Manitoba Hansard — 10 March 1976 (Sitting 32, 30th Legislature, 3rd Session)

30-3-32

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2:30 p.m., Wednesday, March 10, 1976 Opening Prayer by Mr. Speaker. INTR ODUCTION OF GUESTS 845 MR. SPEAKER: Before we proceed I should like to direct the attention of the honourable members to the gallery where we have 25 students, Grade 11 standing of Gordon Bell School. These students are under the direction of Mr. J. Michalchyshyn. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Wolseley. We also have 55 students of Grades 8 and 10 standing of the Lorette School. These students are under the direction of Mr. R. Goulet.

This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Springfield, the Minister of Touris m, Recreation and Cultural Affairs. On behalf of all the honourable nembers I welcome you here this afternoon. Presenting Petitions; Reading and Rece iving Petitions; Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees; Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion; Introduction of Bills; Questions. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. A MATTER OF URGENC Y - TRANSIT STRIKE MR. GORDON E. JOHNSTON (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a motion.

WHEREAS the Winnipeg Transit strike has now entered its seventh week with no end in sight; and

WHEREAS the increased number of layoffs by business, the loss of retail business, and the general dislocation caused in the daily lives of many thousands of Winnipeg citizens, which include the poor, the elderly, and the students who cannot aff ord to own and operate cars; and

WHEREAS the increased use of cars has increased auto accidents, which in turn has increased Autopac payouts; and

WHEREAS many people are calling for the Provincial Government to supply leadership on this most important matter; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Labour has asked honourable members for their comments on his statement made to the House on March 8th, I therefore move, seconded by the Member for Assiniboia, that the House do now adjourn to consider a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the extent of crisis created by the present transit strike and the intentions of the government to resolve the problem. MR. SPEAKER: Subject to our Rule 27, Sub-section 2, I must allow the honourable member and each of these parties five minutes to debate the urgency of this debate. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G.

JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, to begin with it may be argued that we are requesting a debate that is in another government's jurisdiction. And this may have been true some days ago but in my opinion it's no longer true because the government has already intervened in the strike by appointing a mediator, by one of the Cabinet Ministers making public statements about what either the council or the mediator should do, or lack of action by either party.

So because it is now past the st age of only being in the municipal field, I firmly believe because of government actions that it's a provincial responsibility here to have clarification of the Provincial Government's actions on the matter and where we stand today. I say also that the Minister of Labour in his statement on Monday invited members of this Legislature to make comment, which of course is debate, and then finally I say that this is the only vehicle by which this can be done.

The Budget Speech has passed, there are no bills on which this can be discussed that are before us. --(In terjection)-- Well honourable members can give their argument later. I'm

846 March 10, 1976 A MATTER OF URGENCY - TRANSIT STRli<E (MR. G. JOHNSTON cont'd) .••.• suggesting that this is the only way in which it can be dealt is by a debate on a matter of urgent public importance. The fact that there is a crisis existing, not for everybody we know that, but there are many people, and I'm sure members on all sides of the House will agree that there are many people in Winnipeg, an unknown number, who are suffering hardships from this strike and in my opinion it is a crisis and it deserves to be debated at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR.

L.R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, we certainly recognize the urgency and the emergency of the situation but our position with respect to the motion just offered, Sir, would be that it will necessarily have to be the Chair's decision on the question of urgency of debate of the matter. Onr position I think has been made clear, and I would like to reiterate it, and that is we would be in favour of a motion to adjourn the House which would permit the government, hopefully united with the Minister of Labour back within its ranks, time to consider the situation and bring a proposal forward to this House.

They would find no impediment placed in their way by this party if they were to do so. But it is an urgent situation, it is a crisis, and we would like to see some initiative taken to resolve it. That is as far as we would be prepared to go on the technical question as to the urgency of debate at this time, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. EDWARD SCHREYER (Premier) (Rossmere): Well, Mr. Speaker, industrial disputes always take on a degree of urgency and often very early in the course of the dispute.

There is no denying the fact that there is importance and indeed a degree of gravity in the situation. However, it is also necessary to point out that as recently as yesterday afternoon parties to the dispute, at least one of the two parties to the dispute was making some effort to attempt the continuation of discussion in an attempt to solve the matter among themselves.

I reject the suggestion of the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie that the appointment of a mediator constitutes an intervention inasmuch as the appointment of the mediator was on the basis that his findings would be indicative and informative and in no way constituting intervention that of a nature that would be binding.

Also a fact of the matter is that some honourable gentlemen were discussing and debating this matter yesterday, and yesterday evening on discussion of the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs, which includes provision for the funding of part of the cost of operation of the transit system. Some honourable members were debating it last night; it can hardly be said to be a matter of urgency that it be debated at three o'clock today since it was already debated yesterday, and no doubt will be debated later today and tomorrow.

In the meantime I think my honourable friend must surely acknowledge that any debate that carries with it the suggestion that there is likely to be as a result of the debate some imminent intervention will certainly put back, retard rather than advance the possibility that the parties directly involved may be seeking to the best of their ability to attempt to resolve this amongst themselves. There is no precedent, my honourable friend should know, for a province to intercede in a matter involving a municipal government of this size in a transit dispute in our country's history.

There have been transit disputes of several weeks duration, for example, the City of Calgary, Alberta, not all that long ago, and I am not aware, Sir, that there was any call for emergency debate implying immediate provincial intervention. SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable members for their contribution. I also thank the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie for giving me notice of this matter. I must indicate, however, that urgency of debate must come within the administrative purview of the province and that is the one precise area where this question does not fall into.

March 10, 1976 847 SPEAKER'S RULING (MR. SPEAKER cont'

d) And secondly, the fact that there was mediation or conciliation only shows con cern, does not again make it an administrative matter of the province, therefore I deny the motion. Questions. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. DONAID W. CRAIK (Leader of the Official Opposition) (Riel): Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Education. I wonder if he can advise the House and the public generally as to when he will be advising the schoolboards of Manitoba about the financial arrangements that they can work to in their budgets for 1975. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. BEN HANUSCHAK (Minister of Education) (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, hope to do so within the next week or so. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK Q. C. (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. He relates to the series of questions that have been as ked about the repatriation of the Constitution. I wonder if he can inform the House whether Premier Bourassa has been in contact with him in connection with this matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that the Premier of Quebec has been in communication with a number of premiers, at least he was with me and he indicated that he was going to be in touch or had already been in touch with a number of premiers. MR. SPIVAK: I wonder if the First Minister can indicate whether he specifically requested a policy declaration from the First Minister with respect to the repatriation of the Constitution by the Unilateral Act of the Federal Government. MR. SCHREYER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, certainly the position of the Province of Manitoba has always been to favour the possibility of patriation of the Constitution. We have always lent our support to that thought. We would not prefer that it be done by the Government of Canada on its own. But on the other hand I would not want to be supporting a position of opposing that under any circumstances. MR. SPIVAK: Yes. I wonder if the First Minister can indicate whether Premier Bourassa indicated a conciliatory position of Quebec with respect to negotiations on the repatriation. MR. SCHREYER: Mr.

Speaker, I don't feel that I'm at liberty to indicate the position of another premier, through me, Sir. If he has a position to announce, I presume he would want to do that directly to the media. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary. I wonder if the First Minister can indicate whether it's his intention to communi cate to the Prime Minister with respect to the public announcements that he's made in connection with the Unilateral Act on the part of the Federal Government in repatriating the Constitution. MR. SCHREYER: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker,I didn't hear the last few words. MR. SPIVAK: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister can indicate to the House whether it's his intention to communicate to the Prime Minister concerning his public statements about the repatriation of the Constitution unilaterally, by the Federal Government. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I'd better take that question as notice. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable the Minister of Labour.

I wonder if he can advise the House whether the city's negotiating team in the transit strike situation, in fact did meet with the Transit Union leadership during the past 24 hours as it was originally reported to be so doing. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. RUSSELL PAULLEY (Minister of Labour) (Transcona): The answer is, Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware there has been no negotiations whatsoever between

848 March 10, 1976 ORAL QUESTIONS (MR. PAULLE Y cont'd) • • • • the City of Winnipeg, the transit workers, and none certainly to my knowledge that have involved a Conciliation Officer of the Department of Labour. It seems to me that the stalemate that has prevailed over this period still exists. MR. SHERMAN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding the final phrase in the Minister's response, I would like to ask the Minister whether he can advise the House whether any such meetings to his knowledge are scheduled imminently. MR.

PAULLEY: If my honourable friend means scheduled to the degree that at three o'clock this afternoon there will be a meeting, I am not aware of such a meeting. I do not know if and when the parties to the dispute will meet precisely. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the Honourable the First Minister and ask him if he could elaborate to the House on his assurance of yesterday that all possibilities for ending the strike at the city-union level have not been exhausted. Could he elaborate to the House what other possibilities then remain? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR.

SCHREY ER: Mr. Speaker, I could only indicate to my honourable friend that the Mayor has indicated, I believe, publicly as well as to myself, that the city re gards the matter as not being beyond resolution, that they regard it as a problem of theirs, and that they hope to continue negotiating. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

Subsequent to the similar question asked last week, has the Minister yet had time to make an assessment of the economic impact of the transit strike in its effect upon business in the Winnipeg area? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Industry and Commerce. HON. LEO NARD S. EVANS (Minister of Industry and Commerce) (Brandon East): Well as I indicated, I believe a week or so ago when this was asked of me, this would be a very complicated statistical procedure. But the answer very specificially is not. MR. AXWORTHY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Doe s the Minister intend to have anyone in his department at least make initial surveys or discussion with business organizations to determine the number of lay-offs or the economic impact on the retail trade in the City af Winnipeg, on a basis of getting some information on its impact. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, it's been my experience in government that when there is a serious problem, and let us say a particular problem in industry or in commerce that one soon finds out about it through the business organizations or through a group of businessmen who very clearly lay out the problem and usually ask for some type of assistance. In this case we have: not been approached whatsoever by the business community for any type of survey or any type of assistance in trying to determine the economic impact on them. MR. AXWORTHY: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Barring that particular Act does the Minister have any intention of issuing an invitation to representatives of the business and labour community to discuss the problem and determine what the impact now is or what it might be if the strike continues for any period of time? MR. EVANS: This is a very hypothetical and rather speculative problem, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry and Commerce.

The Bank of Canada has increased the interest rate and has resulted in increased interest rates by the chartered banks in the country and in Manitoba. I wonder if he can indicate whether his department is in a position to indicate what the increased price af goods will be as a result of the increase of the Bank of Canada of its interest rate? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, that sounds almost like a university economics examination question. That's a very difficult question to answer very simply and precisely. I don't know whether any jurisdiction could answer very precisely because

March 10, 1976 ORAL QUESTIONS (MR. EVANS cont'd) •.•.. there are so many variables at work. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Industry and Commerce. In view of the fact that we live at a time when there is an attempt to try and control increases in prices and wages, I wonder if the government would not �onsider the possibility of an examination of what that increased cost really will mean in the increased prices of goods. 849 MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know the usefulness of that particular exercise.

