Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, just for the information of honourable members, I propose tomorrow to call bills, so that we will have the introduction for second reading of a number of bills, and then there will be opportunity on debate on second readings for debate on the bills, and then again on Thursday to return to a resumption of the examination of the Estimates of the government.
I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Acting Chairperson (Edward Helwer): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(b) Executive Support on page 129 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Chairperson, in the Chair
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Chair, before I carry on with my questioning, I would just like to put on the record my appreciation and sense of awe actually for Hansard for having produced since yesterday at 1:30 p.m. not only Question Period and Members' Statements and the normal business of the House, but also three sets of Estimates. They were on our desk this afternoon, and I think that is remarkable. I just wanted to congratulate Hansard and say what a great job they are doing, especially with three committees going at once. It is going to be quite interesting for a while, but I think they did a wonderful job.
We were talking yesterday about the Partners in Public Service, and I had asked the minister about some examples of legislative changes to enhance efficiency or joint provincial-city partnerships with the private sector. He had mentioned the space management partnerships and other legislative changes for the Charleswood Bridge, et cetera.
I am wondering if he could tell me today if there are any space management partnerships in the works. Is there stuff happening in that regard, or is this purely an example of what might be happening?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Chairperson, where the space management initiative started was actually through an initiative by Government Services involved with Environment in looking at space and the best utilization of space for their various departments. What happened with that is when the Partners in Public Service initiative was started, there was the recognition that this was a good way to not only look at the government space that possibly could be utilized but also look at the City of Winnipeg space that could be utilized. So this is where the initiative is directed toward in space management.
One of the impediments or drawbacks so far has been the City of Winnipeg in their compiling of their database as to their spaces and what is available and the input for that. The idea is that it would proceed along those lines, but what is more important is that the city get their database in line so that it can be utilized. So they are working on it, from what I have been told, and, hopefully, it will be coming about in a very short time.
* (1500)
Ms. Barrett: So until the city finishes its database of I assume what they own and/or rent currently, the space management process cannot be implemented.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, it will be one of the initiatives that will be phased in, but there seems to be a recognition that there is a need and a value to look at that entity between the two partnerships. At this particular time, there has not been a physical direction started with the space management, but it is recognized that it is one of the phased-in processes that they will initiate.
Ms. Barrett: Do you have any idea when the city will have completed its compilation of its database?
Mr. Reimer: Indications are that they are working on it. As to a specific time frame, there has not been a finalization on it yet. The indications are that they are working to try to get a compilation of it I guess as soon as possible, but they have not put a time on it yet.
Ms. Barrett: Which part of the city government now would be in charge of that particular part? With whom is the Department of Urban Affairs or the people that are involved with the Partners in Public Service linking?
Mr. Reimer: I can only report to the member that it is been done on the senior level of contact between the two departments. I guess that is about the only thing I can tell the member.
As to individuals or which particular departments, I think it is more or less in the discussion stages with the two levels on the senior level, the senior administrators, through our department and through the City of Winnipeg.
Ms. Barrett: The other part of this last set of questions that I had was the legislative changes that might be coming onside. The minister, in his comments yesterday, talked about the Charleswood Bridge. I remember our discussions of several years ago about the Charleswood Bridge, but that was an example of public-private partnership between the province and the city. Then he said something about there might be some other legislative changes that would be required. Any sense of what other legislative changes there might be in the works in this regard?
Mr. Reimer: Each year we request from the City of Winnipeg, very early in the year, a list of proposals for changes that they feel they would like to see implemented in The City of Winnipeg Act. They vary from time to time. Some are acted upon, some need further discussion, further input, further research, and they are put into various sorts of holding patterns or holding criteria until either the information is garnered or there is a clear direction from the city as to what they would like to see implemented.
We have done that. We are working upon some of their suggestions right now. Also at the same time I think the member is well aware that there were a fair amount of recommendations that were forwarded by the Cuff report before review and consideration as for legislative packaging. Part of the packaging--when I referred to possible public-private partnerships, nothing prohibits under the present City of Winnipeg Act that the city cannot get into any type of partnerships that they are willing to.
It depends a lot on the projects and to the scope of what the city may be willing to develop, whether it may require any type of legislative changes before. If the member recalls, the Charleswood Bridge actually, the only reason it required a legislative change was because of the public-private partnerships, because of a recognition that we were dealing with something in a totally new realm. Initially they did not feel that there was any need for legislative changes, but until the legal interpretations came about regarding air space and the use of the riverbanks to be protective of the City of Winnipeg and in the investments that were being utilized, there was a requirement for this type of change.
These are the type of legislative changes I think we would have to be aware of as projects come about, whether they would be impacted or whether there is a need for a different type of change. So I do not think it has changed necessarily. That is all-encompassing for anything and everything coming up. I think it is changes that would come about because of a specific project that would need some sort of possible interpretation under The City of Winnipeg Act.
Ms. Barrett: I am a bit confused. It seems to me the press release, which says that the types of initiatives to be considered could include, and then there are a number of them, and the last two are legislative changes to enhance efficiency or joint provincial-city partnerships with the private sector. It seems to me that the Charleswood Bridge would fall under the second of those joint provincial-city partnerships for the private sector.
I was then asking about what legislative changes to enhance efficiency you might be looking at. Your response was, The City of Winnipeg Act changes happen very regularly as a result of requests that come forward from the city. So that sounds like more or less the same thing, but in the press release it sounds like there might be something, a new avenue or a new approach because this is a new program.
Some of the other areas, virtually all of the other areas in this paragraph talk about new kinds of partnerships, whereas it sounds to me like the legislative changes, what you are saying here, are pretty much the same thing that we have always done. So I am just wondering if I am actually being accurate in my interpretation or if there are new legislative changes other than those that come as a result of City Council requests being looked at.
Mr. Reimer: I think that what is referred to in the press release is that as the initiatives start to unfold in regard to the Partners in Public Service project, there may be the necessity because of job description or service delivery mechanisms or the restrictiveness of certain areas that the service has been then offered, that to accommodate a more co-operative effort between the two levels that legislative change may have to be implemented to satisfy the concerns and the restrictions that are involved.
Yet it has been pointed out if the two levels of government that are delivering a service under different legislation under The City of Winnipeg Act and then we are delivering a service under the--
An Honourable Member: Social Services Administration Act.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, then there may have to be some changes and rejigging of the formats. I think that this is what we are referring to in that area.
Ms. Barrett: So it is possible implementation of the other elements that might come out of the partnership, in effect.
Mr. Reimer: Correct.
* (1510)
Ms. Barrett: Another area, and here I am going to the Winnipeg Sun of May 24, last year, after the announcement of the Partners in Public Service--I will try and remember that--where the deputy minister says--there are no quotes around this, but the phrase is that it is too early to say whether any jobs may be lost in the streamlining process. I am just wondering if while you start to meet or carry on your meetings, if that is an element, part of a check list that is looked at in each of these potential program combinations, what are the implications? What are the impacts on staffing? Whether there are changes or are not changes, it seems to me that is an important element to be looked at, as well as affordable and cost-effective.
