Manitoba Committee Hansard — 31 October 1989 (Management Commission Committee, Sitting 1, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-ma1

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session -Thirty-Fourth legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS 38 Elizabeth 11 Chairman Mr. H. Pankratz Constituency of La Verendrye VOl. XXXVIII No. 1- 8 p.m. , TU ESDAY, OCTOBER 31, 1989. Printed by the Off/CS'Qf the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba ISSN 0713-9 56X

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fourth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME CONSTITUENCY ALCOCK, Reg Os borne ANGUS, John St. Norbert ASHTON, Steve Thompson BURRELL, Parker Swan River CARR,James Fort Rouge CARSTAIRS, Sharon River Heights CHARLES, Gwen Selkirk CHEEMA, Gulzar Kildonan CHORNOPYSKI, William Burrows CONNERY, Edward, Hon. Portage la Prairie COWAN, Jay Churchill CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose du Lac DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell DOER, Gary Concordia DOWNE Y, James, Hon. Arthur DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Emerson DRIEDGER, Herold L. Niakwa DUCHARME, Gerald, Hon.

Riel EDWARDS, Paul St. James ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood EVANS, laurie E. Fort Garry EVANS, leonard S. Brandon East FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Virden �AUDRY, Neil St. Boniface GILLESHAMMER, Harold Minnedosa GRAY, Avis Ellice HAMMOND, Gerrie, Hon. Kirkfield Park HARAPIAK, Harry The Pas HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland HELWER, Edward R. Gimli HEMPHILL, Maureen Logan KOZAK, Richard J. Transcona LAMOUREUX, Kevin M. lnkster MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood MANDRAKE, Ed Assiniboia MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. Morris McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West MINENKO, Mark Seven Oaks MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. Rossmere OLESON, Charlotte, Hon. Gladstone ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. Pembina PANKRATZ, Helmut La Verendrye PATTE RSON, Allan Radisson PENNER, Jack, Hon. Rhineland PLOHMAN, John Dauphin PRAZNIK, Darren Lac du Bonnet ROCAN, Denis, Hon. Turtle Mountain ROCH, Gilles Springfield ROSE, Bob St. Vital STORIE, Jerry Flin Flon TAYLOR, Harold Wolseley URUSKI, Bill lnterlake WASY LYCIA-LEIS, Judy St.

Johns YEO, lva Sturgeon Creek PARTY LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP PC LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL NDP PC PC LIBERAL PC LIBERAL PC NDP NDP PC NDP LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL PC PC LIBERAL PC PC PC PC PC LIBERAL PC NDP PC PC LIBERAL LIBERAL NDP LIBERAL NDP NDP LIBERAL

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL AF FAIRS Tuesday, October 31, 1989. TIME- 8 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN- Mr. Helmut Pankratz (La Verendrye) ATTENDANCE - 10 - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Derkach, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst Messrs. Angus, Carr, Doer, Edwards, Pankratz, Rose APPEARING: Mr. Nick Ternette and Mr. Marshall Hughes, Winnipeg Greens Ms. Margaret Sheridan, Residents Advisory Council Ms. Ja ckie Ritch ie, Crescentwood Homeowners Association Mr. Buddy Brownstone and Mr.

Alan Cantor, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce Mayor Bill Norrie, City of Winnipeg Ms. Shirley Bradshaw and Mr. Peter Diamant, Winnipeg Into the Nineties Jae Eadie, Priv ate Citizen Mr. Waiter Kucharczyk, Private Citizen Mr. Ken Reddig, The Association of Manitoba Archivists and The Manitoba Council of Archives Ms. Shirley Lord and Ms. Heather Grant, Winnipeg labour Council Mr. len Sawatsky, Private Citizen Mr. Glen Murray, Private Citizen Ms. Jean Tardif f and Glen Hewitt, St. Boniface-St. Vital Resident Advisory Group Greg Selinger, Private Citizen WITN ESSES: Hon.

Glen Cumm ings, Min ister of Environment MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 32- The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act Clerk of Committees (Ms. Bonnie Greschuk): Will the committee please come to order? We must proceed to elect a Chairperson for the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs. Are there any nominations? Mr. Ernst. Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Industr y, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Pankratz, please. 1 Madam Clerk: Mr. Pankratz, are there any other nominations? An Honourable Member: I second that- Madam Clerk: Okay, we do not need any seconders. If there are no other nominations, will Mr.

Pankratz please take the Chair? Mr. Chairman: The Committee on Municipal Affairs is called to order. Bill No. 32 will be considered tod ay. lt is our custom to hear briefs before consideration of the Bills. What is the will of the committee? To hear the briefs? (Agreed) I have a list of persons wishing to appear before this committee and I will read that list. Mr. Nick Ternette; Ms. Margaret Sheridan; Ms. Jean Tardiff; Mr. John Prystanski, Residents Advisory Council; Ms. Jackie Ritchie, Ms. Sheila Duprey, Crescentwood Homeowners Association; Mr. Buddy Brownstone, Mr.

Alan Cantor, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce; Mayor Bill Norrie, City of Winnipeg; Ms. Shirley Bradshaw, Mr. Peter Diamant, Winnipeg Into the Nineties; Mr. Jae Eadie, Private Citizen; Mr. Waiter Kucharczyk, Private Citizen; Mr. Ken Reddig, Association of Manitoba Archivists and Manitoba Council of Archives; Ms. Shirley lord, Ms. Heather Grant, Winnipeg labour Council; Mr. len Sawatsky, Private Citizen; Mr. Glen Murray, Private Citizen. Is there anyone present here who is not on the list but would like to appear before the committee? Would you please go to the back and give the Sergeant-at Arms your name, please?

Does the committee wish to impose a time limit on the length of the public representations? Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Chairperson, I do not believe it is customary to do that at the outset. I believe that we may be going late tonight, but I think because of the importance of the Bill and the need for the public presentations, we should not set a time limit. Mr. Chairman: Accept. Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Chairman, it is not in the tradition of these committees to set time limits, and I support the indication and recommendation of Mr. Doer. Mr. Ernst: Mr.

Chairman, I also agree that I think we need to hear the valuable input from the people of Manitoba with regard to The City of Winnipeg Act. At the same time there are a number of people here, and I would hope in the interests of all of them, so that they all can be heard if possible this evening, that each try and not to be repetitive, so that we give everybody

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 the opportunity of being heard. lt is not fair to give sort of large amounts of time in the beginning, and then not allow somebody at the end who has waited patiently all evening. So I think it is in the interests of all of the presenters who are here this evening that we try and be reasonable in our approach to the matter. Mr. Chairman: I take it then that it is the will of the committee to not impose a time limit? (Agreed) If there are out-of-town presenters who would like to be heard earlier, please at this time indicate.

Oka y, if not, then we will go acc ording to the way the list is before us. Another suggestion, if anyone of the presenters have 15 copies, would you please give it to the Sergeant at-Arms in the back, and he will distribute them at the time when you make your presentation? *

(2005) Mr. Ni ck Ternette (Winn ipeg Greens): Mr. Chairperson, I am here- Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ternette, have you any written copies with you? Mr. Ternette: No, I am sorry, I do not. Mr. Chairman: Ok ay, you may proceed. Mr. Ternette: Mr. Chairperson, Marshal! Hughes and myself are here to represent the Winnipeg Greens, coalition of feminists, equal feminists, environmentalists, and community activists to speak on Bill 32. We are here to speak on behalf of the Winnipeg Greens concerning Bill 32 amending The City of Winnipeg Act.

As you may well be aware, I was here before you during Christmastime at midnight at that time, if I remember, of last year in talking about Bill 40, which was an attempt by the provincial Gove rnment to introduce a first step in the process of reforming City Council, namely, the issue of reducing the size of City Council. At that time I thought that the provincial Government was putting the cart before the horse in that it was attempting to reduce the size of council from 29 to 23 without introducing reforms to civic government as a whole.

I was very glad that my arguments succeeded in pursuing the Members of the Opposition to defeat that Bill in saying that it was the responsibility of the provincial Government to introduce real reforms to civic government before the issue of the size of council was ever dealt with. As you are well aware, the Cherniack Report has covered all major points of review and reform that were required, I think, by civic government in responding to the demands of people of Winnipeg in the field of municipal politics.

Unfortunately, I am here again to suggest that it seems to me that the provincial Government again seems to feel the necessity of introducing piecemeal reform of civic government which 1 think is going to create some serious problems in terms of what kind of reforms we really do need at City Hall. 2 I am not here specifically critical of any one particular aspect of Bill 32, although I will go over some specific suggestions in terms of amending some aspects of Bill 32. I think Bill 32 is a step in the right direction.

I am not arguing against that, but I am very, very critical of the process which has been undertaken by the provincial Government in introducing reforms at the City Hall level.

I cannot, for the life of myself, understand why the provincial Government is introducing reforms in three stages: Bill 40, which was introduced at Christmastime, which was turned down; Bill 32, which is responding to some extent to the questions of power, mayor, the om budsman, Freedom of Access ol Information, et cetera, about five or six aspects of 110 possible reform aspects of the Cherniack Report; and supposedly another Bill was going to be introduced with the issues of planning and zoning matters in the future.

This process to me undermines the ability of civic government to properly function and unfortunately will continue to lead the lack of accou ntabili ty and leadership at the civic level, as far as I am concerned, if the Government cannot introduce the major reforms.

For example, it seems to me that there was a Landlord Tenant Review Committee held about a year and a half ago. lt recommended major recommendations and the Government has introduced Bill 42, which in fact has dealt with over 80 percent of those recommendations in various ways, either accepting most of them, some not accepting them, in a way of saying we want to reform The Landlord and Tenant Act. Why can we not do it with the city? Why do we have to go with this piecemeal approach?

Why could not the Chernia ck Report be the basis-1 am not arguing for all aspects of the Cherniack Report-on which we would introduce legislation. This process simply is going to create more and more difficulties in revolving them. *

(2010) I think reform of city government revolves around the following objectives which we have to look at. Those objectives of the relationships are the following: Acc ountability- both levels of Government must be open and accessible to their respective electors, and representatives must be responsible for their actions. The public must be able to understand Government statutes and processes and to identify the decision makers. At the same time, however, representatives must have clear ability to make or influence decisions for which they are to be held accountable.

Clarity-while there may be a number of various where shared responsibilities and overlap are either unavoidable or even appropriate, the principle for accountability demands that in general the distinctions between the roles of each level of Government should be drawn as clearly and as precisely as possible. In this way each Government will have greater latitude within his own sphere of concern, and the electorate will become better able to assign respo nsibili ty appropriately. Balance- any provincial legislation conc erning municipalities represents a careful and difficult balance

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 between competing demands of local autonomy on the one hand, and the protection of provincial-wide policy in financial interests on the other. The Government's current proposals are designed to achieve a balance. Leadership- once areas of primary responsibilities have been defined for each level of Government as clearly as possible, the City of Winnipeg should then be empowered to exert effective political use in its own sphere of activities and effectiveness. Economic and social challenges facing the City of Winnipeg are of paramount importance to the entire province.

