Manitoba Hansard — 27 June 1994 (Sitting 56A, 35th Legislature, 5th Session)

35-5-56a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fifth Session· Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourtlble Denis C. Rocan Speaker Vol. XLm -No. 56A • 1:30 p.m., Monday, June '1:1, 1994 1SSN OSU-S492

NAME ASHTON, Steve BARRE'IT, Becky CARST AIRS, Sharon CERll.LI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY,Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Geny, Hon. EDWARDS,Pa~ ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, 1"1m, Hon. EVANS,Ciif EVANS, Leonard S. FJLMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon.

PRlESEN, Jean MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Afftliation CONSTITUENCY Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson Kildonan Ste.Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur- Virden Steinbach Riel SL James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley GAUDRY,Neil GIILESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis SL Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli HELWER, Edward R. IDCKES, George KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURBNDEAU, Man:el MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY,f1m MANNESS, Clayton, Hon.

MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Geny McCORMICK, Nonna McCRAE,James,Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLJSTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, D~UICn, Hon. RBID,Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANI'OS, Coorad SCHELLENBERG, Harry STEP ANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jeny SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosano Point Douglas The Maples Inkster The Pas St.

Norbert SL Johns Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Osborne Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Pmirie FmeiiOn Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa SL Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Rossmere KirldieldParlc FlinFlon LaVerendrye Fort Garry Swan River PARTY. NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal Liberal NDP PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC Liberal PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP

4122 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, June 27, 1994 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTENEPROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Speaker: The Oerk will read. ACCESS Program Funding Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sbeweth that:

WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post-secondary education and training; and

WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and

WHEREAS the federal government bas eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and

WHEREAS the provincial government bas cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and

WHEREAS the enrollment bas already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and

WHEREAS the provincial government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2 million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program. Rallway Traffic Safety Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Leonard Evans). It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with the rules.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Speaker: Yes. The Oerlc will read. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sbeweth that:

WHEREAS there have been two recent serious railway accidents in Brandon involving children; and

WHEREAS many residential buildings are near railway tracks in Brandon and in urban communities throughout the province; and

WHEREAS many units owned by Manitoba Housing have no rear yard fences, making it difficult to keep small children in the safety of their back yaids; and

WHEREAS it is important that everything reasonable be done to enhance the safety of children, including steps that would minimize future possible accidents involving railways. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Housing (Mrs. Mcintosh) to consider the installation of fences in back yaids of residential units owned by Manitoba Housing, particularly in those near railways.

4123 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 AND FURTHER your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will request the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) to encourage and promote improved safety conditions to protect young children from railway and other traffic accidents.

AND FURTHER your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will request the Minister of Highways and Transportation to review this issue of railway traffic safety with the federal Minister of Transport to enhance and promote a greater degree of safety in the vicinity of railway trackage with particular reference to small children. Pharmacare Benefit Levels Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Edwards). It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Speaker: Dispense. The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS universality is a fundamental principle in the Canada Health Act and should apply to Manitoba's health care system including the Pharmacare program;

WHEREAS since the current Conservative government was elected in Manitoba the Pharmacare deductible paid by families has increased 82 percent and the deductible for seniors has increased by 72 percent;

WHEREAS the recoverable portion for expenditures in excess of the deductible amount has gone down from 80 percent to 70 percent for seniors and 60 percent for all other Manitobans;

WHEREAS as a result many Manitobans will not be able to afford necessary medications prescribed by their doctor resulting in increased hospitalization costs in the long run;

WHEREAS this will continue to drive up Manitoba's annual health care expenditure of$1.8 billion and is not in the best interests of Manitobans. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider restoring Pharmacare benefits to their previous level. ACCESS Program Funding Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr.

Speaker: Dispense. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post-secondary education and training,· and

WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and

WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and

WHEREAS the enrollment has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and

WHEREAS the provincial government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2 million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program. •

(1335) June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4124 INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill218- The Public Schools Amendment Act Mr. Kevin Lamourenx (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that leave be given to introduce Bill 218, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques), and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there is a necessity in order for The Public Schools Amendment Act-to see brought into it more parents' rights and responsibilities. We also believe that it is time that we acknowledge in The Public Schools Act learning disabilities as a part of it, and this is, in fact, what this particular bill tries to accomplish. Motion agreed to. lmroductionofGuens Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallecy, where we have with us this afternoon from the Elwick Community School forty-five Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Martin Kashty. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Goods and Services Tax GovenunentPodtion Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Tomorrow, Finance ministers are meeting, dealing with the proposed changes by the federal parliamentary committee to the goods and services tax in this countcy. The federal parliamentary committee has proposed integration with the provincial taxes. It leaves open the issue of harmonizing with food and prescription drugs, and it leaves a number of other items on the agenda that, clearly, are not a scrapping of the GST, but rather a change of the GST to another name with different applications and different harmonizations.

I know this government is opposed to the hidden nature of the proposed change, and I would like to ask the Premier, what will Manitoba's position be at that Finance ministers meeting? Will it be to scrap the tax, rather than to harmonize the tax with Manitoba? •

(1340) Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, our government, of course, as I have indicated publicly, is more than surprised. We are shocked at the position that is being taken by the federal Liberal government They ran for public office on the basis of scrapping the GST. I have said before that the former Conservative government, in the course of its consultations leading up to the GST -and I know that I do not have to tell people in this House how much that tax was opposed by people of all political stripes across this countcy-in their consultations, they went throughout Canada and were told three things.

One was that the public did not want to have that tax applied to groceries and medical supplies, did want to see it as visible so that it could not be arbitrarily buried in the cost and then increased, as it has been doubled in some European countries where it is buried, and finally, did not want to have it harmonized, because implicit in harmonization is a transference of the load of that tax off the producers and onto the consumers, and secondarily, of course, it would force us to then put the tax on books and all sorts of things that we currently do not put it on, legal fees, accounting fees and, obviously, groceries and medical supplies.

For all those reasons, the public was overwhelmingly opposed to those three elements, and even the former Conservative government rejected those elements. We are not going to accept that as the answer, that we have to live with that on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba, that we now have to harmonize it, that we now have to accept that transference off the producers and onto the consumers of Manitoba, that we now have to

4125 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 apply it to a whole net and basket of goods and services that we do not tax, such as books, such as legal and accounting fees, such as groceries and medical supplies. That is not an acceptable answer to Manitoba, and that is the position that the MinisterofFinance (Mr. Stefanson) will take forwud. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we were opposed to the original GST, and we remain opposed to the proposed alternative GST that is now before the parliamentary committee.

When I asked this question to the Premier on May 2 during his Estimates, he indicated that we would not be taking a position prior to the parliamentary committee reporting, but we would be taking a position after the parliamentary committee had reported and prior to the Finance ministers' meeting. Could the Premier table today the written position that Manitoba will table with the Finance ministers meeting tomorrow in Vancouver? Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, if the uader of the Opposition has had the opportunity to read the House of Commons committee report, it deals with some 20 alternatives. They are recommending the GST under another name. Tbe federal Finance minister, to date, has not put forth his position on that report. He is waiting for the meetings that will take place tomorrow and Wednesday. So, in one respect, though we have a Commons committee report, we have heud no position yet from the federal Finance minister. We will be receiving his position tomorrow, and, obviously, that will all be part of our discussions. As the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) bas said, we oppose what the House of Commons committee is recommending for all the reasons that the Premier has outlined, and, to date, we have not seen an alternative suggested from the federal government or the House of Commons committee that is acceptable to us, but we will let the discussions unfold over the next two days and see what other alternatives the federal government might be promoting. It is an election promise of theirs, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. They are the party that ran on the basis of replacing the GST.

They have taken on the responsibility of at least putting forwud some reasonable alternatives, and what we have seen so far are absolutely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. Analysis Tabling Request Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the provincial government did provide their position with the last GST in writing. In answers to questions on November 13 from the member for River Heights (Mrs.

Carstairs), then the Uader of the Opposition, there was an analysis by the provincial Finance minister on the number of jobs that would be lost in the short term and the projection from the Minister of Finance that there would be jobs gained in the medium term. Could the Minister of Finance today table in the House all the analysis of the impact of the federal parliamentary committee's report, its impact on consumers, its impact on low-income people, medium-income people, and its impact on jobs and the economy?

Could the minister table that today in the House, so that the public of Manitoba can be involved in this debate, this very important debate? This tax is hated, I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, by the majority of Manitobans. Its change is probably the most important issue we are going to be dealing with this week in terms of public policy, and I think Manitobans deserve the full impact of proposed changes and our analysis of what that would mean for Manitoba families. •

(1345) Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the uader of the Opposition that Manitobans deserve the full analysis, all of the information and so on. What I see coming out of the meetings over the next two days in part might be a position of the federal government, in part might be a process, and we certainly intend to have maximum opportunity for discussion with members of the Manitoba public.

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSE:MBL Y OF MANITOBA 4126 We have done some initial analysis, but at this particular point in time, as I say, we do not have a final position of the federal government. What we have seen in tenns of the recommendation of the Commons committee, there is infonnation that we have prepared to indicate that a family of four in Manitoba, if the GST is now put on basic groceries and prescription dmgs, would pay approximately between $300 and $400 more per year. There is also a myth out there that through harmonization, provincial sales taxes across Canada can actually be reduced.

The reason for that myth is because if you hannonize with the GST, there would be a process of input tax credits. So there would not be a reduction in many PSTs across Canada. In fact, if the objective was to stay revenue neutral, there would have to be an increase in provincial sales tax in a good number of provinces. There are many myths out there, so I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the maximum information. We have done some preliminary analysis on impacts on jobs. There is no doubt that, in the short tenn, there would be a negative impact on jobs.

We want to wait to see what happens over the next two days as this issue develops more focus in tenns of starting to provide infonnation around a direction that we see the federal government heading. We have the information of the Commons committee, and we will see what happens in the next two days. Public Accounts Committee Winnipeg Jets Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Premier.

