Manitoba Hansard — 28 April 1980 (Sitting 46A, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-46a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature oflhe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 29 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXVlll No. 46A - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 28 APRIL, 1980 Printed by W. T.Matwichyna. Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 28 April 1980 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Bir tle Russell): The Honour able Me mber for Crescentwood. MR. WARREN STEEN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Petition of Investors Syndicate Limited and Others praying for the passing for The Investors Syndicate Limited Act, 1980. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. CLERK: Petition of the Winnipeg Foundation praying for the passing of

an Act respect ing Winnipeg Foundation. MR. SPEAKER: Presenting Reports By Standing And Special Committees . . . Mi nisterial Statements And Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion .. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne) presented Bill No. 36,

An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act and The Tortfeasors and Contribu tory Negligence Act, and No. 43,

An Act to amend The Family Maintenance Act and The Queen's Bench Act. HON. DON ORCHARD, Minister of Highways and Transportation (Pembina) introduced Bill No. 37,

An Act to amend The Highways Department Act, and Bill No. 51,

An Act to amend The Highways Protection Act. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Mi nister of Northern Affairs. Can the Minister of Northern Affairs ind icate what action will be undertaken by his department through his Min istry in order to ensure the reopening of the nursing station at Thicket Portage? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Northern Affairs. HON. DOUG GOURLAY (Swan River): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd be pleased to take that question as notice and bring back further information. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, further, by way of supplementa ry to the Mi nister, can the Mi nister confirm that he, as Minis ter, and his department were fully aware of the conditions involving the unsanitary line which gave rise to the closure, as early as Janua ry 15th of this year? MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day, The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm wondering if the Minis ter would like to respond to my question. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to check into that further and bring back more details to the House on your question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Oppositon.

MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minis ter of Education. Can the Minis ter of Education confirm that he did indeed receive a request from the Students Association of Manitoba to meet with them at their jus t comple ted conference this weekend? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gim li): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that. MR. PAWLEY: Can the Minister confirm that not onl y has he de cli ned their in vitation this past weekend but had declined earlier invitations to meet with them as an association? MR. COSENS: Mr.

Speaker, I did have a previous commitment that prevented me from being at their meeting this week end. I have met with representatives of different student groups in the province in the past. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the Mi nister confirm that at least 12 of 82 patients at the Golden Door Geriatrics Centre have had to be moved out of that facility and can he ind icate if the government has any continge ncy plans for the remaining patients? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON.

L.R. (BUD) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): I can't confirm that, Mr. Speaker. The only information of that nature that I could give the House is that three patients were transferred to the municipal hospitals, at their own or their relatives request. With respect to the second part of the honourable member's question, yes, contingency plans are in effect and in fact the care and attention at the Golden Door, with respect to those who are resident there, is unimpeded and continuing at its normal level at the present time. 2965

Monday, 28 April, 1980 MR. PARASIUK: Yes, a supplementary to the same Minister and I hope he has his staff monitoring the situation and that my information, which I received about a half an hour ago, confl icts with the information he's just given us in the House.

A supplementary to the Mi nister, in view of the fact that negotiations between the owner and the unions with the conciliator present, broke off on Saturday almost before they began because the owner and his lawyer admitted that they hadn't really acquainted themselves with the union proposals that had been on the table apparently for some two months, can the Min ister assure us that the owner is negotiating in good faith with the union in this industrial dispute? MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the number of residents who have been moved from the home, let me just say that the information that I conveyed to the House is my information as of this morning; now if the honourable mem ber has information as of half an hour ago I'll have to check that - it is being monitored on a continuing basis by the Health Services Commission. Mr. Speaker, my primary concern was that there be negotiations; that there be a gesture of good intent with respect to the collective bargaining process. I'm satisfied that is assured through a meeting that will be held tomorrow afternoon. MR.

SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Transcona with a final supplementary. MR. PARASIUK: Yes, to the same Min ister. Can the Mi nister confirm that the owner of the Golden Door Geriatrics Centre who is brough t to the bargai ning tabl e by threat of the gov ernment removing the licence to that particular institution, could he confirm that owner is also involved in four other private profit-making nursing homes and has pending an application for a fairly large expansion of the Golden Door facility, namely, about a 5 million facility?

And in light of the actions of the owner of this particular facility, is the government going to reconsider its position of promoting private profit making nursing homes at the expense of non-profit community religious groups that want to proceed with nursing homes on the basis of love of humanity and not on the basis of love of a dollar? Is the government going to reconsider its position towards these non-profit nursing homes? MR. SHERMAN: Well, I can't confirm the contentions in the honourable member's

preamble, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the second part of his question, the whole issue has been under intensive examination by go vernment and has revolved essentially around those nursing homes operators who primarily were operating in the Fort Rouge area of Winnipeg until the winter of 1977-78, and certainly had demonstrated their commitment to the care and well-being of persons in their charge. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. RONALD McBRYDE: Mr. Spea ker, my question is to the Mi nister of Northern Affairs.

I wonder if the Minister could tell us why he and his department have decided to reduce the authority and responsibility of community councils. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Northern Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I'm very pleased to answer that question. A number of years ago when the previous admin istration were in power, there were two arenas built, one at Norway House and one at Wabowden, that should have cost in the neighbour hood of some 250, 000 and 300,000.00. They ended up costing about 450,000.00.

They were opened up without an occupancy permit and the last year it was noticed that one of the end walls in the Norway House Arena was waving in the wind when one of our staff members happened to be in the area. They called in the Department of Labour officials and noticed that or at least a full inspection was done and the arena was closed because no occupancy permit had ever been issued; the building was entirely unsafe.

The situation at Norway House, the estimated cost to bring it up to safety standards was an additional 300,000 which brought the total cost to that area up to three-q ua rters-of-a- million doll ars that was estimated to be put in place at about a third of that cost. Staff knowing that a similar situation had happened at Wabowden, a similar undertaking was done there with respect to inspections; tt was closed. An additional 200,000 or so was required, or is in the process of being spent to bring that area up to safety standards. So you can see, Mr.

Speaker, that we've spent close to a million dollars on two arenas in northern communities that shouldn't have been necessary. That money is not available to do new projects in the north and so some restraints had to be placed on - not all northern communities, most of them run their own show entirely and with very minimum of supervision from Northern Affairs' staff - but some of the other communi ties, we are working with them and some restrictions have been placed on them.

It's not a general situation and it's one that's being improved upon but I thought it was necessary to bring out some of the reasons behind this action. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I'm to understand then correctly from the Mini ster, because two communities ran into problems with the area projects in northern Manitoba and, Mr. Speaker, I migh t add that a numb er of commun ities had successfully completed arena projects that have met all the requirements there too, of course, at that time there was more funding available for recreation capital facilities in northern Manitoba than there is today, Mr.

Speaker. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the Min ister could confirm that because two communities ran into trouble with their arena construction that he has put a restriction, new restrictions, on all the commun ity councils so that commun ity councils cannot any longer make decisions on expenditures for garba ge sites, garbage picku ps, road maintenance, all the things that a commun ity normally does, unless the cost of that particular expenditure is under 200.00. I wonder if the Mini ster could confirm that's what he has done. 2966

Monday, 28 April, 1980 MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I brought out two examples, two of many that exist, similar situations that exist throughout northern Manitoba, I could bring in many more examples, I thought that two sort of exemplified very well the situation. As I mentio ned earlier some restrictions have been placed on some of the communities, not all of them. And, certainly, we're working with those communities that they will become self-sufficient soon again. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas with a final supplementary. MR. McBRYDE: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Mi nister could ind icate to us what restrictions he intends to im pose on the officials of his own department, the accountants who sit in their offices and make the decisions on behalf of northern communities, in terms of the sewer and water system that they oversought at Cormorant and the fact that is not in operation because of construction problems admin istered by his department, whether or not he could tell us what restrictions he is going to put on his department in terms of the nursing station at Thicket Portage which has had to be closed down because it was built in the wrong place.

I wonder if the Minis ter could indi cate what restric tions he intends to apply to himself and his bungling since he's been Min ister of Northern Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urab le Minis ter of Northern Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Hon ourable Mem ber for The Pas fortunately brings up some good examples that he's very familiar with, after the mess that he left this government back some three years ago.

And I might add that when we took over the government three years ago, there was some 18 new water systems installed by that former Min ister of Northern Affairs, only three were working. We've spent some 2 million to fix up those water systems that were completely bollixed from Day One and so that is another good example that you throw back to me and I can only throw it out that that's some of the problems that we're trying to overcome. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas with a fourth question. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster cites some figures there that I have seen no verification of. Mr.

Speaker, he totally avoided the question I asked him. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please, order please. I suggest that perhaps we're getting into a debate rather than the question period. I think the estimates is the proper place for the deba te. Does the honourable member have another question? MR. McBRYDE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minis ter could table a copy of the bureaucratic gu idelin es that have now been issued by his department and whether, Mr.

Speaker, he could ind icate what guidelines he intends to put upon his own department after the bungling of the nursing station, the sewer and water system at Cormorant, the gravel supply at South Indian Lake, and many others I could list if we were in the estimates process, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest that the wording of a question should not be ironical, should not in any way cast disparaging remarks. I would suggest to the honourable member he should rephrase his question. MR. McBRYDE: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Mi nister, who never casts disparaging remarks, could indic ate to the House whether or not he will table for us the guidelines that have now been issued by his department. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a qu estion to the Min ister of Agriculture and ask him whether or not he could indic ate whether any grain is in store in the elevators at the Port of Churchill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr.

Speaker, at this particular time I can't indicate any particular quantity that may be in the Port of Churchill but it had all assurances from the grain transportation co ordinator that every effort would be made to make sufficient supplies available at the Port of Churchill for spring shipment. Provi ding that the labour dispute is settled by shipping season, I am sure that it will proceed as normal. MR. EINARSON: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Min ister.

I wonder if he could also ind icate, by way of information to this House, what kinds of grains are planned to be shipped out to the Port of Churchill. MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, before answering that question, I would like to say that I suggested that I would like to see Churchill operate as normal. I would like to see it operate a lot better than normal and target for some 50 million bushels, which would be somewhat above the average.

The question that the member referred to was the specific variety or type of grain that would be shipped through the Port of Churc hill; I would suggest that last year it was mainly barley. I think there is intention to move other grains into that particular port this year but have to get further information from the Canadian Wheat Board or the grain transportation co-ordinator. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Rupertsland. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Min ister of Northern Affairs and I ask him a specific question with respect to his government's handling of the stockpiling of crushed gravel material for the community of Bloodvein and Princess Harbour and as an example of the kind of 2967

Monday, 28 April, 1980 decision-making that's made by officials who are not on the spot, I ask the Mini ster if he can confirm that his department proceeded to have a gravel-crushing contractor crush material for the Department of Northern Affairs in that community for some 27 a cubic yard and it was the same contractor, Mr. Speaker, who crushed material just a few weeks before for the Department of Highways for 16 a yard and I wonder if the Min ister could describe to us the means by which this kind of decision-making process is going to improve and reduce costs for northern Manitobans. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nis ter of Northern Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'd be pleased to take that question as notice and bring back further details. MR. BOSTROM: would simply follow up that question, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Min ister who will protect the communities from the mistakes of public servants, mistakes of this nature, and I ask the Mini ster, in his own best judgement, if it would not be better to have the locally elected officials by the com munity policing the expenditu res in their community.

