Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 24 (36th Legislature, 1st Session)

36-1-24

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLV No. 24- 10 a.m., Friday, June 23, 1995 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

2457 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, June 23, 1995 The House met at 10 a.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. INTRODUC TION OF BILLS Bill32 - The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that leave be given to introduce Bi11 32, The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les procedures contre la Couronne, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill 33-The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995 Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that leave by given to introduce Bill 33, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995; Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. *

(1005) Bill31-The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2 ) Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that leave be given to introduce Bil1 31, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de la route, and that the same now be received and read a first time. Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today His Excellency Mufleh Osmany, High Commissioner of the People's Republic of Bangladesh to Canada. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this morning. Also, seated in the public gallery, we have fifty Grade 5 students from Garden Grove School under the direction of Mr. Dave Boult. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this morning. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD VL T Revenues Information Release Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). Yesterday, the Minister responsible for Lotteries released some information dealing with revenues from

2458 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 VL Ts, revenues from lottery functions in communities and an arithmetic calculation of both the specific grants and the deficit calculations based on those grants to those communities. Madam Speaker, we have been asking for a community-by-community breakdown for some time now, as all Manitobans have been doing. I would like to ask the Premier, when did the cabinet and the Premier receive a community-by-community breakdown of VL T revenues in the province of Manitoba? Bon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, the information that was released yesterday was received in my office this week. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I want to table a letter from the Ombudsman dated December 19, 1994, which clearly states that cabinet received this information, and I had better be precise, on November 30, 1994. Cabinet received the breakdown of VL T revenues community by community and had available to it a submission from the Lotteries Corporation on November 30, 1994.

Why did this Premier choose to mislead the public of Manitoba and not release this information and lottery information to the people of Manitoba prior to the election campaign? Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the Leader of the official opposition to withdraw the word "mislead." It is an unparliamentary word. Mr. Doer: Why did the Premier allege that this information was not available to the people of Manitoba? I withdraw the word "mislead." Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Leader of the official opposition. *

(1010) Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have said publicly to the media and to other people that it was not a matter of the community-by-community breakdown of revenue that was missing. It was the distribution and we had to wait for the distribution, because that was the question that was asked by everybody, by the F_ree Press, by members opposite-show us how much you are taking in and how much you are distributing to the communities-and until we had that, we could not release the package. Mr. Doer: The government had the information at cabinet on November 30, 1994.

The government also had the Public Accounts breakdown of the grants by communities. They simply took a deficit number and calculated it against the grants. Is the Premier saying to the people of Manitoba that they could not do this simple calculation with the Public Accounts that was released last fall, Madam Speaker, that they could not do that calculation to release it for the people of Manitoba for the last seven months before the election campaign? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, the questions were asked by members opposite and the media about both the revenues on a community-by-community basis and the distribution on a community-by-community basis, and until we had that information, we could not release it. We did not have it all together until this week. It was released yesterday. If it was as simple as the Leader of the Opposition said it was, then we would have given it to him to do. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I have a new question to the Premier.

The Premier who has dodged this issue for months and months and months, along with his former Minister of Lotteries and the present Minister of Lotteries (Mr. Stefanson), has stated for months that this information was not available community by community. We now have information that the VL T revenue-and, of course, we have tabled that in the House; it was

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2459 machine by machine, community by community, Madam Speaker-was available in November. Madam Speaker, when did the government read their own Public Accounts and their own Orders-in-Council that deal with the grants made community by community? Did they not have that information in the fall of 1994, along with the revenues from those VL T machines? Mr.

Stefanson: I am pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition is finally reading the Public Accounts, because a great deal of information about lotteries and gaming revenue has been in those documents for several years, and it is good to see he is finally paying some attention to it. For the specific information in terms of the program breakdown, I would encourage him to look at the additional attachment that was with yesterday's press release that shows the receipts and disbursements of Lotteries Funded Programs, Madam Speaker, and he will see a very extensive list.

Within that, it means going into individual departments and individual department breakdown to get the breakdown of where Community Places supports go, where the REDI, Rural Economic Development Initiative supports go, where the Agricultural Society grants assistance go, where the arts grants assistance go, where the Community Places go, where the cultural organization grants, where Historic Resources grants, where Manitoba Community Services Council, multicultural grants, advisory councils, Public Library Services grants assistance-! could go on and on, Madam Speaker, but it involves many different departments.

It involves in some cases external organizations, and to get the detailed community-by-community break down is a major undertaking. That is the information that was concluded this week, and the document was released as soon as all the information, both in terms of funding and in terms of disbursements, was available, Madam Speaker. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). These numbers that were released this week were numbers for the '93-94 year. They were numbers available to the government in August of 1994, available to the public in the Public Accounts in the fall of 1994.

We now have confirmation that the government had the VL T revenues on November 30 of 1994. Why did the Premier not release these numbers prior to the election campaign, so all the public could have the numbers that the government had and would have to have in order to authorize the grants to those communities? How can the government possibly say that they did not have this information, when it was contained in the Public Accounts released in the fall of 1994, seven months before the election campaign? *

(1015) Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has served in government for a short period of time, and he should know that when you have to go into individual departments, you have to go into individual programs and you have to break it down into individual communities. That is a massive undertaking involving almost every department of government and many external organizations, Madam Speaker. That is what took the time.

That information had to be done precisely, because we know that each individual community will want to know with absolute certainty what is going back into their communities, and that is what took the time. As soon as that process was concluded, the entire

summary was put together, and it was released this week. On the whole issue of information around gaming, there is all kinds of information on gaming, as I mentioned yesterday, from the annual report to the information provided by the Lotteries Corporation to the information that is in the Public Accounts, and I repeat, it is encouraging to see that the Leader of the Opposition is finally taking that document seriously and looking at it for a change.

2460 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is because we have been in government that we know that Orders-in Council and grants that are in the Public Accounts were available months and months and months ago, along with the revenue from VL T machines that we now have had confirmed. Let there be no mistake about that. I have a fmal question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). The Premier is responsible for hiring the chief executive officers of corporations like the Lotteries Corporation.

In the letter from the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman indicates that the corporation told the Ombudsman, told an independent person of this Legislature, that the information for VL T revenues was not available community by community. Madam Speaker, we have tabled information in this House on Monday that indicates they were not only available community by community but machine by machine. Madam Speaker, the corporation, it seems to us, has misled the Ombudsman.

Is the Premier taking any disciplinary action on the CEO of the corporation, or was the CEO of the corporation working under the instructions of the cabinet and the Premier not to provide that information? Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, without accepting any of the

preamble of the Leader of the Opposition, as I indicated in this House yesterday, the Ombudsman, I am told, is very satisfied with the information that was released yesterday. It meets his requirements. It meets the requirements under The Freedom of Information Act. It also meets the standards applied by Statistics Canada, Madam Speaker, and that is how the information has been provided. VL T Revenues Deficit Reduction Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yesterday we indicated in the House just how concerned we are about the lack of integrity of this Conservative Party in dealing with matters of importance to Manitobans, and nothing could be clearer than in the way they have dealt with this important issue. Throughout Manitoba communities are reacting today to this supposed set of books, and I would like to ask a number of questions, because there are some very serious questions being asked e_ven now, after this long wait, about the kind of information we are receiving. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) [interjection] Yes, I have a question for the Premier, and, indeed, I would like to ask the Premier how he can justify, after conveniently waiting as long as he has, two months after the election, releasing information yesterday that indicates, according to this, that, for example, residents of Pembina pay $5.20 per capita towards the deficit-this is according to these calculations-but communities such as The Pas pay $204.74 per capita. In fact, and this may be interesting for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), according to these calculations, in Gimli it is $390 per capita.

How did the government come up with these statistics? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Well, Madam Speaker, I am not sure where the member for Thompson is heading with this kind of questioning, whether it relates to lottery and gaming revenue or whether it relates to all of our taxation, what is generated from different communities, different individuals and so on. In terms of the allocation of the deficit, if he looks at the chart, the gross revenue from gaming is provided in the chart.

V arlo us programs were then funded in individual communities, either direct programs or the communities' per-capita share of province-wide programs. After those programs were funded, there was an amount available to be applied against the deficit, approximately $65 million, and that residual, Madam Speaker, was applied on a proportionate basis. I do not want to have to give the member for Thompson a lesson in accounting, but when there was $65 million available to be distributed, $60 million of

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2461 it was distributed, and it was done on a proportionate basis, and I would welcome the opportunity to give the member an accounting lesson at any time. *

(1020) Mr. Ashton: Well, will the minister perhaps give all of Manitobans a lesson in his creative accounting by indicating how, if you look at these numbers, essentially what has happened is-can he confirm that if communities did not get programming money, what has essentially happened is that, according to these numbers, they get the benefit, as the people of Gimli or The Pas or Thompson have, of having a magic number attached next to them for deficit reduction? Is that the minister's version of creative accounting? Mr.

Stefanson: Madam Speaker, many of the programs that I referred to are programs that are province-wide. They are available to all communities to apply for, whether it is the REDI program or other programs. Some communities have accessed those programs in a more significant way for the year ending March 31, 1994. We will see what happens in 1995. Those programs are there and some communities use them in a given year. Other communities will use them in the next year. I guess what the member for Thompson is telling us is that he does not take the deficit seriously.

I think he is out of step with Manitobans, because Manitobans have told us one of the single greatest priorities is to stop deficits, start accumulating surpluses, and every time you eliminate the deficit you are putting funding to the highest priorities here in Manitoba. You are putting funding to health care, education and family services, Madam Speaker. Information Release Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): My final supplementary is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) whom I wanted to question earlier.

I would like to ask the Premier, will he finally admit that this list, the supposed list of only 27 communities out of the many communities in Manitoba, is nothing more than a bogus list, a cover-up? Will the Premier finally give the information to Manitobans that they have been asking for in terms of VL Ts? Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would request that the honourable member for Thompson please pick and choose his words very carefully. At this time, I would request that the word "bogus" pe withdrawn. Mr. Ashton: Yes, I withdraw that and substitute the word "phoney." Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I am certain that the honourable member for Thompson knows that when he is requested to withdraw a word, it is an unequivocal withdrawal. Point of Order Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I substituted a word that is parliamentary. I totally withdraw the word "cover-up" if that is considered unparliamentary. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson was requested to withdraw the word "bogus." Would the honourable member please withdraw the word "bogus" unequivocally? Mr.