This morning at a media briefing, the chairpetson of the Bums committee indicated that he would be willing to brief all membets of this Legislature in terms of the findings of the committee and in terms of some of the implications of the report they have submitted to this Legislature through the Premier's tabling that report after Question Period on Friday morning. Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, we have asked the Premier whether he would call Mr.

Bums to the Public Accounts committee, so that all MLAs could be involved in the findings in this report and so the public could see the debate and the issues before the committee, and, also, so the Auditor could look at some of the numbets, quite frankly, that are missing from the Bums report -there are a number of vague areas in that report -and so that we could have some basis of understanding what the bottom-line numbets are and the impact of its full report for all MLAs. I would like to ask the Premier today, in light of Mr.

Bums' statement, will he be asking his minister to call an immediate meeting of the Public Accounts committee where the Auditor would be there and allow all MLAs to be involved in this very important issue, and, also, allow that to be an open process for the public of this province? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I had hoped that as of Friday, with the difficult choices that we face and the difficult challenge that we face, that I might have had the co-operation of all parties in this Legislature to try and depoliticize the issue and take it into a basis of seeking a solution. 'Ibe member knows full well that he has been invited to a briefing with Mr. Burns at 2:30 today, as has the Leader of the Liberal Party.

Unlike Oty Council where everyone is an individual, we operate in a party system, and I would think that the Leader might take some responsibility to be the Leader of his party, to go there and seek whatever infonnation any of his membets have that has not been addressed so far. If he has any questions whatsoever, the purpose of having Mr. Burns and many of the other playets there who have been involved in the process is so that all of his questions might be answered.

If some are not able to be answered because they require the input of the Auditor, we can even take those questions down and have the Auditor's response. But if all he is interested in is having a political three-ring circus in which he can try and squeeze some more politics out of this issue, Mr. Speaker, I say to him, that is not going to solve the problem,

4127 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 that is not going to meet the challenge, and I am disappointed in his approach. •

(1350) Winnipeg Jets Federal Involvement Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have asked for an all-party dealing with this issue before. I have participated in all-party ways with other important challenges facing this province. I reject totally the Premier's statement, and I ask him to read his own comments. If I recall the Speech from the Throne in 1990 after Meech Lake, I think he said that the public is sick and tired of people having closed-door meetings behind walls, Mr. Speaker. I think public involvement helps all three parties find a solution.

I do not believe that opening the doors to the public hurts the process, Mr. Speaker, and there is perhaps where the Premier and ourselves can disagree. I think that would help, not hurt the process. I have a further question to the Premier arising out of the Bums report. Mr.

Speaker, I have asked the government before whether the federal government would be involved, because the lion's share of the revenue, as the Premier has always indicated, goes to the federal government In the Bums report, they clearly state that close to 60 percent of the revenue derived, they would propose, from any facility and the hockey team remaining in our community goes directly to the federal government The federal government has previously stated it is not interested in being involved in the infrastructure program. Now I am not sure in tenns of statements.

I would like to know what involvement has the Premier had with the federal government on the Bums report and how much that played in his announcement on Friday. Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I cannot believe the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition That very member, when he was in cabinet, willingly met privately without any public involved in his cabinet meetings. Every week and every day, he has caucus meetings in which there is no member of the public allowed to hear the things they discuss, Mr. Speaker .

That very member, as a committee member of the Meech Lake task force report, met in private every time they decided, all parties, on the ultimate conclusions that went into that report, all done in private. That is an absolute sham, for him to suggest that he will not meet in private to discuss issues of importance, Mr. Speaker. It is a political sham and he should be ashamed. Mr. Speaker, the federal government obviously gains considerable revenues from the operation of a hockey club here.

In fact, as I said, out of a $14-million revenue to three levels of government, at least half goes to the federal government. So, yes, they ought to be a player, and, yes, Mr. Axworthy will be meeting and discussing it with us later today, and, obviously, there will be ongoing talks. Bond Issue Costs Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier will know that there were lots of discussions in arriving at the report on Meech Lake, and we did wodc together in an all-party way, but there were public hearings prior to Meech Lake, and there were public hearings scheduled after Meech Lake, Mr. Speaker.

I think Manitobans liked the co-operation around Meech Lake and the attempt for co-operation I do not know why the Premier is so -[interjection] Well, I think the Premier is losing sight of some good recommendations. Finally, I have a third question to the Premier dealing with the Burns report tabled after Question Period on Friday. There is a quote in the report dealing with the whole issue of how much a bond issue would cost. We understand that today at Oty Council, it was reported that it would be about $7 million annually, cost to the taxpayers. Mr.

Speaker, the problem is we do not know for bow long that would be. Bums says this is less costly than the ongoing losses of a hockey team, but, of course, there is no such thing as ongoing

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4128 losses of a hockey team. It is for three years. The bond issue would be for at least 20 to 30 years. Does the government have a financial breakdown of the actual cost to the taxpayers of a bond issue? It is not in the Bums report. It is something, if we do not have from the Premier, we would like to obtain from the Provincial Auditor, so that we can look at it in the overall context of issues that we have before us. Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the way it works is this way.

If the bond issue is for $100 million and the interest rate is 7 percent, it is $7 million annually. If it is $110 million and it is 7 percent, it is $7.7 million annually. If it is $200 million and it is 6.5 percent, it is $13 million annually. That is the way it works. I will send over a calculator to help him, so that he can figure that out •

(1355) Winnipeg Jets Player Costs Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. On Friday, when we were asking questions on the issue of the Jets, we did not have the benefit of the Bums report. It was tabled at the end of Question Period.

Now that all parties and members of the Legislature have bad an opportunity to review it, my question for the Premier is, at page 5 of that report, the Ogden report, which was commissioned by the Burns committee, specifically states, and the committee, in fact, endorses that statement: "it is our opinion that resolution of the key issues being negotiated between the NHL and the NHLPA (National Hockey League Players' Association), especially if there will be a fonnula by which player costs are detennined, be resolved before any commitment is made to construct a new arena" That issue, Mr.

Speaker, probably more than any other, is one which is outside ofour control. No matter who comes forward in the province of Manitoba with what amount of money, that issue is out of our control and appears to be underlying all of this. My question for the Premier: Now that he has had a chance to review this report in its entirety, is there any initiative or have there been any discussions thus far to get together with the other communities in the NHL currently, who even if they are not where we are now, are certainly going to be, to make an initiative, to sit down and get a finn commitment from the NHL, Mr.

Bettman or others, as to what they are going to do to make it even viable to have pro hockey in the NHL in communities like Winnipeg? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on Friday, Mayor Thompson has had a group of mayors who represent smaller cities that included Mr. Duerr from Calgary, Ms. Reimer from Edmonton, the mayor of Quebec Oty and the mayor of Ottawa and so on, because, quite evidently, this same problem faces every one of these markets, and in addition to that, probably Hartford, probably Pittsburgh and maybe even some other American franchises.

Very clearly, it is an issue that, if not resolved, would probably discount half a dozen or more of the current franchise-holding cities in the league from being able to exist viably in the NHL. 1bere bas been a tremendous explosion, even in the past three years, of salaries. When you make a comparison, even today, the Wmnipeg Jets' salary package, total salaries, is still just over half of what the Stanley Cup winning New York Rangers' salaries currently are, so you know that the upward pressure is immense.

I believe there are some expectations that they can double again within three years, so this is an issue that bas to be dealt with, or the viability will not work. I understand that the mayor bas an ongoing liaison for the purpose of trying to have a joint effort. 1bey have met now a couple of times with Mr. Bettman, and he can only give them assurances that the NHL is sympathetic, understands the problem and is attempting to address it. He cannot give any finn indication that the NHL will address it until negotiations take place.

4129 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 Winnipeg Arena PublicSnpport Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my second question is for the Premier again. Having now reviewed the report in its entirety, the other comment which I thought was very interesting in this report, at page 7, was that there was a specific recognition that no commitment would be made by a government of any kind or indeed the private sector until the public has clearly demonstrated their willingness to support a new facility. That is a statement which, again, underlies this entire debate.

I asked the Premier on Friday if he had any suggestions as to how that initiative might be undertaken. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to take this out of the blue-chip committees and to take this out of the halls of the Legislature and City Hall and go directly to the people of the community to somehow find what willingness they have to have this team and a new facility and how much money they are willing to put in it of their own free will.

My question for the Premier is, has he given that specific comment any further comideration over these last few days, as we head into this meeting later this afternoon, as to how that initiative might be undertaken, because, again, it is an issue that underlies many others? •

(1400) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of elements to that. I believe there is a requirement, obviously, for significant private-sector risk capital investmenL If you believe what the Bums report puts forward, and I accept it as being a very reasonable estimate, they are suggesting that the income for the hocltey team's operations from its tickets and boxes and luxury seats and so on would have to double its cmrent level of income. That means all the tickets in the arena would have to go up substantially.

Even the lowest-priced tickets would probably have to increase at least 50 percent in order to meet that kind of projection. Unfortunately, I do not believe anybody out there who is promoting this-and there are certainly many in the sports media with, I think, good intentions who are promoting this-is saying directly to the people who phone in, are you prepared to accept a 50 percent to doubling of your tickets within the next very short while in order to make this viable? I think that has to be put out there.

In addition to that, if there is a willingness to buy season tickets and to increase very substantially the amount of money that everybody puts in who is a spectator and a fan, then in addition to that, there would probably have to be a need for another public fundraising kind of undertaking, such as was done when the WHA Jets were saved and were taken out of private ownership and into community ownership. At that time, the total requirement was about a million dollars between private and public sectors.

Today, we are obviously talking about a hundred times that and the magnitude of the challenge is much, much higher. I think that if there is going to be any solution to this, other than just straight government money, not only to pay for capital, but to purchase the team and to cover operating losses, a solution which I have obviously rejected, then I think there is much to be done, and there are many people potentially who can get involved in that effort, and many of them obviously have a strong interest in doing that.

So I think that is something that we will want to talk about, and I look forward to the co-operative participation which I know the member opposite has been offering since last Friday, and I thank him forthaL Major Tenant Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): My final question is for the Premier.

