Manitoba Hansard — 6 April 1998 (Sitting 26, 36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-26

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVIII No. 26- 1:30 p.m., Monday, April 6, 1998 ISSN 0542-5492

Member ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FAURSCHOU, David FILM ON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank, Hon. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Interlake Brandon East Portage Ia Prairie Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Ross mere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River Charleswood Political Afriliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C.

P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

1167 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, April 6, 1998 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Women's Resource Centres Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Louise Sobie, Ethel Sigvaldason, Karen Finnsson and others, praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Filmon government to consider providing long term, adequate and stable funding for the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre, and other women's resource centres in the province, to ensure that the vital services provided by these organizations are continued. Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Val Grieve, Carolyn Kowalski, Donna Zelenitsky and others, praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Filmon government to consider providing long term, adequate and stable funding for Evergreen Women's Resource Centre, and other women's resource centres in the province, to ensure that vital services provided by these organizations are continued. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of William Cochrane, Shirley A.

LeRoy, Patrick LeRoy and others, praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Filmon government to consider providing long term, adequate and stable funding for the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre, and other women's resource centres in the province, to ensure that the vital services provided by these organizations are continued. Winnipeg Hospitals Food Service-Privatization Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Linda McMillan, Tommy Bochinski, Elaine Kidd and others, praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Health (Mr.

Praznik) to put an end to the centralization and privatization of Winnipeg hospitals food services. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Women's Resource Centres Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre provides services which focus on prevention and intervention in domestic abuse for communities within a 1 00-kilometre radius; THAT with only partial funding from the provincial government, Family Dispute Services, in the amount of $37,600 and some funding from the communities it serves, the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre hires three part-time employees and provides telephone, counselling, training and seminar facilities, in addition to education, iriformation and outreach programming; and THAT Evergreen Women's Resource Centre is also involved in referral services on a crisis-intervention and second-stage outreach level; and THAT for years, the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre has struggled to provide these vital programs and services with limited funding or commitment from the provincial government,· and THAT during the 1995 provincial election, the Filmon government said, "The safety and security of the individual, our families and our communities is vital to the quality of our life.

"; and

1168 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 1998 THAT if the Filmon government is really committed to that statement, it must back it up with funding for the agencies that provide services to make it a reality. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Filmon government to consider providing long-term, adequate and stable funding for the Evergreen Women's Resource Centre and other women's resource centres in the province to ensure that the vital services provided by these organizations are continued. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS National Wildlife Week Hon.

Ha rry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), I have a statement to make to the House. Madam Speaker, this week, April 5 to 11, is National Wildlife Week. It is during this week every year that Manitobans, along with all Canadians, work together to raise awareness about the importance of wildlife and wildlife conservation across our country. National Wildlife Week also brings us in touch with our abundant natural heritage which contributes so much to our quality of life.

This year's National Wildlife Week theme, "Give wildlife an edge; protect our shorelines" focuses on the shoreline habitat and the need to protect these important areas for wildlife. I am pleased that this theme was forwarded by Manitoba because of our interest in the conservation of riparian habitat and was accepted by jurisdictions across Canada. The theme emphasizes that wildlife depends on shorelines, be they streams, rivers, lakes or oceans, and need our help to protect or improve habitat so they can continue to flourish in a healthy environment. National Wildlife Week was created in 1947 by

an act of Parliament to commemorate the late Jack Miner, one of the founders of Canada's conservation movement. It is also the time of year when Canada geese, a species which Jack Miner was closely associated with, return in great numbers to our province. These harbingers of spring are already attracting people to Fort Whyte and the Oak Hammock Marsh Wildlife Management Area Interpretative Centre. During National Wildlife Week, the Canada Wildlife Federation, a national nonprofit organization, works with federal, provincial and territorial wildlife agencies in the promotion of this special week.

In Manitoba, a variety of conservation organizations will have displays at the Polo Park Shopping Centre in Winnipeg on April 8, 9 and 11. I ask all Manitobans to think about the importance of wildlife and wildlife conservation to our province and to this nation during this special week. *( 1335 ) Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): I thank the government for bringing forth this ministerial statement today on National Wildlife Week, and I join in praising the importance of setting aside a week to recognize wildlife as an important part of our ecosystem here in Manitoba.

I want to point out and make perfectly clear, however, that every day is an important day to think of wildlife and not just a specific week. I want this government to reflect on such policies as capturing elk and capturing falcons and different wildlife out of nature to be used for monetary gain, as this government has been wont to do in the past. That does not fit in with the objectives of the National Wildlife Week, but I want to remind the government to every day keep in mind the principles of wildlife conservation.

I want, Madam Speaker, to make sure that we recognize those groups in Manitoba who are making a legitimate contribution to wildlife in Manitoba, including conservation districts which are doing some excellent work in rural parts of Manitoba. We commend the work that is being done by local people on boards of conservation districts throughout rural Manitoba, local wildlife federations of which I am a member in our area who have done some excellent work in conservation of wildlife as well.

I want to give kudos as well to bands and band councils as well who have taken wildlife conservation steps and done some serious work in that area as well. So, Madam Speaker, I thank the government for bringing this ministerial statement forward, and I am

April 6, 19 98 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 69 pleased to support Manitobans who think in terms of real wildlife conservation. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 28-- The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gilleshammer) and seconded by the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson), I move that leave be given to introduce Bill 28, The Employment Standards Code and Consequential Amendments (Code des normes d'emploi et modifications correlatives), and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table the Lieutenant Governor's message. Motion agreed to. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Financial Analysis Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the First Minister.

When the Premier broke his word and proceeded to sell the Manitoba Telephone System after the election campaign, he refused to table in the House the various studies and analysis that the government had commissioned and had kept secret from the people of Manitoba. I would like to ask the Premier: did his government undersell or undervalue the Manitoba Telephone System when they proceeded to break their word and privatize our formerly owned Manitoba Telephone System? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Absolutely not, Madam Speaker.

In fact, the amount that was ultimately paid for the Telephone System was more than a hundred million more than the best price that financial analysts said it should bring at the time. * (1 340) Mr. Doer: Of course the Premier has never released the financial analysis, Madam Speaker. He has only stated that brokers, who gained some $35 million in commission, were the ones that established the price for this government. So we do not believe the Premier when he gave his word that he would not sell the Telephone System. How can we believe his word today when he says that they got a hundred million dollars more?

I would like to ask the Premier: did the government sell the shares to Manitobans and Canadians at a discounted rate? Mr. Filmon: No, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doer: I would like to ask the Premier: who is telling the truth, the Canadian CR TC commission, which stated on March 5 that the Manitoba Telephone shares were sold at a discount rate, or the Premier in this House today who maintains a position that he is maintaining the truth when it is opposite to the CRTC? Who are we to believe, the Premier or the CRTC? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the member opposite and to any of those who wish to pursue it that we sought the best available advice, and we followed the best available advice from those who are paid to make those judgments. The advice that we followed was to put the share price as it was to ensure that we were able to receive a fair and reasonable price for the Telephone System. We did that. Mr. Doer: A new question to the Premier.

The CRTC is now saying what a number of analysts also stated before, during and after the time that the phone system was sold, particularly after the price was established, that this was a, quote, price that was geared to sell this corporation in a very quick time. Dunnery Best was quoted and other analysts were quoted as saying these shares will sell very quickly because they are very, very low prices. I would like to ask the Premier: why did you sell this Telephone System, a Manitoba publicly owned asset, at a discount price, and what cost has that been to

11 70 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 Manitobans by your giving this phone system away to the private shareholders? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member opposite reminds me of the young lad who in the wintertime tells everybody what a great baseball player he is and in the summertime tells everybody what a great hockey player he is. When the shares were priced for this issue, he did not allege that they were underpriced. It is only afterwards, as the market has been dealing with them for more than a year, that he has the great knowledge of knowing what the market will pay for those shares.

At no time did he or his colleagues say that was an underpricing of the shares because, in fact, we were going by the best advice available to us by those who are paid to make those judgments, the people from the brokerage companies and the market, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doer: Of course the Premier will remember that time after time after time we asked the Premier to table all the analyses and all the information that the government had in their hands, table that information. The government refused to do so.

We asked the government to have a referendum or a plebescite of all Manitobans to decide the future of their own Telephone System. The government refused and only listened to the brokers that they paid $3 5 million to, and then the government closed down this House, Madam Speaker, closed down the debate in this Legislature. How dare the Premier now talk about these issues. How can the Premier justify selling a phone system for $900 million when the book value at the time was $1. 2 billion, and now the shares are worth close to $1. 6 billion?

Is this not the greatest transfer of public assets, which were owned by Manitobans, to private shareholders that reside outside of the province in the history of this province that has been conducted by the Premier and the quiet Tories opposite? Ron. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, not surprisingly, the numbers and information that the Leader of the Opposition puts on the record are absolutely wrong when he refers to the value being less than the book value.

He has to recognize the gross proceeds on the sale were $910 million combined with $428 million of debt that Manitoba Telephone System assumed, bringing the total price up to in excess of $1. 3 billion. Based on our analysis, the best information we had available, it was a very fair price for the value of the company, and that is serving us well today, that the net proceeds have been put to use here in Manitoba retiring some of the debt related to our health care facilities and so on.

At the end of the day, it has been a very positive initiative not only for the Treasury of this government but for Manitobans who chose to invest in Manitoba Telephone System. * (1 345) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, then to the Minister of Finance, who, according to the former Minister responsible for the Telephone System, now holds the golden share, the golden share of the Manitoba Telephone System, I would like to ask him: who is telling the truth, the Tories opposite or the CRTC, an independent body that states that the Telephone System was sold at a discount rate?

Who is telling the truth, the Tories who have a history in this world of underselling public assets or the CRTC that says you sold it for less than it was worth? Mr. Stefanson: Again, I think the Leader of the Opposition is putting his own spin on what the CR TC has said relative to this issue. I think, as I have already indicated to him and as the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) has indicated to him, the best information we had from three independent firms analyzing the value of this company is that we received a very fair and reasonable value for this company, and it is reflected today in terms of the net proceeds that we received as a government, as well as the benefits that have been flowing to individual Manitobans as a result of investing in the private sector company. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Stock Option Plan Mr.

Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Will the Minister of Finance, the minister responsible for Manitoba Telecom system now, explain to Manitobans and to the 450 laid off staff of MTS why it is ethical or moral that his brother, the chair of MTS, has received a million dollars worth of stock options?

