Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. This afternoon, in Room 254, this section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the Department of Urban Affairs. Does the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs have an opening statement?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. It is my pleasure to introduce the Department of Urban Affairs Estimates for 1999-2000. This is the fifth time I have had the honour of presenting the Urban Affairs budget to the Legislature.

In June 1995, when I introduced my first departmental Estimates as Minister of Urban Affairs, I indicated to develop my desire to develop a positive working relationship with my colleagues in the City of Winnipeg and the Capital Region. Good relations with Winnipeg and its neighbours have continued to be a personal, as well as, government priority throughout my tenure as Minister of Urban Affairs. I am pleased to report significant success in this area. Relations with the city and the other Capital Region communities have been strengthened through informal meetings with municipal elected officials and through forums such as the Capital Region Committee and regular meetings of the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet with the city's Intergovernmental Affairs committee. I and other members of the cabinet, including the premier, continue to make ourselves available to meet individually and collectively with the city and the Capital Region representatives to discuss urban and regional issues. With respect to the Capital Region, I will be returning to this matter later in my speech.

This past October, a new mayor and council were elected by the citizens of Winnipeg. I have met with Mayor Murray several times, and we are already developing an excellent rapport. I look forward to working with the mayor and the rest of council on issues of mutual concern for the benefit of the citizens of Winnipeg and Manitoba. Ongoing commitment and action, however, will be required to maintain the positive relationships we have developed with Winnipeg. This commitment is reflected in a number of initiatives being undertaken by my department or involving our active participation. A case in point is the Partners in Public Service project with the City of Winnipeg which was initiated by our government. Through the Partners initiative, the province and the city are working together to identify ways to provide better services to the public at comparable or less cost. This collaborative approach to eliminating service overlaps and achieved program efficiencies contrasts sharply with the top-down realignment of service responsibilities occurring in other jurisdictions like Ontario.

A number of service areas are currently being reviewed by the city and the province under the Partners in Public Service framework. This analysis should be completed shortly. We anticipate making a number of specific announcements of joint service improvements in 1999-2000. One of the most important ongoing initiatives of Urban Affairs and the provincial government is to provide Winnipeg with strong sustainable funding support. This government has not offloaded reductions in federal transfer payments onto municipal governments unlike other provincial governments which have been reducing or eliminating support grants to municipalities. In fact, since our government was elected in office in 1988, direct provincial funding to the City of Winnipeg, excluding social assistance grants, has increased by 65 percent.

* (1450)

In the June 1998 report, the city's own Committee on Tax Reform confirmed the strong financial support Winnipeg receives from the government of Manitoba. The report states, and I quote: All fair analyses to date show that no major Canadian city does better than Winnipeg with respect to cash transfers from the province. I repeat, this was the report that was commissioned by the City of Winnipeg called the Committee on Tax Reform.

It is time to lay arest the myth that the City of Winnipeg is being shortchanged by the province. The province's strong and growing financial support demonstrates our government's commitment to Winnipeg and the well-being of its citizens. Through our funding we are making a major contribution to the city's efforts to reduce municipal taxes while protecting core services.

In 1999-2000, the city can look forward to receiving a $4.3-million increase to $94.4 million in combined Urban Affairs operating, municipal tax sharing, and policing grant payments, a rise of 5 percent over last year's budgeted funding. The 1999-2000 grants will be subject to a $23.5-million adjustment to reflect a cost-neutral transfer of the city's social assistance and public health nursing services to the province and the Winnipeg Community and Long Term Care Authority respectively.

Cost neutrality as achieved by this adjustment to grants means that neither the city's nor the province's financial position is impacted by the transfer of these city programs. As a result, the consolidation of services is accomplished in a way that is financially fair to both parties and does not affect taxpayers.

With respect to capital funding, Winnipeg is the only city in Canada which benefits from a long-term financial framework for provincial support to municipal infrastructure renewal and enhancement. The third capital projects allocation or, as it is referred to, UCPA 3, now in year three of a six-year term, is providing Winnipeg with a total of $96 million. There is $30 million in unconditional funding for capital works which are the city priorities and $66 million for cost-share capital works which are joint priorities of the province and the city. Some notable cost-sharing projects recently approved under UCPA 3 include regional street renewal, the purpose of new low-floor buses to replace aging transit vehicles, and upgrading the Portage Avenue streetscaping in downtown Winnipeg.

With respect to UCPA funding in 1999-2000, the Urban Affairs budget includes $18.6 million to cash flow against UCPA commitments, an increase of $100,000 over the budgeted 1998-1999 allocation.

I am also pleased to advise that the province is continuing for a second year its special support for the city of Winnipeg residential street repairs. The Urban Affairs includes a $5-million allocation for the renewal of Winnipeg's residential street system. The province's con-tribution will greatly enhance the number of neighbourhood streets that the city can repair in 1999, while at the same time stimulating the creation of significant construction employment.

The Winnipeg Development Agreement is another major initiative which supports positive and collaborative relations with the City of Winnipeg as well as the federal government. This five-year partnership agreement of Canada, Manitoba and Winnipeg is investing $75 million in programs and projects which support the sustainable economic development of Winnipeg in the areas of community development and security, labour force development, and strategic and sectorial investments.

Urban Affairs co-ordinates the province's involvement in the Winnipeg Development Agreement and delivers several WDA programs. These programs include the neighbourhood infrastructure. Almost the entire program allocation of $3 million has now been committed, resulting in renovations or improvements to 47 community centres, 23 athletic fields, 16 park and play areas and four indoor pools and recreation facilities located throughout the city. This upgrading of vital community infrastructure is enhancing the quality of life in the neighbourhoods in which it is located as well as making these neighbourhoods more viable and attractive.

With riverbank development, commitments totalling almost $1.6 million have been made to 14 projects under this program, which builds on Winnipeg's existing networks of riverbank parkways to enhance the riverbanks as amenities of both residents and tourists.

Recent approvals include the Churchill, North Winnipeg, St. Boniface parkways, Lyndale Drive pathway link and the redevelopment of Pritchard boatyard site. Under the North Main Economic Development segment, this program to enhance the commercial viability of north Main Street is assisting business owners to improve storefronts on north Main Street between William Avenue and St. John's Avenue. Upgrading includes exterior painting, new signage, awnings, improved lighting and improvements to doors and windows.

To date, 47 storefront grants totalling $364,312 have been approved. This streetscaping, gateway feature, and the safety and marketing components of the North Main program will commence in 1999-2000. Under Strategic Initiatives, to date this program to support Winnipeg's economic development has provided commitments totalling $1.2 million.

Under Strategic Initiatives, I also recently announced the details of a joint provincial-City of Winnipeg project to undertake a comprehensive analysis of residential market demand in downtown Winnipeg. This study will help identify strategies for increasing the number of people living downtown. The government of Manitoba has a long-standing commitment to the redevelopment and the revitalization of Winnipeg's downtown. Building upon substantial past investments in the downtown infrastructure, the province has committed $3 million in 1998-99 to support streetscaping on Portage Avenue.

We also made a commitment to support the city's efforts to develop North Main Street. In addition, my department continues its active involvement in major initiatives supporting downtown renewal, including the downtown task force, the CentrePlan committee, and its working groups on Portage Avenue, urban safety in downtown streets, The Forks North Portage Partnership and the North Main task force.

Recently, the City of Winnipeg announced CentreVenture, a new downtown organization which will serve as a focal point for downtown development. CentreVenture offers many opportunities for businesses and government to work together to strengthen Winnipeg's downtown. We look forward to working with Winnipeg on this exciting initiative and to discussing how Manitoba might become involved.

Another example of our government's commitment to the revitalization in Winnipeg is the Take Back the Streets Initiative announced in the throne speech. Targeted at inner city neighbourhoods, Take Back the Streets will ensure that families who live in inner-city neighbourhoods feel safe in their homes, businesses and streets, and that we can work together to rebuild their communities. Take Back the Streets will provide a framework for co-operative action. The model focuses on rebuilding communities from within by fostering increased independence, personal responsibility and self-reliance among individuals.

We will work with neighbourhood renewal committees which will lead the way in finding solutions to local problems. These solutions will not be found overnight. We recognize that it will take time to turn around Winnipeg's inner city. We believe, however, that the only path to success is to build a long-term capacity within neighbourhoods to take both curative and preventative action.

As I touched on earlier, the government also continues its efforts to enhance relations in the Capital Region. Through the Capital Region Committee, I and my colleague, the Honourable Len Derkach, Minister of Rural Development, continues to work with the mayors and the reeves of the 16 local governments of the Capital Region on our common goal of building a strong and a prosperous region.

* (1500)

Last year the provincial government and the Capital Region Committee agreed on a proposal to establish an independent panel to conduct a Capital Region review. The panel, which was appointed in June of 1998, is examining the existing legislative policy and decision-making processes, guiding land use planning and service provisions in the region. The panel will be making recommendations respecting these processes and the implementation of the Capital Region Strategy. Mr. Alan Scarth was appointed earlier this year as the new chair of the five-person panel after the original chair, Mr. Kevin Kavanagh, was forced to withdraw for health reasons. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Kavanagh at this time for his invaluable contribution to the review and to wish him a speedy recovery.

The Capital Region panel has been holding consultations with the public and the municipalities throughout the region. We anticipate receiving their interim report by early summer. The panel will then solicit comments on the interim report and present the government with its final report, hopefully by December of 1999. We look forward with a great deal of anticipation to the results of the panel's research and its consultations.

Last, but not least, my department has initiated a unique partnership with the City of Winnipeg to undertake a comprehensive redrafting of The City of Winnipeg Act. The redraft has been undertaken by a project team which includes both Urban Affairs and the City of Winnipeg staff. The impetus of this project was a City Council request that the act be streamlined and condensed. Our agreement to a joint initiative with the city illustrates the willingness of this government to listen to Winnipeg's needs and to work with the city for everyone's mutual benefit.

The redraft project represents a long overdue cleanup of the act which will remove unnecessary prescription and sharing consistency with the most current provincial legislation, eliminate duplication of provisions and make the act easier to read and understand. The project commenced in June of 1998 and should be completed before year-end. In 1999-2000, my department and I will continue to build on the co-operative relations and partnerships we have established with the City of Winnipeg.

Mr. Chairperson, this concludes my opening remarks in the Department of Urban Affairs 1999-2000 Estimates. I look forward to discussing the Estimates with members of the Legislature and my critic.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for his opening statement. Does the honourable member, the opposition critic, have an opening statement?

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Just brief opening comments. [interjection] I appreciate the interventions by the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey). He knows how I appreciate them.

Just a brief comment sort of on a personal note before we get into, and I do not have any overarching comments. I will wait for the questioning that we will get into, but the minister said that this was his fifth presentation of the departmental Estimates and it is my fifth as the critic.

As I was sharing with the minister this afternoon, if the political process plays itself out, as we assume it will, given the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) promise of an election this fall, there is a large likelihood that neither he nor I will necessarily be in the same position next year. There may very well be a new government. Well, there will be a new government whether it is of the same political stripe or a different political stripe, and there will be potentially critic changes and ministerial changes.

So given this opportunity, I would just like to say it has been a pleasure to work with the minister over these past years. He has always been more than open and willing to give me any assistance that I asked for. His staff, as well, have been most accommodating and helpful to me. I appreciate that and wish the minister well in whatever transpires in the next few months.

Mr. Chairperson: We thank the critic the honourable member for Wellington for her opening comments, and we will now proceed. Under Manitoba practice, debate of the minister's salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of the department, and, accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and proceed with the consideration of the next line. Before we do that, I would ask that the minister's staff please join us at the table, and as they come to the table, if the minister would introduce the staff as they come forward.

