Manitoba Hansard — 22 March 1979 (Sitting 26A, 31st Legislature, 3rd Session)

31-3-26a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, March 22, 1979 Time: 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. •: MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle -Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions. .,;· PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITEEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourabie Government House Leader. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the first report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House.

Your Committee met on November 30, 1978, February 27 and March 20, 1979, to review the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba and such other attters as were referred to it. On November 30, 1978, the Committee accepted the resignation of Mr. Green and appointed Mr. Jenkins in his stead . On February 26, 1979, Mr. Green was substituted for Mr. Jenkins by resolution of the House.

Your Committee agreed that Item No. 7 contained in the Report of the Committee submitted on February 17,1976 (p.p . 23 to 28, inclusive, Journals of the House, 1976), which set the quorum of the Committee of Supply, or any

section thereof, at ten members be. repealed . The quorum of the Committee of Supply, regardless of whether or not it is sitting in two sections, shall consist of ten members. Your Committee has also agreed that, on motion of the Government House Leader, the House may adjourn at 5:30 p.m . on Monday , Tuesday, or Thursday and permit the Committee of Supply to continue its deliberations from 8:00 p.m . onwards; the proceedings of the Committee of Supply shall be reported to the House during Routine Proceedings at the next sitting of the House.

Your Committee has also agreed to the following changes in the Rules and recommends them to the House: Subrule 10(4) am. 1 THAT subrule 10(4) be amended by striking out the word "three" in the 3rd line thereof and substituting therefor the word "four" .

Subrule 21(3) 2 THAT subrule 21(3) be struck out and the following subrules substituted therefor: 21(3) Where business, other than a motion on the Order Paper, is under consideration when the House adjourns for the day, that business is terminated when the House adjourns for the day and shall not be continued at the next or any subsequent sitting of the House. 21(4) Any debate on a motion made under subrule 27(1) or any debate on a grievance raised on a motion to go into Committee of Supply or Committee of Ways and Means is terminated when the House adjourns on the day of the debate and shall not be continued or resumed on the next or any subsequent sitting of the House.

Subrule 22(4) am . 3 THAT subrule 22(4) be amended by adding thereto, immed. iately after the word "member" in the 1st line thereof , the words " other than a resolution for an Order for Return or an Address for Papers " . Subrule 22(5) am. 4 THAT subrule 22(5) be amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "member" in the 1st line thereof , the words "other than a resolution for an Order for Return or an Address for Papers".

Rule 29.1 added. 5 THAT the Rules of the House be amended by adding thereto, immediately after Rule 29 thereof , the following Rule: 29.1 Where in a debate a member quotes from a private letter, any other member may require 1419

Thursday, March 22, 1979 the member who quoted from the letter to table the letter from which he quoted but this rule does not alter any rule or practice of the House relating to the tabling of documents other than private letters. Subrule 35(5) added. 6 THAT Rule 35 be amended by adding thereto , at the end thereof , the following subrule : 35(5) If the motion for an address in reply to the Speech from the Throne is carried, the address shall be engrossed and presented to His Honour , the Lieutenant Governor , by such members of the House as are of the Executive Council and the mover and seconder of the motion .

Subrule 49(1) am . 7 THAT sub rule 49( 1) be amended by striking out the words " Orders for Returns and Addresses for Papers take precedence " in the last 2 lines thereof and substituting theref or the words " the item 'Orders for Returns , Addresses for Papers , referred for debate ' under Private Members ' business is reached" .

Subrule 64(3) am. 8 THAT subrule 64(3) be amended by striking out the words "subject to an appeal to the House " in the 3rd and 4th lines thereof and substituting therefor the words "subject , except in the case of the Committee of Supply , to an appeal to the whole House and, in the case of the Committee of Supply, to an appeal to the Committee " .

Rule 73.1 added. 9 THAT the Rules of the House be amended by adding thereto, immediately after Rule 73 thereof , the following Rule: 73. 1 The Chairman of a Standing Committee or a Special Committee of the House, shall maintain order and shall decide all questions of order subject to an appeal to the Committee . Rule 94 am. 10 THAT rule 94 be amended by striking out the words "pag e of the volu me of the Statutes or Journals " in the 8th and 9th lines thereof and substituting therefor the words " the

section of the Act or the page of the volume of the Journals of the House". Subrule 105(1) am. 11 THAT subrule 105(1) be amended by striking out the word " six " in the 2nd line thereof and substituting therefor the word " ten " . Subrule 105(2) am. 12 THAT subrule 105(2) be amended by striking out the word " seven " in the 2nd line thereof and substituting therefor the word " eleven " . Subrule 106(1) am . 13 THAT subrule 106(1) be amended by striking out the figures and symbol " $100.00 " in the 5th line thereof and substituting therefor the symbol and figures "$250.00" .

Subrule 106(2) rep. and sub . 14 THAT subrule 106(2) be repealed and the following subrule substituted therefor: 106(2) Before a Private Bill incorporating a joint stock company with proposed authorized capital bf more than $100 ,000.00, or increasing the authorized capital of a joint stock company, is reported by the Committee to which it is referred , the Petitioner shall deposit with the clerk additional fees of $25 .00 for each $100,000.00 or part thereof by which the author ized capital exceeds $100,000 .00 or is increased , as the case may be.

With respect to television coverage of the proceedings of the House your Committee has agreed that T.V. be accorded the same privileges of access to the proceedings of the Legislature and be subject to the same conditions regarding expenditures by the public as any other members of the news media . In essence, the conditions are as follows: 1. No additional installations or changes in the atmosphere of the House arerrequired . 2. There is no dispute as between the various television outlets regarding the distribution of film. 3.

Arrangements can be made by the Press Gallery to accommodate the T.V. media members . 4. There is no requirement that the Government become involved in the delivery of the programmes - i.e., provision of equipment , etc . Subject to these conditions , it was agreed that the T.V. media would be permitted to film such proceedings of the Assembly as they saw fit and that only changes in the physical arrangements need be approved by the Committee. The Speaker was given authority to vary these conditions on special occasions such as the opening of the House , the Budget Speech , etc. , to augment coverage .

Your Committee recommends these proposed changes to the House but suggests that amended Rules 105(1),(2) and 106(1),(2) not come into effect until the next session of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba . 1420

Thursday, March 22, 1979 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker , I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Finance, that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion ... Introduction of Bills. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Flin Flon. MR. THOMAS BARROW (Fiin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a non-political statement.

It is a great pleasure for me today to stand here and to say a few words about a man who sits on this side of the House; a man well respected by all the members of this House. He's fluently bilingual - both Yiddish and French - a man who refereed in the CFL for over 18 years, so his duties come easy as Chairman and Deputy Speaker, although I do wish he would just say, "You are out of order," instead of penalizing you 15 yards . Today, he's celebrating his 51st birthday, and he's on hold - 51st Os and I know you would join me in wishing him well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson with a non-political statement. MR. ABE KOVNATS (Radisson): Just to add to that non-political statement, Mr. Speaker , MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): 51 my eye - 68. MR. KOVNATS: I would just like to point out to the honourable members that it's me who the honourable member was making reference to, and I'm enjoying my birthday today, and I enjoy the association of being here in the Legislature with my friends . Thank you, sir. MR. SPEAKER: What has transpired, I hope will not be construed as setting a precedent. ORAL QUESTIONS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition . MR. SAUL CHERNIACK (St. Johns): Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker , to ask him whether it is government policy to force the universities to increase tuition fees and to maintain an equal standard of fees for all three universities . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Honourable Member 's question, ~ let me say first of all, that the government did not prescribe any particular fee increase this year. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourab le Deputy Leader . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker , the minister did not really answer my question. I asked him whether it is the government 's policy so to do , the reason being that Dr. Duckworth of the University of Winnipeg is quoted to have said that he was ordered or recommended by the University Grants Commission, and that continuing financial erosion would result by defying the government appointed body , which allocates the funds.

The question I asked the minister was, "Is it government policy," and I want to know whether he's prepared to answer whether it's his policy, the government's policy, 1421

Thursday, March 22, 1979 or whether he wants to lay the entire burden on the University Grants Commission , which is a government appointed agency, which is it? -: MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker , I'm not prepared to comment on what I unde rstand is a press clipping, that the honourable member is referring to . There may have been discussions between the Grants Commission and the president of that particular university . The substance of those discussions, I'm not aware of at this time . I'm not prepared to comment on what may be written in the paper , or what supposedly the president has said .

I would have to check with the University Grants Commission and the president to fin d out what in fact , did transpire . ~ ,. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr . Speaker , I would ask the Minister of Educa tion whether he wants to leave the impression , which is apparent from what he says, that the government and he as minister , has had nothing whatsoever to do with the negotiations and decision of the University Grants Commission relating to insisting or enforcing a tuition fee at the university . Is he saying that whatever was done was done without his knowledge , or authority , or approval? MR. COSENS: Mr.

Speaker , I can again reply to the honourable member by saying that it is my understanding that long before any discussion took place between the Grants Commission and the president of the university , as it 's referred to, the university had contemplated a fee increase . MR. CHERNIACK: I wonder if the honourable , the minister is prepared to state whether he, and/or his government had anything whatsoever to do with increasing the tuition fees, or approving of it , or whether he absolves himself of any responsibility whatsoever , by laying it on to other bodies . Which is it?

Is he taking responsibility as being a participant , or not? MR. SPEAKER: Order , order please . May I suggest to the honourable member that he is possibly being argumentative . Would the Honourable Member for St. Johns you care to rephrase this question? MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, I wish to apologize , Mr. Speaker . I do not want to be argumentative , but , Mr. Speaker , I do want to be insistent , that we do get an answer that this minister accepts or rejects responsibility and participat ion in the fee increase ; and he has not yet said so, and that is the reason , Mr. Speaker . So, I ask him in . . . 1o MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. May I suggest to the honourable member that it is quite within his right to ask for an answer to a question . He can only ask for it; he cannot demand and answer to a question . The Honourable Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: Quite right, Mr. Speaker , I was apolog izing to you for appearing to be argumentative in explaining the reason .

But I want the Minister to answer : Does he as Minister of Education responsible for colleges and universities financing , accept responsibility or not for the fact that the universities are increasing their tuition fees and have been instructed so to do by the Grants Commission? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education . MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker , I'll try to state quite clearly and explicitly , there is no recommendation has come from my department to the universities to increase their fees this year .

That decision as far as I am aware was made independently by the universities and not by the Grants Commission nor through the direction of this government . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns with a fourth question. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker , then I would assume that the Minister of Education says that this was a voluntary decision of the universities not imposed by the Minister or by government or influenced or autherized or approved by the Minister . MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MR. LLOYD AXWORTHY: Mr.

