Manitoba Committee Hansard — 8 January 1990 (Management Commission Committee, Sitting 9, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-ma9

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE AS SEM BLY OF MA NITO BA THE STANDING CO MM ITTEE ON MU NICIPAL AFF AIRS Monday, January 8, 1990 TIME- 3 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) ATTENDANCE - 11 - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Cummings, Findlay, Penner Mrs. Charl es, Messrs. Hel wer, Pankratz, Patterso n, Plohman, Roch, Taylor, Uruski APPEARING: Mr. Philip Fontaine, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Mr. Jack London, Ass embly of Manitoba Chiefs Mr. William Roth, Reeve, Rural Municipality of Dufferin Mr. Cha rles Chappell, Rural Municipality of Dufferin WITNESSES: Mr.

Laurie Evans, MLA for Fort Garry Mr. Elijah Harper, MLA for Rupertsland Mr. Bob Brown, Provincial Municipal Assessor Ms. Dianne Flood, Crown Counsel (Civil Legal Services) Mr. Rob Walsh, Crown Counsel (Legislation) MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 79- The Municipal Assessment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Municipal Affairs is called to order. We last met on Wednesd ay, January 3, 1990, to hear public presentations on Bill No. 79, The Municipal Assessment and Consequential Amendments Act. I have a list of persons wishing to appear before this committee today: Mr.

Philip Fontaine and Mr. Jack London from the Ass embly of Manitoba Chiefs, and also I understand we have Reeve William Roth from the Rural Municipality of Dufferin. I understand that today is the last day we will hear from the public, and we will proceed later on with clause by-clause consideration. Before we continue, I would like to ask what the will of the committee is with respect to an adjournment hour today. I understand that the proceedi ngs in the Chamber will continue with Private Mem bers' hour at 5 p.m.

Is 244 it the will of the committee to adjourn at 5 p.m. and resume with this committee at 7 p.m. tonight? Mr. Patte rso n, you said you wanted to ma ke some comments. Mr. Allan Patterson (Radisson): You said five o'clock to seven o'clock? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): would like to propose tha t we accept the recommendation of adjourning from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Chairman: Is it the will of the committee then? Mr. Plohman. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): I understand that we have a caucus meeting from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., which is the usual sitting hours of the House.

Without having the agenda in front of me, I do not know if we will be finished by 7 p.m., but I certainly feel it should be on that basis we should consider following the same hours that we follow in the House. I believe Private Mem bers' hour is still on, so that we would adjourn to the House from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. then the adjournment time would be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. Mr. Gilles Roch (Springfield): I would concur. I do not know if we should necessari ly recess the committee at five o'clock for the Private Membe rs' hour unless that is the general consensus and desire of the committee here.

I do not think that we could reconvene before eight o'clock. Mr. Chairman: Is it the will of the committee then, we carry on at 5 p.m. until 6 p.m., dispense with Private Mem bers' hour and then adjourn from 6 p.m. till 8 p.m.? Mr. Plohman: We ll, Mr. Chairman, we have no authority to dispense with Private Membe rs' hour. I think what you meant to say is that the Mem bers here would not attend Private Mem bers' hour. Private Mem bers' hour is on, it has not been waived and that is by agreement of the House Leaders. Mr. Cummings: What I was simply trying to do was to get us an extra hour of committee time.

If it is the will of the committee to go to 6 p.m. and reconvene at 8 p.m., I am agreeable. * (15 05) Mr. Chairman: Is that the will of the committee then? We will meet till 6 p.m. today and start again at 8 p.m. Agreed. I have a list of persons wishing to appear, that is, Mr. Philip Fontaine and Mr. Jack London from the

Monday, January 8, 1990 Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs . Would they like to take the stand, please? Floor Question: Is this it? Mr. Chairman: Yes, that is right, and your brief has been distributed to the Members of the committee. Floor Answer: I am going to read it into the record. Mr. Chairman: Yes, you read it for the record, yes, and you carry on. Floor Answer: Thank you very much . Mr. Chairman: You are Mr. Jack London? Mr. Philip Fontaine {AHembly of Manitoba Chiefs): No, I am going to get into that . I am going to introduce myself and I am going to introduce Mr. Jack London as well.

If I can read this stuff here . I will dispense with the glasses. My name is Philip Fontaine , I am the Provincial Leader of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. I have with me our counsel, Jack R. London, Q.C. We welcome this opportunity to appear today before this committee. Our purpose is limited to one issue. We strongly oppose the proposed amendment which would remove the exemption from mun icip al taxation for lands held in trust for a tribe or body of Indians in Manitoba.

We believe the proposed amendment is historically unjustified, discriminatory in its effect, regressive and offensive to the rights of First Nations people guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada. We serve notice that in the event the proposal becomes law and the exemption is removed, we will take our case and our struggle to the highest courts of this land. Paragraph 2(2)(

b) of the current The Municipal Assessment Act reads as follows : "2(2) The following lands are exempt from all taxation levied by the council of a municipality , (

b) lands held in trust for any tribe or body of Indians ;" That provision or one similar to it was part of the law of this region even prior to Confederation . It is also the law of certain other provinces. It is our submission that this exemption from municipal property tax was intended to recognize the special place and position of the Indian people within this community and, in particular, to recognize that a progress ive tax system would not subject to taxation land held in trust for tribes or bodi es of Indians.

It is of course to be noted that the exemption does not apply to lands held directly by individual Indians or for that matter to corporations, the shareholders of which are Indians. The exemption is very specific. It applies to situations where individuals or corporations hold land in trust for tribes or bodies of Indians. That notion of trust which results in a fiduciary relationship recognizes the special obligations of the white community to predecessor aboriginal groups from whom all the land of th is province was taken . The 245 exemption therefore differs from all others.

It is the equivalent of a transfer payment, a rec ognitio n of past injustice. The exemption was deliberately placed more than 100 years ago. It has been deliberately continued continuously thereafter, most recently in 1970 when The Municipal Assessment Act was carved out of The Municipal Act. The exemption for lands held in trust for tribes of bodies of Indians was deliberatel y maintained at that time . Nothing since has indicated the rightfulness of its removal. Some have argued that the original purpose of the exemption was simply to exempt reserve lands which were part of a municipality.

That indeed was the tactic taken unsuccessfully by the Province of Manitoba in the recent litigation between the Keewatin Tribal Council Inc. and the City of Thompson and the Provincial Municipal Assessor. In that case, decided on June 2, 1989, in favour of the Keewatin Tribal Council Inc. , that argument quite rightly was rejected. Mr.

Justice Jewers , in responding to that argument, at page 11 of his decision said as follows, and I quote: "The respondents submit that as it was common for legislatures to use the word 'trust' in relation to reserve lands, particularly in the earl ier statutes, therefore the Manitoba Legislature must have had reserve lands in mind when they enacted that lands held in trust for any tribe or body of Indians should be exemp t from taxation. They further point out that the exemption was originally enacted at a time when the federal legislation did not provide such an exemption . I cannot agree with this submission .

It may very well be that the legislature did contemplate that the exemption would cover Indian reserves, but in my opinion, it cannot be said that they intended the exemption to apply only to reserves and not to be extended to other lands held in trust for a tribe or body of Indians. As the applicant points out , if the legislature had intended the exempton to refer to Indian reserves, and Indian reserves only, they could have said so either by using the word "reserve ," or some phrase incorporating that word, or by incorporating by reference the definition of "reserve" contained in the Indian Act ." *

(1510) Yet in all subsequent discussions with political and bureaucratic representatives, one finds continue d repetition of the fiction that the exemption was originally intended to cover only reserve lands. Notwithstanding the decision of Mr. Justice Jewers, unappealed by the Province of Manitoba, those who would deny the First Nations people their rights continue to hold fast to a myth, as though it had substance or reality. It does not. The exemption was not and is not intended to provide for the peculiar position where reserve land is found within a munic ipality.

The exemption, rather, has always been intended to recognize the special status and needs of the Indian community of this province. Therefore, the proposed removal of the exempti on from a people badly in need of even mere tok enism of this kind in order to assist the remedy of social and economic disabilities not faced by the white community represents a regressive , harsh and unjustifiable offence and insult to First Nations people. Indeed, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs addressed this issue recently , both with regard to the proposed

Monday, January 8, 1990 amendments and the Private Member's Bill originated by Mr. Roch which preceded the present amendment package.

On November 22, 1989, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs passed Resolution No. 59/89 which reads as follows: "WH EREAS the Union of Manitoba Municipalities have on their agenda at present an item which discri minates and attempts to remove our Treaty right to land tax exemption for properties held in trust by Tribal Councils or Indian Bands; WHE REAS the minority Manitoba Government and the Liberal Party of Manitoba have endorsed a Private Members' Bill No. 79 in the Manitoba Legislature which will remove any tax exemption status of prop erties held in trust by Tribal Councils and Indian Bands.

TH ERE FORE BE IT RESOL VED THAT th e Ass em bly of Manitoba Ch iefs condemn this action by the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Government, sup ported by the Manitoba Liberals, as racist and discrimi natory and a direct attempt at denying us our Treaty right to tax exemption, and further direct that the Manitoba Government rescind this se ction of the proposed Act that purports to deny First Nations of this right and keep the current

section intact." Some have said that municipal revenues are in jeopardy if the exemption is continued. We belie ve, and suggest to the Government of Manitoba, that if that be the case, though there is no empirical evidence to supp ort th at position, rat her than amending the legislation to remove the exemption, the Government must pursue two other courses: 1. End the multiplicity of tax exem ptions directed towards predominantly white institutions whether the y be hospitals, cemeteries or universities; and 2.

Pursue a strategy to obtain reimbur sement or transfer payments from the federal Government which, of course, is charged with responsibility for the First Nations people of this country. lt is our position that whatever may be the revenue loss of municipalities occasioned by the exem ption, the burden of rectification should fall not on those who are least able to afford it, that is, the Fi rst Nations people, but rather on one or all of the three levels of white Government who can better afford the remedy and have the obligation to effect it.

In any event, we suggest that the proposed legislation, insofar as it withdraws the exemption from municipal property taxation on lands held in trust for tribes or bod ies of Ind ians, is uncons titut ional. When the Constitution Act, 1982, was enacted in the year 1982, all aboriginal rights enjoyed by the First Nations people of this country and this province were frozen in time. Amendment of any of those rights or, more to the point, withdrawal of any such right, req uires a constitutional amendment, which, amongst other things, req uires the consent of the federal Government.

The exact provision of the Constitution Act, 1982, is as follows: "35.- ( 1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. 246

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, lnuit and Metis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subs ection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithsta nding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subs ection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." .. (1515 ) The exemption from municipal taxation contained in the present Municipal Assessment Act is an aboriginal right, both because it derives historically from the days of Co nfederati on, because it results from treaty negotiations and undertakings, and simply because it was a part of the legisla tive framework of the Province of Manitoba at the time of the enactment of

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. lt is our subm ission that the Manitoba Legislature does not have jurisdiction unilaterally to withdr aw the exem ption and th e aboriginal right which it affects. The current Bill is invalid constitutionally on that account.

That lack of constitutional validity is made even more apparent by the failure, indeed refusal, of the current Government to discuss and/or negotiate matters relating to the exemption either with the Keew atin Tribal Council Inc., which fought the litigation confirming the exemption, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, other First Nations groups or, presumab ly, the federal Government. On June 14, 1989, counsel for the Keewat in Tribal Council Inc., and our counsel here before you today, Jack London, Q.C., wrote to the Hon.

