceived as having value for that purpose that would not have been there when the railway was there. So I think the Minister is quite correct, both in the general case and in the specific case of those two communities, that the value is very much a determinant of other land uses immediately around it, and the sales history in terms of market value in those communities.

Because, in both cases, the communities have very specialized interests in the acquisition of the station grounds. And those plans alone ind icate a value which they place upon the site.

Perhaps if those interests weren't there, and if the community itself in both cases, was not remaining as a vibrant community - in fact we're very lucky in those two cases, there are many other small communities in the province where the absence of the rail line has pretty well devastated the economic viability of the community; that's not the case in Hartney and Hamiota and they're very strong communities that are actually doing quite well, thank you, despite the absence of the railway.

And they certainly owe no debt to the Federal Government for the damage that was done when rail line abandonment was permitted, but they do have a very valuable piece of real estate in both cases right in the heart of the community which has market value for other purposes. I appreciate the member's problem in trying to place a value on that and that's a con undrum for the Department of Government Services I am sure, but the municipality itself, by its plans, ind icates that it places a fairly high value on the property. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Well, the argument of the Mini ster of Municipal Services, and I commend him for defending his department and the role that his department has to play in this province, but it does ind icate to me that the Minister does not really understand the history of railroading in Western Canada.

When the railways were built in Western Canada, and I have to exclude the Canadian National Railway because they came in rather late in life, but mainly on the CPR, they were probably very prudent people who wanted to expend the least number of dollars in putting safety devices in, etc., so when they built a station and a passing track and developed towns, they usually developed it in a slough, in a low spot, so that the cars would not run away from the elevators. So it was developed in a low spot and that was really land that, in today's market, is not very valuable.

You find that occurring, again today, in the cases of Hartney and Hamiota who are desirous of purchasing 2557

Monday, 3 June, 1985 this particular type of property. But again, Mr.

Chairman, I want to point out that the purchase of this property is not for private or commercial development, it is for community development and is taking land which has traditionally been in a bog or a low spot and saying: "Well, what other use can we put it to, so we will try and use is for community development; we will build a skating rink, or something of that nature, which all the community can use and, because that land isn't very valuable for anything else, we will try and put it in that particular location." So I think, if the Mini ster had been honest in his answer, he would have also pointed out that where the CPR was involved most of the townsites were built in a low spot and they had the railway and the passing tracks there so the cars would not roll away and roll onto the main line; so it was usually built in a bog and a low spot.

So I just wanted to correct the record that it is not really highly valuable commercial property in the small towns and villages in Western Canada; it is land that is going to be used for community use because it is not of prime qualit y and highly desir able on the commercial market. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't believe the Member for Virden should interpret it as in any way being dishonest, that I didn't say that all the rural communities sitting along the CP line are sitting on swamps and bogs.

I don't believe that is necessarily the case and it is certainly true that over the years, with imp roved draina ge and so on, that might not be the case at the present time, if that is what the member is suggesting should be the criteria, that this is wasteland, bog and swamp and, therefore, isn't worth anything. I don't agree with that at this particular time. That's one of the difficulties in determining the market value. It is to be used for community use and it's still a consideration that land in the surrounding area has to be considered as a benchmark for pricing this particular land.

I believe that is the way it is generally done, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Min ister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I wish to set the mind of the Minister of Government Services at ease. I think the remarks of the Member for Virden were intended, not for him, but for me. Without imputing motives, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the member really meant to imply that this Min ister was in any way being dishonest; I don't think that was his intention. MR. H. GRAHAM: That is quite correct. HON. A.

ANSTETT: I think what he was trying to imply was that I wasn't putting the value of the lands in the proper perspective and, from his point of view, that proper perspective would be the perspective of the villages that want to acquire the land. Sir, I think now that we have the director of the Land Acquisition Branch here, I think he should know very clearly the Member for Virden feels that this land is land that tends to be low and swamp - we can really stretch the point - rat in fested and of no value whatsoever. That's why the communities, about which the Member for Virden is so concerned, want to buy it.

It's not because they think it's a good stable site on which to build a hospital or a skating rink or other community facilities. In fact, it has virtually no value at all, so you should sell it to them as cheaply as possible they that they can then proceed to refurbish it so that it is then a suitable building site for these facilities. I think the Member for Virden makes his case quite well that he is hopeful, and I don't doubt this for a moment, that the local communities can make a good buy.

I would commend the Minister though to ensure that the Land Acquisition Branch follow standard procedures and sticks with their market value criteria. I have much greater historical respect for Charlie Van Horne and his staff and I believe that they put their elevators, sidings and stations grounds on land which was inherently much better than the Member for Virden gives them credit. In fact, having been thr ough many of these communities, I find that the CPR, having had the choice of some of the best land in Western Canada, made sure that they chose the best land and not the swamps.

If they had done otherwise, they would have been foolish and, if the communities in rural Manitoba do otherwise than to acquire this excellent land, they'd be foolish; I'm sure they're willing to pay a fair price for it, and I'm sure the Min ister and his branch are prepared to charge only a fair price and will not attempt to rip those communities off. If they do, I'll be siding with the Member for Virden to ensure that they do get a fair price. But this isn't a fire sale, Mr. Chairman, and it shouldn't be. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I just wanted to further clarify a question that the Member for Virden asked a little earlier and to determine if I have the correct information. The Member for Virden mentioned a tender that was put out closing April 30th for farmland at the developmental centre in Portage; is that correct? I believe that the tender, from the information I have, was put out directly by the Department of Community Services and Corrections. If that is true, then of course that would have been best put to that Minister, however, it may have been put under the name of Government Services.

I understand, in talking to the director of Land Acquisition Branch, that the Department of Government Services assisted in drawing up these tenders for the Department of Community Services and Corrections. It was for a tender to farm the particular property only, not for sale, and there were a number of applications received according to the information I have and that they have been let and the land would be actively farmed at the present time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I've got something on another matter .

I thank the Min ister for that information, but he didn't really give me any information. He told me that it was put out for tender for lease, and that is correct. I have a copy of the advertisement here and it says: For further information contact Rod Kent, Land Acquisition, telephone something and the 2558

Monday, 3 June, 1985 advertisement is signed by John S. Plohman, Mini ster of Government Services. So I would presume from that that it was Government Services that did actually lease the land, and I ask the Minis ter: If there were a number of tenders? If it went to he highest bidde r, and if he would identify who the bidder was? So far he hasn't answered the other two questions. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, there were, I understand, a number of bidders for the purpose of farming that land and I understand they have been let, but I do not have the details on which bidder received.

I would assume it was the highest but, again, I would have to provide the member with that information later. MR. H. GRAHAM: I thank the member for that. On a second point, Mr. Chairman. I was getting back to the remarks of the Min ister of Government Services, and I just want the record to show, quite properly, that it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs that referred to the land in Hamiota and Hartney as being rat infested; it was not myself. So if there is any deleterious remarks made about those two communities, it was made by the Min ister of Municipal Affairs and not by myself. HON. A. ANSTETT: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I was prying, and the member, I am sure, jests. I was trying to put the worst possible face on that land for the benefit of the Honourable Member for Virden so that the Land Acquisition Branch would be impr essed with the Member for Virden's argument as to how little value the land really had. I didn't accept that proposition, in fact, Mr. Chairman, I thought I made it quite clear that I thought the CPR put their station grounds on fine parcels. I was, Sir, using that description to exaggerate, and show as an exaggeration, the Member for Virden's argument.

But I do not believe I referenced either the land in Hartney or Hamiota, and I certainly, having toured the parcel in Hamiota within the last month with the mayor of the village, can certainly tell you, Mr. Chairman, that it is land that is well-drained, that it is land for which the community has some very definite plans, and I think the Member for Virden would be hard pressed to describe that land as something which was not suitable for future development by the village. So describing it as a slough or a low spot to capture cars and keep them rolling to the centre certainly, I think, is an exaggeration.

I am not sure that the member was serious when he described it that way; I thought his tongue was as far in his cheek as mine was. If he wishes to make an issue as to where the rats are in this province, there are certainly far fewer of them where the elevators have been torn down than where the elevators still stand. MR. H. GRAHAM: That, of course, Mr. Chairman, invites another comment which I don't think I will make at this particular time. HON. A. ANSTETT: I resisted the same temptation. MR. H. GRAHAM: But, Mr. Chairman, there is a problem.