Speaker , I have a question for the First Minister . With the forthcoming Western Premiers Conference , can the First Minister indicate whether the provincial government has established any Position Paper that it will be submitting to that conference and could he indicate what priority items of discussion or initiation he will be advancing during the course of that conference'? 1422

Thursday, March 22, 1979 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. STERLING R. LYON (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend will be aware that there is an agenda for the conference which is in the public domain so far as I am concerned.

I can say without any question that the two major points among a number of important points that will be discussed at the conference and in which Manitoba will be participating' will be the total z: gra in handling situation , No. 1; and the western power grid , No. 2; and by not mentioning other items which are on the agenda I'm not in any way trying to say that they are not important. But those are two of the major items which we will jointly be addressing ourselves to on Monday and Tuesday in Prince George and on Wednesday actually making an onsite tour of the Prince Rupert facilities . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Speaker , I thank the First Minister . I'd like to ask him as well, whether on the agenda and in the position taken by Manitoba , whether he intends to address the question of the jurisdiction over natural resources and to take issue with his counterpart in Alberta that the total control and jurisd iction should be held in provincial hands. MR. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker , the whole question of the economy is on the agenda and that will permit a wide-ranging discussion of many such matters as my honourable friend raises .

The question of natural resources and the control of the provinces over their natural resources which has been traditional is a posit ion on which there seems to be a fair amount of unanim ity among all of the provinces . The only problem seem to come from my honourable friend 's colleague, the Prime Minister of Canada , who seems to have rather funny ideas on it. MR. AXWORTHY: As supplementarjl then , Mr .

Speake r, can I take it from the First Minister's answer that he is indicating that he now agrees with the position taken by the Premier of Alberta, that •• the total control of pricing and distr ibution of energy resources should be with in the provincial jurisdiction? MR. LYON: No, Mr. Speake r. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr. Spea ker, I wish to ask the First Minister whether or not the province will be submitti ng a proposal with respect to the grain handling problems in western Canada at this conferen ce.

Just to remind the First Min iste, at the last meet ing there was no provincial position submitted as far as I'm aware , and I would like to know whether there will be one this time . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker , my hono urable friend will be aware that these are discussions at which proposa ls and counter-proposals are put forward, and I'm sure that when the conference has been concluded that he will find himself able to agree with the proposals and the suggestions that not only Manitoba but all of the provinces will be sharing in.

We don 't claim to have any sole monopoly on wisdom in this field; we've got some ideas to advance as we did at the last conference . And I'm sure that my honou rable friend , along with the grain farming community in Manitoba , will be in consonance with the general propo sals and ideas that Manitoba , and I'm sure the other provinces , will be putt ing forwar d. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourab le Membe r for Burrows. MR. BEN HANUSCHAK : Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Economi c Developme nt.

In view of the fact that the Minister of Labo ur had indicated to the House yesterday that he will assist the over 100 employees of the about to close Brandon Consumers Co- op in findin g emplo yment and/or retraining for employmen t, would the Minister of Econom ic Development indi cate what he is doing to assist his colleague and to moti vate the private secto r in the Brandon area to assume their social responsibility and generate jobs f or these people and thus prevent the level of unemployment from conti nuing to increase? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Econom ic Development. 1423

Thursday, March 22, 1979 MR. J. FRANK JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , I'm not prepared to answer the first part of the question that he asks, because I haven 't had meetings with my colleague on that subject , and I will do that , I will certainly have a meeting with my colleague to discuss the answer that he gave yesterday in the House. We have three programs going at the present time that are involved with the Brandon area . We've had meetings with the whole Westman area on two occas ions; things are going well , and if the honourable member would keep himself up to date , he'd know what was going on out there . MR.

HANUSCHAK: Yes, Mr. Speaker , a supplementary question . Is it likely that the Minister's bird program of which he is so proud and so staunchly defends may create some jobs in the Brandon area. MR. JOHNSTON: It's not worth answering , Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan . MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Thank you , Mr . Speaker . My quest ion s to the Minister of Consumer Affairs . My first question is to the Minister .

Has the Consumer Association of Canada been in touch with the Honourable Minister with regard to computer price indexing in supermarkets and the use of automatic scanners that are now being introduced in two supermarkets in the greater Winnipeg area? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer Affairs . "'R. JORGENSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR.

JENKINS: My eecond question to the minister is, is the minister considering Legislation, such as is in place, I believe , in six Ame rican states , where the use of automat ic scanners is in vogue , that prices will still be marked on the articles so people will know what they are paying for when they go out of the supermarket , or go through the cash register . MR. JORGENSON: We are giving consideration to that question , Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan with a final supplementary. MR. JENKINS: A final supplementary .

I asked the honourable minister, I believe , last week, if he would find out when the one cent per litre start-up subsidy for metricification would be coming off the present price of milk. I wonder if the minister has the answer now. MR. JORGENSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker . This one cent a litre added cost that had been implemented is due to come off on April 1st. To the best of my knowledge , it will be doing exactly that . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George . MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you , Mr.Speaker . I would like to direct my question to the First Minister .

In his answers to me yesterday, he indicated that I should not rely on Press statements . Could he indicate whether or not his newly appointed Executive Assistant has been manager of the Progressive Party Headquarters until last Monday? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . MR. LYON: The answer is, no, Mr. Speaker . Prior to that time , the estimable lady in question , prior to her appointment to the rresent position - prior to that - she did hold that position . MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker , I would like to direct the quest ion to the First Minister and ask him if he is denying that the lady in question moved into his office as his Executive Assistant as of last Monday . MR. LYON: The lady in question , Mr . Speaker , moved into that position on or about the day the Order-in-Council was passed . I think what 's confusing my honourable friend , and I will straighten out his thinking for him , is that she occupied an office on the first floor for a number of weeks, 1424

Thursday, March 22, 1979 and approximately a week ago she moved up to the second floor, and I think that should assuage my honourable friend's real concerns about this matter. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. A.R. (Pete) ADAM: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the First Minister. I would ask the First Minister if it is the intention of his government to press the federal authorities for the retention r i. of the Crowsnest rates, or is it the intention to discuss the change of these rates? What is the policy of this government in this regard? MR. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, the whole topic of grain handling and transportation will be discussed at the Premiers' Conference as it was discussed at the federal-provincial meeting in January.

The position of the government , and it can only be shortly stated, as I am sure it was the position of our predecessors , is to protect the legitimate interests of the farmers of Manitoba vis-a-vis the Crow rate, and at the same time to ensure through whatever means can be devised through mutual discussion that Manitoba farmers and western Canadian farmers generally, are able to take full advantage of the opportunity that lies ahead of them over the next five years to export the largest quantities of grain perhaps in our history and to have a handling and delivery system that is capable of doing that and to ensure that people participating in that receive a fair return on the dollar for their investment.

MR. ADAM: Yes, I thank the First Minister for his long reply, and would ask him if this includes what he has just said?17 18 Does that include retentions of the Crowsnest rates. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please . May I suggest that the honourable member's question is repetitive . The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker , my question is to the Minister of Finance.

Has the Minister an answer for me now in regard to the question that I asked a few days ago, and last year, and during the Estimate of the Department of Health - that is the financial formula from the federal government in financing health with the provinces, and the amount received from the federal government under the latt year of cost-shared formula, and now in this block funding? Has the Minister have an answer for me now? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . .; HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr.

Speaker, the member asked, at least put it on the record yesterday , and I said that I would read his specific question on the record and try and determine an answer for him. • MR. DESJARDINS: Mr . Speaker, if it takes the Minister three days to read the record, how long will it be before I get the question? Is this another stall, or will we get the question while we're considering the Estimate of the Department of Health? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker , the question was fir st direct ed specif ically to myself yesterday in the question period, and my intention was to take it from Hansard, as I indicated in answer to the question yesterday, and will attempt to give him the answer. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I'll just wait I was going to direct a question to the First Minister in the absence of the Minister of Health, but since the Minister of Health is here, I'll now direct the question to him.

Yesterday at a public meeting on the three health centres that are threatened with closure by this government, I was informed by representatives of these three health centres that they have not received all the data that the Minister indicated to us in theHouse had been provided to the health centres. They told me that they've only received some computer print-outs for the years 1975 and 1977. They've received no information for 1976, or for 1978, the latest year.

Therefore, I wolld like the Minister to ensure that those health centres will receive all the data from the government so that they can in fact defend themselves fairly, and get an an unbiased hearing . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. 1425

Thursday, March 22, 1979 HON.l.R. (BUD) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Speaker, once again I reassure my honourable friend that the health centres will have made available to them all the raw data and statistical information that is prov ided to the government , that has been provided to the government, on this subject. It is my understanding they have received that. I told them I would check that out for them and ensure that they received it, if they have not. MR. PARASIUK: A supplementar y. I was told specifically by them that they haven't yesterday at that meeting .

We were also informed by some 300 people representing various sections of the community that they had not been consulted with respect to the health centre reviews . The Minister told us specifically in the House a few weeks ago that the " community " had been consulted. Given the statements from representatives of the community , and clients of the health centres, that they haven't been consulted , could the Minister please tell us who he consulted when he decided to close them down or phase them out? - . ........ ............................................... ....... . MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker , while rejecting the latter contention in the remarks of the Honourable Member for Transcona , I can tell him that we have met with the boards of those health centres, and their directors and directorates . They presumably speak for the community individuals who make use of the health centres. Officials in my department including the top officials in my department have personally been conducting visits to the health centres , so that I reject his allegations out of hand and unconditionally . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Transcona . MR. PARASIUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker .

The Minister indicated to us in the House that he had consulted with the community before the Health Services Commission had the meetings with the boards of the health centres . Therefore , before those meetings, who did the Health Services Commission and his government consult with when they made the decision to phase down these health centres? The doctor community , or the community at large and the clients of those health centres? MR. SHERMAN: That's item 3(

t) under my Estimates , Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland . MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Thank you , Mr. Speaker . During the Estimates process for the Minister of Resources, asked him if his staff would be agreeing to a meeting with the Poplar River fishermen regarding their concerns for the quotas on their fishing area for the summer season . On Tuesday this week, I also asked the Minister when his staff would be meeting with that group of fishermen. He answered me in the Estimates that his staff would meet. On Tuesday , he indicated that his staff - had already met with the fishermen .

I thank him for bringing it to my attention later that his staff did not meet with the fishermen , that he'd made a mistake in that regard . So I now ask him if he can indicate when his staff will be going to Poplar River to meet with the fishermen, to deal with their concerns regarding thei r fishing quotas for the summer season . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Mines and Natural Resources . HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killarney): Mr . Speaker , the information given by the honourable member is not quite correct.

