ISSN 0542- 5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 308 - 8:00 p.m., MONDAY, 28 MA Y, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Sieve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Q.C., Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNE'( James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EV ANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER,Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOV NATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLE Y, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon.Yic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP IND NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 28 May, 1984. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURR ENT COM MITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - URBAN AFFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Sentos: Committee, please come to order. We are still considering Item 1. (b)(1) and 1.(b)(2). In other words, we'll read it again. The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, we were asking questions about Shoal Lake, and I'm wondering if the Minister would give her assurance to the members and the citizens of the City of Winnipeg and make a commitment that she will strongly support the City of Winnipeg's position with respect to Sho�l Lake. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. M.B. DOLIN: I would have to, Mr. Chairperson, say to the member that certainly our concern is to protect the water supp ly, to protect the water itself. That's an environmental concern and that's where the province's concern lies. To make a statement that we will support the city in their position, considering that negotiations and positions and so on are under way and are subject to change, I don't belie ve that it would be appropriate for me to make a statement that, yes, the province will support the city in whatever it says.

That gets into the realm of being hypothetical, so I wouldn't be able to make that statement. But, certainly , the cleanliness, the clarity of the water, the drinkableness, whatever you want to call it, is a concern to the province - (I nterjection) - potabil ity, right. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I don't believe that the city's stand on Shoal Lake is hypothetical and neither are 350 cottages plus on the lake. I would hope that the Minister would consider the city and the water supply. The ramifications of what I think I just heard her saying is that she didn't know the city's position on this.

I believe that they have been very clear on their position. They don't want a road there. They feel it's not in the best Interests of Winnpeg and keeping our water supply. 1 wonder if the Minister couldn't just be a little clearer on the type of support that, as Urban Affairs Minister , and I would think with a great interest in the Shoal Lake and in what happens to the city, I think that's got to be the Minister and this government's main purpose, is to assure our water supply. One of the ways they can do it is to support the city in what they are trying to do to protect the supply .

Would the Mini ster reconsider? HON. M.B. DOLIN:. I don't believe that I have denied that we are supporting what the city is intending to do if it's protect the water supply. We have not agreed to a road. Therefore, my understanding Is that the road is necessary to the cottage development. One would assume from that that we had not agreed to a cottage dev elopment. If we have not agreed to a road, if we believe that the water supply should be protected, that is the assurance that I can give the member.

With regard to the exact environmental concerns, I believe that those have to be asked of the Minister of the Environment. I under stand his Estimates will be coming up shortly when we finish these. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Possibly the Minister would know; what Is the provincial position on Shoal Lake? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Again I would have to say that's a question that is appropriate to ask the Minister of the Environment. That is the lead Ministry, and it is that deputy who is the lead deputy in these negotiations. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Could the Minister tell us which Ministers are on the Urban Affairs or the city committee, I think it's called? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Ur ban Affairs Committee of Cabinet? MRS. G. HAMMOND: Yes, right. HON. M.B. DOLIN: That includes all the Minister who represent city ridings or city constituencies plus relevant Ministers, such as the Minister of Housing and so on. Any time that any issue arises that is of concern to a Minister who does not represent a city riding, then that Minister is invited to the meeting. I can think of the Minister of Transportation who has been present and so on. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 1.(b)( 1)- the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate what position she is taking on behalf of the City of Winnipeg with respect to the report that the previous Environment Minister, Mr. Cowan, released with respect to the water quality on the Red River? HON. M.B. DOLIN: The question you asked is: what position does the Minister of Urban Affairs take with regard to the quality of the Red River water, as defined by the previous Minister of the Environment? Is that the question? MR. G. MERCI ER: Mr. Chairman, the previous Environment Minister, Mr.

Cowan, released a report of the Chairman of the Red River Water Quality Senior Tec hnical Advisory Committee, which listed several options to enhance or maintain Red River water quality, which had a number of options for resolving this problem with costs that ranged from $8 million to $451 million. Could the Minister Ind icate what position she's taken on behalf of the City of Winnipeg with respect to this report and the options that are discussed? 1283

Monct.y, 28 Mll y, 1884 MR. CHAIRMAN: Rule 357( 1Xx), says that questions should not, "deal with an action of a Minister for which he is not responsible to Parliament, or matters not within his official knowledge." I don't believe the Minister of Urban Affairs is responsible for the quality of the Red River . - (Interjection) - I cited the rule. The Minister can be held respo nsible for those matters within her jurisdiction but not those outside her jurisdiction. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, when this report was released, Mr.

Cowan indicated that he hoped a solution to this issue can be achieved co-operatively but he mada it clear he will take legislativ e action if co­ operation fails, so that as a result of this position taken by the Environment Minister it would appear that the Provincial Government could impose a very costly program of up to $451 million on the city. I would like to know what position the Minister of Urban Affairs is taking with respect to the matter as the representative of the City of Winnipeg and the Cabinet? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of the Environment would like to enlighten. MR. G.

MERCIER: That's a matter of opinion. HON. G. LECUYER: I would of course like this type of question to come when I'm going through my Estimates, but the member knows as well that there's a court matter on this particular issue right now. The City of Selkirk is taking the City of Winnipeg to court on this particular matter , so first of all ther e is that issue to be settl ed . Secondly, the position adopted by the province was that the province was willing to be a participant in arriving at a solution to improve the quality of the Red River.

The province made a financial commitment on that particular issue with the co-operation of the other levels of government. The Minister of Environment at this point has written to the other levels of government asking to also enter Into a co-operative ventur e to try and remedy the situation. So at this point I think the province has fulfilled its part of the res ponsibility, at least until this court matter I presume is resolv ed. MR. CHAIRMAN: If there is such a case according to Citation 358, a question should "not be asked In respect of a matter that is sub-judice." The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to ask any further questions, but it's not because of the rule you cited. MR. CHAIRMAN: l.(bX1) - the Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: During question period I asked the Minister about bringing in legislation to do with the sewers for the City of Winnipeg. The Minister gave some indication that she would be bringing in the legislation. Will it be coming in at this Session? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: The matter that the member raises, as I indicated in the House today, is under serious 1284 consideration by the government and the negotiations or information exchange that needs to take place between the city and the province is happening. 1 don't believe that any of us are opposed to such legislation that would allow such a piece of assistance to homeowners and it certainly isn't only within the centre of the city that this happens.

Those of us who are suhurban dwellers under stand the problems that happen too with sewer breakdowns, sometimes very close to the city's main line, and we'd like to provide some assistance for homeowners in that area. There are a few details that need to be worked out and as soon as our deliberations are completed we will attempt to move as quickly as we can on this. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I have a constituent in my area who has just been hit with a bill for $4,000 and I think clos e to $ 1,5 00 will be recovera ble. This is a considerable expense for any homeowner.

When I mentioned today that I felt the Minister was nit-picking on this, I believe it's correct, because I think the idea should be certainly to bring in legislation, let the city go ahead with the program that they have introduced and help the homeowners that they have stipulated now. I have the proposed policy in front of me and it's residential, single-family or duplex and owner-oc cupied. While it may be nice to be able to help others and to help everyone, at least let them start somewhere and see how the policy will work.

There are some people who are getting hit with $8,000 and even $ 10 ,000 in areas. lt's astronomical and to hit anyone, whether it's right in the city or in the suburbs, it doesn't really matter. This is a policy, this is something that really shouldn't be of such great concern to the Minister to get down every little bit, cross every "t" and dot every "i." I don't see why this govern ment and this Minister are dragging their feet on this issue.

From what I can gather, it's a simple change that can be made to the legislation and see how it works and then possibly, if it works well, the city will ext end the program, but it has to start somewhere. I think that it would be a darn shame if this Session ended and that legislation wasn't brought in. it's not costing the city a pen ny. lt's like an insurance policy for homeowners and it really is needed. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't believe that I at any time indicated that it was not a good idea or that we were not working as quickly as possible to bring it in as quickly as possible, but I am not here to lay before you the government's entir e legisla tive package that will come in, in due course, as it is introduced to the Legislature. We will attempt to negotiate with the city some of the concerns that might be held by a person who happens to live in a triplex rather than a duplex.

That's important and I certainly would think that, as ::�n example, someone who lives in one of the newer suburbs where they are building such owner-occupied residences would be very concerned. The member speaks as if we are attempting not to bring in this legislation and that is the exact opposite of what I said. We are working as quickly as possible to bring this legislation in. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, I understand the Minister's concern for people in triplexes and other

Monday, 28 May, 1984 plexes, apartments, anything, and condominiums, I can unde rstand that. The policy has to start somewhere and someone is going to be left out at the beginning, but they'll probably be included later on once they see how it works. I really feel that if you would just bring in the amendment, what my fear is, is that you'll end up meeting and meeting, and then we'll be out of this House and the legislation won't be brought in and people will be sitting with these great loads of debt hanging around their necks just because you were afraid someone was going to be left out.

I know that it maybe seems like a small thing to the Minister , but if someone has got an expense of $4,000 hanging around their neck when they could get a claim, get some money back; they've been paying for it since the beginning of January on their water bills and I would like some assurance that it's going to come in this Sess ion. That's all I'm asking. MR. CHAIR MAN: The member had made her point and the Minister had given her answer, then the member made her point again and the Minister will again make her answer . We cannot go out of this problem if we start repeating ourselves. The Member for K.P. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to make that point time and time again if I don't feel that I'm getting a satisfactory answer. I don't feel it's up to you to reprimand me for asking a question twice. If I'm not get ting the kind of answer that I want, I'll ask it again and you can rule me out of order, then maybe we'll have a vote on it. MR. CHAIR MAN: I am not reprimanding the mem ber, I am just saying that repetition is an aberration from the rule if it's made too often. MR. H. GRAHAM: There is nothing wrong with our position until we can get the answer? MR.

CHAI RMAN: Well, I'll cite to the member the rule in our Rules of Procee ding. Rule 39, ". . . the Chairman of any Committee, after having called the attention of . . . the Committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in . . . repetit ion, may direct . . . "the member ". . . to discontinue his speech . . . and if the member still continues to speak . . . if in a Committee, the Chairman shall report the matter to the House." At any rate, the Minister had already answer ed. If she wishes to make an answer again, that's fine with me. One repet ition is good enough. HON. W. PARASIUK: Point of order. MR.

CHAI RMAN: Point of order. HON. W. PARASIUK: I gather your ruling Is being challenged in some way. I think that if people looked through Hansard, tliey would find that the chairman of the committees back between 1977 and 1981 often ruled that a que stion was repetitious. I wouldn't want to name the chairman of committees, but I cert ainly know that I could find on nume rous occasions In the Estimates review process where that was done. So I think, Mr. Chairman, if you want to look through Hansard, you would find a number of examples where your pred ecessors have ruled that questions are repet itious. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Some of the rules are more honoured in the violation than in the observance. 1.(b)(1) ... MR. A. KO VNATS: What was the question that was ruled out of order? MR. CHAI RMAN : The Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I am just asking the Minister If she will give me the assurance that she'll bring in some legislation on this at this Session? I'll even smile. HON. M.B. DOLIN: I'm smiling too and I am telling you again, we are doing our very best to bring it In at this Session. MR.