Ashton: Madam Speaker, I withdrew it and I substituted a word which is parliamentary, which I believe is the procedure. I withdraw the word "cover up." [interjection] Madam Speaker, the Premier seems to be wanting to chair. If you wish me to withdraw the word "cover-up" unequivocally, I have done that. I repeat that. Madam Speaker: And "bogus"? Order, please. To the honourable member for Thompson, the Speaker has not heard you withdraw the word "bogus" unequivocally without substituting a supplementary word, and I would request that the honourable member for Thompson withdraw the word "bogus" unequivocally.

2462 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, can I ask for your ruling? Are you ruling that the word "bogus" is unparliamentary? Madam Speaker: Yes. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that the word does not appear in any of our lists as being unparliamentary. However, if that is your rulin g, I accept your ruling. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson. The honourable member for Thompson accepted my ruling that the word indeed was unparliamentary but has still not withdrawn the word "bogus" unequivocally. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Speaker, my understanding is you have ruled that the word was unparliamentary. If the word was unparliamentary and that is your ruling, then I withdraw the word. Madam Speaker: I appreciate that. I thank the honourable member for Thompson. ** * *

(1025) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the information that is provided there is in accordance with the advice that has been accepted from the Ombudsman, and that is that any communities in which there were three or fewer locations would not be identified separately, so that commercial confidentiality of the income revenue of those individual sites would not be in jeopardy. That is something that is consistent with what Statistics Canada does, so that they do not identify individual siteholders for things such as revenue on sales tax or revenue on retail sales or any of those things.

This information was provided consistent with Statistics Canada's principles and consistent with The Freedom of Information Act and consistent with what the Ombudsman has advised the government to do, and it is those circumstances on which we have provided the information, and we are confident that it meets all the tests, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Ashton: On a new question, I would like to ask the Premier, will he look at the fact that, currently, every single municipal leader in this province is looking at these figures today and saying what they have been saying for a long time, and even in this inaccurate document, it is finally being shown to be true, and the fact is this government has been draining rural and northern communities through VL Ts and other revenues?

Will this First Minister finally sit down with the municipal leaders and other leaders throughout rural and northern Manitoba and listen to the concerns that have been expressed-they are now confirmed in this document-that his government has been draining rural and northern Manitoba through VL Ts? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, what I will confirm is that this government is the only government in Canada that gives direct revenues from VL Ts to all municipal governments in this province, 10 percent, that provides an additional 25 percent in support that is directed by the provincial government into the municipal governments. No other government in Canada does that, and this would not be an issue in any other area in Canada because they do not provide any direct revenues to the municipal governments. We do.

We are the most generous government in Canada in providing revenues to municipal governments, and now he is saying that is not good enough, Madam Speaker. The fact of the matter is the only reason we are into this discussion is because this government does make.a commitment to give some of the revenues to municipal governments in our province. *

(1030) Forest Fires-Evacuees Centennial Arena Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, as you know, we are currently in a very serious

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2463 situation in northern Manitoba, particularly with forest fires. I would like to begin by commending the men and women on the front lines and the men and women who are involved with helping the evacuees throughout Manitoba at Lynn Lake, Thompson, The Pas and also at Portage la Prairie. During the last couple of nights, I have had an opportunity to meet with the evacuees at Portage la Prairie, and last night the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and I had the opportunity to meet with the evacuees.

We certainly were impressed by the efforts of the friendship centre, EMO, Red Cross and the other many volunteers who are involved, including the RCMP. However, we did fmd a problem, Madam Speaker, and that is the conditions in which some of the people, the evacuees, have to live in, in Portage Ia Prairie, particularly the ones at the Centennial Arena, and that is, these people are sleeping on floors which are soaked with moisture. I would like to ask the Minister of Government Services whether or not these people will have an opportunity to move to a more suitable location and a more comfortable location. Hon.

Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Rupertsland for his positive comments concerning the great work that is being done by a great many Manitobans in assisting these people who have been evacuated, over 3,000 thus far, I understand, in total, who unfortunately have had to be moved from their normal places of residence to other communities that have been gracious enough to accept the responsibility of providing for those people in need. Certainly yesterday, we, too, the Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr.

Praznik) and myself had the opportunity to visit with these folks, to talk with them and to also congratulate, as the member opposite has, the great many people who have been involved in doing their very best, their very utmost, to make accommodation, to make food available, to make other provisions available as would accommodate the needs of these people. It is a difficult task, certainly, and one that I must personally thank the people of the communities of The Pas, Thompson and Portage Ia Prairie for for taking on that task.

It is not easy to satisfy all the needs of the people of these communities, but we are certainly doing our utmost to do just that. Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I know the staff of EMO meet daily to discuss matters like this. I would like to ask the minister if he would instruct his representatives to ensure that the evacuees' needs are being met, and I would like to ask the minister, again, whether or not the people who are in Portage Ia Prairie at the arena could look forward to a more suitable location tonight. Mr.

Pallister: The member for Rupertsland is quite correct Regular consultation takes place, not only with the host community and government officials from EMO and other departments but also with representatives of the people who have been displaced from their communities, including the councillors, in this case in Portage Ia Prairie, from Gods Lake Narrows, and we, in fact, met with those people yesterday, and they had the opportunity and did express some concerns. This was not among the concerns they expressed to us yesterday at our meeting. I appreciate the member expressing the concern today in the House.

I would encourage him, however, in future, if something like this comes to his attention, that he bring it to my attention immediately when it comes to his attention, not just when it is politically expedient however, Madam Speaker, to do it in front of the cameras today in the Chamber, but when the concern is brought, it should be brought directly to my attention. I appreciate that happening and I ask the member to do just that. Thank you. Point of Order Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the minister was imputing motives after the member went out and was there till two, three o'clock in the morning last evening. To say it is made for any other purpose except representing the people of this province, I believe is unparliamentary. You cannot impugn motives, and I think we should

2464 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 deal with the substance which is very important to those people rather than politics. Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order by the Leader of the official opposition, I believe, indeed, that it is a point of order. Imputing motives, indeed, is a point of order, and I would request the honourable member for Portage to rephrase his words and apologize to the member for Rupertsland. Mr. Pallister: I am very sorry. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Government Services. Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I do thank the minister for his apology.

I would also like to ask the minister whether this government will discuss with EMO, chiefs and councils, mayors and councils, on any possible future happenings as we are experiencing curr ently, so that we can ensure that there will be an orderly course of action taken in the event that these things occur in a time to come. Mr. Pallister: I thank the member for his question. I do thank the member for his personal interest in this situation. I appreciate that interest very much.

I believe that we have adopted, and very successfully so, according to all reports based on comparisons with the 1989 situation, a very effective teamwork approach that is involving the councils, members of the communities that have been evacuated, as well as the host communities.

I know from talking to those people personally that they are working very, very diligently to do their utmost to make sure that this temporary home that these people have been forced to take up is as comfortable as is possible and that it does provide the services and provide for the needs of those people while they are unfortunately away from their homes. Forest Fires Evacuation Process Bon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): If I may respond to a question taken as notice yesterday by the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) from the member for Flin Flon (Mr.

Jennissen), the member asked if the minister would allow those evacuated from Leaf Rapids to The Pas to remain in Thompson. I am pleased to report to the House that this morning, in fact as we speak, the people who have been displaced from Leaf Rapids are now in the process of returning to their homes. I know they are appreciative of the great work that was done by the host communities of The Pas and Thompson in hosting them. They will be returning home shortly and I know will be appreciative of that opportunity. Thank you. Gaming Commission VL T Revenues Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. After a great deal of time, we finally did receive the government's news release yesterday with the community-by-community breakdown, but it should be pointed out that, in fact, this information is out of date. It is 15 months old, if you like, and it is quite incomplete. We take a look at those sites where there was less than four which made up to $24 million of revenue, Madam Speaker.

My question to the minister is, did the gambling committee receive a more detailed breakdown than what the minister has provided to the legislative Chamber? Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, the member for Inkster refers to not providing the individual breakdown for communities that have three sites or fewer, and I will only remind the member that the

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2465 releasing of site-by-site revenue figures would contravene The Freedom of Information Act by jeopardizing the financial confidentiality interests of individual siteholders. As I have indicated, this information will certainly be made available to the Desjardins commission. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, is the same community-by-community breakdown being provided to the gambling committee, when in terms of reference, its major goal was to assess the social and economic impacts of the current level of gaming in the community, including financial implications through the orders of this government? This is what this government had mandated the committee to do. Mr. Stefanson: Again, I can only reiterate that this information will be made available to the Desjardins commission.

The feedback I am getting from the commission is that they are very satisfied with the types of information they are receiving, whether it is from the Lotteries Corporation, whether it is from government, whether it is from the Addictions Foundation and certainly from the public. They have not indicated any problems with lack of co-operation, lack of information, lack of data, and this information in this report will certainly be made available to them. *

(1040) Mr. Lamoureux: Will the Minister of Finance not acknowledge that in order for this committee to achieve the goal that this government has set for it, it needs more detail in terms of where the community revenue is coming from and more up-to-date information? Mr. Stefanson: No, Madam Speaker, I will not confirm that. As I indicated, the feedback I am getting is that the commission is very satisfied with the quantity and the quality of information they are receiving from all sources, Madam Speaker. I certainly accept their view of that issue, that they are satisfied.

Forest Fires-Evacuees Centennial Arena Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphjn): I want to ask my question to the Minister of Government Services and add my voice to my colleague from Rupertsland on the conditions that we found in the arena at Portage Ia Prairie last night. I think it would be helpful for the minister and everyone in the House to realize that yesterday, at some point in the day, the well-intentioned people turned the brine on in the Portage Centennial Arena to cool the floor, and what happened was that with the humidity, a whole lot of water formed on the cement.

