Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The committee will please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates for the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program. Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
I will be relatively brief, Mr. Chairman. Four years ago, Manitoba was among the first provinces to sign the initial $204-million agreement consisting of equal contributions of one-third each from the federal and provincial governments and local partners. In 1997, Manitoba was again amongst the first provinces to sign a $41-million top-up agreement with the federal government, bringing the total commitment by all partners for the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Works Program to $245 million.
Manitoba continues to deliver the top-up funding in a timely fashion to maximize jobs and construction in the coming months. Of the over 600 infrastructure works projects, some 425 are now complete, and over $66 million has flowed in Manitoba--that is the provincial share only--together with the federal government and our third-party partners, and that amounts to nearly $200 million. As a result, roughly 4,300 jobs are being created; that is both direct onsite and offsite jobs.
Program funds were allocated to ensure fair and equitable distribution right across our province, and as such, one-third of the funding was allocated each to the City of Winnipeg and to rural Manitoba, and one-third was allocated to strategic projects benefiting the entire province. There has been a series of recent announcements, and I am sure we will get into some of the details over the course of the next while. Manitoba's approach has been a flexible approach, enhancing basic infrastructure, creating short- and long-term jobs and also creating new economic opportunities for tomorrow.
We have funded a number of traditional projects like sewer, water, roads, gas, and those currently account for roughly three-quarters of the projects and funding. There have been some innovative projects supporting the arts, culture, the information highway, recreation and community facilities and education, and those account for about 25 percent of the projects.
In all respects, the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Works Program has been an acknowledged success. Manitoba continues to be a strong proponent of a new national infrastructure initiative, at least equal in value to the first.
We are extremely disappointed in the federal government's failure to provide leadership in the area of infrastructure renewal, an area where the critical shortfall and much needed improvements are well documented. Under the initial program, we received over 800 applications requesting some $1 billion. Without reopening the application process for the top- up last year, at least another $50 million in applications was received. All partners, including local governments and industry members have expressed overwhelming support and willingness to participate in a second or new program. Manitoba will continue to press strongly for an ongoing long-term infrastructure commitment from the federal government.
As recently as December 1997, I presented an all-province and territory consensus proposal to federal Finance Minister Paul Martin. The consensus called for a renewal of the program based on an October 1997 update of the Premiers' proposed guidelines from their 1996 annual conference in Jasper. To date, unfortunately, we are still awaiting a response from the federal government to the above efforts, but we will continue to press.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my brief remarks. I look forward to any questions.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the official opposition critic have an opening statement?
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I just very briefly would say that, historically, our party has supported the infrastructure program from its inception and welcomed the countercyclical spending which it provided.
Interesting to note that when Manitoba approved this program, it was running a very substantial deficit. It still saw that as an important thing to do in spite of the fact that these were clearly discretionary dollars that could have not been spent if the government was hide-bound into a balanced budget kind of legislation which would have prevented that from happening. They presumably would not have breached their legislation. They would have then deprived Manitoba of some $200 million on a roughly 2-to-1 leverage, which is not bad leverage in anybody's books.
So I think these kinds of programs have been the stock and trade of governments of every stripe across this country, and really across the western world in times of recession when demand weakens to the point where it threatens the economy and the livelihood of both individuals and companies. Governments at all levels and of all stripes, as I said, have taken advantage often of weaker prices to accomplish very substantial improvements and investments in infrastructure, sustaining demand in the economy and creating or sustaining employment, which otherwise was very much at risk. The wisdom of using this approach can be seen in much of the public infrastructure that we still continue to enjoy.
Most Manitobans will remember that Riding Mountain National Park was essentially a make-work project during the 1930s in the Depression with work gangs, working often under what were close to forced labour conditions. Other circumstances were not quite as bad as that. But that was perhaps the first expression of that kind of major works program modelled on the United States approach during the Depression, reluctantly modelled, by the way, because R.B. Bennett did not approve of such things. There was a great deal of pressure that had to be brought to bear to get any kind of federal government action during that recession.
