(Concurrent Sections)

OTHER APPROPRIATIONS

Urban Economic Development Initiatives

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This morning, this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 254, will resume consideration of Estimates for Urban Economic Development Initiatives on page 146 of the Estimates book.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): This matter deals with the losses, the operating losses of the Winnipeg Jets hockey team, does it not?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.

Mr. Doer: Will this money in the budget adequately reflect the amount of money for the operating losses for this fiscal year, or will it be short of the money required?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the initial allocation in this particular line is just over $1.8 million to cover, basically, the quarter from April until June. I indicated yesterday that if the Spirit of Manitoba closes their transaction, there will be another month and a half of losses to be covered, but, to date, we have not allocated approximately $6 million within this particular account, so there is the capacity to deal with some additional support, if required, from this account.

Mr. Doer: The deposit was made by the Spirit of Manitoba to the present owners of the team including the government which is an 18 percent owner of the hockey team. Did the losses cease to be a responsibility of the public sector when that transaction took place, or are we still now subject to the operating losses of the team?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, at this point we are subject to the operating losses until the transaction officially closes which is scheduled to be no later than August 15 and preferably earlier, if agreement can be reached.

Mr. Doer: I believe it was February of 1994 the minister made a public statement that the operating loss agreement of the Winnipeg Jets hockey team would be cancelled by the government, would be terminated, I believe the expression was used, on May 1, 1995. The minister made that statement. How does the government intend on fulfilling that promise which is already unfulfilled?

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

Subsequently it was determined that the option would conceivably be exercised on May 1 and closed at some later date, and that, really, is how the ultimate agreement that has been reached is unfolding, that they have reached an agreement that there now is a closing date and the outer edge of the closing date is August 15 of this year.

Mr. Doer: Well, you will excuse us if we are a little questionable about closing dates on the hockey team. It is almost a contradiction in terms, like industrial park or, perhaps, Progressive Conservative. We have seen more closing dates come and go in this deal than anything I can imagine. There are more lines in the sand on this thing than the lines in the sand in Grand Beach this weekend. So I think that we will await these so-called deadlines as they come and go.

An Honourable Member: Trust us.

Mr. Doer: Albert knows, he has seen a few of these lines.

The $1.8 then, does it cover to June 30?

Mr. Stefanson: Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman, that is the expectation of what it will be for the period, the quarter ending June 30, 1995, which will be upon us in a week's time, and it will be verified at that stage, but that is the expected funding for that quarter. The exact number is $1,891,304.

Mr. Doer: Is this consistent with the third-quarter statement that was given to the government in the spring of 1995, which indicated the losses for the team are projected to be over $12 million in spite of the fact that we only have half a season?

Mr. Stefanson: The short answer is yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Chair, the government has door one that it goes through in their plan on the team, which is to pay $37 million for a new arena, to be $17 million short of that capital required to maintain 18 percent share, as I understand it, in this present proposal in the ownership of the hockey team, and to have potential, one way or the other, of the tax status from the federal government, which has revenue implications, as the minister has confirmed, up to $9 million for the provincial government. That is door one.

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

Can the minister tell us, what are the projected losses for this team in the '95-96 season? We have been told by our sources in the Jets that the projected losses will be $20 million, which would make our projected share to be $10 million.

* (1130)

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, we are in the process of confirming with the interim steering committee which oversees the budget of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club and ensures that the budget, the cost side and the expenditures of the Jets stay in the bottom one-third of the NHL. I think, as the Leader of the Opposition himself knows, there are some player contracts that are coming up very shortly and will obviously have an impact on the 1995-96 budget. So, based on the outcomes of those negotiations, we will have more definitive numbers in the next short while.

Point of Order

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): The committee in the House is going to be recessing to go back into the House to re-order the Estimates. There was a change made to bring Energy and Mines up, which was not brought into the House. So what I would suggest we do is we recess while that is done in the House, and then we can return to the committee.

An Honourable Member: Five minutes.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, as soon as they finish, we can be right back.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We will have to recess till we deal with--

* * *

An Honourable Member: Committee should rise, actually.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The committee will have to recess. We do have to recess so that the House may deal with changing of the Estimates line.

The committee recessed at 11:32 a.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 11:37 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The committee is back to order to consider line 27.7 Urban Economic Development Initiatives on page 146, $12,500,000.

Mr. Doer: Yes, just to continue on the question. The minister indicated they are going to receive shortly from the interim committee a projected budget for the next hockey season; at this point, we are still legally responsible for the losses. When will the minister be receiving that? We have received preliminary information that it is in the $20 million projected loss range with the '95-96 season. Could the minister answer when, and what are the projected losses that he as Minister of Finance will have to deal with as minister responsible for, lead minister responsible, also on the other hand, for the Jets, which is a dual responsibility?

Mr. Stefanson: We expect to receive that information early in July. The fiscal year-end of the Jets is the end of June and some of their more significant contracts are coming up very shortly. We have had various preliminary numbers provided in terms of what one might expect for the fiscal year, 1995-96, and there have been at different points in time a fairly significant range of what those losses might be.

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

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

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the interim steering committee has enforced in 1991 an agreement that does provide that the cost of the hockey team be in the bottom one-third of the NHL. In terms of the specifics, whether or not that information can be provided, I will take that as notice.

Mr. Doer: The present owners are operating the hockey team. We are subject to the operating losses until August 15, 1995. What protection do the taxpayers have that the present owners will sign players and front-end load their contracts in terms of our responsibility?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, they have the continued protection of the review being done by the interim steering committee and the 1991 agreement which does provide that the cost of the hockey team be in the bottom one-third of the NHL. That is a fairly significant restriction, so they will have to continue to abide by that agreement.

Mr. Doer: So there is no other protection except the one-third provision in terms of the front-end loading with bonuses and other means that have been utilized before in the NHL, contracts that are basically our responsibility until 1997 unless the agreement is changed or the team and its ownership is confirmed?

* (1140)

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, that is the overriding restriction and it is a very significant restriction. There is obviously the ongoing review of the interim steering committee and the review of the budget by the interim steering committee and the reality if the team stayed here and losses were incurred and costs exceeded the bottom one-third they would be the responsibility of the private investors.

Mr. Doer: Do Mr. Benson or Mr. Bessey have veto rights of any contracts in the manner in which they have been established in terms of the liability of the taxpayer?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure where the member is heading with this. No, they do not. The control, if he is referring to the control on expenditures of the Winnipeg Jets hockey team, they are defined in the 1991 agreement and enforced and implemented by the interim committee which is chaired by Mr. Del Crewson, a chartered accountant.

Mr. Doer: A prominent person in terms of the government, I know, Mr. Crewson. What is the contingency plan of the government on August 16, which again is a date which keeps changing? What is the contingency plan on the operating-loss agreement on August 16, if the taxpayers are still subject to it, because the NHL or Revenue Canada or the Spirit is unable to fulfill one of the conditions that they have put forward?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, if that were to occur the terms of the 1991 agreement would continue to be in place, meaning that the Jets would have to have their costs in the bottom one-third of the NHL teams. The interim steering committee would continue to do what they do, chaired by Mr. Del Crewson, in terms of reviewing the budgets of the Jets and in terms of the province providing for any additional requirement to cover losses.

As I have indicated, to date in this account as an example, there are approximately $6 million that have not been allocated to date, so we do have the fiscal capacity we feel to deal with that situation if it were to arise. Again, the whole objective of all of this and the basis of moving forward by the Spirit of Manitoba and by the three levels of government has been on the basis of finding a solution and an agreement that everyone can live with. We continue to work towards seeing this agreement with the Spirit and the current owners come to a positive conclusion no later than August 15. If that does occur, then the Spirit of Manitoba will be responsible for all operating losses of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club effective at that date.

Mr. Doer: Well, I think it gives us cold comfort on this side to know that there are $6 million in a "fund," in a kind of envelope for the operating losses of the team in the same budget year the government is reducing its investment in hospitals. I find that very questionable priorities, but that is a political debate we will have in other places and I will just--

An Honourable Member: Five years from now.

Mr. Doer: Well, the member should not be sure on dates. We were sure on dates in '86. There is no such certainty.

I have a question for the minister. I want to know, of the $10 million that was forwarded last week from the so-called Spirit group to the so-called Shenkarow group--we were informed by banks and credit unions and other groups that the cheques that were delivered by the members of the grassroots campaign were being cleared, just cleared morning, noon and night, just before that deadline of $10 million.

