The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Gerry McAlpine): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the department of Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program on page 131.
Does the honourable Minister of Finance have an opening statement to make?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Not really, Mr. Chairman. I think, as most members know, the original infrastructure program was a total $204-million program split three ways between the federal, provincial and other partners. Recently, we signed an agreement with the federal government to top up the existing program by another roughly $41 million over the next fiscal year.
We have provided in these Estimates for our share of the original program, plus our share of the top-up, thereby budgeting $22 million in the '97-98 Estimates, making for a total program in Manitoba of $66 million during 1997-98.
It has been a very successful program to date. We have certainly been strong supporters of it, created thousands of jobs, all kinds of worthwhile projects throughout Manitoba. We actually would like very much to see a second full-fledged infrastructure program, and I am certainly supportive of that.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable minister for those comments. Does the critic for the official opposition, the honourable member for Brandon East, have opening comments?
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a few comments to make. I would certainly agree with the minister that an infrastructure program of this type is most valuable to the economy. Of course, it does have some stimulus and it does create some jobs, although it is always difficult to tell exactly how many jobs result from particular expenditures, but the point is it does put in place needed buildings, bridges, highways and other infrastructure that have a long-term benefit to the provincial economy.
There may be some of our members who might have some specific questions on specific allocations, and I ask for your guidance in this, Mr. Chairman. We do have a '95-96 infrastructure report, or at least I thought I did; yes, '95-96 infrastructure report. This, I presume, outlines the details of those expenditures that were agreed to by the province and the federal government and that may be ongoing.
So this is a question I have, Mr. Chairman. The monies we are being asked to vote on this year, 22.6, which is in addition to others, are there any new initiatives there, or are they all more or less listed in the '95-96 Report on Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Works? I guess that is my question.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Before we go into dialogue and questions, maybe I could ask the committee, I would like to invite the minister's staff to come forward at this time and to proceed with the questioning in a normal fashion. I would ask the honourable minister to introduce the staff present.
Mr. Stefanson: Joining me is Jill Vogan, the manager of the Infrastructure Secretariat.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): I thank the honourable minister. The honourable member for Brandon East, you can pose your question now, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: As I was stating, the amount being asked for this year is $22.6 million, which is in addition to other previous Estimates that were voted upon. The minister did make a statement about the total value of the program, accumulative value, $70-some-odd million. He can correct me on that perhaps, but my question therefore is: Are there any new initiatives in this '97-98 Expenditure Estimates over and above those listed in the annual report for Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Works for 1995-96 or does this cover--the $22.6 million--the balance of expenditures required for some of these projects that are listed here?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, it will be both. It will cover the balance of some outstanding projects that have been announced back in '95-96 and again in '96-97, different projects in '96-97. So depending on the timing in terms of the implementation, there will be some money provided in 1997-98, but we have also provided a significant sum towards the top-up agreement that was signed, the $41-million top up. Members will have heard of some of the announcements against the top-up agreement, the $41 million that was added to the agreement; $14 million was directed to the City of Winnipeg for residential streets, $14 million was the matter referred to earlier today in Question Period that was just announced for roads in the rest of Manitoba outside of Winnipeg, and the remaining approximately $12 million will form the basis of some strategic projects that will be announced in the next several weeks.
So with the top up, it is exactly the same approach as we did with the original $204-million program--as members will recall--where $68 million was directed to projects in Winnipeg of which the City of Winnipeg made recommendations on, $68 million was directed for outside of Winnipeg where the advisory committee from UMM and MAUM made recommendations, and then the remaining $84 million was a strategic pool of money that was used for initiatives like rural gasification, distance education, the agricultural building at the University of Manitoba, the Keystone Centre in Brandon, a series of other projects that were done out of the strategic pool of money.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Just for clarification of the total. The $68-million top up, I am a bit confused. Here we are being asked for $22.6. Where do you get the $68 million? Is there a supplementary estimate or is this from previous Estimates?
Mr. Stefanson: The simplest way to explain this is the original program was a $204-million program which the province committed $68 million to, the federal government committed $68 million to, and the other partners would have contributed 68 whether it was municipalities or organizations. It did not have to be a municipality to be the third partner but, in most cases, it was the municipality. That was announced back in January of 1994 and was originally a three-year agreement, the member will recall. It was originally meant to be a three-year program but subsequent to that the federal government extended it to a five-year program.
So we have been budgeting money towards that $68 million in each of the budgets--'94-95, '95-96, '96-97, and there still is some included in the '97-98 for the original program because all of the projects under that original program have not been completed yet out of the original $204-million program. There still are some outstanding projects against the original program, and they form part of this year's allocation. We have also now provided money towards this top-up agreement which is a total program of $41 million, of which our share is just under $14 million towards the top-up agreement. So, ultimately, in terms of provincial contribution to the total Infrastructure Program, we will have $68 million from the original agreement and roughly $13 million towards this top up. So we will have roughly $81 million over about five years being spent as the provincial government's share of the total infrastructure agreement.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that explanation. So the $22.6 million being asked for in this line of Estimates would still be part of the $68 million or is it part of the 81 after the top up? The 68 plus 13 gives you 81 total as the provincial share. Is the 22.6 part of the original 68 or is that all-inclusive? Does that bring you to the $81 million you need or you are committed to?
Mr. Stefanson: It is part of the $81 million is what it is, because there is still carry-over from the 68 which we are funding this year, and then we are also funding toward the top-up agreement. So it is part of the $81 million.
* (1450)
Mr. Leonard Evans: I do not know how these numbers add, but I would gather that you may need some more money next year? Will you be coming back in Estimates next year for the balance of this amount?
Mr. Stefanson: Without taking a lot more time, Mr. Chairman, we still will have some outstanding next year, but it will be a very small amount out of the $81 million total program. There will be a little bit left over for the 1998 Estimates.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, that gives us the overall view. I believe we have some colleagues who have some specific questions on the projects that have been announced and some that they perhaps wish were announced but may not have been, so I would leave it to my colleagues to my right.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I am interested in the distance education money, the $8 million. I wonder if the minister could give us an overview of whether that has been expended yet or what rate is being expended, and when does he anticipate it will be completely expended?
Mr. Stefanson: Of the $8 million that was committed to the K to 12 distance education initiative, about 20 percent had been spent by the start of this fiscal year, and I am told that the project is expected to be completed by August of this year and ready for implementation by the fall of this year, this year being 1997. There has been a series of milestones that have been met along the way.
I believe there are currently signed agreements with some 21 school divisions. Tender for various systems have been issued and awarded and, as I say, the total project is expected to be concluded by August of 1997.
Ms. Friesen: Is the $8 million all dedicated to interactive television, and, if so, could the minister explain how that decision was made?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, if the member is asking if sort of the end result of all of this is interactive television, yes, it is. The original application came from the Department of Education. There have been ongoing discussions through the MERLIN distance education project with various school divisions about the implementation and how best to implement the program, what kind of technology to utilize, so, obviously, to receive that end product there are a series of elements to it in terms of the technology being utilized, the acquisition of microwave towers and so on and so forth, but that is the end product, is interactive television, yes.
Ms. Friesen: So the goal, the purpose of interactive television for Manitoba classrooms is a ministerial one. It is a government one. It does not come from the communities themselves. It is essentially that same policy that has been there within government for interactive television in clusters at the K to 12 level for some years now.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, if the member is asking for the origins of the policy, I would really have to go back to the Department of Education. I can certainly undertake to provide that information, as the opportunity is also available through their detailed Estimates. But the infrastructure program is a funding source, as the member knows, for projects that we collectively believe makes sense; when I say we, the federal government, the provincial government and the other stakeholders whether it is, in this case, individual divisions or not.
So from a funding source and from a long-term economic benefit to many regions of our province, this fit under the strategic element of the infrastructure program, and, obviously, collectively we supported it.
In terms of the origin of the policy and the degree of discussion and inclusiveness of input from the school divisions and other stakeholders in education, really the Department of Education is better able to provide more background. I can certainly undertake to get that and provide it to the member.
Ms. Friesen: I am interested in a couple of other aspects. One is the relationship with MERLIN that the minister made reference to. The minister seemed to be suggesting that MERLIN's role was to provide--and I am adding to what you said--the technical expertise, the selection of equipment, I assume for purposes of comparability across the system.
I wonder if the minister could tell me a little bit more about MERLIN's role in this, and, secondly, I am interested in the public reporting of this. How were applications received? How were they initiated and what kind of report is there available on the 21 school divisions that have already signed up? For example, which school divisions have chosen to become part of this?
* (1500)
Mr. Stefanson: Again, Mr .Chairman, rather than trying to speak for Education, I will do a couple of things. I can certainly undertake to get information and a status report for the member for Wolseley.