One other statement I want to pick up on with the Premier is, on page 9 under the optimum conditions portion of this report, No. 2, it is clear that this committee found the construction of an arena was only viable if they had one major tenant, and they see that as the hockey club which is going to use 55 nights or so a season, and they conclude

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSE:MBL Y OF MANITOBA 4130 that without the team's presence, there can be no economic rationale to proceed with planning and construction, that is, of an arena. That has never happened in this city or in this province, that we have had the debate about the facility alone, because the arena and the Jets have been inseparable since Mr. Shenkarow made that linkage, and it has been reinforced and reinforced. Is that a linkage which is strictly necessary, in the Premier's mind? Mr.

Speaker, we have never had that analysis done, outside of the Jets, in those specific terms as clearly as we have in this report. Is that linkage necessary, in fact, before we tum to the issue of an arena, that we settle the Jets' problem? Is that clear in the Premier's mind? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am dating myself, but I remember very excitedly going to the early games of the Winnipeg Warriors in the brand new Winnipeg Arena back in the mid-'50s. At that time, I do not think anybody would have expected that arena would last forever.

Even despite many improvements that have been made, I think it is arguable that that facility will become functionally obsolete somewhere in the next 15 years. It might be able to last with continued maintenance for another 15 years or so, but it is starting to reach the end of its economic life. Regardless of whether or not the Winnipeg Jets or any major tenant remains in Wmnipeg, we will probably be, as a community, looking for an entertainment centre by the year 2010.

The difference is, without a major tenant that contributes tremendous revenue to that facility for 55 event dates a year, the economics really do not make sense in building a new facility. So, yes, the two are intertied, and, yes, that whole argument ought to be part of the discussion, the debate and the consideration that we enter into in making this decision. Obviously, I hope that we all bear that in mind, and in terms of the debate before the public, that that is part of the information that is always on the table when we have that discussion. Post-Secondary Education EPFFunding Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this week, the Minister ofFmance will be meeting with his federal countetparts to discuss, amongst many things, the changes in funding from the federal government to educational programs. I wanted to ask the Minister of Finance, will he confinn that on his agenda is a federal government proposal to accelerate the phasing out of EPF post secondary funding, ending cash transfers by '96-97, and can he indicate whether he has prepared an impact study of this on Manitoba finances? Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr.

Speaker, I will confirm part of that, that, yes, the whole issue of all transfer payments are on the agenda, a combination of EPF, equalization and CAP. All of the transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial governments are on the agenda, but in terms of the specific suggestion that the member has made, infonnation is coming in from the federal government in terms of particular aspects under each item area, and, to date, I have not seen the specific information she is referring to. SkiDs Training Loans/Vouchers Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My supplementary is for the Minister of Education.

I wanted to ask him whether in his discussions with his federal countetparts today, whether he discussed a federal proposal to provide vouchers or loans for skills training and for literacy to Manitobans, and has he prepared an analysis of the impact of this on Manitobans and on Manitoba institutions? Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, elements of the issue brought forward by the member were discussed, but certainly, we are in no position to react with reference to a Manitoba analysis or the impact on Manitoba.

4131 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 I mean, it is just a genn in the mind of the federal government for the most part at this point in time, and, Mr. Speaker, it would be too soon to suggest what the impact might be on Manitoba. ACCESS Programs Federal Funding Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I want to ask the Minister of Education, finally, whether be discussed in his meetings today new student assistance plans of the federal government, and could he tell us what position he took on behalf of Manitobans for bursaries for disadvantaged students, for example, and did he, in fact, suggest to the federal govermnent that it was time that they reinstated the money for ACCESS students in Manitoba? •

(1410) Bon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Well, Mr. Speaker, the member does a disservice to people who are listening to this debate in trying to portray the meeting that we had as one where the provincial government was just asking the federal govermnent for more money. Mr. Speaker, the meeting that was held this morning was one that was dealing with the whole social safety net refonn. It did talk about one dimension of that being, of course, the whole area of learning and training, but it had to fit into the whole change or refonn. As my colleague, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson), who is taking our lead in this, would point out very clearly, the federal government is just presenting a general approach and will be more specific, I gather, once they decide, once the federal government decides, which are the better of the options to follow. Social Safety Net Reform Federal Government Strategy Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, since October 1993, the federal government has been talking about changes to social programs. Most of the discussion has been very general in tenns of discussion papers and consultatiom.

Now that the Minister of Family Services has met with the federal Minister of Human Resources today, I am wondering if we know more specifics, since the only specific we have had so far is the cutting of 40,000 people from unemployment insurance and putting them on provincial social assistance, which is going to cost the Province of Manitoba $2 million a year. Can the minister now tell us if she knows more of the details of the federal government's plans for changes to social policy? Bon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question.

Indeed, we did meet with the federal government, with Mr. Axworthy, this morning and still do not have a great sense of any clarity around the options that are going to be presented in a discussion paper which will be released some time later this year for public input. Mr. Speaker, we did discuss the issues that Family Services' ministers or social services' ministers across the country made very clear to Mr.

Axworthy through a communique of a meeting a couple of weeks ago that said we wanted to be full and equal partners in the process, and rather than just bilateral meetings province by province, that we should have a multilateral meeting. Mr. Axworthy did agree to that. He is right now travelling across the country meeting with ministers that might be impacted, Ministers of Finance, Ministers of Education and Training and ministers of social services right across the country. Those meetings will be finished later on this week.

After that is finished, he has committed to a multilateral process, where provinces and the federal government can come together to discuss the issues. Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the provincial government is finally being consulted. Manitoba Position Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to ask the minister if she has put forward her position, her government's position on what the Manitoba

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4132 priorities are. If so, could she tell the House what her government's priorities are in tenns of social policy changes? Bon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, fust and foremost, I think what we want to see is a reduction of overlap and duplication from the federal and provincial levels. If, in fact, we have too much bureaucracy delivering programs and those programs can be delivered more efficiently and more effectively by a streamlining of services, we are very much supportive of that.

We also indicated, have in the past and will continue to indicate that a pure offload is not in the best interests of anyone. What I mean by definition of offload is to take the dollars that presently exist and cut them from old programs. We have said we want innovative, new, creative approaches that put our social safety programs into a more active, self-reliant process, rather than a passive dependent process. We know that some of our welfare programs create welfare as a career option. That is not what we want. Employment Creation Strategy Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, I am glad to see the Minister of Family Services shares our concern about the federal government offloading expenses to the Province of Manitoba. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if her government is strongly proposing to the federal government that there be a job creation component and that the thousands of people on provincial social assistance and city assistance be put into training and retraining programs and that there be firm job creation goals, so that at the end of the day, we know more people are wodcing. It is not good enough to just talk about offloading.

What are the government's goals? Bon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this government, our government, wants to see people moved into the workforce,·· become more independent, more self-reliant than dependent on a system that we have in place. We are working very actively in order to promote that. We announced just two weeks ago the enhancement of a City of Winnipeg initiative that will employ over this next year 400 more welfare recipients as a result of putting those people into community service positions.

We are in the process of developing pilot projects with the federal government that will address some of the issues around single parents and their dependency on a welfare system and trying to have them become more independent, more self-reliant. Those programs will be announced in the near future. Department of Health Untendered Contracts Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, responding to a question taken as notice. Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the other day the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) asked about Dr. Lerner and his agreement with the government.

That agreement runs from April! of '94 to March 3 of '95. The amount is equivalent to the collective bargaining agreement salary of an emergency physician with just four years of worlc experience. Dr. Lerner is an associate professor of emergency and family medicine with 17 years of experience. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member also asked about Ernst & Young. During 1992-93, Ernst & Young undertook an assessment of the hospital submission process in financial management and control functions.

During that study, some departmental training requirements and involvement in sessions on funding policy development were identified. Manitoba Health awarded this project to Ernst & Young as a result of the extensive worlc already provided to the department. Their experience, knowledge and national exposure to new and different funding processes and models used in Ontario, the Maritimes, Saskatchewan and Alberta in developing such training sessions was the reason for their selection.

4133 LEGISLATIVE ASSE:MBL Y OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 Federal Agricultural Programs Funding Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the latest reports that the federal Departments of Agriculture and Transport will have their budgets cut by 40 percent. This not only seems to confinn federal Minister Young's recent musings that transportation subsidies will be eliminated, but worse, that farm income support programs will be slashed with a devastating impact on fanners.

What makes this even more bizatre is that these reports come at the same time that consultations are underway about what type of income support program will replace GRIP and what will happen with the method of payment of the Crow benefit. My question for the Minister of Agriculture: Has he any assessment as to the impact that such drastic cuts would have on agriculture producers in Manitoba and on the agri-food industry in western Canada? Has the Minister of Agriculture contacted his federal countetpart to indicate in the strongest possible terms Manitoba's opposition to these cots? Bon.

Harry Eons (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, while we speak, my federal countetpart, the Honourable Mr. Goodale, is in Chicago on behalf of Canadian fanners and Manitoba farmers, dealing with the ongoing vety serious negotiations with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Mr. Espy. So he is not available to me. All members are aware that I am expecting all Ministers of Agriculture from across the countty, as well as the federal minister, in Wmnipeg next week, where we will have the appropriate occasion to discuss these kinds of questions. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the minister, when he contacts the federal minister at the meetings next week, or before, hopefully, will he ask him to clearly state the federal position on these issues, exactly what they are planning to do with GRIP and with the Crow benefit, because there is absolute confusion out there now, and express the view that Manitoba will not tolerate a charade of consultations on issues that the federal government has already decided upon? Mr. Enos: Mr.

Speaker, I want to make it vety clear that, of course, we will go into these negotiations with the expectation that Canada, which traditionally has had the major role in these kinds of safety net and support programs, continues to play that role. At what level? That, quite frankly, is the issue that faces all the Treasuries of this country, provincial and federal. But, Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this moment.

