Manitoba Committee Hansard — 81 and 1982 (Management Commission Committee, Sitting 1, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-ma1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 First Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS 31 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. A. Anstett Constituency of Ste. Rose VOL. XXX No. 1 -8 :00 p.m., MONDAY, 28 JUNE, 19 82. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COM MITTEE ON MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS Monday, 28 June, 19 82 Time - 8:00 p.m. MR. ACTING CLERK, R. Willis: We have a qu orum. The first order of busi ness is the election of a Chair man. Do I have any nominations? Are there any other nominations? Hearing none, I would ask Mr. Anstett to take the Chair . MR. CHAIRMAN, A. Anstett: The Committee will come to order. We have four bills before the Commit tee this evening, Bills No. 32, 33, 50 and 63. BILL NO. 33

AN ACT RESPECTING THE ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY FOR TAXATION IN MUNICIPALITIES IN 19 81 AND 19 82 MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a list of delegations on Bill No. 33,

An Act to Amend

An Act Respecting the Assessment of Property for Taxation in Municipali ties in 19 81 and 1982. Our usual practice has been to hear delegations first. I take it that's your will and pleasure that we should begin to hear the delegations. Is that agreed? (Agr eed) The Clerk is distributi ng a copy of the list. For those in the aud ience, the order of delegations is Mr. Michael Mercury, Mr. David Pearlman, Mr. Har ry Peters, Mr. R.O . (B ob) Doug las, Mr. G.D. Lowry, Mr. Abe Arno ld, Mr. Lloyd McG innis, Mr. Do nald McCarthy, Mr. Lorne Dyke and Mr. Roy Evans. We'll take them in that order. Mr.

Michael Mercu ry, please. If you have copies, Mr. Mercury, the Cle rk will take them and distri but e them. MR. M. MERCURY: Mr. Chair man, I have copies of certain material which I would like to distri bute to the members of this Co mmittee. Mr. Chair man, and members of this Committee, I am appearing before you today on Bill No. 33 which I sub mit ought more properly be entitled as

an Act taking away the rig hts of proper ty owners situa ted in the City of Winnipeg to appeal their tax assessments because that is the pith and su bstance of Bill33 which extends Bill 10 0. In other words, Bill 100, which was enacted two years ago, now intended to be extended by Bill 33 takes away the democratic right of every taxpayer in the City of Winnipeg to appeal his taxes. I' m appearing today, Mr. Chair man, on behalf of a number of persons.

I am appearing on behalf of the Downtown Winnipeg Association which rep resents 16 0 bus iness firms in downtown Winnipeg and I' ve circulated to the members of this Committee a list showing the firms which the Dow ntown Winnipeg Association represents. Now I am also appearing as counsel to a number of bus iness firms who appealed thei r 19 81 and 19 82 tax assessments and we're told by the cour ts that they had no right to appeal because that was the effect of Bill 100. I'm also appearing on behalf of a number of clients of the law firm of Aiki ns, MacAula y and Thor valdson of which I' m a partner.

I' ve been asked to speak on behalf of a number of these clients, and ju st to mention a few, the owners of the No rthstar Inn, the owners of the Paris Bui lding, Famous Players Ltd., the T. Eaton Co. Ltd. and Monarch Life Insu rance Co. All these persons, who I am representing, Mr. Chair man, are opposed in principle to Bill 33 because it denies the fundamental rig ht of a taxpayer. of his right to redress a wrong before any tri bunal whether that is a board of revision or a court of law.

The question I ask this Committee and this govern ment is this - it's a very important qu estion and I get worked up about it because I happen to be a lawyer and I happen to feel for the princip les of ju stice. One of these principles is this: Is it the intention of the Go vernment of Manitoba to continue to deny a tax payer in Winnipeg his democratic right to appeal his taxes, whether that person is an owner of commerc ial or residential property? That's the first question. Is that this gove rnment's intention, because that's exactly what Bill 33 intends to do? There's a second intention that I ask be stated.

Is it the intention of this government to perpetuate a dis crimination against a property owner of city lands as opposed to owners of property in rural Manitoba? Because in rural Manitoba, the property owner has a right to appeal his tax assessments. In the City of Winnipeg no property owner has a right to appeal his tax assessments. Now that strikes me as a fundamen tal wrong which has been going on for the last two years, which people have not wakened up to that fact, and this Bill 33 now purports, intends to extend the denial of one's right to appeal.

Let me gi ve you some background on this particular matter and why we firmly oppose Bill 33. In 1981 a number of property owners on Portage Avenue became alarmed at the high taxes that they were paying. The Downtown Winnipeg Association commissi oned a study to be done by the Montreal Trust Company to investigate the complaints and we thought that these proper ty owners may be ju st complaining because bus iness was bad, but we commissioned the Montreal Trust Company to do a study because vacancies were occurring, examination of properties, rentals, vacan cies were occurring at a very alarming rate.

What did we find? To our great sur prise we found that there appeared to be some very very gross inequi ties; gross inequities with the result that many estab lished bus inesses were going bankru pt; bus inesses were leaving and old buildings, such as the Paris Buildi ng, were on and is now on the auction block. The Paris Buil ding is up for sale on June 30th of this year. I need not point out to you the disastrous effect that this has had on Portage Avenue. So what did these people do?

They appealed their assessments; Eaton' s, The Bay, everybody appealed their assess ment because they thought there was a wrong. So they went to the Board of Revision and at the Board of Revision the City Solicitor got up and he recited Bill 100 to the Chair man of the Board of Revision, which is the only place you can go to appeal your assessments, and he said you're without jurisdic tion, you have no right to app eal, you can't hear these cases, you don't have a right to appeal, good-bye. Your assessments,

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 whether you like it or not, are frozen until the end of 19 82. Now. this came as a tremendous shock to a lot of these peo ple. So the board was ready to hear these appeals and these taxpayers were then confronted with an application by the City of Winnipeg Solicitor going to the cour t to determine whether in fact the legislation, Bill 100, which is now soug ht to be extended by Bill 33 did in fact deny the taxpayer his right to appeal. Page 1 of the material, I ask you to look at this. These were some of the highlights of the study that we saw.

The Clarendon Hotel land was and is assessed today at $30. 11 a squar e foot; the Nor th Star Inn at $25.0 1; and the Mall Hotel at $1 4.74. You might say, what's wrong with that? In the abstract, not hing, but they've had the mill rate. The Winnipeg Inn, $2.95; the Holiday Inn, $4.36; the Fort Gar ry Hotel, $2.80; and those three hotels are comp laining that they have high taxes and I know they do have high taxes but if those are high, the first three are in orbit.

Look at the office buildings, Bank of Montreal Bui lding, Portage and Hargrave, at $39; the Kensington Buil ding, $25. 40; the Paris Bui lding, which is on the auction block and you can pick it up for $1. 2 million this Wednesday, the 30th, $2 1.8 9. Look at the Richa rdson Buildi ng, the pivot of Winnipeg, $1 1.5 5 - talking land; Bestlands, $1. 18; Wawanesa Mu tual, $2.56; Mercantile Bank, $5.65; Imp erial Broadway Towers, $4.64; Manufactur ers Life $4. 53. All rig ht? These people went to cour t and the judge said this and this is the order which is app ended to this mate rial.

On page 1 of that order you have a list of all these proper ty owners, taxpayers.

They're too num erous to list, but people who've been paying taxes in Winnipeg for generations. some of them. lt says up on the application of the applicant, the City of Winnipeg, that the Board of Revision be prohi bited from proceedings, honour and respect of certain complaints made to the said Board of Revision by the respondents and so forth: 1. lt is ordered- I underline this- that the Board of Revision of the City of Winnipeg be prohi bited from hearing complaints made by the respondents to the said Board of Revision pursua nt to

Section such-and such of The City of Winnipeg Act. 2. lt is fur ther ordered that the Board of Revision is estopped. That's legalese for saying, is prevented, can't hear, by Bill 100 from considering any amend ments of valuations for assessments in respect to the respondent's complaints to the Board of Revisio n. So you have these taxpayers and not jus t these taxpayers. but there are other taxpayers this year who wanted to file their compla ints. They filed complaints and they were told by the Board of Revision, we can't hear you; there's a court decision pending.

That deci sion of Wilson, J .. which you see there, was appealed to the Cour t of Appeal and a week ago last Thur sday, Justice Matas, speaking for the full Cour t of Appeal, handed down his decision and said, "I agree with Justice Wi lson." it's imp lied, if you want your rights, you want to re-assert your rig hts, go back to the law makers who took them away. No w, why we are very concerned, Mr. Ch airman. and Mr.

Minister and members of this Comm ittee, is that we are not in a sense here - yes. we are dealing with a subject matter of assessments - but we are 2 dealing here with a very fundamental, democratic right which every citizen in this province and in this country has; and that is the right that if he feel aggrieved or wronged, whether that wrong is per ceived or real, that he has a right to go to some tribunal and say look, I have a wrong, I want to appeal an inequity.

If you read the legalese of Bill 100 and the legalese of Bill 33, that won't leap qut at you, but the cour ts have now interpreted Bill 100 and Bill33 which is now extending the provisio ns of denial of one's rig ht to appeal which is to the Board of Revisio n, of course, indefinitely, that takes away one's democratic right. Mr. Chai rman, I'm looking at you and all the members of this Comm ittee and if you live in the City of Win nipeg let me say to you that if you get your tax bill in 1983 and you don't like it, it's going to be too late.

If you want to appeal your assessment next year and this bill goes through, neither you nor any of your neighbours or any proper ty owner, whether comm er cial or residential in the City of Winnipeg, will have that right to appeal. I say that is so fundamentally wrong, it is beyond all sort of reason as to why in this free society we allow this. Now, I don't want to deal with a motherhood issue because it sounds like grandstanding, but it is a mother hood issue and you'll gi ve me some leeway here to tal� about this Char ter of Rights that this government endorsed whole-h eartedly.

We are living in a free and democratic society and we take pride in that and we have recently witnessed as Canadians from all parts of Canada the fact that we have now enshrined in the Char ter of Righ ts those democratic principles in which we all believe. Now I got from Pierre Elliott Trudeau -I think you all did- a docu ment called this Char ter of Rig hts. There's goi ng to be a great deal of litig ation over it, but I'd like to refer to some sections in this Char ter because I do think that Bill 10 0 and Bill 33, which extends Bill 100, violates the spi rit of this doCI.j!llent.

For the record. let me just qu ote a few paragraphs here. Paragraph (7 ) under the heading, Legal Rig hts: "E veryone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof, except in accords of the princip les of fundame ntal ju stice." What does fundamental ju stice mean? All lawyers will tell you fundame ntal ju stice is the right to appeal a wrong according to the laws of natural ju s tice to an impartial tribunal.

"Ever yone has the rig ht not to be sub jected to any cruel and unusual treat ment." Unusual treatment- why are the taxpayers of the City of Winnipeg treated differently from the tax payers of rural Manitoba? Paragraph 15(1): "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protec tion and equal benefit of the law without discrim ina tio n. " Aren't we entitled to appeal the way other peo ple are?

Section 32 (1 ): "This

chapter applies to the Legisla tur e and the Go vernment of each province in respect of all matters within the auth ority of the Legislatur e of each province. " The auth ority over property and civil rig hts - fund amental jus tice. If you read that Order, which the court pronounced, it says that "the Board of Revision of the City of Winnipeg be prohi bited from hearing com plaints. " The Board of Revision is a stop by Bill 100. That tells me in no uncertain terms that

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 neither you nor I can appeal what I consider to be a perceived wrong. So I ask you also, and I' ve appended material, an editorial which appeared in today's Free Press. I'm sur e most of you have read it.

If you haven't read it, I' ve taken the liberty of xerox ing today's editorial and it's entitled "Di sappearing Rig hts." Paragraph two at the bottom it says- and I agree wholeheartedly with the edit ors; I think we all agree wholeheartedly - "The aim of government should not be to press ahead in the old ways until the cour ts tell them to stop. lt should be to draft new legislatio n and harmony with a spir it of Canada's renewed Constituti on." Bill 33 doesn't do that.

Thir d paragraph from the end: "What the legisla tors mus t remember is that their job is not necessari ly to make the work of the authorit ies less burdensome.

Every time a bureaucr at is convenienced, the freedom of the individual and the protection that individual enjoys under our Constitution is dimin ished. lt is very convenient for the Assessment Departm ent not to have to face the music that there may be people who que stion their judgme nt. it's very convenient for them and it's very convenient for bureau crats to hide under the skir ts of the elected representatives of the people and get them to bel ieve that if they do certain things it's going to create chaos.

