Hansard, April 25, 2005
Mr. Murray: .....
I wanted to just get a sense from the First Minister. I know
that there is a lot of discussion around Waverley West. It is a big project, and I
think, from some of the issues that have been raised, it is always fascinating
when it appears in the media that we are somehow building the size of
Brandon overnight. It would be a wonderful thing, I guess, if that kind of
growth was out there, but I think that clearly, you have to plan for that, and
it is great for Manitoba, great for Winnipeg, if the city grows and we see
an area that is anywhere near that size to be developed.
I do know that we have some concerns, and I think we have
raised then publicly in the House here on the issue of process, the Municipal
Board. We believe that in terms of process that whether it is the Public
Utilities Board, the Municipal Board, there is a purpose there, and I know from
time to time that there is a sense that if you go before these boards that
somehow there is a negativity, certainly there will be people in
opposition.
I get that and I understand that, but from time to time, perhaps there
are some good things that may come out of it, and I know that there was a
lot of concern that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith)
bypassed the Municipal Board and went right back to the city.
On that issue, and on the issue of being both owner and
conflicted, because potentially being the developer, the First Minister spent a lot of time
in Intergovernmental Affairs, I think that was the title that as minister
under the previous NDP government, so I think it is a file he knows quite
well.
Could he comment on bypassing the Municipal Board on Waverley West, and
also on being the issue of being both owner and a developer of that piece of
land?
Mr. Doer: Let us start with the first issue. The Province of Manitoba,
in the early seventies, purchased a considerable amount of land in the
Winnipeg area inside the Perimeter Highway to develop into the future, under the
assumption that land and the affordability of land is one of the key
conditions for affordability of housing. This land was purchased by the
former Schreyer government, and it remained owned by the Province for a
considerable length of time. There were proposals to sell it, but
often, because it was placed at the book value, was actually higher. I think
if I recall the real estate value that governments would not do it, because
then they would have to show a loss on the books.
The previous government did it with the South St. Vital area,
and we have amended part of that to provide more park space in that area, because
it was not, in our view, incorporated properly, but the idea that serviceable
land adjacent to the existing infrastructure of Winnipeg would be made
available, as opposed to only developments taking place outside of Winnipeg in the
Capital Region.
* (17:00)
There were proposals, for example, impinging on Birds Hill
Park. The idea
that this would be developed was a proposal made to the previous
government, and it was approved, without going to, quote, the "Municipal Board." I
do not believe everything in that plan was right. That is why we went back
to building more park space with the local community and the smaller
bridge that goes across the river. I do not know if the member has been down
there in the Seine River area, but we worked on taking some of the proceeds
from the sale, which, by the way, there was a point where the land became
almost as valuable as the book value. In other words, there was no big lottery
for the government to sell that land or this land because the book value
was already there, because the land was against an asset. It was not just
sitting there for a windfall to the Province.
Then the mayor of Winnipeg, during the Capital Region
discussions, the
former mayor of Winnipeg, I might point out, and I will have to get the
date, argued strongly, and, in fact, I think he presented this to the
Thomas commission on the Capital Region, but he argued with us. He said, "Why
are you talking about the Capital Region? You own the biggest land block
adjacent to the sewer and water systems and other infrastructure in
Winnipeg and we are going to have a situation where Winnipeg is going to be
landlocked. We are going to have land but no development authority
because you own it." It is not a question of zoning, it is not a question of
planning, not a question of anything infrastructure. It was a question
of who owned it.
When we looked at this, it was very similar to South St. Vital,
only a larger lot, a larger area, and we got a proposal from the City of
Winnipeg.
Let us just deal with the issue of yes, we own the land Yes, the
Province owned the land that Gary Filmon developed, I think, with the Borger
gang, or group. Sorry.
An Honourable Member: We have enough gangs in Manitoba already.
Mr. Doer: What was that?
An Honourable Member: We have enough gangs in Manitoba already. Alan [Borger]
will get out his hog and come down here.
Mr. Doer: He will get out his hog, yes. That is right.
So they proposed this to us, "they" being City Hall, came to us
and said, "You are going to have all your development in the Capital Region,
outside of Winnipeg. We are not going to get the benefit of the developments
and the revenues." So this was a proposal from the City of Winnipeg to us. We
did not say to them, "We are going to go out there and develop the land."
So the recommendation to sell the land and develop the land was
made at City Hall, or was made by the previous mayor to us. We looked at it. It
made sense. It made sense to develop it in a slow way, but make that land
available. I was interested, just the other day, there was a good
article in The National Post. It said that affordable land is crucial for
affordable housing. They actually pointed to this as one of the examples of making
that land available. We then had that proposal go to the City of Winnipeg
for an amendment to the Plan Winnipeg act or City of Winnipeg-Plan Winnipeg.