CHAI RMAN: That's the third round. 1.(b)(1)- pass; 1.(b)(2)- pass. 1.(c)( 1) Admin istrative and Financial Services, Salaries, 1.(c)

(2) Other Expenditur es - the Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Are there any areas in the grants that have changed substantially? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Are you talking about the grants to the City of Winnipeg? MRS. G. HAMMOND: Ye s. HON. M.B. DO LIN: We ll, I think that the Member for Kirkfield Park, in fact, pointed out some of the changes with regard to conditlonal ity. I don't know if that's what she is ref erring to or not. Perhaps she could be a little more specific in her question. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: No, I was just wanting to know if there was anything other than the $8,500,000 that had changed substantially in the way of city grants. Was there anything reduced or anything added that was different? HON. M.B. DO LIN: The member has pointed out one change. lt wasn't exactly a change in amount, but a change in where that amount rested . In fact, that followed a city practice, they often did that sort of thing after the grant was given to them, and so we knew they would use it in a capital area.

The other change was the change with regard to the neighbourhood improvement programs; which under the Federal Government are phasing out - the federal portion of the funding of those programs - and what we have said is that the province will pick up 50 percent of the funding of such programs and the Department of Urban Affairs will be the responsible ministry for such a neighbourhood planning and neigh bourhood programs. The member will perhaps recall that under the federal program - and the staff can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the Federal Government 1285

llonclq 21 ... , 11M paid 50 percent, city paid 25 and province paid 25 percent. Now with that program phasing out, we will each be paying 50 percent. MRS. G. HAMMOND: What neighbourhood programs are in existence right now? HON. M.B. DO LIN: The Lord Roberts Program, which was the city's priority, is the one that is going forward this year, or that we have agreed to fund this year. MRS. G. HAMMOND: There seems to be a great deal of concern about the funding for the Dutch Elm Disease. Is the government considering putting any more funding into that program or does that not come under this? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: lt would come under two other areas; probably Natural Resources is one are where it's covered and then I believe that sometimes groups such as the city, but other municipalities apply to the Jobs Fund for extra money. That happened last year I believe through the Department of Natural Resources, but there w'ls extra money given where the need was shown, and perhaps those ministers could be questioned about that when their estimates come up, if they haven't already. . MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Kirk field Park referred to this in her opening statement and I'd like to follow up on it.

I've referred in essence to this subject matter in previous years. Mr. Chairman, the New Democratic Party promised, during the 1981 election campaign, to ease the municipal tax burden. They made a further reference to it, Mr. Chairman, in the Throne Speech this year. I have looked at the statistics, Mr. Chairman, and using as an example an average home in the Winnipeg School Division assessed at $7,000, the total net taxes on that home from 1977-1981 increased by $78.03 over the four-year period.

In the first three years of this government, under the NDP, the total taxes on that same home have increased by $298.02, so that in three years under the New Democratic Party , the total increase is nearly four times the total increase over four years under a Prog ressive Conservative Government. Mr. Chairman, that burden that the government is placing upon homeowners concerns me. I note that in the submission made by the City of Winnipeg to the Royal Commi ssion on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada, Mr.

Macdonald's Commi ttee, in September of last year, they cited residential property taxes by cities, major cities, in Canada. They referred to Halifax, Charlottetown, Saint John, St. John's, Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto, Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, and Winnipeg had the highest residential taxes. I would like to ask the Minister what she Intends to do, what position she's been taking with respect to municipal taxes and the municipal tax burden which has increased substantially on homeowners? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: There are so many things that can be said around the subject that you have raised. I will try to touch on just a few of them. First of all, comparisons with other cities, don't necessarily include property tax rebates or various other, to be a bit redundant, variables, that affect tax situations. The mill rate itself includes a number of variables; decisions made by the province, by the city, by school divisions. I don't debate the statistics you have presented. I don't debate the point that this can ha a onerous burden on persons paying the tax.

I also don't argue with the point that the assessment base is out of whack. We've all known that both governments have proceeded to try to do something about it and in fact, with the Minister for Municipal Affairs taking a lead there, there is an attempt to rectify that situati on, but all of the information is not yet in and so we haven't yet been able to move, but certainly the mill rate in Winnipeg is affected by decisions made - first of all by the school divisions - and will be different within the boundaries of the various school divisions around the city.

Certainly in the school division in which I live, Seven Oaks, it's always been fairly high because the people there vote for people who will provide a particular kind of education and opportunities in education that are expensive, that cost, and they're willing to pay for them in most instances. So it's very difficult to speak in isolation about why the mill rate in the city is high or why city taxes are high, without dealing with all of the factors that impact upon that tax. I believe I'll leave it at that. I think there are some other members who may wish to contribute to that particular subject. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Does the Minister of Mines and Energy want to say anything? HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, I wanted to clarity from the Member for St. Norbert when he raised those statistics with her; those did include property tax credits and he indicated to me that they didn't, so I think that often provides a distortion in the statistics. As a result, a sweeping generalization as drawn from that would be inaccurate. I think if one took into account the property tax credits, you would find that we compare very favourable with many other municipalities across this country. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, as the Minister indicated, I told him that the information supplied by the City of Winnipeg in their brief to the Macdonald Com mission, indicated that these were gross taxes, exclusive of any Provincial Property Tax Rebates, but some form of rebate is fairly general now throughout Canada, and I believe there are other reports that indicate that the City of Winnipeg, if not the highest, is anong the highest in terms of real property taxes. Mr. Chairman, I turn back to those heady days of government, from 1977 to 1981, when the former Member for St.

Johns, in these very same Estimates asked of me on one occasion: did I, as Minister of Urban Affairs, take any responsibiliy for the level of real property taxation? I indicated I felt that I did and we did as a Provincial Government, and that we had an obligation to ensure sufficient funding to maintain as low a rate of municipal taxation as we could. We did that, Mr. Chairman, by injecting a great deal of 1286

Monday, 28 May, 1984 money into the City of Winnipeg, through increases in the pro vincial Prop erty Tax Cred it and through refinancing of the educational system . lt was because of those measures that taxes only increased on an average assessed home of $7,000 in the City of Winnipeg by $78 over a period of four years, which I suggest is quite a remarkable reco rd, Mr. Chairman. In spite of that, the NDP promised to ease the municipal tax burden, Mr.

Chairman, but we have seen that taxes in three years have gone up nearly four times, a total increase over a four-year period under the Progressive Conservative Governments. I want to ask the Minister, what do the NDP mean, especially in light of this reco rd, what have they done, what do they intend to do to ease the municipal tax burden? Their record would indicate that they are an absolute failure. HON. M.B. DOLIN: We ll, first of all, I would remind the member of our generosity in comparison to other provinces with regard to the rebate.

We certainly are, if not the most generous, one of the most generous in that area. MR. G. ME RCIER : Not under this government. HON. M.B . DOLIN: Then I would also remind the member that in fiscal year 1984-85, the province did not increase the provincial education support levy on real property. All provincial increases in education funding for 1984-85 will be made up out of general reven ues and not from real property taxation. Now that, if not solving the issues that the member raises, at least is holding the line and attempting to get a look at what is happening in taxation.

Like I said earlier in my answers, any increases in the mill rates in 1984 can be attributed then to decisions by City Council or by the school division involved in that area. MR. G. MERCIE R: We ll, Mr. Chairman, it's a very interesting comment. lt would appear that the Minister and this government are abandoning any resp onsibility in this particular area, throwing it on the shoulders of City Council and attempting to withdraw completely from the election promises which they made. Mr.

Chairman, on another issue related to funding to the City of Winnipeg, the Minister wrote to the city, particularly with respect to the city's practice of transferri ng money from its current to its capital budget.

She indicated that a change in the funding, rather than fund to the city's operat ing budget, she is funding what she calls Unconditional Capital Grants program of $8.5 million rather than allowing the city to transfer from current to capital, as they've been in the practice of doing for many years, a policy that was developed in the early 1970s, to transfer current funds to capital to reduce the borrowing of the city. But she goes on in her letter to ind icate that: I can also advise you of the province's intention to conditionalize this $8.5 million in the 1985 fiscal year.

During the next two months the city and the province can enter into discussions for the 1985 fiscal year that will relate this $8.5 million to specific capital projects to be undertaken by the City of Winnipeg. Would the Minister please explain the imposition of a further Conditional Grant Program to be imposed upon the city by this government? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: We ll, this "imposition," as the member says - and I would put that word in quotes - is not that at all, but in fact is an agreement that is worked out between the city and the province, through discussion, based on the city's five-year plan, and that five-year plan is something that we discuss with them rather regul arly. One example of a way in which their plans are enhanced, if you will, by provincial funding is the choice of Lord Roberts. They clearly decided that the Lord Roberts Neighbourhood Improvement Program is the one that they wanted to go and that is the one that is being funded.

With the city's five-year program, I don't believe it will be difficult to determine where that capital funding should go or where they want it to go. As a matter of fact, the city has been transferri ng the money from current to capital on a rather regular basis in recent years, so they have esta blished a pattern of this. We simply followed that pattern. We think it's appropriate that it go there in the first place, if that's what they're going to do with it, if that's where they want it. MR. G. MERCIE R: Mr. Chairman, why doesn't the Minister just leave it up to the city?

Because what she is doing is telling the city this money has to go into the capital budget now and we're going to have to approve the projects for which this money is spent. Why does the Minister and this NDP Government feel it's so necessary that they must have the provincial approval for these capital projects? HON. M.B. DOLIN: In the first place, Mr.

Chairperson, this is provincial money that we are talking about. lt is money that is raised by the taxpayers of the Province of Manitoba. lt's not a matter of approving the projects, it's a matter of agreeing upon which projects are going to be funded by the province. This is done in many many ways. Certainly the province has a respo nsibility to determine where its money is being spent. I don't know of anybody in this room - and I would be pleased to hear of one because I'd probably go to the same bank - that can go to a bank and simply get a bundle of money for an unknown purpose.

There is a discussion of the purpose and there's a discussion of the asset that will be provided if it is in fact a capital asset , if it is a car, or it is a house, or whatever. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister explain that statement? She said this is not a matter of approving the projects , it's a matter of agreeing on the projects. Could she indicate whether the city can then proceed with a project that is not approved of or agreed upon by the province? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: I believe that if the member would look at the minutes of City Council or attend a City Council meeting he would find that they make a number of their own decisions and proceed in a number of ways that do not come before the province for approval. MR. G. MERCIE R: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate the exact reasons why she feels the province must approve these capital works projects? Why would the province inter fere in the priorities of City Council? 1287

Monclt�J, 28 ..., 1984 HON. M.B. DOLIN: Probably for exact the same reason that the Member for St. Norbert didn't give a non­ conditional grant to the Core Area Initiative. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely irrelevant. The Core Area initiative was a program developed by three levels of government, of which three levels of government agreed on the program. Could the Minister indicate why she feels it necessary to impose provincial approval on the capital works program of the city? HON. M.B. DOLIN: The number of levels involved is not the releva nt point.