That may be after the minister had visited the arena. Will the minister request his staff to consider moving the evacuees from the Portage arena to the drier, smaller air-conditioned halls that are in Portage la Prairie? Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I thank the member for the question, and, as well, congratulate him on his interest in this important issue. I will inquire with the department and departmental staff to find out more about the concerns he has expressed in the House today. Mr. Struthers: There is no 24-hour nursing available- Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I would ask the honourable member to pose a supplementary question now with no

preamble. Mr. Struthers: Will the minister assure the House that 24-hour nursing will be undertaken to provide nursing services for people in the arena at Portage? Mr. Pallister: I thank the member for the question. am told by departmental staff that there is nursing staff

2466 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 available throughout the day for the people who are evacuated. I think it is important for the members opposite and all of us to understand that these are very, very difficult circumstances for all concerned and, whenever possible, to express support for those who are evacuated but also to recognize that those in the host communities, people from the Indian and Metis Friendship Centre, whom I spoke with yesterday, and many others are volunteering a lot of hours.

They are becoming tired, naturally, frustrated, given the heat and the circumstances, and they need every word of encouragement that they can get.

We need to understand here that whatever conditions are provided, and we are doing our best to provide more than adequate conditions in these host communities, they are far superior to the dangerous circumstances that these folks faced when they were in their homes, and we need to understand that we have to work together and co-operate with one another to provide the kind of service that accommodates these people effectively as best as we can, given the limitations of our resources. That is precisely what our department is trying to do and is doing very successfully according to most accounts. Mr.

Struthers: Can the minister explain the formula used in determining the amount of income-security emergency money made available to each evacuated family? Mr. Pallister: I apologize to the member. I did not catch his question. If he could repeat it, please. Madam Speaker: Would the honourable member for Dauphin repeat his question, please. Mr. Struthers: Given that there is some confusion over the income-security emergency money, can the minister explain the formula used in determining the amount of income security made available to each evacuated family? Mr.

Pallister: There is a program in place which provides for additional funds to be made available to those who are absent from funds, for whatever reason, that provides, at the discretion of the people in the host communities who work in conjunction with the Emergency Measures Organization, funds for incidental costs that they may incur, for example, for toiletries, for laundry costs and so on. That amount, if it is deemed to be appropriate to provide it, is $5 per adult and $3 for adolescents per day. Fire Protection Fund First Nations Communities Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Yesterday, Madam Speaker, I took a question as notice from the member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson). I made inquiries in the department, and I was advised that fire related concerns of First Nations communities are under the direction of the Manitoba Association of Native Firefighters. Certain First Nations communities claim not to be represented by that organization, and therefore it does not speak for all the First Nations communities.

However, I am advised by the officials in my department that the First Nations communities are eligible for the same services as any municipalities, and this includes training, investigation and emergency response. If there are specific concerns as to how to access, those organizations are encouraged to contact the appropriate officials in my department to ensure that they can access these services. Norrie Commission Deadline Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, in May, the Minister of Education released Norrie's boundary report for further consultation and reaction to that report.

In June, during Estimates, the minister stated that she did not want to prevent people of Manitoba from making their representations. However, we now learn that the deadline has been moved from September to August 1. Given that St. James-Assiniboia School Division and many others, I am sure, have asked the minister to extend the deadline to December in the case of St.

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2467 James, does the minister not feel the input of divisions is needed before decisions are made? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, yes, indeed, I do feel that input is needed and desired and wanted before decisions are made. Decisions, of course, will be made by government. Recommendations will be brought forward by the Norrie commission.

We had asked the Norrie commission to receive written submissions from any interested parties, particularly school divisions which might be faced with implementation, should any decisions to amalgamate be made. We asked them to report back to us by September. They, in tum then, have asked people to have submissions to them by August because they wanted a month on ·their own to go through those reactions. Many people, of course, since all divisions had the reports by February, have already sent in their reactions. Indeed, the very people the member refers to have already indicated their reactions to government.

The member knows that originally the report was going to come in without further feedback. Those I have talked to have appreciated the further feedback, and the decision will be made by government. The commission will simply be bringing forward recommendations and feedback for us. Ms. Mihychuk: It is not only school divisions that I am sure the minister wants to hear from. School advisory committees are very interested in responding. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member for St. James to observe the rules for supplementary questions, no postamble. Please put your question now. Ms.

Mihychuk: Will the minister at least allow school advisory committees, which directly represent over 43,000 students in St. James and Winnipeg No. 1, to respond in the fall when they reconvene? Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, the member knows that MLAs on this side and I hope on that side continue to hear representations from constituents of theirs and other members right up until decision-making time occurs. We know here in the Legislature, for example, a perfect example, that there are public hearings right up until the vote is taken.

The member needs to understand the difference between a recommendation coming forward and a decision being made. We will not be making any decisions on any recommendations coming forward [interjection] I wonder if the members opposite would . care to please be quiet. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mrs. Mcintosh: It is extremely annoying to have questions- Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would ask the honourable Minister of Education to quickly complete her response. Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, the decision that will be made will not be taking place the day after the commission sends in its report.

It will take a long time after that for us to decide, based upon everything people are telling not just the commission but also us as decision makers. *

(1050) Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, given that the minister has indicated that there is time, will she move the deadline from August 1 to later in the fall? That is all we are asking. Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, the Norrie commission has graciously agreed to go back out and receive written submissions, which was not part of their original mandate. People have said they appreciate having some opportunity to react to the report which was not there before. I will be talking to the Norrie commission members. I will indicate that the member for St. James would like to see that August deadline moved.

I will pass that on to them. In the meantime, I wish to stress that MLAs are quite willing to receive representation over and

2468 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 above the report and that the decision will not be made the day after the report comes. Canadian Wheat Board Government Support Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, actions taken by the federal government with changes to the Crow benefit and various farm supports have been devastating to the farm community. Now we have recommendations that are going to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board.

I want to ask this government if they will join with other provinces and go to Ottawa and speak up for farmers to defend the Canadian Wheat Board which has served farmers for many years and which they want to see retained. Hon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, unaccustomed as I am to public speaking, I will attempt to provide the honourable member for Swan River with a fulsome answer. I appreciate the member's ongoing concern, but what she is concerned about is the possibility of any change. This is a changing world and agriculture is changing.

Let me simply say that agriculture has enjoyed an unprecedented 65 percent increase in trade with our biggest trading partner, the United States-65 percent Furthermore, let me say that while we buy $1.4 billion worth of grains from the United States, we sell $1.8 billion to the United States. So what is happening is that we are attempting, understandably, to work out glitches that occur from time to time with the biggest bilateral trading agreement in the world; that is Canada and the U.S. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon.

Darren Pramik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would ask if you could please call for second reading, Bills 16, 21 and 22? SECOND READINGS Bi1116-The Highway Traffic Amendment Act Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 16, The Highway Tr affic Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur le Code de Ia route), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, today I am very pleased to be able to introduce Bill 16 which is amending The Highway Tr affic Act. This bill proposes to phase out the province's economic regulation of intraprovincial trucking. Let me first explain why this system of economic regulation was put in place in the past, and then explain to you why we are now proposing to have it removed.

The province has engaged in the economic regulation of various modes of highway transportation for several decades, including trucking, intercity buses and intermunicipal taxis. This was to ensure that rural communities had access to passenger and freight services at reasonable rates. It was believed that the highway transportation industry is inherently subject to what is termed destructive or excessive competition, whereby an unregulated market would allow too many carriers to enter or remain in an industry with available freight or passenger traffic services.

In the case of intraprovincial trucking, excessive or destructive competition would undermine the fmancial viability of carriers and the ability to cross-subsidize the higher-cost service provided to smaller rural communities. To promote and preserve transportation service to rural points, the province developed a system of economic regulation which restricts or limits competition. This system of regulation is administered

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2469 by the Manitoba Motor Transport Board on the basis of a provision provided in

Part VIII of The Highway Traffic Act. Before discussing in detail how these economic regulation's provisions will be amended, I would like to discuss in general terms the reasons for introducing this bill. The impetus for these amendments is twofold: One reason is that changes in federal transport policy will make it impossible for Manitoba to effectively regulate intraprovincial trucking. The provinces and territories have exclusive jurisdiction over purely intraprovincial truck carriers.

From the late 1950s, the federal government delegated to the provinces this jurisdiction over in extraprovincial truck carriers. Effective January 1, 1993, after a five-year transition period, the federal government deregulated entry to extraprovincial trucking with the support of the provinces. For those provinces which wish to maintain their regulation for intraprovincial trucking, the federal government delegated its authority over intraprovincial operations of extraprovincial truck carriers.

This exists only in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia However, in negotiations leading to the agreement on internal trade, the federal government took the position that they would only allow provinces to continue regulating the intraprovincial operations of extraprovincial truck carriers for a limited period of time. With the repeal of the delegated federal authority in this area, Manitoba could no longer effectively maintain regulation of intraprovincial trucking under The Highway Traffic Act.

Also, most provinces have deregulated their intraprovincial truck industries and they view continued economic regulation by Manitoba as a barrier to Canadian internal trade. On May 1, 1995, the federal government tabled in the House of Commons Bill C-88, the Draft Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

Section 19 of the draft act repeals

Part 3 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987. This provision comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the federal cabinet.

Part 3 of the Motor Vehicle Transport Act allows a province to regulate the intraprovincial operations of extraprovincial truck carriers in the same manner that regulate purely intraprovincial truck carriers. In Manitoba a dominant share of the intraprovincial general freight is transported by trucking firms that are classified as extraprovincial tt:uck carriers. With the repeal of

Part 3 of the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act, Manitoba will not be able to continue the economic regulation of the segment of the intraprovincial truck industry and will no longer be able to effectively maintain a system of regulated truck services in rural Manitoba. In the internal trade negotiations the federal government took the position that would only allow provinces to continue regulating the intraprovincial operations of extraprovincial truck undertakings for a limited time.