She is correct when she talks about MERLIN's role being one of a technical nature and of an equipment nature, acquisition, installation. MERLIN, as I believe the member knows, is a special operating agency, but its function is really just that. It is the implementation of the distance education initiative, through technical and various aspects, although, obviously, part of that, they do have interaction with school divisions in terms of discussions around what forms of equipment and implementation will meet various school divisions' needs.
I know there have been some articles of late about school divisions like the Evergreen School Division that several years ago implemented a form of distance education, and they are looking at their compatibility with the MERLIN network and, of course, the ongoing costs of the system and so on.
So MERLIN does interact on that kind of a basis in terms of looking at comparability or compatibility and also does have discussions with organizations like the Manitoba telephone system in terms of the ongoing operating cost. But their role is mostly of that nature, implementation and technical. In terms of the public reporting, as I said, of the $8 million budgeted for this initiative at the end of 1997, approximately 20 percent had been spent.
I will certainly follow up in terms of the amount of detail that will be provided in the next annual report for the infrastructure program in terms of the amount of detail provided around all of the projects but, certainly, projects like the distance education initiative. I can also undertake to get as much comprehensive information as possible for the member about the current status in terms of the naming of the individual school divisions and so on.
Ms. Friesen: What was the fee that MERLIN charged for this advice and liaison or co-ordination or whatever they did in this program?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I am told that the costs of implementation are covered by the contributions from the three parties participating, the provincial government, the federal government and the individual school divisions. So from those funding sources, the project manager and any other costs would be paid.
I am not aware of any other fees or ongoing fees, but I want to be absolutely certain, and I will get back to the member on that issue. But I am told the costs of MERLIN as such, of the MERLIN administration and the project manager, are really funded from those three funding sources, the federal government, the provincial government and the contributing school divisions when they have made a decision to become a part of the implementation.
Ms. Friesen: We are talking about the $8 million. So out of that $8 million of which a third is the Province of Manitoba, a third is the federal government, a third then is the local school divisions, and out of that a portion will be paid to MERLIN. My understanding from the minister is that MERLIN now is getting two portions of that. One is the section that he has essentially already talked about, that is the co-ordination and the advice that is being given for compatibility of equipment, and the second will be the continuing role of MERLIN in this project as project manager. Am I understanding that correctly?
Mr. Stefanson: Not entirely, Mr. Chairman. The first element, the co-ordination and administration, is correct, but I am told that the continuing role of MERLIN in terms of the ongoing implementation is a role that they will not be performing, that once the clusters are established they will be turned over to the individual school divisions. So any ongoing role for MERLIN basically ceases at that particular point in time.
But I want to be 100 percent certain on that, so if I find out anything that is contradictory to that, I will get back to the member as quickly as possible, and that makes sense to me, that this could very well be and probably should be how the project is implemented. Once it is established, it gets turned over to the school divisions.
Ms. Friesen: Well, we could debate that second part because what is obviously needed here is also software as well as co-ordination of different school divisions. The whole point of this, presumably, is to make savings on classroom teachers, extension of particular types of courses across different school divisions. So it is not just one school division you are turning it over to, but that is a different issue.
I am concerned about how much money has been paid to MERLIN out of this total $8 million for not only its advice and participation until now but its full advice and participation to the end of the project, as the minister has said, until the fall of this year.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I will just summarize the categories for this infrastructure project. There is the full-time project manager; full-time secretarial support; the prime contractor for the microwave systems; the installation of the fibre optic connections to schools; the purchase and installation of modems and codecs. Classroom refitting may include a series of things from wiring upgrades to lighting upgrades, to moving, removing and installing walls and so on; the classroom equipment, which would include video equipment, audio equipment, control equipment and so on; the technical consultant time; electricians, architects, computer technicians, system integrators, and so on, and that would be it.
Now in terms of the breakdown of those components, again, I will undertake to provide as much further detail as I can to the member, but those are the components of the Distance Ed infrastructure project.
Ms. Friesen: The minister has anticipated part of my next question, but I want to be sure of it. Is there any money in this $8 million for training--the training of teachers, the training of classroom assistants, the training of what might be called trouble shooters, or is all of the training, the technical training--I think it was towards the end that the minister mentioned this--is that all sort of one-time only for installation?
* (1510)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I have nothing in terms of a little more detail to those components that I have just outlined that would indicate support for training to individual teachers or other individuals in school divisions, but I will undertake to get back to the member on that issue as well.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated at the beginning of his discussion that this is limited to K to 12. Is there something within the larger boundaries of the federal-provincial agreement which excludes colleges, universities, post-secondary training, other forms of training from this interactive television network? Is there something which enables them to have access to it later? Why was such a large distance education--this is a lot of money in the context of how much Manitoba has put into distance education. This is a very large portion under one sense of direction. It seems to me unusual that the co-ordination has not been done with the post-secondary institutions.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if I completely understand the member's question. She was asking about training, but then made some reference to post-secondary education. Maybe she could clarify what information she would like.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, my question was about the overall funding principles on which the Canada-Manitoba agreement was made. My concern is that this $8 million, which is a large amount of money in terms of the amount of money that Manitoba has devoted to distance education, and that this seems to have been limited to the K to 12 area, whereas it seems to me, particularly in distance education the opportunities for co-ordination are much greater than the government has taken advantage of.
So I am wondering what the reason for this is. Why K to 12? What connection has there been with post-secondary education, and does it lie within the funding parameters of this program or is it government policy of this particular province?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think, as the member knows, this was an initiative that actually came out of the Department of Education, and we were pleased that we were able to convince the federal government to be supportive of this under the infrastructure program. My colleague the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), just in January of this year announced a program with the post-secondary institutions in Manitoba, a $2.7-million infrastructure program over and above the $8 million which will include the universities and community colleges. So originally we always promoted it on the basis of both K to 12 and post-secondary education. Because of some early funding decisions, we were only able to get a commitment initially for the K to 12 component. Subsequently, the federal government agreed to the post-secondary component of it.
We are pleased that we are ending up with a program affecting all of those elements. In terms of specific questions around training, I know individual school divisions have, to varying degrees, done quite a bit in this area, and I think I would rather leave it to the Department of Education to talk about their co-ordination of training in this whole area of information technology within the educational system. I think the issue of co-ordination is important, and I am confident that a great deal of that is in fact taking place, but I think the Department of Education and the minister can more appropriately speak to specifics that are taking place.
Ms. Friesen: We have, however, under this program for whatever reasons--and I understand the minister to be saying that it is federal reluctance initially that this program is limited to K to 12--but what we have is two different programs. We have K to 12, $8 million interactive television, which is a very particular--and some people, I mean, there is quite a bit of debate about it as to whether it is the most appropriate route to go.
Secondly, we have a $2 million, approximately, post-secondary initiative which I understand is not interactive television. Where do the two meet? What is the sort of overall strategy for distance education within the infrastructure program, and what co-ordinating plans did the government have? Were they foiled by the federal government's requirements, or was there no co-ordination to begin with?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I am told that Manitoba's seven colleges and universities all are a part of the post-secondary component of distance education, and they are intending to use this new funding that is available to connect community clusters as well as workplaces and homes throughout the province. The colleges and universities will use a combination of interactive video, data Internet, and multimedia technologies to meet the needs of their target markets and ensure cost-effective program delivery.
As with the K to 12 portion of the distance education project, the post-secondary portion will be managed and co-ordinated by MERLIN, and the total funding, as I mentioned, for the post-secondary distance education network is $2.7 million with $900,000 coming from the federal government and $900,000 from the provincial, and, obviously, $900,000 from the post-secondary institutions.
Ms. Friesen: What I am still trying to get at is what is the connection between the use of the $8 million and the use of the $2 million? Are we really setting up two different kinds of systems? Is there any access for the post-secondary institutions to the school division infrastructure or vice versa?
Mr. Stefanson: A good question, and it really is all the same project. The original submission from the Department of Education was on the basis of one project dealing with K to 12 and post-secondary, but because of funding and initial commitments from the federal government, we were only able to proceed with the K to 12, continued to press for support on an ongoing basis for the post-secondary, ultimately received that, and it is now part of the initiative. But it always was presented as one entire program, obviously maximizing the utilization of facilities, networks and so on at every opportunity.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister table a copy of that proposal?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly follow up on that, and if I am able to, I will table it if there are not any reasons, compelling reasons, why it should not be. Again, I do not want to prejudge if there are, but if I am able to table it, I will certainly provide the member for Wolseley with a copy.
Ms. Friesen: Is the minister aware of any other documents in the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure agreement which are not public documents?