These are the philosophical overall guideli nes which the Cherniack Report dealt with, and various other communities have dealt with in terms of reform with the Government. I am simply saying Bill 32 begins the process but in no way completes the process of seriously looking at these issues of accountability, clarity, balance, leadership and effectiveness at the City Hall level.

Twenty-three, if we can go to specific points now, introduces I think a very important process, one that I have argued, that the Cherniack Report has argued, everybody has, introducing a form of Cabinet-style Government at City Hall, but it does not go far enough. The problem again, and this is one where my original critiques of the Cherniack Report is concerned, if you introduce Cabinet-style Government at the top level you have to introduce Cabinet-style level at the bottom of the level. You cannot continue to go on this way.

We are now going to have, and I agree wholeheartedly with it, no question who the mayor is. The mayor has the right to appoint the deputy mayor, the acting deputy mayor and the chairperson of each of the four standing committees to strengthen this role and to provide leadership and to provide accountability finally for the first time since Unicity has been created since 1971. does not guarantee leadership and acc ountability at the civic level. In spite of what everybody has been talking about, the independence of city councillors, we know the history of politics.

There has always been politics in blocs at the municipal level since 1919, since the General Strike. This election has proven that civic parties are going to be formed. They are not going to be on the basis of traditional party politics. We are not going to have NDP, Liberal or Conservative Members in a direct sense but we are going to have blocs of people, like-minded people joining on specific policies and issues, be they called WIN, be they called the ICEC or the Gang, whatever else.

The whole issue of fighting the issue of Gang of 19 was never that there is not a need to bring people together for their own particular ideological reasons, but that the gang of 19 did it behind the scenes, never exposed themselves of why they caucused or how they caucused and what their vote was. lt was not a question of being able to get together to vote as a bloc. lt is happening here; it will continue to happen, and with WIN, party politics at the civic level, like the Montreal Citizens Movement in Montreal, like HOPE in Vancouver is going to be introduced.

That needs to be taken into consideration because if you are going to have that kind of a thing happening, then 3 how is the mayor going to be able to establish Cabinet style power at the higher level, when in fact people are supposed to be elected on the independent level? *

(2015) We are going to have a confusion at the level of City Hall, especially at this time because supposedly the "Gang of 18" has not been able to formulate itself as a gang right now, and the independents have sat as Indepen de nts, but supposedly at this stage, as everybody knows, there are three political forces at City Hall at the present time. Who is the mayor going to appoint to?

Is he goin g to ha ve to take into consid eration the representa tion of WIN, the repres entation of the Inde pende nts and the representation of the gang of 10, or is he going to choose the individuals that he personally feels he can most work with? Does he take into consideration the power blocs that exist at City Hall or does he ignore it? lt is not clear.

I am saying that is one of the arguments that I argued against the Cherniack Report. lt is important to allow, not Party politics in a traditional sense, but municipal parties that are of different kinds to exist to have a ballot on it so that people can choose on the basis of accou ntability on the policies that they stand for, and then the majority of those people will be in fact appointed to the standing membership of those four standing committees, and I think that is a change. I know that you are probably not prepared to do that, but it is one that we strongly recommend. lt needs to be done.

Otherwise we are going to continue to have confusion and chaos because you are stirring up the process of Cabinet-style politics at the higher level and you are ignoring it at the bottom level. I do not think that you can continue to ha ve those kind s of contradictions. Either you have got to be consistent all the way down or you elimina te the concept of Cabinet politics at the front level. This is why you have to look at it. I do not object to that clause.

I think the mayor needs that increased power because he needs to have acco untability, he needs to be able to set policies, but that same politics of Cabinet-style document should be at the lower level also. Now let us look at some other specifics, and these are mostly wording questions and I am also just going over some specific ones too. For example, Point 32. If I can just have the attention of the committee members. Okay.

Documents to be available to members. lt says: a report, agenda or minutes of the Executive Policy Committee-whic h by the way are not available at the present time to anybody includin g mem bers of council-shall be made available to members of council, on the request of a member to the mayor. I think that the wording here again, among other things, is very weak. lt should be mandatory. lt should not be simply at the recommendation.

I mean, if we are going for freedom of information, if we are going to access to information and the right for the public to know what is going on at City Hall, then fundamentally we should have all documents available mandatorily,

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 not on the basis of requests by individuals, because if nobody requests it, nothing will be done. In fact it implies very clearly that Executive Policy now must have minutes. They do not keep minutes. That is why the palms in most cases. Now they have to, but it should be mandatory. lt should not simply be at the request of, et cetera, et cetera.

I think that relates to the issues that were raised in the newspapers today again with the ombudsman, fully and fundamentally acknowledged that again the word is that the city "may" appoint an ombudsman. lt obviously "must" appoint an ombudsman. lt is quite clear that the Chernia ck Rep ort calle d for an ombudsman. lt is quite clear that the document that the provincial Government is producing here says it "should " produc e an omb udsman, because it recognizes the need for an ombudsman, but it uses vague words. Why does it say "may"? Why should it not say "should" or "must"?

I mean, let us be positive; let us be strong; let us have council follow dictates of the people as it ought to be. Same thing also of course with the whole issue of the resident advisory groups. Again it clearly indicates in the position paper that it "may" appoint. Again, why language like that? Why not "must" and why not indicate that resident advisory groups, as the Cherniack Report has clearly indicated, require financial assistance and research and office assistance to research and do the material backwards. That should be included in the amendment. lt was not.

The Chern iack Report cal led for additional information and assistance to the resident advisors so that they could do their job properly. They are not able to do the job properly at the present time because they do not have the resources to do their job properly. Again this is the important kind of language, again the access to information is there. That is very good, but again I think some of the language says it "may" instead of "should" or "could." I am a little concerned about, but some of you may not pick up on 91(2) which is campaign contributions, 91(2) and 93(4).

There is a limit, you know what I am worried about here, and this is just a worry, and I would like you to examine that, is there is a suggestion that council set the limits of campaign contributions and it bothers me because it is the same argument that council set their own salaries and everybody says council should not set their own salaries, council should not set their own pensions, so why is council going to set the campaign contributions. * (2020) lt should be this Legislature and this body which does govern City Hall affairs that should set the campaign contributions limiting campaign contributions for the mayor and limiting financial contributions to city councillors.

By leaving it to council, who knows what kind of decisions are going to be made because I do not know whether they can make rational decisions. Some people would say that is also probably an irrational decision. The argument again is if it is not going to be yourselves then it should be an independent judicia ry board as the argument has been in all other cases, an independent judiciary board should set the limits so that there is no possible conflict of interest. Self conflict of interest tends to be in. How can 4 councillors sit in judgment of how much they should or should not spend for campaigns.

That really opens a big can of worms, as far as I am concerned. So really, the overall argument of course is a judicial body. That should be done. The same thing that bothers me is 93(4) implies while there is a limit on candida tes contribution funds there is no limit on candidates spending their own money. For me that seems to create a politics for the rich and a politics for the poor.

Those individuals who cannot from themselves provide financial assistance to run for campaigns, they are going to suffer because they may get some money which is limited from other contributions but an individual who is reasonably wealthy can spend $50,000 of his own money and not worry about it because, let us assume for the sake of argument there is a $5000 or 10,000 limit, he may get 10,000 but he will spend $50,000 of his own money. There is a contradiction there for me.

Spending your own money should be part of the total amount that you can spend maximum for campaign contributions rather than separating individual personal contributions versus contributions given by others. There are several additional points that Mr. Marshal! Hughes will outline on pensions and various other issues that he has- Mr. Chairman: Excuse me, could you please identify yourself. Mr. Marshall Hughes (Winnipeg Greens): My name is Marshal! Hughes. My presentation will probably only take about 60 seconds or so. I am with the Winnipeg Gr eens. 26

(1) Pension and insuranc e plan -a s recommended by the Cherniack Report, we believe that a council compens ation committee should be established to monitor the cities and the city councillors insurance and pension plan, who decides on what specific insurance company should be chosen. 73(2) Declaration and classification of ombudsman-w e believe that the nomination of the ombudsman is separate from the policy committees and that the ombudsman should be at least considered by the council-at-large and not just by the mayor. 73(3) Oath of secrecy-we are asking for an amendment changing the word "secrecy" for the word "privacy" and ask that a limitation of time be placed on this privacy period.

Historically, documents are usually released in about 30 to 40 years. If there is a major environmental spill we would like to have some type of access to that information some time in the future. 73(3) Refusal to investigate-we should develop this clause and there should always be a right to appeal this motion. In 73(9) No proceedings against the ombudsman-there should always be a right of complaint against the ombudsman, the right to complaint should be guaranteed. In 73(9) Being held in contempt-t here must be a clearer definition on contempt charges for those who try to block the ombudsman's investigations.

The penalty should in fact be held reasonable. In 77. 1, that the admissibility of a photographed record be expanded to include the admissibility of photographs and video tapes-we will assume that

when they mean photograph they are talking in terms of photographing the Government documents, but I think it should be expanded to include other types of video tapes. For example, like in the police, they should have the right probably to video tape some of their investigated-or what is the word- prosecuted. All records should only be administered by a magistrate or a notary public. In 78.08, Decision of court is final-we again believe in the right of an appeal and that it should be considered unconstitutional that the right to appeal should be eliminated. Thank you. *

(2025) Mr. Ternette: Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, we have tried to outline specific areas of concerns in terms of language. We have outlined the difficulties of the process which is the area that I am most disturbed as how it has been introduced, but we would like to say that we congratulate the Government for moving ahead finally because reforms have not happened since 1971. The last major reform of the civic Government was the creation of Unicity in 1971. lt is time that we moved ahead.

If these recommendations are accepted, and hopefully that they are, in changes in wording specifically to make it stronger, then at least it is a step in the right direction but it is a long way to go in order to really establish the kind of reforms that we want at City Hall. Hopefully, the Members of this committee would recognize that process and that hopefully will suggest to the Government, and I am suggesting to the Government, that they move faster on the third phase of planning and zoning and other issues that are very important in terms of how the city is to function.

Otherwise, we continue to have a chaotic type of city Government structure. I am not attacking any one individual at City Hall at the present time, it is simply the structure is unworkable. Everybody knows it, we need acc ountability, we need open ness, and we need the burea ucrats to be accountable. The only way you are going to do is by an overall approach, not a piecemeal approach. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions from the Members of the committee? Mr. Doer. Mr.

Doer: Yes, you commented in your 60-second presenta tion on the right of appeal, if the recommendation that you have provided to have a "shall be an ombudsman" is implemented in the Act as opposed to "may," would you see that as a more appropriate appeal body than having citizens go to the Court of Queen's Bench as recommended in the Act? Mr. Hughes: Yes. Mr.

Doer: My second question, your presentation outlined what you considered to be a meritorious recommendation, notwithstanding the lack of planning and zoning, on the mayor appointing the committee 5 1989 Chairs and being held accountable for their subsequent work. What is the recommendation of your group on the four other Mem bers of the Executive Po licy Committee being appointed by council? Mr. Ternette: That is a difficult question. lt depends on whether our recommendation of accepting civic parties at the municipal level will be.