That is why the thrust of this government, the thrust of my ministry, is why we need hog production, why we need Ayerst and PMU production, why we need potato production, why we need the widest possible diversified agriculture for our primary producers, so that we are less dependent on the Treasuries of Ottawa and on our own for the continued maintenance of farm families. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, while this government is talking about diversification, they are cutting research funding that takes place- Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that eliminating support for western Canadian agriculture undermines our position on grain exports to the U.S., I want to ask the minister, since he referred to the meeting that has taken place with Agriculture ministers, has the minister consulted with his western counterparts prior to the agriculture ministers' meeting to ensure that we have a co-ordinated position on these important issues facing agriculture in western Canada prior to the meeting? Mr. Enos: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes.

I have personally visited with ministers Walter Paszkowski from Alberta and Darrel Omningham in Regina. This vety week, one of my senior officials, an assistant deputy minister, is meeting in Regina again to kind of put forward or at least to understand a western regional position, if you like, because there are some issues, the Western Grain Transportation program being one of them, that are unique to western Canada This is being done. •

(1420) June 27, 1994 LEGISLA 'TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4134 Policing Services Private Security Patrols Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, the province bas made a number of law enforcement programs a priority. As a result of competing priorities and creating expectations for police service, several community and business groups in Winnipeg have in recent weeks turned to private security patrols.

As the chief law enforcement officer in Manitoba, would the Acting Justice minister say what be will do to ensure there is not a two-tier level of security for the city of Winnipeg, one level for those who can affoni extra security and another for the rest of the citizens of Winnipeg? Bon. James McCrae (Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey). Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions bas expired. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs.

Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for the Tuesday morning session be amended as follows: the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson); the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson); and the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose). I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments-4bis is for Tuesday evening-be amended as follows: the member for Assiniboia (Mrs.

Mcintosh) for the member for Gim1i (Mr. Helwer); the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); and the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay). I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development -this is for the Tuesday morning session-be amended as follows: the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Lamendeau) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); the member for Steinbach (Mr.

Driedger) for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Pramik.); the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enos) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose); and the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the memberforLaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson). I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Private Bills be amended as follows: the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard). Motions agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Bon.

Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I wonder if you would see if there is leave of the House to adjust the Estimates

schedule for tomorrow, following the Estimates of the Legislative Assembly to consider the Estimates of the Community Support Programs. It was inadvertently missed, Mr. Speaker, when we dealt with this matter on Friday. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for tomorrow? [agreed] Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. 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 Turde Mountain (Mr. Rose) in the Chair for the Other Appropriations, Employee Benefits and Other Payments, and Canada Manitoba Enabling Vote; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Labour.

4135 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (ConcuJTent Sections) OmER APPROPRIATIONS Urban Economic Development Initiatives The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This

section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of Urban Economic Development Initiatives. Does the honourable Minister of Finance have an opening statement? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, I do not. Well, maybe, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I believe it is self-explanatory what this allocation is. It is the mban equivalent of 25 percent of VLT income estimated to be generated in the city of Wmnipeg, similar to what bas been set aside for the last two to three years in mral Manitoba for economic development through the REDI program and so on. •

(1430) The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for the first opposition party have an opening statement? Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Acting Deputy Cbaitperson, of course, 25 percent is not really what bas been set aside for all of mral Manitoba. The fact of the matter is that the amount of money that is going to mra1 Manitoba falls far short of that, certainly in terms of any money that is available for the municipalities or the community councils to spend in nortbem Manitoba. But I would like to maybe just ask some more specific questions of the minister.

Perhaps the minister can provide some more detail about, I guess, the sharing of power when it comes to the expenditure of this money. Is this simply part of the block grant that fonns part of the grant to the Qty of Winnipeg? How are the decisions made with respect to the allocation of this 25 percent? Mr. Stefanson: I will come back to that. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for the second opposition party have an opening statement? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.

Actually it was interesting the minister would make reference to the 25 percent, being that from the VLT revenues, in tenns of the mban economic development for the aty of Wmnipeg. I recall the discussions and the debates that occurred when the VL T machines were implemented in rural Manitoba and in the city of Wmnipeg.

I believe it was two years ago when the City of Winnipeg bad actually implemented-in implementing their own budget, they bad anticipated on receiving more than the 25 percent because they believed that the VLT machines were going to be taking a lot out of the communities, so I guess what we will enter into is a good, healthy discussion in tenns of the types of dollars that are actually coming out, going towards the program so that we can get a better idea in terms of the pros and the cons of the Urban Economic Development fund that is receiving its money from the VLT machines. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.

Rose): I thank the critic from the second opposition party for his statement. Does the minister wish to introduce his staff? Mr. Stefanson: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, seated beside me is the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Charles Curtis. Across from him is Mr. Don Leitch, who is the Cleric of the Executive Council, and also Mr. Bruce Birdsell, who is the secretary to the infrastructure committee. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I refer you to page 152 in the book: 8. Urban Economic Development Initiatives $10,000,000. Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Acting Deputy Cbaiiperson, I think it is important to outline bow the mban VL T dollars are being allocated, and 10 percent is being allocated on an unconditional basis directly to the Qty of Winnipeg as funding, so that is actually included in the Urban Affairs budget, goes straight to them on an unconditional basis. The Qty of Winnipeg can utilize what in this budget is $4 million as they see fit, and I am sure that was discussed under the Urban Affairs agenda.

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4136 This is the 25 percent that goes towards economic development in Winnipeg. To answer the question raised by the member for F1in Flon, it is a decision ultimately made by the provincial government on various projects, in consultation with the City of Winnipeg, but not unlike the Rural Economic Development allocation, the ultimate decision is made by the provincial government in terms of what projects to support and/or not support.

So, on various items, we will have discussions, consultation with City of Wmnipeg, and might end up having them directly with individual organizations or whatever, but, ultimately, the decision on this $10 million is made by us as a provincial government. So the City of Winnipeg gets the 10 percent directly on an unconditional basis. Now I know this year the City ofWmnipeg built into their budget some expectation out of this pool of resources.

I believe the amount they built into their budget was $5 million, that they were expecting to get out of this funding source, to assist organizations like the Convention Centre, Tourism Wmnipeg, Winnipeg 2000. We, as I indicated in the budget, are going to be assisting those organizations, but not to the level that the city was requesting. Hopefully, that is clear. Mr. Storie: Just so we are clear, the 10 percent that was unconditional fonned part of the capital grant to the City of Winnipeg. An Honourable Member: Operating grant. Mr. Storie: Operating grant to the City of Winnipeg. Was that new money?

I mean, all you are doing is saying that it is sourced out of Lotteries now, that in fact there was no increase. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chailperson, I am not speaking for Urban Affairs, but, yes, that was incremental. That was new money outside of how we dealt with their traditional operating grant which, I believe, received a 2.5 percent reduction on their operating grant, but the 10 percent allocation was, one could use the expression, new money.

It was outside of all of the other funding sources that the City of Winnipeg gets from the province-[ interjection] No, but just on that point, the reduction overall on the operating was a few hundred thousand dollars because the operating grant, I believe, is about $20 million, so a 2.5 percent reduction was about $500,000, I believe. I stand corrected in terms of the exact amount, but that is the vicinity;

whereas they were provided with an additional $4 million over and above. So, overall on the operating side, the city received a significant overall increase, I believe, of approximately 5 percent in funding because of its being the first year that they were getting the unconditional operating grant under the urban VLTs. So they did get a significant increase this year. Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chailperson, then we move to the 25 percent, and from the minister's explanation, it is clear that the province will set the priorities for expending these funds. I guess my question is: What does the list include?

Have the priorities been set for this year? Do they include existing or proposed infrastructure agreements separate from the next

section that we are going to discuss? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is correct. This really has nothing to do with the infrastructure agreement, which we will get to in a minute, which is entirely separate, but to date we have allocated about $9 million out ofthe $10million. Just over $1.5 million is going to fund a percentage of the operating costs of the Winnipeg Convention Centre. It equates to slightly less than 50 percent of the operating requirements because when we looked at their budget, they had some items in there that we felt did not warrant support.

They had a deficit carry forward, and they had some financing of some capital projects that we felt should not be funded from this sourcing. So it does include just over $1.5 million as a contribution to the Wmnipeg Convention Centre. It includes $720,000 as a contribution towards Winnipeg 2000, which is roughly 50 percent of their operating requirements from government. It includes $570,000 for Tourism Winnipeg, again which is roughly 50 percent of their operating requirements. It includes $995,000 as a

4137 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 contribution to the Winnipeg Green Team program, and it includes $5.2 million as the province's share of the estimated funding requirements for the Winnipeg Jets. Those all total approximately $9 million. Mr. Storie: Well, I guess that is the problem with the way the minister and his government are doing their accounting, that this is under a heading Urban Economic Development Initiatives, and it is, in part, paying for funding that the province had previously funded and decided not to.

It is funding, I guess, make-work projects, The Green Team Wmnipeg; it is funding the Wmnipeg Jets losses. I guess the real question is: Is this simply a slush fund that the province is using for solving the day-to-day problems it is creating itselfl Where is the imagination here? Where is the sense of direction for the city or the province in the expenditure here of $10 million? Mr. Stefanson: I think, if the member will look at the items being supported, he will agree that they make a very significant contribution to the economic well-being ofWmnipeg.

I am more than prepared to get him background information on the Winnipeg Convention Centre, the many millions of dollars that it generates for the economy of Winnipeg, obviously the work being done by Winnipeg 2000 and Tourism Wmnipeg, in terms of promoting Wmnipeg and what Winnipeg bas to offer. We have discussed at length, in Public Accounts and in the Chamber, the economic contribution that the Winnipeg Jets make primarily to Winnipeg, recognizing that all of these that I mentioned have other impacts on the rest of Manitoba, but most significantly on the city of Winnipeg.

The Winnipeg Green Team initiative, employing some 350 young people over the summer months, again, is a new initiative here in Winnipeg. When we were looking at the allocation, I know the Gty of Wmnipeg was most hopeful that we would support the programs like the Convention Centre and Winnipeg 2000 and Tourism Wmnipeg, that there was not a need to be out there looking for new initiatives or new programs or new organizations.