There are two communities that are interested in purchasing land which has been included as station grounds and some of it has been right-of-way; I would like to ask the Minister at what point in time can these communities expect to get a definitive answer from government as to whether or not there is a possibility, and when it is possible for them to acquire that particular property? MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has not identified which two communities are there, so how can they answer? HON. J. PLOHMAN: That's a good point, thanks for the help, Mr. Chairman. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister has said that some of the problems lie with the Federal Government and some of it lies with acquiring title to the property. Could the Mini ster give some ind ication of what time period we are looking at before these details that have been in the works for several years will finally come to fruition and we can make alternative use of these abandoned rights-of-way and station grounds? HON. A. ANSTETT: I'll give you a hint, they both start with HA. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The only problem, Mr.

Chairman, with the HA hint that the Min ister of Municipal Affairs gave me, I understand that the Village of Hamiota line is not included under the gifting agreement. We are talking about 17 subdivisions throughout the province. Hamiota is not included as one of those; Hartney is.

The letter went out to the affected communities recently , indi cating to them that we int en ded to reappraise the land in those communities and then, as a followup, the staff will meet with the communities involved, with the councils, to discuss with them the revised values of the land, and will attempt to come to some agreement on it. So that should happen within the next month or so.

In terms of the titles, we have no way of knowing when they will actually be turned over, but that's not stopping the department from moving forward with the negotiations, and we are not going to wait for the Federal Government to come through with all the titles before we proceed with that. We realize that could take many many years to actually have them accomplish that. As I said . . . A MEMBER: We'll have the Liberals back before they finish. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Well, it's possible that one Federal Government may be faster at this than the other, but we can't really compliment the previous government either on how they turned over these rights-of-way, but we haven't really seen a lot more activity by the present government in the six to eight months they have been in office federally. But we do have three of those subdivisions turned over that were in the gifting agreement; 14 have not been. We have ind icated to the Min ister federally that we are anxious to have these proceeded with so that we can get on with turning those titles over to the 2559

Monday, 3 June, 1985 adjacent landowners. So that's the update on the situation, Mr. Chairman. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Min ister ind icate the date of the last communication he has had with the Federal Government on this matter? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was within the last month the staff had a discussion with Mazankowski's office, at the time of the last subdivision that was turned over. It was about a month ago that we received word. One has been turned over by the new Federal Government, I should say, and two by the previous government, so we have made that much progress.

We did discuss this with the Federal Minister at that particular time, and I have also discussed it with them informally at meetings with the Council of Ministers. MR. H. GRAHAM: Can the Mi nister ind icate how actively he has been pursuing a completion of this, and how high a priority does he rate it within his department? HON. A. ANSTETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order is being raised. Will you state the point of order, please? HON. A.

ANSTETT: I would like to know from the Min ister whether this comes under his responsibility as Minister of Government Services at this point, or whether these discussions, to which the Member for Virden refers, come under his responsibility as Mini ster of Highways and Transportation? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have to admit I am guilty of straying again. This comes under my respon sibili ty as Min ister of Highways and Transportation, and it is under that forum that I have made the representation.

Of course, I have talked to myself about this and told myself that I should get on with this, as the Minister of Highways and Transportation advising Government Services, and now I am going to speak to my deputy, as well, and tell him that we should see whether we can expedite this. But I know the department is moving as quickly as they can, the Land Acquisition Branch, with all of the other responsibilities they have, to complete the transactions for this land and turning them over to the communities that are affected.

I understand that Brookdale, McConnell, Wellwood, Vita, Menisino and Kronsgart have all been completed. There has been a successful negotiation with those and the station grounds in those areas have been turned over. It's just a matter of waiting for the title. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I know it's highly irregular, but could the Min ister arrange for periodic, monthly meetings of the Legislature to examine his Estimates so that he can get the opportunity to remind his deputy probably once a month that he should get together and talk about this rail line abandonment and the acquisition of titles to the property? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe a better suggestion would be to have the Member for Virden meet with his Conservative colleagues in Ottawa to try and put the pressure on them to turn these titles over to the Government of Manitoba. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, if the Premier of the province will call up his courage to screw up the election, maybe that can be arranged. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Screw up the election? It's quite possible, Mr. Chairman, that he will screw up the election from the point of view of the opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we going to pursue these kinds of exchanges? MR. H. GRAHAM: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move on now.

In the Annual Report which we have for the Department of Government Services - this is not the Hig hways Branch that I'm reading from - it said: "In the latter part of 19 83, prel imin ary expropriation procedures were undertaken regarding the proposed redevelopment of the area between Edmonton and Colony Streets and Portage and Ellice Avenues in down town Winnipeg." Could the Min ister give us an update on what has happened since the latter part of 1983? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I will just take a few moments to get all of that information together in terms of the cutoff point here. Mr.

Chairman, the expropriation has continued since the point of time that the member was referring to. Initia lly, expropriation notices were filed in December 1983. Official notices of expropriation were served on 43 property owners and 7 4 tenants during the last week of May and the first week of June 1984. Compensation for value of real estate without prejudice for further compensation was made.

Most of the landowners there or property owners have accepted advance compensation totalling up to this point, I believe, some $16 million out of the projected $32 million that will be paid out for acquisition of that property. The North Portage Development Corporation advised all parties that none must vacate before July 1, 1985. Notices of possession have been issued for three premises to be vacant as of July 1, 1985; 23 for August 1st; and 29 for September 1st. In 14 cases, the Land Acq uisition Branch was gi ven possession of the expropriated property by a voluntary surrender.

So that's an update of where that is, Mr. Chairman. MR. H. GRAHAM: Can the Min ister ind icate, was it 43 properties involved? HON. J. PLOHMAN: It's 43 property owners and 74 tenants. MR. H. GRAHAM: In the 43 properties that were involved with owners, how many settlements were reached without using the vehicle of expropriation? HON. J. PLOHMAN: In order to have a common date for the property values to be determined, they were 2560

Monday, 3 June, 1985 expropriated immediately. So all were settled through that process. However, some would not have gone to hearings. They would have been settled voluntarily - one settlement so far, Mr. Chairman. MR. H. GRAHAM: Is it now the policy of government to not even attempt to negotiate for the purchase of property, but to file expropriation proceedings before ever approaching the owners of property? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, as we discussed with the Member for Virden in the Highways and Transportation Estimates, we reviewed this area as it applied to highways at least.

Of course, it applies to all land acquisitions. The reasons for it, I gave at that particular time; that is, that, yes, it is the policy to initiate expropriation procedures immediately so that there is a common date in multiple expropriations. At least, it is necessary to establish a common date for evaluation of that property. In the previous situation, it very often resulted in those that held out and did not choose to settle gaining greater compensati on, because the set value for expropriation was sometimes a couple of years later than the initial settlements with the other landowners.

Particularly when there was a time of escalating land values, they gained from holding back and settling. So at the present time with multiple expropriations, the expropriation date is set at the outset, then the negotiations follow. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, it bothers me a great deal and I'm sure it bothers hundreds and thousands of other Manitobans that the Province of Manitoba will not even attempt to negotiate for the purchase of property prior to filing of expropriation proceedings. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because I feel very strongly about it that it does not paint a good picture for government.

It does not indicate to the public that government is bargaining in good faith; in fact, it does the opposite. It points out to people that basically government can do no wrong, that government is all powerful and government will file their expropriation proceedings first. Then they will come and say, now that we have you under the threat of expropriation, we will now try and negotiate. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, very strongly, in as strong a language as I know how, that I do not consider that to be bargaining in good faith. Government and the role of government, Mr.

Chairman, in today's society is not to be all-powerful, not to be that heavy hand that will come down at the wish of a Mini ster. It should be one that allows society to live in harmo ny, one with another, rather than have this gross interference of expropriation that comes down. We saw this just last week, where a piece of property in downtown Winnipeg - (I nterjection) - the Minister may laugh and giggle all he wants to . . . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Order please, Mr. Chairman. The Min ister is not giggling. MR. H. GRAHAM: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the Min ister.

I was not referring to the Minister of Government Services, I was referring to the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. So I apologize to you, Mr. Min ister. 2561 Mr. Chairman, I think that government is moving in the wrong direction, that their relationship with the people they are supposed to govern is going to be adversely affected if we continue in this manner of heavy-handed expropriation before negotia tions.

I would urge the Min ister, and in fact I would urge every Cabinet member, his colleagues and their Cabinet, to reconsider the policy that is presently in place of filing expropriation first before you even attempt to negotiate with the citizenry of this province. I won't say anything more about it at this time, but I do try and impress on you that government is not looked at kindly if they proceed in this manner. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, it's true that obviously if for years and years governments have had to expropriate in the public interest, that has always been the case, and that lever if we want to call it, that heavy hand has been there, although unpleasant it always has been necessary in the past to engage in the expropriation in order to facilitate developments that are in the public good and public interest. The member is quite aware that it does not mean that the rights of the individual, the freedoms are in any way being infringed on now by this new policy in any way differently than they were in the past.