If one had the establishment of civic parties at the municipal level and elected on that basis then the majority group that got elected would be the one who would determine that thing. At the present time, obviously the only choice we would have is that it should be a full council decision open to all council members. That is the only way I could see it functioning, to be very honest, but that is the whole issue again. Why are we introducing Cabinet style at one level and not Cabinet style at the other level? Either we do it all the way or we have to look at maybe a whole different structure of things.

Again, I do believe the mayor needs power and it is a step in the right direction but it just does not go far enough. lt creates chaos at the bottom level while it creates accountability at the top level. Mr. Doer: Just one last question, I am sorry to ask so many. I noticed the Winnipeg Greens are involved and the priorit ies of the org anization is deal ing with environment. Do you have any recommendations in terms of-you have made no comment on the Bill in terms of the lack of impl ementation of The New Environment Act with the City of Winnipeg. Would you have any advice to the Legislature in that regard? Mr.

Ternette: There is nothing in there, but the palm is that we need to look at the Environment Impact Studies. As you know it was removed from the old legislation which existed of having all projects and everything else going through an Environmental Impact Study and we would strongly urge an Environmental Impact Study would be re-established. *

(2030) The reason I did not comment on this was because I supposed that is going to be part of the third Bill that is going to be introduced in terms of zoning and planning, that that will be part of the major responsibilities so I did not want to comment. I feel on the environmental issues and the Environmental Impact Studies every project needs to be reincorporated. lt worked very well in the mid-'70s. I do not know why it was removed. lt allowed the city to continue to dump wastage into the Red and the Assiniboine. lt allows the city to continue to igno re all environ mental considerations. Mr.

Hughes: That is why probably the ombudsman should be considered an independent counsel. One of the biggest com plaints in the Un ited States and probably in our own community is the fact that there is not an independent critical body of Government information and that is why the ombudsman should be held differently or should be separated from the political process. The ombudsman is supposed to supply an

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 independent council. This is why, if the mayor is going to appoint all the other people, at least the ombudsman should be considered different because he is supposed to be independent, objective. Mr. Chairman: Any more questions? Thank you for your presentation. Ms. Margaret Sheridan, Resident Advisory Council. Ms. Margaret Sheridan (Resident Advisory Council): Thank you very much for hearing the report this night. Mr.

John Prystanski has asked me to present the report to you from our Resident Advisory's Conference that we had on June 17. lt was members of the resident advisory groups from across the city and we had some recommendations and we are pleased to present them to you tonight. John just recently was elected to City Council and was meeting with people from his area tonight to hear their concerns so he asked me to convey to you his regrets at not being here and to ask that you hear the report from me. To begin, we found that we needed to have this conference.

There had not been one for some time and we had four major challenges we felt, one being the mission of the resident advisory group as we thought, the education and orientation of resident advisors, the funding, the agendas and communications of and fundings of the agendas and the communications to the resident advisors and the working standards. Also at that conference we heard from Mr. Richard Frost the new Chief Commissioner of the City of Winnipeg, and we were pleased to have him as our keynote speaker that day. In the mission statement we have the goals of the resident advisory group.

We felt that as resident advisors that we should be involved in both large and small city planning issues as may be appropriate to facilitate the councillors in the performance of their civic duties wherever they required our assistance, to take a pro- active stance in raising com muni ty awareness and issues, and a number of resident advisory groups have done that throughout the city wherever there has been major issues in the community and they have held public meetings and done those kinds of things to bring those things to the awareness of the citizens and to act as liaison between the citizens and the civic Government.

The terms of reference of resident advisors is to attend the RAG meetings and the representatives to attend the community committee meetings and the desirability to attend at least one city council meeting and some subcommittee meetings during the year; to participate in advisory boards and subcomm ittees wherever they were asked to participate and to act as the forum to focus community opinion; to assist in deciding grant approvals and zoning approvals and to act as intermediary between the councillors and the public wherever we were required to do so; to promote the resident advisory groups and their activities as well. lt was proposed also in our mission that we hold an annual conference throughout the city with an evening 6 session and that the planning begin immediately and we did start planning immediately for next year's conference.

In the educational orientation we felt that it was important that all aspects of the city have some input.

Particularly we felt that the city clerk's department, the city solicitor and EPC have some input into our orientation packages so we would all be very cognizant of the method of proce ssing by-laws, especi ally regarding variances and conditional uses, and that we might become aware of all the protocol that is necessary for citizens to be involved, and that we could act as information people for the citizens of the area so we might know all those kinds of necessary protocol to follow in regard to taking issues to the councillors for their information and to City Council.

We are concerned and wanted the organizational charts of the city staffs and departments to become regular knowledge of all of us so that we would be able to go to the correct people with our concerns. The recommen dations from the edu cation and orientation committee were that each resident advisors group should have their own spokesman to be involved on a regular basis, or possibly two, with an intercity council.

Also the resident advisor should have a historian so the history of these groups and of the particular areas would be collected and shared and that we would be in conta ct with other gr oups throughout the city. One of the recommendations came forward, too, that we should be very concerned about the heritage buildings and the preservation of same and be involved with the committees and the organizations of the city and the province that are involved with those heritage buildings.

We also felt it was very important that each resident advisor understand the purpose and the role of each resident advisor and that the councillors, too, recognize their role so the resident advisors groups may serve their community in a manner of benefit to the citizens and rewarding or satisfying to those who labour on their behalf. We would ask that the funding of the resident advisory group come from the general Government

section through the city clerk's department under a program for the resident advisory groups. We also ask that funding cover all costs associated with those groups and their programs regarding printing, administration, postage and paper, et cetera, and that each chairperson of the various resident advisory groups submit a cost estimate to the city clerk's department in order to have our needs met. There were 131 members this past year in the resident advisory groups throughout the city.

We felt that the voting members for each ward should be six; that we do need to have a little more detailed constitution and by-laws and have some standards, but we also felt that each area of the city that we service, very unique, so that all of these rules and regulations not necessarily be carved in stone but be what was necessary for that particular area.

October 1989 We like the opportunity to be involved and to serve. We would req uest that our mem bership and ::m.nr>inirmPn!« as resident advisors be from one annual r-n'"''"r"•nr"" that is the Annual Community Conference, from one year to the next year, and that our term of office would then end at the next Community Annual Conference, and that the elections take place at that time. We feel we would like to remain as we are now, a part of the civic Government of the city, albeit that we are volunteers and elected only at our community conferences and not by vote.

We realize and appreciate that, but we feel there is a very definite need for the citizens to have the opportunity to grow as people and be involved in their communities and to serve. So we feel we would like to see the resident advisory groups be incorporated in any changes that are made to the city by-law and that we be allowed to serve. If there are any questions I would be ple ased to answer. *

(2040) Mr. Doer: Thank you very much. The prop osed legislation has, a residents advisory group may be elected. Are you proposing that be mandatory in the Act so that there is that- Ms. Sheridan: lt is "shall." Mr. Doer: That would be the recommendation to our Committee? !Ills. Sheridan: Yes. Mr. Doer: Thank you very much. Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): With the one reservation of giving you more money, how can we make the resident advisory gr oups more attractive for participation and more involv ed for the general citizenry? !Ills.

Sheridan: I think a lot of whether the people ought to become involved or not depends a great deal upon the particular councillor for that ward. I think it is important for the citizens of the area to have some input on some major topics, and it really is the responsibility, I think, of the citizens to know that they have that forum and that it is available to them.

I think is really the residents responsibility to go the councillor and to ask where they can serve his needs to communicate with the residents of the area and where he requires assistance on particular-or she, excuse me-of his or her particular needs to serve their community. Mr. Chairman: Anymore questions? If not, thank you for your presentation. Next we have Ms. Jean Tardiff -(interjection)-okay, Mr. Glen Hewitt.-(interjection)- My error here, there is a correction made. The two parties I mentioned are from the St. Boniface-St. Vital Residents Advisory Group and we will go to the next one. Ms.

Jackie Ritchie. !Ills. Jackie Ritchie (Crescentwood Homeowners Association): You are going to like this one, because 7 it really is brief. This is the one here. I think you have been given this one. My name is Jackie Ritchie. I am a resident of Crescentwood. Crescentwood is in River Heights. lt is divided by two boundaries, River Heights and River Osborne. lt is an area that was built around the turn of the century, and we have long enjoyed our lovely old homes. We have formed a very, very strong and vocal association to maintain our old homes and preserve our neighbourhood.

The association has become even more concerned about our neighbourhood and the vul nerabil ity of our properties, especi ally those bordering commercial or multiuse residential areas, since 1985. lt was in 1985 that the Enderton caveats, those old original by-laws which prohibited anything other than R1 residential use were unfairly lifted. In 1985, we successfully lobbied our city councillors. Crescentwood was represented then and still is by two councillors, and we had them to preserve the intent of the caveats. I would also like to lobby our two new councillors. Therefore, I would like now to address a

section of the proposed changes to The City of Winnipeg Act, which we feel would further protect our lovely old neighbourhood in which we have chosen to live. What I am specifically referring to is on page 14, Sec tion 36. The Crescentwood Home owners Association wholeheartedly supports the establishment of strong, effective community committees that can make decisions on issues affecting the nature, growth and development of the communities. So

Section 36 under Duties of community committees, we have some concerns. While

Section 36 of Bill 32 deals with the duties of community committees we feel there should be a Subsection (d). lt just goes to (

c) and we would like to put another one in there, (d), to deal more specifically with the power of community committees, because currently the community committees make the final decision on rezoning applications. The zoning variance and conditional use decisions are subject to appeal at the Variance Use and Conditional Appeal Board, and this board is made up of councillors who do not represent our area and the needs and interests of the local community. They frequently will overturn decisions that were made at the community committee level.

The right to appeal is automatically granted without req uirin g any new information or change s or modifications in the original application. So this process aroused inappropriate development which has been strongly opposed at the community committee level. An example of that is on Wellington Crescent. In the early'80s we had a 30 unit condominium built, which was given as a variance of our one. lt was not even rezoned to R3 multiple; it was a variance of R1. We thought it totally inappropriate.

So while we do not disagree of the process of appeal-we should always have the process of appeal-we feel it would be more appropriately handled at the community committee level. Applications for appeals should be granted only when modifications to the original plan have been made. As

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 a result of such changes, community councill ors would become more acco untable to their ele ctorate for the deci sions on issues of immed iate concern to the community they represent, and that is

Section (d). If you turn the page to page 15, the additional supports, Subsection 37, Notice of Meetings, we just feel that is a little bit thin. We though that to ensure that the community residents have an opportunity for input and discussion, that on community committee agenda items, we suggest that the time, place, and all agenda items for monthly meetings be more prominently advertised. We suggest perhaps the same page of the newspaper every month, or a

section at the front that could identify which page the agenda was on. They should feature an easily identifiable page, prominently displaying the notice of community meeting at least seven days prior to the meeting date. That is my brief brief. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Any questions? Mr. Angus. Mr. Angus: I am well familiar with the Crescentwood Homeowners Association. Were you ever a member of the resident advisory group? Ms. Ritchie: Not officially a member. I guess we have evolved into a residents advisory group through our own association.