I'm sure they will not, in situations like that, make that kind of error because they know how much the community is paying on one hand for crushed material and they're not going to pay double to the same person to crush material for another project. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Mini ster, if decisions made in absentia from the situation such as the one I'v e jus t des cribed, can be better tha n if the decisions are made by the locally elected officials in the community at the time the money needs to be spent? MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I'd be pleased to look into the situation the honourable member brings forth. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Rupertsland with a final supplementary. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, I would refer in fact to the examples that the Min ister has given to us in making my point, and that point is . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I find the member is debating rather than asking a question. Would the honour able memb er care to ask a question? MR. BOSTROM: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, my question is with respect to decision-making that affects northern communities and in the examples the Min ister gave to us this afternoon, I would like to ask him if he would look into those specific examples and if he would check to see who was really at fault in the Norway House arena situation and in the Wabowden arena situation, because, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask him to look at those situations carefully and see if it was not the civil servants in the department making decisions that were causing problems in these situations, rather than the locally elected mayors and councils in th ose com munit ies. I ask him, Mr . Speaker, if the mayors and councils at that time would have had more decision-making capacity at the local level if there would not have been a better handling of the funds involved. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please.

May I suggest to the honourable member he is debating rather than asking questions and I would suggest he bring those remarks forward during estimates. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Min ister of Urban Affairs and follows my question of 28th March. Can the Min ister now advise the House what decision, if any, has yet been made on the application of the Municipality of Rosser to join a Planning District? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Urban Affairs. MR. MERCIER: None, Mr. Speaker. MRS.

WESTBURY: Another question then, to the Honourable Minister of Government Services, Mr . Speaker. This refers to his statement of the 1st of April to the effect that the Order for Return on the contents of the former Rural Water Services Warehouse, he stated that Order is being prepared and I believe it will be available to the honourable member and the House within a matter of days. It now being four weeks later, can the Honourable Min ister advise when we can expect to receive that order, please? MR. SPEAkER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, it is available, I just do not have it with me. I'll have it in the House for the honourable member tomorrow. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, before I ask a question I can make a statement. Mr. Speaker, I only said that because the Min ister of Agriculture said, before I answer the question I want to make a statement, and did and I thought maybe it was working both ways. My question, Mr . Speaker, is to the Mini ster of Northern Affairs relating to the Local Government District of Alexander.

In view of the fact that the Min ister stated that he was investigating complaints or charges made against two elected officials whom he suspended, and had not suspended several civil servants in his department against whom charges were made, would he please - the Mini ster of Agriculture wants to hear the question, Mr. Speaker - would the Mi nister of Northern Affairs please clarify who is doing the investigation of the charges alleged against the two elected officials whom he suspended? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nis ter of Northern Affairs. 2968

Monday, 28 April, 1980 MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The officials are from the Department of Mu nicipal Affairs. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Min ister who is investigating the allegations and charges made agains t mem bers of his own department? MR. GOURLAY: They'll be handled in the same fashion, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the Min ister's difference in tense saying, they will be handled, and my assumption that it is not yet being investigated, may I then ask the Honourable Minister whether the people in his department, against whom allegations have been made and whom he has not suspended, will be involved in the investigation of the two people whom he has suspended, the elected officials, and involved in their own investigations such as he suggests has yet to take place? MR. GOURLAY: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns with a fourth question. MR.

CHERNIACK: My question is to the Honourable First Mi nister, who on April 24 took as notice a question I asked relating to the actions of the Mi nister of Northern Affairs dealing with the suspension in the LGD of Alexander and in contradistinction the failure to act on the part of the Minister of Urb an Affairs relating to allegations against another elected officia l in the city of Winnipeg. The First Mi nister undertook to investigate and report back. No, I'm sorry, the First Mi nister accepted as notice the questions asked. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. STERLING R. LYON (Charleswood): Mr.

Speaker, my recollection is that I accepted as notice the questions asked on behalf of the relevant Minis ters. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns with a fifth question. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the First Minister accepted questions on behalf of the two relevant Min isters, I would ask the relevant Min isters whether they are now in a position to respond to the questions which their First Mi nister took as notice on their behalf; being, Mr. Speaker, the Mi nister of Northern Affairs and the Attorney General, Mini ster for Urban Affairs. MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I can speak to that in that I have not had an opportunity to speak to either of the two Min isters and Hansard is not available, but having regard to the pressing urgency that the honourable member attaches to it we'll endeavour to get copies of his rather oriental type of questioning and pass them along to the Min isters concerned. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Mi nister of Urban Affairs concerning the 2.8 million price rise due to the delay of the construction of the McGregor-Sherbrook Overpass, I'd like to ask him whether the Manitoba delegation made a specific request for additional funding because of the delay caused by the actions of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration? Was there a specific request made to share that inflationary rise? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there was a special request made to Mr.

Ppin to consider some financial support to the city of Winnipeg in view of the fact that the delay in the construction of the Overpass has, according to the city of Winnipeg engineers, caused an incr ease in construction costs of 2.8 million. Mr. Ppin undertook to review that matter and advise the city in due course. MR. DOERN: I would also ask the Minister whether he shares the continuing optimism of the Min ister of Immigration that there may be additional moneys in the federal treasury for the purpose of rail relocation. By additional moneys I assume that means 1.00 and up. MR. MERCIER: I can only say, Mr.

Speaker, that Mr. Ppin did not share his enthusiasm. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. I'd like to address a question to the Minis ter of Labour and ask the Honourable Minister whether he can advise whether the provincial forecast' just released by the Conference Board in Canada, ind icates that job creation in Manitoba in 1980 is expected to be only one-half of the rate of job creation for Canada and the lowest in Canada after Ontario. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nis ter of Labour. HON.

KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): No, I can't confirm or deny it. I can't concur with the projections. I have not thoroughly read the report that the member is referring to but the last two years have been reasonably good with job creation in the province of Manitoba. The unemployment rate is still the thir d lowest in Canada and I'm somewhat pleased with that. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Considering that the rate of job creation in 1980 is expected to be considerably less than the rate in 1979 - I believe it's only 40 percent of the 1979 rate - is the Mini ster prepared with his colleagues, to look into the possibility of funding municipalities, school divisions and hospital boards with the objective in mind of assisting them in hiring additional people, additional staff for very worthwhile and required projects? 2969

Monday, 28 April, 1980 MR. MacMASTER: I'm not in the mood to recommend that we run around looking for make work projects, Mr . Speaker, but I think tha t municipalities and school divisions do, in fact, place their priorities before the appropriate government departments and are given fair consideration. The construction projected hundr eds of millions of projects are now out and available and I think it's going to provide reasonable employment in the province of Manitoba.

If the manufacturing ind ustry carries on increasing the activity in the province, coupled with our Ind ustrial Training and Apprenticeship Progra m tha t we' re going into, coupled with the approxima te 1.5 million we've negotiated with the federal government to deal with critical trades that are required by industry in the province of Ma nitoba , I think we may have a reasonably good year in 1980 compared to other jurisdictions and even better, maybe, compared to other countries around the world, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon East with a final supplementary. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, it was rather difficult to hear all of the Mi nister's remarks because of certain noise in the Chamber, but I would recommend to him to look at the Conference Board figures which shows us in a very bad situation, not only for 1980 but also for 1979. The Conference Board, which is the same figures that the honourable members of the government like to use, as we have in the past. Since the Mini ster is not prepared to take this suggestion seriously and I sugge st, Mr.

Speaker, that it incorporates the same sort of principle that is used in the Student Employment Program, I wonder if we can assume that the government will just continue to lean really on its Conservative philosophy and do nothing about the sad situation where we'll have just about the lowest level, I repeat, the lowest level of job creation in Canada in 1980. MR. SPEAKER: Has the honourable member a question? The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did ask the que stion but perhaps mem bers opposite and yourself, Sir, didn't hear it.

I ask specifically, can we assume, can the people of Manitoba assume that this government will continue to lean on its Conservative philosophy and Lyon economics and virtually do nothing about the sad situation of job creation which will be about the lowest in Canada? MR. MacMASTER: A couple of things of interest falling from the question. I think you'll question their statement, or few sentences, that formed an opinion.

The manufacturing industry is in fact improving; the cash flow of capital projects in Manitoba, from what I understand from the Min ister responsible and he made reference to it in his estimates, is in fact equal to what was there, if not greater in some cases, than previous years. We have in fact - and I think the Mem ber for Brandon East had his question set, because he wasn't listening to the answers - we have in fact negotiated a new agreement with the federal government dealing with critical trades. Now, what that means, Mr.

Speaker, and I like to believe the Member for Brandon East would understand that, what it means is that there's a large demand from ind ustry of all sizes and all types in the province of Manitoba for particular skills of people which we are lacking at the moment. And why would they want them, Mr. Speaker? They want them to expand their operations so they could create more employment. This is the first time we've had a Critical Trades Agreement with the federal government to try and train specific people in specific trades to help the expansion of business in the province of Manitoba and create employment, Mr.

Speaker, it all falls together. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Min ister of Municipal Affairs some 10 or 11 days ago. I wonder if he has the answer for me now. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Municipal Affairs. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe there were a number of questions you asked that time with respect to the municipal tax printouts. Yes, I've checked that out and none of the municipalities had printed up their tax forms prior to the announcement of the provincial tax credits. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Question, maybe you'll give me an answer. Mr. Speaker, I'd like to get an answer to a question from the Min ister of Northern Affairs through you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Mini ster could ind icate why he's unwilling to make available to members of this side of the House the guidelines that have been issued to community councils in northern Manitoba. MR. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I never ind icated that I wouldn't make those guidelin es available, however, if you insist on having them I'll make sure that they're available to you. MR.

McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I do insist so maybe the Minister will now make those available to us. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Mi nister of Labour and I wonder if the Mi nister of Labour could ind icate what length of notice is required by an industry that is going to lay off 190 people what length of time notice do they have to give to the Mini ster and to their employ ees? I wonder if the Mi nis ter can ind icate whether or not he received notice from Manitoba Forestry Resources, Sawmill Division at The Pas in terms of their layoff of sawmill employees. MR.

MacMASTER: We received the appropriate notice in that particular layoff. It's an unfortunate situation but an appropriate notice was received by the employers and by ourselves, Mr. Speaker. MR. McBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister could answer the first part of my question. 2970

Monday, 28 April, 1980 What length of time for this notice is required for industry with 190 employees doing that layoff? And, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister could indicate whether or not a copy of the notice he received went to the union of the employees affected and, in fact, whether any communications went directly to the union for Manitoba Forestry Resources personnel, Lumber Division. MR. MacMASTER: Two weeks' notice, Mr . Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for The Pas with a final supplementary. MR. McBRYDE: Mr .

Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister could then enlighten me in terms of the Act and where I misunderstand the Act. The Act seems to ind icate to me, Mr. Speaker, that 12 weeks notice is required and I wonder if the Min ister could explain where I misunderstand that particular Act. The other ques tion, Mr. Speaker, to the Mi nister, did the Min ister give any special exemptions in the case of the layoffs at the Manitoba Forestry Resources? MR. MacMASTER: I think what the

section is tha t the member is referring to is in case of terminations, not layoffs, Mr. Speaker. MR. CHAIRM AN: The Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Mini ster in charge of housing.

In light of the crisis that the housing ind ustry is facing this year and, in fact, in view of the fact that the Critical Home Repair Program has been in existence now for seven years and the rules were changed by this government to elimi nate those indi vidua ls who had once had housing repaired under that program, could the Mini ster advise as to whether the government is now considering changing the rules in order to allow individuals to apply for the Critical Home Repair assistance who had already once received assistance in the past seven years? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Economic Development.

HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): We are considering it, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to addr ess the Honourable Mi nister of Labour in connection with the answer he gave to the Member for The Pas where he spoke about termination. May I refer him and ask for an explanation regarding regulations . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. It is highly improper for a member to ask a Mini ster for a legal opinion on the Statutes of this province. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, I did not ask him for a legal opinion and I might have difficulty if I did ask him about a legal opinion. I was asking him whether he could clarify whether there are any regulations which vary that part of

Section 35( 1) which refers to the fact that layoff - I'm just looking for it, I had it until you interrupted me, Mr. Speaker, so it'll take me a moment - that

section which says that employers shall be deemed to have terminated the employment of an employee where he lays off that employee, and since it says, except otherwise provided by the regulations, could he clarify the way in which there is an exemption here where the lay-offs under the Act are considered terminations? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Labour. MR. MacMASTER: I may have a problem, Mr. Speaker, getting a legal opinion but I think the Member for St. Johns probably has as big a problem trying to make the same point. He should refer to the same

section and look at

section (c). MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Transcona. Order, order please. I don't think the time of the question period is used wisely trying to argue about which part of the statutes we should be looking at. I don't think it serves the people of Manitoba, nor indeed does it serve this Chamber. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: The Honourable Min ister said, all he has to do is look at

section (c). I think that once he gives the answer he should give us the

section and the sub-section (c), and then I would be quite happy to look at it, Mr. Speaker. May I not ask the Min ister to tell me what

section and sub-section he is referring to when he says (c). That's all I asked, it's not an unreasonable request, Mr. Speaker. MR. MacMASTER: The same

section that the member was referring to initially when he was fumbling with his papers, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Min ister responsible for the Critical Home Repair Program and it flows from the question of my colleague, the Mem ber for Rossmere.

In reviewing the criteria for Critical Home Repair Program funding, would the Min ister please take into account the request by the Construction Association of Manitoba that ind ividuals undertake home renovation programs in order to keep as many construction crews in Manitoba as possible, since these construction companies are faced with their crews leavi ng the province because of the tremendous downturn in construction activity and housing starts that has occurred over the last three years, would the Mi nister please take that into account when he reviews the criteria for funding for the Critical Home Repair Program?

MR. SPEAKER: The Hono u rable Min ister of Economic Development. 2971

Monday, 28 April, 1980 MR. JOHNSTON: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker, I'll take it into account but there is no way that the government is in a position to tell people that they have to renovate their house. We would hope that if they have any renovations that they would do it at this time. As a matter of fact if they have, I think they would find that the market is very good for them because I imagine they'd get very competitive prices. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, the time for question period having expired. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mi ni ster of Government Services, tha t Mr . Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself itself into a Committee to consider of the supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MO TION presented and carried and the Hous e resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for the Department of Health and the Honourable Member for Virden in the Chair for the Department of Urban Affairs. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - URBAN AFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the committee to order.

We're on Urban Affairs, Resolution 119 - the Honourable Mini ster. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to introduce the 1980-81 estimates of expenditures for the Min istry of Urban Affairs. You will note there are only two resolutions, No. 119 providing 50,800 for the operation of the office of the Min ister and No. 120 providin g 33 million for payment of the block funding grant to the city of Winnipeg. The members of the committee will recall that in October of 1977 I was appointed to serve as Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs, as well as Min ister of Urban Affairs.

A year later the two departments were amalgamated and an integrated set of estimates was presented to you last spring. Then in November of 1979 the Honourable Doug Gourlay was appointed to serve as Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs. I have retained the portfolio of Urban Affairs and am carrying on with my responsibili ties with the close co-operation of Mr. Gourlay and the able assistance of his staff in the Department of Muni cipal Affairs. I would like to take this opportunity of thanking Mr.

Jack McNairnay for his service to me and to the people of Manitoba, as Deputy Min ister of Mun icpal Affairs, and to wish him well in his new responsibility as Deputy Min ister of Natural Resources. I should also like to express my appreciation to the new Deputy Mini ster of Mu nicipal Affairs, Gerry Forrest, and all of his staff for the excellent service they provided me in the past two years and are continuing to provide now in support of my role as Min ister of Urban Affairs.

For the informatio n of the mem bers of the comm ittee, as Mi nister of Urb an Affairs I am responsible for the adminis tration of The City of Winnipeg Act and for matters pertaining to the city of Winnipeg only. I do not have responsibility for any other municipal entity besides the city of Winnipeg. I might add, of course, this has been the case since the first Mi nistry of Urban Affairs was established in 1971.

As Min ister of Urban Affairs, I continue to be responsible for co-ordinating provincial legislation, financial assistance, program and plans as they affect the city of Winnipeg, and to serve as Chairman of the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet, which meets with the City Council's official delegation as required. Resolution No. 119 provides only for the operation of the office of the Mini ster. Appropriation 20( 1)(

a) provides 7,800 for the Min ister's compensation with the remaining 7,800 appearing in appropriation 4(1)(

a) of the Attorney-General. Appropriation 20(1)(

b) provides 35,000 for the salaries of one executive assistant and one admin istrative secretary. Appropriation 20( 1)(

c) provides 7,200 for office expenses and travel related to Urban Affairs. Resolution No. 120 covers appropriation 20(2) which provides 33 million for the block funding grant to the city of Winnipeg, up 3 million or 10 percent over the 30 million provided in the 1979-80 estimates of the Department of Muni cipal Affairs. All other assistance is contained in the estimates of the Department of Mu nici pal Affairs or one of the other line departments. Mr.

Chairman, in view of the discussion that has surrounded the amount of the block grant and the determination of the level of property taxation this year, I would like to take this opportunity to put the province's position clearly on the rec ord. The province must ensure that all municipalities, including the city of Winnip eg, had access to sufficient revenues to suppor t the necessary level of expen ditur e on local go vernment services and facilities.

At the same time, this government believes very strongly that municipal councils should have maximum flexi bility to determine expenditure levels accord ing to local prioritie s for which they are accountable to their electors. There will always be a place for conditional grant programs in the continuing evolution of provincial and municipal financial arrangements. Nevertheless, we believe the greatest emphasis should be placed on unconditional sources of funds, such as the provincial and municipal tax-sharing payments, the property tax credit program, and in the case of Winnipeg, the blo ck funding grant.

Wherever possible, we have taken a similar approach to the distribution of federal financial assistance, as in the case of the Community Services Contri bution Program. We firmly believe, Mr. Chairman, that the public funds available to municipalities will be allo cated with greater sensitivity to local needs and adminis tered more prudently in the long run if councils are permitted maximum fle xibi lity in making their budgeting decisions. Mr.

Chairman, before I comment specifically on the block funding grant, I would like to point out that the city of Winnipeg is in a good financial position today despite the tremendous stresses of inflation, growth, and organizational change during the past decade. The Council has jus t approved 1980 cu rrent expenditure estimates of 289 million, almost triple the 1972 expenditures, and gr oss 1980 capital 2972

Monday, 28 April, 1980 estimates of 84 million. Approximately 55 percent of current expenditures are paid for by property taxes and grants in lieu of taxes raised by a municipal levy of 75.942 mills. This levy is a little less than double the 1972 mill rate and is 5.8 percent higher than 1979. As of Decem ber 31, 1979, the city's net tax su pported debt was 197 million and net self supporting debt was 94 million. The corresponding per capita debt ratios were 325 for tax supported debt and 155 for self-supporting debt.

Winnipeg's net tax supported per capita debt ratio compares favourably with the ratios of other major Canadian cities, and other common ind icators of the city's financial health are also satisfactory. I mention those few statistics only because in the day-to-day debate over specific issues, there is a tendency to lose sight of the fact that the city has been well served by its financial managers and advisers and is indeed in a sound financial position as recognized by its AA bond rating. The province, of course, has aided the city substantially through the past decade.

In addition to the conditional grants now repla ced by th e block grant, the province provides a variety of other conditional grants which will total 8.3 million in 1980, plus grants in lieu of taxes of approximately 11.5 million. The city's tax sharing payment will be 14.1 million. The Manitoba property tax credit is applied primarily to reduce school taxes but, since municipalities and schools share the same tax base, the result of the provincial program is to provide municipalities with additional tax room.

In 1979-80 approximately 72 million in tax credits went to Winnipeg residents and this figure will be increased substantially in 1980-81 as a result of the Premier's recent announcement. I would now like to focus, Mr. Chairman, on the block funding gr ant which is containe d in my estimates. This gr ant was esta blis hed in 1979, replacing nine former conditional grant programs, in accordance with this gove rnment's policy of providing maximum flexi bility to the city in establishing its budget priorities.

I'm afraid there has been some confusion about the year-to-year comparisions of financial support resulting from the transition from a capital commitment budg eting system, utilized by the city for some of the previous conditional grants, to what is now a simple cash grant.I would like to assure the members of the committee that the Block Funding Grant Program has provided the city with not only more flexibility but also more dollars than it might have expected to receive under the old programs.

With one or two minor adjustments the actual cash flow from the province to the city for the nine programs was 4.9 million in 1972-73; 6.2 million in 1973-74; 11.3 million in 1974-75; 16.1 million in 1975-76; 21.6 million in 1976-77; 33.5 million in 1977-78 and 29.3 million in 1978-79. The second last year, 1977-78 was exceptional because 6 million was paid in that year for two years' worth of bus purchases and also because of the conclusion of outsta nding land acquisitions for future rig hts-of-way in that year resulted in abnormally high claims for payment.

In the last year, 1978-79, represented a return to the normal rate of growth and funding. The 29.3 million was paid out despite the province's general effort to restrain expenditur es. In fact, while the province committed itself to pay out 15 million for regional streets and land acquisition, the city was not able to complete all its projects on time and took up only 12.4 million of the 15 million allocated.In 1979-80, the first block funding grant was established in the amount of 30 million.

This represented a modest increase over the payments of the previous year and, in fact, was substantially more than might have been allocated under the old programs. For the five prior years the average provincial cash flow for the nine programs was only 22.4 million. Concurrent with the introduction of block fundin g the province also waived its equity interest of approximately 8 million and passed contributions to the Assiniboine Park and Zoo, and Land Inventory for Regional Streets.