They had public hearings. They have planners. They have researchers. They
have urban policy people. They have, at City Hall, a number of experts and
the capacity to not only have their own views on a proposal, but have their
own public hearing process.
So, last year, everybody was talking about treating
municipalities in a more mature way. Well, here is an example where City Hall had planning
capacity, had policy capacity, had land use authority, had existing
infrastructure, had ideas on the development of that land and had
proposed to do it. So is City Hall, who came to us to develop the land, in a
conflict of interest when they take it to their own planning process? I do not
think they were. I mean, they are looking at growth in their own community.
We, then, received the proposal: (a) they had proposed that we sell it; (b)
they had proposed that they have the planning process; (c) they had proposed
an amendment to Plan Winnipeg.
Was there any error in law in what City Hall did? Should the
Province then take it to the Municipal Board to second-guess the process that took
place at City Hall? Well, former Premier Filmon did not do that with the St.
Vital proposal and, I might say, Whyte Ridge was developed as an amendment to
Plan Winnipeg. I approved the Cairns development as part of Whyte Ridge,
without a reference to the Municipal Board. So this is not an inconsistent
decision-making process from what has happened in the past, when the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs dealt with it.
So this proposed land development, if City Hall had said no, we
would not be developing. In other words, if the elected representatives at City
Hall had said no to an amendment to Plan Winnipeg, we would not be
developing that land. If they had proposed that we say yes, and the interesting
part of this is it went through two different mayors. It went through the
former mayor who had proposed the idea and then it went through the new mayor
who then had the process refereed at City Hall, in the sense of being
mayor.
Then they had to vote after the public hearings.
There are people opposed to this, and there are people that say
we should do more in the inner city. Well, we are doing more in the inner city.
There is the Neighbourhoods Alive! There is more investment in the Exchange
District. Waterfront Drive is an investment of the Province. And we
have said that all net profits, net being net of debt on the books, will,
beyond the development of this land, go to inner city housing. So this is not
going to be a grab for the Province because it will allow us to invest more
in the inner city. But I just want to point out this idea was initiated at
City Hall.
We have similar ideas coming to us from municipalities all
across Manitoba that are facing issues of growth. We have issues of growth in
Steinbach. We have issues of growth in Morden. We have issues of growth in Winkler.
We have issues of growth in Gimli, and, of course, we saw the R.M. of
Gimli and the community of Gimli come together. We have issues of growth,
potentially, in Brandon where, in 1972, Len Evans put the urban limit line well out
beyond the Simplot plant. That meant the revenues from taxes came into
Brandon.
There are issues of growth, and I am not mentioning all of
them. The precedence for the City of Winnipeg, planned amendments to the City of
Winnipeg act, I think, Cairns, and I am looking at my former chair of
finance committee at City Hall, but I think the Cairns development,
Whyte Ridge development, the South St. Vital development and the new
development in Waverley West all happened with the proposal from City Hall to amend
Plan Winnipeg, and it all happened with public hearings.
There will be certain conditions that the minister set for the
City, but they have a planning department. They have an economic impact analysis.
They know the sewer goes right through that location. There are proposals to
extend the City of Winnipeg sewer outside of Winnipeg for areas that
are not even residents of Winnipeg. I think that Winnipeg is not Singapore.
There is land outside of Winnipeg that is developed all the time. And so this is
a proposal to respect the planning policy and political decisions at City
Hall in partnership with the Province. It is not intended to be a process,
and it does not deviate from other decisions that were made with similar
amendments to Plan Winnipeg in the past in terms of process.
Mr. Murray: Just to clarify, the First Minister made comments about any
profits that would be in excess of net of debt would go to inner city
housing, planning, infrastructure. I really raise this more because I
think it was one of the inner-city councillors that I had a discussion with,
and he said his concern was it is one thing to say, it is another thing to
make it law, put it into the regulations, put it as part of the deal so that
it does not kind of get lost in the shuffle.
Is that the intent of this First Minister's government to, sort
of, I do not know if the right word is legalize it, but if it is part of a deal,
it is part of a deal, that it would be very transparent and people will be
able to sort of see the flow of money from the project into the inner city.
I think that seemed to be a bit of an issue with some people,
particularly with this councillor, and I daresay I would be raising this on his
behalf, but I am just curious because you raised the issue. I just wondered if
you could comment on the-again, I am not a lawyer so I do not know if it is
the legality, but just the best efforts would be made to ensure something
like that is put in place so there is no sort of scratching of heads or
second guessing on it.
