Manitoba Committee Hansard — 9 June 2004 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 07, 38th Legislature, 2nd Session)

38-2-la07

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Eighth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Mr. Daryl Reid Constituency of Transcona Vol. LV No. 7 - 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 9, 2004 ISSN 1708-668X

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Eighth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation AGLUGUB, Cris The Maples N.D.P. ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thom pson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen Ste. Rose P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon. Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C.

FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. The Pas N.D.P. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. LOEWEN, John Fort Whyte P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P. MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon.

Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon Riel N.D.P. VACANT Minto MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. MURRAY, Stuart Kirkfield Park P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa Seine River N.D.P. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack Southdale P.C. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Carman P.C. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SALE, Tim, Hon. Fort Rouge N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Wellington N.D.P. SCHELLENBERG, Harry Rossmere N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P. SMITH, Scott, Hon.

Brandon West N.D.P. STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. VACANT Turtle Mountain WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

233 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Wednesday, June 9, 2004 TIME – 6:30 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry) ATTENDANCE - 11 – QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Mr. Bjornson, Hon. Ms. McGifford, Hon. Mr. Smith, Hon. Ms. Wowchuk Messrs. Eichler, Goer tzen, Ms. Irvin-Ross, Messrs. Martindale, Penner, Reid, Mrs. Stefanson Substitutions: Mr. Nevakshonoff for Hon. Ms. Wowchuk at 10:03 p.m. APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster Mr.

Leonard Derkach, MLA for Russell Mr. Stuart Murray, ML A for Kirkfield Park WITNESSES: Bill 46–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Mr. Denis Fontaine, Private Citizen Ms. Laurena Leskiw, Private Citizen Ms. Pat Bowslaugh, Private Citizen Mr. Ray Sitter, Private Citizen Mr. Brian Paterson, Private Citizen Mr. Don Berry, Westma n Retired Teachers' Association Mr. Terence Clifford, Private Citizen Ms. Yvette Spence, Private Citizen Ms. Peggy Prendergast, Private Citizen Mr. Brian Ardern, President, Manitoba Teachers' Society Bill 49–The Municipal Amendment Act Ms.

Debbie Penner, Manitoba Park Owners Association Bill 50–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Mr. John Petrinka, Veterans Association Bill 42–The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act Mr. Chris Lorenc, President, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 46–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Mr. Gordon Henderson, Private Citizen Mr. Richard McIntyre, Private Citizen Mr.

Terence Clifford, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 42–The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act Bill 44–The Colleges Amendment Act Bill 46–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Bill 49–The Municipal Amendment Act Bill 50–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Bill 53–The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2004 *** Mr. Chairperson: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order.

This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill 42, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act; Bill 44, The Colleges Amendment Act; Bill 46, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act; Bill 49, The Municipal Amendment Act;

234 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Bill 50, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; and Bill 53, The Statutes Correction and Minor Amendments Act, 2004. We have a number of presenters registered to speak this evening, and I will read the names as follows by bill number. Bill 42, The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act: Chris Lorenc, President, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association.

Bill 46, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act: DeeDee Rizzo, Retired Teachers Association; Peggy Prendergast and Yvette Spence; Brian Ardern, President, Manitoba Teachers' Society; Laurena Leskiw, private citizen; Pat Bowslaugh, private citizen; Ray Sitter, private citizen; Brian Paterson, private citizen; Don Berry, Westman Retired Teachers' Association; Terence Clifford, private citizen; and Denis Fontaine, private citizen. Bill 49, The Municipal Amendment Act: Debbie Penner, Manitoba Park Owners Association. Bill 50, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act: We have John Petrinka, Veterans Association.

If there are any members of the public who wish to have their names added to the list, please see the committee room officer at the back of the committee room here, and we will add your name to the list. For the information of all presenters, 20 copies of any written versions of presentations are required. If you need help with photocopying please speak with our staff at the back of the room. As well, I would like to inform presen ters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations, with another 5 minutes allowed for questions from committee members.

Also in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance, when their name is called they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called for a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. A written submission on Bill 46 from Mr. Gordon Henderson has been received and distributed to the committee members.

Does the committee agree to have this document appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting? [Agreed] On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have out-of- town presenters in attendance this evening. Their names are marked with an asterisk on the various lists. As well, we had a request from Mr. Denis Fontaine, presenter 10 for Bill 46, who wishes to make his presentation in French. We do have translation staff on hand to accommodate consecutive translation.

With these considerations in mind, I ask the committee members, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations this evening? Ms. Kerri Irvin-Ross (Fort Garry): Bill 46, for the one presenter requiring translation; Bill 49 and Bill 50: presentation and clause by clause to be heard in its entirety; Bill 42, Bill 46, Bill 44 and Bill 53. Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed by the committee? [Agreed] * (18:40) Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education and Training): Mr.

Chair, I did not hear whether the Member for Fo rt Garry mentioned Bill 44, and since it is my bill I want to make sure it is on the list. [interjection] It was mentioned. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Yes, there are no presenters listed at this time. I would like to inform all in attendance of the provisions in our rules regarding the hour of adjournment.

Except by unanimous consent, a standing committee meeting to consider a bill in the evening must not sit past midnight to hear presentations unless fewer than 20 presenters are registered to speak to all bills being considered when the committee meets at 6:30 p.m. As of 6:30 this evening there were 13 persons registered to speak to th ese bills. Therefore, in accordance with our rules, this committee may sit past midnight to hear presentations. How late does the committee wish to sit this evening? Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we revisit this issue at midnight. Mr.

Chairperson: It has been suggested that this committee revisit the midnight sitting time at that point. Is that the will of the committee? [Agreed]

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 235 Prior to proceeding with public presentations here this evening, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee. The proceedings of our meeting are recorded by Hansard in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I have to first say the person's name. This is the signal to Hansard to turn the mikes off and on that record the presentations here this evening. So I thank you for your patience and your understanding.

We are now prepared to proceed with the bills. Bill 46–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: First, with Bill 46, our presenter, Mr. Denis Fontaine. Will you please come forward, sir. Bonjour. Welcome. Mr. Denis Fontaine (Private Citizen): Bonsoir. Je voudrais vous remercier de me permettre de faire cette présentation ce soir. Je me présente. Je suis membre des Éducatrices et Éducateurs manitobains à la retraite, un groupe francophone.

Je suis membre de la Hanover Association of Retired Teachers et membre de l'association manitobaine des enseignantes et des enseignants à la retraite, c'est-à-dire la Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba. Avant ma retraite, j'ai œuvré pendant plus de trente ans comme enseignant et comme directeur et j'ai participé au sein de nombreux comités de la Manitoba Teachers' Society. Ce soir, j'aimerais vous offrir mon point de vue au sujet du Projet de loi 46.

Je veux vous indiquer les modifications proposées que j'appuie, et vous préciser les éléments qui sont absents du projet de loi et qui m'inquiètent énormément. J'appuie les modifications du projet de loi en ce qui a trait aux cotisations que versent les participants à l'égard de tout traitement en sus du traitement maximal pour lequel des prestations déterminées peuvent être accumulées, à l'achat de services passés, à l'égard d'un congé antérieur, à l'achat de services passés à l'égard d'un congé d'adoption, et aux cotisations exigibles en cas de congé de courte durée.

Mais je veux aussi vous communiquer mes inquiétudes au sujet des modifications en ce qui a trait à la composition de la Commission d'adminis- tration de la Caisse de retraite des enseignants, au versement des cotisations, et aux redressements du régime pour tenir compte des augmentations au coût de la vie. Le premier point, la question de grande importance qui, selon moi, devrait mériter votre attention plus particulière, est la représentation sur la Commission d'administration de la Caisse de retraite.

Je crois qu'il est essentiel que les enseignantes et enseignants à la retraite soient représentés directe- ment au sein de la commission, c'est-à-dire de la Commission d'administration, TRAF. Cette personne qui nous représenterait pourrait être choisie d'une liste de noms soumise par la RTAM, la Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, tout comme les personnes qui représentent la MTS sont choisies d'une liste de noms soumise par la Manitoba Teachers' Society.

Les statistiques démontrent que le nombre d'enseignantes et enseignants à la retraite augmente plus rapidement que le nombre de ceux et celles qui sont actifs dans l'enseignement. En effet, le nombre de membres à la retraite s'élevait à plus de 8 600 en 2002 et ce nombre ne cesse de croître. D'autre

part le nombre d'enseignantes et d'enseignants actifs demeure toujours près de 14 000. Par conséquent, je crois que le temps est venu de nous accorder une représentation sur la commission. Nous devons avoir un mot à dire au sein de TRAF pour protéger nos intérêts économiques. La Manitoba Teachers' Society a droit à sa représentation à la commission. Mais je crois bien que la RTAM mérite sa représentation au sein de cette même commission pour respecter les principes démocratiques.

Les deux groupes d'enseignantes et d'enseignants, c'est-à-dire ceux et celles qui sont actifs dans l'enseignement et ceux et celles qui sont à la retraite, doivent être représentés au sein de la commission afin que tous puissent participer pleinement au processus décisionnel lié à leurs pensions. La situation actuelle qui permet parfois à la RTAM d'avoir un statut d'observateur aux réunions de la MTS où l'on discute de questions liées à la pension, n'est pas satisfaisante. De temps en temps cela arrive que la MTS et la RTAM ont des points de vue divergents et il est important que les

236 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 enseignantes et enseignant s à la retraite puissent s'exprimer de façon indépendante sur les questions qui les touchent directement. C'est une question de justice et d'équité. Permettez-moi maintenant d'adresser deux autres points que le Projet de loi 46 n'adresse pas, mais qui demeurent tout de même des aspects très importants qui devraient être adressés. * (18:50) Le premier point : les contributions insuffisantes au plan de pension. Je crois inacceptable que le Projet de loi 46 ne touche pas à la question des contributions insuffisantes au plan de pension.

Les analyses actuarielles démontrent que les contri- butions au régime de pension qui sont versées par les enseignantes et les enseignants actifs sont tout simplement insuffisantes. La MTS a discuté avec le gouvernement au sujet du besoin d'augmenter de 2 pour cent les contributions des enseignantes et des enseignants. J'appuie cette position, mais le Projet de loi 46 ne fait aucune référence à ceci. Il n'est pas juste d'utiliser le surplus du régime de pension pour combler le manque à gagner créé par les contributions insuffisantes des nouveaux membres.

Si le surplus est utilisé pour combler le manque à gagner, il ne peut pas être utilisé pour résoudre la question des redressements nécessaires aux pensions pour tenir compte des augmentations au coût de la vie. Le second point : les redressements pour tenir compte des augmentations au coût de la vie. Le compte de redressement du régime de pension n'a plus la capacité d'accorder aux enseignantes et enseignants à la retraite un redressement annuel équivalent à l'augmentation de l'indice des prix à la consommation.

