Manitoba Hansard — 16 March 1982 (Sitting 14B, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-14b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - NATURAL RESOURCES MR. CHAIRMAN, Har ry M. Har apiak (The Pas): We are presently on Page 97 of our Estimates, Lands, 6.(a)(1 ), Salaries. The Member for Lakeside. MR. HARRY ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister, I'd like to think that we have been reasona bly successful in conducting our Estimates to date with one notable problem the other evening.

In carrying on in the manner that we have by not neces sarily staying to the particular item, but by having the discussion that the members feel they want to have on a particular branch and then dis posing of the branch of those Estimates in order. I think you, Sir, have had to call us to order in a few occasions but we have, by and large, not abused that privilege of repetition. That's the point that I'm trying to make.

I would to ask the Min ister in this instance - we haven't asked this Minister to do this too often because perhaps with this Minister, more than even some of the other Ministers, who, we recognize are all relatively new to the Estimates - but this particular Minister is very new to the Estimates.

On this question of land I would like, and I think the Min ister is capable of indicating to us some of his feelings, not necessar ily those of the staff; indeed, he was free to indicate during the Throne Speech Debate that he was pre pared to express his feelings that were not necessarily those of the government, but it is of interest to all of us that we hear from the Minister his feelings with respect to overall policy towards Crown lands. For the Min ister and for his staff's benefit, I'd like to indicate. not many but a few areas of concern that we will be asking questions about.

One is on the strictly adminis trative role, my under standing is that the Crown Lands Division is well on it's way to computerizing their titles and their rolls; just a brief comment as to how that program is pro gressing. There's always been a concern about the acquisition and indeed, the utilization of the land that has been over some years fairly aggressively acquired for wildli fe purposes to the extent that it has caused concern in the community as to the need for it.

I will indicate to the Honourable Min ister that I challenged my wildli fe people when I was the Min ister that they had better come up with a rationalization of the use and the utilization of some of that wildlife lands that were purchased and acquired by the department. So, we want to deal with the acquisition and the land that's being held in trust for the people of Manitoba under various forms of wildlife management areas. Of course, Mr. Chairma n, I seek direction from the Minister through you, whether or not this is an oppor tunity where we can discuss the question of wild rice.

I note from the Estima tes that there are no monies shown and that they are being transferred to the Can ada Manitoba Northern Development Agreement with wild rice, shows no figures for wild rice and I simply 512 ask direction from the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, as to whether or not it's appropriate that we can have some discus sions with respect to wild rice under this appropriation and I will, of course, accept your advice and your direction in that instance? Mr.

Cha irman, of course, lastly but perhaps firstly, is the greater question of Crown lands, particularly those lands that have been adm inistered by the Department of Agricu lture but nonetheless are the responsibility of this department, and the policy of the sale of those Crown lands and its utilization by the cattle producers. cattle growers in this province. Mr.

Chairman, this government has in one of the very first identifiable policy changes, although not announcing any new policy, has certainly indicated very clearly to those of us who sit on the other side of the House and to the many applicants who had hopes of purchasing Crown land, a basic and fundamental change in policy, even if at this point in time it is only a question of reviewing the policy. But, Mr.

Cha irman, the Min ister knows that there is a wide spread support for the capability of purchasing Crown land, not necessa rily the need to purchase it, but the capability of doing it if it fits within certain criteria and I would be genuinely interested, as I'm sure other members of the Committee would be, if we could hear in this instance, a somewhat more extended expression of the Minister's feeling in this regard. I suggest to you, Mr.

Minister, that we have not been unkind to the Min ister; that we have acknowledged the fact that he has had precious little time for familiar izing himself with the details of these Estimates before him and we, I believe, have not taken advan tage of that. But, on such a fundamental issue as to whether or not Crown lands can be sold or not, it has been a matter of debate and discus sion that the Hon ourable Minister could not have been unaware of even during those years that he enjoyed being in the ser vice of the previous adm inistration.

But, he has the capacity and I do not insult his intelligence, to express an opinion about where he wants to lead this depart ment and this government in the question of the dis posal and sale of Crown land. So, I invite the Min ister in this instance to depart from the norm that has been set in the Estimates up to now, to engage in a discussion with us about how he feels about the Crown-lands issue. I remind him simply of those earlier questions that I raised. He may want to deal with them first and dispose of them for direction of the Committee and then deal with the subject that I raised latterly. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON . AL MACKLING (St. James): Well, Mr. Cha ir man, I don't think that the honourable member is makin g a request that is something I wouldn't agree with. I think that I would say though, earlier in consid eration of other sections of these Estimates I have acceded to members' concerns to question in respect of items that are not on the line, and particularly would I remind members about the capital items and I have no problems with that at all, except that I don't

16 March, 1982 want to keep going back to sections. When we have a

section before us, we have staff here and I'd like to deal with that. So in respect to Crown lands, which is the entire

section we are looking at, first of all I would like to indic ate that I would imagine it has been the philo sophy of every admi nistration that government must be concerned to provide retention of Crown lands on a good stewa rdsh ip basis; don't lightly dispose of Crown lands for uses other than something that is constructive and in the public interest because we have an obligation to protect our natural resource base and the basic resource base is land; land that is in the form of wetland or marginal land may be land that can be developed into usable agricu ltural land.

I think what we have to do is strive to make sure that Crown lands are used wisely, that there is scope for the multipurpose interests that are evidenced in our society and to ensure that groups within our society are in a position where they inordinantly reduce the right of the majority of citizens to use Crown lands for the purposes that they are best designed for, so that we can meet the many different and varying and sometimes conflicting interests in respect to use of Crown lands and that's not easy.

I'm sure that pre vious admi nistrations and this admin istration will not find answers that are acceptable to everyone in respect to Crown land use. I suppose the art is to try and find answers that provide for a reasonable com promise but do reflect as I've indicated, a reasonable steward ship of these resources and to that end, of course, we will be committed.

The present position in respect to the dispositon of Crown land my colleagues at an earlier decision at Hecia, were concerned about what appeared to be a very extensive number of sales of Crown land and decided that those applications that had been received by the department would certainly be considered but that at least until we had an opportunity to take a careful look at disposition of Crown lands and weigh the various competing uses for Crown land - and there are numbers of them - that we wouldn't pro ceed with tak ing further applications and such is the present position.

In respect to applications that have already been received certainly those for which the Crown is legally bound - that is there is a binding obligation on the part of the Crown to proceed with those applications it would be foolhardy to do other than to proceed with them because there would be not only a moral obligation but there would be a legal obligation if such is the case. Now, I am advised as I say, that there was a very extensive number of applications.

On December 9th, there were 560 applications that were current in which 1, 478 parcels were involved; 17 of those applicants were for extensive areas of land: 21 quarters of land; 11 quarters; 19 quarters, and I have the names of the applicants if people are interested ; one applicant, 20 quarters, another 33, 17 , 12 and 12 and so on. Now the basis on which these applications were made as I understand it, is that the applicants would have had to have been leasing this land prior to the application being tendered. So these people did have this land under lease.

It's a question of whether or not we want to see an extensive sale of Crown land. I think 513 we want to have a careful look at that to determi ne what is in the best interests of the citizens of Mani toba. It may well be that we will decide that for certain types of agricultural operation, we'd have to look at various types of land involved and the various requests for agricu ltural purposes; that it would be in the inter ests of our agricultural community to be proceeding to sell Crown land.

I don't rule that out, but I don't necessa rily say that at this stage we're in a position to give our - at least I'm not in a position to give my - reasoned assessment as to how much or whether the determinants that have been used in the past are appropriate or not. I'm not questioning that they were inappropriate. I'm saying that there seemed a very extensive policy of sale and we want to have a careful look at that.

In respect to those persons who, whether it be for recreational purposes or residential in remote areas, we will have to look at those individual applications because obviously there will be a need for people to be able to purchase, or long-term lease, Crown land and we'll have to look at the alternatives there. In respect to the question of the computerization of our land resource, that I understand is an ongoing program in respect to land registry. It will be a fairly automated registry and we are completing the first year of a three-year program. It's hoped that will be operational by 19 83-84.

There will be subsystems involved in which there'll be a breakdown of Crown lands deal ing with summer lot leases, Crown land permits, LGD land exchanges and so on. They will be admi nistratively helpful. In respect to wildlife concerns, there is no question but we want to carefully look at the various diverse interests in respect to the demands on land from the point of view of wildl ife habitat and make sure that these are not conflicting benefits that we have.

I think it's very important that we continue and I think this had been the case before, to identify lands that ought to be held, managed to retain wildlife value in our forests; to enhance not only sports hunting, but other forms of recreational use. I know, it might produce again, I say it might produce, it ought not to produce snickers, but there are people who make a career, it's a very dedica ted pastime of merely observing nature; not hunting, not removing, but observing nature, whether it be by tours, guid ed tours, walks, film buffs, camera buffs, bird watchers.

There are a great miscel lany of interests in connection with outdoor life. But, what we must be careful to do, is not to indicate or isolate Crown lands that are primarily dedi cated to wildlife preservation, dedic ate that type of land to a particular group. We have to make sure that these wildlife resources and the lands that are involved are open to the diversity of interest, whether it be cross country sk iers or hikers or whatever it might be - (Interjection)- Now I'm just about to come to that.

Now, in the case of climactic conditions where there is a shortage of fodder, hay crop, I think we have to be pragmatic to permit the encroachment on wild life habitat from time to time where it is necessary, in the interests of agricu lture and I don't think that we have to have tunnel vision in respect to our resource use. In

summary then or in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, it will be our concern, as I'm sure it has been the con-

16 Mar ch, 1982 cern of governments at least modern governments here in the Province of Man itoba, to utilize Crown lands in a pragmatic, constructive manner so that we provide recreational opportunity and a base for wild life and a multipurpose use that is evident in our society today. MR. ENNS: Just one short question before I respond to the Min ister's statement. I appreciate the Minister's answers to date. There was one further question was seeking guidance as to whether or not the Min ister would entertain a discussion about the wild rice ques tion under these Estimates.

We have no monies shown for that in the Estimates and I simply ask that for some guidance. MR. MACK LING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I thought I'd been overly long and perhaps was concerned to allow other members to take the floor that I neglected to indicate yes, by all means, we can have a discussion and there would be no restriction on my part to have that discussion now in respect to the whole question of wild rice. Although there are no dollar figures shown in the Estimate, I refer members to 6.(

e) and the funds relat ing to that Northern Development Agreement has been transferred to the enabling vote, as I understand it, and that is brought in by the Department of Finance. Now, I don't know the mag ic as to why it's an enabling vote and not in these Esti mates. I presume because it has something to do with Federal Govern ment involvement. But, the funds are, if you want to ink them in or mark them in, not too different than what they were last year: Salar ies, $68, 500 and Other Expenditures, $24,900 .00.

Now in respect to wild rice, and I don't want to talk overly long but perhaps I should say something about that now, we have of course received the Ross Report, a report that was commissioned by the former Minis ter and that report has been referred to a consultant and it is someone that is known to the members in this House. As a matter of fact, a former Minister of Mines and Resources, Harvey Bostrom, whose family (I nterjection)- I denote some concern about that.