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, coming to the table here we have Marianne Farag, with my Policy department; Jon Gunn, in my financial department; Myroslava Pidhirnyj, with my staff; and Harold Dick–[interjection] Pardon me, Andrew Cowan. We had some personnel changes in the staff. That is why I got it mixed. Sorry.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister. Item 20.1. Administration (b) Executive Support $239,800.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, the minister and I agreed prior to Estimates that we would spend some time doing a fairly broad overview discussion rather than getting into the specifics. I suppose the questions I ask might very well fit under this category. If there is any area where it will not fit, I am more than prepared to ask the question under a more specific one.

I have kind of a general question of the minister. In Estimates, in the ministerial opening remarks, there is virtually always a vision of what is going to happen in the next year, this overview of the plan upon which the Estimates are based. I was thinking as a follow-up kind of to the fact that there may very well be changes taking place of a larger nature in the next few months before the next Estimates process and thinking, well, you know, I do not think it is going to happen, but maybe this minister will still be the Minister of Urban Affairs next year at this time.

I just wondered what the vision is that the minister has beyond what he said in his opening remarks about the role or what he sees happening in the next little while in the Department of Urban Affairs. When you sit back and think about a little longer term, what is your view of the role of Urban Affairs in the government? How do you see it evolving and changing over the next few years?

Mr. Chairperson: Before I recognize the honourable minister, it has been suggested that we have a general discussion with regard to the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs, and then we will pass line by line at the end. Is that the will of the committee? Agreed? [agreed]

I would remind the committee that when they are addressing or presenting any questions and answers that they do so through the Chair. The honourable minister to respond.

* (1510)

Mr. Reimer: The member is quite right in looking back on the so-called five years that we have been together in the sense of going through regarding the Department of Urban Affairs. The one thing that was not mentioned is that the member for Wellington represents me in my constituency, not the constituency that I live in, but the constituency where I have a business in, and I am akin to getting all her mail and her advertisements and her mailouts and her calendar. It is a very nice calendar. It has her picture on it and it is in my office, believe it or not, where I work. It is a magnetic one, so it can sit on a filing cabinet.

The one thing that is always very comforting is one of the lines the member always has in her brochures is that she is out there working for me. I think that is very commendable that I have a member of the opposition that is working for me on one hand, and on the other hand she is my critic. It is a wonderful hat that she wears. Being involved as the Minister of Urban Affairs over the last four or four and a half years or so has certainly been an enjoyable and a very rewarding experience. A lot of it has to do, a lot of times you look back at the people that you have around you and the staff and the dedication, and they keep me out of trouble. They are there to help the department and the government in any way that is asked of them, so it makes it very beneficial to be on the receiving end as Minister of Urban Affairs.

I think one of the greatest satisfactions of working with the City of Winnipeg, not only with the former mayor, Mayor Susan Thompson, but even with the new mayor, Mayor Murray, is that you are dealing with people that have a dedication and a vision for what they feel is good not only for Winnipeg but for Manitoba. I think that makes a great difference in working with the elected officials as I do with the City of Winnipeg.

The vision I believe is shared. If you have a strong city, you have a strong Manitoba, and vice versa. If Manitoba is strong, it means that Winnipeg is strong. There are a lot of forces. There are a lot of changes that have come about in the last while, especially with the City of Winnipeg. I think the biggest change that they made when we were able to help them along was the implementation of the Cuff report, which had I believe over 12 or 14 different type of amendments to it that was a very, very significant change in the administration and the direction that the City of Winnipeg was taking.

The Cuff report generated an awful lot of discussion, because I think what that represented, it gives a bit of a turning point in the direction that we as a provincial government want to work with the City of Winnipeg, and that we want to get away from the prescriptive nature because the City of Winnipeg is more or less a creature of the province in a sense because of The City of Winnipeg Act.

I think there has to be a recognition that there are elected officials on Main Street. The mayor himself and herself, who was there before, have a responsibility to their electorate and are accountable to their electorate, and the ability to make decisions should be with those elected officials. I think that the Cuff report gives that type of latitude or is on the road to give more latitude to the City of Winnipeg in being more accountable, more directional, in the way they feel that they want to take Winnipeg into the millennium. I think that is one of the things that I have found very, very satisfying in the sense of being part of that process, and to try to give this type of direction to the City of Winnipeg and working with council and EPC.

I find that the new council, the new mayor, I think that there is a freshness. There is a new visionary direction that the mayor is bringing to Winnipeg. He has taken to making some bold and strong statements as to implementing tax cuts, being fiscally responsible, working within their budget, working within the parameters of what is expected by the taxpayers. I think those are really causes that he has taken on upon himself. I think he has shown that he is willing to listen to the people and still listen to direction, but at the same time I think the vision and the direction that he wants to take Winnipeg is good for Winnipeg and good for Manitoba.

He has the EPC working with him. The councillors seem to be onside with a lot of the directions that he wants. We will continue to work on the City of Winnipeg in looking at partnerships. We feel that it is very beneficial between the partners of the city and the province and the municipalities, that we can bring in these relationships and looking at the private sector as possibly how they can fit into the mix too.

It is an exciting time in Manitoba and in Winnipeg. Actually we seem to look at the events and the response that we have to a lot of the events that are happening over the last little while, whether it was the Grey Cup or the junior hockey tournament, and now with all the things that are happening these next couple of months with the various folk festivals and naturally the Pan Am Games.

Winnipeg and Manitoba always seem to rise to the occasion, whether it is in a desperate situation like we had with the flood. Now we are having more problems in southwest Manitoba, so there is a response that Manitobans and Winnipeggers always rise to. To be part of government, to be part of as minister in this particular portfolio, I think that the challenges and the rewards are quite measurable in working with people, that there is a dedication that they want to make this a great city and a great province.

I think, as we go into the millennium, the opportunity to build on these relationships, to build on these strengths, that is something that is not only going to help the younger generation and everybody that is coming up in this province, but I think it is going to solidify Manitoba and Winnipeg as a great province and a great city in the future, because we can always look at the economic indicators. The economic indicators are very, very strong for our province as indicated by the newspapers and various securities departments and banking institutes. But I think the other aspect of it, of having a strong social responsibility by government and the elected officials, is something that I think has to be that type of benefit in correlation with an economic growth. I think that that is emerging stronger and stronger here in Manitoba. There is a sense of self-reliance, a sense of accomplishment and a direction that people can identify with.

As we go into the millennium, I think that it is going to be an exciting time for both of us wherever we sit in this House. Just to be part of this government is going to be a challenge, but I think there is still a lot to be done. I look forward to, not only the next session, but the election and as it unfolds, as they say. We will just leave it at that right now.

Ms. Barrett: Not a lot of specifics there, but maybe I should not have been expecting a lot of specifics in that kind of a general question.

The minister spoke about how the mayor had a freshness and a vision, but the phrases that the minister used in describing the mayor's vision or his perception of the mayor's vision were in the areas of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility. I am wondering if that is how the minister sees the mayor's vision for the city. How does the minister see the mayor and what he wants to do with the city? Is it that narrow, or is there a broader context there?

* (1520)

Mr. Reimer: No, I did not want to imply that strictly because of what the mayor is talking about economically and the financial aspect of management. That is very, very important actually, the accountability of tax dollars and the direction of where money is going and where it is coming in. That is always very, very important. But I think that the mayor has also shown his willingness to look at the social significance, the social dividend that people should benefit because of a strong economy. Some of the initiatives that the mayor has talked about, I know he is talking about a housing forum that he is advocating. As Minister of Housing, I will be participating in that forum. He has also indicated his willingness to work with the redevelopment of the downtown area for somebody to look at residential components in there. He has shown an innovative way for looking at tax for heritage buildings and revitalizing heritage buildings. I think that there is a balance of social and economic benefits that he has indicated and that I am willing to, as a provincial government champion, for inclusion in whether it is support on a physical basis or support of possibly with some financial commitments. Those are the things that I think I am willing to look at.

As I say, the one thing that the mayor has shown, he has a vision for what he feels is important for Winnipeg. He has put a fair amount of emphasis on economic development by his own statements in regard to trying to get some very, very significant industries relocated here to Winnipeg. He has worked very hard on the trade corridor. Already he has been down to Mexico, I believe, a couple times. He has met with some of the governors and the mayors already for the trade route. He has been over to China. He has been over to, I believe he has travelled–I say recently he has been down in Mexico, so he has put a fair amount of emphasis on getting people and jobs here in Winnipeg, which is very, very commendable. I believe that he has shown a strong positive influence. He wants to make Winnipeg one great city, and he has made that commitment.

Ms. Barrett: The minister stated in his opening remarks that he met with the mayor several times. Is there a regular schedule of meetings between the mayor and the minister?

Mr. Reimer: We try to meet about once a month. We cannot say exactly that it is the second Tuesday or something of every month because of the schedules, but we do try to meet at least monthly. I try to meet with EPC, and he is also there at that EPC meeting, too, when he can make it. I feel it is very important that there is a one-on-one meeting just to discuss initiatives or directions that he feels that he may need help with or things that I feel should be discussed. So we try to do that on a regular basis. As I say, it is not always on the same particular week of every month or something like that, but we try to do it as time permits.

Ms. Barrett: Did the minister meet with the mayor individually and then as well with the EPC, so there are two separate meetings?

Mr. Reimer: Yes. We have done that quite often.

Ms. Barrett: Do you find that you are meeting more or less the same amount of time or with the same degree of frequency with this mayor and EPC, as you did with the former mayor and EPC?

Mr. Reimer: With Mayor Susan and EPC, things were settling into a routine of familiarity between the two; it was fairly regular on a constant basis. With the new mayor and the new EPC, we took a little while for the adjustment and the familiarity to come in between the two of them, but we have met, I believe it is at least two or three times already. It was started after the new year because there was just too much hectic time between October and December. It started in the new year, and our appointment secretaries try to arrange it between the two of us on a regular basis now.

Ms. Barrett: I might just ask a few questions based on what the minister said in his opening statements before I get onto some other specifics. He talked about the Partners in Public Service initiative and stated that there were a number of areas being reviewed. Can you give me a list of those areas that are being reviewed and any kind of a timetable or progress report on what is happening there?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, there have been meetings taking place. It is done on the senior level, and some of the things, the priorities that have been identified are: the permit office consolidation–what we mean, permits that are taken out–to have a consolidation of those offices; accommodation and leasing consolidation, and that is pertaining to Government Services in Winnipeg examining the potential to amalgamate office accommodation and leasing services; the tourist partnering between Manitoba Industry, Trade and Tourism and Tourism Winnipeg to discuss potential sharing of support services; a joint informational service centre which is to consider potential for having a single energy and environmental information centre for Canada, Manitoba and Winnipeg. There is a treasury services partnering, which is the committee to discuss potential for consolidation of treasury divisions. What the city is looking at is a treasury similar to what we have as a Treasury Board set up, and they are looking at our model and seeing whether they can possibly set up that type of system in their marketing. We are also looking at the pavement marking consolidation, potential for consolidating pavement marking between Manitoba, city and the airport authority. [interjection] Yes, street marking.

Some of the other initiatives that are up for discussion are staff training and development, with staff from the Civil Service Commission and City of Winnipeg having met to discuss possible areas of partnership in that, training facilities, sharing of partnerships in that. I believe the City of Winnipeg and the Department of Rural Development are working closely in the area of the city assessment and trying to bring that to a better understanding. I believe that there have also been some overtures regarding fleet vehicles and looking at the opportunity of possibly how the provincial Fleet Vehicles operating–how the City of Winnipeg might either dovetail in with that or look at a model similar to the way we have the fleet vehicles operation within our provincial government. Well, they are looking at business licensing, registration, possible amalgamation of the business offices relating to licensing and registrations, and that is about it at the present time. They have been very busy actually.

