Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a matter of House business. I just thought I would let it be known that tomorrow I propose to move the motion to move into Supply, and it would be my expectation that on Friday we could deal with bills that are on the Order Paper, and should there be time left over after that, then we could resume consideration of Supply at that time. We normally do bills on Wednesday. I am just letting the House know today that tomorrow we will be calling Estimates.

I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), 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, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Urban Affairs and the Department of Housing; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 1.(b) on page 126 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Of course not.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, unfortunately, I was not able to be in the committee room, so some of the questions might be somewhat repetitive, as I was in the Chamber with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and Mr. Doer. But I did have a couple of questions with respect to the Capital Region, if you like. It has always been a great concern of mine as we see more and more communities develop outside the city of Winnipeg that we really have not seen the Capital Region, from my opinion, play a strong role in the planning of the overall development of the entire region.

I would first ask the minister if he can provide a list, if not now, to me sometime in the not too distant future, of the participants of those people that are on the Capital Region board.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): Certainly. I think that we have the list of the municipalities that are in and around the area. We can get you the municipalities and the list of the participants that sit on the total committee regarding the Capital Region Strategy. We can get that for the member.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am wondering if the minister can give some sort of a comment in terms of to what degree he believes the Capital Region is of importance with the overall development of the city of Winnipeg. Specifically, does he see that the Capital Region Committee should be playing a larger role or should it be playing a smaller role? What does he see happening in the future?

* (1430)

Mr. Reimer: I believe that the Capital Region Strategy and the whole concept behind it is something that we can certainly get of a benefit regarding the co-ordination and the coming together, if you want to call it, regarding some of the concerns and directions that are affecting not only Winnipeg but all the areas in and around Winnipeg.

It is something that I feel the Capital Region Strategy and the membership and the participation is something that can be of great benefit. The objectives of it really are to try to build a consensus, a co-ordination and a co-operation amongst the municipalities, including Winnipeg, because too often municipalities will be competing against each other in trying to possibly duplicate the same types of structures or the same types of directions or the planning of various components. Anytime that you can try to bring the same people around the table and get a common sharing of ideals and goals it is of a benefit not only for the entity but for the individuals for the best utilization of their resources.

With that in mind, one of the strong recommendations that came out of the Capital Region Strategy was strong provincial leadership in the utilization of the strategy. Since that report has come out, there were further discussions. There have been meetings held with the various participants in the region, and a task force was asked to be formulated. One of the results was that there were seven various mayors and reeves from various areas appointed as spokespersons to bring the structure down a little bit. The total number of members on the committee--I have the list in front of me now. We have the mayors of the City of Winnipeg, the Town of Selkirk, the Town of Stonewall, the reeves of Cartier, Ritchot, St. Clements, East St. Paul, Rockwood, St. Francois Xavier, Headingley, Rosser, Springfield, Macdonald, St. Andrews, Tache and West St. Paul. I chair that committee also with Rural Development as a co-chair.

As mentioned, this committee here decided to make it more effective by setting up a smaller task force that could deal with issues and become more focused in what type of direction they were wanting for the committee. With that in mind, our task force, which included myself and the honourable Len Derkach as co-chair--along with us there is the mayor of Selkirk, Mr. Bud Oliver, who is representing the Selkirk and District Planning Board. There is Reeve Dave Oster, who is representing the South Interlake Planning District, Mayor Dave Lethbridge, who is also on the South Interlake Planning District, Reeve Rodney Burns representing the Macdonald-Ritchot Planning District, Reeve Phil Rebeck representing the Rural Municipalities of East St. Paul, Springfield, and Tache. The Reeve William Danylchuk, who is an alternative, is for the municipalities of East St. Paul, Springfield, and Tache, and the final member--pardon me, another member is Reeve John Curry for the municipalities of Cartier, Headingley, and St. Francois Xavier. And for the City of Winnipeg, Glen Murray has just been appointed as the member to represent the City of Winnipeg.

So that task force will be meeting very shortly. The last member was just added to that list, which was in the city of Winnipeg within the last 30 days, so now that this task force has been formulated we will be calling a meeting with this group to seek direction and policy co-ordination and program delivery utilizing this group that will then be in contact with the larger group as I had mentioned before.

So I feel fairly optimistic that there is a direction that has been taken quite positively with the Capital Region Strategy, and that a lot of the differences, opinions or directions that sometimes go at cross purposes can be resolved through just better utilization of the talent we have out there.

Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Mr. Chairperson, I bring it up primarily because I feel that the Capital Region and the board should be playing a larger role in the overall development of the region, thereby, doing that, we would see more harmony amongst the different communities as opposed to that in some areas, like the BFI location, I would ultimately argue, would never have located in Rosser in all likelihood had there been better co-ordination.

I am pleased to hear that the minister, the current minister, is in fact looking into it, and hopefully what we will do is we will see in the future a larger role for the Capital Region, and one in which they can be effective, not just as a consulting--and it is not to undermine or underestimate the important work that they have done in the past. I just believe that they have a stronger role to play in the future, and the provincial government in the past eight and a half years I believe has been somewhat negligent.

We had Headingley leave the city of Winnipeg. One of the things which I think Mr. Schreyer did well was the development of Unicity because of the potential benefits. I was pleased with what the minister was doing with respect to St. Germain and Headingley, at least with the idea of the referendum there, and I know that I could likely be criticized soundly for making comments of that nature by even some members of my own political party, but I do believe it is in the long-term best interests of the Capital Region to look at some of the problems that Winnipeg and communities around Winnipeg are facing and try to deal with them so that in the future there is more harmony and better overall planning. I think that is absolutely critical.

You know, in the last year or a year and a half ago, I heard the phrase of a "rurbanite"--I do not know if the minister has heard that phrase in the past, but I thought it was just a wonderful phrase, in essence, as it was defined to me. I do not know if it is in a Webster--is someone that enjoys both the urban life and the rural life. We have a lot of rurbanites that are scattered in rural Manitoba, live in rural Manitoba and receive the many benefits, whether it is entertainment, work or whatever, of the city of Winnipeg. I think that is an excellent way of life. It is a hybrid of both rural and urban, something I know I myself would even be quite interested in doing, because I see the many benefits of living in both rural Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg.

Having said that, I know the NDP critic does have some questions, so I will leave it at that. Thank you.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Chair, just a couple of areas, and then I will be prepared to pass the Estimates line by line.

I would like to ask the minister: Where exactly is the Urban Sports Camp going to be situated? The Urban Sports Camp has been announced, I think, at least five times. I believe it is in discussions or in the documents in the Winnipeg Development Agreement. It certainly is one of the suggested elements to a strategy to deal with the problems surrounding the youth of Winnipeg and Manitoba, as outlined in the Children and Youth Secretariat report that we discussed last night. I am wondering if the minister knows exactly where this camp will be located and when it will be located in that spot.

* (1440)

Mr. Reimer: I should maybe give a little bit of background to the member regarding the Urban Sports Camp and its allocation through the Winnipeg Development Agreement. I think the member is aware that, under the Winnipeg Development Agreement, there are various departments that take over the lead or the jurisdiction for the implementation of their program. Family Services has taken over one of the projects. Highways and Transportation has been involved with the Winnport that we talked about the other day, and, as I mentioned, Family Services is involved with the strategic and child development program, I believe it is called. I cannot remember the exact wording on that particular sector.

The Urban Sports Camp is under the Winnipeg Development Agreement. The lead department on that is the Justice Department, and they would be the ones that do, more or less, the implementation and the strategizing of that in co-operation with Urban Affairs.

The concept behind the Urban Sports Camp is not a single entity in itself. Even though it says camp, it should be interpreted that it is a program to go into the community, whether it is in the so-called core area or on the outlying areas or wherever there is an association of setting up the sports camp.

There are two components of the Urban Sports Camp right now that are being initiated. One is with the Winnipeg native alliance which is in the Salter and Selkirk area; the other one is in and around the Central Park area where there is the youth recreation project in there. Those are two of the components of the Urban Sports Camp.

It will be developed, to my understanding, even more fully through other directions that are going to be taken, but the direction of it and the sole jurisdiction or part of the jurisdiction would be through the Justice department. So that is more or less where it is, but it is not a total entity of itself in one location that is going to be called the sports camp under the program.

Ms. Barrett: How much money is going to be allocated upon completion of this part of the Winnipeg Development Agreement to the Urban Sports Camp?

Mr. Reimer: The total allocation over the five-year project for the Urban Sports Camp is $1 million.

Ms. Barrett: How much have the two components that are currently at least in the planning stages, how much have they been allocated, the Winnipeg native alliance and the youth recreation program out of the Central Park area?