Whose family has been associated as I understand it with wild rice harvest and who is particularly knowl edgeable and we are happy to have been able to employ him. In addition to the Ross Report, we have been refer ring to him the numerous submissions that I have received from a great number of interested people. Mr. Carter and I and other staff, some of them present, have met with a large number of people whose inter ests foc us on the harvest and processing of wild rice including, I think, a fairly extensive if not complete representation from Indi an groups involved.

I think there is a consensus of viewpoint that the consider a tion for the harvest and the production of this resource is one that needs to be very carefu lly reviewed - certainly the Ross Report formulates a good basis for that - but there is a consensus that we'd better take time to do a thorough job of looking at the problems related to it and if we can come up with recommenda tions, some of which may well be indicated in the Ross Report, that will see the development of this resource to its max imum potential to provide income and a 514 resource base for people who have been trad itionally involved in that industry, to develop it and encourage the greater development of that resource.

So we are going to look at all of the recommenda tions that have been made, both in the Ross Report and the other interested parties who have submitted their concerns to us and hopefully, we will be in a position to advance some proposals which then we would articulate again with the interested groups and come up with a program that hopefully, would receive the endorsement of all, if not an overwhelming major ity of the people, interested in that industry. That, as I've indicated, Mr.

Speaker, may take more time than we would like because I think all interested people would like a fast solution, a fast decision. It may not be possible to come up with a very quick answer to the problems associated with this indus try, but we will do our utmost to bring forward proposals which will not only be as responsive as possible but will be as prompt as possible to meet the concerns of the many who are interested in this area. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Cha irman, I thank the Min ister for his response, we will be picking up different aspects of the questions that have arisen, wild rice, the question of wildlife utilization and so forth. But, Mr. Chairman, allow me to put on the record our concern in what I suspect will be the major con cern at this juncture of the Committee hearing, and that is the indecision on the part of the government to carry on with a policy of limited sale of Crown lands , those that are currently under the administration of the Department of Agriculture for agricult ural pur poses. Mr.

Chair man, I appreciate that there are many new members here, and perhaps even for the edifica tion of the members of the fourth estate, there has been I think sometimes a mistaken impression left that the former Conservative Administration was sel ling off the resources, that most valuable resource that we have, namely, land, in a helter-skelter manner, in an uncontrolled manner to the highest bidder, to whoever had the bucks could buy 15 or 20 quarters, as the Minister has alluded to.

Let me tell the Minister that one of the biggest prob lems that I had as Minis ter of this department, and I know one of the biggest problems that the former Minister had in his department, was the kind of res traint that was practiced in the sale of this land. It was a cautious, responsible program. Land was not put up for sale unless it had passed through an exhaustive and extensive study by all government departments involved; they expressed their initial interest in it.

If the Depar tment of Highw ays saw a potential gravel site that land was not available for sale; if the Depart ment of Wildlife identified that land as a potential wildlife management area that land was not put up for sale; if the Department of Water Resources suggested that land was subject to flooding that land was not put up for sale; if the Depa rtment of Parks suggge sted that it had prime recreational value to the public that land was not put up for sale, indeed Mr.

Chairm an, it was a frustration to Ministers of the previous admin is tration to deal, and to members of our own caucus, to deal with that question of responsibil ity with which the Crown land sales were being admi nistered. Mr. Chairman, let me put it on the record too, I

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 doubt very much - I used to challenge my officials in the department but they never did give me a satisfac tory answer, perhaps I wasn't there long enough - but I doubt very much whether there is another jurisdic tion, certainly in this country, that has put aside the amount of land for future public use and for future generations of Manitobans to enjoy as has been done in the Province of Manitoba by a succession of governments, of Liberal persuasion, of Conservative persuasion, of NOP persuasion; 74 percent of all our land is Crown land held by the Crown.

We have set aside major portions, prime portions of our country for some of the finest parks for recreational purposes; we have set aside other lands, very substantial lands, for wildli fe interests, to the extent that some of our municipal people, particularly in those areas - I think the Honourable Member for Gimli understands when I mention that - in those areas or sur rounding com munities like In wood, they feel themselves threatened because so much of their land has been taken off the tax base for the preservation of wild life that very ordi nary people are saying, where do we fit, us humans fit into this game plan.

I am sugges ting, Mr. Chairman, any research done objectively that Man itoba does not have to be ashamed in any way for the kind of lands that we have set aside for present public use and for future public use. As I say, 74 percent - 75 percent of Man itoba lands will forever be under the jurisdiction of the Crown. We have set aside, and we have always retained the power within the government to set aside, prime recreational land for public use, prime wildlife land for public use, nobody is threatening that position of government.

So what we are talking about is a relatively smal l percentage, those actual acres that, after an exhaus tive multimillion dollar study called The Canada Land In ventory Program, carried out in the 60's under the Fed ARDA Program, that identified certain of these Crown lands that had agricultur al potential. Those lands su bsequently were leased for agricu ltural pur poses, those are the lands we are talking about for possible sale. Mr . Chairman, let me say, it was never a question of a forced sale.

I appreciate that there are many ranchers, myself included, that simply has always opted for the option of leasing land rather than putting capital into owning that land. I hope the former Minister will continue to smile benignly as my landlord, and not jeopardize that position, Mr. Chair man. -(I nterjection)- No, I'm talking to you, you're my present Min ister, you are now my landlord, Mr. Minister. But, Mr.

Chairman, what we're talking about, is - I don't know what the percentage is I'm not a mathematical whiz kid - but we are possibly talking about - and I wouldn't want these figures quoted - perhaps 5 percent of the -(Int erjection)- but seriously, we're not talking about 74 percent of the Crown land that is in the public domain, we're talking about that 5 percent, 7 percent or 8 percent that is being ad ministered by the Department of Agriculture. And of that 5 percent or 7 percent perhaps 20 percent or 30 percent should be made available for sale.

That's what we're talking about, we're not talking about a holus-bolus giveaway or sale of Crown land. So, Mr. Chairman, if the Op position digs its heels in on this one then we have to feel that there is an ideo logical bent on the part of this government to see that 515 doesn't happen. Then we have to see a bias towards the ownersh ip of private land by this government that I' m prepared to say that I' m prepared to start from square one, that's not necessarily there right now, but I want to assure you, Mr . Min ister, we look upon you and your support in Cabinet to bring that point across. Mr.

Chai rman, I know that the suggestion that 15 or 20 quarters of muskeg and marshy hayland sounds a lot to somebody living in the city but I'll trade 21 quarters for 3 lots on Wellington Crescent any day, in terms of economic return, any day. I'll trade 20 quar ters of the kind of land that we're talking about for a

section of Portage la Prairie prime grainland or for the kind of grainland in the constituency of Rhineland, in or near Carman or Morden, any day, in terms of capa bility of producing an economic return for the pro ducer; I'll trade that, Mr. Chairman, for the kind of land that you are prepared to spend public money to bring a value crop production to in the Domain area of my honourable friend from Morris. So, let's not get mesmerized when somebody talks about the sale of 18 or 20 quarters of land.

This is not another South Fork ranch of Dallas that we're talking about, where I've yet to see somebody pound a fence post in and the girls all look lovely and they never have tears in their bluejeans. Do you know how many cows one of those quarters of land can sust ain? Ask your own people, ask the Min ister of Agriculture. You can run 15 or 20 cows on one of those quarters. So, we're talking about operators with perhaps a capacity to run 15 0 or 200 animals, that's what we're talking about. So let's not use figures.

I was disappoi nted that the First Minister should use that as kind of an aristocratic class distinction, somebody ac tually got 20 quarters of land. Damn it all, have you walked over that land? Fifteen of those quarters are swamp, marsh, bush and poplar and you can run a few Herefords on them. So, Mr. Chairman, I make this point with some passion because I tell this Minister and the government, seriously, that there's no necessity for you to go through that ringer once again which the Sch reyer admin istration was caught up in.

I'm suggesting that you look carefully at the proce dure with which Crown land was offered for sale before. Change it if you like, tighten it or improve it if you like; I'm sugge sting it was pretty tight. It went through what we call the PLUC Committee, the Pro vinc ial Planned Land Use Committee - I always had trouble with that and, Mr . Chairman, every public interest had it's kick at the cat before any land was made available for sale. Now if this government wants to change those rules, if they want to tighten them up or if they want to put other restrictions on them, that's certainly your prerogative.

I look at the First Min ister through you, Mr . Chai r man, and indicate to him that if for ideological pur poses they decide that this kind of land is no longer for sale, then do not fault the Opp osition for brandi ng you as ideologists because there is no other rational excuse for it. We are tal king about less than 2 or 3 percent of the land. We're not talking about the herit age that we in Olga must want to leave to our children. We are talking about a relatively small area of land and the difference however is, that the production, the capa bility, the confidenc e that you give to the cattle- I

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 men, the producers of livestock by owning that land is incalculable in terms of the capacity that that land will produce under those changed circumstances. So, Mr. Chairman, I conclude by looking to you as being pragmatic about this - I think you used that word - I want you to use your experience dating back to '69 and '73 , particularly with some of the newco mers in Cabi net. Don't let them hoodwink you, Mr. Minister, into just simply fulfilling election rhetoric or party platform, NO P Convention Party resolutions about how all the land should be owned by the state. Now, Mr.

Minister you may laugh at this but a Minis ter that you served with, the Min ister of Agricult ure of an NOP admi nistration said that "every acre of land should be bought by the government for $1 .00 an acre and it should be handled as a public utility." That is on the public record in a Hansard as the position of the responsible Min ister of the New Democratic Party, that there should be no private ownership of land. Absolutely none. Mr. Chairman, that was made in the House by the Minister of Agriculture for the New Democratic Party Government. Mr.

Chairman, I appeal to the Min ister, I know that you are going to be rea sonable in this instance and you will use your influ ence in seeing that it doesn't happen. Thank you. MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chair man, as I earlier indicated, government is charged with a responsibil ity of husband ing land and there is resource for the use of all people. We are charged with that responsi bility and we're going to exercise it. We're going to look at the determinants that the honourable member referred to and I agree.

My staff has indicated to me that there is a chain of demand that has to be reviewed before Crown land can be released for sale. We're going to look at those determinants and make an evaluation of them. Some of them may be unneces sary. Maybe there are determinants that ought to be added to that list but I see no philosophical hangup on the part of myself or my colleagues. What we're con cerned about is preservation of land for future genera tions, to make sure that we look after and husband our natural resources in a proper manner. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Emerson. MR. DRIE DGER: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, after the words from the Member for Lakeside; it's a pretty difficult act to follow but I have very very genuine concerns in this respect. I also have to say that with deep regret the fact that the present Minister or the present admin istration has seen fit to stop the pro gram of the selling of Crown lands. When we realisti cally look exactly what has happened on the map of the Province of Manitoba, how much agricu ltural land we have, how much Crown land we have that is being leased for agricu ltural purposes and how much land that is actually Crown land in the northern part of our province.

If anybody is concerned about how much land is there going to be there for the balance of the people in Winnipeg to go and look at for environmen tal reasons - for whatever reasons - all they have to do is travel in this province a little bit. Many people have never gone very far out of this city here to look at exactly how much Crown land we have up there.