April 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 71 Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I am not the least bit surprised that this question would come from the member for Crescentwood, based on his past performance in this House on other issues, Madam Speaker, so I certainly am not the slightest bit surprised by the tone and the accusations that he makes, and obviously, to say the least, I am very offended by them.

I think if he were to look at the history of the Manitoba Telephone System and if he were to look at the annual meeting held in May of 19 97, he would see that a stock option plan was approved by the shareholders, individual shareholders who are Manitobans, Manitoba organizations, other individuals across Canada who approved the stock option plan allowing for up to $3 .5 million of shares to be issaed, turning over the direction for the allocation of those to the board of directors and the human resource committee of the board of directors. They have come forward with their proposal.

That is also a proposal that will be put before the shareholders again of Manitoba Telephone System, and that is the process of accountability, a process of accountability under a private sector company that I think members opposite are not all that familiar with because, based on their past practice, they chose to intervene in public sector operations like the MTX fiasco, like MPI, and so on. Mr.

Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm that the process of accountability is the board of directors, of which his brother is the chair, recommending to the annual meeting of shareholders that a stock option plan be approved, and the stock option plan was detailed to the shareholders and that the shareholders did indeed approve it? They approved it on the recommendation of the board of directors, of which his brother is the chair. Is that not in fact the accountability trail? Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I think members opposite do need a lesson in private sector companies. There are annual meetings held.

The board of directors present information to the shareholders, and that is the opportunity- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Finance, to complete his response. Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the process is that the board of directors present certain information, make certain recommendations to the shareholders, and that is the opportunity for individual shareholders to hold that board of directors accountable, to select the chair, to select the members of the board and so on.

That is a process that takes place under MTS, under all private sector companies that are created here in Canada, and it is the long-standing process that is meant to hold individual board members accountable to the people who choose to invest in that particular company. I have a great deal of confidence in that process, whether it relates to MTS or any other private sector company. * (1 350 ) Mr.

Sale: Madam Speaker, did the four MTS board members appointed by this government and under the direction of the Minister of Finance who oversaw their appointment, brought their names forward for appoint ment, spoke at great length in support of the legislation privatizing this company-did the four directors appointed by Manitoba vote in favour of the share options for the officers and directors of this company? Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the process from the board of directors, I understand, is, as a rule, they try to find consensus on issues. They work towards consensus on the recommendations that they make.

It is the nature of their board of directors, again not uncommon to boards of directors, not uncommon to caucuses, not uncommon to cabinets, and if the member for Crescentwood is suggesting that people like Robert Chipman, Ashleigh Everett, Donald Penny and Sam Schellenberg are not very reputable people who will make the best decisions on behalf of individual shareholders and the citizens of Manitoba, then I say shame to him, because those four individuals have made a significant contribution to the province of Manitoba in many, many areas, and for him to cast aspersions on them and their decision making is absolutely unacceptable.

Mr. Sale: On a new question, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister of Finance table in this House minutes of the meeting of the board of directors at which the stock option plan was approved and put forward as a recommendation to the shareholders, or is he telling this House that there were no minutes, nothing was in

11 72 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 writing, there were no motions, there was never any paper trail until it suddenly got to the shareholders? Will he table those minutes showing who voted for and who voted against? Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I am certainly prepared to undertake to provide members opposite with information from the circular providing information on the stock option plan, obviously minutes of the shareholders' meeting that was held on May 30, 1997, ratifying a stock option plan for MTS.

I am certainly more than prepared to provide that information, which is public information by the way. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, this is a very serious matter. The minister did not answer the question. I would ask the minister to answer my question. Will he table the minutes of the board of directors meeting at which the stock option plan was approved and put forward to the shareholders? The minutes he is referring to are the minutes of the shareholders' meeting. I did not ask about those. Those are public anyway. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr.

Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated to the member that my understanding is the board of MTS, in most cases, operates on the basis of consensus. Consensus was reached on the merits of a stock option plan. In fact, in the circular that was distributed almost a year ago-it says very clearly in the circular, for the benefit of the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that on the recommendation of its human resource and compensation committee, the board of directors of the corporation has approved the implementation of a stock option plan.

It goes into detail to talk about the stock option plan that had been approved by the board of directors of MTS and recommended to the shareholders at their May meeting, in May of 19 97. At that meeting, the shareholders of MTS, many thousands of Manitobans from right across our province, ratified a resolution approving a stock option plan which, by the way, for the benefit of members opposite who care to listen, is something that is very common. I am sure the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) knows it is very common in the telecommunications sector.

If you look right across that sector, most of the telecommunication companies, if not all, in Canada today have a stock option plan. It is also very common in all kinds of other business operations. It is not something new or unique to MTS and not something that does not exist elsewhere. * (1 355) Mr.

Sale: Madam Speaker, the Finance minister is now confirming I believe, and I would ask him to confirm, that the board of directors in fact voted unanimously for this plan, including the four members of the board under his direction appointed by his government, voted for a plan which would make his brother a millionaire. He apparently has confirmed that by talking about consensus. Is that in fact the case? Mr.

Stefanson: Madam Speaker, first of all, again, I think the member for Crescentwood puts a great deal of misinformation on the record, which is a pattern for him, unfortunately, and does not do service to discussing any issue in this Chamber. In terms of the issue, I have already outlined very clearly that the board of MTS made a recommendation to the shareholders to adopt a stock option plan. That has been ratified by the shareholders right across the system in terms of the thousands of Manitobans who are shareholders in MTS.

But I want to make it very clear to the member opposite, in terms of our relationship with the four members who are appointed to represent us, my first and foremost responsibility as Minister of Finance is to ensure that the debt that we took back on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba is in fact repaid by MTS, and when MTS was privatized on January 7, I 997, the debt stood at $426 million. Today that debt is down to $239 million, a repayment of almost $200 million against that debt. Those are the kinds of responsibilities that I have.

I do not get into micromanaging or providing direction to our appointees, unlike members opposite when the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) was responsible for MTS and was micromanaging the fiascos like MTX here in Manitoba. There are operational decisions that are made by the board, and I have confidence in our four appointments, Madam Speaker.

April 6, 1998 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 73 Pharmacare Drug Treatment Approval Process Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. This government has a history of dragging its feet when it comes to approving new drug treatments. Betaseron is an excellent example of the slow and cumbersome process a new drug treatment faces even when it has been approved by the federal Health Protection Branch. The drug Aricept, a treatment which offers relief for sufferers and families of Alzheimer's victims, now faces a similar struggle.

Given that the approval process for Manitoba for the drug Betaseron has taken over two years, and in all likelihood, the approval for Aricept will take even longer, can the minister indicate if a two-year waiting period for new drug treatments is standard government policy? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, yes, the member's question is a good one. I can assure him that it is not the intention of this minister or this administration to have undue delay in the approval under Pharmacare of drugs that have a value to patients in the province of Manitoba.

The process that we use for approval of drugs under our Pharmacare program, after they have received their medical approval from Health and Welfare Canada, is to have them considered by our Pharmacare Advisory Committee that assesses the drugs for their benefit, a pharmaco-economical analysis of that particular drug, and they make their decision based on the best information that is provided to them.

We have taken some steps, coming out of the Betaseron story, to improve the operation of that committee, including giving them more options in their approval for a yellow-light process where they can recommend a pilot project for a particular drug on which they may be uncertain. Mr. Kowalski: Madam Speaker, will the minister explain why the pilot project for Betaseron that was promised to start in March has not yet started? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, with respect to Betaseron, a great deal of effort has been underway between the ministry and the MS clinic, who will be the host for that particular project.

The committee to design the reference for the assessment has been working away. It does take a little bit more time sometimes than one would anticipate initially, but I do know, compared to some of the other provinces that have gone through the same process, it has taken many, many months, not two or three, and we have consulted with them and garnered information on how to make that process work as quickly as possible. Hopefully, it will be available through the MS clinic in the not too distant future. * (1 400) Mr.

Kowalski: Does the Health minister have any plans to speed up the approval process for new drug treatments or will he continue to rely on ministerial intervention? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am glad the member has flagged that particular issue because I do not think anyone would suggest that the best way to do these approvals is to have the ministers themselves make the approval. There should be a process based on scientific information and the benefit of the drug in terms of its effect and reduction in cost for the patient, and that is why we have that committee.

I have worked with that committee over the last number of months to put a green-light, yellow-light, red-light process in place, which does give them the option to recommend pilots where there is a kind of a balance that may result in a denial, and we also have taken steps to more regularly update our formulary to ensure that the ability to get new drugs on is much faster. Blood Supply Compensat ion-Hepatitis C Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, this government has agreed to compensate persons living with HIV-AIDS who acquired the virus through tainted blood.

Time lines were not a factor and played no role in this agreement, and this is right and proper just as it should be. But given this precedent, I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) why his government has agreed to a compensation package which excludes those infected with hepatitis C acquired through tainted blood and before 19 85.

11 74 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Ap ril 6, 19 98 Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I truly do want to thank the member for this question because this has not been an easy set of issues with which to deal, and I know members opposite have followed this whole process of a compensation package for those with hepatitis C acquired through the blood system. The current compensation package which was agreed to by provincial governments and the federal government is based on compensation for a period of time in which there may have been negligence on the part of the blood system.

The period of time was determined by and large by the work that was done by the federal government in preparing for this particular time, and there are other issues that I am sure we will discuss in Estimates around how we structure compensation for things that may go wrong within the health care system. I can tell members that the federal government offer of some $800 million towards that plan was based on the principle of only compensating those for the period in which the blood system may have had negligence. Ms. McGifford: Madam Sp eaker, I want to ask the Premier (Mr.

Film on) if his government recognizes a moral and ethical responsibility to all victims of hepatitis C who have already been betrayed once by the blood system. Mr. Praznik: Madam Spea ker, the issue here-and I appreciate the question and the concern around compensation, and this was the issue that we had to wrestle with as provincial and federal ministers-is the issue of how do we compensate, and to what degree individuals who may suffer damage or loss because of things in the health care system that do not produce the desired result, whether there be negligence or not be negligence involved in the system.

