Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I rise today on a grievance on behalf of people, producers and constituents, not only in the Interlake but other parts of Manitoba that basically have been in many ways wronged by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and the former Minister of Natural Resources who eventually signs Orders-in-Council for the sale or for the lease of Crown lands.

Over the past few days, we have raised this issue, finding how odd that this Minister of Agriculture and the then Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger), would ignore the fact the policies that were put in place, signed by the ministers, were not adhered to and subsequently land was sold to someone who had violated the policies that were put in place by this government and our government, by our ministers previous and to the ministers now.

I have, and I put on record, absolutely no malice of any kind towards Mr. Malkowich. None. I wonder out loud where this Minister of Agriculture comes from when he himself, good friends with Mr. Cubby Barrett, 30-some-odd years, and he says in the hallway last week that he did not know that Mr. Barrett was even interested in this land. He just got back from Cuba with him. Now I am not saying that what they were talking about in Cuba was land, but when you are friends with someone for 30, 35 years, and when you look at the map of the R.M. of Fisher where it shows 50 to 60 quarters of land in the Barrett name, or in the Barrett company name, that is not just a home quarter, that is 50 to 60 quarters of land. That is over 9,000 acres.

For this minister to say: I did not know that the Barretts wanted the land. Madam Speaker, the land that was allocated, that was requested by Mr. Malkowich to purchase, which, according to the Ombudsman, over and over in his letter stated it was wrong that Mr. Malkowich obtain this land through the sale. He kicked up the guise. The minister did not act on this as he should have. The then Minister of Natural Resources should have acted on it. He did not. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) signed the Order-in-Council November 1996. Nothing was done.

On the Order-in-Council there are three quarters of land. Besides the nine sold or approved for Mr. Malkowich, there are three more approved for the Barrett family, not Mr. Cubby Barrett, but the Barrett family. Sixty quarters of land, and they wanted nine more.

Now the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says that there are certain policies and regulations that have to be adhered to, and I agree. There are. One of them, I believe, is the fact that to apply for, it is taken into consideration by Natural Resources. If the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) could support me on this, I believe that it is taken into consideration if people want to purchase or lease near wildlife management areas.

November 1996, this land was sold to Mr. Malkowich. July 1997, Mr. Malkowich turned it over to Mr. Cubby Barrett, or Sleeve Lake Holdings, who, in turn, used one of the quarters of land nearest a wildlife management area for his hog operation. And the Minister of Agriculture says: I did not know that Mr. Barrett was interested in this land–the Minister of Agriculture keeps pushing the fact that the hog operations are a go in the Interlake–I was not aware that Mr. Cubby Barrett eventually would get this land. Does he think that we are all in a fog, Madam Speaker? It is deplorable.

It is deplorable when the point was also made that there was–he allows nine quarters of land to be sold. Then he turns down and he takes the lease away. In January of 1998, he writes to Mr. David Dmyterko of Fisher Branch, we are taking away your lease, forage lease No. 4735, southwest 332503. Do you know what for? Over account of leaves. Mr. Dmyterko went and got his own expert, a former employer of the Manitoba government dealing with this type of an issue, 25 years experience, saying for Mr. Dmyterko, Mr. Dmyterko is okay. He is doing the right thing. He is doing and continuing. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says: my department does not agree with that. You cannot have it.

Mr. Malkowich is a retired farmer, Madam Speaker. Yes, he has put in many years, 25 to 30 years, and he does not go through stop signs like some do, 25 or 30 years that this man–and I agree. I agree. If Mr. Malkowich had just cause to have that land and continue to have that land, I would say so be it and so good for him. But he did not. He did not do anything on it for years. He retired. He sold his cattle. He sold his machinery. Yet the Minister of Agriculture himself takes away a quarter-section of land from a gentleman, Mr. David Dmyterko, who came with his wife and family to my office requesting that I assist him in convincing the Minister of Agriculture that what he has is right and what the minister is saying is wrong. We tried. The minister writes back and says: no, no, you cannot have it, two years after the land flip on the Cubby Barrett land deal.

In 1993, a Mr. John Jones approached the minister because the minister was going to take away some of his leased Crown land. What happened then? The minister took it away, and you know what happened? They went to court, and Mr. Jones got that land back, got the Crown land lease back. So on one hand, the minister is saying: oh, what is good for the goose is not good for the gander. Sixty quarters of land, not six, but 60, yet he takes away a quarter of land that a constituent and a producer needs to continue his operation. He takes it away from him.