Basic ally, with all the fancy words that the Min ister indicated to us - I think it's a matter of philosophy, a policy basically - he's hedging around it and the fact that they don't feel comfortable with the policy the way they have admi nistrated it or the fact that they've stopped it, is apparent because they never advertise the fact that they've stopped or termi nated the sale of Crown lands.

They never advertise the fact that they fired the board that was admi nistrat ing the Crown lands Appeal Board, they've been doing it very quietly which shows the discomfort they have with it but they have to follow through with their philosophy and ideology of owning land. When you consider the fact that there's possibly 6 percent land that is agricultur ally-leased Crown land, maybe only half of that percentage is being applied for the purchase of Crown lands.

Then we get down to the nitty gritty of it where actually we finally estab lished the difference between the Conservative philo sophy and the NOP phi losophy. You want to own this stuff and you don't care what reasons. You could put all kinds of fancy words about (

a) we want to study this and we want to protect wildli fe and all this kind of stuff, humbug. You're hiding behind a shield, that's what basically is happening. It affects my area very dramatically which is an area that can't produce agricultur ally all kinds of crops. A lot of that land is leased. You've put a stop to this program and I'll just indicate to the Min ister, if you are going to pursue this policy of stopping the sale of agriculture-leased Crown lands, I'll tell you some thing, the southeast is going to look blue for a long time.

Now, I'd like to get into some of the - and this is a general statement. I would just like to get into the nitty gr itty of some of these things because I have some pertinent questions. When we consider the small per centages involved in this, you've had a lack of confi dence in terms of how to deal with the Crown lands. We have punished the agricultural community by say ing yes, we will sell to you, we have appraised it under the previous admin istration, fair value, given the opportunity for a person to buy the land.

With all the restrictive measures that my admin istration at that time in four years put up, and I was very unhappy with it most of the time because they were too restrictive as far as I was concerned. 516 I have to be honest because they had so many road blocks and I fought with my then Minis ter of Agricul ture, The Minister of Natural Resources at that time, they had so many restrictions. If you are concerned that any land was sold that had any value for any other purpose than agric ulture, have a look at the records.

Anyway, the fact that the present admin istration did not make the announcement of the fact that you stopped selling Crown land shows the discomfort you have with the situation. The fact that there has been a delay from the time that you first of all terminated the sales of Crown land and fired the Crown Land Admin istration Board till you appointed it; there's been a real lag in there. I have many questions as to what has happened to the applications.

I'm also suspect of the present admin istration in terms from the time that you terminated the policy and you say you kept on proceeding to process the applications that were made prior to the termination of the program; that the assessment on some of these

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 lands has almost doubled in some cases. This is only information that I would like to confirm at a later date and will try and do so. I cannot do it at the present time. I also have questions, Mr. Minister, as to what has happened to many of the applications that have been in the mill, where people have paid in their $50 and their application, have waited for months and nothing has happened. They have not received their receipt, they have not received any indication what soever and nothing has happened.

I am very con cerned about these things and we will pursue many of these aspects of it. Now I want to get to specifics. Can the Minister indicate how many applications, how many parcels of Crown land have been sold? The information must be available through you people since the policy was admi nistered. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that of the 1 ,478 parcels that were the subject of 560 applica tions, 491 parcels have been processed. MR. DRIEDGER: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if I got that information right. How many appli cations were made? Could I have that again, please? MR.

MACKL ING: There were 1, 478 parcels involved in 560 applications. Of the 1. 478 parcels, 491 have now been processed. MR. DR I EDGER: And how many applications are still in process at the present time? MR. MACKLING: It's about 600 parcels that are still in the works. MR. DRIEDGER: Mr . Chair man, to the Min ister. An extensive program of exchanging of Crown land with LGD vested land took place in the southeast corner with the LGD of Piney, with the LGD of Stuartburn, where certain lands that could be used for wildlife or forestry; an exchange program took place.

It think it was initiated even prior to our admin istration. Now that program has been taking place to assure that no land that could be used for natural resources, for wildl ife, for gravel, or whatever the case may be. Does the Min ister ag ree that the basic exchange program was a valid and a proper program? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I haven't made an evaluation of those prog rams but I assume that rea sonable determinants were followed and that there is nothing wrong with that program. I have no reason to suspect there's anything wrong with that. MR. DREIDGER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Then why is the Min ister raising the concerns as a camou flage in front saying, "We have to assure the wildlife and the resources." This has been done under the exchange program with capable people from the Agricultural Department, from the Wildlife, from the Natu ral Resources Department. He is raising a red flag here, or a camouflage, because these things have all been looked at in the exc hange program, and the lands th1:1t have been desig nated for agricu ltural Crown land sales have all been assessed properly by 517 all kinds of people within the department who are professional people.

The Min ister is using this and says we have to look at all these things. That is not the case. Actually what the Min ister is doing is hiding behind the fact that they do not believe in the policy of selling agriculture leased Crown lands. I want to know the Minister's position as to how he feels about that person. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chai rman, the member wants to use colourful, evocative language. That's his right, but I have indicated that the decision was made to have a look at the disposition of Crown lands .

If the honourable member is very sensitive about that, it leads me to believe that we better look more closely at what is involved. MR. DREIDGER: Then I would suggest, Mr. Chair man, that the Minister look at his staff, capa ble people in the Department of Agricu lture and Natural Resour ces, who have been doing a very capable study together in conjunction with the Councils of the LG D's who have worked out a very compatible arran gement in terms of getting the assessment done properly. He's still hiding behind this thing.

He's acc using me of using fancy words but he's hiding behind it, because he does not know where he sta nds and he will not commit himself as to what his personal feeling is as a Min ister of Nat ural Resources as regards selling of agricu lture leased Crown lands. MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the member continues to wax indignant about something for which I have no problem. He says that he's very con cerned about what my policy is or what the policy of this government is.

I have made it very clear that we are going to examine the disposition of Crown lands and evaluate the determinants that had been used in the past, and if they're sound we will indicate so. If there are some of those determinants that are unne cessary or if there are some that ought to be added, we will do so, and I think that's a responsible course of action to take. MR. DREIDGER: Mr. Chairman, I hate to belabour the same subject to such a deg ree, but the Minister has still not indic ated how he personally feels about selling of the agr iculture leased Crown lands. And that is what I'm trying to establish.

He's hedging around, and I would like his personal feeling on the matter. That's my final question. MR. MACK LING: Mr. Chairman, for one thing, as I understand it, agriculture leased Crown lands are under the dis position of the Min ister of Agriculture, but so far as I'm concerned I have no philosophical hangup. I don't believe this government has, in respect to using land, using land in a manner that is constructive and preserves that land for its best use. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River East. MR. PHIL EYLER (Ri ver East): Well, Mr.

Chai rman, we have had two impassioned and eloquent pleas for the sale of Crown land. I'm sort of at a loss as to where we are. As I remember it, the Member for Lakeside I I I

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 started out by ask ing that we dis cuss in general terms all of No. 6, but I don't remember having the leave of the Committee to do so. I take it we're discus sing 6.(

b) which is Crown Lands Administration, which I imagine is the

section which is responsible for the sale of Crown lands. MR. CHAIR MAN: You can add ress whatever portion you want to, but the Min ister said he'd address any portion. But we're on 6.(

b) right now. MR. EYLER: First of all, can you tell me how many SMY 's the Salaries are in 6. (b)(1)? MR. MACKLI NG: 31 .32 I guess that's 31 and a bit. MR. EYLER: That includes appraisers? MR. MACK LING: Yes. MR. EYLER: How many was it last year? MR. MACK LING: It was the same last year MR. EYLER: In 6.(b)

(2) Other Expenditures. Can you tell me how much the computer-related expenditures are, projected, for this year? MR. MACKLING: The approved vote for the Crown Lands Registry, or at least the recommended vote, is $360,000.00. MR. EYLER: In previous Public Accounts there has been computer-related expenditures notation under Crown Lands Administration - Other Expenditu res. MR. MACKLING: It was 12 5,000. MR. EYLER: 12 5,000 out of 99,500? MR. CHAIRMAN: If we're going to get this down in Hansard we're going to have to allow time for the Chair to recognize you. MR.

MACKLING: The previous vote, I'm given to understand, for that program, the Crown Lands Reg istry Progr am was 12 5,000. The vote that is recom mended in this Estimate is $360,000.00. MR. EYLER: Ok ay. I'll come back to this point later. MR. MACK LING: And I'm sorry, includes 10 staff man years. MR. EYLER: Crown Lands Administrat ion, that includes the sale of Crown land as well as leases and permits? MR. MACK LING: Yes. MR . EYLER: Leases and permits policies, who sets those? MR. MACKLING: I will, with the assistance of my colleagues be determining that policy. MR .

EYLER: And how was that determined in the past? Does the Minister have any idea? MR. MACK LING: I would assume that the Ministry obtained advice from staff and consulted with col leagues again and established policy guidelines. MR. EYLER: I see. So, I take it then, there are policies set down and then the Civil Service interprets how these policies will be applied when people apply for permits for cottages, that sort of thing? MR. MACK LING: Yes, I assume that to be the process. MR. EYLER: Does the Cabinet ever get involved in allocating leases and permits? MR. MACKLI NG: I'm sorry, the question aga in. MR .

EYLER: Could the Cabi net ever become involved in allocating leases and permits? MR. MACKLING: Sometimes the Provincial Land Use Committee does. MR. EYLER: But not the Cabinet? MR. MACK LING: The disposition of Crown lands, as I recall, particular items, certainly are dealt with by Order in Council when the sale is made and major leases, the same way. MR. EYLER: I' m informed that last spring there were nine permit applications which were turned down by the Civil Service which were reallocated by Cabinet and given out to the people who were applying for it. Does the Minister have any knowledge of those? MR.

MACK LING: Apparently, there were a number. I don't know. 518 MR. EYLER: Could the Minister confirm that one of those people who received a permit directly from Cabi net was a Mr. Roy Graham? MR. MACKLING: Yes, there was one permit to a Mr. Roy Graham on File Lake. MR. EYLER: I take it that's the only person on that Lake? MR. MACKLI NG: No, that's not true. MR. EYLER: Other than commercial fishing? MR . MACKLI NG: There's one other leasehold inter est, a person by the name of Beckett. MR. EYLER: Could the Minister confirm that Mr. Roy Graham is the nephew of the Member for Virden? MR .

MACKLING: I don't know that of my personal knowledge. MR. EYLER: Could the Minister confirm that another person who received a Cabi net permit was a Mr . Tivondale?

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 MR. MACKLI NG: I'd have to take that as notice. don't know, Mr. Chairman. MR. ENNS: I have absolutely no objection to the line of questioning being pursued by the Member for River East, but, you know, Mr. Chairman, we're all citizens of Man itoba and from time to time, different members; if the honourable member is pursuing the question whether or not I lease x-number of quarters of Crown land, I'm certainly prepared to declare that.

I'm merely suggesting to the honourable member who is somewhat new to the House, if he wishes to pursue this line of questioning, it has its traps and it does not necessarily serve any purpose. If he wants to question the procedure by which an applicant got a lease or permit or a campsite or a lease on ... MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that there is a point of order there. MR. ENNS: Yes, I'm raising a point of order, Mr . Chairman, and when I'm through with my point of order I'll let you know, Mr. Chair man. Mr. Chairman, I'm attempting to ... MR. CHAIRM AN: It is not a point of order. MR. ENNS: Mr .