It does raise a whole host of questions about that kind of liability within the system. I am looking forward to that discussion in Estimates, because it is a rather involved one, and I would like the opportunity in greater detail to discuss it with members opposite. Ms. McGifford: I want to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon) ifhe will do what the majority of Manitobans consider his ethical and moral responsibility and agree today to offer compensation to all victims of hepatitis C, even those who were infected before 19 85. Mr.

Praznik: Madam Sp eaker, just to put this disc ussion into context, the blood system which was operated by the Canadian Red Cross Soci ety and which was regulated by the national government had the provinces as by and large the purchasers or funders of this particular system. By far the bulk of the liability for any malfeasance or negligence in that system rests with those other two partners, and that is why when we developed a national compensation plan for that particular area it was the federal government that took that lead and did put some $800 million on the table.

My criticism is they did not recognize the $1. 6 billion in medical costs we as provincial governments will have to bear for the medical cost piece of hepatitis C. I certainly think the initiative must rest with the national government to take the lead in this particular issue, and if there is to be an expansion of this program, there are some issues that have to be dealt with on principle. Certainly the federal government would have to be at the table with a sizeable amount of money to make it happen in a practical way. Canadian Wheat Board New Crop Inclusion Clause Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Spea ker, last week the Sena te committee was in Manitoba to hear views of farmers on Bill C-4, the amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board. Although I was not allowed to make a presentation, farm organizations did. One

section of the bill that they did support was the inclusion cla use, which creates a mechanism by which new crops can be added under the Wheat Board jurisdiction. However, this Minister of Agricu lture, who also made a presentation, is once again out of step with Manitoba farmers. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he will not listen to Manitoba farmers and why he is so opposed to the inclusion clause which, if farmers choose, would allow other grains to be included under the Wheat Board. Hon.

Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Spea ker, I am not aware of a single farm organization representing agriculture across western Canada that requested the inclusion clause to be in the act in the

Apr il 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 75 first instance. So if it is a question of being out of step, I am pleased to join those people like the Manitoba Canola Growers Association, the Pulse Growers Associa tion, all of whom have prevailed upon me, and I might add upon my First Minister (Mr. Filmon), to in fact make this clearly known to Minister Goodale with respect to Bill C-4, that the inclusion clause adds uncertainty to the situation and uncertainty is not something that we need to have at a time when we look for value-added opportunities and investment dollars. Ms.

Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister: given that there is an exclusion clause where there is ability to take grain out from under the Wheat Board through a democratic vote-they can have them removed-why is he always so opposed to an inclusion clause w!1ich would give farmers a democ ratic vote? Why is he so afraid of giving farmers a say? Does he want to control everything they do? Mr.

Enos: Madam Spea ker, for the benefit of the honourable member, allow me to remind her, the exclusion clause was put in there by Minister Goodale who had it recommended to him by his own committee, if you recall, that studied the Canadian Wheat Bo ard situation prior to any amendments coming in. He had it put in there because he recognized that there may well be certain crops, organic wheats and others that ought to be excluded from the crop.

Now, Madam Spea ker, because an honourable member of Parliament from eastern Canada, Prince Edward Island to be exact, thought it would be nice to have balance-if we are going to have an exclusion clause, then you should have an inclusion clause-that is no cause for us in western Canada to be so directed and to be so misguided. Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is more interested in producing cheap food for processing or he is more interested in allowing farmers who grow the grain have a fair return for his product. Who is he standing up for, the farmers or the processors? Mr.

Enos: Madam Sp eaker, therein really lies the tragedy, that the honourable member refuses still to not understand what is happening and to pit one

section of agriculture against the other

section of agriculture. All our interests are served if we can move up the food chain ladder, if we can process our primary production here in this province and we can benefit from it. So it is difficult to continue to try to make that point with her, but I will tell you one thing: I feel comfortable that I am in step with the growing, growing number of progressive farmers in Manitoba. * (1410 ) Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Stock Option Plan Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we are now seeing that what we suspected for a long time is true, that the sale of MTS was the biggest rip-off in Manitoba history, and there were four people who were the key players in this: the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Jules Benson and one Tom Stefanson, connected right to the heart of this government who now may cash in on up to a million dollars from that rip-off.

I want to ask the Premier: since this government still has shares with MTS, still has a special share in the ownership of that, what action will he take to make sure that Tom Stefanson does not cash in on a million dollars at the expense of the Manitoba public? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): First of all, Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member for Thompson to look at the documen tation submitted by MTS, look at how stock options work: that you get an option to buy shares, in this case over a five-year period of time; those share prices fluctuate. They have gone from $13 and hovered in that area.

Today they are at a high of $23 , and they certainly will vary over the next weeks and months and years. But I want to go back to his fundamental point of what is our responsibility as a government. Our respons ibility was to get a fair price for MTS and we did that. Our respo nsibility is to be absolutely certain that we are paid for the entity itself, and we are being paid. I have outlined very clearly that the date for the debt, the $426 million of debt, that MTS has now paid almost half of that back in roughly a year and a half.

When it comes to the citizens of Manitoba, whether it is a private company or a public company, MTS has

11 76 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Apr il 6, 1998 to go before the CRTC, justify their rates, justify their expenditures. Today MTS has the lowest residential rates in all of Canada, and that is an outstanding perf ormance here in our province. Mr. Ashton: Madam Sp eaker, I would appreciate if the Premier would answer my supplementary-to put the Minister of Finance out of a position of a clear conflict of interest. I asked about Tom Stefanson.

I want to ask the Premier what action he will take to make sure that Tom Stefanson does not benefit from some of the most corrupt and unethical behaviour we have seen in this province in decades by pocketing a million dollars at the expense of the people of Manitoba. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Spea ker, you know, I find it interesting that members opposite want to put themselves into the gutter and put themselves in a position where- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Sp eaker, what the members opposite fail to do of course, though, is to compare the operations and the actions of the Telephone System, ones that were approved by a vote of the shareholders at their annual meeting, over 70,000 shareholders from Manitoba represented in that decision. At the same time, Madam Spea ker, the members opposite, who are trying to make a political issue out of this, should look right next door at Saskatchewan where their colleagues in the Saskatchewan New Democratic government have the CEO of their Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan being paid $1 0.6 million U.S.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. An Honourable Member: Grant Devine's- Mr. Filmon: Exactly. You make my point. Exactly. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, with a final supplem entary question. Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Indeed, the Premier obviously looked to Saskatchewan for the influence of Grant Devine in terms of this government.

I want to ask the Premier, who has not answered this question, what action he will take to prevent one Tom Stefanson, directly connected to the heart of this government, from pocketing a million dollars. This is the person who sat on the board as the chair of the board, as our representative, who engineered through the whole process the sale of MTS and now is getting a million dollars. That is corrupt; it is unethical. What is the Premier going to do about it? Mr. Filmon: Madam Spea ker, Mr. Stefanson is not one of our appointees to the board of directors of Manitoba Telecom Servi ces. Mr.

Stefanson was selected by the shareholders. The agreements and the provisions that are being referred to by members opposite are ones that have been approved by the shareholders of the private corporation, Manitoba Telecom Services. Mr. Ashton: Madam Spea ker, on a new question. Is the Premier now denying that Tom Stefanson was appointed by his government to be chair of the publicly owned company, that he was very much involved, as he admitted in committee of this Legislature, in pushing through the sale of MTS along with the other key players, one Eric Stefanson, one Gary Filmon and one Jules Benson?

Is he now denying that Tom Stefanson was not the government appointee on the board? Mr. Filmon: Madam Spea ker, the decisions with respect to compensation and share provisions were not made by the public company. They have been made by the private company of which Mr. Stefanson is not one of the appointees of this government. His choice as chair was made by the shareholders of Manitoba Telecom Services, and all of the provisions of the compensation agreement were agreed to and voted on by the shareholders. It is the shareholders who made that decision and to whom all of them are respo nsible.

April 6, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1177 Mr. Ashton: Madam Sp eaker, the Premier has not answered my question. I will try again in a supplementary. Why will the First Minister not admit that Tom Stefanson was appointed by his government to engineer the sale of MTS against the will of the public and that this Premier, this Finance minister and Mr. Tom Stef anson are responsible for the biggest rip off in Manitoba history? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Spea ker, I repeat that the decisions that have been made by the privately owned Manitoba Telecom Serv ices have all been approved by their shareholders in an annual meeting, and the individual to whom he refers is not one of the appointees of this government on the board. Mr. Ashton: Madam Spea ker, I do not know what difficulty this Premier has with answering the question and facing the reality of what has happened to MTS.

Will the First Minister confirm that Tom Stefanson has been the chair of the board, was chair under public ownership as well as private ownership, and that he is the one who was responsible for shepherding through the privatization agenda in terms of when it was publicly owned and that now he is pocketing up to a million dollars as a result? Why will the minister not accept that that is not only the fact- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, the decision to privatize Manitoba Telecom Services was made by this government based on a very sound rationale that we have explained and defended many times in this House, and this House passed the legislation that privatized the Manitoba Telephone Sy stem. The individual to whom he refers is not one of the appointees of this government to the present board of Manitoba Teleco m Services, and the compensation plan was approved by the shareh olders at their annual general meeting. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the loge to my right where we have with us this afternoon Mr. Rick Borotsik, member of Parliament for Brandon-Souris, and Mr. Peter MacKay, member of Parliament for Pictou Antigonish-Guysborough. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. *

(1420) MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Mr. Gord Mackintosh Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Credibility is an issue often debated in this House. However, information has recently come to light concerning the actions of the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). Members opposite continually portray themselves as pro-union and pro-labour, and it is disheartening when the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys must take the unprecedented step of issuing clarification regarding a number of cases to address comments made by the member for St.

Johns, comments, I might add, that failed to note the extreme ly important role of our Crown attorneys that they play in Manitoba's justice system. On this side of the House, we respect the work performed by our Crown attorneys. They continue to act in a thorough and professional manner, with the best interests of all Manitobans in mind. Recent comments by the member suggesting that the Crown attorneys office may have made mistakes in a number of high-profile cases are not constructive.

His comments on February 10, '98, indicating that the Crown fumbled the ball are-and I am not sure ifl can use the word "misleading." I will say divorced from the truth. I would therefore encourage the member to review the information copied to him from the Manitoba Associa tion of Crown Attorneys and consider withdrawing his disparaging and erroneous statements. I hope the member considers all the facts before making similar statements in the future. Madam Speaker, for a party that paint themselves as pro-worker, it would appear that they change paint cans depending on the audience they find themselves before.