But we elect the legislators to exercise certain fundamental judgme nt and rig hts, and one of those rig hts and one of those judgme nt calls is the right of a taxpayer to redress a wrong." He's got to have that right and this is what you're doing with Bill 33, as the cour t says, they are prohi bited from proceeding, prohi bited from hearing complaints. Since when in a dem ocratic society does law come in to say that you can't appeal? I say to you and I appeal to your good consci ence, Mr. Chai rman, members and Mr.

Minister, why should any governm ent be afraid that ju stice may be done through the appeal process. What do we have to fear by the appeal procedure? Sur ely governments should be setting standards; surely civil servants should be made to account for their failure to perform their stat utory duties. The law of this province says it's your Act, your law; but the city assessor every three years has a statutory · duty to revalue pro perty in the Ci ty of Winnipeg and there are other statutory dutie s for the provincial assessors.

In 19 57 was the last time the assessor of the Cit y of Winnipeg ever performed a statutory duty; 19 57 should have had eight valuatio ns done in that time. There have been six governments. Who is watch ing that assessor to do his duty? Taxpayers are led to believe that those statutory officers are doing their work; that's what we're paying them for. They look at the books, they read the legisla tio n and they assume that statutory officers appoi nted by this Government by Order-in-Council are doing their homewo rk. Why do we let them get away with it?

Sur ely we taxpayers have a right to ask for an account ing and if they'r e not going to do their dut y to set the rocord straight and to do the equal ization, then that respon sibility falls up on the taxpayer himself and he has the right to go to the Board of Revisio n and say, "Look, the statutory officer didn't do his job. I want you to do his job. That's why we have these appeal provisi ons." 3 Now we're saying to the taxpay er, "i t's okay, Mr.

Assessor, you didn't do your job." But now that these people want to appeal we're now go ing to take their right of appeal away from them - not only my rig ht, everybody's right in this room if you're living in Winnipe g. I'm at a loss for words as to why after six Provincial Gov ernments we haven't had a proper assessment. You know, two World Wars were fought in less time if you stop to think about it. Does that indicate gross incom petence, negligence? What are taxpayers get ting in return for their money? Does that amount to a denial of rights, favoritism, lack of political integrity , lack of courage?

We might lose some votes here; we might pick some up here but we might have a lot of noise here. Now, I' ll be a couple more minutes. I hear the excuse and it's a very lame duck excuse, "Oh well, the Weir Comm ission. it's all because of the Weir Comm issio n and his report. We have to consider the Weir Comm ission Re port." That's another hoax which is being foisted up on all of us about the Weir Commission Repo rt. I have read the Weir Commission Report and I made a subm ission to the Ci ty of Win nip eg on behalf of the Downtown Winnipeg Associa tion about the Weir Comm ission Repor t.

The Weir Comm ission Report is a report which pur ports to revolutionize the tax assessment system in this provi nce. Up until now we're talking about , for examp le- ju st a couple of examples: land at full value; buildings, two-third's value; agricultur e buildings, exempt. Weir says, "Go to full market value." Wei r says, "Let's go at buildings fu ll value." Weir says, "Go to market val ue." Weir says this, Weir says that and this Legislatur e will debate ad infinitum the pros and the cons of the Weir Commis sion Repo rt.

Whether you adopt all, whether you adopt some or whether you adopt none, that's your prerogativ e; you can debate that ad infinitu m, but in the meantime there is a system presently in existence. There is a tax system. When we pay our taxes today, there is a sys tem and there are appeals provisi ons in that system.

What you have done is you have lifted the appeal provi sions in effect from that system; you have taken them out and you say, "We're going to put these on the shelf, we're going to postpone it indefinitely, giving us time to think it all out." In the meantime, prop erty owners are being denied the right to appe al. In the meantime, the owners of the Clarendon Hotel are assessed at $30, the Winnipeg Inn at $3 and you wond er why people are screaming to renovate downtown. We're spending $1 00 million of your money, the city money and Federal Go vernment money, all in total, to do someth ing for the downtown.

You know you don't have to do much if you'd just allow the people, give them the law to which they're entitled. Therefore I submi t, Mr. Chai rman - it was bad enough that we hacJ Bill 1 00 - Bill 33 , which has the effect of extending Bill 100, continues to deny the taxpayers of the Ci ty of Winnipeg, all taxpayers, a right to appeal their assessments and that's wrong. What is particularly wrong is that for some reason or other, the bur eau crats will let you know why, they giv e rural Manito bans the right to appeal but they deny that right, under Bill33, to the taxpayers of the City of Winnipeg.

I think that's wrong and that should not �roceed.

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 Mr. Chai rman, I think it's wrong in principle and I would respectfully request Mr. Adam, the Minister, to withdraw that bill. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questio ns from the Com mittee for Mr. Mercu ry? Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you, Mr. Chai rperson. Mr. Mercu ry, I thank you for your presentation and I take it that you're certainly not impressed with the recom mendations of the Assessment Review Comm ittee. MR. M. MERCURY: There are some that I wou ld take issue with, but you and I, Mr. Minister, can debate those ad infinitum.

There are political consequences to those; you are politicia ns here and I under stand the political realities. I can give you my thought s on the Weir Comm is sion, but perhaps this isn't the time for it. What I'm saying is that, while we are debating this, there are people who are going bankru pt, people have a right to redress a wrong and I say let them appeal. What's so wrong about redressing a wrong before a tribunal? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Chair man, there were two recommendations in the repor t in regard to extending the freeze which was introduced by the previous adminis tration in their wisdom.

There's a problem out there and we are well aware that there are ineq uities and that they must be addressed as soon as possible. We are very well aware of the problems that are out there and I believe the previous administration, as well, recognized the problems that crept into the sys tem over the years under the present system.

I believe that is one of the reasons because some of the local governm ents -I supp ose probably the City of Winnipeg - requested that the freeze be put on and the previous adm inistration, in their wisdom, com missi oned a report to do a review on the entire assessment in the Province of Manitoba. We now have the report before us which was su pposed to have been pres ented to us shortly after the new year. My interp reta tion of shortly after the new year would be sometime in January.

The report was not received until April which is four months after the new year, which did not give us sufficie nt time to bring in legislation at this Session. What we have indica ted wou ld be that, first of all, if we are to impr ove the system under which all these inequi ties crept in, we have to do a thorou gh review of what has been presented. Now there have been many, many briefs presented to the Weir Comm ittee and what I have asked my staff to do is to study the repo rt, an in-depth study of it. For your information, we are also doing assessments based on the recomme nda tions at the present ti me.

We are going to do a numb er of assessments in rural Manitoba and in urban areas in order to be fully aware of what the implications are of those recomme ndations so that we know what we are doing and so that we are not creating problems fort he future, but we are eliminating them. We have to allow staff time to be in a position to administer any changes that we are going to implement. I don't warit to go into the repor t section-by-section. 4 I don't think that would serve any pu rpose here.

The way we have worded the present legislation allows, by Order-in -Counc il, that the freeze could be lifted within a year, two years, whatever is requir ed to bring in the legislation and plus allow the staff to put in place mechanism or the administration to carry out the leg islation that we're bringing in. Therefore, we have said that we will study the repo rt, that mem bers will be briefed, Cabinet will be briefed and Mem bers of the Legislative Assembly will be briefed.

Then we will be able to have some feedback; we will hold hearings later on this summ er, perhaps in the fall and that we'll be able to advise the local government and group s like your association that you represent here, exactly what is going to happen or what should we be implement ing in that recom mendation. We do want to move ahead as soon as possi ble to rectify the ineq ui ties that have crept into the system which we don't like, which you don't like and which nobody likes, the previous admin istration either.

But we want to do it in a way that is as exped itiously as pos sible, but also in a pru dent manner so that we don't build in a worse system than what we have now. Bu t I would ask you, sir, before I termin ate my qu estions, I presume that when Bill 1 00 was introdu ced, you made a presentation then, did you not? MR. M. MERCURY: No, Mr. Minister, it's a funny thing about Bill 100. That Bil1 100 came into law in July and the time for appealing your assessments, the notice was put in the papers in February before the bill even came into existence.

In February there always appears every year a little notice in the paper that says the assessment roll is prepared, if you want to appeal you r assessments you have to file a a letter of complaint to the Board of Revision sometime in March, about mid-March. This law came into effect after the time when all rig hts for appeal had expired and the governm ent took the position, well, people who didn't appeal their 19 80 assessment are out of luck.

Well if you would have told me in July, if you would have told me in Februar y that if I couldn't appeal my assessments this year, that I wouldn't be able to appeal them for all su bseque nt years, that's after the fact and that again runs contrary to the principles of natural ju stice. Let me tell you somethi ng else. We've had Vancouver people come to Manitoba wanting to buy Manitoba proper ty. A case in poin t was the owner of the North Star Inn; he bought the No rth Star Inn and he has properties in Vancouver.

He bought the North Star Inn, started to renovate it, looked at his tax bill and he looked at the Winnipeg Inn's tax bill and they said, "My Go d, this is someth ing that's crazy here." This was a year-and-a half ago. He said, "Appeal the assessments." He didn't own the proper ty in 1980; he got it in 19 81 and now he wanted to appeal his assessment he finds that the door is slammed on him. There was anot her Vancouv erite came into Winnipeg , he looked at the Paris Bui ld ing; that was up for sale. He tried to make the thing go; he's going to lose about $1 million.

He wants to look at his taxes and appeal his taxes and he says, "My God, what's happened here." People com ing into Manitoba and they find this sit uatio n that there's a freeze on, they find that intolerable.

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 Now, it's one thing to debate the Weir Com mission and whether you're goi ng to change the system, but in the meantime you're collecting taxes under an old system and there are appeal pro visions under that old system. You can change yo ur system, but if you've got one in place there's still appeal provisions under that syste m. We've got a Budget co ming down tonig ht. No one ever sug gested that because we may change the tax laws in the future we're conside ring maybe Car ter's coming of tax reform, but you can't appeal the law as it presently exists.

That's convoluted logic and I don' t follow that one mom ent. We can debate the pros and cons in certain aspects of the Weir Comm ission Re port ad infinitum and I'm saying to you, take your tim e on that. But today buildings are assessed at two-thirds value, land at full value, not at market, and there's a system in place. Why can't we, if those are the rules, appe al according to the rules that you are collecting the taxes on?

If next year, the year after or the year after that, you change it and you say look it, you'r e going to pay on full value, that's fine; but in the mean tim e when you're collecting taxes on partial value and under this system, fine, let us app eal under that sys tem; you're collecting the taxes. HON. A. ADAM: Yes, the fact remains that whether the bill came in July or too late for the appeal process, Mr. Mercur y, there was a bill there that said we are going to take the right-of-way to some people, the right of app eal. MR. M.

MERCURY: All of them in Winnip eg, but it doesn't say so; but it's been interp reted as that now. HON. A. ADAM: Why was no representation made then as is being made now? That's what I don' t understand. MR. M. MERCURY: Mr. Adam, the fact of the matter is that there are very few people who are sophis ticated in this communi ty to recognize the effect of that bill. As a matter of fact, Mr. Nu gent and I argued agai nst that bill in court because we didn' t think it went that far. The bill talks about mai ntaining a level of value; that · doesn't mean freezing an assessment.

The Ci ty of Winn ipeg argues that maintaining a level of value means an actual freeze on every partic ular pie ce of proper ty. We argued unsu ccessfully in a Cour t of Appeal that meant that if the city assessor had a level of value of downtown property at 50 percent of market then we, the com plainants, would have a right to come into court and ask to enjoy that same level. If we were at a higher level, we would have a right to com plain; in other words, we weren't upset ting the whole assess ment system. We said, if you'r e assessing this fellow on that basis, we want the same. Why should I pay his taxes?

Cour t of Appeal and the Cit y Solicitor tell otherwise and they said you can't appeal your assessment. I can't appeal my hou se taxes; that's what it means. Nob ody in Metropolitan Winnip eg can appeal his hous e taxes unless you tear down the hous e or unless you put an apartment block on it or unless you have some agri cultural lands and you zoned it C2.

But nobody in Winnip eg and the fact of the matter is that 5 when I say this to this Comm ittee, you're prob ably shocked to hear this, that you can't appeal you own taxes and if yo u talk to the Ch amber of Com merce, who read this, they weren't aware of it either. You talk to all property owners, real estate people and people who have vested interests, who own property, they're amazed at this; but when the word comes out that this gov ernment intends to continue taking away your right to appeal your house taxes, I can tell you right now that there is goi ng to be a hue and outc ry.