Cha irman, I insist that it is a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: And I insist that it isn't. The Member for River East. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling. I ask for ayes and nays. MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Chair be sustained? A COUNTED VOTE WAS TAKEN the result being as follows: Yeas, 10 ; Nays, 13 . MR. CHAIRMAN: I declare the Motion lost. MR. ENNS: I suggest I have a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I don't want to belabour the point. I'm simply pointing out that the line of questioning that the Hon ourable Member for River East is pursuing is fraught with some shoals and some reefs. Mr.

Chairman, if the honourable member is attempting to establish the point that the procedure by which any Man itoban, any individual, no matter whether he is related to the former Premier, Edward Shr eyer, or to the former Premier, Sterl ing Lyon, has received consideration by the Crown or by this department in one way, then it's legitimate kind of question how that deci sion was made. But, Mr. Chairman, if we use this committee to bandy names about, then, Mr. Chairman, it certainly is a departure from the manner and way in which we've cond ucted these examinations of Estimates and I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, it's not a truthful one. MR. EYLER: To address that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I believe the original point was that we're here to establish procedu res and that is exactly what I'm at. I question the fact that we have two such procedures, one for the general citizens of Man itoba 519 and another for the friends of the party in power. Now, I know, there are pitfalls in this and I am quite prepared to accept this sort of standard for this party if it isn't appropriate for that party. I would hope that this party does not go against the standards which it sets up for its Civil Service. So, Mr.

Chairman, if that is a point of order and I suppose now it has to be up to you to rule on whether it ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you proceed with your line of ... MR. EYLER: That's basically it, I guess. I'll ju st stop with those two examples and leave it to the imagina tion to carry on for the rest. Further down here on Crown Lands Registry, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minister if he could give us an idea of exactly what it is that the Crown Lands Registry is doing right now. MR.

MACKLING: Well, I understand that the present registry is a manual system and there are some 560,000 entries in township, townsite and group lot registers. Approximately 25,000 entries exclus ive of land searchs are made annually. An automated sys tem is being developed over a three-year period to be operational by the end of '83-84. It will provide infor mation retrieval in respect to Crown lands, including, there will be su b-systems for summer lot leases, Crown land permits and LGD land exchanges. MR.

EYLER: Okay, in the 19 79-80 Annual Report, under the Crown Lands Registry it says, "the Crown Lands Registry is the only record of original disposi tion of Crown land in Manitoba." How does the Minis ter feel about that sort of thing being put into a com puter as the only record? MR. MACKL ING: Mr. Chair man, I think that the government practice is to restore and retain an origi nal film on these records so that there always is a back-up record to the one that's in use. MR.

EYLER: In the area of computer-related services which in previous years had been under Crown Lands Administration, it's only been a year ago that there was a separate line entry for Crown Lands Registry. In 19 77-78. computer-related expenditures amounted to $93.26; in 19 78-79 computer-related expenditures amounted to $1 ,591. 43; in 19 79-80 computer-related expenditures amounted to $1 7,61 4.42; in 19 80-81 it was split, this was when the separate line entry was entered, and for the Crown Lands Mana gement line it was $1 2,570.33 and for the Registry it $45,521 .26 for a total of $58,0 91,5 9f or 19 80-8 1.

Now, these computer related expenditures are skyrocke ting; I don't see that there has been any real reduction in standard man years in this program and I wonder how this extra expense can be justified in terms of output. MR. MACKL ING: My advice, Mr. Chair man, is that as the dollars indicate this program was started and the expenses increased accord ingly and a good deal of the staff man years involved; involves the initial Star tup where there is consid erable input by consultants

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 and others to get the program going. MR. EYLER: I realize that you've inherited a program from the previous administration but I would point out that there was a Systems Analyst hired by the pre vious government in 19 7 4 who worked on this for two years. He recommended that the system not be set up because the cost did not justify the output. I some what wonder at this now.

I look at these expenditures for this year and I see an item of $1 53,600 for compu ter expenditures in 6.(d) (2), and I'm still not con vinced that there is not a computer-related expendi ture component in 6. (b)(2). MR. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Chairman, in deal ing with staff man years again, until the automated system or the computer system is fully operational what's involved is the continuation of the manual system so that, if anything, there is a heavier demand on staff. Onc e the system is operational, fully operational, at the end of the period then you can reduce the staff man years involved. MR.

EYLER: So then if the staff doubles between 19 79-80 and 19 81- 82 that's just temporarily to get the system set up. MR. MACKLING: I would assume that to be correct, Mr. Chairman. MR. EYLER: There are only nine standard man years allocated for this year, that means there has been a 50 percent increase in standard man years for Crown Lands Administration. MR. MACK LING: I'm giv en to unders tand, Mr . Chair man, that included in the staff man years now are three term staff whose employment will be ended at the end of the program. MR. EYLER: Where does the computer service, where is it centred? MR.

MACKLI NG: At the Man itoba Data System, Mr. Chairman. MR. EYLER: Is there any cost for this program on the Man itoba Data Services Bud get? MR. MACK LING: Mr. Chairman, they charge us a rental, I assume. MR. EY LE R: And tha t's the full cost to the government? MR. MACK LING: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's the cost of the rental of the machine but the start-up costs, the input is, of course, an extensive cost. Whenever you're building a new system there are start up costs when you have consultants and systems being devel oped that you don't incur once the program is ongoing. MR.

EYLER: Okay, this system as set up now after one year, what exactly can you retrieve from it? 520 MR. MACK LING: Mr. Cha irman, I am advised that the subsystems are already providing information into those specifics that I mentioned, summer lot leases, Crown land permits, and so on; but the main system isn't fully operational yet and won't be until the end of the third year. MR. EYLER: So then we can retrieve our garden lot permits and cottage lot permits, that sort of thing, at this particular time. MR. MACKLI NG: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. EYLER: And this program will be fully opera tional in two more years. MR.

MACKLI NG: Yes. MR. EYLE R: In December of 19 79, accord ing to the Annual Report, the consultant's report exa mining the feasibility for computerizing the present manual sys tem was completed. Was there a forecast of cost in that report? MR. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there was but I don't have the details of that. MR. EYLER: You don't know then if this program is on budget? MR. MACKLING: Accord ing to the projection that was made it's on budget. MR.

EYLER: So the Minister is basically satisfied then that this $365,000 a year cost is going to effectively solve a lot of problems or make the system more efficient? MR. MACK LING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think the expectation is that with the completion of the pro gram it will ensure adequate information because, with 25,000 manual entries - well I guess the expec tations are that it will reduce the problem of error in record keeping. MR. EYLER: The problem of error in record keeping. MR. MACKLING: Yes, I would think so. MR.

EYLER: Is the Minister aware that a cottage per mit holder was sent a bill for a sawmill in Bissett? MR. MACKLING: No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman, but like other things, all systems are not perfect and I' m sure this is going to happen from time-to-time. MR. EYLER: What would have been the cost of ad ministering this system manually today? MR. MACK LING: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't have a breakdown as to that at this time. MR. EYLER: Can that be ca lculated eas ily, based on previous practices? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, it could be calcu-

16 March, 1982 lated; I don't know how easily. I'll ask staff to look at that and I could let the honourable member know. I don't know whether any other members are interested in that information but I can get him that information, I'll try to. MR. EYLER: I'll let it stop at that then, Mr. Chai rman. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Member for La Verendrye. MR. BANMAN: I'm wondering if we could ask the Minister if we could go back to doing one line by line because we're not going to pass anything at the rate we're going now. MR. MACKLING: Try and go through the list. Put a line there and then ... MR. BANMAN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, are we line on line or .. MR . CHAIRMAN: No, go ahead. MR. BANMAN: Well, I'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, the former Member for Rupertsland, Mr. Bostrom, is he on contract with regard to the wild rice study? MR. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Chairman. MR. BAN MAN: Could you tell me what kind of a con tract and how much money is involved? MR. MACKLING: It's a set fee of $3,900 and it con cludes at the end March. MR. BANMAN: That's fine. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Member for Springfield. MR. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I listened with some interest to the debate earlier when the Member for Lakeside and the Member for Emerson talked about a philosophical problem that they perceived on behalf of the present government. I wanted to examine that problem, just for a moment, in terms of where we see Crown lands policy going. I think this is a matter that everybody in the House is concerned about, but par ticularly members representing rural constituencies and constituencies where with a substantial amount of agricultural Crown land. I was rather surprised, Mr.

Chairman, when I heard it suggested that this was really an insignificant amount of Crown land that was involved. I won't hold the member to his statistics because he specifically asked me not to, but he sug gested that it's a very small percentage of the total Crown land in the province that's actually agricultural Crown land, 5 percent or 6 percent, and that we're only looking at 20 percent or 30 percent of that that we might be offering for sale. Mr.

Chairman, what we're really talking about here, and the Member for Lake side or the Member for Emerson who suggested that it might be as much as 50 percent of the agricultural Crown land that might be offered for sale, he was prepared to go a little further than the former Minister, what we're really talking is selling off one third - well from one fifth to one half, perhaps in the neighbour- 521 hood of a third - of the agric ultural Crown land that this province owns. Mr .

Chair man, we also talked about prag matism in the approach to the sale of Crown lands and to whether or not we should be selling any at all. I think that's the nub of the question. I think that's what we should be addressing in this Committee if we expect to have some input into Crown lands policy and I'm sure the Oppos ition does want some input.

So, if you're concerned about having input into the devel opment of the policy, which this Minister has said he's reviewing, then perhaps what we should be doing here is examining reasons why we should be promot ing the sale of some Crown land, and reasons and argu ments why we should not. I think that's what this Committee provides a vehicle for. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the Honourable Member for Lakeside, as the Min ister suggested, wants to use evocative phrases and raise hackles in terms of what this issue represents. I don't think that's the case.

I think there's two different approaches here but I don't think they have anything to do with such a fundamental question as whether or not someone should own private land. For me, personally, there's never been any question in my mind that the right to own your own farm and your own farmland and the whole principle of the family farm being the most productive economic agricultural unit is established for me from the time I was raised because I was raised mostly on a family farm. I don't question that at all. I don't think there is anyone else in our caucus who questions that, in principle.

There are some people who may question its application in some particular areas. One of those areas is the question of how do we provide a pool of start-up land for you ng farmers? How do we provide a pool of land into which, during particular economic or clima tic conditions periods, land into which certain people can expand?

Now one of the ways that was done by the previous ad ministra tion, and particularly by the Min ister of Agriculture, the present Min ister of Hig hways and Government Services, who the Member for Lakeside alleges wanted to own all the land and pay only a dollar for it, was a program called Land Lease. Now, that program was not as popular as that previous Min ister would have liked and certainly wasn't popular with the Member for Lakeside. There are other pools of land that can be used for that purpose.

In some areas, particularly in Saskatchewan, the whole community pasture con cept is very highly developed for that specific pur .. pose. Simi larly, this 6 percent of the agricult ural land in the province, that is and I use the member's figure not knowing whether it's really 5 or really 7 but I'll accept it. MR. ENNS: You could get in trouble accepting my figures. MR. ANSTETT: I don't have a problem, Mr .

