MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Third Legislature of the Legisl ative Assembly of Manit oba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 36 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Myma A. Phillips Speaker VOL. XXXV No. 55 - 1:30 p.m., TUESDAY, 26 MAY, 1987. Printed by the Office of the 0.-,,s Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 26 May, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment . HON. G. LECUYER: Madame la presidente, je voudrais deposer le rapport annuelle, pour l'annee 1985-86 pour le Ministere de !'environment et la securite et the !'hygiene du travail. (English translation of above.) HON. G.

LECUYER: Madam Speaker, I would like to table the 1985-86 Annual Report as the Minister of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health . MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. J. MALOWAY introduced, by leave, Bill No. 30,

An Act to amend

An Act to Incorporate "Pine Ridge Golf Club"; Loi modifiant la Loi intitulee "An Act to Incorporate 'Pine Ridge Golf Club'." INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have 11 students from Grade 9 from the River West Park School. The students are . under the direction of Ms. Colleen Wilson, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Charleswood. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C.

SANTOS: May I beg leave to present the report of the Committee on Supply? MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave of the House to revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees? (Agreed) PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Inkster, that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

ORAL QUESTIONS Workers Compensation Board - removal of chairman MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Crown Investments. Last evening, in consideration of the Estimates of his department, in committee, the Minister indicated that any CEO in charge of a Crown corporation that lost upwards of $50 million should be canned. Madam Speaker, the Minister was referring, at that time, to the CEO of the CBC, Mr.

Pierre Juneau, who he referred to as a Liberal, who the federal Conservatives didn't even have the courage to fire because the Crown corporation had lost $52 million. Madam Speaker, in view of that comment by the super Minister of Crown Investments, I wonder if the Minister would now then be recommending to the Premier that he immediately remove the chairperson of the Workers Compensation Board, who has presided over the accumulation of an $84 million deficit in the running of that corporation over the past three years. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Crown Investments . HON. G.

DOER: Madam Speaker, it did indeed say that with Crowns, including the federal Crowns, when the members opposite were pursuing the MTS situation, that there were analogies to be made between the situation at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which lost $52 million; yet no one was held accountable for that loss .

Madam Speaker, I believe that accountability should be a key with Crown corporations, and I believe that the situation where MTS, and the individuals invo lved in MTS, were held accountable is in stark contrast to the millions of dollars lost at CBC, the $208 million lost at the holding company of the federal Crown corporation, the $1.4 billion lost at Canadair, etc., etc. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, that's precisely what we're talking about. Who is being held accountable for the $84 million deficit at the Workers Compensation Board, if not the CEO? 2400

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 MPIC - removal of chairman MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question to the Minister is: In view of his very strongly-held feelings about a CEO losing over $50 million, being removed, canned immediately by the government , will he then have the courage to recommend to his Premier the removal of the chairman of MPIC , who has lost $58 million in this past year of operation at MPIC? HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker , again we have a situation where the members opposite are protecting their spineless federal counterparts, that couldn 't hold anybody in the CBC accountable . Madam Speaker .

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . May I remind all members that question period is not a time for debate . HON. G. DOER: Madam Speaker , we had a s ituation where we were able to compare the action that the government took with MTS - it was a very serious situation - and the action that wasn't taken by the Federal Government with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation .

So, Madam Speaker, when members opposite gave us lectures in Estimates last night on holding people accountable , in terms of Crown corporations , we only have to look at the example of their federal counterparts, in terms of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation . Manitoba Hydro - name of successful sale MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

Madam Speaker , it is now a little over a year ago - in fact, during an election campaign - that the First Minister and the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro told Manitobans that they had successfully concluded three additional long-term energy sales. Madam Speaker , it was a Throne Speech, also of a little over a year ago , that made the flat statement that indeed they had successfully concluded three additional long-term energy sales. My question to the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro is: Can he name one of those sales today that has been successfully concluded?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines . HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker , I'm pleased to indicate, as I indicated earlier in the House , that one of the sales was in fact concluded . It went before the National Energy Board and I believe it's been dealt with by the National Energy Board. There are two others that are still being negotiated, and I have indicated previously in the House that those negotiations were taking longer , for a particular set of reasons, relating to the utilities, determining what the transmission arrangements would be south of the border .

Those negotiations are still proceeding, and I know that the Member for Lakeside certainly would 2401 hope, as I do, that thos e negotiations are successfull y concluded . I believe , Madam Speaker, that there is an excellent chance that that will happen . Manitoba Hydro - future monitoring of sales MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker , I direct this question to the Minister responsible for Crown corporations. Madam Speaker, Manitobans now , right now, are spending in the range of $70 million a month, all borrowed money ; we're spending $70 million a month now on hydro development.

We heard from the Ministe r of Energy that we have concluded no additional major sales, as yet. I ask the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro , as a Crown corporation , who has been charged to carry out a very specific mandate by his Premier , to make sure that individual Ministers or individual corporations don't run away at taxpayers' expense , and then come to this Chamber with horrendous losse s to report. Is the Minister in charge of Manitoba Hydro, through Crown corporations, going to be monitoring any future expansion plans of Manitoba Hydro before additional sales are met and concluded? HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, as Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro , I'm very pleased to answer that question because that question was full of so many inaccuracies it would be a disservice to the people of Manitoba to have that type of question on the record. To begin with, the Limestone development is being built to meet Manitoba 's needs. It is being built in such a way to ensure that we ameliorate that development impact on Manitoba through a firm power sale, Madam Speaker , of 500 megawatts to Northern States Power, which the Conservatives opposed .

That 500 megawatt sale, which is concluded, went before the National Energy Board for 11 days of hear ings . The Conservatives opposed it at that time; it was assessed for over three months and the National Energy Board confirmed everything that Man itoba Hydro said , saying it was a good deal for Manitoba, a good deal for Canada . The Conservatives were wrong then, Madam Speaker, and they are wrong today . MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, I want to make it very clear. I'm directing this question to the super Minister, the Minister responsible for Crown corporat ions. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please .

May I remind honourable members that we address each other by our proper titles . The Honourable Member for Lakeside with a question . MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, on a point of order . I'm always prepared to accept your advice , but certainly when one reads the First Min ister 's glowin g four-page press release that set up that Ministry , that set up the Member for Concordia in that particular role where he's in cha rge of MPIC , of Manitoba Hydro , Manitoba Telephones and 18 other Crown corporat ions,

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 then , Madam Speaker, I'm sure you would have the generosity within your heart to understand why we tend to refer to that as in some additional superlative way, super Minister, super something-or-o ther. MADAM SPEAKER: Even in my most generous moments, the honourable member does not have a point of order. Manitoba Hydro - department involvement in decisions re future expansion MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H.

ENNS: Madam Speake r, to the Minister responsible for some 18 Crown corporations, including Manitoba Hydro , who has been charged with specific responsibilities that include monitoring the kind of 9 percent and 10 percent hydro rate increases that the Minister directly responsible for Manitoba Hydro has already imposed on the Manitoba Hydro users, can he assure me that his department is involved in the day­ to-day decision -maki ng process with respect to any future expansion of Manitoba Hydro resources . HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I have no problem deferring to one who can fly and walk on water, and we have incredible faith in people like that. But, clearly, the tradition and custom in the Legislature is for people who are responsible for the Crown corporat ions to report to the Legislature and deal with questions that are raised . Madam Speaker, the normal course is for these questions to be raised in the Legislative Committee, and I think we had three or four sessions of Legislative Committee where all these matters were raised by the Member for Lakeside . All of his comments, all of his questions were answered.

They were answered in-depth, Madam Speaker, and we have the humorous situation now of the Member for Lakeside forgetting all the time of the Legislative Committee that he took and disregarding those answers completely. The point is that we have a process whereby Manitoba Hydro sta ff, on a technical perspective assess this, they come to conclusion s and make recommendations to the board, and the board makes recommendations to Cabinet with respect to power sales; and those, in fact, have been done and they have been done consistently over the years , at least under the New Democratic regime , Madam Speaker.

I'm not sure about the Conservatives because they didn 't know what they were doing at that time , but I can guarantee to the people of Manitoba that all the procedures have been followed clearly and accurately and the best staff we had was when an independent body of the Federal Government , appo inted by Liberals, reappointed or kept by Conservatives, confirm everything that Manitoba Hydro had predicted. Multicultural Task Force - purpose of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

Yesterday when Oral Questions expired the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation was giving - well, gave me, once again, a non-answer to a question which I posed. Madam Speaker , my question to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation is, given the fact that on page 56 of the Supplementary Information it states: "The Manitoba lntercultural Council is an advisory and consultative body established to provide information and advice to the government on all matters relating to ethnocultural development in Manitoba.

" Why then is the Minister wasting $75,000 of the taxpayers' money on a task force when she already has such a group in place to perform that function? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation . HON. J. WASYLYCIA -L EIS: Thank you , Madam Speaker . Yes, yesterday I said I was surprised at the member's question . I shouldn 't have said I was surprised knowing the record of members opposite when it comes to minority groups in our society .- (lnterjection)- Madam Speaker . . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Springfield . MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker , on a point of order.

I take exception to the what the Minister has just said . She is casting aspersions on members of this side . She is trying to claim that only they have any kind of authority over the minority groups, that kind of aspersions; I don't like it, I want her to withdraw those remarks. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker , I certainly wasn't casting any aspersions on members opposite. I was responding clearly to the fact that the Member for Springfield has called this important initiative on the part of the Government of Manitoba a waste of money. I would think that's a comment on members opposite .

I'm not reflecting on their personal integrity. I'm reflecting on the policies of members opposite . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister, answer to the question. HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It's obvious that mambers opposite have a different idea about this policy area and put a d ifferent level of importance on the whole question of multiculturalism . We have felt it is such an important area that it requires an independent task force to review all aspects ... - (lnterjection)- Madam Speaker , the Member for Springfield has suggested that this task force is a New Democr atic committee.

I am sure that all members of that task force are recognized, at least in all aspects of our society on the part of members opposite , of being a committee of incredible integrity and expertise in the area of multiculturalism . 2402

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 Madam Speaker , because of the importance we attached to the area we felt that an independent review of all aspects of multiculturalism should be carried out. Madam Speaker, this is in full recognition of the expertise that the Manitoba lntercultural Council also brings to the process , and it's for that reason that Manitoba lntercultural Council is represented on the task force, and it is for that reason that the Council will have an opportunity to have input throughout the process of consultations and upon receipt of recommendations of the task force .