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

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

When I referred to a residual being left, it all depends what happens over the course of the next several weeks. If the transaction concludes and closes and the Spirit of Manitoba takes over the hockey club, as many people hope and expect they will, those residual funds will continue to be available for other economic development initiatives not unlike some of the initiatives that are funded to date from this account--the Winnipeg Green Team, supporting the Winnipeg Convention Centre, supporting Tourism Winnipeg, supporting the Northern Hemisphere Distribution Alliance, supporting the Winnipeg city's, Winter Cities 1996 Conference--all I believe, both positive initiatives and organizations and facilities that add to the overall economic benefit of the city of Winnipeg.

That is the purpose of this allocation of funding, and the member knows that we allocate approximately 34 percent of our expenditures to health care here in Manitoba, more than any other province in all of Canada. On a per capita basis we provide the third largest of any province in Canada. So we make a very significant contribution to health care.

In terms of his specific question, I will have to take it as notice. That is obviously a decision that is made by the Spirit of Manitoba in terms of what they source from the grassroots fundraising campaign and what comes from other individuals, what the breakdown is in terms of that support being provided by the private sector and by the grassroots campaign, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Doer: Thank you. I appreciate the minister taking it as notice. Can he provide that to us early next week, not necessarily in this line, but we could ask the question in concurrence? We think the public has a right to know the breakdown from the grassroots people because there should be some accountability back to the grassroots people of the $10 million and how much of that money comes from the so-called $5 million group of investors?

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I will undertake best efforts to provide that early next week.

Mr. Doer: Thank you and we will make best efforts to be very persistent in concurrence on this issue. So to the minister, I am just letting him know ahead of time. Thank you.

* (1150)

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, yesterday I did get the opportunity to express some of my thoughts with respect to the arena. The question that I would ask the minister is, has the government reviewed all the different projects that are out there and, after doing that, then they have come to the summation that the current proposal which is virtually, as I have indicated yesterday, the shovel in the ground, and come to the conclusion that that is the project that has to be gone forward with?

Mr. Stefanson: At various times over the course of the last several months and in excess of a year we have had presentations from different groups. The member referred to a Mr. Koswin yesterday and I have certainly seen his presentation; I have seen many of the other presentations. Looking back on this issue part of the mandate of the Mauro committee and then ultimately the Burns committee as well, we are to look at issues like the types of facilities, issues like the location and so on. Both of those committees, I believe, came to the conclusion that the best solution for Manitoba was a facility located downtown. Both of them pointed to a stand-alone arena entertainment complex as being the most appropriate kind of facility.

Based on that, going back to 1994, some private citizens came forward and put in place an option to purchase the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club. We all know what has happened since then. That option lapsed on May 1 of this year. But that group called the Manitoba Entertainment Complex was going down the path of attempting to acquire the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club on the basis of developing an arena entertainment complex downtown. At one point they were talking about two sites, either adjacent to the Convention Centre or what is called north of The Forks and east of Portage and Main.

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

In the final analysis, the determination of all parties involved, new investors, new owners, current owners, levels of government, is that the best solution is a facility downtown. The facility being of a nature, being an arena entertainment complex so that it can meet the needs of an NHL hockey team.

But it can also meet the needs that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) referred to yesterday. There will be well in excess of a hundred other kinds of events. This will be much more than just a hockey arena, it will be a facility that can be utilized for other events on ice. Ice Capades, skating events, other performances taking place, circuses, all kinds of activities that will benefit many Manitobans who do not necessarily go to NHL hockey games or would not only use the facility for hockey. They would get an opportunity to use it for all kinds of other activities.

Mr. Lamoureux: Would the government actually have the architectural designs of the arena that is currently being proposed to be constructed?

Mr. Stefanson: I have been part of presentations on this issue of the design of the facility. Obviously, that is all going to be part and parcel if we do reach the stage where we enter into an agreement to build a facility. As I have indicated in the House, that agreement would be entered into between the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba with the Spirit of Manitoba to develop the facility.

A part of entering into that agreement would be our satisfaction with all aspects of the architectural design, our satisfaction with any contractual arrangements that are potentially going to be entered into by the Spirit of Manitoba with lead contractors and so on. So, yes, I have seen some preliminary designs and we will have complete and total access to all aspects of developing a facility.

Mr. Lamoureux: I just want to basically conclude with comments--and the minister can respond if he so chooses--to say that I hope and trust that a long-term vision has been developed with a project of this magnitude that is being proposed.

What really made a difference, in terms of me, in terms of questioning this whole process, was to a certain extent, Mr. Neufeld's taking the time to make the appearance and indicating that he was of the opinion that a multiplex facility would, in fact, garner more revenues than a stand-alone arena facility, if you like. It would have more opportunities. It raised the whole question for me in terms of how was this particular facility decided compared to other facilities that were out there.

That is why I was somewhat concerned in terms of a quick-fix approach in terms of, let us resolve the Jets by building a facility strictly for the Winnipeg Jets, if in fact two years from now, for example, we have to spend millions of dollars on renovations with the Winnipeg Football Stadium, or there are additional demands on a baseball diamond for, I believe it is the AAA franchise, or Mr. Katz's facility. When you start adding those sorts of things in, in the numbers that Mr. Koswin was talking about, it was somewhere between 30 to 40 million additional dollars than what the current arena proposal is, if you start adding in those sorts of costs of potential renovations that are there, it does raise some very good questions.

I trust and expect that the government is looking and treating those questions in a very serious fashion and is not going to look just solely for the short-term fix. To one degree I am pleased that the architectural designs have not been finalized because that then does indicate that if in fact the government was of the opinion that it could be expanded to a certain degree to take into account other venues, potential venues, that maybe it is not 100 percent. Maybe it might be just 99 percent. At least the taxpayers and the long-term needs of the province of Manitoba will be looked after. Thank you.

Mr. Stefanson: As we have indicated, over the course of the last many months there have been two different committees that have reviewed facilities, facility locations, types of facilities. We have had presentations certainly through my ministry and others.

I believe the member himself, as he has indicated, he has had a chance to see some of the different proposals that have come forward. He referred to Mr. Koswin's proposal and there have been a series of others. There has been the one that has been talking about potentially renovating the existing site and so on. So there has been a series of alternatives put forward. They vary very significantly in terms of what kind of capital cost is required or what kind of contribution they are even looking for from governments and so on. At the end of the day, the two committees that were reviewing this issue suggested that they felt the most appropriate location was a downtown site.

The focus has been on these two sites and now a determination that the one is a preferable site, north of The Forks, and that the facility be of a nature of being an arena and an entertainment complex. Really, that has now been the basis of a lot of review, a lot of input, a lot of decision making, an awful lot of money being put forward by private investors to invest in keeping the Winnipeg Jets hockey team here in Manitoba. Obviously, the three levels of government are looking at the entire issue and determining that would be the best kind of facility to meet all of our needs, not only hockey, and move forward from there.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 27.7 Urban Economic Development Initiatives $12,500,000--pass.

RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,500,000 for Other Appropriations, Urban Economic Development Initiatives, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

* (1200)

The time is twelve noon. Is the committee wishing to take any break at this time or do they wish to proceed?

An Honourable Member: Proceed.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Proceed.

This concludes the Estimates for Urban Economic Development Initiatives.

Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The next set of Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program on page 146 of the Estimates book. Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are very pleased and proud of how this program has been implemented here in Manitoba. We get compliments right across this nation that we have put in place the most efficient, effective and inclusive system in all of Canada both in terms of how we distributed the funding between traditional and municipal projects and strategic initiatives and also by setting up a mechanism with an allocation to rural Manitoba to include input and consultation with municipal leaders from rural Manitoba. We have representation on the review committee from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, and here in Winnipeg we have the City of Winnipeg offering comment on projects that affect the city of Winnipeg. So we have been very pleased with that part of the delivery mechanism.

In this budget line you will see we have $34,200,000 allocated. That is on the basis of being 50 percent of our contribution over the term of the infrastructure agreement, and that was on the basis, again, that originally the federal government had indicated this would be a three-year agreement with 85 percent of the funds having to be spent by the end of 1995-96. The federal government has since changed this program to now be a five-year program, and as a result, they are talking about potentially some change of cash flow, but here in Manitoba we are following the approach that commitments were made to municipalities and to projects, and we want them all to move forward as quickly and expeditiously as they possibly can.

This program has had several benefits. One of the most significant has been the very significant job creation during the program. The other, of course, has been the improvements to infrastructures in communities right throughout our province. So we have been very pleased with how it is being dealt with here in our province. I am pleased with the work done by everybody in the infrastructure secretariat. I am pleased with the co-operation we have received from the municipal governments and from the federal government on this initiative.