Whenever negotiations were undertaken in the past, the threat of expropriation was always there and the landowner knew that, and what it did do under the old system is that it gave an unfair advantage to that person who decided he was· not going to co-operate for whatever reason and decided to hold out. I am surprised that the Member for Virden has not caucused on this with his colleague, the Member for Lakeside, because I understand that he was quite complimentary to this new program that was introd uced when he was speaking here last year, the Member for Lakeside.

Perhaps this is just an individual opinion that the Member for Virden is expressing, but he could also go back to the largest project of his time in the '60s, the floodway, under the Conservative Government of the Day who decided to expropriate first and then negotiate. They were the leaders in this particular area, I guess, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps they realized that under a project of that magnitude, that it would be only fair to utilize that system and that's what they did.

I think the other point should be made too that the Member for Virden should be aware that the Union of Manitoba Municipalities recommended that we put in place this system in order to improve the fairness in equity within expropriation throughout the system. So I think the Member for Virden should look a little deeper in to this and exam ine it fu rther.

He felt uncomfortable with it a month ago when we dealt with the Highways and Transportion Estimates and I thought that I'd finally swung him around on it and that he would feel more comfortable with it, but he hasn't changed his opinion at all in the last month. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, it's because of the remarks of the Min ister of Government Services or the Minister of Highways, for that matter, that my concerns are even greater today than they were when I raised the issue a month ago. When the Min ister talks about fairness, in whose eyes is it fair? Is it the Minister of Highw ays or the Min ister

Monday, 3 June, 1985 of Government Services? Under whose criteria is it determined that it is fair and equitable and in the public interest? Those are the questions that the Min ister hasn't answered and cannot answer. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I mentioned earlier that land expropriation is never something that is pleasant for anyone, but is a requirement in our society to accomplish those particular projects that are in the public interest and serve the public.

There's always the provision for a hearing that can be undertaken if there's objections to the particular project that's in question and that is certainly the case, that hearings would be undertaken so that the abuse can be made if they object to the substance or the nature of the particular project. And in terms of the values, they can always appeal to the courts if they're not satisfied with the value that is set by the Land Value Appraisal Commission. So there are safeguards that are built in. It's not an appeal that can be made by government.

If government is not satisfied with the value, there's only one that is available to the landowner and under that system, it's as fair as it can be. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Min ister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, just a short answer for the Member for Virden. He asked in whose eyes is it fair?

I have to tell him it's fair in the eyes of the land owners of the constituency of Springfield, who on several projects have come to me and asked me why they had expropriation filed against them immediately after a description of the proposal by agents of the Land Acquisition Branch, and after receiving that description, they received notice of expropriation. They asked me why? I told them it was so that there'd be a common reference date and everyone would be treated the same way in terms of establishing value.

They not only accepted that explanation, having known the history of previous acquisitions, where people who held out seemed to get more, they complimented us for bringing in a fairer policy. So I think it is fairer in the eyes of the public, as well as the members here. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d) (1) - pass; 4. (d)(2)- pass; 4.(d)(3)- pass. Resolution 79: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,708,600 for Project Services for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1986- pass. Item No. 5.(

a) Land Value Appraisal Commission, Salaries; 5.(

b) Other Expenditu res; 5.(

c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, now we're dealing with the Land Value Appraisal Commission. Can the Min ister indic ate how many projects the Land Value Appraisal Commission has been involved in during the last 12 months? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, during the 19 84- 85 fiscal year, as of December 31, 1984, the commission held 39 hearings and meetings involving 144 properties and issued 140 certificates. A total of 275 properties in the category of settlements of less than $5,000 were reviewed by the commission as well.

In 19 83-84 fiscal year, the commission held 73 hearings through the whole fiscal year and dealt with 192 properties and issued 18 3 certificates and also reviewed 476 properties in the categories of settlements of less than $5,000.00. So that's the nature of the workload of the Land Value Appraisal Commission over the last two fiscal years. MR. H. GRAHAM: Can the Min ister ind icate in the properties they have dealt with, how many have been finalized in acquisition? They have dealt with 192, have they all been finalized? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: No, I don't believe that they necessarily have, but I don't have the information as to how many have actually been finalized in that par ticular year by the Land Value Appraisal Commission. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, out of the 192 that were dealt with last year there were 18 3 Certificates of Compensation issued. Of the 18 3, how many were satisfactory or how many have been appealed? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't have the number of appeals under that section, Mr. Chairman. The vast majority of them were satisfactory, my understanding is, but there are always a number that are appealed. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, we're able to get some of the information, but the valuable information in which we can evaluate the effectiveness of the Land Value Appraisal Commission is not available. Could the Mini ster indic ate why? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, generally this has not been the kind of information that the members have wanted and of course we try to prepare for the kinds of information that the members would generally feel interested in. The Land Value Appraisal Commission certainly does not concern itself directly with whether the certificates that are issued are satisfactory.

Obviously they wouldn't even know that. It would be something that the Land Acquisition Branch would have to follow up on and they find generally that they are acceptable; but some of the larger ones, the North Portage Development, some of the ones on Highway 75, some of the larger ones, were not satisfactory and the landowners then would appeal those decisions. But in about 80 percent of the cases or more they are accepted by the lando wners. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the Min ister has a new deputy, but once a year these Estimates come before this committee for examination and we have to make a value judgment on how effective any particular branch of the Min ister's department is operating. We know that they dealt with 192 properties. We know that 18 3 Certificates of Compensation were issued, but we don't know, other than the Minister's general statement, that roughly 80 percent of them 2562

Monday, 3 June, 1985 were satisfactory. How are we to judge the effectiveness of the operation of the Land Value Appraisal Commission unless we have that kind of information? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I can get the exact figures for the member if he would like that and provide him with that information. The fact is, of course, that the Land Value Appraisal Commission, as I said earlier, does not see the disputes that follow because the appeal obviously isn't to them.

They hear the arguments or they set the value and then if the particular landowner is not satified with that, his recourse is to the courts to appeal, and therefore they would not be directly involved in that anymore than a court would be with its own decision. But I can endeavour to find out, certainly. MR. H. GRAHAM: I thank the Minister for that. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't think that should be that difficult to get, but we will look at providing that as soon as possible. It has not been asked before. MR. H. GRAHAM: Pass, with some reluctance. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a)- pass; 5.(b)- pass; 5.(c)- pass.

Resolution No. 80: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $62, 100 for Go vernment Services, Land Value Appraisal Commission, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 86- pass. Item No. 6.(

a) Emergency Measures Organization, Salaries; 6.(

b) Other Expenditures - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, under Salaries, I notice there is some increase there. Is that just a natural progression or has there been any change in complement? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, as I ind icated earlier when I gave the outline of the staffing changes, there has been one addition there of a secretarial position for the Emergency Measures Organ ization; and the other increases are for severance pay, overtime and so on, a provision for merit increases. MR. H.

GRAHAM: In the past 12 months, can the Minister indicate how many times Emergency Measures were called upon to offer their assistance in the province? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, there were several major incidents that the EMO officials were called upon: the ice storm on April 27, 1984; forest fire threats in May of'84; in the Gimli Air Show the EMO staff assisted in co-ordinating an alert and communications system for the air show; there is the heavy rainstorm on June 16 th and 17th of'84; tornados, a number of those in July in 1984; a Neepawa explosion on September 13, 19 84; 57 different calls logged as being incidents requiring some degree of action; 14 chemical petroleum spills were recorded; the environment, numerous weather warnings were received; as well as a variety of miscellaneous reports not applicable to the EMO role but still the calls were received.

So the major items that I mentioned, plus a number of others that required some action, and that is not outlining of course all of the calls that were made; the EMO

section is also in volved in working with muni cipalities in developing emergency plans and meeting with them. So there are numerous visits and calls involved there. I think that the question that the member asked was quite broad and general. If he wanted to ask for specific areas of involvement, we could perhaps give him more information. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, during the past year, according to the'83-84 year, according to the Annual Report of the department, Emergency Measures seems to be taking an increased role in emergency planning with the various municipalities.

Is that an ongoing process and does it have a high degree of priority with the Min ister? Is that a role of increasing importance in the activities of EMO? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, certainly I consider that a very high priority in terms of the activities of Emergency Measures Organizat ion. It's absolutely necessary that communities do have a local emergency plan because they are the first contact with regard to action required. The first responsibility falls on the local government and they have to be aware of what their responsibilities are.

So over the last number of years, planning has continued, and it continues at the present time with a total of 93 plans having been completed out of I believe I guess a potential of about 250 that could be put in place when all is completed.

