Manitoba Hansard — 28 April 1980 (Sitting 46B, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-46b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Fourth Session - Thirty-First Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 29 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable Harry E. Graham Speaker VOL. XXVlll No. 468 - 8:00 p.m., MONDA V, 28 APRIL, 1980 Printed by W. T.Ala r..ichyna. o- Printer. Province of Manitoba

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 28 April, 1980 Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - URBAN AFFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris McGregor (Virden): I call the Committee to order. We're on Resolution No. 119, 1.(b) - the Honourable Minister. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned the Member for Wellington was posing a question. I wonder if he would repeat that question. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wellington then on the repeat of the question that was interrupted at 4:30. MR.

BRIAN CORRIN (Wellington): I am somewhat timorous to repeat the question on invitation, Mr. Chairman, because I presume that means that the Minister now has a very good response and answer. The question was, just so that we can refresh our collective memories, whether or not the Minister was stating categorically that he had been advised by Mr.

Pepin that matched funds on a 50 percent contribution basis would not be forthcoming if the province and the city were to provide 50 percent motivational funding under The Rail Relocation Act and the context of that was that it was my belief that the federal government could not but act on such a request. In other words, Mr.

Chairman, if the party desirous or parties desirous of obtaining rail relocation relief were to make a commitment up to 50 percent of the funding, it's my understanding that the federal government has no alternative but to place the matter before the Canadian Transport Commission for the appropriate studies and approvals.

That's not to say that the Canadian Transport Commission has to rubberstamp or that all the affected 1nunicipalities need also provide endorsation, but it was my understanding, and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, that at that point the onus was on the Transport Commission and there was no opportunity for the federal government to unilaterally withdraw from participating in such activity. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, this helps.

What the fed�ral Minister indicated was that the only moneys available from the federal government to assist with rail relocation were the moneys included in the UT AP program which was announced a couple of years ago, and as I say in Manitoba a total of 10.2 million was allocated to the province, 7.6 of that was allocated to the city of Winnipeg for the Sherbrook McGregor overpass and/or relocation. MR. CORRIN: Yes, on that point then, Mr.

Chairman, the question is, though, did the federal Minister indicate - and I believe if my memory serves me correctly that the Minister indicated this to be the case in his remarks this afternoon - did he indicate, did Mr. Pepin indicate that there would be a refusal to fulfill federal obligations pursuant to The Rail Relocation Act in the event that the city invoked the 50 percent participatory provisions of the legislation? It is my understanding, Mr.

Chairman, that if the applicant puts forward a proposal wherein they take responsibility and commit themselves for 50 percent or more of the funding, that the federal government must, as a matter of course, participate in the Canadian Transport Commission Hearings and at that point the decision is essentially delegated to the Transport Commission for final determination. If that is not a correct

interpretation of the legislation, I would like to know the actual provisions. I would like to whether the Minister, in fact, said that he wouldn't go 50 percent in the event that we, the applicants, were willing to do so. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Minister never said he wouldn't go 50 percent specifically. That was never discussed. What he said was the only moneys that the federal government will contribute to rail relocation is the amount of moneys allocated under the Urban Transportation Assistance Program. The Act,

Section 11 (2) states that a relocation grant shall not exceed 50 percent of the net costs of railway relocation as determined pursuant to

Section

Section 13 simply says, The Commission shall determine the net cost of railway relocation for the purposes of this

part in accordance with the rules. So the relocation grant under the legislation could be up to 50 percent. Mr. Pepin is saying that the only moneys that we will contribute are the moneys included in the Urban Transportation Program. MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a bit of a problem here, is it on the same question, because I had recognized the Member for Fort Rouge really? MR. CORRIN: It is collateral, Mr. Chairman. It it just on this one point. I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there doesn't seem to be any differences to our

interpretation, I think that we seem to be of one mind with respect to the

interpretation of this legislation. I am wondering whether anybody in the course of the meeting with Mr. Pepin asked him what would occur if the city and the province of Manitoba were to, between them, make a commitment to 50 percent of the cost of the rail relocation. The reason I am asking that, Mr. Chairman, is because all the discussions that we read about in the newspapers seem to be predicated on the city putting up approximately 1/6 or exactly 1 /6 of the total cost and they had made a commitment in that respect before they went to Ottawa.

The province seemed to be relatively mute as to the level of commitment it would make, and it seemed to me in following the course of the reports and the news emanating from the federal-provincial civic tri-level meeting that the federal government was indeed put in a somewhat unfair position in that 3003

Monday, 28 April, 1980 they were the ones who were asked to do all the bargaining. Now, I'm not, Mr. Chairman, the official apologist of the federal Liberal Party, but seems to me that in fairness, in order for there to be fruitful negotiation, all parties have to come with something that they are willing to commit. As I said, the city committed one-sixth and Mayor Norrie said that it was no good.

Mayor Norrie was quoted in the papers as saying that it virtually spelled the demise of the proposal, simply because it was nowhere near the 50 percent basement threshold level that would invoke the provisions of the Act. Mayor Norrie was quoted as saying, and suggesting, that the city should have done better. The province, to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, never made any commitment, and seemingly waited for the federal government to make a response to the civic application.

Having found out that the federal government wasn't willing to put up much money, the province sort of slunk back to Manitoba and said, it's the fed's fault, and Mr. Axworthy has to swallow his pride and accept defeat. But the reality, Mr. Chairman, I think, and I think Mr. Axworthy tried to make the point, and I'm not sure anybody listened, but I thought it was a good point. He said that in order for this thing to proceed on a viable basis, all the parties had to be willing to commit something to the pot, that it didn't seem quite appropriate that some parties were effectively stonewalling the negotiation.

So what I want to know is whether or not the province is willing to indicate what their commitment would have been. Would, for instance, the province have been willing to commit more than the city's one-sixth? Would they have been willing to make up the same amount as the city, and bring up the civic provincial contribution to a full third? Or would, in fact, the province have been willing to provide one third themselves - I think that amounts to a contribution of double the civic contribution - and ask the provincial government to make up the remaining 50 percent balance? MR.

CHAIRMAN: I just wonder if I could, at 4:30, the Member for Wellington asked for a brief question, and I had recognized the Member for Fort Rouge. So I'll allow the Minister to answer this and then we'll get back on track in a reasonable, fair manner. The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, a simple answer to that question is, sure, Mr. Pepin said, if the city and the province want to go ahead with relocation, go ahead, but the only contribution you're getting from the federal government is what's in the UTAP program. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I'd like to say that sometimes I find it difficult to say nice things about anyone around here, but I would like to acknowledge the fairness with which I think you work from the Chair. Don't take the applause off my time, please. Mr. Chairman, I listened with amazement to the fictionalized account of recent political matters in Winnipeg as outlined by the Honourable Member for Elmwood before the break.

To my amazement, you know, he sounded exactly like Ann Steen, the defeated Conservative Candidate from Winnipeg North, when she came to Winnipeg city council and said, forget relocation and put in an overpass, and to heck with whatever happens to anyone else, or what anyone else wants. His whole approach to this seemed superficial, off the-cuff, he talked a lot about fractions, halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths, but I would like to say that he was only fractionally informed in the whole matter that he was talking about on this overpass.

He said that the present Member of Parliament for Winnipeg Fort Garry, the former Member for Fort Rouge, blew the relocation. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Axworthy has been a member of an elected government for eleven months. The Member for Elmwood was a Minister of Public Works in the government that was in office for, what was it? Too long - eight years. And they didn't even go to the feds with a proposal. I want to go in a little further into this Act and what the requirements are.

But to say that a member - he wasn't even a member of the elected government for eleven months, my mistake, he should have been, but there was a brief hiatus there when a ghastly mistake took place in the nation of Canada politically. For what, two months then? Two months, and he blew it, says the Member for Elmwood. And what a joke. Where has the honourable member's colleague, the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre, been for what, 40 years? And he was, I believe he is sincerely committed to relocation of the rail yards. And what is he going to say about him, has he been successful then?

I sat here, and I think I watched the Member for Wellington going white - not in the hair, in the face - ashen. I think he must be appalled at the insensitivity that was displayed by the Member for Elmwood. His attitude is divide and destroy, you know, the people in the New Democratic Party, my goodness, now we see the real division in the New Democratic Party. It's not only the fighting in the front benches, they can't even agree on a matter of such supreme importance to the city of Winnipeg. - (Interjection)-Well, all the benches.

I frankly felt sorry for the Member for Wellington, because this is his area and I think, when your colleague comes in and does a number on you like that that, that's a pretty bad scene. It was a totally negative attitude on the part of the Member for Elmwood, and astonishing from a former Minister of Public Works. I would like to say, before he started that, I was going to speak about rail relocation anyway. But I do feel, for these people to try to blame Mr. Axworthy, whose sincere commitment to rail relocation has been a matter of record over a number of years, and it's not only Mr.

Axworthy, it's the commitment of the Liberal Party also. All members of the Liberal Party are committed to relocation, including the candidate who ran in Winnipeg North and even acknowledging the fact that may not have been the first priority for Winnipeg North, that candidate came out frankly and honestly and honourably and stated the Liberal Party's position in the election campaign. 3004

Monday, 28 April, 1980 I think it is interesting, perhaps regrettable, that the Winnipeg city council has only come to agree that relocation was the answer to the problem because of the scare over the MacGregor spill and the methanol spill in the C.P. yards. That seems to have been what motivated the majority of city council to come out in favor of relocation as opposed to an overpass, which has always been their desire, the wish of the majority group in the past.

The delay, I suggest there has been delay because the federal legislation was passed in 1974 to help rail relocation, and it was intended, for the first time, to enable the federal government to support relocation. And the delay has been caused by the ICEC majority on council, and we have heard a lot said today about how many of the people around this table are former city councillors and of those who were here this afternoon, the present Members for Osborne, River Heights, Crescentwood and Wolseley were all a part of that delay.

If it hadn't been for that ICEC group, rail relocation could have been started and implemented. If that had been the intention, and if the provincial government at the time had been agreeable, the federal legislation could have been taken advantage of some years ago. So I don't think anyone can feel too utterly Simon Pure on this, Mr. Chairman. As we have heard, in order to get relocation, the city and the province have to agree on a proposal.

They have to prepare an urban development plan showing what is to be done, and the Member for Elmwood showed his ignorance on this point, by saying what is to be done with the land freed up. -(Interjection)- MR. DOERN: I did not. MRS. WESTBURY: He did. I've got the mike, and I say you did. They have to prepare a transportation plan and they have to prepare a financial plan showing how the costs are to be shared by the city, the province, the Government of Canada, and the railways.

The Minister showed a great deal of knowledge of what is in The Relocation Act but when he went to Ottawa, I respectfully suggest he did not comply with the Act in his approach to Ottawa, because he did not have any of these things that are required under The Relocation Act, such as I have just discussed. The statute gives the Government of Canada power to contribute up to 50 percent of the cost of the urban development plan and the transportation plan.