* (17:10)
Mr. Doer: Well, given the fact that this land is going to take 20 years
to develop at about 2000 lots a year, then perhaps by then there might be
even a change in government. So we might want a commitment from both sides
of the aisle.
So I am going to challenge the member opposite. I am putting on
the record, right now, that all the proceeds that exceed the debt and the cost the
Province has to incur for the infrastructure development, in other
words, all the net profits or surplus, will go to inner-city housing. I want
you to be on the record, sir, now that you are representing the inner city in
your question, to agree to the same thing.
Mr. Murray: I am not sure, in the scheme of things, if that comes right
after the hair pull or the leg wrestling match, but it is a great
challenge and I think it is the right thing to do. I think it is the right thing
to do. I think that is the direction we should be going. I suspect it was
one of the major issues that people had about this project. So I think
that-
An Honourable Member: I think you should make the business case public.
Mr. Murray: Well, that is-
An Honourable Member: What, you do not want to make the business case
public?
Mr. Chairperson: Order.
Mr. Doer: To respond to the echo I heard in the Chamber just a moment
ago, I would point out that that wonderful area of Whyte Ridge and Cairns
never went to the Municipal Board with an amendment to the Plan Winnipeg act.
I would also point out that, I am really pleased that the Leader of the
Opposition is now committing that money to the inner city. I do not
believe any government can stay in power for 20 years. I do not believe that.
So this is a good commitment to be made by the member opposite.
An Honourable Member: Twenty is a good start.
Mr. Doer: Unless somebody around this room looks like John Bracken
there will not be that-and they are going to be a coalition government and a
couple of other conditions, World War Three, which I would not
recommend.
[interjection] Well, you could have been a contender. You know, Lloyd
had you all set up to be in his seat there. Times change.
I digress. We would point out that in the member's own riding,
those wonderful residents that he represents in Cairns, a magnificent
development made by a wonderful former Minister of Urban Affairs [interjection] If
we had a tougher MLA, maybe we would, I digress.
Bottom line is I am glad we got the commitment. [interjection]
Underpass, we will do it. Listen, we will get the underpass done, what the member
opposite could not get done. The member opposite could not get the
former Filmon government and Lloyd Axworthy to do it. Their underpass is in a
little birdbath behind the Legislative Buildings, in infrastructure
money.
That is your legacy. We build real priorities; we build real
infrastructure.
Now I know the member opposite and he is going to go on
infrastructure. I want to remind him that he is the member that said the arena will never
work in Manitoba. It is just going to be a puny little edifice. It will
never work. The word "puny" was used by the member opposite. Does he want to
apologize today for his horrible misjudgment for the future of this
province?
Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Well, I can assure the First Minister
that I do not want to apologize for anything I said about the arena. I just
think it is unfortunate his vision was so puny that he jammed a building in a
location that does not work, does not work today and did not work
before he did it.
That was his political will, so 20 years from now we will let
the citizens of Manitoba judge him. Well, it has not been quite 20 years, but it has
been-[interjection] Well, we know you are not going to last that long.
That is a given. It has been 17 years, roughly give or take a little bit,
since he, as Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, approved Whyte Ridge, and
I agree with him wholeheartedly, It is a wonderful community, full of
bright, intelligent, hardworking Manitobans, raising their families, trying to
do the best they can do for their community, their city, their province.
I will indicate to him that it is unfortunate that, once again,
he has shown, he showed back in 1988, his lack of vision. The single biggest
problem, concern, that those constituents have is the fact that the
schools are jam-packed. I know the First Minister is aware of this because I
know that in February he kicked off I Love To Read Month at H. G. Izatt
School.
He may not have asked the question; I will just take the opportunity to
remind him that there is not a class size there under 28 students, not
one
class, sir, in that whole school. There are temporaries on that school;
there are temporary classrooms on Whyte Ridge School. Those residents'
biggest issue, as the minister would understand from the petitions I
read in the House virtually every day, is the fact that despite having this
wonderful community they have built, not the minister, but those
families in that community, despite their efforts to build a wonderful community,
there are deficiencies. The deficiencies lie primarily with the Premier and
with his government. It is deficient in terms of schools; the roadways
around there are deficient.
So it is the infrastructure in that particular development that
is deficient. That is why so many people are concerned about his
government, not only their conflict of interest with Waverley West, but, in fact,
their whole approach to ignore process with Waverley West. That is why so
many citizens are concerned because, in fact, there is such a large
infrastructure deficit in that area, in the area of those new
developments right now, that they are just absolutely petrified this government will
do the same thing when it starts to develop Waverley West.