Mr. Reimer: I think the member is right that there has to be a consideration of positions, the jobs and the classifications of such in any type of amalgamation, and that becomes part of the analysis of any type of co-ordination or between the two entities. A very big part of the key to the equation is recognizing that we are dealing with people in positions. If we are dealing with the service industry and their positions are recognized in the evaluation as to any type of amalgamation or efficiency models, that may come about where there is manpower involved. So they would become a very important factor in any type of considerations.
Ms. Barrett: The minister just said that this is an important factor when dealing with the service industry. We are not dealing with the service industry, Mr. Minister, we are dealing with public service.
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member to direct her questions through the Chair.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, very quick off the mark there. I apologize for not having directed my comments through the Chair to the minister.
Through the Chair to the minister: the minister said in his answer to my earlier question that we are dealing with the service industry. That caught my attention because to my way of thinking we are not dealing with the service industry. We are dealing with public service delivery; it is not an industry. I think this is a problem that people have to deal with when talking about governments, whether it is civic government or provincial government, I think more particularly with civic government, because it is the level of government that is closest to people and that actually does provide a higher level of direct services to people.
I think it is very important, because to me when I hear the phrase service industry, I hear the word industry, and that says to me private-for-profit-corporations industry. There is a large sector of our economy which is the service industry, and it includes much of the food industry, the food delivery and service industry, direct service provision to people. It is the fastest growing sector of our economies, but that is not the same thing as service delivery provided to citizens of a community or an entity by public servants.
So I think it is very important to make that clarification, and I hope that when the minister talks about dealing with the service industry, he is not saying the same thing that you say when you talk about the private sector, the bottom line, the return to shareholders, this kind of thing. It is very clear that it is not a corporation, although we will get into the discussion of the Cuff report and the ramifications of that later today. I just wanted to make that comment to the minister.
Mr. Reimer: Well noted. The member is right. The implication was in regards to the public servants, I should say, that work for both entities, whether it is the City of Winnipeg or the Province of Manitoba, so that is of utmost consideration in any type of joint venture or partnership between the two levels. Well noted.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to move on then, if I may, to an issue of concern. Again, this relates back to our discussion, sort of, in the Capital Region yesterday, but it is the whole issue of urban centres' peripheral development. There was a presentation to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) November '96 from Brandon, Thompson, Portage, Flin Flon, Selkirk, Steinbach, Stonewall, Dauphin, Virden, Winnipeg and The Pas. It was a fairly extensive presentation that talks about the issues and concerns raised by these centres, their own peripheral development and the concerns that they have, some of which are very specific to their own communities but others of which are generalized to not only these communities but also, of course, the city of Winnipeg and its relations with its surrounding municipalities. There were a number of summaries and recommendations that were made, and I am wondering if the minister has any updates on some of these. I will go through them.
The first recommendation was that the urban centre peripheral development group recommend to the Premier that the University of Winnipeg Institute of Urban Studies and the Rural Development Institute of the University of Brandon receive a joint commission for the preparation of a joint report on the impacts of peripheral rural residential and industrial development on the province and on urban centres and their surrounding municipalities. I am wondering if the minister has any information about this recommendation.
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that they were supposed to be sending the terms of reference to myself and the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) but to date, we have not received anything from them.
Ms. Barrett: Could the minister give us a sense of the timing of this. This was November '96. When did the RDI and the IUS start meeting to bring forward terms of reference? How long has it been going on, I guess?
Mr. Reimer: We would have to look into it, because we do not seem to have too much correspondence from them or they have not been in contact. But we will check into it to find out more for the member.
* (1520)
Ms. Barrett: I appreciate that. It is well over a year ago, and I think that this probably is a situation that is maybe, in some cases, parallel to the Capital Region problems and challenges. I must say I am a bit concerned that the department or the minister has not given direction to the department to follow up on this more expeditiously, and I hope he does do that.
The expectation out of this recommendation is that the province will utilize the information to consider the development of a financial model outlining a relationship between those who benefit from local government services versus those who pay for them. This, I believe, is very important. This also speaks directly to the suburban cost growth development study that has been on the backburner for years from the province. So this is a recommendation that has come forward again, not from the City of Winnipeg, although the city is part of it, but again from rural municipalities that are very concerned about these issues.
I understand that this is going to be a joint process between Rural Development and Urban Affairs, and I think that perhaps I will get my colleague to ask the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) if he has any other information when he goes into his Estimates. But I just want to point out that this is something again that is being--the concerns are being shared by communities as far north as Thompson, as far southwest as Virden, as far east as Steinbach and as far northeast as Selkirk. So, I mean, this encompasses virtually every segment, every section of the province of Manitoba, so it is a very important issue and process.
Mr. Reimer: The member brings up an interesting point because I happened to be at the MAUM meeting just the other day and had a chance to talk to some of the various mayors and reeves from around various areas of Manitoba. It is surprising how when you talk to them--as Minister of Urban Affairs, my so-called primary responsibility is the city of Winnipeg--but in talking to some of these mayors and reeves of some of the towns that even the member mentioned, Thompson and even small towns like Arborg and things like that, there is a commonality of concern for their towns and the growth within their town and around their town.
It was interesting to talk to the mayor for Brandon where they are now talking about core area problems and problems in their inner city. You seem to sometimes think that maybe this is a problem that is just strictly centred in Winnipeg, but other towns are experiencing various other types of growth stretchmarks, if you want to call it, and that they are having problems with some of their inner-city or inner-town core area and the peripheral development. The comment has been made, which the member has heard and I have heard, of people in and around Winnipeg that use the services of Winnipeg and live outside the city. It is surprising how you hear the same comment made of people that live in and around Gimli and use the services of Gimli or live in and around Stonewall or down in Killarney and use the services of Killarney, and how there is a similarity of concerns of how you get the best use of some of the monies for services that are required to support your town, the inner town.
It is something that I think that at governments of all levels, not only on our level as provincial government, but on local levels, municipal levels and even within the city of Winnipeg, elected officials now are being tested in a sense of trying to come up with solutions or answers as to what is the way to try to get the utilization out of a better environment for their own towns or their own cities. So I hear these problems, not in isolation anymore around Winnipeg. I hear them from other areas in talking to other mayors and reeves and some of the problems that they have.
So this is a problem that I think that, when you start to get more heads around the table, possibly solutions start to come out. This is one of the reasons why when we alluded yesterday to talking about the Capital Region Strategy and coming up with trying to build on consensus and co-operation amongst the participants that it is better for the region, it is better for the whole area. I think that this is what is happening in a lot of parts in rural Manitoba where you are getting people together, not necessarily to amalgamate their levels of government, but the amalgamation of their ideas, which possibly can lead to the amalgamation of some of the towns and the R.M.s into one jurisdiction, because they recognize that some of the best ways of efficiencies are sometimes let us not each one of us reinvent the wheel when we need something where we can try to share it with our neighbour down the road or our township or our municipality.
So I think that there is more and more of this reawakening within the elected officials, that this is the best utilization of the taxpayer's dollar, because it is the taxpayer's dollar that really comes into effect when they try to accommodate all the wish lists that sometimes come about through the various concern groups not only in the cities but in the towns. So it is something that I think is quite a challenge, as I say, for the elected officials, but I think that the encouraging part is that more people are starting to talk about it. Hopefully, we can build on a consensus and build upon the strengths and the assets that are out there and make them even better not only for Winnipeg but also for the areas in and around Winnipeg and Manitoba.
