Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to.
* (1440)
Does the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs have an opening statement?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Yes, I do, thank you. I am very pleased to introduce the Department of Urban Affairs Estimates for 1998-99.
The government of Manitoba is committed to supporting the development of a strong, healthy and vibrant city of Winnipeg which provides its residents with a high quality of life and contributes to a prosperous and sustainable Manitoba. Within the provincial government, the Department of Urban Affairs provides leadership in helping to make this vision a reality.
The department's leadership role is reflected in the many programs, policies and initiatives in which it is engaged. Let me begin with our funding policy. Unlike other provinces which have reduced their funding to municipalities in times of fiscal difficulties, Manitoba has delivered on its financial commitments to the City of Winnipeg. Despite reductions in federal transfer payments to the province, the government of Manitoba has refused to fight its deficit on the backs of local governments. Indeed, in the 10 years since our government came to power, provincial funding to the City of Winnipeg, excluding social assistance, has increased by an estimated 44 percent.
The government of Manitoba remains committed to sustaining a strong fiscal support to the City of Winnipeg. In fact, in 1998-99, the annual provincial operating grants to the city will be increased by over $1.8 million to $90.6 million, which is a rise of 2 percent over last year's level of funding. Included in this additional funding is a 29 percent increase in Urban Affairs contribution to the city's Dutch Elm Disease Control Program. Winnipeg's urban elm forest contributes enormously to the quality of life in our capital city. This enhanced funding will assist the city in protecting and preserving Winnipeg's elm trees, which at this time represent one of the largest last remaining stands of elm trees in North America.
Our commitment to Winnipeg's development is clearly demonstrated by the commencement of the third Urban Capital Projects Allocation, or UCPA III, which was announced in 1997. The program, which is unique in Canada, provides the framework for a long-term financial partnership between the province and the city to support the renewal and the enhancement of municipal infrastructure. During the next six-year term of the program, the province will provide the city with $96 million, $30 million in unconditional funding for capital works which are city priorities and $66 million for cost-sharing capital works which are joint priorities of the province and the city. Some examples of joint city-provincial projects which have already been approved for funding under UCPA III include the construction of the South Transcona Land Drainage project, construction of the Main and Norwood bridges and the purchase of 25 low-floor transit buses. In 1998-99, the province will be increasing the funding available to cash flow against Urban Capital Projects Allocation commitments to $18 million, an increase of $2.5 million over the approved '97-98 budget.
This increase in UCPA expenditures is being provided to support the city's efforts to complete several major projects in time for the Pan-Am Games, including the York Avenue-Forks Access project, the South Transcona Land Drainage project and the Bishop Grandin Boulevard-Kenaston Boulevard connection project.
It also gives me great pleasure to advise that we are making a one-time allocation to the city of $5 million for residential street repairs. Together with the city's matching expenditure, these fundings will help to rebuild a substantial number of residential streets in Winnipeg and will simultaneously stimulate job creation in the city.
Of course, the Department of Urban Affairs does much more than simply provide funding to the city. It collaborates with the city in numerous ways to create a better life for Winnipeggers. One of the major co-operative initiatives is the Winnipeg Development Agreement, a partnership between the City of Winnipeg and the governments of Canada and Manitoba.
Over its five-year term, the WDA will directly inject $75 million into projects which support the sustainable development of Winnipeg's economy in three key areas, community development and security, labour force development and strategic and sectoral investments.
The leadership demonstrated by Manitoba through the WDA is promoting impressive levels of private sector investment in the city. To date, every dollar invested in Winnipeg through the provincial WDA funding has been matched by approximately one dollar from nongovernmental sources.
My department is co-ordinating the province's involvement in WDA and has been directly administering several WDA programs, including the North Main Economic Development. The program will provide matching funds for storefront facelifts for businesses on Main Street between Sutherland Avenue and St. John's Avenue. Door-to-door discussions with every business in this area are currently underway.
* (1450)
Urban safety is another initiative. To date, this program has funded 14 projects for a total commitment of $1.3 million. This includes the Downtown Watch Ambassadors' program, the Downtown Business Improvement zone and the ALIVE program which provides safety education programs for youth through the Winnipeg Police Service and funding to expand the work of Rossbrook House and the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club.
The Neighbourhood Improvement program has shown that funding for renovations and improvements to 11 community clubs and two recreational facilities has recently been approved under the program with a total commitment to date of $384,000. More announcements of projects for 1998-99 are forthcoming.
Riverbank Development: To date, three projects have been approved with a total commitment of $568,000. These include The Forks Low Line Bridge, a nature trail along the Seine River and the development of a riverbank park in North Point Douglas. Under Strategic Initiatives, four projects have been funded for a total commitment of $337,500. One of these projects includes a three-year initiative to develop a midcontinental trade and transportation corridor strategy, currently in its second year.
Several noteworthy developments have taken place over the past year in the WDA programs, and these include funding for the development and the piloting of new approaches to management training in the health care products field, under the WDA Training and Emerging Growth Sectors Program administered by Manitoba Education and Training.
A commitment of $3.6 million to the Winnport International Air Operations Start-up Project through the WDA Transportation Program is administered by Manitoba Highways and Transportation. This project, which holds great promise for Manitoba's economic future, took a major step forward recently when it was announced that Winnport Logistics Ltd. has been awarded the Canadian rights to provide scheduled all-cargo service to China.
Also worthy of special mention is the Urban Sports Camp at Turtle Island Community Club in Winnipeg's north end, which is sponsored by the Winnipeg Native Alliance. By providing sports and recreational activities every day on a year-round basis, the project has not only created an attractive alternative to youth crime and gang activity but has allowed mentoring relationships to develop between at-risk youth and adult members of the community. One extremely positive sign is the flood of adult volunteers who want to be part of the solution to the programs facing our youth today. Since the Urban Sports Camp started, major crimes in the area have been reduced, with 179 fewer incidents reported between January and August of 1997 compared to the same period a year previously. Manitoba Justice, which administers the WDA Sports Camp Program, is currently examining the possibility of expanding the sports camp model to other parts of the city.
Another major co-operative initiative between the province and the city which my department initiated is the Partners in Public Service project. It is designed to provide better services to the public at comparable or less cost. In May of 1997 a task force was established which included the mayor of Winnipeg, a city councillor, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and myself.
Under the direction of this task force, city and provincial government departments have identified areas in which the two levels government could co-operate to serve the public better. To date, over 40 suggestions for increased co-operation have been received from provincial government departments alone. Proposals from both levels of government are currently being examined by a joint administrative co-ordinating committee and soon will be reviewed by the task force.
Another program which has demonstrated the spirit of co-operation by the province and the city is the Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program. Although this program officially concluded last year, implementation of projects in the designated neighbourhoods is continuing.
Our government, through the Department of Urban Affairs, is committed to establishing a new community revitalization program in partnership with the city. A proposal for a new provincial-city program is currently being developed by my department, based on the report of an independent consultant and internal evaluations of the now completed MWCRP program. This proposal will serve as the basis for discussions with the city, expected to begin soon, on a new community revitalization program.
The Department of Urban Affairs is continuing its commitment to Winnipeg's downtown through its involvement in initiatives such as The Forks North Portage Partnership, the CentrePlan Committee, the Portage Avenue Working Group, the Downtown Streets Working Group, and the North Main Task Force. The government of Manitoba has firmly established itself as a player in Winnipeg's downtown. Whether you consider our $31-million investment in the renewal of The Forks or our $27-million investment in the redevelopment of the North Portage area or the over 2.2 million square feet of downtown office space which we lease or own, our commitment is clear.
In the area of legislation, my department has again demonstrated leadership in supporting local government autonomy in their decision making to the greatest extent possible, while protecting provincial interests.
In keeping with this approach, I will shortly be bringing forth amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act which are consistent with Winnipeg City Council's decision to reorganize the city's administration. The amendments will give the city greater flexibility in responding to the challenging changes and the needs of its residents. As well, the amendments will provide a legislative framework which facilitates the implementation of new approaches to municipal service delivery.
Finally, my department, in partnership with the Department of Rural Development, is working with 16 local governments to support the development of a strong Capital Region. The region plays a significant role in our province. It is where the majority of our citizens reside, work, play, and raise their families. It is crucial that the municipalities in this area work together toward the common goal of an attractive and prosperous region. For this to take place, the province must assume a leadership role.