We all agree that changes in interest rates do have an impact on investment decisions and on the course of business, but interest rates, Mr. Speaker, are changing abnost every month, or if not every quarter, and certainly they go up and sometimes they go down. But there are other factors that work too, there are tariffs that are changing, there are freight rates that are changing, there are many many vari.ables that work in the economic sphere, and I just wonder whether the exercise would produce results that the honourable member thinks that it might produce. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. In connection with the Anti-Inflation Program and the Dominion Provincial Conferences that have been held, was there discussion at the time between the Prime Minister and the Premiers and the Finance Ministers of controlling the rise in interest rates in the country --(Interjection)-- Yes, during this period of time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, there was discussion all right, but certainly there was no consensus that it would be feasible to control interest rates in any meaning ful way.

There was however, I believe, if not a consensus more than just isolated opinion, that bank operating profits could realistically be contained but that is separate and apart from the issue of interest rates as such. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I address a question to the Honourable the Minister of Agriculture. What new areas will be affected, if any, by the tent caterpillar this summer? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. SAMUEL USKIW (Minister of Agriculture) (Lac du Bonnet): Mr.

Speaker, I am not able to be specific, but generally speaking it's anticipated that all of southern Manitoba will be affected to some degree. MR. G. JOHNSTON: Has the government a policy to assist municipalities in their efforts to combat the infestation? MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, we have had a policy for two years now, that is, the Department of Agriculture has been the co-ordinating agency of a control program, through the co-operation of municipalities, and of course there is a billing process involving spraying on private properties, so that there is full recovery for the costs.

But in any event the departmental staff have been engaged in diacussions with municipal ities throughout the province indicating to them just how the co-ordinating effort will be undertaken this year. MR. G. JOHNSTON: For clarification, did I understand the Minister to say that the province recovers all costs, in other words, the municipalities pay their own expenses in this regard? MR. USKIW: No. Where an individual requests that his or her property be protected, there is a flat fee per farm yard or residence that is charged back to that individual through the municipality.

So it is not the municipality that is funding the program, it is each individual property owner. MR. G. JOHNSTON: A final question on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. With regard to provincially owned Crown lands, is the government spraying or treating that to hold back the spreading? MR. USKIW: No, Mr. Speaker, the advice that we have from the expertise in the department is that it is not prudent to mass spray the forest area or the Crown lands in this province, that that is both 'expensive and undesirable. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Assiniboia.

850 March 10, 1976 ORAL QUESTIONS MR. STEVE PATRICK (Assiniboia): Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Health and Social Development. I wonder if the Minister can indicate to the House if he had any discussion with medical clinics or senior citizen groups, and let the House know what impact the strike is having on these people? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. LAURENT L. DESJARDIN3 (Minister of Health and Social Development) (St. Boniface): Mr.

Speaker, I think I have indicated already that as far as the concern of the Department of Health, that is, people being able to go to the hospitals for treat ment, and so on, that we have been informed that there is no problem. MR. SPEAKER: Orders ..>f the Day. The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. PETER BURTNIAK (Minister of Highways) (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, some few days ago the Honourable Member for Assiniboia asked a question of me which I took as notice, and I would like to give the answer to the honourable member.

The question was, whether I could indicate to the House if the government has completed its study involving the use of recycled glass as aggregate for asphalt in road and highway construction. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the honourable member that our own Research Department, our Material Department does a lot of research, and as well we receive various reports from the other provinces in Canada as well as some of the states in the United States. Now the trade name given to the asphalt mixture using glass pellets instead of stone aggregate is called Glasphalt.

Now the Glass Container Council of Canada took it upon themselves to try to use this Glasphalt on their own industrial road at Bramalea, Ontario. To date, I might add, that the material sectiorr has not received any further information as to the wearability or skid resistance, etc. , of this test

section of the road. I would also like to point out that the Province of Manitoba did experiment with the placement of rubber in asphalt pavements as far back as 1961. At that time the rubber contflnt consisted of about 2 percent neoprene, which was very costly: and as a matter of record, the test

section in Regina, for example, was tried in 1975, just last year, using the rubber crump through the recycling of scrap tires, and we are also awaiting the outcome of that particular project. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable House Leader. HON. SIDNEY GREEN, Q. C. (Minister of Mines, Resources and Environmental Management) (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I wish that you would proceed with the adjourned debates on Second Readings. GOVERNMENT BILLS MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. Bill 4, proposed by the Honourable Attorney General. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Stand, Mr. Speaker. BILL NO. 6-

AN ACT TO AMEND THE COMMUNITIES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUND MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 6, proposed by the Honourable Minister of Mines. The Honourable Member for St. James. MR. GEORGE MINAKER (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, I rise to speak on this debate and in listening to the Honourable Minister when he was putting forth the explanation of the bill, our first impressions were that the re would not appear to be any major changes in the principle of the bill, or they were strictly administration changes, and as the Minister indicated it was a means of finally separating the two funds, the Manitoba Development Corporation and the Communities Economic Development Fund, separating them and making them separate entities.

We noticed in reviewing the bill that there were a few principle changes relating to former commitments to the MDC and we iloticed that there's no longer any reliance at all on the MDC as far as them being the trustee of the fund.

March 10, 1976 851 BILL 6 (MR. MINAKER cont'd) ••.•• We also noticed that there is now a principle that they will have their own technical assistants and their administration will be separate.

We wonder just how much this duplication will take place or has taken place, and just how much it will cost the taxpayers of Manitoba and whether or not tLis is really necessary to operate the two as separate entities, particularly the technical assistants and the technical services which we know we have expertise in the MDC corporation and with the, if my understanding is correct, with the recent policies of selective loaning of moneys from the MDC and more concentration on, say, larger loans that whether or not this staff is being fully utilized to the same extent that it might have been a few years ago.

The other reason why we're concerned about the cost and again the expansion of bureaucracy, which I know the Honourable Minister doesn't like, at least this is what he has indicated to us in the past in debate that he doesn't like bureaucrats any more than we do, that I just wonder what has happened in the Community Economic Development Fund in the past few years because in reviewing the Annual Reports from year to year, and if we go back to 1972, and I would say they only operated for three months in that year, their administration costs were somewhere in the neighbourhood of $29 ,000, and they were active in _lending out I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of $390,000 in that year, in the first three months of operation.

But the following year in '73, their administration costs expanded to something like $185,000, and their loan aCtivity for that year I think .expanded around 1. 4 million. But it continued to grow, both the administration costs and the lending activity until last year. And if we take the figures in the 1975 Annual Report we find that the administration costs of the fund, the Community Economic Development Fund, for '75 was $383, 000 thereabouts, but their new lending activity was only $732,000, so that of the moneys used in administration it represented something like 51 percent of the loans that went out.

And are we now going to have further growth of this administration cost because of this duplication that will be occurring? We hope this will not be the case and that the Minister will look and review this situation because now it looks like that for every $2.00 you loan out, it's going to cost you $1.00 administration costs. And if it continues to spiral like it has, I can see where we'll start getting for every dollar you loan out you'll have $1.00 admini stration. We are concerned about the duplication that will occur with this principle of separate services for both funds.

There is also a new principle tha t is being put forward in this idea of having two separate entities, and one of them is that it is our understanding the fund will now be able to vary the interest rates on any loans without coming forward with a by-law or getting the approval of the Lieutenant-Gov ernor-in-Council, if we interpret the amendments as such, that it would appear that this principle is now being put forward that the fund can vary interest rates on each loan without getting any approval from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council or presenting any by-laws to the effect.

And this is, I believe, a fair change b'?cause I believe now they do have to get the approval of the, or at least put a by-law forward and get approval of the Lieutenant -Governor-in-C ouncil. We also see that there is no longer any priority set in how the payments are made from any revenues that might accrue from the operation of the fund, and I guess if things weren't handled correctly I could see where it might be putting the persons on the boards in sort of a prejudiced position of not being able to pay them selves.

I think in the old fund the principle was there that they got paid first type-of thing; so that we see that there is a change in that area. Now, Mr. Speaker, the other principle that we see being put forward at this tlme, and if we are incorrect I hope the Minister will correct us because it would appear to be a major change in principle of what the bill was originally set up to do.

And why I say this is that there are amendments in the bill that will allow the fund to buy pretty well anything they want, if I understand and interpret the amendme nts that the fund can now buy; if it wanted to I guess it could buy the Northern Fishing Co operatives in the north if it wanted to, if it seemed that it was the right idea for the fund that it could buy the Northern Fishing Co-operatives. It could also, I guess, set up

852 March 10, 1976 BILL 6 (MR. MINAKER cont'd) . • • • • shopping centres if it wanted to in isolated areas. And it also could maybe set up trading posts or buy out trading posts. And to me this seems that it's a diversion away from the original objectives of the bill. Because my understanding when one reads the Act, the objects of the original funding bill was to encourage the economic development of isolated areas, and how was this going to be achieved? And my understanding in interpreting the Act was through financial assistance to existing enterprises.

Financial assistance to existing enter prises and also to encourage the expansion of small to medium economic enterprises that were locally owned. And I underline that, were locally owned and locally operated. This now no longer appears to be the principle that is being put forward with the amend ments to the Act that will allow the fund to buy and sell anything pretty well that they deem is necessary for the operation of the fund. It would be very difficult to support this new principle, Mr.

Speaker, and I say this because we are talking about a fund that has been set up to act to develop and encourage the growth of not only the isolated communities in the north but individuals in the north or in isolated communities. And we have often heard that said in the Economic Development hearings and by this Minister, that the fund is set up to encourage the people in isolated communities to become involved, to get business knowledge, and it was often used as the reason why there was such a bad record of loans that were not paid back, or receiverships.

This often was the reason given to us that this fund was set up to develop the business community in isolated areas and the individuals involved. But now we have before us, Mr.

Speaker, a principle, and it would appear to be a principle that will allow this fund to buy and sell, and we would presume operate, anything they wanted to in isolated communities, and I would have to go against support ing this principle because it's contrary to what the original concept of the fund was established for; because it might be fine for the government to be able to do this, to set up their bureaucracy and to operate, and once again have a major, or another in to the life of the north and control of it.

And it's our belief, and I had hoped it would be the belief of the government that the people in isolated areas should be operating and running their own lives, not have Big Brother watching over them all the time and taking over various aspects and responsibilities of life. So it would be very difficult for us to support this principle if this is what the government has in mind with this particular amendment. For this reason, Mr.

Speaker, we hope that the Minister will answer some of these questions, particularly the one with regard to acquisition of properties and the sale of properties because we are very concerned that this is op ening the door to another agency of the government for a further development of state-owned ownership of businesses in our northern communities; and again another government involvement in the way of life in our isolated areas with the Big Brother approach still being emphasized when it should be the other way around, as they have indicated in the past when defend ing the fund, that it was set up to develop the individuals, to develop the small business es in the north, so that the people could run their own lives and run their own business es.