Ms. Barrett: I appreciate the minister's comments about the importance of this situation. I guess I would say to the minister through the Chair that when the minister just said it is good that people are starting to talk about this, this presentation was made November of 1996. That is virtually a year and a half ago. In order for it to have come together for presentation, November '96, the communities had to have met far before that and put this together, so we are talking probably at least two years since these issues started to be raised by various municipalities and the City of Winnipeg.
It seems to me that the Minister of Urban Affairs has come late to the table on this one, that the City of Winnipeg was a participant in all of these discussions, a participant in the recommendations, a participant in the concerns that have been raised a year and a half ago, meets regularly with the mayor and the Executive Policy Committee. His senior staff meets with the senior staff of the City of Winnipeg. I am surprised that--and I am assuming perhaps this did not happen, but it seems to me that there was a presentation that was made to the cabinet or at least to the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet. Perhaps that did not happen, but my understanding, there was something submitted to the Premier's Office, and it just seems to me that it is, again, saying that these issues are important and yet not putting the resources necessary towards implementing them.
For an example, again the suburban growth study. Two years ago, well, we have not heard from the Urban Development Institute; well, okay, but you are not doing anything. The minister is not doing anything about the Urban Development Institute, not coming forward, not talking and trying to be a facilitator, as he is talking about the need for his department to be, not doing anything, and I agree. His department's biggest role, it seems to me, is to act in a leadership capacity, in a facilitative role, because it is a very small department as far as staffing is concerned. It is a link between a whole range of other communities and departments potentially.
That linkage has broken down, it seems to me, in the suburban growth study, and, as well, here we come again with the urban centre peripheral development group. The minister says there are no terms of reference having been received from the RDI and the IUS and does not even know when these terms of reference were requested.
* (1530)
This shows to me a lack of leadership on the part of the minister in saying this is important. The minister says that he just recently met with MAUM. Well, yes, but these issues should have been known to him a long time ago. I think this is a problem that we are facing with not only this department but other departments, that the talk is there but the walk is not. So I just think that it is a real problem.
I will conclude by saying that the expectation under this recommendation is, again, the development of a financial model as to who benefits from services versus who pays for them. This is exactly the same problem identified by municipalities outside the Capital Region as has been identified by the City of Winnipeg. It is an issue that has to be addressed, and it has to be addressed very quickly, or we are not going to have any progress made.
Mr. Reimer: I should point out to the member that the group she was referring to at the presentation, that was a relatively new grouping of municipalities and individuals that came to meet with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and make that presentation. It was not a group that had been in existence as an entity other than for that meeting. If I recall from that meeting, some of the directions that were given to them was to come with more specific terms of reference and that the invitation was open for further discussions with them.
To the best of my knowledge, they have not come back to--well, I know they have not come back to our department. I do not know whether they have come back to the government requesting further meetings to put more direction from their initial report that they came to cabinet with or to the government with. So they were a one-shot get-together, and they have not come back to government with any type of parameters or directions they were recommending.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I understand that, Mr. Chair, and I think that is a problem with groups like this, because they are from all over the province; it is difficult to meet. They also have many local issues that take precedence, and this is a problem in trying to put together something like this, which is precisely why I believe that the role of the Urban Affairs department in conjunction with the Rural Development department could have been and should have been, to recognize the fact that these structural difficulties were present and take a more proactive role, saying: okay, we have said: come back.
I guess what I am saying is a year and a half later the provincial government is saying, well, they never came back at the same time that the minister is saying it is an important issue. Why was it not B.F.'d, put in the B.F. file for three or four months later, or why was not contact made with some of the people that were involved in this issue? It seems to me that the inaction on the part of the provincial government, and I am not singling out Urban Affairs, only I think Rural Development has a role to play here probably as well, but why did the government not make it a priority to say: we will take some of the leadership here?
You have put the ball in the group's court knowing that it was a very new group, that it was a very loosely connected group, and you just let it sit there, so it is not my responsibility anymore, and a year and half later nothing is happening.
So I just want to leave that with the minister and hope that these issues that have been very clearly put together, there is a lot of good information brought out by each of these communities on issues that are facing them, and I think it is incumbent, if we are going to have a healthy Winnipeg and a healthy Manitoba, we have to address these kinds of issues because, as the minister correctly said, these are issues that we were not facing a while ago, 10 years ago.
Who ever would think that Steinbach would be an urban centre? Well, it very definitely is an urban centre and it has many of the same problems that Winnipeg has, writ small. The scale is very different. Perhaps some of the problems are unique to the Steinbach area, but if we do not start working together and if the government does not start taking initiative and leadership in this, it is not going to happen, and it is only going to get worse.
I have one final question on one of the recommendations. I believe this is something that has passed by both UMM and MAUM. That is the recommendation of the amalgamation of the departments of Urban Affairs and Rural Development. Is there any discussion in the government about this? What is the feeling at this point on that issue?
Mr. Reimer: I guess the ultimate decision as to the makeup of departments and ministerial responsibility rests with someone other than myself. I can only report on what has transpired in regards to the recommendation that the member is referring to and refer back to what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has stated, that the two different departments have different mandates.
The mandate of Urban Affairs, because of the uniqueness of Winnipeg, having a Department of Urban Affairs recognizes that there is a responsibility by this government to recognize that Winnipeg is a different entity in the sense of its overall presence in Manitoba. So the Department of Urban Affairs under its mandate and under its business plan is geared towards the responsibilities of the efficiencies and the administrations and the governing of Winnipeg.
The Department of Rural Development has a different type of mandate in their direction and their involvement with the rural component of Manitoba. The Premier has indicated that there has been no reason to amalgamate them and, like I say, they each have a function and a purpose to serve and at present he sees no--like I say, I do not make the decisions but, at the present time, there does not seem to be any indication that there will be amalgamation of the two departments.
Ms. Barrett: Again, a phrase that the minister just used struck me when he was talking about the difference between the Department of Urban Affairs and Rural Development, and he talked about the business plan of the department. I am wondering if I have a copy of the business plan of the Department of Urban Affairs, if he could share with me. Again, is this something like the service industry?
Mr. Reimer: I guess what I am referring to is the annual report that Urban Affairs comes out with with the various categories and the responsibilities and the achievements and the department's role and our mission statement. I think that is what I am referring to in here.
* (1540)
Ms. Barrett: Yes, the minister's background shows itself every once in a while. I guess that the issues raised and the discussion about the amalgamation is interesting, It is a decision that is not the minister's to make and there is a huge number of possible configurations of government departments. I think perhaps what MAUM and UMM might have been talking about, and it might have been a result of, again, a sense of perhaps the two sides not speaking with each other, the two departments not connecting together. Again, urban municipalities within MAUM and UMM have felt that they were not being listened to, that they have more in common perhaps with the city of Winnipeg than they do with their surrounding countryside or exurban things. I think that is evidenced by the urban centres peripheral development group.
I do not have a view really about whether they should be amalgamated or not myself. I can see pros and cons to both things, but I do think it is an indicator of an issue and a concern that is being raised by groups within the province of Manitoba. I would like to suggest that nowhere was, in the last little while, that distinction perhaps more clearly seen than in the playing out of the issue of the sale of water to Headingley.