Regardless of what members opposite may think and say, the Crown attorneys of Manitoba continue to pursue the goal of seeing that justice is done in each and every case to the best of their abilities. They continue to make every possible eff ort within the law

11 78 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 and code of prof essional conduct to ensure that a conviction is obtained and appropriate sentence is issued. Thank you. Mr. Tom Stefanson Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Spea ker, I am glad the member for Turtle Mountain introduced members' statements by talking about credibility, because this government has absolutely none, as we have seen evidence in Question Period today. We have a Premier (Mr.

Filmon) who in Question Period would not even answer a direct question about the fact that he, his government appointed one Tom Stefanson a chair of the board of MTS, would not address one question about the fact that the government still continues to have representatives on that board and that they are directly responsible for the million-dollar potential benefit to one Tom Stefanson at the expense of the people of Manitoba. This is of scandalous proportions in this province. This is corrupt and unethical behaviour. Talk about conflict of interest.

Tom Stefanson was one of the four key players in the sell-offo fM TS. By the way, to the Premier, that did not include anybody in terms of the people of Manitoba. Tom Stefanson now is in the position of getting a million-dollar benefit out of that. Anyone in the province of Manitoba understands how unethical that is. It amazes me that this Premier had the gall earlier in Question Period to stand in his place and try and deny the connection with Tom Stefanson and even put the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) in the position of having to answer questions.

I believe that, Madam Sp eaker, should be consid ered a conflict of interest, obviously. I do not make that as a personal attack. I say to the Minister of Finance, get the Premier to do your dirty work next time. Get him to answer for the kinds of decisions that have led to that kind of rip-off. For this Premier to talk about the sale of MTS having been passed by this Legislature, let us not forget that this is a Premier who used every single undemocr atic, every tactic in the book to ram through the sale. We are now saying: who is benefiting?

The people of Manitoba have seen 400 layoffs, higher rates, and Tom Stefanson pocketing $1 million. That is corrupt. That is unethical. Bristol Aerospace Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, this morning the Premier, along with the representative from the federal government, announced funding totalling $7.8 million for an expansion of Bristol Aerospace's Winnipeg facility. This investment in Manitoba's aerospace industry will result in the creation of 225 new jobs at Bristol, which already employs approximately 1 ,000 Manitobans.

This expansion of Bristol's Winnipeg plant is already underway, and the 225 workers will be hired between now and the summer. More than 1, 000 additional jobs could be created through local spinoff benefits as the increased workload at Bristol trickles down to other suppliers and other aerospace firms. Through the Manitoba government's Industrial Oppor tunities Program, the province is providing a $4.4-million repayable loan to Bristol. This program offers financial incentives to businesses wishing to create new jobs by expanding or upgrading their Manitoba operations.

This partnership with Bristol is another example of our government's commitment to creating a better Manitoba through sound management of our economy. The civil aviation market is the fastest-growing segment in the global aerospace industry, and thanks to this investment and partnership with Bristol Aerospace. the company can continue to grow and compete. For Manitoba, these rewards include increased employment to a high-skilled industry and an expansion of Manitoba's growing aerospace sector, the largest in western Canada.

So I would like to congratulate the management and employees of Bristol Aerospace for their foresight in developing a new market opportunity in one of the most competitive sectors of our economy. Thank you. Parkland Crisis Centre Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, I rise today to put a few comments on the question concerning a rather ugly incident that took place about

April 6, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 79 I 0 days ago at the Parkland Crisis Centre in Dauphin. I am sure that I can speak on behalf of all the members of the Legislature when I say that our thoughts are with the woman who was assaulted in the Parkland Crisis Centre and that we all share many concerns that this recent incident raised. The incident has called into question security of women residing in shelters and the staff that work with them. The safety of women and children and the staff in these shelters is paramount to these places truly being seen as a refuge away from domestic violence.

There has not been to date provincial adherence guidelines developed specifically to address building and staff security issues. I encourage shelters across the province, including the one located in Dauphin, to work with the government to develop their programs, despite limited resources, particularly in the area of staffing. While we understand that safety audits are now being recommended by the government, I would ask that all members acknowledge the need for adequate resources for shelters, along with comprehensive guidelines to ensure the safety of women in the Parkland and other sites across the province.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. * (14 30) Manitoba Tartan Day Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the Legislature this afternoon and note the significance of April 6. Today, of course, is Manitoba Tartan Day, a day in which we take pause and acknowledge the important role that the Selkirk settlers and the Scottish people have played in the establishment of our province. Approximately four years ago, with the support of the Scottish community, I introduced The Manitoba Coat of Arms, Emblems and the Manitoba Tartan Amendment Act.

I believe that our tartan should be honoured in an annual day of celebration that marks the symbols and heritage which are represented in the tartan. Our tartan has been registered as the official tartan of Manitoba.

Rich in colour and meaning, the tartan consists of dark red squares representing the Red River settlement and fur trade posts; green squares representing our natural resources; azure green line for Lord Selkirk, founder of the settlement; dark green lines representing the men and women who have contributed to our great province; golden lines representing our agricultural sector; and the white squares that represent our winter snows. While there are a number of cultures that came together to build the province of Manitoba, today is the day we celebrate the Scottish element of our rich cultural mosaic.

So as a proud member of the McAlpine clan, I encourage all honourable members to join me in this important salute to all Scottish Manitobans, past and present. Thank you, Madam Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to. * (1 440) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) URBAN AFFAIRS Mr.

Cha irperson (Gerry McAlpine): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs. Does the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs have an opening statement? Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Yes, I do, thank you. I am very pleased to introduce the Department of Urban Affairs Estimates for 19 98-99. The government of Manitoba is committed to supporting the development of a strong, healthy and

118 0 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 vibrant city of Winnipeg which provides its residents with a high quality of life and contributes to a prosperous and sustainable Manitoba. Within the provincial government, the Department of Urban Affairs provides leadership in helping to make this vision a reality. The department's leadership role is reflected in the many programs, policies and initiatives in which it is engaged. Let me begin with our funding policy.

Unlike other provinces which have reduced their funding to municipalit ies in times of fiscal difficulties, Manitoba has delivered on its financial commitments to the City of Winnipeg. Despite reductions in federal transfer payments to the province, the government of Manitoba has refused to fight its deficit on the backs of local governments. Indeed, in the I 0 years since our government came to power, provincial funding to the City of Winnipeg, excluding social assistance, has increased by an estimated 44 percent.

The government of Manitoba remains committed to sustaining a strong fiscal support to the City of Winnipeg. In fact, in 19 98-99, the annual provincial operating grants to the city will be increased by over $1. 8 million to $90.6 million, which is a rise of 2 percent over last year's level of funding. Included in this additional funding is a 29 percent increase in Urban Affairs contribution to the city's Dutch Elm Disease Control Program. Winnipeg's urban elm forest contributes enormously to the quality of life in our capital city.

This enhanced funding will assist the city in protecting and preserving Winnipeg's elm trees, which at this time represent one of the largest last remaining stands of elm trees in North America. Our commitment to Winnipeg's development is clearly demonstrated by the commencement of the third Urban Capital Projects Allocation, or UCPA III, which was announced in 1997. The program, which is unique in Canada, provides the framework for a long-term financial partnership between the province and the city to support the renewal and the enhancement of municipal infrastructure.

During the next six-year term of the program, the province will provide the city with $96 million, $30 million in unconditional funding for capital works which are city priorities and $66 million for cost-sharing capital works which are joint priorities of the province and the city. Some examples of joint city-provincial projects which have already been approved for funding under UCPA III include the construction of the South Transcona Land Drainage project, construction of the Main and Norwood bridges and the purchase of 25 low-floor transit buses.

In 19 98-99, the province will be increasing the funding available to cash flow against Urban Capital Projects Allocation commitments to $18 million, an increase of $2.5 million over the approved '97-98 budget. This increase in UCPA expenditures is being provided to support the city's efforts to complete several major projects in time for the Pan-Am Games, including the York A venue-Forks Access project, the South Transcona Land Drainage project and the Bishop Grandin Boulevard-Kenaston Boulevard connection project.

It also gives me great pleasure to advise that we are making a one-time allocation to the city of $5 million for residential street repairs. Together with the city's matching expenditure, these fundings will help to rebuild a substantial number of residential streets in Winnipeg and will simultaneously stimulate job creation in the city. Of course, the Department of Urban Affairs does much more than simply provide funding to the city. It collaborates with the city in numerous ways to create a better life for Winnipeggers.

One of the major co operative initiatives is the Winnipeg Development Agreement, a partnership between the City of Winnipeg and the governments of Canada and Manitoba. Over its five-year term, the WDA will directly inject $75 million into projects which support the sustainable development of Winnipeg's economy in three key areas, community development and security, labour force development and strategic and sectoral investments. The leadership demonstrated by Manitoba through the WDA is promoting impressive levels of private sector investment in the city.

To date, every dollar invested in Winnipeg through the provincial WDA funding has been matched by approximately one dollar from nongovernmental sources. My department is co-ordinating the province's involvement in WDA and has been directly

April 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 81 administering several WDA programs, including the North Main Economic Development. The program will provide matching funds for storefront facelifts for businesses on Main Street between Sutherland A venue and St. John's A venue. Door-to-door discussio ns with every business in this area are currently underway. * (1 450) Urban safety is another initiative. To date, this program has funded 14 projects for a total commitment of $1. 3 million.

This includes the Downtown Watch Ambassadors' program, the Downtown Business Improvement zone and the ALIVE program which provides safety education programs for youth through the Winnipeg Police Service and funding to expand the work of Rossbrook House and the Winnipeg Boys and Girls Club. The Neighbourhood Improvement program has shown that funding for renovations and improvements to 11 community clubs and two recreational facilities has recently been approved under the program with a total commitment to date of $38 4,000. More announcements of projects for 19 98-99 are forthcoming.

Riverbank Development: To date, three projects have been approved with a total commitment of $568,000. These include The Forks Low Line Bridge, a nature trail along the Seine River and the development of a riverbank park in North Point Douglas. Under Strategic Initiatives, four projects have been funded for a total commitment of $337, 500. One of these projects includes a three-year initiative to develop a midcontinental trade and transportat ion corridor strategy, currently in its second year.