* (1440)

Another interesting point in July of '96 from the Department of Natural Resources, a letter to a Mr. Larry Leschyshyn, who required a parcel of land for his operation. Thank you for your letter of June 10, it reads. The question of sale again was evaluated after your recent letter was received. It continues to be the region's recommendation the parcel be retained as Crown due to the wildlife values associated with this area. But he sells Mr. Malkowich, who in turn sells it to Mr. Barrett to put a hog farm right adjacent to a wildlife management area.

Madam Speaker, I can go on with these policies that this minister says that this government adheres to. The policies are only adhered to for those who are in the favouritism of the Minister of Agriculture, for no one else. Those are a few. Then, after this sale to Mr. Malkowich, flip to Mr. Barrett, it is tried again. It is tried again in the Dallas-Red Rose area. I cannot use names on this one, but I can tell you that the Ombudsman investigated this again. It was requested that the Ombudsman look into this situation.

It says that the deputy minister expressed his opinion that the system is working and stated that the application process has been stopped because of eligibility concerns raised during the course of the circulation process. Those eligibility requests, concerns were the same as were raised on the situation of Mr. Malkowich, exactly the same, exactly the same. He did not do anything on the land for six years and then he applies to buy it. I cannot imagine whose money he was going to use. I cannot imagine what he was going to do with the land, but I can tell you that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

Again, I hold no malice against Mr. Malkowich. I have been in his home. He has been to my office. He is a wonderful man, Madam Speaker. How this came about, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) and Mr. Barrett know how it came about. They should be held accountable for how it came about. They should be held accountable for the fact that, indeed, this land, this nine quarters, plus four, 13 quarters went to a person, a company, a family that already had 47 quarters. Now the total is over 9,000 acres. If you look at the map of the R.M. of Fisher, it is covered with the Barrett name, covered with the Barrett name all over, all over.

Madam Speaker, 60 quarters we counted–[interjection] In looking through the R.M. of Fisher map–[interjection] And it is a government document. The member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) says it is a government document. It is and I paid for it. I applied and I paid for it, and I had it laminated just so I could mark all the X's where the Barretts own land. That is what I did, and I paid for it, paid dearly for it, too.

Madam Speaker, I just believe–and I have brought a few of the issues on behalf of those people, those constituents and those producers who–I am sure my colleague from Swan River and I am sure from Roblin and I am sure from other areas have requested purchases or leases or permits for Crown land and for whatever reason have been denied, and probably for good reasons. But I would say, and I know, and I look at the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), who will not disagree with me, that if it is appropriate to do it, then do it. We brought an issue to him today. We brought an issue to him from a previous situation. If it is not appropriate, do not do it.

This, Madam Speaker, and the minister will agree, was not appropriate. It is a done deal, but it is not appropriate because the policy was not followed by the producer. The producer was retired. Now, if the policy was put in place, then why did not Mr. Barrett, along with the others, put his name in? Why did not the others, along with Mr. Barrett, put his name in under Sleeve Lake Holdings or any name that they so wish, put the name in and say if this land is available, can we be considered, our application be considered? The former Minister of Agriculture, I believe, knows that that is the way it works. So why not do that? Could not do that. He has already got 47 quarters of land. I am sure Crown Lands itself would look and say: What does Mr. Barrett need with another nine or 13 quarters?

So, Madam Speaker, on behalf of all the constituents, some that I have named today, who have not been able to obtain, who have lost, to buy or to lease Crown lands, I say shame on the minister, shame on the minister, and if the minister had any feelings whatsoever for some of these people that have been brought into this situation, he should be ashamed of himself. Thank you very much.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to use my grievance, as well, to raise a concern that I raised earlier in Question Period today and just ask this government to recognize that there is indeed a problem in the way that Crown lands are being released.

I raised the issue of one particular family, and that is the Ravard family, who have been trying for some time now to purchase land that they are leasing and have not been able to do so, even though all of the conditions have been met. The municipality was the one that had indicated they had some concerns, and that was with regard to providing roads in there. The family met with the municipality, and that whole issue has been cleared up. This family would very much like to purchase this land, but it is not being allowed to happen.

Now the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) talked about the issue of the value of the aspen in the area since Louisiana-Pacific came into the area, and that is true. The value of the land certainly has been changed since Louisiana-Pacific came into the area. Where at one time poplar was considered by many people to be described as a weed, it is now a valuable asset. What the government and the department have to look at more carefully is not to use that just as a blanket policy when they make a decision not to sell the land.