Chair man, because what we're really talking about here is whether or not we should determine whether a young person or a midd le-age person expanding his opera tion, should have as a criteria for whether or not he can expand that operation and acquire additional land, a whole series of very objective criteria which I

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 the Minister, I think wanted to chang e could have changed, but the criteria that are used for determining whether or not a person is eligible for a lease. If you don't like those criteria you could have chang ed them, but basically you did n't. There's a point system; there's a whole series of evaluations that are done. You can have that system or you can sell off all of that agricultur al Crown land and say the only system that'll apply is the law of the highest bidder. MR. ENNS: We didn 't sell a single acre under that law. MR. ANS TETT: Mr .

Chairman, the honourable member knows that when I commenced my remarks I said we're talking about the philosophy and the direc tion of the policy If we sell off 50 percent, or all of the agricu ltural land - and to me the principle is the same either way - 10 0 years down the road all of that land is privately owned and when young people want to start up farming the only criteria to be used in deter mining whether or not they can start up farming will have nothing to do with their ability, location, expe rience or anything else, it'll be a question of whether or not they have the bucks to buy from that private land owner; to buy from the grandson of the Member for Lakeside who, at that point a hundred years from now, is giving up farming.

But under the present sys tem when you have a pool of land resource you have other criteria that can be used and you can assist young farmers and you can assist others who want to get into agriculture. At the same time, you have some flexibility in terms of meeting the changing climatic and economic conditions in the farm market that allow farmers, who traditionally who trad itionally have been cash short during the operating periods of their farm lives, some flexibility in terms of dealing with their capital requirements; that is not available if you have no pool of agricu ltural land. Now, Mr .

Chairman, the other point that I think should be add ressed here is when the Member for Lakeside talks about this insign ificant amount. Now, whether we call it 50 percent of 6 percent, which is 3 percent of the agricul tural land in the province - (I nterjection)- Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the inter jection of the Member for Lakeside because he's clari fied the point.

The total amount, even the amount the honourable members opposite were prepared to sell and which they call very insign ificant is still a substan tial multiple of the amount of land that was bought by the Province of Man itoba from 19 69-19 77 under the MACC Land program. Now, Mr. Chairman, that's an interesting point. It's an insign ificant amount when they're talking about selling it; but when the previous government was talking about buying it - and they bought up one-third of 1 percent of the agricultural land in the province - suddenly they were tak ing over all the land in the province.

It was calculated, Mr. Chairman, at the rate they were acquiring it, it was going to take them 300 years to buy all the land. It was going to be Poland in 300 years, the Member for Emerson suggests. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Emerson shouldn't be so sensitive. He should encourage us to follow the direction that he sugge sts we're taking because he wants Emerson to stay blue for a long time. Well, Mr. Chairman, he should be encouraging the Minister to do what he is doing. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Emerson is again trying to evoke from me a response that he will not get. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I wonder if the Member for Spring field could direct himself to the Chair. MR. ANSTETT: It's not near as much fun, Mr. Chair man. Mr. Chai rman, my concern is very simply that we have here a slight difference in emphasis in that the previous ad ministration was prepared to sell up, cer tainly not all, maybe only 20 percent, maybe 30, maybe 50 percent of the agricultural Crown lease land in the province. 522 What the present ad ministration is proposing to do is review that program and I hope we'll probably sell off less than the previous ad ministration would have proposed to sell.

I'm not going to suggest that the door should be shut completely. I think it should be open. I don't think it should be as far open. And I don't think the question of how far it should be open should be based on some nebulous criteria established by PLUG or someone else. I think it should be based upon the objective of retaining a pool of land which offers flexibility to government in enabling people to get into farming. So, Mr. Chairman, that's a difference in approach and if we want to debate that and the responses I'm hearing indicate that some people do, I'm prepared to debate that. But, Mr.

Chairman, I would ask those members who are so vocal about the present govern ment's review, to question their own philosophy when they say they are prepared to see 20 or 30 or 50 percent sold now and think that's an insignificant amount of land

whereas as short a time as five years ago, they decried the holding of one-third of 1 percent of the land in the province. Mr. Chairman, I have one minor qu estion with regard to a very specific item and that is, basically, with regard to mineral rights associated with the Crown land that's being sold. Is the Title to these lands that are transferred including mineral rights or does it include only surface rights? MR. MACK LING: Mr. Chairman, I'm given to under stand that the Crown retains the mineral rights. MR. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Minister. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chair man, I believe if I could cor rect - I think the Member for Turtle Mountain did have his hand up prior to mine. MR. CHAIRMAN: If you'd like to give the Member for Turtle Mountain your turn, go right ahead. The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. I know it's always pleasing to have the First Min ister with us during these committee debates, but I think it does tend to draw out the longer questioning from the backbenchers on the government side. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Min ister could advise whether he has had an opportunity to review the

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 Crown Lands Registry system, the automated one. MR. MACK LING: Not as yet. MR. RANSOM: Sinc e the Min ister has not had an opportunity to review the system, I assume then that he is unable to say whether he favours it or not. MR. MACKLING: I think that would be a reasonable supposition. MR. RANSOM: Well, it does raise a rather fundamen tal question I think, Mr. Chairman, that if the Minister who is presenting the Estimates of the department is unable to stand behind the programs that are being presented in the Estimates of expenditure. we per haps do have a bit of a problem.

It's evident that his own backbenchers have some concern about this program and now I'm beginning to have concerns myself when I see that the Min ister isn't prepared to speak in defense of money and programs that are in his own Estimates. I could provide a bit of information perhaps for the Member for River East just if he wishes to pursue his personal investigations a bit further. MR. CHAIRMAN: You can do that some other time. We're dealing with the Estimates. MR. RANSOM: I believe, Mr.

Chairman, that when a comment is made with respect to the consideration of the Estimates that it's quite in order to follow up on that sort of comment, otherwise the initial one should have been ruled out of order. The Member for River East gave an indication that civil servants had turned down applications and they were subsequently approved by a Cabi net subcom mittee and that's true, Mr. Chairman, because the system that was in place was such that if all of the civil servants representing various resource uses could agree as to the disposition of a piece of land, then that was what was done.

If they all agreed that it should be sold, then it was to be sold. If they agreed that it should not be sold, then it was not. It's only when there was disagreement among the committee that was reviewing it that it then came to the Provincial Land Use Committee to be dealt with. Onc e it came to that point. Mr. Chairman.

I can assure the honourable member that we had to try and deal with individual parcels in a manner that would treat all people fairly no matter who they were, just as with the previous New Democratic ad ministration, when the Premier's brother was getting contracts with the govern ment to do road work. he had to acknowl edge - and the opposition acknowle dged - that there was nothing wrong with that; that just because a person happened to be the Premier's brother didn't mean that he was not in a position to tender on pro jects and be able to win those contracts if indeed he was the lowest bidder. Mr.

Chairman, the present First Minister thought perhaps I was referring to him. I was referring to the previous New Democratic Party ad ministration. In this case, of course, the land that was being dealt with - and what we're basically discussing here is land that had been under long-term lease to individua l 523 holders. it has nothing to do with the highest bidder - it was simply a question of deal ing with long-term leases held prior to 19 77 which, of course, meant that our ad ministration had no opportunity to even be involved in giving the initial lease. I'm speaking here of the agricultural lands. Now, Mr.

Chairman, the Minister I believe if I heard him correctly, said that he has no philosophical han gup about the sale of these agricultural Crown lands. But I wonder then in listening to what the Minister said and to what some of his colleagues on the backbench have said, whether in fact there is a philosophical hangup. -(I nterjection)- MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, I thought he was calling your attention to something. The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. RANSOM: Thank you.

I have heard on three occasions now, in this Committee and in the House, reference made to some person who actually applied to purchase 21 quarters of land, on three occasions it has been necessary to single that fact out. That leads me to believe, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps there is some philosophical hangup here. I haven't heard them talk about having problems with one quarter or three quarters or six, but 21 seems to have triggered some kind of mechanism and I think that it's probably a philosophical tripwire that somebody has stumbled onto.

And I know that the Min ister says that the policy is under review but without having any indication of what his own feelings are then I guess the question has to be: What really is being reviewed? He made reference to determinants, the various determinants. Are we just talking about the mechanism that's being used to screen the land that's for sale or is the review actually dealing with the philosophical question of: Should Crown land be sold? I would like to know from the Minister, Mr. Chairman, how this review is being cond ucted and what terms of reference are being followed, who is conducting the review? MR.

MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, let me start with the first observations of the Honourable Member for Tur tle Mountain. To begin with, Mr . Chairman, I've indi cated that I present these Est imates, I don't indicate that I am fully knowledgeable about them, staff is here to advise me as to the intricacies of some of these Estimates. I am not like the honourable member, pre sumably completely knowledgeable about every aspect of these Est imates; presumably he was and I would marvel at that. I presume that he never had staff available to indicate answers to questions and knew all about the Estimates; now, that may be.

So when he asks me whether or not I have firm opinions about various aspects of the program and I indicate that I have not had an opportunity to evaluate them he suggests this a weakness on the part of myself. I am not defensive about that, I have had nothing to do with the makeup of these Est imates. The Honourable Member for Lakeside has had much more to do with that than I and I am not the least troubled by the pointed remarks by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. I am more troubled with his and other Members of the Oppos ition consistent return to what they perceive to be some philosophical

16 March, 1982 attack on private land ownership. Now if those questions are indic ative of some unrest on their part about what has gone on in the past then maybe I am troubled, because what we have indicated is that we want to reveiw Crown land policy, we want to make sure that what we are doing with our Crown lands is right and proper and, if the honourable members consider that that is irresponsible then let them say so.

They continue to suggest that there is some philosophical hangup on our part, but when I've listened around this table I've heard Poland, I've heard state-ownership, I've heard the strong reactionary rhetoric that is being heard in this province over the course of the last 1O or 15 years, and you don't hear it coming from members of the New Democratic Party that sit around this table. So when the Honourable Mem ber from Turtle Mountain becomes sensitive about the reference to 21 quarters I will suggest to him he might be even more sensitive when I indicate 33 quarters because that's what the list indic ates.

Now, I'm not going to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that necessarily indicates any wrongdoing or impropriety on the part of anyone, nor have I so indicated. But to suggest that it's somehow a philosophical hangup that we are doing something wrong, to have a hard look at a land policy that will facilitate the purchase by one person of 33 quarters of Crown land and another one at 21 , to suggest that if we look at that sort of thing there is something wrong in looking at it.

That troubles me because I think it's prudent that we examine the Crown lands policy, because we have a heritage, we have a responsibility to the citizens of Man itoba, to husband our Crown land in the proper way. And if the honourable member is suggesting that we ought relax our determinants, let him say so. Now, the honourable member wants to know what determinants are being used? I've indicated that I, and my department and my colleag ues, are going to be looking at the determinants that were formerly being used and will make a further evaluation of them.

And if the honourable member has something constructive to suggest to the Committee and to the Min ister as to what determinants in the past were untoward or unnecessary I want to hear it, and if he has some other sugge stions as to other determinants that ought to be employed to safeguard the public interest, then I want to hear that I would rather not hear the slanted kind of narrow innuendo that he evokes in his questions. MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister might rather not hear but I think the purpose of the Commit tee is that the mem bers of the Committees have an opportunity to question the Min ister about the spend ing Esti mates that he is ask ing approval for. We have a right to ask for an expla nation of what his policies are. He seems rather sensitive, Mr. Chairman, that some one should question him about anything that as fun dament al and basic as a policy direction.