The government refuses to give a business plan to people. The
minister makes these wonderful comments about how all the profits will go to the
inner city. Well, then, I think that is fine. I think if there are
profits, they should go to the inner city, but these subdivisions, sir, do not
create a profit. They create a deficit. They create a deficit in terms of
services. They create a deficit in terms of roadways. The only place they create
a profit is going to be in your government's pocket, because you will
refuse to take that money and put it into the necessary land to provide for
schools and the necessary infrastructure to provide for roads.
I should not have to remind the minister that, let me see, I
think seven years ago there was a very, very serious bus accident at the corner of
McGillivray and Waverley involving students who were being transported
from Linden Meadows School, a K to 9 facility at the time, to Charleswood
School where they had to go to take their shops class. One particular young
man was in hospital for well over two months. So, when the Premier (Mr. Doer)
talks about all these wonderful things that are going to happen, he needs to
look back a little bit in history and understand why people are as concerned
as they are.
Having prefaced that-and I apologize for taking so much time,
but I did want to address some of the points the Premier raised-I would ask him
if the very first thing he would do would be to table with this House and make
public the business plan which demonstrates exactly how the profits are
going to be arrived at. I mean, he must have a plan because he is
saying there is going to be profits that are going to be sent back to the
inner city. Just do the right thing, sir. Do not make it like the arena. Do
not sign a deal that makes it confidential for 25 years. Stand up and be
proud and be open about the whole situation and table the business plan for
Waverley West on which you are basing your statements that there is
going to be a big profit that is going to go back to help the inner city.
We are all for helping the inner city. We would just like to
see it happen, and we would like to see hard documentation and a business plan on the
development of Waverley West that proves where that money is going to
be made and how it is going to flow back.
Mr. Doer: There are a lot of issues related to the member's-
An Honourable Member: Rant.
* (17:20)
Mr. Doer: Rant. I was going to use the word "rant." First of all, there
is a deficit of need in school capital, and we obviously are dealing with it
as much as we can. When you spend $20 million a year on school capital, or
the last year, sort of the dying days of the regime after 11 years, and
that is 11 years where Cairns and Whyte Ridge were part of the city of
Winnipeg. I think the last year was $27 million. When you spend only that much
money, there was a huge deficit in terms of roofs, furnaces, windows,
structures and new schools.
Yes, in our first couple of years, we have dealt with some of
the growth areas that need more schools. We have not completed all the tasks. I
know there is a new school in Garson and Tyndall. I know there is a new
school in River East-East St. Paul. There is a new school in Beausejour. The Ed
Schreyer School is being replaced. There is a new school in Winkler
that is proposed. There are new education facilities right across this
province, and we are now spending about $45 million a year on new education capital.
Is it enough? No, but we have to live within a budget. Are
there other needs across the province? Yes, there are. Are there decreasing needs?
It is an interesting issue because you also have a situation where the Leader
of the Opposition lives where they are decreasing enrolments of schools,
and there is also decreasing enrolment in schools generally across the
province while we have an increasing population.
Part of the problem that we have to wrestle with is the fact
that the Province pays for the schools being built and then the school division
may have10, 9 schools that are either half full or vacant while we have
other capital needs in some other areas.
On the issue of a business plan and numbers, there were two
sets of assumptions before the City of Winnipeg council during the public
hearing process. The Province's numbers which were made public at that hearing
and the City's numbers. The variation between the two numbers is the City
assumed that there would have to be another infrastructure investment
in, I believe it was Waverley, as part of Waverley West rather than just
looking at the Kenaston underpass. That is a matter that is being discussed
between the different levels of planners. We have numbers now. The final
configuration of this will go back to City Hall. The conditions that
have been established will go back to City Hall. We will be able to get the
numbers based on lots more precise.
I would point out that the numbers, the original business plan
in South St. Vital did not have any proper access to the Seine River. It did not
have proper access to a park area. I believe there was a bridge needed in
that area, or proposed in the area, a walking bridge in the Seine River
area, for the development to take place. We amended the original plan and had
less revenue from that plan, from the sale of the plan, to have more park
space in the South St. Vital area adjacent to the Seine River area. We did
adjust it and we believe there will be sufficient green space in this
development.
The City Hall, I think, agrees as well. They are dealing with the
issues as well, and that will determine exactly how much money and revenue will
be made available.