Ther e would be a hue and outcry. That's just so wrong. HON. A. ADAM: I want to advise you that should the bill be proceeded with, it will only be on as long as it's necessary to bring in another system to replace the system that we have now. We intend to move as speedy as possi ble. MR. M. MERCURY: Mr. Minister, can I ju st make one comment on that. I appreciate that, but let me say this, every year the reevaluation of properties in Winnip eg has not been done.

The political problem has grown and it will grow and it will grow and it's grow ing and successive governments have been very reluctant to tackle this problem simp ly because of the fact that it does have serious political consequences. Go vern ments have shied away from it and the former Ci ty Assessor shied away from it. The chickens have come home to roost now and we see bank ruptcies and fore closu res.

When you have that div ergence and it keeps gro wing and gro wing and gro wing and the mill rate escalating and escalating and escalating, finally the revolution is going to come when you 'r e going to say we've got to equalize this. Those people who haven't been payi ng their fair share are going to scream and the qu estion is, when are they going to be told what is the reality. The longer you keep it in abeyance, the longer it goes on. I'm saying the:' the easiest way, I think , for any political politician to get out of this mess is to let the court settle it, let the Board of Revision do it; it's them.

You don' t like it, appeal it. If they appeal and settle, that's fine, because it's going to take a great deal of political integrity and guts to stand up and say, "L et's be fair." HON. A. ADAM: We're going to attempt that, Mr. Mercu ry. MR. M. MERCURY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. Mr. Mercur y, you recognize in this legislation - I've been here since 1966 - the review of the assessment prac tice was long overdue in the provin ce. There was cer tai nly need for us to tackle it and it's a difficult prob lem.

I can certainly associate myself with yo ur concerns that you're expressing to this Comm ittee tonigh t, that somehow the legislature should gr ant the peo ple of this province the right to appeal their assessments until the new Act is proclaimed, if and when that date comes forth. I can't recall Bill 1 00 and I think you gave us some answers why there maybe were no representat ions from the pub lic. I wasn't on this Comm ittee, I don't think , when Bill 10 0 was

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 brought forth. Ho w can we as legislators now correct this alleged discrepancy? What would you suggest that we do in this Comm ittee tonight? MR. M. MERCURY: What I sugge st that you do in this Comm ittee is to let the bill- it was inaccurately called a bill- it shou ld've been called

an Act, not a bill. People talk about a bill and they think it's a bill presently being debated and I think that's not being fair with the pub lic. Call it

an Act; it's

an Act to freeze assessments. it's

an Act to take away the rights of appe al; it's to susp end appeal right s. That's what it is. That was passed at the urgings of Waiter Weir because the Ci ty Assessment Departme nt had done its home work in 19 75 and did what it had to do and they have the assessment roll fixe.d. it's there. Ask any assessor; it's there. it's there to be implemented. Waiter Weir said in his first report to you, to the Conservat ive Government at that time, ju st go easy on this, if I introduce this, there could be political conse quences. lt was a political docume nt. I'm not talking politics.

I'm saying to you that bill was there for a limited time, 19 81-19 82. We swallowed those ineq ui ties for 25 years plus two or 25 years -now a qu arter of a century. We say let the bill die. So what happens if it dies? Let's see what happens if it dies. Next year, you'll probably have the same property owners on Portage Avenue app ealing and there were 13 other taxpayers in the City of Winnipeg appealing. There were some 72 properties, plus 13 . That wasn't a massive amount of appeal. Portage Avenue proper ty owners were the ones and you can see the discrepan cies here; they cry out for ju stice.

What' ll happen is, it'll go before the Board of Revis ion, and the Board of Revision may adjust them and adjust those frontages on Portage Avenue - not the side streets - ju st the Portage Avenue frontages between Colo ny to Notre Dame, that's all. They have the right to appeal those assessments and the Board of Revision will correct it.

Now, if you want to take your time in debating whether in future you should allow values to be at cu rrent market values or whether they should be at a different standard or whether you should assess a buil ding at a full value or at two-thirds value, that's fine, take your time on that. But in the meantime there are certain peo ple here who are being dama ged. They're being severely damaged. Mr. Ron McCr ae who spent over a million dollars, he's losing a million dollars and he's also been sued on his covenant. You'r e destroying this person. He came from Vancouver. Another person who bought the Nor thstar Inn.

That's just two examples that I person ally am aware of. So let it die; it was meant to die at the end of 1982. Let it die. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Mercury, in your com ments you mentioned the Montreal Trust study. Is that public information? MR. M. MERCURY: Well, it's not public. I have a copy here and you can see all the discrepancies here. You'll see MR. W. McKENZIE: We have parts of it here tonig ht, I gue ss, have we or . ? 6 MR. M. MERCURY: I just got some glaring examples, but I have the whole copy. I' ve got a copy here and you can look at it. MR. W. McKENZIE: Oh , I'm ju st wondering, Mr.

Chairma n, if I may, if members of the Comm ittee could be favou red with it of the study for to help us. MR. M. MERCURY: Sur e, I have lots of copies. MR. W. McKENZIE: Well, give it to the Cl erk. The Clerk, he'll look after it. That's all the questio ns I have, Mr. Cha irman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. McKen zie. Any further questio ns? Mr. Go urlay. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. Mr. Mercury MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gour lay, could you pull the mike over ju st a bit please? MR. D. GOURLAY: . ..

I appr eciate the time you've taken to relay some of the serious problems that Bill 100 has created to many of the bus iness people in Winnipeg and also the proposed Act of Bill No. 33 to freeze the assessments and right of appeal indefinitely. I gather from your comme nts that the Weir Com mission recommendations could be implemented by letting Bill 100 die as you say at the end of '82 and not continuing on with any kind of a freeze. Now, what kind of problems would you foresee that creating in view of the fact that the Weir Comm ission has recom mended another extension of one year? MR. M.

MERCURY: I didn't realize that the Weir Comm ission was recommending a further extension of one year. I don't know on whose recommendation this Bill 33 was; it certainly wasn't the City of Win nipe g. lt wasn't their recommendation; it wou ld have to be the administration or this governm ent. But there has to be the government, of cou rse, there is no rea son why the appeal procedu res ought be susp ended pending your deliberation of a new system. There's an old system in place. Take your time on the Weir Comm ission.

Study it, discuss it, debate it thorough ly; go back to the people and ask them what they think about this, etc. But , sooner or later, you'r e going to have to face the music that you'r e going to have to correct these inequitie s. There are some ineq uities in downtown; there are other ineq uitie s in the Ci ty of Winnipeg. You give that right of appeal to the people living in rural Manitoba today. You didn't take it away from them, but you took it away from the people in Winnipeg, all proper ty owners in Winnipe g, residential prop erty owners in Winnipeg.

And I say, you can continue to debate Weir, but that's got nothing to do with the existing system allow ing the appeal procedure to go forward under the existing system. lt may cause some bureaucrats some work. lt will cause bur eaucr ats work, but I'm not here to speak for them.

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 MR. D. GOURLA Y: Well, I can apprecia te what you'r e saying, Mr. Mercur y. Am I reading you right in that you were saying that the Weir Commission recommenda tions can be implemented and that the actual assess ment freeze in a sense could continue, but the right of appeal should be another issue? MR. M. MERCURY: No, I am saying MR. D. GOURLAY: They're one and the same thing, are they not? MR. M. MERCURY: No, they're not. Well the . MR. D. GOURLAY: The way the cour ts have looked at it. MR. M.

MERCURY: The courts have now said to the taxpayers of Winnipeg, you can't appeal your assess ment. That's what Justice Wilson's order says. The Boar d of Revisio n which is the only place you can go to appeal an inequi ty, they are prevented. Justice Wil son is clear. You got a copy of the order to prevent it from listening to that. All right, that's what Bill 100 does. And I say, why put that roadblock in the way? So it means that there might be, the Board of Revi sio n may have to listen to some appeals. So what? lt may mean that some of the city assessors will have to come down and explain things. So what?

What if they bring in the new assessment which they have, bring it in. So what? But you can continue to debate Weir. I don't know, Mr. Go urlay, if you live in the Ci ty of Winnipeg, perhaps you do, I'm not sur e where you live. But it certainly would strike you wrong, would it not, if one year you finally got fed up, you though t your taxes were high, times are tough and you'd better start investigating this tax? So you start snooping around and find out what your neighbour s are paying and you look at the value of his house, the value of that person's hous e and you say, by God, I think I'm over paying.

I'm paying his taxes: I' m goi ng to file an appeal. Now, you may be wrong, but sur ely you have that right to go and complain. That's all I' m saying. MR. D. GOURLAY: I appreciate the cause that you're bring ing forward toni ght and I don't have any further qu estions at this point. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further qu estions from the Committee? Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: One more, Mr. Chair man, if I may. I'm sure, Mr. Me rcury, you'r e familiar with the Weir docum ents that are now on our desks.

The legis lative requi rements that he spelled out in this report, he mentions the three types of legislation required to implement the Committee's recommend ations, can you su pport that part of it, the first three? MR. M. MERCURY: I must confess that I' m not famil iar with that doc ument in that detail. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. 7 Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Just a point of clarification to Mr. Mercury. The reason that the freeze was introduced by Bill 1 00 by the previous administration was because of the interim report. lt was presented by the Weir Committee.

In their first interim report, it was recommended that the freeze be extended because of the fact that they did not feel that they could complete their work within the requir ed time that would enable the Go vernment of the Day to come toward with changes. I think that's the reason why Bill 100 is there. We're faced with the same problem of having to look at and study the recommend ations in order that we put something in place that will remove all these ineq uitie s in the future, not only for a year or two, but for years to come, if possi ble.

That is the reason why we are proceeding cautiously, so that we want people out there to understand what's happening as well. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercury. MR. M. MERCURY: Well, I would say I wasn't aware of Weir's recommendations. I wasn't aware that Bill 100 was going through and I think, accepting them in the first place was wrong. I think the Legislature did a great disservice to the taxpayers of Manitoba by accepting Weir's recommend ations. Weir said in his report that if the city assessor goes ahead and brings his assessment, he's supposed to do it every three years.

If we let him do his duty, you know what's going to happen? We're going to have a shift, he says to the government, of taxation from urban to rural. Being a rural-oriented gover nment, I can see politic s entering into this at somebody's expense. I've read his report, his recommend ations. There's going to be a shift in taxation. Oh boy, we can't do that, there's politics here. He was a former Premier of Mani toba. He could feel the pulse of things.

Well, all right, if I were a politicia n, I might be con cerned about those things, but I' m a taxpayer and I' ve got my taxpayer's hat on and I say where's the justice in that? MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further qu estions? Mr. Plohman. MR. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chair man, is it your understanding that the City of Winnipeg is not in favour of an extended freeze on this Act, extension of Bill 100? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercury. MR. M. MERCURY: My understand ing - I spoke to the Executive Policy Committee - I got a very favourable recepti on. ! was told later that I heard Mr.

No rrie being quo ted as saying that there's got to be a limitation put on this. Well, I don't know if I accept that because we've had a two-year freeze. Now the bill is intended to perpetu ate this indefinitely. If the bill goes forward, perhaps the government in its wisdom by September - because it's Order-in -Council - if you read the bills, they cancel a bill at any time. Now, that could n.ean before the end

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 of this year. I would like to think that the gover nment would not extend the provisi ons of Bill 100. Bu t what you're doing, gentlemen, with all due respect, is losing sight of what I perceive to be a very fundamental, democratic right of every citizen in this province; that is, the right to redress a wrong, whether that wrong is real or perceived. So you'r e going to have to wrestle with principles of ju stice here.

Now, that may cause inconvenience to the politi cians. lt may cause some inconvenience to the admin istration , but I say to you and I appeal to you all, your sense of fairness, what does that really matter when we're dealing with fundamental princip les? We don't live in Argentina; we live in Canada . We live by a rule of law, the right of redress. I know of no case where people have been denied access to the cour ts or any tri bunal, except in emer gency situatio ns. We saw it when they brought in The War Measures Act in an emergency. This isn't an emergency.

So you really have to answer you r ques tion here. Are we, on one side, going to convenience ourselves with the problems that the administration may have or the politicia ns may have on one hand, with the princ iple of jus tice on the other hand that says that everybody's got a right to be heard? That's what you have to settle in your own mind. MR. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr.

Cha irman, I would ju st like to ask the gentleman whether he believes that the Ci ty of Winnipeg has so many inequitie s in the assessment structures as it now is that if this appeal procedure were to be opened up again at this time that it wou ld indeed tie up the board and only go through a few cases and certainly cou ldn't get to all of the appeals that would come before it? Would you feel that would be the case? MR. M. MERCURY: Yes, No. 1, I don't think that wou ld be the case; and second ly, I say, so what?