I am not going to spend a lot of time on it because I do not think any of the parties to that situation cover themselves with glory. I think City Council chose not to agree to the sale of water to Headingley only on a technicality. It was a tie vote and, frankly, had the city's request for change to The City of Winnipeg Act been in place, the water sale would have gone through because the mayor would have had a second vote. So it was purely a technicality that what I think would have been a disastrous decision did not go forward. So the city or portions of the city have a big responsibility in the way this whole thing played itself out.
I would like to ask the minister to say what his views were on this issue because in all of the media and in all of the discussions and in all of the meetings never was the Urban Affairs department's or portfolio's view put forward, whereas the Department of Rural Development, the minister for that department, was, I think, perhaps, some would say, unfortunately, front and centre in this whole issue. I just wonder what the role of the Urban Affairs department was in the whole issue of the sale of water to Headingley.
Mr. Reimer: It was certainly an interesting debate and topic of discussion for a while. I guess, in looking at the role of Urban Affairs and the department in regard to the Headingley situation, we were always of the opinion and still are of the opinion that what looked like a common-sense approach to a solution at Headingley was pointed out to the city in a sense that the residents of Headingley were already getting water from Winnipeg through the standpipe system, which meant that they had to come to the well and load up their tanks and take it back home and dump it in their holding tanks. So the residents of Headingley were already getting water.
The sewage lagoon is located just to the south of Headingley on the Perimeter Highway, which is almost within eyesight of Headingley and the town site of Headingley. So it would have sounded like a normal procedure to say, okay, is there room for you to get together? When I say "you," I am talking about the municipality of Headingley and the City of Winnipeg. Is there room for you to get together to see whether you can formalize the arrangement and come up with some sort of agreement as to the utilization of the water and the sewage? So that was more or less the direction that I as minister, in conversations with Headingley and with the city, suggested.
I also made it clear that there was, in no way, pressure in a sense that they had to come to any type of agreement. The agreement, if and when it came about, would be strictly up between the two parties. If there was a decision to be made by the council of City Hall that they did feel that they wanted to enter into any type of arrangement with Headingley, then it would be strictly at their sole discretion. It would then be up to the city and Headingley to negotiate some sort of settlement of costs and services that were going to be provided and volumes and utilization of the sewage system. They would be the sole negotiators.
We in my department and the provincial government would not be involved in any way of pressure or of instituting a mandate for them to come to some sort of understanding. They would be strictly within themselves to come to an agreement. If they did, that is fine. If they did not, that is their decision.
So this is one of the reasons why I made it very clear, and our government made it clear, to Headingley and to the City of Winnipeg that the decision on it would be strictly between those two parties and that we would not be a party to influence either one of them to come to some sort of agreement or understanding.
Ms. Barrett: Well, Mr. Chair, I think that the minister may very well have in his conversations with the city and Headingley made those points in that reasoned fashion, and I have no doubt that he would because that has always been my experience of the minister, that he is not prone to any kind of hysteria or nonreasoned dialogue in conversation, but when the minister says there was no pressure on the part of the provincial government, on either the part of Headingley or the City of Winnipeg, I must in all conscience disagree, not perhaps on the part of the Minister of Urban Affairs but certainly on the part of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach).
I do not believe the minister was at the public hearing, the one public hearing that was held at the west part of the city of Winnipeg in January dealing with this issue, and it was put on by the City of Winnipeg, as it should have been, an ad hoc committee to deal with this, where one of the presentations was by Councillor Clement from the Charleswood area. Mr. Clement, who voted for, I believe, the sale of water to Headingley, Mr. Clement, who is not opponent in any way, shape or form of development, he said in his presentation that the Minister of Rural Development had come to a meeting with himself, another councillor and the mayor and had said straight out: You have three choices: you sell water to Headingley, or there is a lagoon, or there is a lagoon. The lagoon would have been very close to the city of Winnipeg. It would have been an enormously intrusive situation.
So Mr. Clement said that this was harassment, that they were threatened by the Minister of Rural Development, and this is not Councillor Murray, for example, making these comments. This is the councillor who is normally very supportive of the work of the provincial government, and he was saying that this was not an appropriate--he felt as though he had been threatened by the Minister of Rural Development. The Minister of Rural Development was the minister who was in the newspaper quoted all the time, and I think on hindsight the government probably feels that they would have been better served had the Minister of Urban Affairs been quoted more extensively. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) also wrote a letter in the local newspapers that says, and I quote: The province of Manitoba has not nor will it tell the City of Winnipeg to sell water to Headingley or to any other community in the province. The role of the province is one of facilitation between parties to look at a logical and economic way of obtaining water. That is precisely what the Minister of Urban Affairs has said this afternoon.
* (1550)
I think that had that actually happened, had the province taken a facilitative role, I do not know that the outcome would have been any different because the issue is fairly clear-cut, but the way it was presented in the papers, in the media, and at public hearings, was a real slap in the face to many in the City of Winnipeg who were very concerned about this, and who saw this as an example, not of the province's facilitative role, but the province's heavy-handed role.
I also think--and I must ask the minister what his view is on this. The minister said, and the government has said all along that Headingley was already getting water from the city, the standpipe. One of the problems is that the standpipe does not allow for--this is a very labour intensive, a very low-level kind of water provision. It is not very scientific, and it is not very technologically advanced, and there was a reason for that--to retain the rural character of the Municipality of Headingley.
The province kept saying, well, you know, why is the city not selling the water to Headingley? You are already selling it, the standpipe, and nothing is going to happen. It is not going to change the character of the city of Headingley, when Headingley's own five-year development plan would have put hundreds and hundreds of new homes in the Municipality of Headingley, by their own plan, and when we also know that a large number of lots of land that is currently, I believe, zoned agriculture could not under the standpipe process, the current procedure, effectively or cost-effectively be rezoned and then sold. It is not nearly as clear-cut as the minister would have the community believe.
I guess I want to ask the minister if he feels that the province handled this issue well and that the outcome was--I do not think the vote by the city was what the government wanted, but were there any lessons learned by the Minister of Urban Affairs into how to actually deal with issues like this, an issue that is the same kind of issue that is going to happen again and again and again in the Capital Region and in the other smaller urban centres.
Mr. Reimer: I would hope that one never gets too old to learn from relationships in dealings with people and dealing with various aspects of government. The member and I are both of the political persuasion of public service in ourselves, and one thing that we have both learned is that you are continually learning in dealing with people, I think. In hindsight you always look back and you say, yes, maybe we could have done things differently or we should have been doing something in a different manner.
Naturally, I think through every experience you learn something that you can carry forth in your dealings with trying to come to some sort of resolve when you are dealing with public concerns. I guess in hindsight I do not know where it could have been changed any differently. It was left to the position of elected officials making a decision, which it should be. I think that this was the main emphasis on it, that it was left in the hands of people that either could make it happen or did not want it to happen. I think that is the truest sense of decision making, so there is a recognition that the people that are elected by the people are represented in their people's views. The indication was that the councillors at City Hall felt that they were representing their areas or their people's concern, and this is how they voted.
As to whether it should have been different, I do not think that I could have said that it should or should not be, because we are elected to abide by the wishes of the people. If the wishes of the people are telling us that they want a certain decision made by our government or by our elected officials, I believe we are bound to uphold our constituents' wishes in trying to come forth with a decision that is compatible with the wishes of not only the decisions of the people that are elected but our party and our government in coming forth with the decisions. So I cannot really look back and say that it should have been handled any differently.