We have our own president and spokesperson, who change every two years, and we are always there. The city councillor knows who we are, and we know who the city councillor is, and while we always do not go on and on saying, no, you cannot do this, we do occa sionally say, yes, you can. Mr. Angus: Mr. Chairperson, one of the difficulties that I perceive in the resident advisory group system is the abil ity of indi vidua ls and/or spli nter gr oups to circumnavigate the process, and only deal with issues that are parochial to them, and that are their concern as a pull, and Ms. Ritchie you are an example.

I am not saying that your activities are wrong in relation to the Crescentwood Home owners Associa tion, but through the Fort Garry, Charleswood, River Heights triangle, there are many, many very important issues that we heard nary a peep from the Crescentwood Homeowners Association and/or part of the residents advisory group. I wonder why you did not become actively involved in the residents advisory group system? Ms.

Ritchie: I guess we felt that since we are living in the area where we are we feel it is a very viable part of Winnipeg, and has a great deal of heritage to offer that we are, albeit narrow-minded, protecting our own interests. We strongly advise establishment of similar groups in other areas. A residents advisory group can be a very broad group dealing with traffic, dealing with density, dealing with everything else, but what we are specifically dealing with is the preservation of our old homes. Mr. Angus: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. * (2050) 8 Mr.

Doer: I understand the concept of the closer to home, the more appropriate the appeal, but do you think there may be any danger in the recommendation. For example, if we had community integration going on across the city and we were moving from single residences to multi-person residenc es for groups homes, for example, to de-institutionalize some of our facilities, could we get into a dangerous situation where every community committee was not approving those changes in classification based on parochial concerns? Ms.

Ritchie: As a matter of fact, the establishment of group homes is not really against our mandate as home owners. A group home is still actually a residence. is still R1 residence. lt is a variation conditional use of the R1 residence, and upon resale of that house, the U 3 reverts back to regular R1. No, we are not opposed to group homes at all. lt is still a single-family home. Wha t we are conc erne d about is in the area surrounding Crescentwood.

When the inroads are being made in around Stradbrook and Academy Road and Grosvenor and Stafford, that the lots at the corners could very, very easily be rezoned R3 multiple, and that it would just progress from there. That is what we are basically against. Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): I can appreciate your concern in regard to the appeal mechanism of variance. The few of us who had to deal with it when we were wearing the previous hat found it very frustrating, sometimes not the route to go. I can only tell Mrs.

Ritchie that in the planning section, there are different ways that it is dealt with across Canada. When we deal with planning section, we will certainly take into consideration the variance and appeal mechanism that is available in other places, so that councillors do not have to put up and residents do not have to put with what goes on at the variance and appeal hearings. Ms.

Ritchie: There is just one-along the same thing about the appeal process, quite often we have been at the community committee level till one or two in the morning, which is not unusual as you know, to finally get a decision the way that the Crescentwood Homeowners or even areas similar to us would like, and then the developer appeals. We all troop down to City Hall and we stay there till two o'c lock the morning, and quite often it is overturned that we figure that is just grossly unfair considering we have represented the area and the city councillors are on our side.

Yet, they are powerless against the appeal board. Mr. Chairman: Anymore questions? Mr. Carr. Mr. Jim Carr (Fort Rouge): Mrs. Ritchie, are you suggesting that the appeal on variance go to the same committee that made the original judgment? Ms. Ritchie: Maybe, yes and no. What we are trying to say is that appeal should be made. If there is some objection to the original plan, then modification should be made or a change or new information should be

October 1989 brought forward to justify the process for appeal. We do not really feel exactly the same committee should exactly the same arguments. In the case of perhaps an ombudsman or somebody to moderate, it would not be inappropriate. We are not saying that we should totally dismiss the appeal. We should just make the city councillors more accountable to their electorate by making a decision and sticking to it. Mr. Angus: I agree with former Councillor Ducharme.

I am sure former Councillor Ernst will agree as well that the appeal process is something that we could discuss all night and address all of our efforts to try and sort out, and we should. I am encouraged by the fact the Minister said he is going to be bringing that forward at some future time. Mr. Chairman: Anymore questions? If not, thank you for your presentation. Next, we have Mr. Buddy Brownstone and Mr. Alan Cantor, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Buddy Brownstone (Senior Vi ce-President, Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce): Mr.

Chairman and Honourable Members of the Committee, my name is Buddy Brownstone, and I am Senior Vice-President of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber is an organization representing 1,700 corpo rate mem bers, 5,500 indi viduals representatives, and 135 associations. Tonight, our position is being presented by Mr. Alan Cantor, member of the Chamber Civic Affairs Committee, and chairman of the Executive Policy Committee. Mr.

JUan Cantor (Chamber Civic Affairs Committee and Chairman of the Executive Policy Committee): Gentlemen, we recognize that Bill No. 32 is not a complete response by the Government to the proposals to changes to The City of Winnipeg Act as expressed in the Discussion Paper Stre ngthening Local Government in Winnipeg issued by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ducharme) in February of 1987. Specifical ly, we recognize that in Bill No. 32 the Government is not addressing matters concerning planning, zoning, land development, and welfare.

The reason I mention those is because the Chamber made a submission concerning those matters previously. However, the Bill provides the Government's response to the political organization of the city and, in general terms, we are ple ased to see that many of the recommendations regarding the political organization of the city, which were approved and recommended by the Chamber, have in fact been adopted. Specifically , the position of the city auditor has been significantly strengthened in previous legislation.

The Bill will enact provisions whereby the mayor will select his dep uty mayor and ac ting deputy mayor, and chairpersons of the four standing committees of council.

Since the Executive Policy Committee will consist of 10 members of council, consisting of the mayor, the deputy mayor, the chairpersons of the four standing 9 committees, and four additional members of council elected at large but making sure that every community committee is represented on Executive Pol icy Committee, we believe the strength and leadership ability of the mayor will be assisted and reinforced since the majority of the Executive Policy Committee will be members of his selection.

We endorse the creation of the position of a presiding officer and deputy presiding officer of council which will enable the mayor to be a leader in council and debate and discuss matters coming before council. We endorse the authorization for the creation of the position of ombudsman and the authorization for an access to information by-law.

We recognize, of course, that it will be up to City Council to implement these provisions, but we would hope and expect that the creation of the positions, having been made available by the legislation, that City Council will respond and exercise the opportunities presented by the legislation to appoint an ombudsman and to pass an access to information by-law.

We expect that council will be responsive to public opinion, which we would expect would mandate that council fulf il! the opportunity presented by the legislation for the creation of the position of ombudsman and the enacting of an access to information by-law, and th erefore we are not concerned that the legislation is not mandatory in its language. * (2 100) We endorse the limitation on the number of standing committees to four, since this will concentrate authority and strength and direction and purpose.

We appreciate and approve the requirement that it will take a two thirds vote for a standing committee, or the Executive Policy Committee to go in-camera, since this will tend to promote open government and provide a reasonable limitation on the exercise of this alternative. Insofar as Executive Policy Committee is concerned, the mayor's group will have to be able to convince one additional member of Executive Policy Committee that an in camera session is necessary for Executive Policy Committee to go in-camera, and we believe that this is appropriate.

We have however the following comments to make concerning the details of the legislation. We have taken the position that members of subcommittees of council who are not elected members of council should not be remunerated by the city. While we recognize that some council subcommittees require the assistance of persons other than elected members of council, we are concerned that their influence should be limited to advising and providing opinion, and should not be determinative of issues. The decision making should be left to and be the responsibility of elected councillors.

Therefore, we are concerned that Subsection 25(3) provide that additional indemnities should only be provided to elected members of council so that if under

Section 34(2) members of a subcommittee should include persons who are not members of council as the legislation appears to imply, such non-members of council would not be remunerated. With respect to community committees, Sections 39 and 40 as written, give us some concern. We understand

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 under

Section 39 that the provision of facilities for the community committee is the res ponsibility of council and as such should be part of the city administration's responsibility to provide in a standard general way. We therefore are concerned that

Section 39 implies that each community committee may have its own speciality as regards its facilities. We do not see the utility of such speciality. Further we believe that the standards for library, parks, recreation, museums, and community centres should be a city-wide standard and should not vary from community to community. We therefore are concerned that

Section 40 may permit community committees to force special budgetary requirements in respect of these particular institutions within their communities and create imbalances over the city as a whole. We are concerned that

Section 40 as written may represent an incentive to the community committee to spend money in an unorganized non-standard way which would not reflect an overall city-wide policy. We endorse the concept that the city must provide appropriate physical facilities for the functioning of community committees, and we endorse the concept that communit y committees should review the expenditures proposed for the community, but the community committee should not be the originating proposing agency. Finally, we have never been enthusiastic insofar as the resident advisory group.

We have always had difficulty in understanding the validity of the mandate of a resident advis ory gr oup when its selection represents no popular mandate. To strengthen at least some reference to a popular mandate for a resident advisory group, we believe that some minimum number of electors of a community should be required to be present at the community conference for a resident advisory group to be elected.

Since the community will consist of approximately 100,000 people representing probably in excess of 25,000 electors it would seem not unreasonable to require a minimum number of electors present for such annual conference before a resident advisory group could be elected, and we would think that at least 500 electors should be present at such meeting for a resident advisory group to be at all representative of the community they propose to serve.

Further we believe that subsections 41 (2) and 41(7) may be contradictory in that we would expect that the by-law referred to in 41 (7) should establish and determine the number of members and the manner of election rather than leaving it to the whim of those present at a co mmunity conference to decide on numbers and manner of the election. We have heard of community conferences which elect as resident advisors all of the persons present at the community conference.

We do not think that democracy is well served if everyone who happens to show up at a meeting is allowed to take a position of apparent responsibility and authority. That is our submission, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman: Thank you for the submission. Any questions from Me mbers? Thank you for your submission. 10 Mr. Cantor: Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Next, we have Mayor Bill Norrie, City of Winnipeg.- (applause)- Mr. Bill Norrie (Mayor, City of Winnipeg): I notice that is not coming from both side s of the table, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Norrie, have you got a written submission? Mr. Norrie: No, I do not.

I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I just got back from Ottawa. We made a written submission to the Committee on Transportation today, and I have no written submission for you. I have rather brief points to make and hopefully that will be possible for you to follow without the written submission. Mr. Chairman, Mi nisters, and Mem bers the Committee, my name is Bill Norrie. I want to present to you actually seven points that the Council of the City of Winnipeg passed at our last meeting relative to the Bill in front of you. First of all, I would like to direct your attention to

Section 17. This is the

section that deals with the in camera meetings of committees, and the council motion which was passed read as follows: That the proposed new

Section 17 be amended by deleting the phrase "not less than two-thirds of the total number of members" and inserting the phrase "the majority of the members present." The significance of that, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a concern that of course the matters that are dealt with by a committee in-camera are extremely limited, only perso nnel matters, legal matters, contr act negotia tions with emplo yee groups, litigation settlements, and the discussion of land acquisition for expropriation purposes, those kinds of things which would be difficult to discuss in the public arena.

Now the suggestion of the council is that because the standing comm ittees are compri sed of seven members and the executive committee is comprised of 10 members, and at the standing committee although I am a member, I rarely get to a number of the standing committees. You reduce the number then to six, and two-thirds of that is five. So you have a problem if we have one or two of the members who are on other city business or who are away, very often there are contract matters that have to be considered urgently. There may be expropriation matters that have to be considered urgently.

