Education System

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, over the last number of years there has almost been a tale of two cities dealing with education funding and its reality in the classroom. We hear stories of the pressure on kids, the amount of students in classrooms, the loss of staff, the loss of teacher’s aides and its impact on special education, and many other results of what people believe to be funding cuts.

The Tories of course, the members opposite, extoll their own virtues. But, Madam Speaker, I have looked over the FRAME reports from the early ’90s which have a section dealing with actual funding to public schools and would note that the reality the people are facing in the classrooms appears to be the true reality, that the amount of money has gone down indeed from $732 million to public schools in one report to 1998-99--and the one report being ’92-93--down to some $709 million.

I would like to ask this Premier what has been the impact of those cuts at the classroom level, performed by his government, on the lack of opportunity for kids and their future in Manitoba educational facilities in public education.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the government of Manitoba has been very active in working with the education system to ensure that our children receive the best education we as a society can provide for them. Indeed, international commentators have made the point that Manitobans are the most advanced of any to be found anywhere in the world, and that is thanks to a quality system of public education that we have in our province. In order to keep on that track, new directions were entered upon some five years ago, and that has been moving along towards full implementation, which is providing Manitobans with a system of education that is relevant to today, which sets curriculum requirements that are relevant to today and tests to those requirements to ensure that we are meeting the objectives that have been set out for us.

With respect to the funding of this system of education, this past year we saw a funding increase of 2.2 percent, this year 2.3 percent and a commitment of no less than 2 percent next year.

* (1345)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, if that money is going into the bureaucracy of the minister’s department and not going to kids in classrooms, that is the issue that parents and parent advisory councils, kids and municipal councils have been raising.

Madam Speaker, the shift on taxation from the early ’90s from the provincial government to the property taxpayers through their education taxes levied by the school divisions has gone from $208 million to $377 million, and with increases such as the one in Brandon of 9 percent announced this year, it will even go greater. This is the equivalent of over seven points on income tax. Will this tax priority be a priority for this government in this budget to give the much needed relief onto property taxpayers by funding education in a way that really gets the money to the classroom and stops offloading to the property taxpayers of Manitoba?

Mr. McCrae: It should be noted that under this administration, education funding as a proportion of the total budgetary spending of government has risen from 17.7 percent in 1997-98 to 19.3 percent in 1998-99. In contrast to that, under the previous NDP administration funding for education dropped from 21 percent of their budget in 1981-82 to 17.7 percent in 1987-88. I ask you, Madam Speaker, compare priorities and I am happy to do so.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the minister never contradicted the numbers in his own FRAME documents that show a cut in money. Of course, we know that--[interjection] Well, if the Premier (Mr. Filmon) wants to answer the questions, you know, I would love him to stand up and answer one of these questions one of these days. I guess he does not know, or nobody told him about the education cuts. Nobody told me about the cuts in education. I did not get briefed. I did not know.

Madam Speaker, many municipal officials, many trustees, many mayors, including the mayor in the city of Winnipeg and others mayors in this province, have commented on the massive shift of the education tax burden to the property taxpayers of Manitoba. Of course, this government also clawed back property tax credits in the early ’90s when the deficit was at a record-high level, and this has put another portion of the taxes onto the property taxpayers.

I would like to ask this government, this Minister of Finance: will he make property taxes, education funding and property tax credits the No. 1 priority for tax relief for the citizens of this province in this upcoming budget?

* (1350)

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition is interested in tax reductions. It is certainly a stance he never took when he was in government.

We will be bringing down a budget in the not-too-distant future, and we will just have to ask him to wait.

Education System

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, parents have told us that this government’s cuts to Manitoba public schools have been so severe that not only have their property taxes increased, but they must also sell chocolates for basic classroom resources. The minister, the new minister in true Tory style at first denied this. Then he met some parents, for which I commend him, and he discovered it was true, and in true Tory style he then blamed the trustees.

I would like to ask the minister today to bring some fresh air to his portfolio and to acknowledge and confirm that the real cause of diminishing classroom resources is the systematic cuts to public schools by his government recorded year by year in the FRAME document.

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I have been pleased in these early months of this ministry to spend time with something over 600 parents of the children in our school system in Manitoba, and I am glad to hear the honourable member’s comments in that respect. We have had some very good discussions, and I can tell the honourable member that they have not been focused only and exclusively on issues of the kind the honourable member is raising here today.

In fact, over and over again we have been told that the curriculum being placed before the school system in Manitoba is excellent. That is not my word; that is the word of teachers and of parents in the system, that we are working towards an excellent curriculum and that clearly to change to new curriculum will require effort and some strains and stresses. These are things that the department and parents and teachers in schools can and should work together to overcome, because we all agree on the objectives and that is to have a quality education for our children.

Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I am not surprised the minister does not want to talk about the money.

I would like to ask the minister to explain why students must still use social studies texts from the 1970s, which take no account of the immigration which changed Canada in the ’70s, the ’80s and the ’90s, which has no account of the new place of the North and no sense of the new global society into which these children are entering.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member is very familiar with the New Directions and that new curriculum are being developed province-wide and also across the western part of this country. For years, parents—I, myself—have complained that, you know, people should be able to move about in Canada and hope that their children can have some kind of consistent education opportunities, and this is what is happening in the development of science and social studies curriculum to follow things like math and language arts curriculum.

The honourable member made reference to funding for basics. Before she does that, she should check some of the statistics out there about what dollars are available for these things. I know that the whole issue of textbooks was raised, and yet in the city of Winnipeg I find that the textbook account for the Winnipeg No. 1 School Division is in a surplus position, $398,978. So I say that, Madam Speaker, to remind the honourable member that the education of our children is still a shared responsibility between the government of Manitoba and the school divisions.

Funding—School Curriculum

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Could the Minister of Education--who is clearly and, to me, shockingly unable to assure Manitobans today that our students are equipped with up-to-date texts and resources sufficient for their classes--tell the House what his plan is? He is responsible for education in Manitoba. What is his plan to bring our schools to where they have relevant and current curriculum and resources?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I would never imply that there is never going to be a challenge again in our school system, because that would not be consistent with the changing reality of our world. We ought always to be challenged to be as up to date and give the best education we can for our kids, because they are going to need that as they face a changing reality in the new millennium.

But just for the honourable member’s edification, I read an article in the Winnipeg Free Press today written by Kathy Mallett and Leslie Spillett. I suggest the honourable member should have a look at that because there are some very good statements made. Among them, the obsession with the inadequate funding debate serves to mask and divert attention away from other important structural issues that the public school system must face. Madam Speaker, that is exactly what New Directions has been labouring away at doing, with the partnership of the school divisions and the school teachers and the parents. All I can say, in the past two months of meeting with all of these people, is I am very impressed with the level of commitment I am seeing from teachers, parents, principals and school trustees across this province, and I would encourage that to continue.

* (1355)

Cardiac Care Program

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Je voudrais poser une question au premier ministre ou au ministre de la Santé (M. Stefanson). Madame la présidente, nous avons parlé avec beaucoup de médecins, de patients et d’infirmières au Manitoba, et particulièrement à l’Hôpital Saint-Boniface. Nous avons beaucoup d’études ici au Manitoba qui recommandent que la chirurgie cardiaque reste à l’Hôpital Saint-Boniface.

Je voudrais demander au premier ministre ou au ministre de la Santé: est-ce qu’il va changer la décision et dire aujourd’hui que le gouvernement va garder la chirurgie cardiaque à l’Hôpital Saint-Boniface?

I would like to ask a question of the First Minister or the Minister of Health (Mr. Stefanson). Madam Speaker, we have spoken with many physicians, patients, and nurses in Manitoba, and particularly at St. Boniface Hospital. We have many studies here in Manitoba that recommend that cardiac surgery remain at St. Boniface Hospital.

I would like to ask the First Minister or the Minister of Health: is he going to reverse the decision and state today that the government will maintain cardiac surgery at St. Boniface Hospital?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): I thank the member for Kildonan for that question. I think he knows very well that the whole issue of the shifting of programs throughout our health care system in Winnipeg has been a very comprehensive one. It has included a number of individuals—health care providers, doctors, nurses, other people in the system--in terms of prioritizing, where we should be providing our programs. The overall objective is a basic but very important one, Madam Speaker, to make the absolute best use of our physical assets, our buildings, best use of our technology, our equipment, and the best use of our people. The recommendation from that very comprehensive program that has been also recommended by the Winnipeg Hospital Authority has been to ultimately shift that program to the Health Sciences Centre. Today we currently have one program running with two sites. That obviously is going to continue for a period of time while this whole issue of the transition to one site ultimately is worked on.

Mr. Chomiak: Le ministre peut-il décider aujourd’hui de garder, pour tous les gens dans le système—et j’ai parlé avec beaucoup de gens dans le système—le ministre peut-il aujourd’hui dire que nous avons le rapport Bell-Wade qui recommande deux programmes, plutôt un programme et deux sites? Le ministre peut-il aujourd’hui dire que c’est quelque chose de très important pour les gens ici au Manitoba que le programme cardiaque reste à Saint-Boniface en même temps qu’au Centre des sciences de la santé, au bénéfice de tous les gens ici au Manitoba?

