Manitoba Hansard — 14 May 1984 (Sitting 21B, 32nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

32-3-21b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 218 - 8:00 p.m., MONDAY, 14 MAY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

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

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NDP NDP NDP INO NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 14 May, 19 84. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order . The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Mr. Chairman, in the

section of the Committee of Supply, sitting in Room 255 today, on Mond ay, May 14 , 19 84, deliberating on the Estimates of the Department of High ways and Transportation, Mr . Orchard moved a motion that the Mi nister's Salary, at the Budget item, line 1. (

a) be reduced to $5.95 plus tax. A voice vote was taken and the motion was defeated. Subsequently members requested that a formal vote be taken on the motion. The time being 5:30 the vote was deferred until this evening's sitting before the entir e Committee of Supply. MOTION presented and defeated. MR. H. ENNS: Yeas and Nays, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Call in the members. A COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas, 12; Nays, 22. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please, order please. I declare the motion lost. The Honourable Attorney-General on a point of order. HON. R. PENNER: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairperson. I would like the record to be clear as to whether or not that was the levy or a sales tax, because there is no sales tax on salary, it must have been the levy. I want the record to show that the opposition demonstrated their support for the levy. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Chairman, on a point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. There is no point of order. Is there leave for the committee to complete the Estimates of the Department of Hi ghway s and Transpor tation here in the House without further debate? (Agreed) Item 1. (a), Mini ster's Salary-pass.

Resolution No. 95: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,850,300 for Highways and Transportation, Adminis tration and Finance for the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1 985-pass. The committee will now be splitting again. Education will be here; Municipal Affairs in the committee room. 768 SUPPLY - MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will now be dealing with Estimates of the Department of Municipal Affairs. We shall begin with a statement from the Honourable Mini ster responsible. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr . Chairman, members of the committee, I would like to present the Estimates for the Department of Municipal Affairs for the coming fiscal year, 19 84-85. This is my first opportunity to appear before a Committee of Supply, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Estimates of my department with members on both sides of the House.

I have tabled a package of supplementary material which provides detailed information about this year's Estimates, as well as historical information. To my knowledge, this is the first time this material has been supplied with respect to Municipal Affairs, and I hope it will be of assistance to all members. it's traditional and certainly appropriate for Min isters of Municipal Affairs to initially recognize the contribution made by members of Manitoba's municipal community, the elected local officials who continue to serve our local government in this province.

Unfortu nately, their contribution is often minimized because of the vast areas served by so many people in so many different jurisdic tions. I'm certain members would join with me in expressing our appreciation for the contributions made by municipal councillors, mayors, reeves, their support staff in continuing the high standard of public service in Manitoba. We wish them well in their current term of office.

I think it's also appropriate to recognize the support given to local government and also the leadership given to the Department of Municipal Affairs by my Deputy Min ister, Gerry Forrest, and the directors and staff of the Department of Municipal Affairs. I think some members will note with interest that this is Gerry's 25th year in municipal service in the Province of Manitoba. He doesn't look that old, but apparently this fall's Union of Manitoba Municipalities Conference, their annual convention in November of this year, will represent the 25th consecutive UMM Conference that Gerry Forrest has attended.

So certainly we have come to recognize him as being a diligent public servant in the area of local municipal government. I would like to pay particular attention to two directors of the Department of Municipal Affairs who will be retiring dur ing the period of these Estimates, and I would also like to take a moment to thank them for their contributions to municipal government. Mr. Roy Fulscher served as Secretary-Treasurer for over 25 years in West St. Paul before joining the Municipal Services Branch in 19 74.

His leadership and expertise was shared with municipalities throughout the province, and he has earned our thanks for a job well done, often under very trying conditions. Roy has a calm and quiet manner, and brought an objectiv e attitude to assist in

Monday, 14 May, 1984 the re solution of various diffi cultie s at the local government level. The same qu iet man ner and dedication and leadership was brought to a somewhat more difficult and noisier arena by Jake Reimer, who will be retiring as Provincial Municipal Assessor this year. During his extended period of service, Jake always displa yed qualit ies of professionalism and integrity in an area of responsibility which each of us knows is one of great contention and difficulty. At times it's impo rtant to recognize the progress made in past years without necessarily dwelling on the challenges ahead.

I'm pleased to take this opportunity to recognize the public service of these two individuals while they are still in the ranks of our Civil Service and I hope honou rable members will join with me in commanding them for their extensive and honourable service. Moving to the Estimates proper, which you see in front of you, both in the Estimates Book and in the Supplementary Information; Municipal Affairs shows an overall increase of 3.56 percent for'84-85. Various branches of Municipal Affairs are marginally up or down and the explanation for these shifts shows up in the detailed supplement.

There are no dramatic increases, except the transfer of police grant funding from the Attorney-General's Department to our Budget and Finance Branch. Members will note a slight difference in the items displayed under the General Administration heading and the Research function is now displayed separately. The overall request in this area is down slightly as are several other branches. Restraint measures have been applied to hold the line or trim wherever possible, to be consistent with delivery of existing services. Most decreases show up in the Other Expenditures line.

The Municipal Board decrease reflects a reduction of one stenographic position, which was not occupied, and hearing and travel costs are expected to remain in a stable position. The Budget and Finance Branch shows an increase of 4.59 percent, attributable to the addition of the police grants, an increase of just over 3 percent in grants in lieu of taxes, a marginal increase in urban transit grants and a slight increase in centennial grants. Members will appreciate that the centennial grant figure varies with the anticipated municipal centennial celebrations which relate to settlement or incorporation dates.

I should point out that the percentage figures referred to are expressed as a percentage of the departmental total. The actual dollar comparisons are reflected in the left and right-hand columns as usual, reflecting here on the detailed information which was tabled in the House today. The Main Street figure is increased to accommodate projects approved and commenced in one fiscal, year to be comp leted in anot her . Specific histor ical information, with regard to the Main Street Program is shown in part three, the historical portion of the supplement.

The Municipal Assessment portion of our estimates will be of interest to members. A modest increase is shown, which requir es some explanation in broader terms. Accordingly , I offer these questions on the whole question of assessment reform, which is certainly one of the highest priority areas in my department. 769 In April of 1982, my predecessor, the Honour able Pete Adam, Minister of Municipal Affairs, received the report of the Manitoba Assessment Review Comm ittee, a report which most of us know as the Weir Report.

The underlying theme of that report was that major identified inequities related in one way or another to both assessment values and assessment legislation being out of date. Out-of-date assessment values make it virtually impossible to establish the one piece of real property as assessed in its proper relationship to any other piece of property. Out-of-date legislation has resulted in the guidelines to the assessment process being confusing, inconsistent and, in some cases, simply unfair.

The Department of Municipal Affairs agrees with many of the findings of the Weir Commit tee; however, the department is JlOt prepared to ins tit ute specific recommendations until firm evidence was on hand to show these theoretical solutions might actually work on the ground. Upon receipt of the M.A.R.C. Report, departmental staff were directed to evaluate the impact of impl ementing these recommendations province-wide. Some of this work has been completed; some is ongoing.

A second requirement of the assessment reform process recognized by the department was to allow the citizens of Manitoba a chance to react to the recommendations of the Weir Report. In order to provide a forum for these comments, a Standing Commit tee on Municipal Affairs was directed by the Legislature to conduct a series of public meetings across the province a year ago in January. The first phase of public involvement concluded with the June, 1983 report to the Legislature of the Municipal Affairs Comm ittee.

That report included recommendations on those aspects of the Weir Report that the committee felt should be proceeded with as soon as possible in those areas where it seemed that additional information and research would be necessary before the impact could be evaluated. Although the review and research process is ongoing, the Department of Municipal Affairs is now moving in an orderly process of assessment reform. That reform recognizes many aspects of the Weir Commi ttee recommendations, but it also takes into account the public feedback on those recommendations and the analysis of the impact of implementation.

Action has now been initiated in virtually all of the major areas touched upon in the Weir Report. The nature of these actions can be itemized as follows, under Classification and Port ioning, the M. A.R.C. concept for the assessment of property in Manitoba was based on a th ree-phased approach consisting of the evaluation of property, the classification of property, and the determination of what portion of value by property class would be used for taxation purposes. List year, Bill 105,

An Act to amend The Municipal Assessment Act, was passed and it represented the first step in this reform process. This amendment created authority within the assessment legislation whereby the Lieutenant-Gov ernor-in-Council can establish property classes and define the portions of value for each that will be used for taxation purposes." The provisions of Bill 105 just referred to have yet to be proclaimed. One of the most frequently mentioned concerns at the Municipal Affairs Commit tee hearings had to do

Monday, 14 May, 1884 with ensuring that substantial shifts in taxation did not occur between property classes at this time. This was also one of the prim ary fears of the Ma nitoba Assessment Review Committee and one with which this government is in agreement. To deal with this concern, it's essen tial that information be on hand which will allow detailed definition of each pro perty cla ss.

Of particular significance then is the definition of "farm property." The problem in this regard has been that many farm residences and farm outbuildings which are exempt from taxation have not been assessed and placed on the current assessment rolls. Before prop erty classes and portioning can be put in place, these properties mus t be dealt with.

In accordanc e with the recommendations of the Mu nicipal Affairs Committee of the Legislature, the Provincial Municipal Assessor has been dir ected to make the assessment of all such property a high priority within his branch. it's estimated that the assessment will be completed by the fall of 19 85. The ta sk of de fining property classes and calculat ing, and tes ting portions can then be commenced in detail.

The second interim report of the Weir Committee stated that it's not physically or economically possible to provide a sufficient number of assessors to maintain assessment records manually, or to undertake physical reassessment on a cycle that is current enough to maintain understanding or equity. The single greatest cause of these inequities that occurs in the assessment system, both across the urban and rural areas of the province, is the simple fact that assessed values of property are out of date.

The essence of the assessment system is to provide that the amount at which property is assessed bears a fair and just relationship to the amount at which other properties in the same jurisdiction are assessed. With assessed value currently running from 10 to nearly 30 years out of date it's virtually impossible for property owners, and in many cases for the assessor himself, to determine whether this fair and just relationship exists. If equity is ever to be achieved in the system it will be necessary to have a means by which assessed values can be kept current enough for all involved parties to understand.

The government has recognized that computerization of the assessment process is critical to the resolution of current inequities. Computerization will neither be quick nor inexpensive but there's no substitute for its development. it's therefore particularly indi cative of the go ver nment's comm itment to assessment reform to announce tonight, that even in this time of restraint and spending cutbacks, four additional staff years are being established in the Department of Municipal Affairs, specifically to develop and maintain a computerized assessment program.

The needs analysis, system design, program implementation that will constitute the computerization

schedule will be a time-consuming proposition. The M.A.R.C. Report

schedule allowed two year or three years for this activity and emphasized the use of outside consulting firms to work on the design. The Department of Municipal Affairs has concluded, for reasons of ongoing maintenance and continuing development, that it would be more efficient and economical to develop this staff expertise in-House. Although the time required 770 to develop the in-House system might be a little bit longer it's anticipated that the benefits of developing the system inte rnally will outweigh any in itial disadvantage.