Mr. Chairman, there is a long list of projects that have taken place right throughout Manitoba. In fact, the rural review committee, basically, to a large extent, did a great deal of their allocation on a form of a per capita allocation. So there is fairness. There is regional distribution right throughout our province, and we are pleased with the kind of distribution that we have seen occur in Manitoba. We are very pleased with that overall allocation.

* (1210)

We are also pleased with what has happened here in the city of Winnipeg with the kind of allocation that the City of Winnipeg has done and the support that has taken place in that whole area. So, Mr. Chairman, it has been from our point of view a very successful program here in our province, and it is certainly benefiting communities right throughout all of Manitoba. In fact, I am told when the federal ministers talk about the infrastructure initiative, when they talk about programs--in fact the Prime Minister himself will often refer to Manitoba with a great deal of--he is very complimentary in terms of what we are doing here in our province.

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a program that is serving us well, and I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): We have expressed our concern about the priorities of this government in allocating $11 million in excess of its campaign promise out of this item alone in this fiscal year for infrastructure, and, quite frankly, when there are communities in this province that do not have sewer and water and basic infrastructure, we feel that the priorities of this government are wrong.

Those are my opening comments, and I would be prepared to proceed into the section to discuss these matters further.

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

Mr. Ashton: I have expressed the concerns of our caucus, and I will put it in the form of a motion.

I move that under 27.9 Infrastructure, that the line be reduced by $11 million, the amount equivalent to the funding of a new Winnipeg arena.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the member for Thompson that under 27.9 Infrastructure, that the line be reduced by $11 million, the amount equivalent to the funding of a new Winnipeg arena.

Mr. Stefanson: I, of course, am disappointed to see this motion from the member for Thompson. We discussed this issue somewhat yesterday about both the Winnipeg Jets and the development of a new arena entertainment complex here in our province.

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

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

The members often talk about economic development. They often talk about jobs and those kinds of initiatives, and here you have an entity that provides very significant economic benefits to our community, very significant levels of taxation to both the provincial government and the federal government and taxation levels for the City of Winnipeg, as well.

The member knows that under the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program in this year's budget, we are allocating $34,200,000. When we discussed this issue yesterday, we did indicate that for the upcoming year, 1995-96, that if a new facility, a new arena entertainment complex, is going to be built in Manitoba, that this would be a potential funding source.

The federal government, themselves, have already indicated that the support they want to provide if a facility is built would come from the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure agreement, and we indicated that, because one major project in Winnipeg is not moving forward, the Kenaston underpass, we would be looking to redirect some of those funds to the building of an arena, if that is the final decision that one should be built.

So, within this $34,200,000, we do have the capacity to provide approximately $11 million toward a new entertainment complex, Mr. Chairman, and it would be our intention to do just that, if agreement can be reached on all fronts dealing with the Winnipeg Jets and dealing with developing an entertainment facility.

There are many issues that have to be addressed to ultimately determine whether or not this money will, in fact, flow.

Obviously, the Spirit of Manitoba has recently exercised what one would call an option or closed an option with the current owners of the Jets. The Spirit of Manitoba has indicated they have at least three hurdles they need to clear to close their transaction with the current owners. They have said they intend to close it no later than August 15 of this year. That is part of the agreement that has been reached, and the kinds of conditions they have outlined that they need to meet are that they would have to receive NHL approval to transfer the franchise. They would have to raise an additional $20 million in private--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. We have to recess this section of the committee to go to the House for a formal vote.

The committee recessed at 12:12 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 12:26 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It has been moved by the member for Thompson that under 27.9 Infrastructure, that the line be reduced by $11 million, the amount equivalent to the funding of a new Winnipeg arena.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, just very quickly, the infrastructure program is a program which we have been very supportive of. In fact, we were quite pleased when the federal administration had made announcements during the last federal election that they would move forward with this program. We believe the provincial government has been working fairly co-operatively on this particular program. I applaud them on that.

We definitely have some concerns with respect to the Winnipeg arena in terms of how much money, where the rest of the money is going to be coming from for the construction of this arena. We would have liked to have seen further clarification of that before we start assigning additional dollars out to the Winnipeg arena, but suffice to say, the infrastructure program is a good idea and we believe will provide many jobs in the future for Manitobans.

An Honourable Member: Question.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The question has been called on the motion by the honourable member for Thompson:

THAT under 27.9 Infrastructure that the line be reduced by $11 million, the amount equivalent to the funding of a new Winnipeg arena.

Voice Vote

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.

Some Honourable Members: Yea.

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

Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: In my opinion, the Nays have it.

Formal Vote

Mr. Ashton: I request a recorded vote.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there a second member to--

Mr. Ashton: My buddy is supporting me here.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale).

We shall recess and proceed to the Assembly for a formal vote.

The committee recessed at 12:28 p.m.

________

After Recess

The committee resumed at 12:36 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

Item 27.9 Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital $34,200,000.

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

If, in fact, for example, this particular motion would have passed, we would have seen a significant reduction in the infrastructure program and all members of the Chamber, I am sure, are aware that these are dollars that are in fact matched and by not matching on the funds, then are we releasing federal and other jurisdictions of their responsibility to put in. Having said what I probably should not have said in terms of commenting on the amendment that was brought forward, I will leave my comments at that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, we are prepared to pass it.

Mr. Ashton: Yes, I indicated we are going to have a number of questions for the minister, although we do anticipate passing the whole section prior to two o'clock. What I want to indicate is, without referencing the motion which was unfortunately defeated by both the Liberals and Conservatives, our concern in terms of infrastructure once again is--

An Honourable Member: He called me a Liberal.

Mr. Ashton: I have always acknowledged the member for Inkster as a Liberal, obviously through his official and unofficial party status, but in the same way that the New Democrats in Ottawa and Conservatives in Ottawa do not always get recognized, they are still Conservatives and New Democrats. I find it is rather absurd if we start getting into calling members such as the member for Inkster as independent. He is a member of an unrecognized party in the House, but that does not mean he is not a member of the party. So I extend to him that courtesy.

An Honourable Member: They might change their name.

Mr. Ashton: Well, the minister is talking about changing the name. I think the only party that has done that in Manitoba is the formerly Conservative Party, now the Filmon team, but anyway we will not get into that.

What I want to indicate is that our concern is with priorities and we could not--and we will not support $11 million out of the infrastructure program for the new Winnipeg arena. In moving the motion, which I am not going to refer to in the sense that it was defeated, what we want is to make it absolutely clear and the only way, shape and form open to us is that we do not want money from the infrastructure program going to the arena in contravention of every single campaign promise that the Filmon team, that we were just referencing, made in the election.

They promised $10 million maximum, period. In this line item, we are dealing with $11 million in one year, one fiscal year. I ask the rhetorical question, Mr. Chairperson, really, what has changed in that period of time, other than the election? I can tell you from my constituency that the overwhelming opinion of my constituents is in opposition to this allocation--overwhelming, and it crosses all political boundaries. I have received many calls on it, I have talked to many people, and they understand that in these times of limited tax dollars what the real issue is, and that is the priorities.

The government is saying out of $35 million allocated for infrastructure in this line item, that $11 million should go for the construction of this new arena. Let us not kid ourselves as to why this arena is being put in place. There has been reference in these committee hearings to it being put in place for generalized purposes, but you know, before the election those generalized purposes, I mean, we heard about Ice Capades and the circus. The Ice Capades and the circus rationale was there, and the government said $10 million, period.

* (1240)

The only thing that has changed is after the election, coincidentally, we saw the whole succession of events unfold which saw, first the team leaving, then the team not leaving. We have seen these moving deadlines. We have seen the MEC, the Spirit proposals. We have seen negotiations back and forth between Messrs. Shenkarow, Asper et al. We have seen this whole process. In that process, what we have essentially seen is the government up-the-ante from $10 million to $37 million for the arena. The city has done the same. It has committed the $37 million in other costs. We have seen the federal government come up with the $20 million.

Then we have seen the unresolved question, which I cannot particularly raise under this line item, which is the whole question of taxes. So we are seeing the public sector paying for essentially well over 50 percent of the combined cost of the team, the package, the new Spirit package, if you want to call it that, and the arena. The minister will eventually have the numbers, I am sure of it. If the tax deduction goes through you are dealing with 70, 80 percent, the total amount. Certainly well in excess of 50 percent, because 50 percent is covered in the arena in as of itself, fully funded by the taxpayers.

It is a question, again, Mr. Chairperson, of priorities. We do not feel that we should be supporting, as people of Manitoba, $ll million out of infrastructure for the new arena. We have communities that do not have sewer and water. We have communities that do not have basic road service. We have communities that do not have line hydro power. I happen to represent a number of them in northern Manitoba. We have communities in Third World conditions. [interjection] The Minister of Northern Affairs says, name them. The former Minister of Northern Affairs, he knows full well--

An Honourable Member: You voted against every bit of money we put forward for those communities. You voted against it.