The ARC dev elopment is two levels of government, Provincial and Federa l. There are other programs that are provincial and municipal. Some, like the core area, are tripartite, thr ee levels of government. The point is that when one of those levels of government contributes a fairly vast amount of money, then it should have, I believe, some responsibility to its own constituents, if you will, the people of Manitoba, as to how that money is going to be spent. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, are we then going to see NDP provincial government priorities Interfere with City Council priorities? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: At no time, Mr. Chairman, did I indicate that there were going to be priorities or programs laid on the city. If the member would read the letter sent to the city, he would find that the matter of choice is always available to the city. There is an option. They can take up the certain amount of money, if they wish. They don't have to. The example of the grant regarding transit fares is a good example. There was an offer of funding that would have maintained transit fares at a lower level.

The city had the option to do what it felt was appropriate, it did and, ther efore, it did not take up that portion of the grant. This sort of option is open to the city. Also, I have indicated very clearly that the city's five­ year plan is the operative plan that we are using. What is on that five-year plan, what they bring forward to us as their priority, those are the items under discussion. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, is the Minister saying that the province will suggest certain projects and that the city can participate if they wish and, thereby, have access to the provincial monies, but if they consider those not to be City of Winnipeg priorities, then the money won't be available to them? HON. M.B. DOLIN: In some cases that is correct. The neighbourhood planning programs, which the city has chosen not to participate in last year, is one area where they obviously didn't feel that was a priority.

We have again offered mone y so that if neigh bourhood or community groups will participate in planning, the money is available to assist In this way. If the city chooses not to have such neigh bourhood development of planning programs, then the money, of course, does not flow. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, apparently this group, the NDP, haven't learned by the mistakes they made up until 1977. I can only say to the Minister that, as soon as the province is rid of this government, the whole policy of these conditional grants will be changed once more. Mr.

Chairman, I asked the Minister a ques tion, and I don't have a copy of the letter. I would like to know what position she took with the city with respect to the purchase of Handi-Transit buses as lt related to the Dash bus route? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I don't have a copy of the letter in front of me eith er. I don't know if it Is here, but we did offer to cost-share whatever they chose to buy. MR. G. MERCIER: Was that in any way conditional upon elimination of the Dash buses? HON. M.B. DOLIN: No, it was not. MR. G. MERCIER: lt was completely independent of ever ything else? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: There would have been money for both, yes. MR. G. MERCIER: Has the city ar.cepted that? HON. M.B. DOLIN: lt seems to me they decided to purchase somewhere between their original two Handi­ Transit vans and the nine that were requested or something - six is what the staff tells me they have decided to purchase and they kept Dash. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (cX1)-p ass; 1.(cX2)- pass. Item No. 2.

Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg- pass. 139 -Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $32,907,000 for Urban Affairs Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1985- pass. Item No. 3.(

a) Urban Policy Co-ordination -Salaries; 3.(

b) Other Expenditures -the Member for St. Norbert. Do you want me to call all of them? 3.(

a) Sala ries; 3.(

b) Other Expenditu res; 3.(c)

(1) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Core Area Agreement - Payments to Other Implementing Jurisdictions; 3.(cX2) Payments to Other Provincial Departments; 3.(

d) Review Committee, City of Winnipeg Act- the Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: On Other Expenditures, there is quite a disparity from last year to this. Could the Minister indicate what that was for? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I'll have the answer in just a m0ment. That differential in expenditure is the way the co e area cash flow happened. I presume it's because of the slower start-up in the core area, obviously, in the first couple of years, and that's the actual cash flow. MRS. G. HAMMOND: The Logan Industrial Park, how many tenants have moved into the park? HON. M.B. DOLIN: The Logan Industrial Park is the federal portion of the responsibili ty, ours is the residential portion. 1288

Monday, 28 May, 1984 MRS. G. HAMMOND: Does the Minister not have any idea if there are any tenants that have gone into the park at all? HON. M.B. DOLIN: There are a number of small busine sses in there. The Federal Govern ment, as I understand it from the last I heard - and I really probably shouldn't even be reporting on the Federal Gover nment, but I'm just sharing with the members that there was a large group that they were in negotiations with. I have no idea who that is or any more about that issue. As I said, the residential portion of the Logan area is our resp onsibility. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Maybe the Minister would just care to explain how that works. Is this not all part of the Core Area Agree ment? HON. M.B. DOLIN: There are impl ementing jurisdictions, as the member may be aware, under the Core Area Agreement. The Federal Government is the implementing jurisdiction for the industrial

section of the Logan area. There is a tri-level group that is looking at the situation, that is looking for tenants and so on, but the implementing jurisdiction is the Federal Government in this area. MRS. G. HAMMOND: How are the funds allocated then? Do they come out of the agreement? HON. M.B. DOLIN: The Management Board puts together the project authorization when it is ready to go forward, and the thr ee parties sign such project authorizations. That's the way it has functioned from the be ginning, as I understand it. That is cert ainly the way we are functioning now.

But there are Implementing jurisdictions for the various programs within the Core Area Agreement, sometimes the city, sometimes the Federal Gover nment, sometimes the province. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Would Mr.- is it Boland? - who heads the Core Area Project , is that . . . HON. M.B. DOL IN: Larry Boland Is the General Manager, yes. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Right. Would he then be heading this project, or is there some other person that comes in and does this? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I think the easiest way to explain it is that there are obviously many many programs under the Core Area Agreement. This is but one of them.

The Federal Government is marketing, if you will, that space, marketing that area. Upon successful completion of marketing it, a project authorization would be drawn up and there would be signatures to it. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Just one question then, is Mr. Boland the one tha\ is oversee ing this particular area? Is this not all part of his job? HON. M.B . DOLIN: The criteria is established by all three levels of govern ment. Mr. Boland is the Gener al Manager of the Core Area Agreement. There is a staff that works, of course, with Mr.

Boland to serve the administrative needs of the core area and of these various end eavours that go on under the auspices, if you will, of the agreement. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I'm sorry, I didn't assume that Mr. Boland was doing everyt hing himself, but I did just want to establish - he is the Manager of the Core Are a Agreement and that's what the Logan Industrial Park comes under. Am I correct? HON. M.B . DOLIN: I think the member was assuming that Mr. Boland was marketing that area though, or running around trying to, you know, market it to various industries or somet hing. That's not a part of his task.

The Federal Government is marketing that area. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister is trying to tell this committee that just because the Federal Government is the implementing authority that we can't ask any questions about this matter, that is totally wrong and certainly wrong with respect to the item raised by the Member for Kirkfield Park given this govern ment's action in this particular area. lt was this government that amended the whole plan for the Logan Industrial Park and reduced its size dramatically. lt is because of that that there are now comments by many people indicating that it's because of the scaling-down of the project that has seriously hurt its ability to attract industries in this location.

I ask the Minister this: can she indicate whether or not there is one new business going into the Logan Industrial Park as of now? HON. M.B. DOLIN: At this point in time, considering that last fall we approved the criteria for the area, it is being marketed. I can't give an answer as to whether there is a new business going in, because I am not involved in marketing that space. As I have indicate d, the Federal Government is.

We are planning to do an ev aluation this fall on what has happened over the year, and whether the Federal Government has in fact marketed the area, whether there are new tenants moving in and so on. But the criteria, as I say, was developed last fall and will be evaluated this fall. I believe that's all that I can share with the mem ber. The Federal Government is doing the marketing. MR. G. MERCIE R: Mr.

Chairman, it's this government that has to take res ponsibility for the complete lack of attracting any new business to this site because of its decision and its imposition of its views upon the city and the Federal Government in this particular area with respect to the size of the Logan Industrial site.

I want to ask the Minister - and perhaps she has some information on this, she indicated the province is res ponsible for the housing project - could she indicate the total amount of money that is being spent per unit in the Logan neighbourhood, inasmuch as there were reports that the government is spending about $50,000 per unit to rehabilitate 75 homes? Does that include the new services for water main, street servicing, sidewalks, lanes and lighting that MHRC are also spending in this area? 1289

Monday. 21 ... , 11M HON. M.B. DOLIN: I think there are a couple of questions there. The water services, sewer services and so on for the area were paid under the Core Area Agreement. No matter what had happened in the area, those services were ess ential for renovation purposes. They had to be done. With regard to the per unit cost, we're just getting the information for you.

In determ ining the actual cost, the extra cost if you will, for rehabilitation of a unit, considering what it costs to renovate, and then the people of course either buying back, or back in, is about $1 2,000, a little over $12, 000 per unit. MR. G. MERCIE R: Mr. Chairman, where did the figure develop of $50,000 per unit? HON. M.B. DOLIN: That's the cost for buying the house in the first place. MR . G. MER CIER : Oh, I see. That inc ludes the acquisition . . . HON. M.B. DOLIN: Acquisition. MR. G. ME RCIER: . . . and then the rehab ilitation costs and the servic ing costs? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: We ll, since the work is not complete yet, none of these figures would be accurate for, you know, a final figure. They may be, but that would only be by chance that they were. We would have to wait until the work is complete before we could give you a final figure on what it cost on average per unit, but appro xima tely the figur e you mentione d for the purchase of the house, renovation and so on with a net cost of about $12, 300.00. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, when you include the acquisition costs, the rehabilitation costs, the servicing costs, is $50,000 or $60,000 a reaso nable approximation of the cost per unit? HON. M.B. DOLIN: The ser vicing Is a separate cost. The servicing for the area was paid out of the Core Area Agreement, not per house. MR. G. MERCIE R: Mr. Chairman, the Minister has not allayed my concern that when you take all of the costs that this government has embarked upon in the area, the acq uisition costs, the servi cin g costs, the rehabilitation costs, you are looking at something like in the area of $50,000 per unit.

In view of the fact that it is estimated that only about one-third of the former residents of the area still live in the area, combine d with what the effect this gover nment's action has had on the complete lack of development of the industrial park, the government's actions are a complete boondoggle In this area. They've spent exorbitant amounts on housing for people.

When supposedly it was a prime intention to encourage people to remain in the area, two-thirds of them have moved away and because of the decision with respect to housing, which reduced the industrial park, nobody has moved into the industrial park. lt was a pure political move by the former Minister previ ously, now the Minister of Industry, and the chickens are coming home to roost. it's an absolute disaster. HON. M.B. DOLIN: We ll, Mr. Chairman, first of all, I don't believe that a residential area such as that or any re sidential area is dependent on having an Industrial park next door.

We believe that the residents of Logan who wanted to remain ought to have had that opportunity and they did, some in renovated homes, some in new homes, different homes under the one of the Homes in Manitoba programs with the infill housing and so on. In fact, I would invite the member to attend with me and walk through the area that has been - that is being planned, I should say.

I don't have a date for it, but sometime in June we intend to go through the area and visit some of the homes that have been renovated and some of the infill homes, and see exactly what is happening there and I would invite the member to attend with me. MR . G. MER CIE R: Mr. Chairman, what was the budgeted cost for the Logan Industrial Park that the NDP Government reduced so drastically in size? How much money has been spent on the Core Area Initiative on the Logan Industrial Park? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I understand that $7 million is the entire amount with two-thirds of that being spent on the industrial site.

I would remind the member that the small busine ss sites have filled up quite nicely. lt's the large business sites for which the Federal Government is still looking for tenants. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, when you look at those figures, consider that $7 million is being spent on the industrial park which has failed to attract one new busine ss because of the reduction in size by this government combined with the exorbitant costs the government is spen ding on housing in the area when two- thirds of the people have moved away, the combination of it is a disaster. it's all the result of a political decision by this government and has resulted in an immense waste of taxpayers' money. HON . M.B.