Ms. Barrett: It appears as though, from what the minister has given, that there are a couple of areas. In some cases, what is being looked at is an amalgamation or a working together or joint process, and in a couple of other areas, as in the treasury services, it is more what the city is looking at what the province has or the province is looking at what the city has to try and make their own system better and more efficient. Would that be a delineation of the types of activities that are being undertaken?

* (1530)

Mr. Reimer: Yes, more or less, because, as mentioned, the Treasury Board, it would not be a sharing of our facilities with them. But I think that it would be a model sharing that we would possibly transfer to them and a mechanic set-up type of partnership that we would work with the City of Winnipeg.

Ms. Barrett: You say that this is being under-taken at the senior level. From the Department of Urban Affairs, who are the people that are involved in that?

Mr. Reimer: On the provincial side it would be the deputy minister, Bill Kinnear; and from the Treasury Board, Don Potter; and with the City of Winnipeg it would be Bob Gannon and Gail Stephens.

Ms. Barrett: When you said senior level, the minister was not joking. Well, that is interesting, because these are very senior people. Not to denigrate in any way, shape, or form the importance of this kind of thing, but this is pretty detail kinds of things. We are talking about business licensing and permits and this kind of stuff.

Does this committee or this group look more at let us try and figure out what the areas are that can be looked at and then send them off to people in the more line staff in both areas to come back with suggestions? I am trying to get a bit of an idea of the process that is being undertaken here.

Mr. Reimer: In referring to the four individuals that I mentioned, the deputy, Mr. Potter from the Treasury Board, Gail Stephens, and Bob Gannon, what they are, they are the top, if you want to call it, of the co-ordinating. They will direct down into the various departments to get feedback to come back to these four people. Actually, the task force comes even one step further than that, up, if you want to call it, to the political level, where there is input from myself, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gilleshammer), Mayor Murray, Councillor Eadie, and then there is one other MLA, Marcel Laurendeau, that sits on that. I believe that originally there was a city councillor before that. I am trying to remember who was on that before. Anyway, I believe there is one other city councillor that sits on that, too.

Ms. Barrett: I do not want to belabour this, because it is important. I think it is not a bad idea at all. I would like to get a sense of the process. Ultimately, the political part of this whole thing, I would hope, would make the decision as to whatever recommendation comes forward from this committee gets put into the political process.

How far along is this group in any of these areas? Is it still fairly early on? I am trying to remember when this was first announced. It has been a few months now. So I am just wondering when we can see some real change here.

Mr. Reimer: It was announced in May of 1997. I think that out of that partnership we have seen the amalgamation of the public health inspectors, public health nurses. The City of Winnipeg Act review has actually come out of the partnership as a recommendation. I am trying to think of what else has been worked on at that particular time. The assessment I believe was a strong initiative too. I think those are the most positive ones that have come out of it.

Ms. Barrett: With the exception of the assessment working with Rural Development and then sitting on the assessment process, the other two, public health inspectors and nurses, were not referenced by the minister in the first go-around of what is being looked at, maybe because that has happened and this is ongoing still. Any idea when some of these other things will come to fruition, or is this a very long-term process?

Mr. Reimer: I think where the direction has been given is to try to get some definitive suggestions for the fall of 1999, and in case it required some sort of legislative change or legislative direction that it could be worked into next year's package for legislative consideration.

Ms. Barrett: I thank the minister for that. A couple of other items that came out of his opening statements, I would like to ask about. You have talked about the study for residential market demand in downtown Winnipeg, and I am wondering if he can give me an update on what is happening there, what this situation is. It is certainly a critical area, as the minister knows, being the Minister responsible for Housing.

* (1540)

Mr. Reimer: I am just trying to see whether we can find when the award has been secured by DS –Lea Consultants to do the study. It is ongoing. It was just awarded, I believe, within the last month or so–within the last, maybe, couple of months.

We are just going to try and find out when the closing is on it, but it is not that it is a long-drawn-out affair. We are trying to get a report back, I would think, within the next couple of months or so anyway on this.

Ms. Barrett: Could the minister give me any more detail on the scope of what the research project, what the outcome is going to be, what kind of information will be available then once the study is concluded?

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that we do not have the terms of reference with us, but I can get the terms of reference, and I can forward them to the member. I was informed that the proposal will close this fall, but where it will be looking at areas of coverage in the report is in consumer demand for housing, the location and the housing preferences in the area, the supply of housing in the downtown, the depth of the housing downtown, and the housing market in the particular area. We thought we had the terms of reference here, but we do not. We will make those available to the member.

Ms. Barrett: This may be in the terms of reference, but can you define "downtown" for me in the context of this study?

Mr. Reimer: The terms of reference for the study are the outline as indicated by the CentrePlan and the neighbourhoods that buff up against the CentrePlan boundaries.

Ms. Barrett: What does the government or the minister plan to do with the results of this survey once it has been concluded? When you said, "close this fall," I am assuming what you mean by "close" is the survey. The study itself will be concluded, and then what–I guess, two questions. What will you do with it, and whom will you share it with?

Mr. Reimer: I should point out that it is a joint initiative with the City of Winnipeg. We are both involved with the study. I guess the idea is to look at a definitive or more of a concise picture of what housing is and what is needed in the downtown area. It will be set up and it will be used as a policy framework to look in what type of direction, where the emphasis should be, where the soft spots are possibly, where there is need for possibly different type of development or different type of housing, what is the existing housing, what can be utilized better, possibly areas of looking at conversions and those type of analyses that would come out of this study. So it will set up as a policy program for both the city and the province to be aware of where the emphasis should be and in what direction and what type of accommodations and different type of joint initiatives that can come out of this type of analysis. It more or less gives the information, gives the ability to make some policy decisions on it, and hopefully implement some sort of action on what may or may not happen in the downtown area.

Ms. Barrett: I should know this, but I am looking in my head and I cannot see the answer to this question. Does the CentrePlan downtown include The Forks?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, it does.

Ms. Barrett: Briefly under the Capital Region Committee, I know it is making its report on the 15th of July at seven o'clock at the museum, and something I am sure we are all looking forward to. I hope we are not disappointed. I hope there is something really good that comes out of it, because heaven knows we need it. I am assuming you have not seen the report, but have you looked at or talked about how you are going to go about dealing with the report? I am not saying implementing, I am saying dealing with it because it seems to me there is a huge amount of pent-up demand that is going to happen out of this.

Here we have been putting so much energy and time and effort into this Capital Region strategy and the Capital Region report, and for it to just sit there and for there not to be some plans–I know they would have to be very preliminary in nature, because you do not know what is going to be in the report. You have a very small department, not a lot of staff, and you are more a liaison and facilitative department. So I would suspect there is a potential for a huge demand for energy from the department itself. Has your department taken a look at how you will begin to think about dealing with and implementing the report?

Mr. Reimer: The member is right. I have not seen any type of report as to date. I must commend the panel. They have been out there, they have made the rounds, they have been to the municipalities. They have had the public meetings in Winnipeg, Stonewall, Ste Agathe, Elie, Oakbank, Selkirk and Oak Bluff. They have had good participation. I believe that they have had written briefs submitted to them from people who could not make the actual panel meetings, so I believe that they have compiled a fair amount of information to come up with an interim report.

The member is right, the public presentation, if you want to call it, or the revealing of the interim report is in July. July 15 is the date that the chairperson, Mr. Scarth, has indicated that that is when they would have it ready for the public. I am fairly optimistic. I think that it is the best way to look at trying to come to some sort of solution and direction regarding the Capital Region and the City of Winnipeg. I think there is more likelihood of success where you can build upon consensus and co-operation. Between the municipalities and the City of Winnipeg, confrontation only sets up barriers and sets up turf protection in a sense. I think that the municipalities and the Capital Region, in their meetings and in their dedication and since my becoming Minister of Urban Affairs, I sense that there is a real genuine willingness to come to grips with how we can make this into a very productive region not only economically but socially for all aspects of co-operation between the regions and the City of Winnipeg.

* (1550)

Participation has always been excellent with any meetings. I have to say that almost any Capital Region meeting we have had, I do not think I am wrong in saying that attendance has almost been a hundred percent. The City of Winnipeg has always had someone at the table, whether it was a senior councillor like Jae Eadie, or prior to that I believe it was Shirley Timm-Rudolph who used to be the representative. The mayor himself has made representation and been at the meetings. The previous mayor, Mayor Susan Thompson, used to come to the meetings, along with the reeves and the mayors of the municipalities around. So with that type of participation, you feel that there is a willingness to come to some sort of understanding and commitment for better working relationships within the Capital Region.

Since the inception of the panel, another positive outcome has been that the Capital Region committee themselves–and when I say that, I mean all 16 municipalities including the City of Winnipeg–have taken it upon themselves, without direction by the province or without even involvement with the province, to get together to discuss mutual concerns and directions in the setting up of a structure on their own volition. This was initiated by the previous mayor, Mayor Susan Thompson, just before she left. She had a meeting in Winnipeg here, I believe it was at the Convention Centre, and she had full participation. This was an initiative on her part to sit down and talk to the mayors and reeves.

Since that time, there was another meeting in La Salle, I believe it was, that the region decided to get together by itself again, and they did, and they had full participation. The mayor of Headingley, Reeve John Curry, hosted the next meeting which was just a couple of months ago or maybe even six weeks ago, I cannot remember exactly. They had very strong participation with that.

So those are the types of things that breed optimism, you know, that there is a willingness for the city and the municipalities to sit down and talk about mutual problems or concerns and solutions to problems that come up within different municipalities and jurisdictions. It is that type of thing that fosters consensus and co-operation, so that things can happen for the benefit of the taxpayers and for the people of the region.

Prior to that, as I mentioned, it was the province that was the sole initiator of these meetings. In fact, they were at the call of the province in a sense. Now these meetings by the municipalities on their own are taking part strictly on their own volition. I do not feel slighted in any way that we are not invited to these meetings because I think that the municipalities and the city are showing the initiative, that they want to look for sort of a homegrown solution if they can. If there is a willingness for them to come to a consensus on solutions, I would feel that that is a very positive initiative, that these are the things that we can build upon.

The preliminary report, as mentioned, will be coming out I guess within the next two to three weeks. The intent behind that is it is to be used as a mechanism for further discussions in the fall. It will be used as sort of a blueprint for further discussions. There will be more public meetings. That is the intent and the mandate of the panel once the interim report comes out. After that, there would be the initiation of the final report, hopefully by the end of the year, with the idea of looking that if it is possible, it then comes under the review and the direction of government as to how and where and what would be implemented.

So I believe there are some positive initiatives that are going to come out of the Capital Region, and it is only because there is a willingness to co-operate between the mayors and reeves and the city. So it is working out very, very well in a sense.

Ms. Barrett: The preliminary report comes out on July 15, I believe, Thursday night. On Friday morning, what will the Department of Urban Affairs do? The minister said that things are working along very well, that the communities are co-operating in their meetings and that kind of thing, and that is very positive. However, I do know that the hearings that I attended, there still was at that point a great divide. It is still, or was then, a very large challenge, and I think that is why it is so essential to have this report.

But I also think that is why it is so essential that the government play a very positive, proactive role in following up on even the preliminary report, not in the sense of trying to dictate or be Big Brother, to use a phrase that has been bandied about in the House the last few days, but in the sense of being a facilitator and working with the rest of the stakeholders in this process. It just seems to me that the time between July 15 and the end of the year or whenever the final report comes out, there is a lot of potential for work to be done. I am just wondering if the department has any plans to do some work based on what the preliminary report says, or is it basically you are waiting until the public hearings have taken place in the fall and the final report comes out, and then you will decide what you are going to do.