Under the chairmanship of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) and myself, the Capital Region Committee has worked hard to ensure that all municipalities in the region have been given a voice in developing a strategy which will serve the interests of all residents in the area and will benefit all Manitobans. The next step in this process is developing a plan on how to implement the many policies and actions contained in the Capital Region Strategy.
Recently, we met with the Capital Region Committee and received their endorsement of a proposal to establish an independent panel to conduct the Capital Region review. This review will examine the existing legislation, policy and decision-making processes guiding land use planning and the provision of services in the region. Consultation with the municipalities and the public will be a crucial element in this process.
As I look forward to the coming year, I see exciting and challenging times ahead. My department will focus on the increased co-operation with the city in several key areas.
First, the Winnipeg Development Agreement will be hitting full stride as it marks the halfway point in the agreement's implementation. Manitoba Urban Affairs will continue to work closely with other provincial departments, Canada, and Winnipeg in implementing the Winnipeg Development Agreement in a manner which will encourage participation and financial contributions from nongovernment sources, as well as creativity and innovation in building the long-term sustainable future of this city.
Second, my department will build on the success of the previous Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program as it continues to work for development and implementation of a new community revitalization agreement with the city.
Thirdly, my department looks forward to the Capital Region review. This review offers opportunities to discuss options for implementing the Capital Region Strategy. We will all be challenged to think of new ways to forge partnerships among the many interests to ensure that the region becomes an even better place to live, to work and do business.
Fourthly, in partnership with the city, my department will continue the process of developing a legislative framework which supports effective and efficient local decision making, fits with the city's new administrative structure and is appropriate for the challenges the city will face in the new millennium.
Finally, through the Partners in Public Service initiative, Manitoba Urban Affairs will forge partnerships with other provincial departments in the city as we search for areas in which collaboration between the two levels of government can improve services and reduce costs for provincial and city taxpayers.
This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairperson, and I look forward to discussions on the Department of Urban Affairs for 1998-99 Estimates. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable minister for those comments.
Does the critic for the official opposition, the honourable member for Wellington, have an opening statement?
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Not really. I will be asking questions in virtually all of the areas that the minister has outlined in his opening remarks and would just like to ask again, as has happened in the last couple of times, if we could go through fairly free ranging since it is a small department and without sticking too closely to the line by line in the Estimates book, if that is acceptable.
Mr. Reimer: Agreed. I believe that it speeds facilitation, and having staff here, we can try to answer all the questions as we come to them. Sure.
* (1500)
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic for the official opposition.
Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line.
Before we do that, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff present.
Mr. Reimer: I will introduce my staff. With me, I have my deputy, Mr. Bill Kinnear; my assistant deputy minister, Heather MacKnight; one of my senior directors, Marianne Farag; and, my other senior director, Mr. Jon Gunn.
Mr. Chairperson: I thank the minister.
We will now proceed to line 1.(b) Executive Support $230,100 on page 129 of the Main Estimates book. Shall this item pass?
Ms. Barrett: I have a couple of follow-up questions from last year's Estimates, if I may. They kind of fall into some of the statements that the minister has made in his opening remarks. The minister said last April that in order to ensure effective communications with the city, provincial cabinet ministers meet formally and informally with the mayor and the Executive Policy Committee on a regular basis. I am wondering if the minister can tell me how many times, formally and informally, the cabinet ministers met--the cabinet ministers that have anything to do with urban affairs--with the City of Winnipeg.
Mr. Reimer: While staff maybe is trying to find the exact number of times that the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet met, I can just give the member some background. As to my involvement, I do meet regularly with the mayor, at least once a month on an individual basis, just the mayor and myself. I also meet with EPC at least once a month for a breakfast meeting. We have had those almost steady except for breaking in the summer months usually. We do not meet through July, August and September. So there is a fairly close contact between myself and the mayor and EPC.
UACC meetings are usually four or five times a year, and that is where it is the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet, which is all members of the--not only cabinet ministers but the members in other areas of the city of Winnipeg. Other urban members are also invited to those meetings, too. So those meetings are open to the members of government.
Ms. Barrett: On that Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet being open to urban members--and I believe the minister and I discussed this briefly in Question Period one day--what the minister means is that it is open to urban members of the governing party, not urban members of the government at large. Is that not correct?
Mr. Reimer: The meetings that have been called, a lot of them are called at the request of the city. City Hall and the mayor have requested the meetings with the members for the city when they are bringing forth--for example, when they brought forth their program called Reshaping Civic Government, when they brought forth their budget, when they brought forth an update, and they are the ones that requested the meeting with the urban members. It is called together under the auspices of the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet. That is the name that is given to it, but some of those meetings that I referred to were called by the city to meet with urban colleagues. Their suggestion was that we call a meeting for not only the urban cabinet ministers but all urban members to which the city wanted to make their presentations. So some of those meetings were at the call of the city.
Ms. Barrett: Those meetings that were at the call of the city, who chaired those meetings?
Mr. Reimer: I would be the chairperson.
Ms. Barrett: So, while the request for a meeting may have been, at some point, sometimes by the government and sometimes by the city, the meetings themselves were always chaired by the government.
Mr. Reimer: If the city called a meeting, I would introduce the mayor, and then she would take over the meeting to bring forth the presentations and answer questions. But, if they called a meeting, they would more or less set the format and set the agenda for it. We would be there more or less just to listen and to try to facilitate, and we would provide the space for the meetings, which we usually held in one of the rooms. We would have them come, and they would set up the screens or their projectors and they would make the presentations.
Ms. Barrett: The second part of my question was, you talk about urban members, but what you really mean is urban members of the governing party, not urban members of the Legislature of which there are 31, many of whom are not part of the governing party. So, when you talk about meeting with urban members, you mean urban members of the governing party.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, that is true. I think that, just as we have had presentations made to our caucus by various groups, we have also known that these same groups have made presentations to the NDP caucus along the same lines. So there is a similarity of when we talk about making a presentation to the members. I guess, as I talk about the members, I talk about the members of government; and, as the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) would talk about members, she would talk about the members of the NDP caucus. I am sure that there have been presentations made by councillors to the NDP caucus, too, that have been made to us. So the presentations are made usually to the two parties by the same groups.
Ms. Barrett: Did the city make a presentation to the government caucus or government members on their recommendations for implementing the Cuff report?
Mr. Reimer: Actually, when the Cuff report came down, they did come forth and explain all the various amendments or recommendations that Mr. Cuff had made to City Council. They requested a meeting with us to show what they were considering. It was more of an information-type of setting that they had set up with us to go over the Cuff report, but they did make a presentation on the Cuff report. In fact, as has been pointed out, Mr. Cuff himself was at that meeting and made the presentation too.
Ms. Barrett: When the city requests a meeting and the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet sets up a meeting, is it sometimes just the cabinet members who meet, or is it always with the urban government MLAs?
Mr. Reimer: The invitation goes out to all the government urban MLAs.
Ms. Barrett: So if the member is--say, it is the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) or La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) who have rural and urban components to their constituencies, would they get an invitation? They would not necessarily get an invitation to these meetings then.
Mr. Reimer: No. It is usually just the urban members--yes, just the urban members.
* (1510)
Ms. Barrett: Carrying on again from the Estimates from last year. The Capital Region Committee--and I may be mixing things up, because it seems to me there are things changing all the time in the Capital Region in the attempts to deal with the issues that are facing the Capital Region--but there still is a Capital Region Committee. How many times has it met since, say, last April?
Mr. Reimer: To give a little history on the Capital Region, the formalization of meetings actually started in 1996. In 1996, I believe there were three meetings of the Capital Region Committee. Actually, there was a meeting at the end of, I believe, 1996; they were already scheduling meetings into 1997 for the spring of 1997. The flood came along, and it knocked out any type of effort in trying to get people together because of the flood conditions. There were attempts to have some meetings. In fact, I think they have tried to call at least twice in the early part of 1997, but the attendance would have been--the members had said that they were just too busy with the flood, so no meetings were scheduled. We got into the whole flood scenario and the cleanup almost went through the whole summer, so in truth there were no meetings held at all of the Capital Region Committee in 1997.