Finally, once the city had reviewed the remaining capita l project commi tments outst anding after termination of the old Conditional Grant Programs, the province agreed to make a one-time conditional grant of 4 million in 1979-80 to assist the city in funding those remaining projects for which the province had made commi tments but had not budgeted either current or capital funds. With the commitment account settled, the province then proceeded to honour its commitments to increase the 1980 block funding grant by approximately the rate of increase in provincial expenditures.

The 1980 grant contained in the estimates before you is 33 million, up 10 percent over 1979. I would advise mem bers, in addition, tha t the payment dates for the payment of the 33 million to the city were recently changed so that the last payment moves up from approxima tely February 16th to December 31st of this year which results in a further savings of approximately 160,000 to the city. The city has chosen, in its wisdom, to apply 21.7 million to meet its current expenditures and 11.3 million for capital projects. Mr.

Chairman, in my opinion, the 33 million is a generous and reasonable amount and I'm satisfied that it provides the city with more dollars, as well as flexibility, than it might have expected to receive under the old Conditional Grant Programs.

Now if we were to take all of the province's assistance into account and we go to the bottom line of the realty tax bill, we find that net taxes payable for the average home assessed at 7,000, after deduction of the property tax credit advance, have indeed increased since 1977, however, the three-year increase is only 114 in the case of a resident of Winnip eg School Division No. 1. Other school divisions are somewhat higher or lower. In addition, I would point out, Mr.

Chairman, that as a result of the increase in the property tax credit by 100 on an average home assessed at 7,000, the Premier did point out that in all but two school divisions actual taxes in 1980 compared to 1979 will be reduced. For pensioner home owners with a 7,000 assessment net taxes will be lower in 1980 than they were in 1977 in all but two school divisions. Depending upon income, there will be additional benefits available to renters and home owners when they file their 1980 tax returns.Now, Mr.

Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the city will face increasing financial pressures in the future. I'm looking forward to meeting with the city's official delegation when they are ready to review their new five-year capital program and in due course to consider the results of 2973

Monday, 28 April, 1980 the city's review of its development plan. I believe it is already apparent that while the city does not have to face the huge costs of growth on the scale now being experienced in some cities in Alberta, it will have to face up to substantial cost for the renewal of a great deal of infrastructure. Mr. Chairman, the province is prepared to give the city's future needs very careful considera tion and to res pond as required. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(b ) - the Me mber for Wellington. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to respond to the general statement made by the Minis ter and I would particularly like to add ress myself to the remarks made by him in his effort to found and legitimize the nature of fiscal relations between the provincial government and the city of Winnip eg in the years since the election of the honourable member's government. Mr. Chairman, speaking very generally about the adequacy of provincial funding and the question of whether or not the provincial government has been suffi ciently attentive to and responsible to the municipal ratepayers and citizens of this city.

I would like, first of all, to draw your attention to remarks made by the First Min ister of this province who, as I'm sure all members present will appreciate, is very seldom involved or for that matter, in my opinion, very interested in the question of Urban Affairs. Mr . Chairman, on January 5, the Winn ipeg Free Press carried an interview or carried a report citing comments made by the First Mini ster dur ing an interview and they were talking about the civic block grant that the government had announced in that week.

The reporter noted that the city's councillors had been somewhat critic al of the Premier' s government's position vis-a-vis fiscal responsibility to the city; the Premier made certain replies and I would like to put them on the record. First of all, in response to the question that the grant isn't big enough or the argument that the grant wasn't big enough, he said, Sure, they expected a bit more but they're happy with that. Then he ind icated it was unlikely Winnipeg property taxes will have to be increased to provide the city with enough money for its projects, and later on, Mr.

Chairman, we're going to discuss what projects have actually been undertaken. We'll have with us, in order to do that, we'll have the city's former Works and Operations Committee Chairperson to be able to provide us with information and, presumably, rebut the statements made by his colleagues on that committee during the past five months. The Premier went on to say, Mr. Chairman, When the mill rates go up to that extent the ratepayers should look at their city councillors and ask them to do as good and prud ent a job as their provincial councill ors. Mr .

Chairman, we're going to be examining the accuracy reflected in that sort of intemperate statement, whether or not the Premier's statement was indeed founded on fact or whether it was founded on fiction, if it was founded at all. Mr. Lyon said that the city should be grateful for the new self-determination that it has under the block grant scheme. He, too, Mr. Chairman, ind icated that this allowed - and this has often been averred by honourable friends opposite - the city some degree of latitude in determining its own affairs.

And he pointed out that previously, and I want to be sure I get this quote correct, the NOP administration had spent much of its tim e, in contrast to hi s government, playing around, and this is a quote, playing around in all sorts of civic issues. As if, Mr. Chairman, there was something wrong with that; as if there was something wrong, Mr.

Chairman, with our having a Department of Urban Affairs that actually had staff, unlike the current state of affairs where only a couple of people, we are advised, are seconded to do that work, that very important work; that we actually gave assistance to the city in its planning processes; a staff that also was equipped to monitor the requests of the city in order that we could give consideration to the adequacy of our levels of funding. But, no, Mr. Chairman, indeed we did n't give them full autonomy; no, Mr.

Chairman, we didn't give them full autonomy but we did give them the wherewithal so tha t they could enjoy a significantly higher standard of living than has been the case since this government has taken office. Mr. Chairman, we used to have something called urban policy, little things that I'm sure the Min ister, when he was in the same position as my honourable friend from River Heights, the Chairperson of the Civic Works and Operations Commit tee, would have appreciated. We had, for instance, a regional streets maintenance policy.

We felt that city people should have the same essential rights, the same essential privileges as their rural counterparts. We felt that there should be some equity, as between the two classes - to use an inaccurate term - of citizens. So, Mr. Chairperson, we did inde ed used to assume 50 percent of those sort of expenses. It was an awful thing. It was so awful that in the year 1977, as my honourable friend has ind icated, the city's grant from the province had risen on a comparable basis to the current block grant; that is the same nine items had risen to 33.5 million. Now, Mr.

Chairman, when we put tha t into perspective, when we consider that this year we are only asked to approve roughly the same amount of funding for the city of Winn ipeg government as the former government accorded the city in 1977, one does indeed have to wonder. Perhaps the Mini ster would have, in 1977 to himself because he didn' t do it publicly and presumably neither did his colleague for River Heights, perhaps in their caucus, the ICEC caucus, they were remorseful about this and they felt that this was somehow not in accord with proper budgetary control and was a spendthrif t attitude.

Perhaps that was their personal inclination in 1977, but if it was, Mr. Chairman, we didn' t hear about it in City Council nor did we hear about it in this forum in that year. That is an example, Mr. Chairman, of policy tha t the Premier of this province demonstrates that the former NOP government played around with civic issues. We played around, Mr. Chairman, with the question of the transit deficit as well. We had an urban transportation policy.

The former Premier of this province was very concerned with energy policy and he thought that it made darned good sense for the province to try and induce people to use mass public 2974

Monday, 28 April, 1980 transit. He pointed out that was a far more economy minded approach to transportation in the urban context. He argued strenuously, not only in the Assembly but also to all and sundry who would listen, that mass public transit was a priority item. Well, Mr. Chairman, to be honest and to be more than forthright and candid, we should indic ate that honourable friends opposite were also concerned about mass public transit. Do you remember, Mr.

Chairman, the howl that my honourable friends in their positions in the ICEC caucus, all three of them as a matter of fact opposite me, let out in 1975 and 1976 about the southwest transit corridor? Do you remember all we heard about that, Mr. Chairman?

And do you remember all the trips back and forth as between Winnip eg and Ottawa and federal and provincial Min isters were meet ing with my honourable friend, the current Mini ster of Urban Affairs, and all the words that were spoken, some in vain and some in agony, now somewhat futilely about the need for a tr anspor tation corridor to my honourable friend's then ward in Fort Richmond? And, Mr . Chairman, it made sense. I'm not suggesting that it was a bad idea; it made sense to have a transit corridor of that scale and of that sort; we still need it, Mr. Chairman, but we don't hear about it any more.

It was very topical in '75, '76 and up to '77 but we don't debate it any more, Mr. Chairman. That was one of the things, I suppose, that was much deplored about that 50-50 sharing arrangement the NDP had with the civic government. I suppose the other thing was all the nasty buses we cost-shared - that must have been another thing the Min ister when he was the Chairman of the Works and Operations Committee must have deplored in private. This year his colleague, a former ICEC caucus member, Councillor Yanofsky, has publicly deplored the lack of funding, as has another colleague, the Deputy Ma yor McGonigal.

Both of those senior councillors have ind icated that, in their opinion, the province reneged when they established the block grant formula, reneged on an agreement; and we all remember it because we remember the controversy when it was first established, on an agreement by the Mi nister and his government that the block funding would not be inclusive of transit bus purchases; that item would be dealt with over and above and would not be folded into the block grant. Well, Mr.

Chairman, this year there was an item on the city's Works and Operations Budget of some 4 million, which I presume my honourable friend from River Heights must have had a

part in putting into place, dealing with the acquisition of a number of buses to repair and replace the older units still in service within the system. But much to, I am sure, the Honourable Member for River Heights' chagrin he found that his colleague, the Honourable Member for Osborne, was unwilling to allow the city to deal with that item over and beyond the block fund.So, Mr.

Chairman, the new Chairman of Works and Operations is now telling us the city is probably not going to be able to purchase the new rolling stock they require and has ind icated they will have to make do with older stock in service already on an antiquated basis. Mr. Chairman, I ask you was that 50 percent sharing polic y ir res ponsi ble? If it was I would ask my honourable friends opposite to tell me what would be a more responsible position? Deal ing with Regional Streets Mai ntenance, Mr.

Chairman, I should also have noted that Winnipeg had the unique, if not so distinguished, accolade of being cited as being the accident capital of Canada. That was in January of this year, Mr. Chairman, Statistics Canada's latest figures said - well I should say the fig ures were subs tantia ted by Statistics Canada - and local experts at the Un iversity of Mani toba Accident Research Unit ind icated the city's street system is to blame.

Premier Lyon says the former government played around with civic issues; he said the city could do all it had to do, all it really needed to do within the context of the block grant. Well, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if that is the case, why did Dr. William Mu lli gan of the Un iversity of Manitoba have to ind icate that Winnipeg had the highest per capita accident rate of 14 major cities in this country. I am not one to suggest this just occurred in 1979 or 1980, Mr. Chairman, that would be irresponsible, but I'm suggesting there is a job to be done and the city ratepayer needs assistance in order to do that.

The city road system is in a state of deterioration. We are, as several councillors, ICEC councillors, have suggested and I guess most notably, recently, would be a former employee of the Leader's office, Councillor Bill Neville. I wouldn't like to misquote Councillor Neville or attribute statements to him which he didn't make but Mr.