Mr. Reimer: The provincial commitment on the two programs that the member is referring to for the two components is a total of $75,000.

Ms. Barrett: The total for the two programs is $75,000?

Mr. Reimer: Yes. Thirty and 45.

Ms. Barrett: The $1 million, is that from all three levels of government or is that the provincial component?

Mr. Reimer: Just the provincial component, which is $1 million. That would be the total commitment of $1 million that would be coming out of the provincial allocation of funding.

Ms. Barrett: Is there any money coming from the other two levels of government for this component, or is the $1 million the entire amount that will be allocated?

Mr. Reimer: There is no other funding that will come from the other two levels. The total funding for this will come out of the provincial contribution.

Ms. Barrett: I am wondering if the minister has--or would I get this information from the Justice department--the terms of reference for making application for the Urban Sports Camp.

Mr. Reimer: We can certainly put you in touch with the proper people for applications and make those available to the member. There is no problem at all in getting those to her. I just want to point out also that when we talk about the $1 million, it should be recognized that that $1 million acts as a catalyst or seed money, if you want to call it, in trying to build partnerships with some of the other components in the community. It is similar to what we have done with the Urban Safety program where we have levered approximately $3.8 million with money that we have committed of about $1 million.

It is hoped that we build in good faith partnerships with some other nonprofit organizations or organizations in the community that are interested in pursuing a sports camp theme so that again, as pointed out before, it is not totally provincial funding that is utilized. It is best to try to build a long-term program, and if we can build with some of the assets in the community in the sports camp field or sports camps endeavour, that is the ideal situation and the best utilization of that $1 million.

Ms. Barrett: I would like information as to how to get an application. I am also interested in the terms of reference or the checklist, if you will, of how these organizations or these projects are determined.

The minister talked about it going into the community wherever an association is available to set up a program under this Urban Sports Camp concept, and the two that are currently talked about, both are dealing in areas where there is clearly a major problem with youth despair and hopelessness and the resultant problems that arise out of that. Is there going to be a focus on the areas of the city where this is demonstrably more of a problem? Or is it like the current terms of reference of the Green Team, going to be open to virtually any organization in the city of Winnipeg? Is this going to be targeted in the language of the Children and Youth Secretariat report that we were discussing last night? Is this going to be targeted to those most in need, or is it going to be more of a universal program?

Mr. Reimer: I can point out that naturally any type of expenditures of money within the government are trying to get the best utilization of a return, not only as a money investment but as the investment in human resources and the investment in the social aspects of making the community better and stronger. These types of criteria and selections are done by a selection panel evaluating the applications as they come in, and if there are applications that show merit and strong direction toward alleviating social problems, as has been pointed out by the member, with youth violence or youth gangs or better utilization of trying to get youth involved with some sort of self-worth programs, those I think have been more of a priority than the bricks and mortar and the structures of trying to get facilities built.

We have an enormous amount of facilities here in the city of Winnipeg, whether it is buildings or churches, basements or community centres that we talked about the other day, or YMCA, YWCA, YMHA; we have a lot of areas for congregation. I think it behoves us to look at trying to capitalize on the human values of self-worth and expand that than to try to spend money necessarily on the bricks and mortar of building a bigger and better structure. I believe that in the evaluation process that will be undertaken by the Justice department and through the Winnipeg Development Agreement, that priorities we have indicated are for the betterment of Winnipeg. If the betterment of Winnipeg dictates that some of the programs are concentrated, as mentioned, in the high troubled areas of youth, I would think that is where there will be more of a reckoning of worth coming out of the evaluation.

* (1450)

Ms. Barrett: So is the minister saying that he was talking about more a priority on programs than bricks and mortar? Does that mean that capital expenditures could be a part of the Urban Sports Camp, that projects that involve capital rather than programming expenditures could be supported through the Urban Sports Camp?

Mr. Reimer: I guess if it is taken in the context of making the program viable, there would be certain considerations made towards capital investment, but I do not know whether that would be the priority in making the viability of a program. I think that what we are trying to do is build upon the asset base that is in the community right now of programs and facilities too that are existing there, to complement them and use this as a catalyst in expanding the concept or the program. If it involves some certain amount of capital as a complementary way in a very small way and it is part of the application, on a good application that comes forth overall, I guess that just becomes part of the decision that is included in it, but it would not be the definite criteria that it is made specifically for bricks and mortar.

Ms. Barrett: The $1 million is over a five-year period?

Mr. Reimer: Right. The member must remember that we have already been into it for what? Two years. So there are three years left in the five-year program.

Ms. Barrett: In the first two years there are currently two projects that are being funded under the Urban Sports Camp Program?

Mr. Reimer: Right.

Ms. Barrett: Does the minister know how many other projects are in the pipeline, applications have been received?

Mr. Reimer: I do not have a number right on hand, but what we can do is we can provide a number to the member, get an update as to the numbers that are, as you mentioned, in the mail. We can forward that to her as soon as possible.

Ms. Barrett: Just a final note. If it is possible, I would like that information on the status of the number of projects at various points in the pipeline and a copy of the application, and if there is any other information on the focus and criteria that the committee or the group out of Justice looks at in determining which projects get the funding, that would be very helpful.

Mr. Reimer: We can arrange for those things as mentioned by the member. I would encourage all members to look at the programs that are available because, just as she is aware, all members are aware of needs in their communities. Because the Winnipeg Development is a Winnipeg program, it is not necessarily restricted to one particular area of the city. This is why I would encourage all members of the Legislature to look upon the Winnipeg Development Agreement for areas of utilization within their own constituencies, whether it be through the Urban Sports Camp or the Urban Safety program or some of the riverbank enhancement programs or the housing aspect of the WDA.

There are 25 various categories of exposure for funding under the Winnipeg Development Agreement. If any member needed a copy of the Winnipeg Development Agreement, where all the components are listed, and they felt that they had a project in their constituency that possibly should merit consideration, I would encourage them to come forth with these, because it is for the betterment and the enhancement of Winnipeg in the whole. It is a program that we should utilize within our communities, so, as mentioned, we will make every effort to get the application for the member and the update on the positioning of those requests.

Ms. Barrett: I just have one other general category that I would like to discuss before we go into the line-by-line conclusion of the Estimates, and that is--it actually goes back to the minister's opening remarks yesterday and also to his opening remarks of last year. I do not have Hansard for yesterday, so I am going to make a couple of quotes from last year's opening remarks which were, if not word for word, similar to this year's.

Where the minister said last May, that Urban Affairs continues to perform the important role of facilitating and supporting intergovernmental relations between the city and the province and that his department will undertake initiatives which support this mandate and an effective partnership with the City of Winnipeg. The minister has said, as I said, in his opening remarks last year, the year before and this year, made the comments about partnership, working together co-operatively many, many, many, many times, as have most of the ministers in the government in whatever department they have been dealing with in Question Period or other situations, the new mantra of the 1990s.

It occurs to me that it must be very difficult for the Minister of Urban Affairs to make these statements, which I have no question that he believes and is definitely the mandate of the Department of Urban Affairs. Its raison d'être is to work with the City of Winnipeg to enhance the life of the City of Winnipeg and thereby by extension the life and vibrancy of the Province of Manitoba. It is a small department. It does not have a whole lot of programs itself. It is a linking kind of department, it seems to me, certainly in comparison to some of the other much larger departments. I would argue, however, it has an enormously important role to play, particularly and precisely in the areas of linkages and partnerships with the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba.

I would also state that it does not matter what government is in power at the time. I am sure in any province but, most particularly in Manitoba, given the overwhelming importance geographically and demographically of the city of Winnipeg in comparison to any other centre of population in the province, a creative tension occurs at the best of times between the province and the City of Winnipeg. There are a whole bunch of comparisons I suppose. A familial one could be used--it is a parent, child, a teenager and a parent. I mean, there are all kinds of analogies that could be used. It is an extremely delicate relationship that can only work if there really is a sense of co-operation and partnership. Now I think that the minister is trying his best to engender that kind of a partnership and co-operative relationship, and I would suggest to the minister that I sympathize with him, because I think it is really hard for him to do that in the light of comments that are made by his Leader.

A number of them have been made, but I have in particular a couple of comments that were early in March of this year on CBC radio. I believe it is a weekly dialogue interview that the Premier has with one of the CBC radio reporters. The whole topic of this interview was dealing with the relationships between the city and the province, talking about the issues such as BFI, the issue where the city came to the province asking for wage rollback legislation, which parenthetically I disagree with and I am glad the province said no to, the whole issue which we have not even touched on this time about urban sprawl, the tension between the city and the exurban, suburban communities and the other members of the Capital Region Committee.