Mr. Ashton: The minister who neglected the Northern Affairs communities during his tenure and this minister, Mr. Chairperson, who argues--

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable Deputy Premier, on a point of order.

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): No, Mr. Chairman. I want to be put on the list so I can give a speech.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All right.

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

I understand the minister is sensitive. The minister can talk all he wants, but he stood in his place just a moment ago and voted for $11 million for a Winnipeg arena. That is $11 million that is not going to go to his constituency in Arthur-Virden, and it is $11 million that is not going to go to northern Manitoba. He knows the communities, and if he does not know the communities that do not have sewer and water and line hydro power, he should know about it. He should know that some of the negotiations go back to when he was in government, by the way, when he was incompetent to the point where he ended up loosing the Northern Development Agreement, the same minister.

Here we have another federal-provincial agreement, Mr. Chairperson, in which this government has an opportunity to put priority in terms of northern communities. Do you know what they did in terms of Northern Affairs? They did not increase the capital budget one cent. Municipalities did, in the case of Thompson, they put money up. Other communities put money up to access the federal and provincial funds.

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

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

But you know, here was $11 million out of $35 million that could have been allocated for sewer and water. It could have been done very easily, because when you are dealing with Northern Affairs communities it is very simple, Mr. Chairperson. The government of Manitoba basically is responsible for the Northern Affairs communities. They could have gone to the federal government and said, let us cost-share the improvement of these type of facilities.

Those kinds of cost-sharings, by the way, were available with the previous agreement that we had, the Northern Development Agreement. We have no Northern Development Agreement. This is the only area you can cost-share this, and that is where the government is completely failing.

You know, the minister walks into this debate with great indignation and starts waving his hands around and waiting his chance to speak. I would like to say to this minister, as I do to every rural member in this House, that they just voted for $11 million for a new arena, and, yesterday, they voted for $1.8 million for Jets' losses. Are they representing their constituents?

You know, when we see in Ottawa a federal Liberal government trying to turf out people that have spoken up for their constituents on issues such as the gun registration, and we hear people criticizing that government for making its members tow the line.

What about the rural members, Mr. Chairperson, the rural members who just voted for $1.8 million for the losses and who just voted for $11 million for a Winnipeg arena? On what basis did they vote for that? On behalf of their constituents? No, there is not a single rural constituency in this province where people support what this government is doing, not a single one.

You can run a referendum in the municipalities in this community, and you will find that. Run a referendum in the city of Winnipeg, and you will find the same thing because every single survey that has been conducted has shown that right here in the city of Winnipeg, people are opposed to taxpayers' money going to pay for what? Going to pay for millionaire salaries in terms of a hockey team, and we are now dealing with constructing a new arena.

Ask any one of the members of the government benches on the rural side to go to their communities and say, here is $35 million. We are going to spend $11 million for the Winnipeg arena. Do you think that is the appropriate priority for the provincial government? Mr. Chairperson, you know, I know, we all know the response that is going to come from rural and northern Manitobans.

The Minister of Finance, of all people--here is the Minister of Finance, who on the one hand is lecturing people about the shortage of taxpayers' money, and on the other hand, he is the minister in this same debate who is now saying, well, yes, we are short of money, but we do have $11 million this year alone for a Winnipeg arena. This is the Minister of Finance who says we have got money in next year's budget, and we have got money in the budget the year after. You know, every time I get up on behalf of my constituents, I am told there is only so much money to go around. [interjection]

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

This is the worst showing of the Conservative Party in how many years, Mr. Chairperson--26 years in the Thompson constituency. They lost every single community, every single community, and the minister would not know the truth if he tripped over it, and I wish he would stop harassing me.

Point of Order

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairman, I will not make a big issue out of it, but I would appreciate if the member would stick to parliamentary language and not try to demean myself as a person and an individual.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I just have a question for clarification. What is the complaint here on the point of order?

Mr. Downey: No, carry on. I just wanted to bring him to his senses.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: There is no point of order.

* * *

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, I think the minister should come to his senses and wake up to the reality of his government's seven years of neglect. [interjection] Well, I would appreciate if you could ask the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), who should know better--perhaps it is the heat that is getting to the member, but when I see the member standing there making gestures and constantly interrupting, this is not the way to proceed in committee, and it is absolutely uncalled for, for the Deputy Premier, a senior member of this House, to be--[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson, I would ask if you would call the Deputy Premier to order, because his antics are somewhat on the juvenile side, to say the least. I do not think it is appropriate for members to be sitting there making various gestures at other members and constantly interrupting. I would ask that we get some order in the committee.

* (1250)

(Mr. Peter Dyck, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Downey: Mr. Chairperson, if the member feels offended by the fact that I actually made a reference to the fact that he was doing a lot of talking, I will apologize. That is the only thing that I did, was make reference to the fact that the member is actually doing a lot of talking and not saying a whole lot.

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, there is not much point in continuing this kind of discussion in the committee. You know, I want to put some comments on the record based on the priorities of this government. I mean, if the minister wants to come in and make the kind of juvenile comments that he continues to make even when he withdraws his comments--if he wants to withdraw his comments, he can do it, as I had to and others have had to do unequivocally. If he wants to make juvenile comments on the record, I would suggest he do that in his caucus room because it is not appropriate to this committee.

Our concern in this issue has been very clear right from the beginning. It is a question of priorities. If we have $11 million to spend on a Winnipeg arena, we can come up with a thousand and one better ways to spend it. It is a simple fact, Mr. Chairperson, and, quite frankly, I can understand why members opposite are sensitive on this issue.

They are not representing their constituents when they vote for $11 million for the Winnipeg arena, and they are not representing their constituents when they vote for $1.8 million in Jets' losses. It is as simple as that. The fact that this number, the $10-million figure, was expanded after the election is full indication of that.

The people of Manitoba on April 25 did not have the opportunity to vote on the true agenda of this government, and no one is going to kid anyone in rural and northern Manitoba. This government knew that it was willing to raise the ante, but did it say that in the election? The Premier (Mr. Filmon) said, read my lips, $10 million, and within a matter of days, it was clear that we were not going to see a limit on that, and within a matter of weeks, Mr. Chairperson, it was very apparent that the real figure was $37 million, and that is just from the provincial government. That is not including any other indirect or direct tax liabilities that will be incurred as part of the rest of the package which involves the tax liability.

So that is what we boil it down to, Mr. Chairperson. We want the government to understand that what it is doing here, to my mind, is not only poor priorities, but it is really what I would consider an abuse of the infrastructure program.

When the federal government and the provincial government sat down, the purpose of the infrastructure program was clearly to deal with basic municipal infrastructure. Well, the minister says no, but where does he justify on the grounds of public policy building a new arena for a professional hockey team. If he can justify that to his constituents, then that is between him and his constituents. I know the fact is that most Manitobans, given the choice, would say it does not make sense to spend money out of an infrastructure program, $11 million for an arena when we have basic needs in communities. Lack of sewer and water, I mentioned; roads, I mentioned. There are communities that need major upgrading of sewer and water.

There are a whole series of projects that have far greater merit than this particular project. What really concerns me is the matter of public process, quite frankly, the fact that this was done in the midst of some very unusual events that took place. It was done basically without public input, without public consultation. The significant nature of what is happening with this line item and with the previous line item we dealt with yesterday, this is the first time the Manitoba Legislature has had a time to vote on this.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Everything has been done thus far by cabinet fiat. That is not acceptable. It is a question of public process here. Even the City of Winnipeg held a direct vote on whether they would put in their $37 million plus the other associated items. The provincial government has refused to put this to the Manitoba Legislature. I say that our role as legislators is very clear. It is to decide on matters of public policy. I believe that this government should have had the political courage to show its true agenda before the election by putting the $37 million figure on the table.

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

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairperson, each would have to make that decision, but we do not get that option. The only option we had was yesterday and today. I think it was significant that every single government member voted with the government in favour of the $11 million and the $1.8 million, including every rural member and every urban member that was present. I am not making reference to the absence of any members. The only members that were absent as far as I am aware were ministers who were paired on government business.

I would appreciate--in fact, I would like to ask the minister this question, and this will be the one question I will be asking. My colleague will be raising this afterwards in terms of some other follow-up questions. I would like to ask the minister, in all honesty, how he can justify it to the many communities that have needs out there in terms of infrastructure, including the city of Winnipeg which has significant needs in terms of sewer and water--for example, upgrading of sewer and water is required--and many other infrastructure needs.