* (1520)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the kind of information that is tabled with the Infrastructure Secretariat--of course, we have agreements with the federal government which are public. We have project applications which I believe are made public, I think usually with the consent of the project proponent, and then we do enter into agreements after we have agreed to a project with the project proponent, municipalities or university or whatever the organization might be, and, again, I believe those are public documents.
So there is not a great deal of secrecy around the infrastructure program, and sitting here today, I am not aware of why the distance education proposal could not be provided, so I have undertaken to look into it, and if there is a reason that it cannot be, I will certainly provide the member with the reason why it cannot, and we can have a discussion at that point in time. But I will follow up on her request.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Just one other question on distance education. In the Swan Valley School Division, there has been great effort to bring distance education to the students in our area, post-secondary education, I should say, because when you take into consideration the cost of people travelling and students having to move to another city to get their education, it is very expensive. The school board has done a very good job of setting up a distance education site, but they have run into difficulties with financing and are not able to offer the courses.
Can the minister indicate whether Swan Valley School Division is involved in the project and whether they made an application to the infrastructure program to have help with their post-secondary education project, whether any funding was made available to them or it is only for K to 12. I know that the K to 12, there is a site as well, but I am more interested in distance education.
Mr. Stefanson: The member is correct that Swan Valley School Division is a part of the K to 12 initiative, and they have been one of the more active school divisions in the whole area of distance education. As to the impact of the post-secondary, I would have to check with the department. As I said at the outset, all seven institutions are participating: University of Manitoba, St. Boniface College, Brandon University, University of Winnipeg, Keewatin Community College, Red River Community College, and Assiniboine Community College are all participating in the post-secondary. As to what impact there would be in the Swan River area, I would have to check with Education.
Ms. Wowchuk: Another area that I wanted to talk about is the rural gasification. There was $21,713,000 set aside for gasification of rural Manitoba. Can the minister indicate whether that money has been spent, whether the people who made application have been successful in completing their project, if there is a list of communities that have been successful and those that have not?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the gas projects are basically done. Two rural natural gas projects, the Centra Gas Manitoba project and the Gladstone Austin Natural Gas Co-op, were partially funded through the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Works program totalling $21.7 million. Services have been installed and natural gas available to 14 rural communities under the Centra project. Under the Gladstone Austin project, it has been the surrounding communities have been impacted by this. I am trying to think if there is any other information to provide. Total capital investment for both projects is estimated to be around $28 million. The member recalls, because I know the area she represents was one of the areas that put in the original applications, Centra went through a detailed process of getting sign-up from individuals and businesses, and part of the original ability to proceed with projects was based on that sign-up and the commitments from individuals and from municipalities. When Centra was ready to proceed with the various proposals at that particular point in time, the Swan River area was not ready to proceed in terms of commitments. That has changed since the original rural gasification project. The member knows that there has been ongoing discussions with the federal government, with our government about moving forward with a rural gasification initiative in the Swan River area.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister just indicate then--there is a new infrastructure program and more infrastructure money that has been announced--is there money in the new infrastructure program for natural gas? Is there another program with the new projects that are going ahead? As the minister indicates, I am interested in what is happening in the Swan River Valley--where that money will be coming from. There has been some federal commitment, but is it infrastructure money or is it just new money that has now been found for these projects?
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Stefanson: As the member for Swan River knows, we as a provincial government have made a commitment of, I believe, approximately $1.5 million towards the gasification project in Swan River. To date the federal government, I believe, has made a commitment of $750,000 from the funds that were made available under the Western Grain Transportation Act fund so, obviously, there is still a shortfall there in terms of federal commitment.
If I can back up--I am not sure if the member heard my comments about the top-up agreement, but we have signed this top-up agreement with the federal government for a total amount of $41 million basically to be utilized in 1997-98. We are allowed some spillover, but the focus is that the majority of the work is to be done during 1997-98. Out of that $41 million, $14 million was allocated to residential streets in Winnipeg, $14 million to roads outside of Winnipeg, rural Manitoba, and there is approximately $12 million available in a strategic fund. That is the same approach we used in terms of the original program. So there is not an awful lot of money available in the strategic fund, but there is the ability to do some other projects. So, we continue to look at how we can get the Swan River project moving.
* (1530)
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate--and I did not hear his comments earlier, so he may have covered this--what the deadline is? Is there a deadline for applications for this fund? Is it first-come, first-served? How is this $12 million that is in the strategic fund going to be allocated?
Mr. Stefanson: Good question, Mr. Chairman. The original infrastructure program was a $204- million program. We, as the member knows, called for a second full-fledged program of at least the same amount--$204 million. We did that for several reasons. One was because the first program had a billion dollars in requests for a $204-million program, so there certainly is an awful lot of need and demand out there. Secondly, we do believe there is benefit to the overall economy in Manitoba. There are jobs being created through programs like the infrastructure program, so we pushed for a second full-fledged program. Unfortunately, the federal government decided to do this top-up provision and, because of the fact that the total program was only $41 million, a decision was made early on not to get into a whole range of applications, because we would be getting applications for several hundred million dollars for only $41 million of project.
What we did is when we set the $14 million aside for the City of Winnipeg, we are going to accept the City of Winnipeg's recommendations for the streets they want to do. When we set the $14 million aside for rural Manitoba, we are accepting the recommendations of the advisory committee which is made up of representatives from UMM and MAUM, and those projects were just announced on Friday. So there is just this $12 million left. We are not looking for applications against the $12 million because we already have hundreds of millions of dollars of applications in the system of which there are some gasification projects in the system of which Swan River is one of the applications that is in the system. So we felt very strongly for what little amount of money was available against this tremendous demand and need that is out there, it did not make an awful lot of sense to put communities through an application process, through a process of thinking that their project is going to be approved when they probably had a 1 percent or 2 percent chance. We were better off to go back, basically, to existing projects, have discussions with municipalities or organizations that have had their projects on the books for a few years now, and we knew that we had more than enough projects that were needed out there and would benefit Manitoba's economy. So we did not get into an application process because of the limited amount of money that was going to be available, and we knew we had lots of requests and lots of worthwhile projects that were already in the system.
Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister then explain the process that people will--is it the government that is going to decide then that this project is a worthwhile project, so we will call the people in the Swan River Valley and tell them that we have some money available? What is the process going to be that is going to be used to make the decision on how that $12 million will be allocated?
Mr. Stefanson: The process is basically the same as the process for the original program, the strategic component of the original program, which was $84 million where we sit down with the federal government, go through the various projects that are before us, and ultimately make decisions as to which projects to support. If we need additional information we, obviously, have officials obtain that information. So the final decision on the strategic, on the $12 million, is made by the federal and provincial governments through agreement.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would imagine then, Mr. Chairman, that it will also be a lobbying process for those people who have projects who want to see them completed who will then be trying to get the government to recognize the value of the project and see whether they can convince them to use some of that money for it.
Mr. Stefanson: I hope not. Again, just because of the limited amount of money that is available against so many projects, and we have really indicated to proponents we have the information. If we need more information the secretariat will obtain it. We are certainly well aware of projects. Again I will use the Swan River gasification as an example, because representatives from those communities, the communities affected, have met with our government. I am not sure if they have met with the federal government, but they have certainly met with various members of our government to further discuss their particular project. But, again, I would not want to be indicating to communities that it is going to be based on lobbying efforts for a couple of reasons. First, there is only $12 million on projects. I do not think we want them all coming down here and lobbying us, and at the end of the day we are going to make them on the basis of what we feel will have significant economic impact, what is some regional balance. With the original $84 million in the strategic, we tried to have a fairly equal split between urban and rural, which we did. With this $12 million, we are also looking at a reasonable split between urban and rural, and so the test will really be economic development, jobs, fairness, need and so on. So I would not be encouraging communities to be putting a lot of effort into lobbying politicians.
Ms. Wowchuk: On another area, and I just have one more area that I want to ask questions about. When I look at the annual report of where projects were done, we have a lot of need for improved roads throughout the province, and we have a lot of need in northern Manitoba, in Northern Affairs communities, on reserves, and none of those were addressed under the infrastructure program. Was there a reason? Were those excluded for a particular reason, and how does the government propose to address those?
I think again about many communities that I represent that are Northern Affairs communities that have roads that are in dreadful condition, are in desperate need of improving their water and sewer situations in order to have healthier communities, but they have not been included. Can the minister indicate why they were not included and then whether there are any plans to look at to encourage other programs that would result in better conditions in these areas?