Since that time though--one of the last things that was on the agenda in 1996 was the formation of a task force. A task force was meeting, was set up, and they did meet. I believe they did meet in 1997. [interjection] I was just getting some clarification. One of the recommendations that came out in 1996 was a task force to be formed to look at ways to implement the Capital Region Strategy. They also did not meet in 1997. I thought that they did, but they did not.
They did get together in the early part of 1998. In fact, they had two meetings, and from those two meetings, it was decided to make a recommendation to the Capital Region Committee in whole of an effort to come up with setting up of a panel of five people. The solicitation of these five members would come from the members of the Capital Region Committee, to come forth with five names that would--their primary objective would be to go out and talk to the elected officials in the communities, not only in Winnipeg but in the surrounding municipalities, to come up with a way to implement the Capital Region Strategy and set that in motion.
So this year, in 1998, we have had two meetings with the task force and one meeting of the Capital Region Committee.
Ms. Barrett: So, in effect, the task force was created in '97, but it was unable to do anything until 1998 where it has had two meetings, and then one meeting of the Capital Region Committee as a whole.
Mr. Reimer: Right.
Ms. Barrett: Can you tell me the names of the task force members?
Mr. Reimer: On the task force there was myself, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Mayor Bud Oliver from Selkirk, Reeve Dave Oster from the Selkirk district area, Mayor Dave Lethbridge in Interlake Planning District, Reeve Rodney Burns from Macdonald, Reeve Phil Rebeck from the R.M. of East St. Paul, Springfield and Tache.
There was an alternative in case Mr. Rebeck could not come. Mr. Bill Danylchuk would serve in his place. The other person was Reeve John Curry from the Municipality of Cartier, and the City of Winnipeg's representative was Councillor Shirley Timm-Rudolph.
Ms. Barrett: So did you and the Minister of Rural Development participate in the two meetings that have been held of the task force this year?
Mr. Reimer: Yes.
Ms. Barrett: What is happening with the task force? I know you said they talk with elected officials, but--well, let me back up one minute. The task force itself did not meet in 1997. Was there any preliminary work done on what the task force would be asked to do or enabling the task force to function during 1997 on the part of either department, or was the whole thing just put on hold until after the flood?
Mr. Reimer: I guess relatively speaking, there was very little formal contact or consultation. There were some preliminary discussions but nothing of a formal nature during 1997 at all.
Ms. Barrett: So, in effect, it is really beginning its work this year. What will its work be? Can you be a little more explicit than you were in your earlier comments--talk with elected officials, and it said in last year's Estimates, make recommendations respecting the enhanced operation and structure of the committee and also the effective implementation of the Capital Region Strategy. How will that be fleshed out?
Mr. Reimer: I should point out to the member that the names that I gave the member were the members for the task force. These were not the people that will be part of the panel that will be doing the consultation out in the field. The task force's main objective was to try to come to some sort of understanding of where the Capital Region should go.
Their recommendation was that they appoint an independent panel. Instead of them doing it and being part of the process, their recommendation was that five independent people be appointed to do the searching of goals and directions that the Capital Region should be going.
That is what they brought forth to the Capital Region in whole, and the Capital Region in whole endorsed that principle. What we are now waiting for is names and recommendations from the various municipalities and elected officials in and around Winnipeg to decipher and come up with five people that they will agree upon that we can use to do the work. But the task force itself has more or less absolved itself back into the Capital Region Committee. Their function was to come to a direction and an understanding of where the Capital Region should be going. Their recommendation was a five-member panel, so, in essence, I guess to a degree their work has been done. The task force will stay and can be resurrected possibly for other projects or consultations of sorts. Instead of getting the whole Capital Region together, the small nucleus of the task force can come together.
Now what the five people on the panel who will be appointed will be doing, will work through their actual--The proposal that they have been given is to--I will just possibly read it in a bit of their mandate if you want to call it--appoint an independent panel of experts to undertake a review and make recommendations respecting the effectiveness of the existing legislation, the policy and the procedural framework, the guiding land use, planning and the development and the provision of services in all 16 municipalities in the Capital Region.
The objectives of the panel would be to ensure, in making the framework, that it (1) reflects the principles inherent in the Capital Region Strategy; (2) has the capacity to resolve regional issues; (3) incorporates balance and sensitivity among local, regional, and provincial interests; (4) provides maximum opportunity for intermunicipal co-operation; and, (5) encourages building partnerships advancing the vision of the Capital Region.
That will be the framework that the panel will work under and with in trying to come to some resolve. Through that process what they will be doing is talking to the elected officials in the 16 municipalities. They will also be holding public meetings to get public input as to what people are concerned about and where they feel that there is need for direction. Then the report will be compiled. It will be then presented to government.
* (1520)
Ms. Barrett: I think you answered one of my next questions ,which was: what are the terms of reference for this task force--no, not for the task force, for the independent panel? Independent panel to task force to Capital Region to government.
Mr. Reimer: Right.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you. I think I have it. I would like a copy of those terms of reference, if I may have one.
Mr. Reimer: We can get one.
Ms. Barrett: Who is going to hire, appoint, or determine who the five independent people will be?
Mr. Reimer: The appointments will be made by government.
Ms. Barrett: They will be made by government through Order-in-Council.
Mr. Reimer: I imagine that will be the procedure.
Ms. Barrett: You probably told me this before, but who is going to make the recommendations to government about who gets to try and implement this task force?
Mr. Reimer: What we have asked, we have asked the municipalities to come forth with names. We are looking for people who have got broad experience in not only planning of municipal governments or municipal land use, but, also in areas of social planning and environmental planning. Hopefully, we will have a good cross-section of names to choose from, and we can get very capable people that would be able to represent the various components and areas of concern. So the names have been forwarded, I guess, to our department, and we will work with those names as they come in.
Ms. Barrett: What is the time line, understanding that this is an estimate and not carved in stone?
Mr. Reimer: We just recently sent out a letter to the municipalities to get their feedback, reviews and recommendation for names. I would guesstimate that we would start to get the names back within the next--seeing that a lot of those councillors only meet once a month--hopefully within the next couple of months we would start to get names coming to us. Then it is a matter of trying to make sure that we get as many names as we can and work towards an earlier than later implementation of the program.
Ms. Barrett: Well, it sounds like this has the potential for being quite extensive in time and figuring out what exactly to do. I mean the terms of reference, the first one--these terms of reference are very good in the sense that they seem to cover a lot of the concerns that have been raised by the members of the Capital Region Committee, and they also, one would hope, would deal with some of the issues that were raised, although you know my feelings about the Capital Region Strategy report. I am trying to determine which principles are in there, but that is another discussion.
Mr. Reimer: As Martha would say, it's a good thing.
Ms. Barrett: Oh, dear, and I understand what the minister is referring to, too; this is very bad.
But this is a lot of work. This is a huge undertaking. I am fumbling through my material here. I think there was a newspaper article outlining some of this--the task force and the five independent--the independent commission or--I will call it that to just differentiate it from the task force. My recollection is that you were quoted or there was some discussion in that article about this whole process being concluded by the end of the year--I cannot seem to find it; I will look for it--but I do not see that happening. If you are talking about maybe getting names by the end--say at the end of June, just to give some timing, then you have to appoint them, and then they have to get together and then they have to start. I just think this is a very--it is a big proposal, and I am wondering if perhaps time lines are going to have to be extended a bit on it.
Mr. Reimer: They may have to be. I can recognize where there is a bit of a concern, but I think the direction and the feeling that we did have from the Capital Region Committee and from the public was the fact that they do want to see some sort of strong leadership role by the province in trying to come to a direction and a consensus building around the Capital Region. I think that it is better to try to work within those frameworks of co-operation and consensus building and to make the time available for consultations, for review, for public presentations so that when there is a direction or a formulation of direction that comes from this, there is a feeling of comfort by all those involved that indeed it is a program that we should be operating.
As just a bit of a sideline, I did some research on often heard of--what they call the Portland experience with planning. I took it upon myself to do a little bit of reading on that, and I was surprised to learn that it is an ongoing process. It is not something that is just like a snapshot in time. Actually, they started in 1973 to get their house in order, if you want to call it. It is very, very efficient. It is very effective, and it is working very, very well, but at the same time it is something that they are continuing to work on.
