COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation. When the committee last sat, it had been considering Item 2.(n) Policy, Planning and Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits, on page 90 of the Estimates book and on page 65 of the yellow supplement book. Shall the item pass?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Could I just add some more information to the record. We were talking this morning about Winnipeg Airport Authority, and we do not quite know what the membership was. I could just quickly give an indication.

Members appointed by Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, there are two, one member appointed by Winnipeg 2000, one member appointed by the St. James-Assiniboia Chamber of Commerce, three members appointed by the City of Winnipeg, one member appointed by the R.M. of St. Andrews, one member appointed by the R.M. of Rosser, three members appointed by the federal government, one member appointed by the provincial government.

Directors appointed by the board, they have appointed Alexa Campbell from the Consumers' Association of Canada and Dr. Barry Prentice from the University of Manitoba, and, in addition, we are told that they have the full intention, with one vacant board position, of appointing a labour representative. That is their intention. That is all we have been told, is they are in the process of naming a labour representative.

So you have a Consumers' Association representative and a labour representative. One is on, and one is going to be appointed, is what we are told.

Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): A few years ago, I believe, there were headquarters of 11 major trucking firms in Winnipeg. Now that is down, I believe--pardon me, nine out of 11 were headquartered in Winnipeg. Now that is down to about six out of I do not know how many. That seems to be a rather disturbing trend.

Does this mean we are losing trucking volume? Why are these headquarters moving?

Mr. Findlay: My basic belief in the trucking industry in terms of job creation, it is thriving. I think the figures where we had eight out of the largest trucking companies in Canada, in Manitoba, eight out of 13, it is now six out of 10, but the number of trucks and tonnes hauled and drivers employed is steadily rising.

I am sure that the member is aware that there has been over the last year quite a number of comments coming from the trucking firms. They cannot get enough drivers. It is a fair process to get what is called a driver today because you have to have experience, and they want two or three years of driving experience with a clean record. That is the kind of person they want for insurance purposes, but there is a steady, steady demand for truck drivers.

Any of the trucking company executives I have talked to, they have constant--they have more loads on the books than they can manage. So the owner-operator has lots of options in terms of working for somebody. No, I think that by and large the trucking industry is very strong.

In terms of the international haul, the U.S. haul, our carriers have expanded and done very, very well competitively in terms of sourcing loads in the U.S. and hauling into the U.S. Some of our carriers which are stationed here may only drive 15 percent of their miles in Canada. The other 85 percent are driven south of the line.

* (1440)

I do not think those numbers that the member used shows any decline. In fact, it shows a strengthening of the strong ones, and the number of truck-driving jobs has expanded.

I think that companies have made a very concerted effort to be sure that the conditions under which the drivers operate, particularly, come to Christmas time, they make very sure that they are home, that they get home. They buy them plane tickets, or whatever, to allow them to get home, so that they will be home for that holiday period, because, let us face it, our trucks are all over North America at any given point, and the demand of the people who are paying the cost of the shipment is that the product get there on time and on a steady basis, but, no, I feel it is doing real well.

Mr. Jennissen: I have a whole series of questions to ask on Policy, Planning and Development, but I think in order to speed it up, I am not going to ask anymore in the section, but my honourable colleague, I do believe, has a couple more.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): When I was asking questions before, Mr. Chairperson, relating to the railways, an oversight on my part, I forgot to ask questions about the VIA Rail employment levels.

As a result of the arbitrator's recent ruling this month relating to the railway contracts with their employees, we learned that VIA Rail is being allowed to cut some 422 jobs nationwide.

Now, can the minister tell me, has he had any indication from VIA on how many, if any, of those jobs will be lost in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Findlay: No, I do not have any information.

Mr. Reid: Well, the minister indicated, I believe, that he met with VIA in May. Did that question get asked of VIA in May?

Mr. Findlay: As I said earlier, staff were involved at the meeting in May in Toronto at a TAC meeting, I believe it was, and, no, that question was not asked.

Mr. Reid: So we did not ask the question of how many employees potentially could be lost in Manitoba from VIA. We did not ask the question of CN when we met with them two weeks ago, how many employees are going to be lost in Manitoba and what the long-term job prospects are going to be and what the future of the main shop operations are going to be.

So we have essentially let the railways off the hook without asking them any of the hard questions that need to be asked to ensure that we have some idea on where at least rail transportation is going within the province of Manitoba. Is there a reason why we did not ask those questions?

Mr. Findlay: I think, as I said to the member this morning, any company that has got confidential information would be foolish to tell it to anybody. We ask all kinds of questions. We seek to get as much information as we can. We support the principle. We want to be well considered in the process of their job reductions. We do not want to be negatively impacted. The member full well knows that no company is going to say, well, our plans are this and that; do you agree?

We want to be considered as a place to do business, and we have done a lot of things in government to make it attractive, and that is well respected by the people who are making those decisions. You cannot run companies from this table or from any government, and that is just the bottom line. We will do well, I can assure the member, in the process.

We have a grave concern about Churchill and what will happen there. That has been a topic of considerable discussion. I have some comfort from CN that there is not going to be a big shoe fall.

So there are a lot of questions on the table. If you supply a good environment, and somebody has a lot of goods to move, and you have an attractive rate to offer them, the jobs will be there. You cannot create jobs when there is not work or an opportunity to deliver a service.

Mr. Reid: Well, I believe in recent comments that were made by Mr. Tellier, who is the head of CN Rail. He indicated that since 1995, it is supposed to be the third and final year of the job reductions, the rationalization of staff in the CN system, and that means there is another, potentially, I believe, 2,800 jobs, if I recall correctly, jobs that are going to be lost across Canada this year.

I mean, if the minister or his staff people did not ask the question, are we going to be once again reactive to the loss of some of those 2,800 jobs in the province of Manitoba? Mr. Tellier, at the same time, has also indicated that there is going to be ongoing and continuing layoffs, so we have no idea, from what the minister is telling me, of what is going to happen in 1996 or '97 or '98 as far as employment is concerned.

I think in fairness to the people that are doing these jobs, they would like to know what the future holds for them, so that it would help them to make some of the decisions affecting their own personal lives, too. They are being kept hanging out there now for a period of time, and it is quite distressing for the families that are involved.

That is one of the reasons why I am asking these questions here, because these people would like to know what the future holds for them. If the minister has that information or if he has not asked that question of how many of those 2,800 jobs are going to be lost in Manitoba, I find it strange that we would not have asked that question.

Mr. Findlay: Well, I hope the member would appreciate that there is no such thing as absolute job security for anybody in this world today. Every bank employee, every trucker, every welder, every federal civil servant would like to know what his future is. They have families, they have considerations, to use the member's words, and they need to have the security of knowing what their future is.

That is not possible in today's world. We would all like to know that, not only just the CN Rail workers that the member is talking about. We would like to know it for everybody, and the way you can assure your future is in first-rate performance in an overall society, and I think Canada does well in that.

I have already told the member, in the process of the decision making that Mr. Tellier is going through, I have said very pointedly, we do not want to be negatively impacted in any greater sense than any other jurisdiction. I have said that straight to his face. He says, do not worry; in the context of what you have done for the rail industry, you will not be.