Jack Penner, Minister of Rural Development, on the issue of the possibility of an attempted withdrawal of the exemption from taxation of lands held in trust for tribes or bodies of Indians. In accordance with his instructions, Mr. London requested that the Minister first consult with those most directly affected, that is, the Indian people. To date, neither the Minister, or any Member of his Government, have sought consultations with First Nations people or, for that matter, with Mr. London or the Keewat in Tribal Council Inc.

Indeed, we have not been favoured even with the cour tesy of a reply to the letter of June 14, 1989. We are outraged that the Minister, and this Government, have chosen to insult the First Nations people in this way. We are a people. We deserve courteous and effect ive consultation.

We suggest that this committee conclude that the proposed legislation is inappropriate, not only because it is regressive, but also because it offends the constitutional rights of the aboriginal people of Manitoba and, given the dis courtesy of the present Government, yet another example of unfair and arbitrary treatment by white society of the aboriginal people of Manitoba. Mr. London and I would be happy to respond to any of your questions. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fontaine. Mr. Harper, you had a question?

Monday, January 8, 1990 Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Yes, I would direct a question to Mr. London or to Mr. Fontaine. In your presentation you mentioned that you will take this case, or struggle, to the highest courts in this land. Maybe you could provide us with what kind of an opportunity or case you might have in dealing with this right that the aboriginal people have. Mr. Chairman: Just a minute. Mr. London, I wonder if you would wait until I recognize you so the recording equipment can ... Mr. London, go ahead. Mr. Jack London (Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs): am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

The litiga tion, if it were necessary and of course one hopes it will not be necessary , arises out of the issue which is raised in the brief that was read to you by Mr. Fontaine dealing with the provisions of the Constitution Act 1982. You will remember that it was a deli berate action on the part of the Governments of each of the provinces of Canada, and the Government of Canada, one of those provinces then being represented, of course, by Sterling Lyo n,

an Act which ensu red , under the Constitution Act of 1982, that the notion of aboriginal rights and the withdrawal of any aboriginal rights would be su bjected to a constitutional review before any attempt was made to withd raw any aboriginal rights. For that purpose Sect ion 35 was built into the Constitution Act of 1982, which in fact says that you cannot withdraw an aboriginal or treaty right in this country without there being an amendment to the Constitution. That requires, of course, depending on whether it is seen as a national or a local issue, in either event the concurrence of the Government of Canada.

Manitoba does not have the jurisdiction to do it on its own. The nature of the litigation which would follow would, therefore, be to ensure that the protection that is afforded to the Indians of this country and this province by

Section 35 is honoured by all Governments, whatever the political stripe may happen to be. * {15 20) Mr. Harper: I have been trying to do some research into the ability, or whether as a result of the exemptions which were made for Indian people, or tribal Indians, for exemption from municipal taxation. I have been trying to get some record as to the original intent of the original piece of legislation. Of course, we do not have Hansards available at that time, and since then a numb er of leg islations have been passed also recognizing treaty and aboriginal rights.

I believe in the presenta tions which were made before this committee that indeed aboriginal rights, or treaty rights, were taken into consideration, and my feel ing has been that some of the people have been taking a narrow position that esse ntially taxation was just to exempt reserve lands. I was just wondering, maybe you can ela borate on that issue much further. Mr. London: I think that there are two or three different kinds of responses to your question, Mr. Harper. The 247 first one is that, as Mr.

Fontaine said, in the liti'"'"'"" before the Court of Queen's Bench counsel Province of Manitoba, and the Provincial Municipal Assesso r-! might say very effect ive counsel-made that arg ument over and over and over again, or attempted to make that argument over and over agah Quite clearly Mr. Justice Jewers in Court of Queen's Bench rejected that argument sev eral times in his judgement with equal force. lt was the case of an action receiving an equal but opposite reaction. Quite clearly Mr.

Jus tice Jewers has found in the case that the original notion, the original intent of the placement of the exemption in the legislation, was not to deal with reserve lands, and not to deal with the exemption of reserve lands which may by circums tance happen to find them selves in the middle of a municipality. That is at one level. The seco nd level, if you look back at that early legisla tion, as we did in the litigation-and Mr.

Harper, I think I saw you fingering through a copy of one of the older statutes from the 18 70s-you will notice that the exemption related not only to lands held in trust for tribes or bodies of Indians, but actually lands vested in tribes or bodies of Indians. Even lands which were owned by the bands at that time were exempt. Quite the contrary, I think that the purpose of the exemption, if one has to find a purpose, is the purpose that Mr.

Fontaine sugg ested to you, and that is a recognition that the aboriginal peoples of this country were entitled to be free from municipal property taxation on the lands which were su bject to use by them as a group. lt is important to distinguish that from the situation where you have an individual who is of Indian descen t, or a small group of two or three, who may form a commercial venture, for example, and own property within a municipality.

The exemption does not and was never intended to cover those situations, but it was intended to cover the situation in order to make up for the numerous injustice s-! do not need to detail them for this committee-which have been done to the aboriginal people over time, to ensure that they were free from taxation. The treaty negotiations, and I hope it does not get to that, but in the treaty negotiations, which obviously we are going to have to examine in some great detail early on, you find consistently this reference to the fact that the Indians were not going to be su bjected to tax.

I just grabbed, as I was walking out of the office, the negotiations lead ing up to Treaty No. 8, which is back in 18 99, and it is typical of the report of commissioners in all the treaties. We assured them, that is, the Indians, that the treaty would not lead to any forced interference with their mode of life, that it did not open the way to the imposition of any tax.

The earliest treaty negotiations had reference to taxation, and this exemption comes out of th ose early dis cussions. it would be inappropriate as a side matter in the renovation of a piece of provincial legislation to deal with a fundamental aboriginal right in this way. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. London. Mr. Harper.

Monday, January 8, 1990 Mr. Harper: In your presentation you mentioned the two recommendations or two courses the Government must pursue. One is to end the municipal multi-facility of tax exemptions. The other was to pursue a strategy to obtain reimbursement or trans fer of payments from the federal Go ver nment. Either one, you would recommend that the Government take a course of action in the cou rse of- 1 guess to obtain reimbursement from the federal Government. * (1 525) There is presently no arrangement at all in place.

By that, I mean that I know the Keewatin Tribal Council had been trying to negotiate with the province whereby they would pay grants in lieu of taxes. Because the Keew atin Tribal Council is not recognized as a level of Go vernment yet , th ey are not able to afford the Keew atin Tribal Council to pay in lieu of taxes. My unders tanding is that the Government cannot tax another level of Government. In this case, if you were pursuing this strategy, would you encourage the federal Government, through the Department of Indian Affairs, to pay the provincial Government grants in lieu of taxes? Mr.

London: lt has been the position of the Keewat in Tribal Council Inc. and, so far as I know, of the Ass embly of Manitoba Chiefs throughout this piece, long before I became involved.

This goes back a number of years. lt has been their position that if someone from the Government, any Government, would sit down and talk to them rather than acting unilaterally and arbitrarily which is again the course of action which is being chosen, I add parenthetically-if someone would sit down and have a dis cussion with them and with the federal Government, that there may be a number of avenues available by which to solve what appears to some to be an economic problem.

The problem has been that no white Government of which I am aware has been prepared to sit down and talk to the Indians of this province. lt was requested again, following the litigation with the council. I wrote, as Mr. Fontaine said, to the Honourable Mr. Penner. I have yet to receive a reply to the letter. There may be a number of actions that can be taken and we would be happy, I say, on their behalf, to take those actions.

I might say in support of the force of that statement, and to give it even added cred ibil ity, th at if you look at the record of the proceed ings in the litigation before the Court of Queen's Bench, you will find the correspondence, whereby as you said, Mr. Harper, the Keewatin Tribal Council Inc. offered to pay the dollars to the City of Thompson in lieu of the taxes that were exempted. The issue was one of appropriate negotiation and no one has yet seen fit, in the way in which we have tended over the years to deal with the Indian people, to sit down and talk to them.

I think that ought to be the first step, long before an amendment is made to a piece of legislation and can slip through as an omnibus statute. Someone ought to sit down and talk to the people whose rights are being taken away. One would do that with the busi ness community before taking away an exemption that was enj oyed at long standing by the busi ness community. 248 One would do that with any of the other interest or lobby groups that are available. lt is ast ounding to me and to my clients that no one will sit and talk to them, and I wonder why that is.

Perhaps it would be functional for this committee to investigate why that is. Mr. Harper: One last question. Have you met with any other groups of people, Mr. Jack London, in respect to this municipal asses sment, I was just wondering. I had placed some questions with, I believe it was the president of the union of urban municipalities, Mr. Wiebe, in regard to an amendment in the Act, if the exemptions that were originally provided for Indian people were as a direct result of treaty and aboriginal rights.

At that time he indicated to me, I belie ve it is in the Hansard on Wed nesday, January 3, 19 90, page 191, and his reply was, "I believe we would be prepared to sit do wn and dis cuss it in di alogue. " I was jus t wondering if there had been an opportunity to dialogue with the urban municipalities, because a lot of times they seem to be ignorant of the rights of the aboriginal people. The other thing is, I asked another person, Miss Brenda Leslie regarding the payment of the school levy by the Indian bands.

I believe the taxation that is imposed like they did in the City of Thompson by the tribal council, municipal taxes and also educational levies is also part of that municipal levy. A lot of the students that come in from the outside communities already pay to the school board. I do not know what the figure is-$4,000, $5,000 to the school board already. I was just wondering whether any dis cussions had been had or whether any plans to hold discussions so th at some of these people would have an understanding of the rights of the aboriginal people. Mr. London: A short answer to the question, Mr.

Harper, is that I am not aware of any dis cussions having been held with others on it. I have not been directly involved in any such dis cussions, and I am not aware that the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs or anyone from the Keewatin Tribal Council has been involved either. Mr. Chairman: Thank you Mr. London. Are there any other questions for either Mr. London or Mr. Fontaine? Mr. Plohman: I notice, Mr. London and Mr. Fontaine, in your presentation that you refer on page 3, several times, that the Legislatu res have deli berately continued this exem ption.

Do you have any evidence that it was a deli berate action on the part of the Legislature? Are you assu ming that when legislation is passed, it is done so delibe rately and all parts of it are? * (15 30) Mr. London: I assume that Legislatures intend the natural consequences of their Act. I remain naive in life and in pol itics. I assume that there is a deli berateness to it, but I think in this case there are two supports to the naivete of the assumption which take a different fantasy into reality. The first one is that Mr. Justice Jewers found that. In his decision he refers

Mond ay, January 8, 1990 to the fact of the 1970 amendments and indicates that the Legislature had ample opportunity at that time and obviously chose not to exercise the right to remove the exemption. Secondly, when you consider that it was as recent as 1970 that the current Municipal Assessment Act was carved out of the old Municipal Act provisions and there had to have been a review at that time of the provisions, it was continued.

What really happened and we have all known each other for too long to pull punches- was th at prior to 19 88 the Indians of Manitoba had not chosen to exercise the right in any, even a minimal, way, so no one was very concerned about it. But the minute that the community began to exercise a right that it has had for more than a hundred years, we became very concerned with the existence of that right, and that is really what happened.