* (1500)

A number of times when the city has come to the province asking for the ability to have other sources of revenue in the city and the province has turned them down, a number of issues have come about where things have not worked out as well as they might, certainly from the city's point of view.

The Premier's answer was to the question, does the province not bear a great deal of responsibility for the tensions between the city and the province? And the Premier says, and I quote, not a lot. The Premier goes on to say that it is the city's choice not to address the expenditure side of the equation and, therefore, it is the city's responsibility for the problems that they are in financially.

Does the Minister of Urban Affairs not agree that laying blame in that way does not do anybody any good, does not do the relationship between the province and the city any good and only exacerbates an already tense situation?

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member is right when she says that the expression of partnerships is becoming the word of usage to an extent more and more between governments. I think that it is something that has to bear another adjective with it, and that is good faith partnerships. Because with any type of relationship, there has to be a mutual respect for each other in directions that are taken.

I guess when you have two very, very strong elected bodies which are in charge of, if you want to call it, some very huge economic engines, the economic engine of the City of Winnipeg and the economic engine of the Province of Manitoba, the political--the member used the word "creative tension," I use the word political--posturing and political enthusiasm in our expression sometimes takes over that sometimes these things do come about. I believe very firmly, and I guess I am repeating myself, when I say that there is room for an awful lot of co-operation and working together with the city in trying to come to some sort of resolve of our differences and our perceived differences.

A lot of times what happens is some of these things get blown out of context, not only because of what is said or perceived to be said but also through the reporting process of trying to capitalize on a situation between the city and the province. We have worked very hard in trying to build up a relationship with the city and the province with the fact of the meetings that are continually made by myself and the mayor and myself and EPC and any other councillor that is available, the fact that we share concerns through our Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet in which the EPC and the mayor come before the cabinet meeting with members of cabinet to bring forth their discussions.

I think there is always room for improvement in any type of relationship. If there is a willingness to address the problems and work co-operatively, a lot of times these things can be overcome. I would think that it is something that continually needs to be worked at. I feel very strongly that there is room for not only improvement on the city's end but on the province's end in dealing with the city. We work towards these types of common ends because of the taxpayer, the person who is the one and the same that we should be doing that for, so we will continue to work that way. There are a lot of areas where we work together in trying to come to some sort of resolve with the various programs and the funding allocations and the community resources that we share. So we will continue to work with the City of Winnipeg in trying to come to these types of resolves.

Ms. Barrett: I still think the minister has had his already challenging job made much more difficult by the public comments made by the Premier on numerous occasions, only one of which have I spoken about. The Premier again, as I said, says that the city chooses not to address the expenditure side of its budgetary problems. Has the minister shared with the Premier the fact that in this instance he is wrong, the Premier, that the reality is that the vast majority of the costs to the City of Winnipeg, just as in many organizations are staffing expenditures and that in effect, over the last six years, while the consumer price index went up in Winnipeg by 14.13 percent, the wage increases for every group of city employees with the exception of firefighters and police officers were well under, like at least half of that consumer price index. So, while the costs of the market basket of goods and services went up by over 14 percent, the wage hike for all city employees with the exception of the police service and firefighters was between 9 percent and 7.5 percent. So on the single largest expenditure item the city has done a very good job in controlling its expenditures. I might say that the increase for senior police officers was just over 17.5 percent and for firefighters it was just under 17 percent, not very far over the consumer price index increase for that five-year period.

So the reality is that the city has been addressing its expenditures. Yet the Premier last month goes on public radio and makes what I can only call an inflammatory statement, not only inaccurate but definitely inflammatory, saying that the city has not done their job right. There has been some sense that the government is forcing the city into privatization and downsizing and contracting out. I find it very interesting because, as I mentioned yesterday in the minister's opening remarks for the first time in the three years that we have been in Estimates together, the minister spoke at length about the programs and the policies of the City of Winnipeg. Why did he do this? Because that paper that was passed by a majority--although a strong minority disagreed with it--of city councillors talked about exclusively, virtually exclusively, privatization, contracting out and downsizing.

I think a very logical connection could be made between the inflammatory, inaccurate statements deliberately put on the record by the Premier about the role of the city budgeting process and the minister's opening remarks, which spoke very highly of the kind of process that they have been on a provincial level engaged in--privatizing, contracting out, and downsizing--and sort of forcing the city to go into that as well.

The city gets less than 1 percent of the provincial revenues. That is a very small portion of the revenues of the Province of Manitoba going directly to the City of Winnipeg. No other city--never mind what the Premier said in his comments where he is again inaccurate--is more dependent on property taxes than the City of Winnipeg. No other city of comparable size--or cities such as Regina and Saskatoon in a comparable economy--has to rely more on the property tax and has less of their other resources available to them, revenue sources available to them, than does the City of Winnipeg. I know this is not something that has just happened in the nine years that this current government has been in power. It is something that has happened over time, no question about it, but you do not talk about good-faith partnerships, or you cannot mean it when you talk about good-faith partnerships, when your Leader makes these kinds of statements again and again and again in the media, inaccurate, misleading statements.

* (1510)

Another thing that the Premier said about urban sprawl, that it is a lifestyle issue, and the Minister of Urban Affairs has said this too--we did not talk about it this year, but he did say that last year and he has said it repeatedly too--that the people should be allowed to go and live wherever they want to live because it is a lifestyle choice. The Premier says, as long as there is access to water, to proper sewage treatment and to being able to service these properties, I do not think it is as serious an issue as the city believes, and we should not be looking at these decisions only based on how much more money the city needs. Again the Premier shows a lack of understanding, whether deliberate or accidental, to the issues that face the city of Winnipeg, and not just the city of Winnipeg, but the entire Capital Region.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Every single one of those areas in the Capital Region requires a healthy city of Winnipeg in order to live properly. And it is not just the city of Winnipeg that is dealing with the issues of urban sprawl. The city of Dauphin has been dealing with issues of urban sprawl on its borders. The city of Steinbach, the community of Steinbach has in writ small the same problems as the city of Winnipeg is experiencing, and not only by the actions of this government in completely ignoring the provincial land use policies by giving what is the city of Portage the ability to get water; you know, on and on it goes.

The government, by its actions, has been showing that it does not take sustainable development seriously. We have discussed that, and those are legitimate areas of disagreement between the Department of Urban Affairs and ourselves and many of the people of the city of Winnipeg. But when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) goes on record and makes these statements, again I will say, he makes the minister's job just that much more difficult.

One final thing, in just this couple of minutes the Premier had four or five inaccuracies on the record. He clearly does not understand the BFI issue, clearly does not understand it or chooses not to understand it, because he says if the City had not raised their tipping charges so high, BFI would never have had to look for its own site. Now, when I read that, I was literally dumbstruck, which anybody who knows me will know how difficult that is to achieve.

The Premier did not attend, nor should he have been expected to attend, the Clean Environment Commission hearings, two sets of them that dealt with the whole issue of solid waste management in the Capital Region and the specific proposal on the part of BFI to build a landfill site in Rosser. But certainly he had access to the reports of the Clean Environment Commission, to the concerns raised by a number of groups to the questions that were asked in Question Period on numerous occasions, to the answers that the Minister of Environment gave.

He deliberately, I am suggesting, deliberately misinterpreted the whole issue of BFI and made it simply the fact that the city was greedy in raising its tipping fees too high, which goes completely against every principle of sustainable development that even the Clean Environment Commission report, his own government's report, talks about. You have to have high tipping fees if you are going to discourage solid waste from entering the stream. It is the whole point of encouraging recycling, of encouraging reduction. If your tipping fees are $10 a tonne, then what is to keep every business in the city, every residential person in the city from going out and dumping their solid waste into the stream?

There is a time for high charges, and this is exactly the kind of situation that was the case with BFI. There was no shortage of landfill in the Capital Region, certainly not for the City of Winnipeg. There was no reason, any reason to give BFI that licence except to allow a large, multinational, private corporation, with a minimum of $78 million in fines over the last 20 years, access to the city's refuse, to allow them, a profit-making company, to beggar the City of Winnipeg by a minimum of $7 million a year and do irreparable damage to the whole concept of sustainable development. Then the Premier has the unmitigated gall to go on the radio and say what is absolutely not an accurate statement. Now my point is that this, with many other issues and many other situations, does not lead to good-faith partnerships. It leads to exactly the opposite thing.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Does the Minister of Urban Affairs agree with what the Premier states in his public comments, that the City of Winnipeg is responsible for its own problems because it does not have its expenditures under control and that that whole problem with BFI is that the city had too high a tipping fee and it is totally the city's responsibility and they have been bad managers?