The only time that a cost benefit study has been done was in 1972 when Damas and Smith were retained by the city, the province, Ottawa, and the railways to do the Winnipeg Railway Study. That's the only time that the benefits, as well as costs, the cost benefits as well as the original costs of four relocation options were ever studied. Once the plans are prepared, the application has to be presented to the Canadian Transport Commission and they will only receive it where the federal government's contribution is up to 50 percent. This is, I think, where we failed.

I was disappointed when somebody from the media came to me the other days and said, Have you heard the relocation has been thrown out? I made the statement, I'm extremely disappointed, but I think that it hadn't a prayer of succeeding when in fact we weren't complying with the Act in any way in our presentation from the province and from the city.

The Canadian Transport Commission has the power to order a relocation requested by the city and the province, and the Government of Canada is prepared to pay half the net cost of relocation - half the net cost of relocation - and we have to remember the benefits that can accrue from the sale and development of those freed-up lands as well, so that would lower the cost to the province and the city.

The Government of Canada will not impose a relocation that either the city of the province does not want and the Government of Canada will not initiate a request for relocation; that has to come from the city and the province. This position is supported by the Liberal Party in Manitoba of whom, unfortunately, I am the only representative here.

The initiative must come from the province and the city together, and unfortunately somebody didn't read the Act before they went running down to Ottawa because I think the whole side has been let down due to the fact that we didn't approach this in the way that is required under the Act.

If Ottawa had committed itself to spending of funds for this purpose before a proposal came forward in the way that it is set up, required under the Act, we would have people around this table screaming about Ottawa using its power in a heavy-handed and unjustifiable way. -(Interjection)- You see, he has confirmed the fact that the criticism would have come from the government benches if the initiative had been taken by the Feds instead of waiting for the province to do what it's supposed to have been doing. The city finally came to a decision to support rail relocation.

If the city had presumably come to this decision five or six years ago, the whole thing could have been well under way by now and we would have saved all the money that the Member for Elmwood was talking about. The answer to this is not to put another bridge in there, and he didn't even know enough to say whether it should be the one-pronged or the two-pronged bridge on the south side of the railway lines. The proposal that was approved through the ICEC and city council was to the effect that two prongs would come over those railway lines and totally disrupt and divide and destroy that whole neighbourhood.

I'm not sure if it's in or adjacent to the Member for Wellington's constituency but it's very close to it, and it just would be a disaster for that part of town. I would like to say that everybody who represents the city centre area in - I would like to say all parties, I think it's the Liberals and the NDP mostly - they all agree that the answer is relocation in that area. This has not been a partisan matter. The Member for Elmwood had some fantasy about Mr. Axworthy wanting to run in North Centre. MR. DOERN: Wait a minute, I never said that; it wasn't me. MRS. WESTBURY: Yes, you did. You said if Mr.

Richardson was going to run . MR. DOERN: It was him. MRS. WESTBURY: Oh, you said that. 3005

Monday, 28 April, 1980 MR. DOERN: He's not the Member for Elmwood. MRS. WESTBURY: You're not either. That was dumb remark; it was a fantasy, I don't know where he dreamed it up, but I assure the people around this table, first of all, Mr. Axworthy doesn't tell the Member for Crescentwood what his plans are. We were aware that Mr. Richardson was not going to run. There was never any concern about that. The mind was made up by Mr. Axworthy that he was going to run in Winnipeg Fort Garry and that funny little remark was just that; it was just an imaginative thing that he put in for a little colour, I think.

That's what I wanted to say about relocation, Mr. Chairman. Really I think what we needed was to have it clearly outlined that the city and the province must take the initiative and that was not done. The act was not complied with, anything that Minister Pepin has said has been reacting to a sort of ad hoe approach from city and province which did not comply with the requirements of The Relocation Act. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite familiar with the act and I think a lot of people are, being through this discussion for the last eight years.

One of the concerns that was had by a number of people at the city with respect to the plans that are required is that it was estimated that to complete the plans required by the act, the urban transporation plan, the development plan, the financial plan, would require some two years just to complete the plans to make the application if you could obtain the, for example, the consent of the municipalities to the development plan or transportation plan. And I think that was the reason, Mr.

Chairman, why it was requested of the federal government that they obtain a specific financial commitment to the effect that yes, indeed, if you go through all these steps we are prepared to finance rail relocation 50 percent or whatever, 60 percent, whatever financial position they felt themselves to be in. So that was the concern and the reason why, as I understand it, the city council passed the motion which refers to a specific financial commitment, to see exactly where the federal government stood in the way of making a financial commitment. Mr.

Chairman, I want to, if for no other reason but historical reasons, to go back and review my participation in this at city council level. In November of 1976, Mr. Chairman, when I was chairman of Works and Operations, we passed a motion which said that the city proceed immediately with a study of the feasibility of relocating the CP Mainline and marshalling yards to determine the costs and benefits of such action compared to the so-called do nothing option as approved by council at its meeting on March 20, 197 4, before taking any action with respect to anyone of the five alternatives.

We prepared a draft prima facie case which is required, submitted it to the province for approval on January 6th, 1977. The province, in a letter dated February 14th, 1977, indicated it was satisfied with the prima facie case for relocation of the CP yards but was not prepared to support the proposed relocation of the mainline on the basis that the relocation of the yards only was the optimal investment.

There was then an ad hoe committee appointed by the Executive Policy Committee of City Council which I chaired, and we reviewed that matter, reported on the two applications, and subsequently recommended to council a revised prima facie report for relocation of the yards only, and that recommendation was defeated by a vote of 23 to 21 , at the council meeting on March 16th, 1977. I am sure the Member for Wellington and probably the Member for Fort Rouge remember that vote. I only cite this to show, Mr. Chairman, that this matter has been around for a long time.

I was always of the view that this - first of all in the very - going well back, I can remember the initial report. The problem was that the report did not deal with the costs and benefits of the so-called do nothing option and that was always a concern of people and that's why they always said they couldn't support it until they knew what those costs were. Mr.

Chairman, the primary reason why, as I understand it, the motion by City Council was past in the form it was, was to attempt to determine what financial commitment the federal government would make to rail relocation in Winnipeg, and as I've said they've said the only commitment they can make is moneys allocated to the province under the UT AP program, and those are very limited funds. MRS. WESTBURY: I think it· would have been much harder for them to have done that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Crescentwood on a point of order. MR.

WARREN STEEN: I would like the record to show, that it was I as the Member for Crescentwood that had said that Mr. Axworthy, the federal Minister, was perhaps contemplating running in the last federal election or the federal election of May in Winnipeg North Centre, not the Member for Elmwood as the Member for Fort Rouge had indicated. But I might also point out that Mr.

Axworthy did run there 10 years ago in 1968 and has had a history of being involved in the community that makes up Winnipeg North Centre through his urban studies research project with the University of Winnipeg, and that's what I had also said this afternoon. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure the Member has a point of order, but it's informative and I'll turn to the Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps their positions were so similar that it was easy to confuse one with the other this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

I want to talk about the rail relocation but that's not the only thing I wanted to talk about it, and so I would like to go on to other matters. The Member for Wellington spoke earlier about some of his other concerns in the city of Winnipeg, and I would like now to go on to refer to some of my other concerns in the city, Mr. Chairman. I guess one has to say it all when one gets the mike or else - I'm sorry, am I having a problem here, all right, okay, there we go. Mr.

Chairman, it seems that it's hard to understand how when a province has one major city which consists of half the population, more than half the population of the city, that city pays a proportionate amount of taxes to the province and 3006

Monday, 28 April, 1980 it's also the site of the capital of the province and of its Legislature, and it seems to me and it seems to a lot of people in this city that the province should perhaps play a larger role in either the expansion or the containment of that city and I think that people in the city expect, in an instance such as that, the province to make a statement through its policies about the style and the nature and the heritage of that city. I am concerned as everyone is about the block funding, the inadequate increases in the fund that was inadequate to begin with.

The first block funding wasn't adequate. The inadequate increases, the swallowing up by the provincial government of taxes contributed by Winnipeg taxpayers and doling out which seems to be grudging to the city, the minimal funding it seems to the city which comprises 60 percent of the population of the province and the former city of Winnipeg, and I am one of those who, as the Member for Crescentwood is, who sat on both the old City Council and the unified City Council, and I have to agree with DJ.

MacDonald, the former Chief Commissioner, who feels that the former city of Winnipeg did not get a fair shake in the whole unification program that was brought in on January 1st, 1972. I made some notes when Mr. DJ. MacDonald was speaking to a meeting of the City Centre-Fort Rouge Community Committee last fall. He made these statements. He was complaining that the financial system of the city relys entirely on a property tax basis and gratuitous handouts from the province, those were his words.

He said that the New Democratic Governments did not look far enough down the road to see what would happen as a result of The City of Winnipeg Act that they brought in, effective 1972. The suburbs have taken over the city, and I don't think any of us who represent inner-city wards in the City Council or had represented, will take exception to that remark. The suburbs have indeed taken over the city. Mr. MacDonald stated that a city with a different political component would have fought to save decay of the inner-city.

He was very critical of the fact that the balanoi is towards the suburbs, and, of course, even some of those who represent former old city of Winnipeg wards really are suburb-like in their makeup. I include in that River Heights particularly, I think, which now is part of an old city and a suburban mix, and I think the suburbs have taken over there too. The problems, as Mr. D.I. MacDonald outlined them, the three major problems were these: The native people, he said, are the No. 1 social problem of the city and getting worse.

Secondly, lack of adequate housing in the central city, and thirdly, the fact that of the 80 million budget, 80 percent of that is spent in the suburbs, 20 percent in the inner-city. In his opinion, redistribution of some of this money is required and perhaps has to be in some way legislated as I understand it. His fourth problem was that The Railway Relocation Act, if it had been taken advantage of properly, could have helped the problems of the former city of Winnipeg, the deterioration. There were further remarks by Mr. D.I. MacDonald and Mr. Elswood Bole. Mr.

Elswood Bole said that unification of the city, Unicity he said, has been a tragedy. I don't think anyone who has represented an area close to downtown can feel anything but agreement with that, and it is a very sad thing to have to agree with a remark like that. Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Bole are both former administrators of Metro Winnipeg and very highly respected people. Mr. MacDonald on another occasion, not the occasion on which I was taking notes, was quoted as saying, The City of Winnipeg Act raised expectations which could not be met.

I wanted to bring those remarks by these highly respected administrators to the attention of this Committee. I think it is a shameful thing that in two and one-half years this government has done little or nothing to remedy matters as they have been described by Mr. MacDonald and Mr. Bole. I suggest that since there is a reluctance on the part of the government to modify the Act, then perhaps the government should strengthen the Act so that Winnipeg does indeed become a provincial capitol with the stature of a provincial capitol or a state capitol, as they are recognized in other federated nations.

In its funding the city is strapped, the city is afraid to take any chances on anything imaginative or experimental, because their backs are to the wall. The province has many more sources of income. When they went from specific to global or block funding, that is okay in itself, where you have a City Council that is properly balanced in its representation of the divergent areas of the city, and is not only properly balanced, it is able, that for them to go to block funding and give a grant that in its face year was too low by several million dollars, that means that there will never be a catch-up.