There are 24 completed in the east region, 30 in the west region - the east region is out of Portage la Prairie, although that's not in eastern Manitoba, but that's where it's headquartered; the western region out of Brandon, there are 30 plans that have been completed; the northern region, out of Thompson, there are 39 plans for a total of 93 that have been completed to date. It is a high priority area. I believe three municipal advisors work with the municipalities, meet with them over the course of the year and work with them to develop these plans, provide guidance to them. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, in the'83-84 report it ind icates that there are a total of 73 that have completed emergency plans, and there are a total of 41 municipaliti es in Northern Affairs communities who were either showing interest in emergency planning or were in various stages of emergency planning. The Min ister has indi cated that 20 of those have now been completed. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes. MR. H. GRAHAM: Can the Mini ster indi cate how many more are in various stages of planning or showing interest in emergency planning? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: There are a total of 69 additional communities who are either showing interest or are involved in the planning stage at the present time. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, it appears that EMO is well-advanced in their plans for emergency 2563

Monday, 3 June, 1985 planning throughout the province and for that we commend them. I have no further questions of EMO at this particular time, unless somebody else has. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ellice. MR. B. CORRIN: I wanted to ask the Mini ster what plans have been formulated and put in place respecting nuclear attack evacuation routes? When I travel in the Unit ed States, I often note that most of the states have posted evacuation routes for emergencies of that sort.

Although they are very frightening and certainly disconcerting - because one normally doesn't think about these things - one also becomes aware, as one goes along the highway, that the Americans seem to be in a state of some readiness if one can ever be in a state of readiness for nuclear war. At least, they have taken the time to post the evacuation routes and mark them with different colours to ind icate which are primary and which are secondary. What have we done in this regard and what plans does EMO have to do anything of this nature? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, there has been very li ttle activity in this area by the Emergency Measures Organization. The emphasis has been on emergency response for peacetime dis asters, as opposed to nuclear war, although there is an old plan in place for the City of Winnipeg. The department co operates with the federal authorities in that regard, but there has been no emphasis placed on that by the department in its emergency planning response. As I ind icated earlier, the emphasis is on reaction to peacetime emergencies and, of course, that can be adapted if there was a war emergency.

But certainly there is a strong feeling among many people that there is very little that can be actually done when it comes time to an actual nuclear disaster taking place in a city; although as I said earlier, the routes that were planned out many years ago - I guess that plan was drawn up in the '50s - it's certainly outdated at the present time, but that is still in existence. MR. B.

CORRIN: I would like to, on a rather cynical and pessimistic note, strongly urge the Emergency Measures Organization to give consideration to doing some rethinking in this regard and would strongly urge that they reactivate their planning in order tha t appropriate plans can be drawn and formulated for what we all hope is not the inevitable disaster.

But I think in being a realist and knowing that whether we like it or not, the unforeseeable and the unthink able is probably very close and at some times very imminent, that it would be prudent to invest time and effort to giving consideration with national authorities as to how Winnipeg would be evacuated in the event of a nuclear attack. Regrettably, the probability, as experts tell us, is rather high ·for the next decade.

Even though none of us like to think of it, the probability of some sort of limited or unlimited full-scale nuclear war is quite likely, it seems to me that it's unrealistic for us to continue to keep our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem is not there. It is very evident, as I say, when you travel in the United States and talk to people, they're aware of it. There is a lot of information being disseminated on what one can do, if anything, in these circumstances.

What little we know about the technology of nuclear war, we know that Manitoba could become a hot spot in terms of the interplay of long-range missiles over our soil and I, for one, think that it's time to start doing something concrete about it. If the unthinkable should happen, I suppose every life saved is perhaps worthwhile, presuming that there'll be anything to live for. Certainly it's unconscionable just to stand by and let other people determine the fate of the province in that regard. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I thank the Member for Ellice for that suggestion.

We'll look at getting a report on what has been done lately and what kinds of steps could be taken for consideration by government. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a)- pass; 6.(b)- pass. Resolution 81: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exce eding $633,300 for Government Services, Emergency Measures Organization, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1986- pass. Item No. 7.(

a) Expenditur es Related to Capital, Acquisition/Construction of Physical Assets, 7.(

b) Vehicle Replacement - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Under the various headings that we have gone through, in most cases we have seen another item in there where there is a Less Recoverable from other Appropriations. I notice there is nothing in this one to show any ind ication of anything recoverable. I would just like to ask the Minister if there is any intention of trying to recover anything from the acquisition or construction of physical assets from Mani toba Properties Incorporated. HON. J. PLOHMAN: There are no plans for that at the present time, Mr. Chairman.

If there are major capital projects that are undertaken, obviously they are straight expenditur es of government for improvements to existing facilities or additions to existing facilities or new facilities that may be built by government. It's possible that, when a new facility comes on-line, that it could be sold to Manitoba Properties Incorporated if they're interested at that particular time. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I understand also that under this department or under this appropriation is the correct place to ask a question regarding the operation of the North Grove Complex of the Manitoba Development Centre. I understand tenders have been let for considerable work on that North Grove building. Could the Minister indi cate the size of the work that is contemplated there? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, this .work is being undertaken by the Department of Government Services for the Department of Community Services who have outlined the major plans that they have with regard to that building over the next number of years. We are attempting to carry out the minimum work that is necessary to meet the fire safety regulations for as long as that building is in operation and I believe 2564

Monday, 3 June, 1985 it is in the neighbourhood of $600,000 or in that area to meet the minimum requirements over the next couple of years. That work will be undertaken this year. I don't believe it has gone out to tender at this particular time, but it will be out shortly. MR. H. GRAHAM: I was led to believe that the work had been tendered, but maybe it hasn't. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that it has not yet been let for tender. MR. H. GRAHAM: What is the nature of the work that is contemplated at that complex? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the question is, what is the nature of the work?

I have indic ated the nature of the work is to upgrade the fire and safety standards of the building to meet minimum requirements. MR. H. GRAHAM: Will that be a new fire alarm system? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I understand it will include a new sprinkler system and fire alarm system, along with other measures that are necessary, duct work and piping that is necessary of course for the sprinkler system. MR. H. GRAHAM: So there will be a fire alarm system; there will be a sprinkler system. Will there be anything done, for instance, in the field of safety doors or anything of that nature? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I believe there are some units in tha t build ing that are being closed off. They will obviously have to be isolated from those which are actively being used, so that would be considered as part of the work under the fire upgrading. We want to avoid having to upgrade, obviously, those sections of the building that will not be used. So they would have to be isolated off by fire doors and that kind of thing. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I also unde rstand that Community Services has, I believe, in their plans no further use for the building beyond this year.

Has the Mini ster of Government Services some other use for the building after this year is over? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that is correct. Our information from the Department of Community Services is that they intend to use the building and phase out its use over the next three years. This is not the last year of use. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, we have some $25 million here in capital. Could the Minister give us a list of the major projects that are either in the mill or are partially under way at the present time, under his $25 million program? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, under the capital program in continuing construction is: the Manitoba Archives Building; the School for the Deaf, fire and safety Phase 3; completion of the Robert Fletcher Building exterior; some expenditures yet on the New Law Courts Building; the Flin Flon Provincial Building.

As well as, under construction to be initiated: at Headingley the Correctional Institution, the Main building fire safety upgr ade, Pha se 1; windo w replacement and fire exit stairways; at Selkirk the Mental Health Centre, building fire safety upgrade there; the existing Law Courts Building renova ti ons, major expenditures there in this coming year; Existing Land Titles Building renovations is also included for some work this year; the Norquay Building, fire and safety upgr ad ing is includ ed; the new Remand Centre, planning for that; Portage la Prairie, Mani toba Development Centre Is included in this appropriation.

MR. H. GRAHAM: Perhaps the Minister could, at a later date, provide us with a list with the capital value of each project? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, the difficulty, Mr. Chairman, in providing the capital dollars, of course, is that is an estimate the department has provided for budget purposes and it is not information that is usually provided in detail because, of course, it could have some impact on the tendering that later takes place if any of this information is put on the record and is available to potential contractors. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that.

If the Min ister could give us a list of the projects and those that have already gone to tender, with the tender price of those, that would be satisfactory. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'll be very pleased to provide that information. MR. CHAIRMAN: 7.(a)- pass; 7.(b)- pass. Resolution 82: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $29,627,900 for Government Services, Expenditures Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1986- pass. Back to the Min ister's Salary. Item No. 1. (a) - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, we're back to the Min ister's Salary and I think it would only be fair, before we pass this item, to make a few remarks about the operation of this department and the Min ister's involvement in it. I also would like to give a few words of advice to his new Deputy Minister .