If he can say in good conscience that in terms of public process what the government is doing is right, that $11 million should be allocated to an arena for the Winnipeg Jets instead of the many other needs of Manitoba, I assume he will answer that that is his case that he is putting to the people of Manitoba, and that is fair in terms of debate. I would appreciate once on the record that statement, because that is really the issue here. There are limited public dollars. Where, in this case out of a $35 million line item, do we spend it?

For the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), on the one hand, who preaches--and so he should, as Minister of Finance, that is his responsibility to look after the finances of this province. But I would appreciate even if the minister can justify there why, on the one hand, he is talking about the shortage of tax dollars and the need on a constant basis to be responsible in terms of the fiscal management of this province and how he can justify, on the other hand, with spending $11 million in one year out of a $35 million item, in addition to the $1.8 million in losses that have been budgeted--how can he justify spending that amount of money when as Finance minister he knows all too well just how tight our finances are and how priorities have to be met? So I would appreciate if the minister could answer that question.

Mr. Stefanson: I will be brief because I know my colleague has a comment he would like to make as well. I think what the member from Thompson (Mr. Ashton) shows with his remarks is a complete and total lack of understanding and knowledge of how the infrastructure program has been put in place from day one. He makes a big to-do that all of the money should be going into what he calls traditional water and sewer projects. If he looks back at the history of this issue, he will very quickly realize that the provincial government, the federal government and other governments across Canada realized that there should be much more broad-based support.

In fact, at the western premiers' meeting in 1993, and I think he knows what political parties are represented amongst the western premiers. There are two Conservative governments, two NDP governments. The western premiers themselves said they support an early start to the national infrastructure program and agreed to a number of important principles and criteria to guide its implementation. The first one of those is that the infrastructure must be broadly defined.

There are priority needs in a variety of areas that could include technological innovations, transportation, communications, environmental protection, community needs and skills training. So from day one the whole objective was to have a broad-based program. Very early in terms of the $204 million that was allocated for Manitoba, $60 million was designated to rural Manitoba for traditional water and sewer projects. That has been done on the basis of recommendations from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities with their wholehearted support. Mr. Chairperson, $60 million to the City of Winnipeg for traditional water and sewer and $84 million for strategic initiative.

Within the strategic initiative, some of the kind of undertakings that are in motion are rural gasification, distance education, initiatives that are benefiting rural Manitoba. Within that same pool of resources, there are also allocations for the city of Winnipeg, and one of those tentatively at this point in time is to fund a new entertainment complex and arena.

I want to remind the member, if political leaders of the day had had the same kind of attitude that he has here today, and I know even the NDP governed this province occasionally, we would not have the Convention Centre, we would not have The Forks, we would not have North Portage, we would not have the Concert Hall, we would not have the Pan Am Pool, we would not have the aqueduct, we would not have a whole series of capital initiatives because of the lack of vision, the lack of foresight and the head-in-the-ground attitude that is being portrayed by the member from Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the whole objective of the infrastructure program was to be broad based, to do traditional sewer and water, but to do a number of other things.

* (1300)

It was to create jobs, and it has done just that. It has created some 3,300 jobs to date. It was also to create economic development opportunities and have a long-term legacy for all of our communities. Obviously, an entertainment complex arena, if it is built here, it will continue to maintain an NHL hockey team that has an economic benefit to our community. It will continue to provide a facility to attract all kinds of other events and organizations that will generate economic activity in our community and many--he does not need to take my word for it.

Independent studies have been done by various corporations, organizations, individuals that point to a very significant economic benefit to our community by having the Winnipeg Jets here in our community. In terms of the agreement itself--I mean, the whole idea of re-entering this agreement was on the basis that the public sector would build a facility as they have done in the many examples I have given him, where there have been significant public resources, not only here in Manitoba, but right across Canada, for those kind of facilities, and the private sector would put together resources to purchase the hockey team and keep them here in Manitoba.

A very significant commitment, a significant contribution from individuals in our province who are prepared to put forward a lot of money to do just that, a significant contribution by governments to put in place a facility that will serve the needs of Winnipeg and Manitoba for many, many decades to come for a whole range of activities and will create a significant economic impact for our city and for our province, not only during construction but for many decades thereafter.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on and on and point out the error of judgment on the part of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) and his lack of understanding of the infrastructure works agreement. I would gladly do that at any point in time, but I know the Deputy Premier has some comments, and I will conclude.

Mr. Downey: I regret that the individual whom I had my remarks most prepared for--but I am sure he will read it in Hansard, because it--

Point of Order

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I know that the member opposite knows that it is not proper to refer to a member's attendance at any hearing or sitting of the House or its committees, and I know that he did not mean to do that.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: To all honourable members, we are not to refer to the presence or nonpresence of any of the members.

Mr. Downey: On the same point of order, I would ask you to read Hansard. I did not make reference to the fact as to whether or not he was or was not here.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I did not rule on the point of order. I simply cautioned all honourable members.

* * *

Mr. Downey: I appreciate your caution, If the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) would read Hansard, and I would advise that he would, he got awfully jumpy as to what I was going to say rather than what I did say, and that is a typical New Democrat.

On the infrastructure, I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the committee, provincial, and all the employees have carried out on behalf of the people of Manitoba in putting together a program as quickly as they did to make sure there were jobs and that there were necessary infrastructure programs put in place. They are all very well-meaning programs, right from rural gasification to the educational infrastructure that is being developed. It will mean a tremendous economic boost for all of those communities that are a part of the program.

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important that that be put on the record. I could talk for hours and hours about the incompetence and the manner in which the New Democratic Party, when the member for Thompson was part of that administration--and let me just remind the public of Manitoba on the record that they frittered $27 million away to Saudi Arabia; $27 million at that time would have built an entire arena probably or an entertainment complex, but what did they do? They chose to spend $27 million of hard-earned taxpayers' money to keep a few people employed at Manitoba Telephone System. They did not want to have to face the fact that maybe there had to be some downsizing.

This is the kind of decision making that was made by a New Democratic government. The member for Thompson--

An Honourable Member: What about the bridge?

Mr. Downey: The minister reminds me about the bridge without a road to it, north of Selkirk, again, 20-plus millions of dollars. That, along with all of the other ridiculous spending by the New Democrats, piled a debt on the people of Manitoba that we are still trying to dig out. We currently have a $600-and-some-million interest bill that we are trying to pay on an annual basis because of their incompetence, their misdirection and their misguiding of the public purse of this province--has to be said and I am saying it, and I will say it over and over again. That, quite frankly, is why the people on April 25 left them in opposition. They did not want any more of those experiments with the New Democrats and their spending as happened in Ontario, so the numbers and the way the people of Manitoba have spoken again on the 25th of April clearly point out whom they want in charge of the expenditures of these funds.

Mr. Chairman, the member makes a lot about whether or not Thompson should support or the people of Thompson want to support. If we break down all the monies that are spent community by community, and they measure how much money goes back to that community across the board, not just lotteries, sales tax, everything else, that breaks totally and is in opposition to what I believe the New Democratic Party and the socialist philosophy believe in, totally, totally makes a province ungovernable, that you have jealousies, you have disruption, you have people saying, they got more than we got. That cannot happen. It flies in the face of what they are trying to sell us on, whether we believe in the Canadian Wheat Board. They believe that we should all throw our wheat into one pot and we should level it all out and take so much back as per bushel.

I can tell you, for years, the people of southwestern Manitoba produced high-quality wheat. We did not get paid for the quality. It was blended and mixed off, and we got an average price like everybody else because that was the right thing to do. That was what the socialists believe in. Today, what they are doing is saying that is not any longer right: we will measure it as to how much you put in; you will take out that much. That is almost separatist policies. It is almost driving wedges community to community. I say to the people of Manitoba, it is absolutely, absolutely improper that governments be put in the situation that we are driving.

So the infrastructure, we believe, administered through Executive Council in the legislative system has been done fairly and will continue to be done fairly.

Let me just speak to the entertainment complex, because I put it on the record the other day. I do not look at it as an arena just to play hockey. I look at it as an investment in Manitoba's future.

Winnipeg is a major part of Manitoba. Winnipeg people help build things throughout rural Manitoba, whether it was the Keystone Centre in Brandon, where several millions of dollars have gone in, whether it is the road system to Thompson, whether it was the sewage lagoon at Pikwitonei that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talks about, and it was so poorly done under the NDP it has not floated a gallon of water or sewage. Goodness knows, if they used it for the member for Thompson, it would have quite a bit, but it has not even the ability to be operated.

