Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of the deputy chairman, Mr. Henry, I will read the Municipal and Community Affairs comments from the committee. Community empowerment record seems to offer the Department of Municipal and Community Affairs a business plan for community empowerment. Everything the department was planning for 1997/98 revolves around community empowerment. Having received more information about community empowerment and having had the opportunity to debate it in the House, committee Members are more supportive about implementing the initiative. While no one disagrees that community empowerment as a principle is worth promoting, there has been much debate about the details of implementation. Many of the concerns expressed relate to off-loading our programs being transferred to communities ready to dump them from the government books. Will the programs be more efficient and effective at the community level or is this merely an excuse to cut government spending?
These are legitimate fears reinforced by such things as the department's plan to cut more than five percent from existing municipal operations and maintenance funding this year.
Committee Members do find it ironic that it is only now, in a time of fiscal restraint, that we are changing from a highly centralized government to one where more power is at the community level. Would such an initiative have been implemented in a time of plenty? The standing committee wants to be sure that community empowerment is being implemented because it is good for northerners, not just because it is a way to off-load responsibilities and programs as a way to save money. On the other hand, committee Members did note with approval the efforts of the department to ensure that communities are adequately prepared for community empowerment. The redirection of almost $3 million in capital funds, the O and M funding for training and related initiatives, are the most significant changes related to this area. As well, the department has changed its organizational structure to meet the changing demands resulting from community empowerment and to incorporate business, lottery and real estate licenses and prior safety programs from the now dismantled Department of Safety and Public Services, as well as to effect some savings.
The standing committee encourages the department to ensure there is no conflict between the requirement of the Fire Marshal to strictly enforce building fire codes and those parts of the department responsible for building and maintaining structures in municipalities. The department is reducing O and M funding to communities with five percent cuts to municipal block funding, the Municipal Operating Assistance program and the Settlement Operating Assistance program. Committee Members were concerned at the inequity in these cuts. Municipal Operating Assistance Program and the Settlement Operating Assistance formulae makes allowance for population growth and other factors, but this is not the case from block funding to larger tax based municipalities. The standing committee feels it would have been fair to incorporate similar growth factors into block funding before making the five percent cuts.
Committee Members have other concerns related to these cuts. First, the standing committee is disappointed that the government so often resorts to such across the board cuts, blindly slashing an arbitrary amount of percentage. Members are very concerned and feel that this type of action will lead to increased inefficiency, as more and more work will be required of fewer and fewer staff. Committee Members would prefer to see government place people before programs. In a sense, the committee would like to see government programs examined and ineffective or inefficient ones abandoned. Members are also concerned that these across the board cuts were proposed without adequate analysis of the possible ripple effects of the cuts. For example, when the water and sewage subsidy program was capped last year, the effect varied widely among communities. Some communities saw little or no change in their water and sewer rates, while others saw 30 percent increases. These sorts of effects should be better anticipated and communicated to those affected. The department should ensure that cuts such as these will not result in increased spending by the government in other areas. I now ask my honourable colleague, Mr. Barnabas, to carry on the report.