I would think, Madam Speaker , that if this government carried out a review . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. May I remind the Minister that answers to questions should be brief . The Honourable Member for Springfield . MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker , the fact is that this task force is a duplication of the parameters that the Manitoba lntercultural Council already has in place. I would suggest that the Minister has no faith in the Manitoba lntercultural Council . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. ROCH: Yes, I do, Madam Speaker .

Does the Minister not have faith in the Manitoba lntercultural Council and her own staff to deliver what this task force is supposed to be doing? HON. J. WASYLYCIA-LEIS: Madam Speaker , I hate to even stoop so low as to answer a question like that.­ (lnterjection)- Madam Speaker, the very nature of this task force, Madam Speaker, suggests that we have full faith in the importance of the Manitoba lntercultural Council. In fact, Madam Speaker , the Manitoba lntercultural Council was one of the big forces behind the idea of a complete review of our policies on multiculturalism .

Madam Speaker , I think that's an indication that the Manitoba lntercultural Council has complete faith in this government and in our commitment to a truly multicultural society . Waterfowl season - announcement of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources . In December of 1984, the waterfowl season for 1985 was announced and very late last summer, the season for last year was announced, causing untold thousands of dollars of losses to lodge owners because of lack of bookings .

Can the Minister of Natural Resources indicate when he will be announcing the waterfowl season for the upcoming year? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources . HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, the question of waterfowl seasons, of course , has two dimensions to it, the date and the bag limits. The bag limits are established once the pond surveys are done , involving the Canadian Wildlife Federation and provincial agencies , including Ducks Unlimited .

But as far as the dates of the season, we will look at determining these at an earlier time than we did last year, in order to facilitate those who are taking bookings . Competition Assistance Grants Program - expansion of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker , I have another question to the Minister of Finance.

On May 8 of this year, the Minister of Finance announced a new program and it indicates that , in order to protect Manitoba businesses from unfair competition, our government is prepared to establish the Competition Assistance Grants Program to service stations along our U.S. border. Can the Minister indicate whether this program has been initiated , and whether he was prepared to expand it, to include other businesses along border towns that are suffering the same discrimination, in terms of high taxes and unfair cost competition with the people across the line?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourab le Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The program that I had announced at that time was one that was to deal with the problem of merchants in the retail gas industry along the Manitoba-U.S . border, who are faced with the situation because of the differential in prices and are losing business.

The main difference in the price, as the member is aware, is the markup by the oil companies, between the price that they charge their retailers in Manitoba, as against the price that they ship the same gas down to the U.S.; about 40 percent of the differential is through oil company markups. MR. C. MANNESS: What about the tax? HON. E. KOSTYRA: The Member for Morris asks: "What about the tax?" Yes, the next biggest item in that markup is the Federal Government's tax; the difference between the tax of the Federal Government in Canada and the federal taxes in the U.S.

The smallest part of the differential is the Provincial Government fuel taxes; that is the difference between the tax that we charge in Manitoba and state taxes. What I had suggested to the companies and to the Federal Government was a cooperative range between the Federal Government, who is responsible for about 40 percent , the oil companies and the Provinc ial Government; where we would share the cost of that differential. To date, I have no reply from the Federal Minister of Finance nor the Manitoba members of Parliament. 2403

t _ Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 MR. A. DRIEDGER: To the same Minister, Madam Speaker . First of all, I wonder if he could indicate whether he's then planning to drop that program; and if he's planning to continue with that program, whether he will consider expanding it to include other businesses that are suffering the same kind of discrimina1ory price variations between Manitoba and the States that is happening with the service station industry . HON. E.

KOSTYRA : Madam Speaker, again, the position of the government , with respect to the competition assistance, is that we are prepared to play our role and to deal with our part of the problem . To date, I have had a response from the oil companies indicating that they are studying the matter . Regrettably, I have had no acknowledgement, no response from the Federal Government in regard to their participation in such a program. Churchill teachers' housing - re-evaluation of policy MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Housing . On three occasions since December of 1986 I have asked this Minister to re-evaluate her disastrous housing policy with regard to teachers being evicted from housing in Churchill , specifically built for those teachers. Now it has come to light, Madam Speaker, that we have 12 of 20 teachers - representing 185 years of teaching experience - resigning from teaching positions in the Town of Churchill .

Will the Min ister responsible for Housing rectify her errors and change her policy, in order to ensure the young people of Churchill an enriched environment within their education setting, only provided by experienced teachers? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, I think it's clear that this government has done everything that could possibly be done to help provide decent and affordable housing to the teachers of that community and also to other residents of that community .

It's a situation where , when there was no alternative housing, we agreed to make the housing from the Manitoba Housing Corporation available to the teachers . We have now reached the point where the housing needs of other residents in the community, for whom those housing units were originally built , and whe_re the need is greater and where there is no alternative housing for them; it is necessary that we make that housing available now for other residents of the community .

I believe, Madam Speaker, that there are a number of teachers who are leaving at the end of the term , but who were leaving prior to any decision related to housing. In other words, those teachers' contracts are up, Madam Speaker, and they had already made decisions to leave, and the school board is going to have to find replacements, as is often the case in northern and remote communities , that it is not related to the decision to evict. Churchill Housing Authority - complaints re income levels MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker , a supplementary question to the same Minister .

Will the Minister investigate residents ' complaints that individuals with incomes far above the level of low income, are, in fact, slated to move into the apartments vacated by the teachers? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker , I think that I've made it clear, when I've answered in the House previously , that it is our intention to make the housing units available to those people who qualify under the existing criteria and who have no other options for decent housing .

If the member has any specific information about any individual or any particular case that she thinks is being allowed inappropriately to stay in that accommodation, I would be delighted to look into it. Churchill Housing Authority - provision of waiting list MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final supplementary to the same Minister . Will the Minister provide to this House the waiting list for two, three and four-bedroom apartment units in the Churchill Housing Authority, as residents and a member of the Churchill Housing Authority tell me no such list exists? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, I think it's important to recognize the role that is played by the Housing Authorities, not only in Churchill but in all other communities where they exist. That is a role that we have endorsed and supported and that is where members of the community, who are appointed and named to that board and who have the responsibility for carrying out decisions, are the ones who make decisions about accommodation and we do not interfere with that. Condominium corporations - reserve funds MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C.

BIRT: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing . Given that currently condominium corporations are not required to institute a reserve fund that the unit owners must contribute to; and given the fact that condominium corporations can at least total $1 million or more ; and given the fact that the government seems to want to increase or create a reserve fund; is it the government's policy to create a reserve fund of 5 percent per replacement value for corporations, thereby 2404

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 increasing the amount of common-element fees that unit owners will have to pay to the corporation and , in some cases, doubling that amount per month? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing . HON. M. HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, I'm going to take that question as notice , so I can make sure I'm providing full information , after I've had a chance to investigate the matter . Condominium legislation - cooling-off period MR. C. BIRT: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question to the same Minister.

Currently there is one 48-hour cooling-off period in the legislation governing condominium corporations. Is it the government's policy now to provide two cooling­ off periods, of 48 hours each, when an individual buys a unit in the condominium? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker , I believe that it is our intention just to provide one 48-hour cooling­ off period after the individual, who is buying the unit , has signed the contract to buy the condominium; and that allows them 48 hours in which to review all the fine print and fully understand all the implications of condominium ownership, which often goes far beyond the buying of a single-family unit . Condominium legislation - amendments to act MR. C. BIRT: A final supplementary question to the same Minister.

Is it the intention of this Minister to make amendments to the current act that was introduced to the Legislature last week, because staff members have advised certain representatives of the Condo Corporat ion, a group in Manitoba, that certain amendments will be made to the present bill? If that is the case, will the Minister please advise this House what amendments they're contemplating, before we complete second debate on the bill; so we can know how to handle the issues that the Minister will put forward as it relates to the revised Condominium Act? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker, there are some amendments that are presently being contemplated and I believe that all of those amendments would fall into the category of minor amendment changes, not significant policy changes , but deal with perhaps the writing of particular clauses as they relate to some other clauses that existed in the act, and making sure that they conform. However, if when I review them, it appears that there are any that are not in that category, that are in the policy area, which I don 't believe there are presently, I will certainly inform the members opposite right away. MR. C.

BIRT: Madam Speaker , a final supplementary question arising out of something that the Ministe r has 2405 just said in her answer, that the indications by her staff to representatives of the Condom inium Association of Manitoba that there would be some substantial changes to the legislation , not minor technical. Therefore , I think it's imperative that we have this . information in the House prior to our debating this matter, and if it is, would she at least advise us what those pariicular changes will be, whether they be substantial or minor, before we can debate the bill on Second Reading? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: Yes, I think it sounds quite reasonable too, Madam Speaker . / I have been made aware of some changes that are in the process of being made that I would put in the category of minor and technical changes. There has been a meeting with that organization , with members of my staff and I have not yet been apprised of the discussions that were held in that meeting.

If in the course of the next couple of days when I'm informed of the results of the meeting, I find out that there is some requirement to make major changes or anything that would become a policy change, I will notify the members opposite as soon as I have determined that. AIDS - screening of prisoners MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health.

Yesterday in question period the Minister for Community Services and Corrections indicated that in consultation with the Department of Health, they have developed a policy for screening of target and risk groups in our penal institutions. Can the Minister of Health indicate to me, who the target and risk groups are in these penal institutions? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, yesterday while announcing our policy on AIDS I made it quite clear that it was an interdepartmental committee of all the departments, and the departments were asked to bring in any concern, or anything dealing with their department. For instance , a question was asked yesterday in the House, the prisoners and so on, to this committee, to the Department of Health, to see what would be done on this . It is the responsibility of that department to bring that to the attention of the committee . AIDS - screening guidelines MRS. B.

MITCHELSON: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health, given the fact that the Minister of Community Services did say that those in target and risk groups are currently being screened in the penal institutions, who sets the guidelines for these policies; and is there not consultation; and is the Department of Health not ultimately responsible for that decision-making? ·

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I'll repeat that there is an interdepartmental committee , all the departments involved, and they are to bring thi s to the attention of this committee, chaired by Health , and then the decisions will be made. A MEMBER: We don't even know what the . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . AIDS - screening protection of hospital staff and patients MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East has the floor . MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

Given the fact that there's a policy in place in the penal institutions and they 've decided to isolate suspe cted AIDS carriers and subject them to mandatory screening, will the Minister of Health consider affording -~he same protection , Madam Speaker, to the staff and ' the patients of our hospitals, as they are providing to the prisoners in our penal institutions? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I also announced yesterday that I had requested the department to get in touch with the hospital immediately to make sure that there 's a proper policy, and that tha t policy would be adhered to, to protect the staff of the hospital. I made that announcement yesterday . Manfor - additional information MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My · question is to the Minister responsible for Manfor.