The member for Thompson says that he has not any electricity in some of his communities. Well, he is wrong. There is electricity. Some of his communities need an upgrade. They need an overland line, which every year we have funds in place to put the monies toward the overland hydro lines to north central or northeastern Manitoba communities. He has voted against it, Mr. Chairman. The member for Thompson has not supported the programs that we put in place to bring the overland hydro lines to those nine or 11 communities. We put the program in place, $117 million, with the federal government, Manitoba Hydro and the province to bring those people up to today's living standards. He voted against it--not let he sit here and say that he is the great saviour of the North, because he has been a disaster.

In Flin Flon, the infrastructure that we supported in putting in $25 million to the upgrading of the smelter, the NDP were in for--how many?--years and could not put it together.

The Repap operation now at The Pas, one of the biggest environmental disasters was the operation of Manfor under the New Democratic Party, that we spent millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to clean up the mess that they left, and we sold it to a private company. Today it is creating jobs and wealth for the province.

Let me, Mr. Chairman, remind the member of the lack of support for the native communities where Hydro had caused tremendous damage, whether it is the Grand Rapids forebay problems where this Premier (Mr. Filmon) sent a letter to Manitoba Hydro and said: we do not have a legal obligation, but we have a moral obligation; get on with resolving it. We put millions of dollars into the settlement.

The NDP, I can go to the record and show you letters that they said, we have no legal obligation. I can tell you, the NDP can sit here holier than thou, but the record clearly speaks for itself. They were a disaster as it came to looking after the people of northern Manitoba, and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), every time we have put a positive initiative forward, has voted against it, so I get a little bit upset. The member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), I appreciate, says, keep it at a higher level. Well, I intend to keep it at a higher level, and I intend to keep telling the people the truth.

As for the member for Thompson saying that I am juvenile, I do not know what he has against juveniles. I think he should rethink what he said. What I actually did was I said nothing on the record, but I made a motion that he was doing quite a bit of talking. Now if he takes exception to that, I apologize to him if his feelings are a little bit sensitive because he had to back off this morning in the House, but, again, there are many examples.

This government, that is what a Conservative government is all about, is building infrastructure so people can do things on their own. I again conclude my remarks by saying I have no difficulty in saying to the people of Arthur-Virden, yes, we supported a Manitoba entertainment complex because your children, the future children of Manitoba, of which we are all a part--we are all a part of the same community. We are all a part of Canada. That is a part of what we own. It is not just for a few people in Winnipeg. It is not just for a few hockey players. It is for everyone in the province. It is an entertainment complex of which we will be able to bring trade missions. We will be able to demonstrate what we do in this province on events that I think will be world class because we will have a world-class facility.

Again, let me remind the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), in voting against this, how many hundreds of jobs is he voting against of his union friends that will be there building it? How many people is he voting against? Is he going to take the narrow-minded view that if it is not built in Thompson, we should not do it?

I suggest to the New Democratic Party, they should take a look at their true values and what they are now espousing as it relates to either the Lotteries spending in community by community or whether they take to heart what they really stand for as New Democrats.

I honestly believe, Mr. Chairman, that we all are a part of Manitoba, we are all a part of Canada, and I say to the people of Winnipeg, we will do what we can to make sure we are able to maintain the focus of building this city as we want to build Thompson, as we want to build the Brandons, as we want to build the Arthur-Virden communities, as we want to build the Steinbachs.

* (1310)

I take exception to the almost separatist attitude that the member for Thompson is taking, because that is what he is saying. If Thompson spends the money, the only place that any money should be spent is back in their community. I do not think that is what the people of Thompson want. I think the people of Thompson are very, very fair people. They want their fair share. That is what he is sent to the Legislature to do, is to truly stand up and represent them on a fair and equitable basis. If he feels that he is unable to do so, then he should reassess what his position is in this Legislative Assembly.

So I say, Mr. Chairman, today--and I put this on the record because I think it is extremely important in future as it relates to infrastructure, as it relates to how we spend monies in this province. The Legislative Assembly gives the authority. Executive Council has the authority to distribute and to make sure that the funds are allocated properly with the government caucus. We, I believe, received a mandate on the 25th of April to continue on with the policies and programs we have put in place.

I say I am extremely proud of what we have done and, yes, the argument could be made that we had to go a little further than we had previously decided on the facility. I have had a few people comment about it, but when I explain to them the situation we are in and the numbers of millions of dollars that we will get back in tax revenues, that we will get such a tremendous economic spin-off that we are going to be ready for the year 2000 in Manitoba, we are not going to be a have-not province, that we can, I believe, afford to do it.

One finishing comment--and there are just many things that keep coming to my mind, you know. When is the New Democratic Party going to get its act together? When the Leader of the opposition party said, well, we think the infrastructure money is the perfect place to take the money from. Take it from the underpass, take it from Route 90, that is where we want to do it. Clearly on CJOB, I believe, he was espousing, use the infrastructure money to build the entertainment complex.

Now he is saying, the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is saying, why would you use that infrastructure money? Let us not use it for that. Let us use it for infrastructure. I wish he and his Leader would get their act together. They are certainly sending mixed messages. Of course, that is nothing new, Mr. Chairman, because it is whatever thinks will gain them more political popularity. That is what drives the New Democratic Party, not what is right.

So, yes, there are people--and I am not saying everyone is absolutely 100 percent sold on this in Arthur-Virden, but I say, in general, when you talk to them and tell them the truth about what is happening, they are generally supportive. In fact, I have had some pretty strong advocates come forward, who are extremely positive on sports and sporting activity, who are telling me that it is absolutely essential that we support the development that has taken place. So I want it on the record.

I want it on the record, as well, that the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), I wish would stand up too in defence of what is happening. Not only has the Keystone received considerable amounts of millions of dollars to help it develop, as many other rural communities have, there is a request currently which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) could speak to in infrastructure that is currently being requested of this government to help fund. Do you think we should turn it down? Do you think we should say it is the wrong thing to do because it is an entertainment centre? Yes, they play hockey. The Wheat Kings play darn good hockey. It is not just for the Wheat Kings. It is for the fair. It is for rural winter activity. It is for world curling. It is for all those events that you can bring to a facility like that. Without that facility, we could not have had the world curling in Brandon. Without an entertainment complex, we would not be able to entertain world events like we are going to. Of course, the Pan Am Games is another example of what is taking place.

So I tell the members of the New Democratic Party, pull your heads out of the sand. We are in a progressive province. We are in a progressive country. Yes, we have to spend responsibly, and we have to earn the money that we do spend. We do not have to tax the people and go into debt like they did. We can do it, and we will do it. We are going to put legislation in place to make sure we do do it, and any future governments have to follow the same path.

I apologize for taking so much time, but I felt it was extremely important to put this on the record because truth is truth, and I feel very strongly about it that the right path has been struck by this minister in infrastructure. I compliment him and all the members of the government who support this line and the use of money to help build a better, more progressive province.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I have been promised that some time during this session I would hear from the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), and I am glad to now have heard from him at his finest. I am not going to make very many comments about what he said. I will make a few though. I have a number of comments I want to make about the arena and the overall process.

I want to start simply with the question of the arena itself. The minister has said that he has seen drawings and has seen some of the preliminary--I do not know whether they are sketches or whether they are preliminary working drawings or whether they are final working drawings, but I would say to the minister that a great deal of the anxiety being expressed by those who are concerned about the wisdom of this expenditure would be allayed by having these drawings, which presumably were the basis for the final guaranteed maximum price, available for public inspection so that the public could know the answers to certain questions.

I have here a letter, which I am not going to table at this time, but I will be tabling in due course, from--[interjection] Mr. Chairperson, I apologize to the staff of Government Services who, I understand, were asked to come, and I believe that the decision is that we are going to continue in Finance until the close of the day. I am sorry. I am prepared to close it, too, if you want to carry on for half an hour. [interjection] Well, we did have rather a long peroration. Just for clarification, if it is the wish of the committee that we close at, let us say, how about a quarter to two? But I have a number of comments on the whole project which I want to put on the record so they are in one place. I spoke with my colleague and that was our agreement. I am prepared to close by quarter to two if that is of assistance to the process.

Mr. Stefanson: Agreed. It is different than my understanding of what was tentatively agreed to, but that is fine.

Mr. Sale: Okay. Then I will hold to that commitment.

I want to start with the question of the actual arena, and I have said that I thought it would be helpful if the government would make available to all Manitobans the sketches or the drawings which are going to be apparently shared on Monday evening with City Council. It appears to me that it would be entirely reasonable that, if a final guaranteed maximum price has been arrived at, these drawings should be shared.