So the feeling of the council was that their preference would be to have the majority of the members of the committee make the decision. Another alternative, of course, would be two-thirds of the members present, as opposed to two-thirds of the total committee, but the official position of council is the majority of the members present. No. 2, recommendation of the council,

Section 18(2), and I present this not in a personal way but on the basis of a decision of council, the suggestion is by council that the section, as it now stands, be deleted and the following inserted in its stead: "In the event

of a tie vote at a meeting of council, the mayor shall have a casting or deciding vote." (21 iO ) That was the position of council. That is the present practice, Mr. Chairman, and the council felt that that practice should be continued. I might point out for your information that there have been about 10 occasions on which that deciding vote has been cast, nine times by myself and once by the deputy mayor who was in the chair, and they affected a variety of matters going back to 1985 through '86 through '87, none in '88 through to '89.

Several significant projects- I am sure some of the Ministers who are councillors from the past will remember the Winnipeg Rehabilitation Corporation, will remember the extension of Central Park, some of those things which were decided on the breaking of a tie. The council felt that it was important to retain that provision. Could I direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to

Section 87(2)? Now 87(2) is the one that deals with the question of attendance. Wait till I find it here, yes. The present wording under {

b) is the one that is of concern. A member's seat is forfeited when he or she fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings of council without being authorized to do so by a resolution of council entered into the minutes of each of the three meetings. Now the council's concern was that there might be some reason inadvertently not communicated to the clerk or the council at the first meeting, and as a result of sickness or being away on business or whatever, the first meeting might be missed.

What the council is suggesting is deleting the word "each" and inserting "one." So it would then be entered into the minutes of one of the three meetings. In other words, the idea of being advised but not missing the first meeting and thereby forfeiting. No. 4, Mr. Chairman, refers to Sections 29(1) and 33( 1 ), and it refers to the establishment of four standing committees.

The preference of the council, and actually the minutes of council, is to delete the reference to four standing committees and to replace it with wording which would allow the by-law to establish standing committees as the council may deem necessary from time to time, but no less than a minimum of four standing committees. In other words, the principle would be that four would be mandatory and if there was a feeling of council that there was a need for additional standing committees, that the council would be free to create those.

The principle of the Bill, in establishing a minimum of four, would be maintained, but there would be additional possibilities. The next item the council has asked me to direct your attention to, Mr. Chairman, is

Section 34( 1) which requires council to approve the terms of reference of the subcommittees, which were formerly called ad hoc committees but now will be called subcommittees, established by standing committees, and that is

Section 34( 1). The recommendation of the council is to delete the requirement for council approval of those terms of reference, and provide that the relevant standing committee which is creating the subcommittee shall approve the terms of reference for those subcommittees 11 1989 established by it, and reporting directly to the standing committees.

In other words, if the council establishes a subcommittee, then obviously the council should determine the terms of reference of that subcommittee, but if the standing committee creates a subcommittee, then the feeling is and the preference is that the standing committee itself create the terms of reference without having to refer to council. Point No. 6, Mr. Chairman, requires the community committees to meet at least once a month

Section 37(1). The council suggested that this requirement be deleted, and that is because in the council and its standing committees under our procedure by-law has been proroguing for months during the summer. The month of August has become the month of prorogation, and the feeling was that the various com munity committees should have the authority to determine whether or not they wish to meet during that month, and what we might suggest is that there would be monthly meetings with the exception of the month declared by the council for the summer recess.

In other words, there would be no standing committee meetings during the summer recess, no council meetings, and similarly, no community committee meetings. Finally, Mr. Chairman,

Section 75 which perhaps, in the general terms, is the most important matter that I would like to draw your attention to-75 (2), and this is the authority which your committee is recommending, hopefully, to the Legislature to give the city the power to merge the employee pension plans. This is a very, very important amendment for us. Just very briefly let me tell you, as you know I am sure, that The City of Winnipeg Act and the City of Winnipeg itself in its present form was created in 1972.

At that time there was an amalga mation of the Metropolitan Corporation of Greater Winnipeg and all of the area municipalities, including the City of Winnipeg. Although at that time many city services were unified and many aspects of the employees' work package and work compensation were standardized, there was no means provided in the City of Winnipeg Act at that time to amalgamate the many pension plans that existed for all of the municipalities, the City of Winnipeg, and the Metro Corporation. At the present time, there is an existing nine pension plans.

These have been maintained by the city, some created by the former area municipalities. There is a police pension plan, there is an employee benefits plan which was instituted by the new city on January 1, 1976. The result of that is that most employees who retire will receive pensions from one or two or maybe three different plans, and over the years, I am sure you will agree and would understand, it has become increasingly difficult to admi nister the various plans.

The process is not cost effective. lt is confusing to the employees who are retiring, and there is an underlying inequity which exists where employees working for the same employer, that is the City of Winnipeg, receive differing pensions. As a result of this rather confusing situation, Mr. Chairman, a steering committee was struck, consisted of representatives of management of the city and employee representatives. Mem bers of the various

TUesday, October 31, 1989 pension committees had actuarial assistance and they arrived at a mutually agreeable form of pension plan amalgamation. The proposed merger has been recommended by the steering committee and has been agreed to by the unions involved, and by the employee associations. lt has been ag reed to by the pension comm ittees themselves, by the City Council, and by the Department of Labour of the province. Specifically the Pension Com mission of Manitoba has ind icated that any concerns it had or has with respect to the merger have been addressed.

So there is satisfaction and general concurrence all around. We feel that the proposed merger is very beneficial to the city. lt provides improved benefits to both the pensioners and the employees. So I would draw your attention to that

section and urge you to consider it positively. The reason we are here is that we felt there was autho rity to amalgama te the plans without legislation. On obtaining legal advice, we were advised that was not the case , and for certai nty and consequence of legal advice, there is the need for the amendment. That is why

Section 75(2) is there. If there are any questions, Mr. Chairman, on any of the positions of council or any other sections in the Act's proposed amendments, I would be happy to respond to them. Mr. Ch airman: Thank you, Ma yor No rrie. The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. Mr. Ducharme: Just on your

section in regard to the mayor's tie-breaking vote at the council, I know that this was a decision of council. I think that when we considered increasing the powers to you or to whoever the mayor may be to Chair EPC and to elect five members on EPC and also to have that body of, I guess you would say, power from EPC to go to council, we felt that that tie breaker would no longer be necessary. I wonder if the Mayor can tell me what other provinces in Canada give their mayor a tie-breaking vote. * (2 120) Mr. Norrie: I do not know of any, Mr. Chairman.

All I can you tell you is that it was in the Act. lt is in The Act now. lt has worked well. The feeling of the council, as expressed in their resolution, is that it is something they would like to see continued. Mr. Ducharme: The other thing in regard to the pension plan, I take it that once this is passed you will be making that retroactive back to January. Mr. Norrie: Yes, that is correct. lt will be retroactive back to January 1, 1989. Mr. Doer: Thank you. t noticed the council did not take any position on the new powers of the mayor. Perhaps they are treading very softly. Mr.

Norrie: Well, no, they actually did. Mr. Doer: I know that. lt was about a year and a half ago. 12 Mr. Norrie: Yes, that is right. Mr. Doer: My question to the mayor is, you mentioned the recommendation from council on a number of occasions dealing with the in-camera situation. The council has changed dramatically. One of the underlying currents in the last civic election, I think, was openness in Government.

Would you personally be recommending the change that you have proposed as mayor of the city to not have the two-thirds provision which has just been acknowledged by the Chamber of Commerce to be a good step forward for open Government? Would it be your personal recommendation to maintain the proposal here to allow for its tougher standards for in camera meetings? Mr. Norrie: I concur , Mr. Chairman, with the recommenda tion of counci l.

I think you have to remember that the relative number of times that committees and executive policy committee itself goes into camera are very few, but the times that they do go into camera are matters which really require in camera consideration and are often matters of urgency. If you tie it to membership of the full committee, then it will possibly delay the procedure. As you know, council cannot sit in camera, and it never has sat in camera. So I have no hesitation in endorsing the council's view on that. Mr. Doer. That is fine, thank you. Mr. Bob Rose (SI. Vital): Your Worship, on

Section 33( 1) where you advocate or the council has requested an amendment to be able to increase the number of standing committees, I wonder if you could give us a little of the background at the rationale, and did they have some specific requirement in mind when they requested that. Mr. Norrie: I guess, Mr. Rose, the general philosophy of City of Winnipeg's councils over the years, and this council is no exception, and I am sure the next council and council's in the future will be no exception either, is to have as much flexibility in The City of Winnipeg Act as is possible.

In other words, council really should, within certain parameters, be able to dic tate its own procedure, to set up its own committees, to establish its process, and to carry on its work within the general parameters of The City of Winnipeg Act. The question of standing committees was an issue which council zeroed in on as being more restrictive than it needed to be in the view of council.

In other words, there was no problem with establishing a minimum of four, but the feeling was that if there was need -an issue came up or there was another situation that demanded the attention of a standing committee that it really was not probably in the best interests of either Government or the city to have to come back to the Legislature and to seek an amendment to the act. As you know, in municipal law, creatures of the legislation, creatures of the province can only act under those powers specifically given to it.

So when the act says four standing committees, that is it, there is no change possible, and the thought was that there should be some freedom there to establish additional committees if the council felt it was appropriate.

October 1989 Mr. Rose: Your Worship, I am having a little problem with that, and I wonder if during the debate there was any specific instance that was pointed out where it would have been to the advantage of the city or in your own particular experiences do you recall something in the last four or five years that would have necessitated one more standing com mittee, some specia l circu mstance? Mr. Norrie: Not particularly, Mr. Chairman, with one exception.

There was a suggestion, not acted on yet by the council, but that there might be the need for a standing committee on budget and audit, and that has not been as yet adopted by the committee, sorry, by the council. But if that were to take place then it would not be possible under the present legislation because it fixes the number at four, as I have indicated. Mr. Rose: Your Worship, you have alluded to some of the problems with having a 66 percent vote for to go into in camera and the problems that might arise with people being absent for one reason or another.

Would not that be further exemplified by the fact that you would further have to reduce the size of all standing committees then? Mr. Norrie: If you created additional comm ittees, yes, you would. You may remember that the Parks Protection and Culture Committee was created out of another standing committee and we increased the number of committees from, I believe we had three originally to four, and so we now have four. If there was need to do that again, you might want to enhance the number of committees, but you would be restricted because of the provision in the act. Mr. Rose: No. Mr.

Carr: Your Worship, in your discussion of in camera meeti ngs you talked about a few ca tegorie s of discussion that required councillors going behind closed doors. You mentioned as some examples personnel matters, litigation, land acquisition. Do you think it would be reasonable if this piece of legislation asked council to prescribe conditions under which it would go in camera to ensure that the public would know that the proceed ings of council were open except under a prescribed number of cases that council itself could decide? Mr. Norrie: Sure, no problem at all.

I think it is very precisely known, certainly at City Hall. lt may be not understood in the public, but it is very precisely known that are very limited items which are discussed in camera, and a prescription of those items, in my personal view, would not be inhibiting at all. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Norrie. Mr. Norrie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Angus: lt is not a serious question, Mr. Chairperson, I do not want to be recorded, I want to know if the mayor has picked his Cabinet. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Mayor, do you want to respond to that? 13 Mr. Norrie: Well, let me tell you, Mr.