They have the basic infrastructure in place, and, rather than ignoring their requirements-they specifically asked us to support them with the needs to sustain what they feel are very significant facilities or organizations promoting economic development in Wmnipeg. Those were very specifically done in consultation and discussion with the City of Wmnipeg. •

(1440) We have, as the member for Flin Flon knows, other economic development programs: manufacturing, industrial opportunity programs and a series of other kinds of programs that can meet other economic needs in Winnipeg or throughout Manitoba. But these organizations and facilities generate significant economic activity for Wmnipeg. Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, is it the intention of the government or is it now assumed that, for example, the ongoing losses at the Wmnipeg Convention Centre are going to be covered under this particular category?

Is this lottery funding now going to cover in perpetuity the loss of the Convention Centre? Is that the aim? Are the ongoing operations of Winnipeg 2000 or Tourism Wmnipeg going to be funded from lottery sources? Is that the intention of the government? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, at this particular point in time, there is no long-term agreement in place for the funding of any of these. These decisions were made around this particular budget here.

Like many items in the budget, these will have to stand the test of scrutiny each and every budget year, whether or not they warrant the support and whether or not the government feels they should be continuing to support them. There is no doubt they are priorities of the Gty of Winnipeg, and they represent-as I say, I will certainly forward the information on the Convention Centre to both members, because if they have not had a chance to look at it in the past, they will be reasonably impressed with the significant economic activity and the significant

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4138 engine that a facility like the Convention Centre is here in Winnipeg. Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am familiar with the operation, other than the Winnipeg 2000 group, which I think, although relatively new, there are mixed views on the success ofWmnipeg 2000. There is no doubt about the importance of the Convention Centre. The point I am making here is that for the first time the government bas decided to use lottery funds, basically to fund ongoing losses of various entetprises, including the Jets.

I guess there are a lot of people in rural Manitoba and perhaps the people in Brandon who would say, well, we want the province to allocate funds in perpetuity for losses of the Keystone Centre. There are other centres, Selo Ukraina in Dauphin, numerous other publicly owned facilities that would love to have their operations covered out of lottery funds, which obviously to this point have not had any success. Just a question to the minister: Is there any intention on the part of the government to allocate 25 percent of the funding that is raised by VLTs in rural Manitoba to rural economic development?

Has that commitment been made, for example, to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities or to the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities that have requested this similar treatment? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, first of all, the member for F1in Flon knows that the ongoing losses of the Jets do not go on for perpetuity. As I have indicated, the Convention Centre, Winnipeg 2000, Tourism Winnipeg are amongst the highest priorities of the City of Winnipeg when they look at economic development opportunities. We also had delegations from individuals representing some of those organizations.

We had delegations from other interested organizations that are impacted by certainly the Wmnipeg Convention Centre, and we were being told that these are very important economic entities here in Winnipeg, and, on that basis, feel they warrant the support from this allocation of money, which is, as we know, from the urban VLTs to go towards economic development Rural Manitoba has a series of programs, the Rural Economic Development Initiative and other programs, and they would deal with each request on an individual basis.

If something comes forth that makes sense for rural Manitoba, then that will be a determination of government and the minister responsible and so on whether or not it should be supported, but some of these items represent the highest priority of the Oty of Winnipeg. In fact, they went so far as to indicate, as I said in my opening remarks, that they were including estimated and hopeful recoveries of some contribution towards these organizations from this very source. Mr. Storie: My second question which the minister did not answer was relative to the treatment of rural Manitoba and VL T revenues.

The Union of Manitoba Municipalities and MAUM and numerous councillors and mayors across the province have asked the provincial government to set aside at least 25 percent of VL T revenue for rural economic development. The minister may attempt to fool himself that somehow that that is being done through programs like RED I. 1be fact of the matter is that for a number of years now there have been significant problems in that program and the amount of money that is actually being transferred to municipalities unconditionally is substantially less than what apparently has been offered to the City of Wmnipeg.

It appears that the minister's explanation is right, or if I have interpreted it right, that of 35 percent of VLT revenue 10 percent is given unconditionally, and then 25 percent set aside for specific urban economic initiatives. But 35 percent of the revenue from VLTs is now going to the Oty of Winnipeg. The question is: When are people in rural Manitoba going to get the same kind of deal? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that

interpretation is absolutely incorrect. I have outlined the organizations that are the beneficiaries of the support under the urban 25 percent and they are not going-1 mean, it is not directly to the Oty

4139 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 of Winnipeg. It ends up being to these individual organizations, which, after discussions with the City of Winnipeg, were recognized as being areas of high priority. Unlike some previous governments, just because there is a pool of resources, we do not go out looking for-always looking for new and potentially frivolous ways to spend it. We have existing organizations that are in place that serve an economic need in the city of Winnipeg, that are recognized as priorities of the City of Winnipeg.

We felt they warranted support, and we are doing that from this funding source. Mr. Storie: Let us just back up to the first question that was asked. The minister suggested that 10 percent of VLT revenue was going to Winnipeg, that the $4 million was unconditional. That is 10 percent in addition to the 25 percent that shows up under Urban Economic Development Initiatives. Is that correct? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is correct and exactly the same percentages with the same kind of allocation you will find under rural development, the 10 percent going unconditionally to municipalities in rural Manitoba and 25 percent going for rural economic development, exactly the same. Coincidentally, we will see the exact same dollar amounts because the estimates for both rural Manitoba and Winnipeg overall were $40 million. So not only will you see the same percentage allocation, you will see the same dollar allocation. Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I certainly do not see those numbers.

The amount of money that is provided to municipalities is substantially less than 10 percent of the total revenue that rural VLTs have been raising. The minister may want to confinn those numbers, but there is certainly no question that the projects -and if the minister is suggesting that the City of Wmnipeg at least had some input into the projects that were funded out of the 25 percent VLT revenue-but that certainly has not been the case in rural Manitoba.

That has been one of the complaints, that in fact the decisions are made by REDI, by ministerial directive, by Green Team funding out of the Department of Rural Development, and a number of other programs. There has been virtually no consultation, and a sense that the money that is coming out of the communities, that is being sucked out of the communities is being-1 was going to say wasted but maybe that is not the correct term, but certainly no sense that it is going towanls the priorities that are community based or even regionally based. Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, that is absolutely incorrect, and I am not here to debate the Estimates of Rural Development, although I would love to, but by being on Treasury Board, I see many of the projects that are approved, and I can assure the member for Flin Flon that all kinds of projects have input directly from municipalities throughout rural Manitoba.

If he cares to look on page 138 of his Estimates book he will see Unconditional Grants - Rural Community Development $4 million, which is the item that I referred to earlier, and he will see the rest of the allocations going into various economic development initiatives, but my understanding is Rural Development has been dealt with, and I thought we were here to deal with the Urban Economic Development Initiatives. Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister-! am not sure where they get the numbers from.

I simply know that in communities like Leaf Rapids or Snow Lake, they are getting unconditional grants in the neighbourhood of $14,000, which does not allow them to do anything, in essence. Although the communities are losing $150,000, $200,000 a year and more, the percentage of money that is coming back to the communities is far less than 25 percent. It does not appear to them and it does not appear to me that the unconditional amount that is being returned is anywhere close to 10 percent.

So the minister may feel that that is the case, but there is a broad feeling in rural Manitoba and in the communities that I represent that that is not the case. •

(1450) Perhaps that is not sufficient, and certainly it is not anywhere near the return that the communities were led to expect would be a result of the introduction of VL Ts. They were told, unconditionally, that all of the money that was

June27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4140 raised from VL Ts would be returned to Rural Economic Development, not 10 percent unconditionally and a bunch of others lumped into government programs and so forth. So I am not sure that the minister has satisfied me yet that there is any real plan in terms of Urban Economic Development Initiatives coming from what is windfall revenue for the government. There is no sense that the money they are putting in place is going to have any long-term impact.

Certainly if they are going to fund losses, if they are going to fund The Green Team and if they are going to fund the losses of the Winnipeg Jets, I think many people would argue that is short-term, shortsighted investment, and probably if there is a way of frittering away $100 million from VLT revenue, this is the best way the government could possibly conceive of doing it. So maybe it is time to rethink, I guess, the approach that has been taken. Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chaitperson, as I have already pointed out, the allocation under Rural Development on page 138, and, I believe, the $4 million unconditional is done, I believe, on a per capita basis, so it will vary by community to community, obviously, how much they receive. The remaining $10 million that totals the $14 million at the top of page 138 is basically done on the basis of projects that come forward from communities, from organizations, from municipalities, from whatever entity that feels they have an economic development project worthy of support.

I guess we will agree to disagree, because the feedback I get has been overall very positive towards programs like the Rural Economic Development Initiative, towards the Grow Bonds Program and others in rural Manitoba that have benefited many communities and generated hundreds and thousands of jobs in rural Manitoba. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair person, I have a number of questions on this particular area. I think the area that I would want to start off-1 think we have to look at the REDI program, and I will try to demonstrate why.

When the VLTs were first brought in, there was a high expectation that in fact all the revenues coming out of the VL Ts would be returned back into the communities. As a result of the dollars that were coming into government through the VL T machines, it was decided that they no longer wanted to have that money going into the communities, that money being returned in the communities. But, when it did make the decision in rural Manitoba, it decided what it would do is send the money back through a program, with RED!, the Rural Economic Development Initiative.

Is that not a boanl or are there appointments to that particular organization? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, again, I assumed both members had an opportunity to be at Rural Development to ask any questions about programs under their jurisdiction. Having said that, I know that the Grow Bonds Program has a board. I do not believe REDI does, but I would have to get infonnation and confinn. I know the Grow Bonds Program does have a board of citizens from throughout the province that reviews and makes recommendation on individual Grow Bonds applications and programs.