Chairman, just on March 26th at the council meeting set to strike the civic mill rate, during the course of deba te, Councillor Neville, a past sen ior advisor to the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, a distinguished member I presume of the honourable member's own party, ind icated and I quote the responsibility lies fully with the province, said Councillor Bill Neville, ICEC Tuxedo Heights, it lies with their failure in understanding or indifference to the plight of the municipal taxpayer. And that, Mr. Chairman, in a nutshell is what it's all about.

Councillor Nevill e is not one I think gi ven to hyperbole, dramatic overstatement. I think I can say he is a responsible councillor and a responsible citizen and he is quite correct, the burden, the onus of civic improvement and modernization has been put on the shoulders of the civic ratepayer. A lot of people on the opposite side, I presume are taking some comfort in the fact that the mill rate this year only increased something like 6 percent. They say that reflects the adequacy of the block grant. Well, in that regard, Mr.

Chairman, I would only ask the members opposite to remember all the other election years, the mill rates that were struck in all the other Unicity civic election years. If they take comfort in that I might say it must be very cold comfort because we all remember the history, I'm sure. And, Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me there are figures again which indic ate the rather motley, if not somewhat absurd, history in this respect. Mr. Chairman, at the last municipal election in 1977 mill rate growth was arrested dramatically; as a matter of fact, Mr.

Chairman, in that year we had a decrease, in 1977, of 3.5 percent. It actually fell back some three and a half percent, and I remember because I was a member of that council, Mr . Chairman, that there was much chest beating and 2975

Monday, 28 April, 1980 there was much public postu ring about the responsibility of that ICEC domina ted civic government and that the taxpayers had much to be thankful for. Notwithsta nding, Mr. Chairman, that the members opposite were complaining at the same time that the provincial government didn't provide them with enough money, they wanted new revenue sources, Mr. Chairman. Members around this table, the Member for Fort Rouge, will remember well and I'm sure in her turn she will provide us with some illum ination on the contentious nature of debates about new revenue sources.

It was a good idea, it was a good idea, it was too bad the main proponent of that sort of new initiative hasn't provided, again hasn't provided any reform or initia tive. The Minister of Urban Affairs, although he was an articulate spokesman on the council floor for this bold new area, encouragement of initiative, has done absolutely nothing in his three years as Mi nister. That's another thing that he and his friends, his former ICEC colleagues, have managed to sweep under the carpet for a goodly number of years. We just don't hear about revenue sharing very much any more.

But I was talking about mill rate gr owt h, Mr. Chairman, we were talking about civic budgets and the effect of elections on the rate of growth in the mill rate. In 1977, Mr. Chairman, we had a dramatic decrease of 3.5 percent and we took heart. Well, Mr. Chairman, might I indicate that in 1978, those same councillors, or those, leastwise, who were not so audacious as the Member for Osborne and myself to repair to this Assembly, saw fit to raise the mill rate by 11 percent.

Somehow, although they've managed to hold the line in 1977, things got out of control and there was actually an increase, I'd imagine, of 14-1/2 percent. There was a 14-1/2 percent increase in the mill rate to growth of the city of Winnipeg in 1978; cold comfort for the civic ratepayer, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Chairman, when we hear that the city is making do and when we hear that the city can look after its own house and all this talk about deficiencies and inadequacies in transfer payments is just so much political rhetoric, we should take into consideration a few cold realities and that is, foremost, that inflation affects the city's expenses in exactly the same way that it affects the province's expenses.

When the province said that they would fund the city on the same basis, they would provide the same sort of increases as were accorded provincial government responsibilities and expenditures, they forgot to say one thing, and it was a very important omission, Mr. Chairman, they forgot to say that the block grant that they had created in 1979 was initially deficient. It didn't, Mr. Chairman, as I have suggested earlier, take into account that the city was saddled with many lost leaders. Mr. Chairman, what has happened? How has the city managed to maintain that 6 percent increase this year?

Well, it's quite simple, Mr. Chairman, and I've had arguments in committee with my friend opposite in the past two years over this very subject, one of the ways they do it is by increasing transit ridership fares and they do so, Mr. Chairman, at an unprecedented clip; one might say they do so with abandon. Mr. Chairman, in the past few years - and I don't want to be accused of making statements that are factually incorrect - the rates on the civic transit system have risen substantially.

First of all, in two years, we've had a 60 percent increase in fares; between 1977 and 1979, just a two-year period, riders fares in the city transit system rose a dramatic 60 percent. Ed Schreyer wouldn't let that happen, Mr. Chairman. He used to always argue that if the province was to provide 50/50 sharing, the rates had to stay constant. Now, one might say, what for, does it really affect ridership; does it really affect any energy saving or was Schreyer just whistling in his hat or perhaps he was just looking after his friends, the lower income voters, the modest income voters? Well, Mr.

Schreyer may well be accused of those things, Mr. Chairman - I think he was - of political grandstanding but there must have been something to what he said, too, because ridership on that system has dimi nished almost proportionately, a perfect di rect proportionate decrease in the two years that the rates have been allowed to float and rise. So in 1977, Mr. Chairman, we had 65-1/2 million riders on Winnipeg transit. In 1978, we had 62.9 million riders on the Winnipeg transit system; almost 62.9 million, to the Member for River Heights, Mr. Chairman, through you. In 1979, Mr.

Chairman, astonishingly or perhaps not so i:tstonishingly, 61.3 million rider s. So we have a di minu tion proportionately as fares go up 60 percent over two years of ridership decreasing some 4.2 million rides over a two-year period. It's cyclical, Mr. Chairman; it was absolutely predictable. People faced with higher transit costs are using other means of transit. It is not quite as economical; it is not quite as attractive. So as Winnipeggers, Mr.

Chairman, and I don't say this with any sense of irony or sarcasm, but as Winn ipeggers spend 400 mill ion a year on their automobiles - and that is some statistics I was able to derive ind icating that Winnipeggers spent that astonishing sum of money on their cars, fuelling and maintaining and operating their cars - only some 10 percent of that is spent on public transit in the city of Winnipeg. Now that is an energy policy for the Eighties, Mr. Chairman; I ask you, is that an energy policy for the Eighties?

We're spending some 40 millio n on mass public transportation and we're allowing people through private decisions to spend some 400 million and I tell you, Mr. Chairman, I didn't even lump into that all the costs associated with street maintenance, so, Mr. Chairman, it's absolutely astonishing.

A few years ago a local columnist and I think an articu la te and sensitive advocate of the ur ban environment and its maintenance, personally who I think has always immediately add ressed himself to the city's quality of life, suggested that the province should get a federal comm it ment whic h would provide a rebate on federal excise taxes of some two cents per gallon.

He calculated that alone would suffice to provide at that time some 6 million of revenue which the province could then put towards public transportation and he noted, at that time, that would be sufficient to stop what was then a proposed 10 percent fare increase on the transit system in the city, and he thought it made good sense. Mr. Chairman, I think anybody with a responsible overview of that situation would have agreed. I know 2976

Monday, 28 April, 1980 of no such initiatives that were attempted by the members opposite or the Ministry of the member opposite. For that matter, I have to hold my breath when I say Ministry because the Ministry is really nothing more than a fiction. As I suggested earlier, Mr. Chairman, it's nothing more than a very minor cadre of bureaucrats who are seconded, I suppose, to do some calculations annually so that they can establish a block grant. It doesn't reflect a real commitment to provincial affairs or to urban affairs in this province.So, Mr.

Chairman, in conclusion one wonders what has changed in all the years, in the few years actually, since the members opposite were in the position of governing at Winnipeg City Hall. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable . . . MR. CORRIN: I just have a few more remarks, Mr. Chairman. I spoke earlier of the southwest transit corridor as being a capital project that had been suspen ded , Mr . Chairman. I could also have mentioned certain revitalization programs that had been talked about for the downtown of Winnipeg. We spoke then of doing something and today it seems all too topical.

We spoke then of doing something about north Portage and Main Street and we talked about infusions of funds so that we could dramatically turn about the deterioration that was affecting that area. Mr. Chairman, the private sector has been more than responsible. You know, I'm heartened by the degree of participation and initiative taken by the private entrepreneurial sector in that area, but their level of commitment has not been matched by the province. Virtually nothing has been done to stabi lize the situation north of Portage.

The private sector has indeed beautified; they have taken steps to repair and renovate old structures; they are fighting to a large extent what must be described as a losing battle because they are competing with much larger private commercial entrepreneurs, people like the developers of the Eaton's Mall. But nothing is being done vis-a-vis that sector and later we're going to discuss Dash transit and the policy of this government towards Dash and, Mr. Chairman, that sort of negative approach I think clearly reflects the att itude of mem bers opposite towards the redevelopment of the city.

The east yards, mem bers opposite and the Honourable Minis ter pressed for the redevelopment and relocation of the east yards, the CN east yards. They spoke about converting those 60-odd acres into a beautiful commercial and residential complex. It was a good idea, Mr. Chairman, but nothing has happened. Those are the things we want to talk about in the moments and hour s ahead, Mr . Chairman, as we review this Minister's estimates. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Mi nister. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a couple of comments. The Member for Wellington referred to the involvement of the Premier.

Let me assure him, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier of this province is very concerned about the city of Winnipeg government and muni cipal government throughout the province. He is a part and a member of the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet and has attended roughly every meeting that I can recollect we have had with the city's official delegation. The Member for Wellington referred to a comment the Premier apparently made about the NOP playing around and meddling in the affairs of the city of Winnipeg. I'm not going to dwell on that too long because it's a matter of record, Mr.

Chairman, it's a matter of record how the previous admini stration did interfere with the priorities of the City of Winnipeg Council and I can refer to one major project; that being the Fort Garry-St. Vital Bridge, where there was direct interference in the priorities of the city and how that project was to be handled. We have elimi nated that in terference, Mr. Chairman.The member referred to a couple of people available to me in Urban Affai rs. I want to assure him, Mr .

Chairman, tha t the whole depa rtment, the amalgamated department of Muni cipal and Urban Affairs is fully and totally available to me as Mi nister and there's no dim inution of any sort in the resources available to me in that department or in any other department of our government. When matters are raised by the city of Winnipeg that affect other departments, and I can refer him specifically to different initiatives that have taken place by our government in direct response to city of Winnipeg requests. Mr.

Chairman, I can refer to the arena expansion program, where there's a very major commitment by the province in response to the city's request; purchase of libr ary books, where there's been a di rect response by the Department of Cultural Affairs in the sum of 250,000 to the city's request; the Community Workers' Project where the Min ister of Labour and Manpower is paying to the city some 165, 000 this year; the Community Improvement Program which our government has brought forward to recognize a contribution from the province to what was formerly called the Neighbour hood Imp rovement Program; a di rect response from the Mini ster responsible for MHRC and the Winnipeg Rehabilitation Housing Corporation this year, Mr.

Chairman; the list goes on and on. I can assure him tha t this governme nt and the departments in this government are very responsive to the city's request. The Member for Wellington amazingly referred to regional street maintenance policy as part of the Urban Affairs policy of the previous government. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely amazing. This is a policy whereby the provincial government made a contribution towards maintenance work in regional streets. That policy was such, Mr. Chairman, that it was increased once in seven years; that was the policy of the previous government.