It does not mean we will not have job reductions, but we will not have any greater percentage than other locations in the country. I cannot ask an individual to offer anymore than that. You might like to have more, but we are living in a real world today, and I cannot go to the credit union centre and say, I want to know what every employee across Manitoba is going to be treated like over the next five years, or to the trucking firms or to the federal government and say, I want to be sure that there will be no layoffs in Manitoba. That is not a reasonable question. We might like to know the answer, but it is not a reasonable question.

* (1450)

What I have done, as I have told the member, is secured new-generation type jobs for Manitoba in the customer service centre, which if we would have sat on our hands could have easily gone elsewhere, but we pursued them and got them here, but the member fails to recognize or appreciate there is any value in that.

Mr. Reid: Well, I will repeat for the minister's information again, if he can show me one job that has been transferred to the province of Manitoba into that new function that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) went to the photo opportunity for, then I will retract my previous words, but there has not been one new job come here, not one new person come here to fill those jobs to this point in time.

Mr. Findlay: The member must appreciate that there are eight centres across the country and they are in the process of being moved here, transferred here, jobs to employees who will be transferred from other activities and then there will be other employees undoubtedly hired that are not currently members of CN. That growth will occur.

The member is trying to make a negative situation out of a very positive opportunity. He would really be on a case if that was happening in Alberta. He would really be on a case. It is happening here, but he wants to ignore that there is a positive there. It is unfortunate because it is not constructive to trying to help people have employment opportunities in Manitoba.

Mr. Reid: How many Canadian rail traffic controllers do we have in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Findlay: Canadian--

Mr. Reid: --rail traffic controllers, jobs. How many are in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Findlay: We do not have the number.

Mr. Reid: I did not think the minister would have the number because his department has not done the research to determine how many jobs we are going to be losing with that function when it transfers out of the province of Manitoba. We are going to have a negative net position in jobs when the CRTC people transfer out of the province of Manitoba in comparison to the jobs the minister is talking about with the customer call centre here. We are going to be in a negative position. We are going to lose jobs, the net result. That is what I have been trying to tell you now for a year. It is not helping us any. You bring some jobs in in one function, but we lose more in the other and a photo opportunity is not helping these people.

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Chairman, as I have told the member several times now, I have had assurance from senior, senior officials, CN, to the absolute contrary. So on that we will obviously have different opinions for a long time to come.

Mr. Reid: I suppose we will have a difference of opinion with the minister on that one and time will tell whether or not there is any gain in jobs, but at the current time there is not.

Can the minister tell me, since the federal government just tabled their deregulation bill, their form of the Staggers Act with respect to railway regulation, is the minister anticipating that he is going to make a presentation with respect to that legislation?

Mr. Findlay: Certainly we are giving strong consideration to making presentation on a variety of elements in it.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate what portions of the legislation he has difficulties with?

Mr. Findlay: Staff are now looking at the various aspects of it. We will make decisions on where we need to make representation and we will be waiting for input from other people who want us to make representation on one element or another, but we will look into the overall thing.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me, since it is my understanding that there will be significant impacts upon the various municipalities of the province, will the minister's department be asking for input from the stakeholders, including the municipalities and producers--

Mr. Findlay: Impact in what context?

Mr. Reid: --since this deregulation bill will allow the railways to have unfettered abandonment of the branch lines in one aspect of this?

Mr. Findlay: Loss of municipal tax.

Mr. Reid: Right, from that aspect, but also from the producers' point of view where they will not have access to the rail lines, will obviously have to haul further, will the producers and the municipalities as two groups at least be asked to have some input into the minister's presentation?

Mr. Findlay: Dealing with the municipalities from the standpoint of road impact, municipalities of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have all made representation to have consideration out of that $300 million adjustment fund of the federal government, of which Minister Goodale is in charge of, as we have as a province and as Saskatchewan and Alberta have, consideration to offset the impact of additional road wear and tear created by less rail lines.

We have also made strong consideration on any rail line that CN or CP no longer want to operate, it will be made available forthright for short-line operation, the idea being to keep the grains travelling on a rail going to the main line. We want to reduce the impact on municipal provincial roads by short lines and at the same time where there are abandonments to have consideration for municipal road infrastructure support and provincial road infrastructure.

Mr. Reid: The minister referenced the $300 million as far as the Crow buy-out money, we will call it the WGTA buy-out adjustment fund. Do we have any indication of how much of that money will be coming to the province of Manitoba for upgrading of roads?

Mr. Findlay: The only numbers we have yet, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) used them in the House the other day and they have been in the rural newspapers. I would have to say they are probably not official, but they talk in terms of compensation for pooling costs for Saskatchewan-Manitoba farmers of around $100 million to $120 million, about $40 million for adjustment expenses for the dehyd industry, alfalfa dehyd industry. That leaves approximately $150 million, in very round figures, available for road infrastructure impacts for municipalities and the three provincial governments in the West. There has been no additional breakdown on that, on any of those figures.

Mr. Reid: Have we made representation to the federal government, considering that there is $150 million, of which I believe $20 million of it is supposed to go to administration, which boggles the mind--how we can spend $20 million out of a $300-million fund for administration in such a short period of time.

First off, why are we spending $20 million? Why is the federal government spending $20 million on administration when that should be coming to the provinces to put into their programs? Why is it we are at this point in time where we are only two months away, or less, from the elimination of the Crow and the WGTA, and yet we have no idea what benefit is going to come to the province as far as funding transfers.

Mr. Findlay: I think the member is confusing the $300-million adjustment fund with the $1.6 billion of Crow payout money, buy-out money, whatever you want to call it. As for the administration, it will be, probably, fairly involved, but I am not going to give any excuses for why the federal government has been so slow in this whole process. This whole process is to kick in August 1 of this year, and they just barely tabled the bill Tuesday of this week--two days ago.

We have not seen it yet. I do not know how they will have it passed and in effect by August 1, with the tremendous amount of detail unresolved and a tremendous amount of impact on farmers, railroads, trucking companies and grain companies. They are all up in the air in terms of what is going to be the impact on them, where do they fit in the bigger picture, who has so-called protection, who is left without protection. There is a multitude of unanswered questions, and they have been dragging this process on for several months, knowing for, at least the last year, they were targeting August 1.

We are really just two months away. It is astounding, and I am almost amazed that there has not been an outcry from the people that are going to be affected. Maybe they are all keeping quiet, hoping this thing will never really happen.

Mr. Reid: I believe there was a report that was out earlier this year with respect to the bayline--and since this has been, historically, grain-related, even though it provides other services to the various communities along the way--that the federal government was anticipating kicking in, I think, some $27 million, I believe was the figure, for the upgrade of the line.

* (1500)

Can the minister tell me if there has been any progress on any of those monies forthcoming from the federal government to upgrade the bayline, since it is my understanding that the bayline may move towards either a short-line or a regional-line operation?

Mr. Findlay: The $27-million figure that we all saw--it was in The Globe and Mail one day--over the course of time, it was found to have had no substance. It was thought to have been a reliable source that was quoted but it turned out it was not. That money was to have come out of that $300-million adjustment fund. That is the way it was set up, but there has been no substance to that report.

The task force, as the member knows, became the Gateway North interim committee, and they have sent that concept proposal to the federal government with no response yet. It went in May 12, I believe it was, and no response yet. In fact, it went to--Lloyd Axworthy is who it went to. Yet, nobody has a response back from them. In fact, the same day it was delivered to our Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), Saskatchewan's Minister of Economic Development and Lloyd Axworthy. It is asking for federal response and commitment on several items--no response yet.