Under the agreement on internal trade it was agreed that Manitoba will deregulate their intraprovincial trucking by January 1, 1998. The federal government and other provinces have pressed for an earlier date, but Manitoba was able to negotiate a date which was generally acceptable to our industry. Further impetus for deregulation comes from growing recognition that economic regulation does not serve the interests of either shippers or carriers. Shippers have been requesting deregulation of intraprovincial trucking since 1987 when the federal government began the deregulation of extraprovincial trucking.

In May '92 in response to representations by the Canadian Industrial Transportation League that the province should deregulate, the Department of Highways and Transportation retained Prairie Research Associates to conduct an analysis of the intraprovincial trucking industry and its future under several regulatory options.

In December '93, following release of the Prairie Research Associates' study, I requested the chairman of the Motor Transport Board to consult with interested parties of what action could be taken to resolve the issues surrounding intraprovincial trucking regulations and to build a consensus on an action plan. The Motor

2470 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 Transport Board chairman began this consultation in January '94 by inviting written and telephone submissions from interested parties including shippers, carriers and communities. In March 1994, a round table conference of key stakeholders was held which included representatives, carriers, shippers, chambers of commerce, regional development corporations and municipalities.

In May '94, after the Manitoba Trucking Association developed a proposal for deregulation, which actually is the fundamental basis of the bill that we are introducing today, the chairman then requested the round table conference participants to comment on the MT A proposal and requested comments from over 50 intraprovincial truck carriers. It is clear from these extensive consultations that shippers consistently hold the view that economic regulation of intraprovincial trucking is an impediment to an efficient and competitive provincial truck transport system and to the economic well-being of the province.

Many truck carriers also subscribe to this view. Even a number of small rural carriers, some of whom feel a need for continued protection from competition at least during a transition period, perceived that economic regulation has limited their opportunities to fairly compete with larger carriers due to the cost of the regulatory process. Following this consultation with stakeholders the Motor Transport Board chairman made several recommendations which would lead to full economic deregulation by way of a two-stage transition period. The economic regulatory provisions in

Part VIII of The Highway Traffic Act are of two kinds: (

a) provisions which provide the board with various powers to restrict or limit competition and (

b) provisions which allow the board to protect shippers and passengers from the effects of restricting or limiting competition. These latter provisions will allow the board to regulate rates and the level of quality of service provided by carriers. * (1 100) I will briefly describe these provisions and how they will be amended. The entry test: The board restricts competition in the for-hire trucking industry through the legislative requirement

Part VIII of The Highway Traffic Act, that an operator of vehicles used to transport persons or property for compensation requires a certificate from the board authorizing its operation. A certificate is issued to an applicant if (

a) applicant satisfies an economic entry test whereby the board finds that the proposed service will promote the public interest, and (

b) the applicant satisfies the board's criteria relating to fitness. It is proposed that effective January 1, 1998, the economic entry test for intraprovincial truck operations be eliminated. Accordingly, The Highway Traffic Act will be amended so that only the fitness criteria will apply to an applicant for a PSV certificate authorizing the transportation of property. The economic entry test and the fitness test will remain in place for other types of public service vehicles such as intercity buses and intermunicipal taxis.

On the issue of geographic restrictions of certificates, the board also limits competition in the for-hire trucking industry by attaching geographic conditions or restrictions to certificates so that a for-hire trucker can be restricted to providing service to a defined territory or group of communities. The act will be amended so that effective January 1, 1996, all existing geographic restrictions or conditions attached to the certificates shall cease to have an effect and (

b) the board may not thereafter attach a geographic condition or restriction to a certificate issued to a motor carrier for the transport of property. On the issue of rate regulations, in order to protect shippers from the limitation of competition created by the economic entry test and by geographic restrictions on PSV certificates, the board has specified powers to regulate freight rates. Freight-rate deregulation will take place in two stages so that two amendments are required to The Highway Traffic Act.

The first amendment provides at the end of 1995, the board's existing truck rates cease to have effect and over the following two years, '96 and '97, it may set a rate for the transportation of property only if it is satisfied that no effective adequate and competitive

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2471 alternative is available for the movement of property in question. The second amendment provides that any rate set by the board in '96 and '97 ceases to have effect by the end of '97 and eliminates the board's remaining power to regulate rates as of January 1, 1998. On the issue of regulation of level and quality of service, within the removal of economic entry and rate regulation is the province's intent to allow the market to determine the adequacy and level of quality of services provided by freight motor carriers.

Part VIII of the act contains a number of provisions to allow the board to regulate various aspects of the level and quality of service offered by motor carriers. These provisions are proposed to be amended so that effective January 1, 1998, they will not apply to public service vehicles operated for the transportation of proper ty except insofar as they relate to the safe conditions of the vehicle and its equipment or its safe operation.

Madam Speaker, in closing, this overview I am sure will give the members some idea as to the amendments to economic regulation that we are providing for The Highway Traffic Act, and I look forward to people bringing their input forward during the committee stage of this bill. I have commented extensively on the wide level of consultation that occurred, what has happened in other provinces and the actions taken by the federal government that require these amendments be made. Certainly, what the end result of all of this is, it creates a level playing field for all people in the trucking industry across Canada.

I have spreadsheets here for the opposition members, and I will hand them out. Thank you. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill21-The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshamm er), that Bill 21, The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act; Loi J;DOdifiant Ia

Loi sur les obligations de developpement rural, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. . Motion presented. Mr. Derkach : Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce to the members of this House today a bill to amend The Rural Development Bonds Amendment Act. This bill is intended to make some minor modifications to the Grow Bonds Program to improve efficiency.

The Grow Bonds Program was established in 1991 as a vehicle for rural residents to invest in prudent business opportunities and thereby strengthen the local economy, diversify the rural economy and create employment and other benefits. The program provides a guarantee to investors, while placing responsibility for the investment selection, management and control directly in the hands of the community throu gh the creation of local bond corporations. This way the communities themselves can define and pursue their own economic goals and objectives.

The Grow Bonds Program is now deeply rooted in rural Manitoba, which it is intended to serve. In fact, the Grow Bonds head office is located in Altona, with business and economic development staff also working elsewhere throughout the province. Madam Speaker, even based on the most conservative estimates, the Grow Bonds Program can be deemed an unprecedented success. In the few short years it has existed, it has performed exactly as it was intended to. It generated innovative enterprises. It created new employment opportunities and it is levering economic activity at a ratio of three to one.

In other words, for every $1 of Grow Bonds money that it raises, an additional $2 of new capital

2472 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 investment is generated and put to work in rural Manitoba communities. As oftoday, a total of 19 Grow Bonds projects have been approved. These projects have raised $7. 1 million in the community Grow Bonds investments and generated over $21 million more in private-sector funding. In addition, in excess of 450 more jobs will have been generated in rural Manitoba prior to the start of the Grow Bonds Program once projects have been carefully implemented.

That represents hundreds of more families with incomes that they in tum use to buy clothing, food, shelter and other commodities, creating tremendous spin-off benefits for the Manitoba businesses that supply these goods and services. Regarded in this way, it paints a picture of tremendous impact of the Grow Bonds Program and its spin-off benefits for the communities in which the projects are located.

Madam Speaker, in presenting this bill in the Legislature today, the intent is to introduce ways in which the Grow Bonds Program can be made more efficient, more user friendly and be delivered in a more expedient way. Increased activity in the Grow Bonds Program over the past two years served to identify desirable minor modifications to the act that would better accommodate activities and development under the program.

The Rural Development Bonds Act amending bill proposes that the following changes be made: That upon founding of a bond corporation one director be a young entrepreneur who shall be no more than 30 years of age. This would allow longer-term continuity within the bond corporation by ensuring that the young director serve the bond corporation past the age of 30.

The other amendment is that the manner in which the forms used in the processing of Grow Bonds be changed to enable the Minister of Rural Development to authorize them-this would streamline the authorization process-that applications to issue bonds be allowed before the bond corporation is incorporated. In practice, the bond corporation is not incorporated until approvals are acquired, and, also, that the Minister of Rural Development be allowed to approve applications to invest bond proceeds rather than the provincial review committee.

Normally, all conditions of approval have been met at this point in the process so that a second approval by the review committee is unnecessary and only lengthens the approval process. In addition, that clarification be made to the requirements for and the process applicable to the issuing and investment of investment pool development bonds. These alterations wquld enable and indeed encourage the use of this presently dormant vehicle under the act.

The above-noted amendments which I have summarized will improve the efficiency of the overall Grow Bonds approval process without compromising the integrity of the due diligence process. This is of utmost importance, especially in the administration and application of public funds. Madam Speaker, there are countless examples of Manitobans gainfully employed and adding to the renewal and revival of the rural economy, all of which has occurred in part because of the Grow Bonds Program. Some of these examples include Operation Fire Fly, Crocus Foods, Elias Woodwork and the Tire Recycling Corporation of Winkler.

These are a few examples of Grow Bonds in action doing all that they were intended to do and a whole lot more. We need only to ask those Manitobans who have jobs because of the Grow Bonds Program if they think this program is important to the province's economic development. * (11 10) So in closing, Madam Speaker, I recommend this bill to the House and to the Legislature for its thoughtful consideration. Thank you very much. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

BiD 22 - The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act Bon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2473 the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 22, The Municipal Amendment and Brandon Charter Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalites et Ia Charte de Brandon), now be read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Derkach: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce today a bill to amend The Brandon Charter Act specifically as it relates to public transit fares. Changes to the act are being recommended to make it compatible with The Municipal Act as it relates to public transit fares. In 1993, The Municipal Act was amended to remove the requirement that public transit fares be approved by the Public Utilities Board.

The City of Brandon has a similar clause in The Brandon Charter Act that still remains in place. This amendment will correct this discrepancy making both acts compatible with one another. Furthermore, an additional amendment will clarify that notwithstanding the clause in The Public Utilities Board Act no longer apply to transit fares in Brandon or other municipalities. Madam Speaker, these amendments will allow Brandon to continue to reasonably adjust fares without the threat of a court challenge. I therefore recommend this bill to members of this House for their consideration. Thank you very much. Mr.