I dealt with the previous government and they said, that's our policy, we increase it once every seven years. Well, it's absolutely mind bogg ling, Mr. Chairman, for the Member for Wellington to cite that as an example of their Urban Affairs policy. We have, Mr. Chairman, rolled that grant into the block funding grant so that it now increases each year on an annual basis and I suggest that is a much more realistic way of dealing with a work that the city does where their costs go up every year.

Under our policy, by rolling it into the block funding grant, the amount of the province's contribution will incr ease every year rather than once every seven years as it did under the previous government. 2977

Monday, 28 April, 1980 Mr. Chairman, the Member for Wellington referred to accidents, statistics. Migh t I only remind him that a few days later, after that

article appeared in one of the daily newspapers, it was strongly refuted by not only the city of Winnipeg but municipalities across Canada, because there was simply no uniform basis across Canada for developing those statistics, so that the figures have been strongly disputed, not only in the city but right across Canada. The Member for Wellington referred to the amount of provincial cash flow in 1977 and I, too, referred to tha t, Mr. Chairman; and I, too, referred to the fact that in 1977 there was extraordinary cash flow in that the total of some 150 buses I believe, were paid for.

The province's share was paid for in that year as well as land acquisition settlements, a large number of them came forward that year and settled and that amounted to an extraordinary cash flow in 1977, and I said that in my opening remarks. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the amount of the block fund grant to the city in 1977 was more than the city was asking for under the previous cost-sharing formulas. The Member for Wellington refers to the previous government's concern with respect to energy. Let me say to him that I think this government is far ahead of the previous government in its concern in that particular area.

We have created a department to specifically deal with concerns in tha t area. The Min ister responsible for that department has signed and is awaiting, as I understand it, federal approval of a federal-provi ncial agreement on energy programs and I expect that in studies that will be done unde r that agreement, when the federal government accepts it, will be a number of programs that deal with specific energy problems in the city of Winnipeg and I hope urban transportation. The Mem ber for Wellington referred to the Sout hwest Rapid Transit Corridor.

As one of the persons who brought that concept forward on city council, Mr. Chairman, I want to assure him that I still believe that is very worthwhile project and as we face increa singly greater energy problems I'm satisfied that program will, perhaps in the not very distant future, be a program that will be actually under construction. The city is presently reviewing their five-year development program, as I ind icated in my opening remarks. I believe that the Southwest Rapid Transit Corridor is one of the higher priority items so far in that review.

In the next few months our government will be, through federal-provincial agreement on river bank acquisition, which includes the east yards site and area, will be bringing forward a draft master plan for that. I want to assure the Memb er for Welli ngton that the east yards is, although the Southw est Rapid Transit Corridor is not directly a part of the River Bank Acquisition Program, it is very dir ectly connected with development of the east yards site.So, Mr.

Chairman, I want to indic ate to committee members that I think that project is an important project, it certainly is in my eyes, I think it is in the city's eyes; I think it's something that must come forward and could very well ·come forward as a result of the planning tha t is presently being undertaken and expected to be released in the next few months. Mr. Chairman, the Member for Wellington referred to bus purchases and the deletion of the city's 2 million from their budget this year. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Chairman, that the buses could not be delivered this year from Flyer Ind ustries; that Flyer Industries are, in fact, booked sufficiently far in advance and I believe they're not in any position to deliver buses until at least March, at the earliest, March of 1981. In fact in referring to bus purchases, bus purchases were specifically inclu ded in the original block funding program but we're certainly prepared, as we've ind icated to the city, to meet with them to discuss that subject matter further.

The Member for Wellington suggested, by citing a quotation from a councillor or some other party, that this government was indif ferent to the taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, I want to point out and reiterate once again that under the increase in the Property Tax Credit Program the average homeowner assessed at 7,000 will have a reduction in taxes in all but two school di visions in this year; in the same way pensioners, as I understand it, will pay less taxes than they did in 1977. I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that program was brought in because of a concern for the taxpayer; and for the Member for Wellington, or anybody else I don't care who he is, to suggest that this government is ind ifferent to the plight of the taxpayer is absolutely ludic rous. The Mem ber for Wellington referred to revenue sharing. I want to point out to him, Mr.

Chairman, that unde r the Provincial Tax Sharing Plan the payment to the city of Winn ipeg this year was increased by 2.2 million and a part of that was brought about because of the change in calculations that we had introduced in that plan to recognize, particularly, the special needs of larger urb an municipalities in providing services to their residents. It's because of that, not only the growth in that fund but a change in calculations, that we are able to direct an increase of 2.2 million to the city in that particular program. With respect to Transit, Mr.

Chairman, I do want to point out once again - and it's a matter of record - that transit fares in the city of Winnipeg are the lowest in Canada; I believe there may be one other city that is equal to the city of Winnipeg but they are the lowest in Canada. I share with him, and I'm sure my colleague the Member for River Heights and the previous Works and Opera tions Chairman, the Member for St. James, all of us would share the concern probably with him over transit ridership. All of us see the tremendously in creased costs in operating a motor vehicle and the cost of gasoline.

Yet it's not, despite those increases, comparatively, certainly is not as large an increase in transit fares. In spite of all thos e things rid ersh ip has not increased significantly. So it would certainly appear to me that if the cost of the service is not a major factor, in my view - and I've said it all along - it's the kind of service that is provided. I know, in 1974 on Works and Operations, we introduced at that time a number of direct service express bus lines with limited stops to downtown. Those were successful in those years in increasing the ridership. Since then the ridership has stabilized.

The strike that the transit went through certainly caused, as it was expected at the time, caused a lot of people to find other means of travelling. It would be interesting to know whether more people are, for example, car pooling rather than transit. That is another very acceptable way of 2978

Monday, 28 April, 1980 transporting people downtown, particularly to and from work when the major traffic snarls take place. But there again I haven't seen recent statistics but the number of passengers per car certainly was remaining fairly constant for a number of years. But, Mr. Chairman, on the one point it must be emphasized that transit fares in the city of Winnipeg are still the lowest in Canada. That may be shared with another city. Those are all the comments I have to make at this time. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I want to make some comments on rail relocation and in so doing perhaps cover some of the ground tha t my colleague commented on, and the Min ister. I want to begin by saying to the committee that this discussion, which is also dir ectly related to the construction of the McGregor-Sherb rook Overpass, has been goin g on for at least 14 years to my experience, when I first got elected and probably a lot longer than that. I know that when we were in opposition in '66 to '69 that we made speeches in favour of a new overpass in the north end of Winnipeg because it was, at that point in time, long overdue.

When we achieved the government in '69 there was also strong support for that proposition in Cabinet and we held, at that time, all the seats in the north end of Winnipeg, in Elmwood, East Kildonan and North Kildonan. So I think that it would not be an exaggeration to say that the New Democratic MLAs and Min isters reflected the thinking of people in the area. Then the project was approved, maybe around 1975 or so, and then in the last two or three years, there has been nothing but delay up to and including the meeting of last week.

I don't take any consolation in the position of the present Minister but I would let him speak for himself in the deba te. It seems tha t the provi ncia l government has been somewhat soft in terms of its position in support of the McGregor-Sherbrook Overpass and possibly to its position in regard to the possibility of rail relocation. Now, rail relocation is a bit like motherhood, it's a very difficult thing to be against.

But the fact of the matter is that the people of north Winnipeg really are suffering because of a lack of adequate bridges and overpasses and I don't think it would be uncommon to talk to people in the area who would be highly suspicious of the city and provincial governments in terms of building for them a facility with which they are agreed upon. And in addi tion to tha t, Mr.

Chairman, not only is there a need for a major additional bridge over the rail yards to replace the old and obsolete Arlington Bridge and to compliment the heavily used Salter Bridge, but there's also need for another bridge somewhere along the Red River between Elmwood, Ea st Kildona n and No rth Kildonan, or on the other side of the river, the north end and West Kildonan. So the latest development which I want to deal with and hear more comment from the Attorney-General, is this recent meet ing on rail reloca ti on. Mr .

Axworthy, I think, has to bear the responsibility of sticking his nose in to tha t project and being responsible for a 2.8 million delay. I think that burden has to rest fairly on his shoulders because he caused the delay. So if he has a nose worth 3 million - I don't know if he's a half of a six-million-dollar man or whether the rest of him is worth more than 3 million but I know he's got a 3 million nose. I say that when he stalled that bridge he blew 3 million in taxpayers' money; he caused the delay for electoral purposes and he blew it in Cabinet. I think he has demonstrated that he has no clout in Cabinet.

He can say whatever he likes, but I don't think he has a position that is really very high up and I think he's demons trated when the chips are down tha t he doesn't have any clout or persuasive ability in terms of getting his colleagues to agree. So now we're in the position, Mr. Chairman, of the Mi nister not only struck out but he conti nues to talk about the possibility of more money.I think that this is just absolutely a pie in the sky and I think that there's a lot of issues involved in talk of rail relocation, a lot.

One that hasn't even been deal with is the fact that if, in fact, we got approval and we got the federal funds, 100 million or whatever, and we came up with a sharing of the province, the city, the federal government, the CPR, and everybody else, we had everybod y in total agreement, the Transport Commission, what would we do with that great big yards? Where would it go?

No matter where you put it, well, if you put in Rossmere you'll permanently ensure the re-election of Vic Schroeder for the next 25 years because we will then say it is the provincial government that put the yards there, but no matter where you want to put it, no matter what end of the city, no matter how close to the Perimeter, no matter how far away from a settled area, the people won't want it. They'll say tha t it will deteriora te their property values.The other point is, we'll then have this massive empty space in the middle of Winnipeg.

We'll have a bunch of old railway tracks, a lot of papers, mold buildings and so on. To redevelop that area would cost, I think it is safe to say, hundreds of millions of dolla rs at a time when we have high vacancy rates in homes; we have high vacancy rates in apartments; we have people in north Portage saying we need money for redevelopment; we have all sorts of demands on the taxpayers' dolla rs; and somebody's going to come along and say there's what, hundr eds and hundr eds of acres in the middle of Winnipeg standing ready for redevelopment.

It also doesn't answer the question of are you going to then allow the two main lines to still go through, because that hasn't been tackled. Some would say, take them all out but just the two lines going into downtown Winnipeg; and others would say, no, you move it out to Rosser and then you have all these lines coming back like spaghetti. I think this has been thought through and if it was achieved I don't that people have thought through the tremendous costs of relocation and redevelopment.

They have not thought through the costs of redevelopment; they have not thought through the costs that will be alleged to be - well, one could say that because of moving into an area there will be negative costs and that, too, hasn't been considered. So, Mr. Chairman, I look at what Mr. Pepin says and I would be interested to hear a greater comment from the Minister of Urban Affairs because I read in the paper that Mr. Pepin, who seemed to be quite candid, he certainly persuaded the Mayor that there is no funds for relocation and he certainly appeared 2979

Monday, 28 April, 1980 to persuade the Min ister of Urban Affairs and the people in Winnipeg. The headlines are, No Money for Rail Shift, well, this headline says, or Overpass, meaning no additional funds. And Pepin apparently said that hi s predecessors made, A num ber of promises, commitments, half promises and half commitments. Now, Mr. Axworthy is making quarter promises and quarter commitments and he'll soon be making 16th and 32nd and 64ths, because we're not getting that 100 million bucks, we're not getting 100 million bucks; we're not even getting a million bucks; we're getting that original amount.