I just want to advise him that this is probably his first time at Estimates and next year, if an election is not called - if the election is called, of course, he'll have a new Minister at that time - I would just like to inform him that he does have a responsibility to make sure that the Mini ster is properly prepared for the Estimates.

We realize that the Min ister has another portfolio, but we did have quite a difficult time this time dealing with the Estimates of Government Services, and I would hope that if the Mi nister should be so lucky as to have to bring his Estimates before this committee again that he would probably spend a little more time and properly prepare himself for it. To answer the questions that I suggest are proper 2565

Monday, 3 June, 1985 questions that should be asked, so that we can evaluate the effectiveness of the Minister in the operation of his department. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (a)-pass. Resolution 76: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1, 91 3, 100 for Government Services, Administration, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1986-p ass. What is the pleasure of the committee? Committee rise. SUPP Y - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Order please.

We are considerin g the Estima tes of the Department of Agriculture, Item 6.(c)( 1) Economic Analysis Branch: Salaries - the Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we broke for the dinn er break, the Honourable Member for Morris raised a question. He wanted to know the names of the staff within the Policy Development and Economics Branch who were the economists in the department.

Heather Campbell, Herb Schellenberg and Neil Hamilton, Janet Honey, Carol Nachtigall, Bob Ward, Adrian Strutinsky, Errol Lewis, and Ajaz Quamar are the ni ne economists in th ose two branches. - (In terjection) - Pardon me? Yours is coming. Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain asked from his seat, where's my information. Mr. Chairman, in fact there were some errors in terms of how it was presented. It wasn't presented in chronological order. It is being redone. You should have the information tomorrow.

I could, in fact, use it by placing it on the record, but the written information he will have tomorrow. It's virtually ready. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: I thank the Mi ni ster for tha t information for my colleague from Morris. He'll be able to get it off the record. I guess you haven't got it written out on a sheet of paper. That's all right with me. He can get it off the record. HON. B. URUSKI: It's on the handwritten notes they use. MR. J. DOWNEY: Oka y. Mr.

Chairman, there are several areas dealing with policy and I guess one of the most immediate concerns facing the farm community is the lack of policy support by this Min ister of Agriculture and this government dealing with our smaller farm sector, and particularly dealing with the smaller cream ship pers, those people who have started in the production of milking cows, shipping cream. Last week, Mr. Chairman, we saw the Milk Board make a policy change to allow one farmer to use another farmer's quota when it comes to the shipping of cream. However, my extreme disappointment, Mr.

Chairman, is in the fact that this Mini ster of Agriculture has not yet made a statement dealing with it, either in support of or an objection to, but the farm community are still un clear as to what the polic y of this Mi ni ster of 2566 Agriculture is dealing with the use of cream quota by a person who's quota is full and a person who has not fully utilized their quota. I would like to have a policy statement come from this Min ister. Another area dealing with policy and that, of course, is the transfer of partial milk quotas and partial dairy herds. Mr.

Chairman, I'm sorry that the First Min ister of the province isn't in the committee - although I don't want to make anything about the fact that he's not here at this particular time - but I would think either the Mini ster or the First Minister owe an apology to me or to this House for information that was provided dealing with the milk quota several weeks ago. They made a lot, Mr. Chairman, about the fact that they were still admin istering the policy of the former government. Well, I, Mr. Chairman, am going to lay out the evidence that I have available which clearly states that there is a policy change.

We were interrupted last week when I was in the process of doing that and I will again now continue. The Mini ster is . . . HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. MR. J. DOWNEY: The Minister is interrupting again. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. The Minis ter of Agriculture of a point of order. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member, but perhaps we could move to the Natural Products Marketing Council and we could deal with all the issues that he has raised, or is about to raise.

I have no difficulty of moving because all those issues deal with issues dealing with the marketing council. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the Minister does not have a point of order or any ground to stand on when it comes to his request. It's his policy in an economics division, and I haven't heard any clear policy statements come from him dealing with the cream quota, dealing with the transfer of partial dairy herds and the milk quota to go along with them.

I haven't heard a statement on policy dealing with the egg board, with the 99 hens, with the broiler board, the implementation of the Broiler Egg Marketing Board, Mr. Chairman. He says that he would like to move to the Natural Products Marketing Council. Well, Mr.

Chairman, there are some other areas in policy that we want to deal with, and I think under this general term - and I will read it to you for your information - it conducts research and analysis and advises on policy and program development for the agriculture ind ustry of Man itoba; it provides funding for University of Manitoba research projects and administration of boards and commissions. Under that general heading and the administration, Mr. Chairman, I think we would be fully in order to discuss this on every item.

He did not want to discuss boards and commissions on every one of these items that we should have the opportunity to do so. So I will proceed, Mr. Chairman, to fully . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. Is the Member for Arthur speaking to the point of order raised by the Min ister?

Monday, 3 June, 1985 MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to carry on with the Administration under 6.(a). MR. CHAIRMAN: We passed 6.(

a) and 6.(b), we are on 6.(

c) at the moment. MR. J. DOWNEY: Did the Min ister have a point of order? Mr. Chairman, you are now on 6.(c)( 1) ... ? MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(

c) Economic Analysis Branch:

(1) Salaries. MR. J. DOWNEY: Oka y, well, I'll pass that, (1) and (2), and go on to the Manitoba . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(c)( 1)- pass; 6.(c)(2)-pass. 6.(

d) Manitoba Natural Products Marketing Council - the Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it's taken some time for the Minister to get here. I guess, probably, when we look at the interruptions and hesitations and the concerns that he's had before we get here, and stalling - that's really what it is when my colleague from Roblin Russell says stalling - we can get right into it. But I was, Mr.

Chairman, pointing out this Min ister's lack of clear policy and clear support for our smaller farmers in our community when it deals with cream quota, when it deals with milk quota, when it deals with egg quota, when it deals with the production of the marketing board for broiler eggs, when it comes to the eligibility of numbers to be slaughtered by people producing broilers, a multitude of policy area problems, and we haven't had one clear policy statement from this Mini ster. HON. B. URUSKI: Yes, he did, Jim.

He said that agriculture in Manitoba should be like the USSR three years ago and that's what he still believes. MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, I believe that's about his get up in policy. But I want to request of the Mini ster and the First Mini ster, an apology for their accusations several weeks ago about the fact that when it came to the dairy producers unable to transfer partial quota and their percentage of the herd with tha t quota, that he maintained he was carrying out the former provincial government policy. Well, Mr.

Chairman, in fact he went so far, I was quite amazed that he went so far as to circulate a letter - how many pages for goodness sakes on April 12th - here we have a four-page letter sent to all the dairy producers in the Province of Manitoba and what did it say about dairy policy, Mr. Chairman? Well, it made a lot to do about the fact that when I was Minister of Agriculture there were Minutes dealing with a meeting, at which I wasn't even at, Mr. Chairman, but he was trying again to come to straight-on grips with the problem that's facing the industry in this problem.

He was trying to blame the former Min ister of Agriculture. If he's not trying to blame the former Mi nister of Agri cultur e, he's trying to blame the government in Ottawa; if he's not trying to blame the government in Ottawa, he's trying to blame the Americans; if he's not trying to blame the people in 2567 Ottawa, he's trying to blame the operators of the boards; that he's really hands off; he doesn't want to get into it. I asked him, Mr. Chairman, who is the Minister of Agriculture in the Province of Manitoba? He's the invisible Minister when it comes to a clear policy statement. But what I want to do, Mr.

Chairman, is establish how misleading this Mini ster and the First Minister were when it came to the dairy policy in the Province of Manitoba. As I ind icated, April 12th there was a letter sent out by the Mini ster - four pages - and I'm not certainly going to put the committee to the - (Interjection) - the Member for Swan River says to sleep. Well I'll try and keep it a little more lively than that, but the letter really would. I'll table the letter. As well, Mr.

Chairman, several days ago I asked the Minister of Agriculture to table another letter which was sent out May 23, 1978, and this was sent out and signed by a gentleman who has joined us in the committee here tonight, Mr. Craig Lee, who is the secretary of the Manitoba Marketing Board. Now there's interesting reading in both those letters. The Min ister quoted very selectively from Minutes of the meeting held in the Natural Products Marketing Council which, Mr. Chairman, were not taken verbatim; I wasn't at the meeting.

It was a civil servant again interpreting what they thought the Min ister had said and what they wanted to happen. Mr. Chairman, this is the part that the First Mini ster and the Mini ster of Agriculture made a lot to do about and this is a mi nute from the Natural Products Marketing Council, April 10, 1978, and here's the part that's highlighted. "The Minister advised the secretary" - see this wasn't taken from me being at a meeting but - "The Min ister advised the secretary that policy has not changed with respect to preventing the capitalization of quotas in Manitoba. However, the Mini ster felt ...