Can the minister decide today to keep, for all the people in the system—and I have talked to many people in the system—will the minister today say that we have the Bell-Wade Report which recommends two programs, or rather one program and two sites? Can the minister indicate today that this is something that is very important for the people of Manitoba, that the cardiac program stay at St. Boniface as well as at the Health Sciences Centre for the benefit of all the people of Manitoba?

Mr. Stefanson: The review process, again I remind the member, and he is very aware of it, was an extremely comprehensive one in terms of looking at not only this program but all of the programs, all of the services that are provided through our hospital facilities in the city of Winnipeg. The recommendation is to consolidate the cardiology in the Health Sciences Centre. Today we continue to have the one program with the two sites while we are working through that transition, which will take a period of time. But that is a recommendation that has been made after extensive review, extensive consultation, extensive analysis.

Again, I remind the member, in terms of I would hope it is an objective that he shares with all of the needs in health care, not only in Manitoba, right across Canada, the fundamental objective of making the best use of our buildings, the best use of our technology, the best use of our people. The experts in the field have gone through this analysis, and they have made this recommendation. But at this point in time, while we are going through the transition, we will continue operating out of two sites.

Surgery Reduction

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Quand le gouvernement a consolidé les chirurgies et les programmes pour les enfants à l’hôpital des enfants, il a réduit les programmes qu’il offrait aux enfants du Manitoba. Et, en même temps, aujourd’hui l’OHW veut réduire le nombre de chirurgies cardiaques pour l’année prochaine. Pour moi c’est quelque chose de grave pour les gens ici au Manitoba, parce qu’on fait attendre beaucoup de gens pendant longtemps pour les chirurgies cardiaques.

Le ministre peut-il aujourd’hui annuler le plan de l’OHW de réduire le nombre de chirurgies cardiaques ici au Manitoba?

When the government consolidated surgery and programs for children at Children’s Hospital, it reduced the programs that it was providing to the children of Manitoba. Today the WHA wants to reduce the number of cardiac surgeries for the next year. In my opinion, this is a serious matter for people here in Manitoba because many people have to wait a long time for cardiac surgery.

Can the minister today cancel the plans of the WHA to reduce the number of cardiac surgeries here in Manitoba?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Health): Again, Madam Speaker, I think the member for Kildonan knows that there was an awful lot more to this whole analysis than the shift of the one program from St. Boniface to Health Sciences Centre, that there are also programs coming into St. Boniface that will be introduced there in terms of services that they were being provided.

So, again, I just remind the member that this is a decision that has been made with extensive consultation, extensive input. The people involved in these particular fields have been involved as part of this analysis, a part of this recommendation, with the total objective of getting the best service to the public in the most efficient and effective way. So it is not an issue of providing less service. It is an issue of providing the ability to provide more service, to making better use of all of our people, all of our technology, all of our buildings. That is the overall objective. I think that is a very wise objective that we certainly support, and I am bewildered why members opposite do not support that fundamental objective.

* (1400)

Troy Baird

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice. Troy Baird was apprehended, I understand, last night or today following charges laid this weekend that he had sexually assaulted his wife causing bodily harm while he was out on bail facing charges of attempted murder, uttering threats, forceable confinement, suicide aiding. He was released last week, Madam Speaker, by Judge Newcombe, the same judge by the way that had released Roy Lavoie the second time, which of course in no small way was a factor that led to the Lavoie tragedy in 1995, a commission of inquiry and recommendations as to how to better deal with bail in domestic violence cases.

My question to the minister is: since that bail hearing before Judge Newcombe was heard in the general Provincial Court, why was the bail hearing not held in the Family Violence Court, as the Lavoie commission of inquiry told this government to do if it indeed wanted to reduce the risk of the judicial attitude shown in Lavoie ever showing its head again in domestic violence bail cases?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I certainly appreciate the opportunity to respond to that particular question.

I might say that the Crown handling the case at bail was a family violence prosecutor, a highly experienced prosecutor dealing with specifically domestic violence cases. The prosecutor in that case requested a remand to obtain a complete report. The complainant was referred to Women’s Advocacy and had a personal meeting with the Crown attorney in her office before the bail application continued. The victim stated that she did not fear for her safety. The Crown and Women’s Advocacy were involved in safety planning for the victim, and they advised her to go to a shelter. That advice was not followed.