I hope that the Minister is able to answer these questions. Until he has answered them and clarified these concerns it will be difficult for us to support the bill at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will be closing • . The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Member for Fort Garry, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 10, proposed by the Honourable Minister of Agricul-. ture. The Honourable Member for Rock Lake.

Thrarch 10, 1976 853 BILL NO. 18 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CLEAN ENVIRONThrENT ACT MR . SPEAKER: Bill No. 18, proposed by the Honourable Thrinister of Thrines. The Honourable Thrember for St. James. MR . MINAKER: Thank you, Thrr. Speaker. We listened with interest the other day when the Thrinister introduced this amendment to the Clean Environment Act, and list ened again with interest to his discussion on the big dilemma on the Throsquito Abatement Program with the City of Wilmipeg. I would like to go on record, Thrr.

Speaker, as saying that while I was the Chairman of Works and Operations for the City of Winnipeg we sprayed, and we didn't go to the Clean Envir onment Commis sion; and the episode that took place afterwards and the accusations ofthe City of Winnipeg using the Clean Environment Commission as a scapegoat, I will not attempt to debate against or argue because I was not there at the time when this set of episodes took place. And, Mr. Speaker --(Interjection)-- It beats swatting. Thrr.

Speaker, in putting forward the prin ciples behind the amendments it was our understanding that it will now be possible for city councils or municipal councils involved in either land fill sites or in spraying as long as the operations are run by a municipality and do not affect any municipalities outside their boundary, that they will be able to do so without applying to the Clean Environment Commis sio.1, providing they provide them with certain information. Thrr.

Speaker, I am somewhat concerned about this because in a way it puts a double standard into the whole situation; and also to some degree the Minister is abdicating his respon sibilities. I say it puts a double standard into the situation in that while municipalities can carry out this type of operation, individuals will not be able to. I take for instance a farmer who might be running a hog farm, or something similar to this, that everything is contained within that particular municipality that he has to apply to the Clean Environment Commiss ion,

whereas in the same municipality they could be running a land fill site and they would not have to. So that there is a double standard being set up here that I question whether this is correct.

The other area that I had mentioned was the fact that the Minister may be abdicating some of his responsibilities, and I put this forward, in sincerity, in that I believe that a situation could occur, and I think it's evident from what happened with the Mosquito Abatement situation, that I question that possibly a municipality may have the expertise or the knowledge that the Clean Environment Commission may have when they're operating fully within this proposed law change or this change in law, and whether they would still have the same political interests as maybe the Clean Environment Commission has in the overall picture of the situation.

And I would suggest possibly that it not only be, when it's beyond the municipality that the Minister can become iavolved, I would ask the Thrinister that he should consider the principle that even within, that he should still have the say that if somethin gis wrong, and it's evident that there is somethi ngwrong, that the Minister has that power that he can ask them to come to the Clean Environment Commi ssion. As it's worded now, or the principle,ifl am wrong! hope the Thrinister corrects me, it appears that it's onlywhen it's beyond the municipality, the effects, that he can become involved.

I would hope that in that way he is not abdicating his responsibilities, because I would hope that they give consideration to looking at even within the municipality, that the Minister still can have the final say, become the arbitrator to look at the situation and refer it to the Clean Environment Comm issiun if he feels that it's in the best interests of the municipality and the province. The other area, Mr.

Speaker, that we are not too clear on is the question of where a muni cipality has been operating a site after November 1st, 1972, and that the Clean Environment Commis sion has made certain regulations - we'll say has to cover so much dirt over the fill that's been put in that day- whether they would still have to follow those regulations once this Act has been passed, because I could not really quite interpret it, whether the fact that if they'd been operating prior to 1972 everything appeared to be okay, but ifthey were operating after 1972 and the Clean Environment Commission had given certain orders and regulations for that land fill site, that they would still have to follow it, even though it had no adverse effects outside the municipality.

I hope that the Minister will answer this question and clarify my curiosity on t:Lis. I really haven't anything more to comment on this particular amendment at this time. But I hope the Minister will answer these questions that we have raised. MR . SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR . AXWORTHY: Thrr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member from Assiniboia, that debate be adjourned. ThrOTION presented and carried.

854 March 10, 1976 BILL NO. 19 -, THE RENT STABILIZATION ACT MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 19, proposed by the Honourable Minister of Consumer, Corporate and Internal Services. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill before us I think has been rightly described by the Minister as perhaps one of the most serious and important pieces of legislation to be brought in at this session and perhaps of any session during the term of this particular Legislature.

Not only is it important, it's a difficult piece of activity for any government to undertake because the area of intervening in the housing market is one that has been always considered one of a fair amount of sensitivity and always ac companied by some degree of misinformation about what the impact will be. However, it should be pointed out that rent control is not a new activity in the experience of commu nities and that there is presently in both North America and in Europe a number of examples of different kinds of rent-control mechanisms . It would seem to me, Mr.

Speaker, that as a result of those variety of experiences that we in this particular province, being the last province really in effect to bring in rent control legislation, we'd have been able to benefit ourselves by those experiences to apply the understandings and the wisdoms that have been acquired by other jurisdictions that have dealt in this field, and therefore developed a bill that properly and adequately met the problem in a way that was both comprehensive, fair and equitable. Mr.

Speaker, after reading the bill and listening to the presentation by the Minister I have to simply say that this bill is really quite inadequate, and in fact suffers from a number of weaknesses that in fact could end up seriously and critically impairing the effectiveness of the program. Perhaps, Mr.

Speaker, I guess it's maybe an endemic weakness that is beginning to appear time and time again, but the lack of ability of this government to apply itself seriously and effectively to important public policy matters is illustrated, has been illustrated continually during the past several weeks, and I think is clearly the most serious problem that accompanies this bill. I was particularly disappointed, Mr.

Speaker, in the presentation of the Minister, because I think that during the introduction of a bill like this it should give the Minister opportunity to explain the nuances and details, and in many cases to appease many of the concerns that are raised about a bill that takes such direct intervention into an area that has previously been by and large controlled by marketplace forces. I can only again say, Mr. Speaker, that the presentation left an awful lot to be desired, and in fact didn't explain very much at all. We were left, Mr.

Speaker, for example saying, you're going to have to accept a 10 percent increase; but no explanation whatsoever given as to how do we arrive at 10 percent. It could have been 11, it could have been 9, it could have been 15, I mean, what was the basis for the figure. The Minister says in his speech, well we had to choose a figure and after all the other provinces are coming close to that, so why not? Well, Mr. Speaker, that's not good enough.

The fact of the matter is that any limit on rental increase must be tuned according to the kinds of costs that are being experienced by the housing market at the present time, not by some arbitrary figure, not by some abstract conception that has been filtered from some other place, it must be a figure and formula that applies here and now to the situation in the Province of Manitoba.

Because if it doesn't, if those formulas that set the terms of the increase are faulty and provide imposing penalties upon those who provide housing then in fact there will be negative con sequences and we won't get enough housing built. So we require a very careful explana tion as to how do we arrive at the formula, and how does that formula of covering a 10 percent increase over a 14 month period in effect relate to the increase in property taxes, the increase in operating costs, the increases in real estate, maintenance, problems of heat, of return on investment?

In other words, these are definable factors that go towards the make-up of a rent. That's the cost that any owner has to deal with. They can be properly assessed, they can be looked at, and whatever figure is arrived at should have some logical result based upon those assessments. The Minister says, well we didn't do it, or we couldn't do it, or we shouldn't do it, that we just simply pulled a figure out of a hat and applied it on. Well that, Mr. Speaker, to my mind indicates again a pretty serious evasion of responsibility and one that, as I

March 10, 1976 855 BILL 19 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) ••••. say, may end up providing a worse consequence than the one that we are trying to solve. In fact it doesn't, if it works against the proper provision of housing in the Province of Manitoba. Similarly, Mr. Speaker, we talked about the time periods that were allowed, the 14 month period, which has got to be a very awkward kind of timing because as we know most leases at most work on 12 month basis, some on one month basis, but many leases are on a 12 month basis.

The way that this particular Act is being imposed, it is going to cut into, transcend two or three different rental periods.

If you speak to people who are now trying to say that if they had leases that were coming due in June and July of next year and they have to somehow determine what the actual dollar value of the next rental period will be, when we don't know what the formula will be because that 10 percent covers up until September, you are simply going to have mass degree of confusion, which in fact is happening now, and certainly the discussions that I've had with people on the bill say, we don't know what to do. Well I presume that the Minister might have dealt with that in his opening remarks, but he didn't.

Maybe he will have time to deal with it when he concludes debate, because if those explanations aren't pinpointed and clear and articulate, then when we get to discussing the details of the bill then we are simply going to have an awful lot of fuss and fury based upon this information, inadequate explanation and faulty design of legislation. We are making an awful lot more work for ourselves right now by not having adequate construction and proper presentation in the first place. So, Mr.

Speaker, one of the concerns that we have about this particular bill is its basic inadequacy as a piece of legislation; it simply is not a good bill; it is not designed well; it has not been explained well; it doesn't deal with the problem well. I think, Mr. Speaker, at least we could have asked for some explanation as to what is the exact nature of the problem that we are dealing with in this case, and I think that the Leader of the Opposition raised the question, he said, ''Well I don't know what the vacancy rate is.

I mean tell us, what's the problem?" I think it was up to the Minister, who again has far more civil servants and far more resources than anybody on this side of the House to describe what is the nature of the rental problem in the Province of Manitoba. How does it vary region by region? In fact, how does it vary from place to place? Because there is a large variance in a suburban market versus the downtown market. There is a great deal of variance in terms of the rental market in Brandon as compared to Winnipeg.

There are very significant regional differences; there are very significant differences on the kind of accommodation. There may be a five percent vacancy rate in apartments renting at the $350.00 level, but there may be zero vacancy rates in apartments renting at $185.00 level. That's the kind of information that we should have in order to base some proper calculation and assessment of the adequacy of these measures to deal with them. Mr.

Speaker, that information was not forthcoming, and we were told that we've had a department and inquiry service of some kind, collecting statistics, listening to complaints, finding out what's going on. Where was it? Where is the information? guess it is just indicative of the same kind of thing that we are dealing with in the issue we raised earlier on the transit strike.

If this House is expected to take proper and adequate response to problems, we should have some definition of what those problems are from the government; they are the ones that have the capacity to assess and collect information and present at least the facts in front of people. If we don't have the facts and don't have the information, it's pretty hard for legislators to make a proper judge ment as to what's the best kind of measure to apply.

Again we are being left in a large part of fuzziness and grey areas because they haven't described to us, how does the government see the problem and how do these measures in fact tailor-make themselves to fit that problem ? Mr. Speaker, in

part I guess that if the government can't do it, we members of the House have to provide in some cases their own answers, and I was taken with the queries being raised by the Leader of the Opposition that he doesn't know what the vacancy rates are, it could be two percent, it could be five percent. Well I suppose that one source that I would refer him to is Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which I

856 March 10, 1976. BILL 19 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) ..•.. lmow that it may not be the most adequate source at all times, but it indicated for the past three months and the month of December we had two percent vacancy rate in the City of Winnipeg --(Interjection)-- Well that's a source of information and I suppose it's, unless it's corroborated or altered by the Provincial Gov ernment's own Bureau of Statistics, we have to go on that basis. But more importantly, Mr.