Mr. Reid: I suppose we will have to wait, then, and see what comes out of the Gateway North proposal and whether or not there is going to be any federal participation, financially speaking, towards that project.

Mr. Findlay: Several people looking at business opportunities associated with using the bayline or the port are reasonably optimistic that there is real opportunity there, and I think I said earlier, they have got together some $50,000 for a feasibility study, but they cannot do that. There is no point in doing that till they get some indication of where the federal government is going to go in terms of the requests made of them. If they are positive responses, they will be off and running. If they are lukewarm or negative, it is hard to say what the response will be.

There is a lot of optimism out there that there is real opportunity in moving special crops out, I think the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) mentioned, or coming in from a mine in Newfoundland. Conceptually, those things are all possible, and what else? Who knows? There are lots of other things that can happen if the fundamental line and the port are given an opportunity to operate in some viable context.

Mr. Reid: Are there other short-line opportunities being developed in the province of Manitoba? I believe a year ago there was some discussion about a line down by I think it was Waskada. I do not believe that that has progressed to this point of time, at least as far as I am aware. Are there any other possibilities being talked about at this time with the departmental staff, the minister, by members of the public or other companies?

Mr. Findlay: There has been talk, as the member mentioned, of Lyleton sub. There certainly has been talk about the Rossburn line, and it was advertised for alternate means of use of the line. The successful bidder ended up being a trucking company. I am not sure just where that contract is at between the trucking company and CN. At this stage, there are no other ones that are actively being pursued that we are aware of as short lines. That idea will not really surface until one or the other of the rail lines make a comment that this line is available for short line. That is when the rubber will hit the road.

Mr. Reid: I take it then that it is likely that the railways are waiting until the deregulation bill goes through until they make their intentions known.

A question related to the CN line east out of Winnipeg. Last year the department put on hold its plans to build an underpass under the rail line at Provincial Trunk Highway 15 and the CN mainline because there was some question about the long-term future of that rail line. Can the minister tell me, what is the status of that line and that project at this time?

Mr. Findlay: The idea that that CN line would not be used again in the future came up during the discussion about the CN-CP merger. The CP offer came forward and then all that discussion collapsed. Now that they are into the commercialization, we do not have a clue what their plans are on that line. I do not think anybody will know until the commercialization is complete and the new board or owners make some study or make some statement on it. For us, in terms of highway development, not in terms of the northeast Perimeter, we are not going to spend money on an underpass. We are going to do it at grade level crossing there until such time as there is a better comfort zone as to whether the line will be there for the long term or it will not be. Right now, to our knowledge we are totally in limbo about that.

Mr. Reid: Just on that point that the minister raised during my last question. Since the CN is going to be privatized by way of the federal government legislation, what is to stop the two railroads, the two mainline railroads that will be in Canada, CP and CN, from merging their rail line services once CN becomes privatized?

Mr. Findlay: I think there are two catches for anybody who would want to see that happen. One is that in the commercialization they stated that no one entity could own more than 15 percent. For instance, CP could not come and buy them out completely. The other thing is the Competitions Act. They would have to go over those ropes, and so far I think the attitude in Canada is that people want two railroads. It remains to be seen whether somebody would try to do that, the new owner or owners would try to do that. As I said earlier, we do not see that as being beneficial for shippers' interests or western Canadian interests at all. We were not happy with the proposal of CP buying CN, and we are glad that it did not materialize. In the event that it was attempted again, we would not consider it positive for shipping services by rail in Manitoba.

Mr. Jennissen: I am prepared to pass 15.(2)(1)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 15.2 Highways and Transportation Programs (n) Policy, Planning and Development (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,657,700--pass; 15.2(n)(2) Other Expenditures $432,300--pass.

15.2 Highways and Transportation Programs (p) Driver and Vehicle Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Jennissen: Under the vehicle inspection program, this is a constituency question that a constituent, actually two of them, asked me to raise, and I think this is probably the appropriate time.

* (1510)

The gentleman owns a pumpout system, a sewage system, he hauls liquid sewage from the various cabins around Cranberry Portage. It is within about a two-to-three-kilometre radius. His argument is that he is forced to--first of all the size of the vehicle is I would guess the tank to be between 500 and 1,000 gallons. It is not huge, but it is over a ton, obviously. He has to inspect that vehicle every year. He says that it is time-consuming and it is costly. His argument is it is not necessary every year, and the reasoning he uses, and it makes sense to me, is that farmers do not have to do this. They have vehicles, three-ton, five-ton, they go much longer distances and they are exempt from inspection. Why would he not be exempt? I am just asking the question.

Mr. Findlay: Can I ask what kind of plate does he have on the truck?

Mr. Jennissen: I am sorry, I do not remember.

Mr. Findlay: The whole purpose of the annual inspection for commercial vehicles is to improve safety on the road, to give the driving public some comfort that those commercial vehicles that are coming towards them have undergone some degree of annual safety inspection. There is a strong belief that will improve safety of vehicles on the road.

The member says that farmers are exempt. They presented a strong argument that the majority of their miles are not on the main highways. They are on the municipal roads. They do not travel at anywhere near the highway speeds, and the amount of miles they put on per year is very low. It would be impossible to administer a program where a whole bunch of selective individuals were given special treatment. I think the bottom line for us is to be sure that there is safety on the roads.

In dealing with the farm community, I did ask the department, can you prove that there have been accidents created by farm vehicles because of lack of proper safety aspects of the vehicle, whether it is tires or lights or turn signals or whatever it is? The statistics did not exist. So I have told the farm community, you will continue to be subject to spot inspections. If an inspector or a police officer stops you on the road for whatever reason and he does an inspection on you and he finds you have faulty equipment, you are on the hook right then and there. Nothing changes for you, as has been in the past.

Also, in the event that there is an increased incidence of accidents related to farm vehicles and it could be tied to the fact they did not do the proper safety maintenance on their vehicles, we will roll them into the legislation. On that basis they were given exclusion for the period of time to continue to prove that they are good actors. As long as they remember that and are responsible in keeping their vehicles safe, it will be okay.

For every individual like myself who is a farmer, we always face a liability if we have a vehicle on the road that did not have turn signals and we caused an accident because of that. The liability comes back on me. We are driven to be sure that our vehicles are safe. That is where it sits now, and I think the public is better served by having all commercial vehicles go through the annual inspection.

Mr. Jennissen: Well, there was a similar case in Cranberry where the gentleman owns a fairly large truck and he hauls wood commercially but only about four or five loads in the fall. He feels, again, if they inspect it every five years, that will make a lot of sense. Most of the driving is done off the main highways, the same as with the sewage truck. The argument keeps coming back that farmers seem to be getting preferential treatment--another example of how northerners get shafted.

Mr. Findlay: Well, I cannot help the member feel any better. That is just the way it is at this point in time. I just say to the member that the more inspections we have on vehicles, the safer it is for the public at large in general.

Mr. Jennissen: My question is with regard to photo cards, and I thought they were an excellent idea, by the way. Am I correct in assuming that they are renewed every two years?

An Honourable Member: Four.

Mr. Jennissen: Every four years. Okay.

Mr. Findlay: Initially, it was every two years, but now that we are into the full cycle it is every four years.

Mr. Jennissen: That makes a lot more sense because I was hoping they would go every five years or so. Okay, four years.