There is an advisory committee for Lake Winnipeg, on which there is a member from the Poplar River area, and my department had been in consultation with that representative from the community, so it was a technicality as to whether or not they had met with the community.

My department had been in consultation with a representative of the community, and that individual was asked to come back to the department with a f irm indication of what the feeling was in the community , because the understanding that we had was that there was some difference of opinion , rather serious difference of opinion within the community. So when that response comes back , Mr. Speaker , then we will be following it up , and if a meeting in the community is necessary, then it will be held. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge . MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr.

Speaker , I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture . In light of the fact that the job descriptions that have been put forward for the new Federal-Provincial cost-sharing program on rural development are identical to the job descriptions of the 50 agricultural 1426

.. Thursday, March 22, 1979 employees who will be laid off at the end of this week . I would now ask the Minister of Agriculture does he intend to rescind that layoff order and provide for those job openings under the new program to be given to the agricultural employees who are scheduled to be laid off on Friday? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. JAMES E. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I perhaps should clarify the question for the m~mber ._ concerned, because it was a Federal Government stipulation that no employees would be able to be hired under the Canada Manpower Agreement, there isn't any capacity for governments to hire people under the new program. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr.

Speaker , I would ask the Minister of Agriculture then, that in knowing about the layoffs that would be occurring for the past two months, has he made any efforts to change that condition so that these employees who will be laid off from his department who fit the job requirements under the new cost-sharing program would have first option, or in fact have preferential option on receiving those openings under the new agreement? . MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, we have been endeavouring throughout the total department the re-employment of people who were being laid off because of the ending of the program, the last Federal-Provincial program which ended last December; we have been striving to employ those individuals who are being laid off throughout the total department. MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, I admire the efforts of the Minister to do that.

It was my understanding that they have not been successful though in providing any re-employment, and therefore I would come back to the original proposition: will the employees who will be laid off at the end of this week, whose job qualifications identically fit those that will be required under the new Rural Development Program, will they be given first preference or treatment in the hiring for those new positions? MR. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, if they are qualified for the job, they will be given consideration for re-employment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Deputy Leader of the Opposition . MR.

CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to address a question to the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that his department is still studying the program entitled "Building the Pieces Together", could he indicate the justification for his order to the Alcoholism Foundation to stop promoting it as a teaching device? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. SHERMAN: The justification, Mr.

Speaker, was the complaints and concerns and anxieties raised and directed to me from a number of parents who were concerned that the difficulties that their children seemed to be having in absorbing and adjusting to that

part icular instruction. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Speaker , I thank the Honourable Minster for that answer. Is he prepared to make available to members of this House the nature and extent of these concerns that were expressed so that we too could share with him the knowledge of complaints expressed by concerned parents? Could he also indicate whether it was an organized body or individual parents that were in touch with him? 04MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I suggest to the honourable member he may be asking for information which may, of necessity , be of a confidential nature . MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker . I appreciate your suggestion as to what he may be referring to, but I guess he really knows what he is referring to and could then respond on that. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker , I can certainly do that. I would expect that this subject would be very much a part of our examination of the AFM appropriation in my Estimates. I certainly can draw no conclu sions that it was part of an organized effort. I do not have any evidence of tha;; it was individual letters and phone calls and call in person . 1427

Thursday, March 22, 1979 MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker , in confirming with the Honourable Minister that there is no doubt that there will be discussion during his Estimates on this program , may 1 ask him to be read y to respond with a report on the invest igation or study which has been taking place so that the matter can be settled as to whether or not this is a dange rous or helpful program? MR. SHERMAN: Yes, Mr. Speake r. While I'm on my fee, Mr .

Speaker , the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet yesterday sent me a copy of a bill from a constit uent of his who had been invoiced by a hospital for a stay in hospital beyond the point in time at which he was medically discha rged . I can report to the honourable member that there 's been no change in procedures over the past 20 years in that respect , Mr. Speaker .

The patient was medicall y discharged - hospttals find it incum bent to try to discharge patients after they 're medically discharged and they naturally exert some influences in order to effect thatm In this case, they have furnished the patient with an invoice for a seven-day stay beyond discharge date. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Mr. Speaker , I wonder if the minister would indicate to me whether there has been such an occurrence previous to this particular one? MR. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker , I checked with the Health Services Commiss ion on that , and my answer , my impression would be, " yes", there certainly has been , there have been , and there will continue to be. It's discretionary on the part of the hospital as to how much pressure they want to exert. They cannot claim a refund or claim additional funding from the Health Services Commission , because they 're not paid on a per diem basis for situations of this kind . They have to find that money within their own budgets . It's discretiona ry as to whether they want to press the case, or write it off as a bad debt. MR.

USKIW: Would the minister then explain to me why it was that the assistant administrator of the hospital indicated to me just yesterday that they were instructed recently by the Health Services Commission to levy those fees. MR. SHERMAN: No, I can 't, other than that obviously if that took place , it was result of a conversation between the administrator of the hospital and the Health Services Commission , but the Health Services Commission informs me that the hospitals use discretionary strategy in this regard.

There have been cases in which they have, I assume , written charges of this kind off as a bad debt ; but if they're collectable , theyttry to collect them . MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker , I would then like to know from the minister , whether or not there will be a lien placed on the assets of any patient who does not pay the bill. MR. SHERMAN: Well, that's up to the hospital, Mr. Speaker . The hospital has got a budget to live within , and it's up to the hospital. MR. USKIW: Mr .

Speaker, the Minister of Health indicated that there has been an instruction to all hospitals by the Health Services Commission, that these fees must be collected . It is then incumbent on this government to tell us whether it is their policy to impose liens on the assets of patients ' properties throughout the province . MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker , what I'm telling the honourable member is that there has been no change in the existing procedures and the commission advises me that this has been the practice followed for the past 20 years .

There has been no change; if they haven 't issued liens in the past, then they 're not issuing liens today. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker , yesterday I accepted a question as notice from the honourable member for St. Vital. The question was in regard to the annual traditional luncheon that is hosted by the government for the Manitoba Association of School Trustees , a group of very public-spirited and conscientious citizens , who give of their time and talent and energy to help operate the school divisions of this province .

I can tell the honourable member that this tradition has been going on 1428 li

.. .. .. Thursday, March 22, 1979 for 30, 40, probably 50 years - the oldest member of my department can't remember when it wasn't carried on by the government in power - I suppose a recognition of the fine work that these people are doing . As far as th details are concerned, last year some 472 participants attended the luncheon, and the cost to the government was some $3,425.00. This year, they expect to have some 500 registrants at their conference, and the cost will be in the nieghbourhood of some $3,800 .00.

Now, the member in asking that question, I certainly would not want to impute any particular motives, but if he is telling me that members on that side of the House think this is a tradition that should be discontinued, I wish he would state it clearly, so I can convey that to the trustees tomorrow, when I speak to them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I thank the honourable minister for the information.

If there is to be any quest ion of not proceeding with this particular luncheon, perhaps he would like to ask the trustees, when he sees them, whether they, the trustees, would be prepared to give up their luncheon in order that some under-privileged members of Winnipeg's core area may go to camp this year. Would he like to put that question to the trustees, and see which choice they would like to make? MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, in just reacting to the member's statement, might I say in answer - I wonder if he had the same concern when some $40 million were going out the window with Saunders Aircraft. MR.

WALDING: Not quite as much concern, Mr. Speaker, as when $91 million were going out to CFI. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. Order please. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the .. MR. SPEAKER: I wish the House would extend the courtesy to the Honourable Member for St. Boniface to let him ask his question. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health, if he doesn't realize that he has mislead the House on his answer to the Member for Selkirk. Didn 't the minister say there was no change at all in the last 20 years?

Is the minister saying that before his administration, there were any times that the hospital kept patients and they weren 't paying for it, that they weren't getting the money? The minister has said today, that they will not get the money . There's been a change, Mr. Speaker, and it's misleading. Does the ministe r remember that there's been a change in the block funding now , and therefore, there's no money from the federal government - if the hospitals are told that they're not going to have any money, this is something new. And secondly , Mr.

Speaker , shouldn't the first thing , the most important thing to do, is find out where this patient can go, before worrying about 20 years ago? And isn't there another policy that now , because of the change in funding, that now the hospital can charge the same rate as a person in a personal care home? And are you going to put a person on the street? Apparently the only place they can go is with somebody that's 88 years old? So, is the intention to put these people on the street , or send them a bill of over $100 a month?

The question is this - when you have a policy now that you can't charge for the first time that they can charge the same per diem rate . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please . MR. DESJARDINS: Now, the question is this, why are those people not charged the per diem rate in this hospital, why? You made your speech already, you keep your trap shut - ass-hole. MR. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker , I didn't realize that we were discussing the entire subject area of health funding in the nation.

We're not talking about changes from 50-50 cost-sharing the block funding: we're not talking about changes with respect to panelling for personal care homes. The question that was asked of me by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, was whether or not there was now a policy enunciated by this government to lien properties of persons who had been medically discharged and were still in hospital and were being invoiced for that hospital stay. My answer to him was, the answer that I received from the Health Services Commission that 1429

Thursday, March 22, 1979 there is no change in practice or procedure for as long as they can remember going back as they suggested to me some twenty years . What happens is, it's discretionary on the part of the hospital. It always has been . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface with a supplementary question . MR. DESJARDINS: But , Mr . Chairman , didn 't the Minister say that this hospital would not receive any funds for those days that that patient stayed and saying that this existed for the last twenty years . -(Interjection)- You did . You said there 's been no changein policy. So that 's .. .

MR. SPEAKER: Order please . May I suggest that the Honourable Membe r for St. Boniface is arguing rather than asking a question . The time for Question Period having expired , we'll proceed with Orders of the Day. The Honourable Government House Leader . Order please. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. JORGENSON: Mr. Speaker , I will enable the Honourable Member for St. Boniface to continue that debate in just a moment. But before I do I would like to announce that it is the intention of the government to call Bills on Tuesday .

Wednesday, of course , as you know the House is not sitting and in the event that the Estimates of the Department of Health are not concluded by that time, the Minister of Health will not be here and ... A MEMBER: When? MR. JORGENSON: On Tuesday . I . . . not be available on Tuesday . He has a commitment that he finds necessary to keep . So we will be calling Bills on Tuesday and then whatever department of Estimates is being considered in Room 254 will move in here. Mr. Speaker , I move, seconded by the Minister of Manitoba Telephone System that Mr.