DOL IN: I think that the member will understand when I say that the Federal Government req uir ed a vacant site before they felt the y had something they could market; that's in fact what they are doing now. I certai nly hope they will succeed . We all hope they will succeed , but they did feel they had to have a site before they could take it onto the market for use. MR. CHAI RMAN: 3.(a) - the Member for K.P. MR � . G. HAMMOND: Ye s, I wanted to ask about the housing agency and the jobs. There is an

article in the paper which indicated that the government was hiring few of the workers out of the area and that the private agencies, private companies, were hiring far more of the Natives and immigrants out of the area. Has there been any change? HON. M.B. DO LIN: I would just ask what housing agency the member feel that the Minister for Urban Affairs is responsible for? 1290

Menday, 28 M.,. 1184 MRS. G. HAMMOND: Would it be the CMHC that would be in there? HON. M.B. DO LIN: Well, CMHC is . MRS. G. HAMMOND: The MHRC. HON. M.B. DOLIN: MHR C is in the Department of Housing. MR S. G. HAMMOND: Every thing's in another department, I've never . . . MR. CHAI RMAN: 3.(a) - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. ME RCIER : Mr. Chairman, could the Minister indicate what action she has taken with respect to reso lving the assessment problem in the City of Winnipeg? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: The member is probably aware that there are appeals that have come forward in the City of Winnip eg and probably will continue to come forward in the City of Winn ipeg where in fact they are being allowed. As I menti oned earlier in our discussions, the asses sment situation is being handled through the Depart ment of Municipal Affairs. Certainly I'm in contact with my colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he is proceeding with this matter as quickly as he can, but all of the information isn't in on it yet. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, as the legislation now stands, the City of Winnipeg is responsible for asses sment within the City of Winnipeg boundaries, and the province is responsible for assess ment outside of the City of Winnipeg, so this Minister has some responsi bility with respect to asse ssment within the City of Winnipeg. This gover nment received the Weir Report on assessment a number of years ago, shortly after they took office, and have not yet taken any action with respect to resolving this problem.

We now see that as a result of the appeal by the Portage Avenue landowners that successfu l appeal in that case could cost the City of Winnipeg $8 million to $9 million in lost reve nue to the city. This government, without question, Is guilty of negligence for not dealing with the We ir Report and proce eding to resolve this assess ment question. In view of that, I ask the Minister what sort of position the province will take in the event that the City of Winnipeg loses revenue in the order of $8 million to $9 million, as a result of the assessment appeals? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: Well, I can assure the member this is an item that is unde r di scussion with the city delega tion, when the Urb an Affairs Commit tee of Cabinet and the city delegation meet, and will certainly be on our agenda again. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and myself do discuss this issue with them.

There is not the possibility of moving forward at this time with a change in assessment across the province because, as I have said two or three times now, all of the information isn't in: The Minister of Municipal Affairs is waiting for the last piece of information before a 1291 complete package is ready, so that recom mendations can then be made based on that. In the meantime, I'm sure the member is aware that appeal cases can go forward in the City of Winnipeg. MR. G. MERCIER : We ll, Mr. Chairman, a couple of points. One, the Minister says, well, we're still discussing this.

That's what we see as the problem - that the province is still discussing. Some action should have been taken a number of years ago when they received this report. She says it's in the hands of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As long as it's in his hands, as it was in the hands of the previous Municipal Affairs Minister, there's not going to be any action taken and there's a severe asses sment problem within the City of Winnipeg. it appears to me that as this government approaches or gets closer to a provincial election I doubt that they're going to do anything.

I doubt that they're going to have the nerve to take any action at all. If the Attorney-Gener al, for example, has to write to me to find out the views of caucus on some simple amendments to The Liquor Control Act to make sure we won't oppose them, or to write to me about The Securities Act, even though it's an urgent matter to make sure that our caucus agrees, then I doubt that this government Is going to take any action whatsoever with respect to a severe problem within the City of Winnipeg - not only for the City of Winnipeg but outside the City of Winnipeg also - with respect to asse ssment.

By virtue of the neglect and negligence and delay of the Provincial Govern ment, the city is going to suffer, it would appear, significant and substantial losses of revenue. Is the Minister and the government prepared to provide compensation to the city in the event of successful appeals against the city's assessments due to their negligence and delay in dealing with this particular problem? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I think that the member is quite aware - and I don't have Hansard before me - but I believe that the discussion was rather complete with the Minister of Municipal Affairs on exactly this issue.

I don't know whether the member was involved in that discussion, but I repeat again that the Minister of Muni cipal Affairs has been charged with the responsibility for asse ssment. That is the appropria te place to ask the questions with regard to when any changes in assess ment will be made or how the review is coming along or what pieces of information we are still waiting for, etc. With regard to compensation, I think the member is quite aware that I'm not going to issue a blanket statement that will cover all taxes the city wishes to have us cover that they don't feel they'r e getting from people. MR. G.

MERCIE R: Well, Mr. Chairman, unfortunately that's an answer we've gotten too many times; this Min ister will not take respo nsibil ity. Unfortun ately, assessm ent certainly now is within the jurisdiction of the City of Winnipeg and is a direct respo nsibility of her portfolio by virtue of The City of Winnipeg Act. If she won't take any respo nsibility for it, I take it there'll have to be another government that will take some respo nsibility for it.

Monday, 28 May, 181M MR . CHAIRMAN: 3.(a) - the Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Has the province approved Plan Winni peg? HON. M.B. DOLIN: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the very final points of the plan will be dis cussed with the city. I think there is general agreement. I think we have come to a consensus agreement on nearly all of the points and we are right down to the wire at this point. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Is there any particular point that the city and the province are having a disagreement on that they're discussing? HON. M. B. DOLIN: I don't believe so.

We are about to notify the city of our position and I don't foresee any areas of disagreement, really. M. G. MERCIER : Mr. Chairman, in Dec ember the province and the Federal Government signed a Memorand ur.1 of Understan ding on Transportation and Urban Bus Industrial Dev elopment. Within that release there was a refe rence to the possible manufacture of a lightweight rail car in Mani toba, research into manufacturing of advanced urban buses, and reference to a sub-agreement which could include or deem feas ible a demonstration phase which could occur along a dedic ated roadway in the city's southwest corridor.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister whether or not the City of Winnip eg Transit Department and transpo rtation people have been involved in any discussions with respect to this agreement so that we could hopefully see an experimental program or project, if that's what it's called, which would finally develop a rapid transit project along the southwest corridor, using the Letellier line and the CNR main line? HON. M.B. DOLIN: . . . the question very long. That was, has the city been involved in the discussions? Ye s, they have.

I'm just trying to figure out how to get it into the north-end instead of from your constituenc y, Sir. MR . G. MERCIE R: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that was developed , if I'm correct, going back to 1974, when I was a member of City Council.

I still believe that it is the proper route to go, but it was always, whether it was at the council level or the provincial level, considered that it was the type of project that requi red a large injection of federal funds in order to make it financially viable for the city and the province to embark upon it. 1 should tell the Minister, if she is not aware, that there is a way that it could eventually go into the North End, because that was part of the original proposal. lt could also go into the northeast, into the Transcona and East Kildonan areas.

I think it would be an excellent project for the province to work on, perhaps they may need a commitment before the next federal elec tion. lt would be a very charitable move of the federal Ministers at the present time, Mr. Chairman, but it would be an excellent project to concentrate on, and hopefully develop with a large infusion of federal funds in this field. HON. M.B. DOLIN: I couldn't agree more. If you'll excuse the expression, I have tried to capitalize on the generosity, I suppose, of our federal member for the area, the Minister of Transport.

I believe that the province, in fact, has long pushed for this agreement and this project to go forward . lt is merely my excitement at having the project get under way that mal(es me want to invite them into the North End, that plus the fact that I might not have to drive to work every day. MR . G. MERCIER : Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Min ister could advise us as to the status of the discussions then that are going on. Is the Southwest Rapid Transit Corridor actually being discussed and worked on by officials of the three levels of government? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: We are at the point where the drafts are no longer numbered. Now the draft says, final draft, so I hope that means that we are close to an agreement . I don't know. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, how far away are we from a decision on this matter? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I'm afraid I can·� give a definit ive answer to that, because we cert ainly can't determine what the Federal Government is going to do. As the member knows, they may be making fewer decisions in the next few months. I don't know. Things are cert ainly in a state of flux. The Southwest Corridor is, I believe, a possibility.

There are other components that are still being discussed, but the Southwest Corridor itself is, I think, a stronger possibility. MR . G. MERCIER : Mr. Chairman, could we expect a decision within a couple of months? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I would hope so. I will cert ainly encou rage it. MR . CHAI RMAN: 3.(a), 3. (b) - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Just one question, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the North Portage expropria tion, who is going to be sel ling the redevelopment of that expropriated area, and what is the time component of the rehabilita tion? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: I don't believe that we are supposed to be getting into a d1scussion of that again, but I will answer the member's question. I believe that the land will he leased by the corporation. MR. R. NORDMAN: lt will be leased? HON. M.B. DOLIN: By the corporat ion. MR . R. NO RDMAN: I see. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)-pass; 3.(b)-p ass; 3.(c)-pass; 3.(c)(1) -p ass; 3.(c)(2)- pass; 3.(d)- pass. Resolution 140: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceed ing $5, 151 ,800 for Urban 1292

Monday. 28 May, 1984 Affairs, Urban Policy Co-ordination, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1985- pass. 4.(

a) Agreement for Recreat ion and Conservation for the Red River Corridor , Salaries, 4.(b)

(1) Other Expenditures, ARC Secret ariat, 4.(bX2) ARC Authority - the Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I understand that the agreement for the ARC ends March 31 st, 1985. Has ever ything been accomplished under the ARC Agreement? HON. M.B. DOLIN: No, every thing has not been completed. The same Federal Minister we referred to earlier and I have had some informal discussions about the value of the program. We both think it's quite valuable, of course, and I would hope that anything that is not completed cer tainly would be allowed to be completed. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Will there be an extension of the agreement? HON.

M.B. DOLIN: That's what we are looking at, certainly for the two major projects which may not be completed -well probably won't be completed -which are the Forks area and perhaps the area at Lockport. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Are the Trappist ruins and the X-Kalay included in that? HON. M.B. DOLIN: "T hey are, yes, although there are some other considerations involved. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Will there be any additional cost to the province? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Most extensions involve extra costs, but I couldn't tell you what that would be at this point. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister, are there serious negotiations going on for the extension? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Ye s, there are. MR. R. NORDMAN: I mean the magnitude of this plan HON. M.B. DOLIN: Ye s, there are, because we certainly do not want to allow, let's say, the Forks to stop right in the middle and not be completed. Certainly there are negotiations under way to allow the completion of the projects defined under ARC. That is why I'm saying, the cash flow involved, I can't give you right now, but certainly it would be enough to complete those. lt wouldn't be a huge amount that I can foresee at this point. MR. R.