Dar yl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. * (1 120) House Business Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for Urban Economic Development Initiatives; the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in the Chair for the Department of Housing; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the departments of Justice and Urban ·A ffairs. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) OTHER APPROPRIATIONS Urban Economic Development Initiatives Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please.

Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning, this

section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 254, will resume consideration of Estimates for Urban Economic Development Initiatives on page 146 of the Estimates book. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): This matter deals with the losses, the operating losses of the Winnipeg Jets hockey team, does it not? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes. Mr. Doer: Will this money in the budget adequately reflect the amount of money for the operating losses for this fiscal year, or will it be short of the money required? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, the initial allocation in this particular line is just over $1 .8 million to cover, basically, the quarter from April until June. I indicated yesterday that if the Spirit of Manitoba closes their transaction, there will be another month and a half of losses to be covered, but, to date, we have not allocated approximately $6 million within this particular account,

2474 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 so there is the capacity to deal with some additional support, if required, from this account. Mr. Doer: The deposit was made by the Spirit of Manitoba to the present owners of the team including the government which is an 18 percent owner of the hockey team. Did the losses cease to be a responsibility of the public sector when that transaction took place, or are we still now subject to the operating losses of the team? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, at this point we are subject to the operating losses until the transaction officially closes which is scheduled to be no later than August 15 and preferably earlier, if agreement can be reached. Mr. Doer: I believe it was February of 1994 the minister made a public statement that the operating loss agreement of the Winnipeg Jets hockey team would be cancelled by the government, would be terminated, I believe the expression was used, on May I, I995. The minister made that statement. How does the government intend on fulfilling that promise which is already unfulfilled? · Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, that was not a promise. At that stage there was an indication that the trans action, as everybody knows, the option expired on May 1, 1995. There was an expectation that the option and closing might occur on the same day. Subsequent to that, it was determined that there would be, not unlike the purchase of a home, a period of time to close the transaction, and that is why we built in some funding into our budgets. Originally the expectation was the option could be exercised and closed on May 1.

Subsequently it was determined that the option would conceivably be exercised on May I and closed at some later date, and that, really, is how the ultimate agreement that has been reached is unfolding, that they have reached an agreement that there now is a closing date and the outer edge of the closing date is August IS of this year. Mr. Doer: Well, you will excuse us if we are a little questionable about closing dates on the hockey team. It is almost a contradiction in terms, like industrial park or, perhaps, Progressive Conservative.

We have seen more closing dates come and go in this deal than anything I can imagine. There are more lines in the sand on this thing than the lines in the sand in Grand Beach this weekend. So I think that we will await these so-called deadlines as they come and go. An Honourable Member: Trust us. Mr. Doer: Albert knows, he has seen a few of these lines. The $1 .8 then, does it cover to June 30? Mr. Stefanson: Yes, it does, Mr.

Chairman, that is the expectation of what it will be for the period, the quarter ending June 30, I995, which will be upon us in a week's time, and it will be verified at that stage, but that is the expected funding for that quarter. The exact number is $1, 89 1,304. Mr. Doer: Is this consistent with the third-quarter statement that was given to the government in the spring of 1995, which indicated the losses for the team are projected to be over $1 2 million in spite of the fact that we only have haif a season? Mr. Stefanson: The short answer is yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Chair, the government has door one that it goes through in their plan on the team, which is to pay $37 million for a new arena, to be $I7 million short of that capital required to maintain 18 percent share, as I understand it, in this present proposal in the ownership of the hockey team, and to have potential, one way or the other, of the tax status from the federal government, which has revenue implications, as the minister has confirmed, up to $9 million for the provincial government. That is door one.

Door two is, this thing is not approved by the NHL the revenue agreement is not given by the federal government or the NHL refuses the transaction, which means that we are subject to the operating losses of the hockey team.

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2475 Can the minister tell us, what are the pro jected losses for this team in the '95-96 season? We have been told by our sources in the Jets that the pro jected losses will be $20 million, which would make our pro jected share to be $1 0 million. * (1 130) Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of confirming with the interim steering committee which oversees the budget of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club and ensures that the budget, the cost side and the expenditures of the Jets stay in the bottom one third of the NHL.

I think, as the Leader of the Opposition himself knows, there are some player contracts that are coming up very shortly and will obviously have an impact on the 1995-96 budget. So, based on the outcomes of those negotiations, we will have more definitive numbers in the next short while. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): The committee in the House is going to be recessing to go back into the House to re-order the Estimates. There was a change made to bring Energy and Mines up, which was not brought into the House.

So what I would suggest we do is we recess while that is done in the House, and then we can return to the committee. An Honourable Member: Five minutes. Mr. Ashton: Yes, as soon as they finish, we can be right back. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will have to recess till we deal with- *** An Honourable Member: Committee should rise, actually. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The committee will have to recess. We do have to recess so that the House may deal with changing of the Estimates line. The committee recessed at 11 :32 a.m. After Recess The committee reswned at 11:37 a.m. Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: The committee is back to order to consider line 27.7 Urban Economic Development Initiatives on page 146, $1 2,500,000. Mr. Doer: Yes, just to continue on the question. The minister indicated they are ·going to receive shortly from the interim committee a pro jected budget for the next hockey season; at this point, we are still legally responsible for the losses. When will the minister be receiving that? We have received preliminary information that it is in the $20 million pro jected loss range with the '95-96 season.

Could the minister answer when, and what are the pro jected losses that he as Minister of Finance will have to deal with as minister responsible for, lead minister responsible, also on the other hand, for the Jets, which is a dual responsibility? Mr. Stefanson: We expect to receive that information early in July. The fiscal year-end of the Jets is the end of June and some of their more significant contracts are coming up very shortly.

We have had various preliminary numbers provided in terms of what one might expect for the fiscal year, 1995-9 6, and there have been at different points in time a fairly significant range of what those losses might be.

As the member knows, if the transaction does close with the Spirit of Manitoba, then effective no later than August 15 the losses become the responsibility of the Spirit of Manitoba In terms of some of the preliminary information that they have been utilizing, they, over the two-year period of which they would be responsible for those losses, have shown total accumulated losses of approximately $30 million over the two years, but their objective would obviously be to reduce those losses. Mr.

Doer: Can the minister table the payrolls of the NHL and the verification that our salaries are in the bottom one-third, pursuant to our agreement?

2476 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the interim steering committee has enforced in 199 1 an agreement that does provide that the cost of the hockey team be in the bottom one-third of the Nlll. .. In terms of the specifics, whether or not that information can be provided, I will take that as notice. Mr. Doer: The present owners are operating the hockey team. We are subject to the operating losses until August 15, 1995. What protection do the tax payers have that the present owners will sign players and front-end load their contracts in terms of our responsibility? Mr.

Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, they have the continued protection of the review being done by the interim steering committee and the 199 1 agreement which does provide that the cost of the hockey team be in the bottom one-third of the NHL. That is a fairly significant restriction, so they will have to continue to abide by that agreement. Mr.

Doer: So there is no other protection except the one-third provision in terms of the front-end loading with bonuses and other means that have been utilized before in the NHL, contracts that are basically our responsibility until 1997 unless the agreement is changed or the team and its ownership is confirmed? * (1 140) Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, that is the overriding restriction and it is a very significant restriction.

There is obviously the ongoing review of the interim steering committee and the review of the budget by the interim steering committee and the reality if the team stayed here and losses were incurred and costs exceeded the bottom one-third they would be the responsibility of the private investors. Mr. Doer: Do Mr. Benson or Mr. Bessey have veto rights of any contracts in the manner in which they have been established in terms of the liability of the taxpayer? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where the member is heading with this. No, they do not.

The control, if he is referring to the control on expenditures of the Winnipeg Jets hockey team, they are defined in the 199 1 agreement and enforced and implemented by the interim committee which is chaired by Mr. Del Crewson, a chartered accountant. Mr. Doer: A prominent person in terms of the government, I know, Mr. Crewson. What is the contingency plan of the gov�rnment on August 16, which again is a date which keeps changing?

What is the contingency plan on the operating-loss agreement on August 16, if the taxpayers are still subject to it, because the NHL or Revenue Canada or the Spirit is unable to fulfill one of the conditions that they have put forward? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, if that were to occur the terms of the 199 1 agreement would continue to be in place, meaning that the Jets would have to have their costs in the bottom one-third of the NHL teams. The interim steering committee would continue to do what they do, chaired by Mr.

Del Crewson, in terms of reviewing the budgets of the Jets and in terms of the province providing for any additional requirement to cover losses. As I have indicated, to date in this account as an example, there are approximately $6 million that have not been allocated to date, so we do have the fiscal capacity we feel to deal with that situation if it were to arise. Again, the whole objective of all of this and the basis of moving forward by the Spirit of Manitoba and by the three levels of government has been on the basis of finding a solution and an agreement that everyone can live with.

We continue to work towards seeing this agreement with the Spirit and the current owners come to a positive conclusion no later than August 15. If that does occur, then the Spirit ofManitoba will be responsible for all operating losses of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club effective at that date. Mr. Doer: Well, I think it gives us cold comfort on this side to know that there are $6 million in a "fund," in a kind of envelope for the operating losses of the team in the same budget year the government is reducing its investment in hospitals.

I find that very questionable priorities, but that is a political debate we will have in other places and I will just-

June 23, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2477 An Honourable Member: Five years from now. Mr. Doer: Well, the member should not be sure on dates. We were sure on dates in '86. There is no such certainty. I have a question for the minister. I want to know, of the $10 million that was forwarded last week from the so-called Spirit group to the so-called Shenkarow group-we were informed by banks and credit unions and other groups that the cheques that were delivered by the members of the grassroots campaign were being cleared, just cleared morning, noon and night, just before that deadline of $1 0 million.