Mr. Stefanson: Maybe I will talk first about the existing program, $204-million program. As I have said, $60 million was set aside for Winnipeg. The City of Winnipeg gave us their projects, and we accepted all of them. The $60 million was set aside for rural Manitoba. We had three representatives from the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, three from the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, so a committee of six people made recommendations on how to distribute that $60 million. We accepted all of their recommendations. That was done through direct representation from the municipal governing parent bodies. They really did it very much on equal regional distribution. They looked at per capita in the regions of the province and the individual communities, distributed that $60 million very much on a form of a per capita formula so, again, distributing it equitably to all of the communities.
Out of the $84 million, we also were able to do a couple of northern community projects. Through Manitoba Northern Affairs, we did the Brochet sewer and water main construction project which was about $710 million. We did the South Indian Lake sewage treatment facility which was--did I say $710 million--$710,000, I am sorry. I wish we had $710 million available, but $710,000 for Brochet sewer and water, and South Indian was $415,000. So we did a couple of northern communities. As well, there was a separate program through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs of the federal government--and I would have to get you the total quantity of that program--so there was a separate infrastructure program available for projects on reserve. I would not want to give you a number without confirming it, so I will undertake to provide you the exact number that was provided in that way.
So through all of those vehicles, we did make what I feel is reasonable allocation in terms of trying to meet the needs fairly in all different parts of the province.
Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, out of the first program, out of the $60 million that was available for outside of Winnipeg or what we will call rural Manitoba, the PLCC, the advisory committee, recommended and we accepted programs totalling almost $5.8 million, so that was, again, based on their recommendations and regional distribution. With the top up, the $41 million, as I have already said, $14 million was set aside for the City of Winnipeg for residential streets which the City of Winnipeg will make recommendations on and we will, I am sure, accept those; $14 million was set aside for rural Manitoba. They were announced on Friday, and they were all the recommendations of the Provincial-Local Consultative Committee.
* (1540)
Again, UMM and MAUM, we accepted their recommendations. They, again, tried to distribute that at least on a regional population basis so that all regions of the province received at least their fair share on a per capita basis. I think they did a good job of that. So they did allocate money to all the regions of the province. Then, of course, the $12 million that we have talked about will ultimately be announced in the next few weeks after we have concluded projects with the federal government.
So there certainly has been, I think, very much of an objective to have regional distribution to do projects in all parts of our province. I would suggest that collectively between the levels of government, the municipal organizations, the municipal governments, that we have managed to do just that, that we have had a significant amount of regional equity.
Ms. Wowchuk: If the minister could provide us with a copy of that special agreement that he talked about in aboriginal communities, that would be appreciated. But one last question I wanted to ask the minister is: Did the Department of Northern Affairs play any role in the decision-making process to ensure that the issues and the infrastructure concerns of Northern Affairs communities were addressed, when the decisions were being made as to how these funds should be allocated?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, on the first point, yes, I will undertake to provide both the total amount that was available for aboriginal communities along with the individual breakdown by community. The Department of Northern Affairs was very aggressive when the infrastructure was first announced in terms of submitting a whole range of projects. We have to recognize that we are just one partner in the infrastructure program and when we started looking at the billion dollars of requests that I outlined earlier, there were an awful lot more projects than there was money.
We were able to get the support of the other partners, of the federal government, for the two projects that I have already touched on in both South Indian Lake and Brochet, but Northern Affairs did submit more projects than that. They have also submitted a project again under the top-up agreement. Northern Affairs, in terms of what role they should be playing to promote the needs in different communities and realizing there might be a pool of money that is available to access, have certainly undertaken to do that and have done that quite aggressively. I would suggest that they are certainly performing the function that they should be performing, recognizing at the end of the day they, like so many proponents of projects, are not going to get everything they ask for, because there are so many more requests than there is money.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I have questions in two areas. One is a constituency-related matter and the other we will deal with, a Pan Am Games issue. Starting off with the constituency of Radisson which has the community of south Transcona that experienced flooding again this spring, I am wanting to ask the minister if he can, first of all, confirm what I understood from his response to the member for Swan River that there is $12 million still in a strategic component from the '97-98 infrastructure program; and, if there is no more money from the previous years, from the annual report it looked like there was still $25 million left in that component from when this annual report was written. Am I understanding that correctly, and is all the money then from that $25 million now spent?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the member for Radisson is basically correct. Out of the $84 million that was originally available for strategic funds out of the first program, all of that has been allocated to projects. There is still at least one project that has not finalized whether or not it will proceed and that was the allocation to a facility at The Forks for a baseball facility. It was a notional allocation of $3 million. Obviously we are waiting to see what ultimately happens with that project. So that money has been set aside but has not been confirmed until we have a project that is verified.
She is right that, out of the top-up agreement, $12 million was available for strategic. Some of that has been announced. Out of the strategic $12 million, $2.25 million has been announced for the renovations and development at the pavilion at Assiniboine Park, and approximately $500,000 was announced as a top up for the Pan-Am Pool. The Pan-Am Pool received $1 million out of the strategic component of the first infrastructure. They have now received an additional $500,000 out of this $12-million allocation, because at the end of the final review of what was required for the Pan-Am Pool, it was determined about $1.5 million was required for the pool redevelopment.
Ms. Cerilli: I apologize. I am probably going to have to go back to some of the answer, but I was just discussing with the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk), who was also in the Estimates in Energy and Mines, so I am going to pass the microphone to her and will come back to my questions.
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I thank you and my colleague for making room for me. I am in my own department's Estimates right now but did wish to ask the minister some questions related to what I believe would be a very important initiative, and that is looking at a noise abatement program in association with the airport development.
We have seen investment by all levels of government in the airport through Winnport, through the Airport Authority, making Manitoba a hub of transportation. By far the majority of my constituents support it. We have already seen a fairly significant increase in the amount of traffic coming into the airport, which is also understandable, and the people that live in St. James that are directly affected by it also understand that. However, I would ask: Has any consideration been given--and infrastructure would be a good way to invest in the community--to providing a program for noise abatement to the homes that are directly affected by this enhanced use of the airport?
If we look at the 40 decibel range, which I understand from Airport Authority officials is, and I quote: like living on the runway. There are 400 homes in Winnipeg that are in that situation. I would ask the minister whether there would be consideration for a community improvement program for the homes directly affected by the expansion of the Winnipeg airport.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the member raises an important issue, but under the infrastructure program, in terms of its initial functioning, it has been application-driven for the first $204-million allocation. So organizations had to submit projects or applications. There was no application that I am aware of relative to a noise abatement program. That $204 million has now been spent or has been allocated. We have a $41-million top off of which most has been allocated.
I think the whole issue of noise abatement--obviously, the Winnipeg Airport Authority took over the operation of the airport, I believe, at the start of this year. They have a series of plans and issues. They recognize the importance of maintaining that airport, I believe; as a 24-hour a day airport. It will create significant economic opportunities for Winnipeg and Manitoba, but I think they also appreciate the need to have the support of the adjacent community, that that is going to be fundamental. So it is certainly an issue.
I have meetings occasionally with the Airport Authority on various issues. I am certainly prepared to start entering a discussion with them, because they are looking at various initiatives in terms of their long-term future, their long-term viability. I think if the member is getting at the point that the community has to be supportive otherwise there are going to be problems, I would agree. So it should be an issue that we should be at least starting to look at what kinds of initiatives or things can be done to continue to maintain, because the area of St. James really has been extremely supportive and understanding of the benefits of the airport.
* (1550)
Ms. Mihychuk: The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) has just arrived and is suggesting that I am complaining about the noise. Rather it is the people in St. James that are very supportive of the airport and live with considerable noise 24 hours of the day and still continue to support the airport. What I am asking for is the continued support of the people that live in that very close vicinity to those runways.
I would suggest that we investigate a program that already exists in the United States. There is a noise abatement program that actually is available to the citizens in Minneapolis-St. Paul. It is run somewhat differently than I would suggest. It is a program that is federally run and funded through the airport authorities. Now, given that the Winnipeg airport is presently under a program where we are looking at all levels of government, I would suggest that perhaps the funding model may be locally suited--would need to be modified to be locally suited. So presently it is funded in the U.S. through a user fee. I am not suggesting that. I would ask that all levels of government look at that program which is available. It does help local communities and the residents close to the airport and does make things much more harmonious between the airport and the local residents. We do have considerable infrastructure here in Manitoba. It would be a jobs-plus program. It would be a benefit for the local community, and it would improve, I believe, the co-operation with the airport. So I am very pleased that the minister will delve into the program, and I would sense a degree of support. So I thank the minister.