Sev eral noteworthy developm ents have taken place over the past year in the WDA programs, and these include funding for the development and the piloting of new approaches to management training in the health care products field, under the WDA Training and Emerging Growth Sec tors Program administered by Manitoba Education and Training. A commitment of $3 .6 million to the Winnport International Air Operations Start-up Project through the WDA Transportation Program is administered by Manitoba Highways and Transportation.

This project, which holds great promise for Manitoba's economic future, took a ma jor step forward recently when it was announced that Winnport Logistics Ltd. has been awarded the Canadian rights to provide scheduled all cargo service to China. Als o worthy of special mention is the Urban Sports Camp at Turtle Island Community Club in Winnipeg's north end, which is sponsored by the Winnipeg Native Alliance.

By providing sports and recreational activities every day on a year-round basis, the project has not only created an attractive alternative to youth crime and gang activity but has allowed mentoring relationships to develop between at-risk youth and adult members of the community. One extremely positive sign is the flood of adult volunteers who want to be part of the solution to the programs facing our youth today. Since the Urban Sports Camp started, major crimes in the area have been reduced, with 17 9 fewer incidents reported between January and August of 1997 compa red to the same period a year previously.

Manitoba Justice, which administers the WDA Sports Camp Program, is currently examining the possibility of expanding the sports camp model to other parts of the city. Another major co-operative initiative between the province and the city which my department initiated is the Partners in Public Service project. It is designed to provide better services to the public at comparable or less cost. In May of 19 97 a task force was established which included the mayor of Winnipeg, a city councillor, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and myself.

Under the direction of this task force, city and provincial government departments have identified areas in which the two levels government could co operate to serve the public better. To date, over 40 suggestions for increased co-operation have been received from provincial government departments alone. Proposals from both levels of government are currently being examined by a joint administrative co ordinating committee and soon will be reviewed by the task force. Another program which has demonstrated the spirit of co-operation by the province and the city is the

11 82 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program. Although this program officially concluded last year, implementation of projects in the designated neighbourhoods is continuing. Our government, through the Department of Urban Affairs, is committed to establishing a new community revitalization program in partnership with the city. A proposal for a new provincial-city program is currently being developed by my department, based on the report of an independent consultant and internal evaluations of the now completed MWCRP program.

This proposal will serve as the basis for discussions with the city, expected to begin soon, on a new community revitalization program. The Department of Urban Affairs is continuing its commitment to Winnipeg's downtown through its involvement in initiatives such as The Forks North Portage Partnership, the CentrePlan Committee, the Portage A venue Working Group, the Downtown Streets Working Group, and the North Main Task Force. The government of Manitoba has firmly established itself as a player in Winnipeg's downtown.

Whether you consider our $3 1 -million investment in the renewal of The Forks or our $27-million investment in the redevelopment of the North Portage area or the over 2.2 million square feet of downtown office space which we lease or own, our commitment is clear. In the area of legislation, my department has again demonstrated leadership in supporting local govern ment autonomy in their decision making to the greatest extent possible, while protecting provincial interests.

In keeping with this approach, I will shortly be bringing forth amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act which are consistent with Winnipeg City Council's decision to reorganize the city's administration. The amendments will give the city greater flexibility in responding to the challenging changes and the needs of its residents. As well, the amendments will provide a legislative framework which facilitates the implementation of new approaches to municipal service delivery.

Finally, my department, in partnership with the Department of Rural Development, is working with 16 local governments to support the development of a strong Capital Region. The region plays a significant role in our province. It is where the majority of our citizens reside, work, play, and raise their families. It is crucial that the municipalities in this area work together toward the common goal of an attractive and prosperous region. For this to take place, the province must assume a leadership role. Under the chairmanship of the Minister of Rural Deve lopment (Mr.

Derkach) and myself, the Capital Region Committee has worked hard to ensure that all municipalities in the region have been given a voice in developing a strategy which will serve the interests of all residents in the area and will benefit all Manitobans. The next step in this process is developing a plan on how to implement the many policies and actions contained in the Capital Region Strategy. Recently, we met with the Capital Region Committee and received their endorsement of a proposal to establish an independent panel to conduct the Capital Region review.

This review will examine the existing legislation, policy and decision-making processes guiding land use planning and the provision of services in the region. Consultation with the municipalities and the public will be a crucial element in this process. As I look forward to the coming year, I see exciting and challenging times ahead. My department will focus on the increased co-operation with the city in several key areas. First, the Winnipeg Development Agreement will be hitting full stride as it marks the halfway point in the agreement's implementation.

Manitoba Urban Affairs will continue to work closely with other provincial departments, Canada, and Winnipeg in implementing the Winnipeg Development Agreement in a manner which will encourage participation and financial contributions from nongovernment sources, as well as creativity and innovation in building the long-term sustainable future of this city. Second, my department will build on the success of the previous Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program as it continues to work for development and implementation of a new community revitalization agreement with the city.

April 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 83 Thirdly, my department looks forward to the Capital Region review. This review offers opportunities to discuss options for implementing the Capital Region Strategy. We will all be challenged to think of new ways to forge partnerships among the many interests to ensure that the region becomes an even better place to live, to work and do business.

Fourthly, in partnership with the city, my department will continue the process of developing a legislative framework which supports effective and efficient local decision making, fits with the city's new administrative structure and is appropriate for the challenges the city will face in the new mille nnium. Fi nally, through the Partners in Public Service initiative, Manitoba Urban Affairs will forge partnerships with other provincial departments in the city as we search for areas in which collaboration between the two levels of government can improve services and reduce costs for provincial and city taxpayers.

This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chai rperson, and I look forward to discussions on the Department of Urban Affairs for 19 98-99 Estimates. Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: We thank the honourable minis ter for those comments. Does the critic for the official opposition, the honourable member for Wellington, have an opening statement? Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Not really.

I will be asking questions in virtually all of the areas that the minister has outlined in his opening remarks and would just like to ask again, as has happened in the last couple of times, if we could go through fairly free ranging since it is a small department and without sticking too closely to the line by line in the Estima tes book, if that is acceptable. Mr. Reimer: Agreed. I believe that it speeds facilitation, and having staff here, we can try to answer all the questions as we come to them. Sure. * (15 00) Mr. Cha irperson: We thank the critic for the official opposition.

Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line. Before we do that, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff present. Mr. Reimer: I will introduce my staff. With me, I have my deputy, Mr. Bill Kinnear; my assistant deputy minister, Heather MacKnight; one of my senior dire ctors, Marianne Farag; and, my other senior director, Mr. Jon Gunn. Mr.

Cha irperson : I thank the minis ter. We will now proceed to line l. (

b) Executive Support $230, 10 0 on page 12 9 of the Main Estimates book. Shall this item pass? Ms. Barrett: I have a couple of follow-up questions from last year's Estimates, if I may. They kind of fall into some of the statements that the minis ter has made in his opening remarks. The min ister said last April that in order to ensure effective communications with the city, provincial cabinet ministers meet formally and informally with the mayor and the Executive Policy Committee on a regular basis.

I am wondering if the minister can tell me how many times, formally and informally, the cabinet ministers met-the cabinet minis ters that have anything to do with urban affairs-with the City of Winnipeg. Mr. Reimer: While staff maybe is trying to find the exact number of times that the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet met, I can just give the member some background. As to my involvement, I do meet regularly with the mayor, at least once a month on an individual basis, just the mayor and myself. I also meet with EPC at least once a month for a breakfast meeting.

We have had those almost steady except for breaking in the summer months usually. We do not meet through July, August and September. So there is a fairly close contact between myself and the mayor and EPC.

11 84 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 UACC meetings are usually four or five times a year, and that is where it is the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet, which is all members of the-not only cabinet ministers but the members in other areas of the city of Winnipeg. Other urban members are also invited to those meetings, too. So those meetings are open to the members of government. Ms.

Barrett: On that Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet being open to urban members-and I believe the minister and I discussed this briefly in Question Period one day-what the minister means is that it is open to urban members of the governing party, not urban members of the government at large. Is that not correct? Mr. Reimer: The meetings that have been called, a lot of them are called at the request of the city.

City Hall and the mayor have requested the meetings with the members for the city when they are bringing forth-for example, when they brought forth their program called Reshaping Civic Government, when they brought forth their budget, when they brought forth an update, and they are the ones that requested the meeting with the urban members. It is called together under the auspices of the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet. That is the name that is given to it, but some of those meetings that I referred to were called by the city to meet with urban colleagues.

Their suggestion was that we call a meeting for not only the urban cabinet ministers but all urban members to which the city wanted to make their presentations. So some of those meetings were at the call of the city. Ms. Barrett: Those meetings that were at the call of the city, who chaired those meetings? Mr. Reimer: I would be the chairperson. Ms. Barrett: So, while the request for a meeting may have been, at some point, sometimes by the government and sometimes by the city, the meetings themselves were always chaired by the government. Mr.

Reimer: If the city called a meeting, I would introduce the mayor, and then she would take over the meeting to bring forth the presentations and answer questions. But, if they called a meeting, they would more or less set the format and set the agenda for it. We would be there more or less just to listen and to try to facilitate, and we would provide the space for the meetings, which we usually held in one of the rooms. We would have them come, and they would set up the screens or their projectors and they would make the presentations. Ms.

Barrett: The second part of my question was, you talk about urban members, but what you really mean is urban members of the governing party, not urban members of the Legislature of which there are 31, many of whom are not part of the governing party. So, when you talk about meeting with urban members, you mean urban members of the governing party. Mr. Reimer: Yes, that is true. I think that, just as we have had presentations made to our caucus by various groups, we have also known that these same groups have made presentations to the NDP caucus along the same lines.

So there is a similarity of when we talk about making a presentation to the members. I guess, as I talk about the members, I talk about the members of government; and, as the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) would talk about members, she would talk about the members of the NDP caucus. I am sure that there have been presentations made by councillors to the NDP caucus, too, that have been made to us. So the presentations are made usually to the two parties by the same groups. Ms.

Barrett: Did the city make a presentation to the government caucus or government members on their recommendations for implementing the Cuff n�port? Mr. Reimer: Actually, when the Cuff report came down, they did come forth and explain all the various amendments or recommendations that Mr. Cuff had made to City Council. They requested a meeting with us to show what they were considering. It was more of an information-type of setting that they had set up with us to go over the Cuff report, but they did make a presentation on the Cuff report. In fact, as has been pointed out, Mr.