I advised the Minister at the recent hearings that rec eiving a glossy report only three days before the committee hearing was insufficient time to try to deci pher what this government has done in the last · year three years . I was informed by the Minister at the time that the one-line type of reporting was sufficient information. The mention of competition information, etc . was very important . My question to the Minister, Madam Speaker , is: Could the Minister explain what additional information he receives, and what procedures he uses before signing his name to such a document?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Manfor. HON. J. STORIE: Yes, Madam Speaker. The membe r did raise those questions or similar ques tions in the committ ee. I believe that the chairman of the board of directors indicated to the member that the form of the annual report this year, the financial statement, was consistent with corporate reports, similar corporations in the forest products industry and other industries that I am familiar with , certainly the mining industry.

As well, Madam Speaker , I pointed out to the member, as did the chairman of the board, that this format was approved by the Provincial Auditor . I assume that the member opposite has no quarrel with the Provinci al Auditor 's decision. I think it reflects the financial situation of Manfor . The members had the right and the duty to ask any questions they felt were necessa ry, Madam Speaker. I believe that they asked those questions and they were answered. Manfor - discrepancy of figures MR. G. DUCHARME: Madam Speake r, I did ask the Minister what information he does before he signs the report.

However , on page 24 of the 1983 report , note No. 9 - it's a new question to the Minister . It explains that Manfor was relieved of $51 million . That was by the Order-in-Council dated November 30 , 1983 - 1296. Yet the note of the glossy report of 1986, it takes into account the Manfor recove ry of the $3 million. When explaining that in the 1986 information , item No. 7 mentions Order-in-Council 1296 as of April 30. Madam Speaker , my question to the Minister. In that particular report, it states 59 million . Could the Minister please tell the House what has happened to the additional $8 million? HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Speake r, the short answer to that question is that in 1986, Manfor reported a cash profit of $2.6 million. MR. G. DUCHARME: Madam Speaker, a new question to clarify what I asked. I asked in regard to

section 7, that it mentions $59 million. Could the Minister explain to me why there's a difference of $8 million from those two or three reports? That's all I've asked . HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker , I don 't know if the member wants to get into a detailed discussion of accounting principles. The answer is quite simple, Madam Speaker . It is the treatment of previous losses of Manfor.

The $56 million that the member referred to were losses that incurred by Manfor since inception; and the $3 million that was referred to were recoveries that cam e about as a result of the ongoing legal dispute that was carried on and the settlement that related to that. Madam Speaker, essentially the difference in those figures is the accounting principles that are used in tracking both the previous losses and the current revenues that flow because of the legal decisions .

Madam Speaker , the Provincial Auditor has indicated that the financial reports are as they should be, and the notes that are attached to that report clearly identify any changes that have resulted from year to year, that it's clearly standard procedure . Manfor - specific Order-in-Council MR. G. DUCHARME: To the same Minister , will the Minister also tell us what particular Order-in-Council he's referring to on November 30, 1985, dealing with the same item, item No. 7 that mentions the $59 million? HON. J. STORIE: I'm not sure , Madam Speaker , if the member is tying that question to his first question . I 2406

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 assume that it has to do with a Cabinet decision to restructure the financial situation at Maniar. The Provincial Auditor was apprised of the intentions that Maniar had , and approved of the transfers that occurred in one accounting system to another; and, Madam Speaker , I'm not sure what the member's point is. The Provincial Auditor has approved the financial statement. MR. G. DUCHARME: A final supplementary . What I'd like to ask the Minister is: Was there an Order-in-Council dated November 30 , 1985? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker , I assume that there was.

There was also a financial report tabled in this House for the year 1986. The committee had an opportunity to review that statement with the Maniar officials, including the chairman of the board and the chief executive officer, Madam Speaker, and they indicated that thus far, in 1987 , they had a net profit of $1.6 million. The Water Resources Act - effects of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone . MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources .

I'd like to know what information the Minister 's Office has sent out to the municipalities of the province, to explain the effects of The Water Resources Act and the regulations which were recently published? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources . HON. L. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, we are indeed anxious to have the information go out to the municipalities. Indeed, last night I was requested to attend a meeting in Morris and it's unfortunate that arrangements were not agreed to, to have me attend.

So on the one hand, members opposite seem to suggest that we are not doing sufficient work to communicate with the municipalities; on the other, where there are opportunities to communicate , they would be part of denying us that process . We have submitted information, Madam Speaker, and I will be prepared to table with the members opposite, the material that had been sent to the municipalities . MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired . ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker , I believe there is a disposition to forego Private Members' Hour today, by leave. MADAM SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Also , Madam Speaker, it's on a matter of House Business , I'll be calling , in agreement with the Opposition members , the Comm ittee of Publi c Utilities and Natural Resources for Thursday at 10:00 a.m., this Thursday, the 28th , to continue its review of the Manitoba Telephone System Annual Report.

I therefore move, Madam Speaker , seconded by the Minister of Labour, that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty . MOTION presented and carried and the Hous e resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Culture, Heritage and Recreation; and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for the Department of Municipal Affairs. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MR.

CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: Committee , come to order. The Honourable Member for Gladstone . MRS. C. OLESON: My questions are with regard to policing in incorporated villages, particularly the incorporated village of Treherne. They have come to that state where, because of their numbers, they are being charged for RCMP services . The magic number , I believe , is 750 and they have reached a number of 762. I will just quote to the Minister some of the costs that are going to be incurred because of that.

In 1987, it will take 13.4 mills to be added , which will mean for an assessed property of $10 ,000 , the police levy will be $134.00. In 1988, the cost will go to 24.2 mills , so in that year, the same assessment brings the levy to $242, and it goes on from there. Now, this is a major expense and a major addition to the mill rate of a small village . I'm wondering if the Minister can foresee any solution to this. Is there not a little leniency in the numbers? This is 12 people .

In our towns in rural Manitoba , we would like to encourage people to come and live there, but when we get to the point we have to stand out in the highway and stop them because of these costs, it's more than ridiculous . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I believe there are two communities that are in that bind this year, Treherne and Hamiota.

Certainly the concerns that the member has expressed and the views have been expressed I believe in the House or in the media are something that I'm somewhat sympathetic with, and this would be another item on our agenda for the advisor } committee to hear their views as to how we deal with this issue . I can appreciate that, when you're suddenly faced with those kind of mill rate increases, it is a shock and there ought to be some way, and I hope that there 2407

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 will be some recommendation, that we can find the funds to in one manner or another phase in that increase so it doesn't come as one big bump . MRS. C. OLESON: Is the Minister saying that at exactly the number of 750, that's when this clicks in, there isn't a leeway at all? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Unfortunately there isn't. Somewhere along the way the line has to be drawn and it might well be that perhaps more fair would be to have a buffer zone of 50 either way, of that 750 mark, and phase in the increases.

I don't know if that has been looked at in the past but certainly I'll be awaiting the benefit of the advice of the advisory committee . MRS. C. OLESON: Mr. Chairman, well , not only of course has the local paper picked it up, but I had a letter from a pensioner who points out the expenses of paying for all the things in a community: skating rinks , curling rinks, swimming pools and golf courses and everything, and then to have this. They're constantly being asked to donate either through taxes or by other means to the upkeep of the village . It is already expensive without adding this extra burden.

So, I hope the Minister looks at it in the very near future to see that there can be more equity put into the system because some areas, of course, due to the fact of whether they 're incorporated or not, there are so many variables that go into it and are not getting taxed thi s way and the people who are see it as a very unfai r ta x. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I thank the member for her views. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, seeing that we're back on the subject, I think there are four communities that are affected in the way in which my colleague brings up.

Sio ux Valley, Treherne , Hamiota, Gods Lake, I believe are the four communities that are affected if the report that I have is accurate . My only concern, Mr. Chairman, is that: No. 1 - Is he sure the numbers are accurate? No. 2 - Are we in the position now of saying that the people of Manitoba have to suffer because of this government's inability to manage the public affairs by the removal of RCMP services? I real ise that this is under formula, but I want to go back on the subject I was on last night.

I raised the issue about the RCMP removal from Deloraine and Reston and the agreement to which they've entered into. I've been phoned this morning by some people from Reston , extremely concerned that the RCMP has no job description who is going there . , He doesn 't know whether he's working out of Virden or whether he's supposed to work out of Reston . The whole thing is in disarray. Mr. Chairman, what we need from the government is to say, yes, RCMP is a priority. We're not going to let an increase in population by 12 people foist onto the local taxpayers a cost that they're unable to pay.

So, if they're unable to pay it, do they lose the RCMP, or is the government not going to turn it over to the Advisory Committee? Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs say, yes, it is my priority to make sure RCMP coverage is provided for the communities in Manitoba, rural and urban? That's the kind of policy statement I would like him to make. You know, they play this game of trying to say: How would you spend your money? How would you save money?. Well, I can tell you there are many examples, Mr.

Chairman , of how we would do it and how we did do it when we were in office and we're quite prepared to go back in and demonstrate how responsib ly it can be done again . One of the things , Mr. Chairman, will not be to remo ve the essenti al service such as RCMP. I think that it's a matter of going out and negotiating with those communities befor e decisions are made by the hierarchy of this incompetent government. Mr.

Chairman , I know my colleagues have got, possibly, some more questions dealing with the policing , but I want to spend a few minutes more on the whole area of grants and that problem that we're faced with with depopulation. Has the Minis!er today come up with any alternative policy proposals or programs in which over the longer term will alleviate some of the cost increases on municipalities that are losing population. Has he got any programs or policies that he didn't have last night that he could help us with and enunciate this afternoon? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Let me just address some the questions that have been raised in some sort of order, as they were raised. First of all, the figures that we use are, I believe, preliminary figures as provided by Stats Canada. The reason I had indicated that I was only aware of two municipalities where there was an increase in population which would require the local residents picking up the police costs is that in fact only Hamiota and Treherne are responsibilities of the Department of Municipal Affairs. The other two would probably be Northern Affairs and Sioux Valley might be under the federal jurisdiction .

So I was quite correct when I said "only two " . The questions that the Member for Arthur is raising; the Attorney-General has just completed his Estimates. I would hope that a lot of those questions would have been answered at that time . If the Member for Arthur didn't have the opportunity to discuss the agreements between Ottawa and Manitob a and those two levels of government in the individual towns, then I would suggest that it might still be quite proper to raise those questions in question period . Certainly, I don't have all the details as to how the agreements were arrived at, how the costs are split.