Speaker, perhaps for the edification of the Opposition, I did some surveys in my own riding, which is about 90 percent tenants, to find out what kind of situations are they facing. So if we are asking the question of how serious is the problem, perhaps these kind of facts will give them some indication from the tenants' point of view of the problems that they are facing.

An apartment in the Roslyn Road area - it's not a low income apartment - rate increase of 18 percent; an apartment on McMillan Avenue, a rent increase of 41 percent over the past year; rent on Stradbrooke, an increase of 25 percent; one on Edmonton, 28 percent; one on Broadway, 35 percent; another one on McMillan, 25 percent; another one on Dorchester, 26 percent; one on Lilac, 18.9 percent; one on Harlmess, 22 percent; another one on Roslyn Road, 27 percent. These are the percentage increases. In many cases, Mr.

Speaker, if we put those per centage increases against the kind of people that are being faced, that many of these people are older people on limited incomes; in many cases now spending up to 40 or 50 percent of their income to maintain a rental property. So while I don't pretend that Fort Rouge is the entire universe, I think the fact it does contain a large portion of tenants in the City of Winnipeg, and at least in that central part of the city they are facing severe problems. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. CRAIK: Yes, on a point of privilege, Mr.

Speaker, the question that I asked was not the rental increase rates, but the vacancy rates, and if the member has that kind of information, it might be helpful. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I thought I referred the Leader of the Opposition to a source that is as available to him as it is to me, and that is the Depart ment of Economic Statistics of Central Mortgage and Housing, Manitoba Region. It's available; in fact you can even get it free, Mr. Speaker.

If the Leader of the Opposition was interested in the housing problem he could write away to CMHC, have his name put on the reading list, and every month they would send him monthly statistics that would indicate sort of the kinds of rates.

Now if he wants some other sources, I agree to this extent, but I think the lack of information, the lack of careful calculated fine tuning in formation upon the rental market is a problem, and certainly one of the things that we must expect and one of the inadequacies of this bill is it makes no provision to ensure when we come to monitor the effectiveness of the rent stabilization legislation, that there is no provision to provide information to this House, or to anybody else, as to what has been the changes or alterations in the vacancy rates, in the rental increases, and what not. I think, Mr.

Speaker, we will be presenting amendments to correct that particular fault because again you can't operate a monitoring mechanism like a Rent Stabilization Board if you don't have the facts flowing through your hands, being able to look at them, and not only to be looked at on the Minister's desk but to be looked at by the building industry, by members of the legislature, by city council, by all the other concerned bodies who should be involved in making decisions of this sort. So, Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that in this particular bill I think that we can certainly make the case that the problem is serious enough to warrant attention, and if I can beg a moment of the House to remind them of some of the history that goes back to this, and that is that for two years we have been asking for action. The Minister said that this was

an act of social conscience on the part of the government. Well the social conscience took a long time to warm up, because the fact of the matter is the problem has been apparent for a long time; it has been growing; we have been asking for a rent review procedure, which could have been implemented, and I would still suggest, Mr. Speaker, if the government had proclaimed the rent review procedure a year ago, or 18 months ago, we would not now require the rent control bill that we have in front

March 10, 1976 857 BILL 19 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) •••.. of us, that it would have taken care of a most im mediate aspect of the problem, which was the excess rent or gouging problem, that would have moderated the market and we would also have been able to acquire through a review procedure enough data about the rental market that we then could have made a much more intelligent judgment about the kind of bill that we made now.

Of course at that time, according to the experts on that side of the House, we didn't have a housing problem in Manitoba, it was a shimmer of the imagination of the Opposition that we saw, it was a figment, we were romanticizing again. Well we were romanticizing to the extent that we now have to bring in a rent stabilization bill, which is not a good bill in itself.

The reason is, that if we had had any kind of foresight or anticipation, or even sort of any kind of response mechanism from the government to public issues as they appear, not two or three years after, we might be now avoiding an awful lot of difficulty in the kind of control mechanism that we are being forced to apply. I would suggest, Mr . Speaker, for example, that the Province of Quebec did bring in a rent review mechanism about two years ago, and therefore has not brought in a Rent Control Bill and has indicated that it doesn't think it is necessary.

Now I don't want to make judgments on the Quebec rent review scheme, but according to some observers and commentators, it may in fact be a more useful kind of application to the problem. I would like to clarify, the Leader of the Opposition has made this mistake on many occasions, he somehow has tried to suggest that in the past we were asking for rent control, which he of course in his old heart of hearts would know is not true, that the very specific and direct recommendations of this group has been for rent review, we have made it very clear, and it is one form of rent mechanism, not a rent control mechanism.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. CRAIK: I rise again on a point of privilege, and I suggest that the member if he wasn't listening yesterday he read the record as of yesterday, the Hansard, where I said that he last year advocated either rent control or rent review. MR. AXWORTHY: I guess, Mr. Speaker, that is what is called splitting a fine sematic fair hair, and it's certainly not a point of privilege, but if the Leader of the Opposition needs exercise, that's his business. Mr .

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we had asked for it, it didn't come, and we are now then dealing with a kind of mechanism. So the question is what kind of mechanism is it, and what kind of impact is it going to have? I think that this is one of the questions that we have to look at.

The Leader of the Opposition brought forward what he considered to be objective, conclusive evidence about the negative impact of rent control features prepared by a group called the Fraser Institute, or a group of economists from the Fraser Institute, which in the kind of trade I work in has always been known as a pretty right-wing group, they tend to have that orientation, but that doesn't matter .

The fact of the matter is this, there is no such thing as the conclusive piece of evidence on the impact of rent control; there has been a variety of studies and works done on it, all which have different kinds of assessments, as they used to say. He said, that here we can trust these obje ctive economists. You know the old saying, if you took all the economists and laid them end to end they would point in different directions.

Well I think that that's probably a fair case to make in this instance, that you can't necessarily, that there is a conclusive piece of evidence to show in fact that rent control will have a depressing effect on the housing market because, Mr . Speaker, it ... There is enough evidence on the other side to show that it won't. -- (Interjection)-- Well, if the Leader of the Opposition can restrain his impatience for a moment, I will provide it for him .

For example, the Vancouver, which has had a rent control scheme for two years, last year built more rental housing than we did in Winnipeg per population, as did Quebec . Now all it simply proves is that we weren't building much apartment rental unit in Winnipeg either, what it does prove is that what depresses the ability to build rental apartments are interest rates, land supply, labour availability, front end financing, and other sources, which are • • . far more influential.

To give the Leader of the Opposition another piece of evidence, that New York is always looked upon as one of the problem areas of rent control, and there is no question

858 March 10, 1976 BILL 19 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) .•••• that they have had problems, but in three states around New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey, where they have local option rent control in the cities and towns of that area, a study was just concluded in the state of Massachusetts which shows that those towns and cities that had controls built more units of rental housing per population than those that-didn't have controls.

Now I'm not going to argue on this side and say that rent control is going to spur hous ing, because that would be equally as fallacious as the point of view made by the Leader of the Opposition. The fact of the matter is that rent control does have an impact, but not the conclusive total impact, it is one among several factors. The key that makes it work, Mr. Speaker, and I think that this is where it comes down to the adequacy of this bill.

What really determines the kind of influence that a rent control machinery will have upon the supply of housing, is how fair and equitable it is seen to be by the people who supply the ho using . If the mechanism itself is seen to be one that has proper appeal procedures, deals adequately with cost factors, and is seen not to be biased on one side or the other, that' it seems to have a neutral effect upon the supply of housing, that I think, Mr.

Speaker, is a much fairer definition of the problem than that provided by the Leader of the Op position, it is simply that in a complicated field like hous ing, which he knows full well, is that there is no one factor that influences in a totally deterministic way how housing is supplied. And the accuracy of a rent control mechanism must be on the fairness and equitability of it, because that if it is not fair and it is not equitable, then we will have problems in the housing market. Mr .

Speaker, that would be the criticism I would make of this bill, that it will have a negative effect because it is not a fair bill or a good bill or an equitable bill. And that is the problem it has been badly drawn again, and therefore we are going to get difficul ties . In fact, Mr.

Speaker, you can almost look at some of the problems we 're exper iencing now, that one of the immediate consequences of the way in which this bill has been drawn because there is no cost pass through system in the first 12 months of operation, trust companies in the City of Winnipeg are telling those who hold five year mortgages on apartment blocks that they are not so sure they are going to renew those mortgages in any way. In other words, they simply are not going to refinance. Which simply means that a lot of owners are going to be forced to - what are they going to be forced to do ?

Sell and get out I suppose, if they can find a buyer. And the reason is because there is no provision to ensure that the owner will get an adequate return on his investment. And if you don't have that kind of assurance then the trust companies are not going to refinance, and there are several cases that have come to my attention over the past week of that now beginning to occur . So in fact what you 're going to find happen ing is - I suppose you could even lead up till • • • well, I'm not going to comment on the Member for St. Matthews because as we all know his great depths of .•• Will I permit a question ?

Yes . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer Affairs. HON. IAN TURNBULL (Minister of Consu.mer, Corporate and Internal Services) (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the Member for Fort Rouge is referring to mortgage companies' , trust companies', finance companies' relations with owners of property and the difficulties that owners of properties might have in renewing their mortgages, and I was wondering if he knew of the cases that he's referring to, whether difficulties by these property owners were already being experienced because of the ravages of inflation. MR . SPEAKER: The Member for Fort Rouge . MR.

AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, there has been in general, and this is the point I wanted to come to, a major decline in the private rental market. In fact I suppose if you wanted to be more accurate, if you look at the long-term trend we are experiencing right across Canada the death of the private rental apartment market. We just are not able to produce those kinds of units out of the private area that have normally supplied the needs of the rental area.

But what has happened in the last week is that in those areas, partic ularly in smaller older blocks that have been financed on five year mortgages, because the 10 percent figure which has no compensatory factor taking into account it appears, return on investment, the trust companies are saying in effect that because they cannot

March 10, 1976 859 BILL 19 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) •.•.• be guaranteed any returns , we're simply not going to hold that mortgage for you, you hav e to find your fina ncing somewhere else. And that has been as a direct consequence of the introduction of this bill as of last Thursday . Now I think that there are ways of correct ing that , Mr . Speaker. And I think that, to go back to my earlier progn osis and one which I don't come to easily, but the fa ct is that the private rental market is sick. It's not only sick in Winnipeg, it is sick and ailing right across Cana da .

But the question is, do you try to find ways of making it somewhat healthy again, or do you put a death-blow to it, because whatev er we know we know that we are not going to be able to supply all the housing for all the rental apart ments through public housing efforts . That much we do know . Because frankly if we did we would take up half of the budget of Manitoba to do it .