* (1550)
I think governments at all levels learned from the recession of the 1930s that when demand falls fatally, a spiral ensues of deflation that ultimately ends either in disaster or in major public intervention as has happened in times since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
The depression/recession of the early 1990s, which gave birth to this infrastructure program and its predecessors, was in many ways as severe. Had it not been for the public safety nets that had been erected by governments, again, of all stripes, our circumstances in the 1990s recession would have been much more severe than they were. I think that our party, along with all others, recognizes that in such times governments have to sustain demand in ways that are wise and provide meaningful investments for everybody. So I think this program was a success. We believed at the time it was an appropriate program and we supported it. We continue to support its winding down, I guess at this point, after achieving no small contribution to our capital infrastructure in Manitoba.
For the most part, I think, with a very few exceptions, the projects that were undertaken have been in themselves valuable as well as valuable for the work and the demand that they have provided in our Manitoba economy. So I am glad the government agreed that it was useful and worthwhile to incur a level of deficit that it otherwise would not have incurred. I just commend to the minister to put that into his historical memory and to remember it when times turn around again, as they surely will. They always have, and I do not think that the law of economics has been repealed yet.
We hope that we have all learned that balancing budgets and balancing budgets over economic cycles is extremely important and that no government of any level can afford to run up an increasing level of debt relative to its gross domestic product. On the other hand, to think that all government debt no matter how incurred is bad is, I think, to turn most economics on its head and not to recognize that, were it not for wise investment throughout our 130-some years as a province, we would not have the public works, the hospitals, the roads, the parks that we have today.
We should recognize more often that our capital infrastructure has a depreciated value in excess of $12 billion at the present time so that when we talk about our debt of $6.4 billion, we have paid-for, depreciated assets in excess of $12 billion. Yes, of course, it would be difficult to sell the highway from Neepawa to Gladstone or wherever. There is probably not a market out there for that highway at the present time, but it has a real economic value. If one doubts that, all one has to do is to look at how toll roads have been successful in the United States and in other parts of the country where in fact the economic rent of a highway can be calculated, though we do not want to go down that path. I think it is a myth to suggest that the built infrastructure of a province has no recognizable economic value. That, clearly, is not the case.
With those comments, I am glad to have a brief discussion of the infrastructure program, and I commend the government for having agreed to run up further expenses to take part in this program because the benefits have clearly outweighed the costs in terms of some recovery from recession and some purchasing of some valuable assets that otherwise would not be in place.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the member. At this point, we would invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we would request that the minister introduce the staff members in attendance.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, joining me is the director of the Infrastructure Secretariat, Jill Vogan; Debbie Berthon, the finance officer for the secretariat; Carol Harvey, Communications; and, Zane Hartman, engineer.
Mr. Chairperson: We are now on page 135, in the Estimates Book, item 27.3. Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital, $12,700,000.
Mr. Sale: What is the final wind-down date for expenditure of the remaining amounts in this program, Mr. Chairperson?
Mr. Stefanson: The final date for approval of any of the last projects is October 31 of this year, 1998, and all payments have to have been made by March 31 of the year 2000.
Mr. Sale: They have to be Y2K compliant, obviously, if we are going to make that last date. That is going to be an important date.
Mr. Chairperson, the minister indicated that under the total agreement, something approaching $200 million was spent in total. Is that approximately correct?
Mr. Stefanson: The original agreement was approximately $204 million, and then with the top-up that was announced subsequent to that, that was another $41 million in total. So the total agreement with the top-up is approximately $245 million.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, these are always complex processes of agreeing on which projects will be done and who gets to put them forward and who gets the final say. Is there any plan on the part of the government of Manitoba to undertake an evaluation, a report of this overall project in terms of the degree to which Manitoba's objectives were met, other learnings we might have for future programs? What are the plans?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think what was one of the strengths of our program--and it was modelled in other jurisdictions--was early on we did set up the provincial local consultative committee which had two representatives from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and two representatives from the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, along with the executive director from each of those organizations. So when I mentioned in my opening remarks that the first program was $204 million, but that $60 million was allocated for traditional projects outside of Winnipeg, we accepted all of the recommendations of that committee for the $60 million outside of Winnipeg. That was a very comprehensive process with applications and review done by that committee and looking at regional fairness and so on.
Mr. Chairman, $60 million was also allocated to Winnipeg, and again we accepted the recommendations from the City of Winnipeg. They had a blend of streets and some other projects and community centres and sewer and water projects and so on. Then we had the $84 million, which was the strategic, which was, again, an application process, and decisions on those projects were primarily made by the federal government and the provincial government, based on a review of the project. So that process worked very well.
