LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, June 27, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will read.

ACCESS Program Funding

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREAS the provincial government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2 million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.

Railway Traffic Safety

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Leonard Evans). It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

Some Honourable Members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. The Clerk will read.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

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

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

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

WHEREAS it is important that everything reasonable be done to enhance the safety of children, including steps that would minimize future possible accidents involving railways.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) to consider the installation of fences in back yards of residential units owned by Manitoba Housing, particularly in those near railways.

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

AND FURTHER your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly will request the Minister of Highways and Transportation to review this issue of railway traffic safety with the federal Minister of Transport to enhance and promote a greater degree of safety in the vicinity of railway trackage with particular reference to small children.

Pharmacare Benefit Levels

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Edwards). It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

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

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

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

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

WHEREAS this will continue to drive up Manitoba's annual health care expenditure of $1.8 billion and is not in the best interests of Manitobans.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider restoring Pharmacare benefits to their previous level.

ACCESS Program Funding

Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHEREAS the provincial government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2 million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.

* (1335)

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 218‑‑The Public Schools Amendment Act

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that leave be given to introduce Bill 218, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques), and that the same be now received and read a first time.

Motion presented.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there is a necessity in order for The Public Schools Amendment Act‑‑to see brought into it more parents' rights and responsibilities. We also believe that it is time that we acknowledge in The Public Schools Act learning disabilities as a part of it, and this is, in fact, what this particular bill tries to accomplish.

Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Elwick Community School forty‑five Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Martin Kashty. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Goods and Services Tax

Government Position

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Tomorrow, Finance ministers are meeting, dealing with the proposed changes by the federal parliamentary committee to the goods and services tax in this country.

The federal parliamentary committee has proposed integration with the provincial taxes. It leaves open the issue of harmonizing with food and prescription drugs, and it leaves a number of other items on the agenda that, clearly, are not a scrapping of the GST, but rather a change of the GST to another name with different applications and different harmonizations.

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

* (1340)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, our government, of course, as I have indicated publicly, is more than surprised. We are shocked at the position that is being taken by the federal Liberal government. They ran for public office on the basis of scrapping the GST.

I have said before that the former Conservative government, in the course of its consultations leading up to the GST‑‑and I know that I do not have to tell people in this House how much that tax was opposed by people of all political stripes across this country‑‑in their consultations, they went throughout Canada and were told three things.

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

For all those reasons, the public was overwhelmingly opposed to those three elements, and even the former Conservative government rejected those elements. We are not going to accept that as the answer, that we have to live with that on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba, that we now have to harmonize it, that we now have to accept that transference off the producers and onto the consumers of Manitoba, that we now have to apply it to a whole net and basket of goods and services that we do not tax, such as books, such as legal and accounting fees, such as groceries and medical supplies.

That is not an acceptable answer to Manitoba, and that is the position that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) will take forward.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we were opposed to the original GST, and we remain opposed to the proposed alternative GST that is now before the parliamentary committee.

When I asked this question to the Premier on May 2 during his Estimates, he indicated that we would not be taking a position prior to the parliamentary committee reporting, but we would be taking a position after the parliamentary committee had reported and prior to the Finance ministers' meeting.

Could the Premier table today the written position that Manitoba will table with the Finance ministers meeting tomorrow in Vancouver?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition has had the opportunity to read the House of Commons committee report, it deals with some 20 alternatives. They are recommending the GST under another name. The federal Finance minister, to date, has not put forth his position on that report. He is waiting for the meetings that will take place tomorrow and Wednesday.

So, in one respect, though we have a Commons committee report, we have heard no position yet from the federal Finance minister. We will be receiving his position tomorrow, and, obviously, that will all be part of our discussions.

As the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has said, we oppose what the House of Commons committee is recommending for all the reasons that the Premier has outlined, and, to date, we have not seen an alternative suggested from the federal government or the House of Commons committee that is acceptable to us, but we will let the discussions unfold over the next two days and see what other alternatives the federal government might be promoting.

It is an election promise of theirs, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. They are the party that ran on the basis of replacing the GST. They have taken on the responsibility of at least putting forward some reasonable alternatives, and what we have seen so far are absolutely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.

Analysis Tabling Request

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the provincial government did provide their position with the last GST in writing. In answers to questions on November 13 from the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), then the Leader of the Opposition, there was an analysis by the provincial Finance minister on the number of jobs that would be lost in the short term and the projection from the Minister of Finance that there would be jobs gained in the medium term.

Could the Minister of Finance today table in the House all the analysis of the impact of the federal parliamentary committee's report, its impact on consumers, its impact on low‑income people, medium‑income people, and its impact on jobs and the economy?

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

* (1345)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that Manitobans deserve the full analysis, all of the information and so on.

What I see coming out of the meetings over the next two days in part might be a position of the federal government, in part might be a process, and we certainly intend to have maximum opportunity for discussion with members of the Manitoba public.

We have done some initial analysis, but at this particular point in time, as I say, we do not have a final position of the federal government. What we have seen in terms of the recommendation of the Commons committee, there is information that we have prepared to indicate that a family of four in Manitoba, if the GST is now put on basic groceries and prescription drugs, would pay approximately between $300 and $400 more per year.

There is also a myth out there that through harmonization, provincial sales taxes across Canada can actually be reduced. The reason for that myth is because if you harmonize with the GST, there would be a process of input tax credits. So there would not be a reduction in many PSTs across Canada. In fact, if the objective was to stay revenue neutral, there would have to be an increase in provincial sales tax in a good number of provinces.

There are many myths out there, so I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in terms of the maximum information. We have done some preliminary analysis on impacts on jobs. There is no doubt that, in the short term, there would be a negative impact on jobs.

We want to wait to see what happens over the next two days as this issue develops more focus in terms of starting to provide information around a direction that we see the federal government heading. We have the information of the Commons committee, and we will see what happens in the next two days.

Public Accounts Committee

Winnipeg Jets

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Premier.

This morning at a media briefing, the chairperson of the Burns committee indicated that he would be willing to brief all members of this Legislature in terms of the findings of the committee and in terms of some of the implications of the report they have submitted to this Legislature through the Premier's tabling that report after Question Period on Friday morning.

Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, we have asked the Premier whether he would call Mr. Burns to the Public Accounts committee, so that all MLAs could be involved in the findings in this report and so the public could see the debate and the issues before the committee, and, also, so the Auditor could look at some of the numbers, quite frankly, that are missing from the Burns report‑‑there are a number of vague areas in that report‑‑and so that we could have some basis of understanding what the bottom‑line numbers are and the impact of its full report for all MLAs.

I would like to ask the Premier today, in light of Mr. Burns' statement, will he be asking his minister to call an immediate meeting of the Public Accounts committee where the Auditor would be there and allow all MLAs to be involved in this very important issue, and, also, allow that to be an open process for the public of this province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that as of Friday, with the difficult choices that we face and the difficult challenge that we face, that I might have had the co‑operation of all parties in this Legislature to try and depoliticize the issue and take it into a basis of seeking a solution.

The member knows full well that he has been invited to a briefing with Mr. Burns at 2:30 today, as has the Leader of the Liberal Party. Unlike City Council where everyone is an individual, we operate in a party system, and I would think that the Leader might take some responsibility to be the Leader of his party, to go there and seek whatever information any of his members have that has not been addressed so far.

If he has any questions whatsoever, the purpose of having Mr. Burns and many of the other players there who have been involved in the process is so that all of his questions might be answered. If some are not able to be answered because they require the input of the Auditor, we can even take those questions down and have the Auditor's response.

But if all he is interested in is having a political three‑ring circus in which he can try and squeeze some more politics out of this issue, Mr. Speaker, I say to him, that is not going to solve the problem, that is not going to meet the challenge, and I am disappointed in his approach.

* (1350)

Winnipeg Jets

Federal Involvement

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

I think public involvement helps all three parties find a solution. I do not believe that opening the doors to the public hurts the process, Mr. Speaker, and there is perhaps where the Premier and ourselves can disagree. I think that would help, not hurt the process.

I have a further question to the Premier arising out of the Burns report. Mr. Speaker, I have asked the government before whether the federal government would be involved, because the lion's share of the revenue, as the Premier has always indicated, goes to the federal government. In the Burns report, they clearly state that close to 60 percent of the revenue derived, they would propose, from any facility and the hockey team remaining in our community goes directly to the federal government.

The federal government has previously stated it is not interested in being involved in the infrastructure program. Now I am not sure in terms of statements. I would like to know what involvement has the Premier had with the federal government on the Burns report and how much that played in his announcement on Friday.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I cannot believe the hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition. That very member, when he was in cabinet, willingly met privately without any public involved in his cabinet meetings. Every week and every day, he has caucus meetings in which there is no member of the public allowed to hear the things they discuss, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, the federal government obviously gains considerable revenues from the operation of a hockey club here. In fact, as I said, out of a $14‑million revenue to three levels of government, at least half goes to the federal government. So, yes, they ought to be a player, and, yes, Mr. Axworthy will be meeting and discussing it with us later today, and, obviously, there will be ongoing talks.

Bond Issue Costs

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier will know that there were lots of discussions in arriving at the report on Meech Lake, and we did work together in an all‑party way, but there were public hearings prior to Meech Lake, and there were public hearings scheduled after Meech Lake, Mr. Speaker.

I think Manitobans liked the co‑operation around Meech Lake and the attempt for co‑operation. I do not know why the Premier is so‑‑[interjection] Well, I think the Premier is losing sight of some good recommendations.

Finally, I have a third question to the Premier dealing with the Burns report tabled after Question Period on Friday.

There is a quote in the report dealing with the whole issue of how much a bond issue would cost. We understand that today at City Council, it was reported that it would be about $7 million annually, cost to the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, the problem is we do not know for how long that would be. Burns says this is less costly than the ongoing losses of a hockey team, but, of course, there is no such thing as ongoing losses of a hockey team. It is for three years. The bond issue would be for at least 20 to 30 years.

Does the government have a financial breakdown of the actual cost to the taxpayers of a bond issue? It is not in the Burns report. It is something, if we do not have from the Premier, we would like to obtain from the Provincial Auditor, so that we can look at it in the overall context of issues that we have before us.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the way it works is this way. If the bond issue is for $100 million and the interest rate is 7 percent, it is $7 million annually. If it is $110 million and it is 7 percent, it is $7.7 million annually. If it is $200 million and it is 6.5 percent, it is $13 million annually.

That is the way it works. I will send over a calculator to help him, so that he can figure that out.

* (1355)

Winnipeg Jets

Player Costs

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

On Friday, when we were asking questions on the issue of the Jets, we did not have the benefit of the Burns report. It was tabled at the end of Question Period. Now that all parties and members of the Legislature have had an opportunity to review it, my question for the Premier is, at page 5 of that report, the Ogden report, which was commissioned by the Burns committee, specifically states, and the committee, in fact, endorses that statement: "it is our opinion that resolution of the key issues being negotiated between the NHL and the NHLPA (National Hockey League Players' Association), especially if there will be a formula by which player costs are determined, be resolved before any commitment is made to construct a new arena."

That issue, Mr. Speaker, probably more than any other, is one which is outside of our control. No matter who comes forward in the province of Manitoba with what amount of money, that issue is out of our control and appears to be underlying all of this.

My question for the Premier: Now that he has had a chance to review this report in its entirety, is there any initiative or have there been any discussions thus far to get together with the other communities in the NHL currently, who even if they are not where we are now, are certainly going to be, to make an initiative, to sit down and get a firm commitment from the NHL, Mr. Bettman or others, as to what they are going to do to make it even viable to have pro hockey in the NHL in communities like Winnipeg?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on Friday, Mayor Thompson has had a group of mayors who represent smaller cities that included Mr. Duerr from Calgary, Ms. Reimer from Edmonton, the mayor of Quebec City and the mayor of Ottawa and so on, because, quite evidently, this same problem faces every one of these markets, and in addition to that, probably Hartford, probably Pittsburgh and maybe even some other American franchises. Very clearly, it is an issue that, if not resolved, would probably discount half a dozen or more of the current franchise‑holding cities in the league from being able to exist viably in the NHL.

There has been a tremendous explosion, even in the past three years, of salaries. When you make a comparison, even today, the Winnipeg Jets' salary package, total salaries, is still just over half of what the Stanley Cup winning New York Rangers' salaries currently are, so you know that the upward pressure is immense. I believe there are some expectations that they can double again within three years, so this is an issue that has to be dealt with, or the viability will not work.

I understand that the mayor has an ongoing liaison for the purpose of trying to have a joint effort. They have met now a couple of times with Mr. Bettman, and he can only give them assurances that the NHL is sympathetic, understands the problem and is attempting to address it. He cannot give any firm indication that the NHL will address it until negotiations take place.

Winnipeg Arena

Public Support

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my second question is for the Premier again.

Having now reviewed the report in its entirety, the other comment which I thought was very interesting in this report, at page 7, was that there was a specific recognition that no commitment would be made by a government of any kind or indeed the private sector until the public has clearly demonstrated their willingness to support a new facility. That is a statement which, again, underlies this entire debate.

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

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

* (1400)

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of elements to that. I believe there is a requirement, obviously, for significant private‑sector risk capital investment.

If you believe what the Burns report puts forward, and I accept it as being a very reasonable estimate, they are suggesting that the income for the hockey team's operations from its tickets and boxes and luxury seats and so on would have to double its current level of income. That means all the tickets in the arena would have to go up substantially. Even the lowest‑priced tickets would probably have to increase at least 50 percent in order to meet that kind of projection.

Unfortunately, I do not believe anybody out there who is promoting this‑‑and there are certainly many in the sports media with, I think, good intentions who are promoting this‑‑is saying directly to the people who phone in, are you prepared to accept a 50 percent to doubling of your tickets within the next very short while in order to make this viable? I think that has to be put out there.

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

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

So I think that is something that we will want to talk about, and I look forward to the co‑operative participation which I know the member opposite has been offering since last Friday, and I thank him for that.