Now, if he wants me to go and deal with individu al staff man years and that kind of thing I'm not going to do it, I'm interested in policy and when I pursued that avenue of questioning earlier today I got the same kind of response, that somehow I shouldn' t be ask ing these sorts of questions of the Minister. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask these ques- 524 tions of the Min ister and I'm going to ask them until I am satisfied, either that I have some answers or that the Min ister is not going to answer them, and he may call that irresponsible. I don't think it's irresponsible, Mr.

Chairman, that we should pursue that line of ques tioning. He indicated somehow that I had given the impression that it was wrong for him to be reviewing his policies. Far from it, Mr. Chairman, I expect that a new government is going to review the policies of the outgoing government and that they might very well want to make some chang es.

And, in the absence of any changes being made, then we're going to seek to see what some of the underlying philosophies and ground rules are that the Minister holds, and it's evi dent that a good many of his colleagues on the back bench are much more forward in putting their views on the table than the Min ister is, so I become a little more concerned then about just where the policy input is coming. Is the Min ister controlling the policy input or not in this department? There's a very fundamental question here about land ownership and we changed the policy when we came in.

We set up a screening mechanism that said that certain lands would not be sold, that only under certain conditions would they be offered to the indi vidual for sale. Now I'm simply wanting to know from the Min ister, is that basic system going to stay in place? All we're talking about is a few of the details, that maybe we're not looking at a Class 3 land, we're looking at a Class 2 land, and that it's not a 10 -year flood, that it's going to be a 20-year flood, is the critical point.

Or are we talking about the fundamental question of will these lands that have been under long-term lease to farmers, be offered for sale? I ask how the review was being conduc ted and I haven't heard how the review is being conduc ted. Is it being done by a committee of staff? Is it being done by the Provinc ial Land Use Committee? Is it being done by Caucus? Is the Member for Ste. Rose, the Member for Interlake, the Member for Dauphin, do they all have input in this?

Because I know there are people in those areas that were very pleased with the policy that was in place before and they're going to be very unhappy if that policy is terminated. So in the absence of any concrete statement from the Minister as to what his actual philosophy is, Mr. Chairman, I'm simply ask ing him, how the review is being conduc ted? What are the criteria that are being used? When will the review be completed? When will the people who want to buy land and who have app lied for land know whether they are ac tually going to be able to buy it or not? MR. MACKLING: Mr .

Chairman, in respect to this fundamental issue that the honourable member is so concerned about - the issue of land ownership - I think I've made my views very clear and I think I reflect the views of my colleagues when I say that we are pragmatic and we are reasonable. If the honourable member wants to paint a different picture, that's his prerogative. In respect to the reviews, my department is looking at the whole question of the determinants and then the matter will be referred to the PLUG Comm ittee and any revisions in the guidelines will take place through that forum.

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 MR. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, I'm not trying to paint a picture of what the Minister is doing. I'm trying to find out what the Minister is doing and he persists in say ing that I'm trying to portray him as being irresponsi ble, or in some way paint a picture that shows him in a way that's different than he really is. I just want to know wtlat he really is and what he really think s, and so far I haven't found it.

The determinants that he speaks of that are going to be a list of determinants to be compiled by the department, I dar esay there are people in the depa rt ment that can provide the Min ister. in 15 minutes, with the mechanism and the determinants that were used to say whether a piece of land would be eligible to be sold to the person who had it under long-term lease. I'm sure that if the Minister goes to his department he can get that sort of information in about 15 minutes.

Now once that information is available, once he's asked for it, and I'm assuming now that it's going to go to the Provincial Land Use Committee and the deci sion will be made there, I think the public of Man itoba would like to know when they would have a definitive statement from this government of what their policy will be. Will it continue to be the old policy followed by the previous government? Will it be chang ed? When could we expect this, Mr. Chairman? MR. MACK LING: Well, Mr.

Chairman, this among many things the previous admin istration left with us and of course we're not supermen and we're not, like the honourable member, going to guarantee that all of these things will be considered including all of the outstanding issues that we face in this department will be settled in a matter of days or weeks. Policy will be announced and it will be announced in due course. I know that the honourable member is most anxious but he'll have to, like a lot of other people, give us a reasonable time in which to develop a program, and if that doesn't satisfy him I don't know how I can do otherwise.

I think reasonable people expect that any review of program not be a hasty one and not be ill considered, and I for one won't have any part of that kind of a planning process, or review process. MR. RANSOM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I hear one of the backbench say that I can just bloody well wait, and I'm prepared to wait for a period of time, Mr . Chairman. But I would simply like to know from the Min ister. when he think s he might be able to make an announcement as to when the policy will be con firmed or changed. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman. I won't pin myself down as to a specific date.

I'm in no position to give that answer. I know at the rate that we're involved here in this Estimate review, I'll be a long time before I'll be able to get time with my departmental staff, other than in Estimates and I don't know. We're involved in quite a number of programs. The Honourable Member for Lakeside was talking about wild rice. We have a problem in that area that we have to deal with. There are other issues that the honourable member is familiar with in this depart ment, including the Garrison problems and so on, and. I'm not askihg for any sympathy on the part of the 525 honourable member.

I'm just indicating to him that this isn't the only matter that we have to consider and it will take time. But time in the course of review and careful analysis of program is time well spent in my opinion, and I won't indicate the precise date on which we will have our review completed. MR. RANSOM: Can the Minister indicate how many applications are now pending for the sale of the pur chase of land? MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, I think I had already indicated that. I indicated earlier about 600 parcel applications are still in the hopper, or whatever you want to call it. MR. CHAIR MAN: The Member for Niakwa. MR.

KOVNATS: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to give you complete assurance that we like the manner in which you operate this Committee and I have some fears now because I see some of the govern ment members, or more of the government members have come in and maybe our support for you might not be enough to carry you on to keep you in as Chairman. I would like to discuss the Crown Lands Appeal Board and I think that it comes under this particular item. Crown Lands Administration. -(l nterjection) lt doesn't? MR. MACKLING: No, Mr. Chairman. I know that much about my department. That is not in my department. MR.

KOVNATS: Maybe I should ask the Honourable Member for Logan, who really seems to have a good handle on this department. MR. MACK LING: No, Mr. Chairman, that's out of order. MR. KOVNATS: I beg your pardon and I withdraw it, please. I did n't mean it. If the Honourable Min ister can advise me where I can speak on Crown Lands Appeal Board I'd be happy to do so. MR. MACKLING: The Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Morris. MR. MANN ESS: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, I would like also to register my concern in this whole area and before I begin my remarks, I'd like to throw the ques tion out to the Minister. which hopefully he will answer at the end; he certainly doesn't need to now. But I ask the question can this government see itself owning once again prime agricultural land, and I don't need the answer now?

And I know that we're deal ing with Crown land in a specific sense at this time, but I have a hard time distinguishing between existing Crown land and all agricultural land because, indeed, once any agricultural land is owned by the govern ment it is Crown land. My concern comes from the fact that I think members on our side have posed • I

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 questions like this on many, many occasions and I've never yet heard the answer, "No, we do not want to own prime land and we never will." I'd like to digr ess for a second and move into my experience in Eastern Man itoba in farming some land in the Marchand area I believe it's in Emerson and we've heard the mention made many times of the areas being the last frontier in this province and with that I concur wholeheartedly. The particular piece of property that we farm is not Crown land; it's owned by somebody that, in fact, is non-resident.

But it's a tran sition type of soil, it has a fai r amount of peat, a fair amount of sand and a fair amount of rocks. And I can tell you right now the capital required to develop that particular land, some of which should not have been broken. I again would concur with anybody that says that whenever Crown land is released it should be released very carefully, because in many cases even within quarters, there are parts that should not be broken and that's the case on this particular piece of property.

But even that part of it that is farmable requires major, major capital to remove stones, to remove stumps, to work the peat down so that it can grow something properly after a number of years. And with this agricultur al land in the last frontier goes tremendous risk, tremendous frost risk and in some cases drought. It's marginal land, I don't think we can get around the fact that is what it is, but it has poten tial, agricul tural potential in many senses. I've seen corn grown very satisfacto rily on this type of land, I've seen special crops in the area of grasses for seed, not for forage, but for seed.

Timothy, I've seen fescues, I've seen bromes and all of them have produced well under this transition type of land incorporated in our last frontier. I've seen rapeseed grow. And possibly the greatest future for much of this land in a crop sense is fall seeded crops, rye, possibly even to come, fall seeded barley and crops of that nature. This land has terrific potential but ownersh ip is terribly necessary for crops. Maybe it's not as neces sary for livestock and I'll listen to any comments from my colleagues and, indeed, government members but ownership is necessary for crops.

The long-run commitment of capital and of one's complete ener gies to attempt to develop these soils, forces this land to be owned privately and the reason I say that is because the risk is so great there is no real return from this land until, I would estimate conservatively, until two decades later. The risk is so great. Again, I say that care must be taken to release these lands to private individuals and the determinants, as you have mentioned, are ones that should be set up to ensure that, in fact, land that should not be released, in fact, is not.

The Member for Spr ingfield in his remarks made some interesting comments. He said that we need start-up capital and I' m quoting and I may not have this completely right; we need to have this bank of land avai lable and we have to allow new young farmers to enter and we need flexibility in meeting new demand s and in meeting capital demands and having this bank of land which we let out slowly is what will guarantee this flexibility for the new entrants.

And he says in making reference to the previous pol icy of the NOP Govern ment of owning prime land and I think the mention was made that it was only one- 526 third of 1 percent, and that it would take 300 years or so to remove all the land and put it into private hands. I think the argument can't be won if, in fact, you say that it takes 300 years but yet you would disagr ee if it only took one. So you can't win the argu ment by arguing degree, and I think that in this case that's why it's such an important issue to all of us because we're arguing a basic philosophy. So I come back to that question aga in.

Can this government see itself owning once again prime agri cultural land, and before the Mi nister gives me his answer, I want to tell you why I am so terribly con cerned, because I saw what happened in the early 19 70s about five miles removed from where I farm. Where a particular half-section of land came up and a young 22-year-o ld aspiring farmer who knew the owner quite well and went over and made a verbal agreement to purchase that par ticular piece of prop erty at $85 an acre and the agreement was made verbally. This particular individual went to MACC for financi ng.

People there inquired as to the location of the property and other details. Two days later the owner of that property called back to my friend and indicated that he could no longer sell that land to him for $85 an acre and the reason why? Because some body had come out from MACC and told him that land was worth $1 25 an acre, the very same field person that my friend had gone to see for a loan.

So, my friend now knowing where to turn, but want ing the land badly, in fact did end up reaching an agreement with that particular person for that amount $1 25 because the government then set the market price for that particular piece of property.

When I hear comments like this or examples like this - this isn't an isolated one because we on our side have heard others like this - and yet on the other hand we hear members opposite saying that this is what guarantees the entrance for those people that want to be farmers, these types of policies and I ask ag ain: can anyone really wonder why we are terribly concerned, those of us that are rural members? So, I'll close again by stating the question. Can this government see itself owning, once again, prime agricu ltural land? MR. MACKLI NG: Mr. Cha irman, the short answer to that is yes.