I think the REDI program is dealt with administratively and works its way through ultimately to the minister for recommendations on through Treasury Board and cabinet. But I will confinn whether or not REDI has a board or not. At the same time that the member talks about the wants and desires of rural Manitobans, rural Manitobans have also told us, loud and clear, to get the deficit under control and ultimately eliminate it here in Manitoba, and that is what we are on our way to doing. Mr. Lamoureux: The reason why I asked, Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, is that for some reason I was under the impression that under the REDI program there was some broader-based decision-making group, if you like, to establish priorities in tenns of rural economic development projects. I guess I would ask the minister, what is out there? How does the minister base his decisions on who is going to be getting what of this $10 million or this 25 percent share?

4141 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 If it is just government or the minister through meeting with one or two different organizations that make application to the Department of Finance, I think that there are potentially more problems that could be had We constantly hear of slush funds of sorts.

No one would question in terms of the economic benefits of organizations or capital investments that need to be made, such as the Convention Centre, but if we are talking about urban economic development and we are talking about these new dollars that are coming into place--if we did not have the VLTs introduced in the city of Winnipeg, does this mean that the Convention Centre would not have received provincial dollars?

What is actually in place to ensure that these dollars are, in fact, being used for what government claims that they are being used for, that these are, in fact, new projects that money would not have been allocated out to? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, first of all, on the REDI and the Grow Bonds process, as I say, I think the Grow Bonds have a board; I do not believe REDI does. But, under both of those, the recommendations ultimately make their way through the system through to the minister and then are part of recommeodations of Treasury Board and cabinet for ultimate approval.

So, ultimately, the government still makes the final decision. On the REDI, I know there is an application process in place that has certain criteria built around it. Obviously, staff of Rural Development are in rural Manitoba dealing with individual municipalities, organizations, and so on, in terms of projects that meet their needs. This is the fust year of the 25 percent allocation to the City of Winnipeg, and the member asks the question about whether or not we would support the Winnipeg Convention Centre, Winnipeg 2000, Tourism Winnipeg.

If these funds were not available, the answer might be that we might not. 1be other part of it is that if we were not able to support them through this, the City of Winnipeg may not be supporting them, and we might not have a Convention Centre, which was the second built in all of Canada and does generate, if the member has not seen, significant activity. We just had the Federation of Canadian Municipalities having their national convention here a week or two ago. It is a series of activities that take place there.

So this has become very important at this particular stage of that facility, along with these other organizations that I say, the City of Winnipeg says, most major urban centres in Canada have an economic development organization. Most have a major tourism organization. They do play a significant role for the economic well-being of Wmnipeg, and they are recognized as amongst the highest priorities for the City ofWmnipeg in tenns of our providing support out of this resource. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chaitperson, I guess, ultimately, my fear would be that we are playing the shell game here, much like when we built the casino. A lot of people opposed the casino, but you say that the monies are going towards health care. So people felt, oh, gee, it is kind of warm and fuzzy inside, saying that it is going to a good cause, so that might limit debate to a certain degree. Well, who is going to oppose urban economic development?

So, to take VLT revenues to urban economic development, again, it is one way of possibly sidestepping an issue, the moral issue of gambling, if you like, in the sense that many people will look at it and say, well, this could end up with jobs, and jobs are a positive thing and that is what we want Manitobam continuously tell us that that is, in fact, their No. 1 priority. •

(1500) I think that if we compared the two programs, it is 25 per cent, and the number of applications, for example, if the minister had at his finger tips, the number of applications that were received in under the REDI program, and then compare that to the number of applications or the number of identities that are out there that have made application for this particular program-! do not have the facts, and this is 100 percent speculative. I am just guessing at this. My best guess is that, under the REDI program, you have likely received tenfold in terms of the numbers of interests in different

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4142 projects, different rural economic projects,

whereas in the City of Winnipeg we have seen, under the last one, five recipients of this particular program. If we bad an application process and individual Manitobans or companies or unions aware of the fact that we have this urban economic initiative that is available, it is coming out ofVL T revenues, and if you have got a good idea, bring it to us.

You know, on the surface, this looks more like grants that are going to be issued bad we bad the VLTs or not, because no one would call into question the value of having the Convention Centre and doing the necessary capital expenditures in order to bring it up or better compare it to be able to compete in the '90s. I would like to think that whatever government, of whatever political stripe, would recognize that importance and allocate out the necessary dollars in order to do that.

I would ask the minister specifically: Is the department looking at having some form of an application process which opens up this particular program, or does the minister feel that this is the best way of dealing with this particular program? Mr. Stefaoson: Mr. Acting Deputy Cbail:person, no, we are not at this time looking at expanding it into a broader application kind of a form. We have various numbers of sources for financial support within different government programs. Without listing them all, there is the Manufacturing Industrial Opportunities Program.

There is the Manitoba Industrial Recruitment Initiative. There is now the Crocus Fund in Manitoba. lbere is the Vision Capital Fund. There is the Manufacturing Adaptation Program. lbere is the small business assistance program. lbere are a series of programs out there that can help individuals or businesses depending on what niche it is they are pursuing or what the nature of their business is.

This also provides a vehicle to support economic development initiatives, but in terms of looking at meeting the needs of individual businesses, we did not see the need for another program as such application process because there are these various programs that can assist businesses to either expand or relocate here in Manitoba, as well as other things we have done through the taxation system like our Manufacturing Investment Credit, ·like our Research and Development Tax Credit So there are a series of initiatives that are beneficial to businesses of all sizes.

This one is meant to capture some other initiatives. We have outlined the ones so far, and I am sure there will be some other initiatives that the member will find projects both that be can support and that he will find exciting for Winnipeg. He has already indicated that be recognizes the significant economic activity that Winnipeg Convention Centre provides here in our city, and these were done as a result of discussion with the City of Wmnipeg in terms of meeting what they viewed as some of their greatest economic needs here in the city.

I should point out that on page 152, under Urban Economic Development Initiatives, it says: "Provides funding for Government directed economic development initiatives within the City ofWmnipeg." Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Cbail:person, getting back to the shell game, if you like, the Department of Tourism, I am sure, and again, the minister likely knows more than I on this particular issue, Tourism Winnipeg would have received funds from Department of Tourism, or is this the first time that they would have received grant dollars? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Acting Deputy Cbail:person, first of all, there is no shell game being played, and, to the best of my knowledge, it is the first time that they would be receiving support for operations. We might have done some joint initiative with them under the tourism agreement, some joint marketing or promotion or something like that on a project basis, but in terms of meeting the needs of their operation, this is the first time, to the best of my knowledge, that they are receiving direct operational support to meet their ongoing, day-to-day needs of their organization. Mr.

Lamoureux: So, for Tourism Winnipeg, that is operational monies. With Winnipeg 2000, I would ask if that is, in fact, also operational

4143 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 money. If the answer to both of those is yes, I would assume that they are going to have operational costs for fiscal years '94 and '95. Is the government going to be considering incotporating these requests in on an annual basis into future budgets? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, we spoke specifically about Tourism Winnipeg, and, as I say, I would stand to be corrected in a very slight way, but on an ongoing basis I know there has been no operational. There might have been a start-up support or something.

Similarly, with Winnipeg 2000, there has been support on occasion, but, again, not on an ongoing basis. When I refer to operational, obviously I am referring to a combination of their staff, their infrastructure, their marketing programs, some of their publications, all of the things that they are doing to promote economic development here in Wmnipeg. So that is the nature of comparing the past to where we are today.

As I indicated to the member for F1in Roo, allocations under this pool of dollars will be made each year during budget time as we do with $5.3 billion or $5.4 billion every year, and we will be doing the same in this area in tenns of whether or not there is a need to continue to support these organizations in the future. I cannot today predict what their operational requirements will necessarily be, depending-! mean the Convention Centre obviously can swing fairly significantly depending on the number of conventions it gets, events and those kinds of things.

So the amount has the potential to vary fairly significantly from year to year, as, I believe, do the other two organizations depending on what other funding sources from the private sector, other initiatives, that they can come up with to work towards being more self-sustaining. Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister give some sort of indication in terms of The Green Team, the Winnipeg Green Team? I know that there was a new service that did go out explaining that If tbe minister can maybe just expand on or comment on that particular program? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chaitperson, I will get all of the details that were handed out when the announcement was made several weeks ago, but it is an initiative to employ young people, I believe, ages 16 to 24 here in Winnipeg working on a series of community initiatives. Different nonprofit organizations can apply for funding support for staffing. When I say organizations -like community centres--can apply to The Green Team for, I believe, up to five positions, again, I am just giving the general parameters; I stand to be corrected.

So they can get the financial support provided for that staffing, I think, to $8 and about 30 cents an hour, and they can also get a small contribution towards the project itself, I think of up to $5,000 per project, if they need some supplies for these young people to either do maintenance or painting or whatever. So that is probably a good example, community clubs.

It also can be used by nonprofit organizations and other organizations of that type to do enhancements to facilities and so on, and meet the needs that they might have over the summer months and obviously employ, I believe the estimate is, about 350 young people. I can certainly get the details, the project announcement application information for both members. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chaitperson, I guess, finally, I just wanted to reiterate a point and would possibly even appreciate some form of information, knowing that we are not in Rural Development.

I would like very much to get something from the REDI program in terms of that application process, because I do believe that it allows for more local community input by having a criterion that is established so that if a local community has an idea that they believe would be good for urban economic development, there is a process that can be followed.

Personally, I would not mind to be able to compare the two because at one point tbe member for F1in Ron made reference in terms of a question of equitability between distribution of these dollars both to rural and the city of Wmnipeg, also in tenns of the mechanisms that we use to ensure that they are getting the 25 percent, which is a significant percentage, and also that it is

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4144 15 or 10 percent that the City of Winnipeg would get-is it 15? An Honourable Member: Unconditional? Mr. Storie: Unconditional. Is it 10 percent? Yes, but if the minister would take it upon himself to some time over the summer get me that information I would appreciate it. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, I will.

I just want to point out that, as I think the member knows, there are over 200 municipal organizations throughout rural Manitoba, and we have had extensive discussions, consultations with them through parent organizations like Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, through rural economic forums that we have held throughout various parts of the province and through the minister responsible attending the regional meetings, participating in a whole range of forums with them to get feedback on all of the things, how well they are working and what improvements can be made in terms of how we deliver these programs.