You'r e getting zero for rail relocation and you're getting zero for the additional inflation, 2.8 million. Apparently, Mr. Pepin and Lloyd Axworthy both said that maybe there'll be some money in OREE. So now we have to wait till May 30 for some more wild -goose chasing; we're going to look around to see if there's any money in OREE. I mean what are we going to get? A million bucks, a couple of hundred thousand. What are we going to get out of OREE? We're not going to get money for rail relocation.

I'd like to know about that; I'd like to know if the Min ister can talk about what possible OREE moneys could be achieved by the city of Winnipeg and what possible dollar value. Because I, again, regard this as a complete waste of time. Mr. Axworthy is quoted as saying that he's going to continue to fight for funding. Well, I don't know what he's going to do, if it's going to be a tag day or whether he's going to give part of his money from his trust fund that he's giving to the ballet, whether he's going to give a proportion of that.

But it's chicken feed, whatever he's talking about is absolute chicken feed.M r. Chairman, Mr. Axworthy also criticized the province and I think that the province has to answer clearly as to what their exact position is.

He says that the province has been hanging back and that they should have committed, and I say that the Min ister has to answer as to whether or not he would be prepared to commit funds either to rail relocation, which I assume he's written off, or whether he is strongly committed to not only providing funding from UT AP for the McGregor-Sherbrook Overpass, but also to push the issue, instead of sitting around and waiting again for another study. You know, this is the thing that annoys me, Mr. Chairman, we've had study after study after study. The latest study, which was called for by Mr .

Axworthy, he said was not adequate, that it was not a good enough study, it wasn't adequate, it wasn't satisfactory. It may not have been but who is to say, who is to say that the next study which would be fifth or sixth would be adequate. Somebody else will say that's no good either. The only kind of study that's any good is the one that backs you up or the one that you told the consultants. They go out for lunch with you, usually you don't influence them; you go out for lunch with them, they read your mind and they write a report that will suit the attitude of the people commissioning the study.

That's how most consultants get by -(I nterjection)- a vast study. A MEMBER: A half vast study. MR. DOERN: A half vast study. Well, I've never heard of that before. The other thing I say to the Min ister is that the federal government as far as I can see has just slammed the door in your face, it's slammed the door in your face. You went there with the Mayor and delegates and asked for money for the Convention Centre. They said, no. You went there and asked for money for a 50 million garbage burning steam heat plant and they said, well, we'll look at it, but you came back empty handed as far as I'm concerned.

You had a number of projects; the city and the province went there and you came back with not one penny more, not a penny more. You have nothing for rail relocation; you have nothing for the McGr egor-Sherbrook Overpass; you have noth ing for the Convention Centre; and you 'll probably wind up with nothing for that steam heating plant which I have fought for and supported for a long time.

When you're talking energy conservation, when you're talking about alternate forms of energy, there's a natural for you that's in existence in other cities in Canada; that's in existence in other cities in the Uni ted States, that's built with a Canadian technology, by Dominion Bridge I think it is, they're behind that. As far as I am concerned in terms of positives that meeting was a complete and utter waste of time. So let's get on with the job here and write off, for the next 10 to 20 years, if not more, rail relocat ion.

Let 's ju st gi ve it up and build the McGregor-Sherbrook Overpass and go on from here instead of more studies, more broken promises and more pie in the sky. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, having heard the official NOP party position now on the Sherbrook McGregor Overpass or perhaps the Member for Elmwood has joined the Member for lnkster's group or perhaps the Member for Wellington has joined the Member for lnkster's group, I'm not sure, but I expect that there may very well be, Mr. Chairman, a clear divergence of opinion within the NOP Party itself on this matter.Mr. Chairman, let me refer to the meeting with Mr.

Pepin. Mr. Pepin referred to the fact that, in his view, having been involved with rail relocation projects across Canada in the last little while it was his view that the legislation itself had created great expectati ons among muni cipalit ies across Canada.

He was taking the position, he said, as he had just on the previous day in Toronto advising mun icipal ities, tha t the only moneys available for rail relocation were those moneys that were includ ed in the Urb an Transpor tation Assistance Program; that it's all the money his depa rtment had for rail relocat ion despit e the legislation itself which refers to 50 percent financial assistance from the federal government in approved relocation projects. MR. DOERN: Could I ask the Attorney-General a question?

He has so much money, is that money renewable on an annual basis or can it be supplemented on an annual basis because Winnipeg will get so much in UT AP funds; is that for the next decade or is it for what period of time? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the UTAP Agreement, as it's referred to, is a five-year agreement. 10.2 million was allocated to the province of Manitoba and we allocated 7.6 of that to the Sher brook- McGr egor Overpass and/or rail relocation. We wrote to Otto Lang when he was 2980

Monday, 28 April, 1980 Mi nister in February of 1979, on behalf of the city, forwarding the application for construction of the Sherbrook-McGr egor Overpass, advising the Miniter that we were allocating the 7.6; as I understand it the Transport Commission approved the application, sent it to Mr. Lang at which point in time, in view of representations made to him by Mr. Axworthy and others, another study was undertaken. I have to say I wrote to Mr. Mazankowski when he was Federal Mi nister of Transport urging that this matter be dealt with.

He felt, in view of what had happened, he had to wait for the study to be completed; the study was apparently completed during the federal election campaign. On the day after Mr. Pepin's appointment I wrote to him with respect to this matter and then, as we say, we met with him. He advised us that his officials had contacted the OREE Department and his information was that there was no money available in the OREE Department at all. Mr. Axworthy, as the Member for Elmw ood has said, has taken the position there may be some money available. It was the understanding when we left the meeting that Mr.

Pepin would respond to the city and to us as to whether or not there were any other money s available. We're talking about a pretty massive project and whether or not, even if moneys are available in OREE, whether or not under the terms of reference of OREE they can be allocated to rail relocation, would be a good question. But because of the massive amounts of money involved, because of legislation itself, it was my view as Min ister that we had to determine whether the federal government would make a specific commitment to relocation, a specific financial commitment.

And if they did we're prepared to go that far; we're certainly prepared to be reasonable but I think it was the prudent thing to do, to ask for that commitment. We now have our answer, certainly, from Mr. Pepin. We will have to wait for final confirmation from him. He's ind icated that, eventually, if there is no money to be found in the city, as it probably will want to proceed with construction, he's prepared to sign the licence or the necessary authority to proceed with construction immediately. Mr. Chairman, that's where that matter stands.

He said he would get back to us within a few days, so hopefully we will hear from him by the end of this week. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Crescentwood. MR. STEEN: Mr . Chairman, the Memb er for Wellington earlier mentioned or made a statement that the Premier shows very little interest in Urban and Municipal Affairs. I couldn't help but agree with the Min ister more so that at any time our caucus group meets to discuss Urban Affairs particularly that the Premier is usually always there and takes a great interest.

If the Member for Wellington might check back in Hansard from 1976 and 1977 when his colleague, the Member for Seven Oaks, was Mini ster of Urban Affairs, he would see at that time, as a former city of Winnipeg councillor, I used to urge the then Min ister of Urban Affairs, the Member for Seven Oaks, the current member, that we should adopt a system provincially of block funding or gi ving more autonomy to the city of Winnipeg and not having the city of Winnipeg's official delegation come to the provincial government, almost on a weekly basis, bended on their knees and asking that every minor and major item get the provincial government's approval, and that the city of Winnipeg was a large urban and municipal government and that they were in a position with competent people that they could run their own show.

It was that type of urging on our present Mini ster that convinc ed the present government that what we should do is let the city of Winnipeg run their own show and adopt a system, such as block funding, for financing the city of Winnipeg. He made reference to the former system used by the former government of 50-50 revenue sharing on streets projects.

Yes, that was a reasonably good system providing the city of Winnipeg came to the province and said that we want to give street 'A' first preference and, if the province agreed that street 'A' had the first priority with them, then such a system worked very well but if the city opted to renew certain streets and the province didn't see fit that those streets were at the top of the list of priority then that system failed at that point. So it depended where the political interest was.

The former provincial government only had two members, and most of the time only one member, from South Winnipeg so, as the Member for Fort Rouge said, the Grant Avenue extension fell away down on the priority list, as did the Silver Avenue extension and many others. And yet he has the gall to be critical of the present Min ister on funding of municipal projects particularly in the city of Winnipeg. The Member for Elmwood makes reference to the MacGregor Overpass.

I couldn't help but agree with him even more, but he made reference to the fact that it goes back some 14 years; I can tell him that it goes back to 1960 when the former metro government that we had here in the city of Winnipeg started to talk about either the relocation of the CPR yards or such a concept as the Ma cGregor Sherbrook Overpass. In fact it was the former metro government who had commissioned to have the design of the MacGregor-Sherbrook Overpass done, prior to the unification of the city of Winnipeg in 1971. I recall, Mr.

Chairman, many many times talking to my late brother, the former Mayor of the city of Winnipeg, about the CPR yards and the relocation as opposed to a MacGregor-Sherbrook Overpass and, on a number of occasions, he mentioned that Mr.

Axworthy, who then was a provincial member and heading up the Institute of Urban Studies at the Uni versity of Winnip eg, personally favoured and opted for relocation as opposed to the MacGregor Sherbrook Overpass; and he, because of his strong personal conviction for relocation, he at that time would do everything in his power to convince his colle agues and friends in Ottawa, who at that time were in the federal government while he was here in the provincial government that, wha tever you do, don't go to a new bridge approach because if we wait a little bit longer we can have the railroad relocated.

The Member for Elmwood has stated that relocating the railyards is just taking a problem from one area and locating it elsewhere and whether it was going to be removed well outside of the city of Winnipeg, it 2981

Monday, 28 April, 1980 could easily then be in the Member for Selkirk the Leader of the Opposition's constituency or someone else's where it would eventually cause a problem like it is now. Plus the fact, Mr. Chairman, that the railways would have to be compensated and the figure of about ten years ago was 10 cents per box car per mile, for each additional mile they had to travel around the city of Winnipeg because of the relocation.

So it only makes sense that the bridge be forged ahead with and, even though it has been discussed for some 20 years, hopefully we can see some positive signs and some constructive signs in the near future that maybe the bridge is the only possible alternative. The Honourable Mini ster who is now in the federal cabinet, Mr. Axworthy, last spring about this time was discussing rather openly at public meetings in the Winnipeg North Centre area the possibility of rail relocation and I think he mislead a lot of the citizens in that area, but then of course at that time he wasn't sure whether Mr.