NORDMAN: How much property were we able to get at the confluence? Were we able to get the full 13 acres or how much? HON. M.B. DOLIN: No, it's a little over 10 acres. MR. R. NORDMAN: About 10 acres. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a) - the Member for K. Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: With reference to the Forks, is the program, once the Forks is completed, this part of it, is it going to be continued? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: The memorandum that was signed about a week ago, a little over a week ago, does indicate that there will be further negotiations with regard to the balance of the land in the area, the use of that land. it certainly is the hope of all parties concerned that it would be developed appropriately , and meet the needs and the wishes of the people in the City of Winnipeg for whatever use. That use is not yet defined. There have been many suggestions regarding that use, but certainly something that would be attractive and, as I say, serve a useful purpose.

Those negotiations, of course, for the balance of the land would continue with CN and the city and the province - whatever. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Will there be a new agreement signed if, say, you go into the se cond phase of the ARC Agreement? HON. M.B. DOLIN: There would have to be some kind of an extension perhaps of the agreement signed. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a) - the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHN STON: Can the Min ister supply the committee with a list of the projects under the ARC Agreement, and where they stand as to being half­ finished, fini shed or three-quarters finished?

Is that available to the committee? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Ye s, I would be able to supply that to you, not immedia tely or not tonight, I don't believe, but we could certainly get it to you. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Could you indicate what the value of each project is? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Ye s, we would do that for you. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I think that's an exce llent suggestion by the Member for Sturgeon Creek and I thank the Minister for agreeing to that. Hopefully , she will include, at least those members who are present now, with that information.

Just a couple of questions, could the Minister indicate how much is committed now to preserving the ruins of the Trappist Monastery site? HON. M.B. DOLIN: The city has put in $50,000, the Department of Cultural Affairs has put in $50,000 and the ARC Program, if you will, has $128,000 set aside for that project and it's being held in abeyance until there is a decision on the future of the area. MR. G. MERCIER: I assume the preserva tion of the site is going to go forward and that it's just a matter of former detail. 1293

MondaJ, 28 May, 11M HON. M.B. DOLIN: One of the issues is who maintains the park, who is responsible for the park site. The city is not too eager to maintain it as a city park. There has to be the determination not only to develop this site - I mean, that can be done easily enough, but there has to be a commitment to maintain the site and that's one of the things we don't have yet. MR . G. MERCIE R: Mr.

Chairman, it is an extremely important site and I think the negotiations that were proceeding prior to the fire, of course, would have resulted in the church maintaini ng the monastery because they would occupy it on a regular basis. But, in view of the closeness of the site on the La Salle River historic theme park, it certainly would be provincial people close to this site that could contribute to the maintenance. I wouldn't expect that it would be a large amount of work. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to develop a method of proceeding with the preservat ion of the site.

I assume Genstar is still prepared to dona te the land? HON. M.B. ilOLIN: Ye s, I believe they are. They still have a very large holding right next to it. I under stand that they will dona te the land. lt really is a question of who is going to maintain the park once it's built. MR . G. MERCIER : Mr. Chairman, could the Minister advise as to the status of the St. Norbert X-Kalay Project? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I'll have the answer for you in just a moment.

The X-Kalay Project is one of a series that are very close together right in that area and I have a question re garding the Federal Government which I'm asking staff and I'll have the answer for you in a moment. The provincial funds are there. They are being held again, awaiting the CMHC approval for the rebuilding of the residence itself, the building Itself. There has to be a federal contribution there. MR. G. MERCIE R: Mr. Chairman, when is a decision expected from CMHC? Is that relatively close? I would assume it is. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Staff assures me that it is coming very shortly. MR. G.

MERCIER: Ye s, I would assume it is. There's something about an election here. HON. M.B. DOLIN: I know. lt's interesting to have an election. You either get what you want or you lose it all. MR S. G. HAMMOND: With the extension of the agreement and talking about additional costs to the province, will these be new funds or will they be reallocated ? HON. M.B. DOLIN: The amount you're talking about would depend on what was left to be finished in an extended agreement that was designed to cover the time needed to complete the projects that were under way.

There would be some administrative costs and whatever was left that needed to be paid out to complete the projects, of course, would be cash flowed in those two years. MR . CHAI RMAN: 4.(a) - the Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I just wanted to ask about the River Road stabilization and I understand they did the test section. When would the report be rea dy? Has there been an Interim report? HON. M. B. DOLIN: There is an interim report that is in and the final report is expected next March. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Is there any money left to continue the stabilization if the report is favourable? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: No, not in the ARC Program, that would take us up to the conclusion of the ARC agreement, as the member is aware, next March. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a}-pass; 4.{b)(1}-p ass; 4.{b)(2)­ pass. Res olution 141: Res.:.!ved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $247,600 for Urban Affairs Agreement For Recrea tion And Conservation For The Red River Corridor for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 19 85-p ass. 5.(a){1} Expenditur es Related to Capital Assets - Acquisition/Construction of Physical Assets: Payments to Other Implementing Jurisdictions; 5.{a)

(2) Payments to Other Provincial Departments; 5.(a)

(3) Departmental Expenditures. Shall I call them all? A MEMBER : You can. Go ahead. MR. CHAI RMAN: 5.{b} Acquisition/Construction of Physical Assets: Agreement for Recreation and Conservation for the Red River Corridor; 5.(c)( 1} Financial Assistance for the City of Winnipeg: Grants; 5.{c)

(2) Intergo vernmental Land Sales Program - the Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Could the Minister just explain 5.(a)? Which departments the payments went to? HON. M.B. DOLIN: 5.(a)(1) provides $1,12 7,900 for payments to other implementing jurisldicitons of cost­ shared projects and 5.(a)(2) provides payments to other provincial departments in the amount of $1 ,464,000.00.

That consists of $480,000 for municipal services, $550.000 for home-owner ship assistance grants - those are · .oth administered by MHRC - and $800,00 for the Small Business Assistance Program that's administered b> the Core Area office and is under contract with the Department of Small Business and Tourism or Business Dev elopment and Tourism. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Where would the money be or would it be in this area for any of the education projects? Was there any capital spent on education? HON. M.B. DOLIN: That was in 3.{c){2). 1294

MRS. G. HAMMOND: There was no capital then, spent in that area? HON. M.B. DOLIN: No, no capital expenditures there. MRS. G. HAMMOND: The (b), that's just covers the Art Project does it? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Yes it does. MRS. G. HAMMOND: What would be included in it? HON. M.B. DOLIN: The list that we indicated we would provide to all the members here will contain that information if that's satisfactory to the member. MRS. G. HAMMOND: That's fine, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(aX1)- pass; 5.(aX2)- pass - the Member for K.P. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Just one question. What would the Land Sales Program be? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: That is a program that was in place between the city and the province. lt is being termina ted but there is one outstanding issue yet. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(aX3)-p ass; 5.(b)- pass; 5.(cX1)­ pass; 5.(cX2)-p ass. Resolution 142: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $27,805,400 for Urban Affairs/Expend itures Related to Capital Assets for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1985- pass. Back to the Minister's Salar y, 1. (a). HON. M.B. DOLIN: The Minister's half-salary. A MEMBER: Pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass.

Resolution 138: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $407,600 for Urban Affairs/Administration and Finance for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1985- pass. Does the committee wish to rise? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Ye s, it is risen. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. SUPPLY - AGRICULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order . We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture, Item 5.(h), Agricultural Crown Lands. Mr. Minister . HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, as we broke for supper hour the Honourable Member for Arthur raised a - (Interjection) - starts with "A", raised a matter dealing with a policy that had begun while he was Minister, and was in the process of review by this administration and had been reviewed , and that is the policy issue dealing with unit trans fers.

In his comments he basically indicated , which I made before the supper hour, raised issues which really point to some of the difficulties encountered by the administration in attem pting to allow a unit transfer of Crown, a mixture of Crown and private land holdings where there is more than one purch aser, or prospective buyer.

In this case that he raised, I should mention to the honourable member that, there were several that were interested in the holdings and part of the criteria in dealing with land with unit transfers, for the examination of criteria or issues dealing with unit transfers, is the evaluation of the private landholdings and buildings and any other matters which might be considered to be part of the unit.

Of course, the dispute arose when the vendor as part of trying to sort out who might be the likely successful purchaser of the unit transfer when he chose to, and was asked by one of the prospective buyers, whether the sale of cattle could be included in the transfer. - (Interjection) - I'm sorry, the Honourable Member for Emerson says . . . MR. A. DRIEDGER: I said who did he ask? HON. B. URUSKI: Who did he ask? I don't think he asked anyone. I'm saying he was asked by one of the prospective purchasers as to whether or not the cattle could be included as part of the total transfer.

He did approach the branch, as I understand it, and asked whether that was a possibility. And the branch indicated that cert ainly it would be provided, that the cattle prices in the condition that they were in, and the state that they were in, that their value would not, a value attributed to them would not be far above what would be the normal commercial value of those animals. So that the entire unit transfer was allowed including the cattle.

I might add that in many instances or in some of the instances that come forward, the entire farmstead , lives tock, machiner y, buildings and land are all part and parcel of the consideration in unit tra nsfer providing, of course, the key question that is always raised is that there is no additional or imputed value more than the market value for the private holdings, whatever they be, whether it be the land, the buildings, the machinery and/or cattle, so that there is no value other than the improvements.

Now, the improvements in the Crown land, of course, are paid for by the Crown, so that there is no imputed value for the Crown land. That is really the difficulty, and it is. I'm sure that type of a ransfer will always be subject to one's

interpretation as to what really went on in terms of how did the branch evaluate certain holdings to allow the unit transfer. As I understand it, the person in question who originally started making or began the transaction with the prospective vendor was not interested in the cattle at all. Of course, I presume he felt that since he was the initial person involved or one of the first sort of on the scene that he should have had the right of first refusal or the first right to obtaln that unit to consolidate it with his own or do whatever.

When it was brought to my attent ion, of course, the Crown Lands Advisory Committee had already reviewed the circumstances and had reco mmended to the staff 1295

Monday, 28 May, 1884 that the unit transfer occur. Unit transfers do not, because I don't believe there is an appeal - there is an appeal if the sale does not go through. The committee allowed the transaction to proceed; the sale was allowed to proceed. There is an appeal to the Minister if a sale is not allowed. When it was drawn to my attention at that time, the transaction had been consummated. As a result, the letter that the honourable member has a copy of was sent to Mr. Olesch uk. That's the name. I believe that is the name that the honourable member was reading.

On the basis following that, the letter was sent to him. I should add that there were additional lands identified - (Interjecti on) - Well, no, of course, no one is happy when some other alternatives, and one is not the successful vendor especially in a unit transfer. That's basically what has transpired in this whole situation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, the Mi nister's explanations to me aren't satisfactory. I believe the process that should have been carried out was somewhat different than what was. I can't let him off with it, because it is really not excusable.

First of all, it isn't truly a unit transfer. He is treat ing it or calling it a unit transfer, but in my estimation it isn't. lt really isn't truly an ongoing farm operat ion. lt is initiated between two people, a private sale of, I think, it's a quarter-sect ion of land and along with it was to go the leased piece of proper ty. I understand the initial setup was the first person who applied or all those people who applied for the land, to purchase it and the lease, was on a point basis, okay? If this individual, Mr.

Oleschuk, was successful in obtaining an agreement and he was top on the point system , as I understand it, then he should have achieved getting the land. His bid with the land was equal to the others. The Crown land lease, Mr. Chairman, on a point system , would have come to him.