* (1600)
When it came to the top-up of the $41 million, because of the short time frame and the limited amount of money, we did not go back into a detailed application process, knowing that for the first $204-million program, we had a billion dollars of requests. We thought it would be unrealistic to go back out for a comprehensive application process and end up with 10 times the applications, and communities going through that process with very little likelihood of having their projects approved. So, after some discussions with some organizations, we allocated $14 million for streets, residential streets here in Winnipeg--ended up being a very successful program in Winnipeg--and allocated $14 million for highways outside of Winnipeg, again using the same committee to prioritize the highways outside of Winnipeg. So they again looked for regional representation in balance and so on. We had $13 million left for Strategic Initiatives.
I think one of the strengths of our program has been the inclusiveness of the municipal organizations in our province. When it came to the analysis, we have done audits on individual projects in terms of confirming, obviously, the expenditures, the jobs created, and so on, and certainly our audits of individual projects have indicated that the projects have been very successful and have resulted in what we all wanted to see take place.
We also did participate in the national review that was done by the federal government and certainly have had access to that review on an overall basis. The national review, of course, did projects on a national basis and maybe did eight or 10 individual projects within Manitoba, and then came to their conclusions about the success of the overall projects.
So I think both at the front end and at the back end there have been appropriate processes in place to choose the right projects in the first place, and then to ensure that we did select the right projects and that they ended up accomplishing what we all had expected.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, was there any overlap accidentally, through the flood we had last year, of things that were done under the Canada-Manitoba program which then overlapped into the flood damage areas?
Mr. Stefanson: No, Mr. Chairman, there was no overlap, and certainly that was watched very closely to ensure that there would be no overlap for obvious reasons. Some of the damage done was covered 90 percent under the federal program for disaster financial assistance, and it would have not made any sense to be doing those under a program like this. That was certainly something that was watched very closely by the secretariat to ensure that we did not end up doing projects in this area that would be more appropriately dealt with under the Disaster Financial Assistance or some other area.
Mr. Sale: The reason I ask is that there is a famous street in Fort Garry which made the worst street in the city list. I think Ms. Vogan will know the street which I am referring to--coming from the Wildewood Club to north to west up to the highway. It happens to be the street I live on as well, and, somewhat to my surprise, it was done under the Canada-Manitoba Agreement, I understand, but it took a terrible pounding because of the building of the Great Wall of China down beyond the Wildewood Club. So I was just a little puzzled as to whether that then was recovered in some way or whether I was misinformed that it was done under the urban streets portion of the Canada-Manitoba Agreement?
Mr. Stefanson: Again, I think there was a very clear distinction. I am told that there was some work done, if we are talking about the same roadway, under the Disaster Financial Assistance funding with the federal government. But on that same street further down, there was some curb renewal work that was done under the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Works, under the Welfare to Work component of the program, which was separate and distinct from any damage that was done or any work that was done as a result of the flood. So, again, I think the first question--my point at that point in time was that the secretariat and others in government have been very careful to make that very clear distinction in terms of what would qualify under Disaster Financial Assistance or flood related and what we have done under the infrastructure program.
Mr. Sale: I just want to ask the minister one question--kind of future. Is there any intention or is there a process whereby these kinds of initiatives become structured--what the right word is whether they become structured in a way that they are available in future circumstances, or are they always one off programs that have to be sort of developed and designed at the time?
Mr. Stefanson: I think the member knows we, like all provincial governments I am sure would, welcome a long-term commitment. A fundamental program not unlike a CHST or some equivalent dedicated to infrastructure in Canada, particularly, when you look at issues like the fact that the federal government derives some, I think, it is $280 million or thereabouts in gasoline tax out of our province alone, and today they put back absolutely nothing into our highway system. So that would be the ideal.
Having said that, the reality has been that we have had some success getting agreements, and we did have the success of this Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Agreement, and that really has been the focus, and support of all provinces now is to have a renewed program. That has been presented at Premiers' meetings; it has been presented at Finance ministers' meetings; I believe Highways ministers' meetings; and it really does have the support of all other provinces across Canada, irrespective of the political stripes of the governments in those provinces, that we all see the merits of the program and have been united in terms of our call for a renewed program at, at least, the same level.