One other question--I think you may have answered it partially a day or so earlier--is with regard to licence plates. There is some move to put two licences on every vehicle. That is in the works, let us say, within a year or two?

Mr. Findlay: The decision has not been made. As I said to the member, there has been a lot of representation, all in favour of two licence plates. It makes all kinds of common sense.

I just remind him that it was the previous administration that went from two down to one. Now you are back asking for two, so okay.

Mr. Jennissen: I guess the question could be: Was the previous administration progressive?

Mr. Findlay: Okay, no, it was not.

Mr. Jennissen: I beg to differ--[interjection]--but anyway I am still begging to differ.

I would like to pass this.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2. Highways and Transportation Programs (p) Driver and Vehicle Licensing (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $10,859,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,364,000--pass; (3) Manitoba Public Insurance Cost-Sharing Agreement $3,672,100--pass.

2.(q) Boards and Committees (1) Motor Transport Board (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $299,300.

Mr. Jennissen: I basically have just one question in order to speed it up a little bit.

Under corrective measures on carriers for breaches of regulations, any idea on the numbers of breaches we are talking about in a year? Under Activity Identification, the last one says: Initiates corrective measures on carriers for breaches of regulations. Are we talking huge numbers of breaches?

Mr. Findlay: There were 22 show-cause items or cases brought forward. Out of the 22, 21 resulted in an imposition of fines and board costs totalling $47,800, and one was just given a reprimand.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 2.(q) Boards and Committees (1) Motor Transport Board (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $299,300--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $136,000--pass.

(2) Highway Traffic Board (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $216,900--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $63,700--pass.

(3) Licence Suspension Appeal Board and Medical Review Committee (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits--$216,900--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $88,300--pass.

(4) Taxicab Board (a) Salaries and Employee Benefits $295,900--pass; (b) Other Expenditures $82,800--pass.

Resolution 15.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $55,175,800 for Highways and Transportation, Highways and Transportation Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

* (1520)

3. Infrastructure Works, Operating (a) Maintenance Program $56,545,100--pass.

(b) Mechanical Equipment Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $7,512,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $15,436,800--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($25,853,600)--pass.

Expenditures Related to Capital (c) Construction and Upgrading of Provincial Trunk Highways, Provincial Roads and Related Projects Provincial Programming (including Manitoba's share of Strategic Highway Improvement Program) $96,900,000--pass; Canada's Share of Strategic Highway Improvement Program $6,100,00--pass.

(d) Aid to Cities, Towns and Villages $1,300,000--pass.

(e) Work in Local Government Districts and Unorganized Territory $3,760,000--pass.

(f) Rural Municipal Bridge Assistance Program $400,000--pass.

(g) Other Projects $2,552,100--pass.

Resolution 15.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $164,653,300 for Highways and Transportation, Infrastructure Works, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary--$22,800.

At this point, we request the minster's staff to leave the table for the consideration of this item.

Item 1.(a).

Mr. Reid: I have one last question. I cannot let this section go by without asking this question, Mr. Chairperson. Is the minister contemplating any changes in fees or regulatory matters for the Taxicab Board this year?

Mr. Findlay: No, I, as minister, am not contemplating any. I cannot speak for the board in terms of the degree of independence in which they operate, but I am not aware of any change in fees, no.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(a).

Mr. Jennissen: I am sorry. I am not sure this is the appropriate time to ask it, but this went a little bit fast for me. Again, it is on the Taxicab Board. If I am past the item do not answer it, but the Administrative Support has gone up tremendously. There were three salary year--this is on page 75, and I was going to ask that question. From last year to this year, some $47,000 for the three positions and that is over $15,700 a person. It seems awfully high. I am just wondering about some information on that.

Mr. Findlay: I cannot give it to you. I would have to get it from staff.

An Honourable Member: Yes, I should have caught it earlier. I am sorry.

Mr. Findlay: There is obviously some good explanation. Whether it is a--[interjection] There might be a severance involved there, a buy out or whatever that caused it to jump. I will find out.

Mr. Jennissen: No further questions.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $22,800--pass.

Resolution 15.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,301,700 for Highways and Transportation, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This completes the Estimates of the Department of Highways and Transportation.

The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Department of Community Support Programs.

Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister and the critics the opportunity to prepare for the commencement of the next set of Estimates, and should we leave the clock running? Agreed? [agreed]

COMMUNITY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates for the Community Support Programs on page 25 of the Estimates book. Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, a very brief one. I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some opening remarks, and I will be joined shortly by Mr. Jim Barry who is the Director of the Lotteries Distribution System.

The role of the Community Support Programs is threefold; firstly, it provides management and co-ordination of lottery fund disbursements through government departments. Secondly, it provides access to community organizations seeking information on lottery funding and, as well, may provide grant assistance to organizations who do not meet normal funding criteria within the system. Its third component is to monitor and evaluate the nonprofit community organizations who receive lottery funding to ensure compliance to the original objectives of these organizations.

Community Support Programs provide an accountable, efficient, accessible and flexible system in the distribution of lottery funds to enhance the quality of life for all Manitobans.

With those very brief opening comments, I will be pleased to take any questions.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister. Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I just want to indicate that we will be asking numerous questions on Lotteries issues. We have today. We will be in the future, as well, but not under this particular item. We look forward to the Lotteries Foundation report being brought in because we have been waiting close to two years and there are a lot of questions we will be asking.

* (1550)

Just one question before we are prepared to pass this line just so we can anticipate a bit down the line. I am wondering if the minister is also going to be responsible for the urban economic initiatives because I will be having some questions on that.

Mr. Stefanson: Yes, I will be, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ashton: We will be passing this.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1. Community Support Programs (a) Lotteries Distribution System (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $98,600--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $27,300--pass; (3) Grants $267,200--pass.

(b) Festival du Voyageur $323,000--pass.

(c) Folk Arts Council of Winnipeg $304,000--pass.

(d) United Way of Winnipeg $2,238,700--pass.

(e) Valley Agricultural Society $64,000--pass.

(f) Harness and Quarterhorse Racing Support $395,000--pass.

(g) Winnipeg Convention Centre - Capital--pass.

(h) Manitoba Community Services Council $2,000,000--pass.

(j) Winnipeg Football Club $350,000--pass.

Resolution 33.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $6,067,800 for Community Support Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This concludes the Estimates for Community Support Programs.

The next Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for the Employee Benefits and Other Payments.

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND OTHER PAYMENTS

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates for Employee Benefits and Other Payments on page 47 of the Estimates book.

Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, not really. This is an ongoing cost of government for our entire employee benefits package that are listed in some detail here. Any adjustments on costs are attributable to adjustments on, basically, I would think on rates being charged by other levels of government, the federal government or the plans themselves.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): No.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the member.

1. Employee Benefits and other Payments $33,720,500--pass.

Resolution 6.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $33,720,500 for Employee Benefits and Other Payments for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

CANADA-MANITOBA ENABLING VOTE

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The next set of Estimates to be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates for the Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote on page 143 of the Estimates book. Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister.

Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): No.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the member.

1.Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote (a) Partnership Agreement in Tourism (1) Operating $29,700--pass; (2) Capital $226,200--pass.

(b) Winnipeg Development Agreement (1) Operating $1,500,000--pass; (2) Capital $1,500,000--pass.

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

(d) Partnership Agreement on Municipal Water Infrastructure - Capital $825,000--pass.

(e) Communications Technology Research and industry Development Agreement - Operating $257,500--pass.