"- remember, this is a secretary reporting to a council meeting. This isn't the Minister saying this directly, this is second-hand. So that's what they're hanging their hat on, so we'll go to another letter here in a few minutes. "However, the Mini ster felt that modifications could be made to the existing quota reallocation policy that would elimi nate the cost of appraisals and still prevent quota capitalization from ocurring." Nothing wrong with that, some flexibility.

"The Minister ind icated that if evidence was obtained that a person had purchased quota, then the quota so obtained should be cancelled." Well, there was nothing wrong with that at the particular time, Mr. Chairman. "The Min ister indi cated that he expected the Manitoba Marketing Board to make recommendations to him on an appropriate marketing share quota transfer policy," which, Mr. Chairman, they have done and did do following that particular time. Mr.

Chairman, that's what the Mini ster of Agriculture thought was very important to spread out to all the dairy farmers on April 12 th of 1985, four pages of bafflegab and trying to blame somebody else for his inability to deal with a policy matter at this particular time in our ind ustry in our province. Oka y, let's go to the letter of May 23rd. This happens to follow that April 10, 1978 Minute. This letter is from Mr. Craig Lee, Secretary, Manitoba Marketing Board. I want to take some portions out of it, Mr. Chairman, and explain really what the policy was.

Monday, 3 June, 1985 HON. B. URUSKI: What's the date? MR. J. DOWNEY: May 23, 1978. The Minute which the First Minister and this Mini ster of Agriculture referred to is April 20, 1978. By the way, Mr. Chairman, for the record and for the people of Manitoba, I asked for this letter to be tabled by the Minister of Agriculture two, three weeks ago. I haven't seen it be tabled yet. Why wasn't it tabled, Mr. Chairman? Because it was the truth?

Is that why it wasn't tabled is because it was the truth, and he couldn't blame me any longer, blame the opposition any longer for his inability to deal with the current dairy problem? That's really what it is. Let's deal with that letter. Let's deal with what the policy really was. It states not only the dairy milk policy, but it deals with the cream policy as wel l. HON. B. URUSKI: That's right. MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, right, he says. He seems to have found the letter but couldn't table it, Mr. Chairman. Let's deal with it. This goes to Mr.

Art Rampton: "The Manitoba Marketing Board has reviewed the market share quota transfer policies as proposed by the Manitoba Milk Producers' Marketing Board. The board has approved a new reallocation policy for milk producers as follows: "(

a) The Manitoba Milk Producers' Marketing Board may allocate market share quota to milk producers who purchase a complete dairy unit and who operate it as an ongoing enterprise; "(

b) Purchase the complete dairy herd for the purpose of establishing a new production unit; "(

c) Purchase the complete dairy herd and any other assets for the purpose of expanding milk output. Where construction of a new barn or an addition to an existing barn is made, an additional milk output is necessary to maintain viability. "The total quota held by a producer receiving quota under (

b) or (

c) shall not be less than 3, 15 0 pounds butterfat and not more than 10,000 pounds butterfat.

"The Manitoba Marketing Board will require the following information in order to monitor the extent to which quota capitalization takes place: copies of documents covering the purchase of all assets purchased; a statutory declaration by the purchaser and the seller declaring that no payment or considerations have been made or received under those disclosed; an appraisal may be conducted for the Manitoba Marketing Board to determine the value of assets of the purchaser or seller to provide right of access to the property for appraisal purposes." Now, let's go to Page 2.

The policy approved by the Manitoba Marketing Board for the allocation of quotas to cream producers is (1) existing cream producers will be on open quota. Can you imagine that? The dairy producers, the cream producers were on an open quota. What happened, Mr. Chairman, in April, or earlier this year? - (Interjection) - No. The cream producers, the policy was changed. They were taken off open quota; in fact, we saw producers' dumping of cream because they had no more quota. Yes. Who changed the policy, Mr. Chairman? No. 1, existing cream producers will be on open quota. Tell me, Mr.

Chairman, that there were difficulties during that time. There weren't, Mr. Chairman. There was no policy change until this Minister and his administration took over. Now, the dair y producers, the cream producers, are not on open quota. No. 2, complete farm sales under the same rules as for milk producers. The producer board shall admit new cream producers in the order in which applications are received subject to their estimated volume of marketing being less than or equal to the amount of quota reverting to the board from cream producers. So, Mr. Chairman, there is a policy change under this admin istration.

There are no more open quotas. In fact, we see cream being dumped. I want to carry on through this letter, Mr. Chairman, because it does allow for the partial transfer of dairy quotas and it's stated right in here. I'll read through it because it is important that the public record show the facts as they are: "This policy does not require an appraisal of assets purchased and that the value be greater than the purchased price as prec ondition of approval of the reallocation of quota by the board. However, the board members agree that meaningful monitoring can only be done if the assets purchased are appraised.

The appraisals must be conducted under the direction of the Manitoba Marketing Board to ensure that they fairly represent the value of the assets. The appraisals may not be required in all instances" - it may not be required in all instances I think is important - "but where one is necessary, the cost will not be borne by the producer board or the producers involved." And I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a fair policy.

Next paragraph: "This policy also differs from the former policy, which was NDP admin istration, in that it is not restricted to the purchase of complete ongoing dairy units." Isn't that something, Mr. Chairman? "This policy also differs from the former policy in that it is not restricted to the purchase of complete ongoing dairy units, as now is the case under this administration of the New Democratic Party." Now, who is telling truth and who isn't, Mr. Chairman? This is a public record or a record that this Min ister was unprepared to table in the Legislature because it told the truth.

I'll continue on because I think the people of Manitoba and particularly the dairy farmers are interested in really what the policy was and what it is now and what they can expect under a Progressive Conservative Government. At least we'll be forthright in the way in which we deal with them, Mr. Chairman. "T he polic y approach is the problem of quota transfers from the point of view of who should be entitled to obtain quota with the purchase of assets. The board has estimated two categories, new producers," which I think is commendable. We want more new producers in the province.

We wanted new producers and we recognized it, Mr. Chairman. I defy this Minister to give opportunities to new producers unless they go in and buy a complete dairy herd, Mr. Chairman, but we wanted to increase the numbers of producers. "E xisting produc ers who need to expand their facilities in order to be economically viable." There is one of the keys, Mr. Chairman. "Existing producers who need to expand their facilities in order to become econom ically viable." Not only does it help the producers keep their cost of production down, Mr. Chairman, but it's a benefit to the consumers - yes, a 2568

Monday, 3 June, 1985 direct benefit to the consumers. If a producer has not produced his maximum and has a few extra stalls in his or her barn and wants three or four cows to fill that barn, and the quota to go along with them, Mr. Chairman, then they had the opportunity to do so. Yes, it allowed the cost of production to be a little bit lower for those people who are in our consuming society and who need milk to drink. So don't let him try to mislead, Mr. Chairman, the dairy ind ustry and the consumers in this province, saying that he didn't change the policy, because he did and the facts state it.

I'll continue on. "In both cases, they would require additional cows and quota, and the quota can be reallocated from a retiring producer who wishes to cease milk production, but does not wish to sell his farm . . . "- again, not forced to sell your dairy farm. If you want to reduce some of your cows, some of your quota, you were quite capable of doing so. "The Manitoba Board feels that producers who are not expanding the size of their production unit should have their quota adjusted in accordance with policies for the allocation of quotas directly by the board to all qualifying producers.

There should also be provision for the direct allocation of quota to new producers if quota ever becomes available for such purposes." Well yes, Mr. Chairman, the policy has changed under this admi nistration. Mr. Chairman, I'll finish the letter out, because I think it's impo rtant to do so. "The Manitoba Marketing Board expects that the monitoring procedure will ind icate that capitalization of quota is occurring.

The board reserves the right to revert to the present policy at that time, as it is the only means by which capitalization can be controlled when purchase of assets becomes the means of obtaining the right to marketing quota." They reserve the right to do so. It didn't even have to be put in the letter. But the point is, Mr. Chairman, and the Minister laughs about it. I would like somebody to dump his income, or walk into his turkey barn and smash half the turkey eggs, and see if he laughed, Mr. Chairman, his income being thrown in the gutter, and that's what he's laughing about.

The point is that his government did change the policy. His government did reverse the policy, changed our policy. He's laughing about it, but they changed the policy, something that he said in a letter to the producers of April 12, 1985, wasn't the case, that he was only carrying out our policy. That is not the truth, Mr. Chairman, and I want an apology from this Minister and the First Min ister of the province. I want an apology, and I want it sent by letter to every dairy producer, stating what he has done.