However , I do know, and this does come within my responsibilities, that a number of years ago through a committee formed by the former Minister of Municipa l Affairs, a formula was adopted by which those communities that were paying more than the provincial average for policing costs are being provided some assistance. We went through that last night and that is certainly something that ought to be reviewed again, I would think as the costs are increasing and as we are approaching the ten-year contract with Ottawa at which time the costs for the province will be 70 percent 2408

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 or 76 percent, whatever it may be. It would be quite appropriate over the next number of years to review that whole formula to see if there is a fair way of distributing those costs. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I am saying to the Minister, through you to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, he has the responsibility for certain areas in the Provincial Government. Yes - Police Service Grants, all the area of support to the municipalities , comes in that area. Yes, I did ask questions of the Attorney-General. His department should know a lot more about it than he does . He, Mr.

Chairman, should know specifically the agreement that was entered into by Deloraine, and by Winchester, and by Brenda . If he doesn't , then I would advise that he does get ahold of it, Mr. Chairman . I would advise that he look into , and I still will not tolerate, a double taxation on those two municipalities. He hasn't given me a clear answer as to whether or not they're going to be exempt from the half mill provincial tax for RCMP or police protection. He hasn't given those towns of 750 or more, any assurance that he's going to deal with it in an effective way.

I would expect a positive answer from him that he's not going to see untoward costs incurred by those residents, to the point, Mr. Chairman, where they may be threatened to lose their RCMP. Does he want to let it go to that stage, if the local people cannot handle the costs? What is he prepared to do? Is he prepared to put some money on the table? Or, is he going to come back and say, " Well, we have to save money; it's a cost-saving measure." Mr.

Chairman, police protection - and I say this with the greatest of respect for the Minister of Municipal Affairs - it is his responsibility as a Cabinet Minister to see that the property of people, the lives of people, are protected by police services . Mr. Chairman, that's what this is that we're debating. I would hope he would take ahold of it. In fact , Mr. Chairman, he has got the town in his riding that is losing police protection. He has not stood up in defence of that community. I'm astounded, Mr. Chairman, that he would be pushed around by the Attorney-General. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: By the RCMP. MR. J.

DOWNEY: There he goes, he says "by the RCMP." Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that during our term of office, I'm sure recommendations came from the RCMP as to what towns should not have it and shouldn 't have it ... . A MEMBER: Did you cut any Northern . . . MR. J. DOWNEY: No, there weren't.any RCMP stations or positions cut in any communities during our term of office, Mr. Chairman. But there are major cuts during this term of office and one of them is in the Minister's own riding and he should be embarrassed by it. In fact , Mr. Chairman, it will probably make sure that he won't get back after the next election .

Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that the RCMP removal in Winnipeg Beach had not taken place prior to the last election. In fact, it was kept under wraps until after the last election . That's right. Like many other things , they didn 't come clean with the taxpayers as the Premier of the province went around promising that 50 percent of bridges and firehalls and infrastructure would be picked up by the province. Now they're saying they 're waiting on the Federal Government to make a decision .

There was a commitment by the Premier of this province and it hasn't been lived up to and I'll bet that it won't be lived up to - for political purposes. Mr. Chairman, my colleague has a question or two dealing with this

section and all I want the Mini ster to know is that he'd better get ahold of what's happening within his jurisdiction . The support for municipal councils when it comes to policing, the support for municipal councils when it comes to the reduction or the loss of, or the gaining of population in towns when it comes to the removal of support through the grant system, he has to carry some responsibility for. After all, he is the Minister responsible for municipal corporations, in case he's not aware of it. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK : I'd like to respond to a few of the comments .

First of all, with respect to the agreement between the RCMP and the municipalities of Winchester and Brenda, I can't comment on that agreement because I'm told there is no agreement . It won 't be signed until September of this year and I'm not a clairvoyant who can tell the Member for Arthur what is in som e document that will be considered in about two or three months time. With respect to the policing costs and , specifically , with respect to Winnipeg Beach, I know the member would like to leave us with the impression that he's very responsible, getting value for dollars and so on.

But I want to assure the member that I sat in a meeting with the Attorney-General with one of the highest­ ranking officers from the RCMP in Manitoba, with the Mayor and a delegation . . . MR. J. DOWNEY: I sat in a meeting with the highes t officer of the RCMP, Mr. Chairman. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Mr. Chairperson , I'm being interrupted . MR. CHAIRMAN: .. . interrupt the member . Mr. Minister . HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: When the RCMP clearly shows us that 80 percent of their work is done in two months of the year and they can propose a way that the residen ts of the area can get equal or better protection , better services than they're having at the present time at a lesser cost , then I think the Member for Arthur is being somewhat irresponsible by not considering the situation as pointed out to us by the RCMP, who are not political incidentally. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman , the Mi nister of Municipal Affairs is here to represent his constitu ency, not to be bulldozed around or bullied around by his colleagues.

He's here to protect that constituency which he represents . As a Cabinet Minister , he should be doing so and, as an MLA, he should be doing so. 2409

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 If he accepted the argument from the RCMP that its a cost-saving measure. then he got sold a bag of bolts. If he listened to what the Department of the Attorney­ General told him as far as cost-saving, he got sold the same story that can 't be subs tantiat ed. There isn't a nickel of cost -savi ng for the RCMP moves that have tak en place . It is just, in fact, a reorganization of the RCMP staffing . In fact , he doesn 't even know, Mr. Chairman . His colleague told us there was a slight reduct ion in RCMP staff . He indicated last night there was an increase. HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Might have been . MR. J. DOWNEY: Might have been . Well, he couched his words. Mr. Chairman . the point is that there would have had to be a massive reduction in RCMP numbers of staff officers to reduce and to have any cost saving. There had to be a major removal of officers , and th ere wasn 't. The agreeme nt which the Minister refers to between Ottawa and the province has an escalator in it which will at some point , by 1990, 1991 , cost the provinc e 64 percent of - that's the top rate of which they 'll have to pay.- (Interjection)- No, it's 64 percent .

I've got a copy of the agreement which I can give the Minister . It's too bad he hadn 't taken time to spend a little bit of time and protect his constituency. Mr. Chairman . the point I want to conclude on this is that he has a responsibility not only for his constituency , but for the constituency in which I represent supporting municipal councils . I will not tolerate two munic ipal councils in my constituency having to be double-taxed . I am sure the Chairman as former Reeve of his municipality wouldn 't tolerate his constituents being double -taxed for RCMP protection .

I can tell the Minister of Muncipal Affairs as well , as I understand it, the agreement is signed or awfully close to being signed. It comes into effect the first part of Septemb er, but the signing of the agreement has actually take n place or very close to it. His own Deputy told him last night that they were part of and had been part of the negotiations . So, Mr. Chairman . if the Minister isn't prepared to take a more serious look at it than that , then he 'll have to suffer the cons eq uences when he faces his electorate in his own riding. Mr. Chairman, things are happening out in the country .

The Minister maybe should just take a little bit of a look once in awhile and see what' s happen ing out there as far as the area in which he is supposed to represent and, as well , the municipal corporate bodies . Mr. Chairma n, I have no further questions dealing with this section, although my colleague has . I believe . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK : Again , before your colleague starts asking some questions , I will stand by the figures that I provided yesterday .

My understanding is that the provincia l cost of RCMP services will increase to in the neighbourhood of 70 percent by 1990 ; it may be 64 percent at the present tim e. I believe it's increasing at 2 percent per annum and has about three more years before the maximum is reached and will have to be renegotiated by that time .

Insofar as to what the cost is of maintaining a spec ific detachment, if I am not to believe the RCMP figures , if I am not to believe the figure s provided by the Attorney-General's offic e, I really find it difficult to accept the fact that I am to believe the figures as developed by the Member for Arthur . I guess I would have to question where that exp ert ise comes from that isn't found in those other two areas . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Emer son. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairm an , I want to raise an issue with the Mini ster of Municipal Affairs , and this is related to the Bible colleges.

Under the " Grants in Lieu," I think that's pro bab ly where thi s category , if we want to be technical about where it should be dealt. Mr. Chairman , I brought in a Private Member's bill , Bill No. 17, which was introdu ced and has had two debate s going on it, at which time - I don 't know how much attention was paid by the Minister or by his colleagues at the time when I introduced it , exactly what has happened . But I wan t to indicate once more that. in a letter that was written by the then Minister of Muni cipal Affairs , Mr.

Anstett , on May 29, 1985 - no, it was written later - where the Minister writes : " The proposed amendment will extend the same priv ilege of exemption from both school and municipal tax es currently afford ed to public and private schools and /or universiti es, to church colleges meeting this classified criteria. The details of this amendment are presentl y being worked out by my staff , in conjunction with the Department of Education , so that implementation can occur at the earliest possible date ." That was the letter that was sent to Mr. High tower of the Nazarene Bible Colleg e.

Subsequent to further communication that took place , the Minister finally writes : " I can confirm that initia l steps were taken to prepare an amendment to The Municipal Assessment Act , as noted in my predecessor 's letter and. despite initial favourable reaction to the prov ision of tax exemptions , consideration of further detail has resulted in a negative decision ." What I want to ask the Minister is what happened from the time that the letter was written to Mr. Hightower to the time that he responded to my request as to what was happening .

Why was there a change in direction in terms of a commitment that was made to the Bible colleges . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK : I was just reviewing this letter to the Member for Emerson . The member is quite correct that there had been a letter from my predecessor indicating , I suppose in principle , support for the idea of an exemption for the colleges in question . Frankly , one of the reasons that it was our decis ion not to move at this time is that , as we all know . we are in a process of assessment reform , and it was hoped that this would occur in some sort of a systematic way.

One of the problems - and I know the member has Bill 17 at the present time - with that bill is it doesn 't go far enough . I don 't know if we can amend a bill , but I will let the Member for Emerson know that , in spir it, I support the intent of that bill. Howeve r, there are other , many, equally worth y institutions that are , at the present time , asking for similar exemptions . MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman. to the Min ister, am dumbfounded by the kind of statement that he's 2410

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 just made. He says he supports this bill and it doesn't go far enough. Then why would he not have initiated some new amendment to The Municipal Act to accommodate? This is a hurt that 's taking place right now and has taken place for a long time. If the Minister is indicating that he's supporting it in principle, and that he knows that an injustice is being done , then certainly why wouldn't he support this bill at the present time? We know there's still two or three years before the major assessment review is going to take place and things fall into place. They need the relief now.