I suggest that perhaps it would have been preferable even under block funding to designate just how the money should proportionately have been spread around in what it covers, whether you want to be absolute specific or not. I also would like to suggest that perhaps the provincial government should be looking at ways to finance experimental programs that could be revenue productive or tax generating, and that perhaps that kind of initiative should now be coming from the province, some imagination. I don't think it is a surprise to anyone to hear that downtown Winnipeg is in a desperate situation.

You can't walk along Portage Avenue in the early evening without being panhandled or approached. People just are not prepared to walk around on the main street of our city as they could a few years ago; it is a very serious and sad situation, the north side of Portage is sleazy. I suggest that there is a need for intervention here on the part of the provincial government. I don't agree that better government is necessarily less government.

I think government has to realize when there is a need, and step in to fill a need, even if they are merely offering some kind of incentive to the municipality, to the city, or others. For instance, I could suggest that in the absence of any positive action by the city, the province could call for planning or development proposals for the north side of Portage from developers, from HUDAM, from the Chamber of Commerce, from any interested groups like that, to include family housing, elderly, handicapped, single persons' housing, urban transportation needs, and so on.

We have got a lot of gifted planners and developers in the city and they 3007

Monday, 28 April, 1980 are frustrated because they are not being given anything to do, and everything that is being done in the city is so lacking in imagination. We have a city that surely has the opportunity is there to make our city a leader in medium-sized cities throughout North America, and unfortunately we're just blowing it. The older neighbourhoods are deteriorating, older apartments are continuing to deteriorate, provincial government parking lots are taking up acres of downtown land, while people move out of that immediate neighbourhood for lack of a grocery store.

There was a grocery store there, it was taken out by a developer who purchased the property, evicted Safeway, and tore down the store, even though they freely admitted that they had no immediate plans for the property. They had previously had plans, but those plans had fallen through. But anyhow, they were going to tear it up. So then the councillor for the area, former councillor Keeper, who is now a New Democratic Party Member of Parliament for the area ... MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister on a point of order. MR. MERCIER: On a point of order, Mr.

Chairman, I appreciate the Member for Fort Rouge's concern with respect to this matter, but I would suggest and hope that she would agree that it's a matter to be discussed with the Minister responsible for MHRC. MRS. WESTBURY: I'm not only talking about MHRC. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns on the same point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, the honourable member is speaking about development within the city, city planning, and the concerns that ought to be of the provincial government. She is saying what they ought to be doing, not what they are doing.

And that being the case, I think she has the right to speak on the issue of what is happening in the centre core of Winnipeg, which is what she is describing. And I think the Minister for Urban Affairs is the person to whom she has the right to direct these comments. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, on the same point, I'm referring to the specific discussion of the grocery store, and that item of business that was raised last fall specifically involves the Minister responsible for MHRC. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, the Minister says it specifically involves the Minister for MHRC.

I don't see how this Minister can refuse to accept the responsibility for discussing a matter affecting the inner core of Winnipeg by referring it to another Minister. It may well be, as often happens, that two Ministers and the whole government can be involved and blamed for action or inaction, but surely, you're not going to prevent the Member for Fort Rouge from developing her thesis about the failings of this government and this Minister in relation to the centre core of Winnipeg. MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure if the Minister did have a point of order, so I'll recognize the Member for Fort Rouge.

I may lose my job overnight, but I'll take that chance. MRS. WESTBURY: -(Interjection)- I appreciate th� consideration of everyone. One of the things I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman - and I'm not going to apologize for the inadequacy, if there is inadequacy in the way I'm saying it - I haven't heard too many orators of note in the two months I have been here and I like to think I can keep up with some of them: anyway.

I'm trying to say that where there are obvious needs in the city of Winnipeg and in a provincial capital, where the province should be recognizing and designating this as the important provincial capital, such as we see the state capitals in the United States and Australia and some other places, then I'm suggesting that where the city is not a�ting, largely because of financial problems, that e1the� �hrou_gh Th� City of Winnipeg Act or through prov iding incentives, the provincial government should be acting, and one of the ways in which they could be acting through the City of Winnipeg Act would be by requiring introduction of area plans in the older areas of the city.

The members who were in city council when I was �here will remember that we had a very controversial, 1t was then called a district plan, and by the time it was finished it became an area action plan, because of changes in the wording of The City of Winnipeg Act. This was opposed vehemently and bitterly and angrily by some owners at the very beginning, and they were supported by the majority group on council, Mr.

Chairman, but in the final stages of the development of this action area plan, the principal proponent in city council was the Chairman of the Environment Committee, Councillor Ernst, who I believe, had opposed it in the initial stages, but had come to believe that that was the answer to preservation and restoration of that particular neighbourhood, the area on the east side of Osborne Street, and south of the river, just across the river from where we are now. And this has been most welcome and most successful.

Unfortunately, and because owners come out kicking and screaming in the beginning before they realize that this is going to be ultimately a benefit to them, not too many of the councillors are trying to initiate action area plans in their particular constituencies. It's also a long drawn-out process. I think I had to be there six or seven years to see this from beginning to end of the whole program. And meanwhile, the developers are complaining that they have to wait up to three years for rezonings and for subdivisions.

If area plans were developed for each area - and I suggest beginning with the oldest areas of the city - with the involvement of the local residents, as it happened in my particular ward, purchases of property, intending to develop, would know what the residents want; they would know what to expect; they would know whether the rezoning was going to be acceptable to the residents; and this would be ultimately much fairer to purchasers and to the developers. Mayor Norrie is quoted as saying that in some American cities, development applications can be processed in as little as one week. And Councillor 3008

Monday, 28 April, 1980 Piercy, well known as a supporter of the present government, also in criticizing the cumbersome application requirements of The City of Winnipeg Act says, we're chasing development from one end of the city to another, and finally out of the city.

And I'm suggesting that changes should be initiated in The City of Winnipeg Act so that desirable development can be initiated and completed within a reasonable time, and the residents of the area should continue to have a proper input to any decisions that are made, and that can best be done through the development of action area plans and, in fact, I suggest residents of older areas want this kind of protection.

Any attempt to preserve, through an action area plan, should, in my opinion, be accompanied by firstly a provision for a three to five-year freeze on increased assessment for privately renovated homes; this is happening but it's happening slowly in the Corydon part of my constituency, where rooming houses are being returned to R 1 use, but very slowly because of the high cost of renovating and restoring.

And I suggest that if it was possible to put a three to five-year freeze on the increased assessment, that the restoration would be completed more quickly and ultimately this would lead to increased revenue to the city. It would not, over a period of time, cost the taxpayers of the city. In fact, it would add to the revenue. Secondly, I think a system has to be devised where tax incentives can be offered for renovation and restoration of older apartment blocks in order that affordable accommodation should remain available in older neighbourhoods for low-income people.

Again, these incentives, over a period of years, would improve the value of the buildings and would provide increased tax revenue as well, at the same time, we're performing a social service by providing affordable housing for people and older housing in the downtown where so much housing has been demolished and turned into parking lots or weeds and rubble, or just empty lots. There's a third matter that is extremely important in my constituency and I think it's going t'J become a city-wide problem, and that's a tendency in certain neighbourhoods for owners of apartment blocks to convert them to condominiums.

A decision was made many years ago by the city that certain neighbourhoods should be apartment neighbourhoods, and it was understood then that these would be rental neighbourhoods. Now we are finding that it's hard to rent an apartment in some of these neighbourhoods, because without any reference to the planning authority at all, these buildings are being turned into condominiums.

I think that perhaps the planning authority of the city should have some power to intervene in this matter, that perhaps a certain number of apartments, a certain percentage should remain as rental accommodation, or something like that. On another occasion I will have more to say about. this, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister. I do think it's something that has to be looked at, because this is becoming a very serious problem in my constituency. As far as The City of Winnipeg Act is concerned, I feel that the establishment of the Board of Commissioners was unfortunate.

The Board of Commissioners, which is comprised of four comm1ss1oners, the mayor and the deputy mayor, meet behind closed doors. They have no public agenda, no public minutes, and when I say public, I mean available to councillors. They are not responsive to councillors. They receive extremely high salaries, upward of 40,000, quite a bit more than our First Minister. -(Interjection)- Yes, upward of. I think they start at 44,000 or something.

The result is that a wall has been erected between the elected officials and management of the city departments, because in some instances, the management people aren't even allowed to attend the committee meetings. I think this has been most unfortunte. It has led to discontent in the city staff and it has led to frustration on the part of the elected officials. I personally would like to see the Board of Commissioners become a board of management, the difference being that they would administer policy as decided by the city councillors rather than, as they do now, initiating and creating policy.

First of all, I have to say that I'm in favour of having the mayor elected at large in the city, and I hope that that won't be changed by this government. I believe there is something to be said for the deputy mayor also being on the same slate, the same ticket, in order that the deputy mayor also should be responsible and responsive to all of the taxpayers of the city, rather than it being a majority group appointment. I wanted to talk about some other transportation matters.

I have to willy-nilly say that the present Minister, when he was chairman of the Works and Operations Committee - I guess the way to success in this provincial government is to be chairman of Works and Operations Committee; every chairman since unification has become, or is on his way to becoming a Minister of this government, so reputed; just about every new program that was brought in in transportation was brought in while the Minister of Urban Affairs . . . five minutes, thank you . . . was chairman of Works and Operations.

There is the Dial-a-Bus, the Dash, the Handi-Transit, the Southwest Transit Corridor, and I'm sure the Minister will remember that I gave him my wholehearted support on all of those. So compliments all around the table here. I worry about the fact that these are being cut out. There has been a tendency to cut back on Dash and to change the whole concept of Dash. Dial-a-Bus is gone. Handi-Transit is the only one that really is moving.

I notice that the Minister in his statement said that the increase in the block funding - I don't know where that is - to the city was in part because of their desire to expand the Handi-Transit service, and I think it is important that that be done. I have made my own approaches to the present Works and Operations Committee. I think it is important, for instance, that the Handi-Transit for handicapped people show some sensitivity towards their social needs.

For instance, if a person uses the Handi-Transit to go to a hockey game, they can't go home on the Handi-Transit bus because it doesn't go as late as that at night. They have to order the private vehicle, the wheelchair vehicle, which costs upward of 10.00 for them to get home. Now, these people, they tell me they are perfectly willing to pay more for that kind of service late at night to perhaps 3009

Monday, 28 April, 1980 the extent of what they would pay for a taxi if they were able to take a taxi home. I think this is most important. It is a social need; their social needs are just the same as other people's social needs and are related to their emotional health, and through their emotional health, to their physical well-being as well. I hope that the Minister, when this matter comes up again, as I hope it will, through the official delegation, will perhaps refer to this and support it.

Quickly, I would like to say that when I tried to bring up the matter of policing in the city during the Attorney-General's Estimates, the Member for St. Johns had already brought the matter up while I was in another committee, and he made a speech that sounds as though I would like to have written it - the Member for St. Johns, that is.

He refers to the fact that so many of the behavorial problems that we have in the downtown area of Winnipeg are imported, and unfortunately, people who are out of kilter in their home towns, home villages, other provinces, drift through major cities such as Winnipeg on the major highway across Canada, bring their troubles with them and cause problems here. Therefore, it's not just a city matter; the policing should not just be a city matter, it should also be a matter that is receiving some assistance from the province.