Mr. Reimer: I think it is very, very important that government has the ability to get all the input that is available to them in the process, not only through the panel members, which I must compliment. The panel itself I think is composed of some very excellent people who have a dedication and a loyalty to their own expertise in the various endeavours and areas of their profession. I think it is that type of involvement by the panel that I think is going to come out with–well, you know, I can only speculate. I do not know for sure. I would think that the report has a fairly broad reach to it because of the background of the individuals on the panel. I think, with the mandate they were given and the direction of the chairperson, they will come up with hopefully the avenues that can be acted on by government or facilitated by government.

I think the way the process is set up with the interim report, it then sets up a blueprint of further discussion. I would think that the interim report would give some sort of guidance and direction instead of looking at the real broad parameters of speculative scenarios. It would bring it down to specifics in a sense for further discussion, not necessarily that the specifics may all be finalized, but they would give it an area of discussion that not only the elected officials could then take back to their respective councils and members to discuss. It would also give the public an idea of where they could focus further discussion or direction that they feel that they would like to give to the Capital Region panel and to government as to how the structure should be implemented in the final report.

I guess once the final report is put forth, that then comes before the government to look at and to try to facilitate in a way that would become part of the government's decision at that time. It is hard to speculate as to the way it will surmise, but we are looking at, like I say, the final report some time, hopefully, at the end of the year. We are speculating that by December of 1999, we will have it with the ability to look at it and take it from there.

While I have the mike, I will introduce my deputy who has just come to the table, Mr. Bill Kinnear.

* (1600)

Ms. Barrett: Perhaps I will hold more specific questions to when we get to the Program Support section in the Estimates book, if that is acceptable. The minister said that the other partners, the 16 municipalities and the city were meeting quite regularly without the province in attendance and that the minister did not feel slighted in any way. Is there a report back to the provincial government on what is going on with those meetings? Are they just meeting on their own and you do not get a report back from anybody as to what has happened there?

Mr. Reimer: The one time that my department was involved was at the first meeting that they had. One of our senior staff in our department made representation to that group just to give them an overview of what had transpired with some of the new mayors and reeves that were elected, because they came onstream in October of last year with all the municipal elections. That was the only time that we as a provincial government were at the specific meetings; other than that, they hold them at their call. We are not made privy to their minutes or correspondence or anything. They have indicated though that if they felt that there was something that we should be involved with, they would naturally make overtures to the provincial government for our information or direction. We do not see their minutes or their meetings or anything.

Ms. Barrett: Just another question or two maybe on the Capital Region process. That is Mr. Myron Orfield is coming to speak that night. He is from Minneapolis and wrote a book I believe called Metropolitics. I am wondering if the government has looked at that book, his suggestions, if the government has any response to issues that were raised or what has happened in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. For example, I think a very interesting idea is the ring communities outside Minneapolis, the more affluent suburbs required to provide affordable housing and low-income housing in order to get any kind of infrastructure grants from the government.

Has the minister thought about an idea like that?

Mr. Reimer: I am familiar with the individual only because of what was written in the paper. I know he has written a book. I asked my staff to get me a copy of the book. I guess it is still on its way. I believe that the Capital Region staff have the book and are using it, or of some sort. As I say, I am not familiar with the gentleman's concepts other than what I read in the paper. It would be interesting to read his book.

As I have mentioned, I have asked my staff in my office to get me a copy of the book. I would be interested in reading it and getting a bit of a preview before the gentleman came to town because I think he has been invited, in fact, to speak that evening at the Art Gallery with some of his views.

As was indicated by the member, the mention of the housing is something that they seem to feel has worked down in Minneapolis or in areas around that way. It would be something that we would have to look at. The one thing that I think the member is aware, as Minister of Housing also, we as a provincial government do not get into housing anymore. We are not into the house building or the residential market as we were back in the '70s and '60s. The only people who are doing residential housing at this particular time are developers or people building their own homes. So we do not have a program for housing per se, whether it is in the rural area or in Winnipeg. That is something that is handled totally by different markets.

Ms. Barrett: My understanding of this idea is not that the government would get into the building of housing, but, as one of the prerequisites for getting approval or funding to build a development, there would be that in that development is included affordable and, in some cases, low-income housing. I know the province has regulations now of things that have to be in a development and plans and processes that have to be–or I think they do. We do have provincial land use policies on the books honoured more in the breach than the observance, I might add, for at least the fifth time in five years.

So this would be, my understanding would be, part of a regulatory process. It would not put the government into building houses. It would just say that, if you want to put in a development of $300,000 homes in East St. Paul, you have to also put in housing that is more affordable. So that what you are doing is that you are engendering a diversity and a mix that we all talk about as part of the positives of the urban scene and the downtown scene, and you are saying that this is an essential component of any housing development. So my understanding of what he is saying is that that is the concept.

I guess what I am doing is that I am asking the minister if the government is taking any pre-emptive thoughts on the whole Capital Region challenge and sort of mapping out some preliminary ideas on what to do about this issue as it plays itself out in the Capital Region report, or if the government is saying: let us wait and not come up with any particular plans or ideas at this point, but wait and see what comes out of the report itself.

Mr. Reimer: I think one of the things that is available to the panel and which they have done is they have looked at various models. I know that I have had an opportunity to do a little reading on what they call a Seattle model and why they talk about urban sprawl and how they have worked in their state and in their city. It takes a long time to turn the mindset of working within a large region to try to share facilities in all types of directions; in fact, I believe in the Seattle area they have been working now since 1974 on this. It is an ongoing thing. It is not as if there is a new philosophy and, bingo, this is the way it goes. It is a fluid type of decision making that goes on all the time, but if there is a willingness to go down that path, I think that is the main thing.

I think that this is where we are headed. We are looking for the path to go down. I am not saying that we have all the solutions or that the panel has all the solutions or even the municipalities and the 16 jurisdictions and the City of Winnipeg have all the solutions, but I think that there is a willingness to go down this path to try to find solutions and to try to find a way to look at a better co-operative enterprise, if you want to call it, within Manitoba. I think those are the things that we can build upon.

* (1610)

In looking at some of the other models that are around and whether it is, as I mentioned, the Seattle model or this fellow here from Minneapolis, one of the things that the United States has the big clout with, if you want to call it, is their HUD, Housing and Urban Development, and they literally have hundreds of millions of dollars that they utilize in their housing and for housing developments and redevelopment of housing that the federal government is involved with, and this is where the United States I guess has a bit of an advantage compared to Canada where, here in Canada, our federal government has decided that it does not want to be involved with public housing anymore.

In fact what it has done, it has just evolved itself out of, it has turned itself over to the provinces, it has pulled itself out of its funding formulas or frozen funding formulas, I should say. It is not increasing funding to public housing. It has turned its back, if you want to call it, at a time when there is a need for various forms of public housing in Manitoba, whether it is with seniors or people with supportive housing and these types of efforts where we have seen–I can talk freely in this area because as Housing minister I know what is happening, and as Seniors minister I know what the effects are, so that there is a real ripple effect with the federal government not being involved and abdicating their responsibility.

Down in the United States, HUD or the Housing and Urban Development department down there has a tremendous amount of clout in changing and turning around areas where there are problems or social problems in regard to housing in downtown core areas. They have literally had funding available to literally tear out certain areas of cities and rebuild them with housing complexes and tear down housing complexes. They have the ability to do a tremendous amount of change, urban renewal, some of it, some of it is very, you know, there is good and bad, but they have that type of clout that we do not have because the States have a big funding partner involved called the federal government.

Here in Canada, with what is happening housing-wise, some of this urban development and redevelopment for housing cannot happen because the municipalities and the provincial government cannot pick up the total costs of these types of initiatives. There are things to be learned from the United States and possibly looking at some of the mechanisms, but to get into the funding arrangements we are at a disadvantage. We do not have that ability to bring in the third partner to be involved with some of these huge urban redevelopment areas.

We saw a fair amount of significant change in the downtown area when there was the Core Area Initiative, and the Core Area Initiative was a joint venture with the three levels. There was a fair amount of revamping of the downtown area, you know, in regard to Portage Avenue and some of the other areas. The Forks was tied into it to a degree with the Core Area Initiative, so those are examples of where positive change can come about, but your funding partners have to be in place and it is very hard for the city itself. I know the mayor has been a strong advocate of bringing the three partners together on this type of initiative, and I can only say that if the federal government looks seriously at wanting to get involved with some sort of downtown redevelopment, the provincial government would look very favourably on trying to work in partnership with the city and the federal government on the initiatives in and around Winnipeg, because it makes things change and it makes a difference, but it comes down again to money and the availability of it and who we can partner with.

Ms. Barrett: The minister said in his response that it takes a long time to change mindsets, and I am wondering if the minister thinks that we do need a mindset change in this whole area of Capital Region and the challenges that led to the creation of the committee that is making a preliminary report in a couple of weeks.

Mr. Reimer: I think that it is there. I think that in conversations not only with the mayor, but also in conversations with some of the mayors and reeves in and around the Capital Region, they want to see this type of co-operation. I think they realize that it is a cliche, but we live in a small world. We have to look at things collectively now in trying to solve a lot of not only the economic but the social adjustments that have to come about because of society and the aging population and the different shifting of demographics.

Those are some of the things that I think there is a willingness that elected officials are recognizing more and more, whether it is an elective official of the City of Winnipeg or the province or even in a small municipality in small towns, the people that are elected right now recognize not only their responsibility but they have been told that by the people that elect them that they want a sense of co-operation and co-ordination between the various levels and between the various jurisdictions so that there is not this duplication and this overlap and the expending of dollars two times. The demand for a way of life in safety and security in the community is becoming more evident, and they are saying to the elected officials, do not squabble over the semantics, just make it happen and do it the most efficient way you can. I think that sense is becoming more and more prevalent in the people that run for public office, that they recognize that there is a responsibility to the people that elect them. The people who are being elected, if they do not listen to these electors, the people will turn on them and they will not last that long.

Ms. Barrett: I think the minister said that, yes, mindsets need to be changed and are changing about the issues facing the Capital Region. In his comments he talked about–my sense was he was talking about the city and the municipalities. I am wondering if he thinks that the province has made a change in their mindset.

Mr. Reimer: I think very definitely. I think that there is more a realization by the province in all areas, in all departments that the sense of trying to work co-operatively not only inter-departmentally but even within each department for the efficiencies of management, for the efficiencies of style, for the efficiencies of accountability for the taxpayers' dollar is becoming more and more evident.

I know within our own departments of Urban Affairs and Housing, the analysis of what is best for the so-called customer is becoming more and more prevalent. I do not say customer in a sense of retail. I mean whom we serve and what the demands are of the service that we are providing, that we are providing a service to people who are asking for a certain type of expectation and quality, and we, within our government, should be expected to deliver it.

A very, very good example of the quality in our government–and the efficiency of our staff and our government is very well recognized. Just recently, there was an awards ceremony at the Convention Centre where there were awards for efficiencies and customer service in the various departments. There were hundreds of applications of names that were put forth for individuals or departments or teams that have shown initiatives in how they want to make their department or their form of government or their particular job more efficient. From what I understand, the selection committee, it was very hard for them in trying to come to the finalists. They revolve around more and more that the departments, not only my departments, but all departments are looking at how they can do their own job more efficiently and how they can be of more benefit as public servants serving the people.

I think that is becoming more and more prevalent in all businesses. You are there to try to help and to try to facilitate a demand based on need. You are not there just as someone to prolong or to make things just move; you are there to look at the efficiencies of operation and to make things better for where you work.