Les analyses statistiques démontrent clairement que si cette situation persiste, les enseignantes et les enseignants à la retraite verront le pouvoir d'achat de leur revenu de pension diminuer considérablement. Ce problème, qui a été identifié à la fin des années 1980, perdure encore aujourd'hui. Il est temps de le résoudre.

En terminant je vous demande avec respect d'apporter les amendements nécessaires au Projet de loi 46 pour remédier à la question de la représentation de la RTAM sur la commission et d'adresser les deux autres lacunes les plus sérieuses de la loi qui régit le régime de pension des enseignantes et des enseignants manitobains à la retraite. Translation Good Evening. I would like to thank you for enabling me to make this presentation this evening. I will introduce myself. I am a member of the retired educators of Manitoba, a Francophone group.

I am a member of the Hanover Association of Retired Teachers and member of the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba. Prior to my retirement I worked for over 30 years as a teacher and principal and I participated in many committees of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. This evening I would like to offer you my point of view on Bill 46. I wish to indicate to you the proposed amendments that I support and point out to you the elements that are absent from the bill and that concern me a great deal.

I support the amendments to the bill with regard to the contributions that participants make on any salary exceeding the maximum for which defined benefits can be accrued, with regard to the purchase of past service for past le ave, with regard to the purchase of past service for adoptive leave and with regard to contributions during short-term leave. But I also wish to communicate to you my concerns over amendments in the area of membership on the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund board, contributions, and adjustments to the pension plan to take account of cost of living increases.

The first point, the issue of great importance which in my opinion should be given particular attention by you, is representation on the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund board. I believe it is essential that retired teachers be represented directly on the board, that is, on the TRAF board. This person who would represent us could be chosen from a list of names submitted by RTAM, the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba, just as the persons who represent the Manitoba Teachers' Society are chosen from a list submitted by MTS.

Statistics show that the number of retired teachers is increasing more rapidly than the number of those

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 237 who are active in the profession. In fact the number of members who are retired reached more than 8600 in 2002, and this number continues to rise, while the number of active teachers remains at approximately 14 000. Consequently, I believe that the time has come to give us representation on the board. We should have our say within TRAF to protect our economic interests. The Manitoba Teachers' Society is entitled to its representation on the board. But I believe that RTAM also deserves to be represented on this board in order to respect democratic principles.

The two groups of teachers, that is to say those who are active in teaching and those who are in retirement, must be represented on the board in order that all may fully participate in the decision-making process related to their pensions. The current situation, which sometimes enables RTAM to have observer status at MTS meetings where matters relating to pensions are being discussed, is unsatisfactory. From time to time it happens that MTS and RTAM have diverging points of view and it is important that retired teachers be able to express themselves independently on matters that affect them directly.

This is a question of justice and equity. Allow me now to address two other points that Bill 46 does not address but which nevertheless remain very important aspects that should be dealt with. The first point: insufficient contributions to the pension plan. I find it unacceptable that Bill 46 does not deal with the matter of insufficient contributions to the pension plan. Actuarial analyses show that the contributions being paid into the pension system by active teachers are quite simply insufficient. MTS has discussed with the government the need to increase the contributions of teachers by 2 percent.

I support this position but Bill 46 makes no reference to this. It is not fair to use the pension system surplus to compensate the shortfall created by the insufficient contributions of new members. If the surplus is used to meet the shortfall, it cannot be used to resolve the matter of the adjustments to pensions necessary to take cost of living increases into account. The second point: adjustments to take cost of living increases into account.

The adjustment account of the pension system no longer has the capacity to provide retired teachers with an annual adjustment equivalent to the increase in the consumer price index. Statistical analyses clearly show that if this situation persists, retired teachers will see the purchasing power of their pension income go down considerably. This problem which was identified at the end of the 1980s persists today, and it is time to resolve it.

In closing I respectfully request that you make the amendments necessary to Bill 46 to rectify the matter of Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba representation on the board and to address the two other most serious deficiencies in the law governing retired teachers' pensions in Manitoba. Mr. Chairperson: Merci, M. Fontaine. Are there any questions for presenters to Mr. Fontaine this evening? Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): I just want to thank you very much for coming out this evening. I certainly have heard fro m a number of retired teachers since I have become the critic for Education.

The arguments are compelling. I appreciate you very much for coming out tonight and giving us your thoughts on this bill. I do have one question for you, just a quick question. Are you currently a member of the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba? Mr. Fontaine: Yes, I am. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Just one very quick question. If you had a choice, Mr. Fontaine, as to this legislation passing today or ultimately coming back at a future date with the type of amendments that you are talking about, what would it be? Mr. Fontaine: Est-ce que je réponds en français?

Je pense que si la RTAM pouvait avoir une position sur la commission, cette question pourrait être discutée par les regroupements qui siègent à la commission pour avoir une solution commune. Translation Shall I answer in French? I think that if RTAM could have a position on the board, this subject could be discussed by the groups that sit on the board in order to reach a common solution.

238 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Mr. Chairperson: Further questions, committee members? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Thank you very much. Merci beaucoup. Mr. Fontaine: Merci. Mr. Chairperson: Bonsoir. Okay. As previously agreed–oh, yes, before our translation service leaves for this evening, John, if you would not mind translating for us to ask if any of our presenters who are here this evening might wish to have translation services to make their presen- tation. Would you please make that inquiry of the audience? Mr.

John Statham (Translation Services, Province of Manitoba): Est-ce qu'il y a d'autres personnes dans la salle qui voudraient faire une présentation en français ce soir? Veuillez le signaler maintenant en levant la main, s'il vous plaît. Je crois que non. Translation Are there any other persons in the room who would like to present in French this evening? Please indicate now by raising your hand. I believe not. Mr. Chairperson: We will proceed with the other bills then. Thank you for your assistance, John. Bill 49–The Municipal Amendment Act Mr.

Chairperson: The next bill that we will be considering will be presentations on Bill 49. As previously agreed by the committee, Bill 49, The Municipal Amendment Act, the name of the presenter registered is Debbie Penner, Manitoba Park Owners Association. Is Debbie Penner in the audience this evening? Please come forward. Do you have a written presentation? Ms. Debbie Penner (Manitoba Park Owners Association): Yes. Mr. Chairperson: The page will help you with the distribution then. If you just hold a moment until we distribute then we will proceed. Please proceed, Ms. Penner, when you are ready. Ms.

Penner: The Manitoba Park Owners Asso- ciation is a provincial associ ation that represents the interests of many Manitoba based mobile home park operations. Parks throug hout Manitoba face a number of regulatory problems that led to the creation of this association in order to be able to present a united front to gov ernment in seeking fair and equitable resolution of the problems. We appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today regarding Bill 49, The Municipal Amendment Act. My comments today are primarily directed to Division 3.1, the Mobile Homes section.

It is very clear that the legislation, Bill 49, which has been introduced by the Honourable Ms. Mihychuk, was drafted in an effort to increase funding, but unfortunately it does not create a system that treats park residents and operators in a fair and equitable manner. The background of the taxation or assessment in The Municipal Act, in 1997 some sections of The Municipal Act were deleted, leaving the munici- palities that did not have an existing by-law for mobile home licensing fees without guidance or direction on how to handle revenue generation for mobile homes and mobile home parks.

Mobile home parks that fall within the latter scenario have typically been changed over to the property assessment method. Some municipalities that had an existing licensing fee by-law have seized the opportunity to change their mobile home parks over to the property assessment method. * (19:00) As a result, mobile homes in mobile home parks are currently being assessed and taxed at the same level as traditional site-built homes in subdivisions.

The problem is that mobile home owners are now paying taxes to the municipality covering a number of services that are provided by the park owners, not the municipality, and the cost thereof is passed on to the mobile home owners in the land rent they pay. The end result is that mobile home owners now pay for services twice. They pa y for them monthly to the

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 239 park operators who actually provide the services, and then they pay for them again through property assessments and taxation imposed by the municipality, which does not provide them. Bill 49 states: An amendment under subsection 2 must provide that the amount of licensing fee for a mobile home payable under the by-law approxi- mately equals the amount of property taxes that would be payable if the mobile home was assessable property. Now, how will the municipalities accurately determine what this amount payable is if the homes are being assessed?

If the amount assessed is deemed to be unfair, what options are available to the mobile home owners to appeal the amount of the licensing fee. The issues noted above were previously brought forward to the Intergovernmental Affairs Department with the recommendation that a separate property class be established for mobile homes. That recommendation was based on the fact that many of the most costly traditional services provided to mobile homes are provided by the mobile home park owners rather than the municipalities.

It is noted that the services typically provided by the park owner are owned, operated and maintained by the park owner and include all the infrastructure contained within the park boundaries. It includes the water sewer systems, all roadways, surface drainage systems, street lighting, et cetera. The mobile home park is fully assessed and taxed on the value of the infrastructure. As a result of the above, the mobile home licensing fees and/or property assessment value are and is being determined.

The amount payable must clearly reflect the fact that significant essential services are being supplied by the mobile home park owners rather than the municipality. The response we received was, I believe, that it is best to recognize that there is not uniformity in the circumstances of either mobile home parks or communities. Using a new property class to reduce the portioned assessment of parks would be a broad-brush approach that would not account for the differences in services from park to park or the difference in financial circumstances of communities.

Servicing is a municipal issue best left to the municipalities to accommodate in accordance with the wishes of the ratepayers. I know of only one municipality that has entered into a service agree- ment with the mobile home park owner to recognize and make adjustments for the infrastructure services they are charging for in the property taxes. In this case, the park owner is relieved of the tax burden on infrastructure and does not have to pass the tax burden on to the mobile home residents as part of their monthly rent.

Accordingly, in this case, it is appropriate to assess and tax the resident mobile home owners for the value of the infrastructure services. Many municipalities see no need for the servicing agreements and refuse to negotiate with the park owners, as there is no mechanism that it requires municipalities to enter into service agree- ments with the park owners. Most municipalities choose to not provide infrastructure services to mobile home parks, while they do provide services to most other property owners within the municipality.

It is in these cases that the municipality double-tax the value of infrastructure services. First they are assessed and they collect it from the park owner, who in turn recoups the amount from the resident mobile home owners in the rent. Then they assess and collect it from the resident mobile home owner, who already has paid it to the park owner. This is taxation that typically impacts Canadians of modest means that can least afford it, young families and retirees living in mobile homes.

The reason we need a separate property classification for mobile homes is there seems to be no other way to cause mandatory recognition of the servicing issues noted and cause the municipalities to make appropriate adjustments in the mobile home property assessments. A study prepared for the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association cited the infrastructure inequities noted above in mobile home parks and went on to refute certain other myths associated with mobile home parks. Three taxation-related conclusions of the study pertaining to mobile home communities follow.

Reality No. 4: Mobile home parks reduce the financial burden on municipalities by providing many services and facilities which would normally be provided by municipal government. Reality No. 6: Manufactured housing, mobile homes and land-lease communities are unfairly treated by the tax system relative to site-built housing. Reality 8: The empirical evidence suggests that mobile home parks subsidize municipal services.