Can the minister indicate today, of the $10 million that was forwarded to Mr. Shenkarow for the deposit for the team, how much money came from the major investors, the so-called $5-million investors in the hockey team-the Richardsons, the Grays, the others, the major investors in this team-and how much money of that $10 million came from the so-called grassroots citizens? We have been informed that almost all the money came from the citizens and none of the money came from the so-called heavy hitters, or the $5 million members of the community. Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman I just want to comment on the other point the member made before. He asked a specific question about comparing the funding from the Urban Economic Development Initiative to health care, or hospitals or other priorities of government. The member knows that this account is the allocation of 25 percent of the urban VL Ts. It is set aside for economic development initiatives, ventures, here in our province, and is completely separate and distinct from the kind of funding that we provide for health care in Manitoba.

When I ref erred to a residual being left, it all depends what happens over the course of the next several weeks.

If the transaction concludes and closes and the Spirit of Manitoba takes over the hockey club, as many people hope and expect they will, those residual funds will continue to be available for other economic development initiatives not unlike some of the initiatives that are funded to date from this account-the Winnipeg Green Team, supporting the Winnipeg Convention Centre, supporting Tourism Winnipeg, supporting the Northern Hemisphere Distribution Alliance, supporting the Winnipeg city' s, Winter Cities 19 96 Conference-all I believe, both positive initiatives and organizations and facilities that add to the overall economic benefit of the city of Winnipeg.

That is the purpose of this al�ocation of funding, and the member knows that we allocate approximately 34 percent of our expenditures to health care here in Manitoba, more than any other province in all of . Canada. On a per capita basis we provide the third largest of any province in Canada So we make a very significant contribution to health care. In terms of his specific question, I will have to take it as notic e.

That is obviously a decision that is made by the Spirit of Manitoba in terms of what they source from the grassroots fundraising campaign and what comes from other individuals, what the breakdown is in terms of that support being provided by the private sector and by the grassroots campaign, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doer: Thank you. I appreciate the minister taking it as noti ce. Can he provide that to us early next week, not necessarily in this line, but we could ask the question in concurrence?

We think the public has a right to know the breakdown from the grassroots people because there should be some accountability back to the grassroots people of the $10 million and how much of that money comes from the so-called $5 million group of investors ? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I will undertake best efforts to provide that early next week. Mr. Doer: Thank you and we will make best efforts to be very persistent in concurrence on this issue. So to the minister, I am just letting him know ahead of time. Thank you. * (1 15 0) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr.

Chairperson, yesterday I did get the opportunity to express some of my thoughts with respect to the arena. The question that I would ask the minister is, has the government reviewed all the different proj ects that are out there

2478 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 19 95 and, after doing that, then they have come to the summ ation that the current proposal which is virtual ly, as I have indicated yesterday, the shovel in the ground, and come to the conclusion that that is the proj ect that has to be gone forward with? Mr. Stefanson: At various times over the course of the last several months and in excess of a year we have had presenta tions from different groups. The member referred to a Mr. Koswin yesterday and I have certainly seen his presenta tion; I have seen many of the other presenta tions .

Looking back on this issue part of the mandate of the Mauro committee and then ultimately the Burns committee as well, we are to look at issues like the types of facilities, issues like the location and so on. Both of those committees, I believe, came to the conclusion that the best solution for Manitoba was a facility located downtown. Both of them pointed to a stand-alone arena entertainment complex as being the most appropriate kind of facility. Based on that, going back to 19 94, some private citizens came forward and put in place an option to purchase the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club.

We all know what has happened since then. That option lapsed on May I of this year. But that group called the Manitoba Entertainment Complex was going down the path of attempting to acquire the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club on the basis of developing an arena entertainment complex downtown. At one point they were talking about two sites, either adjacent to the Convention Centre or what is called north of The Forks and east of Portage and Main. A determination was made that the best site was north of The Forks site.

Really, that has now been the basis that the Spirit of Manitoba and this whole issue has moved forward is on the basis of developing an arena entertainment complex on the north of The Forks site. That has been the basis that Spirit has been raising their money, getting significant private sector contributions, raising grassroots contributions , and the basis of them entering into their agreement with the current owners of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club. It is a fairly long answer to say that, yes, I have had the opportunity to see many of these other proposals over the course of the last several mont hs.

In the final analysis, the determination of all parties involved, new investors, new owners, current owners, levels of government, is that the best solution is a facility downtown. The facility being of a nature, being an arena ente rtainment . complex so that it can meet the needs of an NHL hockey team. But it can also meet the needs that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) ref erred to yesterday . There will be well in excess of a hundred other kinds of events . This will be much more than just a hockey arena, it will be a facility that can be utilized for other events on ice.

Ice Capades, skating events, other performances taking place, circuses, all kinds of activities that will benefit many Manitobans who do not necessarily go to NHL hockey games or would not only use the facility for hockey. They would get an opportunity to use it for all kinds of other activitie s. Mr. Lamoureux: Would the government actually have the architectural designs of the arena that is currently being proposed to be constructed? Mr. Stefanson: I have been part of presentations on this issue of the design of the facility.

Obviously, that is all going to be part and parcel if we do reach the stage where we enter into an agreement to build a facility . As I have indicated in the House, that agreement would be entered into between the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba with the Spirit of Manitoba to develop the facility. A part of entering into that agreement would be our satisfaction with all aspects of the architectural design, our satisfaction with any contractual arrangements that are potentially going to be entered into by the Spirit of Manitoba with lead contractors and so on.

So, yes, I have seen some preli minary designs and we will have complete and total access to all aspects of developing a facility. Mr. Lamoureux: I just want to basically conclude with comments-and the minister can respond if he so

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2479 chooses-to say that I hope and trust that a long-term vision has been developed with a pro ject of this magnitude that is being prop osed. What really made a difference, in terms of me, in terms of questioning this whole process, was to a certain extent, Mr. Neufeld's taking the time to make the appearance and indicating that he was of the opinion that a multiplex facility would, in fact, garner more revenues than a stand-alone arena facility, if you like. It would have more opportuni ties.

It raised the whole question for me in terms of how was this particular facility decided compared to other facilities that were out there. That is why I was somewhat concerned in terms of a quick-fix approach in terms of, let us resolve the Jets by building a facility strictly for the Winnipeg Jets, if in fact two years from now, for example, we have to spend millions of dollars on renovations with the Winnipeg Football Stadium, or there are additional demands on a baseball diamond for, I believe it is the AAA franchise, or Mr. Katz's facility.

When you start adding those sorts of things in, in the numbers that Mr. Koswin was talking about, it was somewhere between 30 to 40 million additional dollars than what the current arena proposal is, if you start adding in those sorts of costs of potential renovations that are there, it does raise some very good questi ons. I trust and expect that the government is looking and treating those questions in a very serious fashion and is not going to look just solely for the short-term fix.

To one degree I am pleased that the architectural designs have not been finalized because that then does indicate that if in fact the government was of the opinion that it could be expanded to a certain degr.ee to take into account other venues, potential venues, that maybe it is not 100 percent Maybe it might be just 99 percent. At least the taxpayers and the long-term needs of the province of Manitoba will be looked after. Thank you. Mr.

Stefanson: As we have indicated, over the course of the last many months there have been two different comm ittees that have reviewed facilities, facility locations, types of facilities. We have had presentations certainly through my ministry and others. I believe the member himself, as he has indicated, he has had a chance to see some of the different proposals that have come forward. He ref erred to Mr. Koswin's proposal and there have been a series of others. There has been the one that has been talking about potentially -_Jenovating the existing site and so on.

So there has been a series of alternatives put forward . They vary very significantly in terms of what kind of capital cost is required or what kind of contribution they are even looking for from governments and so on. At the end of the day, the two committees that were reviewing this issue suggested that they felt the most appropriate location was a downtown site. The focus has been on these two sites and now a determination that the one is a preferab le site, north of The Forks, and that the facility be of a nature of being an arena and an entertainment complex.

Really, that has now been the basis of a lot of review, a lot of input, a lot of decision making, an awful lot of money being put forward by private investors to invest in keeping the Winnipeg Jets hockey team here in Manitoba Obviously, the three levels of government are looking at the entire issue and determining that would be the best kind of facility to meet all of our needs, not only hockey, and move forward from there. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 27.7 Urban Economic Development Initiatives $1 2,500,000-pass.

RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Ma jesty a sum not exceeding $1 2,500,000 for Other Appropriations, Urban Economic Development Initiatives, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 19 96. * (1 200) The time is twelve noon. Is the committee wishing to take any break at this time or do they wish to proceed? An Honourable Member: Pr oceed. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Pr oceed.

2480 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 19 95 This concludes the Estimates for Urban Economic Development Initiat ives. Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program -C apital Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The next set of Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for Canada Manitoba Infrastructure Program on page 14 6 of the Estimates book. Does the minister responsible have an opening state ment? Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are very pleased and proud of how this program has been implemented here in Manitoba.

We get compliments right across this nation that we have put in place the most efficient, effective and inclusive system in all of Canada both in terms of how we distributed the funding between traditional and municipal pro jects and strategic initiatives and also by setting up a mechanism with an allocation to rural Manitoba to include input and consultation with municipal leaders from rural Manitoba.

We have representa tion on the review committee from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, and here in Winnipeg we have the City of Winnipeg offering comment on proj ects that affect the city of Winnipeg. So we have been very pleased with that part of the delivery mechanism. In this budget line you will see we have $34,200,000 allocated.

That is on the basis of being 50 percent of our contribution over the term of the infrastructure agreement, and that was on the basis, again, that originally the federal government had indicated this would be a three-year agreement with 85 percent of the funds having to be spent by the end of 19 95-96.

The federal government has since changed this program to now be a five-year program, and as a result, they are talking about potentially some change of cash flow, but here in Manitoba we are following the approach that commitm ents were made to municipalities and to pro jects, and we want them all to move forward as quickly and expeditiously as they possibly can. This program has had several benefits. One of the most significant has been the very significant job creation during the program . The other, of course, has been the improvements to infrastructures in communities right throughout our province.

So we have been very pleased with how it is being dealt with here in our provin ce. I am pleased with the work done by everybody in the infrastructure secretariat. I am pleased with the co-operation we have received from the municipal governments and from the federal government on this initiati ve. Mr. Chairman, there is a long list of pro jects that have taken place right throughout Manitoba. In fact, the rural review committee, basically, to a large extent, did a great deal of their allocation on a form of a per capita allocation. So there is fairness.