This injustice has been there for a long time . Other colleges have received it. St. John 's College, St. Paul's College, St. Boniface College , St. Andrew's College - all these colleges have that benefit. Why cannot we approve this bill? Why cannot we proceed with it and give them the benefit of it now? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, I'm surprised that the member is dumbfounded. I said that I felt that part of the problem with that bill is that it doesn't go far enough. Those other institutions that I'm referring to are hurting equally as much as the colleges. A MEMBER: Name them, name them . HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: As a class? As a class? Day care centres . Day care centres are paying municipal and school taxes in many situations . Now I don 't know how we could just say "okay, we're going to give that exemption ·at the present time to one group of institutions - the colleges - but you poor folks in the day cares from Morris," - not Morris , I'm sorry - "from Carman and from a number of rural communities, from within the city," saying " sorry folks, you 're going to have to wait until 1990. " I think that , hopefully, there can be found within the very near future some way of addressing both of those concerns.

Incidentally, the other pr-:>blem is that my understanding of the resolution , and I don 't know if I have it here - yes, I do - it calls for an exemption . Certainly , I've been receiving correspndence from individuals who are supportive of this resolution . . . " Why aren't you treating the colleges in the same way you treat St. John's or St. Paul 's or whatever?" The fact, as the member knows, the Province of Manitoba, through our department, I believe, provides for grants in lieu of taxes to the city, to the municipal jurisdictions.

This bill would require an expenditure of probably in excess of $200,000 unless we wanted to exempt them without any compensation for the City of Winnipeg or the R.M. of De Salaberry or whatever. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty how the Minister is trying to rationalize his position . He compares the Bible colleges with day care centres and says we've got to treat everybody fair . . . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: They are equally worthy institutions. MR. A. DRIEDGER: ... until we come up with something .

You know, we waited many years for the reassessment or for the proper review to be done of the assessment system . What the Minister is telling me, that yes, it is unfair what is happening to these colleges , but we will leave it that way because I don't know how to deal with it any further because there's other people unhappy as well. What we're asking for is fairness for these colleges as well as these other colleges. In the private members ' bill it does not say anything about grants in lieu of taxes . It just asks for exemption from taxation at this stage of the game.

I know full well the implications of that to the R.M. of De Salaberry or to the City of Winnipeg. They will , between the four of them , or between the two jurisdictions, lose $212 ,000 in taxes. I'm well aware of that . I am not asking for grants in lieu of taxes because it could of not brought the bill forward. That is why I ask, in the name of fairness, for this Minister to allow that bill to go through rather than have these colleges pay their taxes for another three years. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Min ister of Educ ation. HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Chairperson , I think the Member for Emerson is pleading a case that, obviously, members on this side have some sympathy with . The fact is that I have met with representatives of the colleges in question as well, and they are in difficult circumstances . I think the analogy that the Minister of Municipal Affairs makes with day care centres is one that holds water. I think that the analogy that the Bible colleges make with St. John 's College or St. Andrew 's doesn 't hold water.

Those are public institutions and have been, for a considerable length of time, funded by the public and it's simply something that has been done with other public educational institutions over a long period of time . We're being asked, and the Member for Emerson is asking us, to really impose a cost-measure on a municipality .

If we were doing this for foisting off costs onto the municipality by acts of-the Legislature to the R.M . of - I don 't know what the Member for Arthur 's R.M . is in Melita - but the municipalities in the Member for Arthur's area, the Member for Emerson and his colleagues would be hitting the roof. They'd say "You can't just turn around and unilaterally, by

an act of the Legislature, have the municipalities paying this kind of money. They can't afford to forego that kind of taxes." They're talking out of both sides of their mouth, Mr. Chairperson . The fact of the matter is that the municipalities can make a decision to relieve the colleges of their obligations. I haven 't seen the Member for Emerson going before the council of the R.M. of De Salaberry or the Member for Arthur or any of his colleagues before the City Council of Winnipeg demanding some relief . That's where the relief can be given .

And if you are so concerned , as you pretend to be, then let's see you take the initiative and go with the colleges and go before the municipalities and make that plea because they have the power to give relief . They don 't need any further authorization by the Department of Municipal Affairs . They don't need a change in legislation . And if you are really concerned , let's see your support where your support belongs. 2411

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the Minister of Education spoke up because he is the other side of the dirty coin that is opposing this unfairness. He is not trea ting this issue fairly because the previous Minister of Educ ation , along with the Minister of Municipal Affairs , both gave their commitment to this thing, and this Minister here and that Minister there are the ones that are reneging on it. I'm asking - I 've asked in fairness when I pleaded my case with that bill when I presented the bill - I'm asking again.

You people talk of fairness , you want fairness, the government to deal fairly - everybody agrees it is not fair - and you're throwing up road blocks, you come up with day care centres, you come up with all kinds of othe r issues. That is not the point. You have indicated in the House that you want to deal fairly with the people of Manitoba . These people have not been dealt with fairly for many, many years . You use other provinces , for an example , Saskatchewan and Alberta, and with many cases what has happened there.

In this particular case , compare what other provinces do - Manitoba is the only province which does not exempt , to some degree or totally , Bible colleges . So if you want to talk about fairness , what you're telling me right now , this Minister of Education and Minister of Municipal Affairs, that we're going to put this unfairness on hold for another three years. All you have to do is support that bill. If the Minister had had any guts he would have brought an amendment forward to The Municipal Act himself to deal with this unfair situation.

The Minister of Educa tion tells me, if I feel so sincere about it, to go and deal with the municipality or with the City of Winnipeg . They have made their case already ; they have made their case . You're hiding behind this issue. You do not want to deal with it.- (lnterjection)­ Well, it's a serious issue , the Member for Lakeside . I finally flushed out the two culprits who are stalling this unfairness and who are dealing with the Bible colleges, I finally flus hed them out .

It 's the Minister of Education and the Minister of Muncipal Affairs who are not allowing this bill to proceed and stopped the amendment which the government should have brought in, in fairness . Is the government prepared to allow this unfair situation to continue for another three years? That's all I'm asking . We can go through all the details about how they have - I shouldn't get that excited, I stumble over my words. But the colleges that are referred to, the St. John 's College , St. Paul's College, they are religious colleges.

They also have certain subjects that are unive rsity-related .- (Interjection)- Identical, identical. Well, so are these. My son just graduated with a degree in Theology from CMBC and he took courses that are related to university and he has credits there right now. So let's not use that ; let's be honest and fair about this situation . I basically want to ask you , the Minister of Education and Minister of Municipal Affairs, are you going to allow another three years of unfairness , for the Bible colleges? A MEMBER: They will. They will. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Would the Minister of Municipal Affairs be prepared to answer that? He's indicated that it isn't ·going far enough. Then let's do this as an interim measure. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Education . HON. J. STORIE: I recognize that the Minister of Municipal Affairs may have his own feelings about the necessity or the appropriateness of changing the legislation , but the case that the Member for Emerson makes is clearly not analogous between the Bible colleges and the other colleges , which have been affiliated with the University of Manitoba for a long time .

I do recognize that the University of Manitoba recognizes some of the courses that are offered through some of the colleges . Howeve r, Mr. Chairperson, the point that he is making is anothe r one and I suppose is a question of whether in fact those institutions are prepared to become affiliated in more ways than simply a parallel, in terms of some of the courses they 're offering and whether they 're prepared to become in fact public institutions . I understood from those institutions that's not their intent .

But the member ignores the point that the municipalities are the jurisdiction , which has the authority to relieve these colleges of their obligations. The member has chosen for, I think, essentially political reasons, to jump over that step because he and perhaps some of his colleagues are reluctant to approach the jurisdiction that has responsibility because there are significant financial implications. I recognize that the colleges have approached the municipality .

I'm asking the Member for Emerson if he has lent his weight or if his caucus has lent their weight to any of those proposals, whether they have stood up and said to the muncipalities, yes, we believe this is of significant enough value to the municipality and to the colleges that we're prepared to take a stand on it. He has chosen instead to highlight it as a political issue, jump over the jurisdiction that has the responsibility and has the authority to implement a resolution and turn it into a political football.

I don 't think that's good politics and I don't think that's good for the institutions that he supposedly represents. MR. A. DRIEDGER: The Minister responsible for Education is way off track . If he would look back to when I introduced this subject of the Bile colleges for the first time, which was a long time ago, when the then-Minister of Municipal Affairs , Mr. Adam from Ste. Rose, was involved; and Vic Schroeder , who was then the Minister of Finance, was involved; a long time back when they made a commitment already that they would try and deal with it in a broader scope. I've used that in my speeches .

The Minister of Education, now I know where the problem is. It is not with the Minister of Municipal Affairs , it is with the Minister of Education that is basically stopping this thing ; and the Minister of Municipal Affairs , in spite of what he believes , doesn't have the guts to take and go forward with it. That's where we're at right now. This individual that's sitting right opposite here, the Minister of Education, is the one's that responsible for it. I want to take time, Mr. Chairman , to illustrate when 2412

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 he says that I'm playing politics with it, why don't we put our caucus support behind this thing and go and raise the issue somewhere else. This issue was raised as not a political issue, it was raised in 1983 when I introduced a Private Member's bill just for the Winnipeg Bible College. At that time, a commitment was made that there would be something done about it, that's in'83 . Nothing was done.

The commitment again by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Education in'85 proceeded with - now I know that it is the Minister of Education that has stopped this government amendment coming forward, and is the one that is stopping the support for Bill No. 17. This Minister can take that responsibility. He says I'm playing politics with it. What are you playing then? Because you're not being fair. You're a Minister that has responsibility to treat the people in Manitoba fairly and you are the one that is scuttling the whole thing . You talk of fairness; your credibility in my eyes has gone down.

Don't accuse me of playing politics with an issue of this nature . It's a very personal, sincere matter with me and I don't take that from you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to particularly interrupt the important discussion with respect to some relief for worthwhile educational facilities in our province. But I would ask the Minister to take to heart the comments of my colleague, the Member for Emerson , and perhaps even more importantly the promises made by colleagues who are currently sitting in his Cabinet.

I refer to the current Minister of Industry and Small Business and Technology, Mr. Schroeder, who's on record in written form, in letter form; a former Minister of Education, Ms. Maureen Hemphill, who is also on record; indicating a commitment to resolving the issue. So I believe my colleague, the Member for Emerson, has an understandably legitimate grievance when he raises it with you, who we would look to as being the lead Minister in terms of bringing about a change that has been requested for a period of years now by these colleges . But, Mr.

Chairman, from Bible colleges to the quarrying of limestone rock - let me change the subject to a particular problem that I have, which I am sure the Minister is aware of and the department is aware of - that is the difficulties, the unique situation that the Rural Municipality of Rockwood faces with their expanding and fairly substantial quarrying operations just north of the community of Stonewall. I would believe that the department, the Minister, has been approached and is in possession of a brief with respect to their concerns.