240 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Collection of the property taxes on resident- owned mobile homes, in addition to the inequity associated with the double-taxation of infrastructure services imposed on mobile home owners, there is a further tax-related inequity imposed on mobile home park owners by being forced to collect and remit resident-owned mobile home taxes. There are two primary issues associated with the above. Park owners are being held responsible to collect and submit the taxes for each individual resident mobile home owner.

If the mobile home owner refuses to remit their taxes to the park owner, the park owner is held liable and required to pay the taxes, even if he does not own or have interest in the mobile home. The current definition of rent is such that park owners cannot collect the taxes they are required to collect, but are still held liable and responsible to pay the taxes. The resolution of the above can follow one of two courses. Taxes for resident-owned mobile homes can be assessed and billed directly to each mobile home owner who shall be fully responsible for payment of those taxes.

The definition of rent, which is now part of Bill 39, will presumably be changed, enabling park owners to collect taxes from resident mobile home owners and take legal action against them in the event they refuse to pay. If this course is chosen, park owners should be provided with separate assessments and tax information for each mobile home for which they are being held responsible, and they should be paid a reasonable collection fee commission for the taxes they collect and remit.

Other provinces have wrestled with the same issues and come to various conclusions, but three we are familiar with have found solutions that are fair and equitable. British Columbia. The owner of a manufactured home park is assessed for all land in the park together with the site improvements, but not for the resident-owned mobile homes or improvements already assessed in the name of the park tenants. Alberta. The owner of the manufactured home park is assessed for all land in the park, together with site improvements, but not for the resident-owned mobile homes or improvements. Saskatchewan.

Park owners are required to collect and remit taxes but are paid a 6% commission on collection for doing this work on behalf of the government. Conclusions and our recommendations: the Manitoba Park Owners Association recommends that an amendment should be added to Bill 49 that requires establishment of a separate property class for mobile homes, and that the municipalities be required to determine the value of infrastructure services owned by the mobile home park owner and deduct the value of those services from the assessment and taxes imposed on the resident-owned mobile homes.

Alternately, an amendment should be added to Bill 49 requiring that mobile home parks and their resident mobile home owners be provided with the same municipal infrastructure services as is typically provided to other homeowner taxpayers in their jurisdiction. In either case, the assessment and taxes applicable to resident-owned mobile homes should be imposed directly on the resident mobile home owners by the jurisdiction having responsibility and that jurisdiction should have full responsibility for tax collection.

If it is determined that mobile home park owners are to continue to be responsible for the collection of property taxes imposed on resident mobile home owners, the municipality should be required to determine the assessed value of each mobile home, provide the park owner with a detailed statement of assessment and taxation applicable to each resident mobile home owner. In addition, park owners should be paid a 6% commission by the municipality on the total amount of taxes collected on its behalf. The 6% amount is calculated to cover the actual costs of providing this collection service. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Penner, for your presentation. Any questions from committee members? Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Well, thank you very much, Ms. Penner, for your presentation. I just want people on the committee to note that I believe you

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 241 and I are not related, even with our last names. So I want to clarify that, just so they know that I am not playing favourites. I want to ask you a question in regard to properties in general in rural Manitoba, pertinent to residency within a municipality that in most cases does not supply services other than probably maintaining the road going by a farmstead. * (19:10) In other words, sewer services are normally provided by the owner of the home themselves.

Telephone services are provided by MTS and hydro services by Manitoba Hydro, as well as water services by the local water co-operative. So the municipalities really provide no services at all to that farmstead home, in most cases, in a given municipality. Should there also be a recognition of that sort of situation pertinent then to all municipal properties outside of urban areas wher e the services are, in large part, provided and charged for under the tax system? Ms. Penner: Well, I believe there are different scenarios depending wher e you are located, which municipality you are located in.

But to date, we have tried every possible way to get some kind of agreement to accommodate for this double taxation issue. Whatever the recommendations may be, we are willing to look at any recommendation at this point. To date, the only thing that we have come up with to uniform the whole situation is to come up with a separate property class for mobile homes on privately owned rented land. Mr.

Penner: Would the mobile home owners be satisfied if the calculation of the services provided by the park owner were calculated and the assessment done only to the homes and not the property therein, the park owner be charged an assessment in totality on the park and the services still be charged and provided to the mobile home owner? Would that be satisfactory to the mobile home owners' association? Ms. Penner: I do not quite understand. You want to adjust the services from the park owners? Mr. Penner: Deduct, I would suggest, the service cost provision under the assessment process.

In other words, decrease the assessment of the property that your rent might in fact be lowered to compensate for the charges made by the services, the services then later on added to the mobile home and the mobile home be assessed separately. It would basically do what you are suggesting to do in a bit of a different manner. Ms. Penner: That still does not accommodate for the maintenance of these lines that we are still accommodating. There are park owners out there that run and maintain their own lagoon systems. There are park owners out there that maintain their own water treatment plants.

We are talking major services. We are not talking about one pipe running through a park. A lot of the parks can hook up to municipal services, a lot of them cannot depending where you are located, what area you are in. Where the inequity comes in is these park owners are supplying th ese services, they are charging it to these people, these people are being assessed for those services but they are also being assessed now again on the services that the park owners must provide to the homeowners. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): A quick question is are you familiar with any other provinces that do have a separate classification for mobile home parks. Ms. Penner: No, I am not. Mr. Chairperson: Questions from committee members? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Ms. Penner. I know that there has been discussion between the department and people who operate mobile parks on this issue. I thank you for bringing your views to the committee. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Penner.

Are there any other presenters on Bill 49 that might wish to make a presentation here this evening before we proceed to the next bill?

242 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 Seeing none, then we will proceed to Bill 50. Bill 50–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: Mr. John Petrinka, the Veterans Association. Mr. Petrinka, if in the audience, can you please come forward, sir. Do you have a written copy of your presentation this evening, sir? Mr. John Petrinka (Veterans Association): Would I come without a written copy? Mr. Chairperson: Not that I have ever experienced. We will distribute them to committee members, and then I will give you the signal to proceed. You may proceed when you are ready, Mr. Petrinka. Mr.

Petrinka: I have two packages, Mr. Chairman. The second package is about 23-24 pages. I just did not feel that it was worthy of my cost to make 20 copies of it, so we are providing one copy, sort of as a master copy. It includes all the acts that I am going to be referring to and a few other things. Mr. Chairman, I appeared before another committee on Bill 21 some two weeks ago. One of the complaints at that particular hearing was that our presentation was somewhat more complicated than it could have been.

So I proceeded to go home that night and work till four o'clock that morning to come up with something that summarizes what I was trying to say through some 10 minutes of laborious complexity. Anyhow, page 1 here is the summation of what we were trying to say back on the 25th of May. What we have outlined here is Bill 21 will solve one problem, and that is the school levy problem. If you take a look at the chart that I provided here for you, you will see that the tax levy by municipality or town is listed with an application of tax across the horizontal column.

Take the Dauphin tax exemption, for instance, as our primary issue. It is what we would hope to gain here before this committee and before the committee on Bill 21. You see that there is no municipal tax, no school tax, no business tax and that is a provincial assess- ment. Right under it, though, is another provincial assessment, Henderson Highway, which is paying municipal tax. Under school with Bill 21, there will be no tax after the application of that particular bill. So all of the following read no.

But under business, you will be paying business tax on the Henderson Highway one, and the leasehold title does not apply. With the Elmwood R.C.L., which is a city one, and the Unit No. 1 with the Army and Navy, which is just under that, you see where the Elmwood one will be paying no business, no school, and no municipal, as the result of a backdoor provision that exists under the City of Winnipeg By-law 7039/97, which, in essence, says that the municipal tax shall be applicable to the extent that the school tax is applied.

So, if you have 100% removal of school tax, you will now have 100% removal of municipal tax. So Bill 21, in essence, provides us with a half a loaf. If we were to back off at that particular point, our brethren here within the city of Winnipeg would be quite satisfied, I am sure, because they end up paying no tax. But in fairness, though, and I think this is what legislation is all about, in fact. Municipal assessment is based on fairness and the justification of equity based on that fairness.

If you take a quick look at the ones in the city who are paying no tax, the ANAVETS, though, are still paying a leasehold title tax, which was dealt with back in 1998, and again through Bill 50, which we are confronted with today. We have been passed over on two different occasions after having been made equitable with the sections that this leasehold title applies to. That basically makes reference to all the other non-profits other than veterans' associations, who have the benefit of leasehold title along with the Y's under the

section above it,

section (h). We are curious as to why we did not get this exemption back in 1998. We are also curious why we were not advised as to this bill coming through, and why we were not included in Bill 50. I am told by your assessor, Mr. Boreskie, which we will refer to in page 2, that under no circumstances has the Province of Manitoba, the assessor for the Province of Manitoba, been involved in the leasehold title application. * (19:20)

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 243 Yet it arises out of city jurisdiction. It is advanced by the city assessor, and my argument here has always been with the City, why have you not done it? They keep blaming the Province for it. So I am not sure other than we now have an ipso facto definition of who is in charge here. That still remains to be seen, too, I guess. But, if you would read the letter that I wrote back to Mr. Boreskie on May 20, 2004, I thank him in paragraph 3 for something which has really been outstanding for five or six years now.

That is the fact that he has made this abundantly clear that the City of Winnipeg assessor was responsible. We ask why we have been passed over going back to 1998 now. So if you take a look at what really has to be cleaned up in this matter here, we are talking about four different issues. Municipal school business leasehold, the school will be cleaned up. If we take a look at how long it has taken the school provision to be cleaned up, we go back to Bill 36 back in 1995. This is when all of this started, back in 1995. If you take a look at the bill today, it is an exact duplicate, Bill 21, of Bill 36 in 1995.

So at that rate, if we are cleaning these up one for ev ery 10 years, we should be finished with this matter as far as veterans' associations are concerned in the year 2036. I can assure you that by the year 2036 there will not be many left. In fact, we have already lost a few outside of the Perimeter to taxation. We have lost one inside of the Perimeter, which I was intimately involved with, Imperial Vets at 280 St. Mary Avenue. They were closed down for a purported $30,000 tax arrear bill.

We showed very clearly that the overtaxation, the collection of school taxes since the introduction of the bill in 1970 to 1996 when we got the by-law change was an overpayment of $1,105,000. It sort of strikes you as odd that they would take a building for a so-called $30,000 tax arrear, but that is what happened. We have had others outside the Perimeter, Ste. Rose, Crystal City, Boissevain. There are a number of others too that have closed down. Whether or not it was because of taxes, I am not that intimately involved, but it is a fact of life that it was a contributory factor. I include a letter from Mr.

Boreskie back in 2002 making the statement that such an amendment that we are talking about in Bill 50 is unlikely to take place in the near future, but I will make a note to discuss it when consideration of amendments is next made. Well, I am asking in my letter to him on May 20, 2004: Why were we not considered when the amendments were made on behalf of the City of Winnipeg and their particular problem? I wrote to the Premier on December 16 further in this package that we were looking forward to the promise that he had made regarding the Dauphin exemption. That promise was made to a Mr.