So we 're going to hav e to rely upon a substantial and continual investment in private rental apartments if we 're going to meet that need, and therefore we can't go around sort of, while the requirement is for rent contr ol, we can't go around seemingly doing our best to ensure that it won 't happen, that we won't get the proper supply . That 's why the bill had to be drawn in a much more balanc ed and equitable way than it is . That it had to provide that balanc e of fa irness for tenant and for landlord and for ensuring that there would not be those negative influenc es on investment patterns .

Another question that has to be raised in this regard , Mr . Speaker, is the exclusion of government housing itself . One that by the way has not been excluded in other jurisdic tions . The Provinc e of Ontario in fact includes sort of government housing, and the reason is .•. And I would have looked forward , you know, I trust the Minister at times to be able to give straig htforward explanations to the problem . I would have wanted to know why . Where in his introduction was he telling us why because in fa ct, Mr .

Speaker, if you look at some of the indications now, - and I can be cor rected by the Minister that is responsible for Manitoba Housing and Renewal Cor poration - he has estimated that the cost increases in government housing may be as high as 16 perc ent in the forthc oming year, not 10 percen t . And therefore we're going to give them a higher increase than we 're going to allow in the private market.

Now what it may be, one of the methods that we sure might have looked at is, should we gear in fact the incr ease in the private market accor ding to the cost experienced in the public market as some way of getting indicatives of what the increase in utilities and taxes, and all the rest of it, are going to be . Well it may be that there are good reasons why that wouldn't work . But the fact of the matter is if in the public gove rnment side you're going to be raising it 16 percent, first it's still going to provide a hardship for many of those people while their rent is geared to income .

But as I pointed out in this House before we are now paying a subsidy rate , in many cases of close to $2, 000 a year per unit . It doesn't save us any money by doing that, but why the disparity ? Why the diff eren ce ? Well there must be an explanation for it. But that explanation should be geared to at least ensuring that this House would have the proper information as to what are the cost increases experienced in the public sector so that we would then be able to judge the fairness of the Act as it relates to the private sector . And that again comes back, Mr.

Speaker, to my concern about the fairne ss of the application of this particular bill . Another kind of problem , Mr . Speake r, is again in the regional application of it. One of the critical factors that acc ounts perhaps for 15 or 20 perc ent of the cost of any apartment unit, is property taxation . And as we know there is a wide variance in prop erty taxation across the province from one municipality to anothe r, particularly because of the school tax levy .

We have been told that there is no more ass istance forthc oming in that area, and I'm sure we will have opportunity to talk about that spec ifi c problem . But the fact of the matter is that that is a cost that must be passed through and it is passed through unequally to provide in some cases perhaps a sharp - in those areas where the property taxes are of a low nature, that it provides a ce rtain windfall compared to those where it's a high natu re . And again that 's something that could hav e been dealt with in this bill .

It could hav e been coped with; it's not an impossible way of developing a formula to deal with it . One of the examples that have been put forward is in the

860 March 10, 19 76 BILL 19 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) •••.. B.C. Rent Review Commission Study where they indicate that in fact the formula for determining the percen tage increase should include a complete pass -through for property taxes.

In other words, a standard eight percent to encomp ass operating costs, main tenance costs, utility costs, which are standard across the provinc e, but then allow the property tax to vary by regions by simply having that passed on proportionately to the tenants and the owne r would then just so register his property tax inc rease with the Rent Review Board , or whichever body was to be set up. Now that was the proposal that was made and in covering the economics to it, it seemed to make some sense. It seemed to make a different kind of formula than the one that was being applied.

Another kind of problem I think, Mr. Speaker, we 'r e runn ing into is the question of voluntary compliance with the bill. Again if you look at the experienc e of rent control in the nu mber of jurisdictions that are applying it, it depends very much upon voluntary agreement. We can't have policemen going around , or we can't be having lawsuits against everyone who doesn't comply. And that 's why again it seems that there is the dependency upon voluntary compliance and it depends how much confidence people have that again, are they being treated fairly.

Again there is the application and compliance feature s, the penalties that are going to be imposed. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, under the present bill we're going to miss an awful lot, and in fact the B.C. survey that was done shows that almost one third of the actual rental units did not adhere to the law because the original straight across -the-board inc rease in Vanc ouver was not seen to be fair. We should have learned from that experience and corrected it and in volved those corrections again in the body of this particular piece of legislation. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, we feel that in order to give proper consi deration to this bill that many changes are needed. We think that again the requirement to step in and do something to stabilize the rental market was absolutely neces sary and I don't think that anyone could question our credentials on that because I think we 've been the only group arguing that way for the past few years.

But we are saying the particular form it has taken is a wrong one and an unfair one , and therefore we think in order to make it work properly, in order to ensure that it will properly balance between the requirement to pro tect the tenants but ensure there is an adequate housing supply continually coming on stream, that there are several changes that are required.

First is that we need not a 14 -month but a 12-month period for determining rent inc reas es ; that I think the 14 -month period will simply end up in a numb er of extremely awkward inconvenie nt and in many cases irrational ways of determining what the rents will be. We would also suggest that the rent in creases be determined , about starting, that would really be probably in October or from September to September, so that we're taking in the initial rent period beginning on October 1 if it was to start now.

The second part that we would like to see really a thr ee part formula for determin ing the rent increa se.

One part that would be a standard inc rease en compassing just the basic operating costs which are pretty stan dard, utilit ies, of maintenance cost, etc., which may be at a level of six or ei ght percent , depending upon what the exact assess ment would be, but then have a complete cost pass -through for property taxes, and also in that formula an adequate return on in vestment, on equity in vest ment in the apartment itself to ensure that there would be a fair return and that the in ve stment would keep up.

So we feel that any perc entage increase should be based upon those three factor s: return on in ve stment , operating costs, property tax pass -through. The first two would be a standard formula, the other would be a variable formula applied accor ding to the property tax rates of the different mun icipalities primarily based upon their sch ool tax situation. A third factor that we would like to see in the bill is an appeal proc edure that would be applicable right now. There are a numb er of cases, Mr. Speaker, where a numb er of ineq uitie s will be faced.

People who have provided major renovations and taken out Home Improvement Loans , now having to pay for them and can't. People who have had two-year leases so that in fact the rents th ey're now charging or were charging as of last July would be two years old and are in no way adequate to cover the costs in any

March 10, 1976 861 BILL 19 (MR. AXWORTHY cont'd) ..••• way shape or form . The requirement where certain people have smaller units where they have been caught with the problem of under-rated rents and just simply need increases because they may only have two, or three, or five units in a block but their costs cannot be prorated by volume . We have the problem of people who have made new purchases of apartments . So therefore an appeal procedure is required . Now the argument expressed by the Minister was, well we wanted to cut down on administrative costs .

And I think that we are all concerned about that, but I would suggest that he's going to end up with more headaches, more administrative bungling, more organizational management problems by not providing a fair appeal procedure than trying to do it by cutting himself short right now. And that requirement of appeal procedure is essential for both sides, and while it may result in increasing numbers, there are ways of dealing with it. Again if we look at the experience of rent review procedure s in Quebec and other jurisdictions, we would find ways of coping with it based upon their experience.

We would also like to see finally, Mr .

Speaker, again and we may have opportunity to discuss this further in the Estimates of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, some steps announced by the Provincial Government to provide stimulation, incentive for the continued production of rental units in the private market, to deal with the supply problem, whether it's a tax incentive, whether it's cer tain kinds of write-offs, whether it's second mortgaging - there's a number of instruments that could be applied and used and unfortunately both the Conservatives and the New Democrats when we brought forward these suggestions a couple of days ago in a private mem ber's resolution, didn't care to contend with them, but those kinds of measures are necessary if we're going to maintain a private rental market.

And hand in hand with the Rent Stabilization Bill should go a bill for the incentive for rental housing in the City of Winnipeg in particular. If we don 't do it, it's not going to happen. And therefore we must provide a two-handed punch, we can't do one without the other . The two are inextricably tied and therefore again there is no market . And finally, Mr . Speaker, the profit in the existing housing market . There 's very little incentive to maintain maintenance . You're penalized under the tax system, you're affected in other ways by it.

In the existing apartment market, and older apartments in particular, there is very few by-tax provisions for it. It's very difficult to maintain a maintenance, maintaining upkeep, and make the transference into good rental units. It's an area where public policy on both federal and provincial levels almost virtually ignore . There is no public programs to deal with the existing rental market in a way to ensure that proper use is made of those buildings . And therefore we 've needed a proper housing program to ensure that it would take place . So, Mr .

Speaker, in conclusion we would say again that we can only express our deep disa ppointment as to the way in which the bill has been brought forward. We feel that it is not a good bill . It does not meet the problems that had to be met . We cannot understand why because certainly, Mr . Speaker, it wasn't for the fact that we moved into the problem in some short-term way. We were one of the last provinces to bring it in. There 's a vast amount of experience in other jurisdictions that could have been properly used, properly looked at, and I think we could have ended up with a much better bill .

And we can only say that as we intend to bring forward amendments at committee, as I'm sure others will be, we hope that we will at least be able to in part put this bill back on the track so that it will be properly sort of equal to both the tenants and those who supply the housing in the Province of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek . MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Cree k): Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Mr . Speaker, as we have stated in this House, this is a very serious bill for the Prov ince of Manitoba.

It's important as the previous speaker just said, but it's very serious I think that's what we have to regard it as . And with the seriousness of it we have to be objective in our views when we are dealing with this type of legislation . I know that the incentives that have been spoken about are there but it's a strange thing that it was the Federal Liberal Government who took off the incentives not too long ago as far as

862 March 10, 1976 BILL 19 (MR. F. JOHNSTON cont'd) .••• • encouraging any type of building or construction is concerned in this area. Mr. Speaker, I would say that we in the answer to the Throne Speech made it very clear that we would favour and look towards evaluation as far as rent controls are con cerned . We made that very clear but for some reason or other the Liberal Party in this province says it's always their idea. And we had just another example of somebody standing up from the Liberal Party expressing themselves and not saying which side of the fence they're on. And we get this all the time.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, regarding this bill if the member is going to come to Law Amendments because in the Law Amendments we can ask many of the questions that he has brought forward. Questions that are very technical, questions that we don't have material in front of us on this bill at the present time to evaluate, and we say that the proper place to do it is after we have had hearings and discussions with the Minister, we can also go through it clause by clause. Mr.

Speaker, the only logical way that this bill can be looked at by the members of this House is in an objective way to try to have it best for the people of the Province of Manitoba and not stand up and make a great irate presentation about how did the Minister get this information, or that information, so he 'll look good saying it when he has every right to go to Law Amendments and ask the Minister right there. Mr. Speaker, the bill in front of us is important. The bill in front of us is import ant. I can remember one thing that happened in this House, and I don't remember the name of the bill, Mr.

Speaker, but I do remember this; it was the Attorney-General's bill; it was the bill that related to the computerizing of debts owing against cars and houses, etc., so we could have this information before us at all ti mes; a very technical bill that took a long time for any of us to understand . But, Mr.