The fact of the matter is that in 1970, when everyone thought we would just pat them on the head and have them go away as they usually do, it was continued because it looked good on the books. Mr. Plohman: Just on that then, there is no Hansard evidence to that effect other than what was in the Bill, insofar as speeches or any records there. That is really what I was asking. Mr. London: I am not aware of any. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, is it not a fact that Just ice Jewers could only deal with what was in front of him?

With the legislation that was in front of him, he could not make the findings of what the intent was. Whether the Legislature at that time meant something else, he could only deal with the wording which was in the legisla tion. I would just put this for you to refute, if you want, and I would like to hear what you have to say. He was not reject ing the argument of intent by the Government, as you said in your paper, as he rejected it, but he was simply saying he had no proof that what the Government was saying in their case was actually the case.

So he was simply making his findings on the basis of what was in the statute at that particular time. Mr. London: I think that it is a fundamental principle of statutory

interpretation. At least it always has been in my experie nce, and I am sure counsel of the committee would support it. That what a court does when it interprets legislation is it seeks to find the intention of the Legislature in having enacted the particular provision. When Mr. Jus tice Jewers therefore finds that this was intended to cover lands beyond reserves and municipalities, which was the argument that was put by counsel for the province, clearly he was making a finding of what the intention of the Legislature was at that time.

Now he makes that finding by a little bit of investigative work, because you can never have a Legislature which in all of its 50 or 60 or 100 or 200 people will speak with a single voice. Therefore, he takes the col lective will of the Legislatur e-and I refer you to page 4 of the brief that 249 Mr. Fontaine read to you-and not only does he say in the underlined portion that it cannot be said that they intended the exemption to apply only to reserves and not to be extended to other lands held in trust for a tribe or body of Indians, but if you go on to read the next part, it is an important part.

As the applicant points out, if the Legislature had intended the exemption to refer to Indian reserves and Indian reserves only, they could have said so either by using the word reserve or some phrase incorporating that word or by incorporating by reference the definition of reserve contained in the Indian Act. So he goes much farther than simply saying, I am not sure what they meant. What he is saying is, it was so simple to say reserve, that by not saying reserve I have to conclude that the exemption was intended deli beratel y. Mr. Plohman: I have one other question on this area.

Some argue that since the City of Winnipeg does not have that exem ption, it should not apply to the rest of the province; it should be consistent. How do you deal with that? Mr. London: I would of course, on behalf of my clients, say that one would prefer that it was homogenous throughout the province. However, I have not looked at The City of Winnipeg Act recently, but my recollection is that the amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act took place prior to 1982 , that is prior to the freezing of aboriginal righ ts within th e Const itution.

This amendment has taken place after 19 82 . lt is therefore an accident of history against the aboriginal people of the City of Winnipeg that they may not have an argument open to them to within the large urban centre that is open to them in all other centres in the province. lt is simply a question of historical timing. Mr. Roch: Mr. London, you are aware that the major concern for the various rural municipalities is the fact that there would be a lack of revenue.

You have mentioned today, I believe, and in the past that the Keew atin Tribal Council is willing to-if someone had sat down and negotiated with them. I take it that you were ref erring to the provincial and/or federal Governments. They would have been willing to pay grants in lieu of. Now we have been informed that only Governments can provide grants in lieu of.

Are you then saying, given the fact that according to this brief and the ruling of Judge Jewers, that if indeed it is the case that Indian bands or tribal councils cannot give grants in lieu of taxes, that it is a federal respon sibility to look after th e revenues th at would be lost by the local Governments? Mr. London: Let me respond to that in three ways. First of all, I dispute the advice, I have always disputed the advice that a grant in lieu can only be made by another level of formal Government. There may be authority for that proposition of which I arr> !"!Ot aware. but I am not aware of it.

I have done some looking at that, and grants in lieu have been accepted and received in a number of other cases from organizations that are not Governments. So I challenge the assumption that

Monday, January 8, 1990 was made back when the offer was initially given a few years ago, and the assumption that is being made today. Seco ndly, you raise a very interesting area, Mr. Roch, for this committee to consider . lt is one that I suggest the commit tee mus t consider , and so must th e Legislature of Manitoba. Mr. Justice Jewers' decision, like the decision of the federal Government through Revenue Canada over the years, has been to accord municipal status to a certain number of tribes and bodies of Indians and to reserves in this country. Therefore, and it is part of Mr.

Justice Jewers' decision, one of the reasons he comes to the conclusion to which he comes, which is in favour of the Keewatin Tribal Council lnc.-and I could explain the technical legal reason he had to come to this conclusion, and I will if you like-is because it is like a municipality. He accords in his decision a municipal or quasi-municipal status to the bands for whom these lands are held. * (1 540) You understand that the Keew atin Tribal Council Inc. in that case had no private proprietary interest in the property.

They were simply a holder in favour of 10 or 13-1 have forgotten the number-lndian bands in this country. Mr. Justice Jewers finds, as Revenue Canada has earlier stipula ted and is now even more apparant, given the recent amendments to the Indian Act, that the bands, the reserves, are municipalities or like municipalities in terms of governmental power. So at the second level of your question, I would suggest we already have in place a system whereby grants in lieu could have been arranged. I am not suggesting they are still available from the bands. The bands are pretty angry that no one would talk to them.

That is a possibi lity. I think your third question is, should the federal Government take responsibili ty? Of course, what should have happened months ago, and would have happened if anyone had bothe red to respond to a letter, would have been th at we could ha ve sat down with repr esentatives of the federal Go vernment, with rep resentat ives of th e mu nicipalit ies, with rep resentatives of the band, and we could have attempted to negotiate an appropriate conclusion to this.

But instead of that, someone is introducing a Bill in the Legislature to hammer the Indians of this province and to take away that aboriginal right. That is wrong. Mr. Roch: if I understand you correctly then, you were saying that if the three levels of Government, provincial, federal and, in this case, the Indian bands and/or the tribal cou ncil, would sit down and negotiate, the potential problems that have happened, and the fears of the local Governments of, in some cases, losing out on significant amounts of revenue could have been solved. Mr. London: I am suggesting that could have been.

I am sugges ting, though I do not have a direct brief to say this to you today, that is still a possi bility. The call has been for consultation, the call has been for negotiation from moment one. There has never been anything said other than that, and the Government has 250 refused consistently to respond to a letter. Not only would it not consult, it would not respond to a letter with the invitation. Mr. Roch: Therefore, the point that we are at today, what would your recommendation be? Mr. London: My recommendation would be that this sor ry, I will take myself as re cognized .

My recom mendation would be that this provision of The Municipal Assessment Act, and I am not dealing with the whole plethora of issues that arises under the proposed Act, and there are many of them -m y suggestion would be that the exemption for lands held in trust for tribes of bodies of Indians in this province be continued in this current reformation.

One could put a su nset clause on it; that is, it would automatically come up again for review within six months, a year, two years, whatever might be, and that a process of negotiation and consultation be entered into by the Government of the Province of Manitoba with the federal Government, with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and/or any of the other First Nations representatives of this province in order to see what the appropriate conclusion to what may or may not be a real problem is. You will appr eciate, Mr.

Roch, and I know you introduced the Private Me m bers' Bill, tha t the municipalities became very concerned very quickly about the loss of revenue base, but there is no empirical evidence that there in fact is, or will be, a loss of revenue base to the municipalities as a result of the continuation of this exemption. In the case of the City of Thompson and in the case of Keew atin Tribal Council, as I have said before, there are some over 60 properties owned in trust by the Keewatin Tribal Council in Thompson.

The exemption has been claimed on three, and there has been no attempt to claim the exemption further beyond that. Mr.

Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Going through the brief and having heard comments from yourself and Chief Fontaine, I wonder, given the opportunity to finally sit down and have these negotiations-an invitation to which the chiefs never got a response-what would you see as a rather ideal solution to give adequa te protection to your client here, the Assembly of Chie fs, and still allow for some of the practical aspects that have to be dealt with by the municipalities and the somewhat paternalistic approach that our federal Indian Affairs Department takes?

You have seen the political realities of this area of concern for some time. What would you hope for as a reasonable but ideal solution? Mr. London: 1 would hope for a solution in which the right s of the India n people of this province were respected by the Government of this province, by the white Government of this province, at the same time that the Indians of the Province of Manitoba bore its fair share of the tax burden, whatever it might be, in the municipalities of this province. No one has ever sugges ted that this ought to be anything other than neutral or progressive legislation

Monday, January 8, 1990 in terms of taxation. What is happening now, however, is that a regressive action is being taken by the Govern ment in introducing this Bill, because it is with dra wing a right to ex emption without any correspo nding benefit, wi th out having had any negotiation from a group of people that can least afford it. That is the definition of regressive taxation. Mr. Taylor: Mr.

Chairperson, I guess I see, looking at this prese ntation, having done some earlier read ing, having heard the comments from both of you today, that it would appear that the key player in this whole exercise is going to be the federal Government, and I see it for two reasons. They are the custodian, if you will, of the lands held in trust on behalf of the Native peoples. That is a concept that I have always had a lot of trouble with, I might add.

Also, the federal Government is the one that has the jurisdictional res ponsibility for the Native peoples in this country and also has the greatest ability to raise revenues of any Government across the land. Has there been any initiation by the Ass embly of Chiefs with the federal Government on the idea of compensatory funding, which would mean that the monies would actually be given directly to the bands for direct payment, or has there been any initiation by the Ass embly to the federal Government on the matter of turning over the title.

If I understand your brief correctly, lands directly held are not in the same context. lt is two related points and if you could respond, please. Mr. London: On the first one, I am not aware of discussions having been had with the federal Government by the Ass embly of Manitoba Chiefs. I cannot speak for all of the First Nations groups in the province. Nor would I have counselled th at such dis cussions take place until such time as the Province of Manitoba was prepared to enter the negotiations and to sit down and dis cuss the matter in a three-level conversation which could be productive.

There was no sense in speaking to one level as another, and it was never the intention of the First Nations people of this province to play one level of Government against the other, which could have been the conclusion to be drawn by that kind of activity.

The First Nations people of Manitoba are prepared to sit down in a tripartite dis cussion to take a look at the revenue impact of a withdrawal if that is what it is to be, or a continuance if that is what it is to be, of the aboriginal right expressed in The Municipal Assessment Act. * (1 550) As to the second question, that is the ced ing of title, there is no issue on the ceding of title that I know of and perhaps you and I are not- maybe I have miscommun icated or have been inadequate in my communication.

The land that is owned, say, by the Keewatin Tribal Council and the City of Thompson to use an example, is land that is beneficially owned by the bands through th e conduit of a corporation incorpo rated under the laws of the Province of Manitoba. Those are lands which are properly held and 251 which do not require that they be ceded to any level of Government in order to maintain the exem ption which is provided under the Act.

In fact, if you go back into the histor y, and I will not bore you with a long history lesson, you will see that in the very earliest of the legislations which gave rise to something under The Indian Act called special reserves , which by the way, continue to exist and would be yet another level of challenge to this legislation even if the constitutional level were not successfu l. They are clearly designated. The notion was clearly designated as white Europeans holding land in trust for the Native people. The words are actually used. That is the origin of all of this. That goes back into the 18 th century.