Now, if the Minister of Urban Affairs believes this and agrees with his Leader, his Premier, on this, then no wonder the relations between the city and the province are in as dreadful a situation as they are. And, if he does not believe what the Premier is saying, then I feel very sorry for him because it must be very difficult for him to go into cabinet and go into caucus and to hear the Premier talk about these things and know that they are inaccurate. So I am wondering if the minister could share with us his feelings about the issues that have been raised by his Leader.

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member has covered a fairly wide spectrum of comments in the last few moments regarding the so-called situation with the city and the province. One of the comments that was made by the member was regarding the taxes of the city of Winnipeg and how they are continuing to go up, and it should be pointed out that taxes in the city of Winnipeg have gone up every year since Unicity. Since 1972 they have gone up continually every year except for--I believe it is only one year that they were at zero--so taxes, whether they were under the previous administration, the NDP administration, or the Conservative administration, have continued to rise, so this is not a new phenomenon that the City of Winnipeg is doing in regard to its property taxes.

The mention of sources of revenue for the City of Winnipeg, the City of Winnipeg has got just as many available avenues of recourse for collection of taxes and user fees as any other city in Canada. Winnipeg is not unique in the sense that we are holding back their ability to raise taxes or raise user fees. An example is they have the ability to raise revenue through their property tax, their business tax, the amusement tax. There is a tax on the electricity and gas through the surcharge of 2.5 percent on residential consumption and a 5 percent surcharge on nonresidential consumption of electricity and natural gas. These are areas that they can raise funding on. They have the ability for a special assessment levy on frontage for local improvements. They have a tax revenue sharing program that is totally unique in Canada in the sense that we give them 2.2 percent of the personal provincial income tax that is raised and 1 percent of the corporate taxable income, and these are designated for municipal use. No other city in Canada has that funding available to them. This is locked into a formula. So these are some of the areas that the City of Winnipeg can enjoy benefits from the province that no other city has. It has the ability to raise user fees for water, for sewer, for garbage collection, for the transit buses it can charge, recreational facilities and services, for the ambulance, for hydro.

* (1520)

These are all areas that are totally within their jurisdiction of raising funding. There are very few areas that they have funding that is available that others cities do not have. In fact, if you do a comparison between Winnipeg's share of its funding to the City of Winnipeg in comparison to other cities, we are heads and shoulders above the other cities, in the other prairie cities. Winnipeg, if you take out the social assistance sector of the funding that we do to the City of Winnipeg, is 10.6 percent of their budget; Regina, it is 7.5 percent; Saskatoon is 8.6 percent; Edmonton is 6.5 percent; and Calgary is only 6 percent. So to say that we do not give our fair share to the City of Winnipeg regarding the funding or the allocation of provincial money goes in the opposite direction of the realities of what is happening with our actual monies that we give to the city.

In fact, if you look at the funding over the last six years, our funding to the City of Winnipeg has gone up by over 24 percent while other areas have gone down continually. This year we are up one point. I believe it is 1.3 percent or 1.8 percent--1.3 percent over our previous funding of last year. This is unprecedented in relationship between other provinces and their municipalities. We recognize the importance of Winnipeg and the fact of its strong presence and economic base here in Manitoba. We continue to support it more than we have ever had. If you take into account the total amount of monies, whether it is just through my department or through the other departments of government--through Family Services, through Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, through Justice and all the other things--I believe that the total funding, directly and indirectly to the City of Winnipeg, is about $130 million in this budgetary fiscal year. Those are tremendously big numbers of monies that we supply to Winnipeg.

We supply funding on a continual basis to the arts programs, to the museum, to the art gallery over here, to other components of the arts. These are huge investments that this government recognizes are necessary for the quality of life here in Winnipeg. Our funding has always been and continues to be very, very constant in the sense of what is important to the city of Winnipeg. We take very seriously our commitment to the city of Winnipeg and the funding. I guess we will always be of the nature that in any type of allocation of funding there has to be an accountability.

The taxpayers are saying to us that they want this type of accountability. We are saying there are always two sides to the ledger of any type of relationship in regards to funding. There is the revenue side and there is the expenditure side, and both have to be taken into a balanced perspective to get the best results. If it means concentration from time to time on making sure that the expenditure side is brought into line, these are some of the concerns that we feel should be addressed. We do it continually here in the provincial government, my Department of Urban Affairs, the Department of Housing and the Seniors Directorate under my portfolio. We go through analysis that is very thorough and exhaustive in trying to look at better ways and better utilization of our fundings and how we can get the best bang for the buck, if you want to call it. At times it means reallocation and a redirection of funding, so we will continue to do that. It is just a matter of practices and bringing into balance the social responsibilities of the economic realities of what we have before us.

We have tremendous challenges in front of us regarding the offloading of the federal government on its funding. When we look at the tremendous amount of money that we are going to be forced to realize for lack of funding, I believe, over the next four or five years is almost a billion dollars. These are huge amounts of money that somewhere along the line have to be absorbed or programs more critically analyzed. These are just some of the challenges and opportunities that all departments are going through, and the expenditure side is a natural questioning part of any type of portfolio.

Ms. Barrett: So the minister, I am assuming, because he did not deal with the other part of my remarks, has no problem with the comments that the Premier has put on the record about the expenditures on the City of Winnipeg and the role of BFI and the concerns around urban sprawl. Those three comments that I put on the record, the minister has no trouble with, nor disagreement with the comments that the Premier has made. Is that an accurate summary of the minister's view in this situation?

Mr. Reimer: I can only point out to the member that in the discussions that I have had with the mayor and with EPC, we talk about a tremendous variety of subjects and topics as to what is best in trying to work with the relationship between the city and the province and the components of change, of expenditure, of posturing and positioning that we feel is important for the city as it goes forth is something that is always of importance. We look at the role that Urban Affairs can play in support of the development of the city of Winnipeg and meeting the needs of the city, and the role really is not to impede the development in the Capital Region but also to try to complement the City of Winnipeg in a sense of trying to work co-operatively, not only through my department but through other areas of the government so that there is a sense that the well-being of the citizens and the taxpayers are well represented.

I think that is a healthy environment that we should cultivate within the city of Winnipeg and the province, because we are being asked by the taxpayers more and more for this type of an accountability of where the expenditures go. Questions are asked, comments are made, positions are taken but, at the same time, it is a healthy evaluation that transpires, and sometimes from that we can get some positive growth. I am fairly optimistic that the City of Winnipeg has adopted a position that they realize that their financial house is getting in order. They have come forth with a five-year plan. I believe this is the first time they have ever come forth with a two-year budget. I give them the compliment of saying that they are looking visionary in the sense of trying to get a better comprehension of their budgetary process and their expenditures. The initiatives that the member has brought forth are some for consideration.

I believe there is a total of 45 initiatives that were presented between the two budgets. We cannot say for sure that every one of those initiatives is going to be implemented, because I imagine it is like anything. As you get intervolved with analysis of one sector, other sectors play and overlap into it and sometimes decisions do not have to be made in those. So even though there is a long list of initiatives that have been mentioned, as I mentioned, almost 45 of them, that does not mean that every one of them is going to be acted upon in an overnight fashion. Some of these are long-term objectives, some of them are short term, but that is normal in any type of planning.

I would think that the city should be complimented for having that type of vision in wanting to get its house in order in a sense of finding out what the citizens of Winnipeg are telling them, how they can best address these needs, and I think that it is an ongoing relationship that I look very favourably upon in the city and the province.

Ms. Barrett: That concludes my questions for the departmental Estimates, but the member for Radisson does have several questions that she would like to raise at this time.

* (1530)

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I want to follow up on an issue I raised in the House. This was more than a week ago now before the spring break. That is the program initiated by the City of Winnipeg for a tax break on property tax for new homes that are being built. I am not sure of the official name of the program. I have a number of concerns about this program. I guess, first of all, I just want to clarify from the minister of when it was that he first became aware of this program and what kind of consultation there was between his department and the city prior to the majority of Manitobans finding out about it through the announcements in the media.

Mr. Reimer: I am not exactly sure what sequence the member is referring to. The City of Winnipeg works through a process of consultation with myself in directions of proposed legislation. It comes forth in a resolution from council and then we include it in our City of Winnipeg Amendment Act. That gives you more or less a very small snapshot of the steps that go through with amendments that are brought forth.

I should say that not all amendments are acted upon, because sometimes with the analysis that goes through our department, it just needs a clarification between our department and the City of Winnipeg so that amendments do not have to be brought forth. In general it is worked as I outlined to the member.