Speaker, the request was made to the Minister, the Attorney-General, at the time that possibly at one o' clock or 1:30 every day we could sit down during the week before Law Amendments, or some thing of that nature, and the Minister was very happy at that time to come in with his people and answer any questions we had about the bill for him. And I might say that that would be an objective thing to ask for. I don't know whether it's completely necessary. The Minister can sum it up after. Mr.

Speaker, when we talk about economists , and apparently any time the Conserv ative Party talks about economists that economist is a right winger . Mr. Speaker, my Leader in the House basically quoted the words of other men that happen to be in this book . But it's very interesting to talk about the percentage of vacancies at the present time. I would say that if you want to find out the vacancies in Manitoba you go and talk to the people that own apartment blocks, and I don't know whether the Minister has, and I'm sure he should have, but we can ask him if he has .

But if you can phone up some body and say, "How much did your rent go up ?", you can say to him, ''How many vacant ·a partments have you got in the block ?" You could have had that information just as easy . The two percent which is gi ven to you federally by statistics is an arbitrary figure from one and a half to two percent that they've been using for years, and I think that in any body's time I can tell you right now, I am told by a person who is very close to the market in apartment blocks in this city, that he knows of 300 suites that are available tomorrow.

I can tell you from talking to real estate men that houses are still available to be sold, their salesmen are still going out trying to sell houses . Mr. Speaker, this bill should go to committee . This bill should go to committee so that the members of this House can study it and look at it thoroughly.

I have said, and as our Leader has said, there is no other way of doing it other than to approach it objectively after we 've had the chance to ask people questions; and those people hopefully will have done their homework and give us answers; we 'll be able to hear people, and then come into this House and make amendments and debate it objectively to have some thing proper for the Province of Manitoba . But not to make a big grandstand on whether you 've done this or you 've done that now, and after you 've done it, sit down and not have a position. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will be closing debate.

The Honourable Member for St. Matthews .

March 10, 1976 863 BILL 19 MR. WALLY JOHANNSON (St . Matthews): Mr . Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Gimli , that debate be adjourned . MOTION presented and carried . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister for Agriculture . MR. USKIW: Mr . Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs, that Mr . Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House res olve itself into a Co=ittee to consider the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved its elf into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Logan in the Chair . . • • • . continued on next page

864 March 10, 19 76 COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY - URBAN AFFAIRS MR . CH AIRMAN: I refer honourable members to Page 58 of their Estimate s. Resolution 112 (

b) Administrative Salaries, $262 , 400.00. The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR . SHERMAN: Mr . Chairman, I just have one brief enquiry or two that I want to make of the Minister . Normally there would have been questions that I would have asked him during Question Period before Orders of the Day, but obviously since we were dealing with his Estimates, the proper procedure was to hold them for now . And I would appre ciate an answer from the Minister when he next rises to respond in the Estimates con sideration before us. They are parochial questions, but they're of concern to my parish, my constitu- ency.

The question at issue is the location of the Fort Garry-St . Vital bridge, I know that the Minister probably feels that I've waltzed him around on this question in the past, but I suggest, Mr . Chairman, that there is a different question to be asked at the mom ent which is my reason for rising now, and that is the question on the location of the bridge. There hag been a number of different locations considered and I think that there had been a determination by both parties, the province and the city, as to precisely where the bridge was going to go .

Indeed, the form of the bridge and the cost of the bridge, I know, are still in some debate although there has been agreement that the bridge will be not as elaborate, not as expensive as was proposed originally in some quarters, and I have no quarrel with that decision.

But it 's my understanding that there also had been a fairly firm if not completely firm decision as to the precise location, and I have reason to suspect now that that loca tion decision may be under review or under revision; and I would appreciate the reply of the Minister as to whether or not location of the bridge has been determined, has been settled upon and is beyond the stage of review, re- examination and possible change.

The second question on the same subject is one somewhat like those that I've asked the Minister before, but again slightly differen t because of recent information - correct or incorrect, I'm not in a position to say - but recent information that has come to me , and I would appreciate the Minister 's direction on it . That has to do with the province' s participation in the cost of the project.

I know that the province through the Minister has committed itself to 50 percent participation of a given figure; and I know that the Minister made it very clear in answer to me in the House a couple of weeks ago that that was not an open-end contract, that it was to be 50 percent of an agreed upon figure. However, what I'd like to know from the Minister is, are there parameters for that figure ?

That is to say, that one project, one proposal, would cost approximately $11 !-million; another proposal being considered would cost approximately $16 million; and what I would like to receive some explicit information from the Minister on, is the question of whether the 50 percent cost- sharing will apply all the way up to that 16 million dollar figure, should that be the project decided upon, or whether it will only go to the ut million-dollar figure which has been tagged on one of the two proposals. MR . CHAIRMAN: Resolution 112( b) , the Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON . SAUL A.

MILLER (Minister for Urban Affairs)(Seven Oaks): Mr . Ch airman, in reply to the Member for Fort Garry, with regard to the bridge itself I don't think it's a question of location, unless I don't understand what he means by location. The place where it will cross is established. It 's the alignments that are being discussed with Winnipeg.

It 's now in the hands of staff, and our staff will meet with the city staff - I believe there is a meeting planned for next week, when the two staffs will sit down and look at it; and at that time they'll report back both to the city and to ourselves, at which time I'll then be able to be more definitive in the kind of answer I can give him . Right now I can't give him a definitive answer because this information is not yet available to me . MR . SHERMAN: Well I appreciate that information, Mr. Chairman, but if I could just add a supplementary for clarification.

I know that the location of the crossing is not under review or in dispute or liable to change, but it 's the alignments that I'm talking about. It was my understanding that a decision had been made on an alignment between the power lines. There now seems to be a suggestion that that alignment might be placed south of the power lines, and you'll appreciate , Sir, that that makes a considerable

March 10, 1976 865 SUPPL Y - URBAN AFFAIRS (MR. SHERMAN cont'd) ••••• difference in a reside ntial area. So this is the reason for my question to the Minister, and if he can't answer the question today, I'm perfectly happy to leave it on the record with him and receive an answer from him as soon as it's pos sible . MR . CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Assi niboia. MR . PATRICK: Thank you, Mr . Chairman, I wish to make a couple of points on something that the Minister indicated to the House yesterday, that the City of Winnipeg will not be receiving any more assistance. This really concerns me, Mr.

Ch airman, because also the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources last night when he was debating on this same point, said in his constituency the property tax only increased - and he worked it out - it was somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 .0 0 per home . Well this may be so in his constituency, I can't argue for his point, but I can tell the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources that in my constituency my tax did not go up $50.0 0, it went up 100 percent. It went up from 700 to over 1,4 00 . It's around 1, 700.

So that is how much it's gone in five years since the Unicity. -- (Interjection)-- No, it isn't. So the Minister cannot say that there 's been not this high increase . There has been in the City of St. Jame s -Assi niboia, there has been this increase . So it does concern me , Mr.

Ch airman, because the costs are outstripping the slow growth that the city has any kind of a tax base • Unless the Minister can indicate to the House where the city should use the tax base, because the government had an increase of $40 million alone in the sales tax in one year, that's what the projected increase will be in 1976 as compared to 1975, in the retail sales tax. So there is a growth. There is a growth where you're receiving the increase . There is a growth of 10 or $20 million in the liquor profits in one year, an increase of $1 0 million in one year.

There is more than $40 million in individual income tax, and you show me that kind of a tax base that the City of Winnipeg has to tax. I'd like to see it. Because there isn't, Mr . Chairman . So the costs in my opinion are outstripping. You have a 19 7 6 deficit of $18 million. So how is this going to be raised ? You know, I know each year the city goes to the government for a bandaid approach and they ask for more, but to make up a deficit you will have to increase the property tax by 18 percent in the city when I say City of Winnipeg I'm talking the Unicity - by 18 percent.

And you have a projected deficit of $30 million in 1977 . Again you'll need an 18 to 19 percent increase. So, Mr. Ch airman, to me this is a pretty serious thing. Betwen 1975 and 1980 the tax in the city will be doubled - the property tax I'm talking about. And in my opinion it's way too high at the present time - way too high . So really what's happening now - and if you take back from 1972 to 1980, the property tax on most properties will be tripled - these are the facts - will be tripled.

So this will be a hardship - not on some people - it'll be a great hardship on most people, with exception of a few that can really afford them and it doesn't matter what the property taxes are . But really, you know, I coul dn't believe my ears yesterday when the Minister was saying in the House, that in his area where he live s, that he worked on the houses, on a certain home at 30, 000, that the real actual increase was $50.0 0. That's what he said . --(Interjection)-- Well, I would say that's nonsense . I can't understand it. Be cause certainly tha t's not what it is in the whole part of St.

James-As siniboia. So, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion the province has a growth rate. It really has every year, in one area, of $40 million in the retail sal es. It has in the pers onal in come tax over $40 million . That's the growth. So unle ss the Minister can indicate where the city should tax - maybe they should tax in the area of liquor and retail sales, and maybe there should be a two percent or more percent sales tax, I don't know. May be that's the area they have to go.

But I know for one thing that they can't continue to increase the property tax, because if you compare it to the other cities in western Canada, I'll tell you - I've compared some of the homes - comparative homes with what we have in St. Jame s - and compared them to the homes in Calgary and Edm onton - I'll tell you we're 50 percent higher in most cases. -- (Interjection)-- We are . I'm talking about property tax, strictly property tax.

866 March 10, 1976 SUPPLY - URBAN AFFAffiS (MR . PATRICK cont'

d) So, Mr. Chairman, I just wish to bring that to their attention. I know that the Minister of Mines and Resources yesterd ay he spoke - well, you know, what a great thing the unification was. Maybe to some extent it was . But as far as most people in St. James-As siniboia are concerned, our services are not any better; our police services are not better, in fact I think they're less, there are less police cars on the streets than there used to be; there 's less snow cleaning now than we had before; there 's the same garbage pickup that we had before, we have now; and the property tax has doubled for most people.

So what have we gained as far as the Unicity was concerned ? Not that much. Our property tax was doubled. So at the present time, aside from the business tax and property tax, and dog licences and some fire inspections , this is-the tax base that the City of Winnipeg is using. And in my opinhn that's not enough. So either they have to have some sharing with the growth tax of the province or they 'll have to start taxing on their own, and this hasn't happened. And yesterday we had the sad news that the Minister indicated to the House there will be no increased grants to the City of Winnipeg. So what does it mean?

With already $18 million deficit - they're looking at an 18 percent increase across - the - · board just -- (Interjection)-- Stain your house . Just to do away with the deficit, Mr. Chairman. So this is certainly real sad news as far as my part of the constituency is concerned, or part of St. James - Ass iniboia, because it'll affect many people and it'll be a real hardship. And if we continue with no change in the tax structu re, and if we continue with no increase in grants, I see a real serious problem as far as 1977 is concerned.