If there is a wrong, just because we're going to tie up the cou rts for a long period of time, someb ody's going to say to me I haven't got a right to be heard. Where am I living? So what? If they didn't do their duty for 25 years, they're damn well going to listen to me. Let them stay night and day, and night and day, because I'm paying their taxes and they have those job s because of tax payers. If they're not doing their job, then we should fire all of them. If you extend a freeze, why have an Assessm ent Departme nt in the first place? Why do we have people at Fort Street?

They haven't done an assessment eight ti mes in 25 years. They should have done it eight ti mes; they haven't done it at all. No w, we've giv en them a holiday for '8 1, '82 and indefinite ly. Why not let them go? What are they doing? So I don't care and I'm not sympathetic with the answer, well, you know, we might tie up the cour ts. lt might throw everything into chaos.

Ju stice is being done and sooner or later it's going to be done and it better be done by the cour ts or the Board of Revisio n rather than have all the politi cians in Manitoba besieged by letters with taxpayers and everybody saying what are you doing to me, my taxes have gone up, etc., etc? So I don't care; that doesn't appeal to me. They can sit there and they can ju stify their lack of doing their du ty. it's about time they started to work. 8 MR. J. PLOHMAN: One final questio n.

Would you believe then, it se ems to me tha t you do agree that there are an awful lot of cases that would come for ward, that pressure from the Cit y of Winnipeg may have had someth ing to do with the origin al freeze in the first place? MR. M. MERCURY: No, I'm saying to you that my gu t feel is that I asked Miss Carol Iv es today, who is the secretary of the Board of Revisio n, how many assessment appeals did you have this year which you couldn't hear because of Bill 100, apart from these Portage Avenue property owners? The answer was 13. Thi rteen, that's all.

You can check it yourself; 13 people besides the property owners who got the butt end of ju stice in this case that went to the Cour t of Appeal. Thirteen have had their right s denied; yhey said we can't go forward. Tho se 13 have a right to be heard. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Mercury, I apprecia te your comme nts and your conce rns. Giv en the fact that, say we proceed with Bill 33 in its present form, do you think that is a satisfactory way to proceed now? I know that you're opposed to it.

You'd like to see it with drawn, but given the fact that we go forward with it, is it satisfactory to you that we're sincere in wanting to change the system and we will be addressing the problem as soon as poss ible? Are you satisfied with the bill as it is? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercury. MR. M. MERCURY: Mr. Minister, I am very convinced in your sincerity and the sincerity of everybody in this roo m. That is not the issue.

I know the previous gov ernment and this government is trying to do some thing in an area which is rather sophistic ated and most people in this room know very little about, except perhaps the Deputy Minister and his assistant. I don't mean any disrespectful to you, Mr. Minister, but assessments are very very difficult to understand.

I appr eciate and all of us here, all these taxpayers that I represent, appr eciate that you are sincerely trying to do the right thing and I'm only trying to assist you because I recognize you have a polit ical problem too and I say that the best way to handle that is to allow these appeals to go forward in the futu re. The world isn't going to come to an end and if somebody has to stay a few days over or if some ju dge is going to have to listen to this, so be it. I apprecia te your sincerity; there's no question about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: The recommendations gave us two alternatives.

One was to extend the freeze for one year and the other one was to extend it up to 1987. Ok ay? MR. M. MERCURY: Oh my go odness, oh my goodness. HON. A. ADAM: I chose to leave it open-ended in the event that we could not have everything in place

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 within one year and not wanting to come back with another bill ask ing for another extension. That's really the idea behind having it open-ended, but giv en the fact that we will probably be going ahead with this bill, do you think that it's satisfactory the way we've got it worded; that's what I' m trying to get now. I know that you're opposed to it. MR. M.

MERCURY: Well, I' m opposed to it in princip le and when you say 1987, I can tell you right now I would embrace the bill as it presently stands rather than have it in 1987, unless of cour se we get at the same time some commitment from the government that they're going to close the Assessment Dep art ment because they won't have anything to do. HON. A. ADAM: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further qu estions? Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chair man. Mr.

Mercur y, these assessment practices on downtown land, how long has that been going on - the Clarendon and Winnip eg Inn - have you any idea how long? MR. M. MERCURY: 1957. Let me tell you somethin g about that. 1957, we remember Portage and Main sup ported a parking lot and a Coca Cola sign. Remem ber that, Portage and Main, wher e the Richardson building is? Where Trizec now is, we had the old CPR building . it wasn't very good land, but a lot has taken place. There is a change and there is a form of tax freeze down there now keep ing those assessments in place. Since 1957, we saw Polo Park develop.

The land under Polo Park is assessed at $1 .50 a squ are foot; the land under Eaten's store frontage is $44 a squar e foot; the land under the Char leswood Shopping Centre is about 50 cents a squar e foot. I'm doing leases in my office and I can tell you that properties on Portage Avenue are gett ing about - well, there's a store there for rent that I' m aware of that's $6 net net and the assessed value of the land is $1 5.00. Out at the Cha rleswood Shopping Centre, they're getting $1 4 to $20 · net net net net net, if you all know what net net net net net means.

I can tell you at Polo Park that a friend of mine who has a shop ther e is paying $55 a squar e foot on land that's assessed at $1 .50. In downtown Winnip eg, where you have land assessments rangin g from $1 5 up to $44 and Eaten's corner is about $60 a squar e foot, you don't get anywhere near those assessments. You take a look at the lands on Broadway here that have been assessed years ago at the rates that you see. You see all the development on Broadway.

Land on Broadway and land on Portage Avenue is selling roughly per squ are foot at about the same amount and you find that the owners of the Kensi ngton Bui lding were forced to put up a building because of a fire, they're $25.60 a square foot and the owners of, for example, the Im perial Towers are assessed at $4 and something a squ are foot. And you are trying to rent out your building, you've got you compet ition down here and I' m not saying that this person down here is not paying enough in taxes. He probab ly is. He's 9 proba bly paying a heck of a lot in taxes.

We're all payi ng too much taxes; but su rely those few owners there, they have a right to redress. The trou ble with Portage Avenue, gentlemen, is this: all those building s were put up long before, years ago, and none of them have any mortgages on them. If tiley had to service a mortgage, you wouldn't have any development. They would all be in foreclosu re. We see what's happened to Mr. Golden's property. We see what's happening to the Paris Building . They're in foreclosure because they had mortgages on them. They can't afford the taxes.

Where old Zoratti's used to be and is down, that property has been vacant. it's for sale; it's land. That little pie ce of 44 feet of land, the taxes are $1 5,000 a year. Ben Moss Jewellers, Portage and Dona ld, which is the bench mark for assessments in Manitoba, that property, the bench mark, the most valuable land in Manitoba in the City of Wi nnipeg, the heart, the basis, the pole for assessment is the corner of Portage and Oonald.

The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce was vacant, Ben Moss Jewellers was vacant and the owners of the property, Canuck Properties, had to pay for that little corner piece of pro perty $44,000 a year in taxes and it was vacant. So the only people who would go to rent that prop erty were people who wanted to put in an arcade, but the Ci ty threw up its hands- we're not going to allow arcades, not any more. So on the one hand they say to the person, "Yo ur taxes are high; we're going to bleed you to death. We don' t care about you. We'll freeze your assessment and it's too bad.

We're going to have to debate Weir; we're going to have to do all this." In the meantime you're dying, but at the same time we're not going to let you rent so you can get enough money to pay you r taxes. Now, what logic is that? You go the Cit y. They say, "i t's too bad; it's the pro vince." You go to the province and the province says, "Well, that's what the city wants." Then you get the other answer. They say, "Well, it's all the statutory officers, the assessors. We can't do anything with the assessor." So where are you?

I think the responsi bility here lays with those who make the laws; those peo ple are you rselves and I appeal to your sense of ju stice. We're not dealing with conven ience of the admin istration of the Weir Com mission . We're dea ling with the fundamental princip le of justice. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further que stions? Hearing none, on behalf of the Committee, Mr. Mer cury, thank you very much for app 'earing tonig ht. MR. M. MERCURY: Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next delegation is Mr. David Pearl man. Mr. Pearlman. MR. D. PEARLMAN: Thank you. Mr.

Chair man, gen tlemen, if I may, I' m in a similar predicament as Eatons and the Bay, so to speak, only my pro blems financially are a little different than their's. I' ll giv e you an example. I own a pie ce of property at Donald and Stradbrook, which is across the street from !he Squash Clu b. I

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 decided that the taxes were too much on the land, so what I did was on Apri16 , 198 1, I sent a letter to the Ci ty of Winn ipeg Assessment Department telling them very briefly that I had received two tax bills but I had only had one Certificate of Title on the land and in my opi nion, I was being taxed double and I wanted to appeal the assessment. Now, I received a letter back April 9, 1981, saying to the effect: too bad, you'r e out of ti me, come back next year. I asked them if they wou ld please leave the letter on file and consid er it as an appeal for the next year.

They wou ld not do so. They told me I would have to look throug h the news papers. find out when the appeal was and come back again. No w, very briefly what I did and I did launch the appeal. I launched the appeal this year and I did it on the basis in part that I had two tax bills. The taxes on one-half of the proper ty were $536. 77; on the other half of the proper ty, they were $622.32. No w, I have actually complai ned about the taxes on the pro perty for several years and because I have not been satisfied with the dealings with the City of Winnip eg, I haven't paid the taxes. I' ve kept it out of tax sale.

The taxes owing on one-half of the parcel today are $1 ,947.89; on the other half parcel, they are $1 ,7 95.38. No w, I purchased this piece of property on or about 1970. At the time there were buildings on it- they've been taken off - and in 1970 the approximate valuation for the land was about $1 ,000.00. Righ t now, I have on the land $1 ,947 plus $1 ,7 95 owing on taxes. Now, I'm here to oppose the bill. I'm impressed by the Minister saying, "We're going to do it fast," and that's fine, except that I take the view, as did Mr. Mercu ry, it's not good enough fast.

If you're to do it tomorr ow, I believe that Mr. Mercur y is right when he speaks about the Bill of Rig hts, that the bill is not legal. Now Mr. Mercur y has gone to the Cour t of Appeal and has lost. He can on behalf of 160 busi nessmen go to the Supr eme Cour t of Cana da. I cannot, because I have no status in that action to do so. Supp osedly, if you pass the bill, I may be able to go to cour t and qu ash it up on the basis of the Bill of Ri ghts. But if I were to do that, that's ask ing me to really get involved the way I have chosen to do it and you may find Mr.

Mercury advising his clients to do it not to pay the taxes. You can end up with a Californ ia tax strike. I don't intend to pay the taxes until this matter is rectified. Now, if you take 1 year, 2 years. 3 years, they are going to conti nue adding on to my tax bill what to me is an excessive amount of taxes. Now, if you change the assessment three years down the line, five years down the line, I will not get any benefit for the reduced assessment at that time. Now, I first attempted to appeal, I was a few days out.

I then, informed the Ci ty of Winn ipeg that I wanted them to take a look at what I felt was com parable land also owned by me. it is smaller, but I wanted them to base it up on ratio and proportion. Let us assume that the amount of land is even a quar ter. The other two pieces of land result in taxes of $67.91 and $42.03. The Assessment Department wou ld not look at that. I went to the Assessment of the Board of Revision - the land that I'm referring to, owned by myself and my wife, is R3 - what they did was they gave me com parables dealing with C2.

No w, I am dealing with the Ci ty of Winnip eg assessors and I feel that they're not dealing 10 in a fair manner. These are the people and we have the city assessor who, in my opinion and I say this respectfu lly, was negligent for 25 yea rs. Not only was he negligent, he had a whole department of assessors who were equally negligent. Apparently

Section 15 8(1) of The Ci ty of Winnip eg Act says words to the effect that there is a statutory duty on the city assessor and the parties in his department to reassess. They haven't done this. I don't see where the Minister, with respect, is going to do things speed ily with the present city assessor or with the assessors at the City of Winnip eg. If it is going to be done speed ily, I sugge st that an independent body be set up, that it not be the Ci ty of Winn ipeg who do the reassessments.

I believe that the reason or the need for Bill 33, which goes farther than Bill 100, is because they have not performed their dutie s, and that the gov ernment apparently is prepared to condone the statutory duties and the neglect of 25 years and say it's okay. I think that Mr. Mercur y said that there should be a

short title to the bill; a

short title for this bill cou ld be very well "A Bill to Overcome 25 Years of Neglect of the Statutory Duty and to Perpetuate Incom petency." Now, Mr. Mercury did deal with several aspects of the Bill of Righ ts and I believe that there are grounds for saying that Bill 33 doesn't comply with it.