Ms. Cerilli: Perhaps I could make myself more clear. What I am wanting to find out is, how long was this program being developed in consultation with the government? I mean the minister obviously had approved it in principle, I understand, before it went to City Council for approval. There had been discussions with the Department of Urban Affairs by the city, and there is support for the program by your department prior to it being approved officially by City Council. I just wanted to clarify that and just sort of how long was this in the works prior to it being approved.

Mr. Reimer: There are various areas of discussion when we get together with the mayor and EPC as to various components and various directions that they are talking about or thinking of going towards. In a general context, a lot of things are talked about, and in a sense, well, what do you think about this, or do you think that this is feasible, or things like that. Those conversations go on in our breakfast meetings and things like that. A lot of things are not pursued. Some are pursued, some go to council, some just go to EPC. We do not respond in a formal manner until we get the resolution from council, and I believe we got that resolution shortly after it was announced at City Council. They forwarded the resolution to us either by fax, I believe it was in fact, and then we responded that we would include it in our legislative package.

Ms. Cerilli: So are you now telling me that you did not have consultation other than maybe informal breakfast meetings about this program before you approved it? That it was introduced to council prior to your department having any analysis done on this proposal?

Mr. Reimer: What I can tell the member is there was conversations as to the general direction of what they were proposing, and until we saw the actual black and white, if you want to call it, we could not give unanimous consent or anything like that. It was a program that we were not familiar with. I was not familiar with the exact text or the wording or the ramifications, and until we see that, we do not give any type of written correspondence back to the city saying that this is an inclusion for any type of amendments with The City of Winnipeg Act. Once we had that off the floor of council, then it is a matter of knowing exactly what the contents of the resolution was, exactly knowing in what manner we can best address that, plus the fact that we would then know whether we even have to make an amendment to the City of Winnipeg, because from time to time there are resolutions coming forth from the city asking for a change in The City of Winnipeg Act.

Once we see the actual resolution, the analysis that is done by our staff at Urban Affairs say we do not have to proceed with this. They have this ability already under their existing act. So until we get the actual resolution, we do not know whether it is possible that a change in the act is necessary or whether they have the ability to make those changes at all. So sometimes what is said on Main Street is different than what the resolution comes forth for us to respond to, so we always wait for the resolution to come forth. We know what the black and white is. We know exactly what the implications are, and then we can respond to it.

Ms. Cerilli: This is a bit disconcerting because it was obvious in the discussions that we had in the House the other day and the reports in the media that prior to it being discussed at council that there were some discussions with the department. In fact, I think that is what we would want to see. We would want to see the department involved in some kind of--I consider this a major initiative, a major change.

This is a major initiative. It is going to require legislative change. That is clearly in the proposal. What I am just trying to clarify is the extent of your department's involvement in analysis of this project and development of it prior to it being tabled with City Hall, or if what you are saying is you did not give approval to it, you have not given approval to it until it has come forward through a motion through City Hall, so which is it? Was there sort of approval and principle as they were going along, because you had participated in the analysis and the development, or did you just decide that day when it was in the paper and you got up in the House and you said, yes, we think this is great? It is a good thing, you said. I am concerned, because I know the responsibility and the powers that you hold in terms of this kind of initiative with the City of Winnipeg. This is a very small part of the kind of questions I want to get into, and I hope we are not going to have to spend this amount of time on the rest, because I just want to clarify the department's involvement in the development of this proposal.

Mr. Reimer: I can let the member know that we were aware on general terms as to what the council was looking at. We, in a broad spectre, agreed to the direction that they were taking, but at the same time recognizing that until it comes to us in a formal manner we do not know exactly what and how the program that they are outlining is coming about.

Ms. Cerilli: What you are telling me now today is that this has gone through approvals through your department? Has it gone through cabinet? Has it been approved? Have legislative changes been brought in this session?

Mr. Reimer: Yes. We will bring in legislative changes in this session to address this.

* (1540)

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. Then I want to deal with some of the concerns that I began to raise a couple of weeks ago. First of all though, saying that I think it is good that the city and your department, the government is recognizing that there is a problem with ex-urban sprawl and urban sprawl. I want to go on the record saying that I do not necessarily think that this initiative is the best way to deal with it perhaps, because I do not think that there are enough conditions attached to the program. It is using some mechanisms, market mechanisms I guess you could call it, through incentives, but I am concerned that the majority, three to one, the houses built under this program are likely to be near or on the periphery of the city, that they are more unlikely to be infill housing. That is clearly stated in the proposal, that three to one the majority of the houses are going to be on new lands.

So one of the things I want to find out is to see if the minister shares this concern, if this is something that has been discussed in your department and in cabinet, that this program may keep some of those houses. Ambitiously, the program anticipates perhaps 300 houses to be built in the city that may otherwise have been built outside the city, but if you do not share the concern, that if those houses are built near the perimeter on lands, for example, across from Highway 59 across from the Mint, there is not that much difference in terms of the effects on the core area of Winnipeg--the continued decline, the continued loss of residential, commercial value on property in the inner city, and all the other problems that we are seeing with urban sprawl and urban decay.

So let us start with that very basic question. Was this issue discussed and does the minister share the concern that this project will not address urban sprawl and urban decay?

Mr. Reimer: I should point out to the member that the program--I am not too sure whether she is familiar with the total program as to how it works, but there is actually a better incentive for infill housing. In fact, the rebate that is being proposed is 100 percent of the municipal portion in the first 12 months, 100 percent in the second 12 months, and 50 percent in the third 12 months for the existing neighbourhood's infill as it is referred to.

They are projecting approximately 100 starts during this program duration. In the new development areas, the rebate is 100 percent in the first 12 months, 50 percent only in the second 12 months, and 25 percent in the third month. They are looking at approximately 300 starts, so it is approximately one in three that would be going into the so-called new development areas.

I think that one thing that is of benefit in looking at the infill area, this is one of the first programs that has looked at specifically trying to increase the utilization of lands and the building sites in the city within the infill areas. I commend the City of Winnipeg in that respect for trying to balance the housing starts and to redirect them from the new areas.

I think it is, as she pointed out, a good thing because it is an area that addresses the two areas, not only new development but infill area in existing neighbourhoods. The utilization of existing neighbourhoods and the infrastructure in existing neighbourhoods is something that can only benefit a community and its growth. So I would think the City of Winnipeg is looking at some fairly significant investments in the area. They have expenditures--I am not too sure, I better not quote that, because I am not too sure whether that is exactly the figures or not regarding what they are looking at. Oh, I see, yes, once it is completed, they are looking at an additional, almost over $611,000 of additional property taxes that are going to be generated. So these are very significant amounts of monies that this program can generate.

I think that it is a good initiative if you look at combining this initiative with the other initiatives that are available regarding the provincial new home program, which can give a maximum rebate of up to $2,500, the homebuilder's rebate of also $2,500. You can look at a possible rebate if you are building in the infill area of over three years of $8,500. That is a significant amount of money for a new home buyer and, if it is in the other areas, in the new development, you are looking at a rebate of $7,000, so those are significant positives to get the building industry going.

But more importantly what it does is, it puts people to work. It puts tradesmen to work. It puts people that work in the various components of supplying materials. It gives the retail trade the opportunity to participate in selling the components of furnishings. It gives the school divisions more monies for their taxation base. It has been estimated that the person-years of employment per construction dwelling is 2.8. It just generates a better economic confidence for the housing industry in Winnipeg. I feel that it is a good, positive initiative, and I would hope that the numbers that they are projecting do come to fruition.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister has put on the record a lot of the information that is contained in the report or the proposal, but I want him to clarify one thing. It is three to one for housing development in new lands, not in infill. So for every house that is going to be built in infill, three will be built on new lands on the outlying areas of the city. That is the problem I want to address. I want him to address the problem of sprawl and that this program does not have enough conditions attached to it to truly have it deal with the problem of urban sprawl. It may deal somewhat with the problem of exurban sprawl, but it is going to continue to allow housing to be built on the outskirts of the city.

Whether it is on the outside of the Perimeter or just inside of the Perimeter, a house being built there will continue to add to the problem of urban core decay. That is what I want the minister to deal with and tell me if that has been discussed at all, if there were any other conditions considered to be attached to this program to deal with that problem.

You know that we have often been concerned that there is not a very strong plan anymore to deal with the core area. The Winnipeg Development Agreement is a lot different than the Core Area agreements were, but this has been a long-standing problem in Winnipeg, that the provincial government has not stepped in as much as it could to try to address the increase of the size of the city vis-a-vis the stagnant population.