Cuff himself was at that meeting and made the presentation too. Ms. Barrett: When the city requests a meeting and the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet sets up a meeting, is it sometimes just the cabinet members who meet, or is it always with the urban government MLAs?

April 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 85 Mr. Reimer: The invitation goes out to all the government urban MLAs. Ms. Barrett: So if the member is-say, it is the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) or La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) who have rural and urban components to their constituencies, would they get an invitation? They would not necessarily get an invitation to these meetings then. Mr. Reimer: No. It is usually just the urban members-yes, just the urban members. * (15 10 ) Ms. Barrett: Carrying on again from the Estimates from last year.

The Capital Region Commit tee-and I may be mixing things up, because it seems to me there are things changing all the time in the Capital Region in the attempts to deal with the issues that are facing the Capital Region-but there still is a Capital Region Committee. How many times has it met since, say, last April? Mr. Reimer: To give a little history on the Capital Region, the formalization of meetings actually started in 19 96. In 19 96, I believe there were three meetings of the Capital Region Committee.

Actually, there was a meeting at the end of, I believe, 19 96; they were already scheduling meetings into 19 97 for the spring of 19 97. The flood came along, and it knocked out any type of effort in trying to get people together because of the flood conditions. There were attempts to have some meetings. In fact, I think they have tried to call at least twice in the early part of 19 97, but the attendance would have been-the members had said that they were just too busy with the flood, so no meetings were scheduled.

We got into the whole flood scenario and the cleanup almost went through the whole summer, so in truth there were no meetings held at all of the Capital Region Committee in 19 97. Since that time though-one of the last things that was on the agenda in 19 96 was the formation of a task force. A task force was meeting, was set up, and they did meet. I believe they did meet in 19 97. [interjection] I was just getting some clarification. One of the recommendations that came out in 19 96 was a task force to be formed to look at ways to implement the Capital Region Strategy. They also did not meet in 19 97.

I thought that they did, but they did not. They did get together in the early part of 19 98. In fact, they had two meetings, and from those two meetings, it was decided to make a recommendation to the Capital Region Committee in whole of an effort to come up with setting up of a panel of five people.

The solicitation of these five members would come from the members of the Capital Region Committee, to come forth with five names that would -their primary objective would be to go out and talk to the elected officials in the communities, not only in Winnipeg but in the surrounding municipalities, to come up with a way to implement the Capital Region Strategy and set that in motion. So this year, in 19 98, we have had two meetings with the task force and one meeting of the Capital Region Committee. Ms.

Barrett: So, in effect, the task force was created in '97, but it was unable to do anything until 19 98 where it has had two meetings, and then one meeting of the Capital Region Committee as a whole. Mr. Reimer: Right. Ms. Barrett: Can you tell me the names of the task force members? Mr. Reimer: On the task force there was myself, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Mayor Bud Oliver from Selkirk, Reeve Dave Oster from the Selkirk district area, Mayor Dave Lethbridge in Interlake Planning District, Reeve Rodney Bums from Macdonald, Reeve Phil Rebeck from the R.M. of East St.

Paul, Springfield and Tache. There was an alternative in case Mr. Rebeck could not come. Mr. Bill Danylchuk would serve in his place. The other person was Reeve John Curry from the Municipality of Cartier, and the City of Winnipeg's representative was Councillor Shirley Timm-Rudolph. Ms. Barrett: So did you and the Minister of Rural Development participate in the two meetings that have been held of the task force this year?

11 86 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 Mr. Reimer: Yes. Ms. Barrett: What is happening with the task force? I know you said they talk with elected officials, but-well, let me back up one minute. The task force itself did not meet in 19 97. Was there any preliminary work done on what the task force would be asked to do or enabling the task force to function during 19 97 on the part of either department, or was the whole thing just put on hold until after the flood? Mr. Reimer: I guess relatively speaking, there was very little formal contact or consultation.

There were some preliminary discussions but nothing of a formal nature during 19 97 at all. Ms. Barrett: So, in effect, it is really beginning its work this year. What will its work be? Can you be a little more explicit than you were in your earlier comments-talk with elected officials, and it said in last year's Estimates, make recommendations respecting the enhanced operation and structure of the committee and also the effective implementation of the Capital Region Strategy. How will that be fleshed out? Mr.

Reimer: I should point out to the member that the names that I gave the member were the members for the task force. These were not the people that will be part of the panel that will be doing the consultation out in the field. The task force's main objective was to try to come to some sort of understanding of where the Capital Region should go. Their recommendation was that they appoint an independent panel. Instead of them doing it and being part of the process, their recommendation was that five independent people be appointed to do the searching of goals and directions that the Capital Region should be going.

That is what they brought forth to the Capital Region in whole, and the Capital Region in whole endorsed that principle. What we are now waiting for is names and recommendations from the various municipalities and elected officials in and around Winnipeg to decipher and come up with five people that they will agree upon that we can use to do the work. But the task force itself has more or less absolved itself back into the Capital Region Committee. Their function was to come to a direction and an understanding of where the Capital Region should be going.

Their reco mmendation was a five-member panel, so, in essence, I guess to a degree their work has been done. The task force will stay and can be resurrected possibly for other projects or consultations of sorts. Instead of getting the whole Capital Region together, the small nucleus of the task force can come together.

Now what the five people on the panel who will be appointed will be doing, will work through their actual- The proposal that they have been given is to--I will just possibly read it in a bit of their mandate if you want to call it-appoint an independent panel of experts to undertake a review and make recommendations respecting the effectiveness of the existing legislation, the policy and the procedural framework, the guiding land use, planning and the development and the provision of services in all 16 municipalities in the Capital Region.

The objectives of the panel would be to ensure, in making the framework, that it (1) reflects the principles inherent in the Capital Region Strategy; (2) has the capacity to resolve regional issues; (3) incorporates balance and sensitivity among local, regional, and provincial interests; ( 4) provides maximum opportunity for intermunicipal co-operation; and, (5) encourages building partnerships advancing the vision of the Capital Region. That will be the framework that the panel will work under and with in trying to come to some resolve.

Through that process what they will be doing is talking to the elected officials in the 16 municipalities. They will also be holding public meetings to get public input as to what people are concerned about and where they feel that there is need for direction. Then the report will be compiled. It will be then presented to government. * (1 520) Ms. Barrett: I think you answered one of my next questions, which was: what are the terms of reference for this task force-no, not for the task force, for the independent panel? Independent panel to task force to Capital Region to government.

April 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 87 Mr. Reimer: Right. Ms. Barrett: Thank you. I think I have it. I would like a copy of those terms of reference, if I may have one. Mr. Reimer: We can get one. Ms. Ba rrett: Who is going to hire, appoint, or determine who the five independent people will be? Mr. Reimer: The appointments will be made by government. Ms. Barrett: They will be made by government through Order-in-Council. Mr. Reimer: I imagine that will be the procedure. Ms.

Barrett: You probably told me this before, but who is going to make the recommendations to government about who gets to try and implement this task force? Mr. Reimer: What we have asked, we have asked the munici palities to come forth with names. We are looking for people who have got broad experience in not only planning of municipal governments or municipal land use, but, also in areas of social planning and environmental planning. Hopefully, we will have a good cross-section of names to choose from, and we can get very capable people that would be able to represent the various components and areas of concern.

So the names have been forwarded, I guess, to our department, and we will work with those names as they come in. Ms. Barrett: What is the time line, understanding that this is an estimate and not carved in stone? Mr. Reimer: We just recently sent out a letter to the municipalities to get their feedback, reviews and recommendation for names. I would guesstimate that we would start to get the names back within the next-seeing that a lot of those councillors only meet once a month-hopefully within the next couple of months we would start to get names coming to us.

Then it is a matter of trying to make sure that we get as many names as we can and work towards an earlier than later implementation of the program. Ms. Barrett: Well, it sounds like this has the potential for being quite extensive in time and figuring out what exactly to do.

I mean the terms of reference, the first one-these terms of reference are very good in the sense that they seem to cover a lot of the concerns that have been raised by the members of the Capital Region Committee, and they also, one would hope, would deal with some of the issues that were raised, although you know my feelings about the Capital Region Strategy report. I am trying to determine which principles are in there, but that is another discussion. Mr. Reimer: As Martha would say, it's a good thing. Ms. Barrett: Oh, dear, and I understand what the minister is referring to, too; this is very bad.

But this is a lot of work. This is a huge undertaking. I am fumbling through my material here. I think there was a newspaper

article outlining some of this-the task force and the five independent-the independent commission or-I will call it that to just differentiate it from the task force. My recollection is that you were quoted or there was some discussion in that

article about this whole process being concluded by the end of the year-! cannot seem to find it; I will look for it-but I do not see that happening. If you are talking about maybe getting names by the end-say at the end of June, just to give some timing, then you have to appoint them, and then they have to get together and then they have to start. I just think this is a very-it is a big proposal, and I am wondering if perhaps time lines are going to have to be extended a bit on it. Mr. Reimer: They may have to be.

I can recognize where there is a bit of a concern, but I think the direction and the feeling that we did have from the Capital Region Committee and from the public was the fact that they do want to see some sort of strong leadership role by the province in trying to come to a direction and a consensus building around the Capital Region. I think that it is better to try to work within those frameworks of co-operation and consensus building and to make the time available for consultations, for review, for public presentations so that when there is a direction or a formulation of

11 88 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 1998 direction that comes from this, there is a feeling of comfort by all those involved that indeed it is a program that we should be operating. As just a bit of a sideline, I did some research on often heard of-what they call the Portland experience with planning. I took it upon myself to do a little bit of reading on that, and I was surprised to learn that it is an ongoing process. It is not something that is just like a snapshot in time. Actually, they started in 19 73 to get their house in order, if you want to call it. It is very, very efficient.

It is very effective, and it is working very, very well, but at the same time it is something that they are continuing to work on. So I am not suggesting that we are looking at a process of that long in magnitude of time, but I can see how it does warrant a fair amount of consultation with the municipalities, with the elected officials, with the public itself.

What is going to compound it to a degree also is the fact that municipal elections are coming up this fall or this October, and that will also possibly skew some of the findings that would have to be revisited and redefined because of difference in municipal elections and that. So it should be something that I think that we should be cognizant of and try to work towards getting a good solution instead of a fast solution. I can agree with the member on saying that it may take a little longer than putting a restrictive time frame into it. Ms. Barrett: I have found my documents. My filing system comes forward again.