Major Tenant

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): My final question is for the Premier.

One other statement I want to pick up on with the Premier is, on page 9 under the optimum conditions portion of this report, No. 2, it is clear that this committee found the construction of an arena was only viable if they had one major tenant, and they see that as the hockey club which is going to use 55 nights or so a season, and they conclude that without the team's presence, there can be no economic rationale to proceed with planning and construction, that is, of an arena.

That has never happened in this city or in this province, that we have had the debate about the facility alone, because the arena and the Jets have been inseparable since Mr. Shenkarow made that linkage, and it has been reinforced and reinforced.

Is that a linkage which is strictly necessary, in the Premier's mind? Mr. Speaker, we have never had that analysis done, outside of the Jets, in those specific terms as clearly as we have in this report. Is that linkage necessary, in fact, before we turn to the issue of an arena, that we settle the Jets' problem? Is that clear in the Premier's mind?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am dating myself, but I remember very excitedly going to the early games of the Winnipeg Warriors in the brand new Winnipeg Arena back in the mid‑'50s. At that time, I do not think anybody would have expected that arena would last forever.

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

The difference is, without a major tenant that contributes tremendous revenue to that facility for 55 event dates a year, the economics really do not make sense in building a new facility. So, yes, the two are intertied, and, yes, that whole argument ought to be part of the discussion, the debate and the consideration that we enter into in making this decision.

Obviously, I hope that we all bear that in mind, and in terms of the debate before the public, that that is part of the information that is always on the table when we have that discussion.

Post‑Secondary Education

EPF Funding

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this week, the Minister of Finance will be meeting with his federal counterparts to discuss, amongst many things, the changes in funding from the federal government to educational programs.

I wanted to ask the Minister of Finance, will he confirm that on his agenda is a federal government proposal to accelerate the phasing out of EPF post‑secondary funding, ending cash transfers by '96‑97, and can he indicate whether he has prepared an impact study of this on Manitoba finances?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will confirm part of that, that, yes, the whole issue of all transfer payments are on the agenda, a combination of EPF, equalization and CAP.

All of the transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial governments are on the agenda, but in terms of the specific suggestion that the member has made, information is coming in from the federal government in terms of particular aspects under each item area, and, to date, I have not seen the specific information she is referring to.

Skills Training

Loans/Vouchers

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My supplementary is for the Minister of Education.

I wanted to ask him whether in his discussions with his federal counterparts today, whether he discussed a federal proposal to provide vouchers or loans for skills training and for literacy to Manitobans, and has he prepared an analysis of the impact of this on Manitobans and on Manitoba institutions?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, elements of the issue brought forward by the member were discussed, but certainly, we are in no position to react with reference to a Manitoba analysis or the impact on Manitoba.

I mean, it is just a germ in the mind of the federal government for the most part at this point in time, and, Mr. Speaker, it would be too soon to suggest what the impact might be on Manitoba.

ACCESS Programs

Federal Funding

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

* (1410)

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Well, Mr. Speaker, the member does a disservice to people who are listening to this debate in trying to portray the meeting that we had as one where the provincial government was just asking the federal government for more money.

Mr. Speaker, the meeting that was held this morning was one that was dealing with the whole social safety net reform. It did talk about one dimension of that being, of course, the whole area of learning and training, but it had to fit into the whole change or reform.

As my colleague, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), who is taking our lead in this, would point out very clearly, the federal government is just presenting a general approach and will be more specific, I gather, once they decide, once the federal government decides, which are the better of the options to follow.

Social Safety Net Reform

Federal Government Strategy

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, since October 1993, the federal government has been talking about changes to social programs. Most of the discussion has been very general in terms of discussion papers and consultations.

Now that the Minister of Family Services has met with the federal Minister of Human Resources today, I am wondering if we know more specifics, since the only specific we have had so far is the cutting of 40,000 people from unemployment insurance and putting them on provincial social assistance, which is going to cost the Province of Manitoba $2 million a year.

Can the minister now tell us if she knows more of the details of the federal government's plans for changes to social policy?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question.

Indeed, we did meet with the federal government, with Mr. Axworthy, this morning and still do not have a great sense of any clarity around the options that are going to be presented in a discussion paper which will be released some time later this year for public input.

Mr. Speaker, we did discuss the issues that Family Services' ministers or social services' ministers across the country made very clear to Mr. Axworthy through a communique of a meeting a couple of weeks ago that said we wanted to be full and equal partners in the process, and rather than just bilateral meetings province by province, that we should have a multilateral meeting. Mr. Axworthy did agree to that.

He is right now travelling across the country meeting with ministers that might be impacted, Ministers of Finance, Ministers of Education and Training and ministers of social services right across the country. Those meetings will be finished later on this week. After that is finished, he has committed to a multilateral process, where provinces and the federal government can come together to discuss the issues.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the provincial government is finally being consulted.

Manitoba Position

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to ask the minister if she has put forward her position, her government's position on what the Manitoba priorities are. If so, could she tell the House what her government's priorities are in terms of social policy changes?

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think what we want to see is a reduction of overlap and duplication from the federal and provincial levels. If, in fact, we have too much bureaucracy delivering programs and those programs can be delivered more efficiently and more effectively by a streamlining of services, we are very much supportive of that.

We also indicated, have in the past and will continue to indicate that a pure offload is not in the best interests of anyone. What I mean by definition of offload is to take the dollars that presently exist and cut them from old programs. We have said we want innovative, new, creative approaches that put our social safety programs into a more active, self‑reliant process, rather than a passive dependent process.

We know that some of our welfare programs create welfare as a career option. That is not what we want.

Employment Creation Strategy

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Minister of Family Services shares our concern about the federal government offloading expenses to the Province of Manitoba.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if her government is strongly proposing to the federal government that there be a job creation component and that the thousands of people on provincial social assistance and city assistance be put into training and retraining programs and that there be firm job creation goals, so that at the end of the day, we know more people are working.

It is not good enough to just talk about offloading. What are the government's goals?

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

We are in the process of developing pilot projects with the federal government that will address some of the issues around single parents and their dependency on a welfare system and trying to have them become more independent, more self‑reliant. Those programs will be announced in the near future.

Department of Health

Untendered Contracts

Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, responding to a question taken as notice.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the other day the honourable member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) asked about Dr. Lerner and his agreement with the government. That agreement runs from April 1 of '94 to March 3 of '95. The amount is equivalent to the collective bargaining agreement salary of an emergency physician with just four years of work experience. Dr. Lerner is an associate professor of emergency and family medicine with 17 years of experience.

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member also asked about Ernst & Young. During 1992‑93, Ernst & Young undertook an assessment of the hospital submission process in financial management and control functions. During that study, some departmental training requirements and involvement in sessions on funding policy development were identified.

Manitoba Health awarded this project to Ernst & Young as a result of the extensive work already provided to the department. Their experience, knowledge and national exposure to new and different funding processes and models used in Ontario, the Maritimes, Saskatchewan and Alberta in developing such training sessions was the reason for their selection.

Federal Agricultural Programs

Funding

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the latest reports that the federal Departments of Agriculture and Transport will have their budgets cut by 40 percent. This not only seems to confirm federal Minister Young's recent musings that transportation subsidies will be eliminated, but worse, that farm income support programs will be slashed with a devastating impact on farmers. What makes this even more bizarre is that these reports come at the same time that consultations are underway about what type of income support program will replace GRIP and what will happen with the method of payment of the Crow benefit.

My question for the Minister of Agriculture: Has he any assessment as to the impact that such drastic cuts would have on agriculture producers in Manitoba and on the agri‑food industry in western Canada? Has the Minister of Agriculture contacted his federal counterpart to indicate in the strongest possible terms Manitoba's opposition to these cuts?

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, while we speak, my federal counterpart, the Honourable Mr. Goodale, is in Chicago on behalf of Canadian farmers and Manitoba farmers, dealing with the ongoing very serious negotiations with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, Mr. Espy. So he is not available to me.

All members are aware that I am expecting all Ministers of Agriculture from across the country, as well as the federal minister, in Winnipeg next week, where we will have the appropriate occasion to discuss these kinds of questions.

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

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

But, Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this moment. That is why the thrust of this government, the thrust of my ministry, is why we need hog production, why we need Ayerst and PMU production, why we need potato production, why we need the widest possible diversified agriculture for our primary producers, so that we are less dependent on the Treasuries of Ottawa and on our own for the continued maintenance of farm families.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, while this government is talking about diversification, they are cutting research funding that takes place‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

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

Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. I have personally visited with ministers Walter Paszkowski from Alberta and Darrel Cunningham in Regina.

This very week, one of my senior officials, an assistant deputy minister, is meeting in Regina again to kind of put forward or at least to understand a western regional position, if you like, because there are some issues, the Western Grain Transportation program being one of them, that are unique to western Canada. This is being done.

* (1420)

Policing Services

Private Security Patrols

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, the province has made a number of law enforcement programs a priority. As a result of competing priorities and creating expectations for police service, several community and business groups in Winnipeg have in recent weeks turned to private security patrols.

As the chief law enforcement officer in Manitoba, would the Acting Justice minister say what he will do to ensure there is not a two‑tier level of security for the city of Winnipeg, one level for those who can afford extra security and another for the rest of the citizens of Winnipeg?

Hon. James McCrae (Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey).

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

Committee Changes

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for the Tuesday morning session be amended as follows: the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson); the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson); and the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).

I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments‑‑this is for Tuesday evening‑‑be amended as follows: the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); and the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay).

I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development‑‑this is for the Tuesday morning session‑‑be amended as follows: the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik); the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose); and the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson).

I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Private Bills be amended as follows: the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard).

Motions agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I wonder if you would see if there is leave of the House to adjust the Estimates schedule for tomorrow, following the Estimates of the Legislative Assembly to consider the Estimates of the Community Support Programs. It was inadvertently missed, Mr. Speaker, when we dealt with this matter on Friday.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for tomorrow? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) in the Chair for the Other Appropriations, Employee Benefits and Other Payments, and Canada‑Manitoba Enabling Vote; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Labour.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Urban Economic Development Initiatives

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of Urban Economic Development Initiatives. Does the honourable Minister of Finance have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, I do not. Well, maybe, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I believe it is self‑explanatory what this allocation is. It is the urban equivalent of 25 percent of VLT income estimated to be generated in the city of Winnipeg, similar to what has been set aside for the last two to three years in rural Manitoba for economic development through the REDI program and so on.

* (1430)

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for the first opposition party have an opening statement?

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, of course, 25 percent is not really what has been set aside for all of rural Manitoba. The fact of the matter is that the amount of money that is going to rural Manitoba falls far short of that, certainly in terms of any money that is available for the municipalities or the community councils to spend in northern Manitoba.

But I would like to maybe just ask some more specific questions of the minister. Perhaps the minister can provide some more detail about, I guess, the sharing of power when it comes to the expenditure of this money. Is this simply part of the block grant that forms part of the grant to the City of Winnipeg? How are the decisions made with respect to the allocation of this 25 percent?

Mr. Stefanson: I will come back to that.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for the second opposition party have an opening statement?

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. Actually it was interesting the minister would make reference to the 25 percent, being that from the VLT revenues, in terms of the urban economic development for the City of Winnipeg. I recall the discussions and the debates that occurred when the VLT machines were implemented in rural Manitoba and in the city of Winnipeg. I believe it was two years ago when the City of Winnipeg had actually implemented‑‑in implementing their own budget, they had anticipated on receiving more than the 25 percent because they believed that the VLT machines were going to be taking a lot out of the communities, so I guess what we will enter into is a good, healthy discussion in terms of the types of dollars that are actually coming out, going towards the program so that we can get a better idea in terms of the pros and the cons of the Urban Economic Development fund that is receiving its money from the VLT machines.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I thank the critic from the second opposition party for his statement. Does the minister wish to introduce his staff?

Mr. Stefanson: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, seated beside me is the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Charles Curtis. Across from him is Mr. Don Leitch, who is the Clerk of the Executive Council, and also Mr. Bruce Birdsell, who is the secretary to the infrastructure committee.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I refer you to page 152 in the book: 8. Urban Economic Development Initiatives $10,000,000.

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

This is the 25 percent that goes towards economic development in Winnipeg. To answer the question raised by the member for Flin Flon, it is a decision ultimately made by the provincial government on various projects, in consultation with the City of Winnipeg, but not unlike the Rural Economic Development allocation, the ultimate decision is made by the provincial government in terms of what projects to support and/or not support. So, on various items, we will have discussions, consultation with City of Winnipeg, and might end up having them directly with individual organizations or whatever, but, ultimately, the decision on this $10 million is made by us as a provincial government. So the City of Winnipeg gets the 10 percent directly on an unconditional basis.

Now I know this year the City of Winnipeg built into their budget some expectation out of this pool of resources. I believe the amount they built into their budget was $5 million, that they were expecting to get out of this funding source, to assist organizations like the Convention Centre, Tourism Winnipeg, Winnipeg 2000. We, as I indicated in the budget, are going to be assisting those organizations, but not to the level that the city was requesting. Hopefully, that is clear.

Mr. Storie: Just so we are clear, the 10 percent that was unconditional formed part of the capital grant to the City of Winnipeg.

An Honourable Member: Operating grant.