I do not want to get into too much of that right now. Basically I just want to know if in the analysis of this program with the department and the city that there was some discussion of other conditions to look at dealing with this problem of having more of the housing under this program be infill housing and not have that unbalanced three-to-one ratio.

Mr. Reimer: I guess there is always a perception that there should be more housing in the inner city, and I will agree to an extent with the member that any time you can generate the utilization of spaces or of land for the utilization of the population downtown is a benefit to the core area and it is a benefit to the whole district in the area. I have got to point out that, as she has mentioned under the Winnipeg Development Agreement, we have funding available for housing and for strategic initiatives in certain areas under the Winnipeg Development Agreement.

* (1550)

I should mention that we have also passed legislation for tax credits to encourage utilization of our heritage buildings downtown. There is an excellent opportunity for housing to go into some of these large, historic buildings in the downtown in the core area that we passed. In fact, I believe it is one of the few jurisdictions in Canada or North America that has the ability to use tax credits for heritage buildings for the enhancement of the buildings.

Those are some of the things that can be utilized. I know I worked very closely with the Heritage Winnipeg Corporation in bringing forth this legislation. They were quite enthusiastic about the fact that now the City of Winnipeg can give them the opportunity to improve heritage buildings, utilize it for housing, utilize it for uses other than for sitting vacant. There is an opportunity to build upon this. One component will be this infill usage of grants for the tax credits that has been pointed out on the infill basis.

It is a start for getting people to move downtown. I think it is one of few things that has to be done. A lot of it has to do with the attitude of people wanting to stay in that area, to work in that area, to be part of the business in that area. I think that it is a combination of events that will dictate people staying down into the downtown area. One of the things is we work very closely on our Urban Safety program to try to initiate the sense of security and safety in the downtown. That can contribute to people moving downtown and living in that area. The fact that we spent more money on policing and an extra--I believe it is $2 million a year for policing, for the idea of getting police on the street, a lot of those things will contribute to the sense that people want to stay down there in the downtown area to live.

This tax credit for infill housing will benefit. I think that it can be utilized to an extent to get people downtown. I share the concern with the member that the more ways we can utilize housing and the availability of housing in the downtown area, the better it is going to be for everybody that does work or live in that area. So I think it is a good first start.

Ms. Cerilli: I am wondering if the minister is in denial in dealing with urban sprawl. I mean we have talked a lot about a few initiatives, but you will not agree that this program is not going to address the problem of urban sprawl, possibly exurban sprawl, but not urban sprawl.

Mr. Reimer: I guess urban sprawl is a matter of definition. When I am dealing with the City of Winnipeg from time to time, they keep talking about sprawl when they talk about people in Springfield and people in Oakbank and people in Stonewall being outside the city limits. This program here only applies to people within the city limits. I am sure the member knows that.

So people that are living outside of the city of Winnipeg cannot qualify for this grant. It only applies to the city of Winnipeg. The suburbs in the city of Winnipeg are something that are there. They are part of the city of Winnipeg. We, as a provincial government, cannot stop that type of growth unless we go through legislation and say people cannot live there. I do not think the member wants us to be in that position where we can say that people cannot live in St. James or they cannot live in south St. Vital or they cannot live in Island Lakes, or anything like that, that are new developments, or they cannot live in Transcona because it is away from the city of Winnipeg.

There is a tremendous amount of growth I know in the member's constituency out in Radisson and Transcona. That is all new development, new growth. We certainly are not going to discourage that type of growth in her constituency, but I mean if she would like me to--

Ms. Barrett: Well, how about encouragement in mine?

Mr. Reimer: Well, in the member for Wellington's area there is room for infill growth, and the City of Winnipeg has come up with a tax credit just as they have come up with a tax credit for people that want to move into the new subdivisions in the riding of Radisson.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, the minister has put some interesting things on the record. First of all, I want to let him know that back in 1995 I wrote to Patrick Hamilton, the director of the City of Winnipeg Land and Development Services, and one of the questions I asked him was to give me some information about the provincial government's responsibilities in the procedure for zoning and development of residential lands. He wrote me back and he very clearly said that the province determines the overriding regulations that govern the city's development planning, secondary planning, subdivision and rezoning procedures by means of provisions in The City of Winnipeg Act.

He also went on to say that the Minister of Urban Affairs must approve any by-laws pertaining to the development for Plan Winnipeg before it receives third reading by council. Plan Winnipeg's role in the residential development process is that it identifies areas within the city which are eligible for future residential and nonresidential development.

So, obviously, there are a few very clear indications that the province can do a lot to address where housing is going to be zoned and developed in the city of Winnipeg and in the Capital Region for that matter. But let us just deal with the city of Winnipeg, and I want to deal with one of the things that the minister is suggesting in terms of development in areas such as in Radisson and Transcona. I am not sure how familiar the minister is with the area that I represent, but one of the other concerns I have with this particular proposal for the tax break on new homes is that it has no conditions that are going to require developers to finish subdivisions that they have already started. This has been an ongoing problem in the area that I represent where areas like Harbour View South do not qualify for community clubs, have lousy bus service, do not qualify for schools, have very limited other kinds of developments around them, parks, that sort of thing, because the developer has not completed the subdivision.

So I am not just suggesting that this strategy to deal with urban sprawl should only focus on the Core Area, because I think that there are other problems within the Perimeter Highway because of the way that development has been allowed to progress. It is sort of the foot-in-the-door strategy. It seems that developers will open up new lands and develop part of a subdivision here and part of a subdivision there and not finish any of them, and the residents who live there then live in communities where there are a few houses in the middle of the prairie. It is within the city of Winnipeg, but they do not qualify for all the services that I have just listed.

So I am wondering again if this was considered at all in this proposal by the City of Winnipeg for the tax break on new houses, if there is no condition considered for developers to be required to finish the developments they have started in order for the houses to qualify for this program. This is something that affects not just my area. I am sure this affects the West Kildonan area, The Maples, all the other areas within the Perimeter that are in existing suburban developments that are not finished.

Mr. Reimer: The member covers a broad spectrum of concerns there, and it is my understanding from information given to me that this plan, this tax credit plan is going to be pertaining to existing subdivisions. It will not be applied to the opening up of new subdivisions, as the member has alluded to. The idea is to utilize the existing subdivisions, to build within those subdivisions, whether they are in Radisson or Transcona or whatever has the land available. To the best of my knowledge, from the information that I have been given, it will not apply to the breakage of new, raw land, if you want to call it, for new subdivisions.

* (1600)

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, this is one of the points that I want to clarify then because, again, in this same correspondence back in October '95 that I had with the City of Winnipeg, I also asked them to send me some information on the areas within the Perimeter that have been zoned for residential development, and they sent me the residential vacant lot inventory. Now, this is the copy back from '95 that I am looking at, from September 30, '95, but I am just wanting the minister to clarify then, based on what he said, if he can assure me that what of the different classifications of residential lots will be available or will qualify under this program, the ones that are subdivided to the block level, the ones that are serviced lots or unserviced lots. Does the minister have that information for me?

Mr. Reimer: What I can give the member is information, that is of inventory as of September 30, 1996, and there they estimate that there are approximately 491 unserviced lots zoned R1, an additional 4,481 lots which have received council approval of block plans of subdivision and will become unserviced R1 lots as soon as the short form subdivision is filled out by the developer. In addition, there are approximately 1,852 serviced lots zoned R1 as of September 30, 1996.

I am not sure whether those are the type of figures that the member is looking for.

Ms. Cerilli: Now what I am wanting the minister to tell me is which of those lots are going to be able to qualify under this program that we have been discussing for the tax break for the new homes.

Mr. Reimer: It is my understanding that the City of Winnipeg will be the one that makes the eligibility criteria of the lots, but I would assume that it would be the serviced lots that will be the ones that are going to be utilized first because the developer has an investment in those, and those are the ones that he or she is going to try to move first because they are ready for utilization. Out of that I believe, what did I say? Yes, 1,852 serviced lots.

It has been pointed out that because it is a three-year program they are wanting to start right away, so it would be the serviced lots that would most likely be the ones that would move first.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, a couple of things. The minister has said "most likely." I am wondering if he will endeavour to confirm that for me because I think this is a crucial issue. I will feel a little bit better about this program if I can know that, as he suggested in his previous answer, this will not allow for new lands to be opened up, but it would be the existing service lots. I am concerned if it is even getting into the 4,000 or so other lots that are available. If the minister can confirm that and he is suggesting it is up to the city, I am wondering if there is any consideration to putting some of those requirements into the legislation that is going to be required for this program.

Mr. Reimer: I can give assurance to the member. We will try to get a more definitive selection criteria from the city and the application of how the procedure will unfold, and we will share that information with the member as we get it. Certainly, I will share that with her.