So I am not suggesting that we are looking at a process of that long in magnitude of time, but I can see how it does warrant a fair amount of consultation with the municipalities, with the elected officials, with the public itself. What is going to compound it to a degree also is the fact that municipal elections are coming up this fall or this October, and that will also possibly skew some of the findings that would have to be revisited and redefined because of difference in municipal elections and that.
So it should be something that I think that we should be cognizant of and try to work towards getting a good solution instead of a fast solution. I can agree with the member on saying that it may take a little longer than putting a restrictive time frame into it.
Ms. Barrett: I have found my documents. My filing system comes forward again. This is the article by Aldo Santin in the Free Press on Friday, March 20, and the last comment is--not in quotes--but it is: "The minister said the panel will meet with elected officials as well as hold public consultations before it brings forward its recommendations by the end of the year or early 1999."
Now I am wondering if the minister is sort of revisiting that time frame in the light of--
* (1530)
Mr. Reimer: I am not exactly sure how the reporter quoted me on that because I think that he was looking for a definitive time that everything would be wrapped up and presented and possibly a fait accompli. I was trying to give him some indication of process, and in process I think I was referring to some of the consultations with even the elected officials along those lines, recognizing that there was an election coming up in October. I believe I was referring more to the fact that there would be consultations with the elected officials in the fall because who they talk to in June may not be the same people around at the end of October. So it would facilitate coming forth with even more recommendations.
I would not want to rush any type of public consultations for the sake of getting a report that has to be in by, say, January 1. I am not putting a timetable on it or a guideline on it.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I appreciate that on the part of the minister, and I think that is true. I do know that there is a huge sense of frustration in the Capital Region, and as the minister was quoted in this same article saying there has been a lot of animosity between Winnipeg and the rural communities in the past, and we do not want to see that approach taken again. But it does seem as though there has been spinning of wheels, if I can say that, and I do not really mean that. I mean, I know there has been a lot of work done in the last few years on the issues of the Capital Region, and just putting the Capital Region Committee together is a very important step. I can imagine how hard it would be to get a group that disparate together, No. 1, and agreeing on anything, No. 2, and perhaps something needs to be looked at in that regard. But I do think that there is the possibility that this will just be another fairly drawn-out process that will look at public consultations, et cetera, and will talk about decentralization and monitoring and coming forward with ideas to make things work better, but that in the end it will end up being more of the same.
I do not mean to be sounding too negative. I am very concerned about this. This is a huge issue for everybody in this whole part of the world, and we need to have people on it and terms of reference that can be accomplished. Let me ask a question about the specific terms of reference or rather, sorry, the objectives.
The objectives would be to ensure that there is a legislative policy and procedural framework guiding land use planning and developments and the provision of services in all 16 municipalities in the Capital Region that will--and then there are the five objectives, right? So it is the framework that is going to ensure these principles, right?
Mr. Reimer: Yes.
Ms. Barrett: Okay. I see huge challenges in all of these five objectives, just in mere implementation, who does what, never mind the getting 16--although I believe it is now 15--municipalities agreeing on what constitutes the specifics of any of these objectives. They are huge objectives on the face of it, even if you had a group of three or four people, all of whom agreed on everything, trying to implement No. 2, for example, that this decision-making framework will have the capacity to resolve regional issues.
Okay, let me ask you in this one. Does this group have carte blanche within these objectives to come up with recommendations that would range from the province will make all decisions regarding land use policies, will establish plans for each municipality--I mean, that is one huge extreme that nobody would suggest as reality, but that is one extreme. Two, each municipality will have total control over their own land use planning, and there will be no provincial overseer or oversight committee or anything. There will be no role for the provincial government at all.
Now, theoretically, that is a response to resolving regional issues. Is the government saying or the committee or whoever saying you can come back with whatever you want and then we will look at it and pick and choose, or are there some frameworks for the framework document?
Mr. Reimer: I guess what comes to mind is the quotation that "we boldly go where no man has gone before" type of thing, because I think what is happening with the Capital Region Committee and the City of Winnipeg is a recognition that--and Manitoba is very, very unique in the sense, because Winnipeg is the centre of a large concentration of population with the Capital Region around the city of Winnipeg, which would encompass I believe it is something like well over 80 percent of the population within this Capital Region in and around Winnipeg--and I think that there is a growing awareness that there is more to be gained by working in co-operation with each other and having a single entity in trying to resolve problems and look at directions, not only economically, but socially and environmentally, in trying to resolve problems.
It has been forced, in a sense, upon us because of the fact that what is happening in other areas of Canada is there is more of this regionalization and this concentration of municipalities together to form economic blocs or planning districts for trying to be the betterment for all of the district instead of just the small individual towns or municipalities. I think that this is becoming more evident by the conversations that I have had not only with the City of Winnipeg but in the Capital Region membership and the reeves and mayors in the area. They are saying that we cannot compete, in essence, in providing all the services that we want to give unless there is a sense of sharing and co-operation between all of us. So they themselves are coming to recognize that we have to try to pull together. This is where the connotation and the statement of strong provincial leadership, they are asking us to do that. Now, how that leadership can be defined and whether it should be defined in the paternalistic or try to work within a framework of providing the catalyst or provide the fertile ground for this type of movement is something I believe that I would rather pursue.
I am not a firm advocate of the strong directiveness that government deigns that this is the way it shall be and you shall now be part of this or that district and this is the way it shall be. I would think that there is more recognition, and I sense that in talking with the elected officials, that they do want to come together. They recognize that there is going to be a give and take. They recognize that there is going to be a sharing of goals and aspirations, but it is all for the betterment of the entire region, because when you look in comparison to the Capital Region of say about a million people or whatever it is, when you are comparing other parts of Canada and other parts of the United States where you are in competition for not only services and economic growth but even the social amenities that we treasure, the efficiencies of scale say that we should be trying to not, each one of us, reinvent the wheel when we want to look at something.
Granted, as the member has pointed out, the objectives are fairly broad in essence, but I think that they do form a basis to work together to try to come to some sort of an understanding and acceptance by the Capital Region that if there is an acceptance of these broad principles and recognizing that they have to work within them and try to bring forth a lot of their planning or their decision making within these frameworks, I think that the more that they think this way on an individual basis, the better that all of them will be thinking that way and go for it.
* (1540)
Is it an overnight thing? No, I do not think it is, but I think that it is something that can be worked towards, because I get a sense and I get a feeling that the Capital Region Strategy is saying to me, we want to be part of this change. Let us just make it so that we can all benefit from it. I do not sense a reluctance or a hesitancy or an outright rejection of the Capital Region Strategy by any of the committee members. The member refers to the one that decided not to get out, but I understand that--I have not talked to them personally--there are overtures that they may reconsider to come back in because they recognize that it is better to be in the tent than to be out of the tent, in a sense. So I understand that there is a reconsideration on their part.
It is something that I think we should work towards as a provincial government in trying to build this consensus within the Capital Region, because it can only benefit Manitoba, it can only benefit Winnipeg, and it can only benefit all the municipalities. So it is something that, granted, will take a little time, but I would rather be working on the pages that we have now before the Capital Region Strategy and the sense of wanting to co-operate than to try to build consensus where there is confrontation and there is an animosity.
As I mentioned before, that is of no benefit to anybody and all it does really is just impede any type of structural change or social change or economic change and possibly even be environmentally harmful if people or municipalities are just doing things on their own. So it will take time.
Ms. Barrett: Now, you say that the members of the Capital Region Committee all endorse this. Has there been a meeting of the Capital Region Committee?
Mr. Reimer: Yes. Yes, there was, and this was presented to them and it was unanimously endorsed.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to go back to the review and get a little more information on some of the information that is here. Under Phase I--Issue Identification, you talk first about the distribution of an informational pamphlet to various groups in the general public providing general information about the review and its objectives. Number one question: has that pamphlet been put together yet? What is the time frame on that?
Mr. Reimer: It has not been formalized as yet. It is still under review and under formation. One of the ideas behind using it this way was the direction that Rural Development, when Rural Development was doing the review of The Municipal Act, they got very good feedback on this type of format, so it was felt that we could utilize that type of format with this panel, and that is why there was the suggestion of having a pamphlet for the municipalities and other local groups. What it would do was just give a bit of a review and the objectives of what the panel was looking for.