(f) 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 $4,993,400 for Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This concludes the Estimates for the Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote.

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

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

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The next Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities on page 145 of the Estimates book.

Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister charged with the administration of The Crown Corporations Public Review and Accountability Act): No, I do not.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister.

Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): No.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the member.

Item 1. $1,000,000. Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. No.

Item 2. Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities $875,000--pass.

I should clarify that 1. Aboriginal Justice Initiatives was not passed.

Resolution 27.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $875,000 for Other Appropriations, Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This concludes the Estimates for Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities.

Allowance for Salary Accruals

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The next set of Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for Allowance for Salary Accruals on page 145 of the Estimates book.

Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, I do not.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister.

Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): No.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the member.

Item 3. Allowance for Salary Accruals $300,000--pass.

Resolution 27.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $300,000 for Other Appropriations, Allowance for Salary Accruals, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This concludes the Estimates for Allowance for Salary Accruals.

Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment

and General Salary Increases

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The next set of Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases on page 146 of the Estimates book.

Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister.

Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): No.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the member.

Item 6. Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases (a) Internal Reform and Workforce Adjustment $4,000,000--pass; (b) General Salary Increases . . . . . Less: Allocated to Departments . . . . .--pass.

Resolution 27.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This concludes the Estimates for Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases.

LOTTERIES FUNDED APPROPRIATIONS

Urban Economic Development Initiatives

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): The next set of Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for Urban Economic Development Initiatives on page 146 of the Estimates book.

Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister.

* (1600)

Does the critic for the official opposition have an opening statement?

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I just want to indicate I have a number of questions relating to line 27(f), so we can probably pass the other items and then I can raise the questions at that point.

An Honourable Member: That is where we are right now.

Mr. Ashton: I would like to ask the minister, what portion of this particular line is being allocated for the Winnipeg Jets and for the construction of the new arena?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, for the current fiscal year 1995-96, the allocation that was provided from this account to cover losses of the Winnipeg Jets is $1,891,304 to date.

Now, that was with the expectation of covering losses for approximately three months, the period April, May and June of 1995, depending on what happens with the Spirit of Manitoba. If this new agreement is concluded on August 15, there will be the requirement to fund our share of the losses for another month and a half. That amount has not been quantified as of yet. We are currently in the process of determining precisely what that amount might be, and again at this stage, there is the capacity to cover that additional requirement from within this allocation.

I would be more than pleased to provide the member with what has been allocated to date out of the $12,500,000, so he would have a sense that there still is capacity to cover that additional month and a half share of losses that the province is responsible for.

Mr. Ashton: In addition to the $1.89 million that has been allocated for the losses, is there any allocation in this particular section for the construction of the new arena?

Mr. Stefanson: At this stage, no, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Ashton: Where will the allocation for the construction of the new arena take place? Specifically, where will the government be finding the $37.5 million, or whatever its latest figure is, that it has committed?

The minister can correct me on the exact amount of the commitment, but where will that be coming from if it is not from this particular line?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, at this stage, as the member knows, the commitment, if a new facility is built, is $37 million from the provincial government. We do have the ability to allocate that over three budget years, in '95-96, '96-97 and '97-98, because of the building being ready for occupancy in the fall of 1997.

Therefore, for this budget year, based on discussions we have had with the federal government, if the facility does proceed, we will have the ability to direct approximately $11 million from the infrastructure agreement, from the project, that being the provincial share that was basically originally allocated for the Kenaston underpass.

I think, as the member knows, the federal Liberal government has indicated they are prepared to support the facility with what they outlined as $20 million, and they have suggested that they would be looking to fund their share of approximately the majority of the $15 million from within the infrastructure agreement, as well, so that allocation will be the vast majority of what is required for this budget year.

If there is any additional requirement beyond that, we would be looking at what sources of funding we would use to provide that additional funding.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, has that already been included in the infrastructure line that we will be dealing with presumably just in a few minutes, or would that $11 million be found in some other way, shape or form?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairperson, it is basically already included because when we prepared our budget, we prepared our budget on the basis of the original terms of the infrastructure agreement. If the member recalls, the original terms, I believe, were in the first year, which was last year. In 1994-95, we were to spend 35 percent of the total infrastructure program; in 1995-96, to spend 50 percent, and the most that could be spilled over to year three of the infrastructure program was 15 percent of the program.

In the most recent federal budget, the current federal government changed that. They turned a three-year program into a five-year program, but having said that, when we provided our budget, we provided 50 percent of our requirement for the entire infrastructure agreement, and that was at the stage with the expectation that Kenaston might still be going forward and/or there would be other projects to provide funding for to meet the terms of the original infrastructure program.

When we get to that line item, you will see that we have budgeted $34,200,000 on the infrastructure program. That is basically 50 percent of our original commitment under the entire program, which was approximately $68 million. So it is a long way of saying yes to the member's question, that the amount is effectively budgeted for in our infrastructure allocation this year.

Mr. Ashton: So the short answer then is that $11 million out of the $34,200,000 will be this year's allocation for the Winnipeg arena.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, yes, if a facility is determined to be built, we have the capacity to provide $11 million from within the infrastructure agreement.

Depending on construction time lines, requirements and so on, there might be the need for us to provide some additional support, but that would be determined as we would move forward with actually building the facility, but we do have $11 million available in the infrastructure line, which is just under one-third of the capital cost requirements of the provincial contribution of $37 million.

Mr. Ashton: So we have identified $1.89 million for losses for the Winnipeg Jets under Urban Economic Initiatives and $11 million out of the $34-million infrastructure allocation.

Are there any other areas under which either the losses or the construction of the new arena would be funded in this year's budget?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no, certainly not at this time. That does not preclude any discussions that might take place either with the City of Winnipeg or with the federal government or any requirements that might arise in terms of, as I say, the scheduling and the cash flow requirements and so on, but at this point in time, the answer is no.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I think our position is very clear on this.

We have stated our opposition to the loss agreement, and we are seeing again in this year, at a time when times are tough, that we are looking at a $1.89-million allocation out of this particular line item for the losses of the Jets, and we are looking at a further $11 million that would come out of this year's budget from infrastructure, which we feel is absolutely wrong.

The government itself promised in the election it would allocate no more than $10 million. In fact, it is breaking that promise in this year alone, and once we deal with the next line item that will effectively have been dealt with. We will be seeing the government break in one year alone its election promise in terms of that. We are seeing the continuing saga of the people of Manitoba paying under this line item for $1.8, 9-million worth of losses of the Winnipeg Jets, not the first time the losses have been covered. We will see in terms of the negotiations over the next number of weeks where this will proceed from here.

I say to the minister that this government does not have the support of the people of Manitoba for what it is doing. It said one thing in the election and it is doing another thing today, and that just will not wash. Quite frankly, this Conservative Party may have won the election on April 25, but I think it lost a lot of its integrity, what integrity it had left, on a number of issues, including the Winnipeg Jets.

* (1610)

In fact, for that reason I move that line 27(f) Urban Economic Initiatives be reduced by $1,891,304 that is allocated for Winnipeg Jets operating losses.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), seconded by the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that line 27.7 Urban Economic Initiatives be reduced by $1,891,304, that is allocated for Winnipeg Jets operating losses.

Is there any debate on the motion?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I obviously disagree with almost everything that the member for Thompson said. I do not think that comes as any surprise to anybody around this table. The member is moving a motion to delete the funding of the provincial share of Jets losses for this next quarter of just over $1.8 million.