Derkach, and it was made to the Leader of the Official Opposition and Mr. Gerrard in this picture here on December 6 at the Christmas party. In fact, I sent out a missive to all of the branches on December 19 with the permission of the then special assistant to the Premier, Pratik Modha. I asked him whether or not it was appropriate to send out this letter. I thought it would be a nice piece of Christmas news. He okayed it. Then we hear on March 10 or whatever it was, we were being given something, but it had to do with school. That was the extent of the recommendation for a reduction.

I would like to just read into the Hansard , you have a copy in that second package that I have given you, but I would like to read this into the record, because this was between the minister's special assistant and myself, post the meeting on Monday. It is addressed to Mr. Joe Urbanski, and it was faxed to him on Tuesday: Dear Joe: I felt a short note to yesterday's meeting would crystallize our comments. I believe that it is necessary for an assessment to have fairness and justness as its cornerstone.

That principle is compromised in many regards as it exists today and will be further exacerbated by the passage of

section 9, Bill 21. I am suggesting the government withdraw

section 9, Bill 21, and replace same with an Order- in-Council to comply with

section 18 of the act. Valid assessment requires that similar properties be similarly assessed. I would suggest that you forget about the refrain to have municipalities consulted for the following reasons: 1. You have had my survey since 1999, and if a follow-up is required, then why have you not done so?

244 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 2. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities, of which the AMM, with 206 members, is a member, has in June 2000 asked that November 11 be made a stat holiday, at a cost of millions of dollars for our Manitoban taxpayers. This contravenes the essence of those responsible for the day receiving a stonewall of silence when it comes to maintaining its last post, wherein these memories or memoriams are nurtured, this at a cost of a couple hundred thousand dollars versus millions. 3.

The Order-in-Council in 2002 exempting univer- sities, where no consultation occurred with the municipalities of Brandon and Winnipeg, at a cost of $17.5 million. Our cost to municipalities, I will give you the largest ones: Brandon $18,500; Thompson $15,500; The Pas $14,000; and a smaller one, Virden $4,500. I think it is important, given that we are dealing here today with leasehold titles, and, further, the leasehold titles for the veterans which have been ignored since 1998, Bill 34, 1998. It is strange indeed that for some reason this has occurred and continues to with Bill 50 of this current session.

The above Order-in- Council will correct this, but at the least our veterans should be added to Bill 50 today. In the same breath, add the change to

section 30, which is the business tax of the act, which deals with the business tax. Best regards, John Petrinka So on the last page of your presentation I have included a regulation for a proposed Order-in- Council. If we were to deal with Bill 21 and accept it as it is for 2004, that would be acceptable. If we then went and took Bill 50 today and added the leasehold title, effective for 2004, and the business tax, effective for 2004, these bills come into force January 1, 2005. I hate to think what could happen here, given what happened with Bill 36 in 1995. It came into effect on the lst of January, 1996.

The department said because of the fact that your rolls closed on December 31, 1995, therefore you could not have 1996, therefore it would have to be put over until 1997.

In the same report, the lawyer, in backing up the assessor, said it should not happen until 1998 because of the fact that it was new methodology, when it was not new methodology at all because there is only one way to do it and it stems from the fact that nobody, including a 1982 legal decision where Judge Kroft, read into his decision the act but not the regulations. * (19:30) If somebody would have read the regulations I would not be here today. The regulations state very simply that you are taxed to the extent that you are licensed under The Manitoba Liquor Control Act.

What The Manitoba Liquor Control Act says, that you cannot drink in this room, you cannot drink in the washrooms, you cannot drink in a kitchen and so forth. Those are all subtracted from the interior licence portion or the licence description. So there are two ways that we are suggesting that this possibly be completed today, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Petrinka, if I could ask you to make your concluding comments, please, because we have run out of time. Mr. Petrinka: Yes. These are the concluding comments, sir. An Honourable Member: I need some question time. Mr. Petrinka: Pardon me.

An Honourable Member: I need some question time, so let us go. Mr. Petrinka: Yes. You will have lots of time. As I was saying, there are two ways that we could do this, Mr. Chairman. One is to accept Bill 21 as it is. This provides an exemption from school tax but make it for 2004. We waited long enough. It is 10 years since Bill 36 in 1995. Secondly, to accept Bill 50 and add in the leasehold title. We have three in town who have now been paying a leasehold title tax in opposition to that that is being presented to all the other non-profits in the city of Winnipeg.

What are we going to do for these people that have been paying this tax since 1998 while others have been exempt? I mean, I have a situation right now where I think one is ready to go under because of its leasehold title. They could use the relief. Now add business tax into Bill 50. It is just as simple to do that as it is to do leasehold title and with

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 245 the municipal we will have to come back possibly with an Order-in-Council or do it all by way of Order-in-Council. I made all the deletions for you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir. Are there any questions of the presenter? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Yes. Mr. Petrinka, thank you for your presentation. I know that we are limited in terms of question time here in committee, but I do want to ask the question with regard to exemptions for Legions. Bill 21 does exempt the education tax effective 2005. I have brought in an amendment to make that effective 2004.

We are still negotiating in terms of whether or not that can be achieved or whether there can be a grant in lieu of taxes provided for the 2004 year. But further to that, Mr.

Petrinka, the municipal side of the tax on these Legions where basically we have people who occupy the Legions who are war veterans who have laid down their lives for this country and it seems to me that we can very easily with a stroke of a pen exempt institutions, for example, like the University of Manitoba and other universities in this province from paying education tax, yet these meagre facilities that we have across this country, both in the city of Winnipeg and also in rural parts of Manitoba, cannot enjoy that same standard and the standard that was granted to the Dauphin Legion.

All we are asking for, I think, in your presentation and in this amendment is that, indeed, we honour the Legions in the same way that the Dauphin Legion was honoured a long time ago in terms of its exemption. Mr. Petrinka: What is your question? Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Derkach, did you wish to repeat the question? Mr. Derkach: Oh, Mr. Petrinka, you and I go back such a long way and yet you do not understand me. Mr.

Petrinka, I am asking you whether, in fact, in all of your presentation, which is fairly complex, you are asking for an exemption from municipal and education tax, also the business tax on the non-profit earning premises of Legions across rural Manitoba and, indeed, in Winnipeg. Mr. Petrinka: Mr. Chairman, we are indeed asking for that. We really do not care what other people are getting, okay? But I can cite you a list as long as my arm as those that are not only receiving from the federal government, from the provincial government and from the civic government, capital grants, operating grants, et cetera.

We are under a municipal by-law where we have been under municipal by-laws elsewhere. Mr. Scott will attest to that, where in Brandon they destroyed all of their exemptions. How long was that, Mr. Scott? [interjection] What happened here was that we have a situation wherein the Brandon Legion is sitting on a methane dump and they could not build on this piece of property if they wanted to and yet they had an exemption. They put a couple of ball parks on it.

They maintained it themselves for the benefit of the community and we have this through- out the province where these buildings were built by members for the benefit of the community. When I appeared before Beausejour to get the exemption, I put it to them this way: If you will not give us equity with Winnipeg, if you do not believe that the Town of Beausejour does not get $2,000 in benefit from the presence of this particular Legion, whether it be volunteer labour, whether it be contributions, and Lundar is a very good example.

They have made contributions to their hospital, to their skating rink, to thei r curling rink. They have nothing left to give, though. Yes, we would like to see this done now, sir. Everybody else is getting it. In fact, I suggested to Stan Struthers today, "Let us do away with all this mess." He is from Dauphin. Let him make a proposal to the government sitting that they do away with the Dauphin exemption. We would not have a problem then. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I must say at the beginning that I truly appreciate your tenacious persistence at trying to get this issue dealt with.

I know it has been a number of months and you have met with my leader and myself and other members of this Chamber. Some say that a legislative change is not necessary, that in fact it could be done through Order-in-Council. Just to be very clear, the essence of what it is that you want is all Legions in the province of Manitoba not to have to have to pay property tax,

246 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 whether it is city tax, school tax, you just do not want Legions to have to pay property tax, something which we support. If there are no changes that are proposed to this legislation, you would like to get some sort of assurance then from the government that they will be doing it, whether it is through Order-in-Council, and it will be made retroactive for 2004. Is that a fair assessment of exactly what it is you want? Mr. Petrinka: It is will indeed become effective for 2004, as the universities' exemption was.

An OIC creates a regulation that is effective immediately upon registration. It took me a while to learn about these things. I would like to say something else, too, just before I conclude here. If we had had some sense of good will in all of this, okay, rather than me being led around the corner by the nose again because of my inability to anticipate what is coming next, if we had sat down as a group and said, look, let us not look at why we cannot do this, let us look at how we can do it.

But coming back to what you said earlier, the by-law with the City of Winnipeg says very clearly "other than taxation for local improvements." Dauphin pays for local improvements. So you have a situation here where this Order-in-Council could be done before the end of this month. I mean, as long as you guys hang around for a couple of hours and not run out there campaigning for all your people there, we could get this done. I say that with a little bit of humour attached to it, mind you. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Petrinka. Hon.

Rosann Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you for your presentation, Mr. Petrinka. I know it is an issue you have a lot of interest in and one you have spent a lot of time with, talking to staff in the department, and I appreciate your presentation. Mr. Petrinka: I want to make one post-comment here. Neither am I related to Mr. Penner. Mr. Chairperson: I would like to canvass the audience this evening to make sure. Are there any other presenters that may wish to make a presentation on Bill 50 before we proceed?

Seeing none, then that will conclude the list of presenters on Bill 50. Bill 49–The Municipal Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 49. Does the minister responsible for Bill 49 have an opening statement? Hon. Rosann Wowchuk: (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Chairman, we have had one presentation on Bill 49 and I would just like to put a few comments on the whole bill. Bill 49 proposes amendments to The Municipal Act. That is the legislation that provides the framework for all municipalities except Winnipeg.

These amendmen ts demonstrate govern- ment's commitment to make sure municipalities are equipped with the right tools to manage their affairs effectively and efficiently. * (19:40) Most significantly, the bill proposes new enabling authority for municipalities outside of Winnipeg to use tax incremental financing and innovative funding model to support community economic development, as well as community and neighbourhood revitalization efforts. It will provide complementary board authorities to municipalities to develop tax credit programs and grant programs.

The other proposed amendments will remove disincentives from municipalities contemplating restructuring by amalgamation and give them greater flexibility to deal with mobile homes. We did have the presentations on mobile homes. On that section, I would like to indicate that, when the whole bill was being rewritten last time, this is a

section that was inadvertently left out of the legislation. It is being restored to what the legislation was before. Under the clause that is being brought, the municipalities will be able to phase in the increases as a result of the new assessments. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable minister for the opening statement. Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 247 Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): In response to what the minister says in reinstating the portion or part of the mobile home provision under The Municipal Act is something that I suppose is in question when one looks at the different appl ications of fees and/or assessments in various parts of the province and/or what charges are allowed and not allowed by way of exemptions.