Ms. Barrett: Is this going to be provided by the province, written by and distributed by the province?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, it would be.
Ms. Barrett: I will ask a question later about where that will come in in the Estimates. In the second item under Issue Identification is the discussion document. I think here, when I look at this, this sounds to me a very important part of it. The discussion document would frame the issues and focus the public consultation phase. Who will be putting together that discussion document and when will it be put together?
Mr. Reimer: Part of the formation of the task force is having a secretariat involved, and he or she would be involved with the compilation of the framework. The idea would be to bring it together, represent it to the Capital Region Committee itself for their endorsement, if you want to call it, and their involvement with discussions, so that by the time it would go back in for public consultation and for further discussion, there would be an input brought by the Capital Region Committee itself.
Ms. Barrett: Again, here is another spreading out of the time line on this, because clearly it will take some time for the staff to put together a document framing the issues, and secondly, taking it to a Capital Region Committee and getting consensus on that. I would like to be a fly on the wall at that meeting, I think, and coming back, so that clearly extends the time line.
The staff secretariat that is referred to in phase two consultation, this is the same staff secretariat that would be doing the draft of the document, the framing of the issues document?
Mr. Reimer: Yes.
Ms. Barrett: Has that staff secretariat position or positions been filled?
Mr. Reimer: Not to date, no.
Ms. Barrett: I guess just a general question here, and I am sorry to be going back and forth on all of this, but this information is excellent and it leads me to all kinds of questions as I read it. Has the government process been completed? This has gone through whatever government steps that need to be undertaken in order to get permission for you to do this, or do you have the authority to do this on your own without going to cabinet?
Mr. Reimer: This has been a government directive, and it has been put in place with the sanction of our government as to what we want to, or how we would like to proceed with this, the resolve of this. The funding of that, that is a process that goes through its normal funding appropriations, through treasury board and things like that, but the direction, the implementation is what we want to see happen.
Ms. Barrett: Any time line estimated on when the staff will be hired or seconded or put in place?--more to the point.
Mr. Reimer: I think that what we are trying to do is we would like to have a formalization of it sometime within this summer, you know, to have someone in there to be part of the implementation team and to be part of the formation of the information pamphlet so that we can get the process in gear, because I expect that the names will start to come in like I mentioned before, hopefully, within the next two to three months so that we would want to have someone in place then to get things going.
* (1550)
Ms. Barrett: Okay, we have got a couple of lines going here then, it seems to me. You have got the staffing line of the secretariat who is going to do the draft framing of the issues and focusing the public consultation document, which is going to go then to the Capital Region Committee for input before it is finalized, before it gets publicly disseminated to frame and focus. That secretariat will be hired hopefully by summer. That is the end of June just for purposes of figuring out the process here.
You have said earlier that the task force members--not the task force members--
Mr. Reimer: Panel members.
Ms. Barrett: The panel members. The five-member committee will be in place you hoped by the end of June as well. So, say over the summer, the staff and the panel will work together to frame the issues and focus the public consultation, or will the staffperson be doing that and the five members will be taking that document out? I guess I am asking what input the five members will have on this discussion document.
Mr. Reimer: I should point out too that staff will be possibly even seconded from Urban Affairs and from Rural Development to help so that it is not as if it is a one-person show in a sense. I would be more in line with saying that the panel's primary function will be to get out and to be involved and to talk to the elected officials, to talk to the various components in the Capital Region and to be involved actually with the public meetings and that.
The brochure or the informational pamphlet that will be produced will have in it a lot of what the member sees before her right now regarding the objectives so that it will be providing the general information, it will be providing the review of the objectives. So it will have some broad parameters involved with it in the brochure itself. The panel would not be involved so much directly with making up the pamphlet. They would be more or less involved with the hands-on approach to talking, to getting out into the field and talking with people. The pamphlet would be used as a starter that would go out before them and be out there for handouts so that they could read it over.
Ms. Barrett: There are two documents; there are two pieces of paper in phase 1. The pamphlet is simple, comparatively speaking, and that is, yes, I would assume it would include basically the time line and the process and da-da, da-da, da-da and to whom this is going to be distributed, et cetera. I do not have any problem at all. That could be worked on right now because government has already given its imprimatur for this to happen.
The discussion document is a very different kettle of fish here. When you use the words "frame" and "focus" in talking about a discussion document, those are very powerful words. Those are the words that say this is what you are going to talk about. You and I very well know how you can see something and you will have one view of it and I will have another view of it. You can have the view that it is too much government interference to have any kind of overarching plan and messing up people's choices to where to live, and I can have the view you need to have an overall plan in place so that everyone is able to deal effectively with concepts of urban sprawl, just to take one example.
This document, which sounds like to me is going to be drafted by a staffperson hired by or seconded by the Department of Urban Affairs with very little input by the panel members--there is some possibility here. I know you have said that the document will go to the Capital Region Committee for input, but it seems to me that basically what is going to happen here is that this is a very critical part of the process because it will frame the debate. I guess I am a bit uncomfortable with that if basically it is the staff that is doing it, not the panel having an input at the beginning part of this process.
Mr. Reimer: I do not think that the member should be too overly concerned regarding--you know, I think what the discussion document would be looking for is, when I say, you know, the framing of the issues and the focusing of the public consultation, I guess we are talking about in broader terms as to try to bring forth all the issues that could be put under consideration. I guess you could put out a large net and try to satisfy everything or you come down to focusing of main items or main areas of concerns that need review or action on. I would think that using that in the perspective instead of using, like the member mentioned, the framing of the issues or the focusing of them, I guess it is a matter of interpretation as to the severity or the degree of how that could be interpreted. I do not see that as an impediment to trying to get as much public consultation or discussion that we would want out of it. I think that there would be some guidelines set in in regard to all meetings or asking for discussions, but it is certainly not meant to stifle or to inhibit the openness that you would want to get back from the consultation, whether it is with the public or with the elected officials in the various municipalities. I do not think that it has too much of a detriment to the way that the process would proceed.
Ms. Barrett: Okay, well, I think only time will tell when we see the document and see what happens. I think, as I have said before, it will be very interesting to see what the Capital Region Committee itself has to say about this, because they have been unable to function very effectively as a committee for a whole bunch of reasons, but part of it is just by the nature of the Capital Region. We have the city. It is not an evenly distributed population base even now. You have issues such as--let us go back to BFI, for example, where the City of Winnipeg, almost for the first time in recorded history or certainly one of the very few times on a matter of major public import, voted unanimously against the selection of the R.M. of Rosser for a landfill site for BFI. The R.M. of Rosser was then selected by the Clean Environment Commission to have a landfill put in place there.
I do not think you would ever get consensus out of the Capital Region on that issue, so I think this is an example of one of those. Maybe that No. 2 objective has the capacity to resolve regional issues. I do not think that issue was resolved. Of course, maybe there was no resolution to that issue, because if BFI had not gotten its landfill in Rosser, they might have tried somewhere else or Rosser would have been really very much probably annoyed at the loss of that revenue. So I just think there is a whole lot of stuff here that looks really good on paper, and I hope it works. But I have a lot of fear because you are using, frankly, basically the same group of people, the Capital Region Committee, and they have not been able to function effectively before. Hopefully, that will change.
Maybe we are not down far enough the road to be able to get a specific answer to this, but in the consultation phase it says: the panel would consult with other interest groups and the general public and conduct a number of public forums. Do you know how many there will be of these forums, or are they going to be in each municipality? How many would be in the city of Winnipeg? Do you have any sense of those, how that would play out?
* (1600)
Mr. Reimer: I think what we would look to is some direction from the panel itself as to what they felt comfortable with in how many public consultations and in what areas and at what times they would want to hold them. I would rely on some of their discretion and their direction as to what they felt was required. I would think that from the limited amount of exposure we have had so far there would be public interest in there. Some of the groups that have already advocated public meetings, they would be out. I guess the panel would be able to gauge whether they continue with the public meetings or where and how they do it, so I would look to the panel for their recommendations on that.
Ms. Barrett: Would you give the panel ultimate decision-making authority as to how many and where these public hearings would be held, or would you hold the final decision making? If they said, well, we will hold one in Selkirk and one in Winnipeg, and that is all we feel we need to. We will hold the Winnipeg one at the Convention Centre, so there is lots of place for the hordes to come, and we will hold the one in the Selkirk arena or whatever. So we do not need any more than two. We are busy people; we cannot do it. Would you say, now wait a minute, that is not good enough?