But, yes, in terms of program process, the applications on the REDI, I will undertake to provide the member with that information. •

(1510) Mr. Storie: Just one other question on this Lotteries Funded Appropriations, it is not strictly Urban Economic Development Initiatives, but a related matter, I guess, and that is the use of VLT funds to support capital projects in some of the 52 communities that fall under the Northern Affairs department. I am wondering whether there was any discussion or any consideration of including a portion of the Lotteries funds, which clearly come from citizens living in Northern Affairs communities, into some special appropriation to the Department of Northern Affairs. Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Acting Deputy Chairperson, we really are very much into another department. I will take the substance of that question as notice and follow up with my colleague, but, again, my understanding is there is obviously nothing precluding those communities from applying under the programs that currently exist, but the member is suggesting, if I understand it, a separate allocation from within that for a particular region of the province. As I said, the substance of that I will take as notice. Mr. Storie: I appreciate that.

The minister should know that the Rural Economic Development Initiatives and the monies, even the per capita dollars that flow to municipalities, do not flow to Northern Affairs communities, I believe. Certainly there have been no major projects funded in Northern Affairs communities from Lotteries funds. The amount of capital that is being expended this year by the Department of Northern Affairs is exactly the same as it was last year, and it is substantially less than the ongoing capital contributions through the years 1981 to '88, which were $4 million or $5 million.

The infrastructure in our Northern Affairs communities is deteriorating. Its lack of capital contribution in part of the Department of Northern Affairs, on an ongoing basis, as I say, it is about 50 percent of what it was a few years ago. There does not appear to be any major kind of influx of support from lottery revenues. I would simply argue that it is time we recognized that they too are making their contribution.

Although one might argue that some of the REDI programs may have been used in Northern Affairs communities, I think, by and large, that is not the case, and there may be a way of supporting the infrastructure needs by targeting some of those dollars. It is a suggestion. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will take it as that. As the member himself indicated, I do not think there is anything precluding those communities from applying for the programs that exist under Rural Development, but I note his suggestion. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.

Rose): Resolution 27.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Urban Economic Development Initiatives for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

4145 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program • Capital The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): We will now move to item 27.9 Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital. Does the minister responsible have an opening statement? Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, very briefly, I think as members know, we were one of the first provinces to sign the infrastructure agreement with the federal government.

As of June 10 there are some 293 projects that have been announced, totalling approximately $178 million out of the total allocation of $205 million, the estimated direct jobs as a result of the announcements to date: about 3,200. We are very pleased with the overall progress that we have made to date, the outstanding co-operation we have received from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Uiban Municipalities and the City of Winnipeg, amongst many others, in terms of moving this particular initiative along.

For the sake of moving this item along, that is all I will say, and I will look forward to questions. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Thank you. Does the critic of the official opposition party have an opening statement? Mr. Jerry Storie (F1in Flon): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are going to get into the details of the $23.8 million. It seems to me that this is another bit of a shell game that the Minister of Finance is playing with the people of Manitoba. The provincial commitment is $68.2 million.

I think everyone understands that the vast majority of that $204 million has been allocated, projects approved for the vast majority of it, so the likelihood of the province only spending $23 million in this fiscal year, I think, is probably quite slim. There is certainly a realistic chance that much more than that will be spent this year.

In any event, I guess the major problem I have with this whole program is, what was initially to be a far-reaching structural improvement kind of program for the province turned into what has happened in the past, I guess, and unfortunately too often happens, an effort to satisfy every small project, everyone's smaller dream, if you will, in the province. When you look through the list of projects, I just fail to understand bow they can legitimately be called long-term infrastructure goals of the province.

There are a couple of exceptions that were announced when the initial announcement, the federal-provincial agreement was announced. They include the mral gasification initiative which was some $21 million, but the vast majority of the remainder fall into the category of small other capital projects. They include sidewalks and fixing up municipal buildings, et cetera. I would like, first of all, an explanation or some information on the current allocation versus the total allocation and perhaps some comment on whether the $23 million is a reasonable expectation for the next fiscal year.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for the second opposition party have an opening statement? [interjection] Thank you. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chai.J:person, we feel that the $24 million is a reasonable allocation. I did say in my brief opening remarks that we have allocated $178 million out of the $205 million, but on all of the project applications, we bad estimated start-up dates, the time frames over which the project will be obviously worlted on.

So we had the opportunity to look at which years various projects fall into and where the majority of worlt will be done, and at the same time recognizing that under the agreement with the federal government in the first year we have to spend 35 percent, otherwise it lapses. So I guess I am just indicating that we do intend to spend the 35 percent because of the number of projects that we have had. We have had about a five-to-one request under this program.

When all is said and done, I would suggest that we will be very close to our allocation in this year because some of the projects, and some of the more significant

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4146 projects, spill over quite significantly into next year. One obvious one is the Route 90 underpass here in Winnipeg with the vast majority of that being done next year. That is a very significant project.

So, yes, it is a reasonable allocation that meets the needs of the agreement We would argue that with the approach that we and the other levels of government have taken to this whole initiative, besides just doing sewer and water which are important in many communities throughout our province, the objective all along was also to do other infrastructure-type development that will benefit our communities for many years into the future.

We think we have struck a good balance between traditional and municipal programs and other interesting and innovative programs in a whole range of areas that will benefit various communities, various sectors of our economy and all of Manitoba. •

(1520) Mr. Storie: I guess that is a convenient explanation, a convenient point of view if you are the minister. I am not sure, looking at the projects, that it is really very realistic. We had an opportunity to spend $200 million collectively for projects that were longer term, difficult to do because of the scope of them, and it seems that again we took the easy way out. With all due respect to the communities where we are upgrading fuel tank standards, in Dunrea, a community that I am familiar with, I believe in the member for Turtle Mountain's (Mr.

Rose) constituency, it is hardly the long-term kind of project that I think most people would feel would be the most beneficial to the long-tenn economic interests of the province of Manitoba. Having said that, I guess I would like to know from the minister where a couple of the big projects are. He mentioned Route 90. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) was saying the other day in the House that this was an important project supported by all three levels of government.

Today, in the paper, one of the councillors, the deputy mayor, I believe, is saying he is not sure that Route 90 was the city's priority, which leads one to wonder about the logic, the necessity of spending a huge amount of money, a huge percentage of the total funds on this particular project. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not about to comment on comments of an individual councillor through the media. What I would base my understanding of this entire initiative on is through direct discussions we have had with the City of Winnipeg and obviously with the federal government.

The City of Wmnipeg has been a full participant in tenns of the priorities and the decision making on all of the urban initiatives, and before the member steps out, for one moment I want to point out to him that the underpass was the very first project submitted by the City of Winnipeg-not the last, it was the first project. So I would hope that gives him a sense of some of the priorities that the negotiators for the City of Winnipeg are giving, not random comments of an individual councillor through the media.

This has been a very thorough, comprehensive process with, I think, excellent input by the other levels of government. Within rural Manitoba, priorities are being selected by the local governments. I think, as the member for Inkster knows, in rural Manitoba they are being reviewed and approved by the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and by the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities. They are both the review process and the final approval process, and certainly the feedback they have given me has been very complimentary, as has been the feedback from most municipalities throughout rural Manitoba.

Our relationship with the city and the federal government has been excellent in tenns of determining overall priorities for the city of Winnipeg. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Under this particular program there are some cities that actually went for the major projects. I believe it is in Quebec they are building-is it a convention centre, or it could even possibly be an arena. I am wondering if the minister can indicate whether or not there were any discussions on using infrastructure dollars for a much larger capital

4147 LEGISLATIVE ASSE:MBL Y OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 investment, and specifically, the whole question of an entertainment facility. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Cbaitperson, the member is conect in tenns of Quebec receiving some support for a convention centre facility. I should point out that each agreement has various unique features with each individual province. I think that was the first project announced in Quebec. My understanding is that it was a project they were going to do anyway and had the opportunity to do it through the infrastructure.

In tenns of his other specific question about an arena, there were some brief discussions about funding an arena through infrastructure, but the final conclusion was that the kind of dollar amount that has always been talked about from levels of government was what was refened to in the Mauro report, roughly $30 million. So again, it is the same kind of overall dollars we are talking about, not that there was an opportunity to do something from infrastructure over and above what else governments might do.

It was never viewed in that context of making it part of a larger contribution from government so it was an either/or, whether you would provide some support under infrastructure or whether you would provide it in some other way, if you were going to provide it I think, for our part, the recognition was that the federal government has supported arena initiatives in many cities across Canada from outside of infrastructure.

Ottawa just recently received I believe about $8-million or $9-million support for their facility outside of the infrastructure agreement, and other support for other facilities has happened in that way. So, although there was some brief discussion, obviously we did not have the benefit of the Bums report and other infonnation as we were going through this information, and the decision was if governments were going to play a role, that there would be an opportunity to do that outside of infrastructure, recognizing we still impose the same general limitations.

We were never discussing infrastructure, because it is still government money, it is still coming from the three levels of government, it is still coming from the taxpayers of Manitoba, that this would not be something that was done over and above any other contributions that governments might make. I do not think anybody ever thought of it in those tenns, nobody that I ever had any discussions with, including the federal government and the City of Winnipeg, that it was always an either/or if the governments were going to do something, not both, that the capacity is not there to be doing both. Mr.

Lamoureux: I just seek some clarification. So the indication was it is an either/or, that you cannot do both? Like, for example, Route 90, providing gas in rural Manitoba would not have been possible under this if, in fact, the City of Winnipeg or the province or the federal government wanted to go ahead and build some fonn of an entertainment complex? Mr. Stefanson: I guess one technical point is all of the infrastructure projects that we refened to, the 293 projects have all been on the basis of a submission, and nobody put forward a submission for anything to do with an arena.