For instance, in the Dauphin case, I note that in Dauphin there are virtually no taxes applied, no Manitoba municipal taxes, no school tax, no business tax, and leasehold not available, provincial assessor. I would hope that the Province might have considered some uniform way of demonstrating a will to apply similar service fees and/or no service fees to all Legions in all parts of the province. When I look at the Henderson Highway Legion, they apply and are required to pay municipal tax, no school tax, yes on business tax. Similarly, there are different provisions under the act.

I had hoped that the– An Honourable Member: Jack, you are talking about the wrong bill. Mr. Penner: No, this is–oh, I am sorry. This is the Legion one. But under the mobile home one, under The Municipal Act, I stand by what I said. Under The Municipal Assessment Act– An Honourable Member: We are just dealing with 49 now. Mr. Penner: The Municipal Assessment Amend- ment Act, yes. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed, Mr. Penner. Mr. Penner: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I think Mr. Derkach had a comment to make on The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act.

I am not sure whether he is currently busy, but I have no comment on The Municipal Assessment Act. I was thinking that we were speaking to The Municipal Amendment Act when I was speaking in regard to the Legions. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Penner. We will now proceed with clause-by-clause consideration. Shall clauses 1 and 2 pass? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Is the minister aware of any classifications that are given to mobile home parks in other jurisdictions in particular, if Saskatchewan happens to– Ms.

Wowchuk: If the question was, are we aware of any other provinces that have a classification for mobile homes, we are not aware of any. Mr. Penner: On the mobile home aspects of licensing fees and/or services charged or munici- palities charging fees for services not rendered by municipalities, is the minister considering some way of making a change that would ensure that municipalities are not charging for fees not provided to mobile home parks and/or assessing mobile homes based on fees deemed to be charged and paid for through the rental fee or fee charges applied to those mobile homes? Ms.

Wowchuk: Currently, Mr. Chairman, there is authority under The Municipal Act to enter into a service agreement with mobile parks to deal with those kind of issues. So they have the authority now. But I want to just say that this is no different than a multi-unit dwelling in an urban centre where there are services that are provided for people that live in a dwelling by the owner of the building.

In a mobile park there are certain services that are provided by the owner of the park as well, and those are the agreements that they come into, but to the specific question, there is the ability to work in a service agreement. If you look at a townhouse development, in a townhouse development there are services that are provided by the development, just as there would be services provided by the mobile home park owners. Mr. Penner: I think there is a significant difference.

We have numerous mobile home parks that provide virtually all the services, such as road service, such as sewage service, and the mobile home parks, I understand, in many areas provide their own water, their own water treatment facilities, and provide those water services to the mobile homes. Yet this assessment act change would allow for the municipality and the Province, actually, to do the assessment, as if services were provided by a municipal government and assessed at values, even though those services were never provided by the municipality.

I believe there should be some provisions within the act that make recognition of the

248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 difference between a mobile home park where no services and no cost to municipalities, or virtually no cost except for the road into the park, is provided. On a similar manner that many of the farm homes are of the same manner, where the farm home has no cost to the municipality except for the road going by the farm property, and I believe there are significant differences in assessing value, and by services provided, and allowing for taxation of those services provided when that in fact is not the case here.

So I would ask the minister whether she also would agree that there needs to be a differentiation in those kinds of properties, here as the case was made by the mobile home owners association here a few minutes ago. Ms. Wowchuk: In answer to the question, I mean, I would like to begin by putting on the record that the Manitoba Association of Municipalities, a group of people that deliver services and deal with these kinds of issues, has looked at Bill 49 and has indicated that they had similar concerns at their 2003 convention.

I would just read, "The Association of Manitoba Municipalities recently reviewed the bill. As you may be aware, AMM members passed a resolution at the 2003 convention. This resolution called for AMM to lobby the provincial government to provide legislation for the province-wide system of licensing or assessment of trailers in mobile home parks." * (19:50) Then it goes on to say th at they are in support. This meets the needs of what municipal councils were saying.

The member talks about services that farmers get, services that municipalities get, and there are services that we as farmers only get a road going by, these people that are in mobile parks get a road going by as we do on farms. They get additional services that are provided for within the park, no different than a townhouse development would be. It is a very similar development that there are services that are provided. Mr.

Penner: Well, I think it is unfortunate that the minister allowed herself to be convinced by those that should know better by now, that the similarity between a townhouse and a trailer park exists. In most cases, the trailer park owner, the owner of the park, provides the road service, provides the water service in most cases, and provides all the other services except for Manitoba Hydro services, Manitoba Telephone services and whatever other media services that are not provided by that mobile home park owner.

I would grant the minister that there are a few mobile home parks around that receive their services fully from the town adjacent to or the municipality within and those should be treated in a different manner, but those where the owner of the park provides all the services and charges a fee to the trailer owner or the mobile home owner, this would in fact provide for double taxation, Madam Minister.

We should not overlook that, and I think for that reason there needs to be a pr ovision written into this act, an amendment to this act, that would not allow for double service fee charging, whether it be through a municipality or another organization. There should not be double fee service charging as will be required here in those parks where the services are all provided by the park owner except for the road going by th e park. The property owner of the park will, in fact, be paying municipal taxes based on the value of the park which will be separately assessed, and you will find that.

I know that the minister recognizes this. Ms. Wowchuk: I would just like to say that this is enabling legislation to give councils the authority, but recognizing that coun cillors are accountable people to their ratepayers. Within legislation, park owners can come into service agreements, but I guess what we have to look at is what services the municipality provides. Municipal revenues pay for a broad spectrum of municipal services, such as policing, fire protection and recreational services. Ninety-five percent of the money collected by municipalities goes to those services.

This will enable municipalities to come into agreements with park owners. Certainly, I respect the municipal leaders and their comments that they are making on this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, Mr. Chair, I have to tell you this is a déjà-vu bill for me. I think staff will probably understand that. I have to tell you I am on the side of the association of folks who live in trailer park homes because these are probably the people who, in many

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 249 instances for example, this is a family's first home, because they probably cannot afford a home in a community or in a municipality. So the best they opt for is a piece of property of their own, which is a trailer parked in a trailer park. Now, the other thing I agree with from the presentation that was made is that in fact this is double taxation, because we have, now, trailer owners paying a fee to the trailer park owner. That fee is supposed to be representative of the services that they receive.

Now, the municipality in those cases does not provide any services. The only reason we would want to assess trailers is for the province to be able to capture the education tax. The other reason would be for the municipality to be able to raise the fees that would more closely resemble the assessed value of those trailers. So, in any of the explanations that we have had from the ministers now, we have not had an adequate explanation in terms of what this really does for the trailer owner, or the mobile home owner. I would like the minister to explain what this really does for the family that owns the trailer.

How is it a positive for that family who are now paying a fee and a licence? Ms. Wowchuk: This bill does not give the municipality the right to assess. They have the right to assess. Under the previous administration they had the right to assess. That right was there. This is to allow to continue to license as they do today. This is a continuation of the licensing as they have it today. This is not giving them permission to assess. They have that right now. Mr. Derkach: So what is the reason for the bill? Ms.

Wowchuk: As I said earlier, the reason for this amendment is to reintroduce the licensing, which was inadvertently dropped in the last amendment. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chair, as I understand it, the licensing has been there and is there. It is just the issue of being able to increase the licence fee and, my understanding, is not allowable. Is that correct, or am I under the wrong impression here? I am just asking for clarification here. Ms. Wowchuk: This is reintroducing the licensing, which was inadvertently dropped in the last piece of legislation. Mr.

Derkach: Is the minister saying that the Manitoba Park Owners Association Incorporated in their presentation are totally incorrect in their evaluation and in their assessment of the bill? Ms. Wowchuk: Repeat the question, please. Mr. Chairperson: Could you please repeat the question, Mr. Derkach. Mr. Derkach: My question is whether or not the minister is saying in her response that the Manitoba Park Owners Association Incorporated was totally wrong in their presentation and in the principles of their presentation in their assessment of the bill. Ms.

Wowchuk: The item that I spoke about, the portion of the bill that was dropped in the previous legislation, is not something that the mobile park owners addressed in their presentation. They have addressed other issues, but that particular issue they did not address. Mr. Penner: Then I would like to ask of the minister, then, 309.1(4) and I will read that

section to you: "In repealing a mobile home by-law, a council may limit the increase or decrease in the amount of payable as property taxes for a mobile home when compared to the amount that was paid as a licence fee on the terms and conditions for the time period prescribed in the by-law." * (20:00) That tells me that the homes must be assessed and that taxes must be paid, unless I totally forgot how to do legislation, because this part of the act simply describes how taxes must be levied. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Penner, we are on clauses 1 and 2.

The clause you referred to is the next set of clauses we have to deal with. Mr. Penner: Yes, but I am just referring. I want clarification on this because 309.1 if you continue down that line from where we currently were, if you speak a totally different language than what the minister has prescribed–and I agree with what the minister was saying in the previous clauses, that she is trying to reinstate a licensing fee which might not have been there before.

250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 But 309.1(4) says: "In repealing a mobile home by-law, a council may limit the increase or decrease in the amount of payable as property taxes for mobile homes when compared to the amount that was paid as a licence fee, on the terms and conditions, and for the time period, prescribed in the by-law." So it simply says that the taxation process is alive and well. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Penner, unless there is leave of the committee, we cannot allow the questions to be asked of a clause 4 when we are dealing with clauses 1 and 2.

So, if there is leave of the committee, we can allow this question to proceed. Otherwise, we will have to wait until we proceed to that clause. Mr. Penner: We will wait until we get there. I will respect what the process is. Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 1 and 2–pass; clause 3– pass. Shall clause 4 pass? Ms. Wowchuk: I have an amendment for clause 4, and that is, I move THAT Clause 4 of the Bill be amended by striking out the proposed subsection 309.1(3). Mr. Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable minister THAT Clause 4 of the Bill be amended by striking out the proposed subsection 309.1(3).

The amendment is in order. Mr. Penner: My question is on the next clause. Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Chairperson: Shall the amendment be adopted? Mr. Derkach: I am sorry, on the amendment, Mr. Chair, this is, I think, the amendment that we had discussed with government, and the minister is proposing that we delete the section. I think this goes part of the way to accomplishing what we had set out as our goal in terms of this bill, but it certainly does not address all of the issues that we see problematic in this bill.

Now, when I posed my previous questions, they were in terms of the general bill, not in terms of a specific section. So I erred in terms of how I posed my questions, but, indeed, I would have to say that, at the best, this only goes part way to achieving some of the issues that we have with this bill. I will leave it at that. Mr. Chairperson: Is the committee ready to adopt the motion? [Agreed] Shall clause 4 as amended pass? Mr. Penner: Well, my question stands as I have put it before. This

section clearly allows, in my view, and I think if we would ask for legal opinion, would allow for the taxation of a property instead of fees. Is that correct? Ms. Wowchuk: Could you repeat the question, please? Mr. Penner: Well, the question is, and I will read the clause: "In repealing a mobile home by-law, a council may limit the increase or decrease in the amount payable as property taxes for a mobile home when compared to the amount that was paid as a licence fee, in terms and conditions, and for the time period, prescribed in the by-law." That clearly says the council is allowed to assess and tax.