So far as I know, there is no question of ced ing, if I understood your question correctly. Mr. Taylor: Going back, Professor London, Mr. Chairperson, on the first part of that two-part question. You are saying that you would not advise your clients to start unilateral negotiations. Possibly you could tell the committee, though, to what deg ree do you think Indian and Northern Affairs is aware of and familiar with this issue, and has there been communication to the regional director of Indian and Northern Affairs by the Ass embly on the matter in general terms without going up to the top of the line. Mr.

London: My understanding is that the federal Government is aware of the problem as you put it, but aware of it in relation to the litigation that went on with the Keew atin Tribal Council Inc. We required certain documentation and certain undertakings from the federal Government at that time with regard to that litigation. So, they were fully aware of it. I am not aware that they are aware that there is a proposed amendment to the legislation. I have not brought it to their attention.

I do not know whether any of the First Nations people have, and I do not know what the general level of intergov ern menta l com mu nication is th ese days between the provincial and federal Government. Mr. Taylor: I guess why I am asking that is to determine whether there is an awareness, and hence whether any basic work has been done in preparations by the federal Government, or whether it might have been considered a closed case once a decision came down and that nothing further was required.

I think it is important we should know whether there has been any communication, either by individual bands or by the ass embly as a whole, to Indian and Northern Affairs. Mr. London: All that I can respond, Mr. Taylor, is that I am not aware of any communication having been undertaken. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Are there any further questions? Mr. Evans. Mr. Laurie Evans (fort Garry): Mr. London, you indicated tha t the re were only thr ee parcels in Thompson that had requested or sought the exem ption despite the fact that there were 60 or more. Is it your

Monday, January 8, 1990 opinion that all 60 of those would in fact be eligible for exemption if they were so inclined? Mr. London: lt is my opinion that by the simple mechanism which was accomplis hed with regard to these three, of putting those properties into trust for the bands, they would be available for the exemption, yes.

The Keewatin Tribal Council Inc. has not taken that step. lt has not put the lands in trust. lt owns them directly and provides housing in the City of Thompson for mem bers of its const ituencies through th at mechanism, but it has not sought to put them in trust in order to take advantage of the exemption. Mr. Laurie Evans: Can you clarify the difference then in which those two groups are held? The pro perty that is in trust, how does it differ from that which is owned by the council but is not in trust? What is the significant difference between the way in which it is held? Mr.

London: This is a 60-hour first year course at the Faculty of Law. Let me do it by way of analogy. Let us assume that you were happy to be the beneficiary of a large estate from one or both of your parents. There were two ways that your parents could have given you that estate. The one is, the y could have given it to you outright, in which case you could have, knowing your penchant for consumerism, disposed of the funds very quickly and very easily, and you would be left with absolutely nothing on a moment's notice.

Or they could have left it for you in trust, which would have put a trust ee who had fid uciary obl igati ons prescribed by law so that the property could not be dealt with other than in accordance with the terms of the trust and the fiduciary relationsh ip. Therefore it had to be put to certain uses, and you as an individual would not have any ability to change those uses. That is the difference between straight proprietary interest and property held as a beneficiary of a trust. What we have here is a trust, and the bands are the beneficiaries of that trust. The trustee is the Tribal Council Inc.

Mr. laurie IEvans: Mr. Chairperson, not being an historian, I am not going to go into the past. I am more concerned about the potential that this has for the future. Can you anticipate, or do you visualize, that there could be purchase of considerable amounts of property that would be held in trust which then forever after would be exempt from taxation? Can I carry this so far as to say that you could look at a situation where a very sizable part of a municipality could then be purchased and held in trust and be exempt from taxation forever after? Mr. London: There are a couple of responses to that.

The first one is that the City of Thompson in this particular case has refused to sell property to the Keewatin Tribal Council Inc. in the event that it would take advantage of tha t exem ption, which is an interesting act, given the human rights legislation of the province. So the municipality has a certain amount of control over that, at least in terms of land that comes directly from the municipality. 252 Secondly, it is theoretically possible that if one could accumulate the capital that was re quired to own a country, anyone could buy the country.

But first you have to have the capital formation which allows you to make that acquisition. lt is unlikely that the Indians of Manitoba have the kind of capital that would allow them to buy up the municipalities of Manitoba and somehow all of a sudden become the owners of this province. I am sure they would like to do it if they could, but there has been the stumbling block along the way, which is the absence of a capital base.

The third is that there are restrictions, I would think, that would be constitutionally validly imposed on the sorts of trusts, on the conditions of the trust and the uses to which lands can be put, for example, over time, which would pass mus ter, and which could have been the su bject of negotiations, in fact, in order to prevent that from happening. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. London? Mr. Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, to clarify, we have been asking for the Government to meet with Native people, and representatives, to discuss this issue.

You have stated that there have been no overtures made- I just want to, not put words in your mouth but to clarify that point-b y the Government, to meet with any representatives and Native organizations on this issue that you know of, or Mr. Fontaine knows of. Secondly, nor has the Government responded to any overtures made by you, or other representatives of Native organizations, which I would like clarification which consists of what? What overtures have been made? Mr.

London: Both statements are accurate, that is, I am unaware of any overtures having been made, or dis cussions having been held with members of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, or with myself; and on your second issue, the overture that was made, the references in the brief that Mr. Fontaine read to you and it refers to a letter dated June 14, 1989, which went out under my signature to the Minister indicating that consultations should, in our view, be first had with the First Nations people prior to an amendment being forthcoming, that they would be happy to participate in those forms of negotiation.

I might add that letter was copied to both Opposition Parties; responses were received from both Opposition Parties, but there was no response from the Minister's office. * (16 00) Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, just one further question on that. Clearly then you did not suggest discussions and negotiations with yourself, but with your clients, and you did this on behalf of your clients- Mr. London: That is right. Mr. Plohman: -that discussions should take place directly with your clie nts? Mr. London: That is right.

Monday, January 8, 1990 Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions for Mr. London? If not I want to thank you very much for your presentation this afternoon, Mr. Fontaine and Mr. London. Mr. London: Thank you for your attention. Mr. Chairman: Thank you . We have one furthe r presentation by Reeve William Roth. Before he appears here, is it the will of the committee that we hear Mr. Roth and some suppl ementary information to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities' briefs? What is the will of the committee here, shall we hear- Mr. Plohman: Do you need unanimous approval for that, Mr. Chairman? Mr.

Chairman: Yes, we do, Mr. Plohman. Is it the will of the committee that we hear Mr. Roth? Agreed? (Agreed) Mr. Roth. Mr. William Roth (Reeve, Rural Municipal ity of DuHerin): First of all, I would like to express, on behalf of the Union of Manitoba Municipaliti es, our appreciation for the Members of this hearing to grant us the opportunity to make this presentation today.

I have with me Charlie Chappell, adviser to us; and also, until one hour ago I had the Reeve of Springfield with me, Jack Nicol, who was going to accompany me in this presenta tion, but he slipp ed and hurt himself as he was proceed ing to the Legislativ e Building. The President of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Mr. Manson Moir, made a written submis sion to your committee dealing with Bill 79 on Decem ber 19, 1989.

Since that submission was received , considerable public representation has been made to your committee and certain issues have been add ressed which are of concern to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities. As a result, on Friday, January 5, 1990, the Board of Directors of the UMM directed, delegated and instructed two of its directors, being Mr.

Jack Nicol, the Reeve of the Rural Municipality of Springfield and myself, Bill Roth, Reeve of the Municipality of Duf feri n, to make a supplementary represe ntation to your committee. lt remains the position of the Union of Manitoba Municipalit ies that the reform of assess ment, as envisioned in Bill 79, ought to be proceeded with and enacted by the Legislature. The UMM urges the Legislature to proceed with this enactment for the following reasons: 1.

Equity: The existing legislation in The Municipal Assessment Act has created terrible inequities relating to the method of assessment and a liability to taxation of real property in Manitoba. The proposed legislation is much more equitable and the UMM supports the principle of equity contained in the reform legislation. Examp les of equity are as follows: (

a) the liability of farm outbuildings, including residences, to taxation; (

b) removing from the Board of Revision the necessity of investigating and interfer ing with the financial affairs of a complainant when se eking exemption of farm outbuildings and residences from taxation. lt is perhaps one of the most dis tasteful tasks that a municipal official or member of a Board of Revision 253 must undertake in determ ining his neighbour's financial position in a public forum. 2. Education Su pport Levy Exempted from Farm Property: The UMM has for many years requested this provision and we are pleased to see the exemption contained in

Section 23(2) of Bill 79. 3. The Triannual Assessment: The UMM supports this legislation requirement as contained in Bill 79. The existing situation wherein reasse ssments are conducted between a minimum of eight and a maximum of 17 years in municipal corporations is unacceptable. The provision for an up-to-date reassessment every three years is strongly supported by the UMM. Equity may be accomplished at least within a triannual assessment provision. 4. Value: The Union of Manitoba Municipalities supports the concept that the term "value" will mean full market value for the reference year of the assess ment.

The definition of market value as containe d in th e Expropriation Act of the Province of Ma nitoba is acceptable to the UMM. 5. Application for Revision: The Union of Manitoba Municipalities supports the principle that a complaint or application for revision by an assessed owner ought to be undertaken on an annual basis for the revision of the assessment roll having regard to the reference year of the assess ment. Any changes to the market value of the assessed property whether by increase or decrease of value as the result of internal matters to the property as provided in

Section 13 (1) or external matters ought to be appealable and su bject to revision whether in the reference year or subsequent years. it is not the position of the UMM to limit in any way the right to complain, the right of review and the right of revision of any property owner's assessment in any year. The purpo se of the legislation is to achieve a fair and just relationship between all assessed owners. 6. Phase -In: The Union of Manitoba Municipalities supports the permissive principle of phase-in for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992.

A decision would be made by the individual municipal council once the impact of the reasse ssment has been de termi ned for each municipal corporation. 7. Agriculture Value Versus Developmental Value: In general the Union of Manitoba Municipalities supports the principle that the Government of Manitoba and the local municipal corporation school division ought not to tax bona fide agriculture endeavours in a manner so as to make the agricultural endeavour impossible to exist.

The so-called two-value system as advocated by the We ir Report is not objectionable, but to implement such a system and its administration is a matter that ought to be studied and reviewed by the Government of Manitoba and local municipal officials prior to any legisla tive amendment. Conclusion: it is respectfu lly subm itted that the Legislature of Manitoba ought to proceed with the enactment of Bill 79 in amended form so as to create an equitable assessment and the resu lting tax system in Manitoba. Our existing legislation is fraught with

Monday, January 8, 1990 inequity, and the reform now being considered will in the view of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities provide a system wherein a property owner can understand the full market value assessment and the resulting taxation imposed upon the property owner by local authority. lt is also respectfu lly subm itted that exemption for liabi lity to assessment and taxation ought to be restricted as for each exemption granted there is a transfer of that portion of the taxation burden to other taxpayers. 1t is respec tfully subm itted that while the Bill was made available for consideration on November 2, 19 89, the concepts contained within the reform legislation have been dis cussed in great detail with individual municipalities at municipal meetings of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and at the convention of the memb ers of the UMM for many years.

As a result it is interesting to note that the following organizations comprising local authorities in Manitoba support the concept of the Bill and the reforms proposed.