In view of the fact that the province is assisting other municipalities, I suggest they should give the same assistance for extra police protection and perhaps, hopefully, an extension of the Affirmative Action Program -(lnterjection) May I just finish the sentence, please? . . . an extension of the Affirmative Action Program into the area north and west of where it is now operating on Main Street, so north of Portage and through Portage and perhaps down to the river and on this side as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I wanted to rebutt some of the comments of the Member for Fort Rouge. One of the problems in regard to the McGregor-Sherbrook Overpass, is which side of the tracks do you come from? I have to tell her that I am more familiar with North Winnipeg, with Elmwood and East Kildonan and North Kildonan, and she is more familiar with central Winnipeg. The feeling in the north end of the city is very strong in favor of the McGregor-Sherbrook Overpass. The feeling on the other tracks is, I suppose, not enthusiastic, or against.

So I think if you look at the statements made over the years by members of the Legislature from the New Democratic Party, you will see an overwhelming perponderance of opinion and action in favor of the McGregor-Sherbrook Overpass. The Member for Fort Rouge doesn't have the problems that we have. We have 22 members in our caucus; she speaks with a single voice and that of course is a certain advantage, but it is also a certain disadvantage as well.

I just want to say, in regard to the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, that he hasn't been doing very well in office. -(Interjection)- You know, here's a man - I've known him for 20 years - and he had seven years of unqualified praise by the media, from 1973 to 1979-80, it was seven years of feasting at the press table. Now, all of a sudden it looks like seven years of famine, because he's certainly not starting out too well. He gave us the twinning of constituencies, which was a ridiculous idea; he gave us Timothy Leary; and he gave us railway relocation, which has proved to be a dismal record.

When I think of the meeting that the Minister went to and the mayor went to and Mr. Axworthy went to, it's like the blind man and the elephant, because there are completely opposite opinions, Mr. Chairman, as to what happened at that meeting. Lloyd says he is going to press on regardless. He says rail relocation is not a dead issue. Mr. Chairman, a picture is worth a thousand words, and I have a picture when Mr. Axworthy said that he is going to press on with rail relocation. He made that announcement, and Bob Bockstael was sitting right beside him, and here it is. So I will continue to fight for rail relocation.

You can see the look on Mr. Bockstael's face, Mr. Chairman, as to what he thought - show that to my friend up there - as to what he thought of that particular idea. MRS. WESTBURY: The Member for Elmwood showed me that picture at least a month ago, so it obviously wasn't taken last week. It's a funny picture. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I think the look on Mr. Bockstael's face was the same on both occasions - bug-eyed Bockstail clearly was taken aback at the Minister's persistence. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to get on track.

I just want to read a couple of lines, for the benefit of the Member for Fort Rouge, and then I would like to ask a couple of questions. No doubt she is not inclined to take my position, but I want to read her the position that was indicated in the Free Press, which is a notable paper in our area, notable for many years as a large-L Liberal paper, and I've said this before so I'm not saying it for the first time; I have said it before in the House.

I think that on the editorial pages, there is an indication that there is going to be, and there has been some small-L liberalism creeping into the editorial pages that was not evident a few years ago. I just want to read a few excerpts from Saturday's editorial called Mr. Axworthy's Dead End. No pun intended. It says in a number of places, I'll just read the key underlinings that I have here, it says, and I could read the entire editorial and the member would see that this is totally in context, it says, Mr. Axworthy can promise, but he cannot necessarily deliver. It says, his suggestion should be disregarded.

It says that Mr. Axworthy introduced an irrelevancy, and it says that council must make those decisions on the basis of the city's own needs, not on the basis of what Mr. Axworthy thinks he can get federal money for. And so I'm just saying to you that we are not surprised that you are supporting Lloyd Axworthy. That comes as no surprise. -(Interjection)- Well, what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Axworthy struck out and he should simply give up. I think if he were sensible, he would -(Interjection)- well, some say he should resign.

I say that if he was smart, he would have pressed the case, and having lost it, he would have dropped the issue. But he holds out false promises to the people of Winnipeg. And he just cannot deliver. He has already shown that, and he's going to persist, well, let him persist. But I'm not 3010

Monday, 28 April, 1980 going to hold my breath and wait for him to check out these other sources of federal funding. I have a couple of questions for the Minister, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask him again about the UT AP funding. He received a commitment of 10.2 million. Because of this delay, caused by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration -(Interjection)- Well, I know, but isn't he the guy that a year ago, when he was still in this Chamber, fought for a stalling of the construction of the McGregor-Sherbrook overpass when the Liberal Party was in power, and I remember criticizing him at that time.

And he succeeded in getting a holdup of the construction permission on that project. And because of that, sure there was another government, sure he wasn't a Minister, but he was able to get to the people in Ottawa who called the shots, maybe it was Otto Lang, and as a result they held up the McGregor Sherbrook overpass. Over a year has passed and in terms of inflation, 2.8 million directly attributable to his actions in stalling that project. Now we have 10 million that we got committed from UTAP from 1979, the Minister says it's a five-year deal till 1984. And consequently, Mr.

Chairman, when you look at that money, if it was 10 million in one year, fine, but it's going to be spread out. When you're talking a 10 million deal, that means a 20 million deal over the next few years; if inflation is ten percent, it means that every year it's costing a couple of million dollars to spread that money. And if we're going to have 7.4 million over the next four years, that federal money is just going to disappear. It's going to disappear. It's not a lot of money. So I'm just asking the Minister, is it true that we're going to get that money on the basis of 2 million a year?

Is that the way it's going to be paid? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, there's a cash flow for that program. Basically, Mr. Chairman, the agreement provides for a cash flow in the fiscal year 1980-8 1 of 2.6 million, in the next fiscal year, 1981- 82, 3.6, and in the final fiscal year, 1982-83, 3.6 million. The total is 10.2 over three years.

To date, not very much has been spent, but the agreement provides in the last three years, those moneys have to be spent in those years, so it is important, and this is the point I have been trying to make with the last three federal Ministers, that if there is no decision on the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, because they held it up, one point was, can you extend the expenditure of moneys past the last fiscal year. Their position seems to be that no, they can't.

If the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass is to be proceeded with, it's important that approval be given to that project immediately, because the funds are to be used for that project. They have to be spent in those fiscal years, as I've indicated, and we don't want to see any of the federal moneys lapse under this program. MR. DOERN: Well, from the looks of it, Mr. Chairman, they are going to commit that money and not a penny more. MR. MERCIER: That's right. MR. DOERN: That's what you're telling me.

They don't care whether there is inflation, they don't care whether we postpone this another five years, that's the amount of money we're getting for the overpass, period. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the point was made to Mr. Pepin that the application to construct the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass had been on the federal Minister of Transport's desk in February of 1979.

It could have been approved at that time, and the city engineers have, as the Member for Elmwood referred, indicated that the estimated increase in the cost of the project is 2.8 million, while the project has been waiting the final approval of the Minister. And we tried to make the point that they should increase the funding for the project by 2.8 million over and above the UT AP moneys, in view of the fact that they held up the authority to proceed with the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, pending their study. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I just have to say in passing, I listened to these various pronunciations.

The Minister just said, Pay-pin, and I've heard Pay pan, and P'pah. I remember the quote of the Minister himself saying he would take anything except Peep-in. That was the one pronunciation he couldn't stomach. I wanted to ask the Minister as well, if he could define, -(Interjection)- I had some Oscar sandwiches which were ordered in caucus - I wanted to ask the Minister if he would define, or outline rather, just exactly where we are at again.

If we gave the green light, if the government and the city both decide to proceed in the next couple of months, where are we in terms of land acquisition, in terms of design, in terms of the possibility of construction? Where are we in terms of when could that project commence, and when would it likely be completed in terms of people driving over it, etc., etc. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, the detailed design work has yet to be done. That would have to be completed before construction could go ahead. MR. DOERN: Has the land been acquired? What land is required, has it been acquired? MR.

MERCIER: I think some it has been acquired. MR. DOERN: And so you say the detailed design has not been completed. That would take how many months from now, again? MR. MERCIER: I would estimate six months. MR. DOERN: So assuming a green light were given in the next 30 to 60 days, it's possible that the project could be started late in 1980, or would it more likely be put off until 1981? In the spring? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the engineering reports to give a definitive answer to that question. MR. DOERN: Well then, I'm just saying to the Minister, Mr.

Chairman, that the longer it's put off, the more inflation will erode the amount of money 3011

Monday, 28 April, 1980 and the more money that will have to put up. It looks like another year before construction will commence. The other point I would ask of the Minister is this - and I want the Member for Fort Rouge to listen to his answer more than to my questions on this particular last item. Given the situation in relation to rail relocation, and given the preferences of the people in the north end of the city, and the people on the central side of the city, the central part of the city, the Minister has to make a decision and the government has to make a decision.

Somebody is going to be relatively happy and somebody may not be happy. I'm saying, what is the decision of the government now? Is the Minister totally rejecting rail relocation and favouring and supporting the construction of the McGregor-Sherbrook overpass? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, if the federal government's position with respect to financial commitment does not change from what Mr.

Pepin advised on Thursday, that is that they will go no further than the moneys allocated under the UT AP program, then the magnitude of cost, I would suggest, is too high for the provincial and city government alone to become involved in rail relocation. In view of that, the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass should proceed, in my view. MR. DOERN: And if Mr. Axworthy, due to some arduous efforts, comes up with a few hundred thousand or another million or two from OREE or any other source of federal funding, will the Minister also proceed with the McGregor-Sherbrook overpass? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, it seems to me that with the kind of moneys that are involved in the cost study that was done, 168 million in total costs, it would be my view that unless the federal government were prepared to finance 50 percent of that, there is no alternative other than to proceed with the overpass. MR. DOERN: So the Minister is saying that unless he can get another 60 or 70 million committed, in addition to what is already committed, there's no use even fooling around, that it's a dead issue. Is that what he's saying? MR. MERCIER: That's my view, Mr. Chairman. MR. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, a number of points have been raised, the most recent one, I've never understood how a provincial Minister involved with concerns for the city of Winnipeg sits back and does practically nothing on the problem of rail relocation.

I have not seen this Minister take a strong position, nor have I seen any real reaction to this study that has been made, and which I have not seen, but from what I have learned of it, there seems to be no real cost-benefit review, no consideration of the impact on the city of Winnipeg of continuing the rails running through Winnipeg, or of removing the rail tracks - and of course, they can't all be removed, I think that's pretty clear, but most of them, the marshalling yards.

The relationship to the growth of the city, the development of the city, the problems of the inner core, I see nothing of that, and I think that this government has not taken a proper role. I was going to say lead, but I think that's really a city of Winnipeg matter that should have the lead. But to have it come from Ottawa in the name of Lloyd Axworthy is, to me, inadequate. I think that the Minister of Urban Affairs, whose responsibility is to deal with the growth and development of the city, is just sitting back and reacting.