This speaks to where there was a licence fee paid on the terms and conditions and for the time period prescribed by a by-law. Now there is going to be tax applied in respect of the same amount as the licence fee was prescribed before. Just the op posite from what I was told a few minutes ago. The minister was saying, reverting back, to be able to apply licence fees, correct?

This portion, 309.1(4) says, "In repealing a mobile home by-law, a council may limit the increase or decrease in the amount payable as property taxes for a mobile home when compared to the amount that was paid as a licence fee," or am I a bit daft here? Ms. Wowchuk: Municipalities have the right to do that now. They can go from licensing to an assessment. As it is now, they would have to go to 100% assessment. This clau se gives them the ability

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 251 to phase it in, rather than implement the whole assessment at one time as they would have to do now. Some municipalities have done that, some municipalities have changed from licensing to assessment. When that happens, it becomes 100% assessed property, and I can give you an example. This happened in my constituency where a trailer park in Swan River went from licensing to assessment. They had to go to the 100 percent. This clause will now give the municipality the ability to phase it in over time.

So it is a benefit to those people who, if they should choose to phase it in, they would have the ability to. Mr. Penner: Well, I am a bit surprised that the minister would attempt to move in this respect. I agree that this is probably an attempt to allow for some phase-in of the increases that are going to be applied here, but this part of the bill is clearly a taxation bill. There is no other aspect to this. It is clearly an attempt by local and/or other governments and gives the ability of the municipality to double tax.

It would force the mobile home owner to pay the fees to the park owner, plus would allow the assessment of the property based on the values applied by the assessor on services rendered via the property owner of the park and the value applied to those services in the value of the home, as is done in all other cases. But here the mobile home owner would pay the fee to the park and then pay taxes to the municipality based on the fees provided. I think that is the most unfair way of taxing, it is double taxation, nothing but. I am going to leave it at that. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, I just want to clarify that it is either fee or assessment. It is not that people in these mobile homes will pay a fee and then be assessed. It is either/or, and I give you the example of Swan River and Steinbach where there are two mobile parks, two communities where they have changed from a fee to an assessment. In those cases, they went to 100 percent. This clause allows them to have the ability to phase it in over time. Mr.

Derkach: Can I ask the minister why the presentation from the Manitoba Park Owners Association Incorporated would state on page 3, "This is double taxation that typically impacts Canadians of modest means that can least afford it, young families and retirees living in mobile homes." Mr. Chairperson, these ar e the people whom I am fighting for in this legislation because I believe these are the people who need the breaks in terms of being able to at least live in a home that is called their own.

If we, in fact, begin to move either the fees or the taxation up on these trailer mobile homes, we are going to see these people not even being able to afford for their families to live in these kinds of facilities even though it is their own facility. * (20:10) Can the minister explain why the association would make that kind of comment if in fact this bill does not do what they are assuming it is going to? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairperson, I cannot speak for the association as to why they would say that.

I know that it is not all associations that are being represented here but the member talked about the assessment on mobile homes. The average assess- ment on mobile homes is about $13,000. That would mean a taxation bill in the range of about between $300 and $350. The woman, Ms. Penner, who made the presentation, was talking about services that they provide within their parks. We are talking about there are also a lot of other services that are provided, a broad spectrum of services such as policing, fire protection and recreational services that are not covered.

I want to indicate, as well, that the assessed value of these homes does not end up creating a huge burden and it may vary from trailer park to trailer park depending on what the fee is because the fee is removed, then it is assessed and they have a tax that has to be paid that can be phased in over time. Mr. Derkach: Is the minister saying then that the statement that was made by the presenter, Ms. Penner, on behalf of the Manitoba Park Owners Association, is wrong? Ms. Wowchuk: What I am saying, Mr.

Chairperson, is that several meetings have been held with mobile home owners over the last two years with respect to licensing and taxation. There has been a lot of discussion. Finance has also contacted Ms. Penner. There has been a lot of discussion with mobile home owners as these amendments were being developed. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Chairperson, because this minister has recently assumed this portfolio, I want to know whether or not she, as minister, has taken

252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 the opportunity to meet with the Park Owners Association or any of the other trailer associations across the province directly to make sure that, in fact, this bill does address their concerns and their needs? Ms. Wowchuk: As the member indicated in his comments, I have just taken over these respon- sibilities but I can assure him that both ministers who were in this portfolio before me did meet with park owners to discuss this issue. Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr.

Chairperson, there is an obvious problem here if we have a presentation of this kind that seems to misunderstand the intent of the government. I do not think they deliberately have made this presentation misunderstanding what the intent of the government is. What this leads me to believe is that there is either some kind of miscommunication between the department and the Manitoba Park Owners Association or, in fact, there is just a difference in how they view this issue.

It seems to me that this matter should be resolved so that there can be some meeting of minds because when people tell that this is double taxation, that is a fairly serious issue and one that I do not see being answered by the minister at this time and that is what this document says. Ms. Wowchuk: Ms. Penner made comment about double taxation, and I can say that all properties will be assessed and taxed only once. The landlord recoups the tax from the mobile home-owner through rent. So the individual who made the presentation is saying that there is double taxation and we are saying, Mr.

Chairperson, th ere are services that the mobile park owner charges for and there are services that the municipality charges for that go beyond what the mobile park owner provides, services such as policing, fire protection and recreational services. I would have to say that there is a difference of opinion.

We have a mobile park owner thinking that they are providing all of the services, but we all know that each of us receives services, people that live in mobile parks receive additional services that are provided for by the municipality, services such as policing, fire protection and recreational services, as an example. Mr. Penner: Just one final comment. I am not going to ask a question. Mr. Chairperson: One second, please, Mr. Penner. Would members of the committee wishing to have a discussion please take th e conversations outside the room.

We are having a very difficult time hearing the questions from members of the committee here to allow for the free flow of questions and answers. Please, I ask for your indulgence. Mr. Penner: I just want to make one further comment. There is a significant difference according to mobile home parks that we knew 20 or 30 years ago compared to mobile home parks that we know today. Many of the serv ices, and they are total services, even security services are provided in many of these mobile homes today, the modern mobile homes. They are secured. The road services are provided by the park owner.

The water services are provided by the park owner. Recreational services are provided by the park owner in many areas, such as swimming pools and/or other exercise facilities that are offered in these mobile home areas, the modern ones, I am talking about. I would suggest to the minister she seriously reconsider this bill and provide a provision which would disallow the double taxation or double fee charges that are evidently going to happen here in respect to what I have just said.

In those instances where all the services are provided by the mobile home park owner, including recreation and all other, even security, roads and everything, there should be special consideration made under this act to not allow additional municipal service taxes or taxes to be charged in lieu of services or in light of services, to provide service or deemed to be providing services under this act to that park. I think there must be an element of fairness here in this bill.

I would suggest to the minister that we will be providing an amendment to this act that will allow for an ability for the assessors to exclude those parks that are total service providers in respect of the service to the mobile homes within those parks. Ms. Wowchuk: I would have to say that then there is a difference of opinion on what this piece of legislation will do. We do not believe that there will be double taxation, but if the member opposite believes that there will be double taxation, there would have been double taxation under their administration.

What this legislation does is allow for a phase-in if there is assessment. This was legislation they had in place. We will continue to

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 253 work–I can indicate I have had discussion with my colleague. There have been several people in our caucus who have met with the Parks Association. Mr. Penner: Just a final comment. The minister is as mischievous as she often is with her words. I just want to put on the record that this bill clearly does allow for double taxation or double fee service charge, or, should I say, for fee service charges plus taxation by the municipality. We will be entering a proposal for an amendment to this bill that would limit that. Mr.

Chairperson: Is the committee ready for the question, clause 4? Some Honourable Members: Question. Mr. Chairperson: Shall clause 4 as amended pass? Some Honourable Members: No. Some Honourable Members: Yes. Voice Vote Mr. Chairperson: All those in favour of adopting clause 4 as amended, please signify by saying yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Chairperson: All those opposed, signifying by saying nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Chairperson: In the opinion of the Chair, the Yeas have it. * * * Mr. Chairperson: Clause 4 as amended–pass; clauses 5 and 6–pass; enacting clause–pass; title– pass.

Bill as amended be reported. Thank you to members of the committee for that. * (20:20) Bill 50–The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: The next bill is Bill 50. Does the minister responsible for Bill 50, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act, have an opening statement? Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Acting Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Bill 50 proposes amendments to The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act. That is the legislation that sets the framework for the assessme nt of properties in the province.

Two amendments are proposed in this bill which demonstrate this government's commitment to healthy living, community economic development and tourism. Most significantly, the amendments of the bill facilitate municipalities and non-profit organizations working together to ensure continued operations of municipal-owned properties, notably local community clubs. They will remove tax liability from the municipality who devolves control of recreational facilities to non-profit groups who have expressed an interest in operating them.

The other proposed amendments will exempt trails owned by the Manitoba Recreational Trail Association and similar non-profit organizations from taxation. The amendment removes the barrier for the growth of a trail system and enhances Manitoba's portion of the Trans-Canada Trail network. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for the opening statement. Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement? Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Yes, Mr. Chair, just very quickly.

This bill omits one group which we have a concern about and I am not going to belabour the issue, but once again I go back to Mr. Petrinka's presentation and the fact that he has been fighting for this for a long time. Lord knows, I was minister and I did not do it, so now it is my opportunity to say, "Minister, please do it," because this is the 60th anniversary of D-day. This is the time when we should, in fact, exempt those Legion facilities that are owned by veterans and who have laid down their lives for us as Canadians.

We have done one part of it which is the education tax, now we are asking that the municipal tax also be exempted so that they would enjoy the same exemption as the Dauphin Legion does. Mr. Chairperson: I thank the member for the opening statement.

254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 We will proceed with clause by clause. Shall clause 1 pass? Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Yes, I want to plead guilty as well. When I was the minister, I did not make the amendments either and plead with the minister to make recognition of the 60th anniversary of the Legions and apply the exemptions at least to the place where the Dauphin Legion is. Add some stability to the fee application and taxation of the Legion halls right across this province. I think we would serve the needs of the veterans well. Ms.

Wowchuk: I would just like to say to my colleagues around the table that their suggestion and Mr. Petrinka's comments are completely out of scope of this bill and amendments addressed to his issues could not be addressed in this bill. Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): I am not guilty of any of the above, but I do want to concur with my colleagues that I would like to see the Legionnaires included. I realize the minister said that it is not in the scope of this bill but perhaps she would look at it in regulation or whatever we need to do to put it forward. Mr.

Chairperson: Clause 1–pass; clause 2–pass; clause 3–pass; clause 4–pass; enacting clause–pass; title–pass. Bill be reported. Bill 42–The Mines and Minerals Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with public presentations on Bill 42. Will Mr. Chris Lorenc please come forward, sir. Good evening. Do you have a written presen- tation for committee members? Mr. Chris Lorenc (President, Manitoba Heavy Construction Association): Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: The page will distribute it and then we will proceed in a few moments with your presentation. Thank you, Mr.