There is regional distribution right throughout our province, and we are pleased with the kind of distribution that we have seen occur in Manitoba. We are very pleased with that overall allocation. * (12 10 ) We are also pleased with what has happened here in the city of Winnipeg with the kind of allocation that the City of Winnipeg has done and the support that has taken place in that whole area. So, Mr.

Chairman, it has been from our point of view a very successful program here in our province, and it is certainly benefiting communities right throughout all of Manitoba In fact, I am told when the federal ministers talk about the infrastructure initiative, when they talk about programs-in fact the Prime Minister himself will often refer to Manitoba with a great deal of-he is very complimentary in terms of what we are doing here in our provin ce. So, Mr. Chairman, this is a program that is serving us well, and I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): We have expressed our concern about the priorities of this government in allocating $1 1 million in excess of its campaign promise out of this item alone in this fiscal year for

June 23, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 248 1 infrastructu re, and, quite fra nkly, when there are communities in this province that do not have sewer and water and basic infrastructure, we fe el that the priorities of this government are wrong. Those are my opening comments, and I would be prepared to pr oceed into the

section to discuss these matters further. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 27.9 Canada Manitoba Infrastructure Program-Capital $34,200,000. Mr. Ashton: I have expressed the concerns of our caucus, and I will put it in the fo rm of a motion. I move that under 27.9 Infrastru cture, that the line be reduced by $11 million, the amount equivalent to the funding of a new Winnipeg arena. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the member fo r Thompson that under 27.9 Infrastructure , that the line be reduced by $1 1 million, the amount equivalent to the funding of a new Winnipeg arena Mr.

Stefanson: I, of course, am disappointed to see this motion from the member fo r Thompson. We discussed this issue somewhat yesterday about both the Winnipeg Jets and the development of a new arena entertainment complex here in our provin ce. I outlined fo r the member and will remind him of some of the very significant economic benefits that flow as a result of having the Winnipeg Jets here in our prov ince.

On an annual basis, the provincial Treasury brings in approximately $6 million a year as a result of having the Winnipeg Jet here in our province. ·Various reports that have been prepared have shown that the Winnipeg Jets generate an economic benefit to our community of approximately $50 million a year, that they also create , direct and indirect, anywhere between 1,000 and 1,400 jobs, and if a new entertainment complex is going to built in our prov ince, that approximately 2,000 jobs would be built during construction, and in terms of our Treasury, that the Province of Manitoba would take in $10 million in direct taxation.

Now that pales by comparison to what economic benefits the fe deral government would receive if a new fac ility were to be built. The fe deral government would receive some $20 million in direct taxes just from the building of a new entertainment complex and arena here in Manitoba, and, on an annual basis, the fe deral government receives anywhere between $10 million and $12 million a year. The members often talk about economic development.

They often talk about jobs and those kinds of initiatives, and here you have an entity that provides very significant economic benefits to our community, very significant levels of taxation to both the prov incial government and the fe deral government and taxation levels fo r the City of Winnipeg, as well. The member knows that under the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program in this year' s budget, we are allocating $34,200,000.

When we discussed this issue yesterday, we did indicate that fo r the upcoming year, 19 95-96, that if a new fa cility, a new arena entertainment complex, is going to be built in Manitoba, that this would be a potential funding source.

The fe deral government, themselves, have already indicated that the support they want to provide if a fa cility is built would come from the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure agreement, and we indicated that, because one major pro ject in Winnipeg is not moving fo rward, the Kenaston underpas s, we would be looking to redirect some of those funds to the building of an arena, if that is the final decision that one should be built. So, within this $34,200,000, we do have the capacity to provide approximately $1 1 million toward a new entertainment complex, Mr.

Chairman, and it would be our intention to do just that, if agreement can be reached on all fronts dealing with the Winnipeg Jets and dealing with developing an entertainment fac ility. There are many issues that have to be addressed to ultimately determine whether or not this money will, in fa ct, flow. Obviously, the Spirit of Manitoba has recently exerc ised what one would call an option or closed an option with the current owners of the Jets. The Spirit of Manitoba has indicated they have at least three hurdles they need to clear to close their transaction with the current owners.

They have said they intend to close it no later than August 15 of this year. That is part of the agreement that has been reached, and the kinds of conditions they have outlined

2482 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 19 95 that they need to meet are that they would have to receive NHL approval to transfer the franchise. They would have to raise an additional $20 million in private- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We have to recess this

section of the committee to go to the House for a formal vote. The committee recessed at 12:12 p.m. After Recess The committee resumed at 12:26 p.m. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the member for Thompson that under 27.9 Infrastructure, that the line be reduced by $11 million, the amount equivalent to the funding of a new Winnipeg arena. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, just very quickly, the infrastructure program is a program which we have been very supportive of.

In fact, we were quite pleased when the federal administration had made announcements during the last federal election that they would move forward with this program. We believe the provincial government has been working fairly co-operatively on this particular program. I applaud them on that. We definitely have some concerns with respect to the Winnipeg arena in terms of how much money, where the rest of the money is going to be coming from for the construction of this arena.

We would have liked to have seen further clarification of that before we start assigning additional dollars out to the Winnipeg arena, but suffice to say, the infrastructure program is a good idea and we believe will provide many jobs in the future for Manitobans. An Honourable Member: Question. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The question has been called on the motion by the honourable member for Thompson: THAT under 27.9 Infrastructure that the line be reduced by $1 1 million, the amount equivalent to the funding of a new Winnipeg arena. Voice Vote Mr.

Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those against, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it. Formal Vote Mr. Ashton: I request a recorded vote. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there a second member to- Mr. Ashton: My buddy is supporting me here. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). We shall recess and proceed to the Assembly for a formal vote. The committee recessed at 12:28 p.m. After Recess The committee resumed at 12:36 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Item 27.9 Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program Capital $34,200,000.

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2483 Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I did want to add a bit more comment in terms of why it is that we fe lt this is a motion which we could not support, primarily because we believe in the infrastructure program and the many benefits that Manitobans have derived from it and will continue to derive from it into the future .

If, in fac t, fo r example, this particular motion would have passed, we would have seen a significant reduction in the infrastru cture program and all members of the Chamber, I am sure, are aware that these are dollars that are in fa ct matched and by not matching on the funds, then are we releasing fe deral and other jurisdictions of their responsibility to put in. Having said what I probably should not have said in terms of commenting on the amendment that was brought fo rward, I will leave my comments at that. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, we are prepared to pass it. Mr.

Ashton: Yes, I indicated we are going to have a number of questions fo r the minister, although we do anticipate passing the whole

section prior to two o'clock. What I want to indicate is, without ref erencing the motion which was unf ortunate ly defea ted by both the Liberals and Conservatives, our concern in terms of infrastructure once again is- An Honourable Member: He called me a Liberal. Mr. Ashton: I have always acknowledged the member fo r Inkster as a Liberal, obviously through his official and unofficial party status, but in the same way that the New Democrats in Ottawa and Conservatives in Ottawa do not always get recognized, they are still Conservatives and New Democrats .

I find it is rather absurd if we start getting into calling members such as the member for Inkster as independent. He is a member of an unr ecognized party in the House, but that does not mean he is not a member of the party. So I extend to him that court esy. An Honourable Member: They might change their name. Mr. Ashton: Well, the minister is talking about changing the name. I think the only party that has done that in Manitoba is the fo rmerly Conservative Party, now the Film on team, but anyway we will not get into that.

What I want to indicate is that our concern is with priorities and we could not-and we will not support $1 1 million out of the infrastructure program fo r the new Winnipeg arena In mov�ng the motion, which I am not going to refer to in the sense that it was def eated, what we want is to make it absolutely clear and the only way, shape and fo rm open to us is that we do not want money from the infrastructure program going to the arena in contravention of every single campaign pro mise that the Filmon team, that we were just ref erencing, made in the election. They pr omised $10 million maximum, period.

In this line item, we are dealing with $11 million in one year, one fiscal year. I ask the rhetor ical question, Mr. Chairperson, really, what has changed in that period of time, other than the election? I can tell you from my constituency that the overwhelming opinion of my constituents is in opposition to this allocation overwhelming, and it crosses all political boundar ies. I have received many calls on it, I have talked to many people, and they understand that in these times of limited tax dollars what the real issue is, and that is the prioriti es.

The government is saying out of $35 million allocated fo r infrastru cture in this line item, that $11 million should go fo r the construction of this new arena. Let us not kid ourselves as to why this arena is being put in place. There has been ref erence in these committee hearings to it being put in place fo r generalized purposes, but you know, bef ore the election those general ized pur poses, I mean, we heard about Ice Capades and the circus.

The Ice Capades and the circus rationale was there, and the government said $10 million, period . * (12 40) The only thing that has changed is after the election, coincidentally, we saw the whole succession of events unf old which saw, first the team leaving, then the team not leaving. We have seen these moving deadlines. We have seen the MEC, the Spirit pr oposals. We have

2484 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 19 95 seen negotiations back and forth between Messrs. Shenkarow, Asper et al. We have seen this whole process. In that process, what we have essentially seen is the government up-the-ante from $10 million to $3 7 million for the arena The city has done the same. It has committed the $37 million in other costs. We have seen the federal government come up with the $20 million. Then we have seen the unresolved question, which I cannot particularly raise under this line item, which is the whole question of taxes.

So we are seeing the public sector paying for essentially well over 50 percent of the combined cost of the team, the package, the new Spirit package, if you want to call it that, and the arena. The minister will eventually have the numbers, I am sure of it. If the tax deduction goes through you are dealing with 70, 80 percent, the total amount. Certainly well in excess of 50 percent, because 50 percent is covered in the arena in as of itself, fully funded by the taxpayers. It is a question, again, Mr. Chairperson, of priorities.

We do not feel that we should be supporting, as people of Manitoba, $ll million out of infrastructure for the new arena We have communities that do not have sewer and water. We have communities that do not have basic road service. We have communities that do not have line hydro power. I happen to represent a number of them in northern Manitoba We have communities in Third World conditions. [interjection] The Minister of Northern Affairs says, name them. The former Minister of Northern Affairs, he knows full well- An Honourable Member: You voted against every bit of money we put forward for those communities.