Chairman, I will decide that after the committee makes its decision. Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your presentation Mayor Norrie. Next on our list is Miss Shirley Bradshaw, Mr. Peter Diamant, Winnipeg Into the Nineties. Miss Shirley Bradshaw (Winnipeg Into the Nineties): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Minister, Members of the Committee, my name is Shirley Bradshaw and I am a member of WIN, or Winnipeg Into the Nineties. WIN is a citizens' organization which is independent of any political Party.

WIN has five specific objectives which include, among others, providing a vision for the City of Winnipeg, and a future agenda based on clear policies for action and promoting open gov ernment and freedom of information among others. In other words, good city government. * (2 130) WIN's policies have been developed through a citizen participation process, including two public meetings during the past year, and it will continue to work and be the same as we expand our review of the issues which concern the citizens of Winnipeg.

During the recent election and following a process which had been approved in an open meeting our candidates competed for the position of city councillor and eight were elected. While WIN councill ors are comm itted to WIN's objectives and policy goals they will be free to make decisions and vote in council and comm ittee meetings as they see fit. WIN is committed to research on city Government issue, and is pleased to be here tonight to present the results of our investigation into certain sections of Bill 32. One of our members, Peter Diamant will present WIN's brief. Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Diamant. Mr.

Peter Diamant (Winnipeg Into the Nineties): Mr. Chairperson, WIN is ple ased to be here tonight and WIN is ple ased to see amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act which make some move toward a more open and accountable government at City Hall. Bill 32 covers changes to The City of Winnipeg Act in a number of areas and is silent on others mentioned in The City of Winnipeg Act review committee report and the proposals for changes to The City of Winnipeg Act discussion paper. Our presentation will concentrate on three specific areas: The Ombudsman, Access to Information, and the Conflict of Interest.

As a delegation from WIN we are willing to respond to questions that the committee may have on other areas of Bill 32, but WIN has not developed a specific position on many of these areas and therefore our responses will be for informational purposes only. Ombudsman: WIN supports the creation of the position of City of Winnipeg ombudsman and applauds the Gover nment's initia tive in impl ementing this recommendation of the Review Committee Report.

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 We believe that the ombudsman has a vital role to play in enhancing openness and acc ountability in civic Government. An ombudsman can mediate disputes between residents and the city, and the person can also serve as an independent moni tor of city's performance in important policy areas, such as city planning, access to information, resident involvement and the provisions of French language services. WIN is pleased with

Section 8 of Bill 32, but does note that the absence of any reference to the role of the ombudsman in monitoring

Part 3 of The City of Winnipeg Act, and we trust this does not bode a change to the policy as outlined in the Government's White Paper. In supporting

Section 4, WIN is opposed to any watering down of the Ombudsman provision in Bill 32. We believe that the Bill supports the concept of open government at City Hall and is consistent with the Government's throne speech statement to make this Government more open and accountable to the citizens of Manitoba. lt is the position of WIN that this is such an important initiative that the "may" in line 2 of

Section 73.2(1) should be changed to "shall." A number of points may have been raised by others regarding

Section 4 of Bill 32 in the committee, and if the committee wishes we are prepared to discuss with you any questions you may have. In

summary, on the ombudsman provision, with the change to 73.2(1) suggested above, WIN supports the provisions and is against any changes which limits the powers of the ombudsman as they are outlined in the Bill. Freedom of Information. At its policy conference on September 16, the WIN membership endorsed nine different policy objectives with ethical open governance and citizen participation ranking as among the most important.

WIN' s policy on freedom of information states that it is an important mechanism to achieve "open decisions openly arrived at." Citizens require the best information a Go vernment can offer to participate effectively in those decisions. WIN supports the enshri nement of freedom of information provisions in The City of Winnipeg Act and recommends that

Section 78.01 be amended to read: "Subject to Sections 78.02 to 78.08, council shall pass a by-law" WIN appreciates that certain exemptions to the general rule of openness are necessary and difficult to draft. However, the precise terms used are critical in determining how open gover nment works. The proposed exemptions lack the public interest override provisions of the provincial Act and its other important limitations on the scope of the exemptions. Without these limitation clauses the exemptions become so broad as to permit carte blanche secrecy. For example:

Section 78.05( 1)(

b) exempts "information provided in confide nce to the city" with only one limitation allowing employee classifications, salary ranges, benefits, et cetera, to be disclosed. The provincial Act subjects all third party information to being disclosed subject to 14 notification if it confers a financial benefit, or if the public interest is greater. Without these limitations, the city would be able to keep secret all its commercial dealings with the private sector. This could hamper accountability and undermine public confidence in civic government.

Section 78.05( 1)(d), exempting "information that constitutes advice to council on the formulation of a poli cy matter" also lacks the crucial li mitations contained in the analogous sections of the provincial Freedom of Information Act. The provincial Act states that the exemption does not apply to environmental impact statements, product tests, the results of scientific and technical research, policy instructions or guidelines, reasons for decisions and consultant reports. In addition, WIN recommends that policy background information which supports decisions be made available before the decision is finalized.

Such policy information is vital to citizen participation in city government. In keeping with the above, WIN recommends that

Section 78.05 be amended to include limitation clauses at least equivalent to those in the sections listed below of the provincial Freedom of Information Act: Sections 39(2)-(4);

Section 40(2); Sections 41(2)-(5); Sections 42(2)-(7);

Section 45(2);

Section 47; Sections 48(2)-(4). Such changes will ensure that any ambiguities in Bill 32 that might hinder, rather than facilitate access to information are minimized. WIN notes that Bill 32 does not deal directly with conflict of interest guideli nes. WIN' s policy statement on conflict of interest and ele ction expen ses supports the position that all candidates for civic office be required to make complete public di sclosur e of assets and any material relationships, with any proposal and its proponents coming before counc il.

If elected, cand ida tes be required to disclose on an ongoing basis any conflict that may arise and update their asset statements continuously and openly. WIN endorsed candidates also support an election expenses by-law which limits and declares a candidate's campaign contributions. WIN supports enforcement of these reforms by such officers as an independent elections commissioner or ombudsman. WIN therefore recommends that the conflict of interest

section be included within The City of Winnipeg Act which provides for open disclosure of statements of assets which are comparable to those in place for Members of the Legislative Assembly. WIN understands that the situation in Winnipeg is unique. Since there are only 29 councillors for 60 percent of the population of the province. lt is difficult to design amendments to The Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Act which can apply equally well to the 29 councillors in Winnipeg and the over 1,000 councillors for the 40 percent of the population. lt is for this reason that WIN supports the enshrinement of conflict of interest legislation for Winnipeg in The City of Winnipeg Act.

October 1989 WIN recommends that a

section be added to Bill 32 which: * (21 40) Provides for the inspection at all reasonable times of a councillor's financial records and asset statements and other documents pertaining to possible conflict of interest in the possession or under the control of the clerk who shall, on request and within a reasonable time, furnish copies of the record to an applicant on payment of any fee set before council, by council, by by-law. WIN believes that this will help to ensure adherence to basic standards of disclosure.

WIN is a non-partisan organization which is directed toward explaining and publicizing policy related to social, economic and political development of Winnipeg. A primary goal of WIN is to assist the democratic process at the municipal level by providing timely information on current issues through both information gathering and analysis and information dissemination. lt is our belief that the changes recommended by WIN to Bill 32 will help to improve the citizen's relation to City Hall and will make city government in Winnipeg more open and accountable. Mr. Chairman: Any questions to Mr. Diamant? Mr. Carr. Mr.

Carr: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Diamant, in the

section on conflict of interest you talk about disclosure and the appropriate Act. You think it should be The City of Winnipeg Act rather than The Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Act. Do you have anything to say on the issue of a perceived conflict of interest where a member of a standing committee of council is perceived to be in a conflict of interest with a pecuniary interest of his own in business? Accusations were made in the last number of months of such a perceived conflict.

Do you have any recommendations to make to this committee on how that perception can be handled in the same way that you are handling disclosure for council members? Mr. Diamant: WIN does not have a specific position on that. There have been suggestions that under those types of situations it may be more appropriate for a chai rperson of the committee not to have a direct rela tionship with act ivit ies that go on with that committee in the sense that you were discussing, but to my knowledge that is not, at this point in time, a fixed position of WIN. lt has not evolved a policy position on that. Mr.

Doer: Yes, you were here for the mayor's presentation dealing with a proposed amendment to this Bill on the provisions for in-camera meetings and a provision to loosen that up. What would the position of WIN be? I would assume that WIN would support the proposal in the legislation to make it somewhat more difficult than a majority vote just to go in camera. Mr. Diamant: Yes, it would also be my assumption from my discussions with other WIN members that the 15 more open the government can be, the better it would be, and that the majority seems an appropriate way to deal with that. Mr.

Doer: I was not around the Legislature although I have read the old debates dealing with the conflict of-interest provisions in The Municipal Act, and there are some quite interesting old debates-well, not old, they were in the' 80s-on that issue of fairness, conflict of interest. Quite frankly, the old Government withdrew some provisions because of the inability of people, for example, in agriculture to become reeves.

You see then a preferential or differential provision in The City of Winnipeg Act for conflict of interest, for disclosure, and how do we justify that to other communities, not bringing in the same kind of standards outside of Winnipeg? Mr. Diamant: On the debate you are referring to I believe in the mid-'80s when this was discussed there were not significant presentations at that time. I believe there was in the neighbourhood of only three or four presentations at that particular time which dealt with the question of conflict of interest outside of Winnipeg.

Whether those disclosures should be only to the clerk or be open, for one reason or another it was determined that it should be closed. I think there is a distinction between, that is the reason for showing the statistics, 29 councillors for 60 percent of the population and over a thousand for, is a substantial distinction and it may be almost impossible to draft disclosure legislation which is really suitable for all those situations. Places like Brandon, et cetera, may be exceptions and might be done in the same way as Winnipeg. Mr.

Doer: The recommendation, and I read the debate with, it was between Sterling Lyon, I think it was, and Roland Penner, on the issue. As I say, it was before my time. While they are quite interesting in their approach, I happen to agree more with Roland than the Minister of Justice of today. You are recommending the specific provisions in The Legislative Assembly Act dealing with conflict of interest and you do not see any difficulty in its application for city Government? Mr. Diamant: No, we do not see any difficulty as outlined in the presentation. Mr. Doer: Thank you. Mr. Chairman: Any more questions?

If not, we want to thank you for making your presentations. Next, we have Mr. Jae Eadie, private citizen. I will ask you, Mr. Eadie, have you got a written submission to present to the Members. Mr. Jae Eadie (Private Citizen): No, Mr. Chairman, regretfully I do not. I was a little busy the last few weeks and unable to unfortunately find the time to sit down and write you a proper presentation, so you will have to bear with me because I am going to more or less

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 wing it. I will try to be brief because you have a number of people from whom you wish to hear this evening. The mayor may have covered a couple of points. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jae Eadie. I am a member of City Council for Deer Lodge ward. I do not know whether your clerk was anticipating a different result than I was last week but I am really not quite a private citizen. I am here not representing City Council, but I am a councillor representing myself. Mr.