Lorenc, for your patience and to the members of the public for waiting so patiently here this evening. Please proceed when you are ready. Mr. Lorenc: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair- person, ministers, members of the committee. I am pleased to present remarks pertaining to Bill 42 on behalf of the Manitoba Heavy Construction Association, MHCA. This bill makes several amendments to The Mines and Minerals Act. We will focus on one. It allows administrative, salary and other expenses arising out of the rehabilitation of quarry lands to be paid from the Quarry Rehabilitation Reserve Account.

As background, the initial creation of the reserve account was the result of a co-operative effort between the provincial government and the aggre- gate industry represented by the MHCA. In late 1988, representatives began a series of meetings in which efforts were made to try to find a way to responsibly address problems that had arisen in connection with the rehabilitation of spent quarries. Government wanted a revenue stream with which to fund the rehabilitation. We were not anxious for new taxes.

The solution ultimately agreed upon by industry and government was a new dedicated levy of 10 cents per metric tonne of extracted aggregates and the creation of the above-me ntioned special account, into which the dedicated levy funds would be deposited. It was intended and agreed that the funds of that account would create a reserve to cover the direct costs associated with rehabilitation of a spent quarry.

While it was understood that the account itself would be administered by the Department of Mines, all parties involved with the creation of the account were quite clear, and agreed that the funds would be used only for the direct costs of quarry rehabilitation and not for the payment of departmental adminis- trative costs. Ultimately, provisions related to the Quarry Rehabilitation Reserve Account reflecting the agree- ment were incorporated into The Mines and Minerals Act by way of a 1992 amendment.

Section 200(4) was added to the act which provides as follows: the minister may, quote, "make an expenditure from the Quarry Rehabilitation Reserve Account of such sums as are required from time to time for the rehabilitation of lands on which a quarry is situated."

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 255 Since the inception, the funds deposited into the account were utilized only for the purposes in

section 200(4), namely rehabilitation of lands on which a spent quarry was situated . More recently, however, the provincial government has strayed and, in our opinion, breached the act. We understand that beginning in 2001, the government utilized funds from the Quarry Rehab Re serve Account to cover costs associated with the payment of salaries for part-time staff.

In 2002, it expanded its use of the rehab funds to cover administrative and enforcement expenditures, and in 2003, the provincial government took roughly $419,000 or about 34 percent of the annual rehabil- itation program and slightly under 30 percent of the annual rehabilitation levy to cover administration, not rehabilitation.

Our view, supported by legal opinion and a review of the file materials under the Freedom of Information legislation, was and remains that any use of the funds from the quarry rehab account for the payment of departmental costs relating to the organization or planning enforcement, was not permitted by

section 200(4), unless and until the act was changed. Our position was and remains that the govern- ment can clearly, as a matter of public policy, change the use to which those funds could be put by way of legislative amendment, but until that event, the restrictive nature of the legislation was quite clear. * (20:30) The above actions not only constituted, in our view, an ongoing contravention of existing provincial legislation, but violated a fundamental understanding that had existed between industry and government at the time that the quarry rehab account was conceived and then created by legislation.

The proposed amendment to the act is in breach of the clear intent of the initial agreement made between industry and government. But there are also social, economic and environmental impacts flowing from the proposed changes. The quarry rehab fund has been the reason why so many quarries have been reclaimed, rehabilitated and put back to a state considered safe and environ- mentally appropriate. The fund has also provided significant employment opportunities for scores of small rural Manitoba contractors and their employees.

By the simple stroke of a pen, the pressure to administer programs cost-effectively is lost, because now government will have access to a pool of funds previously not available to it and never intended for these purposes. The result, a smaller program, no improved program effectiveness, lost employment opportunities for rural co ntractors and less environ- mental work done rehabilitating spent quarries. None of the above negative impacts are desirable, necessary or responsible. They certainly do not warrant a change in legislation.

All of the above tarnishes bona fide arguments made by governments about the need for dedicated revenue streams and the need to be publicly transparent and accountable for their use. If the government decides, however, to proceed with the change in legislation, which we do not support but which is its right, then the funds taken in breach of the act first must be reimbursed. Secondly, we suggest that the act must assure transparency and accountability for the rece ipt and expenditure of funds.

Extraction levy revenues, as defined in the act, must continue to be deposited into a separate interest-bearing account in trust for the permitted purposes. The minister should be specifically required to file an audited report to the Legislative Assembly. The accounts and transactions of the rehab fund raised through the extraction levy must, in our view, be audited annually by the provincial auditor even if the cost of the audit is charged against the account. We draw to your favourable attention the financial accountability provisions of

section 34 in Bill 12, which is attached. If the funds are to be permitted for salaries and other expenses of govern- ment in administering the quarry rehab program, they must be the subject matter of audits and we request that you add the following amendments as additional sections to the amending legislation whose text paraphrases

section 34.1(5) of Bill 12. I have laid out the audit and fiscal reporting provisions in page three of the brief. These changes would at least provide the public with assurance of

256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 transparency a nd accountability for the funds received and disbursed. It is fundamentally important to establish principles which will be consistently applied to the creation, dedication and accountability for dedicated funds. The approach suggested in Bill 12, as above referred, provides a comprehensive approach and one which we recommend be applied to The Mines and Minerals Act.

As a footnote to this point, I want to indicate that our difference of opinion is not with the adminis- tration of the Mines and Minerals Branch, but rather with the elected branch which sets the policy which the department then carries out. We have a very good and very professional relationship with the Mines Branch and difficulties that we have in the adminis- tration of the program ar e more often than not resolved through committee work and through exchange of opinion, ideas and information. That concludes this presentation, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to address any questions which might arise from it.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Lorenc, for your presentation. Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Thank you, Mr. Lorenc, for your presentation. Indeed, it was interesting to hear your comments in regard to Bill 42. If you were going to propose an amendment to Bill 42 the way it sits now, what would that be? Mr.

Lorenc: Well, first of all, we do not think there should be any amendment to the legislation; how- ever, if the will of government is to proceed with the legislation, then at page 3 of our brief we have provided text under subtitles, Audit 200 (5) and Fiscal Reporting 200 (6) which paraphrase provi- sions that were adopted by the House, as I understand it, in amendments identified in Bill 12. So there needs to be a clear statement of audit responsibility and annual fiscal reporting. Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Just one comment to the minister and Mr. Lorenc. I am well aware of this bill.

It was done in 1988 when I was first elected and the Minister of Mines and Resources–and I was at that time the Minister of Natural Resources–spent a lot of time with the industry, both the aggregate haulers and the aggregate processors, in developing a plan. Their concern was ex actly what has happened now, that eventually this fund would be targeted for some other use, whether it be administrative or others, and therefore would be relegated insignificant and as far as the rehabilitation of the aggregate extraction that had taken place.

I would certainly concur with yourself and the industry that there was never any intent to charge administrative fees out of those accounts, that they should be used entirely for the rehabilitation of those gravel pits or other resources. Even, I believe, there was some provision that some of those funds might be used to rebuild infrastructure when it could have been severely damaged in areas out of the mining area onto a normal municipal road. I think that was also part of the agreement at that time. So I would ask Mr. Lorenc whether that is his understanding and his industry's understanding as well. Mr.

Lorenc: Thank you. That is precisely our understanding, and the records which we had an opportunity to review under the access legislation clearly make that case. We have shared that infor- mation with the department. We have shared that information with government. We think this is not the direction in which legislation ought to be amended. We think that there was a social pact that was acted on by government and by industry. It deserves to be protected. The principles for which the fund was created were valid in 1988. They are still valid today and we do not support the amendments at all. Mr.

Eichler: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The concern I have here, this was supposed to be a very simple housecleaning amendment to Bill 42. I understood this bill was changed in 2002. Did you make a presentation at that time, Mr. Lorenc? Mr. Lorenc: I am not aware of any amendments in 2002, specifically. Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): I would like to thank Mr. Lorenc for his presentation.

I know the department has met with his association many, many times, and they have exchanged opinions on many things, not only what you are referring to, but a number of things that are inclusive in the bill, and the changes in the bill.

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 257 We do have a good rapport with the association. Certainly the association did recognize, at that time, costs on-site, project management, administrative costs regardless of who pays those costs are a substantial cost and a cost in a rehabilitation program, and the administration of that rehabilitation program. So it is good to continue to exchange opinions, and, certainly, I value your association's opinions on the issue. * (20:40) Mr. Penner: Just one final comment in regard to Mr. Lorenc's presentation.

I think the negative effects of utilizing the costs of services provided through this process will have a fairly significant impact on the environment over the long term. I think if this government is sincere about protecting the environ- ment, they will give careful consideration as to whether they should or should not utilize any of these funds that are collected in the manner of helping restore the environment to the best of our abilities. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Lorenc, did you wish to comment? Mr. Lorenc: No. Mr.

Eichler: In the proposed amendment regarding the area from Winnipeg west to the Saskatchewan border and down south to the U.S. border, does your organization have any problems with that, Mr. Lorenc? Mr. Lorenc: As I indicated at the outset, Mr. Chair, our concern is with the amendments that affect the rehab levy, and that is specifically what we are concerned with today. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Lorenc, for your presentation this evening. Mr. Lorenc: Thank you very much. Good evening. Mr. Chairperson: Good evening.

Are there any other presenters for Bill 42 here this evening that might wish to make a presentation? Please come forward. Seeing none, that concludes the list of presenters on Bill 42. Bill 46–The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Mr. Chairperson: We will now proceed with the presenters on Bill 46, The Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act. We have a number of presenters from out of town, and I will indicate the individuals starting with Laurena Leskiw, and then Pat Bowslaugh. Would Laurena Leskiw please come forward? Good evening, thank you for your patience. Do you have a written presentation? Ms.

Laurena Leskiw (Private Citizen): Yes, I do have. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. We will distribute it, and then in a couple of moments, we will proceed. Ms. Leskiw: I thought teachers had it tough, but I do not know. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed, Ms. Leskiw. Ms. Leskiw: Mr. Chair, and good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for permitting me to share my deep concerns about parts of Bill 46, the amendments to The Teachers' Pensions Act. My name is Laurena Leskiw and I have lived in Manitoba all of my life, as a child at Grandview and over 50 years in Brandon.

Although I am a past-president of both the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba , RTAM, and the Brandon Teachers' Association, the BTA, a

chapter of the Manitoba Teachers' Society, and also a life member, I wish to share with you a more personal plea. I believe I am speaking on behalf of pensions for 29 000 people, over 9000 retired teachers, 6000 former teachers whose pens ion contributions still remain in the pension fund, and over 14 000 active teachers, many of whom are not aware of Bill 46, and the possible ramifications of their future pensions. As the bill itself does not cover the many items that we, as retired teachers, have been requesting, since 1992, we have been wanting retired teacher representation on the TRAF pension board. We have

258 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 wanted increased contributions from active teachers to the pension plan, and we have wanted a means of handling the surplus to improve the Pension Adjust- ment Account. This bill does not deal specifically with those three areas.