The City of Wmnipeg did not put forward any submission for an arena as part of an infrastructure project So, from a technical sense, there was no submission for that particular project. Having said that, I think, when we have had discussions around the Mauro report, around the arena, the kinds of dollars as potential contributions that were talked about were in the vicinity of $30 million. I guess, without---bying not to be repetitive, the very brief discussions held around this initiative were on the basis that that would be the overall contribution potentially from three levels of government.

So, riot that there was an opportunity to do something here and then governments would still be called upon to do something else outside of the infrastructure agreement for another significant sum of money. So we come back to the kinds of discussions, without the two of us wading into that in any great detail, the discussions we have had over the course of the last-on Friday and today here in this building about the requirement for a contribution of in the vicinity of $90 million to $111 million for a facility from governments based

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4148 on the financial report that came out of the Bums committee. Those kinds of discussions never took place around infrastructure funding. It was always on the basis of the magnitude of dollars that was referred to in the Mauro report, and it was on the basis of sourcing it maybe from this pool of funding, not that it would be incremental from any other support that governments might give. Hopefully that is clear. •

(1530) Mr. Lamoureux: I would imagine that the province of Quebec, the convention centre is not being fully financed. Again, I could be wrong, it is just speculation, that it is not being financed 100 percent through the infrastructure program, that the infrastructure program is just one other vehicle or pot of money that is being tapped into in order to make the convention centre more economically feasible in terms of the construction of such a site. Here we have a significant sum of dollars.

It could be a number of years before we get any additional sums of this magnitude anyway, and even though it might not be fair nor appropriate to say that 100 percent of it would have to be financed through an infrastructure program, I am wondering if the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) can indicate whether or not be foresees any foiDl of entertainment facility, whether it is as an arena, whatever it might be, possibly built without tapping into a program such as this, where you have joint agreements between different levels that are prepared to put in sums of dollars.

Surely to goodness, if the infrastructure money is all allocated out and the province or the city or the federal government then says, look, now we want to build an entertainment centre, you would get the province of Quebec and other jurisdictions saying, well, just wait a minute; you could have used infrastructure money like other jurisdictions did in order to make that one-time capital expenditure.

So I would ask the minister that Also, again for clarification, if the Minister of Finance can indicate whether ot not the federal government or the provincial government-be bas already indicated that the city government-so those two levels of government ever put on the table for discussion the possibility of using infrastructure monies for any form of an entertainment centre, whether it is an arena or whatever it might be. Mr. Stefanson: I am trying to think of the simplest way to say this, Mr.

Acting Deputy Cbaitperson, but I guess it is when we looked at something like the possibility of a new arena in Winnipeg, we viewed what can taxpayers reasonably be expected to put into a new arena, irrespective of whether it comes from infrastructure, Lotteries funding, tax dollars, whatever the sourcing might be, what would be a reasonable contribution and expectation from the taxpayers. The Mauro report referred to $30 million.

That bas been the kind of number that I think three levels of government have been certainly talking about and that was the kind of number that, when we bad a very, very brief discussion at our infrastructure committee around whether or not an arena should be supported, it was always in that vicinity, not $100 million, not $111 million.

So I guess, whether one argues it is the infrastructure or where you would source it, it is still all money that is generated by taxpayers here in Manitoba to the three levels of government So I do not know bow I can put that more succinctly, that we just viewed what is the maximum amount that governments collectively, and I think that bas been the view of-I cannot speak for the other two levels of government, but I have not seen either of the other levels of government coming forwanl in the last few days suggesting that they are prepared to put in $40 million or $50 million or $60 million or $70 million into a new arena If the member is aware of a level of government suggesting that, I would be interested to bear that.

We started on the premise of what is a ballpark or a range that governments could be expected to potentially contribute, discussed that and came to the conclusion that there were so many other requests and needs under the infrastructure agreement, that the timing was still slightly further in the future in teiUls of an arena when we were having these discussions, that we continue to get

4149 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 pressure from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, along the line of what the member for Flin Flon I think alluded to, the traditional needs of many of the municipalities. FCM, of course, adopted the position that all $205 million should go into sewer and water and basic municipal infrastructure, not deviate at all. A heavy construction industry in Manitoba adopted a position of certainly significantly contributing to their industry. The member has probably met with them on occasion.

So you have all of these different groups that come forward saying, here are our priorities; here are our needs. We did it on that kind of a basis in terms of looking at whether or not this would be a funding source for potentially an arena in Wmnipeg, but never on the basis that you could be looking at a combination from here and a combination from somewhere else that make the contributions from govemmem up in the $111-million vicinity.

That was never a basis of discussion from any of the levels of government suggesting that was something we should even be considering and, as I say, from a tecbnical point of view nobody brought forward an application on this project to begin with. So our discussions were always more generic, more conceptual of the issue of an arena. I should point out, I think much to Wmnipeg's frustration is that Winnipeg was the second major convention centre built in Canada. At that time they received no federal dollars.

Subsequent to that, most other convention centres built across Canada received significant federal dollars. There are some in Wmnipeg that argue if a facility is going to be built, the federal govermnent should be doing it outside 'of the infrasttucture agreement, that there are many other pressures. As I said in my opening comments, to date we have in excess of 700 to 800 applications and requests for $800 million towards this program, and that does not include any requests for an arena. So it gives you a sense of the wants, desires and needs that are out there in Manitoba.. Mr.

Lamoureux: The minister indicated that 35 percent of the monies actually have to be spent in this fiscal year. What would be the time frame for the balance? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, a minimum of 35 percent has to be spent this year, fiscal '94-95. A minimum of 50 percent has to be spent next year in '95-96. A maximum of 15 percent can spill over to what would be the third year, because all along it has been portrayed as basically a two-year agreement So that forces a minimum of 85 percent over these two fiscal years. Mr.

Lamoureux: What percentage then would actually be at this point in time approved as being classified as being allocated out? At what stage of the percentage poim are we at? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Cbaitperson, about 80 percent has been committed. I think I indicated at the outset $178 million, and that is out of a program of $205 million. It is approximately 80 percent that has been committed to date. Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like to revisit the issue of Route 90 again.

When the program was announced and the initial allocation was made, in the area called road wolks--I forget, it was one section-the Oty of Wmnipeg received $59 million out of the total of $65 million in that section. The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Excuse me, would you mind pulling your microphone a little closer, please? Thank you. Mr.

Storie: If the minister wams the details, it was Kenaston Boulevard, Wilkes to McGillivray Boulevard, $9.7 million; Kenaston Boulevard underpass, $29 million; Lagimodiere, $1.2 million; residential street renewal program for the City of Wmnipeg, $9.9 million; and community services infrastructure renewal program, $10 million-a total of $59 million out of $65 million for the Oty of Winnipeg. The one project that stands out obviously as the single most expensive project is the underpass.

The minister suggested that I not weigh too heavily the remarks of one councillor from the Oty of Wmnipeg when he identified that this was not the city's priority, although there was a suggestion that

June 27, 1994 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4150 was political pressure to make this the city's priority. •

(1540) Given the amount of money that is being spent on this one project, given the uncertainties surrounding the necessity of this project including the possible merger of CN and CP, certainly the desire in the past on the part of many people in the city of Winnipeg and outside for the relocation of that line, it strikes me that this is one of the projects where the government, if it wished, could do some reallocation yet if someone would show some leadership and say that this is not a necessary expenditure at this point in time.

Now I know the minister is going to argue that this is an important project and, of course, there may have been a period of time when it was viewed as essential, but there are alternatives.

Certainly, although we have heard referenced the necessity of developing this route as an important piece of the puzzle I guess in terms of the development of the Winnipeg Airport, again, there are alternatives and there are alternative routes to the airport, routes that would not necessitate the building of this underpass, routes that would alleviate any necessity of heavy traffic coming down that particular route to the airport that would simplify transportation traffic.

I am wondering whether this particular project was vetted with the alternatives in mind or was it simply a quick look at some priority list that the city had sent or somebody had sent to the provincial government, along with the political priorities of this government, that went into the decision making. Have alternatives to that underpass been considered since the initial allocation? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I did not take down the numbers that the member was reading into the record, but I think he accumulated them from, probably, announcements made at the time.

In tenns of how the allocations were done initially, I think he knows $60 million was allocated to rural Manitoba for priorities to be determined by that review committee of the UMM and MAUM. In fact, not only do they determine them, they are the final recommendation on them. Sixty million was allocated to the City of Winnipeg, again, for priorities within the city of Wmnipeg, and $84 million was allocated for what was called strategic initiatives of which rural gasification and the Route 90 project are two of the largest expenditures in the strategic initiative, $84 million. An Honourable Member: ... which two?

Mr. Stefanson: Rural gasification and Route 90, those two together would total over $50 million. I want to assure him, and I think he knows there are no uncertainties around this project if he has had the opportunity to talk to CN and, if not, he should do that. I would encourage him to do that. This is a project that is supported by the three levels of government. I sat in on the meetings with representatives from the city and from the federal government.

Since he is attributing things to newspaper columns and remarks, he would have noted the comments of a member of the federal government -I believe he is not the M.P. for the area adjacent there, one Mr. Reg Alcock, on Friday or Saturday-his comments about the merits of this project and the need for this project. I want to assure him that this project, like all of them, will go through all of the due process, all of the licensing, the pennits and the environmental assessments that are required for a project of this magnitude.

I guess I am somewhat disappointed that he does not recognize the need for this project and the benefits that it will create for Wmnipeg and all of Manitoba, that this is the No. 1 underpass requirement of the city in their capital budget. It is the first underpass that should be done in terms of their priorities. I am sure he has travelled throughout all parts of the city. He would recognize that Route 90 is a major north-south route throughout our city, immediately adjacent to our 24-hour airport, the home to several of our major trucking finns.

I think we have seven of the 11 interprovincial trucking firms with their headquarters here. The

4151 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 27, 1994 majority of those would be on Route 90, at the north end of Route 90, but the majority of them would be on Route 90. Route 90, in tenns of the access to the airport and the access for our major north-

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-5-56a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 5th hansardpdf 56a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	139983a9603320e6ef26695e69cd7ac6e75bee6b

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