Stating what he has done, that he has misled them in a letter that he sent on April 12 th, and send out the true facts of what the policy really was. I'll go on to complete the letter which is the truth, Mr. Chairman. "I am in receipt of your letter of May 9, 1978, and will arrange for a meeting with the Producer Board at the earliest possible date to explore any desirable modifications to the above policy. Yours truly, Craig Lee, Secretary, Manitoba Marketing Board." Mr. Chairman, I said I'd table them and I will. I'm going to table these three documents, copies of them. Mr. Chairman, the first one is the

interpretation of the Secretary at the Natural Products Marketing Council with the dir ection that a policy development was needed. The truth of what our policies were, and the fact that they reversed it, that's the 1978 letter of May 23rd which states what the truth is; and the Min ister of Agriculture's letter of April 12 , 1985, which is so much full of gobbledygook and misleading statements that I want an apology to the dairy producers, and to this committee, Mr. Chairman, from the Min ister. I'll table those three letters. I demand, Mr.

Chairman, that I get an apology; I demand that this House get an apology for the misleading statement; and I demand that the dairy producers of this province get copies of that true Minute on what happened, so they in fact can make their judgment as to who is telling the truth and who isn't. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's what we have been dealing with day after day with this Mi nis ter, with this government. Who can believe them, Mr. Chairman? They're an incompetent admin istration, Mr.

Chairman, of trying to divert responsibility, of not coming to grips with policy matters that mean the livelihood of our small family farms in this province when it comes to cream shipping, when it comes to transfer of quota from our dairy producers to one another. He says, does he want me to meddle around, he says as Min ister? Does the Agricultural Credit want me to muck around? Mr. Chairman, when it comes to the livelihoods of our small family farms, yes, I do, and I was prepared to because I gave them the direction that I wanted a policy that would accommodate, and it did, Mr. Chairman.

It did accommodate them. He has no defence in what he has done, Mr. Chairman. I could as well deal with the cream issue for some time, and I will deal with it for a few minutes. I am still getting contacted by cream ship pers in my own community. I will just tell you one of the situations on Sunday and The farmer was apologetic for phoning Sunday, and I said no apology is needed because really that's my job. My job is to deal with the farm community in my constituency. His wife had bought a cow herd to produce cream. She wanted some income to produce cream for food for the table.

Yes, she wanted some extra income. I think she bought eight cows and bought another cow or two to come up to 10 because they were a little concerned that they wouldn't be able to fill the cream quota available to them. She said she had a letter. Not only did they cut her back from the quota which she initially bought, but she was going to have that quota filled almost immediately. I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, her husband - and I don't blame him - was extremely annoyed. He was calling on her behalf.

She called me this morning and she said she talked to the board and they thought everything had been straightened out and I was pleased to hear that. But that's the typical kind of family that run into this situation. They are trying to make a little bit of extra money. If you live in the city and your wife or husband, if the husband is the housekeeper or does the homework, then there are a little more opportunities for him to go out and make a little bit of extra money, or the wife can go out and make a little bit of extra money.

But they're pretty limited on the farm as to the other things you can do to make some extra money, and this Mi n ister and his pol icies allo wed tha t 2569

Monday, 3 June, 1985 opportunity to be cut off. Yes, Mr. Chairman, he allowed that kind of income to be cut off. It's deplorable, Mr. Chairman. We have no policies under this Minister. We have no policies of support for our farm community, particularly the smaller producers. And why, Mr. Chairman? I ask the simple question, why does he try to continue to blame somebody else for his inability to deal with the problems? Why hasn't he gone to the national government? He is so anxious to take the national government on, why hasn't he gone for it and said look, we were cut back?

Yes, the Canadian Dairy Commission cut us back; we are not happy with that. We don't believe that Quebec and Ontario should continue to expand and take up our production; that's not what we want in this country, Mr. Chairman. Take them on. He'll get full support from me and the opposition when it comes to getting more quota for those people who are in the supply management systems. I don't care whether it's dairy, whether it's eggs, whether it's broilers, whether it's any kind of production - turkeys - we are fully supportive of getting more production for the provinces of Western Canada. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

If we are going to survive in the agricultural community, we have to have more. I haven't heard a request come from this Min ister asking for more production quota for Western Canada or for Manitoba. I haven't heard from him. He takes it out on the small producers, Mr. Chairman, and he thinks they aren't going to make any political difference to him. Well, it's going to make a big political difference to him, Mr. Chairman, and we are going to see to it that it does.

I would ask him when he rises in his place tonight, to clearly state if he supports the transfer or the use of a person's quota, who isn't able to fill it under the dairy system for cream shipping, if he supports that. I ask him a straightforward question, does he support the use of cream quota by one producer to use another producer's quota so they can continue to produce cream? I ask him that question. Does he support that policy? Does he support the policy of cream quota transfer? Because I will tell you if he doesn't what happens; I think the public should be well aware of this.

If we are not allowed to maximize our production of cream and milk in the Province of Manitoba, what happens when our quota comes up for review on the national scene? I make this case. If our quota comes up for review and we have restricted the transfer of quota from producer to prod ucer, the Canadian Dairy Commission says, well, Manitoba fell short. Manitoba fell short even though we had some producers dumping product on the ground, we didn't maximize the quota we had allocated to us as a province. So they come back and they say, Manitoba, you didn't fully utilize your quota last year.

So we get another cutback, Mr. Chairman, further creating more hardship on those small producers. What we need, Mr. Chairman, is a government who had a policy that worked. I am prepared to stand and debate any place in this province with this current Minister of Agriculture and any of his colleagues dealing with any of the policies in agriculture because I tell you, Mr. Chairman, he hasn't got any. His policies - and I want to say this because he is so incompetent and lacks leadership in the agricultural community - he is so inept at his job he doesn't have an original thought. He doesn't know, Mr.

Chairman, what has to be done to offset some of these difficulties before they happen. I have gone over to some degree, Mr. Chairman, the cream and the milk policies of which ours were and which the changes were that this government allowed to take place and I agree, Mr. Chairman. I am not so naive to know that there are a lot more people wanting to produce. I guess the question again comes forward is, why do they want to get into the business? It is because NOP times are tough times.

Yes, NOP times are tough times and have been under this admin istration, and they have had to diversity and get into some of these businesses that maybe they didn't want to, but they have and they've expanded into them. Mr. Chairman, what we are asking for is a clear policy statement from the government when it comes to dealing with this. He'll say it's the Marketing Board's responsibility and we aren't going to mess around with it. Well, he can't get away with that, Mr. Chairman. We are not going to let him get away with it.

I would hope that he would come forward with a clear policy decision on the milk quota transfer. I want to know from this Minister if he will change the policy so we can have partial sale of quota, with cows, if he is going to imp lement quota value. The majority of producers in Manitoba right now are prepared to accept a policy of quota value. Well, when the demand is on it the way it is, possibly that's the way we should go.

I've recommended that the Minister of Agriculture call the agriculture committee so that we can have the dairy ind ustry come before it; so we could have the consumer people come before it and truly state where they stand on quota value. Yes, here we have a government who pretend - and I say pretend - to be consultative in their operations. Mr. Chairman, if they're so consultative, why don't they call the agriculture committee and invite the dairy industry, the consumers, to come forward and present their ideas to us on policy matters? What better example of open government?

If they're so proud of it and they really want to keep boasting it, then the proof is in the pudding, Mr. Chairman, and then it's in the eating. Let's get at it. We're prepared, Mr. Chairman, to take as many hours as necessary, but the Min ister for some reason wants to keep this all clutched to his chest. He doesn't want anybody to see what's behind the cards. Well, Mr. Chairman, he'll pay the price. He's paying the price. He paid the price on sugar beets; he's paid the price on cream quota; he's paying the price on milk transfer quotas, Mr. Chairman. He's paying the price every way you look at it.

He's also paying the price on the egg quotas as well, Mr. Chairman. Yes, he is paying the price, and that price, of course, is, him politically, it's disastrous, which of course it's to the people's benefit to see him removed from office. But look what he's doing to our small agriculture producers in the meantime. He's creating a tremendous amount of hardship to them. Mr. Chairman, I would like the Mi nister to come forward with some clear polic y statements on all these areas. Now that the truth is out as far as the dairy policy is concerned and the cream shippers, I would hope that they get the message.