The first program was a $6-billion program with provinces putting in $2 billion, the federal government $2 billion, and the third partner $2 billion. We have all gone on record as saying we support a program at the same level. It is somewhat frustrating, I think, for all provincial governments, and for municipalities and for other organizations, that the federal government was prepared to come into this program back in 1993-94, saw the merits of it in terms of job creation, economic benefits to our communities, the importance of investing in our infrastructure, but for various reasons have been unwilling to renew the agreement.
* (1610)
So it is something that we continue to press, municipalities will continue to press, and we certainly encourage people at every opportunity to press the federal government of the merits to, at a minimum, another five-year agreement being put in place with all of the provinces.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the minister referred to in excess of a billion dollars worth of requests. Have those requests been catalogued and any sort of economic assessment made of them? I am thinking specifically of the fact that, for example, with a--and the minister knows this better than I do--but with a road, it has a normal life, say, of 40 years, but if you do not do some significant maintenance on it after 20 years, your costs have a kind of geometric component to them that after 30 years it is far more expensive to fix it even in current value terms than it would have been to fix it after 20 years.
Are we accumulating, in a nonpartisan way, a list of where we are at in our infrastructure in Manitoba? Because my sense--not as an accountant or an engineer--but my sense is that across the country and across, well, across the United States, as well--it is even more visible when you drive down there--we built up a very, very extensive infrastructure in the 1950s and 1960s which we have not been able or not been willing to maintain.
The structural problems that we have in our water systems, in our roads, in our airports, sewage systems, even though we take some pride in the things we do accomplish my sense is that those who know are telling us that we are falling farther and farther behind every year. We are not even keeping pace with a reasonable investment in our public infrastructure, and that of course is one of the reasons why I suspect that accountants like the minister are suggesting that we ought to move to a different way of accounting for our capital in the public sector, so that we would more clearly reflect depreciation in various structures over various appropriate periods of time, so that we would have a sense of what we needed to be investing in order just to maintain the very extensive infrastructure we have.
My sense, and I am sure it is shared by the minister, is that in spite of everybody's good intentions and hard work, our public infrastructure is still running down and, in some places, running down at an alarming rate. There gets to be an escalating requirement rather than a straight line requirement that can be met at any time. There gets to be more of a geometric requirement that, if it is not met, it really becomes expensive to do so. So I wonder the degree to which the minister is preparing that kind of case and whether he would be prepared to share with us his views about that problem.
Mr. Stefanson: Interesting question. I guess splitting it to the applications, if I may speak to it for a minute; then I will come to the broader issue. The applications back in 1994 were made primarily by municipalities, some nonprofit groups, and some private groups, so there were major components that really were not even on those lists, like provincial highways. But moving to the broader issue, there are various amounts of work that have and are being done. Certainly Highways--and I think you have seen some coverage even through the media--has done the kind of assessment and is doing the kind of assessment in Manitoba and on a national basis in terms of the state of the highways, the requirements, the financial requirements, the whole issue of the timing of when the investment should be made in the highway as opposed to what the cost will become if you leave it too long. All of that kind of information is becoming much better in our province and much better on a national basis. So, yes, we are doing that as it relates to provincial highways.
I know organizations like the Infrastructure Council of Manitoba and others have also done fairly extensive work in some of these areas. I think on an individual municipal basis, various degrees of work will be--the City of Winnipeg, as certainly in the past, put out information relative to what they believe their needs are in terms of sewer and water, residential streets and so on, again quantifying it, quantifying the timing of it, and so on. I think individual smaller municipalities across our province have also done it; they had a good understanding and appreciation of the needs of their municipal roads and any other infrastructure that they are responsible for.
Certainly the quality of information, I believe, has improved significantly over the last several years to help governments make those kinds of decisions as to where to be investing the dollars that are available, recognizing that the demand and the need continues to exceed the amount of dollars allocated every year on a national basis. That does become a compelling argument to bring the federal government to the table, that provincial governments are making significant investments. Municipal governments are making significant investments. The one partner that is sorely lacking is the federal government, and I think all of that information only helps us to make our case to them. Hopefully, particularly now that they are in their era of surpluses, and this discussion around the fiscal dividend of the federal government, one of the priority areas should be for the federal government to be investing in the infrastructure of Canada, particularly areas like our national highways. So the quality of information is much, much better and allows government, I believe, to make those kinds of decisions on a more informed basis relative to the areas of greatest need.