Ms. Cerilli: I am wondering if the minister and his staff could then just confirm for me what the full range of services indicated in the inventory of residential lots means. The copy that I have just says, generally, will follow completion of a full range of municipal services including street pavement but excluding lot servicing connections. So I just want to clarify on the record what these areas will look like in terms of services and infrastructure.

Mr. Reimer: I guess what the member is asking is, the criteria, what the definition of a service lot is and what components involved to what the potential homeowner would be buying or is included in a service lot. We can get that definition of services and the criteria for the member and then we can forward that to her, too.

Ms. Cerilli: I have a map here, Winnipeg area characterization, which goes along with this compendium of the lots that are available for residential development in the city, and I am wondering if the development of this proposal has gone so far as to try and predict then where it is that the houses under this program are likely to be constructed. If that is something we could see clearly, I think it would add to the understanding of the program. We know where the service lots are in Winnipeg. It would be good if we could get a sense of where the houses under this program are likely to be constructed and if the minister and his department could provide that for me as well.

Mr. Reimer: We can try to get as much detail as we can from the City of Winnipeg as to the selection and the criteria and direction that they are going to do and we can get that for the member. But I can give the member the assurance that what we can include in our legislation is a window of a five-year review of the program so that there is an analysis done in five years to see the impacts and the direction that the program is going.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. Well, that is some kind of commitment we are getting here today. I appreciate that. Would the analysis the minister is talking about be done by the city that you would rely on or are you saying that it would be done by your department?

Mr. Reimer: Procedurally what will happen is the City of Winnipeg will be asked to bring forth an analysis at the end of five years with a recommendation either to continue with the program or a stopping of the program, if you want to call it. So we would rely on the City of Winnipeg's analysis. We would request that at the end of the five-year program, the evaluation would be based on the recommendation that the city would come forth at that time. We can give the assurance to the member that we can include that in the legislative package.

Ms. Cerilli: Talking about the legislative package, would you then also agree to look at other ways the provincial government, through the legislation, could guide this program to ensure that as much as possible it is going to put the housing in areas that are going to complement and add to existing developments? That it is going to as much as possible add to infill rather than--I am still concerned that the development may still be on the periphery of the city of Winnipeg even if those are serviced lots. I mean, I think that there has been a fairly haphazard way with the way that the zoning for residential development has gone in the city. Even though we are saying now that it is likely to be only on serviced lots, some of those serviced lots may still be far out of the way.

* (1610)

I do not think then that is even going to address the issue I was raising from my own constituency which covers that area between Transcona and East Kildonan-Elmwood area, which has a large tract of land that is I think zoned for 1,500 single family housing units over the next 25 years. Now a lot of that area is not serviced, but some of that area that is around the first phase of Harbour View South, I am not sure then that this program is even going to address that problem of having that kind of infill housing where it is in the perimeter. It is not the kind of infill that would deal with the member for Wellington's (Ms. Barrett) constituency and that more in the core area where it is individual lots that are vacant. That is not the kind of infill that we could even be talking about here.

I guess to make this short and succinct, what I am asking for is if the minister will also consider in the legislation other conditions that would guide this program so it would as best as possible deal with urban sprawl and core area decay.

Mr. Reimer: I think in looking at any type of legislative package or legislative direction that we bring forth, we have to look at the best utilization of the decision makers that are given the ability to utilize the amendments that we are going to bring forth. I would think that the avenues of recourse by the citizens through their elected officials, whether it be the city councillor or the MLA or possibly even the MP in the area, are an area that would be brought forth if there is a problem with any type of housing that is disproportionate to what the public is perceived at.

The public will more or less in a sense show its favour or disfavour with any type of building, subdivision or area of the city of Winnipeg, just by the fact that if they choose to buy or live in that particular area. Legislatively, we cannot dictate where and how they build or live in the houses. I would think that the member--and I know the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) would agree that we should not be into legislative positions where we tell people where and how to live, in what district and what houses to buy.

But it is under the Plan Winnipeg agreement, the large developments have to come before us. So we do have the ability to make decisions on that. So I think that the best efforts of the elected officials, we have to trust that some of the decisions they are going to make on City Council are going to be for the benefit of the city of Winnipeg and, utilizing that, I can see that we have to be a bit optimistic that they are going to be utilizing the serviced lots, they are going to be utilizing some of the lots in the infill area, and there is an evaluation at the end of five years.

I think it is those types of safeguards, you know, that we should look at. This is a program that we can go forth with and try to encourage more utilization for the tax grants through the inner city area, if you want to call it, for housing developments.

Ms. Cerilli: Thank you. I want to then ask the minister if he will agree to provide some information on this specific area in my constituency that I have been concerned about. The development for phase 2 of Harbour View South seems to be delayed for a variety of reasons, and I am wondering if the minister and his department would undertake to provide me some explanation of what it is that has prevented that phase 2 from going ahead when we know that there are other areas more close to the periphery of the city that have been developed in the last eight or 10 years since Harbour View South, phase 1, and if he would maybe clarify for me as well what needs to happen so that land in that area can be developed so Harbour View South can be completed and, as I said earlier, so then it would qualify for a lot of the other services, busing and what-not that other neighbourhoods take for granted.

Mr. Reimer: The area that the member is referring to, Harbour View development, we as a provincial government do not have any type of land use partnership like we have in some other areas of the city with various developers. For that reason we would not have close access to reasoning behind nondevelopment of certain development areas in the city of Winnipeg.

I can only speculate and, as a politician, we should not speculate, but I can only speculate that it is part of the market-driven economy of supply and demand and, if the developer feels that at this particular time it is not worth developing, he or they will not proceed with it. But I would think that possibly if there are serviced lots in that particular area of Harbour View this program may be of a great benefit, and we may see homes or a housing development in that particular area. Other than that I could not give specifics as to why it has not proceeded.

Ms. Cerilli: I guess what I am asking the minister is if through his department there could be some discussions with the city to sort this out. I guess I can put that request in a letter as well but, since we are here in Estimates, I thought I would just ask, because it has been a long-standing issue for that part of Winnipeg for those residents. I will just leave it there to see if he will undertake to do that.

Mr. Reimer: I can ask our staff to make enquiries. We have staff that meet on a regular and informal basis with various developers through conversations and social organizations and business meetings, and I am sure I will get one of the staff, you know, if they are talking to Qualico, I believe they are the developers in that area, whether they have any plans to further develop Harbour View. I will certainly convey that to the member.

Mr. Chairperson: Item 1. (b) $218,100.

Ms. Cerilli: In addition to that then I want to just inquire about the policy in this area. I was sort of getting at this earlier, but the policy with respect to having developers be required to complete one subdivision before they are permitted to have another area zoned and open up that land for a suburban development--I am wondering if this is an area that the department could look at and see how the city is handling this. It does seem to be an ongoing problem where, for example, you know, Genstar will have a number of different areas throughout the city where they have initiated development and there may be a number of them in this situation like Harbour View South where they are not completed. So that is another area I just want to flag and request that there be some discussion about the policy that the city has, and, again, the Department of Urban Affairs has some weight in this area too by what they approve.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I can convey that to some of our analysts that meet with the various business groups and then try to get back to the member. Sure.

* (1620)

Ms. Cerilli: Then I just want to ask some questions as well about the financing of this housing program with the city. The reports in the newspaper claim that over three years $4 million will be lost by the city in property tax revenue while this program is initiated, and I am wanting to see if the minister can confirm that figure and if there has been any analysis done to look at the tax deficit in the city with the expansion of exurban sprawl, let us say, over the last 10 years.

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Reimer: The proposed cash flow for the implementation of the program has been projected over a three-year period, for a total so-called cost or loss, as has been pointed out, of the program of just over $2 million--I believe it is $2,015,800--over a three-year period. But what that will generate after that, year after year after year after year, will be approximately $611,000. So, within a three-year period after the program has ceased, you have got almost a total recuperation of the program. From then on it is monies that the city can utilize better, and if anything, it is a win proposition for a three-year investment, a three-year recovery, and a continual growth of approximately $611,000 per year in the city's treasury.

Ms. Cerilli: I guess the Free Press was wrong then in their report.

One final issue I just want to ask the minister about, while we are here, deals with another area, and that is the continuation of what is known as the inner city beltway, the inner city corridor, which would join the new bridge, the Chief Peguis Trail bridge, ultimately with Highway 1. I have seen the proposal for that, and I am just wondering where that is now with the city. It would be something, I think, like some of these bridges that were cost-shared with the province, or if there have been new plans for dealing with this continuation of the same. It would be similar to the area that is now Bishop Grandin. It is part of the Kenaston bridge. It is that whole ring inside the Perimeter that is being constructed, and the part that is not complete is the part in the northeast end of Winnipeg. I am wondering what is happening with that?