I think sometimes situations take hold of themselves and the resolve comes about, and you move on from there. Retroactive decision making really does not help in any form other than, like I say, you hope that you learn something from it and that you take forth when you come into situations again where you have to make decisions.
Ms. Barrett: I think we agree that it is up to the people who have been elected to make decisions, and they may not always be the ones that we would like to see or many people would not like to see. I was more concerned about the process. I just wanted to say that I think there are many people in the city of Winnipeg, both who support the sale of water to Headingley and those who did not, who were outraged and appalled, if I can use those adjectives, by the behaviour of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach).
I will just say that I would hope that, No. 1, something like this does not happen again, but if there is an issue that has the ability to be as inflammatory on its own merits as this one did that the government looks very long and hard at who it is sending out to represent the government's views on the issue and that no service was done to the provincial government or to the ministers or to the process of trying to work together on some of these issues by the way it was handled. I think that is part of the problem, that people in Winnipeg for sure after this situation and also as we mentioned yesterday the BFI situation, there are a couple of issues.
So I just think it is incumbent upon the government to take a look at how it deals with these kinds of issues, because it is going to be the kind of problem that you are going to face when you are dealing with the Capital Region Strategy and when you are dealing with the urban peripheral development. It is going to require leadership and facilitation and mediation, not confrontation, and so those are my comments and concerns on that one.
This is another issue that is going to happen. I understand that legislation is going to be tabled in the House this session dealing with changes to The City of Winnipeg Act as it happens virtually every session. I do not want to and I am not going to ask about specifics of the legislation, because that will happen in the fullness of time, soon, I am assuming.
I do want to ask some questions about the process and the concerns that have been raised about some of the requests that have come forward from the City of Winnipeg or from a portion of the City of Winnipeg, City Council, requests for changes to The City of Winnipeg Act. I will try and stay within the guidelines of Estimates and not stray over into legislation.
* (1600)
The minister said in an earlier comment this afternoon in discussing the whole issue of possible legislative changes in our discussion of the Partners in Public Service initiative that the commonly requests for proposals come to this government from the city that will require legislative change in The City of Winnipeg Act, and he also said--and I am paraphrasing here--that some of those requests and proposals need further input or research. I marked that down because one of the major, major concerns that have been raised in public forums and by various groups that follow the legislative process and follow city politics and civic issues very closely has been the fact that as a result of the Cuff report, which was tabled in the city in mid-October I believe, recommendations that came out of the Cuff report and other amendments from that report were passed through City Council with virtually no public hearing at all.
While I know that the City of Winnipeg has its rules and regulations and the province usually stays out of that stuff, although I would venture to say that we did not have that happen perhaps as much as we should have in the sale of water to Headingley, but there has been several groups and individuals who have raised publicly the lack of public hearings in the process that has led to some changes being made on an administrative level by the City of Winnipeg and that is totally in the City of Winnipeg's purview. But the proposals that have come forward, the recommendations that have come forward to changes to The City of Winnipeg Act came forward as a direct result of the Cuff report, too, and came forward very quickly after the Cuff report was tabled.
The minister has had several requests in writing to him asking for a series of public hearings on this very important issue of change to the governance in the City of Winnipeg, and to date I have heard--and I do not believe others have heard his response. So I am wondering if the minister would share that with us now.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member might be interested. Awhile ago, I guess it was at least six to nine months ago, I remember in a conversation with one of my staff we were talking about the City of Winnipeg, and I think this was in around the time that the Cuff report was being formalized or in its formation, I should say. The question was asked, I wonder how many studies have been done on the City of Winnipeg and the various areas of development and all these other types of concerns about the city, including the core area and everything else like that.
Believe it or not, there is a book that summarizes all the various reports that have been done in the City of Winnipeg since I think it is 1973. There are over 3,000 various reports that have been done on various components of Winnipeg regarding even the social services and planning and amendments and all kinds of different things. So there have been numerous, numerous reports that have been done on the City of Winnipeg. So that was just a sideline that I found very, very interesting in regard to how much the City of Winnipeg has been studied.
There was a wards boundary review committee meeting, the Eldon Ross committee, I believe it was called, did a wards boundary review committee in 1991. If you look at that report by Eldon Ross and you superimpose it over top of the Cuff report, there is a fair amount of similarities between the two reports. A couple of the areas was a four-year term and also, believe it or not at that time, they were advocating the elimination of the RAG committee, I believe it is called, the residents advisory group, and that was back in 1991.
When Cuff did his report, he also did an awful lot of reviewing and consultation. I understand that he had over 200 interviews of various peoples, public people, elected officials, former councillors, city staff officials, the public at large, to come forth, so I was told, that he had public consultations to come forth with his recommendation.
Then this was what was the basis of his report that the City Council reported on. I think the member is aware that, with our process here in the Legislature, we do have the ability for public hearings also when we get into readings of the bills, for the second, I guess the third reading, second or third reading. Between the second and third reading, there is the ability to have public presentations also. So there will be a time available for the public to make presentations once the bill has been introduced. So public participation before and after the Cuff report is available, and now with our legislative package there will be the public participation available also through our committee meetings.
Ms. Barrett: There may well have been 3,000 reports done on various elements of the city of Winnipeg over the last 25 years, I am not surprised. It is a hugely complex political organism. However, the impact of the report, the impact of the Cuff report--it is not just a report. It has been used as the basis for City of Winnipeg act amendments that will have the impact of changing the scope of City Council and the city governance enormously, probably, arguably, the most important series of changes that will have taken place in the city of Winnipeg since Unicity. Unicity, starting back with Unicity, there were hundreds of public hearings held prior to the legislation coming before the Legislature.
The point is not who Mr. Cuff consulted with, although to my knowledge there were no public hearings held, and even if there were, virtually very few people would have known about them, and more to the point, they were public hearings that would have been held and the consultations were held prior to Mr. Cuff writing his report. There has been, there was by the city, no public input to the Cuff report or the recommendations that flowed out of the Cuff report that have made their way to the provincial government in the form of requests for changes.
* (1610)
There were like two or three weeks between the time the Cuff report was published and the time the City Council passed The City of Winnipeg Act amendments. There was no public participation in that process. There was public participation because some people made presentations to City Council, but like 10 minutes long, a very, very short period. There were no public hearings held throughout the city of Winnipeg.
I would like to tell the minister, and this is not information from me, this is information from John Kubi [phonetic], chair of the East Kildonan-Transcona residents advisory group--has written the minister several times and has not had yet or did not, up to recently, have a response from the minister. One of his documents where he did a bunch of historical research is that there were three major reports that have had impact on the City of Winnipeg and its organization. One was the Taraska report, and public hearings were held through part of 1995 and were not completed until May 1996--1975 and 1976, excuse me. The City of Winnipeg Act Review Committee's final report of 1986, an issues paper was prepared and made available to the public prior to the preparation of the report, and 29 public hearings were held in the afternoons and evenings in various community committees and at City Hall before that report was finalized.