I believe there will be a return to the concern of some that land is not available for young farmers. It seems to be available; it has been too available for foreign owners and the honourable member in his story about the land that he farms indicates that the land he farms is owned by a nonresident. I think that there's more concern in Man itoba on the part of farmers in Man itoba with the gro wing inci dence of land being owned by non residents. If land is owned by the people of Manitoba, it is available for development by young farmers in Man itoba.

If it's owned by nonresidents, the control and the develop ment of that land is lost to the citizens of Man itoba. It may be that it will be available for rent to the honour able member; it may not be. It may not be developed in a manner that is consis tent with the way in which we want to see agricu ltural lands developed. I don't think that, Mr. Chairman, that we have any thing like the degr ee of philosophical trouble that

Tuesday, 16 Mar ch, 1982 honourable members here have. They see no problem with apparently large tracts of land being owned by nonresidents. The system seems to be work ing well for some members, but they find it very difficult to accept that the Crown can own land. I don't know what the problem with that is because you see, Mr. Chairman, no one has absolute ownership to land. You only own land so long as you pay the taxes. Really the Crown owns all the land. It may be in the right or the title of a community, a city, a province but we are custodians of the land and we maintain it so long as we pay the taxes.

We don't have any great problems with the Crown owning some land. As the Minister of Agriculture indicated just recently, it appears that some of the lands that the previous admin istration were endeavo uring to sell is now going to be coming back to the Crown because the farmers couldn't afford to buy it. We are going to have Crown land because of the problems of people buy ing land. Land prices have gone up very much and part of the rationale, part of the reason for that is because of the growing incidenc e of foreign land ownership. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Morris. MR.

MANN ESS: Well, thank you for the answer, Mr. Min ister. I feel badly that you clouded it with the nonresident. That's an important point, and I know we'll end up discussi ng many things. I think I want to be quite sure of your answer; what you're saying is yes, you can see the government again owning prime agricultural land. MR. MACK LING: Certainly. MR. MANNESS: Thank you. MR. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I move that committee rise. SUPPLY - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND CORRECTIONS MR. CHAIR MAN, Jerry T. Storie (Flin Flon): Commit tee will come to order. I believe when we adjourne d at 5:30 we were on Item No. 6.(c)

(1) Salaries. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendrye): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions which I'd like to pose to the Min ister at this time. One of the things which I found interesting as Minister of Co operative Development is that a very large number of the day care centres which are operating in the Prov ince of Manitoba are co-operatives. Probably the new Minister of Co-operative Development realizes that a large portion of those co-ops are in fact operating under that particular umbrella.

I would like to at this time ask the Min ister of Community Services to give me an approximate figure of the number of day care centres that are operating as co-operatives? MR. CHAIR MAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Brandon East): I believe 527 the number is approximately 20. MR. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Min ister could inform the House basically what the difference is of the operation of the co-operative day care centres versus the others that are operating and if he could also tell me at the same time how many centres this would roughly represent?

In other words, how many centres have we got in Manitoba, day care centres, that are registered with the province in total? MR. EVANS: I believe the difference between the co op day care centres and the nonprofits are really very minimal, any difference there is, is perhaps the way they must report under one Act or another. I think one is under The Companies Act, they're under different sections of The Companies Act. But the nonprofit or community-based day care centres are essentially made up of - the Board of Di rectors is made up of the families who have children in the day care centres.

So, in a way, the nonprofit is something like a bit of a co-op; so there's really not much difference. The rate of funding is the same and pretty well they are treated in the same way; they're treated under a universal program. There is another

section which is the private sec tion. There are a few who are privately operated or commercially operated who are allowed to have some subsidies. The families who have children in them are allowed some subsidies under certain grandfather rights; there's a limited number. Apart from that we do no subsidize families who go into those commercial centres. The bulk of the centres in Man itoba, how ever, are the nonprofit and as I said, Mr. Chairman, they're essentially the same as the co-op. The co-op and the non profit community base are essentially the same. MR.

BANM AN: I wonder if the Min ister could inform the Committee as to the type of reporting differences between a co-operative day care centre and a non profit one, and whether or not the regulations which apply to both of them are exactly the same. MR. EVANS: The regulations under the program, Mr. Chairman, are the same and there are not treated any differently under our legislation but there may be a slight difference under the company's legislation or Corporations Act. MR.

BAN MAN: So the Minister is saying that whether they are a co-op or whether they are a non profit group they are treated basically the same and the regula tions under which they are operating are the same. I wonder if the Minister cou ld inform the Committee whether or not there is any difference as far as the decision-ma king process. In other words, the co operative, I would imagine and I know from the one in my area is basically made up of the parents that are using this service and therefore also receiving the benefits from it. I would imagine the non profit groups are basically parental groups.

I guess one of the con fusing things in the area is whether or not the government is contemplating putting them all under one umbrella or is this situation which we have right now where some are co-ops and some are nonprofit, • • I

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 will that continue to be the situation? MR. EVANS: Well, essentially they are under the same system. As I said before, the difference is very very slight. I believe that under the co-op form the majority of the Board must be parents of children in the day care centre,

whereas the nonprofit can be either parents or interested members in the commun ity; there is a slight difference, but I think they tend to be parents anyway. MR. BAN MAN: So, what the Minister is basically say ing is that the co-operative groups, if I can dwell on that for just a second, are ones who basically deter mine the type of day care that the parents wish to have because of their major input and I would imagine the directors are mainly parents,

whereas the other group could be concerned citizens within the community rather than just parents. MR. EVANS: As I said, the legislation, the regulations we have for nonprofit permit parents and members of the community, but very often they are essentially the parents,

whereas the co-op regulations refers to the majority being parents of the children. There's a very slight difference and I think in actual practice, there's no difference. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This after noon we weren't getting any di rect answers from the Min ister on the intent of his legislation and I can understand the reason why he's unable to share some of the objectives and directions with us at the present time, but the Minister did suggest to the Member for Fort Gar ry that he'd be happy to have his input on the topic and happy to listen to his views on it. I know the Min ister, being an open person, would probably extend that invitation to me as well, so I'll take the opportunity then to express some of my thoughts on the matter. Mr .

Chairma n, I think that the objective of a strong and vi brant day care system in Manitoba is one that is obviously supported on both sides of the House and one that can add a great deal, not only to the quality of life but the opportunities for equality in all of our citizens in being represented in whatever area of vocation or work force that they have desi res to enter.

I'm sure that, given the quality of staffi ng of the Minis ter's department in day care, they will be giving him good advice in the area of the formulation of the regulations and the philosophy behind the Act, because I think that for all Manitobans to have an equal opportunity to contribute and to become pro ductive members of society, there is a need for day care to play a central and important role.

We think in terms generally of women and their need to have day care at their disp osal but I suppose that if I were a single parent and wanti ng to pursue my career in whatever vocat ional field that would be, a day care, should I have children under school age would be an important component for me. So, at some point in time perhaps it will be more important for men in society to have day care at their disposal.

Although day care is a means of meeting their needs, the needs 528 of those who seek to find their self actualization and seek to find their opportunities to pursue their careers while having youngsters in the family, I think that as well it's important for the maximum choice and oppor tunity to be left open to them to choose which type of day care facility they would like to have for their children. I think it is very important that the Min ister look at setting up

an Act that sets standards for care, stan dards that ensure that the care of the child will be adequate to meet the child's needs and to provide for the kind of care that the parents need or parents want for the children.

But I don't think that it ought to be the Min ister's concern to decide who delivers the service and how the services benefit the individ uals or what benefit is derived from the service, especially if there is still going to be an opportunity and I hope there will be for individuals who do not fall within the income levels, that would see them being subsid ized by the province for those who can afford to pay for the ser vice themselves to decide where they can best obtain this service and which service they prefer to obtain - again, always understanding that they all meet the same standards.

It is the govern ment's prerogative to set those standards, but I don't think that if the standards are able to be met by an organization that the Minister or his govern ment should tell people where they have to go in order to obtain that standard of service in day care.

I think that opportunity for choice, that right to choose, is a very important one that ought not to be removed from the whole spectrum of day care in this province because it may well be that a private day care operation can offer and will offer certain advantages or enrichments beyond the level of standard that the Min ister sets because I assume that the Minister and his government are going to be setting minimum standards.

It may well be that there are day care oper ators who wish to provide beyond minimum stan dards and I would hope that the Min ister won't get involved in deciding that type of facility can't exist because of some ideological hangup about having day care all within the spectre of government opera tion, subsid ized government programming, and so on because it seems to me, Mr.

Chairman, that the government can ensure that the best standards, the best opportunity for delivery of day care to all Manit o bans are followed by the guidelines and standards that are set, but beyond that I don't think it ought to be his prerogative or the government's prerogative to judge what motivation has to exist behind the admin istration or the delivery of day care services in the province.

By that I mean that it ought not to make any difference whether it's the co-operatives that the Member for La Verendrye referred to or whether it's a nonprofit corporation, whether it's a publicly-owned facility or whether it's a private corporation.

As long as they are providing the standard of day care and programming that meets or exceeds all of the stan dards that are set by the government to the satisfac tion of the government and the parents whose chil dren are in day care, I do not believe that it ought to be the government's concern to take everything under its umbrella and dictate who can or cannot be in the business of providing day care in this province. If we're to take that kind of approach and the Minis-

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 ter said that personally he was a libertarian in approach and wanted to keep the choice-making right and opportunity open to people, but if some of his col leagues in government, who perhaps think otherwise. have their way, and we're to ass ume that they're going to make some judg ments as to who has the right and who has the opportunity to provide day care in this province, then I think that we're going to be into some pretty difficult times, because I think that implies that the govern ment is going to decide just who is able to provide care and concern and get involved in social services in this province.

I don't think that's an area for the government to decide. I don't think that the oppor tunity or the ability to provide a cari ng and lo ving environment for our children is necessarily dictated by whether or not they're within the realm of govern ment operation. In fact, Mr.

Chairman, if that is the case then the government, I would assume, is next going to start looking at all aspects of social services and health care in this province, and decide that per haps because nursing services are provided by cer tain of the private agencies who send out nurses on a per diem basis or whatever, that their standard of care is not as acceptable because there's a profit-making motive somewhere behind the service; or similarily that doctors that practise in a group, and because they bill on a fee-for-service basis, and have therefore some sort of profit motive behind their services are now no longer acceptable to provide health care in the province and so on and so forth.

I don 't think that the government has a corner on the market of care and compassion and I don't think that any group of individuals or any professional group has any corner on the market of care and com passion. So I would hope that in looking at that kind of principle in founding the Act that the government and the Minister would alwa ys first and foremost take into account whether or not the services can meet the standards that are put forward, the good and reason able and adequate standards that this government will come up with.

If these standards are being met, I don't think it's his prerogative or his governments prerogative to dictate who can provide the service, because I simply feel that there are those who would like to make an arrangement, a private arrangement, whether it be with the person down the street or whether it be with a larger operation that is set up by perhaps a corporation or an individual who does derive their income or their living from the service. But if the standards are right, then anyb ody ought to be able to meet those standards, and go beyond them in fact.