Mr. Reimer: I would be very, very surprised if there would be only two. I would think there would be more than that. I would think that we would try to look at--try to space them around through the Capital Region. As for numbers, whether there are two or there are four or whatever it is, I think that sometimes those are some things that the panel would have to decide on.
I guess there is always the--you look at the voice of reason and the general feeling that, if it requires a meeting in Selkirk and one in Beausejour or--not Beausejour, but I mean in and around different areas or whatever it is--then they would call these meetings. I do not know whether I want to stick my neck out and say that there shall only be three meetings or four meetings when there may be need for--the panel may say that we need more or we do not need to go down to this area because there does not seem much interest or something. So it would be a little bit premature to say exactly how many meetings should be held.
Ms. Barrett: Oh, I agree that it is way too premature. I am just trying to figure out who has the ultimate decision-making authority in saying there will be X number of public hearings and they will be held in the following communities. Do you hold then in reserve the power to say, wait a minute, you guys have missed something here, and I am adding another one or I am taking away, you do not need 25 meetings?
I am assuming that the panel will be deliberate and will be positive in that regard, but I think you always need to have in mind the fact that sometimes that does not happen. There are 15 or 16 communities or municipalities represented, and only five people are going to be on the panel. They are going to have to be representing not only their area of expertise, but they are going to have to be representing a number of the municipalities. There is a possibility that there will not be fairness as far as you can see. Would you say that you could add or subtract or recommend, if I had a complaint, would I go to them rather than to you?
Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Mr. Reimer: I would hope that the selection of the panel would be of a calibre that they do recognize the need for various inputs that they want for their review. I would be surprised if they worked in an atmosphere where they were not willing to listen to the public demand for meetings, or the public consultation, or the fact that the elected officials that they were supposed to talk to did not get a chance to talk to them, because they will be dealing with areas where elected officials have are the primary people to make decisions.
I would think that it is like anything. If elected officials are not heard, they will make it known that they want to be heard, and there would be voices made or overtures made to our department saying that, hey, listen, there is a group out here that wants to be listened to, and we would have to listen to it.
Ms. Barrett: I know I am belabouring the point, probably far more that it should be, but it is not just municipal officials that will want to have an input into this process, nor should it be, because municipal officials already have an avenue theoretically through the Capital Region Committee, and that has not worked, or it certainly has not worked to the extent that it needs to. I want to say that it is important that this process be as open and as user-friendly and as widely ranging as possible, because if we are starting on a time line that looks more like Portland's than a year and a half, we need to ensure that every part of that process is well understood and as open as possible so we get the largest number of ideas, because these are huge issues that are going to be very difficult to address.
* (1610)
While I think there are probably some problems with the process, the TransPlan 2010 process, which took two years and talked to I think over 2,000 people, maybe has some similarities with this, although I think it was quite complex, but it did allow for a large number of people and groups to have input into it.
I think those are pretty much all my comments in that area. I will be looking forward to how it plays itself out, particularly by the end of June, to see what processes and progress have been made.
On a semirelated topic, and this is something that actually was in the Free Press on Saturday, the 21st, after the article outlining the task force and the panel, where the editorial writer had an interesting comment, and I am wondering if the minister has some ideas on it. They say that the boundaries of the Capital Region currently are unrelated to human and economic realities. Then they go on to say that Komarno is part of the Capital Region, but Steinbach is not, and that the review panel should be free to start from data and not from political preconceptions in deciding where the Capital Region lies. The main thing is that 750,000 people who live within an hour's drive of Portage and Main have a shared interest in the efficient, democratic management of development and public services.
I just wonder how you think about that. I mean, I can see where, I cannot remember what municipality Komarno is at the far end of--Lockwood--so it is a problem because its population expands outward and it is like pies, where it is more populated closer in, and you could not include part of an R.M. and not the rest of it, but I do think the concept of Steinbach, in particular, is very interesting, because they have many of the same issues on a much smaller scale with urban sprawl and exurban development that Winnipeg has with its surrounding municipalities. Have you given any thought to broadening the Capital Region Committee?
Mr. Reimer: We have not given any thought to expand the region. It is interesting, the comment that was made, because it is similar to the effect of, even within Winnipeg, when you look at saying that the people out in St. Norbert have very little to do with the people out in The Maples, in a sense, because the difference in location and your social services and your sphere of influence and your grouping of friends and everything and services that you support are different, and even in Winnipeg you have the differences that they are not common.
I guess in looking at the Capital Region, when you look at a place like Komarno and Winnipeg, the fact that they are in one of the municipalities that is part of the Capital Region does not mean that everybody within that municipality necessarily shares the same type of goals and aspirations as a large region like Winnipeg, but I think that it does point out that there is more benefit for the people of Rockwood to recognize that there are the resources and the facilities and the sharing of such within themselves and with Winnipeg so that they can all benefit from it. So the article in the paper is saying that they have nothing in common, but at the same time the distances and the sharing of resources and services is really not that far apart in a sense of wanting what is best for the community.
Granted what was said in the article that they may not have anything in common, but the comparing of a small little town like Komarno to Winnipeg is really unfair in the sense that they are--the individuality is there because of the fact that that is just part of their community, but they are part of Rockwood which is close to Winnipeg, so there is a sharing of some sorts.
Ms. Barrett: I was not arguing excluding Komarno at all, and I am not sure that the editorial is either. It is unclear from the editorial, but the point that was made there is that areas like Beausejour, Ste. Anne, Steinbach and Morris, which are within an hour's drive and where people commute to Winnipeg to work and to shop, part of the commuter shed, are not included in the current Capital Region structure. It is not so much the exclusion of communities like Komarno, but what are we going to do about the inclusion of communities like those that are referenced? And I think most particularly Steinbach, as I said, which has many of the same kinds of concerns, I think, they all are part of the Capital Region in any way you really look at it these days, especially with the twinning of--not twinning of 12. It is not Steinbach, but Morris. You know the one--
An Honourable Member: 75.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you, 75. These communities are very close to Winnipeg. So it is just a question. I am just wondering if you have thought about it or if the panel would be able to look at that kind of change.
Mr. Reimer: As I mentioned, I do not know whether they--there is no mandate to expand the Capital Region at the present time, but I would think that through discussions and possibly various other components, if there is a willingness that they want to be part of the Capital Region, I do not know why they would not be welcome to join. If they can bring something to the table and they recognize the merits of it, I certainly would think that they would have the ability to become part of the Capital Region Strategy.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister can--changing topics here--give us an update on a couple of the other reports that are due out, well, I thought were due out this spring. One is the Strategic Infrastructure Reinvestment Policy. The other is the Committee on Tax Reform.
Mr. Reimer: On the first one, the Committee on Tax Reform, that is a City of Winnipeg initiative. They are the ones that are initiating that one. My understanding is that they are looking at trying to get the report out before the end of the summer on that one.
The other one, the strategic infrastructure program that the member is referring to, I believe that they are in the final draft. That again is a City of Winnipeg initiative. I believe they are in the final draft, and indications are that it will be presented within four to six weeks.
Ms. Barrett: Still back at last year's Estimates, and I think this is probably going to be another exercise in futility, but the infamous suburban growth study. I think we have discussed this in each of our get-togethers annually, and the latest from last April was that the minister had received a letter from the city indicating they had been in contact with the Urban Development Institute and that those two partners concur that the study be held in abeyance and that you were not made privy to how and why they came to that decision and that if there was a willingness on their part, i.e., the City of Winnipeg and UDI to revisit it, that would be how it would come up again. That letter was January 8, 1996, over two years ago. So I am assuming that the government has not done anything to try and restart the suburban growth study or the joint provincial-city study of the costs and benefits associated with development in Winnipeg. Is that an accurate assessment of the situation to date?
Mr. Reimer: Yes. I think that if I remember now, and of course in conversations last year about the Growth Management Study, that at that time it was indicated that the City of Winnipeg and the UDI, Urban Development Institute, indicated that they did not want to proceed with it. They did not find that it was of any interest to pursue the study.