* (1320)

The concern is simply that, according to figures from across North America, no arena has been constructed in the last number of years for the price that is included in the final guaranteed maximum price. The arena currently under construction in Vancouver by the same consortium, Dominion Hunt, is currently estimated at $160 million finished cost, with $14 million allowed for land. We find it difficult to accept that we can do the same job here for approximately $120 million including the land. That is why we would like to see the working drawings on which the final guaranteed maximum price was set.

Specifically, I want to raise the following questions. We talked about this, and the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) talked about this, as being an entertainment complex. The government continues to call it such. In an entertainment complex there are provisions for multiple kinds of events. Are there specifically at least three loading docks that can handle semis at the same time with appropriate unloading facilities and storage facilities? Otherwise, the cost of staging some of the events which are hoped for for the other 70 approximately event days each year will be very high and the profits will be accordingly lower.

What are the staging sizes and configurations? What are the heights and widths of the stage that could be used for shows in the arena?

What are the catering and kitchen arrangements? When you bring in a major show, you are required to feed the crew and the cast, at least a hundred people. The catering and kitchen facilities and eating facilities ought to be adequate for an absolute minimum of a hundred people at a time.

What are the box office and ticketing arrangements, not just for hockey--that is the easiest part--but for the many other events?

The current deal apparently has eliminated the building of parking as a cost-saving measure. However, there is an absolute requirement for secured parking for semitrailers, for commercial vehicles associated with the arena and for performers. The minimum is eight semis and six buses. That needs to be secure 24-hour parking. In any first-class facility, that parking is climate controlled because much of the equipment is sensitive to temperature, but at absolute minimum adjacent parking is required.

There are a number of other technical issues. This letter that I am referring to comes from Jerry Shore and Associates who was the second largest user of the arena this year, bringing in profitable events that contribute substantially to the bottom line of the arena. Mr. Shore has never been contacted by the design group, by Dominion Hunt, or by MEC, nor to the best of his knowledge have any of the other professional promoters in town been asked for their absolute minimum or desirable technical requirements for such a facility.

No one has been able to satisfy those people who, unlike us, favour the building of this complex. We do not favour the building of the complex. Nevertheless, we want to represent their questions that we think are legitimate and go to the question of the viability of the current proposed plan.

Now I want to comment on the questions of the viability of the MEC business plan.

The MEC business plan obviously has been substantially amended since it was presented first on April 26, written approximately April 12 or 13. The minister has continually used the net and gross benefits of having a professional hockey team in Winnipeg as though they were interchangeable. The minister has been asked in previous Estimates' debate to table the Coopers & Lybrand report. I have not had a response back from him as to either whether this will be done, or if it will not be done, why it will not be done.

The Coopers & Lybrand report is, I believe, the basis for many of the estimates of benefit. Yet we have not been able to see this report to ascertain how these benefits were arrived at.

Errol Black and Joseph Dolecki of Brandon University took a look at the question of gross and net benefits and pointed out, quite correctly, that unless a professional hockey team or any--it does not matter whether it is a hockey team or a restaurant. Unless any new economic initiative actually brings new dollars into a jurisdiction, then it simply rearranges the economics of that existing situation. Putting a new restaurant up on Pembina Highway does not bring the gross benefits to the Manitoba economy of that restaurant's gross proceeds. It brings the net benefits of whatever new spending is new to Manitoba, and it is not simply redirected existing spending.

Any accounting firm, whether it is big or small, that does a cost-benefit study knows that we talk about net benefits as the bottom line, not gross benefits. The net benefits estimated by Black and Dolecki at maximum are $7 million a year. That is not an insignificant figure, but it is far from the figure that has been quoted by the minister and by the government many times over.

If they would not want to confuse and unnecessarily mislead the people of Manitoba in terms of their understanding of this initiative, they would not use gross benefits as though it were net benefits.

I would refer to the work of Dr. Robert Baade, who is an American economist who is a sports economist. That is his whole study, the economics of professional sport. He has exhaustively studied the impact of professional sports franchises on major American cities, some 35 different franchises he examined. His conclusion is that in no case is it possible to discern any net benefits, let alone the modest amount that we have seen here in Black and Dolecki's report.

He says that it is impossible to ascertain any net benefits from professional sport franchises, that where there are effects that are discernible, they have all been negative, that is, they have been losing revenues for the jurisdiction, not providing new revenues.

He points out absolutely correctly that in a province like Manitoba or a state like Minnesota, unless the new initiative succeeds in bringing significant numbers of new people into that jurisdiction from outside to take part in the events that are scheduled in the facility, there cannot, by definition, be any real benefit because there simply are no new dollars arrived at in this whole process.

Baade's work has been widely accepted by a very large field of economists who draw on it for these kinds of studies. I am sure that the government probably has this study, but, if it does not, I would be glad to supply them with a copy.

First, on the question of the viability of the plan and the assumption of net benefits, I do not believe there are significant net benefits from the maintenance of a professional hockey team in Winnipeg. I believe, if there are benefits, they are of a psychological marketing kind of benefit but that they are not real economic benefits.

The viability of the plan tabled by MEC: The budget for the salaries of the hockey team has grown very sharply following the salary dispute lockout, strike, whatever of last year. MEC recognizes in their business plan the degree of the salary increases. I believe that now they are estimating that this year it will be at least $30 million. That, of course, is before the signing of the three marquee players whose contracts are now up for negotiation.

Incredibly, the sensitivity analysis that has been done in MEC's business plan is based on salary escalations of only inflation. No professional sport of which I am aware has had salary escalations limited to inflation. They have vastly exceeded inflation. "Skyrocketing" is one of the terms that has been used repeatedly. Since the signing of the NHL agreement early in 1995, the salary escalations, according to MEC's own figures, have exceeded 50 percent.

So a business plan whose sensitivity analysis is limited to a case of salary escalations of 10 percent for two more years and 6 percent thereafter, and that is their worst-case scenario, is clearly open to serious question.

I would point out that the base case is a 4.5 percent increase per year until the year 2000 and 3.3 percent after the year 2000, that even at their so-called worst-case scenario of 10 percent and 6 percent, the reserves which they were planning on were fully depleted by the year 2002, and new funding is required thereafter to cover escalating losses.

* (1330)

So our question to the minister is, is the business plan making sufficiently conservative assumptions in regard to players' salaries and other costs with regard to estimated team losses? We have noted that the endowment fund has been suggested at the level of $60 million. The estimated losses, according to our sources at City Hall, which unfortunately is the one place where we get reasonably straight information from these days--[interjection] Well, we have none from the government. The information from City Hall is that they will be between $20 million and $22 million next year. That means that over the next two years, even if we flatline them for two years, which is unlikely, the endowment fund will be short by between $40 million and $44 million before any move into the new building takes place, leaving somewhere in the order of $20 million or $25 million to underwrite any subsequent losses.

We note too that there is an assumption, on page 26, I believe it is, of continued revenue sharing. I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairperson, it is page 21. The business plan suggests that the federal and provincial governments--it does not say which ones but talks about governments--should provide matching ongoing funding to cover losses of between $1.5 million and $2 million per year. It makes that request following an assumption that the NHL revenue sharing will generate a similar amount of $1.5 million to $2 million per year.

We know already, from the current meeting of the governors, that any revenue sharing has not been decided yet--it is a long-term question if it is ever going to be decided--and that even the discussions about some measures to deal with Canadian currency have been put on hold at least until their next meeting and perhaps after that.

So we wonder whether the promises of absolutely no ongoing losses were made in the light of the April 26 business plan which clearly called for the public to continue to participate in ongoing losses in the order of at least $1.5 million to $2 million per year.

We also note that the government has been all over the map on the question of charitable status. I understand the confusion in this issue, but various ministers at various times have either said, well, that is purely a mutual decision by Revenue Canada; others have said, it is probably a good idea.

I would ask the minister to consider whether this government wants to be part of a deal that makes professional hockey appear to be a charity for tax purposes? This government has made much over the years of the role of the voluntary sector. It has made much of the importance of charitable activities in the community, and rightly so as the minister opposite says. It stretches morality and credulity to think that in any way a professional hockey team could be put in the position to be a beneficiary of a charitable donation. It simply twists the notion of charity all out of any reasonable meaning.

We also question, on the issue of viability, the need for the complete giving over of all revenues from the new entertainment complex arena to the NHL as a first call. We know that there is an ongoing discussion, which this government is not directly part of but it has become a partner to, on the issue of the entertainment tax.

We know that the city is in a very difficult situation of trying to figure out how to deal with entertainment tax for charitable organizations when it has said that it will give back the entertainment tax to a professional hockey team. We know that at least some of the events in the arena will be charitable events. They will be events with the purpose of raising money for charities and yet any net proceeds from those events will, by virtue of this agreement, go to subsidize hockey.