I'll make sure that they do and my colleagues will make sure that they do, that under a Progressive Conservative Government 2570

Monday, 3 June, 1985 that there were no cream quotas that restricted the produc tion. Yes, Mr. Chairman, he says, well, the numbers of cream producers increased; yes, and so did the production, because they had to, because NDP times are tough times. But why didn't he deal with it, Mr. Chairman, in a straightforward manner? Why didn't he come forward with a policy saying, yes, we've got to help these people and we're prepared? Yes, there's another option that could be looked at and I'm surprised that it hasn't been talked about.

I know there's a lot of concern and I certainly have been extremely upset about the starvation throughout the world. Possibly there could have been a purchase program. Maybe the Province of Manitoba could have purchased some of the overproduction and given it as a gift in kind to some of these countries, whether it be Ethiopia, whether it be some of these African countries. Yes, Mr. Chairman, certainly it would have cost the people of Manitoba something. But what would we have done? We'd have helped some of the low-income producers here who are striving to make an income. Yes, Mr.

Chairman, the money coming to them would have been far better than the $4 million going to the advertising of this government and their inability to govern; and their apple polishers, the 12 0-some that they have around to make their image look better. The Minister himself admitted that he's spending taxpayers' money in communications to make his image better. It's clearly on the record, Mr. Chairman, what his ambition is; and I say there are other options. That's why the calling of the agriculture committee would have been extremely important.

We could have had some positive recommendations come forward from people who have quite a few answers. I'm not saying we've got all the answers, Mr. Chairman, but at least we're prepared to seek out and help those people that need some relief. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we're prepared to support the family farm, the small producers who want to eke out a living; whether it be milking cows for the cream shipping and whether it's a transfer of dairy quota, to make sure they've got the two stalls or three or four extra stalls in their barn being used. Yes, Mr.

Chairman, it isn't such a rigid society as the Minister would have us in the USSR. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and there's a story been written not too long ago about the regulations in the production of pigs. Because one of the deputies said there should be 12 pigs; there were 12 pigs as far as the Min ister was concerned; but after it went through the bureaucracy they were down to two pigs. The regulations didn't say that; but the system was telling the Minister they were producing 12 pigs. That was in Poland, I believe, and what were the people of Poland doing? Starving to death, Mr.

Chairman, they couldn't get food, - (Interjection) - yes, that's right. Then the Min ister said, because we've got two extra pigs, we'll export the surplus. Well that's the kind of system this Min ister of Agriculture wou ld have in Manitoba. It would be regulated so rigidly, that we really wouldn't have any food at all, Mr. Chairman. Well, we want some answers, Mr. Chairman, and we want them on marketing policies of this government. We want them of this government, Mr. Chairman, and this Minister, if he has some; and if he hasn't, we want him to step aside, Mr. Chairman.

We want them to call an election so the people who produce commodities and consume them in this province, can make their 2571 decisions. I would hope the Minister could answer some policy questions for a change. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a few of the comments made by the Honourable Member for Arthur, specifically dealing with milk policy. But as I go into my remarks, he made some accusations this evening, Sir, that he wanted an apology from myself about something that I had written to producers. Mr.

Chairman, if I have written anything wrong, that is wrong in terms of communication to the producers, I wish he would raise it, because all he said he wanted an apology from me. I don't know what I had written that was inaccurate, Mr. Chairman. I want to go through the letter. He tabled three documents and he said the information that I gave producers was inaccurate, Mr. Chairman, but he has not said what was inaccurate about the information I gave the producers, Sir. He didn't make one charge of something that I said that was inaccurate. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, he tabled the letter that I sent to producers dated April 12 , 1985, but he didn't say one word in that document that was inaccurate, not one word, Mr. Chairman. Let's just deal with the whole system as he outlined it and I'll take his arguments. He talked about in 19 78 the policy that was enunciated, that he had approved and the letter was written by the then secretary to the Manitoba Marketing Board about cream quotas, all producers be an open quota. Mr. Chairman, let's remember what was occurring during that period of time.

The member knows that I believe it was four or five creameries closed during his term of office. We were at the lowest point in our history in terms of cream production in this province. That's where we came from, Sir; from a number of creamery closures to the lowest production of cream in this province. - (Interjection) - Of course, the policy could be that the existing policy will be an open quota. Mr. Chairman, the existing policy today basically has been open quota, Mr.

Chairman, until the Milk Marketing Board realized - and it was the Milk Marketing Board that made the changes, Sir - realized that there was going to be overproduction in both their provi ncial quota and in terms of overproduction within the quota block that is issued to cream producers that they move in and change the whole system, Sir. Let's just put something on the record, Sir. The Canadian Dairy Commission Agreement does not allow what the Honourable Member for Arthur has been suggesting, that quota be transferred from producer to producer on an unused quota.

That is not allowed in the Canadian Dairy Commission Agreement, Sir. And this member said that he knows and he knew what dairy policy was in this province? Mr. Chairman, he'd better do a little bit of studying of the rules and regulations that the provinces of this country have signed in relationship to the Canadian Dairy Commission and the marketing agreement between the provinces. That is not allowed, Mr. Chairman. What the honourable member is talking about is not even allowed in the Canadian Dairy Commission Agreement. MR. J. DOWNEY: It should be. HON. B. URUSKI: Well, now he says that it should be. Mr.

Chairman, he ind icated that there was something

Monday, 3 June, 1985 wrong, that we had misrepresented his position vis-a vis the 1978 policy by the very nature of the letter that he approved of; he didn't say he didn't approve of the letter that was sent by the then secretary. There are two key points, Mr. Chairman, in that letter that the honourable member skimmed over and I will read them back to the honourable member. They are, a sentence in paragraph 2, on Page 2, and the last paragraph of Page 2, as well. Mr.

Chairman, where the board indi cated that any meaningful - "however, the board members agree that meaningful monitor can only be done if assets purchased are appraised." The then committee wrote to the Milk Marketing Board and said that if value for quota was going to be removed or kept out of the system that meaningful monitoring and appraisal had to be done. The second area that is very crucial to this whole policy that there is basically no change, Mr.

Chairman, is, and I quote, "The board reserves the right to revert to the present policy at the time as it is the only means by which capitalization can be controlle d when purchases of assets become the means of obtaining the right to marketing quota." Mr. Chairman, the policy that we have today we have reverted to the existing policy. MR. J. DOWNEY: Yes, you have, the NOP, your board, not the Progressive Conser vative poli cy, no t the Progressive Conservative board, your board, your policy. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the letter was written in 1978, May the 18th. We have reverted to the present policy.

The honourable member seems to forget what he did in terms of putting forward the dairy policy of the day. We have reverted to the dairy policy of the day, Mr. Chairman, and our letter of April 12, 1985, put it forward. Mr. Chairman, I recog nize, and the government recognizes, that there is difficulty, and there has been difficulty for producers in getting into the industry because the whole list that was kept by the marketing board was not really dealt with in terms of what available quota there would have been to allocate to those producers who had the three or four cows that they needed in the barn.

I mean that is a very crucial issue. It was somewhere in the neighbourhood, I believe, of over 400 producers waiting for the last five or six years to get some quota. Mr. Chairman, that was board policy, not governmental policy, as to how they dealt with the internal quota that would flow, whether it be by unit transfers or by partial herd transfers where they would keep back a portion of the quota, or if there was some national allocation, how they would in fact divvy that up amongst producers.

Those issues are strictly board issues and the government - lest the honourable members are saying, get yourselves involved in this. I think the Honourable Member for Emerson, I read his remark, said, "Get rid of that board. If they're not doing their job, get rid of them. Involve yourself in this process." Is that what he's suggesting, Mr. Chairman; is that the kind of message he is suggesting? He is saying, get rid of the board if they're not doing a good job. I don't know, is that Conservative policy? Mr.

Chairman, that's what the honourable member said when he spoke on the grievance, the Honourable Member for Emerson, the other day when he said, "Get rid of the board if they're not doing a good job." Mr. Chairman, the policies of admi nistering quota by the Milk Marketing Board are clearly marketing board responsibilities. They are delegated by legislation to those boards unless, and it appears to me, Sir, that the honourable members don't want the boards to handle it. They would want to have some other group admin istering the policy. Is that what they're advocating, Mr. Chairman?

A MEMBER: Who gave them the board? HON. B. URUSKI: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's not what the Honourable Member for Emerson said the other day. He said, "No, get rid of them. If they're not doing a good job, put in some commission or something." I think those were his words, Mr. Chairman. I don't have the remarks in front of me and he'll correct me if I'm misrepresenting his position. So, the Government of Manitoba is prepared, and has been willing to work with the milk producers in this province, to put into place a quota transfer policy that will not involve capitalization of quota. Mr. Chairma

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-61b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 61b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ce058e55ce2e035ebc03265eb55f17ef7df968b6

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