So the member is right. We have not pushed forth for it, or we have not, you know, advocated if the other two partners are not in agreement on it. So it has not moved, as the member has indicated. Nothing has happened.
Ms. Barrett: So I take it that the government feels that this is not an issue that is of importance to the people of Manitoba, that there be a study to determine the actual costs of development in the city of Winnipeg.
* (1620)
Mr. Reimer: It has been pointed out to me that the City of Winnipeg is now focusing on a review of their development agreement parameters and is drafting a subdivision standards by-law to ensure that all development applications are dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. It has been pointed out that public hearings on the draft by-law will be held in the fall of this year. So the City of Winnipeg is developing its own development agreement parameters. So they were pursuing it on their own.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister can repeat the phrase about the by-law subdivisions.
Mr. Reimer: It is focusing on a review of their developmental agreement parameters and a drafting of subdivision standards by-law to ensure that all development applications are dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. Again, it says the public meeting shall be held in the fall of 1998 on that.
Ms. Barrett: That is all well and good, but in not knowing the context or more information--and I appreciate getting this information, and I will check with the city on this. But it seems to me that subdivision standards does not necessarily reflect the same concern that a growth management study would, which would talk about the actual costs and benefits to subdivisions within the city of Winnipeg.
Again, this is a case where the city and the province, according to my reading of the situation, where the senior members--UDI was there to provide information as to the draft terms of reference. In the '95-96 annual report, it stated that city and provincial staff met on a regular basis and completed the draft terms of reference for the growth management study, and decisions relating to them and the implementation are pending, decisions to be made by the city and the province.
Now it seems to me that what the provincial government has done is they have used the excuse that UDI and the city could not get together when the city--to say, fine, we will not do anything, when according to your own annual report of '95-96, there were draft terms of reference established. A lot of time had obviously been spent on this by staff at both the city and the province. You are a partner to this. Why did you not go and say, hey, what is going on here, what can we do to facilitate this, this is important?
You talk about taking a leadership role. You speak about that all the time; the government talks all the time about a leadership role in working with the City of Winnipeg. Here we have an issue that has been decided years ago by both the city and the province that was an issue worthy of discussion, was an issue worthy of study so that we know exactly what we are talking about when we talk about costs and benefits to development, an issue that I would think would have a great deal of relevance to what is being discussed in the Capital Region task force and review panel, and here, '95-96 and we are now in '98-99, nothing has been done. There has been no communication by the province to the city since January of 1996 where there were no reasons given as to why the city did not want to go ahead with it. It sounds like the province said fine, you do not want to do it; well, we do not really want to do it anyway, and here is our easy excuse not to have to do it.
So once again, I am bringing this issue forward, and I would like to suggest that the provincial government dust off those draft terms of reference, go back to the city and say, how can we work together on this; what does your by-law have to say about this; is it an overlap, and if not, let us start working on it again, because it is essential that everybody knows how much the residents of one part of the city of Winnipeg are subsidizing services, if they are, to another part of Winnipeg. I should think the city would want to have that information too, but if the city does not want to have it, it is incumbent upon the province to say, yes, we do. So I would like to suggest that the minister take a look at that, and asking if the minister would undertake to revisit those draft terms of reference of the urban management study.
* (1630)
Mr. Reimer: Staff do meet fairly regularly with the City of Winnipeg, and one of things that has been brought up before was the growth management study. But there is no harm in following on the member's suggestion that this be pursued and find out where it is and what, if anything, has transpired and whether there is a willingness to look at it and to see what the position of the other two players is on it. We can instruct our department to take a further look at that and see where it is and whether there have been any further deliberations between the city and UDI on it and find out if there is a willingness to work on that. Sure.
Ms. Barrett: Would the minister undertake to advise the critic of the outcome of that investigation?
Mr. Reimer: Yes.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to go to the '96-97 annual report, if I may, for a few moments. I will start with page 38. The permanent voters list--would the minister give me an update on the permanent voters list process?
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, what has happened with the permanent voters list--the study was completed in 1997, and it was presented in that same month, in December of 1997. At the same time, the federal government have come out with a permanent voters list. It has been found that in working with the availability of the federal voters list that it is a benefit for the City of Winnipeg and municipalities to apply to the federal government to get the permanent voters list. In fact, as a basis of comparison of costs, I believe that the enumeration in the city of Winnipeg for an election was close to $600,000 and that if it is done by using the federal enumeration list they can get it for $2,000. So there is a significant saving. The City of Winnipeg already has made application, I believe, for the permanent voters list. In fact, they have made some sort of deal with the federal government that they get a thousand dollars back, so it is actually only costing the City of Winnipeg $1,000 to get the voters list. What it is is the net cost to the city of obtaining the federal list is $1,000, because they will purchase it for $2,000 and then they sell it back to the feds for $1,000, so it only costs them $1,000. The municipalities will also have that available to them. I do not know what that cost is on a municipal level, but they can also use the federal list for enumeration.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I know, and I assume--maybe the minister can tell me if I am wrong--that the next set of elections will be municipal in nature rather than provincial. So it makes the most sense that the municipalities in the city would take a look at this. Has the province looked at utilizing the permanent voters list?
Mr. Reimer: I have just been informed that I guess the province cannot use the federal enumeration list. We have to do door-to-door enumeration when we do our election.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, that is the current legislation in The Elections Act, but I believe the changes to The Elections Act also allow for looking at the possibility of utilizing a permanent voters list. Basically I am wondering if this study could shed any light, and would it say to the province, you should look at changing the legislation to go with the permanent voters list, because I think the election--when was this study finished?
Mr. Reimer: December of '97.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, the study was finished in December of last year and The Elections Act changes were brought down and obviously had been worked on before that. So they would not have had the results of this permanent voters list study. So I am wondering if there is anything in there that should be shared with Elections Manitoba that you might want to take a look at moving more in that direction, depending on what that study said.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, Elections Manitoba actually is fully aware of the implications.
Ms. Barrett: You may have answered this question already, but in the annual report it talks about the City of Winnipeg's Inter-Governmental Affairs committee. Is this the group that actually meets with the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet, which is mayor, deputy mayor, chairpersons of the then four standing committees, now the EPC? Is this the group that meets with the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet?
Mr. Reimer: Yes.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you. You mentioned in your opening remarks, and I apologize in advance for not having written it all down in as much detail as I should have, but I would like to ask a bit more about what is happening with the Partners in Public Service situation. I spoke with the deputy minister in January, who said that the committees had been set up and discussions are going reasonably well. The city restructuring and all the to-do that occurred in the late fall after the Cuff report pushed aside the meetings, but they began again and the province and the city are shortly to begin review of projects and then will initiate the undertaking. So I would like to get some further update on that if I may.
Mr. Reimer: Just to sort of refresh the member's memory, when I was speaking on that particular topic of the Partners in Public Service, I was referring to about 40 initiatives that were identified. Some of them were short term; some are long term; some of them are initiatives that may take more than long term to initiate. What we have been trying to do in the last little while is narrow things down to the doable in the short range and what we can sort of get going and get some results generated between the two partners. There are about just less than half a dozen of these, about five different items that have been identified for further discussion to start beginning to in some sort of direction. They are still in the negotiation stage with the City of Winnipeg as to how and when and what types of implications there would be. I am not sure exactly which ones they are. I cannot share that exact information with the member, which those five were, because, as I say, the city is still negotiating with us on those.
Ms. Barrett: Five, you are saying there were--and you did speak earlier about over 40 suggestions, some short term, some long term. The five that you are talking about now, are they the ones that--I am unclear as to what those five are, not the specifics, but are they short term, long term, or are they the ones that you are actually looking at now?
Mr. Reimer: These would be reasonably short-term initiatives, like I mentioned, that we could try to build upon and get going. These were, like I say, part of the city's list and part of the province's list.
Ms. Barrett: It says in the May 1997 press release and accompanying article, the members of the task force would be yourself, the mayor, Finance minister Eric Stefanson, city councillors Amaro Silva and Mike O'Shaughnessy and Charleswood MLA Jim Ernst. I am wondering if the minister can tell me who the current members of this task force are.
* (1640)
Mr. Reimer: The one change is the Charleswood MLA is now the member for St. Norbert, Marcel Laurendeau.
Ms. Barrett: When the task force finishes--well, when will the task force's work be finished?