Finally, the Eldon Ross report that the minister has talked about, the Winnipeg Wards Boundary Commission in 1991, hearings were held in all the community committee areas, public hearings were held prior to the final report. None of that happened with Cuff. Now, granted, this is a city responsibility primarily, but the concern that has been raised by citizens is that given the massive impact these changes will have, if they are put forward in anywhere near their form as recommended, on the City of Winnipeg, on its rights and privileges and duties of its citizens and its city councillors, the enormity of that impact demands public input prior to the legislation having been brought forward.
When the minister said earlier today that sometimes when the city sends requests to the province, the province sometimes says there is need for further input or research, is the minister saying that there was no need, he felt there was absolutely no need for any other input or research into the issues raised by the recommendations of City Council to the provincial government vis-a-vis the Cuff report, that they were perfectly comfortable with the impact that these recommendations, if carried through, would have on the City of Winnipeg and its legislative and political life.
Is that what the minister is saying, that he is very comfortable with the Cuff report and he does not have any problem with the process that the city undertook and felt no compunction about going ahead, doing his legislative job without any public input prior to the legislation being tabled in the House?
Mr. Reimer: I can only refer to the fact that the City Council--when the Cuff report was presented to them, there was a fair amount of debate on the floor of City Council. There was the availability for public presentations to council on the floor of council during the Cuff report. I do not know the exact number, whether there were any public presentations. I think there were some public presentations made at that time to the council. Council then had the opportunity to debate it within themselves, bring forth amendments, to debate it again.
I can only relate that when the final report was passed with a vote of 12 to four, it showed a very strong amount of endorsation by the City Council, that there was a willingness that this was the way that they were wanting to proceed. An endorsation of that strength would show that the majority of the council, three to one, were in favour of the report.
So there was a fair amount of solid support for the Cuff report in its entirety, other than the amendments that the City Council put on the floor that were also passed. To me that shows a fair amount of satisfaction and endorsing that the city did not feel that they needed any further public consultations or a need for any type of further amendments to the report that was forwarded for consideration to this government.
Ms. Barrett: Oh, dear. Oh, dear, oh, dear. So a vote of 12 to four on City Council shows City Council solidly in support of an issue; therefore, the provincial government will go along--as the minister has said sort of indirectly in a couple of public comments, they are going to support the will of the City Council in this regard and not be heavy handed and patriarchal in their dealings with the City of Winnipeg.
Well, then, would the minister explain to me why a vote of 16 to nothing in 1996 by City Council in opposition to the BFI landfill was not supported by the government? That is a little bit of selective reasoning here, and frankly I do not think that carries water. The City Council has asked for the ability to have taxation privileges. They have asked for a number of things that the provincial government has said no to. So I am sorry, through the Chair to the minister, it is a bit of a specious argument that the minister is making here when he says that a vote of 12 to four shows solidly in support of this situation and therefore we are obliged to follow through without any other initiatives on our part. That will not wash.
Is the minister not concerned about the issues that have been raised by the Council of Women of Winnipeg, the Provincial Council of Women, the East Kildonan-Transcona residents advisory group, the issues that were raised by those in opposition to this legislation on the floor of council, the fact that the public had I believe it was 10 minutes to make presentations for one morning at City Council, whereas the Taraska report, the ward boundaries report and The City of Winnipeg Review Act in 1986 all had public hearings outside the City of Winnipeg council chambers during times when citizens could more easily attend? Clearly the minister does not care about these issues, because as far as I know he has not even responded to the letters that have been written to him. He may have. My information may be out of date, but there are very serious allegations that have been raised about these issues.
I guess I would like to ask the minister if he is concerned, as the Council of Women of Winnipeg is, that the changes that have been proposed by the City of Winnipeg will bring about a cabinet style of government without the checks and balances of a party system, that the changes will give the mayor two votes potentially, a tie-breaking vote, in a case where in this last election less than 20 percent of the registered voters supported the current mayor.
* (1620)
Now, the minister has talked about how the City Council is reflective of the wishes of the citizenry. I would suggest, as the Council of Women of Winnipeg does, that actually the city councillors themselves are more reflective of the will of their constituents because they are by and large elected with a much larger percentage of the vote of the people who vote in their ward than the mayor is being elected at large.
I do not understand what rationale can be used to give the mayor a tie-breaking vote in a situation like this. My understanding is that there is virtually no city in Canada of this size--virtually no city; I chose that word very carefully because I thought it was one--that has given the mayor a tie-breaking vote. When you put that together with the power of the mayor under these recommendations to appoint the entire Executive Policy Committee and the power that the Executive Policy Committee now has to have private meetings in camera, the Executive Policy Committee, along with the mayor, can be half of the City Council.
With the mayor's tie-breaking vote, that, in effect, means that the mayor who could be elected, as this one was, with 20 percent of the public vote, can have virtually dictatorial powers because he or she will elect the Executive Policy Committee. They will bring recommendations to the floor of council and could very easily, as has happened several times now, have a tie vote which then the mayor, him or herself, could break.
How is this democracy? How are there any checks and balances in this? This is a major issue here, and the government clearly feels that there is not a problem. I would like the minister to respond to that concern, please.
Mr. Chairperson: Just for the clarification of the committee, the honourable member has alluded to changes of The City of Winnipeg Act being proposed, and this is close to anticipating amendments to the legislation which would be better discussed at committee considering the legislation. You may wish to interrupt since it has happened only once in this case here, but I think that we want to be aware of that in your discussions and your questions.
Ms. Barrett: I knew that this was an area where there was going to be a line that needs to not be crossed, and I am well cognizant of that. What I am trying to do is to talk about the process and the principles rather than the specifics, because I do not know what the legislation is. I just know what the city has asked the government to do, and I am talking about some of the issues that have been raised by people about this, and, basically, why the government has chosen not to hold public meetings about this before the legislation. I will endeavour to stay on the proper side of the line.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member.
Mr. Reimer: The member is right, no decision has been made as to what will or will not be implemented from the Cuff report other than until the final legislation is brought forth, and then we will know what has been considered. So it is bordering on a bit of speculation on my part as to what will or will not be part of the package. I could report that the committee meetings that would come through come about because the legislation possibly might have the opportunity for people to discuss some of these things, if these are part of the legislative package that has been presented. I should point out that the package that was presented had far-reaching effects as the member has alluded to, and this is one of the reasons why there has been a fair amount of research or looking at implications as to what has been requested.
So the bill, as to what has been requested and combined with other requests that the city has brought forth, is in the process of review. Hopefully, it will be coming forth as soon as possible, because I believe that there is the member and other members who would like to know what has been committed to regarding The City of Winnipeg Act. I can only say that we have to look at not only what is good for the efficiencies of the city, but we have to look at how they balance in co-ordination within the framework of Manitoba and the government and the direction that all responsible governments would go. So any type of addition, deletions or amendments to what has been proposed by Mr. Cuff and other recommendations, we would hope that they are for the betterment of Winnipeg and the management of its governmental structure and the people that are going to be involved with it.
So in looking at some of the correspondence that I have received from the various people that have been concerned, we have replied to all of them. If there is anything outstanding, well, we will certainly have the department look at it and find out exactly if there is anything outstanding. I would hope, in fact, I am fairly certain, that we have responded in any way that we can to the concerns of the people that have brought letters to me. So we will endeavour to do that.
Some of the letters and the comments refer to the present mayor, the present situation, and we have to remember that we are not only looking at legislation that might affect some of the present personalities but future personalities that may or may not be elected to the city. So we have to look at the betterment for what is good for all of the city and not look at the personalities of who is in the office and how it would affect him or her that is presently there. So hopefully that will be recognized by the member and by the people concerned.