On this particular piece of land, the land that the Ravards are wanting and the land that the Shewchuks along Winnipegosis are wanting, the poplar on that land is very small. There is on the Ravards' land, there is probably no merchantable lumber on it, so it is not fair for the department to consider this a blanket policy. To say that just because there is a value on this aspen now, that no more land should be put up for sale through Crown lands, it should be looked at much more carefully than it is at the present time.

There are those people who have interests in expanding their livestock operation because, as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is aware, many people are moving away from the grain industry and trying to provide for their families in different ways and expanding into livestock. These are families that are trying to do that. These are families who have been leasing this land for a long time and are not being able to do so.

So I encourage the government to look at the problem that has been raised by people in my constituency, in particular, where it appears to be a problem and find a way to resolve it, so that they can indeed proceed with their plans to expand their operations. It is not fair. The government should not look at things in a personal way, where friends might benefit or people they know, that this issue should proceed ahead, while others who have legitimate cases, people who are legitimately looking to expand livestock operations, should be held back.

* (1450)

These people have become very frustrated. They have basically given up on this government. I would like to see them show some good faith and look at this issue more seriously, and in fact look at a way that this can be resolved. As I say, I do not like the idea that, because the government would use as an excuse, there is now a value on poplar, that they should use this as an excuse to prevent people who want to buy land and expand their operation.

In the case of the Ravards, it is a very important piece of land that they are now leasing and want to purchase. They own land on one side and own land on another side and want to be able to allow their pastures to go through the whole area. That is not available to them right now.

So, Madam Speaker, I bring this to the House and use my grievance today on what I feel is a very important issue for many people, not only for the Ravard family. I bring this grievance as well to support my colleague for the Interlake, who has become very frustrated, as well as the people of the Interlake who have become very frustrated, because of favouritism that seems to be played within government, where it appears that rules are extended for one person, where they are not legitimately holding a piece of land. They do not have the livestock on it, but then they are allowed to buy it, where in another part of the province there are people who do have the livestock on it, are meeting all the requirements, and the government uses a different excuse to ensure that–for some reason, to prevent them from proceeding with their operations.

These are difficult times for people in rural Manitoba with low grain prices, high input costs. Many people are struggling, and many people are trying to get a handle on their situation and feel secure that they can expand. But, with what this government is doing, that is not happening. I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that there should be favouritism played for anybody. People in Manitoba, no matter which part of the province they live in, whether they live in the Interlake, whether they are friends of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) or friends of any minister, should not be treated any differently from someone who is in the Swan River constituency or someone who is in Roblin-Russell constituency. If they have a legitimate case, if they have met the requirements, then their case should be heard and things should proceed as they normally would. There should not be favouritism for people, and people should not be able to take advantage of the situation just because they may have friends who are in high places, so to speak.

So I encourage the government to realize that there are other people, the fact that these kinds of events are going on does not bode well for people in government, and in order to clean up their act, they have to admit that they have made mistakes in some of these situations, that favours to friends should not be allowed, and that all people in Manitoba should be treated fairly when they are trying to, in this case, purchase Crown land. So I urge the government to recognize that they indeed have made some mistakes and have put a black mark, another black mark, on the Conservative record as playing underhanded politics and looking after their friends.

We heard about it during the vote-rigging scandal when it was people who were part of the Conservative government that tried to sway, entice people to run as candidates for them. That put a black mark on them, and now we see this whole situation where one individual who was no longer involved in farming and had basically given up farming, then changed his mind and having the land flipped over to other people, does not bode well. So I would encourage the government to recognize that they have made some serious mistakes and start to look at other people who are interested in expanding their livestock operation and looking at some of those applications that have been sitting on the pile for a long, long time, and treat them fairly.

Certainly I am not asking for favouritism for the people in my constituency. All I am asking for is that they be treated fairly, that the land be assessed fairly, and if one of the reasons that land is not being sold in that area is because of the value of the aspen on the property, then have someone go out there and do a true assessment of the value of that aspen because some of the areas that are now defined as having valuable aspen on them are really very poor land on which the quality of the aspen will not meet the requirements for the mill and has to be addressed. So I encourage the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings) and the people that are involved, who have staff involved in the allocation of land, that this be looked at, and to ensure that people are treated more fairly and that those issues are addressed.