I was very honoured that my Department of Housing had a lot of nominations in there for the service awards the other day. In fact, one of the employees from our Housing department did win an award for his involvement and his attitude toward serving the public.

I think that is becoming more prevalent in all businesses. You recognize your customers or whom you are serving, and you try to do it better. It is not only more efficient, but I think that there is selfgratification in it, that you realize that you have a reward other than monetary achievement.

* (1620)

Ms. Barrett: I think the minister may have misunderstood the context within which I was asking that question. I am still on the Capital Region challenges and the Capital Region report. I am not discussing at this point the internal workings of the Department of Urban Affairs or Housing or any of the other areas.

He was talking in terms of when he went back and said how it takes a long time to change mindsets. That was in the context of the Capital Region communities. I think that is a very valid point, and I agree with it completely, and he was talking in the context of Seattle and how long, and Portland, even longer. It does take decades and generations. That is why it is so essential to begin.

But what I am asking the minister is if he has a sense that there is a change in attitude about looking at the problems on the part of the municipalities, on the part of the city and on the part of the province, if there is a mindset change that he is seeing happening in the Capital Region, in the various partners in the Capital Region.

Mr. Reimer: Oh, I think very definitely there has been a change. I can relate back to when I first became Minister of Urban Affairs. There was almost a "we" and "they" situation between the city and the municipalities. It was not until we actually started the Capital Region Committee meetings that some of the mayors and reeves said this is the first time we have had the mayor sit down and be at one of these meetings, because before that they were always just talking to the mayor through somebody else. They did not have the contact with the city.

I think a lot of it came about because of the personalities. Mayor Susan Thompson was a very outgoing mayor, and she made it a point of wanting to reach out to the municipalities. I believe that she even travelled around to all the municipalities, to the municipal offices, and called in on the municipalities.

I think that is something that was not there before. I think that there was a feeling that the city was just out for its own and that it really did not have that type of care or concern about what was happening in the municipalities around it. I know definitely that is not the flavour and the attitude that is there now between the city and the municipalities. I think they recognize that they both have to work, and, like I say, I am optimistic that viewpoint is there. I hear it reinforced by comments made by individual mayors or reeves. I think the mayor himself has said that he realizes he has to be not only the mayor of Winnipeg, but he is also the mayor of the capital city of Manitoba. With being the mayor of the capital city of Manitoba, there comes a responsibility of the representation in an indirect way that he is representing Manitoba, in a sense, being the mayor of the capital city. So, like I say, I am fairly confident the mayor recognizes that, and there is more benefit to work with the municipalities than to have Perimeteritis and just stay within the perimeter in his viewpoints.

Ms. Barrett: The minister has talked about two of the stakeholders in this triad. He has not mentioned the province. Has the province had a mindset change in the context of the Capital Region challenges?

Mr. Reimer: I think we have always had the opinion that there has to be a strong Winnipeg and a strong Manitoba. I think we have never positioned ourselves that we wanted to be antiurban or antirural in any type of attitude or decision by government. I think that it is beneficial to government and to all involved that there is a sense of co-operation.

As Minister of Urban Affairs, I try to be aware of what is happening in rural Manitoba so that I have that perspective. I know that my colleagues in rural Manitoba have a sense of what is happening in the city. They have become very aware of the challenges of the city and the mayor, and they recognize it very much because there is an interdependency. A good example is just recently, we mentioned about the tragedy with the farmers down in southwest Manitoba. The mayor of Winnipeg personally sent a letter to Prime Minister Chretien urging him to recognize the federal responsibility for the plight of the farmers in Manitoba. I think that is a very, very commendable gesture on his part that he as the mayor of this city recognized that the rural economy and the farm economy and the strength of the economy of Manitoba is in jeopardy if there is one factor that is in difficulty. He as mayor of the City of Winnipeg is a strong proponent through the letter that the federal government recognize there is a responsibility to try to help the farmers and the people down in the southwest corner of Manitoba. I commend him for his foresight in recognizing that there is an economic hardship out there and that there is a responsibility and that the federal government should address it.

Ms. Barrett: I would like to read a quote to the minister and see if the minister agrees with this quote. The quote is: "Growth is determined by demand. The provincial role is to act as a facilitator. I would not have any jurisdiction on their decision making or impose any decisions."

Mr. Reimer: The member is quoting, but I do not know who she is quoting from, whether that was one of my statements or somebody else's statement. Maybe the member would repeat that quote.

Ms. Barrett: I would be happy to repeat the quote. "Growth is determined by demand. The provincial role is to act as a facilitator. I would not have any jurisdiction on their decision making or impose any decisions."

* (1630)

Mr. Reimer: To comment on that, we would have to look at the content and how it was stated.

The idea of growth is naturally decided by forces that government has no control over. I think that is a natural statement that growth can come about because of demand for government to stand in the way, blatantly, of growth where there is a demand, whether it is in a private sector or a corporate sector in regard to what is happening in the market. I think it is not government's role, but we should be always of the note that Manitobans have a choice. They have a choice where they want to live. They have a choice of where they want to work. They have a choice as to their conditions of employment and living. Whether it is in the Capital Region or in the city of Winnipeg, it is a choice that people would make. We as a government should not be dictating how people's lifestyles that they choose to live, in a sense, that we would restrict them in that type of direction that they feel they want to take.

Ms. Barrett: It was a trick. I am quoting the minister from the Free Press of June 11, 1995, and the quote itself is found in the CUPE Local 500 presentation to the Capital Region Review committee. I am not going to belabour this, but I do think the minister, to my view, has made the point that mindsets may have changed, but not necessarily on the part of the government because the quote says very clearly that the government has no role, that I, meaning the Minister of Urban Affairs, have no jurisdiction on their decision making–and I believe he is talking about individuals or even communities–or impose any decisions. We could go back and revisit the discussion that the minister and I have had on four previous occasions on urban sprawl and growth, et cetera, and I think the minister made my point that, while other parts of the Capital Region may have had their mindset changed–and the minister said that there was a need for it–the minister's mindset has not changed.

Mr. Reimer: I cannot let that go unchallenged. I think that there has always been a willingness of this department and this minister to look at innovative ways to make changes and to facilitate and to work co-operatively with all levels of government, whether it is the City of Winnipeg or the municipalities, in trying to implement their changes. I think that where there may be disagreement between myself and the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is the fact that the methodology of decision making may be different because of our political philosophies. That is mainly the difference that is between us.

Ms. Barrett: As I said, I am not going to go down that road too far, as much as I have enjoyed doing it in the past.

I have an area that I would like to ask the minister about, and I think it is a legitimate area. A couple of weeks ago, actually on the 7th of June, the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs met and talked with the representatives of The Forks North Portage corporation. They made a very interesting, provocative presentation. I asked questions, and I had some discussion, not as much as I would have liked to have had, but the minister did not make any comments. I was wondering if it would be appropriate now for me to ask the minister some questions about how he responded and what his feelings are on some of the issues that were raised in the presentation by The Forks.

Mr. Reimer: Sure.

Ms. Barrett: Great. I have got a few little areas highlighted, not big long quotes or anything. I guess the first question would be: does the minister have any concerns or were there any red flags at all raised for him by the presentation and what the plans were on the part of The Forks North Portage?

Mr. Reimer: When the standing committee was sitting and The Forks North Portage was making their presentation, the member is right, I did not interject during the presentation. I believe I did not even interject once because I felt that the people who were involved with the management of The Forks North Portage and the chairperson, Mr. Ernie Keller, are doing a good job over there at The Forks. I think that, under the circumstances and the demands and the expectations and the way The Forks has been managed, they are working under some very trying conditions.

The Forks has been always a very big spotlight here in Winnipeg, as it rightly should be. We are very, very proud of The Forks. I think that the federal government, provincial government and the City of Winnipeg, as the three funding partners in the initial Forks project, can be very proud of how that has become a showcase for Winnipeg and for Manitoba, and indeed I believe it is used as a model now in a lot of places in North America and even in Europe as to how redevelopment can happen in a very positive manner.

So I think that we here in Manitoba and Winnipeg should be very proud of what has happened at The Forks, and a lot of it has to be attributed to the volunteer time that the board members put in and the involvement of the chairpersons that have been there, not only Mr. Keller, but the chairpersons before him, that they have really done a yeoman's job and a great service to this province and to Winnipeg to make The Forks such a wonderful place that it is. Now recently with the additions of the Children's Museum and the children's theatre going in there, the festival stage for the Pan Am, which will be left there as a legacy, some of the other amenities that are happening around The Forks, I think that we are really, truly going to make that corner–or that forks, I guess you could call it–a focal point for not only Manitoba, but I think that you are going to find here in North America it is going to be showcased very highly.

When the presentation was made, I felt I will give credit where credit is due for the management and the staff and the board there that have done a good job. I think that one of the directives they have been trying very, very hard to achieve is selfsustainability. This is something that they have worked very hard at because of the fact that naturally you can only live with public support for so long and there has to be a weaning period. I know the federal government is not putting any more contributions into the management or the operation of The Forks. The province, I believe we give our final payment this year–or was it last year–last year to The Forks for their operating funding, and I think this has given The Forks more strength of resolve to come to grips with sustainability.

I think their business plan and some of their objectives with some of their redevelopments and some of the projects they are looking at, whether it is the inclusion of a theatre complex, the inclusion of possible housing developments in one particular area, and I believe they were looking at some other exhibition sites there and the development of South Point. I think these are all worthy initiatives, and one of the things that becomes very evident whenever there is change there at The Forks, the public wants to be aware of it. I think that that is one thing where the board has always made itself available. They have had areas for public presentation. They have had public awareness programs.

So, like I say, overall I really do not have any complaints in regard to the way The Forks has been managed. I think they are doing a commendable job under the expectations and the pressures that come about for managing a very, very high profile showcase area here in Manitoba, and they do a good job at it.

Ms. Barrett: There are a couple of specifics, and the minister spoke about them in his answer, that I would like to get into in a little more detail. The first one is the multiplex movie. In one of my comments, I made the comment, and this was not original with me but I agree with it, that the downtown area is the more appropriate area for cinema, and, as I say, The Forks should do what The Forks does best and the downtown should do what the downtown does best, and the multiplex cinema at The Forks site is probably not the best way to do it. I think there are three movie theatres that are available technically downtown now with the Garrick closing.

* (1640)

Mr. Keller in his response to me stated, talking about the company that wants to build the cineplex at The Forks, and I am quoting here: "Then the chairman of the board came down specifically, because Polo Park invited them and thought that that was the proper facility for them, and he insisted to see The Forks site. He walked the site for approximately 45 minutes. He made a decision we either go to The Forks or we not develop in Winnipeg. He jumped in his private jet and left town. I relayed that to the City of Winnipeg. You have to understand, if somebody wants to spend $31 million on a project, it is a big investment, he should also have some say where it goes because he has to depend on the public to survive."

Now, I will share with the minister my concern in that, and that is that it appeared to me that what Mr. Keller was saying is that those who have the bucks get to call the tune, and I am paraphrasing a comment. I think it is Olympia and York it turns out later we were talking about. It was Olympia and York that has $31 million to spend, and they were not prepared to spend it at Polo Park. They were only prepared to spend it at The Forks, and Mr. Keller was prepared to say fine, go ahead.

I am a bit concerned about that because there are some real concerns about locating a cinema at The Forks site. I guess what concerns me is that my sense was that Mr. Keller was prepared to say there does not need to be anything more. It fits with the business plan, therefore we really do not have to do anything else. So I am a bit concerned about the process there. I am wondering if the minister shares that concern.