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 House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Radisson in the Chair for Health and Community Services , and the Member for Emerson in the Chair for Municipa l Affairs . CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - MUNICIPAL AND URBAN AFFAIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr. Albert Driedger (Emerson): Committee come to order . I'd like to refer the members of the committee to Page 71, Item 3, Resolution 94 - 3(d).

The Member for St. George . MR. URUSKI: Thank you , Mr. Chairman. Yesterday we ended off at 4:30, and I posed a question to the Minister of Municipal and Urban Affairs . In light of last night 's tabling of the city council budget, I want to again reiterate my question, and ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs whether he favours the policy of increasing the user pay fees on transit buses rather than supporting the transit operations from the overall budgets in terms of subsidy from the province and the city? Whether he is in favour of those increases in user fees. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . HON.

GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Chairman, on the way down here - and unfortunately I had to miss question period - on the way down here I had the opportunity of listening to Mr. Harry Cohen, the president of the Amalgamated Transit Union in the city , on a radio show , stating again that the transit fares in the City of Winnipeg are the lowest in Canada. And that 's a decision that will be made by city council as to what level the transit fares will be in the city . It's not a question of .. . what I favour is irrelevant. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George . MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, now I wonder who is sensitive about issues of whether fees should be raised or items should be discussed or not. It really boils down to a matter of provincial policy , 1430 :; \A'.,

... Thursday, March 22, 1979 as to whether they see public transportation within the City of Winnipeg as such, and the use of which should be encouraged as greatly as possible . And is the Minister then saying that even though there may be an increase in fares, that there will be more riders in transit, that public transportation will be utilized more than it has been in the past, and that he is prepared to accept the funding of public transit through the user pay principle versus the ability to pay in terms of subsidizing transit through general revenues from the province and the city . MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I have always favoured on City Council , and now, a· policy with respect to public transit, that would encourage the utilization of public transit. That's one of the reasons why, in establishing the base grant of $30 million this year, which is $1 million more than waat the city expected on their current account , there are sufficient revenues in there to cover 50 percent of the operating deficit for subsidy of the transit operation . That's included in the grant , and I assume that they will continue that operation and continue t9 encourage nsit.

That is the policy of the City of Winnipeg , and it's one with which I favour . MR. URUSKI: The minister hasn 't . . . maybe I'm missing his point in his answer but he is certainly not indicating to me that in the event. . .

Is he telling me that the city has enough funds within their budget to maintain the transit fees at the rate that they are , and there are enough funds from the Province of Manitoba to assist the city in maintaining the transit fees at the rate they are because of the increase - I think he said $1 million over and above what the city had expected from the province - the city, with the increased money, could have kept the transit fees at the rate they are? Is he telling me that? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the city have the complete jurisdiction to do what they wish with the $30 million. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 3.(d) - the Member for St. George . MR. URUSKI: I would like to ask the minister as to what then is the provincial policy towards transportation within the City of Winnipeg? Could he indicate what the provincial stance and the provincial policy is wtth respect to transportation, public and private transportation within the City of Winn ipeg? How does he view the provincial role versus those two areas within the City of Winnipeg? How does he view the province's role in this area? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman , we have inclu ded in the $30 million unconditional grant, sufficient • amounts to cover the cover the operation of the transit system and the former policy of 50 percent of the operating deficit , which indicates I think , our support for public transit. And I have indicated the amount of that grant will be increased from year to year , but the final determination ·as to how that money will be utilized , will be made by City of Winnipeg Council. .. MR. CHAIRMAN: Did the Member for Virden wish ... were you goint to speak? The Leader of the Opposition . MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the minister what policy is intended with respect to the adjustment of this grant , and we have established a block funding grant , $30 million. What is the approach or policy of the minister pertaining to future adjustments of that block fund? MR. MERCIER: Well , Mr. Chairman, I gave to the members' opposite a copy of my letter dated January 12th, 1979, to the City of Winn ipeg.

On Page 4 of that letter, in the second paragraph, I perhaps can read it into the record , indicate "the province has considered the need to dttermine future changes to the block grant in 1980 and beyond in a manner which will reflect repeating demands upon provincial resources and a desire to advise the city well in advance of its adoption of the next year 's fiscal budget.

Therefore, any future increases to the block fund will approximate the ant icipated rate of increase in provincial expenditures." And it goes on to say "in avoiding a rigid formula expect to advise the City of Winnipeg of its 1980 block grant by December 31, 1979." I've also indicated during the course of our committee meetings that subsequent to that, the Urb an Affairs Committee of Cabinet met with the officia l delegation of the city to discuss this matter, and the city indicated satisfact ion with the amount of $30 million for this year's budget , but did indic ate they felt the amount , the base amount of the grant should be reviewed in anticipation of future years capital expenditures .

And we have undertaken to review the base amount of the grant 1431

Thursday, March 22, 1979 with the city during the course of this year prior to determining a figure for next year . MR. PAWLEY: If I could relate to the Member for St. George 's question pertaining to transit and the block funding grant , -it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that it's of interest, not only to the City of Winnipeg , but also to the entire provincial community , that there be a public transit system - an economic public transit system - that will discourage , by the very fact of its attractiveness, would discourage congestion in the downtown part of Winnipeg .

I think that's a provincial community concern .. not just a City of Winnipeg concern. And what concerns me about the Minister 's statements, is that he appears to be prepared to kind of slough this off as only a City of Winnipeg concern , and I would like to, for instance, we've seen the fact that the city has had to charge 10 cent Dash bus fees. And the result of that is, I understand , little use of the Dash bus. Prior to that, there was considerable use of the Dash bus, and thus acted as an inducement to prevent the congestion of cars in the downtown part of Winnipeg .

Now does the Minister not feel that there is a provincial community concern , as well as a city community concern , insofar as any future policy position , insofar as his government is concerned , with the City of Winnipeg on trans it? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman , I think if we're going to deal with the province as a whole , part of that will be discussed in the next item , which deals with urban transit grants in the rest of the province . But I want to indicate , I want to go back, Mr.

Chairman , a few years , and in fact give credit to the previous government , because when I was on Council and Chairman of the Works and Operations Committee responsible for the operation of the Winnipeg Transit , we, on Council , established a policy of encouraging public transit , and at one time the provincial contr ibution to the subsidy of public transit was very low indeed .

And we, at City Coun cil, repeatedly requested from the provincial government a greater contribution, and through the years '73, '7 4, '75, '76, were successful in persuading the previous government to arrive at a formula of contributing to 50 percent of the subsidy of the operation of the transit and I was complimentary to the former Premier and the previous government in agreeing to that , because I think that did make a sign ificant contribution towards the operation of transit. And, Mr.

Chairman, that is still the policy of the City of Winnipeg , to encourage public transit , and included in the $30 million block funding agreement is a sufficient aoount of funds to cover that policy . I've said the amount of the grant will be increased from year to year; the City of Winnipeg still has the lowest transit fares in Canada , and I am satisfied that the Council are responsible enough and have sufficient vision of the future and the energy demands that we have, and the kind of support that should go to public transit that that policy of encouraging the use of public transit will be continued.

And the only thing we are discussing here, essentially , Mr. Chairman , seems to be a concern on the part of some of the members opposite, as to whether or not City Council are responsible enough to continue that policy , and I am satisfied that through the past approaches of City Council that they will, that they recognize the importance of public transit and that policy of encouraging the use of public transit will continue . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Chairman, I want to say in response and lead to a question .

The minister keeps inferring that members of the opposition would some way or other like to assume responsibility from duly elected members of the City of Winnipeg , and I am sure he would like to probably leave that impression so far as municipalities as a whole are concerned in the province . I think there is a difference, a very distinct and sharp difference , between the approach , the minister, our approach.

I think that insofar as the approach of the opposition is concerned , we recognize the importance and the fundamental role that municipalities have in the province - they 're creatureses of the provinc3 - but in so saying, we accept a continuing responsibility on the part of the province to provide input , so that at least , Mr . Chairman , there is opportunity for choice on the part of municipal leaders . And what I dislike about what is happening is, that that opportunity for choice of direction is being undermined by the passive and retrenchment attitudes of the present government.

For instance, the news this morning - and I don 't think it's just coincidence - admission by city that there's been a reduction in services , increases in user fees, whether we look at transit fare, or ambulance fees increase , at the same time an increase in taxes . So that there 's something very much astray insofar as the approach of the government , and just to say " well , that 's their baby - that's their responsibility ," I don 't believe is sufficient. 1432

• • Thursday, March 22, 1979 I think that the province has to ensure that the municipal governments have the resources to carry on, and that may mean some conditional grants. I don't think it's enough just to provide block funding, and then escape any further responsibility for ensuring that there's a transit system in the City of Winnipeg that will prevent congestion, as much as is possible . There will always be a certain amount of congestion in the downtown part of Winnipeg . I would be concerned, for instance, what is happening to the Dash buses. They were well used, some time back.

The city found that it had no choice but to impose a 10 cent fare, and now they're used very infrequently. We see an increase in congestion in the downtown part of the city - although I'm sure no city councillor would have wanted it that way - they've now ended up with no alternative, with no choice, due to the omissions and neglect on the part of a government which is very very quickly retrenching and retreating from any direct leadership in the field of urban affairs in the Province of Manitoba.

I don't think it's enough for the Minister to continually say, "Well, those opposition fellows over there , they would like to just take over the running of the municipalities and make the decisions for the municipalities." What we want to ensure, from the Minister, that municipalities are not restricted from free decision-making, due to the fact that his government has seen fit to slough off more and more financial and policy leadership in the Province of Manitoba. I'd like the Minister to comment on that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I want to be as charitable as possible, -(Interjection)- well, I will be. Because, if the Honourable Leader of the Opposition thinks that a 10 cent fare on the bus is really discouraging the use of transit, then there's no way that I could convince him of anything.The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Chairman, that the cost of riding public transit is so low compared to the use of operating a private automobile, that obviously it's not the economic difference that is stopping people from using public transit, because you just have to think of the cost of an automobile, its maintenance, insurance, upkeep is so phenomenal compared to the cost of a monthly bus pass, which is somewhere between $12.50 a month. There's just absolutely no comparison in terms of cost. But it's a whole public attitude that has to be changed, or a review of the kind of service that has been supplied.

And there have been many improvements, I grant, in service in terms of Express bus routes that have been increased on major highways - Henderson Highway, Pembina Highway, Portage Avenue - but there is just an unwillingness , for one reason or the other, on the part of the public, many people in the public, to use public transit. I think a number of people have been converted in the past few years , and no doubt as the cost of gasoline and operation of a car increase, more and more people will turn to the use of public transit. So, I have to project , Mr.