Chairman, it is refreshing in appearing in front of this committee to be appearing in front of a number of Members, some of whom were former colleagues, but a number of Members who have had practical hands-on experience in municipal Government which I think is refreshing when you are dealing with legislation dealing with the city or any other municipality. lt is good that there are people here who have experienced municipal Government and know what it is really like. Mr. Chairman, I am going to zero in on just a few sections of the Bill that I wish to make a couple of comments on. I am going to first refer to

Section 27(3), the presiding officer. I am of the opinion that the restriction contained in that

section whereby the presiding officer can be a member of any committee of council except Executive Policy Committee is rather restrictive. I am of the view that City Council should decide which committees its members should sit on and I do not think the Legislature should make that determination. We had some debate upon this matter at City Hall and I think in all honesty a number of our own members were confused about the perceived role of the presiding officer in this new system. I think perhaps there are some others.

To quote the words of the Minister, page 1133 of Hansard, in his introductory remarks on this Bill, the Minister stated with respect to the presiding officer, to ensure the neutrality of this position, the presiding officer would not be eligible to sit on Executive Policy Committee, but would be elected to one of the standing committees. In actual fact, Mr. Chairman, if you have read the Act, the presiding officer is entitled to participate in the debate on the floor of council and under our own rules and under the Act, the presiding officer must vote on every issue.

The neutrality of that position has disappeared right off the bat. Even the previous sentence in the Minister's statement, that the presiding officer would be entitled to participate at any time during council meetings in debate contradicts the next sentence. * (21 50) The presiding officer under the Act is not like the Speaker of this Assembly. The Speak er, as you know, because you have experienced it, is in fact totally neutral. He is not a Member of committees of the House, he does not participate in the debate, he does not vote.

Under our system, under the system that you have proposed, which is similar to that in existence in the Provi nce of Queb ec, the presiding officer may participate in the debate if he so chooses and he must vote on every issue that comes before the council. If the presiding officer is a Member of any committee, let us say the committee on Finance, and participates 16 in the consideration of the agenda at Finance and the Finance report comes to council, the presiding officer will have participated in votes in the Finance Committee and will be participating in those same discussions at council.

What I am saying, what council was deadlocked on in this case is that the presiding officer should be eligible to be a member of any committee that council chooses to put that person on, whether it be Executive Policy Committee or any other standing committee of council. lt should be council that makes the decision, not the Legislature. I think council can better determine than you can which committees its members should be sitting on. Mr. Chairman, if the position of presiding officer was the same as the Speaker of the Legislature, there may be a case for restricting committee membership.

As a matter of fact there would be a case for preventing the presiding officer from being a Member of any standing committee, but under the Act the presiding officer must vote on all issues and he or she can debate issues on the floor of council, so why restrict the individual from sitting on EPC if that is where in fact council feels that the presiding officer could best serve at the committee level. I would hope that in your discussions on this Bill that you will change that

section to let the council decide which committees the presiding officer will sit on. The mayor, Mr. Chairman, touched on Sections 29(1) and also on 33(1) and that is with respect to stating specifically in the Act that council shall establish four standing committees. I am personally opposed to that restriction. Council did suggest a minimum of four. My personal preference is that there should not be a specific reference to the numbers of standing committees. Some people have suggested that a mischievous mayor or a mischievous council after November 7 may not appoint any standing committees. Mr.

Chairman, that is not possible. We have an Organization of Government by-law in effect in the City of Winnipeg and it specifies today the standing committees, the numbers of them, and the titles of them. Council is required by its own by-law to appoint right now four standing committees. So even if there was a desire to say only have two standing committees on November 7 or November 8, we would have to appoint the standing committees that are laid out in our own by-law.

Then council at a later date if it only wanted two committees would have to amend that by-law acco rdingly before it could only have two committees, but we have a by law in place now. I am suggesting to you that the present Act since about 1978 or'79 permits the council to establish as many or as few standing committees as it sees fit. lt does so by by-law. Why specify in the Act under these sections that there will be four? The mayor has indicated to you a problem that may occur. We are presently examining the possibility of establishing a committee on budget and audit.

If in fact council decides to establish that committee, before we can make that effective we have to come here and ask you for another amendment to the Act either to say five committees or perhaps to loosen the wording altogether. What I am saying to you is, Mr. Chairman, leave well enough alone. Allow the council to determine how many

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 standing committees it feels are necessary and allow it do so by by-law which we do today. I think that is only right. Another concern I have, Mr. Chairman, is with respect to

Section 29(4), which basically says that Executive Policy Committees shall have representation from all community committees. I am personally opposed to that recommendation because in my opinion and in the opinion of many other membe rs of council, Executive Policy Committee is the one committee of council, certainly all of them should have it, but it is the one committee of council that should have a broad city view on issues that come before the city. Executive Policy Committee is not a committee of delegates from the community committees. That is what

Section 29(4) is going to make EPC. 1t is going to be by and large a comm ittee of delega tes from the com muni ty committees. That is the wrong thrust for Executive Policy Committee. Executive Policy Committee should be and has been operating basically as a committee with a city-wide view.

Our practice has been over the last few years that Executive Policy Committee as much as possible has at least one mem ber from each commu nity committee but that is becoming a practice and a tradition just as in this level of Government the Premier of the Day tries to appoint Ministers of the Crown from the various regions of the province. There is nowhere in statute law in this province as far as I am aware that requires the Premier to appoint at least one Minister from Winnipeg, and one Minister from Brandon, and one Minister from the North, et cetera.

Why would you want to say in The City of Winnipeg Act that there must be at least one member from each community committee on EPC. If you are going to be specifying that, what you are doing is turning Executive Policy Committee from a committee with a city-wide view to a committee of delegates from the community committees. You will have some members whose only concern will be to report back to the community committee on their next set of instructions. That is how I see it evolving. That is why I think that

section should be taken out of the Act. Let the council in its wisdom decide the composition of Executive Policy Committee. The mayor will be deciding the composition of Executive Policy Committee if you ever get these amendments out of here. Let the council in its wisdom make those decisions. You should not be making it for them. I think you will find that the practice that we have been operating under the past few years will continue just as it has fallen into place at this level of Government for many years.

Practice and tradition will prevail. lt does not need to be specified in the Act or I see a number of problems being created with respect to future Executive Policy Committees. Mr. Chairman, the mayor made reference to

Section 34(1) which is the requirement in this Bill that City Council should approve the terms of reference for subcommittees. I repeat what the mayor said and what council has suggested. From practical experience some of you at this table will know that the ad hoc committees as we know them are basically ad hoc committees of a specific standing committee who are appointed by 17 that committee to review a policy matter sometimes which is strictly germane to that committee. lt is a delegated matter that has been delegated by council to the standing committee.

The standing committees have always approved the terms of reference for those ad hoc committees. lt is an unnecessary procedure to have council as well approve those terms of reference. Some of the issues that are dealt with by ad hoes or the subcommittees as you now call them are matters that may never go to council for app roval in any event because they are matters that have already been delegated by council to the standing committee to deal with.

I would suggest, and I believe my colleagues on council have agreed with me, that requirement should be taken out of the Act. lt is obvious if City Council establi shes a subcommit tee on an issue which is composed of a number of members of council on a city-wide issue, that of course council will determine the terms of reference. Council has done so in the past on a number of things. lt will do so in the future. *

(2200) The subcommittees of standing committees, Mr. Chairman, should not have to go through the additional hoops of having terms of reference approved by the whole city council when eventually if there is going to be a policy recommendation, that matter and all the reports will come to council for consideration. Let the standin g com mittees, let their ad hoes or their subcommittees get on with the job without the additional requirement of going to council for approval of terms of reference on those things. Mr. Chairman, the mayor touched on

Section 37(1) which is the requirement in the Act presently that community committees must meet at least once a month. I felt for a long time that should not be in the Act, that community committees under our procedure now are relatively autonomous. City Council does not tell them when they will have their meetings or how many times they will have their meetings. Community committees make that decision themselves. If they want to meet once a week, if they want to meet three times a week, they can do that. They are the masters of their own procedure.

As the mayor has indicated, council over the last few years has been adjourning for at least a month in the summer, but our community committees do not have that option because the Act does not permit it. I think the community committees know best, Mr. Chairman, what their anticipated workload is at any given period of time. If in the opinion of the appropriate community committee it is not going to be possible for them to miss at least one meeting a month because of anticipated workload. They will not be cancelling any meetings, but let the community committee make that decision.

This Act has been in place since 1972, and I do not think the Legislature has to now make it a requirement of the Act that community committees must meet at least once a month. I think community committees are well able to make that decision themselves. There are a few of you here who have served on community

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 committees, and I think you may recall from your own experience how your procedures would work best for you. I refer now, Mr. Chairman, to

Section 41( 2), Resident Advisory Group Procedure. I am personally not in favour of the notion contained in this

section that residents advisory groups should determine the numbers of members. In my community committee, let me tell you, I was a member of the resident advisory group for six years and chairman for three. In our community committee, we have operated over the years on the basis that each ward should have equal representation. We have tried to determine that as a consultation between the community committee and the resident advisory group. We have tried to determine over the years that each ward should have an equal number of members, and that is predetermined before a community conference.

So that if there are any people who are interested in getting on the resident advisory group from a particular ward, and let us say for example there are six members to be elected from each ward and there are ten people interested, well then you have an election at the community conference and you elect the people who will serve as resident advisors for the coming year. What you are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is really you are going to create a whole lot of problems.

I mean, it could very well be that a hundred people will come out to a community conference and they will all become resident advisors, and over the next year , three quarters of them will never be seen at a meeting again. That can be verified just from looking at minutes from time to time of RAG group meetings, but what you do cause a problem for is with our administrative staff trying to determine the numbers of agendas and items that have to be duplicated for a number of people that may never come to meetings. I think, Mr.

Chairman, it is appropriate-and council will have to enact a by-law to establish the resident advisory groups-to perhaps state in that by-law that the community committee and the resident advisory group, in consultation, should determine a limit on the number of members to be elected from each ward, if that is how they want to do it. The Act should not leave it wide open like this. I do not find it very proper. I find it actually rather unusual that the House of Commons can determine how many members it will have, you determine how many members you will have.

City council has no say, has no actual jurisdiction over the number of members that it will have at city council, but you are saying that a group of citizens who are not elected can determine how many members they will have in a resident advisory group. That does not make sense.

We have operated, as I have said, in my community, in consultation with the resident advisory group of trying to establish a limit on the number of members to come out of each ward so that if there is a full complement, every ward has an equal number of members in the Resident Advisory Group meetings, and you are not findif!g the case where you have one ward perhaps dominating over all the others. 18 So I would suggest you re-look at that particular

section of the Act, and perhaps you could talk to your advisors, but that perhaps that

section should be changed, and perhaps empower the council when it adopts the by-law to allow the community committees and the resident advisory groups to consult on the number of members they will have before you get into the process of a community conference. I think that is much more efficient and probably also quite fair. Under

Section 85 of the Act , unde r Gen eral Provisions, you do not have it in the Act. lt is a suggestion that I raised at one time with the Taraska Commission many years ago. I will raise it with you again. You may want to look at it sometime, but it is my suggestion that in a situation as we have in municipal Government where we have fixed election dates, and just having gone through another general election, Mr.