But all at once he finds himself being forced to bid on cows, cows that I would say - you know, let's go back to this particular time, I think it was in the middle of the winter - I think the successful bid for the cows was $850 for a bred cow In the middle of the winter which is, I would say, a pretty decent price, probably a little higher than the average price of cows would be trading for. lt put him into a difficult situation.

First of all, he didn't want the cows; then he was told if he bid on the cows that it would automatically - I shouldn't say that - but there's a possibility that automatically he would get the land because they forced it into a package and then he's refused, Mr. Chairman. I think the individual has a right to be very upset and feel dejected. I, on his behalf, said to him that we would and did proceed to write the Minister and ask for an explanation. I'm not satisfied with the explanation.

As I indicated to the Minister , if he had made a successful bid on the property to buy the quarter and was success ful, as far as the point system is concerned, he should have had the prope rty. He missed on that, then went to the appeal mechan isn, the appeal comm ittee. If he wasn't successful, Mr. Chairman, then his appeal - at that point the appeal committee could have taken a look at it and stopped the sale of land. lt would have been their opportunity to stop what was in fact wrong. Really , the man that sold the cows got value for those cows from the lease that he had.

I'm not saying there's any wrong with a unit transfer, a total unit. I think lt worked quite well and I think it will continue to do so, but under this particular case it's been badly handled. The department had their fall back as far as the committee was concerned. The committee could have stopped it; the Minister signs every one of those. The Minister has the obligation to sign each one of those that go to the committee. Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman, under the act, when the committee deals with a specific qu estion, the approval or disappro val has to be signed by the Minister's Office.

There has to be the Minister of Agriculture's signature on it. I would ask the Minister, Mr. Chairman, to check his books because I'm sure he has signed it. If he hasn't, then he's not living up to the act and there is still a chance then of this individual getting it, if it hasn't been approved or disapproved by the Minister. He Indicates from his seat that he didn't sign it. We ll, if he didn't sign it, then in fact the property is still up for allocation and the appeal system has not been followed through properly .

There's another area that we're going to have to question with this Minister on the handling of Crown lands, Mr. Chairman, because it's not to the satisfaction of the opposition or the public. I think there's been a wrong done. I think he had the oppor tunity to do it. I think he had the opportunity to correct it, and now I'm asking him to do so. I think there has to be some way in which this whole thing is straightened out and I want him to take it seriously and tell me why he can't straighten it out. Did he not sign an approval for what the Crown Land Appeal Committee did on this case?

Did he sign or did he not sign an approval? it's a committee appointed by him; it's in the act; it has to be done and I ask him if he did or if he did not sign an approval to allow this property to be handled this way after it went to the committee? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I think the honourable member is confusing the issue of unit transfers which he set up, with the current policy of allocation of Crown lands to lessees. There is a separ ation. First of all, Mr. Chairman, there is no point system in the unit transfer.

The purpose - let's first set the issue out - the purpose of the unit transfer is to allow orderly transfer of viable units. An outgoing lessee can leave and a brand new lessee steps In and takes over if the unit is viable. In this case here, the committee did identify this unit as a self-contained viable unit. The staff presented it to the committee as a viable unit and it was treated as such. In terms of setting the policy, the Minister of the Department in the Minister's Ofloce is involved in the setting of the broad policy in the same way as he set the policy when he was Minister.

If the criteria of the policy is agreed upon, once the policy is set, the director approves the transfers. The Minister doesn't become involved. There is no point system involved in the selection of a new vendor of a unit transfer. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Can it be appealed? 1296

Monday, 28 May, 1984 HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Member from Emerson raises a question, "Can it be appeal ed?" The only time that an appeal can occur in a unit transfer is if the branch, if the director and the staff, disallow the purchase to go through. Based on criterion basically , what would happen is if the amount of money asked for by the vendor exceeds what the branch in its independent review of evaluation of that property , whatever is being transferred, whether it's land, buildings, differs with what the sale price is.

At that point in time the branch can say, "Hold it." They can say, "Hold it, the value that you are asking and that you're placing on the private assets far exceed what the commercial value would be. We are not approving it.'' MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, that's what happened in this case. HON. B. URUSKI: No, I'm sorry, it didn't happen in this case. The Honourable Member from Arthur either he has been given wrong information in this case. There was no appeal. To the best of my knowledge, the branch did not turn down the transfer of land.

The branch did allow the committee, looked at the unit transfer, the staff brought it to the committee - the application for unit transfer - the comm ittee dealt with it and said, "Yes, in our mind, this is eligible for a unit transfer. We will allow it to go," and it went, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, and the person who the Honourable Member from Arthur is repre senting or speaking of tonight was not one of the successful people in obta ining that unit transfer. In the final decision, in terms of decision, the department stays out of the whole process of choosing and get ting involved in a unit transfer.

The department does not get involved in the choosing of an owner in a unit transfer unless there is clear evidence to show that the value that is imputed in the assets that are being transferred exceed the market value of those assets that are being transferred that would, in fact, impute a value on the Crown Land that is part and parcel of that transfer. That is the only time there would be an involvement in the selection, in fact in the selection or in the transfer at all by the branch. If the member read s the letter, I believe he has a copy of the letter , and I have one here, March 7, 1984.

Is that the letter that he has been read ing from to Mr. Oleschuk? You are quoting from the letter , would you mind tabling it $0 we can see whether we . . . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, March 2nd is the letter. lt's probably the same letter . This one is March 2nd not the 7th. I ask the Minister to table the letter that tJe has, Mr. Chairman? MR. B. URUSKI: Sure. Well, I'll read the letter into the record to see if it matches. "Your February 15th letter to Mr. Gil Lahaie, Acting Director of the Crown Lands Branch, has been brought to my attent ion." That's a letter to Mr. Oles chuk.

"In your letter you indicate that a transfer of lands held under Forage Lease 2375 by Mr. Louis Soucy to Mr. Ed Dan is in conflict with current policy. From information provided by staff, I'm advised that all criteria of the transfer of Leased Lands Policy tJave been met and the transfer can be approved. "With specific reference to the matter of livestock being included in the transfer, this is consistent with the policy. The inclusion of livestock in a transfer is in fact desirable from the point of view of ensuring continuity of operat ion.

However, in light of other information provided by staff in regard to this transfer and dealings and discussions between yourself, the Agricultural Crown Lands Branch and the Crown Lands Appeal Advisory Committee during the past year, I am prepared to grant you a hearing with the above committee. I wish to advise, however, that this hearing is not an appeal hearing and will not result in a reversal of any earlier decision or the transfer in ques tion. The purpose will be for dialogue between the committee and yourself. "In the copy of this letter I'm instructing Mrs.

Jennie Des champs, Secretary to the Committee, to

schedule a date for this hearing . Mr s. Deschamps will be contacting you very shortly in regard to this hearing. I sincerely hope that these arrangements are satisfactory." That is the letter that was sent by myself with a copy of which I have sent to Mr. Oleschuk and that basically outlines the position that was taken by myself when this matter was drawn to my atte ntion. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, it's a little different from the letter I have received . The one I received is March 2nd and I'll read it into the record as well so it's cle ar. "Mr.

Downey, I have your letter of February 17 , 1984, in which you raised concerns about Crown land allocation policies as relates to Mr. Henry Oles chuk. lt is correct that the allocation of Crown land parcels is based on a point system to determine the producer need for Crown land. However, the land that Mr. Oleschuk was involved was classified as a production unit consisting of both private and Crown land. The Advisory Committee decided that the land should transfer as a unit whereby the rules of the unit transfer policy would apply.

Under the unit transfer policy, the owner of the private land may sell to the highest bidder and have the associated Crown land transferred with the sale provided the price of the private land is not above the appraised market value for the land as determined by unofficial appraiser retai ned by the Agriculture Crown Lands Branch. "This procedure was followed in the case of the land sought by Mr. Oleschuk. However, when several equal bids came in to the owner , the vendor decided to offer his cattle herd for sale as well in order to break the impasse. Unfortunately, Mr. Oleschuk was not the successful bidder .

Crown Lands Branch also reviewed the purchase price for the cows and considered them well in line with bred cows nearing the calving stage. "I want to say that we have the greatest sympathy for Mr. Oleschuk and his situation. He is young farmer who is anxious to expand his beef herd. Accordingly, we are actively sear ching for alternative Crown grazing land in this locality, which he would be able to compete for under the Crown Land Allocation policy. I trust the foregoing explains the unique cir cumstances surrounding Oles chuk's situation. Yours truly, Bill Uruski." Mr.

Chairman, I still think this individual has received a rough deal. lt was sent to the Crown Land Appeal 1297

Committee. I would have thought, Mr. Chairman, it would have been picked up at that particular time, but it was not. lt is not truly a unit transfer. An individual took his cows -the whole thing changed, it was being treated as a sale and land transfer and then half way through the deal there's a herd of cows appear on the horizon, so that value can be added to them to give value to the Crown land that the person is buying. lt's not on the land, Mr. Chairman, the land value or the lease value is applied to the cows; the cows have overs old.

This person didn't feel like paying what I would say is an extremely high price for cows. I don't think the cows are in line with what cows were selling for at all. - (Inter ject ion) - Well, Mr. Chairman, he's criticizing our policy. No it's not .the policy, it's the way in which he handled it. 1 believe, Mr. Chairman, this Individual got a pretty rough deal. One of the constituents of the Member for Ste. Rose, I believe, was led to believe - (Interjec tion) - all of his constituents have a rough deal, Mr. Chairman, I can see why. He won't be back, I can tell you that, if he carries on like this. Seriously, Mr.

Chairman, the pers on's got caught in a change of situation. The rules changed on a situation that he had no control of. I believe the proper way to have handled it, Mr. Chairman, would have been, after the impasse took place, if there were several bidders, go to the point system on the land, go to the point system if they didn't as I said they should have done. The bids were equal on the prope rty. How were the bids equal on the property? Somebody must have been talking. You know, here's a man legitimately goes forward, gives what I have been told is a pretty rea sonable piece of bid on a piece of property .

He bids on a quarter of land, they make a deal. All at once everybody says there's a whole bunch of Crown land, and I'll put the same bid in as the first guy. He does, it's equal, so then they say, well, we have to break the Impasse now, we'll throw the cows in. lt's wrong, Mr. Chairman. What the Minister has done here is not, I believe, in a fair minded way.

I believe that the department and the Minister haven't handled this proper ly, that the Appeal Committee should have picked it up, and it should have been rejec ted, it should have been put back out on the market again so that there was no question as to who should have the land. Now this man does not have a chance to buy the property because it's been allocated to other people. First of all, he was a successful bidder, he had the whole thing set up. - (Interjection) - Well, he bid to the farmer to buy his quarter

section of land. - (Interjec tion) - I don't know whether it was out on tend er. I don't believe it was. I believe that there was a straight one on one deal. He was going to get the quarter sect ion of land, he was going t" get the leased land. Okay, it all blew up. More people came in and bid the same thing as he did rememb er, bid the same thing as he did. lt would be easy to do; apparently the message was going around fairly freely as to what he bid, and then he finds out that the rules changed and he now has to bid on cows as well.