Mr. Storie: Operating grant to the City of Winnipeg. Was that new money? I mean, all you are doing is saying that it is sourced out of Lotteries now, that in fact there was no increase.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not speaking for Urban Affairs, but, yes, that was incremental. That was new money outside of how we dealt with their traditional operating grant which, I believe, received a 2.5 percent reduction on their operating grant, but the 10 percent allocation was, one could use the expression, new money. It was outside of all of the other funding sources that the City of Winnipeg gets from the province‑‑[interjection]

No, but just on that point, the reduction overall on the operating was a few hundred thousand dollars because the operating grant, I believe, is about $20 million, so a 2.5 percent reduction was about $500,000, I believe. I stand corrected in terms of the exact amount, but that is the vicinity; whereas they were provided with an additional $4 million over and above. So, overall on the operating side, the city received a significant overall increase, I believe, of approximately 5 percent in funding because of its being the first year that they were getting the unconditional operating grant under the urban VLTs. So they did get a significant increase this year.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, then we move to the 25 percent, and from the minister's explanation, it is clear that the province will set the priorities for expending these funds. I guess my question is: What does the list include? Have the priorities been set for this year? Do they include existing or proposed infrastructure agreements separate from the next section that we are going to discuss?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is correct. This really has nothing to do with the infrastructure agreement, which we will get to in a minute, which is entirely separate, but to date we have allocated about $9 million out of the $10 million.

Just over $1.5 million is going to fund a percentage of the operating costs of the Winnipeg Convention Centre. It equates to slightly less than 50 percent of the operating requirements because when we looked at their budget, they had some items in there that we felt did not warrant support. They had a deficit carry forward, and they had some financing of some capital projects that we felt should not be funded from this sourcing.

So it does include just over $1.5 million as a contribution to the Winnipeg Convention Centre. It includes $720,000 as a contribution towards Winnipeg 2000, which is roughly 50 percent of their operating requirements from government. It includes $570,000 for Tourism Winnipeg, again which is roughly 50 percent of their operating requirements. It includes $995,000 as a contribution to the Winnipeg Green Team program, and it includes $5.2 million as the province's share of the estimated funding requirements for the Winnipeg Jets. Those all total approximately $9 million.

Mr. Storie: Well, I guess that is the problem with the way the minister and his government are doing their accounting, that this is under a heading Urban Economic Development Initiatives, and it is, in part, paying for funding that the province had previously funded and decided not to. It is funding, I guess, make‑work projects, The Green Team Winnipeg; it is funding the Winnipeg Jets losses.

I guess the real question is: Is this simply a slush fund that the province is using for solving the day‑to‑day problems it is creating itself?

Where is the imagination here? Where is the sense of direction for the city or the province in the expenditure here of $10 million?

Mr. Stefanson: I think, if the member will look at the items being supported, he will agree that they make a very significant contribution to the economic well‑being of Winnipeg. I am more than prepared to get him background information on the Winnipeg Convention Centre, the many millions of dollars that it generates for the economy of Winnipeg, obviously the work being done by Winnipeg 2000 and Tourism Winnipeg, in terms of promoting Winnipeg and what Winnipeg has to offer.

We have discussed at length, in Public Accounts and in the Chamber, the economic contribution that the Winnipeg Jets make primarily to Winnipeg, recognizing that all of these that I mentioned have other impacts on the rest of Manitoba, but most significantly on the city of Winnipeg.

The Winnipeg Green Team initiative, employing some 350 young people over the summer months, again, is a new initiative here in Winnipeg. When we were looking at the allocation, I know the City of Winnipeg was most hopeful that we would support the programs like the Convention Centre and Winnipeg 2000 and Tourism Winnipeg, that there was not a need to be out there looking for new initiatives or new programs or new organizations. They have the basic infrastructure in place, and, rather than ignoring their requirements‑‑they specifically asked us to support them with the needs to sustain what they feel are very significant facilities or organizations promoting economic development in Winnipeg. Those were very specifically done in consultation and discussion with the City of Winnipeg.

* (1440)

We have, as the member for Flin Flon knows, other economic development programs: manufacturing, industrial opportunity programs and a series of other kinds of programs that can meet other economic needs in Winnipeg or throughout Manitoba. But these organizations and facilities generate significant economic activity for Winnipeg.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, is it the intention of the government or is it now assumed that, for example, the ongoing losses at the Winnipeg Convention Centre are going to be covered under this particular category? Is this lottery funding now going to cover in perpetuity the loss of the Convention Centre? Is that the aim?

Are the ongoing operations of Winnipeg 2000 or Tourism Winnipeg going to be funded from lottery sources? Is that the intention of the government?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, at this particular point in time, there is no long‑term agreement in place for the funding of any of these. These decisions were made around this particular budget here. Like many items in the budget, these will have to stand the test of scrutiny each and every budget year, whether or not they warrant the support and whether or not the government feels they should be continuing to support them.

There is no doubt they are priorities of the City of Winnipeg, and they represent‑‑as I say, I will certainly forward the information on the Convention Centre to both members, because if they have not had a chance to look at it in the past, they will be reasonably impressed with the significant economic activity and the significant engine that a facility like the Convention Centre is here in Winnipeg.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am familiar with the operation, other than the Winnipeg 2000 group, which I think, although relatively new, there are mixed views on the success of Winnipeg 2000. There is no doubt about the importance of the Convention Centre.

The point I am making here is that for the first time the government has decided to use lottery funds, basically to fund ongoing losses of various enterprises, including the Jets. I guess there are a lot of people in rural Manitoba and perhaps the people in Brandon who would say, well, we want the province to allocate funds in perpetuity for losses of the Keystone Centre.

There are other centres, Selo Ukraina in Dauphin, numerous other publicly owned facilities that would love to have their operations covered out of lottery funds, which obviously to this point have not had any success.

Just a question to the minister: Is there any intention on the part of the government to allocate 25 percent of the funding that is raised by VLTs in rural Manitoba to rural economic development? Has that commitment been made, for example, to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities or to the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities that have requested this similar treatment?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, first of all, the member for Flin Flon knows that the ongoing losses of the Jets do not go on for perpetuity. As I have indicated, the Convention Centre, Winnipeg 2000, Tourism Winnipeg are amongst the highest priorities of the City of Winnipeg when they look at economic development opportunities. We also had delegations from individuals representing some of those organizations. We had delegations from other interested organizations that are impacted by certainly the Winnipeg Convention Centre, and we were being told that these are very important economic entities here in Winnipeg, and, on that basis, feel they warrant the support from this allocation of money, which is, as we know, from the urban VLTs to go towards economic development.

Rural Manitoba has a series of programs, the Rural Economic Development Initiative and other programs, and they would deal with each request on an individual basis. If something comes forth that makes sense for rural Manitoba, then that will be a determination of government and the minister responsible and so on whether or not it should be supported, but some of these items represent the highest priority of the City of Winnipeg. In fact, they went so far as to indicate, as I said in my opening remarks, that they were including estimated and hopeful recoveries of some contribution towards these organizations from this very source.

Mr. Storie: My second question which the minister did not answer was relative to the treatment of rural Manitoba and VLT revenues. The Union of Manitoba Municipalities and MAUM and numerous councillors and mayors across the province have asked the provincial government to set aside at least 25 percent of VLT revenue for rural economic development. The minister may attempt to fool himself that somehow that that is being done through programs like REDI. The fact of the matter is that for a number of years now there have been significant problems in that program and the amount of money that is actually being transferred to municipalities unconditionally is substantially less than what apparently has been offered to the City of Winnipeg.

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

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that interpretation is absolutely incorrect. I have outlined the organizations that are the beneficiaries of the support under the urban 25 percent and they are not going‑‑I mean, it is not directly to the City of Winnipeg. It ends up being to these individual organizations, which, after discussions with the City of Winnipeg, were recognized as being areas of high priority. Unlike some previous governments, just because there is a pool of resources, we do not go out looking for‑‑always looking for new and potentially frivolous ways to spend it. We have existing organizations that are in place that serve an economic need in the city of Winnipeg, that are recognized as priorities of the City of Winnipeg. We felt they warranted support, and we are doing that from this funding source.

Mr. Storie: Let us just back up to the first question that was asked. The minister suggested that 10 percent of VLT revenue was going to Winnipeg, that the $4 million was unconditional. That is 10 percent in addition to the 25 percent that shows up under Urban Economic Development Initiatives. Is that correct?

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

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I certainly do not see those numbers. The amount of money that is provided to municipalities is substantially less than 10 percent of the total revenue that rural VLTs have been raising. The minister may want to confirm those numbers, but there is certainly no question that the projects‑‑and if the minister is suggesting that the City of Winnipeg at least had some input into the projects that were funded out of the 25 percent VLT revenue‑‑but that certainly has not been the case in rural Manitoba. That has been one of the complaints, that in fact the decisions are made by REDI, by ministerial directive, by Green Team funding out of the Department of Rural Development, and a number of other programs.

There has been virtually no consultation, and a sense that the money that is coming out of the communities, that is being sucked out of the communities is being‑‑I was going to say wasted but maybe that is not the correct term, but certainly no sense that it is going towards the priorities that are community based or even regionally based.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, that is absolutely incorrect, and I am not here to debate the Estimates of Rural Development, although I would love to, but by being on Treasury Board, I see many of the projects that are approved, and I can assure the member for Flin Flon that all kinds of projects have input directly from municipalities throughout rural Manitoba. If he cares to look on page 138 of his Estimates book he will see Unconditional Grants ‑ Rural Community Development $4 million, which is the item that I referred to earlier, and he will see the rest of the allocations going into various economic development initiatives, but my understanding is Rural Development has been dealt with, and I thought we were here to deal with the Urban Economic Development Initiatives.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister‑‑I am not sure where they get the numbers from. I simply know that in communities like Leaf Rapids or Snow Lake, they are getting unconditional grants in the neighbourhood of $14,000, which does not allow them to do anything, in essence. Although the communities are losing $150,000, $200,000 a year and more, the percentage of money that is coming back to the communities is far less than 25 percent. It does not appear to them and it does not appear to me that the unconditional amount that is being returned is anywhere close to 10 percent. So the minister may feel that that is the case, but there is a broad feeling in rural Manitoba and in the communities that I represent that that is not the case.

* (1450)

Perhaps that is not sufficient, and certainly it is not anywhere near the return that the communities were led to expect would be a result of the introduction of VLTs. They were told, unconditionally, that all of the money that was raised from VLTs would be returned to Rural Economic Development, not 10 percent unconditionally and a bunch of others lumped into government programs and so forth. So I am not sure that the minister has satisfied me yet that there is any real plan in terms of Urban Economic Development Initiatives coming from what is windfall revenue for the government.

There is no sense that the money they are putting in place is going to have any long‑term impact. Certainly if they are going to fund losses, if they are going to fund The Green Team and if they are going to fund the losses of the Winnipeg Jets, I think many people would argue that is short‑term, shortsighted investment, and probably if there is a way of frittering away $100 million from VLT revenue, this is the best way the government could possibly conceive of doing it. So maybe it is time to rethink, I guess, the approach that has been taken.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as I have already pointed out, the allocation under Rural Development on page 138, and, I believe, the $4 million unconditional is done, I believe, on a per capita basis, so it will vary by community to community, obviously, how much they receive. The remaining $10 million that totals the $14 million at the top of page 138 is basically done on the basis of projects that come forward from communities, from organizations, from municipalities, from whatever entity that feels they have an economic development project worthy of support. I guess we will agree to disagree, because the feedback I get has been overall very positive towards programs like the Rural Economic Development Initiative, towards the Grow Bonds Program and others in rural Manitoba that have benefited many communities and generated hundreds and thousands of jobs in rural Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have a number of questions on this particular area. I think the area that I would want to start off‑‑I think we have to look at the REDI program, and I will try to demonstrate why.

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

Is that not a board or are there appointments to that particular organization?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, I assumed both members had an opportunity to be at Rural Development to ask any questions about programs under their jurisdiction.

Having said that, I know that the Grow Bonds Program has a board. I do not believe REDI does, but I would have to get information and confirm. I know the Grow Bonds Program does have a board of citizens from throughout the province that reviews and makes recommendation on individual Grow Bonds applications and programs. I think the REDI program is dealt with administratively and works its way through ultimately to the minister for recommendations on through Treasury Board and cabinet. But I will confirm whether or not REDI has a board or not.

At the same time that the member talks about the wants and desires of rural Manitobans, rural Manitobans have also told us, loud and clear, to get the deficit under control and ultimately eliminate it here in Manitoba, and that is what we are on our way to doing.

Mr. Lamoureux: The reason why I asked, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, is that for some reason I was under the impression that under the REDI program there was some broader‑based decision‑making group, if you like, to establish priorities in terms of rural economic development projects.

I guess I would ask the minister, what is out there? How does the minister base his decisions on who is going to be getting what of this $10 million or this 25 percent share?

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

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

What is actually in place to ensure that these dollars are, in fact, being used for what government claims that they are being used for, that these are, in fact, new projects that money would not have been allocated out to?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, first of all, on the REDI and the Grow Bonds process, as I say, I think the Grow Bonds have a board; I do not believe REDI does. But, under both of those, the recommendations ultimately make their way through the system through to the minister and then are part of recommendations of Treasury Board and cabinet for ultimate approval. So, ultimately, the government still makes the final decision. On the REDI, I know there is an application process in place that has certain criteria built around it. Obviously, staff of Rural Development are in rural Manitoba dealing with individual municipalities, organizations, and so on, in terms of projects that meet their needs.

This is the first year of the 25 percent allocation to the City of Winnipeg, and the member asks the question about whether or not we would support the Winnipeg Convention Centre, Winnipeg 2000, Tourism Winnipeg. If these funds were not available, the answer might be that we might not.

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

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

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

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

* (1500)

I think that if we compared the two programs, it is 25 per cent, and the number of applications, for example, if the minister had at his finger tips, the number of applications that were received in under the REDI program, and then compare that to the number of applications or the number of identities that are out there that have made application for this particular program‑‑I do not have the facts, and this is 100 percent speculative. I am just guessing at this. My best guess is that, under the REDI program, you have likely received tenfold in terms of the numbers of interests in different projects, different rural economic projects, whereas in the City of Winnipeg we have seen, under the last one, five recipients of this particular program.

If we had an application process and individual Manitobans or companies or unions aware of the fact that we have this urban economic initiative that is available, it is coming out of VLT revenues, and if you have got a good idea, bring it to us.