I feel about that, because one wonders just what it is that he was doing when he was a city councillor and what brought him to this Legislature in terms of developing those principles and ideas that he had for the benefit of his constituents. Of course, I must say, I wonder about what brings all of us here, if we don't have some kind of motivation.

So let me just, well, the Member for Fort Rouge isn't here, but I must say I am amused when she and when Lloyd Axworthy did discuss that store on Broadway Avenue for the party that is a proponent for free enterprise and the marketplace to complain bitterly because of the fact that a store has been removed, is to me somewhat contradictory of what I believed that they believe in. Mr.

Chairman, a number of us have come from municipal level politics and for myself, I was a city of Winnipeg alderman and then I was a metro councillor, and I became convinced that the future of the city of Winnipeg, as we know it today, could not be solved by the elected representatives at the municipal level of the, I think, 13 jurisdictions in Winnipeg, but that there had to be some rationalization. I was also convinced that the Roblin conceived Metropolitan Council was only a step in a direction, but not a solution.

What I felt and what many of us, I am sure, felt was that there had to be an involvement in the city of all the people of the city, not in the legal jurisdictional concept, but all the people who lived in Winnipeg and knew Winnipeg as their homes, and that they had to have a greater opportunity to develop their own potential. The New Democratic Party espoused the principle of taxation on the basis of services to people being paid for taxation or finances from people and services to property being paid on taxation on property. That is one of the things that the city and no municipality had the power to deal with.

When we came into government, in the New Democratic Party, we came in with a general policy dealing with the need for Greater Winnipeg to become one entity, to have greater self-rule powers, to have an equality in the tax base in order to deliver or be able to deliver a greater service on a more equitable basis to all the citizens of Winnipeg.

I think we gave a great deal of power to the city to grow and I think what stunted its growth was the politics that took place within the city, and still does, where you have a group called or sponsored by the Independent Citizens Election Committee, which clearly is a political party with no policy and no real motivation, except to elect themselves and to maintain themselves in that power. What happened as a result is peculiarly enough very much like what happens with this present government; they have no real vision of where they can go, much less the desire to go there.

As a result they flip around and flop around in the city of Winnipeg, as this government does here to a large extent, trying to stay in power but not really having 3012

Monday, 28 April, 1980 an announced long-range plan for development in the city. The present government pretty soon will be calling an election and will say, well look, we cleaned up that mess, now we are going to do things. But certainly they have not stated a policy. As a matter of fact, their policy to date has been, we'll keep those things that we can't possibly get rid of, even though we don't believe in them, like Autopac, and other than that we will just destroy what we can in order to start afresh with what we want to do. They are not telling that to the people.

By the same token, the ICEC has no policy, no program, no long-range view and just operates from day to day. I think that some of the members that have come here from the City Council, today's City Council, the ICEC-run group, must have come here with a sense of frustration, looking to achieve those things they wanted to do when they were on Council and were unable to do there, thinking they could do it here.

To some extent that is true, but really the city of Winnipeg, in my belief, has all sorts of power, but doesn't want to use it; coupled with a government that doesn't want to prod them and is even then slow to react to them, they are just at a sort of standstill with no long-range policy and that is damaging.

I hope the Member for Fort Rouge can get my message, that those things she spoke about, like freeze on assessment, tax incentive, a number of condominium conversions, those things which bother her and which frankly I don't share in her concerns, are matters that could be brought here by way of legislation and she has a right to do it, and why she doesn't do it, maybe I should attribute it to her inexperience.

Rather than make speeches about it, it would be more helpful if she brought in amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act and then we could debate them even though they would be pretty well shunted aside under Private Members' Hour and Speed-up; still she would have some opportunities. It seems to me what we have to consider is the power that rests on the city and the fact that the city, as it is today constituted, run by the ICEC, does not have the real desire to go ahead.

When the Minister for Urban Affairs was a member of the City Council, and I think a very important Chairman of one of the very important committees, he was part of the group that claimed that the city of Winnipeg could not exercise its powers because they were not adequately financed to do so.

It seems to me that - I don't know if he was the one that brought the brief to the then government, but certainly he was part of the group that prepared a brief saying, we contribute so much to the provincial revenues; we, the people of Winnipeg, are a big part of Manitoba; we are entitled to a greater share of the revenues of the provinces; we are entitled to share in growth revenues; we do object to real property taxation, which they may have regressive taxation.

When we were in government, the New Democratic Party, and going back to our original plank in our platform on all levels in the 1950s and 1960s that services to people should come from people taxation, we did several things as a New Democratic Government.

For one thing, we rationalized the structure of Winnipeg; we equalized the tax base; we gave a good deal of power to the city council, which could remove a number of, and did in effect, I believe, remove the community committees from any active and lively participation in the city, but could do many other things - could deal with the Board of Commissioners if it wanted to. There was a great deal of permissiveness involved in planning within The City of Winnipeg Act, and in addition to that, the city of Winnipeg could have come to the government time and again to ask for greater freedom if it wanted it.

It didn't really do that. What the New Democratic Party, the government, then did was to start opening the door to the municipalities to participate in growth taxation. And we passed legislation that actually dedicated to the municipalities a percentage of the most regressive taxes we know in Canada, and we actually gave a certain portion of income taxation at the corporate and personal level to the municipalities.

We said to them that if you have a substantial support in Manitoba for increasing or decreasing your portion of income taxes, come and say so, and we will discuss it, and we wanted to make it possible so to do. We also said that we wanted to make it possible for them to participate in other growth taxes. I think we spelled out liquor tax - as a matter of fact, I think we turned over amusement taxes entirely to the city, and we invited the city, along with other municipalities in Manitoba, to start thinking in terms of an expanded tax base in the growth tax area. Mr.

Speaker, my direct question to the Minister is: what has he done to enable municipalities and the city of Winnipeg in particular, and the other urban centres, to have a greater share in growth taxes, so that they would have a right to rule themselves and make their own decisions and be blamed for their own decisions and be responsible for their own decisions? Instead of that, the Minister gave them a block grant - okay, if this government says to the municipalities we are not going to get involved and push you into anything, with which I disagree.

I think what we did in regard to experimental methods in transit, for example, were useful, and what we did in certain directions was in order to prod the city. For example, if I can depart for just a minute, when we found that the city council was unprepared to do anything about housing by putting up their - was it 10 percent they were expected to put up - and when they wouldn't do it, we changed the legislation and we picked up that tab to see to it that these things happened in Win nipeg. Maybe we were pushing them to do something and when they wouldn't do it, we participated in having it done.

When it comes to growth taxation and to self-rule for the city, what are the - and let me be specific - what are the Conservative ex-city councillors doing to try and see to it that the city of Winnipeg has more self-determination powers? It is all very well to pass legislation, I think we did. What are they doing to enable them to have a better tax base with which to be able to develop the city the way they think they should?

This government put a cap on it, they gave them a block grant, they put a freeze on more participation in growth revenues, and I believe has done absolutely nothing to let the city become more involved in the taxation they want. Rather than the city go to the province and say, please give us some more, which I think was the case when the present Minister for Urban Affairs was a councillor, come to 3013

Monday, 28 April, 1980 the city, talk to the city, on the joint committees, and say, please give us more. Instead of that, what has the government done now to let the city obtain more revenue from growth taxation? That is the direct question I have to the Minister: what has he done in regard to that? Or can it be that the ICEC controlled Council has backed away from that request and no longer wants that power? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, first of all let me make one brief comment about the reference by the Member for St. Johns to politics in the city of Winnipeg and what he says is bad about the whole city operation. Let me remind him that he brought in

an Act, with 50 members of council in its structure, that was designed for political parties, and I suppose what still irks him and galls him is that the people of Winnipeg rejected political parties, particularly the NOP municipal power. Mr. Chairman, with respect to financing, let me say first of all, and if the Member for St. Johns wishes he could - I don't believe he was here this afternoon - if he wishes to look back at Hansard from this afternoon he will see some discussion of city financing.

We have this year, with the Premier's very recent announcement, increased the Property Tax Credit Program by 100, which in effect for a person with an average home assessed at 7,000, in all but two school divisions in the city of Winnipeg, actually reduced the tax burden on those people this year. In fact pensioners, if I recollect correctly, have had their taxes decreased to below the 1977 level.

With respect to revenue sharing and the reference to personal income tax and corporate tax, a measure which I think was a good one and was brought in certainly by the last provincial government at the request of the then city council, and I think was a good step.

This year, as that Act requires in distributing those funds, we have changed the allocation of moneys in order to attempt to give a greater share to larger urban centres where there is no question that they have a higher per capita cost in providing services to people, and that has resulted in - that's not the sole reason why, but in combination with the increased fund under those points of personal income tax and corporate tax we were able to pay to the city of Winnipeg an extra 2.2 million.

With respect to block funding, that figure, in addition to a special grant of 4 million earlier on this year, was increased from 30 million to 33 million, an increase of some 10 percent, which is in line with increase in revenues by the province, probably more - actually more than the increase in revenues by the province - so in essence that fund is a form of revenue sharing in that we have stipulated that it will grow in accordance with the general increase in revenues to the province.

As well we have had continuing discussions with the city and have indicated, the Premier himself has indicated to the city's official delegation that we will be prepared to seriously consider projects over and above that as they come forward. I indicated earlier on, the city is in the process of completing its review of the five year development program and development plan, and it may very well be that some special projects will come forward out of those reviews. In addition, Mr.

Chairman, we have under other programs, for example a community services program, which are federal funds but are allocated by the province in the city of Winnipeg, we've allocated 90 percent of the total funds to the city of Winnipeg in accordance with the previous distribution of those funds but again a maximum flexibility to the city in deciding their own priorities in spending those moneys, and they made a determination of that and that was approved. So I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that in providing, I think it's almost 20 million in increasing the tax credit program to actually reduce the real property taxation burden this year to people with average homes, increasing block funding in accordance with, in fact more than revenue sharing, that that in fact is a form of revenue sharing, and we are at the same time attempting to give maximum flexibility to city council to proceed in accordance with their priorities and their responsibility to their electorate.

With respect to specific or other forms of revenue sharing, my understanding is that the city council and its finance committee are reviewing different aspects of that and at some future time will be bringing forward some proposals. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, a few comments. Firstly, in regard to politics, it is true that I for one had hoped that there would be an honest declaration of party politics in the new city of Winnipeg, and it is also true that I was disappointed. But it is also true that the ICEC is a political party.

It just doesn't have any policy, program, or any indication of what it wants to see happen. It consists of a bunch of presumably nice fellows. I think they are all nice fellows, but so is everybody else a member of a group of nice fellows. I think I hear some disagreement to my statement, but I stand by it, Mr. Chairman. I stand by even ex-city councillors. Mr. Chairman, nevertheless, he says that people rejected politics.

They didn't reject politics; they did reject the NOP as a municipal party, and frankly I didn't care one bit whether it would be provincial political parties that would be on the city scene or not. But I think the Member for lnkster will say that he didn't expect what I did, that there would be party politics, what he predicted came out more true than my prediction, and that is that it would be party politics, but it would be suburban versus inner city as I recall it, and he proved to be more correct than I was. All right, Mr. Chairman, what I said about politics and the ICEC still is correct.