I do want to remind the honourable member that even under this interim agreement by the end of June of this year we will have funded losses from the provincial government of between $9 million and $10 million, but over that same period of time in terms of direct revenue to the Treasury of the government of Manitoba, direct taxation revenue that has come into our Treasury is in excess of $17 million. So even funding those losses, there has been a net benefit to our Treasury of approximately $8 million that would not have been here had we not entered the agreement back in 1991 and the team had been able to sell and relocate.

Part of the idea of the interim agreement was to allow Manitobans to make a decision, a long-term decision whether or not professional hockey could remain here in our city and in our province to give private individuals, the private sector to come forward to find a solution and to put forward a contribution to keep the team here in Manitoba. That is happening with the offer that has been put forward by the Spirit of Manitoba and accepted by the current owners of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club.

But in terms of the economics of this interim agreement, to date there has been $8 million of additional revenue to the Treasury of our government. There is a $50-million economic impact by having the Jets here in Manitoba. They directly and indirectly created between 1,000 and 1,400 jobs. If a new arena is built in our province, during construction there will be 2,000 jobs created and just during the construction alone there would be $10 million of direct taxes to the provincial government. The federal government, during construction, would receive $20 million of direct taxes.

So the interim agreement has allowed us to get to the stage of determining whether or not there is a long-term solution. There has been a net gain to our Treasury of approximately $8 million, and I would hope that everybody opposes this motion put forward by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), because it is just absolutely the inappropriate and incorrect thing to do.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Chair, I move that the question be put.

Point of Order

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On a point of order, Mr. Chairperson, I have indicated to the Chair that I, too, would like to speak, and I would hope that the member for Wellington is not trying to limit my ability to at least comment on this very important issue.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Inkster does not have a point of order.

Mr. Ashton: If I can be of assistance, we would have no problem in putting the motion after the member for Inkster being allowed to speak. You will probably have to do it by leave since there is a motion on the floor, but we certainly--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wellington withdraws it for now. She will have to reput it. The honourable member for Wellington is then deferring the vote until after the member for Inkster has spoken. The honourable member for Wellington is deferring moving that the question be put.

* * *

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I am not attempting to try to hide anything. I have a number of questions that I would like to pose to the minister with regard to that. I understand that it has been deferred. That is not going to limit my ability to ask questions, is that correct, Mr. Chairperson?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: What?

Mr. Lamoureux: The deferment that is being suggested is not going to limit my number of questions. I have a series of questions that I would like to ask. Is that correct?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Does the member for Inkster wish to make comments on the motion?

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I have a number of comments that I would like to put on the record with respect to the motion. I also have some questions that I would like to be able to put to the minister even in regard to the motion itself.

The member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has moved that the question now be put. I want to make sure that the member for Wellington understands what is happening is you are moving a closure. You are not allowing me the opportunity to ask questions. That is what I want to make sure of, Mr. Chairperson, that we do not have the member for Wellington telling me that I cannot speak to this particular motion or ask questions.

An Honourable Member: You were just recognized to speak--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Right now the motion that the question be now put was deferred until after the member for Inkster spoke to the motion. It has to be to the motion. If the member wishes to ask questions on the line itself then you will have to wait until after the motion has been dealt with. The member for Inkster can indeed make comments on the main motion itself.

Mr. Lamoureux: Am I allowed, because of the deferral, to ask questions regarding the motion?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member will have to make his comments that would be directed to the motion. However, if the member does have a question we will have to rule on that question as to whether the question is in order or not.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, from what I understand, then, as long as the question I pose is related to the motion itself, I would be allowed to continue asking questions. Is that correct?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member has to pose his questions to the motion and then we will rule on it.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, this has been a very interesting discussion and debate that has occurred. What I would like to be able to do is to reflect a bit in terms of the discussions that I had. There were many different discussions, quite frankly, during the election and even prior to the election dealing with the Winnipeg Jets and the Winnipeg arena.

I felt personally that this is an issue which we have to be able to deal with. The best way to do that, of course, is to get a better understanding from our constituents that we represent in terms of where it is they would like to see government spend money.

I respect the argument that the New Democratic Party puts forward when they say, look, we just came out of a provincial election; the government gave the impression that we were going to be spending $10 million, and then within days of the election we saw a significant increase of that $10-million commitment. That causes a great deal of concern. There is no doubt about that.

* (1620)

I was, like every one of us, out canvassing during the election. You cannot underestimate the amount of discussion that occurred at the doors regarding this issue. Personally, within my area, I can honestly say that in the last four or five days it seemed that every third or fourth door someone was wanting to talk about the Winnipeg Jets or the arena, at least at times it appeared that way. I do not know, maybe it was because they were listening to CJOB, Vic Grant, or it seems at times, you know, if there is a topical topic on the radio that discussion would then occur at the door. It was the last few days of the campaign, four or five days I should say, in which this was an issue that was brought up consistently.

Individuals were concerned about saving the Winnipeg Jets. For me personally, I look at it as not only an issue of the Winnipeg Jets, that if in fact you are building a facility and this facility, whether it costs $10 million or $37 million from the public tax purse, it should not be built and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind, it should not be built if the ongoing operational cost of this particular facility cannot be maintained if the Winnipeg Jets were not going to remain in the city of Winnipeg.

I think we have to look at the broader picture, that it is not just a facility to accommodate the Winnipeg Jets. There is no doubt that the Winnipeg Jets would play a very significant and be a major tenant of a new building wherever it might be built. It looks, or at least it appears to be being built around The Forks area.

When I talked during the election to the people that I was seeking support from, I was quite clear. I indicated that at no point in time should we as a government look at subsidizing the ongoing operational cost of an NHL franchise.

I believe that en masse, a vast majority, even the individuals who said, look, we want to save the Winnipeg Jets, a vast majority of those people did not believe that we should be supporting or subsidizing directly the ongoing losses of the Winnipeg Jets.

They look at it and they say, well, look, here you have education, you have health care and so many other government programs that are out there, many of which are being cut back on. They shared the opinion that I have in terms of priorities. For me, I indicated that I would not support any sort of a deal that would have seen the province of Manitoba entering into an agreement that would have seen public dollars being directly spent on the ongoing losses of the Winnipeg Jets.

Now, with respect to the facility itself, I argued that any facility, and I am not entirely convinced, and this is one of the reasons why I wanted to ask the minister some questions with respect to this, even to this day that the arena facility that is being proposed is in fact the facility that we should be moving towards.

Just recently, for example, I met with, I believe it was Rick Koswin. He has this multiplex proposal. We were not necessarily privileged to have the same sort of debate that occurred within City Hall when individuals were able to articulate and ask questions. Some of the caucuses had different types of presentations. I know we had presentations and so forth with respect to the facilities. But when I talk to my constituents I try to separate the two issues, the operational, ongoing costs of the Winnipeg Jets as opposed to the actual costs of a facility.

I tried to suggest to the constituents, or the electorate at that time, that they need to be treated at least in most part as two separate issues because, ultimately, this government cannot guarantee that we are going to have an NHL franchise 15 years from now.

If we build a facility we can virtually guarantee that we are going to have that facility 15 years from now. I think that it has to be demonstrated that in fact whatever facility is built is going to be something that would be feasible whether or not we have an NHL franchise in Winnipeg or not.