Mr. Reimer: One of the things that has to happen and I think what The Forks has been encouraged to do is look at ways to facilitate and look at ways to get the best utilization of The Forks and the property around it. But the one thing that always is paramount is that those decisions are not one person's decision. They are decisions that are made by the board; they are decisions by the shareholders, and the shareholders in The Forks are the three levels of government. So any type of decision in that area would have to go to the shareholders for analysis, review, input, comment, discussion. There is where the final decision would come about.

We have not been apprised of any type of proposal or initiative in regard to where, how or when a development like that might happen, so, like I say, this would not be a one-person decision in regard to what would happen at The Forks. The Forks has become, and I repeat myself, very much of a showcase, and I think that the public presence through the shareholders is very, very important. Those would be taken into consideration before any decision was made.

Ms. Barrett: Ms. Penner, who was also present at that committee hearing, stated that there was a letter of agreement that had been signed with Olympia and York that had been signed in terms of negotiation. I am wondering if the minister as one of the shareholders or the province as one of the shareholders has seen that letter of agreement.

Mr. Reimer: To the best of my knowledge we have never seen that. The shareholders may have seen it. I should not say shareholders; directors, I should say. There are three directors appointed by each level and that letter may have been shared with the directors. When I say we, our department or myself have not seen the letter.

Ms. Barrett: To whom do the provincial appointees report?

Mr. Reimer: To me.

Ms. Barrett: How often do they report to the minister?

Mr. Reimer: As required or when they are making major decisions or they are looking at policy directions or new directions, they will get ahold of me. I will contact them if I feel that there is something that there is of merit that I wanted to get some information on. It is not done on a scheduled basis but it is done as a matter of courtesy on their part that they will contact me and sit in or I will contact them. We do have one of my staff, my ADM, my assistant deputy minister Heather MacKnight. She will represent the province at those meetings. Don Leitch, the principal secretary, he goes to those meetings. If he does not make the shareholders meetings, my ADM will make those meetings and government will be aware of what is discussed. So there is contact.

Ms. Barrett: The minister just said that the government will be aware of what was discussed at the board of The Forks North Portage corporation meeting. Yet Ms. Penner reported on June 7 that there was a letter of negotiation that had been signed, which I am assuming the board would have been aware of. If that is not the case then I think we are really in trouble here in the line of authority and public knowledge, et cetera.

But the minister is saying two separate things then, it seems to me. If he is saying the government will be aware of anything that is discussed and yet he did not know prior to the meeting or the Municipal Affairs committee meeting that there was a letter of negotiation with Olympia and York for a very large cineplex under negotiation with The Forks North Portage, there is a contradiction here, it appears to me, and it would seem on the surface that it makes my point, that there is a bit of a concern about the process that is undertaken here.

Mr. Reimer: I think there would have to be an awareness of exactly what a letter of intent could mean. A letter of intent can be that they have sent a letter saying that they are interested in talking about a development in the particular area and that could mean a letter of intent. A letter of intent could mean that we are interested in developing and furthering the negotiations with a possible commitment for looking at the physical structure that we would propose. A letter of intent could also include a further right of first refusal on some sort of development in that area.

I would think that if it came to a point where there was an actual commitment of stature or of substance, those are the things that would come to my desk and say that there is a serious overture being made at The Forks to lease, to buy, to develop 13 acres or whatever it is in this particular area and that this has been brought forth to the department, then those are the types of things that would come for possible input by our government.

A letter of intent can be anywhere from a very minor saying that we intend to be in Winnipeg on the 18th and we would like to visit your site and discuss possible development. That is a letter of intent, the seriousness. That is more or less like when, I am not too sure how far that letter of intent was commitment, but I would think that before any commitment, the shareholders, we would know about it.

* (1650)

Ms. Barrett: According to Mr. Keller, after Olympia and York, the chairperson of the board came and whirled around The Forks site for 45 minutes and said I have got $31 million to spend on a multiplex and I am only prepared to spend it at The Forks, got in his private jet and flew back off to Calgary. Mr. Keller notified the city. He says: I relayed that to the City of Winnipeg. If somebody wants to spend $31 million on a project, it is a big investment, he should have some say where it goes. Now, if Mr. Keller informed the city, he did not inform the province?

Mr. Reimer: I cannot speculate as to how Mr. Keller interpreted the telling of the city. He may have said that he told the board or he may have told the shareholders or the city that this fellow was around, you know, flashing big bucks, but it is like anything, show me the money, and maybe Olympia and York was.

It is hard for me to speculate as to what type of seriousness there was in that because I did not see anything. There was nothing brought to my attention that this offer was on the table for The Forks. I think that if it was a serious offer or if there was an offer that had strong substance to it, the shareholders, we would have known about it very readily. I am sure that our three appointees would have got back to us, or even through the principal secretary, Don Leitch, we would have heard about it at the shareholders' meeting. To the best of my knowledge, it was never brought up to me or to our department through staff or anything that this was happening.

Ms. Barrett: There are a couple of issues here and they are connected, but I do not want to confuse them. One is the process, and that is the issue that I am really interested in and very concerned about; and the second is the content, and the content concerns me because it is quite substantial. It is $31 million. That is a huge amount of money, and it is a big physical plan here. Not only is there a multiplex cinema being looked at, parenthetically, while we have two of them going up within blocks of each other. One right by the stadium, right in that corner of the parking lot there, and one just a block or two north, right on Omand's Creek, right in the strip, just north of Home Depot. So I think that is an enormous situation change that is happening there.

Yet this fellow wants to come in and spend $31 million on another Cineplex facility at The Forks instead of downtown where there is a history of theatre and entertainment of that nature. Not only does he want to build this multiplex, but he also wants to attach it both, I believe it is to the MTN and also to the VIA rail station, and he wants to build a 550-car parking facility up against the high line.

Now, when you put all of that together, that is an enormous physical structure or series of structures. I do not care what Ms. Penner says here when she talks about how the further away from river and the closer you get to downtown, the more you have a diversity of activities and of structures. That is a big piece of concrete that is potentially going up there. It would seem to me that all of the shareholders should know at the very outset that this is even a glimmer in the chairperson of Olympia and York's eye. So all the three levels of government can take a look at it and say, ah, maybe yes, maybe no. Let us have our input at the front end, not at the back end when negotiations have carried forward.

Obviously, it appears that the city did get in on the front end. I believe there was even something in the paper about the city saying, no, this is not a good idea. We have a number of theatre facilities that are going begging and are empty now in downtown Winnipeg. We want to revitalize downtown Winnipeg. This is not where this kind of a facility should go. Mr. Keller would appear to be, and I emphasize would appear, because I am not getting any specific information otherwise from either that committee hearing or from the minister today that this process is underway without any input from the provincial government. I guess I am a bit concerned.

I assumed that the government, having the calibre of people it had on the board of the corporation, would have knowledge almost instantaneously of what happened at all of the meetings, and that it would be something that would come into the department and very quickly move to the minister's desk, something of this calibre. So I guess I am very concerned about that process, in addition to being concerned about the specific project that is being undertaken.

Mr. Reimer: I think that a lot of times there are a lot of discussions at board meetings and the board meeting at The Forks and that, that things are discussed in a conceptual manner as to how we would like to see things developed. I am not saying we, but I mean how the board may perceive what they feel they would want to have developed at The Forks.

The overtures made by the individual that came in to take a look at the facility may be just that, overtures. There is the ability for someone to come in, look at a specific area, possibly sees the potential of it, sees an opportunity that there is something that might be of a benefit in regard to a Cineplex operation so he or she writes back and says, well, we may be interested. I guess it is like the old adage from the old movie, show me the money, and then these things can happen until the rubber hits the road type of thing. There is a seriousness and there is a commitment that, yes, indeed, we do want to do these things. I guess that is when hard decisions are made or the decision process kicks in as to the value of the esthetic quality of what is being proposed, the whole ambience that we are trying to create at The Forks kicks in as to what is best perceived to happen at The Forks. I think that is where, like I say, decisions of go or no-go come about.

I am almost positive that they were never that close to a go or a no-go situation in regard to this, because it was just more or less, from what it would sound like, a cursory look, overview, by an individual. It would be nice if an individual has the ability to make $31-million decisions just on a 45-minute decision or visit. That would be quite a remarkable achievement when he has to report to shareholders and is responsible to his board of directors also. Just like the board of directors are responsible to the shareholders that we are with the province and the federal government, no decision is made that fast. But there is always discussion, there is always speculation, and there is always the ability to look at alternatives. I think this was one of the incidents where the board was made aware that this individual was wanting to take a look and may have had some notion that this was the way to proceed. I do not believe it got to a decision point that there was any type of firm commitment this was going to transpire.

Ms. Barrett: Nor did I suggest to the minister that it had gotten to that point. I do think, and I am going back over the Hansard of the meeting, now, I remember it had gotten to the point where it was on the drawings that we saw. It had gotten to the point that Mr. Keller had the parking structure, the multicinema, the connecting links to the VIA Rail station and the television station. Mr. Keller talks a lot about the VIA Rail, why the financial and business benefits to the multiplex owner, to having a connection between the multiplex and the VIA Rail station, and that it would allow for people who work in the VIA Rail station, assuming that gets going and becomes a viable entity, would then be able to go very quickly from there at all times of the year into the cineplex and go to a movie. It would be ease of entrance and egress.

* (1700)

Then I asked a question of Mr. Keller about the timing of the decision and he said that on our side we could move it fairly quickly. I am quoting here: It depends if they come with too many obstacles, too many items which we do not agree on, then it could drag out. If they are very accommodating, and they are showing a true interest in appearance and building lives and the tenancy of a complex, then we would help them to move this project along.

We are not bureaucratic yet, so on our side we could move it fairly quickly. It would then take more time as far as the shareholders, I presume, especially the city because of the process. We would have to look at the building permit. That alone today is now six weeks. Then talking about not only that, I asked: if it gets to the point where it is only going through the final permit stages, when would that be? Mr. Keller responded: we would like to see something happening in the next six months.

When you put all of that together, it sounds to me far more than just musing on the part of the head of Olympia and York. There has obviously been a great deal of work done on their part, which I would assume you just do not go in and say: I want to throw $31 million at the high line, at The Forks, and that Mr. Keller for his part is more than prepared to facilitate and expedite this process. Yet one of the three basic shareholders of The Forks North Portage Corporation does not know anything about it other than what was in the minutes of the municipal committee, has never seen the letter, has never had a report from there, from the provinces, representatives on the board.

Now I would just like to ask the minister: how can anybody have any sense of confidence that there is an actual process that takes it as slow and as cautiously as it is required to be taken when you are looking at something that is as precious as The Forks is to the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba? How can we have any confidence in the decision-making process when one of the three shareholders does not know anything about a proposal that is obviously fairly well down the road if we are looking at potentially six months?

Mr. Reimer: I think that when the member was referring to the map or the schematics of The Forks there, she is right, there was an indication about one area there that there was a proposal for a proposed cineplex complex. Also on that map was a proposal for a butterfly house. There was a proposal for an ecovillage. There was a proposal for a brew pub and public docking facility, I believe it was. These are all proposals and, with proposals, naturally, they are there because there might be a showing of interest. That seems to be what was presented to us with The Forks North Portage.

With regard to the cineplex, there may have been further indications, because an individual came into town to look at it, saying that this is a place where we would like to locate, but, as was indicated by the chairperson, Mr. Keller, who outlined it very specifically, the shareholders would have to have final approval on it before they came to us.

I think that as chairperson of The Forks he is very prudent in his assumptions by saying that, when we have something that is concrete, then that is when the shareholders would come to a position of saying: should we proceed, or do we get off this track, because right now we have a showing of interest, we have people who are saying they want to spend $31 million? I am trying to put myself in Mr. Keller's position, and he is saying we have this and naturally we would look at it. I think they would be remiss as the guardians of The Forks not to look at any type of endeavour that possibly would have an economic benefit not only for The Forks but that would fit into the direction and the ambiance of The Forks.