The fact that the Minister points out that I had disappointment in the planning is also correct, but there is no relationship between the two, except that he wanted to give me a dig and he succeeded. But I can survive that easily, because, Mr. Chairman, when I consider what the Minister had to say about the property tax credit being a help to the city of Winnipeg, I blush for him, Mr. chairman. I blush for him for several reasons. In the first place it was clearly announced that the intent of this increase in the property tax credit was to reduce the burden of taxation in education in the 3014

Monday, 28 April, 1980 main, although it covered others. And he talked about the homes that would not be taxed. But they were very cute, Mr. Chairman, and I'm not saying that they were original in that, but they were very cute. They waited until all the budgets were struck, mill rates were struck, and just as the bills were about to sent out, they made their announcement. And why were they cute, Mr. Chairman?

They wanted to make sure that the city, the municipalities, the governments of the municipalities would not have the opportunity to revise their taxation based on this expected reduction in taxes, they wanted to make sure that the property tax credit was passed on right to the taxpayer, not to the city. And as I say, they are not original in that. But that was it. So to say that this was being done for the city, Mr. Chairman, is nonsense. It was done for the taxpayers, which is fine. They were too slow and too late and too little, as my leader said when they announced it.

They stalled around for two years before they did anything to recognize the increased burden on the taxpayer, and they finally did it, no credit to them, and the fact is, Mr. Chairman, they're getting no credit for it either. Have you noticed, the populace has not risen and said, Good for the Conservatives, they are progressive and have done something real. The populace reacted as I think my leader did, and said, What took you so long? So to say that this is a help to the municipalities is really nonsense, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I blush for the Minister, and I really do.

Now when he says that they did the magnificent gesture to Winnipeg, they took their 2.2 percentage points on income tax and they redistributed it to give the urban centres more, well good for them. Where did they get the money? Out of provincial coffers, no way, they redistributed the total income, which would have been distributed amongst municipalities some other way, and they rearranged it to give less to some municipalities and more to others. That was none of their provincial revenues that they were redistributing. The Minister didn't even pretend they were.

But he can, I suppose, as urban Minister say, I did this because we recognize the greater needs for the urban centres. I don't know what the Minister for Municipal Affairs is saying to the smaller municipalities who suffered as a result of this rearrangement, but certainly no-one in the provincial government has the right to take any credit.

And I mention that, because when we spoke to this Minister, I guess it was on his Attorney-General estimates, I brought out the fact that his press release stated that the province gave to the municipality a certain sum of money, this amount of money from the percentage points, and he admitted at that time that it was no gift whatsoever. It was moneys they were entitled to have. All the province was involved in was the redistribution of that money. I wonder whether or not the municipalities have come to the province and said, We'd like 2.3 points, 2.4 points, we'd like 3 points.

He said No, but I am wondering why the Minister didn't go to them and say, You're crying that you're not getting enough money; you're crying that the block funding is not enough; you have the opportunity to come to us and say we want a greater revenue from growth taxation. Why doesn't he say it? What is his role? Unless all he is is a bookkeeper for the urban centres saying, I'll transmit your requests, I'll go with you to Mr. Pepin, or anything like that. What is he doing in a formative way to help them develop their programs with positive assistance?

At the moment I'm not talking about provincial revenues, I'm talking about access to growth revenues, and I ask the question once again. Maybe I'll do it for a long time. What are the Conservative ex-city councillors doing to answer their own requests in the past for a greater share of growth taxation? Where are they? Why don't we hear from them? They used to be very vociferous when the NOP was in government. What silenced them, Mr. Chairman? Can it be that it's the Cabinet that silenced them and said, Stay away from this, you won't get it? That's the question I would ask.

One other point. -(Interjection)- Pardon? Well, Mr. Chairman, you see, the Member for Wolseley says, faith in the Minister, and I want to know how long does one have blind faith. How much longer do the citizens of an urban centre like Winnipeg have to wait because the Member for Wolseley has faith in the Minister? There comes a time, Mr. Chairman, when faith is just not enough, like some help would be more useful. I don't quite recall the restructuring of block funding. I am under the impression that the extra 10 percent from 30 million to 33 million is not just simply a growth.

It seems to me there's some money in there that is not quite a straight increase of provincial funds, but I don't recall it, and I guess I'll have to go back and look it up, Mr. Chairman. The Minister might help me if he knows what I'm groping for, but I have the impression that the extra 3 million is not just a straight increase from 30 to 33. It seems to me there is something else that's 3 million, but if he can't help me or won't help me, I'll have to look it up myself and try and find it. Finally, Mr.

Chairman, I want to ask the Minister what has happened with a request from the city of Winnipeg to participate in hotel sales tax and liquor sales tax? What has happened to the brief? The Minister says that they are studying and preparing a new brief. Where's the old brief? What has happened to it? If the Minister doesn't know, I think I can find a copy for him in my files, but I am pretty sure that there was a very extensive brief presented by the City of Winnipeg. What has this Minister done about dealing with the requests in that brief?

Surely the New Democratic Government did not do all that the city wanted them to do. So where are these city councillors and this Minister in relation to that brief and what they requested so specifically? How is that city council has not requested recently and has not been granted access to growth taxation? How long does it take before this government recognizes the justified claim of the municipalities to have access to growth taxation as compared with regressive property taxation? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with the assumptions in the question.

As I have indicated, the relief provided to city of Winnipeg taxpayers by increasing the property tax credit by 100, and in fact reducing taxation to people with average homes, comes from, in his words, the most progressive form of taxation from personal income tax. The increase in revenue sharing is greater than the percentage 3015

Monday, 28 April, 1980 increase in revenues to the province. So in fact I've been suggesting that there is through those programs direct relationship to revenue sharing. The specific request which the Member for St. Johns refers to, I think, hotel tax and . . . MR. CHERNIACK: I think hotel and liquor is what they asked for, I don't know ... MR. MERCIER: Hotel tax and liquor tax, I'm not sure that ... MR. CHERNIACK: Both. MR. MERCIER: Liquor tax is one I can remember. I know there is a lot of debate about a hotel tax amongst city council themselves as to whether or not they wanted to implement that.

There have been discussions with the official delegation with respect to those matters and again, as I indicated earlier, I understand the finance committee of the city has been considering areas of revenue-sharing and I expect to receive a recommendation from them in the near future. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, it appears then that the ICEC, who controls city council, is not doing what I think is its duty to do, and that is to search out access to growth taxation and is to that extent delinquent, and that whenever they have cried that -they have inadequate sources of revenue, to accept what the Minister says, it is their fault that they are not asking for it, that all they are doing is coming on their knees to the province, asking for more money, but deny themselves the opportunity to ask for access to growth taxation. One point, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if I could get the Minister to admit that the Property Tax Credit Plan, which was introduced by the New Democratic Government, whose greatest impact, I believe, is redistribution of wealth - that's what I believe it is - but that it is a plan which was fought by the Conservatives when they were in opposition. And now that they have adopted it, would he at least admit that that extra 10 0.00, which is given universally to all people in a regressive rather than a progressive manner, is a reduction in taxation and not an increase of revenue to the municipalities.

Will he admit that, that that money does not increase municipal income but actually reduces the burden of taxation on the taxpayer? Could I get him to admit that. MR. MERCIER: No, Mr. Chairman, I will not admit that because by increasing that credit, it is a benefit to the municipality and/or school boards in that it opens up taxing room for them. MR.

CHERNIACK: Would the Minister not admit that, having announced this 10 0.00 increase in property tax credits, as a minimum, just before the bills were due to be sent out, that none of the municipalities or school boards increased their mill rate as a result of this reduction in taxation. Would he admit that that is correct? MR. MERCIER: No, I will not, Mr. Chairman, because obviously the city of Winnipeg did not, as the school boards in the city of Winnipeg did not.

But there are other jurisdictions outside the city of Winnipeg who send out their returns at a later date, and I'm not sure that some of those other municipalities did not take the increase in the tax credit into consideration and adjust their level of expenditures. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Chairman, just the one more question and then I'll stop belaboring this point, unless he provokes me into asking another one. Mr.

Chairman, in view of the fact that this Minister's responsibility as Minister of Urban Affairs is mainly to the city of Winnipeg, would he then agree that this 10 0.00 increase, in minimum, property tax credit in no way put extra dollars into this year's coffers for the city of Winnipeg? MR. MERCIER: No. Well, I would agree, Mr. Chairman, in that it reduced the burden of the increases in taxation by the municipalities and the school boards on their taxpayers. It opens up room for them next year. MR. CHERNIACK: So, Mr.

Chairman, what we can now assume, from what the Minister said, that any benefit derived that will go to the city of Winnipeg as a result of this property tax credit increase of 100.00 minimum, will not give the city an opportunity to increase its taxation for a full year. Is that the correct

summary of what he just said? MR. MERCIER: Mr . Chairman, obviously the announcement was made at a time subsequent to the school boards and the municipal government in the city having already decided upon their mill rate increase, so the benefit was solely for the taxpayers, and I don't rule that out as a positive step. I don't think you are going to find too many taxpayers in the city of Winnipeg who are going to object to their level of taxation being reduced by the sum of 100.00. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Chairman, very clearly the Minister is now saying that the Property Tax Credit Plan that was introduced by the New Democratic Party was one which gives a great deal of benefit to municipal taxpayers. That's clear, and by all means give us all the credit we are due for that because it is our plan, one fought by the Conservatives, especially by the present Mi nister of Finance, who said he would drop it as quicly as he could.

So that's fine, and what he is doing will be a progressive measure when the government will, as it must and certainly will be forced to do in the budget time, with the Budget Speech, increase the maximum. If they don't, it would be a complete farce and I don't think they are that stupid as not to increase the maximum, so they will do that. That is a very important progressive measure, which is a New Democratic measure.

The point that I think the Minister has now agreed to is that the municipality of Winnipeg and the school division of Winnipeg, and I believe the school divisions of subsurban Winnipeg but I can't say for sure about all of them, that none of them will be deriving more revenue to their own municipal and school division funds with which to provide a service, but that they will have to wait a whole year if they want to recognize that reduction in property taxation, 3016

Monday, 28 April, 1980 and with inflation being what it is, it will have been eaten up anyway, Mr. Chairman. So all I believe I have proved, at least to my satisfication, is that this property tax credit, which was a really worthwhile measure, was one that had no impact and no assistance to the municipalities or the school divisions, of Winnipeg at least. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I would dispute that statement to the extent that I think the members of school boards and members of councils are concerned enough about their taxpayers and the people they represent that they welcome an increase of this amount, which in effect reduces taxation for people with average homes. Certainly the timing of the announcement was such - and that couldn't be helped - was such that they couldn't adjust their levels of expenditure this year, but it does open tax room to them in the following year to proceed with projects that they deem to be important.

When we talk about revenue sharing and burden of municipal property taxes, Mr. Chairman, if there is one direction that I would think we should move in, and I believe we will move in, it would be in the area of reforming the financing of school costs in this province. I think that is an area which has caused municipalities throughout the province a lot of difficulty in that a lot of municipalities have been able to hold the line and control expenditures, but any savings that they have brought about themselves have been taken up in large increases in school mill rates.