Mr. Stefanson: I would just ask the member, if she has any specific information, if she could provide it to me, but other than that I will certainly follow up on the issue
Ms. Mihychuk: My colleague from Radisson was just suggesting that I point out that what I am talking about is a home insulation program. Individuals can apply. There are inspectors that would go into the home, see what could be changed to improve the situation. There is a list, I understand, of certified contractors. Certain modifications would be allowable, including windows, I think doors, some insulation, air conditioning, things that would directly and dramatically improve their lifestyle. So it is my understanding that the average cost is approximately $5,000 per home. Now there are some, if it is no upper limit, I am sure would probably exceed that. But, again, we are in the preliminary stages, I hope, of a program that will indeed benefit the people that live close to the airport.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I really have nothing to add. I am certainly prepared to follow up, and, as I say, if there is any additional information members can provide, I would appreciate that. But I will follow up in terms of getting information and discussing it, as a starting point, with the Winnipeg Airport Authority.
Ms. Cerilli: Go from airport noise back to flooding in south Transcona. The minister is smiling, and I hope I can get the same kind of receptiveness as the member for St. James just did. I believe that the minister had confirmed that there is still money in--$12 million, no $21 million, no, it was $12 million left in the '97-98, what is the term that is being used, expansion of the infrastructure program. I am wondering if there are discussions with the city to consider having $1.75 million of that money used for the flood abatement in south Transcona. The minister is familiar with the dispute that is now going on between the city and the province of utilizing the Urban Capital Project Allocation. The city is saying that they are not open to that, and they specifically specified that in the resolution they passed at City Council. I think it was on February 12. I am concerned that this project is going to not only not go ahead this year but is going to again miss having an infrastructure allocation because of the way that these programs work and the prioritization process and all that. So, first of all, I am wondering if there are discussions to have that project funded. The province has agreed to fund it 50-50 with the city, and I am wondering if the infrastructure money is being considered, and if not, some explanation of why.
Mr. Stefanson: First of all, in terms of the money available, the member is mostly correct or partly correct. Out of the $12 million, as I mentioned, we have allocated $2.25 million to the pavilion projects, another $500,000 to the Pan-Am, so that is just under $3 million allocated. As I said earlier, out of the $12 million, we are looking to distribute it more or less 50-50 Winnipeg and outside of Winnipeg. It is all based on projects so it is not necessarily exactly 50-50, but it will probably end up somewhere close to 50-50. So I am just trying to give her a sense of how much money is left available in that pool.
She is correct that we have already indicated our willingness to fund 50 percent of the project in Transcona, and there were some concerns about the funding source. I am optimistic that those can be sorted out and that we can end up with an agreement with the city whereby we will both fund 50 percent outside of the infrastructure program. We will fund our share from our Urban Capital initiative which we do with the City of Winnipeg. As she is aware, we are just entering into our third agreement with the City of Winnipeg for another six-year capital program, and I am very confident that we will reach an agreement with the city to do the $3.5-million project with 50 percent coming from us and 50 percent coming from the city.
Ms. Cerilli: Was the issue of using this infrastructure money discussed? I know the minister has met with city councillors and people from the city on this. Was there a discussion of using the infrastructure money?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, we never had an official application on file, so I am told, from the City of Winnipeg for funding for this project under the infrastructure, but I certainly was a part of some discussions with some councillors on whether or not this infrastructure top up would be a potential funding source. I go back to what I said to a question earlier, final decisions on utilizing any of this money requires the support of the federal government, our government and usually the other partners. So when we looked at all of the projects that were before us against $12 million in funding available, there were an awful lot more requests than money and other projects were deemed to be supported from this particular funding source of $12 million.
But we as a province, as the member knows, have indicated over the last several weeks that we are prepared to support half of this project. We really were just fighting--I will use the word "fighting"--with the City of Winnipeg over our funding source, the provincial funding source. I believe we have resolved that, and the project should be able to go ahead based on 50-50 funding. So I think the objective for all of us is to get the project done. We certainly support the project. The combination of projects that we had under the infrastructure--way more projects than the amount of money--we felt the fact that we were prepared to support it under the capital program should allow the project to proceed, and I am confident it will proceed on a 50-50 basis.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, I thank the minister for clarifying that. It sounds like then the province won the fight--so to speak--and that the city is going to have to settle for them using the UCPA which I think is great for the local residents in the south Transcona area. I have a few other questions though about this issue.
* (1600)
You had talked about looking at all the projects, and I wanted to get a sense of how this works because the province and the city or other municipalities have a whole list of needs in the community and there are all these different sorts of pots of money. I am wondering if the cabinet, or any other way through government, there is a broad look at all the needs that are there and all the different funding sources or programs and that there is some prioritization across programs. I think that the residents in south Transcona would find it pretty hard to swallow when they look at some of the projects through infrastructure that are being funded, and they are continuing to have a foot of water on their streets and water flowing up to their basement windows every spring and perhaps in the summer as well when it rains torrents in our province.
So I am concerned at the way that these programs work in isolation of each other, and we ran into the problem two years ago or so when south Transcona did not have an application in the infrastructure program because the City was going to fund it through capital and local improvement and the project was not approved and then they missed the boat, so to speak, on getting any infrastructure money. So I am wondering how this works across the board through the different departmental programs and looking at all the needs coming forward throughout the province.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I would argue that there is pretty good co-ordination. All of the project applications that come in, we consult with various departments within the provincial government that are affected by any project application. As the member knows, we have divided the total funds into these three pools of money, so for the City of Winnipeg $60 million into the first program, they decided the priorities in terms of residential streets versus regional streets versus sewer and water, and so on. The $60 million in rural Manitoba, the rural municipalities decided that, and for the $84 million, that was decided by the federal government and the provincial government, but as I say, after our soliciting input from any of our affected departments. So there was a high level of co-ordination.
I am fortunate that I have responsibility for the infrastructure program. I also chair Treasury Board, so I also have the luxury of doing just what the members are requesting, of being aware of what all of our programs are. So, to cross-check a particular application against other programs or other areas of funding, and the classic example was the Transcona project this go-round where I was aware that there was an opportunity for us to fund it under the UCPA program and we were prepared to commit to it, that at least we had confidence that there was a strong likelihood of that project proceeding with our support. As I have already indicated, I am confident it will proceed.
Ms. Cerilli: Is the minister aware then if that, as I understand, there will be a new resolution that will have to come forward if that is going to happen this spring with council.
Mr. Stefanson: In terms of the city process, even though I spent almost eight years there, I cannot recall if they have to go back all the way to City Council with a revised resolution. They probably do, but all the information I have, I am cautiously confident that the city will end up supporting the project as put forward by our government to them.
Ms. Cerilli: I wanted to ask the minister: Who is on the provincial local consultative committee and then who is on the city committee that deals with the proposals and prioritization?
Mr. Stefanson: The PLCC from rural Manitoba has six people serve on it, three from UMM and three from MAUM. The three from UMM are the president, Mr. Jack Nicol, Mr. Wayne Motheral, although it used to be Mr. Larry Walker before Wayne Motheral, and their executive director, Jerome Mauws.
Then from MAUM, it is Glenn Carlson from Portage la Prairie, Stella Locker from Thompson, and their executive director, Rochelle Zimberg.
From the City of Winnipeg, it is the mayor and the chairman of Works and Operations. Those are the two main contact people that we have. We have also dealt directly with various representatives from the city on individual projects, Pan-Am Pool probably being the most recent example where we dealt more directly with their Parks and Recreation department. But the senior contact people in terms of the City of Winnipeg priorities and initiatives have been the mayor and the chairman of Works and Operations.
Ms. Cerilli: With respect to the south Transcona flooding problem, I was noticing that the Rural Municipality of Springfield had a project that was a water supply and distribution project that was about $1.75 million in the '95-96 part of the infrastructure program. I am wondering if at any time there was any discussion or proposals to deal with the south Transcona flooding problem by the R.M. of Springfield, because as the minister knows, the bulk of the water does come from farmland outside of the city limits and is from the R.M. of Springfield. A lot of residents in south Transcona believe that the water should essentially stay out there and should be taken toward the floodway which is only a kilometre away from the area of housing that gets flooded.
A lot of the long-time residents there, some of them even have engineering backgrounds themselves, they really feel that this is feasible. I am wondering if there has been any discussions about that kind of a solution or any other kind of a solution in the R.M. of Springfield for diversion or retention of the water in that R.M.
Mr. Stefanson: As we discussed earlier, and the member for Radisson knows, this infrastructure initiative has been application-driven. I am not aware of any application. We will certainly check the files to see if there was any application that might have accomplished any of the undertakings or initiatives that she is referring to. Of course, we did allocate under the first program $60 million to the City of Winnipeg, basically for all intents and purposes, unconditionally, and we accepted their priorities in terms of the elements of that $60 million. We will certainly check our files in terms of any application, but I am not aware that there are any that would have impacted south Transcona the way she is referring to.