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

I would ask the minister specifically: Is the department looking at having some form of an application process which opens up this particular program, or does the minister feel that this is the best way of dealing with this particular program?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, no, we are not at this time looking at expanding it into a broader application kind of a form. We have various numbers of sources for financial support within different government programs. Without listing them all, there is the Manufacturing Industrial Opportunities Program. There is the Manitoba Industrial Recruitment Initiative. There is now the Crocus Fund in Manitoba. There is the Vision Capital Fund. There is the Manufacturing Adaptation Program. There is the small business assistance program. There are a series of programs out there that can help individuals or businesses depending on what niche it is they are pursuing or what the nature of their business is.

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

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

I should point out that on page 152, under Urban Economic Development Initiatives, it says: "Provides funding for Government directed economic development initiatives within the City of Winnipeg."

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, getting back to the shell game, if you like, the Department of Tourism, I am sure, and again, the minister likely knows more than I on this particular issue, Tourism Winnipeg would have received funds from Department of Tourism, or is this the first time that they would have received grant dollars?

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

Mr. Lamoureux: So, for Tourism Winnipeg, that is operational monies. With Winnipeg 2000, I would ask if that is, in fact, also operational money. If the answer to both of those is yes, I would assume that they are going to have operational costs for fiscal years '94 and '95. Is the government going to be considering incorporating these requests in on an annual basis into future budgets?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we spoke specifically about Tourism Winnipeg, and, as I say, I would stand to be corrected in a very slight way, but on an ongoing basis I know there has been no operational. There might have been a start‑up support or something. Similarly, with Winnipeg 2000, there has been support on occasion, but, again, not on an ongoing basis. When I refer to operational, obviously I am referring to a combination of their staff, their infrastructure, their marketing programs, some of their publications, all of the things that they are doing to promote economic development here in Winnipeg.

So that is the nature of comparing the past to where we are today. As I indicated to the member for Flin Flon, allocations under this pool of dollars will be made each year during budget time as we do with $5.3 billion or $5.4 billion every year, and we will be doing the same in this area in terms of whether or not there is a need to continue to support these organizations in the future.

I cannot today predict what their operational requirements will necessarily be, depending‑‑I mean the Convention Centre obviously can swing fairly significantly depending on the number of conventions it gets, events and those kinds of things. So the amount has the potential to vary fairly significantly from year to year, as, I believe, do the other two organizations depending on what other funding sources from the private sector, other initiatives, that they can come up with to work towards being more self‑sustaining.

Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister give some sort of indication in terms of The Green Team, the Winnipeg Green Team? I know that there was a new service that did go out explaining that. If the minister can maybe just expand on or comment on that particular program?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will get all of the details that were handed out when the announcement was made several weeks ago, but it is an initiative to employ young people, I believe, ages 16 to 24 here in Winnipeg working on a series of community initiatives. Different nonprofit organizations can apply for funding support for staffing. When I say organizations‑‑like community centres‑‑can apply to The Green Team for, I believe, up to five positions, again, I am just giving the general parameters; I stand to be corrected. So they can get the financial support provided for that staffing, I think, to $8 and about 30 cents an hour, and they can also get a small contribution towards the project itself, I think of up to $5,000 per project, if they need some supplies for these young people to either do maintenance or painting or whatever.

So that is probably a good example, community clubs. It also can be used by nonprofit organizations and other organizations of that type to do enhancements to facilities and so on, and meet the needs that they might have over the summer months and obviously employ, I believe the estimate is, about 350 young people. I can certainly get the details, the project announcement application information for both members.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess, finally, I just wanted to reiterate a point and would possibly even appreciate some form of information, knowing that we are not in Rural Development. I would like very much to get something from the REDI program in terms of that application process, because I do believe that it allows for more local community input by having a criterion that is established so that if a local community has an idea that they believe would be good for urban economic development, there is a process that can be followed. Personally, I would not mind to be able to compare the two because at one point the member for Flin Flon made reference in terms of a question of equitability between distribution of these dollars both to rural and the city of Winnipeg, also in terms of the mechanisms that we use to ensure that they are getting the 25 percent, which is a significant percentage, and also that it is 15 or 10 percent that the City of Winnipeg would get‑‑is it 15?

An Honourable Member: Unconditional?

Mr. Storie: Unconditional. Is it 10 percent? Yes, but if the minister would take it upon himself to some time over the summer get me that information I would appreciate it.

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

* (1510)

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

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

Mr. Storie: I appreciate that. The minister should know that the Rural Economic Development Initiatives and the monies, even the per capita dollars that flow to municipalities, do not flow to Northern Affairs communities, I believe. Certainly there have been no major projects funded in Northern Affairs communities from Lotteries funds.

The amount of capital that is being expended this year by the Department of Northern Affairs is exactly the same as it was last year, and it is substantially less than the ongoing capital contributions through the years 1981 to '88, which were $4 million or $5 million.

The infrastructure in our Northern Affairs communities is deteriorating. Its lack of capital contribution in part of the Department of Northern Affairs, on an ongoing basis, as I say, it is about 50 percent of what it was a few years ago. There does not appear to be any major kind of influx of support from lottery revenues. I would simply argue that it is time we recognized that they too are making their contribution. Although one might argue that some of the REDI programs may have been used in Northern Affairs communities, I think, by and large, that is not the case, and there may be a way of supporting the infrastructure needs by targeting some of those dollars. It is a suggestion.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will take it as that. As the member himself indicated, I do not think there is anything precluding those communities from applying for the programs that exist under Rural Development, but I note his suggestion.

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

Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Program ‑ Capital

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): We will now move to item 27.9 Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Program ‑ Capital.

Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, very briefly, I think as members know, we were one of the first provinces to sign the infrastructure agreement with the federal government. As of June 10 there are some 293 projects that have been announced, totalling approximately $178 million out of the total allocation of $205 million, the estimated direct jobs as a result of the announcements to date: about 3,200.

We are very pleased with the overall progress that we have made to date, the outstanding co‑operation we have received from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities and the City of Winnipeg, amongst many others, in terms of moving this particular initiative along.

For the sake of moving this item along, that is all I will say, and I will look forward to questions.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Thank you.

Does the critic of the official opposition party have an opening statement?

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are going to get into the details of the $23.8 million. It seems to me that this is another bit of a shell game that the Minister of Finance is playing with the people of Manitoba.

The provincial commitment is $68.2 million. I think everyone understands that the vast majority of that $204 million has been allocated, projects approved for the vast majority of it, so the likelihood of the province only spending $23 million in this fiscal year, I think, is probably quite slim. There is certainly a realistic chance that much more than that will be spent this year.

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

There are a couple of exceptions that were announced when the initial announcement, the federal‑provincial agreement was announced. They include the rural gasification initiative which was some $21 million, but the vast majority of the remainder fall into the category of small other capital projects. They include sidewalks and fixing up municipal buildings, et cetera.

I would like, first of all, an explanation or some information on the current allocation versus the total allocation and perhaps some comment on whether the $23 million is a reasonable expectation for the next fiscal year.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for the second opposition party have an opening statement? [interjection] Thank you.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we feel that the $24 million is a reasonable allocation. I did say in my brief opening remarks that we have allocated $178 million out of the $205 million, but on all of the project applications, we had estimated start‑up dates, the time frames over which the project will be obviously worked on. So we had the opportunity to look at which years various projects fall into and where the majority of work will be done, and at the same time recognizing that under the agreement with the federal government in the first year we have to spend 35 percent, otherwise it lapses.

So I guess I am just indicating that we do intend to spend the 35 percent because of the number of projects that we have had. We have had about a five‑to‑one request under this program. When all is said and done, I would suggest that we will be very close to our allocation in this year because some of the projects, and some of the more significant projects, spill over quite significantly into next year. One obvious one is the Route 90 underpass here in Winnipeg with the vast majority of that being done next year. That is a very significant project.

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

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

* (1520)

Mr. Storie: I guess that is a convenient explanation, a convenient point of view if you are the minister. I am not sure, looking at the projects, that it is really very realistic. We had an opportunity to spend $200 million collectively for projects that were longer term, difficult to do because of the scope of them, and it seems that again we took the easy way out.

With all due respect to the communities where we are upgrading fuel tank standards, in Dunrea, a community that I am familiar with, I believe in the member for Turtle Mountain's (Mr. Rose) constituency, it is hardly the long‑term kind of project that I think most people would feel would be the most beneficial to the long‑term economic interests of the province of Manitoba.

Having said that, I guess I would like to know from the minister where a couple of the big projects are. He mentioned Route 90. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) was saying the other day in the House that this was an important project supported by all three levels of government. Today, in the paper, one of the councillors, the deputy mayor, I believe, is saying he is not sure that Route 90 was the city's priority, which leads one to wonder about the logic, the necessity of spending a huge amount of money, a huge percentage of the total funds on this particular project.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not about to comment on comments of an individual councillor through the media.

What I would base my understanding of this entire initiative on is through direct discussions we have had with the City of Winnipeg and obviously with the federal government. The City of Winnipeg has been a full participant in terms of the priorities and the decision making on all of the urban initiatives, and before the member steps out, for one moment I want to point out to him that the underpass was the very first project submitted by the City of Winnipeg‑‑not the last, it was the first project. So I would hope that gives him a sense of some of the priorities that the negotiators for the City of Winnipeg are giving, not random comments of an individual councillor through the media. This has been a very thorough, comprehensive process with, I think, excellent input by the other levels of government.

Within rural Manitoba, priorities are being selected by the local governments. I think, as the member for Inkster knows, in rural Manitoba they are being reviewed and approved by the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and by the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities. They are both the review process and the final approval process, and certainly the feedback they have given me has been very complimentary, as has been the feedback from most municipalities throughout rural Manitoba. Our relationship with the city and the federal government has been excellent in terms of determining overall priorities for the city of Winnipeg.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Under this particular program there are some cities that actually went for the major projects. I believe it is in Quebec they are building‑‑is it a convention centre, or it could even possibly be an arena.

I am wondering if the minister can indicate whether or not there were any discussions on using infrastructure dollars for a much larger capital investment, and specifically, the whole question of an entertainment facility.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is correct in terms of Quebec receiving some support for a convention centre facility. I should point out that each agreement has various unique features with each individual province. I think that was the first project announced in Quebec. My understanding is that it was a project they were going to do anyway and had the opportunity to do it through the infrastructure.

In terms of his other specific question about an arena, there were some brief discussions about funding an arena through infrastructure, but the final conclusion was that the kind of dollar amount that has always been talked about from levels of government was what was referred to in the Mauro report, roughly $30 million. So again, it is the same kind of overall dollars we are talking about, not that there was an opportunity to do something from infrastructure over and above what else governments might do. It was never viewed in that context of making it part of a larger contribution from government so it was an either/or, whether you would provide some support under infrastructure or whether you would provide it in some other way, if you were going to provide it.

I think, for our part, the recognition was that the federal government has supported arena initiatives in many cities across Canada from outside of infrastructure. Ottawa just recently received I believe about $8‑million or $9‑million support for their facility outside of the infrastructure agreement, and other support for other facilities has happened in that way.

So, although there was some brief discussion, obviously we did not have the benefit of the Burns report and other information as we were going through this information, and the decision was if governments were going to play a role, that there would be an opportunity to do that outside of infrastructure, recognizing we still impose the same general limitations. We were never discussing infrastructure, because it is still government money, it is still coming from the three levels of government, it is still coming from the taxpayers of Manitoba, that this would not be something that was done over and above any other contributions that governments might make. I do not think anybody ever thought of it in those terms, nobody that I ever had any discussions with, including the federal government and the City of Winnipeg, that it was always an either/or if the governments were going to do something, not both, that the capacity is not there to be doing both.

Mr. Lamoureux: I just seek some clarification. So the indication was it is an either/or, that you cannot do both? Like, for example, Route 90, providing gas in rural Manitoba would not have been possible under this if, in fact, the City of Winnipeg or the province or the federal government wanted to go ahead and build some form of an entertainment complex?

Mr. Stefanson: I guess one technical point is all of the infrastructure projects that we referred to, the 293 projects have all been on the basis of a submission, and nobody put forward a submission for anything to do with an arena. The City of Winnipeg did not put forward any submission for an arena as part of an infrastructure project. So, from a technical sense, there was no submission for that particular project.

Having said that, I think, when we have had discussions around the Mauro report, around the arena, the kinds of dollars as potential contributions that were talked about were in the vicinity of $30 million. I guess, without‑‑trying not to be repetitive, the very brief discussions held around this initiative were on the basis that that would be the overall contribution potentially from three levels of government.

So, not that there was an opportunity to do something here and then governments would still be called upon to do something else outside of the infrastructure agreement for another significant sum of money. So we come back to the kinds of discussions, without the two of us wading into that in any great detail, the discussions we have had over the course of the last‑‑on Friday and today here in this building about the requirement for a contribution of in the vicinity of $90 million to $111 million for a facility from governments based on the financial report that came out of the Burns committee.

Those kinds of discussions never took place around infrastructure funding. It was always on the basis of the magnitude of dollars that was referred to in the Mauro report, and it was on the basis of sourcing it maybe from this pool of funding, not that it would be incremental from any other support that governments might give. Hopefully that is clear.

* (1530)

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

Here we have a significant sum of dollars. It could be a number of years before we get any additional sums of this magnitude anyway, and even though it might not be fair nor appropriate to say that 100 percent of it would have to be financed through an infrastructure program, I am wondering if the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) can indicate whether or not he foresees any form of entertainment facility, whether it is as an arena, whatever it might be, possibly built without tapping into a program such as this, where you have joint agreements between different levels that are prepared to put in sums of dollars. Surely to goodness, if the infrastructure money is all allocated out and the province or the city or the federal government then says, look, now we want to build an entertainment centre, you would get the province of Quebec and other jurisdictions saying, well, just wait a minute; you could have used infrastructure money like other jurisdictions did in order to make that one‑time capital expenditure. So I would ask the minister that.