Chairman, it is my opinion that there should be a requirement in the Act that at a given period of time, city council and all its committees should dissolve prior to the election, perhaps at nomination day or at the end of September or something. There should be a date in the Act in the year of a general election at which city council, and that includes all its committees, would dissolve, so that for three or four weeks there is in effect no council and no committees. lt is a theory.

I hate getting too theoretical because that is half the problem with this Act. lt has been crafted by theoreticians and not by people with practical experience. lt is a theory that should be looked at from time to time, Mr. Chairman. My last point is with respect to Sections 90 to 95, Elec tion Expenses and Contr ibutions. For the information of some people whom I have heard previous to me and who are not aware, City Council has approved this year a resolution calling upon the Legislature to enact an election expenses law for the City of Winnipeg, modelled somewhat on what is in place in the Province of Ontario.

City Council is already on record as having suggested that this Legislature adopt such a law. You have in these Sections 90 to 95 basically included everything that the City Council has already suggested you include, with one exception. There is no provision in Sections 90 to 95 for the tax credit system, which was also a part of our council resolution and which was also a part of the Ontario legislation. There is no provision in this Bill for allowing City Council the option of adop ting within its election expenses by-law a provision for tax credits for election contributions. I would like to see that in here.

City Council, I think, would like to see that in here because it is the stated position of council. lt is the one omission that is contained in Sections 90 to 95, and I hope that you would consider putting that provision in here, which would be subject, of course, to City Council having the option of either including it or not including it. The rest of those sections I support wholeheartedly. lt falls in line with the resolution which I brought to council earlier this year which is modelled on the Ontario law. *

(2210) My last comment to you, Mr. Chairman, is simply this. I hope you will get on with this Bill. I think all of

us who are forming this new City Council are rather anxious to have these new provisions in place so that we can get on with them. I am hoping that you will be able to get this Bill out of here and give it Royal Assent at least by the end of this week so that the mayor knows what he is going to do and the rest us know where we are going to be next week, so that we are not going to have a confusing situation next Tuesday or Wednesday of not really knowing what Act we are going to be following.

I hope that, as friendly advice, you will get on with this job after you have concluded the representations tonight and get this Bill out of here and hopefully get it to Third Reading and Royal Assent no later than the end of this week so that we can get on with the business that we have to do over the next three years. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are my remarks in brief. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Eadie. Any questions? Mr. Rose. Mr. Rose: Mr. Eadie, you seem to be concerned with the RAG group and that they should not be allowed to determine their own numbers.

One of, maybe the principle reason you gave for that was the problems with making copies for the agenda and what have you. You mentioned that you were Chairman of a RAG group I think for three terms and you certainly are sitting on a community committee. Could you let the community know say, during the last six years, what was the normal high and low of attendance of RAG people, RAG committee members at your meetings. Mr. Eadie: Probably the average, Mr. Chairman, in our community I would say has been about 20 out of a possible 28 or 29 members. Mr. Rose: Mr.

Eadie, what would be the average variance from one meeting to another? Would it go from five to 25? What would be the range? Mr. Eadie: There have been, I do not know whether it has been as low as 5. I am trying to recollect. lt has probably been as low as 8 or 9 in some meetings. There have been one or two meetings without a quorum. As I say the average would be 18 to 20 as a rule, but that is not always the case. I am only talking about our community committee. I cannot speak for the other live. Mr. Rose: Do you think that would be such an administrative nightmare that it would be worthwhile- Mr. Eadie: Mr.

Chairman, I did not say it was an administrative nightmare. What I said was I think it is appropriate that- Mr. Chairman: We will let Mr. Rose first ask his question. Mr. Eadie: Oh, I thought he had finished. Sorry. Mr. Rose: You think that that would be a sufficient reason to limit the participation of RAG groups for their 19 1989 own ability to determine how big or how small they should be? Mr. Eadie: Mr.

Chairman, what I have said all along is basically what our community committee has always tried to practice in the 18 years, 17 years of Unicity is that in order to make sure that each ward has balanced representation that we have tried to determine a reasonable number of members to be elected from each ward, and if in fact there are more than the six members from each ward wanting to run for the RAG group, then you have a real election. You do not just let everybody who comes in off the street be a resident advisory.

You have a real election if you have to, but then each ward also has the potential for say six members each and a balance, so there is not an over balance. lt is not an adminis trative nightmare, Mr. Chairman. lt can be a problem and it may be a minor problem, but it certainly can be a problem for our administrative staff in terms of trying to determine their own budget for reproduction of materials for resident advisors when they are not exactly sure how many there are or they are reproducing materials for 100 people and only 20 may show up to a meeting.

Our people have to establish a budget that they can be somewhat precise on. When it is an open ball game it makes it a little difficult for them. lt is not a nightmare, but it is a difficul ty. I do think there should be a requirement or a provision that the com munity committee and the resident advisory group agree on a number of members to be elected, and prior to going into a community conference so at least the rules are the same, the rules are known in advance. They are not just picked out of the air at the time the people come to a community conference. Mr. Rose: Mr.

Eadie, you seem to indicate that the RAG groups would be more equitable if they were sort of equal representation across the wards and yet earlier seemed to indicate, if I hear you right, that EPC, which is a very powerful committee at present and which you knowledge probably would be more powerful in the future, would be effective indeed without city wide repres entation and inde ed that one-sixth of the population of Winnipeg could be minus or absent from that most powerful committee. There seems to be a contradiction there.

Would you explain how you think that EPC could be better represented and be more effective for the city if one-sixth of the population did not have a representative on that committee? Mr. Eadie: Mr. Chairman, I said in my remarks that Executive Policy Committee will not be an effective committee if it becomes a committee of delegates from the community committees. That is my concern with the legis lative req uir ement that each com munity committee must be represented.

I think it will follow in practice, but to require it by legislation is going to lead, I see, to in some areas for EPC to become a committee of delegates. That is the wrong way to view Executive Policy Committee. You should not, by implied suggestion in the act, make it become that. Mr. Rose: You say that with your experience that it will probably become the practice that it is city-wide

Tuesday, October 31, 1989 represen tation, at least one mem ber from every community committee. Would you favour that practice on City Council? Mr. Eadie: Do you want to repeat that? I thought I missed something there. Mr. Rose: Would you encourage that practice when it comes to the selection of EPC at city council? Mr. Eadie: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think in the past few years we have tried to encourage that. You try to get councillor's on Executive Policy Committee who you know have a broad city-wide view of issues and who are not going to be serving on EPC in a parochial parish pump sort of fashion.

You want to try and avoid that on Executive Policy Committee if at all possible. Mr. Ducharme: What do you perceive the task of the presiding officer? Mr. Eadie: Pardon me? Mr. Ducharme: What do you perceive his task to be the presiding officer? Mr. Eadie: The presiding officer under the Act is the Cha irman of Council. He will preserve order and decorum in the debate, which is expected, just like a committee chairman. Maybe it will evolve into more than that as we have experience with it, but basically that is the requirement of the presiding officer under the proposal in this Act. Mr.

Ducharme: Do you perceive EPC as being like a Cabinet? Do you perceive EPC under this legislation to be like a Cabinet? Mr. Eadie: Yes, I believe it will be over time. *

(2220) Mr. Ducharme: What is the advantage of a presiding officer to sit on EPC? Mr. Eadie: What is the disadvantage, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Ducharme: Well, if you perceive it as Cabinet, then I feel that the presiding officer should be one who is not sitting with Cabinet. Mr. Eadie: Mr. Chairman, I guess it is a matter of how we are perceiving things. I thought the remarks in the Mini ster's introduc tory statement on the Bill were contradictory and the Act is contradictory.

If you are of the impression that the presiding officer is going to be neutral, then I would say you should disabuse yourself of that notion because the Act does not permit the presiding officer to be neutral. You cannot be neutral when you have to vote on every issue that comes before council. Whether you sit at Executive Policy Committee, or whether you sit on the committee of works and operations, if you, as the presiding officer have participated in a committee 20 deliberation at the committee level, you have taken a position in that committee on a clause that is going to council.

You are not going to sit like a eunuch on the floor of council and not participate one way or the other in that decision, so the office of presiding officer is somewhat of a hybrid. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, Mr.

Chairman, we are not talking about the Speaker of the Legislature here or the Speaker in a Parliamentary system, we are talking about an officer like those in the Province of Quebec and like those in most major Ame ric an municipalities where the mayor-as a matter of fact the mayor is not even a part of city council-b ut the presiding officer of council is a member, participates in debate and votes, and also tries, I guess, to keep an even hand on things and to make sure that the rights of members are not trampled on and what have you.

But we are not talking about an individual who, by this Act, can be totally neutral. lt is impossible. The Act does not provide for that kind of neutrality so it does not matter where, or which committee the presiding officer sits on, he or she will have taken a position one way or another on matters that are going to come before council, and they are not likely to change their-well, they will have to vote on those issues when they come before council. Let us let city council decide where that member will sit. I think council is best able to make that decision, not the Legislature. Mr.

Ducharme: Just one more, and not get involved in debating any longer. This was hashed over quite thoroughly. Do you not perceive that someone sitting on EPC under this particular structure, or one sitting on a standing committee, the standing committee member will definitely have an advantage to be more neutral sitting in the presiding chair? Mr. Eadie: No, Mr. Chairman, if you have to vote you have to vote, so you cannot be neutral. Mr. Rose: Mr. Chairman, at the present time the mayor is the presiding officer, the mayor takes

part in debate, the mayor votes on council, certainly not in a neutral position. In fact, the mayor has a tie-breaking vote. Are you suggesting, in your years that you have sat on city council, that there was a flaw in that system? Mr. Eadie: Do you want to elaborate on that? Mr. Rose: Well, earlier, Mr. Chairman, we heard the mayor thought that was a good effective democratic system, the way it was functioning right now and he certainly was not in a neutral position and had not only just one vote, but had two votes. Mr. Eadie: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I am trying to understand Mr. Rose's question.

He mentioned do I think there is a flaw in the system and I am not exactly sure what he is referring to. Maybe he would like to rephrase it so I can understand it better. Mr. Rose: Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Eadie is advocating that we have a completely neutral person as the presiding officer, which does not exist at the present time.

; Tuesday, October 31, 1989 Mr. Eadie: Mr. Chairman, maybe now I understand. As I said, and if you read the Act, the presiding officer as proposed under this Act is not a completely neutral person or position. He cannot be unless you provide in the Act or we provide in our own procedure by-law that the presidin g officer is not required to vote on issues that come before council, just like Mr. Speaker here does not vote in the Legislature with one exception.

If you want to change some of the wording in this Act to make that application to the presiding officer, then maybe we will not have to argue any longer, but as long as you are saying in this Act and we say in our own procedure by- law that all mem bers of cou ncil must vote in the chamber , when they are in the chamber, there are no abstent ions allowed and the only exception is for conflicts, all members of council must vote in the cham ber, then the presiding officer is not really very neutral.

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-ma1
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf ma1.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ad20beae50e707b71fffc9c16817c38152ffb35c

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