Because again you'll have to come up with 20 percent or 18 percent increase just to cover the deficits, never mind the other increases, just to cover the deficits, Mr. Ch airman. As well, I think the Provincial Government must improve its grants for road const:::-uction in the greater Winnipeg area. I don't believe the present is satisfact ory.

Because really in our area - when we talked about Portage Avenue, that we were going to have other arterial routes to take some traffic off Portage Avenue, this was taking place here ten years ago when we were talking about an inner-perimeter, which was not acc eptable to me, and I don't think it's neces sary today. But surely there's another street neces sary, parallel, that will take the traffic - parallel to Portage Avenue in the west end area, and nothing has been done so far . Again, there's nothing in the City of Winnipeg Estinntes that will continue them; they make the point that there 's no money.

So I hope that the Minister of Urban Affairs will give some serious consideration to the points that I've raised. MR. CHAffiMAN: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs . MR . MILLER: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Member from Assiniboia refers to what I as sume is perhaps his own tax bill. -- (Interjection)-- I didn't hear him. He says "yes ". That it went up from $700 .0 J to $1, 400.0 0, and that is very possible. He was living in St.

James-Assiniboia which did en joy, prior to the City of Winnipeg Act, one of the lowest, I think, except for Tuxedo - the lowest mill rate enjoyed by citizens of Greater Winnipeg, and that was one of the dilemmas. That there were some areas that certainly had a tax base and their residents benefited from that tax base ; other communities which were primarily residential couldn't hope to meet that kind of a tax break at all. He men tions an increase from $700.0 0 to $1, 400 .00, which means that his assessm ent to be a $12, 000 assessment.

If he deducts - I'm as suming he doesn't qualify for 300 -- (Interjection)-- Yes. I'm as suming he doesn't qualify for $300 .0 0 -- (Inter jection)-- I don't know how come, but I ass ume he doesn't qualify for the full $300 .0 0 tax credit. So if he's talking about from $700 to $1, 400 did he deduct the 175 ? So therefore it's a $700 .00 increase over a period of six years which is about what , $115, $110 a year ? I suggest to the honourable member that if he looks at other jurisdictions, Toronto, Vancouver, Ca lgary, Regina, he'll find that he's not that far out of line over this six or seven year period.

The fact is that it isn't that great a cost and tl:Ere al ways has been and always will be increases in property taxes. We know that . It does not go down . My experience has been it never goes down. He poses a que stion of what

March 10, 19 76 867 SUPPLY - URBAN AFFAIRS (MR . MILLER cont'd) • • • • .is the city going to do ? What are ci ties generally going to do ?

I dealt with it last night, I don't know whethe r the member was in the House or not, and I indicated to him that I rec ognize the dilemma that there's a possibility that in fact the cities generally across the country cannot continue and are finding it more and more difficult to just base their income on property taxes, that there is another avenue open to them and it was made open by this government Fir stly in the fact that the two points of perso nal income tax and one point of corporate income tax are now going to flow to the municipalities and it will grow in value as the value of those point..s increase.

As well there are other taxes that he mentioned, liquor taxes, I think he mentioned sales tax, pers onal and corporate income tax, hotel room tax, these too are areas which the city and other municipalities can consider and should consider and the province has in dicated that it will gladly co-operate and assist the municipalities entering into that field. As I said last night, I pointed out that really we were breaking ground in Manitoba. In other jurisdictions, provinces have not yet moved towards even entertaining that thought; that in fact they haven't provided their municipalities with that avenue.

We h3.ve provided the municipalities with that avenue and by providing that avenue we are basically saying to them that if they want the power to spend then they should accept the responsibility for that spending; accepting it by saying, yes, we want these taxes levied and those taxes will be earmarked for municipal purposes , Because of that there may be a slo wing down of the mill rate increases or perhaps even may transfer from the traditional mill rate to other kinds of taxes which some may argue are more progressive or less regressi ve than property tax, although I can tell you that there is some re -thinking going on on property tax, There was a conference in Tor onto rec ently where, I gather, sJmeone from the University of Toronto told a seminar sponsored by the Feder al Department of Urban Affairs that perhaps the property taxes were not all as bad as it appeared, that perhaps more attention should be paid to making the property tax a more efficient and more productive fiscal instru ment than simply trying to concern ourselves about its. reg ressivity.

One of the points raised at this conference was the fact that the asses sments are not at market value , that the assessme nts are so late and lag behind the actual increases in value due to inflation, due to other factors , but that if market value was introduced and was updated - and it could easily then be updated if it's market value - then it would more properly reflect and more perhaps equitably reflect the impulse of taxation on a particular piece of property includ ing empty land and including other properties whioh are ·on the assess ment rolls.

Now as I say this is something that I've just rec ently run across from Toronto. I haven't given it much study. But the rea lity is that this whole question of pr :::-perty taxes is not new to this House. It has been debated for many many years. It has been debated and is being debated in Ontario and in Alberta.

As I indicated last night oil rich Alberta which apparently advertised to its citizens of Alberta, asking them for suggestions on how to spend about a billion and a half dollars of oil revenue ; nonetheless the City of Edmonton Council has been informed that they should not look to the province to find them $1S i million that they 're looking for and that in fact the City of Edmonton is being told that they're going to have to levy for it on property . As I said earlier it's not new and I have a clipping here of 1960.

It's a few years ago and it happened to be at the time that Metro was first created, Premier Duff Roblin at that time was asked whether he thought municipal taxes would go up or down and his reply was - and he was hone st about it --"C ertainly, " he says, "In my experience taxes go only one way. Up." He said this in 1960 and of course he was proven right. Taxes have gone up. It's not surprising to me and it's not surprising to anyone who's been involved at all, So I have to say to the Honourable Member for Assiniboia that the fact is that the tax burden - property tax burden in Winnipeg has been growing.

It has not, however, been growing at a faster rate if one takes into account the equalization, the three years of equalization, and the property tax credit plan, that it has not been growing at a faster rate than other municipalities in other provincial jurisdictions, that it is general across the country and that it would be unfair for the member to suggest that somehow some thing is happening in Winnipeg that isn't happening elsewher e.

868 March 10 , 19 76 SUPPLY - URBAN AFFAIRS (MR. MILLER cont'

d) Now he can make the statement, residing as he does in St. James-Assiniboia, that in his particular area his tax bills went up a considerable amount and he 's right . In Tuxedo I think they went up even more. But I have to remind him that he was living in an area with a very low mill rate compared to all the other areas of Greater Winnipeg. In 19 69 - I have here a figure - the St . James-Assiniboia, the school mill rate and municipal mill rate was 49. 8 and in the City of Winnipeg it was 65.9 .

So you have there a discrepancy of 16 mills right off the bat, you know, which is a 30 percent increase as the Minister of Mines points out to me. I hope his arithmetic is right . I haven't checked it . But you're sitting there quietly thinking about it and I'm not .

So that it 's true, this went up and if someone here representing the constituency which includes the old Town of Tuxedo they were even in a more preferential position be cause as I recall they had a cement plant within their boundaries, two cement plants I think it was, two of the m and my recollection in going back a number of years, I re meniember the Mayor of Tuxedo, I think it was Mr. Lamont at the time, being very candid and saying that, yes, the two cement plants pretty well looked after the major costs of the Town of Tuxedo.

As well of course they had other requirements; 75-foot lots which pretty well determined the value of the home that was going to be built and the assessment there on that home was going to be high, and they enjoyed an extremely extremely low low mill rate . Frankly that was one of the reasons why there was a need and a recognized need to (1) first introduce Metro and then from Metro to then go the next logical step which was one city . That's the position we took. Now, Mr . Chairman, the Member for Fort Garry, he 's not in his seat, however he did ask me to clarify the question on the Fort Garry-St.

Vital crossing and I can't reply to his last question simply because as I indicated earlier it 's in the hands of staff, of officials. They are meeting and once their meeting is concluded and once they go back to their respective bodies and report back then both the city and the province will be in a better position to know what the implications are with regard to this alignment . He talks about the roadway on the east side of the river, whether it will go between the hydro right- of-ways or to the south of the existing hydro right-of-way.

That's one of the questions that is being looked at and it 's a highly technical question, I don't claim to be too knowledgeable in that . But certainly it 's something that the staff will look at and they will make a report and when we have that report we 'll be in a better position to be able to determine the level of provincial funding. Mr. Ch airman, I think that responds to the questions that the Member for Fort Garry asked and hopefully a response which I don't imagine the Member for Assiniboia will accept but a response to the Member from Assiniboia on some of the points he raised. MR .

C HAffiMAN: The Honourable M_ember for Wolseley. MR . ROBERT G. WILSON (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take issue with some of the statements that the Minister of Urban Affairs made and of course I'd like to ask many que stions and maybe I'l l take issue with the Minister of Mines, the Member for St. Johns, the Mini ster of Public Works and of course I want to include one of the Liberal members. But I think that in front of me I have what is city policy, major policies which have been adopted by city council pertaining to his department.

I hope to be able to find out what his terms of reference and his department stands for because I've had a great deal of difficulty over the years in examining the contradictory statements from many of the Irembers on the opposite side. I'm looking at "The city shall encourage residential development and compatible amenities of the downtown core. " and I believe most of the discussions did take place pertaining to the City of Winnipeg and of course the downtown core.

In some kind of common folk address to you gentlemen on the other side I would like to quote the Minister in last night's paper in which he said that the opposition critics forgot about the three NIP programs in the downtown core. I'd like to suggest to him that I was the council' s representative to the Canadian Housing and Renewal Officials' Conference in St. Johns and it was my suggestion that removing scrap yards and undesir able industries should be relocated first, as the first step, and many of the NHA and

March 10, 19 76 SUPPL Y - URBAN AFFAIRS (MR. WILSON cont'd) .C MHA people agreed with this and I believe that some 869 effort was made in certain areas of Canada to relocate scrap yards and I believe in the Point Douglas area some of the se undesirable businesses have been removed. I also noted that many of the experts had spoken on urban shelter . I was at the Urban Shelter Conference to hear the Minister of Urban Affairs and there certainly was a lack of ML As present. I went there as just an ordinary Joe from Wolseley and I do not have the responsibility of the Urban Affairs critici sm.

As I say I enjoyed the Minister's remarks at that time . Again I share with the Minister the concern that you cannot build highways fast enough to fill up with cars that will go bumper to bumper once they're built. However I think the government has been severely lax and very weak in their emphasis on public transit . I think they could do very very much more . I am greatly concerned about the government' s objectives in the core area. I didn't like the statement that they're going to wreck houses and put the people from those wrecked houses in the new ones.

I think a study should be made and certainly I am appalled to think that every one of these houses that may have in it tenants that don't give a hoot about how they manage the house or vrhat they do to it, and it would seem to me that those that are ruled to be structurally sound by the city administrators or the govern ment's inspectors should be allowed to be repaired under the NIP program or the WHIP program or whatever .

I would think that there' s certainly enough land available that the amount of money that the province receives from the Federal Government should allow them to relocate these people from these houses if they have too many children for the size of the house and put them into one of these newer homes. But again the size of the lot and the expectation of these people kind of gripes me.