Also, again for clarification, if the Minister of Finance can indicate whether or not the federal government or the provincial government‑‑he has already indicated that the city government‑‑so those two levels of government ever put on the table for discussion the possibility of using infrastructure monies for any form of an entertainment centre, whether it is an arena or whatever it might be.

Mr. Stefanson: I am trying to think of the simplest way to say this, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but I guess it is when we looked at something like the possibility of a new arena in Winnipeg, we viewed what can taxpayers reasonably be expected to put into a new arena, irrespective of whether it comes from infrastructure, Lotteries funding, tax dollars, whatever the sourcing might be, what would be a reasonable contribution and expectation from the taxpayers.

The Mauro report referred to $30 million. That has been the kind of number that I think three levels of government have been certainly talking about and that was the kind of number that, when we had a very, very brief discussion at our infrastructure committee around whether or not an arena should be supported, it was always in that vicinity, not $100 million, not $111 million.

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

We started on the premise of what is a ballpark or a range that governments could be expected to potentially contribute, discussed that and came to the conclusion that there were so many other requests and needs under the infrastructure agreement, that the timing was still slightly further in the future in terms of an arena when we were having these discussions, that we continue to get pressure from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, along the line of what the member for Flin Flon I think alluded to, the traditional needs of many of the municipalities.

FCM, of course, adopted the position that all $205 million should go into sewer and water and basic municipal infrastructure, not deviate at all. A heavy construction industry in Manitoba adopted a position of certainly significantly contributing to their industry. The member has probably met with them on occasion. So you have all of these different groups that come forward saying, here are our priorities; here are our needs.

We did it on that kind of a basis in terms of looking at whether or not this would be a funding source for potentially an arena in Winnipeg, but never on the basis that you could be looking at a combination from here and a combination from somewhere else that make the contributions from government up in the $111‑million vicinity. That was never a basis of discussion from any of the levels of government suggesting that was something we should even be considering and, as I say, from a technical point of view nobody brought forward an application on this project to begin with. So our discussions were always more generic, more conceptual of the issue of an arena.

I should point out, I think much to Winnipeg's frustration is that Winnipeg was the second major convention centre built in Canada. At that time they received no federal dollars. Subsequent to that, most other convention centres built across Canada received significant federal dollars. There are some in Winnipeg that argue if a facility is going to be built, the federal government should be doing it outside of the infrastructure agreement, that there are many other pressures. As I said in my opening comments, to date we have in excess of 700 to 800 applications and requests for $800 million towards this program, and that does not include any requests for an arena. So it gives you a sense of the wants, desires and needs that are out there in Manitoba.

Mr. Lamoureux: The minister indicated that 35 percent of the monies actually have to be spent in this fiscal year. What would be the time frame for the balance?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, a minimum of 35 percent has to be spent this year, fiscal '94‑95. A minimum of 50 percent has to be spent next year in '95‑96. A maximum of 15 percent can spill over to what would be the third year, because all along it has been portrayed as basically a two‑year agreement. So that forces a minimum of 85 percent over these two fiscal years.

Mr. Lamoureux: What percentage then would actually be at this point in time approved as being classified as being allocated out? At what stage of the percentage point are we at?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, about 80 percent has been committed. I think I indicated at the outset $178 million, and that is out of a program of $205 million. It is approximately 80 percent that has been committed to date.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like to revisit the issue of Route 90 again.

When the program was announced and the initial allocation was made, in the area called road works‑‑I forget, it was one section‑‑the City of Winnipeg received $59 million out of the total of $65 million in that section.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Excuse me, would you mind pulling your microphone a little closer, please? Thank you.

Mr. Storie: If the minister wants the details, it was Kenaston Boulevard, Wilkes to McGillivray Boulevard, $9.7 million; Kenaston Boulevard underpass, $29 million; Lagimodiere, $1.2 million; residential street renewal program for the City of Winnipeg, $9.9 million; and community services infrastructure renewal program, $10 million‑‑a total of $59 million out of $65 million for the City of Winnipeg.

The one project that stands out obviously as the single most expensive project is the underpass. The minister suggested that I not weigh too heavily the remarks of one councillor from the City of Winnipeg when he identified that this was not the city's priority, although there was a suggestion that was political pressure to make this the city's priority.

* (1540)

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

Now I know the minister is going to argue that this is an important project and, of course, there may have been a period of time when it was viewed as essential, but there are alternatives. Certainly, although we have heard referenced the necessity of developing this route as an important piece of the puzzle I guess in terms of the development of the Winnipeg Airport, again, there are alternatives and there are alternative routes to the airport, routes that would not necessitate the building of this underpass, routes that would alleviate any necessity of heavy traffic coming down that particular route to the airport that would simplify transportation traffic.

I am wondering whether this particular project was vetted with the alternatives in mind or was it simply a quick look at some priority list that the city had sent or somebody had sent to the provincial government, along with the political priorities of this government, that went into the decision making. Have alternatives to that underpass been considered since the initial allocation?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I did not take down the numbers that the member was reading into the record, but I think he accumulated them from, probably, announcements made at the time. In terms of how the allocations were done initially, I think he knows $60 million was allocated to rural Manitoba for priorities to be determined by that review committee of the UMM and MAUM. In fact, not only do they determine them, they are the final recommendation on them.

Sixty million was allocated to the City of Winnipeg, again, for priorities within the city of Winnipeg, and $84 million was allocated for what was called strategic initiatives of which rural gasification and the Route 90 project are two of the largest expenditures in the strategic initiative, $84 million.

An Honourable Member: . . . which two?

Mr. Stefanson: Rural gasification and Route 90, those two together would total over $50 million.

I want to assure him, and I think he knows there are no uncertainties around this project if he has had the opportunity to talk to CN and, if not, he should do that. I would encourage him to do that. This is a project that is supported by the three levels of government. I sat in on the meetings with representatives from the city and from the federal government.

Since he is attributing things to newspaper columns and remarks, he would have noted the comments of a member of the federal government‑‑I believe he is not the M.P. for the area adjacent there, one Mr. Reg Alcock, on Friday or Saturday‑‑his comments about the merits of this project and the need for this project.

I want to assure him that this project, like all of them, will go through all of the due process, all of the licensing, the permits and the environmental assessments that are required for a project of this magnitude. I guess I am somewhat disappointed that he does not recognize the need for this project and the benefits that it will create for Winnipeg and all of Manitoba, that this is the No. 1 underpass requirement of the city in their capital budget. It is the first underpass that should be done in terms of their priorities.

I am sure he has travelled throughout all parts of the city. He would recognize that Route 90 is a major north‑south route throughout our city, immediately adjacent to our 24‑hour airport, the home to several of our major trucking firms. I think we have seven of the 11 interprovincial trucking firms with their headquarters here. The majority of those would be on Route 90, at the north end of Route 90, but the majority of them would be on Route 90. Route 90, in terms of the access to the airport and the access for our major north‑south route through Winnipeg, is the major route.

It represents significant economic opportunity as we see more development taking place at our 24‑hour airport, and the significance of transportation in general in Manitoba. The combination of our airport, of our rail and of our trucking industry‑‑these have traditionally been economic strengths of Winnipeg and will continue to be economic strengths of Winnipeg, but you have to have the infrastructure in place to ensure that that will be the case, and that is part of what putting the underpass on Route 90 near Wilkes will do.

Mr. Storie: Well, I certainly would not want to take issue with such an august group of people, but there are other people in the community, amongst them, obviously, city councillors, who do not feel that is necessarily the case.

I would certainly argue that a north‑south route, if you wanted to develop one which was going to be used by heavy trucks on a continual basis, should be the Perimeter. It should use the Perimeter, and it should come into the Winnipeg Airport which is supposedly, and hopefully will be, some sort of intermodal, strategic transportation hub in the not‑to‑distant future. Why you would want to now start developing a route‑‑and the minister should be well aware that Kenaston is not even developed through to Whyte Ridge at this point, never mind the other communities that are in line with that particular route that are going to be disrupted as well.

It just does not make any sense. The Perimeter is only a few miles away. The Perimeter is designed and built for heavy truck transport. It is designed to be a route to this centre. I realize that this would have been on the priority list of the administrators of the City of Winnipeg. I realize that when the City of Winnipeg was asked for an initial list of projects that were on the shelf that could be proceeded with quickly, the underpass would have been on the list.

I am not arguing that you should not proceed with the development of Kenaston Boulevard. The fact is that developing Kenaston continuing on south may, in fact, make a great deal of sense. The minister knows that that is not the only location that may require, or would require, if you asked the people in the cars, an underpass. The same could be said for Waverley and just off Grant. They may require an underpass there as well, and there is heavy traffic on Waverley as well.

The point is, and the question is, what is in the best long‑term interests of the city, and what is the best way to spend this money at this point? I think if you asked the citizens, never mind the people that are already opposed to the further development of Kenaston‑‑and there is a group now in the city of Winnipeg who are opposing the development‑‑but if you asked people generally, where would you want traffic, potentially traffic carrying dangerous goods? Would you want them going through residential community after residential community, or would you want them on the Perimeter coming down into the airport in an area which is, at this point, undeveloped agricultural land for the most part still? I think the answer would be obvious.

I am saying, just because this was on the drawing books and has been on the drawing books since the 1970s does not mean that it has to be the priority today, nor necessarily should it be.

We are talking about spending $30 million in an area which will ultimately result in heavy traffic through existing residential areas, developing residential areas, when I do not think it is necessary.

There are other people, including people who are involved with the Winnipeg Airport development authority, who have another plan, who might believe that an alternative is even better.

* (1550)

So I wish the minister, I hope the minister, although we all want him to proceed and expend as much of this money and create as much economic activity as is possible, I think we should not be afraid to reprioritize, to rethink, as the circumstances warrant.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess this is going to be a case of where we agree to disagree, which happens on occasion around here. I have indicated that this is with the support of the two others levels of government, this project, recognizing the need.

The member talks about trucks. I would encourage him to drive Route 90, and he would find out that trucks already travel on Route 90.

He talks about the Perimeter being a few miles away. I am not sure what he means by all of this in terms of how he is going to access the airport from, I guess what he means, the west Perimeter or the north Perimeter, what he is implying by access from the Perimeter. I live in the west part of Winnipeg, and I am not sure whether he is talking about doing something to Inkster Boulevard and then some other way of getting in or what his grandiose, multimillion‑dollar plan probably is.

He talks about opposition, as well. Having served on Winnipeg City Council, I can assure him that you do not do a major urban project without some opposition, including even the Kildonan Bridge. I happened to be on City Council at the time with some of my colleagues, when the Minister of Urban Affairs of the day, who happens today to be the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), in the House made it conditional that the funding was conditional on us proceeding with the Kildonan Bridge; in fact, suggesting that the Kildonan Bridge should be moved ahead of Bishop Grandin and ahead of the Charleswood Bridge if we wanted to receive the funding, and I am sure even that project had opposition. Any major urban infrastructure initiative in Winnipeg has opposition. They all do. That is the reality of dealing with any changes.

The member does know that the extension through to Whyte Ridge is also part of a separate initiative and will be done under the infrastructure, as well.

He refers to Waverley. Well, obviously, there will be no need to do any underpass at Waverley Street when an underpass is done at Route 90.

So it is a project that has the support of all three levels of government, has economic benefits for the city of Winnipeg and is one worthy of all of our support, I assure him.

Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I feel immeasurably better now that the minister has explained that.

I do not think the minister is being forthright with the committee. Certainly, it is a political priority of many people, but I think that some sober second thought on this particular project might be worthwhile.

I do know where the Perimeter is. I also know where the airport is. I know that this route is already travelling extensively through residential areas, so the traffic certainly is not coming from south Winnipeg down Kenaston at this point. What the minister is going to do is encourage that, rather than‑‑most of the traffic or much of the traffic is going to be going north‑south, not only in the city of Winnipeg but outside the city of Winnipeg, and if it is going to be traffic particularly heading into the United States and beyond, then you might as well use another route.

Having it all transported through the residential sections of the community is, I think, shortsighted, and that is why I think this decision should be reconsidered. Perhaps they could find some other way of spending that money which would be more in the long‑term interests of the community, as well as not interfere with the enjoyment of the community by others.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will leave that for the time being. The minister and I are going to disagree obviously, and it seems that they are going to insist on proceeding, whether it really makes sense or not.

The second issue was the gasification program, and there was some $21 million set aside under the original allocation for rural gasification. I am wondering if the minister could update us on that particular initiative.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, Centra Gas is currently going through a series of meetings and information forums in the communities that are affected, and I guess on the basis of the outcome of that, would then be pursuing entering individual agreements with those communities. Obviously we will be then dealing with the infrastructure secretariat and the funding in terms of carrying on with the project subject to, obviously, communities supporting it and signing on to be a part of it. So they are right in the midst, I think. Maybe some have been held already, and I know they were scheduled to basically be held in the last few weeks of June. So we are awaiting the outcome really of those meetings that are taking place.

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I wonder if the minister has at his handy disposal a complete list of all projects approved so we could have a nice, concise, complete, up‑to‑date list with all of the costs or project costs. I know we have received some at different times in an ongoing‑‑we have not received a total list.

Mr. Stefanson: Unfortunately, I do not have copies of a complete list here today. As the member has indicated, he has seen them as they have been announced. We can certainly undertake to provide a comprehensive list to members if they so want, and we would gladly do that.

Mr. Plohman: I say that, yes, we would like that. I do not know whether the minister would like to do it constituency by constituency or‑‑

An Honourable Member: We do not do that.

Mr. Plohman: There is one member across the way saying that that is not done that way. I assume then that the minister does not have lists based on constituency approvals.

Mr. Stefanson: As projects come in they are assigned a number, and we can either provide a listing in numerical order for the member or by alphabetical listing. Those are both readily available through our information system.

Mr. Plohman: The minister is saying then that the constituency‑by‑constituency approvals is only for internal use.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I should indicate that with a little bit of work, we could provide that what the member thinks would be useful to him, a listing of projects on a constituency‑by‑constituency basis, either federal constituencies or provincial constituencies, but I should point out to him that in the case of the rural projects, the $60‑million rural allocation, that was reviewed and approved by the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities. All of the recommendations have been accepted for the $60 million, and no other projects within that $60‑million pool of resources have been approved, other than the ones that have been recommended and approved by that committee.