Having said all of that, I think we found a solution in terms of coming up with the $3.5 million. Hopefully, agreement will be concluded and that project can move forward.
* (1610)
Ms. Cerilli: I am interested though in finding out how feasibility is determined with the infrastructure program. If a program is based on an application from a rural municipality, how is either the Department of Natural Resources, for example, if it is flood abatement related, through Water Resources branch or Department of Environment involved? If there is federal money involved usually for projects, then they are involved in doing environmental impact assessments. But it is unclear when it is infrastructure money how you are going to decide if the proposed way to deal with the problem is the best way, if it is the most efficient and effective way to deal with the problem.
How is the province involved in all that? How is it determined how that analysis and feasibility and environmental assessment is going to be done?
Mr. Stefanson: Well, again, the member knows that this is a three-way funding arrangement, the federal government, provincial government, and in most cases municipalities. So you have to have the support of all three levels of government. Any of the projects have to go through all of the regular review processes. If they require environmental licences or federal or provincial environmental licences, any other reviews, they have to go through that process, but they can be announced in advance of it, subject to them clearing all of the necessary processes.
As I have indicated earlier, certainly in terms of any projects that we think our departments would have some information or expertise on, we solicit that directly from provincial departments. So I think on an overall basis the program has worked very well. Municipalities certainly basically speak quite positively about it. From our perspective it has worked well, and I think from the federal government's in terms of co-ordination and maximizing resources and drawing on expertise wherever possible. In many cases, municipalities are the best level of government with the greatest area of expertise. In some cases it is the provincial or federal. So there was high co-ordination, well delivered.
Ms. Cerilli: I would differ with that. Municipalities are not the most expert in terms of environmental impact assessment. They have no mandate really to do that. So particularly I am concerned about flood abatement, and I see the minister is wanting to clarify that so I will give him a chance to do that. But I just want to clarify, then, is that any different for the infrastructure program in terms of assessing feasibility and impact as compared to the Urban Capital Projects Allocation program? What I am asking is: Is the process for assessing feasibility and involving the resources of other government departments different under the infrastructure program as compared to the Urban Capital Projects Allocation program?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I interpreted the member's first earlier question as relating in part to environmental but also in part to sort of areas of responsibility. I did not want to leave her or the committee with the impression that the municipalities have more expertise or responsibility in the area of environmental issues because they do not. That is the provincial government and the federal government, but in some other areas of responsibility they often are the best to deliver the particular service.
On her second question about processes, the processes would be very similar in terms of the reviews of departments within government and in any project ultimately having to receive whatever approvals that are required for the nature of the project. So if they required an environmental licence, they have to go through that process, or any other licences or requirements that any project might have.
Ms. Cerilli: I am wanting to see where we can have the information made available on criteria. The minister, since I have been listening to these Estimates, has talked about issues around per capita Manitobans involved. He has talked about need. He has talked about urgency. He has talked about the whole issue around what the city calls strategic or what is termed strategic part of the fund. I do not see anything in the annual report that specifies what the prioritization and criteria process are.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the master agreement signed with the federal government outlines the criteria, and I will certainly undertake to provide the member with a copy.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay, I appreciate that. I am wondering, though, if you look at the projects that are being funded, 75 percent of them according to this last annual report were sewer, water and roads. Are the different categories ranked in that way with sewer, water and roads projects having the top priority? Is that fair to say given that 75 percent of the funding has gone to those kinds of projects?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think you have to go back to a lot of the original discussion when the infrastructure program was first put in place.
Certainly, one of the most vocal supporters of an infrastructure program was the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on behalf of municipalities right across Canada. So we developed an approach here in Manitoba, which I think some other provinces modelled, where we attempted to meet the needs and include municipalities in a significant way but also to set up a strategic allocation.
As we have discussed already, out of the original $204-million program, $120 million was set aside for municipalities to set priorities. Not surprisingly, their priorities are traditional municipal infrastructure which really are sewer, water and roads to a large extent. We also then did some components of that out of the strategic, but, obviously, the majority of the other approximately 25 percent would have come out of the strategic allocation.
So recognizing that you have to have a third partner, in many cases, the third partner is a municipality, and their priorities are going to be sewer, water and roads, and, obviously, there is a need in that area in provinces right across Canada in terms of continual improvements in that area.
Ms. Cerilli: I am wanting to find out the number of infrastructure-funded projects that are related to the Pam Am Games facilities, and how much is being expended on each of those?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the two most significant projects being funded from infrastructure affecting the Pan Am Games are the improvements to the Pan-Am Pool of approximately $1.5 million, which the Pan Am Games are also contributing to the improvements at the pool, and then the Pan Am Games also have allocated some resources for a baseball facility. At this particular point in time, as I said earlier, there are $3 million notionally set aside for a baseball facility, obviously subject to a viable location, business plan and potentially particular conditions related to community access, utilization and so on.
So those are the two most significant projects directly affecting the Pan Am Games.
Ms. Cerilli: Those two projects for the Pan-Am Pool. Was that prioritized by the city? They are under the strategic funding category, but I have the document from the City of Winnipeg, '97-98 extension of the national infrastructure program. This has recently gone through council, and I see that they are listed in the city's report. I understand they are not entirely funded out of city money, but they are part of the infrastructure program.
I am wondering, who is responsible for prioritizing these projects for the Pan Am Games?
(Mr. Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
* (1620)
Mr. Stefanson: The member is correct. Doing some of the improvements at the Pan-Am Pool through the infrastructure agreement has been a priority of the City of Winnipeg. We had some discussions with the City of Winnipeg about the Pan-Am Pool. Ultimately the decision whether or not to proceed with funding from the strategic allocation, our decision is made by the federal and provincial governments, but the city certainly put forward a case of this being a priority of theirs and that they were prepared to be a one-third partner. Obviously when we looked at all of the projects, we agreed that there was some merit to doing these elements of the Pan-Am Pool from the infrastructure program.
Ms. Cerilli: Would the minister agree to make available to me the criteria analysis for the Pan-Am Pool infrastructure projects under the strategic funding allocation?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I do not see a problem in providing a copy of either the application or the agreement with the City of Winnipeg on the Pan-Am Pool. I have already undertaken to provide the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) with a copy of the agreement with the federal government in terms of the terms and conditions of infrastructure programs. She can certainly test the Pan-Am Pool project or any other project against those criteria. Obviously the federal government and ourselves determine that it meets the criteria and believe that there is a combination of both the immediate jobs being created through the renovations at the pool and the long-term economic benefits to the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba by doing the enhancements at the pool.
Ms. Cerilli: But the minister has said that the Pan-Am Pool is the only Pan Am Games facility that is receiving money under the infrastructure program. Is that correct?
Mr. Stefanson: That is the only one that has been confirmed with a project ready to proceed. There has been $3 million set aside for the baseball stadium, but we are awaiting the conclusion of that project. That money will not be redirected to any other project until, hopefully, we know that we have a successful baseball project. It is being held for a baseball facility at this particular point in time.
Ms. Cerilli: One final question. I am wondering if what has been happening with municipalities as well, if they are trying to look at the Pan Am Games and see if they can relate some of their improvements to the Pan Am Games. If, for example, I do not know if the retention pond in Transcona is still being considered as a Pan Am Games facility or not and if that would have changed its ability to access infrastructure money through this program. It seems like there was an attempt there to have it qualify for Pan Am Games funding or infrastructure funding by having it designated as a facility for water-skiing for the Pan Am Games, and I am wondering if that is the case.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I guess in terms of Pan Am facilities, on an overall basis the Pan Am Games have allocated certain money to Pan Am facility improvement. As the member knows, we have committed $23.5 million toward the Pan Am Games. The federal government has committed I believe $30 million; the City of Winnipeg I believe $10 million. So the Pan Am Games do have a capital budget towards facility improvement.
When it came to the improvements required at the Pan-Am Pool, there were some extensive discussions held with the Pan Am Games. There has also been discussion with the Pan Am Games about their baseball requirements. To date, the issue of water-skiing at the south Transcona lake or pond, Water-Ski Manitoba has approached the secretariat and had a discussion about the utilization of that site.
I am not sure at this point in time whether or not it would be the permanent site or a training site. I am told it would be a training site, that the skiing is still at this point in time allocated to another area, another jurisdiction. So there has been some input from that organization.
Beyond that, infrastructure is being supported to a certain extent to provide some support for Pan Am facilities, but the vast majority of the Pan Am upgrades or adjustments will be coming from the Pan Am Games budget itself.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I am wondering if the minister could clarify for me under the strategic fund component Northway Aviation, which is project No. 286. Where is the location for that airstrip-seaplane base?