I think Mr. Keller is quite open in his discussions and his indications that they have had this type of interest, but at the same time, as he pointed out, the final decision always has to come back to the shareholders. They were a long ways away from that type of decision. To come to the shareholders with every possible interest or people that are wanting to say they want to be at The Forks or to develop The Forks, I think that that is what the board is there for, to sift out the wheat from the chaff, if you want to call it, and come forth with a proposal that possibly has merit or is of the opinion of the and the board there at The Forks that this particular enterprise or direction has merit that is of benefit, and then the shareholders would make those decisions. So I see nothing irregular in the way Mr. Keller is approaching it, just as they are approaching it with the butterfly house. There has been an interest shown, that someone says we should have a butterfly house there. Okay, let us look at it. People have said, well, let us put in an eco village. Yeah, okay, let us look at the viability and how that could fly. Let us put in a brew pub and a public docking area. Sure, let us look at these things. I think we have to be open to that type of thing, and that is what the board is there for, for a sort of sifting and analysis point where they can make a lot of the decisions.

I think that the members, all nine board members that are appointed, three from each level, have a sense of responsibility to make decisions that necessarily do not always have to come back up to the mayor, Minister Axworthy and myself for decisions, because that is why we have a board there. They are there to make decisions.

Ms. Barrett: The minister just said that it was necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff, and once you have done that, then you would go forward. It would appear to me that some sort of sifting had already taken place. Number 1, I do not believe the multiplex would have been on the chart; and, secondly, in contrast to what Mr. Keller and Ms. Penner said about some of the other situations like the butterfly house and the marina and brew pub and the eco village–and we have not spoken about the other housing complex, which I am going to ask you about in a minute–this little construction scenario was pretty far down the pike. I asked Ms. Penner, or Mr. Keller, and Ms. Penner answered, what the footprint of the 550-car parking stall garage would look like, because I could not visualize it. Two stories higher than the high line. They worked it all out. It was going to be about the same site line as the top of the CanWest Global Park. They had that all figured out. This has gotten down to far more detail.

* (1710)

The butterfly house, yes. The gentleman that was proposing the butterfly house does not have the money right now, so that is lower down. The eco village, Mr. Keller said that because the corporation was not prepared to put any money in it, that is gone right now. That is not even on the table at all now because the proponents, I gather, wanted some money. So there is some wheat and chaff sorting going on there. The marina and the brew pub are being rescaled, but they are still there.

So all of these things have been sorted out. They are all projects that Mr. Keller, at least, wants to see happen at The Forks. What I am saying is that it would appear to me that the province, as one of the three shareholders in The Forks North Portage corporation, would want to know from the very beginning what the status is of something as complicated, as large, as bulky, as massive as a 550 car park, four, five, six storeys high, going above the high line track, smack up against and connecting to a big massive multiplex, when we already have two additional multiplexes being planned and almost in the ground right now, and three movie theatres–well, two dark and one darkening as we speak, in the downtown area.

How can the minister say that it is not important to him and he is not concerned about the fact that he does not know anything about this from his representatives on the board? It is his responsibility, I would say, to be involved from the very beginning because he is ultimately responsible as one of the three shareholders for what goes into that Forks site. Why wait until the end, when Olympia and York has put an enormous amount of time and energy and money into it, and the staff or at least Mr. Keller is totally vested in this, and it would appear Ms. Penner is as well, Then all of a sudden, the province comes in at the very end and says, well, maybe at this point we have some concerns.

I should think the province would want to be partners all the way along the line. You have an enormous stake in this, and it just blows my mind, frankly, Mr. Minister, that it does not seem to concern you one little bit, that you have never seen paper No. 1.

Mr. Chairperson: I would remind the committee that we are straying away from the process. I have been somewhat lax in reacting to this, but I would ask the committee to make their remarks through the Chair. The honourable member for Wellington, to continue.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, I apologize. I understand. I got carried away, and I will not let it happen again. Anyway, I would like the minister to respond, please, through the Chair.

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, yes, thank you very much. I think that, as mentioned, there are a lot of conceptual notions as to what might or might not happen at The Forks. In regard to the cineplex proposal–and that is all it is, really, it is just a proposal–the board members who sit on this board who are appointed by the three levels of government I think are all of the capability and the character and the background, that they have the analytical ability to look at things under the precept of what is expected of them in protecting The Forks. I have confidence in the appointees, not only from our provincial government but from the other two levels, that those members there look at things in a very critical manner as to what is best for The Forks.

Naturally, the spokesperson who was here, Ms. Penner, and Mr. Keller were outlining the proposal, but I have to reiterate that at this time it is still a proposal. It is not something that is a fait accompli, that there is going to be a shovel in the ground, that we are aware of, in the near future. Once there is a proposal and a firm commitment, that is when, like I say, the rubber hits the road, and that is when decisions are made.

I can look at the board appointments and the individuals who are on that board and with confidence say that they will look at the best interests of trying to make the best decisions for The Forks. I remind the member that one of the mandates that The Forks is working under is selfsufficiency, and they are encouraged to look at areas where they feel that they can realize funding to sustain them. They are still operating at approximately a million-dollar-a-year loss at The Forks, and they are carried because of the partnership that they have with the North Portage partnership, through the funding that is realized through that.

So they are looking at trying to raise ways of self-sustainability at The Forks as a stand-alone entity, and these are some of the things that they are looking at, are the ways to look at the revenue generation to not only enhance the properties through reinvestment but to make the project stand on its own feet, and this is why that is one of the complexes that was possibly interested, is a multiplex complex. They have called for various proposals. I believe they have called for proposals in 1997 to look at ways to become safe and self-sustainable.

There were other areas that they encouraged submissions. I cannot remember how many submissions they got back from their proposal call back in '97. So I think that they are innovative enough, and they have the character on the board to look at ways. This is one of the ways. I think if it comes to a more serious proposal where there is something on the table, then these shareholders naturally have the ability at that time to make decisions on it, but to be involved with all the proposals that are coming forth, I do not know whether it merits that direct involvement with everything and anything that happens at The Forks. I do not think that is the role of the minister. I think that is the role that has been delegated to the chairperson and the board appointments. I am there to look at it on their behalf, and if there are questions or there are concerns, naturally they would come back through this office.

Ms. Barrett: If I can remember correctly, the minister said that he does not get automatic reports from the government appointees on the board, nor I believe does he get automatically copies of the minutes of the board meetings, am I recalling that correctly?

* (1720)

Mr. Reimer: As I mentioned earlier, there is a direct representative of the government invited to the board meetings. I believe the board meetings are once a month on average, and the representative is either Mr. Don Leitch, principal secretary. If he does not make it, then it is Heather MacKnight from our department.

Minutes are sent back through the system to our department through my assistant deputy minister, Heather MacKnight. I rely on her, if there are things in there that should be brought to my attention, that they are brought to my attention. There are incidents that Heather brought just recently in regard to the termination of Mr. Ken Smith, that was brought to my attention through the board meetings. If there is something of consequence that she feels that I should become aware of, she will forward those to me.

I keep trying to remember other incidents that may have come from that board meeting. They cannot be of too great a significance or of great paramount, or I would have remembered them. [interjection] Oh, yes, that is right too. When there was a problem with the restaurants, they were complaining. That was brought to my attention. I did actually have discussions with some of the board members on that to get their views on it and the leasing of the space to the new restaurant that is in the old skatechange building, so that was brought to my attention.

I think that the workings of Spirit Island, the proposals on some of those things, that was brought to my attention. The bridge, the revamping of the new high line bridge there, to make that into a walkway. There were discussions on that one. Items of consequence, they do come back to my desk, but like I say, I rely on the members that are there to keep me informed if there is something that has a possible consequence that we should be aware of.

Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister in his role as Minister of Housing has been made aware of the status of the condo complex, which is not the eco village complex, but the other complex. Did the assistant deputy minister raise that issue with him at any time? Has she raised that with him at any time?

Mr. Reimer: There has been general discussion on the condo development of some sort on The Forks, but I think that is about as far as it has gone. I am not aware that there has been any proposal that has been put forth to The Forks by a specific developer or developers to set up a complex, but there have been discussions. Like I say, to the best of my knowledge, I do not think that there has been anything formalized in that particular area. I think there was more talk really about the eco village that did not come about or that does not seem to be coming about than there was about the condo development.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Keller said, in response to a question from me, if there was a corporation or a group that is interested in building this condo complex, that, yes, there were two. One out of Calgary, and one from Winnipeg. When I asked the time frame, my question and I quote, "What time frame are you looking to on this development, assuming there were no concerns raised by any of the shareholders?" Mr. Keller's response was, "We hope to see a construction start this fall if possible."

So I would like to ask the minister again. He was not aware of any information on this, and we are a week after the official start of summer and months before fall, and Mr. Keller is assuming that something will be in the ground this fall because he wants to start making money on it, as he said. So again I am puzzled that the minister would not have been aware of what appears to me to be a fairly far-along process to build condos on The Forks site.

Mr. Reimer: I guess there is nothing wrong with being optimists, you know, that things will fall into place and that there is a demand there and that things will transpire as you feel they should. I think that is commendable, because I think that things happen because of optimism and dreaming, and that is commendable by anybody that is involved with wanting to make changes.

As to the formality and the actual, again, it has not been brought to my attention to the best of my knowledge through the meetings that have transpired at The Forks, that this is something that is in a fait accompli state. I can only think that it may be still under consideration. Whether it has been finalized, I do not think so because we would have heard about it for sure. It certainly would not have happened. If it is still in the formative stages, then that is maybe just where it sits right at this particular time, but as for, you know, the shovel in the ground, I do not think that has been finalized.

Ms. Barrett: I guess the minister is making my point because the minister, in his answer, says, I guess, I think, but I do not know, so the minister does not know that Mr. Keller is not right. He does not know that Mr. Keller does not have a firm proposal or close enough to a firm proposal from one or two construction companies that would allow the shovel to go into the ground. Although, no, I will not go on to personal care homes. I will not do that.

An Honourable Member: They are in the ground.

Ms. Barrett: Five years late, they are in the ground, but I will not go there with the former Minister of Health.

My concern is that the minister by his own response has verified my concern, which is that he does not know the status of a housing complex, a condominium complex, not butting up against the density part of The Forks, but right on the riverside, "down by the riverside," that is being proposed, that according to Mr. Keller is quite far along in its proposal.

I would agree with the minister, Mr. Keller is nothing if not an optimist, but I am thunderstruck that the minister does not know whether this is a case of Mr. Keller being optimistic or if it is a case of Mr. Keller reporting accurately a proposal that is within months of being actually started. We do know that Mr. Keller is very determined and Mr. Keller knows his priorities, and his priorities are to make The Forks financially viable. You can argue with him, and I do, but I have no doubt that where he sees it going ahead, he will do everything in his power to facilitate that.

That, again, is my concern with the minister: (1) he does not know the status of something that may be happening within three months; and (2) he does not appear to be concerned about the fact that he may not have an input into it or even knowledge about it until there is a firm commitment, to use the minister's own words. It would seem to me that the minister would want to get in the door well before there is a firm commitment.

Mr. Reimer: One of the things I always enjoy is a good, political discussion with my critic from Wellington because sometimes we bring into our thinking our political philosophies and we are just on the edging of this, I guess, in the sense of involvement and the direction that government should be into anything and everything that comes about. Not to say that we should not know what is going on, but as to the degree, I guess, this is where we may differ.