Mr. Sale: Just to have one last question, a specific one in regard to The Forks area. Are there Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure grants going into any aspects of the ongoing development of The Forks process? Could the minister identify what those are?
* (1620)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, there have been some projects supported at or near The Forks. The dollars I will provide are the gross dollars representing all partners. One, the Manitoba Theatre for Young People, received support to the total level of $750,000. There is The Forks Festival Park which has received support of $1.5 million. That is an area that is going to be used, I am told, extensively during the Pan American Games amongst other kinds of events and gatherings that would take place. At The Forks, Festival Park will become the focal point for evening celebrations during the games, a site for entertainment, ceremonies to recognize medalists, and other highlights. So those are some aspects of the Festival Park.
We also provided some support for the Manitoba Children's Museum in terms of their infrastructure gallery. That is to a total of $40,000. Adjacent to The Forks, just announced in the last week or so was the support for a baseball facility which will be, of course, for Riverside Park. It will be the home for the Winnipeg Goldeyes, utilized by amateur baseball, utilized by other community organizations. As well, it will have a youth component to it, and the total contribution there is $4.5 million. Of course, it will be utilized for the Pan American Games as the site for baseball.
The last one is The Forks Commemorative Plaza which is $1.2 million which I am told is basically complete in The Forks adjacent to or nearby to the Children's Museum. So those are some of the projects that have been supported. I believe that is a comprehensive list, but we will certainly review the listing, and if we have missed anything we will provide the member with details on any other project relative to The Forks that was funded from the infrastructure program.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the baseball issue has come in for lots of controversy, but I think the unique feature of this is that the agreement puts that stadium essentially in private hands for all intents and purposes. Would this be the only infrastructure grant that has effectively been a transfer to a private organization? A private, for-profit organization I should say.
Mr. Stefanson: The member is right. This is an example where something was done with the private sector. The total project, I believe, is going to be about $11 million. The City of Winnipeg, if I recall correctly, is making a contribution of $1 million, and the Pan Am Games themselves are making a contribution of about $800,000, again if I recall correctly. The rest, of course, is coming from the private sector, so it is a good example of a private-public partnership.
There have been at least a couple of others under the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Agreement, although the majority are done with nonprofit organizations, but the most significant public-private partnership was the whole rural gasification with Centra Gas, which was a project of a magnitude of about $22 million, $23 million, again where it was the federal government, the provincial government and Centra Gas being primarily the one-third-each partners, although in various initiatives the municipalities also were making contributions. So, at the end of the day, against the total projects, in the case of the provincial government, I believe the level of support was in the 20 to 23 percent range of the total project. So, even if the Canada-Manitoba is one-third, one-third, one-third, by the time we factored in the private sector, the municipal support and the customer support for gasification initiatives, provincial government support ended up being just over or in approximately the 20 percent range. So that would be the most significant private-public partnership, and I believe there might have been one or two other ones.
Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, at the time that the agreement was signed with Mr. Katz and the city, I think it indicated that public sector subsidies or grants or however we want to characterize them were a little over half of the cost of the park, and the private money was the remainder. What is the residual agreement should the private sector project fail, for example, the franchise be unable to continue? How is the government's investment protected here, or has this asset been transferred permanently to the private sector?
Mr. Stefanson: First of all, the agreement has not been concluded with Riverside Park Management Inc., of which the president is Mr. Sam Katz, but the proposal does call for an $11-million facility of which the numbers that I did give were accurate: the federal government would put in $1.5 million; the provincial government, $1.5 million; the City of Winnipeg, $1 million in cash; and the Pan Am Games, $800,000. So $4.8 million would come from those sources, and the remaining $6.2 million would come from private funds for a total of $11 million. Our funding is provided on basically a receipted basis, so proponents normally have to come up, in many cases, with interim funding to build their facility or complete their project or have trade suppliers or others carrying everything right up until the point of completion and paying it and applying for their money, so we end up with a completed facility, which is what our objective is here.