The last part of the Bill of Ri ghts is a statement by Pierre Trudeau stating very briefly, and I quo te: "We mus t now establish the basic princi ples, the basic values and beliefs which hold us together as Canadi ans, so that beyond our regional loyalties, there's a way of life and a system of values which makes us proud of the country that has given us such freedom and such immeasu rable joy." Sig ned P.E. Trudeau, 1981. No w, I don't think it's very fair that I should have to pay all these taxes. There is another basis for saying that the taxes are too much.

Now, ali i did, was I went to the Land Ti tles Office across the street and the y have documen ts there; they have books there setting out the assessment. Anybody can go and take a look at them. What I attempted to do is to show the differ ences in assessment and com pare them to my proper ties. As I stated earlier, I have one title, two tax state ments. The assessment for land on one, one-half is $3,840; on the other, it's $3,37 0.00. So the total is in excess of $7,000 assessed value on a vacant piece of proper ty.

Now, com parable or reasonably comparable prop erty would be at 745 Lorette Avenue where the land is assessed at $1 ,340; 773 Lo rette, which appears to be equal, is $7 00; 775 Lorette is also $7 00; 925 Fleet is $1 ,11 0; 926 Jessie Avenue is $880; 917 Warsaw is $940; 925 Warsaw is $1 ,230; 686 Cambridge is $1 ,630.00 . Then, there's ju st a row numb er, care of the CNR railway, care of the Assistant Tax Comm issio ner, which is a piece of property in the area, $1 ,250; 60 1 Stradbrook is $2, 830; 595 Stradbrook is $2,830; 686 Dudley is $1 ,260.00.

Now, rather than just go throu gh the rest of them, ali i' m doing is a simi lar comparison to what Mr. Mercur y did. He did it up on the basis of apparently square footage . I' ve done it on the assess ment of reasonably comparable properties. In my submi ssion, my honest opinion is that I'm paying eight ti mes as much in taxes as other com par-

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 able properti es. I have attempted on several occa sions to appeal it. I have appealed it. I' ve gone before the Board of Revision knowing what they knew about the trial or the hearing before Mr. Ju stice Wilson. They said nothing. I knew nothing of it; I went before the board. Mr. Mercur y was there; there were lawyers from the Cit y of Winn ipeg there and only after I made the su bmission, did they block me and say you cannot continue because there's a freeze.

I don' t think it's fair and I say that if the present bill is legal accord ing to the Bill of Righ ts, the way I will handle it is not to pay the taxes. You may not think it much if I don' t pay the taxes on this one piece of property, but if I can make it known and others do n't, the Ci ty of Winnip eg will have more problems with a tax strike than they will with the bill. That is my subm ission. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions from the Comm ittee? Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Pearlman, you mentio ned that there should be a separ ate assessment body or board ... MR. D. PEARLMAN: Sir, if I may.

I take the view that when the Cit y of Winn ipe g assesses my property and they get the taxes, they have a financial interest in getting the assessment up high and in principle of law, they become the ju dges in their own cause. Now, I' ve had difficu lty with the assessors. They haven't been playing accord ing to Ho yle. They've been playing games on giving me com mercial assessments when they kno w I'm boing before the board. When I give them properties to look at, which I feel are compa ra ble, they refuse to look at them.

I think that if we could have an independent board set up by this govern ment to deal not only with land in the Ci ty of Winnip eg, but all land, then at least there would not be a financial interest con nected with the parties who make the assessment. There is that case now with the - not the Board of Revision, but the assessors - plus the fact that they haven't indicated that they are com petent. They haven't performed their · job for a qu arter of a century. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Pearlman, you mentione d that you had been before the Appeal Board.

The last tim e, obviously, it was after the freeze. MR. D. PEARLMAN: Yes, sir. HON. A. ADAM: You have been before the board prior to the freeze? MR. D. PEARLMAN: Prior to the freeze, yes. HON. A. ADAM: Unsuc cessfu lly? MR. D. PEARLMAN: I attempted to go before the board last year and they said I was out a few days. I was before the board in 197 4. 11 HON. A. ADAM: And not since then? MR. D. PEARLMAN: No. If I may just make this poi nt. I have been aware or had the feeling that the taxes have been out of line since Day On e. The qu estion is, why did I not go soon er. I did go in 197 4, on part of the land.

I did n't go after that because we had a buoyant econ om y, I didn't want to waste my tim e and I didn't know what the results would be; but we've come into an economic climate where it has become crucial. I have a vacant piec e of land, the taxes are in excess of $1 ,000 a year and I'm not able to move that pie ce of proper ty readily under the present economic circum stances. I have to hold on and it's difficult to hold on at the rate of appr oxima tely $1 00 a month when I get no service s. There is no connected water or sewer to the land.

I have a little pie ce of property that I can't do anything on at the present ti me. Things are not that goo d and I don't think I can cont inue to pay an exces sive amount of taxes. The only way I can handle it is not to pay, let it go into tax sale and then redeem it with ju st enough money to keep it out. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further qu estions? Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Pearlman, this bill that's before us, Bill 33, is amending it to su bsequent years; there's no defi nite date on it.

By the time that day arrives, you likely will not have that property unless you regain it by the tax sale that you sugge sted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pearl man. MR. D. PEARLMAN: No, but what I will do, sir , is I will pay the taxes ju st before it goes at a tax sale each year. Now, the present interest on the tax bill is some thing like 18 percent, so what I do is I pay the one-year's taxes plus the 18 percent interest on the taxes in order to keep it out . MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Am I correct, Mr. Pearl man?

Are there taxes in arrears on the property now that's in the amount of $1 ,947 on the one parcel and $1 ,795 on the other? MR. D. PEARLMAN: Yes, sir. On one is $1 ,947 .89; on the other is $1 , 795.38. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chair man, are there pro perty building s on the prop erty that you mentione d, Mr. Pearl man? MR. D. PEARLMAN: There are no build ings. it's vacant land. MR. W. McKENZIE: Vacant land. Mr. Ch airman, I wonder, Mr. Pearlman, what we could do with this legislation that's before us tonigh t, Bill33, to help you resolve your problem. What sugge stion would you offer to us as legislators? MR. D.

PEARLMAN: With respect, I would submit that

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 it should be dro pped. That will enable me to go back to the Board of Revis ion. I believe that I can lower the assessment to one-eighth of what it presently is. Let us ass ume that I do tha t. lt won't help me in previ ous years. If I paid too much mone y for the last 10 years and I prove it, apparently under The Ci ty of Winnip eg Act, that will not benefit me. The only benefit that I can get is from today into the futu re, or alternatively from the 1982 tax bill into the futu re. MR. W. McKENZIE: That's all I have. Thank you, Mr. Chair man. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Pearl man, if we proceed with this bill, it's worded in such a way that it can be rescinded or lifted at any time. MR. D. PEARLMAN: In Winnip eg as well, sir? HON. A. ADAM: The way it is worded, that it can be lifted by Or der-in-Cou ncil whenever we are ready to proceed with legislation in regard to assessment, is that satisfactory to you? MR. D. PEARLMAN: Well it is not, because I don't believe that the bill is legal, peri od. I believe that it's in the natur e of a penal statute dealing with taxat ion and that once someone cannot app eal an assessment, I think that causes the bill to be void.

I want to be in a position of lowering the taxes now. If I want to sell the land and someone takes a look at the taxes, it causes me problems. Lower taxes would encour age them to buy it and build something on that proper ty. The que stion is how long can anyone hold on? Mr. Mercury deals with what I would have consi dered to be very wealthy people with big buildi ngs on Portage Avenue and yet I don't think Mr. Mercur y has to con vince us that Portage Avenue is a disaster area.

I've counted someth ing lik e 15 vacant buildi ngs on the north side of Portage Avenue and I believe 5 on the sou th side and that's only on the main floor. There are vacancies on the upper stories of these buildi ngs. I'm on Portage Avenue in the Avenue Building next to the Paris Building. I know what's going on in that area. Now if Mr.

Mercur y's clients, who are the most sub stantial citizens in the Ci ty of Winnip eg, are having problems, you can imagine what problems I or other small people have. it's no answer, as far as I'm con cerned, to tell me, "Well, so the Cit y of Winn ipe g was negligent for 25 years, you have to pay for it and you're going to continue paying for it." Get another city assessor, get another Assessment Department, get somebody outside of the City of Winnip eg. I sug gest that maybe you should ascertain the qua lifications of the city assessor and the people who do this job.

Possibly this time we can get so mebody who knows what they're doing. HON. A. ADAM: Ju st one last que stion. Did you make a presentation when Bill 100 was introduced? MR. D. PEARLMAN: No, sir, I did not. I did not know of Bill 100, never heard of it. I don' t know if they advertised it. 12 HON. A. ADAM: They must have. I can't be sur e but . MR. D. PEARLMAN: I never heard of it and can't believe it. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions, Mr. Adam? HON. A. ADAM: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from the Comm ittee? Hearing none, Mr. Pearlman, thank you very much for appearing. Mr. D. PEARLMAN: Good evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next name on our list is Mr. Harry Peters. Mr. Peters. MR. H. PETERS: Go od eveni ng, Mr. Chairman, members of the Comm ittee. I'm here on behalf of the Manitoba Bar Association. Specifically, I serve as Ch airperson of the Civil Li ber ties sub

section of the Manitoba Bar Assoc iation. I'd like to preface my remarks about Bill33 by saying that I really had little time to put this matter before our ge neral membership, but the jist of my comme nts tonight have been discu ssed by the executive of the Bar Association and agreed to by them and we're certain that our membership would concur with those commen ts. I mus t admit that I'm a little bit un prepared to speak on this bill tonigh t because of a misreading of the bill and a comp lete misjudging of its effect and import. As Mr.

Mercur y said before me and most of my com ments will echo his, sophistic ated people read Bill 100 and didn' t realize that its effect was to freeze the appeal process and tax assessments and I think to answer an earlier qu estion, I feel that's probably why. People who read it initially did n't realize how the cour t was going to interpret it. My initial reaction on reading Bill 33 was I better look at Bill 100, because Bill 33 doesn't tell you very much.

You go to Bill 100 then and I'm afraid I wasn't reading it as carefully as I should -I wasn't looking for loop holes- and my initial reaction was, "B oy this is great. What are people complai ning about? it's a tax freeze." And so about a week ago, I said, "Well, I don't think this is a Civil Li berties issue." My reading of it is it's a simpl e tax freeze in a roun dabout way. Assessment values will be frozen at 1980 and consequently due to inflation, there won't be any reassessments and taxes won't go up. I sub mit that in answer I think I'll be a little bit more charitable than Mr. Mercury.

I have a feeling that Bill 100 was initially recom mended on that basis. lt would relieve some work that the city assessors had to do and they could address their minds to a revamping of the whole tax system. I don't think for one minute they had an idea that the cour ts would interpret it as Mr. Mercury has indicated. I'm certai n that Bill 33 was put forward un der the same impression, that in a sense it wou ld relieve admin istrators of doing day-to-day work while they got on with revamping the whole system. I think when

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 I hear that some persons are recommending that Bill 33 include a pro vision that extends the freeze till 1987, I seriously wonder whether those recomm ending such an exte nsion are aware of the decision Mr. Mer cur y has referred to. This decision, I am advised by looking at it, only came down June 17th of this year.

I would recommend that those people, who made that su ggestion that it be extended indefinitely as the bill presently sug gests, I think that they should take a look at that decision and ask, "What's the recom men dation now?" it's qu ite obvious that the Legislatur e has, in my mind, had its intentions frustrated by the courts.

The courts have perhaps misinterpreted the best intentions of the last govern ment and this gov ernment and now that we've got this decisi on, I think perhaps it's up to this Comm ittee and the Govern ment to say, "Hold your horses, we've got to look at this bill in a comp letely new light. We've got to look at it in light of this decision." I think that's what this Com mittee's job is. I'm glad Mr.

Mercury's case came before the cour ts ju st in time to app rise this Comm ittee of the bill and its true effect, because the bill is no longer the way I feel the Leg islatur e intended it to be. it's the way the cour ts have interpr eted it. You're hamstrung by that

interpretation and that I think is what made me realize that this is a Civil Li berties issue. Unfortuna tely, I left my Ch arter at home and I won't bore you. I didn 't even have time to buy a new pair of shoes ton ight. So anyways to be brief, I think the ju dicial

interpretation has to cause some concern by this Comm ittee. I feel that the bill has to be amended so that the provisions of The City of Winnip eg Act, which give a taxpayer the right of appeal, are not overridden by Bill 33 if it is the intention of your Com mittee to pass Bill33 , because I don' t feel that was the intention of the Leg islature, when they passed Bill 100, to take away the right of taxpayers to have a fair hearing in court. I think that some attention has to be paid to that.