In the area of procedural uniformi ty, my department is also taking immediate action in accordance with the Weir and Legislative Committee recommendations to develop uniform assessment procedu res for the City of Winnipeg and for the rest of Manitoba. The existence of province-wide levies based on real property value make it essential that all jur isdictions assess property through the use of identical procedures. I have therefore dir ected the provincial municipal assessor to develop uniform standards, and to prepare as necessary regulations in this regard to be established under The Municipal Assessment Act.

Liaison with the Office of the City of Winnipeg Assessor has been established to assist in the development of these procedures, and the co-operation of city assessment staff in this matter is appreciated. it's no secret that the assessment system in Manitoba is poorly understood by the general public. This is of cou rse not a reflect ion on the public's ability to understand, but rather it is the fault of an antiquated system based on out-of-date legislation and assessment values that really bear no resemblance to current property values.

People therefore have no means of relating the assessed value of their property to any commonly-understood value system. Although there will be many chan ges in the assessment system over the next few years, the Department of Mu nicipa l Affairs is imme di ately commencing a public education program that will explain the basis of the assessment system and provide guidance on many of the more freq uently encountered probl ems occurring with the existing legislation. Pamphlets dealing with these issues will be obtainable from all municipal assessment branch offices, as well as from individual municipalities.

In many instances, they will also be mailed out with assessment notices received by individual ratepayers. The department has also committed itself to a total revision of the current Mu nicipal Assessment Act. The act has been an evolving piece of legislation since the early 19 00s, and has had so many band-aid amendments that it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to follow. Patchwork solutions will be inadequate to correct the problems currently identified both by the Legislative Committee and in the Weir Report.

The procedure will be to take each of the major parts of the act and rewrite it in total as the reform process continues. Those areas where decisions have been made on reform measures will be revised first, to be followed sequentially by rewrites of other sections. Finally, the administrative structure of the Municipal Assessment Branch is being reorganized to place the department in a position to implement assessment reform measures. There have been few changes over the years within the structure of the branch to enable it to keep up with increasing volume and the complexity of its legislative duties.

As Manitoba's population and real property assessment rolls have grown, a greater need has developed for specialization within the assessment field. Changes are being made in the Assessment Branch to accommodate this situation by the designation and

Monday, 14 May, 1984 the management structure of position specifically designed to concentrate on computerization, building assessment, land assessment and public education programs. These changes will not involve new staff positions, but reorganizing of existing positions. I should also point out that the drafting functions in the Assessment and Planning Branches in Winnipeg have been integrated to achieve greater cohesion and effectiveness. Some reassignment has taken place and two positions have been identified as redundant.

Our personnel staff will be working closely with the Civil Service Commission to place these two individiuals in other positions within the government. This integration will not affect dr afting personnel in any of the branch locations of the department. In concluding my comments on assessment reform, I want to assure all members and the general public that throughout this process of reform it is my intention to encourage frequent consultation with all Manitobans who have an interest in the subject.

I would hope that over that period of time all Manitobans who pay municipal property taxes, either dir ectly or through their rent, will corne to have a serious interest in assessment and try to understand a complex issue so that reforms are under stood as they are implemented. I firmly believe that assessment reform must be a continuing process rather than a terminal result. We must recognize that changes have to continue and reflect altered circum stan ces and situations. Responsible assessment reform requir es ability and willing ness to respond to a continuing need for change.

Municipal Services Branch therefore reflects an increase to accommodate additional staff specifically assigned to computerization as it relates to assessment reform. Memb ers will recall that that Services Branch provides the computer services for the Assessment Program. The Municipal Planning Branch shows a reduction of 1 percent wher e th ree vacant posit ions were eliminated.

Considerable amount of detailed information is included in the supplementary material relating to municipalities in planning di stricts, the number of development plans in place or in preparation, zoning by-law inf orma t ion, and various other types of information relating to planning activity in the province. The Provi ncial Planning Branch shows a slight decrease in costs with no reduction in staff. The overall result reflects a tightened dollar budget with no program elimination. I would invite members to note the greater breakdowns shown in

Part 1 and

Part 2 of the supplement on each of the expenditure items. The information of a historical nature in

Part 3 relates to programs and services provided by my department. Certain information relates to areas of traditional interest which flows from the services delivered. The department is traditionally functioned as a service mechanism assisting municipalities to provide a high level of service at the local level. The 19 84-85 Estimates continue that approach to co-operative efforts between the province and the various municipalities which my department serves. Before we begin the detailed examination of the Estimates, I would appreciate an opportun ity, Mr.

Chairman, to introduce the staff of the department who are here this evening. For those members who may not have met them they'll be coming forward to the side table here.

Perhaps, as they come forward, I can introduce them. 771 First of all, my Deputy Min ister, Gerry Forrest, who I believe all of you know; Ken Cameron, the gentleman with the beard that's been going greyer every year - the last few years, Ken is the Director of Administration; immed iately behind Ken, Reg Robs on, Mu nicipal Services Branch; beside him, Bob Arbuckle, Deputy Dir ector of the Assessment Branch; beside him, John Whiting, Dir ector of Municipal Planning; and on the other side of the room, the fellow who Is rubbing his hands together is our Director of Research, Bob Brown; and I think everyone knows Jake Reimer, Provincial Municipal Assessor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In accordance, with customary practice in this Committee of Supply, the Chair now calls upon the leading opposition critic to present his remarks if he so wishes. The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr . Chairman. I note the opening statement of the Min ister refers first to the local government and the job that is well done by the locally-elected members of the various towns, villages, cities and the rural municipalities and the LGD's.

In my opinion, they are the people that are closest to the tax payers and the citizenry of our province, and they are the ones that probably have the best understanding of the public relations that are so necessary between government and the electorate. lt's in that light that I noted, with considerable alarm, the start off of this present Mi nister in his role as the Mi nis ter of Municipal Affairs.

In my time in the Legislature, I cannot recall of any time in my 15 years in the Assembly where there has been a movement on the part of the local governments to express their discontent and their malaise with the operation of the Mi nister of Municipal Affairs.

In fact, I dare say, that never in the history of this province has that occurred before, so, I have to say that the Mi nister certainly made an impression when he started his tenure as the Min ister of Municipal Affairs. it was something that I never expected to see, but it has happened in this province, and I'll just make passing note of it. lt indicates to me that there is a growing unrest in this province in the field of municipal politics with the operation of this particular branch. I think most of it probably lies in the field of assessment.

I think it's only fitting and proper that in this particular year, that we should spend probably most of our time in examining the estimates of this department, dealing mostly with the field of assessment, because, that's the field where people have expected reform to occur, and we see no sign of it at this present time.

The Minister announced that he is setting up another senes of information meetings and he's going to put out a public affairs brochure and a salesman's job, providing information to people. lt would appear to me that in doing so, all he's trying to do is divert attention away from the fact that he's doing nothing in the field of assessment. We realize that changes have to occur in assessment. lt was only tonight when I was watching the news on the CBC, that I heard remarks, in fact they featured a story that dealt with the problems of assessment in the urban area, and while I am a rural member and

Monday, 14 May, 1984 realize the difficulties of assessment in rural Manitoba, I suggest to you, sir, that the problems in the city are 10 times what they are in the province as a whole. lt is a great deal of concern to all of us, that we see no evidence of quick action taking place. lt would have been my hope that the Min ister would have announced some concrete changes as a result of the Assessment Review Committee's work.

A work, which I suggest, was very valuable to this province, and here we are some three years after the initial report and the interim report and two years after the final report, and we see no evidence yet of the government taking any concrete action. Instead, we're going to have a complete review of The Assessment Act, which is perfectly okay, but, at the same time, we would hope that we would see a little more than just the review of The Assessment Act. I suggest, Mr .

Chairman, that the Min ister must act, and must act quickly in implementing a program that will deal quickly with changes in assessment. it's somewhat ironical that this province, in another jurisdiction, in the field of Urban Affairs has entered into a deal with the Federal Government and the City of Winnipeg where they plan on spending millions of dollars in the downtown development area of the City of Winnipeg, an area that is in decay. I suggest, mainly, one of the major reasons for that decay is the fact that assessment and reassessment has not occurred in that area.

Where you find properties that are 5, 10 , 15, 20, even as high as 15 0 times higher in assessment than they are in other parts of the city. I don't think that that can go on much longer without some urgent action being taken. I view with some dismay the position that the Mi nister has taken and the lack of action that appears to be prevalent in his opening remarks.

I hope, when we get into the detailed examination that the Min ister can give us some concrete evidence of definite action and a timetable of when these changes that are so vital are going to take place, because until it does the problems that we have are going to continue to magnify as long as the freeze remains in effect and we don't get any attempt at redressi ng the inequities that presently exist. MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point in time, the Chair invites the members of the departmental staff to please come forward and take their respective places.

As is customary, we are deferring the consideration of the Min ister's Salary under Item 1. (

a) and we shall immediately begin with Item 1. (bX 1) and 1. (bX2) relating to Administration and Finance, Executive Support, Salaries and Other Expendi tures. We are under Item 1. (bX 1) and 1. (bX2) together, Executive Support, Salaries and Other Expenditures - the Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, this afternoon in the Assembly the Mini ster tabled for the use of members a folder that contained a pamphlet, an Illustration of Supplementary Information for Legislative Review. I look at the cover, it looks pretty classy.

I presume that to present, or to have one of those things printed, it would take a fair bit of time to design it, so it was obvious quite some time ago that the Min ister had some 772 intention of giving us additional information. Was it by sheer happenstance that we got it this afternoon, two or three hours before we started into his departmental Estimates? HON. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr . Chairman. I regret that the information was not available sooner. Decisions were made to provide this information after the Estimates Review, some time in March. I asked staff to prepare it.

About two weeks ago I received the first dr aft of the information. lt didn't provide enough information for honourable members in some areas and I asked staff to go back and put more information in, in certain areas. That delayed getting it into the House. lt was ready I believe just last Frid ay, we got it from the print shop. I didn't have it in time to go into the House at 10 :00 a. m. last Frid ay.

I didn't expect Attorney General, and Hig hways to be expedited as quickly through the Estimates process as they were, and I do appreciate the efforts of the Honourable Opposition House Leader in expediting the Estimates and I regret that hon ourable members opposite didn't have it sooner. They could have had it two weeks ago, but it would have had less information than what is in it now. MR. H. GRAHAM: On Pages 1-7, dealing with the Administration and Salary distribution, he presents a pie there but some of the figures are very blurred.