When I said to the Leader of the Opposition, it is subject to
the costs we will incur and subject to the land costs that are already in debt, that
we have to square it. At one point in the history because land values
became so flat for some decades, particularly the last one, the book value of the
land was higher than the actual real estate value, so that became one of the
reasons, I am sure, the former government did want to sell the land
because they would have to sell the land and take a loss.
An Honourable Member: Who bought the land?
Mr. Doer: Well, former Premier Schreyer. I mentioned to the Leader of
the Opposition, there was a National Post article dealing with affordable
land and affordable housing, and it was a week ago last Friday. I refer the
member to that. I know he reads the Post, probably diligently, and he
should read it. It is a fine newspaper owned by a fine family. You do not have
to agree with all of its philosophical views. Its content on factual
information sometimes can be very useful.
Mr. Loewen: The Premier (Mr. Doer), if he is of the inclination to come
clean with all the figures, he should just do the right thing and put
them out in public, because it is quite obvious to everyone involved that
the Province has put itself in a horrible, conflicting situation.
I appreciate the fact that the Province wants to make as much
money as possible on the land, but they have an overriding responsibility to the
citizens, not only of the area that I represent but to all Manitobans,
to be doing the right thing and to be seen to be doing the right thing. That
is their role in this whole development; it is to be that of the
regulator. So I would ask the Premier if, given that we all know his minister stood
up and said two years ago, "It is going ahead, it is going ahead, it is going
ahead." regardless of what anybody says, presumably, some point this
week, maybe even as early as Wednesday or Thursday, the City will give its
blessing to it, and it will be a done deal. Would the minister then
commit to doing the right thing, immediately putting the land up for sale,
reverting to its proper role in acting as a regulator and not a
developer?
Mr. Doer: We have not got the final approval from the City of Winnipeg
yet, so I think it would be presumptuous of me to say anything at this
point.
[interjection] Never wave the white flag.
I just want to point out that Neighbourhoods Alive! was
developed as one of our first initiatives, to put money into the inner city and to put
money into the West Broadway area, the inner city area, to put money into
areas that were literally burning in 1999. You could wave your hand. I know
you could wave your hand, but when you use the John Nunziata language of
"come clean," it is the oldest 101 political trick in the book.
We have come clean with all the numbers that were before the
City Hall, and there was a considerable amount of numbers. If the member does not have
the numbers, that is one thing, but some of the material was made public, I
believe, at City Hall, and they were all there. City Hall had a
different set of numbers just based on one assumption that was different. One is
the retail value of the land, and the other issue was the proposed issue of
Waverley. So I would point out to the member opposite that those
numbers are in the public domain. They are, quote, "available."
I would also point out that we come at this as a government
that has developed 4000-we have either renovated or built 4000 homes, I believe,
in Neighbourhoods Alive!, and not just in Winnipeg, but in Winnipeg, in
Brandon, in Thompson. We come to this issue with some credibility, I
would think, because the kind of hands-off approach to the inner city, the
kind of hear-no-evil, see-no-evil that was the culture of the past has been
replaced with a much more active, community-based culture of the future. I would
point out-[interjection]
What? No, you know, members opposite, I do not shy away from
comparisons. When I say to you that you used to take donations from corporations and
then we banned it, that is the record. That is action. We are not sitting
back and blaming you; we are saying you are bad and we are good. That is
different. That is a different comparison, because we are talking about
action we are taking. We are not just talking about inaction. That is a
given. We are talking about action, so we talk about the lost decade.
That is not my terminology. That is the president of the MMA's terminology.
We are talking about action we are taking, action to build homes, to
renovate homes, to develop the inner city, and we are proud of it, but there is
more work ahead.
Mr. Chairperson: One quick one.
An Honourable Member: I thank the Premier for that.
Mr. Chairperson: The Member for Fort Whyte.
Mr. Loewen: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and I thank the minister for
that diatribe.
I just remind him that there was only one provincial elected
official that had the courtesy to show up at the City of Winnipeg hearings. It was
not his minister. It was me, and so that, to me, indicates the interest that
his government and his party have taken in this whole issue. It is
unfortunate because this is a very big decision, and I would just simply ask him
this quickly: Will he agree to rescind the letter that his minister sent to
the City of Winnipeg and indicate that he is willing to take it to the
Municipal Board so that there can be full public dialogue on this issue?
Mr. Doer: Well, I know the member opposite is against development. He
is against growth. He is the anti-development person in the government,
and I know that he was against the arena and he was against Waterfront Drive,
and that he is against Waverley West. That is on the record, and we are
building
a future. He is just-
Mr. Chairperson: The time being 5:30 p.m., committee rise. Call in the
Speaker.