So I'm appeari ng today on behalf of the Bar Associ ation who briefly, I believe, wou ld stand by the general principle that whenever a law takes away a right of appeal either di rectly of indirectly as this bill appears to be doing , it is the duty of lawyers to speak on that, to advise the public and to oppose that legislation. · Accord ing ly, the recommendation of the Manitoba Bar Assoc iation , we take the view that Bill 33 be amended so that it does not override the provis ions of The Ci ty of Winnip eg Act, which entitle a ratepayer to appeal an inequitable tax assessment. Those are my comm ents.

Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very mu ch, Mr. Peters. Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Peters, Bill 100, when it was introduce d, was intended to impose a freeze. MR. H. PETERS: Yes. HON. A. ADAM: There were no other intentions .

There were no other reasons for that bill. lt was intended to implement a freeze until such a time as the Weir Report wou ld be introduced to the gov ernment and that the gov ernment had time to deal with the recom mendations in order to bring in an amendment 13 to The Muni cipal Act to remove the inequi tie s that have built into this present system over the years. it wasn't to reduce taxes. lt was just to give lead time, I sup pose, to the gove rnment. Policy changes are necessary and admin istrative mechanisms have to be put into place to remove those inequit ies.

Of course, it only affects the City of Winnip eg in the main because the Ci ty of Winn ipeg has its own Assessment Depar t ment and rural Manitoba comes und er the Prov incial Assessment Branch. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a question, Mr. Adam? HON. A. ADAM: No, it's just as to clarification. MR. H. PETERS: I' d like to reply to it, Mr. Cha irman. By a freeze or a reduction in taxes, I meant that with the passage of time and the inflation of all other values, one thing that wou ldn't change would be the evaluation, the value of pro perty, if you see what I mean.

The Assessment Department wou ldn' t come in and say, well, property has inflated in value so much , so your taxes are going up, not because of any improvements you've made on the proper ty, but just because of general inflation. That's what I mean by saying that it appears to be on the face of it to me or did appear to be a sort of convoluted tax freeze. I still see it as a freeze of values based on 1980 rates that are fair.

I did not, up until being apprised of the decision of the Court of Appeal, see it as being a bar to appealing unfair tax assessments, but that's the way the court has interpr eted it and I'm, as a lawyer and as a tax payer myself, stuck with that. I'm happy to say that I'm satisfied with the assessment on my house and it su its me fine but someone else, I assume there are lots of people who feel the way Mr. Pearl man does. I'd also like to address the issue of the fact that this bill does only affect citizens of Winnip eg and, I believe, that's another civil liberties issue.

Why are we being discrimi nated agai nst? I feel it is discri minatory to take away a fundame ntal right which is the right to challenge the decision of admin istrators before a fair and impartial board or tribunal. And I think that right is being permanently abridged by Bill33 and that is what we're here to talk about; those are our views. HON. A. ADAM: Could I ask you the same que stion Mr. Peters? Did you make a presentation when Bill 100 was introduced? MR. H. PETERS: No, and I don't (:lven recall the bill passing through the Leg islatur e.

I don't think I ever even read anything about it but, as I indic ated, I believe that was because of a general misi nterpreta tion of the effect. HON. A. ADAM: Bill 33 is an extension of Bill 100 which has been recom mended by the Assess ment Review Commit tee. An extension of the freeze has been recommende d, as I mentio ned to other people who made presentations, that Bill33 is an extension of Bill 1 00 which was recommende d by the Assessment Review Commit tee. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that a question? Are there any further qu estions?

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 Mr. Plohman. MR. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chai rman, I noticed that Mr. Peters said that he feels that the cour ts have really largely misi nterpreted the effect or intent of Bill 100 - that's your feeling. What

section in Bill 100 do you feel the court interpreted as meaning no appeal? What

section of that bill? Are you saying the whole bill or a particular

section or line in there that deals with appeals? Are you fa miliar with the bill? MR. H. PETERS: Yes, I am. MR. J. PLOHMAN: Is it jus t a matter of the whole intent or are there some sections in there that deal with appeals? MR. H. PETERS: it's ac tually jus t one ph rase; I'm afraid I can't put my finger on it now. it's

Section 4.1 . it's the interpretat ion of the phrase "level of values" and the bill, as I un derstand it, freezes the level of values at 1980 values for the years 198 1 and 1982. Mr. Ju stice Wi lson and the Cour t of Appeal took that to mean whatever the level of values were in 1980, whether they were inequ itable; those were the level of values that the taxpayer, the ratepayer, was stuck with. Now, I would submi t that the gen eral intent of Bill 100 could still exist and carry on if a notwithstand ing clause was slightly modifie d.

If you read Bill 100, there is a provision in there that says notwithsta nding anything in The City of Winnip eg Act. Now that's what the Cour t of Appeal, that's what the cour ts have hung their hat on. They say that Bill 100 overrides anything in The City of Winn ipeg Act. So if you worded Bill33 to say that

section was more narrowly defined except notwithstan ding The City of Winnip eg Act except for those provis ions that give a ratepayer the right of appeal, then it's my feeling that the bill is tolerable - because it allows people who suffer inequ itie s to still appe al. They would appeal back to 1980 rates or whenever the last assessment was done; they'd be stuck with those values. Their property would be assessed on the basis of other properties' values in 1980.

So my sub mission is that I feel Bill 33 perhaps could go on as long as the citizen was guar anteed his right of app eal which is provided for in The Ci ty of Winnip eg Act because I think the intent of the Act when it was initially proposed was not to take away a ratepayer's right to appeal an unfair, inequit able tax assessment. it was meant to free the city assessors to do other busine ss. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any fur ther que stions? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chai rman, I have, Mr. Peters, before me the decision of Ju dge Wi lson which Mr. Mercury referred to earlier.

You mentio ned another case that you referred to, an appeal case of another nature on the same subject matter? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Peters. MR. H. PETERS: Well, that same case, Mr. McKe nzie, was appealed to the Cour t of Appeal. 14 MR. W. McKENZIE: Oh, that's the one we're not famil iar with. MR. H. PETERS: Well, it's the same parties and I don' t think Mr. Mercury distri buted the decision of the Cour t of Appeal, but basically it reiterates Mr. Ju stice Wi lson's opin ions and says he's right. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from the Comm ittee? Heari ng none, Mr. Peters, thank you for attending tonig ht.

MR. H. PETERS: Good evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: Our next delegation is Mr. R. O. (B ob) Doug las. Mr. Dougla s. Do you have copies of your �ubmis sion Mr. Dou glas? MR. R. DOUGLAS: Mr. Chair man, members of the Comm ittee, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to appear before you tonight on Bill 33. Mr. Chairman , we have made our views known in correspondence to Mr. Adam in opposition to this bill.

The Farm Bur eau was concerned about Bill 1 00 when it was introduced and was before you r Comm ittee and has consistently opposed that pro vision of the freezing of the level of assessment in the City of Winnip eg and has made our views known to the previous gov ernment and the present govern ment. When Bill 33 appear ed, it was of concern and we took the matter up with our people again and their position is that they're opposed to the prov ision of exten ding the freeze on the level indefinitely. Mr.

Chair man, if there is some other provision where it might be limited to a very limited time we would be willing to maybe live with that, but the farm communi ty certainly isn't prepared to go on indefi nitely with the matter of the level of assessment in the Cit y of Winnip eg being frozen while our assessment contin ues to rise. The implication to us is that at some day in the futur e when there's a recko ning the Ci ty of Winn ipeg will not come back to the same level as rural Manitoba or it will be difficult to do so. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any que stions for Mr. Dougla s? Mr. Adam. HON. A.

ADAM: I'm wonderi ng, Mr. Dougla s, would you agree that the way the bill is worded that it can be lifted at any time by Or der-in-Council . MR. R. DOUGLAS: Yes, we agree that's a possi bility, but we are very mu ch afraid that's going to get extended indefinit ely and we're not prepared to live with that. HON. A. ADAM: Would you sugge st that we proceed with the recomm endations of the Assessment Review Comm ittee and put it one year or seven yea rs, up to 1987, which would mean five years from now? MR. R. DOUGLAS: Mr.

Ad am, our position is that we don't want it extended at all but if you have to, one year is the abso lute limit and certainly not to 1987.

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 HON. A. ADAM: I wonder if I cou ld ask you. since you 're repr esenting a farm group. Mr. Doug las. whether you su pport the recommend ation of the Assess ment Review that farm residents and some outbuildi ngs be assessed and taxed. MR. CHA IRMAN: Mr. Dougla s. Mr. Gourlay, on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER MR. D. GOUR LAY: I think we're getting into debating the Weir recommendations and not addressing our selves to Bill 33. MR. CHAIRMAN: I think Mr. Gou rlay's poin t of order with respect to the Minister is well taken.

However. it may be pos sible that the Minister's que stion is some how related to the bill, so perhaps we should hear him ou t. HON. A. ADAM: Of course, Mr. Dougla s does not have to answer but if he wishes to do so. it would certainly be helpful to the Comm ittee to kno w the views of the Farm Bur eau on that very very important issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order that Mr. Gour lay raised then, Mr. Adam, the ru les with regard to comme nts being directly relative to the bill are very spec ific in commit tee and are very narrowly defined, so I have to respect Mr.

Gour lay's point of order then. if the question is not somehow directly related to the bill. Are there any further qu estions. Mr. Adam? Are there any further que stions from the Comm ittee? Mr. Bucklas chuk. MR. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Mr. Doug las, you had stated that you had opposed Bill 100, the City of Winnip eg freeze. Could you ju st clarify your reasons for your opposit ion? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Douglas. MR. R. DOUGLAS: Mr.

Chairman. the reason is that what we could see is the assessment in the City of Winn ipeg being frozen at a level and rural assessment conti nuin g to climb. because that's what is really hap pening in the present situation; then we could see down the road sometime a very difficult situation of trying to get back on to at least the basis we were in 1980. In fact. politically, we're not sur e it's ever going to happen and that's why in the ru ral areas. once people understand what the signi ficance is. they are very much opposed to it.

The other part of that argu ment is that we've been kind of willing to live with it up until this point in time because there was the poss ibil ity of a comm ittee repor t coming that might look at the total picture and we can deal with it in that context. MR. J. BUCKLASCHUK: One of the previous spo kesmen - I believe it was Mr. Mercur y - had indicated that when the freeze was lifted there wou ld be a further shift to rural Manitoba. Would you agree with that assessment? 15 MR. R. DOUGLAS: Mr.

Chairman. that depends entir ely upon your assump tions as to what, under the present system or under a new system. wou ld happen. We have now opera ting und er a new manual. Rural Assess ment. of two years ago and und er that basis I think the assumptions were incorrect and that wouldn't happen. but it's poss ible it cou ld happen. MR. CHA IRMAN: Any further qu estions from the Commit tee? Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman. Mr. Doug las. did the Farm Bur eau get a response from the Minister to your letters? MR. R. DOUGLAS: No. MR. W.

McKENZIE: Would you agree that maybe this Comm ittee. if we were to leave the right to appeal. until the new bill is proclaimed - would that be satisfactory? MR. R. DOUGLAS: Could you repeat that again? MR. W. McKENZIE: If somehow in this bill. we could change the su bsequent years and put in an appeal section. Leave the right to appeal an assessment prac tice until the new bill is proclaimed, would that be satisfactory to the Farm Bur eau? MR. R. DOUGLAS: No. partly it solves it. but it doesn't change the level. The rural assessment level is moving up and is now at 1982 level.

The Ci ty of Winnip eg is still at 1980. The appeal solves one part of the problem for the Ci ty of Winnip eg and those people who live therein, but it doesn't solve our problem. MR. W. McKENZIE: That's all. thank you, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from the Comm ittee for Mr. Doug las? Hearing none. Mr. Dou glas, thank you very much for appea ring tonig ht. The next delegate to the Comm ittee is Mr. D.G . Lowry or Mr. Mu rray Sig mar. MR. M. SIGMAR: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Min ister, Com mittee members. my name is Mu rray Sigmar and I am the President of the Winnip eg Real Estate Boa rd.