Perhaps he could read it out, so that we could write down what is almost impossible to decipher. HON. A. ANSTETT: Okay. Yes, the member will notice the budget and finance pie underneath Municipal Board - I believe the figure is 8.5. MR. H. GRAHAM: What is that for? HON. A. ANSTETT: The other one on the other side that is hard to read is Municipal Planning, 28.7. The first one was budget and finance, it's not 8.5, it's 3.5, Mr. Chairman, I stand corrected. MR. H. GRAHAM: Budget and Finance, 3.5? HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes. MR. H. GRAHAM: And 28 . HON. A. ANSTETT: 28.7 for Mu nicipal Planning. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you.

I have no questions on 1. (

a) or 1. (b). MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (a)-pass; 1. (bX 1)-pass; 1. (bX2) pass. 1. (c)( 1) Research and Salaries; 1. (c)

(2) Othe r Expenditur es - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, in the Research section, what percentage of that would be spent, if any, on assessment? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr . Chairman, the vast bulk of the research capacity is being dedicated to assessment research on the assessment reform package. lt is the

Monday, 14 May, 1984 principal assignment th<:.t the branch has. They do spend some other time, particularly in relation to a new assignment they've been given with regard to the reform of the polic e gr ant system for whic h we assume resp onsibility April 1st, and some other projects as assigned and they are handling some other projects at the present time. But I would say that certainly the bulk of their time, well in excess of three-quarters, is spent on assess ment refo rm.

That branch was responsible, for example, with the development of the green book, Im pact Anal ysis that the Standing Committee had a year ago in January, and they're continuing to provide update analysis information on implementation of the Weir Recommendations. MR. H. GRAHAM: Would it be 80 percent, 85 percent on assessment? Would the Minister care to hazard a guess? HON. A. ANSTETT: I think my original figure of 75 is perhaps most accurate. Certainly thre e-quarters-plus of their time. MR. H.

GRAHAM: In that research, would some of that also go into the information packages -would they be researching the information packages that the Mi nister is planning on distributing? HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes. MR. H. GRAHAM: That's fine. HON. A. ANSTETT: For the benefit of the Member for Virde n, I should point out that the work on the information pack ages is being done both in administration and in research. The communication specialist in the Administration Branch also has a role to play in the design and development of the brochures. MR. CH AIRMAN: 1. (c)( 1) -pass; 1. (c) (2)- pass; Research: 1. (c)

(1) Salaries, 1. (c)

(2) Other Ex penditures- pass. 1. (d) ( 1) Fin ancial and Admin ist rative Serv ices: Salaries, 1. (d)

(2) Financial and Administr ative Services: Other Expenditures -the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, I believe there is no change in SMYs, is there? HON. A. ANSTETT: No, there is no change in Finance and Administrative Services. MR. H. GRAHAM: We are facing a slight decrease in Salaries? HON . A. ANST ETT: Yes, there is a decrease of $5,900.00. MR. H. GRAHAM: $5,900.00? HON. A. ANSTETT: 12 6.9 1ess -oh, sorry, on the total -that's only on clerical. On the total, it is more like $1 4,000.00. MR. H. GRAHAM: That decrease, would there be some staff who have retired, and junior people have moved in?

HON. A. ANSTETT: I believe the major reason for the change is the 27th pay period being lost this year. MR. CH AIRMAN: 1. (d) (1 )-pass; 1. (d)

(2) Othe r Expenditures-pass. We are now proceeding to Item 2.(a), 2.(

b) Municipal Board, Salaries and Other Expendi tures -the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, can the Mini ster provide us with some of the activities of the Mu nicipal Board and the accounting of the number of cases that are still before the board, the number of cases that have been handled by the board and those that are still open? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the board report was tabl ed in the House within the last month which contained all of that information. I'm sorry, I don't have a copy here this evening.

I can get that information for the member, or get him an additional copy of the report if he's misplaced his, but that did comprise a complete synopsis of cases and by case type: those completed, those pending, those awaiting disposition in some other way. MR. H. GRAHAM: Perhaps I have mislaid it then. HON. A. ANSTETT: I would be happy to get the member another copy. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(a) -does the Member for Swan River want to say anything on this item? MR. D. GOU RLAY: Mr . Chairman, I notice there is a reduction here of almost $1 0,000.00.

Does the Mi nister expect that there will be less hearings for the board this coming year, or why would this be shown as a reduction? HON. A. ANSTETT: I think the member will note that the total reduction is reflected in the salary total, although the expense total changes are very marginal. The bulk of the $10, 000 is in the salary figure, and that again reflects the absence of the 27th pay period. MR. CH AIRMAN: 2. (a)- pass, Mu nicipal Board, Salaries; 2.(

b) Municipal Board, Other Expenditur es pass. Resolution 113 : Resolved that there be granted to Her Ma jesty a sum not exceed ing $299,300 for Municipal Affairs, Municipal Board for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1985 -pass. Proceeding, Item No. 3.(

a) Municipal Budget and Finance, Salaries; 3.(

b) Other Expenditures; 3.(

c) Grants to Municipalities in Lieu of Taxes; 3.(

d) Urban Transit Gr cmts; 3.(

e) Centennial Gr ants; 3.(

f) Police Services Grant -the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, dealing with Grants to Mu nicipalities in Lieu of Taxes, I notice there are two areas where there seems to be a significant reduction. One is in Keewatin Community College where we have a reduction from $220,660 to $1 95,825.00. Could the Minister explain the reason for that reduction?

Monday, 14 May, 1984 HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I would point out this is not a reduction in the grants for the current year, but was a reduction in the grant for Keewatin College to the Town of The Pas -did some of that go to the LGD? -all to the Town of The Pas for last year over the next preceeding year. We don't have the'84- 85 figures, because all mill rates are not struck and all grants paid at this point.

I understand that would be a reflection in that year of either assessment or mill rate change s which wou ld poss ibly flow from a reassessment which would apply to the school division there and create a restructuring in the grant obligation. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Mini ster then give the general education and school tax levy for The Pas for the years, '82-83 and' 83-84? HON. A. ANSTE TT: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that information with me tonight, but I can provide that informatio n, both the school and municipal mill rates for the Town of The Pas for those two years. I suspect, Mr.

Chairman, that what the member will find, and I can verify this as well, is that the Mi nister of Education provided some, I believe it was, between $14 million and $16 million in additional funds for the Education Support Levy dir ected at school divisions with the lowest ability to raise taxes in terms of their assessment ratio per pupil. I know the Kelsey School Division was in receipt, on a percentage basis, of more funds than many other school divisions in the province, and the receipt of those additional funds would probably have created an offset th ere.

So I'll try and pr ovide both comparativ e information for the special grants from the Education Support Levy as well as the mill rates for the last two years. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr . Chairman, maybe I should be going into the other committee and asking those questions in there. lt's rather unfortunate that education is sitting at the same time as we're dealing with this, but I hope the Min ister will give us that information as soon as possible. I would ask him then for the information also on the Gimli Industrial Park.

Could he give me the reason for the reduction in grants in lieu of taxes on Gimli Industrial Park? HON. A. ANSTETT: I believe that particular part of the province was reassessed during that same period. I suspect that that reassessment would be reflected in the Evergreen School Division levy, which then would show a reduced share for the R.M. of Gimli in the Evergreen School Division, which then reflects a lower grant in lieu requirement for the Gimli Industrial Park which is in that portion of the school division.

I don't believe there would be much found assessment in the Gimli Industrial Park, so its relative position to the overall school division assessment would reflect a reduction. MR. H. GRAHAM: Is the Mini ster prepared to provide us with detailed information on it? HON. A. ANSTETT: Oh, certainly. Mr . Chairman, I'm happy to provide as well the mill rates for the the R.M. of Gimli for 19 82-83 and 19 83-84, as well as a departmental explanation for the drop in the grant. MR. CHAI RMAN: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr . Chairman, reference was made in this

section to the urban transit or transportation grants. Do they flow from this department? If so, can he indicate what this year's grant to the City of Winnipeg, City of Brando n, and is there another urban center that received assistance through this department? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the grants from the Department of Municipal Affairs do not affect the City of Winnipeg -those grants are provided by the Department of Urban Affairs -but the grants to Brandon for 19 84-85 will be $508,835, up from $424 in'8 3-84; to Thompson $8 1,692.00. Mr . Chairman, if the member is writing perhaps I could refer him to Page 35,

Section 3, Page 5, under the heading Urban Transit Grants of the supplement, which I belie ve he has in front of him. If the member doesn't have the supplement, I will provide him with an additional copy. The grant for Flin Flon just for the record then is 68,673, up from $65,000.00. Those are the figures for this year with the historical comparison for the last two previous years. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, the policy that this government has pursued in extending this kind of assistance in transportation to the City of Winnipeg has always been accompanied with a direction as to where the city ought to buy th eir means of transportation; namely their buses. Does the same apply in the assistance being forwarded to these municipal corporations? Does the Department of Mu nicipal Affairs tell them where to buy their buses? HON. A. ANSTET T: No, Mr.

Chairman, we don't tell the municipalities where to buy their buses, but we do encourage them to provide economical mass transit for the citizens and their jur isdictions. We provide these grants to enable th em to do so and as an encouragement to them to do so. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman; it's against our rules to encourage divisiv eness between Mi nisters. I'm ju st tr ying to remember who the Mi nister responsible for Urban Affairs is.

But the question that I have is that when the City of Winnipeg is seeking support from the Provincial Government for similar purp oses, for transit purp oses, the government I think - I could be corrected, maybe I'm not addressing my remarks to the right Mi nister -but usually a pretty hard condition is attached that they must indeed buy those pu rchases from the government-owned bus manufacturing company. I'm wondering, Mr .

Chairman, whether this particular Minister just takes a more liberal attitude towards where municipal corporation can buy their buses or whether this Mi nister simply decides to accord municipa l corporation with a greater degree of confidence with

Monday, 14 May, 1984 respect to how they should, in the best interests of providing that service to their citizens, why it would be that one department of government is prepared to make, and I would suggest to say similar if not even higher proportions grants relative to numbers of people served than when these grants are being made to the commun ities of Brandon, Thompson, Flin Flon?

Why a policy of government of merely encouraging them to provide, as the Minister says, public transportation for its citizens, where a sister department in dealing with the same bu sine ss, same item , bus es, ma ss tra nsportat ion, but will no t provide that kind of assistance unless the receiving municipal corporation does as it is told by a wilful government? HON. A. ANSTETT: Unfortunately, the member is operating on somewhat dated assumptions . .I recall the concern he expressed being raised by him and some of his colleagues in the mid '70s.

The member would certainly be aware because he was a member of a government that got involved in a program called the Urban Transit Assistance Program, spons ored jointly by the provincial and federal governments, and part of the conditions of the UTAP Program from which these grants flowed in previous years,'82-83, and'83-84, was a requirement that the best tender be accepted.

Certain ly, the Province of Manitoba - and I'm sure that this government would be no different than the previous administration - encouraged local municipal governments, whether they be under the jurisdiction of my colleague, the Minister of Urban Affairs, the Member for Kildonan, or under myself, or my immediate predecessor, or the Member for Swan Riv er, wou ld have encour aged those municipalities to purchase buses from a local suppl ier, but certainly under the UTAP Program the kind of discrimi natory preference to which the member alludes was not applied.