These organizations are: the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, the City of Winnipe g, the City of Brandon and a numb er of individual municipal corporations which have made individual presentation to your committee. it is th erefore respec tfully sub mitted that the Legislature of the Province of Ma nitoba proceed forthwith to enact Bill 79 as amended." Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Reeve Roth. Are there any questions to Reeve Roth from the committee here? Committee Memb ers? Mr.

Evans. * (16 10) laurie Evans: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and to thank you, Mr. Roth, for your submission. The first question I would ask would be: in your position as a reeve of a municipality, how critical is the timing, as far as the passage of this Bill is concerned, to the urban municipalities when it comes to the entire process of taxation, the submi ssion of their taxation bills, the budgeting and the whole thing? think we all appreciate around this table that this is a Bill.

I do not think there is anyone around the table who is opposed to the Bill in principle, but we have heard many submis sions, and the numb er of amendments that I think the committee is going to be requested to consider is going to be very numerous. We are now here on the 8th of January, and we have been told that the 15 th of January or even earlier is a critical time. I guess many of us are prepared to sit around this table to the wee hours of the morning if that is necessary.

But I would hate to sit around here until four o'clock or five o'clock in morning, going clause by clause in order to get these changes made, and then be told at a later date there was not that need for that kind of haste, that had it been concluded by the end of January or the middle of Februar y, it would have been fine. I would like to have that

interpretation, 254 or at least your opinion as to the urgency of this at this time if you are able to make that sort of a statement. Mr. Roth: First of all, I would like to congratulate you in indicating to me that basically you are in support of this Bill. In looking at our budge ts, whether the passage of this Bill is immediate or not, the municipal corporations of this province will strike a budget, and those budgets will be add ressed in the very near future. However, I would like to point out one very important fact.

Some municipalities normally collect taxes and revenues from their ratepayers as early as July. As a consequence, for this to be achieved and for the municipalities to be in a position to do this , the municipalities would urge that in order to do this, legislation be passed as speedily as possible in order that we may present our tax bills to our ratepayers. Mr. Laurie Evans: One paragraph in your submission that particularly interests me, Mr.

Roth, is at the top of page 5 where you indicate that "it is respec tfully submi tted that exemption from liability to assessment in taxation ought to be restricted as for each exemption granted there is a transfer of that portion of the taxation burden to the other taxpayers ." How far would you go in this? lt would seem to me that there is always the option that if exemptions are granted, they can be covered in terms of grant in lieu of taxation. This possibly could even can be carried so far as hospitals and schools and others.

Can I infer from this that the UMM would be in support of trying to eliminate as many of the exemptions as possible? Mr. Roth: Yes. Basically the position of the U of MM would be that we would like to see all exemptions avoided wherever possible, because an exemption for another person simply becomes another ratepayer's bill. As a consequence, if we look at the outbuildings, we are in favour of taxation of outbuildings. In the past 30 years the farm scene has changed drama tically. We have intensive grain farmers; we have producers in the hog operations who are intensified.

We have poultry produc ers who have intensified operations; we have cattle producers who have intensive operations. The farm scene has changed dramatically, and as a consequence it makes the old Bill obs olete. We would say to you that therefore in the agriculture sector there should be no exem ptions, because what we would like to see here is a fairness. All of our ratepayers, and it does not matter what sector of agriculture you look at, require services from municipal corporations.

If we look at buildings, they require fire protection; if we look at people and property, services for the pro perty, they require police protection. There are many other services of municipalities that we provide for all ratepayers, whether it be a cattle producer, hog producer or what. As a conseque nce we feel that in all fairness to those ratepayers that are paying a disproportionate share of the taxes now, the exemptions should be as minimal as possible.

Now with regard to schools and hospitals and other edif ices which are there for public purposes, we actually have no problem with the basic exemption of 10 acres.

Monday, January 8, 1990 We have not analyzed the situation carefully , but we actuall y feel that the exemption increase from four to 10 is probably quite appropriate . Mr. Laurie Evans: I would like to pursue this just a bit further because I think most individuals would not have major problems with the concept of exemption of schools and hospitals . But once you get beyond that, then you get into a-and I am speaking personally here-grey area as to how far those exemptions should go. You are getting into situations where you have ethn ic organizations that have exemptions and others that are seeking exemptions.

Would it not be more practical to eliminate all the exemptions and those institutions who are dependent on Government funding for their survival or for their continuance anyway? That adjustment could be made in the level of funding from Government to them with the idea that the exemptions then are brought to virtually a very minimal number, if not eliminated entirely , and start over from square one so that there is at least an opportunity to review this situation and identify those exemptions which are really legitimate as opposed to those that have come about through some quirk of history. Mr.

Roth: Regrettably I find some difficulty in really addressing your proposal. However , we simply noted that in the past there has been the exemption of approximately four acres for public buildings . We have no problem; particularly in the last 20 years with the consolidation of school districts , there are larger schools . We have noted that there are larger hospitals . Some of the hospitals in rural areas have become non functional and have been eliminated. As a consequence, we have little difficulty in the 10 acres.

As to the matter of eliminating exemptions totally on hospitals and schools, I think it would be far more appropriate if MAST addressed that issue , or people that really had data , hospital boards and so on, to give you a better indication of what should be done . Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions for Mr. Roth? Mr. Uruski. Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Roth . I wanted to ask a few questions with respect to your brief . No doubt you are aware you have noted that your president made a submission to the committee .

In your brief you talked about the principle of phasing in, and you say that the decis ion would be made by each individual municipal council. What remedy do you propose to a taxpayer wherein a municipality may not wish to undertake phasing in? If they are basically saying, look, we are not going to listen to you, what remedy will the taxpayer have if the Act is left totally to the discretion of each municipal council? Mr. Roth: Right . I appreciate the question . This has caused some concern within our organization; this has resulted in some debate .

We take the position that each local municipality knows its area the best and should be in a position to address that issue better in 255 the best possib le manner . As a conseq uenc e, we may realize there may be differences and they may create minor problems, but we feel that it is a respons ibilit y which municipal officials should accept, and they should address it appropriately. We have the confidenc e in the municipal officials that they will address it appro priately. •

(1620) Mr. Uruski: Mr. Moir, in his presentation on December 19, talked about the concern that phasing puts the onus on local council. He indicated that some Members will agree that it is a good idea, while others will have difficulty in accepting that responsibility. In his statement he says that "phasing in of separate property could even be more controversial. We feel that there should be some percentage of increase stated in the Act that could justify phasing in." Mr. Chairman, can Mr. Roth clarify Mr. Manson Moir 's position with respect to the position that he has now taken on behalf of the UMM?

Who is speaking for whom? Mr. Roth: I believe in that brief there was concern expressed regarding phasing in-correct. However, we do feel that if the municipal councils are not responsible and cannot address those issues appropriately, they are in a three-year term, those municipal officials will be gone. For many years we have had one sector picking up what we consider to be an unfair portion of taxes .

As a consequence, some reeves and municipalities feel there should be no phase -in, but it is our position that the majority of our reeves and councillors will accept a phase- in because it could create some hardsh ips on the intensive livestock producer, hog producer , egg producer , and so on. Therefore we would accept the phasing in on that basis. We do recognize there are some difficulties here. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman , Mr.

Roth has been on municipal council a number of years and has a lot of experience, but let us look at some of the reality where you will have a municipal council, and councillors may be predominantly grain farmers. However, in that municipality you may have, let us say, half a dozen intensive livestock producers. They are going to get socked if there is no phase- in. They may get a whopping increase if the re is a major shift in that municipality . There may not be, but in the event that there would be a major shift.

Now, if these six councillors who represent the vast majority of the populace do not take too lightly to the complaints of say a half a dozen or ten of their constituents, there is no way that they will in fact be able to be kicked out next time around, quote your words, because they are clearly in the minority, by those who are affected . Should there by a remedy in the Act for those people, in which local councils may just not take lightly to the position of the ratepaye rs who are in fact compla ining about the massive increase?

We know from our experiences that their personalities at the local level tend to become at different times

Monday, January 8, 1990 much closely associated with issues, and that is where feelings run high. That is why I raised the question with you. lt does contradict what your president has said, that there should be something in the Act, while now you are telling us on behalf of the UMM that no, we are agreeing that there should be phasing, but leave it up to us totally to decide. Mr. Roth : I will just make one quick comment, and maybe I will ask my colleague here to-all right, being a rural person and, Mr.

Uruski, you know you are a ruralite also, I think we both are in agreement that rural people are very, very fair, straightforward. We know the situation better than the majority of Manitobans. I think you would have to agree with me that the chances of addressing concerns of those livestock operations with intensive buildings assessment, large assessment billings, the chances of that happening and not dealing with them fairly would be very, very minimal. Now, I would say to you that we cannot have a legislation that is going to address every individual concern to Manitoba.

Let me assure you that municipal officials are quite prepared to take some criticism and to address this issue, but I think that if we can present it to these people that we are looking for fairness here for everyone, I do not envision too significant a problem. Mr. Uruski: Mr.

Chairman, before Counsel answers, I just want to make one point, and I think you epitom ize the feelings that are running high in rural Manitoba about the question of fairness, that there may be a feeling in some areas that the load, the taxation load on property has been carried far too long on the land side, and the feel ings are running so high that people will say, look, it is about damn time that you carried your fair share and we are not dealing with you in terms of fairness of phasing in.

In your brief you made it very clear and I agree with you, that feel ing is there, let us get some equity into the sys tem. Nobody is arguing against that. I am only gett ing at the point of sa ying, if the increase is phenomenal and there is a council, it may not even be the entire council, but just a simple majority of council that says no phasing, damn it, we have carried them all these years, what is the remedy? Should there be some dir ecti on, as Mr. Moir has su ggested, into councils-should there be a threshold, should there be some means at least giving directions to councils that phasing is desirable?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Roth, did you want to answer that? Mr. Roth: I do not think either brief really comes out and empha tically states that we would not approve of this body placing in the legislation that we have a phase in period. Mr. Uruski: That is exactly why I am raising it, I think- Mr. flotlt: I do believe that the UMM and the mem bers of UMM would have no problem if that was implemented into this legisla tion. Mr. Charles Chappel l (Rural Municipa lity of Dufferin): Mr. Chairperson, in reference to the earlier question, 256 I would simply point out that the provision for phase in is permissive.

I would respe ctfully suggest that politics being what it is, is still the system we are governed by. Those elected councillors if they feel that injustice is done and they want to go into the phase-in system, and the y opt for that system, there is permission for them to do so. I would ask you to keep in mind that the very point that we are all making is equity within the system, and then we immediately go and say, equity causes some problems, so for three years we will provide this permis sive phase -in.

Those people, quite frankly, are expected to pay their fair share, and it is only because of the way in which we have done our assessment system in the past, with 27 years in the City of Winnipeg between reasse ssments, between eight and 17 years in the rural areas, that now we have to even consider a phase-in. Had we been doing a proper job earlier, I do not think that we would be concerned with a phase in feature. * (16 30) Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of issues that I would like to raise with Mr. Roth, but jus t in response on this issue of phasing, which is a very important one.

We have to assume that every piece of legislation that was brought in at a given time was as legitimate as one that was being brought in at this time, and that at one time that obviously was considered fair, because that is what we had. That is what the Legislature of the Day thought was fair. We cannot assume that we are necessarily righting all wrongs at one time and that we must do it overnight, or in one day.