Ms. Barrett: As a matter of fact, the minister's comments about looking at the legislation in the context of no matter who was mayor was a major point in the Council of Women of Winnipeg letter to the minister dated April 3, this year, and I think that is a very good point. You draft legislation based on what you want to see, the best outcome, and also understanding that you have to have checks and balances too in case you get situations that are not positive. So I do not think anyone is in disagreement with that that you have.
It is very difficult, because you are looking at these processes and these recommendations in the context of a current City Council and in the context of a mayor, for example, and members of the Executive Policy Committee who are very forceful individuals. So I think everyone is cognizant of the need to look more broadly and to look forward to saying this legislation will have impacts or whatever legislation is brought forward will have impacts not only on that.
* (1630)
Mr. Reimer: I just wanted to add onto what the member is saying that I think it is important that the legislation is brought forth as soon as possible, because a lot of people may be considering or not considering getting involved with civic politics, and the sooner that they recognize what some of the ground rules are if there are going to be changes coming about through the legislation, that they are aware of it in due time so that they can make decisions as to whether they feel that they want to get involved with running for office. I just wanted to bring that up.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, thank you, and on that point before I carry on with my earlier question that I had not finished with, again, the Council of Women of Winnipeg in their letter of November 17, 1997, made the point about the election this fall from the exact opposite viewpoint, that this current council put forward these recommendations very late in well over two-thirds of the way through their own mandate and that perhaps a sober second thought would say: let us hold off until you have a new council who will be elected. I would assume, and I do not mean to prejudge what will be in the legislation but again talking about process, that changes to The City of Winnipeg Act may not impact--oh, how am I going to say this--legally. Anyway, I will not talk about that right now, but I think that you could use that same argument from the other side.
The question I had earlier and the minister just talked about the fact that the government was doing research and looking at the implications of the request from the City of Winnipeg--with whom is the government doing research and what implications are they looking at?
Mr. Reimer: I think when we look at any type of requests from the City of Winnipeg for a change of legislation through The City of Winnipeg Act, we have to look at how it has a ripple effect on other aspects within the City of Winnipeg, how there possibly could be overlap with possibly even The Municipal Act and whether there are adjustments that have to be made in other forms of jurisdictions. A lot of it is just process more than anything.
Ms. Barrett: I would argue that all of it is process. So what you are saying is the research and looking at the implications are more what consequential amendment acts would have to be implemented. I know a couple of the areas which, of course, we cannot talk about because it would be beyond the scope of this discussion, and, of course, the legislation is probably nowhere near finished.
I was hoping, frankly, that the minister would have a little broader definition of research and implications and would have discussed if he was not prepared, as clearly he is not prepared, to hold public hearings prior to the legislation being drafted or seriously considered being drafted, that he would have chosen the avenue of research and implications that would have been available to him which is to hold public hearings prior to the legislation rather than just doing the consequential amendments research. I think he could have availed himself quite effectively of people who are on both sides of the issue.
There was a public forum on the issues of city governance, and the president of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce was very eloquent and very clear in her support of the process, not only the process that had been undertaken, but clear in her views about what city government should look like. That was an excellent forum of discussion of the principles of city government. I just think it is very unfortunate that the minister was unable or unwilling--he was very able to--was unwilling to do this.
I think there are many people in the city and throughout the province that are going to take a look at this and say we do not like this process and think that the balance that the minister was talking about, balance efficiencies with good governance, is not going to be assisted by not having gotten the benefit of more people's input and dialogue, because it is one thing to receive a letter and to respond to a letter, it is quite another to actually have a face-to-face dialogue or a discussion of the issues in something that is so critical.
This is not a simple change in a tiny little bit of how the City of Winnipeg is run. This is a massive sea change. It will take, people have said--the view of the City of Winnipeg as a civic government that is democratic and open and decentralized will be gone, and the city will be run like a business, and that is exactly what the Chamber of Commerce chair was talking about and she was very much in support of. This comes full circle to some of the comments that the minister made earlier this afternoon, the words that he used that struck fear and terror in my heart, that we are moving in the direction of a corporate view of governance and of government, and that is not the view that most people in the city of Winnipeg want, I think.
It is not going to assist us in providing the kind of leadership at the civic level that we need if we are going to have a vibrant city of Winnipeg in a vibrant, vigorous Manitoba as the minister said in his opening comments yesterday.
I think he has missed a golden opportunity here, and I am afraid that it was not an oversight at all, but it was a deliberate decision on the part of the government to say: this is the view of City Hall that we can live with. We want it to be a more corporate, more centralized, less democratic process because it will be easier for us to deal with a city that is totally top-down.
I would like to go on and discuss this more at length, but I think it would be very difficult to do so within the guidelines established by the Chairperson and vigorously enforced by same, so I will end my comments. I know that there will be a number of people who will make presentations when allowed to on this issue and hope that at that time the minister will be open to hearing those presentations, use this as an opportunity to do that research, that broader research. I know that we on this side will be more than happy to allow as much flexibility in changes to those issues that will enable this to be a more positive process than it certainly has shown itself to be so far.
On another topic that I think I am probably going to have an easier time of asking questions on, the Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program, I have the final evaluation report. The minister mentions some of this, I think, in his opening remarks. Hansard was much more efficient at producing the Hansard than I have been at having the chance to read it. I would just like to ask him about some of the findings and the program impacts in the summary.
Finding 4 says: the structural factors that limit the programs' capacities relate to the diminishing value of program budgets, a reliance on predefined expenditure categories and a pre-established time frame for program implementation. To me this says that in the context of this overall summary, which says the program itself is very good and provides an excellent service and needs to be maintained, but this says that there is not as much money, the categories are too narrow, there is not enough flexibility and the time frame is not as flexible as it needs to happen. Are you looking at that? Can we expect some changes in this regard?
* (1640)
Mr. Reimer: The program that the member is referring to, the MWCRP program, the Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program, has been very successful. It is a program that was originally, I believe, started back in the early '70s, and it has continued to roll over, if you want to call it, in increments.
The reason behind the audit and the evaluation program report was to get a feeling of where we have been, what we have done, and where we are going to be going with this program. We are committed, I think, as the member realizes, to the budget that we have allocated and other programs. It may not be under the same guidelines, because one of the things that we did want to do with the audit report is to take an evaluation as to sort of the good, the bad, the ugly, and how we can improve on it.
We are doing an evaluation of it ourselves. I think the City of Winnipeg is doing an evaluation. I know there has been some discussions as to what the implications are and where we go from here.
The concept is a good concept of getting communities revitalized more or less as it is implied. The vehicles and the directions are something that we want to re-evaluate and see how we can make it maybe even better or more effective and more direct in the results.
So the evaluation is a healthy situation to go through at this particular time because we feel that if we are going to get some better use out of it, let us see how we can do it better. So that is more or less the basis behind the review.
Ms. Barrett: The report says it was prepared for both the province and the city. So both the province and the city are looking at this report to evaluate further what they want to do. Both entities are using this report as the basis for launching something new or making changes.
Mr. Reimer: Exactly, yes.
Ms. Barrett: Is there any time line as to when the evaluation of this evaluation will be completed?