I can certainly tell the member it will not be applied under the grants that flow this year under my department. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, dealing with the Urban Transit Grants. I note that all grants are made by Order in-Council. There doesn't seem to be any set criteria or is there a set criterion for measuring the amount of grant to be made? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the Urban Transit Grants are geared to the operati ng deficit of the transit facility within the jurisdiction.

There are only three jurisdictions outside the City of Winnipeg who operate public transit, mass transit systems. Those are the three lis ted in the appendix and we pay what we estimate to be 50 percent of the loss in their program. However, this year we have pegged the increase and they have been advised, and hopefully will adjust their operations with regard to transit appropriately; those increases have been pegged at 4 percent. That is the historical basis for establishing the level of grant, although this year it has been pegged to a specific percentage increase. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I believe it's quite well known through the local media and other sources, radio and that, that the City of Brandon has had rather significant losses in their transit program and have taken steps to try and mini mize their losses in that field. Can the Minister tell me that the grant this year is still on a 50-50 basis or within 4 percent of a 50-50 basis? HON. A. AN STETT: No, Mr . Chairman, for the information of the Member for Virden, we have always encouraged municipalities to provide good mass transit.

Certainly , cutbacks in service for the express purpose simply of reducing an operat ing loss which is a chronic probl em with mass transit, particularly in smaller centres, is not something that we would encourage. Therefore, the grant pegged for this year has been one which may, if the city is successful in reducing its operating loss, be somewhat higher than the 50 percent margin.

I think members should also be aware though that since the UTAP Program has been discontinued and the joint federal-provincial subsidy for the purchase of new buses has been ended, the province has decided to continue a full 50 percent bus purchase grant. The member will note that the information on Page 3-4 indicates that not only will we continue that support, but will continue it without the federal assistance that was previously available. So, if anything, the province has increased its commitment to mass transit in the th ree centres that are listed. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, the grants then are based purely on pu rchase and not on the utilization factor, is that correct? HON. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr. Chairman, there are two different types of grants. One is a Transit Bus Purchase Program which is a replacement for the UTAP Program which has now expired, and the province is making unila teral commitment to provide support for those bus purchases, and that is in addition to the normal transit grants which are a support grant based on 50 percent of operating losses. 775 MR. H.

GRAHAM: So the combined grant by the City of Bran don this year will be 508,835; could the Minister give a breakdown on how much is for purchase and how much is for operations? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the grants are not combined. The Urban Transit Grant is the figure the member mentioned - $508,835.00. That will be the subsi dy. The budget also provides $15 0,000 for bus purchases which will be over and above the transit subsidy. it's, of course, up to the municipalities to make the decision whether or not they wish to take advantage of this incentive to renew their fleets.

I should point out to the honourable member that the grant to the City of Brandon received the same increase as the Cities of Thompson and Flin Flon on the assumption that the City of Brandon was anticipating an increase in their oper at ing deficit because cif expanded service and a

schedule change to run on the half hour dur ing the day. Now the member's information that some cutbacks have now taken place in this expanded service may well affect the deficit, but

Monday, 14 May, 1984 the commitment to have this amount of grant available has been made and the city is aware of it. MR. H. GRAHAM: I believe that the bus services that were cut out were su bseq uently rei nsta ted after significant public protest; I believe it's back in. The $1 50,000 comes over in the last item, I believe. Does that $1 50,000 apply to all th ree cen tr es or is it specifically for one? HON. A. ANSTETT: Essentially it only applies to Brandon because Brandon would be the only centre renewing their fleets. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(

a) Municipal Budget and Finance, Salaries-pass; 3.(

b) Other Expenditures- pass; 3.(

c) Grants to Municipalities in Lieu of Taxes-pass; 3.(

d) Urban Transit Grants- pass. 3.(

e) Centennial Grants. MR. H. GRAHAM: Hold it, Mr. Chairman, under the Centennial Grants, could the Minis ter provide -it may be in his

summary here -oh yes, it does provide the rural municipalities that were served last year and this year. lt would appear, without doing any count, that there are certainly as many rural municipalities, probably more, this year while there may be fewer towns and villages. I notice there's quite a significant drop in the total gr ants. Is that because of the size of the municipalities involved? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr . Chairman, actually it's the opposite. it's an increase in the grant from $66,426 to an Estimate of $10 0,000.00. The reason for that is that the grant is strictly based on $2 per capita, and the population total for the municipalities celebrating this year is approximately 50,000

whereas last year it was about 33,000, and it's purely reflective of that. So that's an increase that we weren 't able to hold across the board, strict guideli nes on in creases in the neighbour hood to 3 to 3.5 percent. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, then the figure that appears in the expenditur e book, our Main Estimates, of $14 0,000 is an error? Is that correct? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr . Chairman, I would draw the member's attention to Page 39 and the

summary of expenditure information. Last year the department estimated $1 40,000 for centennials, so the member is correct that last year's estimate of $14 0,000 is higher than $1 00,000.00. But the actual expenditure last year was only $66,426.00. I can't explain but I could find out why last year's estimate was so far off. Mr . Chairman, I have received a very reasonable explanati on. We don't know necessari ly when a municipality will choose to celebrate because they have the option of choosing to celebrate their centennial either on their settlement date or their incorporation date.

As the honourable member knows, those two dates can be several years apart. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr . Chairman, if I may be allowed to take a rather parochial view at this particular point in time, I do want to bring to the Honourable 776 Min ister's attention that in the constituency of Virden, which I have the pleasure of represe nting at the present time, we do have the Rural Municipality of Strathcla ir, we do have the Rural Mu nicipality of Wallace, the Rural Municipality of Birtle, the Rural Municipality of Shoal Lake, and possibly the Town of Birtle, as well as the Rural Muni cipal ity of Hamiota.

They will all be celebrating their centennials this year and I invite all Memb ers of the Assembly and all people of Manitoba to come and join in the centennial celebrations that are taking place in the constituency of Virden this year. I assure you that the hospitality will be excellent and you will be well received and we hope that everyone will enjoy the time they spend at those centennial celebrations.

At the same time, if I may impose on the Min ister of Municipal Affairs, I know the requests that have been made of me as the sitting member for little pins and flags and things of that nature to help in these festivities far exceeds the ability of an ML A to supply them all, so if the Mini ster has anything hanging around in his office or in the back corner , I may be imposing on him for additional assistance. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr .

Chairman, I appreciate that the costs of celebrating centennials, usually born by the magnificent groups of volunteer committees in the local communities, sometimes do run in excess of the allotment and through fund-raising projects, banquets, the community manages to, combined with the help the department provides, have one heck of a grand celebration of their cen tennial.

If th ere are any communities in the honourable member's constituency that find that the cost of provincial souvenirs is going to be beyond their budget and they would appreciate receiving flags or pins from the Min ister of Municipal Affairs, I would ask the honourable member to refer those requests to me and I would be happy, when I go out to visit, and present the centennial plaques and grant cheques to those municipalities to take along some of those mementoes as well. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr .

Chairman, I appreciate the sentiments of the Min ister, but I assure you that it takes a great deal of planning to put these affairs in place and I would hope that he would have the courtesy of sending the pins and the flags approximately two weeks before the affair is official, so they can do their necessary planning and have everyt hing in place for the grand celebrations. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the injunction of the member on behalf of his constituents. If he'll refer the requests he receives, I'll see that they're taken care of well in advance of the event. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(

e) Centennial Grants-pass. 3.(

f) Police Services Grant -the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I note that this has normal ly, I believe, fallen under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General and we see it being transferred to Municipal Affairs this particular year. I would like to ask the Mini ster why that change has occurred? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the primary reason for the change was that it seemed to make more sense

Monday, 14 May, 1984 to have the department which deals with most of the grants direct to municipalities - grants in lieu of taxes, etc., and services grants - administer this program as well. it was also apparent that there were problems with the program and that it seemed more appropriate to have a ministry that was at arm's length from the RCMP deal with a review.

I have set up an ad hoc committ ee consisting of representatives of the department and the Attorn ey-General's Department, where we'll have an ex officio representative to provide advice, and also representatives of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Urban Association to do a review of the whole police grant formula. For the time being, my department will continue to administer it until we come up with a better way, hopefully , of addressing what is a source of aggravation to some levels of local government because of the disparities in the current program. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I think maybe the Minister understated a point or two there, when he said that it may be a source of aggravation. I think that there's a genuine concern on the part of most municipalities, and particularly some of the towns and villages, about the whole contract with the RCMP and the provision of services. I would think that the Mini ster would be paying attention when you see items appearing in the various newspapers where, for instance, I believe it was just last week, the Town of Melita and that community of Melita was in the news once again concerning the whole area of policing.

I would hope that there is probably greater concern expressed by this government with respect to the cost of policing. it now appears that there are several municipalities who have used the RCMP in the past and are now taking a look at some alternative, mainly because the cost of the RCMP service is getting out of hand and beyond their ability to adequately finance. 1 would hope that the Minister would prevail on the Attor ney-General to take a complete look at the policing services in the province, and the total cost that is becoming quite burdensome on some of the local councils. HON. A.

ANSTETT: I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the Member for Virden. I thought I expressed my deep con cern by identifying the sentiments of local government as being those of serious aggravation. The member didn't think they were strong enough, and suggested that there was real, genuine concern out there. I won't quibble with him about whether or not serious aggravation is a stronger or weaker term than genuine concer n. Ther e is absolutely no question that there's a problem.

That problem has been brought to a head over the last three or four years by the police sevicess agreement respecting the RC MP, on which negotiations were begun by his colleague, the present Member for St. Norbert, as Attorne y-General, and which was one of the first official documents signed by my col league, the present Attorney-General, the Member for Fort Rouge. That document was not something we signed willing ly. In fact, we stated that the withd rawal of fiscal support for police policing in Manitoba through the RCMP contract was something that we agreed to under duress.

We appreciated the opposition's support at that time, n1 as we do now, for our position and for their position when they were government that this with drawal of federal RC MP funding was certainly going to have a negative impact and shift an unfair burden onto local taxpayers. I'm sure the member is aware that the shifting of this burden will continue in progressive increments over the next several years. lt was primarily due to that continuing change and continuing increasing of the liability of local ratepayers that I asked that this special committee be formed.

The honourable member would also be aware tha t the rural mu nicipalities have indicated a willingness to look at the problem. They also are aware of it. The Urba n Associat ion passed a resolution advocating a review at their last convention.

The Rural Association essentially had a motion which would have requested the government to leave the formula the way it was, not make changes, and they tabled that resolution, recognizing that this was a problem that had to be addressed and might well mean that rural municipalities who have not so far assumed any of the responsibility for RCM Police costs in their areas might well have to carry some of that burden in the future. So this is something tnat the Provincial Government and my department in co-operation with both municipal associations are going to review.