That is why I have taken the time, not only prior to the election or during the election but also after the election, to sit down, to go over a proposal in which I believe--and again, because we have not had that same sort of dialogue or questions, that I think that the government should at least assure itself in its own mind that it is not making a mistake by trying to forge ahead in too quick of a fashion by ruling out what could be potentially a better idea.

I had a meeting shortly after the election in which I invited constituents. I sent out numerous letters, actually it was quite a few letters, inviting people to attend a meeting to express their concerns about a new facility and the Winnipeg Jets. The consensus that was there at that time was that, look, let us be realistic and look at the facility first and foremost even though a minority--I believe there was only one, possibly two individuals at that particular open invitation that said that they were not necessarily Winnipeg Jets fans, if you like. But through that particular meeting one of the individuals in attendance said, you know, you should be phoning this Mr. Koswin, because he has, in this individual's mind, an excellent idea, an idea that has not been followed up on.

I remember a presentation that our caucus had received from, and I am sure it was Mr. Koswin, with this superplex proposal which would have seen I believe it was a football stadium along with an arena facility. I think it even suggested that we buy the Winnipeg Jets.

At the time of the presentation I thought it was fairly thorough and so forth. I did not think it was the way to go. But because it was a constituent and he made this suggestion to at least talk to Mr. Koswin, I made the commitment. I went ahead and made the phone call. I met with the individual, along with Harold Neufeld--everyone knows Harold Neufeld. He actually showed up at the constituency office with him and indicates that we have to--[interjection] Well, many members of the Chamber had a lot of respect for Mr. Neufeld. I for one had a great deal of respect for Mr. Neufeld.

An Honourable Member: There are some in the government that did not.

Mr. Lamoureux: A lot of people within the government at the time obviously did not. But, Mr. Chairperson, I digress somewhat. Mr. Neufeld attended this meeting with Mr. Koswin, and I said, you know Harold--it is parliamentary for me to call him Harold because he is no longer the MLA--if I go to the Legislative Chamber and I say, hey look, you know, the government is going in the wrong direction. We should not be building this arena when we almost have the shovel in the ground. How is it possible that we can actually do something of this nature?

Some of the things were said that were off the record so I am going to respect those comments, but Mr. Neufeld indicated to me that it is time maybe that politicians have to be a bit more long term in their thinking in doing what they believe is right. He felt, and even though he was not able to go through all of the numbers, on the surface a multipurpose facility could potentially bring in additional revenues, would have more services, more opportunities to offer to all Manitobans. What he had heard and understood of the multiplex package that was being presented was that in fact it was something that was fairly feasible, and he thought it was something which we should be looking at.

* (1630)

He was also realistic enough to believe that, look, we have gone so far it would take quite a bit in order to change the city and the province and the national government from looking at a multiplex.

I sat through that particular discussion. I was given a video tape of the proposal. It is a three-minute video tape, and if the minister has never seen it I still have it downstairs in my office. I would be more than happy to make it available. The information that he gave me was actually fairly impressive. He gave me three, four documents. One of them--and you will have to excuse me for not knowing the name because it is not my expertise--was from a company that has built more sports venues than any other company in North America.

It is a fairly impressive package that this particular individual has put together. It says with the multiplex there is in fact--I always have to be careful because everything I say is on record obviously--but I believe he even made reference to I think it is called the Alamo. I could be wrong. It is something of that nature, and I will provide that for the minister if in fact he is interested. I have it just downstairs. Possibly prior to the vote--

Some Honourable Members: Why do you not go get it? Go get it.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

Mr. Lamoureux: I will ensure that all of the documents that were provided to me are in fact--[interjection] No, it is not foolish. I am not going to try to put words in the mouth of the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), but what I will do is I will make the commitment to get the package that was provided to me at my constituency office by Mr. Neufeld and Mr. Koswin, and I will get it to the minister by tomorrow. If he does not have it tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, give my office a call and I will walk it down myself or bring it to Question Period.

Even this video that is supplied looks as if it is a fairly well-detailed plan. It was interesting, after I received it I brought it up with my colleague from The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) and his response was, a couple of days later he says, Kevin, or the member for Inkster--I cannot say my first name I take it. But my colleague from The Maples makes reference to the fact that now he has been approached. I guess word had gotten around that I had looked at something; now someone else had brought something to the member for Maples.

But there is a purpose as to why I am bringing this up. Here is the purpose. Here is the reason and it is very important. It is. Here we are talking about a significant expenditure of public dollars, and I do not believe--I should not say I do not believe--I want to feel assured that in fact this government and in particular the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) have done their homework, that we are not trying to expedite a proposal because it is going to save the Winnipeg Jets.

If in fact there are other proposals--like part of this particular proposal is that it was not going to spend any tax dollars. Well, I do not have the resources to be able to investigate, to go over the numbers. It has a lot to do with the motion, because what the motion is doing is it is reducing the amount of dollars that are being committed to a new facility.

Mr. Chairperson, if one looks at it one could say, are there other proposals that would cost less? Maybe the government would be able to fulfill its commitment. This is in fact what this particular individual was putting forward. I want to feel assured in my mind, because this is an excellent opportunity to do that, to seek that assurance, that in fact the government has gone over the many different proposals that are out there, not proposals that are specifically designed to save the Winnipeg Jets, but specifically designed to provide a facility in Winnipeg that would serve all Manitobans.

I am not entirely convinced that the Premier nor City Hall has done just that. I am attempting to seek that assurance from the Minister of Finance. You know, I was asked the question in terms of what about the federal government's role? There is no doubt the federal government has a role.

I was quoted in one article with respect to what should the federal government's role be?

Quite frankly, I look at this as a very important issue to Manitobans and believe very firmly that this is an issue which the Province of Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg have to establish in terms of priorities. If in fact the province and the city establish this as a high priority, then in fact the federal government does have a responsibility in terms of providing resources.

Why do I say that, Mr. Chairperson? Because quite simply when I look at it, through infrastructure money, we have seen the federal government acknowledge other priorities of other provincial governments and municipalities and have allocated out resources to them also.

Well, if we in the province of Manitoba believe that this is a priority, then, yes, the federal government does have a responsibility in terms of allocating out financial resources to us. It makes sense for them to do that.

You know, I was listening when the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) made reference, or maybe it was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), to infrastructure dollars, and we are going to get on to the infrastructure financing.

You remember last year, I do not know if it was in November, when we had the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) standing up, saying, let us can the [interjection]--No, the bridge project over in, I believe it was in Charleswood, the Kenaston underpass. The NDP stood up day after day. I believe they even used the suggestion, and I am sure the member for Thompson would correct me if I am wrong, but the Leader of the New Democratic Party said, let us put that money into the construction of an arena--[interjection] Well, this is dealing with the motion, what we are talking about, sure.

Well, Mr. Chairperson, if I had the time and the research, I believe there was even an article that was printed a couple of years ago, and I will attempt, if the member for Thompson really wants me to challenge, challenge it, where the Leader of the New Democratic Party was quoted as saying of something, well, let us just get this thing over with and build the arena. I will try and find that particular quote. I believe I would have retained that.

I have a special file for the New Democratic Party, as I do for the Conservative Party, because, I, like everyone, want to make sure that there is a certain amount of consistency in policy making in government and also in terms of the opposition party.