I think you have to establish priorities and I think if there is a priority to be established, it's in the area of reforming the financing of schools. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Chairman, I do have a few words that I would like to say on a subject which was dealt with earlier this evening, and that is the access by the north Winnipeg residents to and from the rest of Greater Winnipeg because, Mr.

Chairman, that is one of the cruelest hoaxes that has ever been perpetrated on any part of the population of our province, is what has been done to the city of north Winnipeg by the myth of railway relocation, Mr. Chairman, which has been used not for one year or two years, but my recollecton of a proposal for rail line relocation was made by the Member for Burrows in 1966. Maybe I am doing him too much credit, although I remember that as being the first time. It is not impossible that somebody suggested it earlier.

In all of the years that it has been suggested, the population north of the CPR tracks has probably trebled and more likely quadrupled, and in the last 45 years, the access to north Winnipeg has been the Main Street Subway, the Salter Bridge, Arlington Bridge, and the McPhillips Street Subway. That's what it has been for 45 years, on the basis that some day the rails will be relocated and then you won't need another bridge. Mr. Chairman, it's like a cynical and stingy father saying to his son, who wants an ice cream cone, You can have an ice cream cone or a banana split, now which one do you want?

And the child says the banana split and he says, You'll have to wait for that. And then the next day, he says, You can have an ice cream cone or a banana split, and the child says a banana split, and he says, You'll have to wait for that. Eventually the child is going to say, Look, how long do I have to wait for this banana split? I don't mind waiting and I would still like to have a banana split in preference to an ice cream cone, but in the meantime I would like the ice cream cone and I'll get the banana split when it comes. For years, Mr.

Chairman, we have been trying to impress upon those who have put roadblocks in the path of an access route to greater Winnipeg that, yes, everybody loves rail line relocation; nobody will say a bad word about rail line relocation. If you ask me, do I prefer rail line relocation to a Sherbrook McGregor Overpass, I would say certainly, but if rail line relocation delays a Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass then I, Mr. Chairman, don't want to be told, to use another analogy, that there are two birds in the bush if you will release the bird in the hand.

Some years ago, in 1977, the city of Winnipeg, the province of Manitoba, and the federal government were virtually set on a formula for providing this overpass. Then came the saviours, Mr. Chairman, who told us that if we will only wait, some fellow will come on a white horse, in shiny armour, and give us rail line relocation. The last example of that cruel hoax, Mr. Chairman, is what was perpetrated by the former Member for Fort Rouge and our undistinguished Cabinet Minister in Ottawa, who tried to give the impression that that was going to be brought about. Mr.

Chairman, I don't have a bad word to say about rail line relocation. What I have said, and I've said it, not only for the last three years, but the for the past seven or eight years, commit yourself to an access route, if it has to be an overpass which winds up as being a skyway, then build the skyway, and when the tracks are removed, you will have what you have in many other modern cities, you will have an overpass over an area which has had its rails removed. But in the meantime, the citizens of north Winnipeg have gotten nothing, Mr.

Chairman, and have been deterred from getting something by people who have thcrown up this program, as a means, really, of depriving north Winnipeg people of an access route. So I now say, Mr. Chairman, that I threw up this suggestion of a flyway, which could still be there when the rails were relocated if necessary, and then nobody would lo se, but apparently, maybe it's engineering, maybe it's something that I don't know, but apparently it hasn't been picked up. Mr. Chairman, now I have another suggestion, how we could have them both. We could have our ice cream cone, and if the banana split comes along, fine.

Or we could have our bird in the hand, if the two birds in the bush come along, that's fine. Why doesn't somebody have an underpass, Mr. Chairman? Why do we not start talking about a Sherbrook-McGregor underpass? And instead of having an overpass, which some people say would be unnecessary if there was rail line relocation, you have the underpass, which you won't even see, if there is rail line relocation. Has it been considered, Mr. Chairman? Is it out of the question? And let me say this, I throw it out, Mr. Chairman, in desperation, because of the fact, Mr.

Chairman, that the overpass has been denied the citizens of north Winnipeg for all of these years. And I don't make the suggestion as being one which I 3017

Monday, 28 April, 1980 know of any feasibility for, but I make it in the desperation that something will jar - and I think it's the councillors of Winnipeg who will commit themselves and not be deterred by the kind of thing that has deterred them, not for three years, but I say for many years, from providing this access route on the basis that something better is coming, if we will only wait. I make these remarks, Mr.

Chairman, because I believe that something has to be done, vis-a-vis access to the city from and to the core part of the city, to north Winnipeg, and that it is not being done on the basis of pie-in-the-sky suggestions that have never materialized, and show no immediate signs of materializing in any foreseeable future, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I sat here for quite some time while the Member for Fort Rouge was talking about the problems associated with the reorganization of greater Winnipeg, and she quoted Mr.

MacDonald, a respected bureaucrat, she quoted Elswood Bole, a respected bureaucrat, both of whom were high in the administration under the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg, suggesting that there were problems with the new city and that it did not work out as it should have worked out. Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that that is the case. I never thought that the reorganization of greater Winnipeg would eliminate municipal problems. But, Mr.

Chairman, one has to recall what problems were eliminated and what problems were created, and if one goes back, if one had the memory to go back to 1962 and 1963, they would easily determine that the city of Winnipeg shows much more promise of being a more progressive city, development-wise - and I say that, not from the point of view of merely material development, I'm talking about the kinds of developments that are needed in the city, recreational development, traffic development, transportation development, building development, that all of those things show far more chance of being realized in an orderly and equitable fashion, than they did in 1963.

And that the amount of shunning off of responsibility from one person to the other has now at least been eliminated, so that it merely takes place as between the city and the province, rather than taking place as between 13 municipalities and the Metro government, and the Metro government and the 13 municipalities, and both of these groups against the provincial government, and perhaps the provincial government blaming the federal government.

At least much of political responsibility has been more identifiable by the reorganization of greater Winnipeg, and certainly the financial responsibility for contributing to the city of Winnipeg and for the maintenance of the city of Winnipeg, is far more equitable under the new system than it was under the old, but that's an old debate, and I really don't want to go back into it. I'd rathet come back to the points that were raised regarding municipal financing at the present time. And, Mr.

Chairman, I don't intend to change the position that I took in 1973 when you and your colleagues on the city of Winnipeg council came and said that the city of Winnipeg comprises 60 percent of the population of Manitoba, therefore we should get 60 percent of the revenue, or whatever percent it was, that we do not count what the provincial government spends in the city of Winnipeg, we are talking about revenue only.

And the response of the provincial government was then, as I say it should be now, rather than the fund blocking approach which the province has taken with regard to city of Winnipeg revenue, rather than saying that we will block your funds, by saying that you can have complete freedom of choice as to what you spend them on, and then put them in the kind of straightjacket which gives them no freedom at all, since we know what their budget is and we know that there are so many completely uncontrollable items such as fire and police and transportation, that when you start counting up the amount of flexibility - we are not talking about any flexibility at all - that the province do some things with respect to the city which I sincerely expect that some of the municipal councillors will oppose.

Not because the people in Winnipeg will oppose them, I'm a Winnipegger, and Mr.

Chairman, I said then, and I say now, and next time, the government that comes into power should make sure that the clock cannot be turned back, that the Assiniboine Park is a provincial responsibility, it's not a municipal responsibility, and if my member, the Member for Wolseley, says to me that he is doing me a favour by keeping the park in the city of Winnipeg and requiring me to pay 100 percent of the cost of it, rather than 60 percent, I say, no thank you to the Member for Wolseley, and the citizens of Winnipeg will say, no thank you to all of the councillors who say that they are protecting power over municipal parks at the expense of having the park have its proper financial support from all of the people of the province of Manitoba, just as other provincial parks do.

And that would have happened, Mr. Chairman, if we hadn't compromised at the last moment and said to the city of Winnipeg, we will let the Assiniboine Park be administered by the city, and we will pay for the cost of administering it, rather than declaring it a provincial park. And there wouldn't be a citizen in the province of Manitoba, other than an elected politician, who felt some of the power that he thinks he had slipping away from his grasp.

There would not be a citizen in the city of Winnipeg who would complain because the provincial jurisdiction decided that the Assiniboine Park would be fully controlled by the province and fully funded by the province, because it is a provincial rather than a municipal responsibility. And that's the kind of thing, Mr. Chairman, rather than fund blocking, that would help the tax base in the city of Winnipeg. And there are other things, Mr. Chairman, which I said then, and I say now.

I do not believe that it is healthy for politicians to say that we will spend money that other politicians accept the responsibility of raising, which is what your position was, Mr. Chairman, and the Member for Wolseley's position, and the Member for Fort Rouge's position, and the Member for River Heights' position. I'm not saying that you should maintain that same position, I'm not even asking you to be consistent, because if I would ask you to be consistent, I would have to, at the same time, ask you to be ridiculous. And I don't want you to be ridiculous.

I don't want you to say that the way of funding municipal governments is for 3018

Monday, 28 April, 1980 politicians at the provincial level to raise the taxes and give them to the municipality and the municipal politicians, without any responsibility for raising, go ahead and spend it. He who spends taxes must also have the responsibility of raising them. And I took that position then and I take it now. And I say that what the city of Winnipeg needs, if it wants to have more funding, is not a greater share in growth taxes, I think that it gets a good share of growth taxes now, not more grants, I think that the amount of grants that it gets now are rather satisfactory.

They do need some joint programs such as a transportation program, which the provincial government would participate in on the understanding that the municipality would maintain low taxes at the toll boxes of the buses, which they have increased, Mr. Chairman, to the extent of, and last year I had it calculated, because they said that they kept the mill rate down, they actually increased it. The people in the lower income groups who use the buses, by three mills, and sometimes by five mills, which they didn't have to put into the mill rate, but they do need that kind of program.

They need shared programs which have joint municipal and provincial objectives, and I don't think that there is anything wrong with that at all. We do that at the federal-provincial level, and doing it at the municipal-provincial level makes just as much sense because you cannot completely compartmentalize municipal objectives and provincial objectives, and therefore, when joint objectives take place, they can be the basis of shared costing, and I think that that is far more healthy than fund blocking, which was what was to have replaced it. And they need, Mr.

Chairman, and were offered, they need the power to raise revenues, which every government needs. And I would have no objection, Mr. Chairman, I would have absolutely no objection, I tell you that I would support the right of the city to raise an additional one percent in sales tax if they wanted it. If they were prepared to raise it, and accept responsibility for it, it would be a fairly progressive form of tax in that there is no bureaucracy needed to collect it, it's all there, it could be collected in the city of Winnipeg, and that's not an unusual thing. They were offered, Mr.

Chairman, and refused, and I suggest that they should be offered again, a tax on the enhanced value of rezoned land. When a developer is given a rezoning on a piece of land which trebles or quadruples the value of the land, he has done nothing to create that wealth, that wealth has been created solely by the community around him, and by the potential of the community around him and the people around him, and therefore the people around him are entitled to a share of that wealth.