Chairman, the fact that the cost is a major impediment to the use of public transit generally. Mr. Chairman, I have to repeat once again, for about the fourth or fifth time in the last 20 minutes, the fact that the Province of Manitoba is including the block funding grant sufficient amount of money to cover the subsidy to the City of Winnipeg Transit System. And while they certainly can't point to any real change in the operation of the Transit System that are unjustified, I think they will have to wait, along with us, and see what happens in future years.

We've indicated we're prepared to review that amount, to increase that amount, in future years in accordance with the rate of expenditures of the province, and we'll just have to determine and see what happens in the future . I don 't share the doom and gloom of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. PAWLEY: I would be very interested if the Minister has figures, which I'm sure he would have access to, as to the number of passengers that would daily , for instance, use the Dash buses prior to the imposition of the fare , and the number that are using the Dash buses now.

I know that there's quite an impression that there 's been a very sharp reduction, and that in fact very few now are using those Dash buses. The concern that I have is that , due to the fact the city found itself with no alternative but to increase the user fees because of inaction on the part of this government, that they'll now say "Well, the Dash bus service isn't economic and we'll drop it." And then you're going to find a lot of the pensioners and others in the downtown part of the city, for example , that can't walk far, having to take a cab .

I say that directly relates to the omission on the part of this government to provide a reasonable level of financial assistance . I'd like to just take another instance - the announcement this morning of a substantial hike in ambulance fees. I believe it's $60 to $80 -(Interjection)- $40 to $60, and I believe that to be a matter of concern. I know the Minister will respond by saying, "Well, in the block fund there 1433

Thursday, March 22, 1979 is excluded the ambulance service grant" . But what is, I think, happening is that the city is finding itself more and more in a financial squeeze; is having to look to more and more user fees to try to make up for a reduction of costs in grants that it's receiving total-wise , in relationship to the increasing inflation, and again is finding itself in the untenable positoon of having to increase user fees on something such as ambulance service, which again I believe to be a matter of provincial community concern , and not just City of Winipeg concern . MR. MERCIER: Well , Mr.

Chairman , of course under that particular grant comes from the Department of Health and Community Services . Now, outside of the City of Winnipeg, the grant, according to my information, generally covers the whole cost of the services . In many cases, volunteers , etc . or municipalities !::and together to provide a service in that area. But many people in the rural area , I'm sure , would wait a substantial length of time in the rura l area before they got an ambulance . I'm sure they would be lucky in many cases if they got an ambulance within half an hour .

But I'm sure there are members here who could advise me, but there would be long travelling distances . In the City of Winnipeg they decided that they want an ambulance service which will have a 5 minute response . Now if that's the kind of service you want , that 's the kind of service you have to pay for . I would suggest though that this a particular grant that comes under the DEPPARTMENT OF Health and Community Services and if the Honourable Leader of the Opposition would like , he can go into the other Committee Room and ask the Minister who is dealing with his Estimates there. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Chairman , I would like the Minister 's personal view, really at this point, to the Minister 's position as to what he feels about a 50 percent increase in the cost of ambulance service in the course of one year to the ... -(Interjection)- another 20 percent next fall? -(lnterjection)- 100 percent increase? No, a 50 percent increase in the space of one year . Is the Minister concerned sufficient about this that he would want to discuss this matter in hisliiaison meetings which I'm sure he has with the City of Winnipeg as to whether there 's any alternative by which this can be prevented?

The minimum wage hasn't been increased , the wage earner is pretty well kept down to a 5 or 6 percent increase . The old age pensioner is squeezed heavily and depends a great deal on this service. Is there any action on the part of the provincial government to try to assist the city in preventing what I'm sure is a very distasteful increase as far as they're concerned as well? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, this is an area of responsibility that the previous Council asked the previous government to assume in total as one that related more to the health care field and therefore one of which the provincial government had more responsibility for. The previous government rejected that argument.

The new City Council , I understand through the newspaper, have been discussing raising that subject again with our government and I would expect that over the next few months we may be engaged in some discussion with them on that particular subject but I can 't indicate what result will occur but it will appear to be a matter that the city will be ~aising again with the provincial government. MR. PAWLEY: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wasn't suggesting that the province should assume responsibility because I think a service such as this is best decentralized and handled through the municipal level.

But I'm specifically dealing with the question of financial support . Is the Minister satisfied that more assistance could not be more forthcoming from the province in order to prevent this type of increase? MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman , I'm sure in view of what I think will be representations made by the city to the province , that the Minister of Health may wish to review the amount of the grant . 1 would say one thing. It would be interesting to know , Mr. Chairman , and perhaps this can be part of the review, how many people have Blue Cross which provides insurance for this charge.

I'd be interested in knowing what that figure was to know how many people were insured for that a well as semi-private coverage, etc . MR. PAWLEY: Can 1 assume or am I fair in assuming from what the Minister is stating that the ambulance fee increase will be under review by the Minister of Health and assume by himself as well as to steps that might be undertaken in order to prevent such a sharp increase in the ambulance fees this year . MR. MERCIER: Yes, Mr. Chairman , I expect the city , as I said , through the media, I understand 1434 .. -...

• • • Thursday, March 22, 1979 will be raising this subject again that they raised with the previous government as to whether or not we're prepared to assume responsibility for the operation of the ambulance service , and as the Leader of the Opposition indicates he rejects that idea but in the review some of these other areas, they have to be considered , the amount of the grant and the insurance coverage through Blue Cross . But these are really matters, Mr.

Chairman, that will be ity dealt with through the Minister of Health and Communicty Services whose department at the present time makes these grants to municipalities throughout the province . MR. PAWLEY: In those same discussions will there be any discussion as to whether or not anything further can be done in respect to the transit system in the City of Winnipeg in order not only to deal with costs but to try to bring about greater use of that transit system to prevent congestion to the downtown part of the city?

It seems to me, what is happening is that there is a steady growth now developing in the surburban areas of the commercial shopping centres and the detriment of the downtown Winnipeg. So not only is downtown Winnipeg suffering housing-wise, recreational-wise, and other fields but even from the area of demonition of commercial activity. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman , as I have indicated we will be reviewing with the city this year the base amount of the $30 million increase and the rate of increase for next year.

And no doubt during the review of that with the City consideration will have to be given to programs which the city may wish to undertake in theaareas that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition raises . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr . Chairman , I would like to pursue the matter of urban tranpportation a little further in that , as I understand it the Minister's indicated that the block grant adequately provides for any contingency with respect to covering the deficits of the transit system in Winnipeg .

But at the same time , I believe the Minister indicates that the city will have the discretion as to how it will use the block fund. In essence, am I correct in understand ing the Minister, that the city may decide to go total 100 percent user fee to cover the total cost of transportation and that would not alter the block funding prov ision or the policy of this government . Am I correct in making that assumption? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister . MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, as I have indicated , the city has the responsibility of determining how they wish t o use and allocate the $30 million block funding grant. Again , one of the members opposite raises the spectre in the fear of that kind of irresponsible use of money and the whole direction and attitude from that side is based on the fact that the councillors do not have sufficient responsibility to deal satisfactorily with the use of these moneys , and I have to simply reject that argumen t. It's hypothet ical , and it's based on irresponsib ility on the part of elected members of City Council. MR.

USKIW: I very much disagree with what the minister is saying . The City Council may very well feel it is quite legitimate to go to a user fee system entirely , and to use the $30 million in other areas , or at least all of it in other areas ; and they may feel quite justified in doing so on the basis that the province is not prov iding them with a sufficient amount of capital support , or financial suppo rt.

We may have a s ituation where the City Council may simply throw their hands up and say they can no longer support publ ic transit out of their particular tax base, since the province has withdrawn suppo rt from its tax base; so that in essence , it's quite within the realm of possibi lity that we may end up with the user fee system entirely .

Now, I would hope that doesn't happen , but as I see it, the min ister is saying that that could happen , he doesn 't think it will, but as far as he's concerned , if it does happen , he is powerless to do anything about it, given the fact that he's committed to this principle of city financing - provincial granting of funds for city financing, for city problems . MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chai rman , once again we have indicated the supposition that the amount will not be adequate . City Council has indicated that the amount is adequate, it was $1 million more than they expected to rece ive on current account.

They have certainly not taken any irresponsible decisions this year , in the use of these funds . We still have the lowest fares in Canada, and the rest of the member 's argument is based again, on the irresponsible use of these funds and I have to reject it. - (Interjection)- 1435

Thursday, March 22, 1979 MR. USKIW: I have not at all indicated that the city would be responsible. It may be a question of allocation funds that they may have not much choice about. -(Interjection)- Mfr. MERCIER: I've indicated for the eighth time now, the satisfaction of City Council with the amount of the money this year, the fact that some members have indicated a concern over the establishing this amount as a base for future years to be increased, and I have said repeatedly that we have pledged with the City to review the aoount of that grant throughout this year in determining an amount for next year .

The results of that review and the allocation , or whatever amount it is for next year will determine whether or not it is satisfactory . So the member's comment is hypothetical , and simply based on the premise that the amount will not be sufficient and I reject that. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman , the minister may be right , he may be entire ly wrong and only the future will reveal that , and I accept that. We, of course , have to be worried about what the future holds for us with respect to the City of Winnipeg . What really is a concern is the attitude . . . MR.

MERCIER: I can assure the member right now that he doesn 't have to worry . Things are in good hands . MR. USKIW: What really is a matter of concern to us is the attitude that the government has no role in trying to help the City of Winnipeg plan its future ; that somehow , we are not a party to the development of Winnipeg , and that is the disaster that I see in the present government's position .

If we're talking about moving towards greater utilization of public transportation , for example , I'm sure that there are mechanisms that could be employed to bring about greater use of public transportation that would be in the public interest , and this is something that I would have thought the province would have had an interest in, rather than sloughing off the total responsibility on to City Hall.

There are different cities in different parts of the world that have used various techniques towards encouraging the general public to useppublic transportation , and indeed, to discourage the private automobile as a means of conveyance to and from the workplace . As an example , you know, I think that it's worthwhile to have our urban affairs people work along with the City of Winnipeg in the area of innovation, the area of promoting new ideas on how to cut down the flow of traffic .

I suppose one could illustrate an example or two, which we haven't tried, but couldn 't we have a policy , for example , whereby we would give provincial support to programs that would encourage car-pooling? In other words , we could encourage the City of Winnipeg to designate one lane on a multiple lane street for car-pools , taxis and buses only during the rush hours . There 's an example, you know, there are many things that can be done to enhance , enhance the flow of traffic and the movement of people to and from their places of work; but if the province says, "Thi s isn't our role .