Before the Minister delights in reminding me that it was a Conservative administration that I was part of, that removed the quarry and gravel from The Mineral Act -(lnterjection)- 1 believe it was probably. A MEMBER: I wasn't going to do that then. MR. H. ENNS: Well, I just anticipate, knowing how we like to remind ourselves from time to time of perhaps mistakes made in the past. Although, I'm not suggesting that was necessarily a mistake; it was always a grey area where the grave l pouring was a mining operation, and we faced a great deal of pressure at that time to make the change and the change was made.

However , I do believe that Rockwood has a unique case. I'm aware that the -department has responded to these requests to indicate that other municipalities that have, perhaps, a great deal of oil activity have to put up with that disturbance of their land base, or gravel pits , etc.; but I suggest to you Mr. Chairman - and you know enough of the operation, you drive through that part of the country - it is unique. Governments and the department ought to be able to be flexible enough to recognize the uniqueness. In the case of these other activities, the disturbance to the land base is minimal.

It is certainly minimal compared to the situation that the R.M. of Rockwood faces when they are going to be left with massive holes in the ground - and they are big holes in the ground. There is now a very substantial level of pouring going on; upwards of 400-450 trucks a day are operating out of those quarries. I personally have had the opportunity of visiting them on site . I would like to invite the Minister, perhaps along with his colleague , the Minister of Natural Resources, to meet with the R.M. of Rockwood and to discuss the issue with them.

If we were still involved, if the quarrying operation was considered a mineral, I would be making an appeal under The Mines Act whereby we have set up a lun e. to help communities when an ore body runs out. There's a particular name - the Minimal Reserve Fund, I believe it's called - that will be helpful and is helpful right now in communities such as Lynn Lake or Leaf Rapids where mineral activity is winding down , where the community requires transitional assistance .

In searching around for a possible area that could be explored, it's that kind of a situation that I would ask the Minister to take a hard look at - whether or not a relatively modest royalty tax could not be applied to the quarrying operations in Stonewall , in the R.M. of Rockwood, and that monies could be set aside in trust for the future redevelopment , landscaping or whatever, of these unsightly holes in the ground that the operation will leave the municipality with.

Concurrently, a portion of the monies could assist the municipality in meeting really an unfair burden of cost, particularly on the municipal road system , while this pouring operation is taking place. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me a reasonably straightforward situation. I'm not asking this department or this government to put up additional funds. I know funds are hard to come by in this day and age for all governments . There seems to me to be a reasonable case to be made to impose a reasonable royalty on the operators. It 's difficult to ask the municipality to do that.

They would probably have difficulty with jurisdiction as well in terms of the classification of the operation . I don't know. I'm simply asking the Minister to, along with me and the R.M . of Rockwood , explore ways of trying to resolve that issue for the R.M. of Rockwood . The last and final thing that we have to remember is that in this case it's not as though an oil well runs dry and the oil rig is removed off the property as they do in certain areas and all you have left is a 4 inch, 5 inch hole in the ground that is capped. Here you are 2413 d

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 literally seeing sections of land that have been scooped out to the depth of 40-50 feet that will fill up with water and that's what is left of the operation . Let 's be very candid about it. This is being done on private land. The corporations that own the land are paying their fair share of municipal taxes . The municipality can no doubt be advised , and no doubt is taxing to the best of their ability , or what they believe is the competitive tax rate , but when this land has been quarr ied out, these owners will simply walk away from it.

With the last truck of quarry rock that they pull out of the pit , they will drop off at the municipal office with the title to the land and hand the title back to the municipality , saying "It's all yours ." I think it's prudent that some forward thinking and action takes place on our part to assist the R.M. of Rockwood which, after all, is relatively small. We're talking about an R.M. with an average population base of whatever it is, 2,800 to 3,000 people. They are recognizing the problem and they are asking us to try to help them with it.

We're talking about something that may not be applicable for another 25 or 30 or 40 years in some instances , but a request has come forward from the councillors , from the reeve of the R.M. of Rockwood. I've met with them, as I indicated earlier. I invite the Minister to take a second look at the situation and see 1if we can't help the R.M. of Rockwood resolve this issue . I commend and compliment the councillors of Rockwood in recognizing that there will be a problem that perhaps they won't have to face, but future councillors will face.

They are enjoying the revenues from the taxation at the current time, although it's at a considerable cost to them in the maintenance of municipal roads and other difficulties that they have to put up with , but they are cognizant of the fact that it does provide an economic base in the area , it does provide employment.

I'm not suggesting any curtailment of that , but they are, I think, progressive enough to look into the future and hope that some monies are set aside from this profitable operation so that future councils can sit down and begin some reclamation work when the quarrying is done and to be of some assistance in the additional costs , particularly in the transportation area . HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Just before I respond to the remarks of the Member for Lakeside, and it's unfortunate that our colleague from Emerson is gone - I just wanted to assure him that I accept the sincerity of his feelings on the issue of some form of tax relief for the four or five colleges that have been referenced in Bill 17. I wou ld hope , however, that the member would also recognize that while colleges are exempt from school taxes , there are other institutions - and I made reference to day cares - there are probably others who are even burdened with that form of tax.

As a matter of fact, in the City of Winnipeg , you will find that institutions of learning , I suppose - day cares - may be taxed in one of five different ways. Some pay municipal school taxes , some pay commercial taxes , some pay municipal taxes only, some don 't pay anything, and I think it's equally unfair to subject that particular group of publicly owned - or they serve the public - facilities to the taxes they are bearing . There is a problem of simply imposing something on the municipalities.

The Member for Emerson has acknowledged that the loss in revenue to the municipal bodies would be $212 ,000 this year. I don 't know how comfortable he would feel simply saying to the R.M . of De Salaberry today, " Sorry folks , you had $40 ,000 of taxes you were counting on , but you ain't getting it." I don 't know; I think there has to be some way in which we can provide these municipal bodies with sufficient lead time so they 're not faced with that kind of a crisis. As I indicated , I'm certainly not unsympathetic to the intent of the bill. It is a matter of trying to resolve a number of problems .

Another one that I should mention is that broadening the list of exemptions , and whether it be to include the Bible colleges and day cares and whatever other institutions, in fact would be in conflict with the Weir Committee recommendations. I've consistently said we are moving toward full implementation within a matter of two or three years. It would certainly be my preference to have as few exemptions as possible and allowing the local municipal bodies the greatest flexibility possible to exempt those institutions that they felt worthy of exemption .

On the other hand, I know that the colleges, and one or two in particular, are having a very difficult financial time and I can understand why there is the support, presumably, from all members opposite , certainly from a number of members , if not all, on this side , and certainly from the public; and I certainly have been receiving a considerable number of letters and we will be responding. On the matter of the R.M. of Rockwood, I want to thank the Member for Lakeside for his remarks . Yes, I'm aware of that study ; I've had it for quite a number of months . I have had a number of discussions with the council.

I've been called out on a Sunday afternoon to take a look at their flooding problems and I think that we do have to take a very serious look at that particular situation. It is somewhat unique. I don 't know; it 's either unique or it isn't, but it is certainly different from many other situations. I did meet with the council a matter of two or three weeks ago on a different issue , but the matter of the quarries was raised and I did commit myself to the council to take a look at that later on this summer and give it some very serious thought with a real serious effort to try and deal with the problems.

The most immediate problem is, while the Member for Lakeside has raised the question of what will be there 20 years or 30 years down the road , and there'll be big deep holes, I admit, but even more immediate is the problem of maintaining roads , keeping that dust down , and trying to avoid accidents and bearing the cost of constantly repairing those roads. That , I think , is an issue that has to be dealt with .

The noise issue, of course that hopefully will be dealt with by the Clean Environment Commission that held hearings last week ; but, yes , the particular report that the member was holding up, that will be given some very thorough review and I would welcome any form of advice that the Member for Lakeside has to offer. MR. H. ENNS: I appreciate the Minister's comments . 2414

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 I would ask the Minister to perhaps have staff take a look at whether or not a relatively minor amendment to The Mineral Reserve Act could be made which would simply designate that as a mining operation. And , as such , under that act, aside from the royalties accruing to the province, the Department of Finance, there is under Regulations a specific sum that is set aside for the express purposes of The Mineral Reserves Act which is to help reclaim .

It's very broad in that instance, but I'd ask staff to look at The Mineral Reserves Act , whether or not that may not be an appropriate vehicle to use. Let me indicate to the Minister that I would be pleased to support him and to encourage my caucus to support the Minister should he deem that would be an appropriate avenue or any other avenue. I simply indicate to him that it seems to me that many problems that governments' and Ministers' staff face are not all that tangible or that approachable. You know , you can walk up to this problem and see a big hole .

You can see that it's going to be a problem 10 years from now, and what do you do with it? What they are asking, really, is a relatively modest royalty of a few cents a tonne of quarry set aside now which would, in my judgment, provide the answer. I appreciate the Minister's and the department's response . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: We'll take that advice under review . MR. H. ENNS: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, just to conclude the discussion on this matter - and I do support my colleague in his endeavour to try and get something resolved to support the municipal councils - I believe it impacts on any municipality when we see a resource indust ry other than the traditional types move in and cause havoc with the roads . It's not unlike what happens in the oil fields, although the oil fields, I believe , the municipal itie s have an opportunity, or do, in fact, have a tax assessment on each oil site. There is a revenue comes back from them.

If one were to try and resolve it, it would appear as if the purchaser of the product probably, the beneficiaries of it, would have some responsibility in supporting the municipality in the upkeep of the roads. However, I appreciate the Minister's willingness , as the Member for the Lakeside , to look at it. Mr. Chairman , I would like to deal with the Education Tax Program that has been recently introduced in the Budget by the Minister of Agriculture, and ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs: Does it fall within his jurisdiction to administer the program, or how is it going to be dealt with by government?

Will it be a grant under this section? Will that be how it happens, a grant from the Municipal Department , or how do they plan on dealing with it? What's the proposal to put this program in place? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The Education Assistance Program - the Highways Department or lead department on thi s is Agriculture. Well, I believe all three departments have been involved - Municipal Affairs , Finance and Agr iculture - in the meeting with municipal or the organizations , I believe. It's just Agriculture and Municipal Affairs that have met with the municipal bodies .

It will be administered basically through the Department of Agriculture. MR. J. DOWNEY: " Basically administered through the Departm ent of Agriculture " - you mean to say that the Department of Agriculture will be issuing cheques? There must be an explanation as to how the program will work . As well , I know that feedback from some of the municipal corporations to me have indicated somewhat confusion in the way in which the whole program is being handled and the fact that there 's lax detail. I would ask the Minister as well if he has any comments to make as to who qualifies .