Not only does he have to go and find additional money, but the rules in which he started into an agreement changed. Unfair - (Interjec tion) - no unfair. I feel that he was treated unfair ly. 1 think the Minister when he tu rned it to the Appeal Committee is when it should have been reviewed and then if they were tied, if there were other people bidding on the land, then he should have used the point system to determine who should get the land.

That's right, he should have used the point system to see who got the land, not turned to the guy who had the cows saying, if you sell your cows to the highest bidder, they'll be the ones that get the provincial government land. That's wrong, it's wrong. Where are we at on this whole syste m? Mr. Chairman, it's a good policy, badly handled by this Minister . That Is what it is. lt's a good policy, badly handled by this Minister. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister again if he wouldn't see if there is some way that he can get this land back, because he has not handled it properly.

I don't believe it was handled properly . I don't believe the committee handled it proper ly, and I think the Minister should rectify the problem. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, if I have heard anything tonight, I've heard a darn good argument for throwing out the uni t trans fer pol icy that his administration brought into play. MR. J. DOWNEY: No, no. HON. B. URUSKI: If ever I heard a convincing argument to tell me that entire policy should be reviewed - (Interjec tion) - Mr. Chairman, I don't know, and here is what I see com ing from the members of the opposition. Let's take another scenario.

Let's say that unit transfer was stopped and was appealed. Let's take his scenario because that is in the process. The Honourable Member for Arthur is injecting a new process that he would like to see In the unit transfer policy, that if what was put up for sale to one should go through and there should be now a point system set up to determine who is the logical or the acceptable purchaser .

Can you imagine what the Real Estate Association would say to the Crown Lands Branch as to interfering in the private dealings as to who should be picked as the successful vendor - not lessor, but vendor - who the Crown Lands Branch should pick as the successful vendor to buy certain private holdings, because that doesn't happen in the real estate business now? I appreciate the commen ts of the honour able members opposite to say, look, we want you now to inject yourself In this whole process and say, we want you to make the decision of who the buyer should be. Can you imagine, Mr.

Chairman, members opposite coming to this Legislature, saying, do you know that this government is now telling every farmer who they should deal with, whose land they should be buying? Because that's the kind of accusation that would come at the Minister of Agriculture. The Member for Arthur would come here and say, the Minister of Agricultur e is now telling the farmers of Manitoba that they can't go and buy land from whomever they want. Only this farmer can buy land from this farmer, and they are going to tell you who's going to make the purchase. Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what would happen.

That is exactly what he is suggesting should happen, Mr. Cha irman - (Interjection) - Mr. Chairman, that's exactly what the honourable member is sugges ting. That's exactly what 1298

Monday, 28 May, 1184 he is suggesting in terms of a change in policy. What he has done is basically indicated that the policy is very difficult to administer, very difficult, especially when you have more than one vendor vying for land. The other ques tion, Mr. Chairman, that has to be raised in this whole incident is: what do members opposite consider as part of a farm unit? In a cattle operation, do they consider the cattle, the cows, the bred cows as being part of the entity of the farm unit, or the cows should never have been part of the farm unit? MR. J. DOWNEY: If they'r e an issue in the deal. HON. B.

URUSKI: Well, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member said, if they're an issue in the deal. If the man has cows to sell and he's got a farm unit to sell, obviously if somebody wants to buy his unit . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: . . . he would consider buying the cows. Now the question that comes into play is whether or not the value of the cows was exorbitant and if that's what he is indicating, or was it a reasonable value. Mr. Chairman, as best as could be determ ined, my advice is that the cows were bred. They were in calf.

Part of the transaction was not only the sale of the cows but the wintering of the animals and the calving of those animals as part of the total price. Now is then an 850 or whatever the amount is - 825 or 850 ... A MEMBER: Nine-and-a-half. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I don't know the value. Maybe staff from their files might be able to dig that up, but it's somewhere in - I won't dispute the $25 or $30 per animal. Now whether or not the wintering of an animal for $10 0 and the calving is too much, then we will be disputing on the total sale that that was too much money.

But the fact of the matter is, the process that is in place - and the policy was established by his own administration - we have followed that policy and, admittedly , a very difficult one to follow, but once having determined that the unit is a viable farm unit which did go to the committee, then it was strictly a pro forma decision of the branch and the Minister's Office or the Minister himself. There was no appeal, because the transfer was allowed to go ahead. Who the choice was is not a departmental choice, Mr. Chairman. If the honou rable member is making a case that it should be, Mr.

Chairman, he is really saying, let's get rid of that unit transfer because it has got all kinds of shades and all kinds of arguments that there is all kinds of discretion in there and that it can be suspected and you can make all kinds of arguments. Mr. Chairman, he's right. You could make all kinds of arguments on that policy, and you can make subjective arguments that would throw that policy into suspect especially, and I say especiall y, where there is more than one purchaser for the same piece of land. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, what happened was that the whole thing . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. J. DOWNEY: . . . changed. There was a change. If he wants to call it a unit transfer, then the unit that was being transferred was one quarter sect ion of land and the leased land - no cows, nothing else. That was the unit transfer, okay? So the guy bids on the quarter. He's successfu l. The Crown land is going to him, and then the word gets out that the land is for sale and the Crown land is up for grabs. Other people apply. Okay? So they applied for exactly the same as he bid. He was the first one in. He bid. He had set the price.

So ever ybody else came along and said, well we'll bid the same thing for that quarter

section of land, and we get the Crown land. We ll the department has a dilemma. The Minister has a dilemma. Oh, oh, can't transfer the unit. What do they do? They change the ground rules. Now they - (Interjection) - yes, it is true. Now they throw in the cows. The cows come in several weeks later. The cows, Mr. Chairman, are - (Interject ion) - you can make fun of it, but a man lost a big potential in making SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR . J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe it is fair to make fun of a person whose livelihood was put at stake.

In fact, he lost a big share of a potential livelihood and a chance to buy this Crown land through the mishandling of this Minister. lt is a good policy, mishandled by this Minister and this government. What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is the deal changed. The base was there. He had a quarter sect ion of land bought. The Crown land was being transferred with it. Other people heard about it. The bid was the same as his. I believe it was $20,000 for the private quarter, so ever ybody else bid the same thing. All the people came along and bid on it, so there was more than one person buying it. He still, Mr.

Chairman, thought he had it until he was faced , as I said earlier, with buying the cow herd. All at once, the cow herd came up for sale. We ll sure, the guy would put up his cow herd because he'd sure as the devil put the price of his cows up if that was the determining factor as to who was getting the Crown land. You aren't going to find cows bringing $500 or $550 or $600 or $700.00. You would see cows bringing $800-and-some dollars, because they were bidding on the land, Mr. Chairman, the Crown land, not the cows. That's exactly how it happened, Mr.

Chairman, and the Minister can beg off all he wants about it being a bad policy. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that this individual would be accommodated. They said that, in a bleedi ng-heart way, they feel sorry for him. You're 1299

MondaJ, 28 ..., 1884 darned right! I feel sorry for him too, because he was mistreated by this govern ment and this Minister. I would be extremely upset and I am upset on his behalf. What recourse did he have? He had a chance to go to the Crown Land Appeal. lt was badly handled, and it has to rest on this Minister. If he hadn't, Mr. Chairman, allowed a person to throw his cow herd into the deal and get value for the Crown land on those cows, then he would have had a way of begging out, but he hasn't. He can't get out of it, Mr. Chairman.

Of course, the reason he gets upset is he feels that the best defence is offe nce. He has handled it badly. lt was a good policy, Conservative policy, handled badly by an NDP Minister of Agriculture. That's really what it is, Mr. Chairman. He did send it to the Appeal Committee. He was aware of it, Mr. Chairman. He can't beg off, saying, well I couldn't do anything about lt. He could have, Mr. Chairman. He could have done something about it, because he did send it to the Appeal Committee. He could have said to the staff, we don't believe this is being handled fairly.

We believe that that thing should be nullified. Let the man sit with his quarter sect ion of land, let's put the Crown land up for a truly point system allocation. That would have been the best way to do it and then everybody would have been treated fairly. This man has been treated unfairly by the NDP Government and I'm not going to let the Minister get away with it, Mr. Chairman. He's administered this allocation badly, irresponsi bly , and we won't stand for it, Mr. Chairman. A MEMBER: Well then, sit down. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, there's possibly one point that I neglected to raise In this issue and I'm glad the honourable member spoke again and raised it again, because the one key issue In this whole transaction that has been missed - and I regret that I'm one that missed this whole issue - and it does relate to the whole aspect of this, where there was more tha n one purchaser. Mr. Chairman, this individual that the member speaks of, had there been an offer that was signed and signed by the ven dor and the purc haser, the deal would have been through, there would have been no other parties involved.

In a real estate transaction that is binding, the only avenue for change or dispute would be on the actual value of the assets changed. There was no offer made in terms of what is known as an offer in real estate terms. An offer means that I'm prepared to pay the price; I sign it as the prospective purchaser and then it's taken back to the vendor and the vendor agrees to that offer. Had that been the case, then the other prospective purchasers that we're now arguing about, would not have been involved in this whole transaction.

I admit it, Sir, that that was the real dilemma that was facing us, that there was no effective offer, signed, sealed and delivered, because there would have no change. Had there been a change to some change in the offer, then, Mr. Chairman, that deal legally in the courts would have had to through. There could have been no change made by Mr.

Soucy, who was then selling, had the offer been signed, sealed delivered and I believe the honou rable member knows that or other honourable members do, especially the Member for Emerson who Is sitting there, who Is a real estate agent, would have known and he sat there and did not raise the issue. lt took my colleag ue, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to ask me the question , was there an offer? There was no written offer and the Member for Emers on, v;ho is a real estate agent, would have known that had there been an offer, it would have been binding on both parties.

The only avenue of change or discretion on behalf of the department would have been, had the value in that offer exceeded the value of the assets that were being sold, the private assets that were being sold, so that there would be no value on the Crown land. We ll, Mr. Chairman, when you get two or three people talking and in this case here, as I understand lt, there was more than two people who were interested In the land and no one was serious to make an offer.

So I assume that the vendor , in order to break that impasse, said look there are, as part of my unit I have, and it's part of the farmstead - (Interject ion) - I don't even know if there was a deposit. Was there a deposit, Mr. Chairman? Maybe the honourable member knows, information that he can bring in terms of the case. Was there a deposit made by Mr. Olesc�uk in this case? Because I assume if there was an offer made, then there should have been a deposit and then 1 would assume that that deal would have been legally binding. There's no doubt in my mind that Mr.

Oleschuk would have had a legal case which, if taken to the courts, I would assume to the courts, would have adjudicated accordingly, that there was in fact a determined price. But, Mr.

Chairman, not having any of those factors there, I again say that the Member for Arthur raises the matter of unit transfers and he's raising a dilemma and I'm sure almost every transfer that has been dealt with by the branch raises those kinds of concerns, in terms of how straightforward is the transfer and it becomes more complicated when there's more than one prospect ive purchaser of the unit after it's been determined as so, but to suggest that somehow the Minister handled it wrong ly, Mr. Chairman, it doesn't even come to my desk, I don't even see it. MR. J.

DOWNEY: You did, you sent it to the appeal committee. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the member should have listened to what the letter said, that when it was brought to my attention the transfer had already been approved.