We don't really care what kind of environment we have in the City of Winnipeg, that's the responsibility of the people in Winnipeg ," then I think it's a sad state of affairs, Mr. Chairman. I think the province should be involved , it should care and should direct funds in a way that would enhance the total environmental situation in the urban area . MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman , I would just have to go back for a moment and attempt to recollect the figures, but as I recollect the figures with respect to the use of transit in the city of Winnipeg by the public, that the city of Winnipeg had the highest per capita ridership of all cities in Canada, I think with the exception of - it could have been Montreal and Toronto who had the subway - which obviously contributes to a higher per capita ridership. I suggest that there have been many improvements in the public transit system within the past few years; that that's a distinct policy of the City of Winnipeg to do that.

We would certainly be prepared to co-operate with the City if there was anything that we could do to assist them in accomplishing or furthering that policy and we'll continue to meet with them on a regular basis, in order to eetermine if there 's anything we can do in that regard . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to get some clarification, first from the minister on some of his statements.

I interpret from his remarks that he and his colleagues were taking the position that the Province of Manitoba has a basically neutral stance, as far as the City of Winnipeg is concerned; that it has a neutral stance that it is not in the business of establishing any set of provincial priorities or strategies or directions or guidelines in respect to the development, shaping, whatever of the City of Winnipeg and that they simply say, "We will provide a set amount of money per year for the City Council to dispense with as they see fit , according to some formula based 1436 ..

• • Thursday, March 22, 1979 upon population and per capita grants. Is that a fair

interpretation that we now have a provincial policy in neutrality as far as the City is concerned? MR. CHAIRMAN: The nourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: No. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, if we do not have a policy neutrality, would the minister please indicate exactly what is the policy? What are the specific objectives that the Minister and his colleagues have in terms of the growth , development, future of the City of Winnipeg at this '" stage? MR. MERCIER: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, one could speak for the rest of the day on a general question like that.

But the member refers to the growth, development, etc. of the city in that particular area . Our government is continuing to participate in one of the most important areas of concern to the city, and that is the review of their development plan - transportation planning - and that participation has been continuing for the past, at least, two years, and is ongoing.

I think the member would agree that when he refers to the growth and development of the city , that that is one of the most significant areas in which there can and should be provincial government participation, because that will be the basis, I would suggest, for a lot of policy decisions to be made for the future of the City of Winnipeg. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear the Minister respond that way. But as he well knows , a plan really is simply a piece of paper until it's implemented. Then it becomes a plan.

Would the Minister acknowledge that from the preliminary reports issued by the Development Plan Review Team, that they are indicating there's going to have to be substantial capital investments in the City of Winnipeg over the next five years - major capital investments - in the area of infrastructure, particularly the redevelopment of the downtown servicing network. There will have to be major capital investments in transportation , major capital investments in housing, particularly in the restoration and upgrading of older buidings .

There will have to be major capital investments for the redevelopment of certain blighted areas. And while not playing any amount of numbers I guess even if you throw in the aquaduct for good measure, with a water supply system , we're probably talking in terms of $200 - $300 - $400 worth of additional capital.

It's also clear from statements made by city counc il during the past year , that their lending capacity I think they set it about $50 million a year, and that therefore that they are about 75 percent short on an annual basis of what their capital requ irements are simply to keep up with some of those objectives .

Now if the Minister is saying that he is going to involve the province in the implementation of development plan review recommendations , can we assume then , that at the present time he is beginning to put together the arrangements for a major capital investment program for the City of Winnipeg , based upon those recommendations? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Winnipeg Development Plan Review has not yet been considered by council as a whole and the review process is still underway. So the question is very hypothetical. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman , the Minister may think it' s hypothetical. MR.

MERCIER: mean in terms of talking about specific amounts of moneys for certain projects . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr . Chairman, I would agree with the Minister that the specific recommendations haven't come together as a package eet , but certainly there has been a substantial number of preliminary and interim reports that have both been subm itt ed to the Development Plan Team, of which the prov ince is a member. They have included substantial numbers of recommendations a variety of kinds . I would assume, on those grounds, that there is some anticipation of what could be expected ad I would suggest, Mr.

Chairman, that the city council deliberations on a development plan review would be highly conditioned by the expectations or the guidelines set for them by the province as to what they think is possible or feasible in terms of capital requirements . Now, we may get into chicken and egg propositions, but it does come down to, there has to be some parameter set so we can say what , within those recommendations, are likely or reasonable . We know the total universal recommendations probably would be far too expensive. 1437

Thursday, March 22, 1979 So until the province is prepared to set some kind of capital program - and what I'm saying is, and I guess I've argued for it before - should there not be some kind of five year capital program , which I believe , if I'm not mistaken , that the Minister in his former capacity used to argue for himself when he attended municipal-provincial meetings, that there be a five year provincial capital program so that the city could then begin to gauge its own planning and its own investments accordingly , and could we not , or should we not have that kind of indication now from the province what they think, within the total capital market , they are prepared to put forwa rd for those additional programs?

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman , we have indeed reviewed a proposed five year capital development program with the city and this relates to the concern expressed by some members of city council that the block funding amount , and the formula rate of increase for the futur e may not be adequate - although it's adequate this year - may not be adequate in fut ure years .

That 's why we've undertaken a review of city council during the course of this year , prior to estab lishing base grant for future years - their needs and their concerns - so that when that amount is established for next year and the formula for future years , then the city will be assured of a definite source of funds - an amount of funds - something that was not specifically available previously .

Now Now I would think that the Winnipeg Development Plan Review , somewhere during the course of the next few years when the City of s Winnipeg determines what it priorities are particularly , and we engage in discussions with the city on that , may very well also affect another review of the block funding grant to the city . But the Development Plan Review will have to be completed first and certainly some general discussion with the city , as to what their priorities are .

I' prepared to meet with them and discuss that with them , so that together we can have some unders tanding of the direction in which the city would desire to move and on which we agree on a long-range capital development program . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure in my own mind what the Minister is saying . He is saying that there are really two stages to the provincial government capital allocation to the city .

One is one that will be reviewed immediately in terms of immed iate requ irements for projects that have to be initiated , say, within the next one , two or three years ad then when the Development Plan Review procedure is completed and the city determines some sort of priorities , then there will be another review of that capital program . If that 's the case , and if I understand that correctly , could we get back to that first stage then?

Because I'm not certain - and I may have missed something along the way - but I don 't believe that I have ever seen any guidelines for what the province is prepared to supply in that first stage of capital assistance to the City of Winnipeg . MR. MERCIER: Well, you 're referring to the block funding grant. . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Chairman , I would go back to the discussions on City Council , about their capital program , which is, that they locked off several major projects : the southwest corridor ; aquaducts; major extensions of roads ; northwest corner places like that , simply because they said , "We do not have any capital , we've reached our lending limit , we've got to hold the line ", and I do not believe I saw any indication from the province saying , " Look , over the next 2 to 3 year period , we are prepared to supply X millions of capital assistance for the southwest transit corridor or for transportation in these areas .".

The block grant is substantially being chewed up in terms of operational or day by day maintenance problems , and does not have any extra in it or any discretion in it for undertaking some of the capital projects that are necessary in order to start rebuilding the city . As I read those debates , what the City Council was saying very clearly that all that this block funding did , was allowed them to keep up just to kind of to keep pace with the ongoing day by day requirements , and didn 't give them anything add itional to start investing a little bit in future requirements . MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Chairman , that's indeed why we have indicated we are prepared to review with the city during the course of this year in establishing the amount of the block fund ing grant for next year, the city 's needs and requirements . MR. AXWORTHY: Well , Mr . Chairman , we may be headed into a circle , so maybe we can break out of it in a couple of ways .

The Treasurer of the City of Winnipeg issued a statement , a letter actually , to the City Council last night where , and I could quote ' He said in a letter to city councillors , that: "Winnipeg taxpayers will pay 12.8 million more this year in schoo l taxes while the provincial government only increased provincial-wide grants by 12.9 million . So this only extends that this 1438

• .. Thursday, March 22, 1979 proportionate sharing of school costs to the further disadvantage of Winnipeg property owners ." Now the question I think that Mr. Gilmore is getting at is an argument that we have had in this Legislature now for the six years I have been here, and that is about the Greater Winnipeg School levy, which was established after the Unicity Program came in as part of the equalization program.

It works substantially to the discrimination of certain taxpayers within the total City of Winnipeg and to the advantage of others, and it also I think, blends in very strongly with the over~l question of city finance because it really does impinge upon the carrying capacity of the property tax owner, if they are carrying a disproportionate amount.

I believe the City of Winnipeg now, in fact, has to raise more money than it spends for schools in order to pay into the equalization under the Greater Winnipeg Levy, at the same time that the Winnipeg City schools themselves must carry many of the special schooling costs because they contain the central area which has a large in-migration of people from rural areas . So I would ask the minister, does he intend to eliminate the Greater Winnipeg School Levy or certainly revise it to bring it into some more proper proportion and to end the discriminatory aspects of it? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, that's obviously a question that should be directed towards the Minister of Education, but I would certainly be in favour of doing away with it. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to hear the minister commit himself in that way.

I would suggest that he probably has somewhat better access to the Minister of Education than I do, and that as Minister responsible for Urban Affairs and the City, and considering that the Winnipeg School Levy came in as part of the Unicity package, then I would ask him not only if he would be prepared to express his sentiments, but also initiate or undertake that direct request to the Minister of Education to see if it could be eliminated at this stage and he would be able to us his substantial influence over his Cabinet colleague to bring that about. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that should be, or will be, a part of the White Paper that will be tabled by the Minister of Finance, no doubt dealing with property tax credits and the cost of education in general. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman , could I ask perhaps a question as to when can we expect this White Paper which is now becoming the omnibus recommendation for all ails and ills of the Province of Manitoba? When can we expect that to be distributed? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman , that would be a question that would have to be put to the Minister of Finance who will be responsible for eealing with it.

I have no knowledge of when it will be tabled. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I'd like, if I might, to perhaps raise some other questions with the Minister of Urban Affairs. The discussions over the Community Services Grant Program, I gather, is still under negotiation. Because of the elimination of the NIP Program, its replacement by Community Services Program, does the province intend to establish the conditions for that community services grant that would be mainly directed towards redevelopment efforts in older neighbourhoods? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I will be as charitable as I can toward the Liberal member of the House. The Ministers of Municipal Affairs met last June with Mr. Ouellette to deal with the Community Services Program, which at that time of course had no legislation, in effect that there is now legislation passed, I understand, by the House of Commons last week, March 12th, I believe . No province in Canada has entered into a community services agreement with the federal government yet. There was one agreement entered into in British Columbia, and signed by Mr.