If we are moving toward equity, that is what we all want, and we certainly do not want anyone to have such a hardship that there is going to be a major shock or impact on some operators that it is going to make it very difficult for them to bear. I think that is where my colleague and myself have been coming from on this issue, and when we discussed it with Mr.

Manson, we got the feeling, and that is why we are pursuing it now, that the union felt that there was some legitimacy to this point, and there maybe should be some consis tency in the legislation to ensure that there would be consistency of treatment above a certain level where the impact would be rat her substantial. That is why we have put that forward. If you have any further clarification as to why there should not be a threshold above which there should be a requirement for phasing over the three-year period, then I will not pursue that any more, but you may want to make some more comments on that.

I wanted to raise another issue with you, and I find a little bit of contradiction in your paper here. On page 5, you say that even though the legisla tio n was introduced on November 2 in the Legislature, this reform legislation has been discus sed in great detail with individual municipalities and municipal meetings of the Union of Ma nitoba Mu nicipalities, the annual convention, and mem bers for many years. Yet we see, and I do not fault you, I just point out the legitimacy

Monday, January 8, 1990 of the hearing process now and the legitimacy of some dela y in coming to a final conclusion on this matter. We find contradictions in presentations made within a few days by your organization, which leads me to believe that there is still a lot of confusion out there. I would not look at this paragraph as saying, gee, we have discus sed this thing to death and we all know what it is about, so we do not have to worry about it any more; you know, we have all taken a position. Obvious ly, there are a lot of complicated issues there and you are dem onst rati ng that in your own presenta tion.

I would find that to refute what is on page 4 with regard to the two-value syste m, because there you say that the Weir Report put this in, and I would assume that since you have had so much time to study the We ir Report you all have taken a position on this. Why then would you need to have further study and review by the Government and local municipal officials in order to have a two-value system if you do not need any further study and review on the rest of it, as you say, even though I pointed out that you do because you have obviously taken different positions in the last week? I am just pointing out, Mr.

Chairman, there are many different positions being taken by organizations on this issue. Mr. Roth: Yes, regarding a dual-assessment system and so on, to the best of our knowledge we are unaware of any other province where you would have a dual system of this nature. As a consequence, we feel that this could be followed up with legislation following the passage of this Bill. We feel, and also I am quite confident, that the UMM would be willing to consult with any or all three Parties and to address this issue. Mr. Ploh man: My point to Mr. Roth is, why would you single out this one

part icu lar is sue for further consultation when there is confusion and obviously different positions being taken almost on a daily basis by various organizations, and that is fine, it is a difficult area? Why would you single that one out to hold it back when the others should go ahead? Right now, too. Mr. Chappell : I believe, Mr. Chairperson, the concern of the UMM is not quite the concept of the two-value system, but in order to find a workable way in which that principle or concept can be, first of all, legislated, and then secondly , ad ministered.

There are some concerns, and we believe that while we support the principle, we must work at the mechanics as to obtaining a workable system. That is the concern we have. Mr. Plohman: So th at could be leg isla ted, but proclaimed at a later date, and you would not have a problem with that because that is the goal that you have in mind. Mr. Chappell: Of course, it is not the principle. lt is just the mechanics of operating the system, of course. Mr.

Ploh man: So you would not disag ree then, just to clarify, that kind of an amendment could be brought 257 forward if the Government chose to do it or if someone else chose to do it at this particular time, and have it implemented some time one year hence, for example, with time for the municipalities and the department and others to deal with it. I wanted to ask one other question.

On the top of page 5, as regards your statement, that it is respectf ully submi tted tha t the exem ption from liabi lity to assessment taxation ought to be restricted as for each exemption granted, could you clarify what you mean by th at and how th at would be done? Are you suggesting that there should be fewer exemptions in this Bill than as Weir was proposing in his report, or is it meant to be something else? Mr.

Roth: Having looked at the proposed legislation, and looking specifically at the agricultural sector, we feel that exemptions should be kept to a minimum, because we think it will result in fairness. As soon as there are exem ptions made we are of the position that th ere will be inequ ities and unfairne ss. As a consequence, as I indicated before, it was in the agricultural sector we believe that all intensive farm operations should be treated in the same manner. Therefore, we accept the position that those in the dairy bus iness, their outbuildings would be taxed; those in the hog busine ss would be taxed.

We would hope that there would be uniformity. Let us face it, some of the grain producers do also have extremely large outlay of monies in buildings and as a consequence their assessment on buildings would be considerable also. When we looked at exemptions we also looked at the exemptions of the schools and the hospitals.

As I indicated prior that due to consolidation of schools and larger hospitals it may be perfectly justified that we raise it from four to 10 acres, but I would prefer to see that, we are just saying they should be restricted as small as possible. lt would seem to me that MAST should address this issue more specifically and maybe also the hospital boards. Mr.

Ploh man: I just wanted to ask him about the schools, for your position on that a little more clearly, but just before I leave this particular broad issue, do you feel then that there are no specific exemptions in this Bill that you would like to see removed, or taken out at this time in order to accomplish the rest riction? lt is just that those that are there should be defined in as limited a way as possible? Mr. Roth: In analyzing the Bill and looking at the exemptions there has been no suggestion by any of my colleagues that any of the exemptions be removed. Mr. Plohman: As you know, Mr.

Roth, perhaps that MAST made the presentation rather strongly that school property should not be su bject to taxation, municipal taxation, for property taxation. They have come forward with that, as you have referenced that issue you said you agree with the exemption being expanded from four to 10 acres, but that only deals with schools. Do you have any position on other property? MAST has

Monday, January 8, 1990 taken the position they would like to see their exemption broadened to not only include the schools, but other school board property, garages and so on. * (1 640) Mr. Roth: We have not analyzed that situation in detail, and we have not asked for a great deal of data on that particular issue. However, I would hope that MAST, if they could justify a greater exemption, that the three Parties here would reach some agreement and make those amendments. We are not here to ask that this Bill be passed carte blanche.

We appr eciate the constructive criticism that has been offered by both Opposition Parties and, ther efore as a consequence, we realize that there may be amendments coming forth, but we would hope that those amendments are done with considerable pru dence, th at ther e may be compromises made here with the Government, and that we end up with a fair equitable Bill. We hope that we end up with a Bill better than what we have.

Really I would like to say, I belie ve it was three years ago, when the Premier of this province and the NDP were the Go vernment at that time, I think the y recognized the inequities, some of the unfairness within rural Manitoba, and let me assure you it was greatly appreciated. They recognized the unfairness by giving back a $500 rebate to the farm community. This was followed up by the Conservatives. Also we have heard today that basically Members of the Liberal Party are in support of the basic principles of this Bill.

Therefore, we honestly believe that to assure a better system in Manitoba, and a fairer taxation system, there is room for compromise, there is room for making prudent amendments. We hope that is achievable in the near future. We are very concerned that if this does not pass this Legislature at this time, we will not see it in the near term. We will not see it in the next maybe 10 years even and, as a consequence, farmers who are least able to pay taxes on hous es right now will continue to pay those taxes, and in fact even with this Bill they will continue.

At least the neighbour with the bill to be paid on the $10 0 house will be paying his fair share. We are very gratified to hear some of the comments that are coming out. Mr. Ploh man: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are very pleased to see that you have put forward a presentation that talks about passing this legislation in its amended form, because it does recognize that there are areas that can be improved and should be improved and I think that is an important recognition of the decision that I know our Party has taken on this issue. Perhaps Liberals can speak for them selves on that.

That is one of the reasons why we wanted to see this prolonged to a larger number of hearings and so I appreciate your saying that at this particular time.

I guess with that I may be reading too much into your statement that you said, "As a result it is interesting to note that the following organizations comprising local authorities in Manitoba support the concept of the Bill and the reforms proposed ." That gets pretty specific 258 and I know there are concerns by various organizations about various parts of this Bill and I think that it is too broad a statement to make on behalf of those other organizations, but I will leave that. I just wanted one further question, Mr. Roth, on the issue.

Do you not think, as far as the exemption of 10 acres, it is maybe better not to have a specific designation of a certain number of acres because you are always going to have a situation that is too small to cover perhaps? If four was not good enough, 10 might be good enough. Is it not better just to say that those schools or those hospitals as defined would be exempt rather than putting a maximum acreage on it which, as we heard from the hospitals, would not cover all of their situations, in the City of Winnipeg at least.

In the rural areas perhaps in all cases it would cover hospital situations, but in Winnipeg it does not. In schools, I am not certain whether there are some that would not be, but there are other properties involved. That is their issue, a MAST issue. There are other properties other than schools, but it is possible that there will be some that would not be covered . So is it not better just to take out a specific designation in terms of acreages and just describe what you want to do? Mr.

Roth: Well, once again, we did not specifically add ress that issue or ask for data from hospitals or ask for data from school boards. Whenever we have exemptions on to visualize there is always a problem. Now let us assume that we have in this case the schools, then it is debatable if we should exempt the garage and this could cause debate.

Now, if the school boards and school divisions can justify this to the Members sitting around this table with facts and data to show where it is beneficial to rule Manitobans, or all of Manitobans, then so it be but looking at the situation with the information we have, we have accepted the 10 acres. Hon. Glen Find lay (Minister of Agricultur e): Yes, Mr. Roth, I would just like a little further clarification on your situation with regard to outbuildings.

You have made it fairly clear in your answers to the variety of questions that you are strongly in favour of fairness and equity and you are not in favour of exemptions. What I am wondering about here and I would just like to ask you if you can see if there is any rationale in segregating outbuildings into two groups? One group would be those that are in production, like hog barns, or turkey barns, or dairy barns, or that sort of thing, versus buildings that are used for storage.

Is there any rationale to segregate outbuildings into those two categories such that you tax the producing buildings but you do not tax the storage buildings? Is there any rationale for that segregation or should it be left as outbuildings period. Mr. Roth: At the executive level and to the best of my knowledge we, U of MM, did not address that specific issue. As a consequence I cannot indicate to you the U of MM 's position on that. I can indicate to you what my personal thoughts are. My personal thoughts are exemptions for farmers to be competitive with the Europeans, because of the trade war between the

Monday, January 8, 1990 United States and Europeans when we look at grain, because of the quota syste m, because of the inability to ship out produce in the winter time. We as producers, the grain farmer, do not produce grains for storage purposes. As a result, this is a real negative cost to the grain farmer. This is a personal point of view. We would like to see the economy of rural Manitoba become far more stable. We have the depopulation of rural Manitoba as a real concern. We are losing most of our youth.

As a consequence we would like to see if it was possible that our hog producers remain very, very stable, and that the stability is long-term. The hog producers in the last two years have faced severe market declines, and many operations have been put into bankruptcy or many have gone out of business. This is quite contrary to the cattle producers. The cattle producers were looking at markets which I believe were at a 10 -year high. As a consequence, the cattle producers in the last four or five years, many of them have done extremely well in com parison to hog producers.

Due to the fact that it appears that produce of farmers is cy cl ical, I have some di fficult y in recommending that we have any exemptions. To be competitive with another country which has a warmer climate and that, we could argue that there should be exemptions. But I do have some difficulty, and I think it would cause some consternation within the farm community. Mr. Findla y: So really the essence of what you are saying is that you are not in favour of exemptions, period, within different classes of the farm sector. Mr.