Mr. Reimer: I would hope that it is ongoing, because I believe that there is a fair amount of notification and review that we would want to be part of. It is a process of looking at various components within the public sector and looking at where there is the overlap and the duplication between the two governments. So I do not see any foreseeable disbandment, if you want to call it, of that panel in the short term.
Ms. Barrett: I probably did not phrase the question the way I wanted. Well, I know I did not phrase the question the way I wanted to. I do not see in here, in the press release or in the article, any outlining of whether the task force, what powers the task force has. Does it have powers of recommendation or powers of implementation? When you get an idea that makes sense, what happens to it? Does the task force recommend to the city and province some things, or can you carry me through just what the process would be?
Mr. Reimer: The task force will give direction in the Partners in Public Service project by including the approval of the services that are to be reviewed, providing some direction for the service review process and in the co-ordination of the communications between the two levels of the government. That is more or less the task force's direction.
It then goes to the co-ordinating committee, and then the co-ordinating committee--I am not sure whether the member is familiar with the make-up of that, another committee under that one, yes, the co-ordinating committee which will co-ordinate the review of the tasks. The membership on that committee will be the Deputy Minister of Urban Affairs, the secretary to the Treasury Board, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Urban Affairs, and from Winnipeg it will be the chief administrative officer, city auditor and the chief financial officer. So you have a task, the political end, and then the administrative end.
Ms. Barrett: Oh, it was going to be a simple question.
Mr. Reimer: I should not have told you about the co-ordinating committee.
Ms. Barrett: No, you should not have.
Okay, here we go. We have got the politicians, and they decide--they have got 40 little suggestions in the suggestion box. This committee of which you are a member takes a look at these 40 suggestions and says, oh, please, if we had a billion dollars, we could do that. Aha, here is one we could perhaps implement quite easily. Here is another one that we both think should happen, but it is going to take a little more time, short, medium, long, easy to do, medium to do, hard to do, you kind of put them into some kind of a grid, I assume, and you have five of these suggestions right now on the front burner, I assume. The politicians come up with a suggestion that says this should be implemented. Then the politicians say to the co-ordinating committee: implement.
Mr. Reimer: When the direction was first started, the idea was that we would go to our various departments in the province and in the city and look for ways of where there could have been overlap or duplication or the amalgamation of services, and what they would suggest as for areas of further discussion. That is where the 40 suggestions that I alluded to came from.
The idea is that the co-ordinating committee would then go through those and decide for that list, which is a combination of not only the city's but the province's priorities and where they figured that they can make some changes. It will be up to the co-ordinating committee to come up with the list that would then come up to the task force for consideration and direction, so the co-ordinating committee will be there to bring it all together, say: these are the doable ones, these are the short-term ones, these are the long-term ones. Here is the list, it goes to the task force. The task force says it is okay, you know, let us go ahead and do this, and then it goes back down for the implementation.
So, when I say four or five, we are talking about areas that we feel that we can make some positive impact with. Let us start with them and look at what we can do with the other ones, too, and possibly put them into a system of possibly a long-term strategy or interim strategy. The process goes up and it comes to a pyramid, and once it hits the pyramid it starts to come down again for implementation.
Ms. Barrett: Okay. So, for example, I have here a report of the city's Executive Policy Committee of January 21, 1998, about amalgamation of the provision of environmental health services in the city of Winnipeg, and the EPC referred this item to the chief administrative officer with directions that this be included in the overall negotiations and discussions with the Partners in Public Service initiative and the EPC granted a year extension, which happens all the time, to consider this matter. So this is an area where the city obviously has said, all right, I am taking this; this is an area where we want to look at possibly working together on this issue. The CAO and the rest of the co-ordinating committee talk about this. They say: yes, this is a good idea technically and then take it to the task force and the task force says: yes, we will agree because we are the politicians; we are the ones who have to put in place the Orders-in-Council, make the by-law changes, make the changes to legislation to have this happen, and then so that is a political decision, and then that goes back down to the co-ordinating committee to make it so.
Mr. Reimer: Exactimundo.
* (1650)
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Ms. Barrett: Does the task force have the power to say, make it so? Or do you have to then take it to cabinet, and they have to take it to the council and get that other little area undertaken, right?
Mr. Reimer: I think what I would do if it is something that is an agreement between the two departments, two entities, let us put it that way, and there is a willingness to make it happen, and there is direction given by the task force that it can happen, it will happen. I would think that if it is a very major redirection between two entities, I would think maybe then it would have to maybe go to cabinet or to Treasury Board, but that is something that would be of very, very major consideration. But I think the idea of a lot of things that can be done can just be done by the agreement between the two departments and the recognition on the political level that it is happening, and it can happen that way.
Ms. Barrett: So a group of six people, three people from the city and three people from the province can make very big decisions, without--yes, you can make the decision, but it has to be implemented. For example, if we were going to amalgamate the provision of environmental health services, assuming that is a small thing, which I do not think it would be, but assuming it is a small thing, you would still have to have by-law changes and regulation changes. I have not seen the amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act, but I do not think they will include giving the mayor and the EPC or the CAO total power yet. That may be next year's decision. The implementation would go through the channels that it would have to go through.
Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, would you like to put that response on the record?
Mr. Reimer: Yes.
Ms. Barrett: Any time lines--again, this is another very important proposal that is being undertaken here, and I do not think anybody has any cause to be concerned about the concept of one organization doing something that two normally did, if in fact it is efficient and effective and provides a good level of service. The problem for me is that I do not have any idea and nobody does at this point, what are some of those suggestions other than this amalgamation of the city environment thing. So the rest of us are operating in a vacuum here, and it sounds like from one of the minister's earlier comments, you are not completely sure about what some of these suggestions are either. So I guess I am asking when we will have a public update of what is going here.
Mr. Reimer: I think this is something that we do want to ensure that there is an understanding and an acceptance, because as the member pointed out, we are dealing with--and sometimes with people with various positions and various functions in their endeavours, whether it is in the province or in the city, and we have to make sure that there is an understanding and an acceptance of what we are trying to do. I would think that is one of the prime factors and one of the primary functions of any type of strategy that involves a union of sorts, or the amalgamation or doing something together between the city and the province. I would think that we would expect that, as these develop and unfold, there will be public awareness and there will be announcements made as to what these endeavours are.
The member mentioned the environment. There is also--I think she is aware that we are looking at amalgamating the inspections, the health inspectors, the health inspection in the city of Winnipeg. We are working on the family services program, that she is aware, the welfare program. That is an area where we are taking over jurisdiction. I think we are looking at one other area and some other types of inspections. I am not too sure which one it is now. I think there was one other that I--medical officers--[interjection] Oh, under the authority--the nursing and the medical health officer too. Those things are happening under the partnership. Other ones are--as they unfold we will certainly be making announcements on them, because we would want to make sure that the public is aware of what we are doing.
Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister could clarify the nursing and medical health officers situation that is under the--is it under the Winnipeg Health Authority? Is that what is happening?
Mr. Reimer: I may have confused it or clouded it a bit, and I apologize for that. Under the RHAs, the public health and the health nurses are all coming under the RHA now, so that is what I should have been referring to and not this here.
Ms. Barrett: As I read the press release which does actually explain--if I had read it carefully enough the first three or four times I read it--the process going from the co-ordinating committee up, and I apologize for not having done that. Then at the bottom of the first page it talks about the types of initiatives to be considered could include stuff, and it includes legislative changes to enhance efficiency or joint provincial-city partnerships with the private sector. I am wondering if you could put some meat on those bones, please.
Mr. Reimer: One of the initiatives that could be looked at, as has been pointed out, is what we call space management partnerships, trying to find out where the best utilization of space is that we may need or the city may need and the compilation of a database, so that there is a better utilization of the accommodations that various departments might be looking for.
I guess there is also the ability--I think there were legislative changes that had to be implemented for the Charleswood Bridge when the Charleswood Bridge was brought in. We had to give certain legislative amendments to the city so that they could proceed with that type of partnership, trying to accommodate various factors in trying to utilize the concept of partnerships.
So there might be some legislative changes that may have to come into effect, and I guess those would come through with realizing which way any type of partnership would lead us, that it might need some sort of legislative changes.
Mr. Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, committee rise.