Does he not think that every taxpayer who is owner of farm land should qualify or does he just think it's the operator, as indicated by the Minister of Agriculture? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The details of the delivery or implementation of the program hopefully will be announced within the next week or two . There has been consultation and I'm pleased that we have the cooperation of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, in having their municipal offices assist with the delivery of the assistance to the owner-operators of property within the municipality .

For those who are not owner -operators - there may well be other ones that will be administered directly through the municipal offices , but for the other categories, there will be a central administration to handle what I suspect would be seen as somewhat more complex cases. But to a large extent, the municipal offices will be providing the benefits to the owner­ operators.

It will not necessarily be a cheque ; it may well be that if the program can get on the road soon enough , that the municipal bodies will be able to process the applications, forward them to the Department of Agriculture or Finance, whichever one it may be, and have a credit applied against the taxes owing, so that there will not necessarily be cheques going directly from the Department of Agriculture to the farmer . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, again we've got another bunch of red tape and unnecessary activity being imposed upon the farm community in Manitoba to get what is rightfully theirs, and that is a benefit as far as the relief of education taxes . Can you just imagine , Mr. Chairman , the municipal corporations now have been given the responsibility to make an assessment as to whether or not the person is actually the owner-operator, whether he's farming it, whether he or she isn't . Mr. Chairman, wouldn't it be a lot easier to rightfully give all property owners the relief of education taxes under the program?

The cost of the administ ration, the policing , the snooping , all of this unnecessary red tape and carry-on is just what drives people around the bend, Mr. Chairman. I would think that everybody who owns property and pays taxes needs the tax relief . I don 't feel that they should have to be owner-operators . I think that there 2415

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 are people renting their land out who should qualify as well. They're certainly feeling the burden of taxation , the bite , and in 99.9 percen t of the cases they have been farmers at one time in their life, unable to sell it because of the tough economic conditions in our society under a New Democratic Party in the Province of Manitoba. Why wouldn't he give the relief to everyone straight through , everyone who has an education bill on their tax bill, a $500 relief , make it somewhat simple, rather than to try and split hairs and determine?

There's going to be cases where they can't determine whether or not the person's an owner-operator , whether he's renting or she's renting her land to somebody else or whether they're not. It puts the onus on municipal corporations ; sometimes it may put them in a little bit of an embarrassing situation . For all the savings, and if it's just for strictly a - I don't know what reason that they would not want to have a landowner, if he or she wasn 't farming it, not to get that benefit .

Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs tell me why he wouldn't want them to get the benefit from the tax relief on education costs, whether they're operating it or whether they're not? What's the reason? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Perhaps before responding to that, I'll just make some reference to a province that in discriminately made loans available to farmers whether they needed them or not in an attempt to get re-elected and are finding themselves, having made those loans now, with having to write off $300 million or being advised by the Auditor to write off $300 million, being put into a position where they have to bring about the most vicious cuts any government has had to do in the recent history -(Interjection)- That's Saskatchewan.

You see, we believe that money, which is difficult to come by for provinces , for municipalities, or for any other level of government , you use it where it serves the best purpose. And it is the existing farmers who are facing the crisis, not the person that is a landowner. It is the operator who is facing a situation where , if something can't be done with his input costs, he will no longer be in business. The land will still be there. It is this government's philosophy, priority, and we certainly will differ as to who's entitled to the $12 million.

It has been our position that it is the operator who should be the beneficiary of those funds. I want to assure the member that staff from the different departments have been working very hard over the past number of weeks to try to come up with as simple a means as possible for the owner­ operators to claim the benefits that are available . We haven't even gone political like the Federal Government has and said, if you want application forms , go to the constituency offices. We didn't do that kind of thing; we didn' t have about four or five sources .

Hopefully, there will be a simple form that the municipal staff can assist in completing , if need be. Hopefully , there will be no requirement for any kind of snooping or invasion of privacy. Hopefully, it will be straightforward, which will result in an expeditious turnaround so that the monies get back into the municipal coffers or back to the farmers who have paid their taxes; and where it is a little more complex , let provincial staff do that. But I'm sure the member would be equally critical if there was a brig ade of civil servants being required to administer these applications . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, I can again recommend a very simplistic way of handling it. He's got two lines on his tax form that is sent out to all the landowners . It's General, Municipal Taxes and School Taxes. Each person qualifies up to a maximum of $500 deduction on education tax . Is that correct? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The total benefits under the Property Tax Rebates and the Pensioners ' School Tax Assistance and this fund that was announced this spring will probably be about $1,000.00. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, the point is that all he has to do is to say that where a person qualifies up to $500 relief on education tax, put it on there, or reduce it from his education taxes, instead of going around trying to determine who should and who shouldn't get it, owner-operators. I can tell you , Mr. Chairman , I know quite a few people who are former farmers who have retired, depending on the rent from their land - a lot of it's third crop share - they need the $500 rel ief as much as the owner-operator does . They're depending on it, Mr. Chairman.

They get caught with the increased taxation that's imposed on them by this government in every other form, whether it's the increased sales tax , whether it's the 2 percent on their income, Mr. Chairman. They're in as much need as anyone else . He can 't say that it's only the owner ­ operator that needs the relief. Anyone who is owning that land, who has farmed it, Mr. Chairman, and 99 percent of the property is owned by former farmers who are depending on that for a form of income, need the relief.

I'll bet you that he spends more time and more money than what he'll save in trying to pick out those few people who he or his government don 't think should get it. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would be a bad gesture to those people who are trying to maintain their farms, whether they ' re keeping them for their sons or daughters , renting it to someone else, or whatever, I would bet you that if he gave $500 relief to every individual that he wouldn't be going too far wrong . And I can tell you, Mr.

Chairman , the Minister can look for some criticism over the coming weeks and months from us, because they aren't handling this properly . Again, they're playing political games with it and not really getting out and meaningfully helping the people. He can make all kinds of references to Saskatchewan if he likes . If you're going to, Mr. Chairman, put money some place, some place that you're not going to get it back, you'd be far better to put it in the hands of the farmers of Manitoba than the sheiks of Saudi Arabia . That's really where it boils down to.

You'd be far better to leave it in the hands of the farmers in Manitoba than the sheiks ' pockets of Saudi Arabia . That's really where it boils down to . Now he may want to prefer the sheiks of Saudi Arabia; I prefer the farmers of Manitoba , Mr. Chairman, or the small business people of Manitoba , the people that generate the income that this Minister squanders and wastes in his ill-conceived administration 's approach to general policy . 2416

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 Mr. Chairman , I just would have thought the Minister would have said, yes, the Minister of Agriculture's approach is insane, absolutely impossible to administer and our department have recommended a straight, where they qualify, $500 off and everybody gets it. That , Mr. Chairman , I don't mind leaving on the record and I'll make sure the Minister hears about it throughout the coming weeks. Mr. Chairman, lines (

f) and (

g) on the portion of which we're debating right here, the Police Services grant is down from $662,200 to $548,200; General Support grants they have increased, but the other one is reduced. Explain the differences in these two figures, if he could, please. Why a reduction in the one and HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, if I may, I would like to refer the member to pages 71 and 72 of the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review. You'll note that in 1985 the grants were $636,000, as part of the Police Services grants program. There was a phase-out period for one year and that cost them $114,000 last year.

So the Police Services grants for this year will be down in the low $500's , $543,000 I believe, $548,200.00. So the difference is because of the phase-out not being there this year. MR. J. DOWNEY: But there's less money going into Police Services grants. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes. MR. J. DOWNEY: How does that impact on the actual support to municipalities, or what the municipalities have to put into it themselves? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: As the member knows, the assistance is to those municipalities where their costs are in excess of the provincial average.

I believe the provincial average last year was 17.3 mills, so those municipalities that had a higher police cost than that were provided a grant up to a maximum of $100,000.00. As the average goes up then the amount of assistance to this program will in fact decrease . This is something that will have to be looked at. One would refer this eventually to the Advisory Committee, because there's the other issue of Treherne and Hamiota's part of the same issue. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My question to the Minister is, this half mill that is being applied to all the municipalities, what amount of money does that generate? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: About $400,000.00. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Mr. Minister, are you then indicating that you're paying out more than what you're receiving through that grant structure? Is that correct? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That is correct. Last year the province paid out approximately $200,000 more than it took in on that tax. MR. H.

PANKRATZ: Before this half mill was applied to the municipalities , what was the amount of money that, like just the previous year because this is the second year I believe that the half mill is being applied . Am I correct? The year before that, what was the amount of money that the province paid out in grant at that stage? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm advised that before the half mill was imposed on municipal bodies that the provincial contributions were about $167 - $187,000.00. MR. H. PANKRATZ: I'd just like to make one comment to the Minister .

He was talking before in respect to easing the tax burden on colleges and religious institutions, that he didn't want to tamper with the assessment problem and so forth in that matter, but to apply a half mill right across the board in the whole Province of Manitoba in all the municipalities . That wasn't tampering with it? Do you not consider that as being tampering with the assessment problem as well? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The half mill imposition was not an initiative of the department or the Minister per se.

My understanding is, that there was a committee which had representation from the municipal organizations which in fact had recommended a one mill tax. But I do recall at that time, understanding the difficulties that rural Manitoba was undergoing that it was decided that we would only go with half a mill. But it was not unilaterally imposed on the municipal bodies by the government or the ministry. MR. H.

PANKRATZ: Well, my last and final question basically is, the Minister indicated before that with having discussed this with the top personnel person, I believe, from the RCMP in respect to cutting out some of the services in three communities which were mentioned before, and he made the comment that they were going to give a better service. And my question I would like to pose to the Minister is, how can you with removing staff , even though you're going to imp lemen t better equipment but still with removing staff, provide better service? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I could say that with respect to the Winnipeg Beach detachment, where a number of officers were being transferred to the neighbouring detachment, and not requiring an officer to be there in an administrative capacity, the message from the RCMP office was that in fact there would be more - in a sense the officers would be doing more policing than they are doing at the present time, and less sitting behind a desk and doing administrative work.

So with a larger detachment and with a greater flexibility for different schedules, and so on, the impression was very clearly left that the police services would be equal or better than they are at the present time. MR. H. PANKRATZ: To the Minister, in some of these communities like my colleague has raised in his constituency, they will get every bit as many police hours as they've had before within that community as now, since moving the office. Am I correct? 2417

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I don't know what the specific arrangement has been in the Deloraine area, but I am quite aware of what had been proposed for Winnipeg Beach-Gimli. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Okay, I'm through. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to make a comment and a question perhaps with regard to the education tax on farm land that is going to be initiated to help, as the Minister indicated, farmer operators.