Roth : Another problem we have with this is that we do not know what is going to really be portioned. We unde rstand that portioning is not ironclad. Therefore we are going to place our faith in the Memb ers of this Legisla tur e -(interject ion)- wel l, not only the Go vernment. We hop e the Opposition Parties - (interjection)- We are going for a fairer system in Manitoba. I believe we are willing to take a risk here. Now if that risk results in problems, or unfair taxation of rural Manitobans, let me assure you that you will probably certainly hear from us in the very near future.

We are under the impression that the portioning is not ironclad, and we would hope that in the future the Governments add ress this issue and make it fair and equitable if it is not. Mr. Findla y: One other question. You have already started into my next ques tion, and that is with regard to the portion of the assessment that will pay the tax. Do you see that the portioning between land and outbuildings should be exactly the same in the farm sector, or can you see any rationale as to why they would be different? Mr.

Roth : We do not have the data to look at that, and we have not asked for or received a detailed analysis of the portioning aspect that would really ha ppen. We know we ha ve gone through some scenarios, and we are under the impression that with portioning and the passage of this legislation, 80 percent 259 of rural Manitobans would pay less or a very small amount more than the y presently pay. * (16 50) Mr. Findla y: One last question. You mentioned stable rural economy. I guess I would like to see a methodology of assessment in the future that leaves stability in that ass essment.

Right now, because we cannot do anything di fferent, we are talking ma rket value, th at is, est ablishing value by comparable sales. Do you think it would be better in the long run if we could develop a system where we determined the productivity value in land by a method of land classific atiom, and the produc tivity of tha t classification versus using comparable sales? Do you see that as being more stable than following comparable sales which can fluctuate for a number of reasons, and have in the past? I would just add that we have to stay with market value now because we cannot use the other system.

If we could get stability in a productivity-based asses sment, would you advocate that we move that way in the future? Mr. Roth : I am here repres enting the UMM. We have looked at the current market scenario. We think it would result in a system that would be more understandable to the ratepayers in Manitoba. We think it would result in uniformity. We think it would result in a system which assessors could addr ess more adequ ate ly.

As a consequence, we have come to the conclusion that we were prepared to accept the current market value, because we were assured that we are just going to be updated every three years. Now there is no doub t in my mind that productivity, in some instances, should be reflected in the market value of that property, but we would hope that maybe that is even-yes? Mr. Findla y: I would just say that in regard to No. 7, you are dealing with agricultur e value versus development value. That is one way of dealing with devel opment value. You weed it out by using just agriculture productivity value of the soil involved.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Roth, do you have a comment on that? Mr. Roth: No, I do not. Mr. Chairman: Ok ay, thank you. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairperson, I find it interesting Reeve Roth, the position in No. 5, the application for revision. lt was not my understanding that when the president of your organization, Mr. Moir, appeared here one very cold evening just before Christmas, that this was the position of the UMM.

I very much appreciate this situation, because it makes clear that you are saying that when there is a change in the value of the property that a property owner should have the right of appeal tor any reason, and I thank you very much for that clarification. The point that you make in No. 3 about going towards a more standard ized approach to reasse ssment in

Monday, January 8, 1990 Manitoba I think is also refre shing. I look at points three and five and the question I wish to pose relates to the concept of the freeze as contained in the Act now proposed. Then what you are saying by points three and five is that you wish to see reassessment done all across Manitoba every three years, but within the three year horizon appeals may be had for any reason. Is that what I am understanding you are saying? Mr. Roth: Yes. I would like to follow up with that There may be properties within that three-year period that may change in nature.

There may be properties-for example, before us we are presently looking at the regulations regarding the waste disposal sites for Manitoba. Now as a consequence then, assessment might take place in one year and the following year a municipality may buy an adja cent quarter

section of land for the means of using that as the disposal grounds. As a consequence, when we talk about external factors, we are talking about external factors in close proximity that would certainly affect the value of that neighbouring farm land. As a consequence I think it would only be prudent and fair that we would have to addr ess this. I think it would be fair to our ratepayers if we did so. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairperson, well that is good news that UMM is taking that position. lt reflects much of the thinking that we have had also. We had the opinion previously, maybe unfairly so, that UMM had advocated the freeze, in an absolute sense, was solid,

whereas what you are saying is, no. The ability of a ratepayer to appeal, given changed context and changed value, I think is the fairest way to go too. thank you for coming out and providing the su pplementary information that you have, because it is obvious by this presentation and your response to numerous questions that there has been a fair amount of research done obviously by yourself and others in the organization. Thank you. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, to Mr.

Roth, I guess part of the problem that you are having and ! think that many of us ha ve had in this whol e qu estion of apportionment is the lack of complete data or greater information. You have had that difficulty, have you not? An Honourabl e Member: We ll, in principle we accept that, but the difficulty is what are the impacts and the lack of data in that area. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow up on que stions that Mr.

Findlay raised and UMM's position of no exemptions in the agricultural area, like treating a sector equally and farming as, i have no difficulty with the equity treatment within sectors. I, not question, but I ask whether consideration in terms of arriving at an asses sment, and maybe the y do that already from an assessment point of view on the qu est ion of build ings.

Where we talk about hog producers, the building will be used 12 months of the year, but yet their income, they have really really suffered, and you have a dairy farmer or a chicken farmer also have year round operations, and their income is to a greater 260 deg ree guaranteed through supply management and cost of production. You have also the turkey farmers that I am from, where their production is guaranteed more or less through supply management. You have potato growers who have storage buildings, and they have a marketing board in terms of trying to get some guarantee.

In essence I am asking whether there should be some criteria as to the amount of use or the amount of income that building generates in terms of not only as it relates to its value in determining asses sment, or should that not be a factor in considering the value for assessment purposes. * (1 700) What I am saying is that in some sect ors of agriculture you have a high-priced building, and I will give you our own inst ance where we brood young com mercial turkeys. They are in the barn eight to ten weeks; the rest of the year the building is em pty.

On the breeding side of the operation the building is used seven to eight months of the year. There is very comparable to hog producers. The same thing with a potato farmer in terms of their storage. For the bulk of the year, the building may be vacant, but for four-five months of the year, the building is used for storage. Should there be some recognition or at least asses sment, and there may already be in the assessment process the amount of use and/or income generation from the building. I do not know, has UMM consid ered th ose kinds of conditions or maybe council may wish to reply to that. Mr. Chappell: Mr.

Chairperson, when we go to a full market-value system, I would ask you to make an assumption that Mr. Uruski's buildings produce $25,000 in his turke y operation, and Mr. Taylor's produce $50,000 in his turkey operation of net income. In a full market-value system I suggest respectfu lly that Mr. Taylor's normalized income strain through his operation, whether it be by location or some other favourable site matters aside from management, would probably be assessed at some greater level than Mr. Uruski's. The assessment su bject to Mr.

Brown's expertise in this matter may be developed on the basis of a costing manual, and I am assuming that the cost manual for each building is the same. Obvious ly, if Mr. Taylor's produces more money Mr. Chairperson, it is probably going to be worth more in the market value and therefore will be assessed higher. Mr. Uruski would not be able to complain if the two properties were compar ed perhaps and have his asses sment reduced by the board of revision on appeal. Mr. Ur uski: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Members of the UMM for the in-depth discussion and the fruitful information that they have provided.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Penner, the Honourable Minister, would like a few comments. Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Rural Development): First of all, I would like to thank both groups that have appeared here today, both Mr. Fontaine of the Kee watin

Monday, January 8, 1990 Tribal Council as well as Mr. London who was represen ting them. I would also like to thank Mr. Roth and Mr. Chappell for appearing before us today for the UMM. I think both groups have presented very well their case for: No. 1, the exemption of property rights for Native communities; and No. 2, the case was made very well for the agricultural community. I found some of the comments that we have heard throughout the hearings and 1- very interest ing that Mr.

Roth should be the last presenter who we will hear on Bill 79-but found it very interesting that many of the presenters referred to the equity and the fairness that this Bill is, in my view, going to provide. That is one of the main intents of the Bill, to be able to provide that equity and fairness that many have talked about during their presentations. When I discuss-and I want to refer this to Mr. Roth-when we discuss equity and fairness, it always, I guess, brings the issue fairly close to home.

Where we have a situation where we have a young farmer who is trying to raise a family on a quarter and 80 acres, and right across the road from his place is a similar farmer on two quarters of land that has two large poultry barns on his quarter, as it happens, the young farmer on the quarter and 80 has to take an outside job and has for the last 20 years taken an outside job which earns more money. He has to have this job in order to maintain his family and his farm operation but earns more money in town than he does off the farm and therefore has been for the last 20 years paying tax on his farm home.

This person pays better than $3,000 in taxes, whereby the owner across the road earning much, much more of a net income, and we have compared the two incomes, pays virtually no tax at all. I think that is the fairness and equity that I have heard your organization and many of the other organizations express. I found interesting the comments in response to the questions which were put regarding buildings, whether storage or other farm buildings, and how to deal with them because that has certainly been a dilemma for us.

We sat and considered the various aspects of the Bill and how to deal with the various properties, whether they were commercial properties which were used for storage or whether they were agriculture properties used for storage and other industrial uses as well as the industrial uses in agriculture. I wonder, Mr. Roth, whether you have given consider ation as to the possibility of exemptions, as was suggested here, for storage faci litie s within your jur isd iction in ru ral Manitoba, both for agricultural and/or industrial.

If you did exempt one, would you have any recommendations how you treat the other ones, whether they be of industrial nature or agriculture nature? Mr. Roth: Basically I agree with you. Certainly the inequity and injustice of one paying taxes on his hous e and another one not has certainly been a very difficult experience for councillors at the Court of Revision and has resulted in councillors imposing taxes on those families whose father may have been forced to go to Saskatchewan, may have been forced to go to Alberta, or may have been forced to go to Winnipeg to earn an income.

As soon as he earned $500, he had to pay 261 those taxes on that house. As far as I am concerned. as far as UMM is concerned, legally we had an obligation to do that and we were compelled to do that. lt is very, very sad thing when you have legislation which forces you to tax people of this nature, and yet due to the fact that another farmer who has been financially sound and been on the farm for many, many years does not pay taxes in that respect. Now, in regard to the exemptions, I have indicated to you that at the present time the UMM' s position is tha t we should minimize the exem ptions.

As a consequence, I think I should leave that statement with you. Let me assure you, we will be looking at the means of financing education in the future. I think probably there may be even exemptions, or possible exem ptions which may be fairly add ressed and implemented for the benefit of rural Manitobans; it may come up in the future again. There are many problems which we think that this Bill could address right now and elim inate obsolete legislation, legislation which has been here for 50 years. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Minister. Mr. Penner: Thank you very much, Mr. Roth.

I want to again extend my appreciation for the amount of work that you and your organization have put into the review of this Bill. I appreciate very much the comments that you have made in regard to the Bill. Thank you very much.

Second ly, before we move on probably to clause by clause on this Bill, I want to also indicate that in regard to the criticism that was extended by the Keewatin Tribal Council in my refusal to meet with them, I had indicated publically on numerous occasions that I would meet with any organization that requested to do so. * (17 10) I have met with the Oji bway Tribal Council on this matter of 2(2)(b). They voiced their opinions to me. I had also indicated through a mediatory my wishes to meet with the Keewatin Tribal Council on this matter.