We have also indicated that the conditions we would attach to this would be related to access for the Pan Am Games and access to community utilization. The City of Winnipeg has raised the same issue of access to community utilization, whether it is amateur baseball and/or other events, whether The Festival du Voyageur or some other organization wants access to it. So our agreement will cover off those components, and certainly the City of Winnipeg will have a separate agreement with this organization because the land is being leased I believe for--the best information I have at this point is the land is being leased I believe--I am not sure what the final term was agreed to with the city, but there will be an agreement with the city. I think I am repeating myself. The city has the same concerns as we do about accessing and so on. Through our collective agreements, we will be sure that those kinds of conditions are covered off.
Ultimately, the management agreement is really with the City of Winnipeg. We believe that the key is to have the facility. It will be put to use for professional baseball; it will be put to use by amateur baseball; it will be put to use by the community; it will be an outstanding facility for the Pan Am Games. I think Manitoba has shown that they can support professional baseball at a level like an A team, and hopefully the team that is currently here continues and plays for many, many years, and everything works out. Having said that, I think most important is that we have a facility that will allow it to continue to be here in one form or another. So our priority is to put in place a facility that will have excellent community use and will meet a need in a particular area for many years to come, whether it is with Riverside Park and Mr. Katz or whomever. We fully expect it to be with Riverside Park and Mr. Katz for many years, but one never knows what the future holds.
Mr. Sale: I am looking forward to having a hot dog and a cold drink in the stands on a nice summer evening I think as much as anybody else does. I think it is going to be a very nice place to have that kind of summer facility.
* (1630)
My question is: do we have, as the public sector, for example, a right of refusal if the Goldeyes or the franchise does not make it? The minister knows that Manitoba has had a history of semipro and proball over 60 or so years at least, probably more than that, 80 years. They used to play across the street from here where the Great-West Life building now is. I think we have to expect that things will change. Do we have any protection in the investment we have made at that site to have right of first refusal or whatever would be the appropriate mechanism to protect the public's investment of 40 percent or 45 percent of that cost of that facility?
Mr. Stefanson: I think it is important to split the issues here from the federal government's perspective, and our perspective is we recognize the benefits and the need for a facility like this, and that is where our money is being directed. Under the sequence of payments, the facility has to be built for the proponent to receive the money from the federal government or the provincial government, so that is our objective. Certainly, once a quality facility worth $11 million at that location is built, it will be a facility that will benefit Winnipeg and Manitoba. It is an outstanding location and will be a great venue for baseball and for other community events.
The City of Winnipeg is entering a separate agreement, I am told, relative to the leasing of the land with the proponent, and I am sure, as a result of that, that this facility is sitting on their land. They will have various conditions attached relative to what happens if something were to go wrong at the facility. So I think it is important to separate those responsibilities, and what our objective is as a provincial government, along with the federal government, is to see this kind of a facility built in downtown Winnipeg.
We believe it will benefit baseball, it will benefit communities, groups and so on, and it will benefit our downtown. If you think that, whatever their ultimate average attendance, their seating capacity will be 7,500, and I believe they play some 42 games, the Goldeyes alone--and I am not counting playoffs--so if you think of 40 to 45 games at whatever their ultimate average attendance is, whether it is 4,000 or 5,000 or 6,000 or 7,500, that certainly will bring a lot of people to downtown Winnipeg on a regular basis and will benefit not only The Forks but many aspects of downtown Winnipeg.
Mr. Sale: I thank the minister. I understand that what he is saying is that it is not the province's place to take this kind of position in terms of agreement down into the future, but that is something the city should and probably will be doing because it is the lessor of the land.
I also concur entirely with him that the more we can do to bring people into the downtown for positive experiences and events, the less anxiety people have about our downtown and the more there will be economic renewal. I think that this is another reason why I have always believed that the public sector has a partnership role to play in the renewal of our urban core. Unlike some of his colleagues, but like the minister, I have always been a supporter of the urban renewal programs that we have entered into over the years. I appreciate his comments on that, and I agree with him.
I am looking forward to that ballpark bringing in lots of people to that beautiful area of our city as we continue to build on the legacy of a previous NDP government and a previous mayor and previous federal officials who started the process of the renewal of The Forks site several governments ago. So I think that is important that that kind of thing goes on through governments of all different types, and I am glad that it is continuing.
I have no further questions in this area. I do not know if my colleague has any. I am prepared to pass the Estimates.
Mr. Chairperson: Item 27.3. Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital $12,700,000-pass.
Resolution 27.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,700,000 for Other Appropriations, Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
This completes the Estimates for Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program. Shall we recess? [agreed]