They were offered, at that time, the right to impose, we were prepared to enact it, a tax on increased value of land which was made available for development and which therefore increased in value, without any input whatsoever on the part of the developer. Mr. Chairman, that tax was offered. The councillors in their, I won't say wisdom, the councillors in their judgement, decided they didn't want it. They decided that they would continue to conduct a rather inept campaign, and it was a political campaign.

And at that time, it made sense, because most of the councillors were either of Liberal or Conservative background, and to conduct a campaign against the provincial government on the basis of finances made sense to them. It no longer makes sense to them and you no longer hear it. I am not even saying that they should do it, Mr. Chairman. I am not embittered by the fact that the ICEC has changed its tune because they are no longer in collusion with the opposition in the House. That is for them to live with, that is for them to test their credibility with the people of the city.

What I am suggesting is that the province's objective with regard to the citizens of Winnipeg be spelt out, and it be certain that if the city needs new revenues, new revenues will be available through new sources of taxation; that if the city wishes to engage in programs which have provincial as well as municipal objectives, shared-cost programs will be available to them; that if the city of Winnipeg is now bearing an unfair burden, a perfect example of which is the maintenance and operations of the Assinboine Park, that the province is prepared to lift that burden and should be prepared to do so, Mr.

Chairman, despite the protestations of municipal councillors who will say that they don't want to lose the power-hungry grasp that they have on the park, despite the fact that it is a financial burden on their own taxpayers. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that I, unlike some of my predecessors, am not going to say, well, you said something different when you were a municipal councillor or when you were in opposition. I accept the fact that what you said when yo1,1c were a municipal councillor and when you were in opposition is stupid, and I don't expect you to carry on with stupid remarks.

I expect you to grow up with the responsibility of government and to make a sensible suggestion to the city of Winnipeg with regard to its needs and its aspirations. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MR. R.G. (Bob) WILSON: Yes, part of it that I have to say will wait until tomorrow, except that I wanted to respond. The Member for lnkster has brought up an interesting point and I would want to comment on those two areas and then leave the Urban Affairs MLA suggestions until possibly tomorrow.

Regarding the bridge, it seems ever since the beginning of the 1970s I have been attempting to stop freeways throughout the city, and it seems to me that the skyway suggestion of the Member for lnkster is unacceptable to us on this side, the south side of the proposed overpass. We have also been approving an overpass, but a simple four-lane overpass to not be the expanded planner's dream of the twin-spanned variety which would, in effect, disrupt no less than a large area of what was formerly the City of Winnipeg in the core area. The north-south route would divide Wolseley almost dead in half.

Right now we are experiencing a great number of changes in the very fact that the residential component of our community is slowly being eroded and becoming commercial, because traffic patterns seem to indicate, through historical accesses, that Sherbrook and Maryland are becoming very heavily travelled, mainly because some of the people with either, I will use the word, inside information or possibly perceiving what is going to happen in the future, are beginning to 3019

Monday, 28 April, 1980 develop shopping centres and different things along this particular pattern.

I would like to see very quickly the historical access to the north be maintained with a simple overpass, because what we have is we are continually fighting these traffic experts who seem to put traffic and concrete ahead of the quality of life in communities, and what we are experiencing continually, and I appreciate the member's comments about the underpass, but I might suggest that a tunnel, from when I was on City Council, was about anywhere from three and one-half to five times the cost of a simple overpass of the railway tracks.

We fought the former Public Works Minister, who had this grandiose scheme, right here at the Osborne Bridge, who wanted an underpass, who wanted twin-spanned bridge, but unfortunately for him the property acquisition of one side of Osborne Street plugging into Pembina Highway was just out of sight.

These are the dreams of these traffic planners and I am concerned, as a former city councillor, that some of these traffic planners have found their way into the provincial government's employ, and I would hope that they have left these grandiose freeway ideas when they left the city employ, because I, for one, do not want to see the southern freeway come up Edmonton. I believe that has been stopped by the very fact that the City and others were able to sell land. I don't want to see some of the grandiose schemes of the Ness Freeway, going underneath the Airport.

I don't want to see some of these other ones that we talked about.

I don't know what they are doing, but if the city ever wanted to come up with a lot of extra revenue, they could get on with the job of the Highland-Foley connection to North Kildonan and West Kildonan, but they could scrap the Carriere-Grant overpass freeway, and begin to sell some of those huge real estate holdings that they have, and help infill part of the city, which is a very beautiful part of the city, which is a part of the city which would help increase property values throughout the entire old city of Winnipeg by the very development of it.

I am talking about where the old municipal hospitals are and off into North St. Vital, which has become a commercial wasteland because of the fact that people building shopping centres know that in the City Archives somewhere there is this Grant-Carriere plan to plough into the Member for St. Vital's district through this huge freeway, which is called the Grant Carriere overpass. That is the kind of thing that the city fathers have to deal with, and I would like to see some commitment for the next ten years by our city fathers as to what they plan traffic-wise that is possible based on a grid system.

We would like to see four or five crossings of the Assinboine River on a grid system, rather than another planned Osborne Bridge with twin-spanned things going across the river, and that is why I think that possibly the southern freeway was stopped. With those few remarks - I really wanted to say that Wolseley is concerned, that we will go along with the particular simple bridge across the tracks, but we just really again would end up as being like Mr.

Axworthy, a stumbling block, because of the fact that we would be given no assurance that some traffic expert would come in and want to move traffic from West Kildonan to Tuxedo or into the St. Vital Shopping Centre at a very high rate of speed throught some skyway system going through our community. I will close with the fact that I again want to have our free city park, I have supported this all along with the support of provincial grants. I think it is unique to the city of Winnipeg. I think that some way this park could be supported. I just recently came from the Gladys Porter Zoo in Brownsville.

It is a private enterprise, it is solely supported by public donations, and these donations become a tax break for people who want to earmark their wealth or their hard earned money towards the particular zoo complex or the zoology aspect or the botanical section, or they might be interested in some area of nature that they want to help preserve.

And if they were allowed to - the lawyers of this province have a trust fund, I can't see why the zoo couldn't have a trust fund that the citizens of this province could donate to, they could earmark donations to, and have them as a tax writeoff, and I would suggest that that fund, that trust fund, whatever you wanted to call it, would be supported by the people who have grown up in this city, both residents who live in this city now and others who have moved away who would be looking for something other than the Salvation Army and the Red Cross, who would be looking for something to be able to donate their money to and help preserve the free Assiniboine Zoo and Park.

If we are going to have this become a provincial park, I am afraid that we would lose that identity and the Member for Fort Rouge talked about a cosmopolitan image and I think one of the things that helps us sell the city of Winnipeg is the fact that we do have a very very well thought of Assiniboine Park and Zoo, that is part of the city of Winnipeg. I wish, in closing on that aspect, I will pick it up again tomorrow on my experiences as an urban MLA and as an urban councillor. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (b)(1)-pass - the Member for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY EINARSON: I move that Committee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise.

SUPPLY - HEAL TH MR. CHAIRMAN, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): The Committee will come to order. I would direct the honourable members' attention to page 61 of the main estimates, Department of Health, Resolution No. 78, Clause 4. The Alcoholism Foundation of Manit oba- pass. The Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre. MR. J. R. (Bud) BOYCE: Mr.

Chairman, when this item first came up for review on Friday last and I was listening to some of my colleagues make some comments, I was sitting pondering what I possibly could say and I was reminded of that brilliant effort of Shakespeare's when he was burying Ceasar and he had Mark Anthony gather the people together and he went on to say, I have neither the wit nor word to slay men's minds but I speak straight on and say that which you yourselves do know, and then goes 3020

Monday, 28 April, 1980 on to give a brilliant speech. But I don't think that would serve us very well but I would like to put on the record a couple of points. I had asked the Minister if he would provide us with copies of any by laws which he has approved since October of 1977 and to provide us with the figures that he was using in a budgetary way for the private agencies to which The Alcoholism Foundation gives grants on behalf of the province of Manitoba.

I gave pause to that expression, the amounts that they are using in a budgetary way because I, at the time I had some responsibility for this organization, felt that the act should apply; that the expenditure of funds is under the aegis of the board of governors and while everyone realizes that they have to build a budget by giving to the Minister figures which fit in with overall government policy, nevertheless they still have to rely on the board of governors to adjust from time to time. I was pleased to see, Mr. Chairman, that the government has rectified a deficit position for which I was responsible.

I don't like the way that they adjusted it in that they just wrote it off as being a Manitoba grant uncollectible, but nevertheless I am glad to see that situation has been clarified so that when the Minister is referring to the figures which are used for budgetary considerations, I notice that we have been provided with one relative to the AICare Resort in Ste. Rose. Mr.

Chairman, in general I really have no quarrel whatsoever with The Alcoholism Foundation and my arguments will not be directed at the foundation per se, the board of governors who are listed in their annual report, and these people are people from the community who have indicated an interest in the problems facing all of us as citizens, and also have demonstrated their abilities in other fields. So that should be enough as far as function of the system itself is concerned, because the final responsibility is vested in the government and the Foundation can only deal with the dollars that are given to them.

There have been suggestions made, Mr. Chairman, from time to time that there should be some relationship between revenues created in our society by the sale of alcoholic beverages and that which is allocated to dealing with the problems created by that insistence by our society that alcoholic beverages be made available. I would hasten to add that I too am not one to throw dollars at problems. But in retrospect, we are dealing with an organization which was established in 1956 by some interested people in the community who got together and formed this organization, of which I am still a member.

A lot of people don't realize that this is an organization which was established by

an Act of this Legislature in which all people who were living as the original Board of Governors, or anyone else who has served on the board or a committee thereof, is a member of the organization. I never did get around to holding an annual meeting; perhaps that is something that the Minister could give an eye to, that at some time in the future, all people, not the people who are dead, but all the people who have been involved perhaps could be gathered together.

I had thought perhaps that some kind of certificate should be issued to all of the people who were involved, especially the ones initially, the Christies and a number of other people. In looking back over the records, I just happened to notice that the annual report for 1968, signed by a gentleman by the name of Mr. Haig, reported a budget of 18 1,000. So going from 181,000 in 1968 to better than 4 million in 1976-77 - I think it was 3.8 in 1976-77 - but roughly, in 1977, that was quite a quantum leap, Mr. Chairma n.

Of course, to go through that kind of an expansion, there was quite a growth, and growth pains associated with it. Mr. Chairman, we should remind ourselves that the very existence of this organization was dependent on the insistence of society in selling alcohol and there are those that suggest that we should be talking in the neighbourhood of 10 percent of the revenues generated to the province. That's too much money at the present time, I realize that. Perhaps 3.8 million in 1976-77 was too big a leap; I have had that argument. The

preamble of the Act establishing this particular organization says:

Whereas the Manitoba Liquor Inquiry Commission established by Order-in-Council Number 665-1954 has recommended that a foundation be established with the objects and purposes herefor set forth in

Section 4. So it's because of this suggestion that there is a relationship between the insistence of society for alcohol and the necessity of dealing with the problems, that we s

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-46b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 46b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a1b51e8bed0a4022e22af2ec7c28985c8fac96b2

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