However, I guess it was impossible to arrange for a meeting at a convenient time. Therefore, I supp ose, the meeting did not take place. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Uruski. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of Mr. Roth, but I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman: Ok ay. Thank you very much, Mr" Roth and Mr. Chappell, for your presentation this afternoon. Mr.

Ro th: On behalf of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, I would like to indicate to you that the executive and, I am sure, many municipal officials will be very gratified to hear that Members of all the Parties enabled us to make this presentation today. We bel ieve this is one of the most important or probably the most important piece of legislation that we have seen before this Legislature in many, many years. We have hopes that if there are amendments

Monday, January 8, 1990 made, th ose amendments are pru dent , th at compromises can be reached, and that it may be passed so that the municipalities and towns are able to dispute their bills in the near future. We think that this is a Bill that would benefit not only rural Manitobans but all Manitobans. So, on behalf of the executive, I thank you. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much. ***** Mr. Chairman: Before we go into clause by clause, Mr. Uruski, on a point of order. Mr. Uruski: Mr. Chairman, just on a point of order.

I gather that this committee made a decision earlier this afternoon to sit through Private Mem bers' hour without the concurrence, discussion and agreement between House Leaders to this effe ct. lt may have been, and I am not certain, that Members from this committee may have wanted to speak to some of those resolutions and really had to either leave this committee or in fact forego their opportunity in the Assembly .

I raise this in the sense to say that I am not certain that-while a committee is empo wered to make its own dec isions, the di fficulty of not ha ving reached a concurrence and agreement between all Parties in the House, I find stretching this whole question of co opera tion, especially thr ough a period of Private Mem bers' hour, knowing that we will be sitting later tonight if we leave the committee now and come back ai 8 p.m. Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, that is not a point of order. did deal with the question earlier , and it was agreed all three Parties, Mr.

Uruski. 1t seems the suggestion came from, I bel ieve, your Party and the Opposition. Mr. Plohman. Mr. Plohman: I think it is important. You did say, Mr. Chairman, that the suggestion came from our Party. What I suggested is that we adjourn at 5 p.m., go to Private Members' hour and then have our caucus meeting from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., because I expressed concerns about coming back at 7 p.m. That was what I said. Then there were other suggestions that we go until 6 p.m. and then adjourn until 8 p.m. We dropped the argument at that point, but it was reluctantly. Mr. Chairman: Thank you.

What is the will of the comm ittee then? Mr. Cum mings, di d you ha ve a comment? Mr. Cummings: lt is simply to encourage the Mem bers of the committee, unless there is some stated reason why they do not want the committee to continue. We were simply trying to get on with the responsibility that we are charged with and find an extra hour in which to do that work. I do not mind saying that my own House Leader (Mr. McCrae) asked me if we had all Party concurrence, and it was my understanding that we did.

Therefore we could continue. lt was not an attempt to circumvent the House Leaders; it was simply a matter of trying to get on with our responsi bility. 262 Mr. Chairman: Mr. Roch, and then Mr. Uruski. Mr. Roch: The fact that there have been a couple of mor e briefs presented and th ere has been a considerable amount of discussion, and it is a fairly lengthy Bill, possibly some of these other items have to be looked at, I certainly will not be remiss at recess ing until 8 p.m. Mr.

Uruski: Just on that point, I did check with our House Leader on that very point and found out that there really was no discussion whatsoever on this matter between House Leaders of either Parties. There is no doubt that if we do continue, and I am not suggesting that we do, I think it would be appropriate that this committee recess till eight and any Member that wishes to participate in Private Members' do so.

The point that I would want to leave on the record is that this should not be, if we do continue, this should not be a precedent that a committee will overrule the Legislature in terms of having Members, who may wish to participate in Private Members' hour, have to make the decision when they are Members of the committee that they have to either be here or be out, and make a difference should a vote be called in this committee. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. What is the will of the committee? Shall we rise till eight o'clock? Mr. Minister. Mr. Penner: I wonder, Mr.

Chairman, whether it would be useful if we, and I do not dispute that we should rise-1 find it interesting that we would agree a little while ago and then change our minds on it, but that be the will of the committee-whether it will be useful if we would indicate what our intention is as far as amending the Bill prior to you rising, prior to committee rising, that might have some bearing on deli berations that were made by both Parties or all three Parties over supper hour. If it is the wish of the committ ee I would certainly be prepared to indicate that.

Yes, that I would willing to share with the committee what our intention was as far as amendments to this Bill were concerned prior to breaking. Mr. Chairman: Before we have any other discussion on this, it is not possible, Mr. Minister, to do that. Either we have to get into clause by clause or we will adjourn until eight o'clock, one or the other. If we allow the opening statements now, we will be here until after six anyway, probably. Mr. Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Yes, I think ther e ha s been a recom mendation to rise.

The information that the Minister is raising here is something that can come forward at eight o'clock. We are not going to complete the Bill, I do not believe, tonight and we will be able to follow up on the Government's recommendations at that time . I believe it is appropria te for the Government to indicate to the legislative committee precisely what they are intending to do with this Bill in terms of amendments and then we can work from there. That would be appropriate at eight o'clock. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cummings, did you have-

Monday, January 8, 1990 Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the comments we just heard that the majority of the committee wishes to rise.

I simply want to indicate my disappointment that after previously agreeing to work, and after previously having had a harmonious rel ationship when we ag reed to hear additional presen tations today, I hope that when we come back at eight o'clock that we can continue with that spirit of co-operation to get on with the clause by clause, and that we start promptly at eight with clause by clause and begin to work our way through it, because obviously it is going to take us more than one sitting to do it. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Ok ay, before the committee rises, I would just like to add one point.

That when we come back at eight o'clock or in the recess, if you would give some consideration to the time that we will adjourn tonight, and we will decide that at eight o'clock then. Okay, committee rise. *

(2000) RECESS Mr. Chairman: I bring the committee to order. The Bill will be consider ed claus e by claus e. During the consideration of a Bill, the Title and the

Preamble are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order by the comm ittee. Since this is a lengthy Bill, may I suggest that if the committee wishes to consider clauses in blocks, for example, Clauses 2 to 15 , would that be acce ptable? If there are going to be any amendments proposed today, may I suggest to all Members that your co-operation will be greatly appreciated if you prepare them ahead of time. You may ask for assistance from Legislative Counsel. May I also remind all Members that all amendments shall be presented with respect to both English and French.

Before we get started, what are the time limits tonight; how long do we want to go tonight? Mr. Taylor : Mr. Chairperson, I will have to respond after that ridiculous comment from a certain Member who does not like to work late some nights it appears. But in any case, I think there is a spirit in the committee to put some real effort into this piece of work. I think you have seen that in the public hearings portion of it, and I would suggest that we do the piece of work no justice whatsoever if we are prepared to start working through to two and three and four in the morning.

The process is going to take us a couple of days here, maybe three or four, but my expectation is it is going to be done this week without fail. Now, given that, I would rather be fresher at doing this stuff than slogging away on what is probably one of the toughest pieces of legislation we will probably ever have to deal with, and I make a suggestion for dis cussion that we call it quits at eleven o'clock and see what the feel ing is around the Table. We are going to be back at it tomorrow night, same thing, and maybe the next night, too. 263 Mr. Chairman: Any other suggestions?

An Honourable Member : Back tomorrow morning. Mr. Chairman: We will be back tomorrow morning, yes. Mr. Tayl or: We will be at it tomorrow night, too, I am betting. Mr. Chairman: 11 or 12, what do you say? An Honourable Member : If we are in an issue at 11, you will finish that clause I am sure. If it goes, 11 :1 5. An Honourable Member : 12 is good. Mr. Plohman: I would just concur that we leave at eleven o'clock because of the nature of this, as has been outlined by Mr.

Taylor that it would probably be suitable, particularly in light of the fact that a lot of the amendments that come forward will be perhaps new to us, having not seen them. When you distri bute them, we have not dis tributed amendments prior to sitting and, therefore, in order to do a proper job of it, it may be necessary to hold some of them over, to have an opportunity to dis cuss them further, if that need arises. But in any event, it is going to be a lot of intensive work and I would think eleven o'clock is an appropriate adjournment time. Mr. Chairman: Is that the will of the committee?

Agreed? (Agreed) lt has been suggested that we leave the

definitions part, that is

Part 1 really, which is the definition part of it, until the end, and start on

Part 2. Mr. Plohman. Mr. Plohman: I believe, Mr. Chairman, the Minister may want to make some statements about what his intentions are-an amendment to definition of value would be included in this first sec tion, and it would be very important to have that on the Table before we get into the other sec tion. So I would see some value in going through the

definitions first, at least to the extent we can, before proceeding to the other clauses. Mr. Chair man: Ok ay. Mr. Roch , do you ha ve a comment? Mr. Roch : I just want to echo that same sentiment. That was the issue of the whole definition of value, and also, given the type of Bill that we are facing, possibly we should go right from the be ginning to the end, because some

definitions may have implications later on. I do not know. Is it just custom, or- Mr. Chairman: That is the will of the comm ittee- Mr. Cummings. Mr. Roch : I just want clarification, what I want. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) perhaps makes a valid point, but the thinking might be of the committee that there would

Monday, January 8, 1990 be quite a few amendments that would therefore require some amendments of the

definitions as well su bsequent to the amendment. For that reason, it might be practical to save the

definitions until after the amendments have been finalized. Mr. Chai rman: Mr. Roch first. Mr. Roch: So if I understand the suggestions correctly, we would have a definition of value tabled and then we would go on to about the

section immediately following

definitions. Mr. Chair man: I am not sure, but in the opening remarks of the Minister, he has some amendments that he is going to bring up I would think, and then some of these things will be clarified. Mr. Minister will refer to them. Mr. Plohman. Mr. Ploh man: Under those circums tances, I think we should hear what the Minister has to say and then deter mine whether we want to proceed. I would like the understanding that the Member for Springfield (Mr. Roch) had, and that is that we would have tabled the definition for value. Others, we could leave, all of them we could leave to deal with at the end, but any changes to

definitions that might arise as a consequence of other amendments, can be left to the end in any event. * (20 10 ) Mr. Chairman : That is fine then. We will leave it till after the Minister's opening remarks. If there are no other questions, we will start, and I will ask Mr. Minis ter to give us his opening remarks. Mr. Penner: lt is certainly my pleasure to be able to sit here today on this historic occasion.

As a committee, I guess, we are going to be faced with numerous challenges to make sure that we have the kind of legislation that is going to serve local Governments probably for as long as the previous legislation served.

I bel ieve it was some 60 years that the previous assessment legislation was in place, and municipalities were forced to work with, although during the latter part of the years somewhat an antiquated legislation. lt is certainly our pleasure, as a Government, to be able to have drafted a piece of legislation that I think will serve very well, and that I think will need very few amendments, except for some minor correct ions to some of the wording in the Bill.

There are however, after having listened to the many presenters that we have heard, it has become apparent that we should redraft or amend some of the sec tions in the legislation to conform with the current thinking in the province. Therefore I would like to specifically draw your attention to the fact that I will be, as I said the other day, proposing some amendments to the Bill, although not a great deal, that will help address, in my view, the presentations that have indicated very clearly the desires of the general public in this assessment legislation. Therefore I believe it is imp

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-ma9
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf ma9.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	cbf3872bb35b1e1ccf825bb28d7d310b7bb7198a

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