This is the

article by Aldo Santin in the Free Press on Friday, March 20, and the last comment is-not in quotes-but it is: "The minister said the panel will meet with elected officials as well as hold public consultations before it brings forward its recommendations by the end of the year or early I999." Now I am wondering if the mm1ster is sort of revisiting that time frame in the light of- * (1 530 ) Mr. Reimer: I am not exactly sure how the reporter quoted me on that because I think that he was looking for a definitive time that everything would be wrapped up and presented and possibly a fait accompli.

I was trying to give him some indication of process, and in process I think I was referring to some of the consultations with even the elected officials along those lines, recognizing that there was an election coming up in October. I believe I was referring more to the fact that there would be consultations with the elected officials in the fall because who they talk to in June may not be the same people around at the end of October. So it would facilitate coming forth with even more recommendations.

I would not want to rush any type of public consultations for the sake of getting a report that has to be in by, say, January I. I am not putting a timetable on it or a guideline on it. Ms. Barrett: Yes, I appreciate that on the part of the minister, and I think that is true. I do know that there is a huge sense of frustration in the Capital Region, and as the minister was quoted in this same

article saying there has been a lot of animosity between Winnipeg and the rural communities in the past, and we do not want to see that approach taken again. But it does seem as though there has been spinning of wheels, if I can say that, and I do not really mean that. I mean, I know there has been a lot of work done in the last few years on the issues of the Capital Region, and just putting the Capital Region Committee together is a very important step. I can imagine how hard it would be to get a group that disparate together, No.

I, and agreeing on anything, No. 2, and perhaps something needs to be looked at in that regard. But I do think that there is the possibility that this will just be another fairly drawn-out process that will look at public consultations, et cetera, and will talk about decentralization and monitoring and coming forward with ideas to make things work better, but that in the end it will end up being more of the same. I do not mean to be sounding too negative. I am very concerned about this.

This is a huge issue for everybody in this whole part of the world, and we need to have people on it and terms of reference that can be accomplished . Let me ask a question about the specific terms of reference or rather, sorry, the objectives. The objectives would be to ensure that there is a legislative policy and procedural framework guiding land use planning and developments and the provision

April 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 89 of services in all 16 municipalities in the Capital Region that will -and then there are the five objec tives, right? So it is the framework that is going to ensure these principles, right? Mr. Reimer: Yes. Ms. Barrett: Okay. I see huge challenges in all of these five objectives, just in mere implementation, who does what, never mind the getting 16 -although I believe it is now 15 -municipalities agreeing on what consti tutes the specifics of any of these objectives.

They are huge objectives on the face of it, even if you had a group of three or four people, all of whom agreed on everything, trying to implement No. 2, for example, that this decision-making framework will have the capacity to resolve regional issues. Okay, let me ask you in this one. Does this group have carte blanche within these objectives to come up with recommendations that would range from the province will make all decisions regarding land use policies, will establish plans for each municipa lity-I mean, that is one huge extreme that nobody would suggest as reality, but that is one extreme.

Two, each municipality will have total control over their own land use planning, and there will be no provincial overseer or oversight committee or anything. There will be no role for the provincial government at all. Now, theoretically, that is a response to resolving regional issues. Is the government saying or the committee or whoever saying you can come back with whatever you want and then we will look at it and pick and choose, or are there some frameworks for the framework document? Mr.

Reimer: I guess what comes to mind is the quotation that "we boldly go where no man has gone before" type of thing, because I think what is happening with the Capital Region Committee and the City of Winnipeg is a recognition that-and Manitoba is very, very unique in the sense, because Winnipeg is the centre of a large concentration of population with the Capital Region around the city of Winnipeg, which would encompass I believe it is something like well over 80 percent of the population within this Capital Region in and around Winnipeg-and I think that there is a growing awareness that there is more to be gained by working in co-operation with each other and having a single entity in trying to resolve problems and look at directions, not only economically, but socially and environmentally, in trying to resolve problems.

It has been forced, in a sense, upon us because of the fact that what is happening in other areas of Canada is there is more of this regionalization and this concentration of municipalities together to form economic blocs or planning districts for trying to be the betterment for all of the district instead of just the small individual towns or municipalities. I think that this is becoming more evident by the conversations that I have had not only with the City of Winnipeg but in the Capital Region membership and the reeves and mayors in the area.

They are saying that we cannot compete, in essence, in providing all the services that we want to give unless there is a sense of sharing and co-operation between all of us. So they themselves are coming to recognize that we have to try to pull together. This is where the connotation and the statement of strong provincia l leadership, they are asking us to do that.

Now, how that leadership can be defined and whether it should be defined in the paternalistic or try to work within a framework of providing the catalyst or provide the fertile ground for this type of movement is something I believe that I would rather pursue. I am not a firm advocate of the strong directiveness that government deigns that this is the way it shall be and you shall now be part of this or that district and this is the way it shall be. I w ould think that there is more recognition, and I sense that in talking with the elected officials, that they do want to come together.

They recognize that there is going to be a give and take.

They recognize that there is going to be a sharing of goals and aspirations, but it is all for the betterment of the entire region, because when you look in comparison to the Capital Region of say about a million people or whatever it is, when you are comparing other parts of Canada and other parts of the United States where you are in competition for not only services and economic growth but even the social amenities that we treasure, the efficiencies of scale say that we should be trying to not, each one of us, reinvent the wheel when we want to look at something.

Granted, as the member has pointed out, the objectives are fairly broad in essence, but I think that

11 90 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 they do form a basis to work together to try to come to some sort of an understanding and acceptance by the Capital Region that if there is an acceptance of these broad principles and recognizing that they have to work within them and try to bring forth a lot of their planning or their decision making within these frameworks, I think that the more that they think this way on an individual basis, the better that all of them will be thinking that way and go for it. * (1 540) Is it an overnight thing?

No, I do not think it is, but I think that it is something that can be worked towards, because I get a sense and I get a feeling that the Capital Region Strategy is saying to me, we want to be part of this change. Let us just make it so that we can all benefit from it. I do not sense a reluctance or a hesitancy or an outright rejection of the Capital Region Strategy by any of the committee members.

The member refers to the one that decided not to get out, but I understand that-1 have not talked to them personally there are overtures that they may reconsider to come back in because they recognize that it is better to be in the tent than to be out of the tent, in a sense. So I understand that there is a reconsideration on their part. It is something that I think we should work towards as a provincial government in trying to build this consensus within the Capital Region, because it can only benefit Manitoba, it can only benefit Winnipeg, and it can only benefit all the municipalities.

So it is something that, granted, will take a little time, but I would rather be working on the pages that we have now before the Capital Region Strategy and the sense of wanting to co-operate than to try to build consensus where there is confrontation and there is an animosity. As I mentioned before, that is of no benefit to anybody and all it does really is just impede any type of structural change or social change or economic change and possibly even be environmentally harmful if people or municipalities are just doing things on their own. So it will take time. Ms.

Barrett: Now, you say that the members of the Capital Region Committee all endorse this. Has there been a meeting of the Capital Region Committee? Mr. Reimer: Yes. Yes, there was, and this was presented to them and it was unanimously endorsed. Ms. Barrett: I would like to go back to the review and get a little more information on some of the information that is here. Under Phase !-Issue Identific ation, you talk first about the distribution of an informational pamphlet to various groups in the general public providing general information about the review and its objectives.

Number one question: has that pamphlet been put together yet? What is the time frame on that? Mr. Reimer: It has not been formalized as yet. It is still under review and under formation. One of the ideas behind using it this way was the direction that Rural Development, when Rural Development was doing the review of The Municipal Act, they got very good feedback on this type of format, so it was felt that we could utilize that type of format with this panel, and that is why there was the suggestion of having a pamphlet for the municipalities and other local groups.

What it would do was just give a bit of a review and the objectives of what the panel was looking for. Ms. Barrett: Is this going to be provided by the province, written by and distributed by the province? Mr. Reimer: Yes, it would be. Ms. Barrett: I will ask a question later about where that will come in in the Estimates. In the second item under Issue Identification is the discussion document. I think here, when I look at this, this sounds to me a very important part of it. The discussion document would frame the issues and focus the public consultation phase.

Who will be putting together that discussion document and when will it be put together? Mr. Reimer: Part of the formation of the task force is having a secretariat involved, and he or she would be involved with the compilation ofthe framework. The idea would be to bring it together, represent it to the Capital Region Committee itself for their endorsement, if you want to call it, and their involvement with discussions, so that by the time it would go back in for public consultation and for further discussion, there would be an input brought by the Capital Region Committee itself.

April 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 11 91 Ms. Barrett: Again, here is another spreading out of the time line on this, because clearly it will take some time for the staff to put together a document framing the issues, and secondly, taking it to a Capital Region Committee and getting consensus on that. I would like to be a fly on the wall at that meeting, I think, and coming back, so that clearly extends the time line.

The staff secretariat that is referred to in phase two consultation, this is the same staff secretariat that would be doing the draft of the documen t, the framing of the issues document? Mr. Reimer: Yes. Ms. Barrett: Has that staff secretariat position or positions been filled? Mr. Reimer: Not to date, no. Ms. Barrett: I guess just a general question here, and I am sorry to be going back and forth on all of this, but this information is excellent and it leads me to all kinds of questions as I read it. Has the government process been completed?

This has gone through whatever government steps that need to be undertaken in order to get permission for you to do this, or do you have the authority to do this on your own without going to cabinet? Mr. Reimer: This has been a government directive, and it has been put in place with the sanction of our government as to what we want to, or how we would like to proceed with this, the resolve of this. The funding of that, that is a process that goes through its normal funding appropriations, through treasury board and things like that, but the direction, the implementation is what we want to see happen. Ms.

Barrett: Any time line estimated on when the staff will be hired or seconded or put in place?-more to the point. Mr.

Reimer: I think that what we are trying to do is we would like to have a formalization of it sometime within this summer, you know, to have someone in there to be part of the implementation team and to be part of the formation of the information pamphlet so that we can get the proce ss in gear, because I expect that the names will start to come in like I mentioned before, hope fully, within the next two to three months so that we would want to have someone in place then to get things going. * (1 550) Ms. Barrett: Okay, we have got a couple of lines going here then, it seems to me.