We would ask the minister to seriously examine the propriety of funding a professional hockey team through charitable donations or through the use of monies derived from charitable events. Again, when you cheapen people's understanding of charity and you cheapen people's understanding of what it is they are doing with their voluntary dollars, you ultimately cheapen public morality. I think this is a question of public morality, and I ask the minister to seriously reflect on it as he goes about negotiating agreements.

In terms of the final guaranteed price, the minister has made much of the fact there is a price of $75.1 million with a contingency account presumably included in that of $3 million. The minister also, and I believe rightly, says that there is no agreement about this as yet. I would say to the minister, you cannot have it both ways.

The contractor has provided a guaranteed maximum price to Spirit or to MEC I suppose really in the initial case, but if we are to believe the government, they have not been party to that. They stated that they had not seen it or read it, and yet they provided unequivocal assurances to the House that this was an adequate guarantee. I do not see how they can have that both ways. Either they have been part of the discussion and they know what the clauses are and the conditions under which the price would hold are, or they do not. I would be interested in the minister's comments on that question.

(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

In terms of the total raised by the private sector, the NHL Board of Governors the other day, in a somewhat I guess jocular fashion, said we cannot get any straight answer on what the numbers are. Is it $20 million?. Is it $51 million? Have they raised $47 million or have they raised $60 million, or as that same Free Press story said, have they raised $78 million? We are not able to ascertain, but we can say that Mr. Asper and others from MEC have repeatedly said that they have raised or have committed at this point about $60 million. We take that as the best guess at this time.

We would ask the government to be very clear about the fact then that the shortfall is not $20 million, as Spirit has been trying to spin out to the press, but $51 million. The $51 million may be comprised of $20 million in donations to an endowment fund and $20 million in capital cost donations to the construction of boxes and club seats, builder contributions.

That really does not matter because it is all coming from the same well, it is all coming from Winnipeggers either in the form of businesses or individuals, so whether they are asked to put money into a donation pot or money into a construction pot, it is still their money, they are being asked to put it in in one form or another.

I would ask the minister also to be very clear about the requirement that all of the monies promised by Spirit would be on the table available before any construction starts.

Finally in terms of the question of the $51 million, the minister knows that the MEC business plan and the MEC-Spirit press conference has continued to count on $10 million worth of season ticket sales as capital contribution to this project. I think the minister, who is a very competent accountant, knows very well that when you receive income in advance of operations, it is a great assistance with cash flow, but by no accounting designation that I know of can operating funding be considered capital. It is certainly not available to disburse for capital purposes, because then it is not available to pay team salaries.

So I would ask the minister to consider the propriety of allowing MEC-Spirit to count on season ticket sales two years hence as part of a $111 million commitment to the project. I think that is a very important question.

* (1340)

In terms of the scheduling, we know that the project was supposed to break ground in July. We have been told that they can still make their deadline of substantial completion by September 1997 if they begin after August 15. We are exceedingly concerned. We know the government has the power to push this project through. We know they have a majority. We know that ultimately they will do what they will do, but we are exceedingly concerned that the government is opening the door to a bottomless pit of contributions from the public sector.

If the government agrees to proceed before it has seen deposit receipts, irrevocable pledges for $111 million, then another promise has been broken, and that is the promise that this is a 50-50 deal, that the private sector will come up with $111 million and the public sector will come up with $111 million. We already know the public sector is coming up with at least $140 million. We know that of the promised $111-million private sector, tax breaks will make up at least $50 million for the donors. So the real project is a $50 million, $55 million private sector, $200 million public sector. That is the real project.

We are very concerned that the government is in the process of slipping away from yet another commitment, and that is that it is a 50-50 up-front deal--that is, on a gross basis, $111 million from each partner. We believe that the government is laying the groundwork to let that commitment slip by the wayside so that Spirit will only raise perhaps $80 million before the shovels go in the ground and they will promise to do their darndest to raise the rest some time in the future. That, I think, would be seen by the public as yet another betrayal on this issue.

I think that there are many other concerns. They are of a detailed kind and the minister probably does not have the ability to answer them, but I will put a couple of them on the record in any case.

We understand from an MEC business plan that as of April 26, $5.8 million of what was then supposed to be $10 million towards one-time payments for construction had been committed. It is on page 2 of the business plan. Now we do not know whether that $5.8 million is in cash or in pledges. We do not know the firmness, in other words, of those commitments. We know that fewer than 50 percent of the club seats have been sold as of April 26 and that eight boxes remain unsold. We are puzzled, then, Mr. Chairperson, at the $10-million gap between MEC's statement on April 26 that their goal was $10 million towards one-time payments for construction and yet the current plan apparently calls for $20 million towards construction. So we are puzzled about that.

We are also puzzled about the propriety of both sides claiming the clock rights, the naming rights and other ancillary rights to the project on their sides of the ledger. Clearly, the public sector in the House in the words of the minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has claimed those rights for the public sector. It is clear from press releases and others that the private sector is claiming the same rights.

With those questions and comments, Mr. Chairperson, I would conclude and thank the minister for listening to my comments.

Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. The member has not put very much new on the record other than the questions that he has asked over the course of the last several weeks in the House. I believe that I have answered most of the concerns or questions that he outlined here today.

The first issue, he talked about the drawings and design; again, I believe all of his concerns will in fact be addressed, and, as this issue moves forward, all of that kind of information will certainly be made available.

He talks at length about the MEC business plan, and I think it is important for him to know that was a plan at a particular point in time with MEC and, subsequent to the agreements that have been reached with Spirit, there are differences from the MEC plan. So, when he tries to suggest that we are both claiming naming rights and rights to the clock, that is an issue that has been agreed with the Spirit that the province and the city will have the access to the naming and the clock.

When he talks about the MEC plan referring to some additional public support of $1.5 million to $2 million, that was the MEC business plan at a particular point in time. It has been agreed to with Spirit that will not be in place under any new arrangement. He spoke at length about previous economic studies by Baade and Black. I have certainly seen the Baade study, read some of the information from Black. There also has been the Coopers study. There has been the work done by Art Mauro and his commission, Mr. Burns and his commission, and a great deal of work done on the whole issue of economic benefits here in our province.

I will not take the time here again today to put them all on the record, but I will gladly continue to do that at any occasion that I get the opportunity to do so.

An Honourable Member: Are you going to table the Coopers & Lybrand report?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, we will provide as much information as we can on the entire issue. I have a series of issues I am responding to from when I was in my own Estimates that I will be responding to.

Charitable status, our position has been any organization can apply for whatever they feel they are entitled to to Revenue Canada. That is what Spirit is doing. I guess, unlike the NDP, we are not prejudging what might come of that. They think they are entitled to apply for a particular status depending on how they structure, how they put in place, their organization. We are saying that, if they feel they are entitled to apply under federal legislation, go right ahead and do so, and that is exactly what they are doing--nothing more, nothing less. Whether they are successful or not will be decisions made by Revenue Canada and another level of government.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on at length, but, as I say, I think most of the questions I have answered on several other occasions. It just continues to illustrate to me that the NDP opposes, at all costs, finding any solution to keep the Winnipeg Jets here in Manitoba. They have no desire to keep the Jets in Manitoba. They want to see them playing in Minneapolis or somewhere in the United States. They want to lose the economic benefit, whatever figure they choose to put on it. They want to lose the tax revenues. They want to lose what it does for the image and confidence of Manitobans and Winnipeggers. They do not want an entertainment complex that will be available for a hundred-plus other events that will do all kinds of things for our economy.

As I said in response to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), it just shows to me the lack of vision. If we had a government like that, we would not have the Concert Hall, we would not have the Convention Centre, we would not have the Pan Am Pool, we would not have the Art Gallery, we would not have North-Portage, we would not have The Forks, we would not have the aqueduct. I do not know what kind of a province it would be, but it would be a kind of province I do not think that would have many people living in it.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks with that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Item 9. Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital $34,200,000--pass.

Resolution 27.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $34,200,000 for Other Appropriations, Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This concludes the Estimates for the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital.

* (1350)

Emergency Expenditures

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): The next set of Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for Emergency Expenditures, page 145 of the Estimates book.

Does the minister have an opening statement?

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

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Thank you.

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

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr. Chairperson, I just say for the record that if any of my colleagues have questions in this section we will ask them in concurrence. We are prepared to pass this item now.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Item 5. Emergency Expenditures $10,000,000--pass.

Resolution 27.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Emergency Expenditures, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1996.

This concludes the Estimates for Emergency Expenditures.

The next set of Estimates to be considered are the Estimates for Government Services.

Is it the will of the committee to call the hour two o'clock?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Helwer): Committee rise.