You voted against it. Mr. Ashton: The minister who neglected the Northern Affairs communities during his tenure and this minister, Mr. Chairperson, who argues- Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Deputy Premier, on a point of order. Bon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): No, Mr. Chairman. I want to be put on the list so I can give a speech. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All right. Mr. Ashton: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I understand fully that the minister is sensitive.

He has been debating back and forth with the current Minister of Northern Affairs as to who is responsible for the abysmal showing of the Conservative Party in the previous election, an election, which by the way, resulted in the Conservative Party in Thompson receiving less support than it has in 26 years and less support than the NDP received in Arthur-Virden. I understand the minister is sensitive.

The minister can talk all he wants, but he stood in his place just a moment ago and voted for $1 1 million for a Winnipeg arena That is $1 1 million that is not going to go to his constituency in Arthur-Virden, and it is $1 1 million that is not going to go to northern Manitoba He knows the communities, and if he does not know the communities that do not have sewer and water and line hydro power, he should know about it.

He should know that some of the negotiations go back to when he was in government, by the way, when he was incompetent to the point where he ended up loosing the Northern Development Agreement, the same minister. Here we have another federal-provincial agreement, Mr. Chairperson, in which this government has an opportunity to put priority in terms of northern communities. Do you know what they did in terms of Northern Affairs? They did not increase the capital budget one cent. Municipalities did, in the case of Thompson, they put money up. Other communities put money up to access the federal and provincial funds.

In the case ofNorthern Affairs communities, which are under the jurisdiction of this government, they did not put up an additional cent, to be able to access money from this agreement. There are communities, and the minister should know that, who were repeatedly under the Northern Affairs capital process and have had to wait their turn, year after year. I represent communities like Nelson House, for example, Mr. Chairperson, and Thicket Portage.

June 23, 1995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2485 The minister should know about Pikwitonei which received funding for half the community to get sewer and water and then had to wait two years for the other half to get the sewer and water. The fact is, there is only so much money in any given year within the Northern Affairs budget for infrastructure. If we continue on that basis we will end up with the process that we have had for a number of years, whereby some communities will get their sewer and water, but it will be on a slow, gradual process. We will get some communities that will get the fire trucks.

We get various different requests. I know the minister knows from the discussion in the House. But you know, here was $11 million out of $35 million that could have been allocated for sewer and water. It could have been done very easily, because when you are dealing with Northern Affairs communities it is very simple, Mr. Chairperson. The government of Manitoba basically is responsible for the Northern Affairs communities. They could have gone to the federal government and said, let us cost-share the improvement of these type of faciliti es.

Those kinds of cost-sharings, by the way, were available with the previous agreement that we had, the Northern Development Agreement. We have no Northern Development Agreement. This is the only area you can cost-share this, and that is where the government is completely failing. You know, the minister walks into this debate with great indignation and starts waving his hands around and waiting his chance to speak. I would like to say to this minister, as I do to every rural member in this House, that they just voted for $1 1 million for a new arena, and, yesterday, they voted for $1. 8 million for Jets' losses.

Are they representing their constituents? You know, when we see in Ottawa a federal Libe ral government trying to turf out people that have spoken up for their constituents on issues such as the gun registration, and we hear people criticizing that government for making its members tow the line. What about the rural members, Mr. Chairperson, the rural members who just voted for $1. 8 million for the losses and who just voted for $1 1 million for a Winnipeg arena? On what basis did they vote for that? On behalf of their constituents?

No, there is not a single rural constituency in this province where people support what this government is doing, not a single one. You can run a referendum in the municipalities in this community, and you will find that. Run a referendum in the city of Winnipeg, and you will find the same thing because every single survey that has been conducted has shown that right here in the city of Winnipeg, people are opposed to taxpayers' money going to pay for what? Going to pay for million aire salaries in terms of a hockey team, and we are now dealing with constructing a new arena.

Ask any one of the members of the government benches on the rural side to go to their communities and say, here is $35 million. We are going to spend $1 1 million for the Winnipeg arena. Do you think that is the appropriate priority for the provincial government? Mr. Chairperson, you know, I know, we · all know the response that is going to come from rural and northern Manitobans.

The Minister of Finance, of all people-here is the Minister of Finance, who on the one hand is lecturing people about the shortage of taxpayers' money, and on the other hand, he is the minister in this same debate who is now saying, well, yes, we are short of money, but we do have $1 1 million this year alone for a Winnipeg arena. This is the Minister of Fi nance who says we have got money in next year's budget, and we have got money in the budget the year after. You know, every time I get up on behalf of my constituents, I am told there is only so much money to go around . [interjection] Well, Mr.

Chairperson, I can see that the former Minister of Northern Affairs is awfully sensitive, and so he should be, given the abysmal showing of his party in the Thompson constituency, where the communities voted on the basis-and he used to send letters to the newspaper long after he was Minister of Northern Affairs, saying what a great job his government did, in his own mind-in his own mind.

2486 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 23, 1995 This is the worst showing of the Conservative Party in how many years, Mr. Chairperson-26 years in the Thompson constituency. They lost every single community, every single community, and the minister would not know the truth if he tripped over it, and I wish he would stop harassing me. Point of Order Mr. Downey : Mr. Chairman, I will not make a big issue out of it, but I would appreciate if the member would stick to parliamentary language and not try to demean myself as a person and an individual. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

I just have a question for clarification. What is the complaint here on the point of order? Mr. Downey: No, carry on. I just wanted to bring him to his senses. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: There is no point of order. *** Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I think the minister should come to his senses and wake up to the reality of his government's seven years of neglect. [interjection] Well, I would appreciate if you could ask the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey), who should know better perhaps it is the heat that is getting to the member, but when I see the member standing there making gestures and constantly interrupting, this is not the way to proceed in committee, and it is absolutely uncalled for, for the Deputy Premier, a senior member of this House, to be-[interjection] Mr. Chairperson, I would ask if you would call the Deputy Premier to order, because his antics are somewhat on the juvenile side, to say the least I do not think it is appropriate for members to be sitting there making various gestures at other members and constantly interrupting.

I would ask that we get some order in the committee. * (1 250) (Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair) Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairperson, if the member feels offended by the fact that I actually made a reference to the fact that he was doing a lot of talking, I will apologize. That is the only thing that I did, was make reference to the fact that the member is actually doing a lot of talking and not saying a whole lot. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, there is not much point in continuing this kind of discussion in the committee.

You know, I want to put some comments on the record based on the priorities of this government. I mean, if the minister wants to come in and make the kind of juvenile comments that he continues to make even when he withdraws his comments-if he wants to withdraw his comments, he can do it, as I had to and others have had to do unequivocally. If he wants to make juvenile comments on the record, I would suggest he do that in his caucus room because it is not appropriate to this committee. Our concern in this issue has been very clear right from the beginnin g. It is a question of priorities.

If we have $11 million to spend on a Winnipeg arena, we can come up with a thousand and one better ways to spend it. It is a simple fact, Mr. Chairperson, and, quite frankly, I can understand why members opposite are sensitive on this issue. They are not representing their constituents when they vote for $11 million for the Winni peg arena, and they are not representing their constituents when they vote for $1.8 million in Jets' losses. It is as simple as that. The fact that this number, the $10-million figure, was expanded after the election is full indication of that.

The people of Manitoba on April 25 did not have the opportunity to vote on the true agenda of this government, and no one is going to kid anyone in rural and northern Manitoba. This government knew that it was willing to raise the ante, but did it say that in the election? The Premier (Mr. Filmon) said, read my lips, $10 million, and within a matter of days, it was clear that we were not going to see a limit on that, and within a matter of weeks, Mr. Chairperson, it was very apparent that the real figure was $37 million, and that is just from the provincial government.

That is not including any other indirect or direct tax liabilities that will be incurred as part of the rest of the package which involves the tax liability.

June 23, 19 95 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2487 So that is what we boil it down to, Mr. Chairperson. We want the government to understand that what it is doing here, to my mind, is not only poor priorities, but it is really what I would consider an abuse of the infrastructure program. When the fe deral government and the provincial government sat down, the purpose of the infrastructure program was clearly to deal with basic municipal infrastructure . Well, the minister says no, but where does he justify on the grounds of public policy building a new arena fo r a prof essional hockey team.

If he can justify that to his constituents, then that is between him and his constituents . I know the fa ct is that most Manitobans, given the choice, would say it does not make sense to spend money out of an infrastructure program, $1 1 million fo r an arena when we have basic needs in communiti es. Lack of sewer and water, I mentioned; roads, I mentioned. There are communities that need major upgrading of sewer and water. There are a whole series of projects that have far greater merit than this particular project.

What really concerns me is the matter of public process, quite frankly, the fact that this was done in the midst of some very unusual events that took place. It was done basically without public input, without public consultation. The significant nature of what is happening with this line item and with the previous line item we dealt with yesterday, this is the first time the Manitoba Legislature has had a time to vote on this. (Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) Everything has been done thus fa r by cabinet fiat. That is not acceptable. It is a question of public process here.

Even the City of Winnipeg held a direct vote on whether they would put in their $37 million plus the other associated items. The provincial government has refused to put this to the Manitoba Legislature. I say that our role as legislators is very clear. It is to decide on matters of public policy. I believe that this government should have had the political courage to show its true agenda bef ore the election by putting the $37 million figure on the table. I believe, Mr. Chairperson, they should have gone to the public on this.

I also believe that, since they did not go to the public on the $37 million figure, the least they should have done is put this to a vote of the Manitoba Legislature. I mean, I represent my constituents ; you, Mr. Chairperson, represent yours. We all represent our constituents, the 57 constituencies, and each would have to decide if a true vote was to be held on this issue, whether to vote the party line. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairperson, each would have to make that decision, but we do n

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-1-24
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 1st hansardpdf 24.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8891a106d737fbe9b86e8e136473755ecf1af3e8

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