Consequently, I shall direct my comments to the following areas: the waiving of the insurance pension contributions to teachers who are on long-term disability, the LTD; the governance of the pension fund, which does not include any representatives of retired teachers whose contributions amount to 45 percent of the pension fund; the cost of living allowances and the management of the Pension Adjustment Account, the PAA. Number 1, no pension contributions from teachers who are on long-term disability, LTD.

This means receiving credit for pensionable service while on disability leave without any monetary contri- butions to the pension fund. This is credit without contributions. I was appalled to read this amendment as it sets a precedent of opening up our pension funds for purposes other than paying pensions to retired teachers and for that purpose only. It means that the LTD insurance is offloadi ng their financial diffi- culties and insurance obligations and commitments to the LTD teachers.

You may ask, "Would the Manitoba Teachers' Society have allowed Great-West Life, our former disability insurance company, to offload their finan- cial difficulties onto our pension plan by allowing them to waive the pension contributions of the LTD teachers?" As a long-time MTS supporter and former committee member, my answer would be a very decided no. It would not have been allowed. As we talk to many active and retired teachers, they have not been made aware of this Bill 46. Even MTS

chapter presidents have told us they are not familiar with the various clauses, including the committee Chair. I would like to quote the response I received last winter when I first heard of this proposal to offload their financial obligations by having the pension contributions not made to the pension fund. This is the response that I had received from the former CEO of TRAF, the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund. He said, "Surplus TRAF funds cannot be used to pay this cost since there are no surplus TRAF funds due to the market's performance over the past two years.

Any proposal by the Manitoba Teachers' Society for the transfer of this cost to the pension plan should be accompanied by an appropriate increase in pension contributions." I do not see that in Bill 46. It should be noted that the Society has been seeking to increase teacher pension contributions for some time in order to more appropriately fund the cost of future services. But in this Bill 46 there is no increase of pension contri- butions from active teachers.

Certainly, if the Society were to propose a transfer of liabilities without a concurrent proposal to incr ease their contributions to match these liabilities, TRAF would be very con- cerned and would raise those concerns with the minister. So that is one of the reasons why I and many, many other retired teachers are very concerned and also many of the active teachers that have heard of this and were not aware of it before. I understand that MTS has approved a motion at their annual general meeting recently to reduce the LTD premiums by 14 percent if you pass this particular part of the bill.

Does that not indicate an offloading of their financial insurance liabilities onto the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund? Therefore, I am pleading with you as honourable members of the Legislature to have this amendment defeated for the good of all retired and active teachers, now and in the future. Number 2, the govern ance of the TRAF board. Since 1992, we as retired teachers have been seeking retired teacher representation on this pension board.

At present we have over 45 percent of the pension funds that were contributed by retired teachers, and yet we have no legal way of voting on the manner in which our pensions are invested or handled. Manitoba is one of the fe w provinces that does not have the legislated right for retired teachers to vote on any motions pertaining to pensions. Although we do have one retired teacher who is allowed to listen to some debate by the MTS

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 259 task force, she is not permitted to voice any opposition to articles presented by MTS to the government task force. In fact, knowledge of the LTD waiver had not even been discussed in her presence. A silent member is not a member in any way of the meaning of a committee member. We consider ourselves shareholders of the pension plan and, as such, in this day and age, we should have our democratic right to have representation on the TRAF board.

Number 3, the cost of living, and I am sorry I have a code of living, so you will notice that I typed this in a hurry with not having our 48 hours' notice of coming in here today and getting it last night about 10:30. I am sorry that my typing has made some errors there. You will have many teachers speaking to you tonight on the omission of COLA, or cost of living allowance, in Bill 46.

When the government was reviewing pensions in the 1970s, we as teachers refused to have the same as the government plans but insisted we would be responsible for our own salary continuance premiums and to contribute a higher percentage of our salaries into the pension plan so we could always have full COLA that equalled the consumer price index in the future. * (20:50) When I retired, my Blue Cross premiums were one fifth of this year's and yet the coverage is less and less. Many prescriptions are not covered. The Pension Adjustment Account this year can only pay one fourth of the consumer price index.

Many of our retirees are women whose husbands have died. Often, their income is reduced by half or even more as men tend to receive higher salaries, but these women still must maintain their houses and pay all the utilities, et cetera. They require more medication and often more expensive prescriptions but with less money. COLA is a must for these seniors to live a quality of life in their remaining years. COLA is not mentioned in this bill, and yet RTAM and MTS have declared it is essential to have it written into the bill. In closing, I ask that you give it top priority.

I understand that if you were to change the restrictions on the PAA account, that is the Pension Adjustment Account, the investment protocol that the main account would permit their earnings could also be used for COLA. The last six years, our cost of living increase that we have received on our basic pension was 7.9 percent. The last six years, the consumer price index has been 12.9 percent, so we have a difference there of 4.82 percent that we are losing. We are losing 5 cents on our dollar just over that period of time, or you know, a greater percentage if you want to say 5 percent of the percentage on that.

I thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of both active and retired teachers. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Leskiw, for your presentation. Members of the committee, with questions? Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Thank you very much, Ms. Leskiw, for your presentation this evening and, indeed, thank you for your patience this evening. I know it has been a long one so far, so thank you so much for taking the time out of your

schedule to be here and to bring some of the very important issues facing you and some retired teachers right now. Just a couple of quick questions. With respect to the consultation process that took place with putting together and drafting this bill and some of the issues that you have brought forward this evening, do you feel that retired teachers have been properly consulted with respect to this bill? Floor Comment: No, definitely not. Mr. Chairperson: Ms. Leskiw. Ms. Leskiw: I am sorry. Mr. Chairperson: Sorry, I have to, for the purpose of Hansard recordings. Ms. Leskiw: Yes, I know. I forgot. Mr.

Chairperson: Ms. Leskiw, please proceed. Ms. Leskiw: No, I do not feel that we were consulted with that and had input into it. Mrs. Stefanson: I think that is extremely unfor- tunate. I would just like to ask you, too, some of the

260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 2004 issues that you have brought forward tonight, certainly it is a common theme with some of the retired teachers that have approached me as the critic of Education and approached our caucus. I am just wondering if some of these issues could be addressed if perhaps you had some representation at the TRAF board. Do you feel that th at would be the case that you would maybe be able to deal with some of those issues if you had that opportunity? Ms. Leskiw: Yes, I definitely do.

We are one of the few provinces that do not have anyone sitting on the pension board or have voting privileges on any of the pension items that are brought up for discussion or legislation. Mr. Chairperson: Other questions? Hon. Peter Bjornson (M inister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): I just want to thank you for your presentation this evening and your patience. Thank you for being here. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Leskiw. The next presenter we have registered to speak is Pat Bowslaugh. I hope I have pronounced your name right. Ms. Pat Bowslaugh (Private Citizen): It is fine, thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Do you have a written presen- tation for committee members? Ms. Bowslaugh: Yes, I do. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed when you are ready, Ms. Bowslaugh. Ms. Bowslaugh: Good evening, Mr. Chairperson, honourable members of the Legislative Assembly and ladies and gentlemen in the gallery. My name is Pat Bowslaugh. I am from Brandon. I am a retired teacher with pensionable service of 35 years acquired over a 39-year period.

I speak to you tonight with the experience gained as an individual teacher, a principal, a retired teacher, a member of the Westman Retired Educators Association for 5 years, a member of the Retired Teachers' Association of Manitoba board for 5 years, and once upon a time, a few years ago, in addition to sitting on numerous provincial MTS committees and serving as the Brandon local teachers' association president, I was a committee member and subsequent chair of the Manitoba Teachers' Society employee benefits committee for the teachers in this province of Manitoba.

Madam Vice-Chairperson in the Chair Through Bill 46 you are dealing with some amendments to The Teachers' Pensions Act, a pension plan that affects almost 30 000 people in the province of Manitoba. As you have already heard, specifically, at last coun t there are 14 000 active teachers, approximately; 60 00 inactive teachers for whom TRAF holds funds; and as of this morning, 9048 retired teachers, that is the information I have, and is referenced to December 30 of 2003, of which I am one. You may think I am here speaking on behalf of the latter group. To some extent, I am.

However, the group for whom I have grave concerns is those who are still teaching, in the trenches, so to speak. May I also reflect as a retired teacher, someone worked on my behalf and that of the other over 9000 retired teachers in the province of Manitoba to effect a plan that would be viable, sound and effective. These were people like the late George Strang, a wonderful educator and a Manitoba Teachers' Society staff officer who pr actised fairness, logic, common sense and mathematical applications. To you, this evening, I bring a concern about what I perceive to reflect a lack of mathematical applications.

I wish to a ddress the proposed amend- ment, 52(4), that would negate the responsibility of the teachers' long-term disability insurance plan, henceforth referred to as LTD, in making the appropriate and necessary pension contributions to the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund, hence- forth referred to as TRAF, on behalf of each of the insurance recipients so that they can maintain their pensionable service while they are on long-term disability.

To help clarify this issu e, I feel it necessary to give a brief historical reflection on the long-term disability plan, which has now become referred to as the disability benefits insurance plan. Approximately 20 years, ago the long-term disability insurance coverage, as you have already

June 9, 2004 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 261 heard, was contracted through Great-West Life. As with most businesses, the premiums charged by Great-West increased to reflect the usage. Suddenly, self-insurance became the topic on the floor of the Manitoba T eachers' Society annual general meeting and even though I remember clearly speaking on the floor to vehemently oppose such a strategy, other teachers voted to support this brain- child.

Admittedly, and as part of my argument then, teachers are not, by and large, well versed in investments, on actuarial calculations, on assessment of illnesses and the host of components associated with the operations of a disability insurance plan. * (21:00) Subsequently, last year, February 2003, the then- CEO of TRAF and an MTS st aff officer informed us at a meeting of the Westman Retired Educators Association that the LTD plan had a $30.5-million liability.

In addition to other planned interventions to get this plan on better footing, there was a plan to cease making the transfer of pension funds from the LTD plan to the TRAF coffers. In response to my questioning of the TRAF CEO, I learned two startling and alarming facts. Number 1, the annual obligation to TRAF from the LTD plan is approximately $1.5 million. Number 2, when I asked the question how much does this turn into, each annual obligation transfer of this $1.5 million would have an actuarial value of $15 million, given the usual success of the TRAF investment portfolio.

To my great dismay, I was told not to worry, this is an insignificant amount in relation to the annual TRAF contributions, and there would be other plans to offset this transfer shortfall. This morning I phoned the new Acting CEO of TRAF, Dewar McKinnon, and received the following information. For the year 2003, $51 million was received from active teachers and placed on deposit in the Teachers' Retirement Allowances Fund. When I calculate the proposed $1.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	38-2-la07
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	38th 2nd hansardpdf la07.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3e9ab86b345eeb1affddbb0912d7dd9ad70e9aa0

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