I am sure he is not in any way suggesting political interference with those decisions, because they are being made by municipal representatives from across Manitoba who take this task very seriously and I think have done an outstanding job on behalf of communities throughout our province.

* (1600)

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not imagine that the minister is being overly sensitive about the request on a constituency‑by‑constituency basis. I never said anything about political interference by either himself or other groups. I simply wanted it based on a constituency basis. I think it is worthwhile information so we can get a good comparison. I would appreciate if the minister could provide it on that basis.

It is particularly important for my constituency and I will ask some questions about that. I would think that it is very relevant considering that the minister says the municipalities have recommended the expenditures and projects up to now, and they have all been approved upon recommendation by the municipalities. Is that correct?

Mr. Stefanson: I do want to suggest to the member for Dauphin, I am not the slightest bit sensitive. I just indicated it would take a little bit of work of the secretariat, but if that is the information he thinks would be of value to himself or this committee, we will undertake to provide it.

Maybe I am being a little bit repetitive from earlier, but when the initial allocation was done, of the $205‑million total project, $60 million was allocated to rural Manitoba for what was determined to be traditional municipal projects. That is the $60 million that the UMM and MAUM are making recommendations and we have been accepting their recommendations on.

Sixty million has been allocated to the City of Winnipeg for the same idea. Eighty‑four million has been set aside for the strategic initiatives. So within that $60 million that I referred to that MAUM and UMM have recommendations over, yes, we have accepted all of their recommendations. The only items that have been approved from that pool of money have been recommendations that came from that body. That is how we intend to function, because they are the ones that are reviewing all of the projects. They are the ones that represent the municipal levels of government, know the communities, in many respects, the best, on a day‑to‑day basis. So within that pool of money, we are accepting their recommendations.

Within the other $84 million, there are some discussions and we have had some discussions already about Route 90 and rural gasification, but within the $60 million, yes, it is UMM and MAUM who make the recommendations that we accept.

Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that. We want to discuss some of the priorities under the $84 million, including the electronic highway issue. I do not think that has been discussed yet.

I do want to follow up a bit first on the $60 million. Can the minister indicate how much of that now has been allocated, in the absence of the completed list, for rural Manitoba? Could the minister indicate how much yet remains unallocated?

Mr. Stefanson: There is approximately $8 million left to allocate.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, so the minister is saying, as of now, dollars allocated for projects, $52 million has been allocated and has now been, we could say, spoken for. Is that correct? If so, what is the total value of the projects that are going to be undertaken as a result of the $52‑million allocation under this program?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, yes, approximately $52 million has been allocated to date, and the element of that would lead to higher‑‑the second part of his question‑‑higher overall projects, the 52 is split one‑third, one‑third, one‑third‑‑federal government, provincial and city‑‑but there are some projects where the infrastructure funding only represented a percentage of the project, where the municipalities are still going to undertake the project and top it up.

An Honourable Member: Don't I know it.

Mr. Stefanson: And the member indicates, does he not know it, and I know he is going to get to a particular project in a few minutes, but we could certainly undertake to get him a general figure of what that might be, but that the only case where the projects end up being of a higher dollar amount is where this funding is a percentage of it, and the municipalities are still going to go ahead with the projects and find the residual themselves to complete the project. But $52 million is the three levels of government.

Mr. Plohman: So the minister is really saying, then, just over $17 million is provincial money for rural Manitoba, and some projects are going ahead with greater than one‑third share by the municipality. Can we have a commitment from the minister to have a list of those projects where the municipalities are contributing more than a third of the project?

Mr. Stefanson: In time for the next session.

Mr. Plohman: In time for, before, the next election?

Mr. Stefanson: Next session.

Mr. Plohman: Oh, next session.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just to finish, I think it would be helpful if the minister could provide that within the next week or so. It is not going to do much good if it is left off until the fall or next spring. What we want is to have an idea of how many municipalities are actually able to provide additional funding beyond their one third.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will undertake to provide as much of that information as we can. You know, as I have indicated, the process, all of these have been projects that have been approved by the municipal review committee based in many cases on going back to individual municipalities and getting confirmation that if they got a certain percentage of the funding they would go ahead with the project and so on.

So we will certainly undertake to provide as much of that information, recognizing it is something that changes as various projects come on, or potentially some adjustments are made to projects, but we can attempt to provide that.

Mr. Plohman: It would be good to have it as of, say, June 30 or something. I know there will be changes after that.

The minister perhaps could give us right off the top an indication of projects that did not go ahead because the amount allocated was not sufficient to lever the project. Does he have an idea of any that have actually been cancelled to this point, or appeals made?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, out of the 293 projects approved to date, less than half a dozen have expressed concern about their ability to proceed with their project and/or requesting any appeal or reconsideration by the advisory committee.

Mr. Plohman: Then a rather remarkable, unusual situation has developed for the project proposed by the town and R.M. of Dauphin with regard to the recreation complex that was proposed. There, the original proposal was for a $9.2‑million project, which would have required $3 million from each level of government. It included the construction of a skating rink, a curling rink, a pool and administrative offices to replace existing old buildings and facilities, as the minister knows, and some that do not exist, for example, a pool that is only seasonal.

Then they went with a second proposal when asked to scale it down, and they proposed the construction of a curling rink, pool and administrative offices for $5.9 million, which would have just been around $2 million each.

* (1610)

Thirdly, they proposed the construction of the pool with the recreation offices for $4.2 million, which was less than half of the original proposal.

The people working on it had an innovative plan that would have seen the cooling used for the ice plant, the energy required, the heat given off to provide heat for the pool, because one of the greater costs of operating pools is the energy required to maintain temperatures. Of course, without the curling rink happening at the same time and the ice plant connected with it, it is not nearly as efficient, but they reluctantly went to the third proposal, which is $4.2 million as opposed to the $5.9 million.

What was approved‑‑and apparently now the minister is saying by the municipalities; we will have to see what kind of criteria they used and what kind of process was in place for them to approve it‑‑was in complete isolation from reality in terms of what was required to make a viable project. There is nothing that is viable about $1.8 million, which was the approval, $600,000 of it, of course, being the municipalities themselves, $1.2 million from two levels of government, really, about $600,000 each. They will need a project that involves about $4 million to make it a viable project. They have appealed to the selection committee.

I want to ask the minister if he could provide us, perhaps first of all, the status of that appeal, and then we will work backward as to how we arrived at this amount. Was it just on a per capita basis, and so on.

First, I would just like to know the status of that appeal, if the minister is aware of it, and what input he might be able to have or his staff in taking another look at this proposal, considering I guess that there is $8 million of shared money left.

Mr. Stefanson: I am very well aware of the project, both the original and then the scale‑down. To the best of my knowledge, the appeal has not been heard yet but will be heard by the advisory committee the next time they meet.

I guess one point worth reminding all of us when it comes to dealing with the Infrastructure Works Agreement is what this has represented in many cases is an opportunity for many parts of our province to get support from two levels of government for, in some cases certainly, projects that would not have been entitled to support prior to the agreement being signed.

So there is, in many cases, a significant benefit for many communities that if they have worthwhile projects that they think meet their community needs and the needs of their citizens, they would have been going ahead with‑‑hopefully irrespective or trying to go ahead with‑‑and the infrastructure agreement has allowed many communities the opportunity to proceed with those needed projects because of the contribution of two‑thirds of the funding from two other levels of government.

I am well aware of the project. It is an excellent project. I know the community has put an awful lot of work into it. I have had the opportunity to meet with a delegation prior to the filing of their appeal, and we will await feedback from the advisory committee after they have dealt with the issue.

Mr. Plohman: Before I ask about that process, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister could reflect on how the $1.8 million‑‑I asked the mayor, Mr. Inky Mark, who is the mayor of Dauphin, about that. I said, did you have any final say into the amount that was approved? In other words, were you asked what can you do with $1.8 million, considering $600,000 is your own money? He said no, in the final analysis.

It sounds to me like a figure was picked out of the air and said, well, we can spare this much for this project. Is that about how it was done, as opposed to based on a kind of a viable proposal and say, well, this is something that they can work with as opposed to something that was just kind of pulled out of the air and said, well, we can spare this much for this project?

Mr. Stefanson: I cannot speak for all of the workings of the committee, but the member for Dauphin uses the expression, spare this much money or these many dollars. One of the main criteria of the committee is to strike regional balance. I outlined that there is $60 million allocated to the committee, and obviously a significant geographic area and some 200‑plus municipalities throughout our province to meet the wants and needs and requests from those communities.

So it is with a combination of the amount of money they have to allocate individual projects, regional balance, all of these kinds of things that the committee looks at.

There usually is some give and take with communities when they are looking for how much an allocation will do towards their individual project. They will be reviewing this Dauphin request.

The member refers to a viable project, and I guess I come back to the point that if these projects in communities are viable and local representatives deem that their citizens need them and want them‑‑as I say, if the infrastructure program did not exist today those communities would be looking for ways to still meet the needs of their citizens through whatever means was available to them.

Dauphin has made a specific request to have this looked at again, and I am sure the advisory committee will take a serious look at that request.

Mr. Plohman: The minister keeps referring to this, well, if they were important enough for the communities, then they would have maybe built them on their own. The fact is there is a certain size of projects that a community just is not able to do even though they are absolutely needed.

That is why over the years we have had programs that have assisted communities, especially, from my perspective, rural Manitoba where a lot of the communities are in decline, to kind of stem the tide on that, and offset it as to improve the amenities so that people will be able to enjoy some of the kinds of benefits that urban dwellers take for granted, such as indoor pools and swim clubs and therapy options for senior citizens, and that kind of thing, which just is not available in Dauphin.

This is not just for the town of Dauphin, which only has about 8,500 people, but it services the whole Parkland and would be used by residents throughout the Parkland. While the smaller communities were receiving the full amounts of their smaller projects that they had requested, this one was not given in the same proportion, even though it would service all of those residents as well.

As a matter of fact, a resolution and letters of support came forward from some 36 agencies and municipalities and towns and villages in the Parkland region supporting this project. It was not just a project put forward by the R.M. and town, which in itself is evidence of co‑operation, but, in fact, reflected the request from 36 organizations and municipalities and towns and villages in the area. Surely, the minister should make a case for an additional amount to be allocated because of the up to 36,000 people that could be serviced by this facility.

* (1620)

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not argue with much of what the member says in terms of the importance of the project to not only Dauphin but the surrounding community in meeting the needs of that entire region of our province.

Having said that, there were various projects that would fall in the same kind of category that came forward, either in rural Manitoba or even here in the city of Winnipeg. Part of why we have an advisory committee made up of representation from the UMM and MAUM is to go through all of these throughout Manitoba and give us their best advice. That is what they have done. We made the decision to accept their recommendations in all cases. We have not added or deleted from their lists at all.

Even though the member refers to 36 agencies or organizations, I know when that was brought up we followed up on that. My understanding is, other than the two municipal entities, Dauphin and the R.M., all other organizations made individual infrastructure applications of their own, and requested that they be dealt with and they get those projects approved as well.

Had they all come forward waiving all other requests, that might have enhanced the amount of contribution, I do not know. That would have been something the advisory committee would have looked at. So I think while we recognize they all support this project, they also have projects that they have put into the hopper and they have been hoping to get supported. I know many of them have received support for various projects.

The community has made an appeal that is going before the advisory committee. At this point in time, I do not know what else can be said about that individual project until we hear what the advisory committee does with that appeal request.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister refers to the advisory committee. Has he provided a list of the people that are on that advisory committee to this committee? If he has not, would he table that list?

Mr. Stefanson: Because the list is not lengthy, I can provide it to the member right now. The voting members of the committee‑‑there are two representatives from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Mr. Jack Nicol and Mr. Larry Walker; and there are two voting members from the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, Mr. Art Dyck and Ms. Stella Locker.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, so there are four people on this advisory, voting members, the minister says, as opposed to nonvoting advisory members. Where are they from?

Mr. Stefanson: The additional people that will be there to provide information but do not participate in decisions or voting would be the executive director of each of those organizations. UMM would be Jerome Mauws, MAUM would be Rochelle Zimberg, and there is a representative from the provincial and federal government. There is also, as I introduced at the outset, Mr. Bruce Birdsell who is the secretary to the infrastructure committee. The primary function of those people is to provide information when you are getting requests of this nature. Sometimes it might be some other funding being provided or other funding sources through, you know, whether it is a PAMWI agreement or Water Services Board or whatever it might be. So they are really there as an information resource.

Mr. Plohman: Is the minister holding out any hope that there are other sources of funding from provincial sources or federal, such as Community Places or anything that could be used to kind of add on under certain exceptional circumstances to perhaps make a viable project, such as in the case that we are talking about here? Has that been contemplated or considered?

While the minister is considering that answer, I just want to raise one other point with him. Insofar as the Parkland area, the minister should be aware that a recent study done by Prairie Research Associates, and by the government for the Department of Highways and Transportation, showed that the Parkland has eight of 15 rapidly declining centres in rural Manitoba. In the whole province, eight of 15 of those are situated in the Parkland, and the outlook is bleak for the Parkland with declining population projected by the year 2016 of 18.5 percent, further decline in population. Only one other region in the province has a decline, an absolute net decline projected, and that is the southwest, but all the others are projected to have an increase in population.

I think the minister would agree that there are some special circumstances, especially when you consider employment statistics that have been completed lately that have shown as well, through Workforce 2000 and Assiniboine Community College in Dauphin has shown as well, that the percentage of people who have a Grade 9 education, for example, is much lower in the Parkland than the rest of Manitoba. There are several pieces of information that have come from his own government that have shown that there has to be some positive attention paid to the whole Parkland region insofar as employment statistics, insofar as decline in population and so on. So there is ample reason to provide some special attention for this kind of situation.