I am appearing here this evening before you in that capacity. The Winn ipeg Real Estate Board is gravely con cerned that the Legislatur e is considering enactment of Bill33. a bill whose apparent pu rpose is to suspend in the City of Winnip eg in parti cular. and in

part in other municip alities throughout Manitoba, the orderly reassessment of real proper ty and appeals therefrom during an indefinite future. Mr. Chair man. our board is aware that the Leg isla ture is conside ring a report respecting municip al assessment in Manitoba and that in the future some changes in the manner or underlying princi ples of munic ipal assessment within this pro vi nce may be imp lemented. To suspend the orderly operation of the assessment system within the pro vinc e pending the implementation of that report or its rejection. as the

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 case may be, is to compound even further inequ ity and injustice to many Manitobans whose assess ments are by the operation of Cha pter 71, the Statutes of Manitoba, 1980, frozen at 1980 assessment levels without the right of appeal and without hope of reassessment. We are of the opini on at the Winnip eg Real Estate Board that the necessity for these statutes arises at least in part from the failure of the Ci ty of Winnip eg to com ply with the law requiring orderly and regu lar reassessment of real proper ty within the city.

As a result of that failure, many electors in the City of Win nipeg have been compelled to suffer continuing inju s tice and possibly unfairly, onerous real proper ty tax liability. Where assessments in a community are not subject to re gular and ongoing review and reassessment, uncertainly as to the real property tax liability arises.

A potential user of land within municip al boundarie s, finding that land has not been reassessed for a sub stantial period of ti me, may well be deterred from making impr ovements to or developing that land and its impr ovements or pur chasing land with improve ments for fear that the ultimate tax costs of ownersh ip may be very greatly increased by long, delayed assessment procedures.

The Winnip eg Real Estate Board fears that the undue and unlimi ted extension of the opera tion of the Act respect ing the assessment of proper ty for taxa tion in muni cip alitie s in 198 1 and 1982 will act as a very sign ificant deterrent to the develop ment and impr ovement of real pro perty within the Ci ty of Win nipeg.

Our concern is not limited to com mercial prop erties in the downtown area but indeed exte nds to the whole of the city and to the many incidences where resident electors in the city can and may be caught ultimately by sign ificant tax increases resulting from ove rlong delay in the assessment review and revision process. Mr. Chai rman, members of the Commit tee, please recogn ize this bill for what it is - a suspension for an indefinite futur e period of time of the rig hts of prop erty owners and taxpayers in this province and, in particul ar, in the City of Winnip eg.

The in equ ity is compou nded by the fact that the applic ation of this particular Statute is uneven within Manitoba, affect ing residents of the Ci ty of Winnip eg to a degre'J that it does not affect other Manitobans. lt was sufficiently object ionable that such inequ ities should be imposed for a limited period of two years, but it is absolutely unacceptable that it should be contin ued and for an uncertai n future period of time relieved only by possi ble suspension of the application of the Act by decree of the Cabine t. So, Mr.

Ch airman, we respectfu lly submit that this bill ought not be forwarded to the Legislatur e; that this bill should be returned to the Min ister and department from whence it came and that the inherent unfairness which it represents be brought to an end at once. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Sigm ar. Are there any qu estions for Mr. Sig mar? Mr. Blake. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chair man, a qu estion 16 to Mr. Sigmar , if he would care to express an opinion. There has been some fairly strong criticism of the Ci ty of Winnip eg Assessment Department that we've heard this evening.

Would you agree with that criti cism to some degree? MR. M. SIGMAR: Yes, I do. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further qu estions Mr. Blake? MR. D. BLAKE: No, that's fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions from the Committee? Mr. Buck laschuk. MR. J. BU CKLASCHUK: Yes, it's a question abou t the first paragraph. You indicate that the pur pose of Bill 33 was to suspend in the Ci ty of Winnip eg, in par ticular , and in par t in other mun icipal ities througho ut Manito ba. Which muni cip alities are we speaking of? MR. M. SIGMAR: Thank you, Mr. Chairm an.

I am sorry for these words in there, but I look at

Article 4 here again that sug gests, yes, all municipalities out side of the City of Winnip eg do have the rig ht of appeal, so it is ju st the City of Winnip eg. MR. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Another que stion on page 2. I'd ju st like some elaboration on this .

The last fou r lines says, "A pot ential user of land within mu nicipal bound aries, finding that the land has not been reas sessed and so on," then you ind icate, "or purcha sing land with the improvements for fear that the ulti mate tax costs of ownership may be very greatly increased by long, delayed assessment procedur es." In that par ticular case, would it not be of benefit to the owner to have the freeze lifted as late as poss ible? MR. M. SIGMAR: Thank you, Mr. Chair man.

I think that if I heart he question rig ht, I think that this goes on to deal with some of the property that was referred to by others that spoke here this evening, that develop ing that land and its impr ovements or pur chasing land with improvements for fear that the ultimate tax costs of ownership may be very greatly increased by long, delayed assessment procedu res. The thing is that the way we have received Bill 33 or the sugge sted imp le mentation of Bill 33 that there is delay and people are not in a position to say when they are goin g to be able to know what the tax structure is going to be. MR. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I'm still not too clear on that. I gather that what you'r e saying is that when a person purcha ses his land with im prove ments that the assessed value of that land would have been at 1988 assessment levels. Then when the freeze comes off they may be hit with a fairly su bstantial increased assessment. MR. M. SIGMAR: I gue ss it could be going both ways. I think that there was a case referred to where a person bought property down on Portage Avenue is losing a

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 lot of mone y, tax assessments are very high, no right of appeal, can' t do anything about it, of cour se, finds himself in a very very serious position. Then the other thing is, of cour se, what is com ing? The Assessment Department of cour se is not follow ing necessarily any procedure here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further que stions? Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Sig mar, could you advise the Comm ittee whether or not the Winnip eg Real Estate Board made a representation in oppos ition to Bill 10 0? MR. CHA IRMAN: Mr. Sigm ar. MR. M.

SIGMAR: No, I don' t believe that the Winnip eg Real Estate Board- in fact, I know that the Winnip eg Real Estate Board did not. In questi oning that, before I came to the meeting s, was that they were really not aware of this. I gu ess at that particular time, if they were, it was poss ibly something that was being done that was tem porary at that particu larly time. I think I mu st say that really they did not present any brief; they did not speak to that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Cha irman. Mr.

Sigma r, you haven't referred to it in your brief, but may I ask you if in fact you checked to see if this legislation is in conflict with the Ch arter of Ri ghts? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sigm ar. MR. M. SIGM AR: Thank you, Mr. Ch airman. I cer tainly would think it is. I have really found that it was great to be here this evening because of the gentle men that have spoken ahead of me that have poss ibly put a lot more effort, time and study into this.

I think that really where it boils down with the Winnip eg Real Estate Board and its mem bers, of which we are a body of about 1, 700 brokers and sales people, that we can't understand how this could contin ue. I think this is an opportunity for a gov ernment to recognize that this is totally unfair to have a tax system set up like this, an assessment, and no right of appeal. If there would have been always a right of appeal, they are not necessarily flocking to the doors; but I think that in Mr.

Mercury su bmitting to this Commit tee some defin ite cases of inequ ity, it's just unreal that this should be happening in this day and age in the Ci ty of Winnip eg. I think that with our membership we jus t oppose this, that there should be no appeal for a little old widow over on Qu een Street, if some tax assessor nails some heavy taxes on there, she has no right of appeal. She just has to go down, pay it and be told "pay or else." We think it's wrong. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further ques tions for Mr. Sig mar? Mr. Buckla schuk. MR. J. BU CKLASCHUK: I have one further qu estion.

While I realize the main thrus t here is you r concern 17 about developing the orderly reassessment of real property and reimplementin g the appeals procedur e, at the bottom of the first page of your submis sion you deal with the failure of the Cit y of Winn ipeg to comply with the law requiring orderly and regular reassess ment of real prop erty within the city. From what we have heard from other persons this evening, it appears that it hasn't been working effectively for the past 25 years or so.

What, if I may ask you, would be your sugg estions for ensuring that the Ci ty of Winnip eg complie s with the law as it was intended? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sigmar . MR. M. SIGMAR: I think that it will take this govern ment or some other gov ernment in this province to sugge st that they better clean up their act and possi bly spell out to them what type of a job has been done in the last quarter centu ry. it's, I gu ess, for many ordi nary lay people and many people in busi ness - they have no idea that the Assessment Depar tment has not been following these procedur es. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions for Mr. Sigmar ? Hearing none, thank you very much, Mr. Sigmar . MR. M. SIGMAR: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The next person on our list is Mr. A be Arnold, Manitoba Association of Rig hts and Lib erties. I don't see Mr. Arnold at the present time. Mr. Lloyd McGinnis, Winnip eg Ch amber of Com merce. Is Mr. McGinni s here? Mr. Donald McCarthy, Monarch Life Insur ance. Mr. Mercu ry. MR. M. MERCU RY: Mr. Chairm an, Mr. Donald McC arthy could not mak e it tonight and he asked me to convey his apologie s. He's the Secretary of the Monarch Li fe Insur ance Co.

That building is in appeal and they went to appeal their assessments this year and they were told they could not appeal their assessment. 1t came as a shock to them that they were frozen out. Mr. Roy Evans has asked me to make a statement ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Roy Evans was on our list for Eaton's of Can ada. MR. M. MERCUR Y: That's right, M.r. Roy Evans is the Ch ief Assessment Officer for the T. Eat on Co. and he's headquar tered in Toronto. He had asked me to see that his name got on the agenda .

He wanted to come out but unfortunately due to short notice he wasn't able to come, but he did want to make a statement to this Comm ittee. So the T. Eaton Co. wanted to have their own man here to make a statement because they view this very seriously. Mr. McCa rthy, the Secretary of the Mo narch Life and there's another person, Mr. Lorne Dyke, Canar tech, who used to be the Deputy Minister of In dustry and Com merce once in this gov ernment, who is also the Ch ief Officer of the Boe ing of Canada Co. here is now with Canar tech. He asked that his name be put on the agenda.

Unfortunately, he wa::. out of town today

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 and notice was not adequate for these people and I can understand that, but they asked to have the right to address this Comm ittee and I'm ju st conveying the message that was given to me. Un fortunately, the

schedule - they jus t couldn't be here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mercu ry, we are sorry that more notice is not always possible, but thank you very much for conveying their regrets and their concern about the bill. MR. M. MERCURY: Is this Comm ittee going to con tinu e with these heari ngs on Bill33 or is it term inating toni ght? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Com mittee will termi nate at the last call for delegations . I will call the names of those who are absent one more ti me, other than the three you mentio ned, and then we will begin clause by-clause consi deration if that's the will of the Com mittee.

That's the normal practice. MR. M. MERCURY: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Once again, Mr. Abe Arnold. Mr. Arnold. Mr. Lloyd McGin nis. Mr. McGinnis. Ge ntlemen, that concludes the list of delegations who gave an indic ation they wished to appear before the Comm ittee on the bill. What is your will and pleasure? Mr. Gour lay. MR. D. GO URLA Y: I was wonderi ng if we could recall Mr. Dougla s from the Manitoba Farm Bur eau back for one or two que stions with respect to his commen t ju st when he was here previously. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's of course up to Mr.

Dougla s if he's willing to answer further questions. it's certainly the Comm ittee's prerogative to recall him. Is that your will and pleasure, to recall Mr. Doug las? Agreed? (Agr eed) Mr. Gour lay. MR. D. GO URLAY: Yes, it was with respect to your com ment, Mr. Dougl as, about the reassessing m the rural munic ipality or the rural part of Manitoba where the rural muni cipaliti es and urb an centres were being assessed at 1982 levels. I'm ju st wonderi ng if you could further explain that com ment.

The assessments were frozen and the assessments that are taking place in Manitoba as I understand it are based on the 1980 values, that were used in 1980, are still being used at the present time. You made a com ment that the unfairness of Bill 100 is that the munic i palities are bei ng assessed at 1982 levels. MR. R. DOUGLAS: Yes, I think I und erstand that to be the case and then what you do after you do your 1982 is you do your equali zed assessment. But I don' t think there's a munici pality in rural Manitoba that isn't beyo nd six years. eh?

The pro vi ncial Act provides reassessment every five years. within five years. We have muni cipalities repor ting to us that they have had two assessments in the last three years and being 18 reassessed this year again. My contention is from the rural areas that we are a great deal more up to date in the rural assessments than the City of Winnip eg. I' ve been one of the critics of the Cit y of Winn ipeg assessment procedure and how far it's out of date. I've had difficulty getting peo ple to accept that or understand.

They though t I was being a critic representi ng rural areas; where the real problem is, is in the city. Now. it only comes into play when you apply a tax. like on the founda tion levy, across the total province but it does mean qu ite a few dollars. I di dn' t bring the figur es of the assessment in '80- 8 1. We don' t have '82 yet, but we've got assess ments going on in '82 now. MR. D.