Ouellette, but I understand they were subsequently advised by the president of the Treasury Board of the federal government that that signature was not authorized. We are trying to enter into an agreement. I have in fact forwarded an agreement to Mr. Ouellette, which I have indicated 1 am prepared to recommend to Cabinet that be signed if it meets with the approval of Mr. Ouellette and his Cabinet colleagues.

One of the difficulties with the program is that there is no money budgeted in this year's budget for the program, and that if an agreement is entered into, it would be conditional upon funds being included in the budget of the federal government in the next fiscal year, and is therefore a difficulty for municipalities in that if they proceed with projects under a community services agreement this · year, they would not be reimbursed until the following year which is quite different from any other federal-provincial agreement, as I understand it. 1439

Thursday, March 22, 1979 But we're prepared and as long as we receive some form of commitment from the federal government , that indeed our municipalities in Manitoba can be assured in some way of reimbursement the following year, because we wouldn 't want to mislead them . I wouldn't want to mislead the municipalities in Manitoba in proceeding with projects in '79 for which there is a possibility that they will not be reimbursed in 1980 through this program . I think that would be totally unfair to them . But as soon as we receive some commitment from Mr.

Ouellette that the agreement which we have forwarded is satisfactory , I have oo say that we've given in on a number of items that we thought were agreed to by provincial ministers across Canada and Mr. Ouellette last June, but which Mr. Ouellette appears to have changed his mind onut on a number of them we're prepared to give in. If there is money available for municipalities in Manitoba , I think it's our obligation to try to do as much as we can to make it available to them . So if we receive word from Mr.

Ouellette that the form of the agreement is satisfactory to him and that there is a possibility of some commitment to reimbursement to municipalities in the next year 's budget of the federal government , we will certainly then be dealing with the question of what projects we would recommend these moneys be allocated to by the municipalities in Manitoba . Certainly the range of projects that Mr.

Ouellette described as being encompassed in the Community Services Agreement is so broad, that they simply all couldn 't be covered under the limited amount of money that's available under the program to the Province of Manitoba . But the NIP program, we haven 't decided indeed if we want to establish any priorities , but we haven't decided what those priorities will be, but the NIP program is one of the major programs which the Community Services Program was meant to replace. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman , I thank the minister for the explanat ion.

I would ask him this question , is the province in its proposed agreement that it's forwarded , does it expect that it would be prepared to undertake certain cost-sharing arrangements under that program? I would remind the minister that under the NIP program which was the major program replaced , much of it was on a cost-sharing basis , 50-cent dollars for Capital Works , I believe , 75-cent dollars , I believe, on social recreation items .

Under the Community Services -Program , can we therefore expect a proportionate matching of the - I think it was the figure of $12 million that's coming into Manitoba under that - will we expect the province to put up an additional $6 million under the umbrella of that program as it did under the NIP programs? · MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman , there has never been under any of the agreements contemplated, specific conditions like that with any province that I am aware of.

We, at this stage , haven't received any indication that the agreement is even acceptable to the federal government and when we get confirmation the agreement is acceptable and commitment to the funding, and hopefully the member will use his influence perhaps to gain that commitment and understanding in the next few days or however long it will be before the business of the federal government is otherwise engaged . . . MR. AXWORTHY: Yes, Mr.

Chairman , in that respect I would also enlist the co-operation of one of the minister's relatives in that kind of entreaty , but the question I did raise was this - that why I am concerned about it is the actual package of money that goes into municipal assistance for improvement purposes - and I am recollecting - but I believe under the three-year operation of the Neighbourhood Improvement Program , the province did contribute several millions of dollars over and above the federal contribution for neighbourhood improvement .

And what I am trying to find out, is it understood or contemplated , that the Province of Manitoba would be prepared to at least keep up the same proportion of commitment under the Community Services Program as it did on the NIP program for municipal assistance and redevelopment efforts? MR. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Chairman , if and when we're satisfied , and we hear back from the federal government that there can indeed be a Community Services Agreement, then we will be dealing with the question of the allocation of funds under the agreement for what types of projects they would be spent, and we'll be consulting with the municipalities in Manitoba as to priorities and that question will be determined at that time . - • MR. AXWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would expect then from that, that at this point in ~ time, there is no commitment for any kind of matching arrangement as there was under the NIP program, that really remains to be seen, based upon the agreement that is to be signed , but there is no commitment at this point. 1440

Thursday, March 22, 1979 MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the difficulty is that there is nothing to match it with yet from the federal government . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, I realize that there is no specific amount. But obviously the federal government has already indicated what amounts would be apportioned to the Province of Manitoba. I believe it was in the neighbourhood of $11.5 or $12 million, something like that on an annual basis. I believe that 's the amount. Now, the question is, so they know that once the agreement conditions are signed, that there would be that amount of money being transferred .

What I am trying to find out is whether the same percentage or proportion that the province previously matched under the Neighbourhood Improvement Program would be at least continued, hopefully improved. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I can say that we would have liked to have entered into an agreement a year ago with the federal government if it was at all possible . This has been discussed with the federal government for a year and a half now . I think all provinces are frankly a bit sceptical about the whole plan because of the fact that discussions have gone on for so long and nothing has yet happened.

And all I can say is, hopefully we'll get a response shortly from Mr. Ouellet as to the terms of the agreement and the commitment for reimbursement to municipalities. As soon as we do that, I can assure him that we will proceed with haste to - certainly I will - to recommend to Cabinet they enter into a federal-provincial agreement and deal with the question of the allocation of funds to municipalities . MR. AXWORTHY: Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I'll leave that particular item and go on to one which , again , may be more immediate .

As the Minister knows from previous discussion, there has been a change in the direction of the city's policy related to the CPR Railroads and its overpass program. There is now the offer of doing a major study on relocation, with a commitment that if the relocation is feasible , that there would be additional funds and that the city, while they haven't firmly decided, have indicated that they are prepared to go along.

I would ask the Minister if the province is also prepared to go along with that directio n, if they're prepared to share in the study itself, and also begin to provide some further commitment in terms of what would the province be prepared to do provided the relocation stud y shows that it is economically feasible to do. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman . This is my day for being charitable, and I will continue to be charitable. When city council approved the Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass in their capital budget for this year, we subsequently wrote to Mr.

Lang, the Minister of Transportation, indicating that relocation was in, not only the privince's view, but the city's view, a desirable alternative to construction of the bridge, but that it couldn't be done without a firm federal commitment towards funding and towards implementation of relocation under the Act.

We therefore recommended to the federal government the allocation of $7.6 million of funds under this program to the city for the construction of the Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass, which was $2.6 million more in funds than the city expected to receive, and which assisted them to that degree in establishing their own capital budget this year . Since then, I have had no formal reply from Mr. Lang. There have apparently been press releases issued and comments by Manitoba's minister from northern Ontario at various meetings in Manitoba recently about the matter, which sometimes have been contradicted by Mr.

Lang's office. But I have yet to receive, and I think again being charitable; I'm a little concerned that Mr. Lang wouldn't take the time to write to the provincial government in response to our letter, at least formally, to indicate what he has apparently indicated through the media , that the federal government are prepared to pay for a study. I can tell the member that if and when we ever receive a formal response from Mr. Lang, that there will be some concerns that we will want to express, both on behalf of ourselves and on behalf of our city - the City of Winnipeg - which I think will be fairly reasonable.

But, again, maybe he can use his influence to - and I don't think it's asking very much to ask Mr. Lang to respond to our letter that we sent to him a number of weeks ago now - so that he can indicate to us what his position is, so that we can again meet with the city and perhaps indicate some reasonable concerns to Mr. Lang.

I can say, if the federal government is prepared to go along with the study, I think it's reasonable to suggest to him that there should be some form of commitment in writing, to some degree of funding from the federal government if the study shows relocation of the yards or the main line or both to be feasible. The city, I believe, would like to be consulted with respect to the terms of reference of the study. I think there should be some agreement given by the federal government as to extension of the UTAP moneys - because it's a five-year agreement for the UTAP moneys 1441

Thursday, March 22, 1979 and the allocat ion of $7.6 million is based upon the cash flow during the five-year period for the construction of the Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass - there should be some agreement to extend the five-year time limit for the use of those funds after the study is completed and the negotiations that no doubt would follow are completed , so that if the Sherbrook-McGregor Overpass is still to be constructed , the moneys can still be used even though the five-year time limit will have expired .

Or indeed , if the money is to be used from that ·fund for relocation , thattthe time for using it can be extended to cover the time that will be covered by the study and the negotiations that will follow . I think those are some reasonable concerns that I have, and I think the city of Winnipeg share . And rather than dealing with this matter through press releases , perhaps the member could request Mr. Lang 's office to write and indicate to us what his position really is, and we can respond and indicate some of our own concerns , and perhaps the whole question can be resolved by agreement between the parties .

MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman , in the same spirit of charity , I would suggest that perhaps, I guess, if there was any inclination to communicate through press releases , it was caused mainly by city councillors relaying a number of private conversations immediately to the two newspapers within 30 seconds of receipt. So I guess it became the prescribed method of communication over a period of time. But I would agree with the Minister, that I think that that kind of response should be given.

But let me raise with the Minister a couple of points : that I hiink at this point the province has been able to get off very lightly , because it's not talking about spending any money of its own. It is simply the UT AP money , in effect, federal transfers , with no addit ional provincial ... I don't think there 's one cent added to it other than if there 's cost of postage and stamps and stationery .

So that the question at this point in time has been one of the demand for relocation , which obviously has a number of positive implicat ions for the city and the province as a whole , that the senior level of government in Manitoba really is not indicating what it's prepared to do, or what commitment it's prepared to make , if the relocation program was to go ahead . It is simply saying , "We're prepared to spend federal money in some way or other ", and I would think that it would be of some use to the city , as well as to the federal government, if the provincial government was also to make a like commitment .

And by that I don't necessarily mean again specifying exact dollar amounts - because that has also been the position of the federal government - they have committed that they would undertake additional spending for relocation if it's feasible , but they have often said - and I know that the Minister was at a meeting with Mr. Reid where he said it - " We can't give you a dollar amount until we know what the study is. We can 't specify cost until we know what the costs are" .

But , if we're talking about principles now - the principle that the cost of relocation would be shared by the CPR, by the city, and by the federal government - I wonder if the province is also prepared to become a partner in that sharing , considering the very major economic , social , physical benefits that it would have to the total urban area. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the only comment I want to make at this time is that the province has indeed made a - and you have to remember , this is a federal-prov incial agreement , the Urban Transportation Assistance Program , under which the province allocates funds under the agreement for relocation and grade crossing projects - It was described by the federal government as again encompassing a wide range of subjects , but the fund is simply insufficient to cover that wide range of subjects . But we have made a substantial allocation of funds.