I bring that to the minister's attention, if he is not aware of those statistical pieces of information, and ask him to consider if the $8 million which is going to be, I anticipate, enormous pressure from so many different projects that it is going to be very difficult to see $2.5 million of that $8 million allocated to one project. I would like to see that, but the probability of that happening means that perhaps there has to be some innovative approaches taken here with regard to either looking at the $84 million in terms of strategic initiatives or other programs to indeed bring us up to a level that can make a viable project.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the interest of time, I am going to leave this with hopefully a response from the minister because we have a number of other questions to deal with.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thank the member for the information he provided. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing precluding any project from qualifying under any other government programs that might be available, and that might well end up being an avenue that has to be pursued in this case, as well.

But whether the glass is half full or half empty, so far, Dauphin has received an allocation of $1.8 million which is a very significant allocation in comparison to many of the projects, but the member has certainly raised some valid points around this entire issue.

Mr. Plohman: It is also a question of whether these advisory committee members are aware of the kinds of pieces of information that we have just presented. I know that the lobbyists from the town have certainly provided a lot of information, but I am not certain that that information is available to them.

* (1630)

I also wanted to ask the minister about the electronic highway allocation. He has $84 million allocated for gasification and for major projects, such as the Kenaston overpass which my colleague has already addressed in terms of our concern about the priority that has been placed on that project and the amount of money allocated for that one project.

However, I would like to ask whether the minister can give us a figure of dollars now allocated for development of the electronic highway in Manitoba and in what form. Is it definitive at this point, or is it something that is just in the very early formative stages and has not been developed to the stage where any detail can be provided?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there has been a notional allocation of $15 million, and the details are being worked on right now.

Mr. Plohman: This is 15 out of the 84 that the minister is saying.

Mr. Stefanson: That is correct.

Mr. Plohman: Would any of this flow, in a notional way, since the minister is talking about a notional allocation‑‑is any earmarked for developing the Distance Education initiatives, or is the allocation that the minister has in the Department of Education completely separate from this allocation?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, out of that total allocation, the $15 million, we see the Distance Education element being a significant portion of it. That is the basis of a great deal of the work that is being done right now.

Mr. Plohman: I have a little bit of difficulty in determining then how this money is going to be allocated, unless it is going to a couple of years down the road, because they‑‑and if you pardon the pun there, I know is it not a road, it is a highway.

The minister has just released a request for proposals for Distance Education initiatives which he says a maximum per project can be $65,000 which, of course, is a pretty modest proposal. I do not know how that is going to result in significant initiatives from areas of the province where they have already done a lot of groundwork and would need significantly more than that to get their proposal off the ground.

They are pilot proposals, and they are supposed to demonstrate the feasibility of distance education, of various methods and so on and equipment for possible widespread use in the province, I would understand.

So is the minister saying they are going to wait with this $15 million until this has been done, the substantial amount of the $15 million that the minister referred to, until these pilots have been done and evaluations have been done? We might be talking two or three years yet.

(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the short answer would be, the two things are not tied in the respect that the member outlines. There will not be a need to be waiting for these individual pilots. There already have been some pilots as well that are run. I know Evergreen School Division ran one as well.

So no, there is no reason in terms of the initiative that was announced recently by the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) that that will in any way delay the comprehensive requirement that is being worked on right now, and we are expecting that fairly shortly.

Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying really that he is going to forge ahead boldly where no person has gone before, even though these pilots are supposed to provide significant information as to what the province should be doing in terms of priorities. I find that rather unusual, that the province is embarking on pilots when, in fact, the minister seems to think he knows where he is going already with this money.

Mr. Stefanson: Again, I think the member for Dauphin is misinterpreting what is happening in terms of the benefit of the individual pilots. He himself expressed the concern of the dollar allocation for the pilots as opposed to the‑‑and I am far from a technical expert, I willingly admit, when it comes to this field. If you want to talk accounting, then I will wade into accounting.

He used the word "highway" or "road" or whatever earlier and that a major requirement in our province is the network itself. When I refer to the comprehensive report that is being worked on, that is what is being worked on, as opposed to an individual pilot, that can help in many respects, I would imagine.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) is better equipped to talk about the benefits of the pilots than I am in terms of impact on curriculum, impact on two‑way video conferencing, and so on, and the whole functioning of the individual pilots as opposed to the highway or the network or the road itself that has to be put in place here in our province if we are going to implement distance education throughout various regions of our province.

Mr. Plohman: It seems that what kind of form the highway takes has some bearing on what kind of mechanism will be put in place at the end of that highway to deal with these pilots. There is different technology available. I guess I would take it then that the minister is saying that the report that is being done is going to determine what form the highway will take, whether it is going to be fibre optics cable or whether it might be digital microwave or some other form.

Are those the kind of questions that have to be answered before the $15 million is spent, as opposed to the pilots, the individual pilots, that are being entered into here? It seems to me, though, that there is a connection between the kinds of pilots that are being undertaken and the highway that is put in place in terms of what form they might take. The left hand has to know what the right hand is doing.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member for Dauphin is certainly partly correct. The report itself that is being worked on is the nature of the highway, whether it is fibre optics or microwave technology or whatever might be the best to utilize here in Manitoba.

I would have to get him some more details on the status of the individual pilots and the relationship between the pilots and the overall review that is being done on the overall highway itself. That is the basis of the comprehensive report that is being worked on.

Again, there might well be various regions that can already run a pilot in terms of meeting the needs of an individual school division and/or an individual community, and also provide opportunities in terms of developing further expertise around functioning in that environment and so on. So I do not know. I would not, for a moment, want to suggest that there is not a relationship, yet I think they can be going ahead in the fashion that we are discussing.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is entirely possible. I would like to know whether the minister can provide us with the names of the experts that are preparing this report, and the company or companies that they may represent.

* (1640)

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will obtain those details and provide them.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am surprised the minister would not make an attempt to provide that right today. I am not asking about the pilots that the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) is involved with; I am asking something that the minister is directly responsible for.

This $15 million that he is talking about, I am sure, we will be talking about widely with the public of Manitoba insofar as this major expenditure. Obviously, the minister feels this is pretty important if he has got $15 million allocated. and yet he cannot tell us who is preparing this report that he is awaiting.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am quite surprised by the comments of the member for Dauphin. A few minutes ago, he wanted me to provide him with a list of the members of the advisory committee for rural Manitoba. I very quickly gave him the names at that time. Now I am telling him, if he is thinking that there is some external consulting firm that we are currently utilizing that we are not prepared to share with him, that is not the case.

The reason I am not in a position of providing names is we have a series of departments that are involved in it from internal, from I, T and T to Highways and Transportation, to a secondment from the Manitoba Telephone System, to Economic Development Board, to our Information Technology, and so on. Those are some of the areas, but I would have to get all of the departments represented and the individuals' names, so that was the basis of why I said I would need some time. I would not want to leave somebody off the list or provide an inappropriate or incorrect name.

Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying they are doing the assessment within the province, yet there are contracts let with companies outside of the province. The question is: What are they doing then? If we are preparing an assessment of what Manitoba needs and what would be the most feasible kind of electronic highway interlinking in the province of Manitoba to proceed with to spend this $15 million‑plus, I am sure, then I fail to see the connection.

The minister is leaving the impression that it is completely being done in house, that a number of departments kind of got together and they are pooling their resources and away they go. It seems to me that we are missing something here, and maybe the minister is not intentionally, I am sure, not being completely forthcoming with this committee.

(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I assure the member for Dauphin that I am being completely forthcoming, and under the infrastructure secretariat there have been no contracts let to work on any distance education or information highway or telecommunication initiative, that the review that I referred to is being done on the basis of utilization of our internal resources within government. I cannot speak for all departments of government and what other initiatives individual departments might be doing, but the initiative he is asking me about today, as it relates to the infrastructure initiatives, I have already outlined the process, and I am being totally forthright with him.

Mr. Plohman: The contract with AT&T perhaps will provide some information for the officials who are preparing this proposal? Just wondering.

Mr. Stefanson: Rural development, another one of the departments I do not think I referred to, is also represented on this committee, and I believe that is who the contract is with that the member is referring to. Absolutely, that might well be a resource that is brought to the table in terms of whatever information they have garnered from work being done in that department, because the department is represented as part of that committee and the initiative is being led by our Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) in terms of the entire review in this whole area, appropriately so.

Mr. Plohman: Oh, I see. So the minister here as the minister responsible for an infrastructure program is not the lead minister on this aspect of the $50 million. It is just one of the projects under the infrastructure program, but he is not the lead minister for that project. Is that correct?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will try to make this clear for the member, that on the infrastructure agreement I am the lead minister and ultimately have responsibility for reaching agreement on the allocations and the projects under that, but within individual projects, obviously we draw on the best expertise possible within our government, whether it is at the ministerial level or at the departmental level or whatever level in terms of work being done on individual initiatives. That is the case in this project, not dissimilar from some other projects that we might be working on, but when it comes to reaching agreement with the other levels of government or the federal government as it relates to these projects, yes, I have the final responsibility and I am the lead minister.

Mr. Plohman: Well, I will not pursue this too much further, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but I think as the lead minister responsible for $15 million of the taxpayers' dollars and allocated for this particular purpose, the minister would want to have access directly to the reports that are being done that will contribute to the final solution for the electronic highway in the province. As such, I am sure that if the minister wanted to be completely forthcoming with the committee at this, and open with this committee, he probably would acknowledge that he will be receiving that report as part of his functions as minister responsible for infrastructure. If he does not have it at this point, I cannot blame him for not discussing it. But if he has it, I would think that it would be incumbent upon the minister to either share a copy of that report or a summary of it with the committee.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can assure the member that at the appropriate time I will have all of the information deemed necessary and adequate for us to make a final decision and to negotiate appropriately on behalf of the province and the taxpayers of Manitoba.

Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister has talked about the appropriate time, and perhaps he can give us a bit of a time line, in closing on this issue, as to what he believes will be the time line for finalizing this project.

It is okay. I think the minister can feel quite comfortable that we will keep it a secret here in this committee, and if he wants to share it here with us now, I think that would be appreciated, and we will ensure that we do not contribute in any way to maybe upsetting the apple cart for the minister in terms of the announcements and what might be happening. This is a legitimate role for the legislative committee, such as we are.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know that the member for Dauphin would keep this to himself, but whenever we put out dates then of course that becomes a target that as they approach we get asked questions, and once they are there, if we do not reach that date people are wondering why.

It is a high priority, as I indicated. It is being worked on probably as we speak, and we will be receiving it in due course, but it is something we will receive in the not‑too‑distant future, and at the appropriate time we will share whatever information is deemed appropriate as well with all members.

Mr. Plohman: I really do not want to pursue this any further. Just a matter of weeks then or‑‑

An Honourable Member: Drop it.

* (1650)

Mr. Plohman: If the member says drop it, I will continue for hours. Does the minister expect that we are talking about days, weeks or months? Which would he categorize it as? I would like to know whether we are going to get this by, say, the middle of July, within the next month‑‑I would say that is weeks‑‑or is it going to be a lot longer? Are we talking about something that is much more complicated than we might think at this point, in terms of finalizing?

Mr. Stefanson: I have outlined this is a priority for us, I have outlined the time constraints around utilization of infrastructure money, and we expect that report soon.

Mr. Lamoureux: I would just like to get that copy, the updated list in terms of what projects have been approved. The minister had indicated that he would have that.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will provide that as indicated.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Resolution 27.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $23,890,000 for Other Appropriations, Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Program‑‑Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND OTHER PAYMENTS

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I refer you now to page 46 in the Estimates book.

Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, I do not. They are self‑explanatory, I believe.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for the official opposition party have an opening statement? None from the critic of the second opposition party? Any questions?

Item 6.1.1. Employee Benefits and Other Payments (a) Civil Service Superannuation Plan $32,377,500‑‑pass; (b) Canada Pension Plan $12,991,900‑‑pass; (c) Civil Service Group Life Insurance $1,965,000‑‑pass; 1.(d) Workers' Compensation Board (1) Assessments re: Accidents to Government Employees $3,090,200‑‑pass; (2) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriation ($2,794,200).

1.(e) Unemployment Insurance Plan $24,169,600‑‑pass; (f) Dental Plan $5,096,700‑‑pass; (g) Long Term Disability Plan $1,682,300‑‑pass; (h) Ambulance and Hospital Semi‑Private Plan $284,000‑‑pass; (j) Levy for Health and Post‑Secondary Education $15,115,900‑‑pass; (k) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations ($61,305,400).

Resolution 6.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $32,673,500 for Employee Benefits and Other Payments for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Page 152: Item 27.6.6. Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases. Are there any opening statements? The honourable minister. No, no opening statements? Any questions?

Item 6.(a) Internal Reform and Workforce Adjustment $5,000,000.

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Just one question. The Internal Reform and Workforce Adjustment, is that still part of the process of decentralization? What else is included in this?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, no. It relates more to issues around the budget. I guess a good example would be the Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan for employees, if those funds cannot be found within individual departments there is the opportunity to take them from this funding source.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Item 6.(a) Internal Reform and Workforce Adjustment $5,000,000‑‑pass.

Resolution 27.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

CANADA‑MANITOBA ENABLING VOTE

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Page 148, Canada‑Manitoba Enabling Vote.

Are there any opening statements?

An Honourable Member: No.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): No opening statements.

26.1, Item 1.(a) Partnership Agreement in Tourism (1) Operating $64,800‑‑pass; (2) Capital $230,000‑‑pass.

1.(b) Winnipeg Development Agreement (1) Operating $1,000,000‑‑pass; (2) Capital $1,000,000‑‑pass.

1.(c) Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability (1) Operating $389,000‑‑pass; (2) Capital $66,000‑‑pass.

1.(d) Partnership Agreement on Municipal Water Infrastructure ‑ Capital $880,000‑‑pass.