We realize it's a serious problem situation, not only in Melita but in The Pas, Winnipeg Beach, the list goes on. There are a lot of small towns and centres who are increasingly facing burdens that for the local ratepayer represent a substantial portion of the municipal service mill rate. We are prepared to examine that situation to see if that policing financing load can be more equitably distributed. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I raise the matter because I know the expressed intent of this government was to follow a course of co-operative federalism.

In their negotiations which they conducted with their so called Wish list a year ago, they have, in fact, made - what shall I say? - gloating remarks about their success. So if they're so successful in that field, I hope and I earnestly hope that they will have some success in the field of probably a better deal with the Federal Government with respect to police services.

At the same time, I would ask the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs to review the report of the liquor Control Commission, and its report on traffic violations where we find that the amount of money that was accruing to the provincial coffers through traffic violations under The Liquor Act was 10 times greater in rural Manitoba than it was in the City of Winnipeg.

Even though the majority of the population of the Province of Manitoba resides in the urban area of Winnipeg, we find that in the field of violations under The Liquor Act, the policing seems to be - should I say 10 times greater in rural Manitoba than it is in the city? This does not lead to a feeling of confidence in the police force of the province as a whole when you consider that there are some jur isdictions have their own police force such as the City of Winnipeg, the City of Brandon and some municipaliti es. lt appears that the law is being unevenly applied in certain areas in the province.

Monday, 14 May, 1984 HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I have to with respect reject out-of-hand the suggestion that in any way the provisions of The Liquor Act are being unevenly applied. I can only suggest that there might be some logical explanations. I think that the place to ask those questions is during the Attorney-General's Estimates. Since they are already complete, I'm sure the member could make a private inquiry of the Attorney-General for an explanation. I know that question has been asked during Estimates in the past.

I think the explanation will remain the same, that persons in an urban area with access to other forms of transit, car pools, taxicabs, do not face the same obligations to get home from social occasions where the y may be im bibing spi rit alcohol. Mr . Chairman, I think what we're really looking at here is not an incidence of rural people drinking more or being caught more. I think what we're looking at is a fact of rural life in which travel on patrolled highways is required. I think, if anything, the report indicates a need for greater caution on the part of rural residents.

I'm certain that the honourable member is not suggesting by his comments, that there's too much policing in rural areas, bcause, if he is, the information I've received from many rural people is that the level of policing in many parts of the province is inadequate. Certai nly, that's one of the complaints of Mayor Ken Carels, the Town of Melita, and one of the reasons they're examining the question of instituting their own police force.

I think there are explanations other than the level of policing in rural areas or any suggestion that there is a greater level of enforcement of Liquor Control Act violations in rural areas. I don't think the member is suggesting that, but I wouldn't want it on the record that his remarks could be interpreted that way. Mr . Chairman, with regard to the question of Co operative Federalism.

I have to remind the honourable member, that most of the negotiations, if not all of the negotiations, respecting the policing fiscal arrangements for the RCMP and the Government of Canada, were undertaken while members of the official opposition were in government, that those obligations for new physical arrangements were made with every government in Canada. Manitoba was no exception. Mr.

Chairman, they were a sign of a national policy by the Federal Government with regard to the RCMP which was reflective of their desire to move away from conventional traffic Liquor Control Act, and other types of policing and to encourage local jurisdictions to either pay for that themselves, using the RCMP up to a very high percentage of the total cost, or get involved in policing on their own at their own expense.

Certain ly, the experience of jurisdictions like Ontario and Quebec, where provincial police forces provide most of that type of policing, was a strong inducement on the Federal Government to shave some of their costs with regard to provi ding policing in othe r jurisdictions. My understanding is that on a comparative basis provinces outside of Quebec and Ontario which use the RCMP for provincial policing purposes still have a lower per capita policing cost as a result.

That doesn't in any way allow us to shrink away from our obligation to deal with these increased costs, but, I point out to the member that from a spirit of co-operative federalism, it certainly is only fair that the Federal Government ns provide the same level of service throughout the country. That's an ess ential component of co-operative federalism, something which operates in all income, transfer and equalization payments, whether it be Medic are or Police Services. MR. H.

GRAHAM: I believe the Honourable Mini ster probably wishes to take a slightly different twist to what I said about co-operative federalism. What he has said about the agreement that is presently in effect, was the very reason why I raised the issue of co-operative federal ism, because I belie ve the agreement that was signed was not signed in a co-operative manner. In fact, I think every province expressed quite strongly their opposition, and it wasn't a co-operative agreement that was arrived at.

I think it was probably , could more properly be called a unilateral agreement that was put forward, and that's why I stressed when this government so strongly believes in co-operative federal ism, I would hope that maybe any further negotiation on the existing contract would be done in a co-operative manner rather than a unilateral manner. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I can't agree with the Member for Virden more.

There's absolutely no question, and I said so in my response to his first question, the agreement was signed under duress by the present Attorney-General, the negotiations with his Attorney-General were under duress as they were with every other jurisdiction. I point out to the honourable member that part of the spirit of co-operative federalism is that the benefits of federal tax expenditures be shared reasonably equitably across the country. That certainly was a motivating factor in what the Federal Government did. I don't defend that decision, in fact I think it was wrong.

I think the support for RCMP policing in terms of the financing arrangement we had previously was a superior arrangement. I only point out that the changes were made on a premise of equity by the Federal Government. That still doesn't make them right and I would in no way defend them, but, to use the words "co-operative federalism ," I have to say that they certainly were in that spirit in terms of the principles of co-operative federalism as we espouse them. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(f), Police Services Grant-pass.

Resolution 11 4: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $24,019, 100 for Municipal Affairs, Municipal Budget and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1985- pass. Item No. 4.(a), Municipal Assessments, Salaries, along with 4.(b), Other Expenditur es -the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, I think this is the area where we will probably spend a fair degree of our time, and I think it's only fair and fitting and proper that it should be spent in this field, because it's the No. 1 that is facing municipal government in the Province of Manitoba.

I would also think that it is probably a problem that isn't unique to Manitoba, that it's also a serious problem in other jurisdictions as well. However, we are dealing with the affairs of the Province of Manitoba, here, and I would hope that we could have a pretty fair discussion at this time on the assessment

Monday, 14 May, 1984 practices of the province and I would hope that before we're finish ed the Min ister would gi ve us some indication of when we can expect the present freeze to be lifted. I can assure the Mini ster there are literally thousands of people in the Province of Manitoba who are waiting, some with bated breath, some in sheer desperation and exasperation, to find out when the province is finally going to do something with assessment and the freeze that is presently in effect which, as years go on, rather than minimizing the problems, greatly magnify them.

The longer the freeze stays on, the worse the problem is going to get. So I would ask the Mini ster to make a few comments, if he can give us any indication of what dir ection he's going and how fast he's going to get there. HON. A. ANSTETT: I couldn't agree with the Member for Virden more. I don't think there is any question that the longer the assessment freeze is on, the greater the di stortions tha t are occasioned by an inequitable assessment will continue, in fact, and possibly greater distortions incurred because of the freeze. I don't think there is any question about that.

But I think the honourable member's colleague, the Member for Swan River, would also concur that there is another side to the coin. The reason for the freeze was not to freeze the rights of individual ratepayers to go to Court of Revision, which they continue to do, to straighten out local inequities with regard to their own particular assessment. The reason for the freeze was not to prevent reassessment from taking place, which has continued to take place. The member will see in the

schedule -I'm trying to find the exact place -but the lists of proposed reassessments, Exhibit 14 , Page 3-23 for 1984,'85, '86. All of those things are proceeding apace. So some equity in terms of updating the rolls and red ucing the time period, the time lapse between reassessments is occurring. I think that's positive. That takes place in the context of the freeze. So although we have frozen values at a particular time, we are updating all values to that point. So I think that's valuable.

In the same context, and the member didn't ask this but I think it's relevant, the Supreme Court decision last December 13 th, I believe, with regard to Morguard Properties in the City of Winnipeg is also reflective of a similar decision. That now allows Board of Revision activities to proceed apace in the City of Winnipeg, and they're doing that. The recent decision with regard to the Hotel Fort Garry from the Board of Revision is reflective of that. We are throughout the province bringing up to date on the most current poss ible basis with manual techniques assessment values to 19 80 values.

With the City of Winnipeg, we've initiated contacts to hopefully standardize procedures there so the same thing can happen with the City of Winnipeg Assessment Office. So I'm not sure that I would describe the freeze as in itself creating greater inequities. In fact, it is allowing in some ways some breathing time. I'm not sure that breathing time will go on much longer and to that, I agree with the member . Since it won't go on that much longer, we have to address how long the freeze can 779 be in place. Certainly the freeze must come off as soon as we're ready to implement assessment reform.

There is absolutely no question about that. I would hope, since a major component in the freeze is the City of Winnipeg assessment, that we could see the City of Winnipeg assessment brought up to date. I think that's an important component. As well, I would hope that computerization for the province and we're moving and taking a great leap forward, I trust, this year with the addition of four new staff members which is a major commitment on the part of the department to compu terize for the balanc e of the provi nce.

Hopefully, those in combination will bring us to the point where we can add ress the inequit ies in equalization, both within the non-urban part of the pro vinc e between various school di visions and municipalities within school divisions. This has been exacerbated by the Education Support Program which was based upon those inequities. I don't fault the previous government for having intr oduced it. I think it was an attempt to address an education finance problem, but certainly it was compounded by the inequities in equalization.

I think that is one of the things that has to be addressed. · To implement full as<;essment reform, we have to address some of the recommendations made by the Weir Committee. One of the most significant and perhaps, I hope shared by all mem bers of this committee, important recommendations was that there should be no shift between classes. If we are to assure that shift does not take place, then we need to know exactly what the impact of bringing on previously exempt classes of property onto the rolls will be.

I would not be prepared to take a recommendation to the Legislative Assembly for changes in the legislation or to Cabinet for proclamation of Bill 105 of last year with regard to classification and portioning until we know what the impact of bringing this new assessment onto the rolls will be. To ensure that, when farm residences are brought on the roll, that the credit for the payment into the farm category goes into the agricultural or farm category before those residen ces are moved into the residential category for tax purposes.

So there is a great deal of research and analysis yet to be done, both in bringing everyt hing up to date and dealing with the equalization problem, and in addressing the quest ion of curren tly exempt dw ellings and outbuildings, and exemptions in other categories. As I have said to many people who have asked me publicly and on public platforms since I assumed resp onsibility for assessment reform, I don't intend to jump into that water until I know how deep it is, and I don't intend to go over my head and I don't think the Member for Virden wants to jump in with me.

I don't think either of us could swim in that water if we were n't prepared to find out first how deep it was. I think that's the real danger of assessment reform if we move too quickly and don't know where we are going. I think the honourable members would be the first to say to me, well, you've brought in this legislation. You have introduced these reforms. You've proclaimed Bill 105 from last year. What's the impact going to be on the tax bills next year? If you didn't ask me that this year, you would be asking me that during Estimates next year.