You have got the staffing line of the secretariat who is going to do the draft framing of the issues and focusing the public consultation document, which is going to go then to the Capital Region Committee for input before it is finalized, before it gets publicly dissem inated to frame and focus. That secretariat will be hired hopefully by summer. That is the end of June just for purposes of figuring out the process here. You have said earlier that the task force members not the task force members- Mr. Reimer: Panel members. Ms. Barrett: The panel members.

The five-member committee will be in place you hoped by the end of June as well. So, say over the summer, the staff and the panel will work together to frame the issues and focus the public consultation, or will the staffperson be doing that and the five members will be taking that document out? I guess I am asking what input the five members will have on this discussion document. Mr. Reimer: I should point out too that staff will be possibly even seconded from Urban Affairs and from Rural Development to help so that it is not as if it is a one-person show in a sense.

I would be more in line with saying that the panel's primary function will be to get out and to be involved and to talk to the elected officials, to talk to the various components in the Capital Region and to be involved actually with the public meetings and that. The brochure or the informational pamphlet that will be produced will have in it a lot of what the member sees before her right now regarding the objectives so that it will be providing the general information, it will be providing the review of the objectives. So it will have some broad parameters involved with it in the brochure itself.

The panel would not be involved so

11 92 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 much directly with making up the pamphlet. They would be more or less involved with the hands-on approach to talking, to getting out into the field and talking with people. The pamphlet would be used as a starter that would go out before them and be out there for handouts so that they could read it over. Ms. Barrett: There are two documents; there are two pieces of paper in phase I.

The pamphlet is simple, compa ratively speaking, and that is, yes, I would assume it would include basically the time line and the process and da-da, da-da, da-da and to whom this is going to be distributed, et cetera. I do not have any problem at all. That could be worked on right now because government has already given its imprimatur for this to happen. The discussion document is a very different kettle of fish here. When you use the words "frame" and "focus" in talking about a discussion document, those are very powerful words. Those are the words that say this is what you are going to talk about.

You and I very well know how you can see something and you will have one view of it and I will have another view of it. You can have the view that it is too much government interference to have any kind of overarch ing plan and messing up people's choices to where to live, and I can have the view you need to have an overall plan in place so that everyone is able to deal effectively with concepts of urban sprawl, just to take one example.

This document, which sounds like to me is going to be drafted by a staffperson hired by or seconded by the Department of Urban Affairs with very little input by the panel members-there is some possibility here. I know you have said that the document will go to the Capital Region Committee for input, but it seems to me that basically what is going to happen here is that this is a very critical part of the process because it will frame the debate. I guess I am a bit uncomfortable with that if basically it is the staff that is doing it, not the panel having an input at the beginning part of this process. Mr.

Reimer: I do not think that the member should be too overly concerned regarding-you know, I think what the discussion document would be looking for is, when I say, you know, the framing of the issues and the focusing of the public consultation, I guess we are talking about in broader terms as to try to bring forth all the issues that could be put under consideration. I guess you could put out a large net and try to satisfy everything or you come down to focusing of main items or main areas of concerns that need review or action on.

I would think that using that in the perspective instead of using, like the member mentioned, the framing of the issues or the focusing of them, I guess it is a matter of

interpretation as to the severity or the degree of how that could be interpreted. I do not see that as an impediment to trying to get as much public consultation or discussion that we would want out of it. I think that there would be some guidelines set in in regard to all meetings or asking for discussions, but it is certainly not meant to stifle or to inhibit the openness that you would want to get back from the consultation, whether it is with the public or with the elected officials in the various municipalities. I do not think that it has too much of a detriment to the way that the process would proceed. Ms.

Barrett: Okay, well, I think only time wiii tell when we see the document and see what happens. I think, as I have said before, it will be very interesting to see what the Capital Region Committee itself has to say about this, because they have been unable to function very effectively as a committee for a whole bunch of reasons, but part of it is just by the nature of the Capital Region. We have the city. It is not an evenly distributed population base even now.

You have issues such as-let us go back to BFI, for example, where the City of Winnipeg, almost for the first time in recorded history or certainly one of the very few times on a matter of major public import, voted unanimously against the selection of the R.M. of Rosser for a landfill site for BFI. The R.M. of Rosser was then selected by the Clean Environment Commission to have a landfill put in place there. I do not think you would ever get consensus out of the Capital Region on that issue, so I think this is an example of one of those. Maybe that No. 2 objective has the capacity to resolve regional issues.

I do not think that issue was resolved. Of course, maybe there was no resolution to that issue, because if BFI had not gotten its landfill in Rosser, they might have tried somewhere else or Rosser would have been really very much probably annoyed at the loss of that revenue. So I just think there is a whole lot of stuff here that looks

April 6, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 11 93 really good on paper, and I hope it works. But I have a lot of fear because you are using, frankly, basically the same group of people, the Capital Region Comm ittee, and they have not been able to function effectively before. Hopefully, that will change. Maybe we are not down far enough the road to be able to get a specific answer to this, but in the cons ultation phase it says: the panel would consult with other interest groups and the general public and conduct a number of public forums.

Do you know how many there will be of these forums, or are they going to be in each municipality? How many would be in the city of Winnipeg? Do you have any sense of those, how that would play out? * (1 600) Mr. Reimer: I think what we would look to is some direction from the panel itself as to what they felt comfortable with in how many public consultations and in what areas and at what times they would want to hold them. I would rely on some of their discretion and their direction as to what they felt was required.

I would think that from the limited amount of exposure we have had so far there would be public interest in there. Some of the groups that have already advocated public meetings, they would be out. I guess the panel would be able to gauge whether they continue with the public meetings or where and how they do it, so I would look to the panel for their recommendations on that. Ms. Barrett: Would you give the panel ultimate decis ion-making authority as to how many and where these public hearings would be held, or would you hold the final decision making?

If they said, well, we will hold one in Selk irk and one in Winnipeg, and that is all we feel we need to. We will hold the Winnipeg one at the Convention Centre, so there is lots of place for the hordes to come, and we will hold the one in the Selkir k arena or whatever. So we do not need any more than two. We are busy people; we cannot do it. Would you say, now wait a minute, that is not good enough? Mr. Reimer: I would be very, very surprised if there would be only two. I would think there would be more than that. I would think that we would try to look at-try to space them around through the Capital Region.

As for numbers, whether there are two or there are four or whatever it is, I think that sometimes those are some things that the panel would have to decide on. I guess there is always the-you look at the voice of reason and the general feeling that, if it requires a meeting in Selkirk and one in Beausejour or-not Beausejour, but I mean in and around different areas or whatever it is-then they would call these meetings.

I do not know whether I want to stick my neck out and say that there shall only be three meetings or four meetings when there may be need for-the panel may say that we need more or we do not need to go down to this area because there does not seem much interest or something. So it would be a little bit premature to say exactly how many meetings should be held. Ms. Barrett: Oh, I agree that it is way too premature. I am just trying to figure out who has the ultimate decisio n-making authority in saying there will be X number of public hearings and they will be held in the following communities.

Do you hold then in reserve the power to say, wait a minute, you guys have missed something here, and I am adding another one or I am taking away, you do not need 25 meetings? I am assuming that the panel will be deliberate and will be positive in that regard, but I think you always need to have in mind the fact that sometimes that does not happen. There are 15 or 16 communities or municipalities represented, and only five people are going to be on the panel. They are going to have to be representing not only their area of expertise, but they are going to have to be representing a number of the municipalities.

There is a possibility that there will not be fairness as far as you can see. Would you say that you could add or subtract or recommend, if I had a complaint, would I go to them rather than to you? Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair Mr. Reimer: I would hope that the selection of the panel would be of a calibre that they do recognize the need for various inputs that they want for their review.

I would be surprised if they worked in an atmosphere where they were not willing to listen to the public demand for meetings, or the public consultation, or the fact that the elected officials that they were supposed to talk to did not get a chance to talk to them, because they

11 94 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA April 6, 19 98 will be dealing with areas where elected officials have are the primary people to make decisions. I would think that it is like anything. If elected officials are not heard, they will make it known that they want to be heard, and there would be voices made or overtures made to our department saying that, hey, listen, there is a group out here that wants to be listened to, and we would have to listen to it. Ms.

Barrett: I know I am belabouring the point, probably far more that it should be, but it is not just municipal officials that will want to have an input into this process, nor should it be, because municipal officials already have an avenue theoretically through the Capital Region Committee, and that has not worked, or it certainly has not worked to the extent that it needs to.

I want to say that it is important that this process be as open and as user-friendly and as widely ranging as possible, because if we are starting on a time line that looks more like Portland's than a year and a half, we need to ensure that every part of that process is well understood and as open as possible so we get the largest number of ideas, because these are huge issues that are going to be very difficult to address. * (1610 ) While I think there are probably some problems with the process, the TransPlan 20 1 0 process, which took two years and talked to I think over 2,000 people, maybe has some similarities with this, although I think it was quite complex, but it did allow for a large number of people and groups to have input into it.

I think those are pretty much all my comments in that area. I will be looking forward to how it plays itself out, particularly by the end of June, to see what processes and progress have been made. On a semirelated topic, and this is something that actually was in the Free Press on Saturday, the 21s t, after the

article outlining the task force and the panel, where the editorial writer had an interesting comment, and I am wondering if the minister has some ideas on it. They say that the boundaries of the Capital Region currently are unrelated to human and economic realities. Then they go on to say that Komamo is part of the Capital Region, but Steinbach is not, and that the review panel should be free to start from data and not from political preconceptions in deciding where the Capital Region lies.

The main thing is that 750,000 people who live within an hour's drive of Portage and Main have a shared interest in the efficient, democratic management of development and public services. I just wonder how you think about that.

I mean, I can see where, I cannot remember what municipality Komamo is at the far end of-Lockwood-so it is a problem because its population expands outward and it is like pies, where it is more populated closer in, and you could not include part of an R.M. and not the rest of it, but I do think the concept of Steinbach, in particular, is very interesting, because they have many of the same issues on a much smaller scale with urban sprawl and exurban development that Winnipeg has with its surrounding municipalities. Have you given any thought to broadening the Capital Region Committee? Mr.

Reimer: We have not given any thought to expand the region. It is interesting,

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 26.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d24454fab44cd0bb12c2b9bf11ddc3a713a06aa7

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