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, it is a place called Biscuit Harbour which is near Pine Dock, Manitoba, which is on the west side of Lake Winnipeg north of Riverton, Manitoba.
Mr. Jennissen: The reason I was asking, I just wanted to clarify whether that was in northern Manitoba or not, and it appears not to be.
So under the Strategic Fund then, basically only two projects were done in northern Manitoba. Am I correct? That is Brochet sewer and water main construction and South Indian Lake sewage treatment plant.
If that is the case, we are talking $1.1 million out of the total fund of 84. Is that correct?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) is referring obviously to the strategic component, because I think he heard some of the earlier discussion where out of the $60 million that was set aside for rural Manitoba, I believe about $5.8 million went to what we will call the North--Leaf Rapids, Thompson, Flin Flon, The Pas and so on. As I undertook for the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), I am going to provide her the summary of the total funding for the aboriginal communities, which was under a completely separate agreement from the federal government. That was funding for projects on reserve. I do not want to give the total amount without having a precise figure. But I undertook to provide both the total amount and any individual breakdown to the member for Swan River, so I will certainly provide the same to the member for Flin Flon.
* (1630)
Out of the strategic element, the approximately $84 million, as the member mentions there was the South Indian Lake project, a Brochet project. There has also been some support provided for Churchill, the spaceport initiative in Churchill. I would also make the case that projects like distance education are benefiting all regions. I would have to get the detailed breakdown of specifically the impact on the northern communities, but as I said earlier, the various school divisions are being supported, as are our seven community colleges and universities, so I am confident that some of that is obviously being spent in northern communities.
Some of the other projects of a strategic nature really are benefiting people from all of Manitoba. I think to put the $6.8 million into--I believe that was the amount for the agricultural building at the University of Manitoba--$6.75 million, again, benefits young people right throughout this province. I do not think we would want to get into the regional breakdown of where those young people necessarily come from. I am sure they come from all parts of our province. So there are various projects that also are benefiting all Manitobans, irrespective of where the allocation is physically spent or the money is physically spent.
Mr. Jennissen: Yes, I do understand that. Although I want to point out there are not too many farmers in South Indian Lake, or likely to be, because it is just not the environment where people live. But what I was getting at, I guess, I am seeing straightforward spending of approximately $1.1 million on the Brochet and South Indian Lake water and sewer projects. I am arguing that with 4 percent of the population in the North on $80-some million, it looks low, I guess, although the minister has made the argument that there are other projects that would benefit northerners such as distance education. It looks mighty low. I would argue the neighbourhood of three million or so would more accurately reflect the population in northern Manitoba.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, when we have looked at all of these projects, I guess, two points: First of all, they are, and they have been, application driven, so you need applications from communities to deal with a project. I would have to go back and see what the nature of the applications was on a regional basis from northern Manitoba and the rest of Manitoba.
Having said that, the member is right, that is $1.1 million for Brochet and South Indian Lake, but there is also approximately $l.2 million available for Churchill, through the spaceport initiative, so those two combined take you up to $2.4 million. Then he is right that I would argue, irrespective of the physical location of some of the dollars that were spent, they were spent on projects that are benefiting people right throughout our province, North certainly included.
Just on the issue of the distance ed, I think I did undertake for the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) to try to give at least some additional information in breakdown because she was asking about expenditures for the post-secondary element in the Swan River area. I will certainly, as well, undertake to provide a similar breakdown for the member for Flin Flon, but I am told that, out of the total allocation for the post-secondary distance education, the total project out of Keewatin Community College will be approximately $1.2 million, so again, a significant contribution to that community college.
Mr. Jennissen: Obviously, one of the criteria must be need as well, and we assess which project gets the green light and which does not. I presume regionalism is part of it as well, but you are trying to balance things according to population, to need and so on. If that is the case though, why are some communities which are really in desperate straits, and I am thinking of the community of Channing which is next to Flin Flon, still does not have any water or sewage, modern water or sewage, nor does the tiny community of Granville Lake. I guess you could argue Granville Lake is very small but Channing is not. I am sure that the City of Flin Flon must have made application for some of these funds.
Mr. Stefanson: The member is correct, that I believe Flin Flon had an application in for their sewer and water project. It is a project many of us are somewhat familiar with, quite familiar with, and, as he knows, $60 million was set aside to the Rural Advisory Committee. I think what ended up happening is the rural committee attempted to be as fair as they possibly could be on a per capita allocation that he touched about earlier when he referred to the North, and looked at distributing the $60 million more or less on a per capita. Having said that, Flin Flon and region did not have enough per capita to receive a contribution toward that total project, so I believe probably, I am sure Flin Flon received a project. They probably had a different project funded through the original $60 million. In fact, Flin Flon received $993,000 under the original program for constructing lift stations.
So again, out of the $60 million, that is where the traditional projects were coming out of, the $60 million for rural and 60 for Winnipeg. So $120 million out of a $204-million program was set aside for the traditional initiatives like sewer, water, roads and so on, but I think when it came down to the per capita distribution that is in part what impacted Flin Flon in terms of their distribution from the $60 million. Having said that, the $84 million was used in a more strategic fashion for different kinds of initiatives, but it did include some allocation for Northern Affairs communities. I did indicate earlier that the Department of Northern Affairs did submit several communities for projects and these two ended up receiving support.
Mr. Jennissen: Now the minister alluded a little while ago to the fact that there is a separate funding arrangement with reserves. The reason I raise this is there is, I believe, a new reserve being formed just outside of Lynn Lake, about, I think, 20-some kilometres, called Black Sturgeon, and they need some help obviously with the road out there. We are negotiating with the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) on that, but also there is no infrastructure. There is no hydro, no water, no sewage. None of this would fit under the strategic fund. Would they have to go a separate route for funding?
Mr. Stefanson: The member is correct that the projects for First Nations communities qualify under a separate agreement with DIAND, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We are not a part of that agreement. It is directly with the federal government. I did undertake to get the details of the total allocation, what communities received support and whether or not there are any funds available to be accessed under that initiative. So he is correct that that would be the logical funding source if there are any funds still available and unallocated from that funding source.
Mr. Jennissen: Is there a possibility of overlap? I am thinking in the case of Granville Lake, they are trying to acquire a used, I guess, sewage treatment structure that has been taken out of the ground. It is no longer used by Pukatawagan, and they would like to use it now. Granville Lake is a Northern Affairs community. Pukatawagan and Mathias Colomb is a reserve. So I am saying, you know, there is a bit of an overlap there, and I am not sure if they can access any funds under this strategic fund or not. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Stefanson: I guess the simplest way to come at the question is to say that Northern Affairs communities would qualify under the strategic fund, as they did in the first go around, subject to their projects stacking up against all of the other projects. As I keep saying, the limited amount of money that is available in the strategic fund, that certainly is a frustration for me and for our government, that we did support a second full-scale project for several reasons, one of the most important being that there are so many projects out there that, I would argue, are worthy of support from all parties, from the federal government, provincial government and either municipal governments or other organizations. We knew from the first program, the numbers of projects and the kinds of projects, and we supported a full-fledged second project. Having said that, we have the top up which just has this $12 million in the strategic. So, certainly, northern communities can apply through Northern Affairs or I guess conceivably even directly, but as I said earlier in response to some other questions, I do not like to falsely hold out hope to any organization or community recognizing that there are many times more the numbers of requests than there is money available.
* (1640)
Mr. Jennissen: I want to thank the minister for that answer, and actually I am ready to stop asking questions at this point and turn it over to my colleague from Inkster.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, I appreciate the member for Flin Flon doing that. My questions are actually fairly specific, yet I think quite important given the time that we are currently in with respect to the so-called flood of the century. There has been a great deal of effort in combatting this flood where we have seen temporary dikes being put up or so-called temporary dikes. Many would like to see these dikes become permanent fixtures. Even the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has acknowledged that in some areas that in fact will be the case. I know there are still some things that have to be worked out between the different levels of government in order to facilitate that, along with the property owners in some cases.
My question is: Does the Minister of Finance believe that infrastructure dollars can be used, whatever might be left, to assist in doing some landscaping or converting some of the so-called temporary dikes into a more long-term solution for future floods?
Mr. Stefanson: As the member knows, we signed this top-up agreement with the federal government several weeks ago. I have had some meetings with my counterparts, Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Gerrard on the allocation of the $41 million. As the member for Inkster will have noticed, $14 million was allocated to the City of Winnipeg for residential streets, which I think we can agree is a very worthwhile area; $14 million was allocated to rural Manitoba for roads and streets right throughout rural Manitoba.