Hopefully, after the fall of 1985, I will be able to share with all honourable members and with the public the

Monday, 14 May, 1984 specific ana lyses showing what the im pact of implementation will be. I don't expect the freeze to come off until we're able to do that and to be able to implement those reforms, particularly as they relate to equalization. That's an important component, because it is the disparity that currently exists between the City of Winnipeg and the balance of the province. That's a long and complex answer to a simple question, when's the freeze coming off, but I hope the honourabl e member appr eciates tha t it is a very complex question. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Swan River. MR. D.

GOU RLAY: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. Carrying on in this same area with respect to the implementation of the new assessment system as recommended by the Weir Commission, the Weir Commission outlined two alterna ti ves that might be followed, either Alternative 1 or Alternative 2. I'm just wondering with respect to the Min ister's comments just now, I'm not sure just which alternative that he is following, or is he following either one of these as outlined by Mr . Weir? HON. A. ANSTETT: Just to clarify the Honourable Member for Swan River's question, are you referring to the time frame comments for implementation?

MR. D. GOU RLAY: Yes. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr . Chairman, obviously neither time frame is being followed in the current context, because the report proposed that legislation be introduced at the Session in which the report was tabled. The timetable that was proposed by Mr . Weir and his colleagues on the committee required legislation in the spring of 19 82. We're now in the spring of 1984, so we're two years behind the implementation

schedule proposed in the M.A.R.C. Report under eith er alternative. lt is my proposal, and I have asked staff to move ahead with the computerizeration which is an essential component of that im plementat ion, as qui ckly as possible, and that is being done. Extra staff resources have been ded icated to computerization, as I mentioned, and were ded icated last year by my pred ecessor, the Mi nister of Government Services, to enroling farm residences and farm out buildings.

So, that work is being done and that is being expedited. lt would be my hope, but I wouldn't predict, that we may recover some of the lost time over the last two years in terms of doing the analyses and updating that wasn't particularly anticipated. The honourable member will recall that there was some concern expressed during the hearings that the portions proposed by the M.A.R.C. Report, 16 , 15 and 8, for other residential and farm respectively, may not necessarily have been accurate, and it's since been determined that they probably aren't, but we won't know that until we have full information.

I don't think the honourable member would want us to adhere to a

schedule which prevented us from setting the portions so that no shifts took place. I don't have that information, my department doesn't have it, and I don't expect it for probably the best part of a year and-a-half. Hopeful ly, we'll have the computer systems 780 in place to the point where we can do that analysis fairly quickly when all the information is available. MR. D.

GOURL AY: Apart from the time factors in these alternativ es that were suggested, would the Minister care to indicate whether one or the other alternative has been followed, even though the time frames as suggested here are sort of obsolete at this point? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, basically I'd say we're closer to alternative 1, and the principal reason we are is that alternative 2 proposed a factoring up - I refer to the honourable member to Page 255 of the M.A.R.C. Report.

That factoring up under the reports analyses suggested that there would be inequities if that were done, but they suggested those inequities would not be any greater than those that exist in the current system.

Our review and analysis after receipt of the report indicated that those inequities might well be just as great or compound the problem and we felt that a more accurate assessment of the impact and of the necessary information we requir ed to implement the changes should be had, and that the credibility of assessment reform would suffer, and that we would have difficulty impl ementing assessment reform therefor if we compounded the errors.

I don't fault, in any way, the committee for making that recommendation, that it was possible to go that route because they didn't have access to the information which told them that there may be greater inequities flow from, I guess what you might call an elementary factoring pending receipt of the more accurate roll information. We feel it's more important to go with the accurate roll information and basically get it right the first time. On that basis, we are a little closer to alternative 1. MR. D. GOU RLAY: Thank you, Mr . Chairman, did I understand you correctly or hear you correctly, Mr .

Min ister, that you feel it'll be another year-and-a-half before sufficient information is gathe red to proceed with the various factoring percentages? HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr . Chairman. I should point out that, in terms of the two alternatives, one point I forgot to mention, is that both alternatives require full computeriza tion, so the actual time difference would not be that great in terms of final implementation. I think that's an important point to make, that in the scenario in which we're moving on assessment reform now, the time di fference at the end of the two alternativ es would be marginal.

With regard to farm building assessment I would refer the honourable member to Table 329 in the supplement which indicates those areas which have all exempt buildings assessed, both residence and outbuildings, exempt farm residences only assessed, and no exempt farm buildings assessed at all. lt gives an indication that we've made a great deal of progress in the last two years and, I think, staff are to be complimented for that. lt also shows that those areas where we would expect a large number of exempt buildings to be located are still yet to be done and the estimated date of completion

Monday, 14 May, 1984 1S September. 1985. So. that 's approximately a year and-a-half. MR. D. GOUR LAY: Just for clarification on the Supplement 3-23. it lists the Reassessment Program for 19 84. and includes the Swan River area. RM of Minito nas. RM of Swan River, LGD of Mountain. The RM of Mi nitonas and the RM of Swan River were reassessed in the last three years. but you have them shown here as being reassessed again in 19 84? HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. thank you.

I point out to the honourable member that those thr ee Swan Rivers. the only thing that's being assessed in the Reassessment Program for this year is exempt farm buildings and/or dwellings. So, if the member refers to the map 329, he will see that the RM of Mini tonas, the LGD of Mountain are in the exempt farm residences only assessed, so I would assume. on that basis, and 1 can confirm that with staff. that what will take place in those two RM's is assessment of currently exempt farm outbuildings. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Mini ster indicated that in the Computerization Program there's going to be four additional staff brought on to, 1 believe in his words. to implement the computer program. Would it be necessary after the computerization has taken place to keep an additional four on staff in the Computer Program, would that be continuous? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, yes it would. The program initially is Systems Development, but then there would be continued development of the system and operation of the system.

In fact, I would think we will need more people on that side eventually but, I think, we will be able to run, at that point, a completely up to-date annual assessment program. So, what we will have is a much superior assessment system with probably the same number, or perhaps if ever ything clicks, perhaps fewer assessors in the field and more people at the computer end.

Now I can't predict that for thr ee or four years down the road, but that's a reasonable assumption, that we would not need to be doing as many constant reassessment programs, may need a program of spot checks on the ground, that sort of thing; but the current staff of assessors should then be able to keep very up-to-date with what's happening with that computer support facility. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a) -the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, what time frame does the Minis ter anticipate until he has full implementation of the computerization, or is he going to hold up and wait for the city assessments?

HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr . Chairman, I think I mentioned in my opening remarks that we were looking in the neighb ourhood of three years for the establishment of the system . Certainly it would not be our intent to retard the developmen t of a compute rized up -to-date 781 assessment program for those areas outside the city, but we have establ ished li aison with the City of Winnipeg. We see no reason whatsoever why we should anticipate that we can't work hand in hand in the development of an up-to-date system.

I should point out to the honourable member that a large number of our assessors are currently involved in maintenance of the existing rolls rather than the reassessment program, and with computerization we estimate that we could move up to 30 of our assessors into the reassessment program rather than just straight maintenance. So that's another component of the structure of assessment that will change when we get full computerization. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, maybe I am a bit naive, but would it be easier to implement an update of the assessment and a reassessment of, say the City of Winnipeg, if the present rolls were computerized now rather than do it before you computerize it? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not completely clear on the question. MR. H. GRAHAM: Or 1s it going to take three years to computerize what is presently on the assessment rolls? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, it's not just roll entry that takes three years -that's actually not the largest chore, although that's certainly a large clerical chore -it's the system's development programming th at takes the time and test ing; that's the ti me consuming job. In fact that's why, because we wanted experienced people in-House, who would continue with us to work on that, that we decided not to go with the outside consult ants which was one of the recommendations contained in the neighbour hood of Page 250 in the Weir Report.

I should point out to the honourable member that the bulk of the work then isn't the roll entry and that the City of Winnipeg, for all intents and purp oses, was somewhere in the neighbou rhood of 75 percent or 80 percent complete on a reassessment when the Weir Committee was appointed and the conversion of that information, assuming compatibility between systems, would be a question of roll entry, not a question of extended time for system development. We'll know more when the Provincial Assessor, Mr.

Reimer, has completed his work in liaising with the City of Winnipeg staff about compatibility and uniform standards and hopefully dovetailing of computer systems in the longer term, but I can't tell the honourable member how fast the city can bring themselves up-to-date. I have to say, without being overly unkind, that -well let's be frank -that the city used the appointment of the Weir Committee by the previous government as a reason for not doing some things that they should have done over the last five years.

Some things basically started marking time in 1979-19 80 and I don't think that everyone at the city would want to admit that marking time is a lair description and I won't quibble about words, but clearly there's an obligation on our largest local government to maintain its assessment system on an up-to-date basis.

Monday, 14 May, 1984 Certainly the Supreme Court decision, which requires that city to allow Boards of Revision to continue, as was always intended outside the City of Winnipeg - and members know Courts of Revision have continued throughout the period of the freeze introduced by the Member for Swan River -and I have no qualms about that. So I think it's important to understand that those systems can be dovetailed. I don't see the time frame as offering any serious constraints on that.

There is an obligation on the City of Winnipeg to bring itself up-to-date and to ensure that its system is no longer 30 years behind the yardstick that's used for much of the rest of the province. I think the city is aware of that. I've made those same comments to the Mayor and Councillor Yanofsky at a meeting in January when we discussed this issue with them. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, I can't say that I would particularly fault the City of Winnipeg for moving slowly . I think the recom mendations of the Weir Commission gave them a feeling that probably it would be an integrated system.

I know the constraints the city was operating under, and if they could push some work onto the province in that field, I can't really fault them. But I do realize that we have to move as quickly as possible, and the Weir Commission recommended that you use outside assistance and I think the province should use that, even though they are adding staff of their own. You're into a pretty heavy program and I would hope that they use every source available to them to implement changes as quickly as possible, because we are certainly getting ourselves into deeper water every day that we wait. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I think it's important to point out that the City of Winnipeg has historically accepted resp onsibili ty and had responsibility for assessment at the local level, and they have had their problems as well and I think it would be unfair to say that the city is, in any way, totally responsible for the situation at the local level. I think, as the Weir Committee points out, this is a hand-in-hand problem and that it's developed together and certainly the province has a role to play.

But in my earlier remarks, I wanted to emphasize that we expect co-operation with the city in dovetailing assessment reform with computerization. So I don't want to be unkind to the city assessors and city administration, I think they have just as difficult a job to do, but they also have a responsibility to try to get their system up-to-date and dovetailed.

Now with regard to the question of consultants versus in-House and the experience available in other jurisdictions, I don't want the honourable member to leave the committee tonight without knowing that we are benefiting from the experience of other jurisdictions. The Deputy Mini ster was in Montreal in March of this year and had an opportunity to view a very sophisticated system that is used by the Government of the Province of Quebec, and by local jurisdictions in that province.