Richardson was running federally in Winnipeg-Fort Garry or not and he was looking at the seat of Winnipeg North Centre. At the same time, and that's where he had great support through his Urban Studies Department at the University of Winnipeg and where I think for years he played politi cs with such a departme nt at the University of Winnipeg for his own personal gain and his own personal gain has come to a head now where the Min ister of Urban Affairs, Mr. Mercier, has just stated, in a meeting last week with Mr. Pepin, that it appears that Mr.

Axworthy's personal dream of rail relocation has just gone down the tube and some 20 years later it looks like the bridge is the only possible answer to that problem. The Member for Wellington also mentioned, when he made reference to 50-50 funding, how his party when they were government worked with the city of Winnipeg.

I must say the former government, what they often did was they used to throw a carrot at the city of Winnipeg and say: Yes, you need more funding, we'll give you areas of taxation, like hotel room taxes or amusement taxes; offer them revenue sharing means of raising money, usually unpopular means. Like a hotel room tax would be a very unpopular means of raising money as far as the hotel owners and the tourist ind ustry, but of course the provincial government of that day didn't have the intestinal fortitude to go ahead and throw the hotel room tax on.

They said to the urban government, here's an idea for you, here's a way you can raise some money, knowing full well it would never meet with the people at large. The amusement tax they threw at the city of Winnipeg: Here's a former revenue you can have; if it's not enough just increase the amusement tax.

Well, it wasn't long before the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club were into difficulty with the amusement tax and the provincial government of the day, the former NOP government, said, well, we'll help you with that problem of the amusement tax; we'll buy X number of season tickets and we'll send notably very worthy persons to the hockey games but you still, in the meantime, must colle ct the amusement tax. Mr.

Chairman, I think the present government system of block fu nding, where the city comes and negoti ates once a year with the provi ncia l government Department of Urban Affairs and the Mi nister and the Committee and arrives at what hopefully on both sides is a suitable figure, is the only way to deal with the city of Winnipeg and that the city of Winnip eg have capable, com petent councillors, some of whom, former ones are sitting around the table. They were all, in my opinion, excellent councillors and worked very hard at their job.

They have excellent personnel, and I think the city of Winnipeg can run it's own show. They don't have to have Big Brother down here on Broadway, constantly telling them how to run the city of Winnipeg. This is the approach the Premier of this province and the Min ister of Urban Affairs has taken; it's one I took while I was in opposition for two years and it's one I hope, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Min ister, is continued to be adopted in the years ahead. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, just a couple of comments.

One thing that is not being referred to is that The Relocation Act requires a development plan and transportation plan and economic plan. The development plan and transporta tion plan particu larly must have the consent of all municipalities affected by it. Now we look at the proposed relocation route; as I recollect, it travels through the RM of Springfield, the RMs of East St. Paul, West St. Paul and Rosser.

Now I'm not saying those municipalities would not consent to it but, again, it's certainly one of the problems that would have to be considered very seriously in the long run because so many people have referred to the fact you are merely transferring a problem from one location to the other. If we consider, Mr. Chairman, the development of vacated railyards as a priority, then we have to face up to the fact we have a vacated raily ard in downtown Winnipeg at the preset time, in the east yards.

As I have ind icated earlier, we do have coming forward within the next few months, a draft master plan on river bank acquisition which deals with river bank acquisition from the mouth of the La Salle River and the Red River, all the way along the Red River up to Selkirk, but a major focal point of that whole acquisition program is the development of the CNR east yard site. Part of one of the factors to be considered in the development of that site is certainly the southwest rapid transit corridor, but we do, Mr.

Chairman, have, I believe it is 90 vacant acres at that site - (Interjection)- Pardon me, 66,; with the possibility of some development and certainly development of parklands along the river, an historical site at the junction of the Red River and the Assininiboin River, possi bly associated with some commercial or residential development; with a further possibility of the initial development of a rapid transit corridor. It is a matter that will have to be dealt with and the master plan will be . . .

There will be a process of public meetings and public participation in that draft master plan before any recommendations by the technical people are made to the federal and provincial governments in consultation with the local governments involved , but I simply cite this as an example of a significant area of vacated railyards that is in the process of being developed. So tha t would con firm, to some de gree, the comments of the Member for Elmwood with respect 2982

Monday, 28 April, 1980 to the difficulties involved in further development of another vacated rail yard.While still saying of course, as we've always said, Mr. Chairman, that there's no question relocation is the most desirable alternative, as it is, not only in Winnipeg but in so many other major Canadian cities that Mr. Ppin has had to deal with, and as a principle it's a difficult one to argue wit h. It would appear in any event the federal government has, in fact, made a decision on that and the matter of the overpass will, subje ct to whatever information Mr.

Ppin comes back with, is something that is going to be dealt with. But I simply cite, Mr. Chairman, the present vacated CNR rail yards as an area that will be dealt with during the course of the next year in terms of a num ber of programs coming forth and I cite it because that land itself has been vacant for some time now and has been subject to a lot of discussion for at least five or six years; I cite that as an example of perhaps some of the problems in dealing with vacated rail yards. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: Mr. Chairman, yes, thank you very much.

I just wanted to ask the Mini ster, since he said that Mr. Ppin had absolutely refuted the validity of The Rail Relocation Act, he ind icated that Mr. Ppin said he would not be compelled by 50 percent provincial and civic funding for the project, to contribute an equal level of funding to the railway location project, I'm wondering whether he wants to make that statement definitively and categorically for the record; that Mr. Ppin said he would not be moved by the

section of the Act being invoked as to 50-50 funding? Just before we recess, is that for the record, Mr. Chairman? Because I think Mr. Ppin should be polled on such a serious remark. MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, committee, the hour is 4:30 and there are people wanting to take

part in the Private Members' Hour, so I'm leaving the Chair and will return at 8:00 o'clock. SUPPL V - HEAL TH MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats {Radisson): This committee will come to order. I would di rect the honourable members' attention to Page 61 of the Main Estimates, Department of Health. Item under dis cussion is Resolution No. 78, Clause 4. The Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba. Item-pass - the Honourable Member for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

When we broke on Friday, I was commenting that the increase in the program is being carried by the federal government providing an increase in their funding of some 250,000 while the province, while admitting that we have a problem of near epidemic proportions, has only increased its share of the funding by 4,000.00. This is another example of the provincial government doing its own cosmetic bookkeeping whereby it gets money for Health from the federal government, and health purposes, and then diverts its own spending to other activities in order to try and balance the budget.

Meanwhile, the Alcoholism Program and the program dealing with drug addiction is under-funded, and this is rather hypocritical in a sense, because we are indeed increasing the revenue, as a province, from the sale of alcohol very significantly. The federal Conservative budget increased taxes on alcohol products.

The Li beral government has reintroduced those measures and, as a result, taxes on alcoholic beverages and alcoholic products goes up, and I'm quite convinced that the amount that the provincial government gained as the monopoly seller of alcohol products in Manitoba over the last year surely was far greater than 4,000 for the year. And I would think that just today, Mr. Chairperson, the prices of liquor products in the liquor stores are going up substantially and the province's share of that is sig nificant and I would judge that today, just today, the province has made more than 4,000.00.

And because it's making a lot of money from liquor, it really can't turn around then and say that it's not in a position to provide funds to deal with some of the problems that are created because of the sale of liquor and the consumption of iiquor in Manitoba. I think the province is really taking the wrong approach here with respect to this appropriation. It should be increasing its funding substantially. It should be trying to do a number of things that I don't think it's doing sufficiently well.

I don't think it's got an adequate program in schools; I don't think it's got an adequate program in community clubs; I don't think it's got an adequate program to try and inform young people of the perils of alcoholism and use of drugs. I think that the government's program with respect to its own employees is woefully weak. I think that governments often aren't particularly far sighted employers in this respect. I think that the federal government has tried to establish a program of di agnosing alcoholism amongs t its own employees.

I think that their results indicate that a surprising number of employees do indeed suffer from alcoholism or alcohol related problems and that their program has had a bit of success in trying to turn this problem around amongst federal employees and I think it's time that the province launched such a program itself.

The province is one of the largest employers in Manitoba and I don't know if it's a good example a nd if it shows much leadership if it doesn't undertake a program of alcoholism treatment for its own employees; of doing checks to ensure that their employees know that there are facilities and programs available so that these people may in fact partake of them.

There may in fact be a few programs available through the Alcoholism Foundation but I don't think the employees are very aware of them and, frankly, they tend to try and hide their particular problems; rather than trying to come out in the open, admit that they have a particular illn ess, and then try and have that ill ness treated. I think that we won't try and resolve problems of alcoholism by trying to sweep the individual problems under the carpet and try and keep mum about this.

I think it's important for employees to understand that it is an ill ness; they will not be fired if they come forward admitting that they do have problems with alcoholism; and it 's important for these employees to have enough confidence to do so, and to feel confident that there is a sufficient program in place to try and meet their needs. 2983

Monday, 28 April, 1980 This may in fact be a bit more expensive in the short run, but surely over the longer run it will increase productivity of government employees and surely show some leadership to other employers in the province. I am hoping that the government could have undertaken something like that; and from the Minister's comments to date I don't think much in that way is happening. I think that the Minister hasn't talked very much about problems of drug addiction and drug usage, especially among younger people.

I know that the federal government is providing its share of funding, I think primarily through the non medical use of drugs committee or the funds that developed in federal programming as a result of that committee. I'm wondering if the Mi nister is in a position now to ind icate what is the significance of the dr ug problem in Mani toba; is it one that's increasing, decreasing; in what age groups is it more prevalent; and what types of programs does the government have in place to try and deal with this, what I think is a gr owing problem, especially amongst younger people? MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to just clarify, if I may, one or two aspects of the debate tha t have occupied the atte ntion of mem bers opposite up to this point in time. First of all, I don't accept for one moment the argument of the Honourable Member for Transcona that because the estimate shows a federal recovery of 1,350 ,000 projected for 1980-8 1 that can be translated into the particular improvement and expansion that is made in our budget in the Department of Health and in our budge t for the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba.One has to consider, Mr.

Chairman, and I am sure the Honourable Member for Transcona understands this fact, that we deal with the amount of mone y that the Mi ni ster of Health and the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba can have made avail abl e to them agai nst the canvas of the government's financial and fiscal condition, input and outgo, and we work on the basis of our own appropriation and our own budget, independent of calculations that involve other jurisdictions such as Ottawa and obviously are taken into the overall balance sheet of the Consolida ted Fund of the government.

We're looking at a budg et for the Alchoholism Foundation this year of 4.8 millio n against one in the previous year of 4.536 million. And those are the mathematics that I live with as Mi nister of Health; tha t Mr. Cruickshank liv es with as Executive Director of the Alcoholism Foundation; and that the Foundation itself lives with regardless of what's coming back in recoveries from Ottawa in cost-shared programs; in transfer payments; in equalization payments. We live with the amount of money we are able to get out of the globe that is available to Manitoba to live on in a given fiscal year.

We get what we can; we get every dollar that we can. In that respect we are given, I think, very generous consideration by my colleagues in Treasury Board and in Cabinet and we have, in

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-46a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 46a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	06e6828a11dc43544c2057dc6e20f55e52ff6bd6

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