There will be people willing to pay for that ser vice; people who aren't necessarily going to fall within the income limits in which the government wis hes to operate their day care system in the province. So let's ensure that there isn't any philisophical or ideological hangup that prevents people from provid ing these services when the government decides ultimately what will be the context and the philosophy behind its new Day Care act.

I think all of us will applaud the Act if it puts forth standards that all of us can believe in and can support and standards that will enhance the opportunity for day care to be provided in this province. But if it arbitrarily rules out people from delivering the services, simply because of the nature of the structure of their operation, it doesn't fit 529 within government guidelines whatever they may be, then I think that we will have quite some debate and discussion about that when the Min ister brings it forward. Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. MR. CHAIRM AN: 6. (c) (1 )- pass. The Member for River Heig hts. MR.

WARREN STEEN (River Heights): I thought, Mr . Chairman, that maybe the Min ister was going to reply to the Member for Tuxedo's comments and the Member for La Verendrye, but perhaps at this point he chooses not to reply.

I'd like to ask the Minister, and if he gave this answer prior to the supper break, I apologize for ask ing the question again, I was absent from the House just before the supper break, but I would ask the Min ister if the monies in last year's Budget for Capital Impr ove ments to day care centres was totally used and if it wasn't, if he could give me an idea as to approximately how much of that money was used.

A second portion to that question would be, was last year a unique year if there was a surplus left over or has there been a surplus ever since the program was initiated back in his govern ment day of some six years ago? MR. EVANS: There is no separate allocation for capi tal as such. There are no such things as I understand. There's no fu nds, no monies designa ted as capital grants or capital payments to day care centres.

Just on the other point, the honourable member wasn't here, but we had some discussion before the supper break as to what should or should not be the philosophy behind the new legislation. and I pres ented my views on that previously. MR. STE EN: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I've been under the impression that if a church organ ization or a public body wis hes to start a day care centre in their particu lar neighbourhood, that there was a start-up allow ance for that particular body, that if they were to renovate a church basement or a public building to make it suitable for a day-care centre that there was a start- up allowance, and I was under the impression that in the last few years that monies that govern ment have allocated for such purposes have not been used up each and every year because such groups of per sons have not come forward in the numbers that government has anticipated.

I call it capital improvements, but maybe it's called a start-up assistance grant, but I'm sure that the Minis ter or his staff know what I'm talking about and I'm wondering if what government has allocated for these purposes in recent years, if the demand from the pub lic has been great enough to use up the monies that government has placed for such improvements. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. The member is talking about start- up grants and there has been - it is true, this is what was implied or inferred in his remarks - the monies have not been fully utilized for different reasons.

The demand is out there. the organ izations are out there, but it takes time for them to get organized and get themselves in a position to be able •

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 to apply and be eligi ble for the start-up grant, and this has been a pattern for a few years, I understand. Just as a matter of interest, regardless we are allow ing an increase in the start-up grants per se from preschool day care centres from 150 goes up to 250, family day care centres go up from 75 to 150 and noon and afternoon centres rise from a $100 to $200. That is for any group that comes to us and wis hes to start up, per space. MR. STEEN: Mr.

Chairman, I thank the Minister for his answer and I would ag ree with him that I am familiar with the fact that it does take these groups some time to organ ize and to meet the eligibility requirements for a day care centre and also to attract sufficient numbers of youngsters to fill the spaces. You just don't hang a sign on a church door on a Monday morning and fill sixty spaces within a matter of a few days. It takes time to organize and it takes time to attract parents to want to use the facility for their youngsters. As the Minister has stated, Mr.

Chairman, that prior to the supper break that there was some discussion related to The Day Care Act which was mentioned in the Throne Speech and which I made reference to in my remarks regarding the Throne Speech Debate. I would just like to again repeat some of those com ments, Mr.

Chairman, and to go on record and to encourage this Minister and his government to tread softly when it comes to bringing in legislation for day care centres; and I did make the remark in my contri bution to the Throne Speech Debate that it was my understa nding and is my understanding that a Board of Di rectors for a day care centre is made up of 80 percent of the parents of the youngsters that are using the facil ity and no more than 20 percent from staff personnel; and that this volunteer input, Mr. Chair man, through you to the Minister, I think is most valuable.

I would hope that any proposed legislation would not discourage this volunter input that has been made available in the past and we would hope that it would be there in the future.

I would also hope that by bring ing in legis lation that the Min ister would not be creat ing a bureaucracy of inspectors or people that would be going around checking up to make sure that the volunteers and people who are often not paid extremely high salaries but are work ing in the field of day-care centres because they like the work, they enjoy being with young people and helping other many single parents in looking after their children while they are gainfully employed or back being retrained at various educational facilities, and that he would n't have a beauracracy of inspectors that would be coming around on a constant basis and putting some degr ee of fear into many of these persons who are work ing at $4 and $5 an hour , rather modest incomes, and many of them are perhaps not well trained persons, but their heart is in the right place and they mean well in backing up the head person usually in many of these day care centres.

I would like to also say to the Min ister that I would hope that from a Day Care Act, that we wouldn't go on to further legislation. I might cite an exam ple that occurs in my own constituency where there are a number of youngsters attending the same school that 530 my eleven-year-old daugh ter goes to, where both parents are working or the youngsters come from a single-parent family.

At noon hour, these youngsters go to one particular home and get their lunch and a hot meal on that given day - school days - and a particular housewife in the vicinity of the school might take six or eight youngsters in at noon hour, feed them a hot meal and send them back to school properly fed and so on.

Many times I know some of my own neighbours' youngsters go to this particular woman's home at 8 o'clock in the morning because the mother has to be at work by 8:0 0 and maybe doesn't get home till 5, so the younger ones go to this particular woman's home, and I doubt if she comes under any form of legislation whatsoever. She just happens to be a lady in the area who has some youngsters in the same grades as these kids and does assist a few of the working moth ers in the area and I think does a very good job for a very very reasonable price tag.

I would hope that legislation in the future would not discourage women like this particular one that I have in mind from offer ing such a service to the youngsters. Even though, Mr. Chairman, the River Heig hts Constituency may be one of average or above average means, there are lots of single parents in the constituency and par ticularly single mothers who have one, two and three children that are just of school age and do require services like a hot meal at noon hour or some assistance in caring for their youngsters prior to school in the morning or after four. In that particular area, Mr .

Chairman, we don't have an after-four program such as there are in the Consti tuency of Osborne and the reason why there isn't an after-four program is there isn't enough need for one at the school, but in a few isolated cases there is a need for a program and the void is being filled by a few of the parents in the area.

I would hope that the Minister's Day Care Act would not go so far to the extreme that would put such persons into a position of not wanting to carry on this most worthwhile community service at a very modest rate, because they felt that they had to meet health standards and that they had to build an addition to their home because The Health Act or The Day Care Act called for a second set of wash rooms in the home, etc.

So, I would say to the Minister if he would keep in mind the volunteer input of people work ing in the day care industry whether it be at a specific day care center or work ing out of their own home assis ting a few neighbours and helping them with the bringing up of their children. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERM AN: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister is rising to respond. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. MR. EVANS: Just briefly, I think the honourable member made some very excellent remarks.

I made the comment earlier that one has to be very careful in wishing to set certain standards to make sure that we have the children looked after properly in these cen-

Tuesday, 16 March, 1982 ters or whatever the classifica tion may be. We want to ensure that. yet at the same time we don't want the heavy hand of the State to move into family situations where we have an informal relationship for the care of children such as a lunch hour arrangement the member mentioned between friends, neighbour, rela tives and so on. To me, somewhere there's got to be a line and I don't know where the line is, but I think the key is flexibility.

I, for one, would not wish to set up a whole host of regulations whereby we end up mak ing a lot of very good people lawbreakers in a sense, in the meantime, trying to ach ieve the good thing, trying to look after the kids and so on, but in the process creat ing a situation that's very difficult to police of license or manage anyway and perhaps may be unreasonable. The member makes a good point and it's a point that comes up in this area of social development or soc ial welfare, whatever the term is. It comes up in other areas. Where do you draw the line?

So the member's point is noted and I expressed my own concern about this earlier that the road to hell may be paved with good intentions and we don't want to create an intolerable -(I nterjection)- ! also indic ated before I did not want to get into debate of the legislation because there will be ample time to debate the legislation when it comes up. These Estimates, these monies relate to the current legisla tion, the current regulations and the additional monies that are required for it relate essentially to additional spaces that we are providing, as I said earlier, namely 775. MR.

CHAIRM AN: The Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERM AN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've established, Sir , that there are 8, 15 2 licensed child day care spaces in existence in the province at the present time. The Minister has made reference to the fact that in the new program 775 new child day care spaces are being added to programs across the province. My first question at this juncture to him would be, are those 775 new spaces all in one category, group day care, for example, or do they range across the whole spectrum and encompass all the categories of spaces and day care classifications? MR.

EVANS: Two hundred and fifty would be new spaces in noon and after school centers, 15 0 new spaces in fam ily day care homes and 375 for pre school day care centers. So there are 375 pre-school, 250 for noon and after school and 15 0 for the family day care homes. We're responding to a demand to requests out there, so we'll be priorizing. The demand exceeds the supply, so we'll have to be judicious and make sure that there's regional balance and balance between different groups. MR. SHERMAN: So, the total number of spaces being added encompassing all the different categories is 775; is that correct, Mr.

Chairman? The Min ister is nodd ing that is correct, so that would bring the total number of licensed child day care spaces in the prov ince up to approximately 9,000 by the completion of the program of which the Min ister is embarked for 531 19 82-83. Has the Min ister and the Department got a target figure as to the ultimate in provision of licensed day care spaces or are we just going on forever and ever and ever add ing additional hundreds of spaces every year? Is there an objective or is it an open ended thing? llllR. EVANS: It's very difficult to say, Mr. Chairman.

We know the demand is out there; we know the demand as I said a moment ago far exceeds 775, double, maybe triple, forth is one year, so I'm not sure. I think perhaps the most reasonable way to go is a gradual, you know we might not be able to meet eve rybody's request but at least we can gradually try to meet this kind of request. We're living in a fluid society; conditions are chang ing.

It's possible some year you may have no requests, I suppose that's a possibility, or very few requests, but at the moment, as I understand it, we haven't seen the end of this demand so we are responding in a rather modest way I would say. I think, as I said, the demand is easily double this at the present time, but it's a matter of budget constraints as I said before. MR. SHERM AN: But it's an axiom of the health care business and the social services business, Mr .

Chair man, and I'm sure the Minister has already learned it, although his experience in Community Services is limited certainly his experience in the Executive Council is not limited. He was a member of the ad min istration that governed this province from 19 69-1 977 and therefore has had some exposure to the realities of the dynamic s of the health care system and the community services system.

It is an axiom of both those fields that if you build a bed, you'll fill it; if you build a child day care space, you will fill it; that servi ces generate their own demands and there must be some sort of yardstick or gauge on which the Min ister and the department are proceeding. I appreciate that it is not possible to predict with any certainty what Man itoba's populatio

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-14b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 14b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ed914bec3d2b66cfe67fd5d26d7dd290c3d9ad18

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