The advisory committee gave us their recommendations, and those were released just on Friday. A few of those roads are in communities that have been more directly affected by the flood and so on, so they are in regions that are affected by the flooding. Those communities have an allocation for some streets or roads. Then there is the $12 million left in the strategic of which we have already announced approximately $3 million. We have had earlier discussions about some preliminary allocations of that amount of money.
Having said all of that, I guess what I am saying to the member for Inkster is most of the $41 million, if not all of it, has really been directed to projects already and therefore is not available to be redirected to any issues in the aftermath of the flood. He is right that we signed, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) signed the memorandum of understanding with the federal government just two weeks ago. It has got eight or nine components to it. One of the major components is finalizing an agreement on how to move forward with permanent and/or preventative measures. We are certainly supportive of moving forward with permanent and preventative measures. So those negotiations will be proceeding with the federal government, I am sure, very quickly to hammer out an arrangement and a process and a funding arrangement to deal with various initiatives to help individuals and communities deal with any potential flooding in the future.
Mr. Lamoureux: Three things come to mind with respect to coming up with finances in order to alleviate this problem in the future or at least address it in part. One is the current dollars that might be available from within money that is allocated through the infrastructure program. From the provincial government's perspective, are they prepared to have some of those dollars go toward the reinforcing and landscaping of some of those dikes that could remain permanently? That would be one.
The second one would be a personal appeal, given the circumstances. I would suggest to you that the timing could not be better in the sense that we are getting close to the midway point of a federal election in appealing for additional infrastructure dollars with the incentive that the province is also prepared to throw in additional dollars. I think that there is some merit to that particular issue.
The third would be to come up with a commitment outside of the infrastructure program. The minister that is responsible for infrastructure is also the minister responsible for Finance and knows where all of those reserves are and I am sure could be creative enough to come up with some dollars that would be allocated strictly to the financing of some flood requirements.
Again, the type of flood requirements I am specifically looking for is more so--and I think it would be so sad and unfortunate if we started to see some of the things that we put up that could and should remain enhanced in some way being taken down, and maybe two years from now, hopefully not for another 50 years, we get the same sort of a scenario in the province of Manitoba. I would not want to see that happen. That is the reason why I look at it as three viable options that are out there, and I can add the latter one. One also could appeal to the federal government because that goes beyond the disaster assistance that the federal government would be putting forward, so for all intents and purposes it would be new money. I guess I would be interested in hearing the Minister of Finance's comments on those three issues.
Mr. Stefanson: We are dealing with the infrastructure initiative before us today, but in response to the member for Inkster, first of all, the $41-million allocation for the top up has basically been allocated. By signing that MOU with the federal government, we are prepared to direct resources towards preventative measures. We have indicated we are prepared to do that, and it is a matter of sitting down with the federal government and hammering out an agreement in terms of the levels of funding, percentage of funding, and, ultimately, the kinds of things that should be done and the projects that should be done. We are very supportive of moving forward really along the lines that the member is suggesting, that we achieve an agreement with the federal government towards various preventative measures.
His last point about additional infrastructure dollars--as he knows, we have been very strong supporters of a full-scale second infrastructure program. We pushed hard for--instead of just a top up--another $204-million program, because we have seen first-hand the numbers of projects that have been requested, the needs that are out there and so on, plus we see the economic benefits to our communities and to our economy of the infrastructure program. Unfortunately, the federal government made the decision just to go with a top up. Many of us would like to see them, during these next three weeks, announce another full-scale infrastructure program. I think that would be a positive step and a positive initiative. We, as a government, and as individuals have certainly continued to press for that very initiative.
* (1650)
Mr. Lamoureux: I think there might be some merit in terms of now is the time to articulate for that, and hopefully we will see some sort of correspondence coming from the Minister of Finance, from within his office some time in the next couple of days where we are seeing some sort of an appeal for that top up of infrastructure dollars.
Back in '93, I can vividly recall the commercials of the wheelbarrow dumping money out saying not to go ahead with the infrastructure program. It was not coming from this government; it was coming from other parties in the last federal election. I know this government has consistently argued for infrastructure, and it was shortly after the election of '93, when we finally got a government that was prepared to invest in an infrastructure program. Hopefully that program will continue on into the future. The actual dollars, I think that is somewhat debatable, and I think that Manitoba has a good case currently to approach and see if in fact we might be able to get some more due to the special circumstances surrounding Manitoba currently.
The other question that I have for the Minister of Finance is, he makes mention of the fact that the government is indeed open to allocating dollars from within infrastructure money. How does he see any sort of public input? For example, when I was on Scotia Street, there were a couple of residents that I met there that felt that the infrastructure program would be a good program which they would like to tap into. Carol on Scotia Street--cannot recall her last name right offhand--Beitzel was her last name. She was in fact quite keen on the idea of the infrastructure. Does the minister see some sort of a mechanism or a vehicle in which members from the public, in particular areas that were hit, would be able to express some concerns and how they believe we can prevent these sorts of floods in the future or minimize the damage by using infrastructure dollars?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think in terms of the infrastructure program, we have already indicated the funds are allocated. I do not have the MOU that was signed with the federal government in front of me, but we have indicated that we are prepared to move forward with preventative measures and establish ideally a funding level, project qualification and so on. So I see that as the vehicle to move forward with various preventative measures.
In terms of writing the federal government, I think as the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) knows, I have written the federal government on at least a couple of occasions referring to the need for a second full-fledged infrastructure program. I am certainly prepared to continue to press the federal government for a second infrastructure program.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): 27.3. Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I think we are pretty well ready to pass this item now, but just a very quick concluding remarks. I just wanted to remind the minister that infrastructure spending, infrastructure programs are not new in Manitoba. I can think back to the Schreyer years and I guess to the Pawley years where we had not, unfortunately, federal dollars, but we did have municipal dollars in a joint federal-provincial program, again designed initially to create jobs throughout the province and to give us the benefits of certain assets that could be in place. The details are there for anyone who wants to study it. Many millions of dollars were spent, and I think very successfully, in the years gone by.
Certainly, I am encouraged by what the minister says, that he is quite happy and willing to participate in additional infrastructure programs, assuming the federal government is ready to come forward with some proposals.
I just want to conclude with one observation. A lot of people do not understand this, and many people may disagree with me, but as long as we have unemployed resources in Canada, which we do, unfortunately, in large measure and particularly in the Atlantic region and Quebec and given the fact that we have very, very low inflation, in fact, almost nonexistent in some instances, that there is a good case to be made for the federal government to do far more than it is in terms of providing jobs, in stimulating the economy, helping business in doing so, helping all of us to get jobs in doing so and financing it through the Bank of Canada interest free.
As I pointed out to the minister the other day, back in 1976, 21 percent of the federal debt was held by the Bank of Canada compared to 5 percent today. What I am suggesting is there is a lot of room for the Bank of Canada to take on more new federal debt, as is being proposed by some other people in this country who are incidentally not members of my party. The Canada Action Party, I believe, is one that has been established, the leader of which was at one time a federal cabinet minister, a Liberal cabinet minister, and then sought the Tory leadership. He is a businessman and he is proposing a massive stimulus of the Canadian economy through spending financed by the Bank of Canada.
I am saying that this program would be a classic case of utilizing central bank finance to create jobs without imposing an interest rate burden on the taxpayers because, as I have indicated before, money borrowed from the Bank of Canada is interest free. It is interest free because the Bank of Canada, by its act, has to pay all of its profits in terms of dividends back to the federal Treasury at the end of each year. So it is virtually interest-free money.
I am just saying this because I am trying to get the Finance minister interested so that when he goes to future meetings, then maybe he would be receptive to this idea or may even like to promote it, that the federal government need not think of getting itself into more deficit spending in terms of increasing the burden. I mean, that is the problem with debt and deficits. It is the burden of interest rates--so if you can increase the deficit without increasing the burden of interest rates by using the Bank of Canada's credit which could be done in a noninflationary way, given the fact that we have so much unemployed and underutilized resources in the country, so here is a challenge essentially to the federal government.
But if you could get the Government of Canada, whichever party, if you could get the Government of Canada to understand this and pursue this, it would be of great benefit to the province of Manitoba. I could see much larger programs, and we would certainly benefit thereby, not only in terms of employment but also, of course, in terms of basic economic investments that would help our economy grow in the long run.
Having said that, and I know we are about out of time, I think we are quite prepared to pass this item. I doubt if there is any time to get on to the Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote, because we have only got one minute, but we are quite prepared to pass this.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
27.3. Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital $22,600,000--pass.
Resolution 27.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $22,600,000 for Other Appropriations, Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program - Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.
Committee rise.