I said in the letter and I repeat , "I wish to advise, however, that this hearing is not an appeal hearing and will not result in a reversal of any earlier de cition or the transfer in ques tion." lt nad been done by the branch. lt had been done ro· .. tinely, as the policy was, that once the committee es:ablished that the unit could be de termined as a viable unit, it was done pro forma. lt was handled and the difficulty of the branch in determ ining in how to handle this whole thing once the committee allowed this being a unit transfer, was on the basis of saying - the only involvement of the branch would be, is there any value attributable to the private assets that exceeds normal market value. 1300

Monday, 28 Ma)l, 1984 My advice by the staff is that the value placed on those animals was not abnormal in terms of having to have those cows calved, the wintering and the feed ing of them, plus the sale of those cows, the amount of value was not out of line. Now if the member says, being a cattle dealer, that $850, that if you winter an animal, feed it, and calve them, that $850 per cow is exorbitant, I guess I would have to back off and say that I'll defer to the expertise of the Honourable Member for Arthur , since he's involved in the cattle industry and would know.

But I have to say that in terms of eval uating it, I don't think the staff are that far out in determ ining that, because I have not heard, Sir, any other argument that any other of the assets were exorbitant or exceeded the value of the private holdings. If they were, and if there is any information the honourable member has, I certainly would want to hear that. I'm sure that the staff would as well. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I believe this was last fall, not this year after the cows had been wintered. I believe it was November. lt wasn't after they've been fed and wintered and cared for all year.

I think it was prior to going through the winter season and I do know that this spring there were cows probably worth that kind of money, but not last fall. I talked to several people and I think there was value there for the land. Why wouldn't they bid more money for the cows, because they knew if they bid the highe st price for the cows, they were going to get the land. I don't know, Mr.

Chairman, whether there was a signed agreement or not, but for the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affair's information, normally when a person is negotiating with someone, they have to come to a time in which they go to the lawyer and sit down and sign it. Mr. Chairman, I am sure he wanted to work out and make sure that the Crown land that was part of the deal would be part of what he was buying.

That was being talked about in good faith with the department and if that good faith was broken by people talking - and I'm sure that's what happened, I'm sure all at once people talked and the information leaked out and here it was that there were new people interested in the deal, not because it was openly bid or anything else, and not because there was any thing wrong in that particular area, but all at once the whole thing changed. What I'm saying is I would think that in future, and it's unfortunate, it appears as if this family-farm operator who I know is not doing it in a political way.

In fact, lt wasn't handled badly for politics, but as far as I can tell, it was just poorly handled. The Minister had an opportuni ty, I thought, to have corrected it. He's apparently not able to do so, so I will conclude on this particular part of the Crown Lands. I'll have more to say in a few minutes, but I know my colleague has something to say as well, Mr. Chairman. lt was a good policy, but badly handled by this Minister. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. ScoH: Page 2 - the Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Chairman, to the Minister, I raise a question with the Minister reg arding Crown Land's Grazing and Haying Lease in the lnterlake a while ago. A MEMBER: Marshy Point. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Marshy Point. I gave the Minister the necessary information the other day and I was wondering whether he could maybe indicate what happened in the cases of the Chartrand Brothers and the Johnsons and their application that was turned down.

Initially, at one time, these people had a lifetime lease on that area and I think they probably didn't maintain it all the time, but the situation, as I indicated to the Minister when I talked with him, that in the case of the Chartrand Brothers that they have very limited grazing facilities in that they've already tried to dispose of their herd because of lack of getting this lease and with the relatively dry conditions this year, that it is vital to the ir operat ion that they get a lease in the Marshy Point area. I think in all cases it was a joint package lease arrangement.

Other people in the area have received their leases and in this particular case this particular group of people, the Chartrands and Johnsons have been turned down. I wonder whether the Minister could maybe give me a clarification on that at this stage of the game and see whether there's still a possibility for these people to get that lease? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, first of all, no lands have been allocated as yet and no applications received. There's been no applications made by the Individuals, I'm advised by the staff, that the honourable member speaks of.

There is one lessee this side of where the crossings were, as I understand it, who has held the land under lease since 1964. Of course, the lands are designated and coded for agricultur al use. As the honourable member knows, the lands In Marshy Point are designa ted as wildlife land with limited agricultural use. This use is restricted to haying, only with the Department of Natural Resources approval.

The honourable member knows that the Western lnterlake Planning District, In consultation with the Department of Natural Resources, did agree to place these lands In the Wildl ife Management Area and it has been designa ted as such and approved through the Provincial Land Use Com mittee of Cabi net so it has had muni cipal concurrence by the Wes tern lnterlake Planning District, that the lands in question be placed in the Wildlife Management Area. That has happened. All the municipalities in the area were In agreement there.

The lands in question on Marshy Point are part of the Marshy Point Wildlife Management Area. They were approved by the Western lnterlake Planning District in the last two years, I believe, or last three years, and they remain as such. There have been no applications for leases that I'm aware of at this point in time. That's what I'm implying, Sir. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I'm going to get my files momentari ly, I have it downstairs, but there's a letter of rejection where they have been refused the grazing lease for this year.

If the Minister says, there's no application made, I won't leave it at 1301

Monday, 18 ... ,. 1114 that because I'll get the necessary information. What I did, I handed the Minister copies of the leases that were always in effect over the many years and here all of a sudden they received a letter of rejec tion on this. The Minister says there's been no application. I'm just aghast. I find this highly unusual, what the Minister is indicating to me here. The Minister says there's been no application made. We ll, why was a letter of reject ion sent out then? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, I have given to me, from staff, a copy of a letter to Mr.

Robert Johnson, dated May the 21s t, which the honourable member probably has a copy of the letter that he refers to. I'll read it into the record. I hav en't read the letter before this ev ening, so I will be clear on it.

"With reference to your May the 10th letter requesting the use of certain lands in Marshy Point, I wish to advise that the status of these lands in regards to agricultural use is as follows: "Fractional sect ions 8 and 9, Township 18, Range 5 West are quoted C1 or no agricultural use, "Fractional sections 10 , 17 , 20, 29 and 32, 18-5 West are quoted C6, or yearly hay use with the Department of Natural Resources approval.

"The above would indicate that subject to approval from the Department of Natural Resources, certain lands could be made available for hay use, but that grazing is not allowable at all on any of the lands in question. I would point out that although haying may be possible, access to the lands may be difficult since the removal of the crossings last fall. "I wish to advise that the province in not considering replacement of these crossings nor provision of any alternate method of access.

Rather than discuss in detail the background behind the land use, the designation of these lands, I would refer you to a May 6th, 19 83 letter, copy enclosed, from Mr. W.P. Barto, Secretary of the Crown Land Classificaton Committee to yourself, which provides this background. "In your letter, you also raised a question as to why Mr. Leonard Waterman is allowed to retain his forage lease while yours were taken away. Mr. Waterman has held portions of sections 2 and 11 - 18 -5 West under long-term Forage Lease 318 since 1964. These lands are also coded C4 under which long-term haying and grazing are allowed.

In comparison you were allocated certain lands for one year in 1980 in view of the severe drought conditions during that year. Although this allocation was initially for 19 80 only, in view of the persisting drought conditions in your immed iate area, the permits were reissued in 1981 ,'82 and'83 and for one year only on each occasion. Also, each renewal meant a postponement of the removal of temporary crossings established in 1983. In order to reverse deterioration of the Fisheries and Wildlife Resource in Marshy Point, as a result of the crossings, these were removed .

"In closing and to summarize, the land use designation on some lands in Marshy Point allows annual permits to be issued for haying subject to the Department of Natural Resources approval. Should you apply for these lands, we will attempt to obtain this approval on your behalf, however the issuance of permits shall not include the provision of access to these lands and the resp onsibility for access would remain yours. "At your request, I will forward your letter to the Honourable Bill Uruski and the Honourable AI Mackling." MR. A. DRIEDGER: Is that the letter that the honourable mcr>1ber refers to? HON. B.

URUSKI: That is the letter, yes. Mr. Chairman, the letter is clear that if an application is made, that that would certainly be considered. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Just for further clarification then, is the Minister indicating to me then that if these people, after the letter that supposedly was a rejec tion, they made an application and received this letter and it was a reject ion, in my opinion at least, if they made an application now for a haying lease on the properties designa ted that they would be rec eiving consideration for haying leases on this property? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, our director, who wrote the letter, and our department would support and would follow up an a�plication on their behalf to the Depar tment of Natural Resourc3s who are the approving authority here, because the lands are not under agriculture classification. We would cert ainly take up their case with the Department of Natural Resources on the lands as noted in the letter that would be approved for yearly hay use.

Other lands which were quoted non-agricultural would not, of course, be able to be leas ed, but the bulk of the lands that are quoted here, Sections 10, 17 , 20, 29 and 32, which are quoted C6 or yearly hay use, would be those lands that cert ainly we would be prepared , as noted in the letter, to make representa tions to the Department of Natural Resources. MR. A. DRIEDGER: A further clarification then.

The Minister is indicating that if an application is made for hay leases on those lands designated in the letter , that conside ration would be given by his department to the Depart ment of Natural Resources to give considera tion, possibly, in that direction. Is there any consideration that would be probably be given for grazing leases on some of these properties as well, which they'v e had in the past? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, these lands, as I indicated earlie r, were designa ted as non-grazi ng, and there would be no consideration given to grazing at this time. MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, if the Minister is not clea• this does impose a severe hardship on some of tho< e particular leaseholders who had grazing permits because I know that they are two brothers that have a flock of sheep that is now going to force the sale up. They're going to have to sell their livelihood, their base which they're been working from for many years, because they're now having a grazing lease taken away from them. Mr. Chairman, look what happened. We put a road in so the people could use that property to move their 1302

cattle and their hay back and forth. This Minister takes it out, takes out the road. Now we find he's taking their lease away from them. Well I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the Minister going to bat for the Department of Natural Resources for a hay permit. I appreciate that, and I'm sure the farmers as well, but why wouldn't he consider a grazing permit. I know the farmers talked about being Involved in the Beef Support Program.

You know, on one hand here he's giving them help to carry on with their opera tion, to continue on in the livestock business, but on the other side of the coin he pulls the pas ture out from un der them, Mr. Chairman. Where is the consistency? You know, what do the farmers think right now? On one hand they want me to keep cattle, and keep in the business, on the other hand they're taking my pasture away from me. That's the one side of it, and the other one is the two young farmers, a very legitimate case, where they're now having to sell their breed ing herd of sheep.

Now 1 don't see any consistency In this Minister's policy. As I say, although he's ind icated he'll go to bat on a haylng permit, I would now ask him to reconsider his decision on a grazing permit. They need the pasture, Mr. Chairman. lt's a dry year, the pastures haven't come that well with continued frost. In fact, there's a lot of feed ing that has to be done to this particular point, Mr. Chairman. I would ask the Minister to reconsider whether or not those farmers will be allowed In there to graze. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, If, and I think the honourable members are aware . . . MR. J.

DOWNEY: We're not asking for the road. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman, the Honourable Member for Arthur says we're not asking for the road. We ll, Mr. Chairman, if he would recal l the decisions made my his administration that the road would, in fact, have been removed in