I, myself, was in Toronto early in April, and had a chance to meet with officials of the Department of Revenue, formerly Intergovernmental Affairs, who run the Assessment Pr ogram in that provi nce. Our Provincial Assessor will be there a week from now to 782 continue those di scussions as it relates to computerization in those jurisdictions. I think it's important as well that following the Weir Committee Report examination of computer systems in use in other jurisdictions has also taken place and will continue to take place by the team we're putting together to develop the computerized assessment system here.

That's different, of course, than being held captive by the designs or systems of a private computer outfit that would be tied into some particular consulting firm's reports and recommendations. We want the flexibil ity, and we want to have the in-House staffing and expertise developed so that we can run a competent, continu ously dev eloping system for computerized assessment in Manitoba. That doesn't at all mean that we won't learn from the expert ise in othe r jurisdictions or from the consultants that are available.

But it does mean that we're not prepared to go out and buy from a consulting firm or a computer company, all the expertise and just impose it on our system. We think we have the expertise within Manitoba to develop a system that will suit our special needs. For example, we looked at the Montreal system. My Deputy Min ister reported on it -very sophisticated, wou ld do all kinds of wonderful things both for assessment and for planning, produces magnificent multicoloured maps for zoning and planning as well as assessment data.

But the cost of the system is, first of all, very expensive, and with municipalities carrying 75 percent of the cost of assessment in this province we have to consider the imposition of such costs on their local ratepayers. Secondly, it's privately-owned. The Government of the Province of Quebec doesn't own the system.

So if we bought it we'd be paying a cost in excess of what it would cost us to develop it in-House, and then we would have the ongoing maintenance and development costs to continue to pay to someone else who owned the system over which we really had no control, and which would not be specifically designed for our needs. So I think there's a real advantage in doing it the way we're proposing to do it, and I've agreed with staff recommendations to that effect, and that's the way we intend to proceed. MR. CH AIRMAN: 4.(

a) Mu nicipal Assessments, Salaries-pass. 4.(

b) Municipal Assessments, Other Expenditures. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, before we differentiate between Salaries and Other Expenditures, can the Mi nister indicate in all the assessments that were carried on, or reassessments carried out last year, how many appeals there were against the assessments that were dealt with? I'm not talking about the appeals to the Municipal Board but to the Court of Revision. HON. A. ANSTETT: Like the Member for Virden, forgot to bring with me the Annual Report of the Provincial Municipal Assessment Branch 1983, which was tabled in the House earlier in this Session.

I would refer him, for the record, to Exhibit 9 of the Provincial Assessor's Report, Appeals and Complaints against Assessment in 1983. The total is 2,580, and those are

Monday, 14 May, 1984 appeals by the real property owner, and did not include assessor 's appeals. Of those 2,580, 60 went on to the Municipal Board and 12 to the Court of Queen's Bench. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Minister indicate, that was in 1983? HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes. MR. H. GRAHAM: How many in 19 82 and 19 81 as well? HON. A. ANSTETT: I'll ask staff if they have copies of the 19 82 and 19 81 Provincial Assessor's Reports handy. If they do we can provide that information. If not - it appears we don't have them. We'll provide that information to the honourable member . MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr .

Chairman, in those appeals to the Court of Revision was there a general field in which the appeal fell? For instance, would it be in the field of assessment of farm dwellings, or would it be on valuation of land, or improper classification of land? In what general field did most of the appeals fall? HON. A. ANSTETT: The first thing I should mention to the honourable member is that I've asked staff and as they recollect the reports of the Provincial Assessor from 1981 and 1982 show approximately the same number of appeals against assessments. There hasn't been a dramatic increase or a dramatic decrease.

As in the past, in all those years. the vast majority -in the neighborhood of two-thirds of appeals -relate to requests for exemptions from taxation of farm dwellings. As the honourable members appr eciate and I certainly appr eciate th eir concur rence in the past in the recommendation this problem will, of course. disappear and the number of appeals drop probably by a factor. of two or three when that change is implemented and those exemptions are removed as recommended in the Weir Report. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Min ister attempt to obtain for us percentage factors for the previous years?

Would it be approximately the same percentage dealing with farm dwelling? Has that been the No. 1 problem for the last 10 years or 15 years, or is this now just a factor that is starting to creep in? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that it has increased by a fairly substantial margin in the last hall-dozen years or so, that is wasn't a full two thirds of the appeals, let's say. 10 years ago. lt would have been a smaller number. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, dealing with that particular subject, in the last few months - I don't know, I haven't had a chance to talk with previous critic s.

But I have had quite a number of phone calls and concerns expressed to me on that very issue, the assessment of farm buildings. I think I had thr ee phone calls from various people who were concerned because they had been farmers for 30 and 40 years, and the only factor that placed them in a position where their farm dwelling was now taxable, for tax purposes, was 783 the fact that they were receiving the Old Age Pension. I don't know if that has been a concern in previous years or not, but I've had three cases come to my attention in the past year. HON. A.

ANSTETT: For the benefit of the Member for Virden, I can recount my first experience with Court of Revision, in the R.M. of Springfield, I believe in 1977, when I attended that Court of Revision . One of the most painful sights I have ever seen in local government was the sight of a pensioner who had farmed for probably 40 years, as the member recounts, break into tears at the thought that he couldn't afford to keep his farm, because he and his wife had both turned 65 and it was suddenly becoming taxable.

He was losing his exemption, even though he had managed to raise a family on that farm, even though he had managed to eke out a marginal living, but had had a sole source of income from that farm. The looks on the faces of a hall-dozen councillors and a reeve and a secretary treasurer and a municipal assessor as this elde rly gentleman broke into tears was not something I like to recall. But certainly this has heen a perennial problem. 1t goes back for many years. 1t has been part of the income for mula as far back, I'm su re, as staff here can remember .

The fact of the matter is that the only way that can be dealt with is to, eventually in the longer term, follow the Weir recommendation to move away from those exemptions. As I said earlier , I appr eciate the su pport of honourable members opposite for tha t particular recommendation, because it's going to be a difficult one.

I think the only way we can explain it to the public is to point out that, as all of those exempt properties are added to the roll, that will reduce the assessment burden and the resulting mill rate taxation burden on all ratepayers, that bringing that exempt taxation onto the roll will go some way, because of the new found assessment, to reducing the mill rate overall. I'm not prepared at this time to say definitiv ely that that particular recommendation will be implemented or will be implemented in any particular year.

Obviously, the examination of the im pact of all the recommendations has to be done so that we know how tho se particular re commendati ons when they're implemented can be cushioned so as to ensure that no one is hard done by in a radical way, and so that the burden that's im posed on any individual ratepayers is not way out of line. I think there are several ways that can be accomplished, but I'm not sure that now without full information is the time to speculate on them.

I think the member points out one of the things that I rai sed with staff soon alter assuming responsibility for assessment reform, and that is the need for a much better communication of the rules.

I think that the public information that will be available in the form of a series of pamphlets on such topics as farm land assessment, farm buildings and outbuildi ngs assessment, farm residences, residential classification, a pamphlet on the Weir Report and its recommendations, a pamphlet on Court of Revision, the rights of the ratepayer, the mechanisms for following through on that, the whole idea of giving this information to people so they'll understand the system, and then as a basis for that,

Monday, 14 May, 1984 begin to understand the reforms will stand all members of the Legislature in good stead in dealing with our constituents on what is a very serious problem. Both the lack of understanding of a very sophisticated system which, to be quite honest, I'm not sure many of us completely understand because of its sophistication and complexity , and certainly the need for reform, although clear, has got to be under stood out there. So I sympathize entirely with the honourable member. He puts his finger on a chronic problem that I am committed to addres sing in the assessment reform process.

But I can't tell him today that I've got the answer. I think the answer is better information initially so that when the reforms come, people understand it, and it has public support. I thank honourable members for having offered their support during the hearings last year on that particular recommendation, because it's going to be one of the tough ones. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, we have the information that farm dwellings have been an increasing cause of appeals to the Court of Revision.

We know that the agricultural community is being severely pushed by economic factors that in many cases are beyond their control. We do know that the previous New Democratic Government felt that they had an answer to that when they thought they should purchase farm land and rent it back. We realized that was not the answer. The ownership of land is probably the greatest work incentive that there is. We also know that agriculture is still the No. 1 industry in the Province of Manitoba. lt generates the largest source of revenue for the province.

If there is a problem in that field, I think we should be addressing that problem even if it means bringing in stopgap legislation until the Minister has had time to bring forward his changes in assessment. We know that a young farmer today starting out in agriculture hasn't a hope of making a go of it unless he has another source of income. We find young fellows in order to make a successful farm operation are taking secondary jobs to keep the farm going.

Now, I would suggest that we should address those problems immediately, because the immediate forecast for this coming year in agriculture is one of declining prices. We know that the Wheat Board has lowered the price of wheat, we don't know what the weather will be this year, but a farmer today has to have a bumper crop just to break even. Yet, in the field of assessment we say to a young fellow, if you want to keep on farming, you have to go and get another job, and the minute we do it, we tax his residence. lt seems that there is a field open for a short-term, stopgap measure and I know there's a

section in the act which deals with exemption of farm buildings. I think there's another subparagraph -and I'm just quoting from memory -in The Muni cipal Assessment Act, I think if you remove sub Cla use B or some thing, in that particular act -perhaps I should get The Mu nicipal Assessment Act and take a look at it and identify the clause. I think it's 30(

b) or something like that . A MEMBER: 30(2) MR. H. GRAHAM: . . . Sub 2, and I believe if you remove that, that automa ti cally exempts all farm 784 residences from assessment. I would think that it might be a good move at this particular time to do that, if we have any compassion at all for the agricultural industry, and we show any desire to try and assist them. This is one way we can do it, but in doing so, we explain to them, it's only a stopgap measure until we've had time to completely review the assessment and put a new assessment act in. I would urge the Minister to think very seriously about exempting all farm buildings. I think it's 30(3), if you remove that

section where farm dwellings are taxed - if that

section was removed, it would automatically exempt all farm dwellings from assessment. I'm sure that the agricultural community would applaud the Mini ster for doing it, if it was on a one-year or two year or thr ee-year basis, until the complete review of assessment is carried out, but it would show some move to try and assist the farmers who, by the mselves, are making every effort They are going out and taking second jobs, getting outside income to try and keep the farm going.

I think that when a farmer makes that kind of commitment, I think he should be applauded by government rather than penalized by government. I make that suggestion to the Mini ster now. I don't know if he has even considered it but I think it would be a very positive move that would be well received even by municipal councils. I would like the Minister to give me an indication of whether or not he has even considered it HON. A.