Mr. Reimer: It has been pointed out that the City of Winnipeg has not made this a priority of expenditures, and we have had no overtures that they are intending to proceed with any type of initiative along that line of any kind of expenditures in the near future. We have not even seen anything in a long-term plan, you know, as to utilization of the east-west corridor through the north there.

So until we get something in a formal plan from the city to put into some sort of budgetary process of--usually they work in a three- to five-year period--we would then be able to respond as to where it is in the sort of planning stage, but to the best of our knowledge, it is not even in that forecast that we are available at right now. So we do not see it in the near future.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): 1.(b) Executive Support $218,100--pass.

2. Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg (a) Unconditional Current Programs Grant $19,587,500--pass; (b) Unconditional Transit Operating Grant $16,339,000--pass; (c) General Support Grant $8,094,100--pass; (d) Dutch Elm Disease Control Program $700,000--pass; (e) Unconditional Grant - Urban Development $6,500,000--pass.

Resolution 20.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $51,220,600 for Urban Affairs, Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

3. Urban Affairs Program Support (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $522,400--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $221,500--pass; (c) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Development Agreement $1,600,000--pass.

Resolution 20.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,343,900 for Urban Affairs, Urban Affairs Program Support, for the fiscal year ending the 31st March, 1998.

(Mr. Chairperson in the Chair)

Mr. Chairperson: 4. Expenditures Related to Capital (a) Financial Assistance to the City of Winnipeg $16,000,000--pass; (b) Urban Initiatives $250,000--pass; (c) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Development Agreement $1,440,000--pass; (d) Red River Floodway Control Structure $500,000--pass.

Resolution 20.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $18,190,000 for Urban Affairs for Expenditures Related To Capital for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

The last item to be considered--

Mr. Reimer: Just before we get to the last item which is the Minister's Salary, I would just like to say that as Minister of Urban Affairs there are a lot of times that you look back on a lot of the things you do and the minister is sort of at the spotlight. There were a lot of things that happened behind the scene which is attributable to my staff at Urban Affairs, and I would just like to say that I am fortunate that I have a lot of people that work for me and work in the Department of Urban Affairs that have a dedication and a foresight and anticipation that I think makes my job a lot easier.

A lot of times we do not say thank you enough to the people that put forth an effort in a conscientious manner. I just want to say before we get to my salary that I wanted to thank my staff for the dedication and work that they perform. I am never wanting of situations. So I just wanted to say thanks to the staff, to everybody involved, and it makes my job a hell of a lot easier.

* (1630)

Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I have one more area that I want to ask a question about, just by leave. I cannot believe I would forget this when I am sitting here with the Minister of Urban Affairs.

Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave of the committee to allow the member for Radisson one or two final questions? Agreed? Agreed.

Ms. Cerilli: Thank you. Well, I am sure the minister can guess the issue that I want to ask him about representing Radisson which does contain the community of south Transcona which, of course, has got the proposal for the retention pond that hopefully is going to deal with their long going-on flooding problem. I am wondering if there has been any progress on this joint initiative between the province and the city since I last talked to him. I know that there was a resolution passed by the City of Winnipeg for, I believe, $1.5 million from the province to go towards this lake to collect the water before it hits the houses.

Mr. Reimer: Yes. I do not want to be flippant to the member, in a sense, because I know the member is very sincere in her expression of concern for the south Transcona residents. Yesterday the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) came and we talked about the resolve on it. I can repeat it for her if she likes, or I could--[interjection] Okay, I can do that, but I know that I explained the situation to the member for Transcona.

As mentioned yesterday, what has happened is originally the City of Winnipeg came forth with their budget presented to the province. In it the allocation for funding for the Transcona pond, if you want to call it, was indicated for 1999. We did not proceed with any type of allocation of funding looking at that type of scenario. When the budget was brought forth for final consideration by the City of Winnipeg, it was brought into this year's budget by the City of Winnipeg in looking at borrowed capital to fund their half of the cost.

We then received from the City of Winnipeg a resolution passed unanimously by council indicating that they were wanting the province to share cost the funding on a 50-50 basis to the tune of about $1.7 million, but they also stipulated that this was to be new money and not money that was involved with the UCPA-III allocation of funding. UCPA-III is the urban capital project allocation funding that is approximately $96 million in which we allocate funding for capital projects in the city of Winnipeg. With the resolution that came forth from the City of Winnipeg, they indicated specifically that they were looking for new funding from the Province of Manitoba and Urban Affairs in the participation of the retention pond.

We at that time did not have any room in our budget to include or to add on $1.75 million of new money in the Urban Affairs budget. We had the ability to make decisions under the urban capital allocations fund, and that will be the only area where we can allocate funding to the Transcona retention pond. Working under the restrictions that the City of Winnipeg placed in their resolution saying that it had to be new funding, in all probability we could not proceed with any type of arrangement with the city in trying to look at the resolve on the problem.

So I have corresponded back to the mayor of the City of Winnipeg indicating that if they are willing to come forth with a new resolution passed by council that they are willing to fund the retention pond on a 50-50 cost-share basis with us using the allocation under the UCPA-III category, then we are willing to proceed with a proposal for funding on a 50-50 shared basis.

So that is more or less where the situation is right now. The councillor in the area, Shirley Timm-Rudolph, was made aware of our position through a c.c. on the letter to the mayor. I have not heard back from the city. The letter was only mailed last week, I believe, was it not? A week to 10 days at the most, so I would expect that I will be hearing back from EPC or the mayor as to their direction on it, so that is more or less where it stands right now.

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to clarify. You said that there was a second letter sent by the city requesting that it be 50-50 cost-shared on the basis of it being new money. When was that resolution passed and sent to you?

Mr. Reimer: November of 1996. This was a resolution from council. It was not a letter, it was a resolution.

Ms. Cerilli: So that was just this past fall. Then you said that prior to that there had been another proposal. When was that one?

Mr. Reimer: I believe that was their preliminary budget. There was a preliminary five year budget that took it right up into 1999. That is where the allocation was--or the mention of the retention pond was and that was prior to November.

Ms. Cerilli: So in that preliminary capital budget put forward by the city, how were they anticipating then that the province would pay for its share?

Mr. Reimer: It was conceptual at that time. There was no allocation or a specific area where the funding would come from. It was just more or less a 50-50 cost-shared notation for 1999 for the retention pond in Transcona.

Ms. Cerilli: So is that preliminary capital budget something that comes to the province just for information? Is it something that you have to approve, or is it just for information?

Mr. Reimer: Just for information.

Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify then, as far as you are concerned, the ball, so to speak, is back in the city's court, that it is up to them to come back with another resolution saying that they would be willing to use this UPCA fund in order to finance the $1.75 million.

Mr. Reimer: Right.

* (1640)

Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister tell me if he knows that that can still happen for this budget year with the city, or if their budgeting is all taken care of for this year and there is no way that they could go back and make that revision in the budget for this year?

Mr. Reimer: I believe that they have already allocated the borrowed capital in their budget, so they have indicated that they have it as part of their budget, the 1.75, their share.

Ms. Cerilli: I am not clear on this. What I am wondering is if they have already allocated all of the money in this UPCA allotment so that they are not going to be able to find any room in their budget now for this year, or if they would still be able to make this change for this coming year so that, as all the people in south Transcona have said or heard and had said to them, this could be the last year that they have to deal with the flooding.

Mr. Reimer: We have not had any type of discussions or announcement as to funding of any other projects under this UPCA-III allocation of funding yet, because it is a brand-new six-year program. The last program expired in '96, which was a $96-million project, and we are now going into a new $96-million project over the next five years, or six years--pardon me, six years. This is why there has been no allocation of funding as yet.

Ms. Cerilli: That is $16 million over how many years that is in that fund?

Mr. Reimer: It is $96 million--[interjection] Yes, six years.

Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, very much.

Mr. Chairperson: The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Urban Affairs is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $12,800.

At this point, we request the minister's staff to leave the table for the consideration of this item.

1.(a) Minister's Salary $12,800--pass.

Resolution 20.1: RESOLVED there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $230,900 for Urban Affairs, Administration, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

This completes the Estimates for the Department of Urban Affairs.

The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply is the Estimates of the Department of Housing. It is the will of the committee to take a five-minute recess to get set up? [agreed] Recess of five minutes.

The committee recessed at 4:44 p.m.

The committee resumed at 4:53 p.m.