Out of $10.2 million available , $7.6 million have been allocated towards the City of Winnipeg for this Sherbrook-McGrego r Overpass . So at tee present time , I think that the province has treated the City of Winnipeg extremely well in the allocation of funds under this program . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister calls it a federal-provincia l program , he is talking basically about a transfer of federal funds . Now is he saying that of that $7.6 million that was committed to the bridge , or the overall $10 million , that a proportion of it is provincial money?

Or is it in fact not a direct transfer to which the province simply indicates the criteria , or the conditions under which it will be transferred , and that there is not any additional funds that are available . That would be question one that under the UT AP Program , as I understand it, it is a transfer program , not a matching program . MR. MERCIER: That's correct , Mr. Chairman . It is a transfer program , but the province determines the allocation of funds .

I can assure the Minister that a substantial list of projects was completed - I think approximately 17, I am advised, relocation of railway crossing and grade crossing projects - the Province of Manitoba is determined that 7.6 of that $10.2 million be allocated to the City of Winnipeg . All I'm saying is that is a pretty reasonable allocation to the City of Winnipeg , a 1442

Thursday, March 22, 1979 allocation of funds to the City of Winnipeg. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman , I understand the Minister now, that he agrees that it is a transfer program . And I agree that the province has the right of determin ing criteria. But let me ask this ~ then because again , it's unclear .

Would that same allocation of $7.5 million also be available for relocation as it has been for overpass construction; and secondly, that depending upon the front-end costs of relocation, is the prov ince prepared to at least commit, if not in dollar amounts , at least in princip le, that they would be prepared to share in certain relocation costs if that's what the study finds to be the best option affordable, above and beyond the UT AP funds that it sets conditions on? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman , t hat is a diff icult quest ion to answer , when we haven't yet received any response from Mr.

Lang as to our recommendations for the allocat ion of funds . We haven't heard in any formal way from him what the position of the federal government is on the study , or anything else related to the subject . MR. AXWORTHY: Well , Mr. Chairman , to the extent that one can apologize for Mr. Lang, I'm not In a position to do that. We know informally what the conditions are . He has stated them.

That the federal government is paying now for a study to be undertaken ; it can be done on a joint basis and, that if the study does prove to be the right option , based upon the economics and social assessment, that they're prepared to commit dollars beyond the UT AP funds for relocation; and with those two conditions in mind , I would come back to my questions , that is the Province prepared to take its 7.6, that it has already designated for the overpasses , and be prepared to apply that portion of UT AP funds for relocation and perhaps , go beyond that and commit in principle at least, to do further sharing from its own capital resources , not just simply reallocating federal funds towards a relocation program .

MR. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman , I would expect that that would depend on what Mr. Lang is prepared to negotiate on the extension of time for the use oftthe funds . We have indicated . . . I did indicate in my letter to Mr. Lang , that in the event there was a change of opin ion by the City of Winnipeg Council with respect to the Sherbrook-McGregor overpass, that we would be prepared to reconsider the reallocation of funds , but that will depend on what sort of terms of extension of time for the use of the funds can be negotiated and agreed upon with Mr. Lang.

As it stands now, there is five years to use the money and four and-a-half left and if there is no extension of time for the use of those moneys, then as I indicated earlier, there are 16 or 17 other projects, totalling $55 million , that we would have to consider for the use of these funds . MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman , I accept the minister's qualification on that exception, but as 1 understand again from the reports and the transcript of the statement by Mr. Lang, as well as the statement by Mr.

Reid that there is a commitment that the UTAP funding would be extended if the relocation was feasible, but I would hope that we would be able to see that a response to his original letter was available very soon. I would just like to ask then , Mr.

Chairman, if I might not monopolize further time of other members of the committee , that in the issue of financial assistance for the City of Winnipeg, particularly in the downtown core, the inner-city area , with the decision of the City , not to go into housing programs and to it appears not invest anything in the redevelopment of the downtown area at this stage, does the Province intend any specific program for inner-city reconstruction development or upgrading of its older buildings , particularly in light of the findings of the City's own study which indicated that there has been close to 1,200 apartment units taken out of the market over the past three years , because of its own by-laws.

Does the Province have any proposal to respond to those kinds of conditions? MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman , I don 't believe the member was present when we've talked in the past few days, that as indicated in the Throne Speech , there has been now established an interdepartmental group reviewing services, government services in the inner core area, and that committee will be shortly meeting and reporting to the Community Services Committee of Cabinet and eventually to Cabinet , and we'll be dealing with all housing issues that will relate to health and community services, education and my department will be involved in the co-ordination of that task force report, and out of that report , I believe , will come recommendations as to how we will be dealing with this issue and other related issues in the services to the core area of the city . 1443

Thursday, March 22, 1979 MR. AXWORTHY: I thank the minister for that answer then , I have one other set of questions that relate to the - I presume that this is about the only place in the Estimates to ask , and that is whether the government is intending to provide any major amendments to the City of Winnipeg Act to respond to both their requests and also the perceived inadequacies of the way in which decisions are being made at times at City Hall and really the breakdown of the executive structure. ~ Can we expect major amendments to the City of Winnipeg Act at this session? MR. MERCIER: No, Mr . Chairman .

We have met with the City on a number of occasions dealing with amendments to the Act, and there are some reviews going on at major areas of the Act , in conjunction with the City and I would expect that if any major amendments are oo be introduced, they will be introduced at the next session of the Legislature. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr .

Chairman, in that respect, one of the things that gives me some concern is that in this exchange , we have heard about the review being done on the property tax system , a review being done on all government services in the inner-city, and now , a review of the City of Winnipeg Act and amendments.

The difficulty in each of these cases, that it seems to be a pretty closed process , that the parties to that review are, as I understand it, mainly in house and while the minister is blessed with some very excellent able public servants , they do not necessarily exclusively have the kind of information or opinion that might be required , and I'm wondering whether in each of these cases , there shouldn 't be some opening of the process of consultation , review , examination , so that there would be an ability for other organizations to represent their points of view, and citizens and perhaps individual councillors .

I can recall for example , the differences of opinion on City Council itself on terms of amendments that the official pos ition taken by the Executive Policy Committee at times was quite distinctly opposed by members of the loyal opposition in City Council and I'm really wondering whether there shouldn't be, at some point in time , at least an opening in each of these processes , so that there could be some exam ination before they actually end up on the desk of the Legislature for enactment. MR. MERCIER: Well , Mr.

Chairman , I would certainly welcome any recommendations from the Member for Fort Rouge, or any other member or any other member of the public or organization.

I want to say though , generally with respect to legislation as the member will have noticed , since the day the Legislature opened , we have been tabling bills in the Legislature on a regular basis, and the whole intention of introducing legislation into the House, in this and future sessions is to introduce it early in the session to allow it to be available for some time, to allow consideration by members of the public and anyone else who 's interested in legislation , before it will eventually be passed and I hope that that is an improvement in the legislative process that will allow for a greater degree of public involvement than perhaps has been the case in the past , when importan t legislation has been introduced in the waning days of the session , and people have not had sufficient opportunity to consider it at length with time to research and put together well-informed briefs .

MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Chairman , perhaps I can make a specific request to the minister in this regard.

I have heard him speak on occasion and it 's a view that I agree with , that we should be re-examining the role of the community committees and the resident advisory groups in the city of Winnipeg , to determine - I don 't think they're functioning all that well at the present moment , and if we're going to keep them , then obviously something has to be done with them , and as he knows the resident advisory groups that were a creature really of provincial legislation , have asked for the opportunity to be able to analyze and recommend upon the role of resident advisors and community committees; and they have asked for some support in this respect.

Considering that it has been a creature of the province and was set up by them , is the province and its Department of Municipal and Urban Affairs prepared to give some resources or support to the resident advisory groups through the City , so that they can undertake that kind of review based upon their experiences and assessments , so that they could bring to bear that perspective on what I cons ider to be a very critical question, you know, in any revision of the City of Winnipeg Act , that question of how you maintain some degree of local autonomy and decision-making .

Is that something that the minister would be prepared to entertain? MR. MERCIER: The question is whether the Province should fund the activities of resident advisory groups within the City of Winnipeg? MR. AXWORTHY: Mr . Chairman , that certainly is one of the options ; I'm more concerned at this stage of seeing whether the Department of Municipal and Urban Affairs say, in co-operat ion with 1444

Thursday, March 22, 1979 the City and with the resident advisors, would undertake a special examination of the place, role, function of the community committees and the resident advisory system , and do that on a joint basis , so that there would be a co-operative examination between city officials, provincial researchers and the citizens involved , and be prepared to table some form of report or analysis, so that legislators here would have the opportunity to see it and that there might be, I think a somewhat broadening or different perspective than if it was done simply in house. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I'm advised we have just recently received a recommendation ·from, I believe it's City Counc il or the Executive Policy Committee for changes that would relate to the acti vities of resident advisory groups . We've just received it very lately , and as a result, there will be no change included at this particular session of the Legislature . I don 't anticipate that the prov incial government would get involved ,

part icularly in the funding of the activities of resident advisory groups ; but we have a continuing committee meeting on a review of the City of Winnipeg Act with the City of Winnipeg officials , and we might consider with the City of Winnipeg, the kind of review that we'd like to carry on prior to the next session of the Legislature and the degree of public discussion that there might be. I'm sure the member will be well aware there have been a number of - in the past few years - public comm issions and inquiries into the City of Winnipeg Act , and many many representations made .

I've heard concern in some quarters that, at least in the viewpoints of some , that not all of the considerations, representations were really adequately cons idered in the amendments to the Act which flowed in the session of 1977. I think those representations that were made then are deserving of another review by our government at this time . Mr.

Chairman , ii can 't give the member a commitment as to what form of public representations will be taken either by us or by City Council , who are involved to some degree in this review, but in meeting with the City of Winnipeg on the review of the Act , I can and will undertake to discuss with them the kind of public representations that might be allowed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen , the hour of 12:30 having arrived, I am leaving the Chair to return at 2:30 this afternoon . SUPPLY - HEALTH AND COMMUNITY SERVICES MR. CHAIRMAN, Mr.

Abe Kovnats (Radisson): I would draw the Honourable members' attention to Page 48 in the Main Estimates , Health and Community Services. We are on Item 3 Social Services and Community Health , (

f) Home Economics Services:

(1) Salaries-pass . The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairma, before we form this Committee, the House Leader said that he would give us the opportunity to keep on with the discussion that we had, which certainly is a priority and I wonder if

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-3-26a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 3rd hansardpdf 26a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e339047434c9dc019a4fe8aa1c8ae2dc22391166

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