ANSTETT: Although I usually am impressed with the logic and rationality of the Member for Virden, I have to say that although he asks me if I've thought about this proposal, I have to say, yes, I've thought about it. I wonder if the honourable member thought about it before making the proposal here tonight Let's be frank. What the honourable member is attempting to do is define a farmer. He's trying to do what former Premier of this Province, Waiter Weir, said that for all intents and purposes couldn't be done.

He's going to define a farmer as anyone with four acres of contiguous land on which he is defined as a farmer under the act lt means he raises stock, grows nursery stock, market gardening. Market gardening. lt would probably also include beekeepers. Now, this isn't such a bad idea. No, seriou sly, Mr . Chairman, derives income, here's the key phrase: ". . . from the sale or disposal of grain, farm stock, nursery stock or market produce, raised, kept or grown on the land . . . "the exemption is obtained. Four contiguous acres.

We have suddenly defined every person in the province who sells anything off four contiguous acres or more, as a farmer, and we've exempted their primary residence from taxation. Mr . Chairman, I have some difficulty. I'm sure the honourable member can't be serious. Is he going to define anyone who receives any income from those items as a farmer in the Province of Manitoba for purposes of municipal taxation?

How is he now going to differentiate between the rural residential land owner of five or 10 acres who has a strawberry patch and his kids sell a few boxes of strawberries as a 4-H project, which is now taken into family income, from the legitimate farmer who views farming as his main source of livelihood even if it may not be the principle source

Monday, 14 May, 1984 in any one year. Former Premier Weir said he had a great deal of difficulty with that subject, with that whole question and definition. Is the member serious about such a simplistic definition when the only alternative the M.A.R.C. Report could come to was that they had to end the exemption or the inequities would continue? I don't believe the member is serious. Mr .

Chairman, if he is, if the member will tell me that he is serious and is willing to put his name to the proposal, I'll take him at his word and I'll go to the Advis ory Committee of the UMM and MAUM and make that proposal, but with his name on it, not mine -if the honourable member is serious. For the benefit of the honourable member, I'll give him a piece of advice which is worth what he's paying for it. I wouldn't put my name on it if I were him. I'd be the laughingstock of the UMM and MAUM.

I would be proposing to shift the burden of all those residences, particularly in municipalities, which are close to and subjected to urban development pressures onto farm land. I would exempt all the urban commuters around Brandon and Dauphin and Winnipeg and Selkirk from taxation. Every one of my assessors would be on five acres or more, or four acres or more -well, they'd buy five, they'd want one to spare just in case we jacked it one acre later on -and they would make sure that they sold, according to the latest Supr eme Court decision in Dauphin -at least 10 bales of hay or a bag of potatoes.

If the honourable member is serious, we'll here, on the record, put his name to that proposal, I will convey it to the associations. But, Mr. Chairman, I ask the honourable member to consider what taking all those residences off the tax roll will mean and who will pick up the needed revenue to continue to provide the same level of services to th ose residenc es, the same educational opportunities to their children? Who will pick that up? The farmland.

Tha t's where th at assessment will be derived, because the other category in most of those municipalities is very smalL There's only one category that can pick it up. Mr. Chairman, that will wreak a further hardship on legitimate farmers because they're the ones who own the larger parcels. I don't need a computer analysis to calculate that and I think the honourabl e memb er will find that the M.A.R .C. Repor t concurs 10 0 perce nt with my suggestions of what the results would be.

But, again, contrary to my advice to the honourable member, if he wishes to make that recommendation, I will accept it and convey it to the Advisory Committee and ask for their response, and if they respond favourably I'll certainly come back and withd raw my chagrin at the honourable member's suggestion and carry it forward, but I don't think that has a snowball's chance in last summer's sun. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr . Chairman, it's obvious the Mi nister hasn't been talking to municipal councillors because I have talked to municipal councillors and there has been a suggestion that perhaps it should apply to a quarter

section of land rather than four acres. I would leave that up to the Mi nister if he wants to make that kind of change. But the No. 1 concern and, again, I said it was only a stopgap measure until the reassessment comes in, 785 there is another way of doing it, and that is to use a fair degree of compassion in Court of Revision where the income off the farm is greater than the farm net income. There's also been suggestions that it be the gross farm income rather than the net farm income, but I can tell the Honourable Mini ster that many councillors are talking right today that something has to be done.

The Minister has indicated that it's going to be two or three years or maybe even more before some of the recommendations of the Weir Commission, and some of his own reco mmendations, are implemented in a change in The Assessment Act and the assessment practices in this province, but there are many young people out there, and old people, too, who can't wait for that to happen. How many more farmers do we want to see go down the tube because of the straw that broke the camel's back?

If there's any compassion and any concern at all in this Minister or in this government for the concerns of farmers and the problems they face today, I would suggest that he get his thinking cap on pretty quick and try and do something, even a stopgap measure that would help those. lt may be that he wants to change it from a 50-50 to a 75-25 figure, I don't know, but something should be oone now. We can't wait for another year for that to happen.

I just made one suggestion to him; I'll give him half a dozen suggestions if he wants, but I think there has to be something done because, at the present time, what is happening is the young fellow who is putting that extra effort to derive some additional income to keep his farm going is being penalized and I don't think we can allow that to happen, whether or not we're ready to move on a new assessment act. I think we have to act now to provide some interim relief to help them when they are showing every effort to try and help the mselves. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I'm very sympathetic to the concerns the Honourable Member for Virden has raised.

I don't think there is any question at all that the current difficulties in which many farm families find themselves, and certainly the farm economy is not what all of us would wish it would be, but to shift the burden of taxation off farm residences where the honourable member -and I certainly concur -feels that it is being unfairly placed in some instances today, particularly on those who have to work off farm, usually those are the individuals in the most need, onto land which is the place where it would be shifted, might well just compound the inequity. I don't have an answer.

If the honourable member has a stopgap answer, I ask him to table it with this committee. If he's suggesting that four acres isn't the recommendation that he wants me to take to the Advisory Committee but, instead, a quarter

section is, I ask him how that sits with all the livestock intensive operations on small acreages who are under the same kind of pressures that many others are; I ask him how it sits with farmers on less than a full quarter

section who may be in other kinds of farming operations " market gardening, etc. I have a real problem in defining a farmer, much as the Weir Report had a problem defining a farmer . I think the only answer, in the long run, will flow from

Monday, 14 May, 1984 the Weir Report recommendations on that question, but if the member has half a dozen serious suggestions to put on the record I'm willing to take them and examine them closely and report back to the honourable member. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm not willing to take them under my own name, I'll be quite honest, because I don't consider any of them accept able. We have examined all of the options, as did the Weir Commit tee, and I have to be fran k.

The only real answer is to take the bull by the horns and deal with the issue and that cannot be done, except as a component of a thorough going assessment reform package. We have a patchwork quilt and the problems to which the member refers have developed from this patchwork quilt of assessment reform and I refuse to be party to putting more patches on the patches. I think that's wrong and I think it just compounds the problem and I really don't think the mem ber is asking me to do that. I certainly hope not. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr .

Chairman, I can understand the reluctance of the Minister to go to municipal officials with proposals that would provide relief. He might find a sympathetic ear, which would be a first for him in that field, so I can appreciate his reluctance to do that. But in the meantime, the farmers of Manitoba, the young fellows, the old people, who are receiving outside assistance to enable them to carry on are the ones that are being penali zed and the Minister is the man in charge.

If he wants someone else to take over, fine, let him step down, and let the whole government step down, we'll gladly take over and we will do something to help. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Swan River. MR. 0. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, with respect to the Min ister's comments earlier about providing brochures, the pamphlets explaining the assessment process to property owners, I think this is a good move.

But I'm wondering if the Min ister has given any thought to holding assessment days where the assessor would explain to people in the muni cipality that reassessment is coming up and explaining the process that takes place under reassessment, and I believe in listening to the comments of the ML A for Virden and the answers given by the Min ister, I recall that many people that are reassessed in municipalit ies are pertur bed at the fact that they get their buildings assessed while their neighbour doesn't, and it seems to be on a hit-and-miss situation.

I'm wondering whether some of these problems could be avoided by the assessors spending more time explaining to people in the mun icipality , th e reassessment process and why buildings are taxable and why some are not taxable. I believe that people like to be treated fairly and they don't like paying taxes 0n their farm resid ences when the y kn ow their neighbour across the way is not being taxed and maybe should be. I'm wondering what process is available at this time to interview property owners to get the necessary information directly from those property owners.

In many ins tances, the property owners ha ve ind icated that they never saw the assessor, they don't 786 know how the y arrived at the fact that their residences were being taxable. I'm just thinking of an assessment day where the assessor could explain to people in the municipality how this whole process works. HON. A. AN STET T: I think the most im portant development with regard to public information that our department will be making over the next few months will be the distribution of informational material through brochures on the assessment process.

I don't think there's any question about that and I appreciate the honourable member's positive comments about that. it's my hope that we will have draft s of those brochur es within the month and I would appreciate it, if the honourable mem ber is interested, in having him review those and make any comments he has on them. I think those comments can be beneficial. He's had experience in this area and knows what some of the problems are that people have in the field in terms of understanding assessment.

As the honourable member knows, I believe, we do have what staff affect ionately call, "Mad days, Meet your assessor day", in which areas where reassessment is going to take place, public meetings, informational meet ings are held to meet the assessor and get explanations. One of the reasons we're going with the brochures is because not everybody shows up. In fact, not by a long shot does everybody show up. The brochures will have contact information, both with regard to the assessor and the district assessment office, phone numb ers, name of the district assessor if there are problems.

So it will be in attempt to extend that reaching out and cont act to the local ratep ayer, so they not only understand the system, but know where they can go to get answers to quest ions. With regard to the determination of income and whether or not a larger portion of the income comes from off-farm or on-farm sources, that determination is almost always done after some contact with the individual or some information with regard to income source from the individual ratepayer. However, there will be situations where that contact wasn't possible and certain assumptions have had to be made.

Now where those assumptions are in any way wrong in the ratepayer's mind, that information is contained with the assessment notice as to the proper avenue to appeal to Court of Appeal. Certainl y, I don't believe the onus is on the assessor to provide information for the municipality that certain individuals are exempt. In effect, an individual is asking for an exemption. · The act was never drafted that certain people would be taxable. The act is drafted on the basis that everyone is taxable and that certain people can become exempt.

So there is an assumption of taxable status for all ratepayers, but in certain broad categories, and certainly larger farm operations where the likeli hood of off-farm income being greater than on-farm income just isn't there, certain assumptions are generally made; but where they're borderline, I can't qua rrel with the assessor's determination to ask that ind ividual to apply for the exemption through Court of Revision. Now, that's only done as a last resort though, there are several steps intervening.

As honourable members are aware in those areas where we've faced in recent months the question of royalties from petroleu m . '

Monday, 14 May, 1984 sources, and notices have gone out to all the ratepayers who had income from that off-farm source. The purpose of those notices is to advise members of the public what t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-3-21b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 3rd hansardpdf 21b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9b3eaf9edc4cc6e311f74f9f1823b67f39d1a384

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