It seems to me that in last year's Urban Affairs Department thing the Minister talked about new expectations of people and new things that were going to be done to have these people have a smaller bedroom and maybe a smaller rec room and maybe a smaller size of lot, new housing designs, innovative new methods and per acre a greater density. I hear nothing in this year 's address to indicate that we're going to be doing anything constructive in this area. I think a lot of these, speaking from my limit ed experience, a lot of these bay windows and big pane glass windows could be eliminated.

I ce rtainly agree with light but at the same time some of the windows that they put in while they look very attractive are very expensive when you consider we're supplying housL'lg for those people that don't have shelter at present. I think these people would be very satis fied with something - I think we have to supply housing for more people not excellent housing for a few people. Before I continue on with the Minister, it 's too bad he's not here, but I really enjoyed the Member for St.

Johns because I liked his quotation that he suggested to the city manners in which it can improve, because he contradicts the statement by the Minister of Urban Affairs who said the city should go its own way. I'd like to tell the Minister it 's sort of been a long road from city hall to get here to be able to tell the people how I think they can improve . It seems to me that he was worried that I might say the wrong thing but I have a great deal of faith in my ideas and the hurry in which I'm going to ex press them because we don't have years and years to have these things accomplished.

We have to get on with the job now because of the fiscal problems faced by the city and of course by all of us in Manitoba. I started seven years ago to get here and now that I'm here you're going to hear from me . I would like to say that it seems to me that Trudea:u and Federal Liberals and the Conservatives , and yes the Federal NDP, have really saved you people on the other side , members opposite , from defeat at the poll s because they have treated you to some degree . • • Well, they treated you with some degree of merit because they really went after senior citizen housing.

But you know this story has never been told , and I re ally honestly believe that this story has never been told . You know the media has - I' m going to tell it - the media has never investigated the pUblic relations campaign at the NDP, that these large blocks are NDP's doing, that they are the New Democratic's doing. Now you can ask the Member over there from Winnipeg Centre, because they planted organizers in 444 Kennedy and after the opening ceremonies, they had a fantastic membership drive. At 185 Smith Street. • •

870 March 10, 19 76 MR. CH AIRMAN: Order plea se . The hour being 4:30, the hour has arrived for Private Members ' Hour. Committee rise . Is it the will of the committee to proceed? Committee rise. Call in the Speaker. IN SESSION MR . SPEAKER: Order plea se . The Honourable Member for Logan. MR . WILLIAM JENKINS (Logan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Wellington , that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR MR . SPEAKER: The first item this afternoon in Private Members' is Resolution 2.

The Honourable Member for Birtle -Russell. MR . HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle-Russel l) : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe the first tim e that this resolution came around, we had the Member for Fort Rouge who introduced it , and .t hen we had the contributions from the Minister of Corrections, and finally the contributions of the Attorney-General . Mr. Speaker, I got into the act be cauce I have always listened to the Attorney-General and have some interest in some of the activities of the Attorney-Gene ral . However, I have to say, Mr .

Speaker, that when he did make a contribution on this , I could just imagine him lying on the sand and the beach of Cuba, and the gentle wa ves on the shore and the bree zes wafting sl owly through the trees; because I think he didn't want to really get involved in this at all. He was sort of wishing that it would go away on him. But, Mr. Speaker, it won't go away, and it 's here with us, and we have to deal with it . What the Attorney-General said was merely pla titudes. He couldn't go against it, but he didn't re ally endorse it enthusiastically .

He was just sort of rolling with the punches and hoping that the real is sue would not come up at all. Because really , Mr. Speaker, the real iss ue that the Attorney-General has to deal with - and I suggest the Minister of Corrections too - is the present system that we have of fines and penalti es, whether those penalties be served in short terms in penal instituti ons, just isn't working. The Mini ster of Sorrections is responsible for the operations of the various correctional institutes, and what we've seen happen in there in the past couple of years , Mr.

Speaker, in my estimation anyway, by no stretch of the imagination could it be called progress. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that right now the penal system today is mass confusion, there 's uncertainty and disill usionment on the part of those that are charged with the responsibility for the operation of those instituti ons . Mr. Speaker, we've spent many dollars on the finally achieved Juvenile Detention Centre in this area, and if the Minister can tell me that that is operating fine and every thing is rosy, I might believe him for about five seconds . But, Mr.

Speaker, the pro blems that we're getting are increasing, they 're not decreasing . And I'm not too sure that some of the suggestions that are being made here by the Member for Fort Rouge, while he's dealing with relatively minor offences , I'm not too sure that the suggestions that he has are the be-all and end-all of all the probl ems . Mr. Speaker, right now we have a feeling prevalent in society today that is not conducive to law and order.

And I would ask each and every member of this Ass embly, if they think back a bit and view some of the occurrences that have taken place in their constituencies, if I'm not correct in that statement . But we're finding other thing s hap pening, Sir, and that is in the field of education; that we are encouraging, we're encourag ing the young people today to challenge almost every concept that is placed before them . Now is it little wonder that when we're preaching these things in our schools , that we then find trouble with our system of law and order.

We're finding a society today that is no longer permissive, it 's almost antagonistic . And the incidence of wrongdoing in society • I suggest , is going to increase, is going to continue to increase until we change our educational system; until we change the operations of our correctional institutes; and until we demonstrate quite clearl y to those in society that there is a difference and there will be a diff erence accorded to those that live by law and order and those that challenge the validity of our legal system. Mr . Speaker, we have found our police force has increased, our police force has

March 10, 1976 871 RESOLUT ION 2 (MR . GRAHAM cont'd ) ••••• doubled in the last few years; all you have to do is look at the appropriation in the Attorney-Gen eral's Estimates to see ho-w much it has increased and the cost. And yet here we're thinking of dealing very gently with those that commit offence s in society. We want to make sure that they 're treated the same as everyone else in society .

We want them to work their fines off in community affairs at minimum wages, and I would suggest, Sir, that to some of them there is an unwillingness to work because there is nothing being presented by this present government today which would encourage the work ethic. The Member for Fort Rouge sugges ts that we could have work camps and community projects for these people to work on. What are you going to do, Mr. Speaker, if they refuse to work? There are an awful lot of young people today ·rho won't take a job because they say, well, that's not suited to me, I don't want to do that type of work.

We are not encouraging a work ethic in society. Mr. Speaker, thGre comes a time when we must encourage law and order in society ; when we must try to emphasize the diff erence between right and wrong ; and when we must point out to people that those who do wrong must pay a penalty for it. Now the Member for Fort Rouge is trying to go the opposite direction. He is -- (Interjection)-- Yes, he says something about that in here some place. He wants an organized program for them. Mr .

Speaker, we are so organized in today's society; we've got so many people working in organizations to draft programs, to analyse programs, to dissect programs and to restructure programs, that we don't even have a program left when we're finished Mr. Speaker, I'm not too sure that everything the Me mber for Fort Rouge says is wrong. Ther e's some of it I agree with, but at the same time I think that you cannot entirely follow the do-gooder approach constantly.

There has to be, at some time or another, a firm understanding in society of what is right and what is wrong, and people have to under stand that if they do wrong, they have to pay a penalty for it. Mr. Speaker, I present these views, they're my personal views, because I think that it is time that somebody has to speak up and point out the errors of our ways at the present time . I think we have to get down to some funda mental basics pretty soon. If we don't, pretty soon our courts will be loaded with cases and we'll have backlogs three to six months.

Until we point out that the system of law and order has to be the one that we choose to live with; until we encourage young people to adopt a worthwhile lifestyle, which may or may not involve the work ethic - but to me, I think the work ethic is a very desirable one; and until we change our educational system to establish some of the very basics that have built this country, rather than endeavour to point out the weaknesses and the faults and the challenges and attempt to destroy it. These are some of the things that concern me, Mr.

Speaker, and I hope that they concern a lot more members in society, and hopefully members in this Chamber as well . MR . SPEAKER : The Honourable Mem ber for Flin Flon. MR . TH OMAS BARROW (Flin Flon): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support the member 's resolution in its concept. It has been something I' ve believed in for many many years . I would totally throw out the words of my honourable friend across the House, and I' ll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. I have a lot of faith in youth today - and what he's saying today, my fat her said about me, and I'm saying it about ••• and it will go on and on.

But let me prove a point, Mr . Speaker, just to prove a point. The kids to day are screaming their tires and they're driving fast cars and they're reckless; in 19�l9 and 1940 these were the kids that flew the Spitfires and protected the whole of Britain at that time . And why were they chosen, specially chosen? Because they were haywire kids with no nerves, or good nerves, or whatever. The same concept in that society when Romm el was attacking, those viscious hordes were attacking us, who went out there and beat the - you know, held them back?

The kids of England, they were the ones, the hellers, these haywire kids that he's so bitter against. --(In terjection)-- Pardon me? We need a war to prove their worth. Maybe that's the answer, Mr. Speaker. The work ethic, the work ethic, Mr. Speaker, has been changed a lot since his day as a youth and mine. It's much simpler to v.-ork today. A couple of examples: A Swede saw and an ax can put up two and a half cords an hour a day, now they're putting up 15 cords . To clear land with a pick and a shovel, one tree per day; now they 're taking 100 yard swathes with machines.

The mines are where this has proven, Mr . Speaker. A

872 March 10, 1976 RESOLUTION 2 (MR. BARROW cont'd) ••••• year from now, two years, three years, there will be no mining as such. They'll be sitting in an armchair pushing buttons. You know, the work concept has gone aut. Another hundred years there 'll be no work to speak of, just a very very small amount, and there 's where the adjustment comes in, Mr. Speaker. This is not something new my honourable friend has suggested. Joe Borowski pushed his concept year after year and he experienced a jail term, Joe did.

And he said the people who work in the fields, the people who produced, were much happier and contented pris oners . And that's true. I had the misfortune, Mr . Speaker, to spend 28 days in de tention and we worked like ••• we worked hard. And we complained about this. But one part of it, it rained for two days, we were quite happy to get out and work. Work is what? What is work? You're producing something. It makes a happy person. The happiest people today are the people who are doing the most work. If you want some thing done, ask the busiest man_. Who carries the load on this side of the House?

The busiest man is my honourable friend the Minister of Mines. The busiest man. If you want something gQ to him. This is the work concept. Now I had an opportunity to visit Dorchester maximum security prison. -- (Interjection)-- Well the plumbing wasn't that good. I had the opportunity to go there and visit and the prisoners were not happy, they were very unhappy_ But the ones that were more happy than the unhappy ones were the people who were doing something . These two young fellows had demolished Volkswagens and made a complete new job of it. They were proud of them. other ones were doing leather work.

They weren't allowed outside the walls of course, they were kind of restricted. But they were doing leather work, bronze work, this type of thing. Opportunity for education was there. They were busy people in them circumstances . Now in my own area we have a place and I think this govern

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-3-32
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 3rd hansardpdf 32.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	599b6498e1f1d39d145e020e95e20ce6b4476786

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