But I would like to make the Minister aware that it's not just the farmer-operators who are being affected by the incredible taxes on farm land to support education because, as we know now , there are some new ways in which leases are arranged between the farmer and perhaps the owner of a piece of property. That arrangement may be whereby the costs of operation are paid , first of all, and then after all costs of operation, including taxes, are paid , the profit is divided between the operator and the landowner .

In addition , many of the landowners have decreased their expectations of the operator of the farm land because of the fact that there is a depressed economic situation in the rural areas. So the benefit that is going to be reflected in this grant, or this subsidy, should not just go to the farmer operators but also should go to all the owners of farm land property.

And it amazes me somewhat to see again another program that the government has initiated which is going to be bungled up by the bureaucracy of this government, just as the Buy-Down Program for MAGG, just as the FarmStart Program was which no one is using at the present time, and all of these programs seem to be designed not to give proper assistance to the people who need it, but instead try to give the impression that there is some assistance coming and the n in the end it dwindles down to nothing. If we talk to farmers through the rural area , you will find that this in fact is the case.

Here again we have another program, this Education Tax Rebate Program, which the government made a big hoopla about in its announcement in the Throne Speech, which is starting to take a changed form altogether, where municipalities are now going to have to administer. Again, it takes the onus off the government, and now not every farmer or every owner of farm land is going to qualify, now we are going to select them . All of a sudden the government wants to be the policeman , the administrator and the judge of who's going to get it and who's not going to get it.

I think it's extremely unfair in a program that was supposed to be designed to help all owners of property who are paying an unfair share of education tax in this province. I'd like to hear the Minister's response to why he feels that those owners of property who are not necessar ily farming it should be depr ived of that benefit. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: As the member knows , there is a commitment of about $12 million to help offset the education taxes on farm land. It would not be that difficult to provide benefits to both owner-operators and owners .

The trouble is you would then defuse that so that the people who we feel have the greatest need at the present time would get the maximum benefit available. I've said that clearly we disagree. You feel that it should be to the owners; we have said it's the actual people involved in farming , whether it be owner­ operators or owners who should be beneficiary of this $12 million. I presume there's nothing to prevent a sharing between the owner and the operator , if they're two different people.

I mean they've probably been able to come to some sort of agreement , as the Member of Roblin-Russell has indicated, as to how they arrive at some sort of a lease , so they should be able to arrive at some way of sharing this benefit. But I guess the main thing is that this $12 million, in addition to the other property rebate programs and pensioners' school tax assistance programs and other programs , in fact, offsets about 50 percent of the education cost on farm land , which was one of your commitments, I believe, during the campaign which is certainly our commitment.

Now eventually, as we move to Assessment Reform, as we make decisions as to whether or not farm buildings are to be assessed and taxed, as we make decisions as to whether farm residents are to be taxed, it is certainly my hope that we will move to removing and maintaining less than the 50 percent education costs, move as far away as we can of education taxes on farm land, but that takes time.

I keep stressing over and over again, Assessment Reform, and I'm sure the members believe this, too, is a very complex issue - hundreds of millions of bits of information to put in place before we can even determine what direction we should be moving. That will take another two, three years. This is an interim measure, whether it's here for one year, or two years, or three years, but eventually it would be my hope that we can remove as much of the education tax from farm land as possible, so that it's one less issue that our farmers have to worry about or deal with . MR. L.

DERKACH: Well, I think the initiative was welcome, at least the intent of the initiative was welcome, by all farmers in the province . But I want to make the Minister aware that there could be vast changes in the agreements that there are between owner-operators and owners of farm property because I could very easily become an operator of farm land if, instead of making a lease agreement with the person who operates my land, I all of a sudden will that it's okay, the arrangement that you and I have now is one of where you will custom­ work my property, I am now the owner-operator of this land.

There are going to be all kinds of manipulations just to be able to get that maximum $500 of tax that this government is committing. I'm sure that it's going to be a nightmare to administer and the Minister should be aware of that. I would have to agree with my colleague from Arthur, who states why don't we use the simplest form possible in going to the tax statement that comes to the farmer, or to the owner of that property, and so be it. I mean 2418

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 maybe it'll decrease the benefit to the owner-operators, but I think let's look at the fairness of it. And the people who own the land are also taking a dive in this kind of an economy because they have reduced their expectations from the landowners or the operators , who are growing the crops on the farm land, so they deserve a break just as well as the guy who's operating the farm land. I would encourage the Minister , if he has any input into this matter, to take a very serious look at the whole aspect and the results of that before they implement ii. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Arthur.

MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, I think probably we can move on to the next section, the Municipal Assessments . MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. 3.(

a) to 3.(g), inclusive , were each read and passed. Resolution No. 111: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $30 ,455,800 for Municipal Affairs, Municipal Advisory and Financial Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1988-pass. We now begin with 4.(

a) Municipal Assessments , Salaries - the Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister give us an update as to the assessment across the province? I understand there was a completion of rural assessment in 1985. Just give me an update as to the current status of assessment across the province. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I don't even know what kind of specific information the member wishes to have , but I'm advised that all property, whether it be land or buildings or farm residences, has been assessed and is on the rolls.

The priority of the branch has been to move towards the market value assessment and , therefore, information is being updated as much as is possible. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman , a lot of the land that's particularly in the western regions - I know they 'd probably do it by region - a lot of the properties were assessed at a time when land values were somewhat higher than they are today, which has had a fairly major impact on the taxes which are being paid by a lot of landowners and property owners .

I'm wondering, in view of the fact the department has moved to market values and that the market in a lot of cases, particularly dealing with agricultural land , has decreased substantially - I know in some areas from 25 percent lower than it was probably in 1981 to the current values or being 25 percent lower now than it was in 1981 and substantially more than that in some particular communities - is there a move now to balance that out or to reestimate or revalue the lands based on the market value and lowering the assessments of those properties? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: The assessment values at the present time reflect 20 percent of 1975 market valu e. When the assessment rolls are updated over the next year or two , hopefully completed by '89, by '90 for sure , they will reflect 100 percent of 1984 values . I understand exactly what the member is saying , is that those who have been assessed when land prices were high are now sitting with a high assessment, which does not necessarily reflect'what the land is worth today. When assessment reform is implemented , the cycle will certainly hopefully not be as long as it is at the present time.

We may have - what ? - a two or three-year update , so there is certainly some benefit to assessment reform . The other thing is though that where you have, let's say, a municipality - I 'm going from the top of head, but I think I'm right - where the land value may have decreased , an assessment value would be lower today than it was in 1981. The costs for the operation of municipalities nonetheless have a certain level, and therefore the mill rate would be higher with a lower assessment, so it balances off. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, D. Scott: The Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Chairman, as I heard the Minister , he said 1990 we would see the assessment process. We'll be using 100 percent of market value . Is that correct? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: 1984 market value. MR. J. DOWNEY: 1984 market value. So that, in fact, it should reflect then the lower market values of property as it relates to the marketplace and farm economy. Is that correct? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That would be correct. MR. J. DOWNEY: He indicates all buildings as well . When will the Minister be moving to implement taxation on farm buildings and outbuildings? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: It is a matter that is going to be undergoing some thorough review this fall. We will very seriously take a look at the advisability of taxing farm residences with a view to , at the same time , decreasing taxes on farm land. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well I'm encouraged, Mr. Chairman, to hear the decrease on farm land. Is he talking about further decreases, other than those being talked about on education taxes? Is that what he's referring to? Is he referring to the education tax removal, or is he talking about further tax removal on farm lands? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: As I indicated, this whole matter is going to be under review this fall. It's complex, and we will have to establish what the impacts might be in terms of education taxes and municipal taxes . On the basis of the information that will be made available to us, we will decide whether or not it is advisable to begin further implementation of the Weir Commission recommendations in 1988 or 1989 or right until 1990. MR. J. DOWNEY: So in other words, he talks about a major review. He's talking about a review by his 2419

Tuesday, 26 May, 1987 department or by some other formalized group, such as the Weir Commission , or what is he talking about when he talks about a major review? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I am specifically referring to the matter of farm residences and farm buildings . That was the question that was asked. The review will be taken primarily by the Department of Municipal Affairs, by Mr. Brown's department, but it will be done interdepartmentally so that the Department of Finance will be able to contribute, the Department of Agriculture will have a view on this issue.

On the basis of the outcome of that study, we will then decide whether or not we will move further next year. MR. J. DOWNEY: What's the Minister moving on and why has he now decided that it would be this fall? Is that for preparation of Estimates, for government taxation purposes , or what has motivated him to make the move , say, this fall? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: It is a complex issue and certainly to get the best idea of what the impacts will be will take considerable time.

There's a tremendous amount of information has to be gathered and manipulated and reviewed and recommendations made to a number of Ministers, who will then make the appropriate decisions. MR. J. DOWNEY: What forum or what public process does the Minister plan on using to inform the municipal councils and the Union of Municipalities of the decisions that have been made by his department and the outcome of the review and the implementation?

Will there be a formalized exercise , a meeting, an implementation educational process, or what are his plans to update the people who are going to have the major impact on them, those people being representatives of taxpayers and taxpayers? HON . J. BUCKLASCHUK: I don't foresee a situation where we're going to have the staff come up with recommendations and we adopt them without the active involvement of the municipal leadership . I'm making reference to, say, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities if they're affected.

But basically, we were wanting to deal with the agricultural aspect, and were looking at them as a purely rural municipal issue. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, will the Minister give us a commitment that he will not impose a major shock of tax increases on an extremely depressed farm community by making major change that they can 't handle? Will he give us that assurance at this committee that he will not do anything that will cause any major, abrupt increases to individuals and people who cannot handle it ? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well , that would be counter to the very purpose of the exercise.

The purpose of the exercise is to find out if there are some ways that we can, even at this time, deal with some of the problems that rural Manitoba is facing that are within our control. Taxation is certainly one area that, particularly this department, can provide some initiatives that will make the farm situation more bearable than it is today. MR. J. DOWNEY: So as I take it then , he's talking about a general tax reform and implementation of policies and programs tha t will reduce the taxes on farm property and the farm commun ity. Is that correct? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: It would be my hope that the study that will be undertaken this fall will provide us with some means of bringing about a fair way of sharing taxes. MR. J. DOWNEY: That, Mr. Chairman, was not the answer I was looking for. I thought he was going to say, some forms of tax relief. He talks about fairness , but will that in fact give some forms of tax relief? I'm sure the farm community are very supportive of fair taxation and they are, but what about tax relief , the question that I asked dealing with the reduction of taxes in some cases? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Well, it would certainly not be my intention to bring in some program that would bring in additional taxes , so the converse of that is that taxes would be fair and hopefully lower for the farm community. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, there was an issue which the Minister 's had brought to his attention by the Premier - I think it's in th