GO URLAY: The reason I wanted you to come back was ju st a matter of clarity in that the &ssess ments that are being undertaken in rural Manitoba since Bill 100 was passed is continuing on the same basis as those mu nicipalities that were assessed in 1980. So the factors that are being used represent the same values that were used in those assessments prior to Bill 1 00. Of cou rse, there's 1 00-and-some odd mu nicipalities outs ide of the Ci ty of Winnip eg where the Ci ty of Winn ipeg is one mu nicipal area. MR. R. DOUGLAS: Yes. but. Mr. Ch airman.

I think I understand - you'r e using the new manual in rural areas and you'r e not using that - if we were doi ng Winnip eg, we don't even have a new manual. Even at its 1980 level, certain ly, you've always got to be somewhere behind. eh? But the value of Winnip eg, we're using 1957 values in Winn ipeg on buildings. Then we take three-quarters of the assessment in Winnip eg and two-thirds in the rural to try and make it equal. I don't think it's equal at all. MR. D. GOURLAY: I don't dis pute the fact that the rural part of Manitoba is further ahead on their assessments than the Ci ty of Winnip eg.

The fact is, I think. that it should be on the record that there's no change taking place today than what was in place in 1980 , when the muni cipalities were being reassessed in 1980. MR. B. DOUGLAS: Mr. Ch airman. my contention is though that we're more up -to-date and therefore we're closer to the cu rrent level of assessment where the City of Winnip eg hasn't changed. MR. D. GOURLAY: Well, all I'm saying is that was known at the time Bill 100 was brou ght in. MR. B. DOUGLAS: Yes and I think I'm appearing here oppo sing any further extension of it. MR. D. GOUR LAY: I ju st wanted to get this on the record.

I thought it may have left the wrong impres sion when you said that when the assessors in the province are going out and doing muni cipalities in 1982, they're using up dated values since Bill 1 00 was passed and I don't think that's a fair statement. I don' t think it's accurate. MR. B. DOUGLAS: I'm not sur e I can argue with you on that on the value. but the value and the assessment

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 is more up-to-date in the rural area and therefore the assessme nt, when you come to do assessment in the provi nce und er the foundation levy, the rural area is payi ng more relevant to the city than if the city wasn't frozen as it was in 1980. We've done the figur es for 198 1. We didn 't do them for the current year, but we could go back and you take your educa tional pro gram, ru n it across the province, see how many dollars are involved and it's quit e a lot. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions for Mr. Doug las? Mr. Gour lay. MR. D.

GO URLAY: I think that covers the points that I wanted to rai se. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Dougla s. Are there any further representat ions from persons whose names were not on our list with respect to Bill 33? The other three bills before the Comm ittee are Bill No. 50,

An Act to amend The Cr own Lands Act and the Muni cipal Assess ment Act - is there anyone here wishing to make representat ions on that bill? Bill No . 32,

An Act to amend the Muni cip al Act- is there anyone here wishing to make representation on that bill? Bill No . 63,

An Act to amend the Credit Un ions and Cais ses Populair es Act- is there anyone here wishing to appear on that bill? Heari ng none, that wou ld appear to conclude our representatio ns. Ge ntlemen, how do you wish to pro ceed for clause by clause? BILL NO. 50 - THE CROWN LANDS ACT AND THE MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENT ACT HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Chairman , I wonder if I could have the indu lgence of the Commit tee. I have staff here if there are any qu estions with respect to Bill No. 50 - a relatively short bill, but if that would be agreea ble to the Comm ittee? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that your will and pleasure? Mr. Plohman.

MR. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman , I don't think there's any reason why we have to keep those people here. I think we should deal with that. That's my feeling. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 50,

An Act to amend The Crown Lands Act and the Muni cipal Assessment Act, Cl ause 1- pass; Cl ause 2 on page 2-pass; Cl ause 3-pass;

Preamble- pass; Title-p ass. Bill be reported. What is your will and pleasure with regard to the other three bills- nu merical order? BILL NO. 32 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 32,

An Act to amend The Mun icip al Act ,

Section 1 thr ough Sec tion 6, inclusive-pass. I'm advised by Legal Couns el that there's a correc tion in

Section 7( 0), the last line thereof. Apparently there's been a typog raphical error, so it shou ld read 19 "fire fighter or a driver." The word "adviser" comes out and "a driver" goes in, if we can make that change. So it would read "a volu nteer fire fighter, a driver or attendant of an emergency vehicle." Is that agreed?

Section 7 as amended-pass;

Section 8 through 14, inclusive-pass;

Preamble-pass; Title-pa ss. Bill be reported. BILL NO. 33

AN ACT RESPECTING THE ASSESSMENT OF PROPERTY TAXATION IN MUNICIPALI TIES IN 19 81 AND 18 82 (Cont'

d) MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 33,

An Act to amend

an Act respect ing the Assessment of Property for Taxation in Mu nicipalitie s in 198 1 and 1982- Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Ch airman, I wonder if the Mini ster is propo sing any amend ments in light of the court ruling that Mr. Mercury put before the Comm it tee tonig ht? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: No, Mr. Chai rman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Banman. MR. R. BAN MAN: With regard to the court ruling, has the Mini ster consi dered allowing the people that are affected within the Cit y of Winnip eg to appeal at 1980 levels? HON. A. ADAM: No, Mr.

Cha irman, it would be pretty difficult to have a freeze and also have an exemption to the freeze. MR. R.

BANMAN: In light of the serious inequ ities which are bui lding up within the Ci ty of Winnip eg and in light of the bill which is before us, which really doesn't set any final date with regard to resolving this outsta nding issue, and really what we've got before us is a phrase called "and su bsequent years" which appears through the Act, what is the Minister's feeling with regard to people that have been affected and obviously , as we've heard tonig ht, are really being put in a very unf air advantage not even being given the right to appeal the problems which they're faced with. HON. A.

ADAM: Yes, we are aware of the problems that are inherent in the present system, Mr. Chai rman, and the bill, as it is now proposed. allows the Go vern ment to proceed as quic kly as poss ible. The bill may be rescinded by Order-in-Council when the staff is able to prepare legislation and have mechanisms in place to admin ister the intent of the legislation . Those inequ ities that exist at the present time existed when the previous Bill 100 was introdu ced. MR. R. BAN MAN: I gue ss the difficulty that we have, as legis lators in this case is with the phrase, "and su bsequent years," Mr. Chai rman.

This really gives the Min ister the power, if he likes, to drag his heels on this matter for another three or four years without anything happeni ng. Having said ihat, I gue ss I'll pass

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 it over to one of my colleagues over here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Gourla y. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . The Min ister has indicated that there's no way they can consider the right of appeal of some of the cases we heard used as examples tonig ht. There's no way that an appeal can be consid ered, using the 1980 levels? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Adam. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Chairman, I think it's someth ing that I don' t think wou ld be acceptable to the City of Winnip eg. MR. D.

GOURLAY: Notwiths tanding any other details of the freeze, but it seems that certainly some consid eration could be gi ven to the right of appeal without jeopar dizing the whole process. HON. A. ADAM: Bi11 33, of cour se, in the main is here, as was Bill 1 00 , because of the inequ itie s in the City of Winnip eg, the problems that were faced there. We've heard the representations and I don't think we cou ld proceed to make exceptions for certain properties, even though those inequ ities are there and we recog nize they are there.

I don't think we could proceed without the Cit y of Winnip eg being consu lted on mak ing those exempti ons. We intend to proceed as soon as pos sible to deal with the problems that exist out there and that is why we did not want to tie our selves to a period of years as recommended by the Weir Comm ittee; rather, to allow Cabi net to have the flexi bility to move more exped itiously as poss ible by giv ing Cabine t the auth ority to lift the freeze whenever legislation is prepared and that the department can administer the legislation. MR. D. GO URLAY: Mr.

Chairman, the bill as it reads, which says "and sub sequent years," the Minister keeps saying they're going to move very qu ick ly. Ho wever, by passing this type of bill, it also giv es the right to govern ment to do nothi ng, drag their feet at the same time and not really add ress themselves to the problems that certainly are very evident, as bei ng adequately expr essed tonight by several of th8 dele gation s. If the Mini ster is not prepared to consider some of the earlier sugg estions, I have an amendme nt that I'd like to propose under

Section 1 of the bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now debating

Section 1, Mr. Gourla y. If you wish to propose the amendment, that's in order. Mr. Gou rlay. MR. D. GO URLAY: I wou ld move then that

Section 1 of Bill33 be amended by striking out all of the words in the last line thereof and sub stitu ting therefor the fol lowing: "therein and sub stitu ting therefor the word and figur es 1982 and 1983 ." MR. CHAIRMAN: it's been moved by Mr. Gour lay, the amendment as read. Is there any debate? QUEST ION put on the amendment, MOTION defeated. 20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Cl ause 1 - Mr. Slake. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Ch airman, I don't know what can be done to make this bill a little more acceptable.

I'm feeling very uncomfortable with the sections in view of what we've heard tonight with the delegations that have taken consid erable time in preparing their mate rial, appeari ng before this Comm ittee and indicating that the right of appeal has been denied the people in the city. Some of the inequ itie s that he has poi nted up where they have no poss ible means of redress and although the Min ister assures they're going to act exped itiously, we've seen how fast governments act exped itiously on many many occasions in the past.

I am feeling very very uncomfortable with the fact that I am going to pass this bill to night and leave those inequ ities and leave those people, that aru being aggrie ved, no avenue for relief or at least for an attempt of relief. They are absolutely hamstru ng. I am feeling very very uncomf ortable and I don't see how I can supp ort the bill un less there is some amendment. The amendme nt that was ju st proposed would gi ve some indication that there is at least only one more year for them to suffer, but as the bill is worded now, this can go on and on and on.

The Minister can assure us all he wishes but we know the report, we know of its political implications and something has to be done, because it's been pointed out to us in no uncertain terms what is an ap parent absolute mess in the Ci ty of Winnip eg assessment situation. That wou ld be up to them to clean it up as qu ickly as possible. I am feeling very very uncomfortable about passing a bill tonight that does n't gi ve those people some redress for their grievance on their assessment, when it is given to the people in rural Manitoba, but not to the citizens of the Ci ty of Winnip eg.

I'm afraid there's going to be reper cussions on it and what the results may be, I would have no idea. I jus t feel very very uncomfortable in seeing this bill passed in the form that it's in tonig ht. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McKenzie. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Can I ask the Minister if he or his department or the Go v ernment has studied the decision of Ju dge Wi lson was referred to the Comm ittee tonight by Mr. Mercury and then the appeal decision which came down, I gue ss, Ju ne. Has the Min ister and the gov ernment stu die d those court decisions? HON. A.

ADAM: The staff has reviewed the results of the court proceed ings, yes. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Ch airman. Can the Minister advise the Comm ittee now if in fact as has been alleged tonight in this Com mittee that this bill is in violation of the Char ter of Rig hts in our countr y? Has that been studie d? Can the Minister give me a legal opinion on that subject matter? HON. A. ADAM: The information that I have from counsel is that it does not infringe on the rig hts MR. D. BLAKE: They said it was a payroll tax.

Monday, 28 June, 19 82 HON. A. ADAM: .. Mr. Chairman, if I may proceed. The Member for Swan Ri ver indicated that the gov ernment perhaps could drag its feet. I want to advise the honour able mem ber that we have met with the Uni on of Manitoba Mun icipalities and we have advised them how we are proce eding with the recommenda tions . We've also met with the Ur ban Association of Mun icipalities; we have advised them how we are pro ceeding and we have had positive response on the way we are proceed ing. We are not dragg ing our feet.

The Mu nicipal Standing Comm ittee on Muni cip al Affairs will be holding hearings to deal with the recomme ndations later on this year and legislation will be brou ght in as soon as pos sible, so we are not dragging our feet on this legislation whatsoever. I wou ld ask if we were to follow the other alternative, the other recommendations that were in the recom mendation, that is, to proceed up to 1987, I think that wou ld be unacceptable. We think that we are proceed ing in a better way; this bill gives us more flexibility. If things fall into place, we can proceed a lot sooner than later. MR. W.

McKENZIE: Well, Mr. Ch airman, I have diffi cu lty now that I've heard the comme nts from the Min ister because we have a court decision and an appeal cour t decision and the Minister is not prepared to consider them. He's not certain about the Ch arter of Ri ghts, whether in fact the allegation has been before the Comm ittee on two occasions to night, if in fact this were in conflict with the Char ter of Ri ghts by passing this legislation. I certainly would like the Minister to gi ve us a legal opinio n on these before I can appr ove of this legislation that's before us at this time. HON. A. ADAM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, if this legislation contravenes human rig hts, so did Bill 100 which the honour able member was party to. MR. W

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-ma1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf ma1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6bcfc7fb6702d3e5bf0d0cc4249c49c7d7b65010

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