Mr. Reimer: I have been told that we want to get this up and running as soon as possible. The evaluations have been going on. We would like to get this program--there is a value to it. It is the identification of where it is going to go is what is being looked at right now, but we would like to get it up as soon as possible and get it going back into the communities. Under what format, I think that is what we are working at right now.
Ms. Barrett: I should know the answer to this, but I cannot remember it. So currently the program has concluded, or are there projects still underway? So there is still something happening in the community?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, there are commitments; there are projects that are ongoing. There are projects that have been committed for funding that we will continue to honour and to implement. There are no new funds in a sense. The existing funds are being used up. I believe it was almost $5 million per level of government, over $5 million per level, so there is over $10 million that was utilized through this program.
Ms. Barrett: Does the minister know when those funds will be finally expended?
Mr. Reimer: I think the end date is March of 2000. Hopefully, they will all be expended before that time, but that is the end date for the fundings under the existing program.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, so by the end of the fiscal year '99-2000, is that the end date at this point?
Mr. Reimer: I believe that is right. The areas that they are still working at are in the Elmwood area, the Glenwood area and the east Norwood area. That is where there are projects that still have to be completed.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, so, in effect, there is one more fiscal year after this one where there will be potentially some moneys expended.
Does the minister anticipate having completed the department's evaluation of this program and implementing another program before this, so that we do not lose the momentum and there is something always ongoing?
Mr. Reimer: Most definitely. I would like to get a new program as soon as possible, so that we can start to utilize this season actually, you know, for renovations or revamping or whatever has to take place.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, before we conclude, I appreciate again the minister's ability and willingness to deal with general issues before we get into the specifics of the Estimates books themselves.
I do have a couple of questions as we go through the Estimate books and one on 1.(b) Executive Support. I probably could figure this out if I looked at the chart, but how many staff are there under this $230,000?
Mr. Reimer: Seven staff.
Ms. Barrett: Is there a chart that could tell me which staff those are?
Mr. Reimer: On page 5 of the supplement. It should be noted that some of the staff years are shared with Housing. In fact, the seven are shared between the two departments.
* (1650)
Ms. Barrett: So it would be that half of the salaries for those seven would be under this one and half would be under Housing?
Mr. Reimer: Yes.
Mr. Chairperson: 20.1. Administration (b) Executive Support $230,100--pass.
20.2. Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg (a) Unconditional Current Programs Grant $19,587,500.
Ms. Barrett: Going back at least to '94-95, my records show that this grant has remained the same. Can you tell me how long it actually has remained the same?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, it goes back to and including 1994-95; that was the year.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister knows what the rate of inflation has been in that time period.
Mr. Reimer: No, I do not know.
Ms. Barrett: Frankly, nor do I. I have not worked that out, but I do know that inflation has not been at zero for that period of time, and I would just like to suggest that the minister in his opening remarks when he spoke about how generous the province had been with the City of Winnipeg, at least in this area the effect of inflation over the last few years since '94-95, the last five years, would have eroded to a fairly substantial degree, the buying power, if you want to use the business analogy, of this unconditional grant. So I think the government should take a look at reviewing that.
Mr. Chairperson: 20.2. Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg (a) Unconditional Current Programs Grant $19,587,500--pass; (b) Unconditional Transit Operating Grant $16,339,000--pass; (c) General Support Grant $8,094,100--pass. 2. (d) Dutch Elm Disease Control Program $900,000.
Ms. Barrett: I do want to start by saying we all appreciate the increase that the province has given to the city in this particular area. I grew up in the Middle West of the United States, and I am old enough to remember when elm trees graced the streets of Des Moines, Iowa, and Sioux City, Iowa, and they do not any longer do that. I think it is essential that this is one of the singularities of Winnipeg that we must maintain, so I know we all appreciate the increase. I am wondering if the minister can explain why $900,000 was chosen. What rationale for that particular level of increase?
Mr. Reimer: The member is right when she makes the statement that Winnipeg is blessed with a tremendous elm tree legacy in and around our province. The additional $200,000 is recognized because, just as there is a problem with fighting Dutch elm disease within the city, there is a problem of controlling the Dutch elm disease coming into the city from around the peripheral area. So the idea is that the City of Winnipeg, from what I understand, will be going into a program of control in some of the areas around the city also. So, in recognizing their additional cost, this is one of the reasons why we increased their budget by $200,000 in their battle against the Dutch elm disease.
Mr. Chairperson: 20.2.(d) Dutch Elm Disease Control Program $900,000--pass. 2.(e) Unconditional Grant - Urban Development $6,700,000.
Ms. Barrett: I notice that there is an increase, and I am assuming that it is based on the net VLT revenues. Is there a set formula that is applied here? I do not need to know the formula but just if there is one.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, it is 10 percent of the net revenues that are generated from the VLTs within the city. That is what that figure represents.
Ms. Barrett: Has the city ever come to the province asking for an increase in that percentage?
Mr. Reimer: They have asked.
Ms. Barrett: Seeing as how the increase has not been forthcoming, I am assuming that the response was no. I wonder if the minister knows what the vote of City Council was for this request. Was it 12 to 4 or 16 to 0, or?
Mr. Reimer: The answer was no.
Ms. Barrett: I think my point was made, so I am prepared to let this pass.
Mr. Chairperson: All right. 20.2.(e) Unconditional Grant - Urban Development $6,700,000--pass.
Resolution 20.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $51,620,600 for Urban Affairs, Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
Item 20.3. Urban Affairs Program Support (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $547,800--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $221,500--pass. 3.(c) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Development Agreement $3,451,300.
Ms. Barrett: Very briefly, I know that in the listing of WDA programs, there are several that are listed as being a result of the Pan Am Games. I am wondering if a portion, if not all, of those projects should have been under the Pan Am Games budget rather than the Winnipeg Development Agreement budget? What was the determination in some of those--was there any discussion of that in those areas?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, there are three items that have been identified with the Pan Am Games, if they want to call it, in regard to funding that came through the Winnipeg Development Agreement. One was a business plan for The Forks area, which was $2,500; the other one was a feasibility on leaving a legacy at The Forks, which was a feasibility study of $10,000; and the other one was in regard to some funding that was involved with the Riverbank Development agreement, which was the low-lying bridge at The Forks. That was a partnership with the Pan Am Games Society.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 20.3.(c) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Development Agreement $3,451,300--pass.
Resolution 20.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,220,600 for Urban Affairs, Urban Affairs Program Support, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
Item 20.4. Expenditures Related to Capital (a) Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg $23, 500,000--pass; (b) Urban Initiatives $250,000; (c) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Development Agreement $2,028,000--pass; (d) Red River Floodway Control Structure $500,000--pass; (e) Less: Recoverable from Capital Initiatives ($5,000,000)--pass.
Resolution 20.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $21,278,000 for Urban Affairs, Expenditures Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
The hour now being 5 p.m.--
An Honourable Member: We are not done.
Mr. Chairperson: Sorry.
We have now come to the part of the Minister's Salary. We would please ask that the minister's staff please leave the table.
The last item to be considered for the Estimates for the Department of Urban Affairs is item No. 20.1.(a) Minister's Salary $13,100--pass.
Resolution 20.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $243,200 for Urban Affairs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
This now completes the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs.
The time now being 5 p.m., committee rise.