1.(e) Communications Technology Research and Industry Development Agreement ‑ Operating $259,000‑‑pass.

1.(f) Partnership Agreement in Forestry ‑ Operating $656,400‑‑pass.

1.(g) Mineral Development Agreement ‑ Operating $190,200‑‑pass.

1.(h) General Agreement on the Promotion of Official Languages ‑ Operating $200,000‑‑pass.

Resolution 26.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,935,400 for Canada‑Manitoba Enabling Vote, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Page 151, item 2. Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities. Are there any opening statements?

An Honourable Member: No.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): No opening statements.

Resolution 27.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $350,000 for Other Appropriations, Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities $350,000, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

Shall the resolution pass?

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): The $350,000 for the Manitoba Potash Corporation, is that ongoing mineral lease obligations? Where does that come from?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that represents our estimated share of the operating costs for our 49 percent interest in the joint venture with Canamax.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Shall the resolution pass?

An Honourable Member: Pass.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): The resolution is accordingly passed.

Allowance for Salary Accruals

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose: Page 151, 3. Allowance for Salary Accruals.

Resolution 27.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,600,000 for Other Appropriations, Allowance for Salary Accruals $3,600,000, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

Resolution 27.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Emergency Expenditures $10,000,000, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.

An Honourable Member: No.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Sorry. The committee will reconvene at 8 p.m. with interruption for private members' hour.

LABOUR

Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Labour. We will be continuing to deal with the Estimates for the Department of Labour. We are on item 1.(b)(1).

Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

Item 1. Labour Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Chairperson, I am going to be asking the minister some questions with respect to workplace safety. I am going to start off, I think, by looking at an area that may be new for the minister.

I am not sure if there is very much going on in the department with respect to this area, but I know that the government in Saskatchewan has done a lot of work and they brought in a new policy, a harassment‑in‑the‑workplace policy.

I will begin by asking the minister if there is any work going on in the department with respect to having an amendment to the act so that there will be a policy under Workplace Safety and Health that would address harassment in the workplace as a workplace safety and health issue.

Madam Chairperson: Order, please. Because this was started in the other section and I am not familiar with what might have been agreed to previously, could I establish if an agreement has been reached to just go back and forth and discuss anything, because the member's question, in checking, is on page 118 which is Workplace Safety and Health, which is a separate department? I would like to know what the minister's feeling is so that he would have appropriate staff to address specific questions. My understanding is that nothing has been passed at this point. We are still under 1. Labour Executive (b) Executive Support.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Madam Chair, I have no problem dealing with this area. I think in the last discussions we really did not get into workplace safety and health issues in any great detail. Given the amount of hours available, I think we were operating on the basis of being able to move throughout the department, trying to deal with some blocks, but dealing with as many items as possible. I have no problem dealing with this particular area.

Madam Chair, I would like the member for Radisson to please be a little more specific when she defines harassment. Harassment is an extremely broad term that can be open to a host of interpretations. I have no difficulty in entertaining or getting into this particular discussion, but I would ask her to please be a little more specific in defining what she means by harassment in the workplace.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chairperson, I would be pleased to do that. I will follow from the definition used by the amendment to the act in Saskatchewan that the government has brought in just this past year, 1993. It has a definition: harassment means any objectionable conduct, comment or display by a person that is directed at a worker, is made on the basis of race, creed, religion, colour, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability, physical size or weight, age, nationality, ancestry or place of origin, and, thirdly, constitutes a threat to the health or safety of the worker.

It then goes on to outline a very specific procedure for the worker's rights, for employer obligations, for worker obligations, procedures for how to file a complaint, resolutions and corrective actions that can be taken, and outlines the framework for ensuring confidentiality, and also has a section that deals with external complaints. I would be pleased to supply this to the minister.

I am quite concerned if this is something that is not being dealt with in the government either through the Women's Directorate or the race relations directorate‑‑the Multiculturalism Secretariat, I should say, or any of the other appropriate places. I think that we need to have this area looked at. It is not something new. There are a number of workplaces in the province that have such a policy, and I would think that the government should be looking at being the leader and setting the trend to ensure that we have enshrined in legislation a policy on harassment that is going to protect all workers in the province irrespective of where they are working.

Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, first of all, I say to the member that our current human rights legislation in Manitoba does cover a lot of the areas of which she speaks. There have been recent discussions between the staff in Workplace Safety and Health and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission staff to ensure that there is not a wide gap or a gap between our two legislative frameworks to cover the specific incidences that the member refers to.

I do say to the member that there is a difficulty anytime one gets into what can be such subjective‑‑one clearly knows there are going to be cases on one side where discriminatory comments or harassment in the sense in which the Saskatchewan act defines it takes place and puts people at jeopardy in the workplace because of the stress that it may cause or the anxiety in the course of their employment. We know those happen from time to time, and certainly that is one side of it. On the other side of the coin, a broad definition and the opportunity to use that as a tool given how subjective the feeling or the description of what harassment can be opens up another side to this that may not be productive.

So, when balancing things, obviously, in an area that is open to such subjective interpretation, the current Manitoba human rights scheme where you have people who deal with this on a regular basis is probably the right vehicle with which to address the difficulty. I appreciate where the member is coming from on this particular matter, but, as I have outlined it is one in which we have, as a province, dealt through our human rights legislation. We ensure that there is not a gap between our workplace safety and health legislation and human rights legislation.

I do not know at this stage of the game if adopting the Saskatchewan model would prove a more effective means of dealing with the truly legitimate cases that do arise from time to time.

* (1430)

Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(b)‑‑

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chairperson, I will be asking questions in this area for approximately an hour, I would think. Okay? Thank you.

I find a number of the things the minister has just said debatable. I think this is not a subjective area. There are very clear definitions of harassment. This is not to be dealt with as personality problems as it often is in workplaces. This is not to be dealt with just as a human rights issue. We all know that the Human Rights Commission is backlogged and has a huge difficulty in dealing with these issues. It depends too on having adequate committees set up in the workplaces and is related to the Workplace Safety and Health committee regulation that the minister is hesitant to bring forth and enforce. I think this area is groundbreaking perhaps to the minister, but there are many of us who have worked in this area for quite some time and we know very clearly what harassment is and we can define it very clearly for the minister.

I would ask if he will consider having this government start to devote some time to looking at what other provinces, particularly Saskatchewan, are doing in this area and if he will look at the benefits to a variety of workers who are discriminated against in their workplace on a daily basis.

I would suggest to the minister that this is not something that occurs from time to time but is something that occurs every day in this province to a number of groups from different kinds of backgrounds and with what often are stereotyped attributes that the policy is designed to protect them from having their safety and health compromised in the workplace. It is designed to prevent them from having their work environment and their ability to do their work jeopardized by people who have certain attitudes that are not in keeping with our human rights or not in keeping with a notion of fair and equal treatment in the workplace. This could be from employer to employee. It can be from employee to employee. I know also that it is a big problem in the schools, that we need to look in that area as well.

I would ask the minister not to continue looking at this simply as a human rights issue, that this is a workplace safety issue, because a number of people do have their ability to perform their job affected and they do have their health affected and the entire health of a workplace environment I would also say is affected. Everyone's environment is affected even when there is one individual who continues to treat even one other person in the workplace in a discriminatory and harassing fashion.

I would just ask if the minister would consider that this is something his department should be looking at, that this is an area that deserves some serious consideration, that we have a number of areas in the provincial government, I have mentioned two of them already, the Multicultural Secretariat, we have had the Manitoba Intercultural Council, which has also made recommendations in this area. We have had the Status of Women committee.

I know there are a number of serious concerns with respect to young people who are being discriminated against in our workplaces throughout the province. I have had many meetings with young people throughout the province who are continually not given appropriate holiday pay. They are not given appropriate notice when they have to be called to work. They are not given appropriate notice when they are having their employment terminated, and I would suggest that all of this is based on the idea that young people are able to be treated in a different way than adults in the workplace.

I think a lot of young people do not know the legislation and the regulations there to protect them in the same way that adults do. I think we have to give serious attention to the way that many young people are suffering often dual discrimination or dual harassment in their workplaces because they are often aboriginal and young, disabled and young, from another racial background and young or another religious background and young, and may for example be short shifted because they cannot work on certain days because of their religious beliefs.

I mean, this does raise a serious number of concerns, and I think it will go a long way to educating the public if we do have a policy and a regulation, amendment to the act in fact, that would make clear to people that harassment is not acceptable, that it is not something that is subjective, that it can clearly be defined and that it can clearly be addressed. We have to put procedures in place that are going to do that and make that known to the public so that they can, in fact, protect themselves, so that they can, in fact, have equality of opportunity in our workforce.

So I would ask the minister if he would respond favourably to my request to have the department begin to look closely at this area?

Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, first of all with respect to the comments made by the member about young people, or any people not being aware of what their rights or obligations are with respect to employment standards legislation, this department in the last few years has taken a great deal of effort to put into plain language in readable form a pamphlet outlining people's rights and obligations in employment situations.

We have made a big effort, a huge effort, unprecedented in the history of the Ministry of Labour, to disseminate information across this province so people know what they are entitled to in their places of work.

We have initiated a major effort in the multicultural community where we have gone into a number of communities, and Mr. McFarlane from Employment Standards will be joining us in just a few moments with a complete list of the communities that we have involved to date. I can tell the member, I myself have spoken to the Sikh community at an employment standards seminar that was held.

We have translated employment standards brochures into a variety of languages to ensure that they are available to as many people as possible. So I would say to her that we have gone to greater lengths than any government before to disseminate information to people across this province. We have even included in our school curriculum employment standards information as to the rights and obligations of both employees and employers.

I say to her that a great effort is underway to ensure that all Manitobans, whatever their background, whatever their race, whatever their language, are aware of their rights and obligations under our employment standards legislation. She may snicker at that, but I can tell her that her party, while in government, made no effort in this regard. So we have certainly moved very strong.

With respect to her general question, I have to disagree with some of the premises on which she has based her statement. Not disagree in the sense that‑‑I certainly recognize there are cases of discrimination in the workplace in the province, but she should not underscore the other side of that coin, which is the misuse of the term "harassment," by many to deal with relationships between co‑workers and supervisors in the workplace.

I can tell the member from my own experience as a minister that on at least two occasions in the last three years, our department, or areas of the department for which I am responsible, or the Civil Service Commission, have had cases come forward where the term "harassment" was used, a person had been harassed and discriminated against because of a variety of reasons, which upon investigation proved not to be the case.

* (1440)

In fact, in one particular incident it was a bad work habit actually which was now coming under scrutiny. Upon that time the charge of harassment was made against the supervisor. My former deputy, Mrs. Roberta Ellis‑Grunfeld, investigated that particular matter and came to the conclusion very clearly that the so‑called harassment was, quite frankly, a ruse to hide a bad work ethic, a bad work record, and that individual was taking the offensive as they felt the ring was closing around them that might have resulted in their own dismissal.

I say to the member, it does happen. To say it does not is both naive and I think a disservice to those people who legitimately face a harassing situation in the workplace. I say to the member that we are certainly cognizant of those legitimate cases, that they do exist. I am not naive to believe that they do not exist. Where that is best dealt with is really the issue.

I say to the member very clearly that in our current legislative regime in Manitoba, it is dealt with under the Manitoba human rights legislation. If she asks me if it is my intention to make this area a priority within the planning of our department, with the caveat of course that we deal with this matter with the Human Rights Commission and that we have contact to ensure that we do not have a gap, I would say to her, with that caveat, no, it is not my intention to make it a priority. The priority of this department, quite frankly, is to address areas where the health and safety of people in the workplace are most at risk‑‑and I underline to the member, most.

I can tell her, if she looks at statistics, for example, where we have our biggest problem in the workplace with challenges or threats to the health and safety of people in the workplace is not, quite frankly, in the area of harassment.

I would say to the member as well that this has not been an issue that has been raised with us, or a request that has been raised with us by any of the labour organizations in the province like the Manitoba Federation of Labour or the Canadian Federation of Labour. It has not been raised by any of my advisory committees as a pressing issue. The only person who has raised it to date has been the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I respect that. Someone always has to be first. It would not be identified as a priority by any of the groups that this department serves or that make recommendation to me.

I would tell the member for Radisson, because she asks to make harassment a priority, that the priorities in our department, the areas where we have the greatest threat to health and safety of workers and one that comes to mind very, very quickly is in the logging industry where we have made some tremendous strides in the last while to reduce accidents. I am very proud to say that the Abitibi‑Price company which operates out of my constituency, for example, has now gone on to well over a million person‑days of work in the woodlands division without a time loss. That came about after tremendous effort of their workplace safety and health committee.

In the remainder of the industry or much of the industry, particularly with small operators, that is not the case. That area has our highest, our most severe accidents in Manitoba. We are in the process with the quota holders of addressing that particular area, and that will demand a fairly high priority in our department over the next while. [interjection]

The member spoke of priorities, and I am outlining to her what the priorities of our department are.

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to clarify for the minister that I did not use the word "priority." I asked if he would consider looking at this in the department. I want to just ask, Madam Chair, if you would ask the minister to keep his comments brief. We have a number of areas to cover under this topic, and I would ask if the minister would just answer my questions to the point. When I want to ask questions with respect to the logging industry, I will do that. I would just ask if he would put remarks to the point and answer the questions briefly.

Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Radisson does not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, long questions get long responses, because I think as minister I have an obligation to put into context for anyone who would read the proceedings of this committee the reason why that would not be a priority within our department. On its own, that could certainly be misinterpreted. I would want it to be judged in its proper context of what the priorities are in Workplace Safety and Health.

As I mentioned, logging is one. Certainly another area in which we have had the highest number of fatalities in any industry is agriculture. That will continue to be a priority, although it is very difficult to develop a regulatory scheme for agriculture. We have also mining, fabrication industries, a new emerging particular area in workplace safety and health and of course construction. Those remain our priority areas and will, under this government's leadership, continue to be until we have a significant reduction in those areas. In some areas, we are starting to see that already.