* (1730)

I have the utmost confidence in the board and the board members and the selection of the board members, not only by our provincial government, but the other two levels of government. Their critical analysis and their summation of events that come about for the good will of The Forks has proven to be very, very, beneficial. There has been a continuity of the board. There has been a continuity of the chairperson there since about 1994, pardon me, of Mr. Keller, and they have been able to bring that forth for a lot of new improvements in that area.

The proposals for the housing is a proposal. I think that I have seen other things on the drawing boards for The Forks there also that have not come about. One year I remember seeing schematics of something that was brought forth where we had some aboriginal roundhouses and an aboriginal component right on The Forks. I remember seeing a proposal come forth for a big huge stadium, a totally indoor stadium on The Forks, too. At one time there was even, I think they call it, One Canada Place or something like that. Snowcap, yes, that is right. That was in place, yes, this was going to happen. The aboriginal culture centre, these were all things that were going to come about, and there was a lot of discussion, and there was a lot of gnashing of teeth saying this was going to happen. There is still a fair amount of gravel parking lot out there.

I guess the complex and the housing complex in an ideal world possibly, maybe these are some of the things that may happen. With the development of housing along where it was proposed along the river, something like that would take a fair amount of public consultation because it is right on the river. I think that there has to be a review. There are permits that have to be taken. There is public concern that has to come about with anything, any type of development like that along the riverways. Those things are a long ways down the road.

I think, as the member mentioned and I mentioned too, there is nothing wrong with being optimistic. There is nothing wrong with trying to have the vision of what could or could not happen in The Forks. But these are things that are put forth for discussion. They are bandied around. They are explored. They sometimes even come right down to the blueprint stage and the planning stages. But a lot of times it comes down to the viability and the availability and the ability to make things happen. Those are the areas where there is input from the stakeholders, or the shareholders, I should say, and things get discussed on a very, very formal basis at that time. Thus the process will be followed that way. It is not as if these things would sneak in without any type of input from our government, from the feds or from the City of Winnipeg. There is just too much of an awareness of The Forks to allow things just to happen holus-bolus there. The people will not let us do that. We know that. There is just too much awareness of what people expect at The Forks. The idea that all of a sudden there is going to be this huge amount of concrete and bricks and mortar taking place in and around The Forks I think is something that maybe we have to be aware that there is a process there. The process means that decisions have to be made, and no decision has been made yet. But there is always room for speculation and there is room for scenarios of development or possibly adding on to the green space there or to the park area. Those are some of the things that come about. I know that there was a lot of discussion just in regard to the festival stage, even having a festival stage. People were talking about maybe we are going to spoil The Forks; we are putting in a festival stage in that area.

I think any time there is anything happening at The Forks, that is one place that does get a focus, and it does get a fair amount of public input. I know that things would not sneak in and all of a sudden just appear because someone wanted it or someone sent it there, that we would like to have done by the end of the year type of thing. There is a process there, and a lot of the process means satisfying the shareholders. So we will always be there to try to work for The Forks and with the City of Winnipeg and the federal government in the management of this commodity. We are very, very blessed to have it, and it is working out very, very well, and there is room for proper management of it.

Ms. Barrett: I think we will once again agree to disagree. I do not think it is as much a matter of philosophical differences as definition of stewardship, perhaps. I just would make one little comment before I ask another specific question about another program.

That is, I am very uncomfortable with the minister using the word "commodity" when talking about The Forks. To me, the word "commodity" means something for sale. So maybe that is another philosophical difference. I do not think the minister meant it in the way that my immediate reaction was.

I have a question or two about the Take Back the Streets Initiative, pretty general questions. I guess I would like an update, and I would like to know if the Estimates book for the Department of Urban Affairs contains any specific figures or can the minister point to anything in the Department of Urban Affairs that responds to the Take Back the Streets Initiative.

Mr. Reimer: The Take Back the Streets Initiative that was announced in the throne speech I think is a very positive initiative by this government. I think what we are looking at is a way to build communities better, to look at the tremendous assets that we have here in Manitoba and here in Winnipeg in regard to the community involvement, the community focus groups, the community resources that are within the community. I think it is something that can be looked upon as a positive asset in our community. It is building this community capacity to make changes where the Take Back the Streets Initiative will concentrate. It is a matter of compiling the initiatives, looking at the resources in the community, looking at ways to mobilize or to catalyst these groups or community consultation areas to get a better result for the growth of the community.

The member mentioned a specific line for funding. She has got to remember that this was an initiative that was announced after the Estimates process. It was announced through the throne speech. There was not a funding line specifically earmarked in the Urban Affairs department for the Take Back the Streets Initiative because it is felt that there are resources within not only the government departments but in looking at how we can identify where we can capitalize on positive change in the community. It is the identification of these community assets or these community building blocks that will more or less in a way give us the ability to look at it in a catalyst funding situation or supportive funding situation to enhance, to enrich and to enlarge the positive aspects of these groups you are working with in the community.

It is a fairly encompassing project to look at, at the various communities because it looks at not only the physical aspects of the Take Back the Streets Initiative but it looks at the building upon some of the social aspects of community building. It looks at the ability to work with groups that have got positive influence in the communities. I can point to, say, the community centres. We can look at areas of where there are other groups that are working very, very positively within the community. I look at the West Broadway housing association, I believe it is called, some of the other areas that have made positive influences in the community. Those are the ways that I think we can institute some very significant change by recognizing where there is the ability to capitalize on these groups, identify them, work with them, use them as a consultation process, gather their strengths, complement them in a sense of supportive funding in a sense and getting positive results out of these groups.

* (1740)

It has, I think, some very positive ways to tackle some of the inner city challenges that we have, not only for the safety aspect of the streets but the care and concern for the way of life that we want in our community. Those are more or less the emphasis when we talk about the Take Back the Streets Initiative.

Ms. Barrett: I understand that, and that has been explained in the newspapers and in the throne speech itself. I guess I get back to process, and I understand finding from within the resources that particularly it was announced after the Estimates process began. Is there a department or a person that is in charge of compiling the initiatives, the catalyzing, actually implementing the connecting, the dialoguing, the linking? Is there someone or a department that is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the initiative?

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the Department of Urban Affairs will be the lead department on it. There is a process underway right now, and it is more or less looking at neighbourhood profiles throughout, the key stakeholders in various neighbourhoods and in the communities. We are looking at other areas of trying to look at the positive aspects of bringing the resources together. There is a process started, and it is this type of approach that I think that we can get, like I say–and I am repeating myself–that we feel that we can get the best results from.

Ms. Barrett: Is there a particular staffperson or persons who are charged with the profiles, the identifying the key stakeholders, the bringing the resources together? I would assume that is a needs assessment. That is how I would identify a needs assessment.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, Heather MacKnight in our Urban Affairs department is the lead person in there.

Ms. Barrett: Is there a time frame for this preliminary beginning needs assessment, what I would call needs assessment process to be concluded?

Mr. Reimer: I think the member can recognize that there is a fair amount of complication, not so much that it is going to impede, but I think that there is a need to know of not so much the complexity but where the assets are, where we can work in the community to start to compile, where the emphasis should be, and with that knowledge will come the ability to make decisions as to what type of possible staffing requirements may be needed, what type of possible funding may have to be looked at in our budgetary process. Being preliminary in nature like that, I think right now it is a matter of trying to get the knowledge so that there is awareness of the complexity or the magnitude of what will be needed to make the program get off the ground and start to move. I think that is what the individual, Heather MacKnight, is doing at this particular time is trying to get a handle as to exactly how big of a swath we are cutting and where the emphasis should be and how much money may be available, or what type of staffing might be available once we get involved with it.

I would think that the timetable is that we are working towards a completion of this analysis sometime into the fall, so that if you are looking at budgetary figures, you have to look at your budget process which is usually the late fall, early spring, and by that time, I am sure, the idea is to have some sort of indication of what is needed by that time.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, so I can get a sense then of the timeline. It is the needs assessment, the preliminary work, Ms. MacKnight will finish hopefully sometime this fall, so that information and those requests or recommendations can then be translated into staffing requirements, resource requirements, to go into the Estimates process for next year.

Is she doing this to look at possibly making suggestions for additional, or for putting it into other departments other than Urban Affairs, so that she would then be sending out suggestions to Family Services or Justice or Health or Education?

* (1750)

Mr. Reimer: One of the things we can look at that has been quite successful is the way that the province has handled its Winnipeg Development Agreement commitments. If you recall under the Winnipeg Development Agreement, Urban Affairs is the central lead department on it, but other departments have taken on different responsibilities of direction. Family Services is doing some direction, and they have taken on some of the Winnipeg Development Agreement funding. Education and Training have taken on some of the funding, Justice, and Highways and Transportation.

I think that there is a template or there is a model that is working and has shown that it can work. We can possibly utilize that type of format into this type of scenario also with Take Back the Streets Initiative, where you work closely with the various other departments and they identify where they feel that they can get the best results or the direction that they want to take with the implementation of it. I think that this is why I say there is an optimism: we have the people, we have the ability, we have the resources, and it is a matter of making it work in the best way for the initiative.

Ms. Barrett: So Urban Affairs would be the co-ordinator kind of thing, and other departments would then implement, if that is the right word, elements of the initiative based on the assessment process that is supposedly, hopefully, being completed this fall, then would lead into the planning process. [interjection] Okay. I think I understand that. I have no further questions at this time.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Item 20.1. Administration (b) Executive Support $239,800–pass.

Item 20.2. Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg, Unconditional Current Programs Grant $19,587,500–pass; Unconditional Transit Operating Grant $16,339,000–pass; General Support Grant $8,325,000–pass; Dutch Elm Disease Control Program Grant $900,000–pass; Unconditional Grant - Urban Development $7,000,000–pass; Less: Adjustment to reflect program transfers from the City of Winnipeg ($23,500,000)–pass.

Resolution 20.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $28,651,500 for Urban Affairs, Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Item 20.3. Urban Affairs Program Support (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $704,600–pass; (b) Other Expenditures $643,600–pass; (c) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Development Agreement $2,707,800–pass.

Resolution 20.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,056,000 for Urban Affairs, Urban Affairs Program Support, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Item 20.4. Capital Grants (a) Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg $23,600,000–pass; (b) Urban Initiatives –; (c) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Development Agreement $3,705,600–pass; (d) Red River Floodway Control Structure $500,000–pass; (e) Less: Recoverable from Capital Initiatives $5,000,000–pass.

Resolution 20.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $22,805,600 for Urban Affairs, Capital Grants, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Resolution 20.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,100 for Urban Affairs, Amortization of Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Would the minister's staff now please leave the table as we need to discuss the Minister's Salary.

Item 20.1. Administration (a) Minister's Salary $13,500–pass.

Mr. Reimer: I just want to make one quick comment. I know I did it at the beginning, and it is unfortunate my staff is leaving right now. But one of the things that I have often said is that you are only as good as your staff that you have around you as a minister, and I have been blessed with great staff, people who really give of their time and their commitment. You know, there is no such thing as looking at the clock sometimes with my staff, and I really appreciate all their time, their effort and their commitment not only to their department but to keeping-their-minister-out-of-mischief type of thing. I just want to say that I compliment my staff.

I want to compliment my critic too. We mentioned at the beginning of the session that we have been together five times. I can honestly say that my critic has never been one that has been vindictive or vicious or malicious in her criticism or her comments to and about this department. I think that her dedication not only towards her constituents but also to the city of Winnipeg is commendable, and as we go down this road, I do not know how we will cross paths after the next election, whenever it is, but I know that I have enjoyed my association with the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett).

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): We thank the minister for those comments.

Resolution 20.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $253,300 for Urban Affairs, Administration, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

What is the will of the committee?

An Honourable Member: Six o'clock.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.