When I look at it, I say that, yes, there is a great deal of political points that could be scored on this particular issue, but I want to go back to what Mr. Neufeld had told me, and you know something, Mr. Chairperson, I think that maybe one of the things we should do is we should have other individuals listen to some of the things, not all of the things. I disagree with a lot of the things the former member for Rossmere or Mr. Neufeld had to say.

I think one thing that did sink in for me was the fact that, look, we have to ensure that whatever it is that government ultimately does decide to build is in fact in Manitoban's best interest, not only in terms of the short term but the long term. This is the reason why when I look at the motion that has been brought forward, and I am glad the New Democrats brought forward this motion, because what it does, Mr. Chairperson, is it indicates that the New Democrats are also concerned. They have indicated that through questions about a commitment from this government of saying $10 million.

Well, I look at it, and I say I want and I am seeking, looking for that assurance from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) that in fact he, in particular, along with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is not looking for the short-term solution for the Winnipeg Jets by saying we are going to secure the Winnipeg Jets here by just building a new hockey arena. Even though the Premier would argue, and I would be disappointed if he not, equally with the Minister of Finance, if the arena is just for the Winnipeg Jets, because quite frankly that would be a mistake if in fact that were the case.

There are many wonderful things that a new facility could bring forward for the province of Manitoba. I cannot recall the last time I went to a Winnipeg Jets' game right offhand. It would have been years ago. I cannot even recall if I was an MLA when I went to it quite frankly, but I have been--[interjection] Just seven years. I wish it were more, but only seven years for an MLA, but I have been to the facility. It was, I believe, the Ice Capades, a nice family event. We really enjoyed it. I did have opportunity even to go up into the rafters.

* (1640)

I do not know how many people inside the Chamber have actually been in the rafters in the arena. Some of us are somewhat height sick, you know, but I tell you it is almost like mountain climbing is what many constituents have told me because I really do not believe I have been into the rafters as one individual that attended my meeting after the election. There was a consensus that was at that meeting, and that is that you know we do have a current facility, and there is no doubt about that, but there is a great deal of concern in terms of what that facility actually has to offer, not only just for the Winnipeg Jets but other venues that come. Individuals are very reluctant to even go to an event because of the mountain climb that they might have to incur.

I cannot take credit for the mountain climb. This is something which someone brought up at the meeting that I had.

One of the commitments that I indicated to them was that whatever does get constructed, it is very important to me and, I believe, very important to the Liberal Party, and I would hope that it would be equally important to all members of the Chamber. I think it is. This new facility, even if it is just the arena, is not just looked upon as a new home for the Winnipeg Jets, but rather a facility that is going to be able to provide many different events in the future for all Manitobans, Mr. Chairperson.

I think that is really important, and I would hope that the Minister of Finance, along with the Premier (Mr. Filmon), is keeping that first and foremost on the top of their minds. I would be quite disappointed, and I know my constituents would be very disappointed, if that were not the case. In fact, one of the things that I would like to be able to do is that, because I did make a commitment to the group that I met with after the election, once we do have more material that is being made--that has been a problem. As an elected official, as an MLA, I was not really provided the type of information that I would have liked to have when I went to my constituents to try to be able to explain, here is the current status.

I think that is somewhat problematic in the sense that, as a local representative, I want to do what I can to ensure that in fact these people are--these people, I do not want to sound insensitive--that my constituents are kept informed. For those individuals who are interested and want to be kept informed, I want to be able to provide that service. Unfortunately, I do not believe that we have been provided the type of information that we could have been provided, and I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) or this government will start providing us information.

I know, and I am prepared to even provide the Minister of Finance if he likes, the names of at least five individuals who attended this particular meeting so that he can send them information if he does not want to release it to me. Mind you, I would suggest they would probably bring it to me, but they are definitely very interested and wanted me to send them follow-up information. That is, in fact, what I intend on doing, Mr. Chairperson, and why I felt that it was important to be able to get on the record and talk about this because it is, in fact, a great deal of money that we are talking about.

We are talking about $111 million of which almost all of it is there. Some of it still has to be found, but, as I am sure all of us heard, taxpayers want us to spend what tax dollars we collect in the best way that we can. I cannot blame individuals who are out there that are concerned about cutbacks. There was at least one individual at that particular meeting that brought up the issue of health care and education cuts, and they say, look, I hear of cuts in health care, I hear of cuts in education, how can we really afford to build a new facility? I am very sympathetic to those arguments, very sympathetic.

But I am also of the opinion that there are many benefits to be achieved if in fact we can build something in which there are going to be both long-term and short-term benefits and that might enhance our opportunities to be able to better finance and better take care of those other social programs that government offered. That is why when someone says to me, look, this is a great deal of money, and should we be spending it, I say, yes, it is a great deal of money. Should we be spending it? Well, we have to make sure that government knows what it is in fact doing, and the best way that we can ensure that is happening is through sitting around a table and posing questions.

I was actually anticipating on waiting till concurrence before I was going to be asking these questions, and that is why I am somewhat glad that the motion was in fact passed because now it does provide me to ask a number--[interjection] Well, I know it has not been passed yet, but there has been a motion. I did not mean to imply that the motion has been passed. I do not want to assume that the motion is going to be passed or that it is going to fail, but what it does--[interjection] Well, the member for Wellington assumes that I have not made up my mind on this particular issue. I am somewhat disappointed. The member for Wellington should know that--[interjection] Well, I hope to get a number of questions off and that will--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I am having a little bit of a hard time hearing the member for Inkster.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I do want to indicate to the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that we will vote on this, and you will be able to see how we are going to be voting. I do not understand why they would be complaining.

I see that I am running out of time, and I do have a very important question that I want to pose to the Minister of Finance, having given some background in terms of where it is that I am coming from, and depending on the response that the minister gives, hopefully--[interjection] No response?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Inkster can only make comments to the motion. The honourable minister cannot answer a question that you want to put at this time.

Point of Order

Mr. Lamoureux: On a point of order then, Mr. Chairperson. Because it is a very important amendment, can I ask anyone questions regarding this? Can I ask the mover of the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Let me just explain here. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) at this point cannot pose a question that the minister may answer. However, you can ask the question and after the motion put forward by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) is dealt with, then the minister may answer the question, depending of course if this motion is passed or turned down.

Mr. Lamoureux: Just for clarification, Mr. Chairperson, I was under the understanding--and that is one of the reasons why I wanted to explain in detail what I just finished explaining, that I could in fact ask questions. To make it clear, I am not allowed to ask questions because the member for Wellington moved that the question now be put?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: You can ask the question. The only problem is the question cannot be answered at this point.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, for clarification, is that because there is a motion on the floor that the question now be put? Is that the reason why I cannot ask any questions?

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: That is right.

Mr. Lamoureux: Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, I guess I am somewhat disappointed because I did want to be able to ask a number of questions, but I can wait until after the vote on this particular line. I am sure that we will get other opportunities--or I will get another opportunity to be able to ask some questions. I hope that we will get the vote done with--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster's time is up.

It has been moved by the member for Wellington that the question be now put. This is a nondebatable motion and, if adopted, means that we will proceed to a vote on the motion moved by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

Voice Vote

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the member for Wellington's (Ms. Barrett) motion that the question be put, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those against, please say nay.

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It is my opinion the Nays have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I request a recorded vote.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there a member to support that?

An Honourable Member: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Wellington.

We shall now recess to the Chamber for a formal vote.