I might also indicate that before the judge, the Crown called a Linda Wilcox, an ex women’s advocacy worker who is presently working in Family Conciliation Services. She teaches courses in domestic violence at Red River Community College and in fact testified specifically as to the issues that Lavoie inquiry identified. So I might say that the Crown, insofar as its jurisdiction goes, did absolutely everything to ensure that the full facts of the case were on the record.

Mr. Mackintosh: I asked the minister to answer the question. I asked the minister if he would review the transcript of the proceeding before Judge Newcombe, a proceeding by the way on which an order of—a ban on publication exists but within which contains very, very disturbing views. I asked the minister to look at that transcript and get back to me on his views and tell this House now: Why was the bail hearing not held in the Family Violence Court as Mr. Justice Schulman said it should be in the Lavoie commission of inquiry report?

Mr. Toews: The member well knows the answer to that question. The Crown does not run the courts. That is a matter for the judges to determine, where these matters will be heard. The Crown and our department specifically have made specific recommendations about where these matters should be held. This was the position of the judges, and we are in fact following the recommendations of the judge in the Lavoie commission. We have to also understand that when a judge makes recommendations in a report, while the government might be fully committed to implementing those recommendations, sometimes these issues are also in the hands of independent judges who do not answer to me, who do not answer to Crown attorneys, but who make decisions as they see appropriate. Having said that, Madam Speaker, I will certainly review the transcript to ensure that everything that possibly could be done was done.

Domestic Violence Court

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): When the minister reviews the transcript I want him to get back to this House and to me specifically on what the contents of this transcript reveal. But explain now to the House why, after almost two years of having the Lavoie report, this minister has not shown the leadership, this government has not shown the leadership to ensure that bail for domestic violence cases is heard in the Family Violence Court. It is this Legislature that has The Provincial Court Act in its jurisdiction. What action has the minister taken? Why is there not bail in domestic violence court?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, these bail hearings are held in the Provincial Court. The Crown attorneys assigned to these specific cases are in fact experts and well experienced in this area. We have implemented the Lavoie commission report not only in terms of personnel but actual dollars that contribute to programs right across Manitoba. Our government put in an additional $2 million on an annual basis to ensure that the tragedies that occurred in Lavoie do not occur again. We are committed to taking every reasonable step to ensure, within the limits of the law, that women in this province are protected in whatever case, and indeed not only women, we are also concerned about the personal safety of every man, woman and child in this province.

Electoral Boundaries Revision

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Premier.

Yesterday I was at an all-party panel on CBC, and the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) was there and the member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) was there. I am getting a lot of confused messages. Yesterday after the camera went out, there was discussion that all we want to see, "we" being the New Democrats, is the legislation and then we will pass the legislation in two days. The member for Arthur-Virden, I am sure, can recall that comment. I then turned to the member for Arthur-Virden and challenged him to present, through leave, that bill today.

My question, given the response from the New Democrats today: will the Deputy Premier commit that the province will not or this government will not call an election based on the old boundaries?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please.

* (1410)

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Deputy Premier): I thank the member for Inkster for that question. He knows that we have committed to get the bill for the electoral boundary changes to this House as quickly as we can. Our House leader tried to get leave today to introduce that legislation. That was denied. We are certainly committed to get the legislation forward to deal with it as expeditiously as possible. We realize at the end of the day, and this member for Inkster knows parliamentary process, that it ultimately takes the co-operation of everybody here to pass bills. We are prepared to introduce it; we are prepared to pass it immediately. I gather the members of the Liberals are prepared to do it. I think he has some work to do, not on us, in terms of moving that process quickly. He should talk to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the House leader of the opposition and get their co-operation to introduce that bill and pass that bill immediately.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, again to the Deputy Premier: will the Deputy Premier recognize that both the NDP and the Conservatives are mocking Manitobans and the whole democratic principles? What we are specifically asking the government is to make a commitment that they will not call an election on the old boundaries. Both parties are being highly irresponsible and mocking democracy in the province of Manitoba.

Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my friend the member for Inkster, I think this must be his fall-back position because really, really the best thing we can do is introduce the bill as quickly as possible, deal with the bill and pass it. We are prepared to do that; we understand you are prepared to do that. The members opposite, the members of the opposition, the New Democratic Party, are not prepared to do that. They are the ones whose co-operation we need to deal with it. We fundamentally believe in the issue of representation by population. We are prepared to introduce the legislation. We are prepared to deal with it immediately and pass it. Let us get the co-operation of the NDP to do exactly what we all believe in doing.

Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, my final supp goes to the government House leader. The question--if the government House leader can provide for each caucus a copy of the legislation that the government will have access to as of two o’clock, and again, appeal to the government to request leave after Question Period to try and get this bill through, much in the same fashion that they have treated high-priority legislation in the past.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, the reason in fact of seeking leave of the House for first reading today, by having first reading we were not intending to ask for leave for second reading. We know the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), it is his day to speak, but if they had granted leave for first reading, we could have then distributed the bill under the rules of our House. Every member would have had--[interjection] Yes, I read the quotes in the paper of the Leader of the Opposition saying: we have not seen the bill yet. So today we offer to provide the bill to all members of the House in a proper fashion, and members of the press are here. They have seen unanimous consent provided many, many times. The real question is: what are they afraid of?

Jules Benson

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier, the former head of Treasury Board, and it is in regard to the conduct of the former secretary to the Treasury Board, Jules Benson, who as we have learned from the Monnin inquiry, engaged in what Judge Monnin called improper behaviour in the 1995 Tory election campaign in which he negotiated with advertisers and prepared over 100 cheques during the campaign. Now the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has claimed that he did everything in his power to take responsibility for the behaviour of his top aides.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier then why this top civil servant who violated his oath as a civil servant was allowed to remain in his position until December of last year. The same individual who negotiated the sale of MTS was a major player in finance. Why did they not fire him in 1995 for his improper behaviour?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Deputy Premier): Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson knows full well that that information that came out during the Monnin inquiry was obviously not available back in 1995. In terms of the role that Mr. Benson ultimately outlined that he performed, the member for Thompson knows that Mr. Benson himself ultimately issued his resignation from that position.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: A supplementary. I am wondering if the Deputy Premier--once again, who was head of Treasury Board--can explain why Mr. Benson, whose involvement in the vote-splitting scandal was made clear to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) July 30, 1998, was not only not removed at that time—in October the Premier called him a liar--Jules Benson--withdrew that, and in fact we now see in December that he left his position. We have three positions. The Premier said he resigned. The minister himself says that he left the position, and we know now that Don Leitch asked him to resign. Why did it take six months, and what was the real story? Why was he not fired back in July of last year?

Mr. Stefanson: Well, Madam Speaker, again the member for Thompson is doing very much what he did here yesterday. He knows full well that this entire issue has been dealt with by former Chief Justice Monnin in terms of an extensive inquiry, calling a number of witnesses, interviewing a number of other witnesses, examining, cross-examining witnesses. The NDP themselves had a lawyer representing them throughout this entire process.

So they know that it has gone through a very extensive inquiry and a public inquiry process, and they come here to try and continue to perpetuate that inquiry here today. It is only evidence that they have nothing better to deal with in terms of the important issues facing Manitobans like health care and education and fiscal issues and so on. Again, I think it reflects more on them than anything else.

Older Neighbourhoods

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, after more than 10 years in government, after offloading more than $170 million onto property taxes, after encouraging urban sprawl and ignoring older neighbourhoods, last night at a meeting at R.B. Russell School on inner city housing, people were saying the government is finally realizing that there is a problem in Winnipeg and older neighbourhoods, a problem that many see they helped create. They have made some sketchy references to a renovation and crime-proofing grant program to revitalize older neighbourhoods in the throne speech, but they neglected to tell us many details.

I want to ask the Minister of Housing: did he learn anything from their last experiment which did not help older neighbourhoods at all, where you had to spend $5,000 to get back $1,000? Can he tell us the parameters for this experiment by the Conservative government on renovation in Winnipeg?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): I, too, was at that meeting that the member for Radisson was at last night.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Housing, to complete his response.

* (1420)

Mr. Reimer: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I guess it is the tale of two cities, in a sense, because what the member for Radisson was listening to and what I heard was a lot of different rhetoric. One of the things that was discussed very extensively at the meeting last night was the fact of community ownership and community involvement with the revitalization of the downtown area and the homes area. One of the things that was stressed by quite a few people—in fact, I even took some notes because I thought that maybe the member would be there. I thought that the member for Radisson might be asking some questions.

The one thing that was quite prevalent was the fact that there were a lot of very, very talented people at that meeting last night. There were a lot of very strong people in the community who are looking for change, and the one thing that they were advocating was not necessarily more government involvement but a concentrated effort of trying to find resolve.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister the question that he was asked last night, and he missed an opportunity to answer that question. He was asked very directly what is going to be the provincial government’s involvement and role in revitalizing the Winnipeg areas that are deeply, deeply troubled. I want to ask the minister to explain what his program is going to do. A number of people said that 50 homes a year is not going to do it. What is the government’s program? How many homes a year is your program going to help to renovate?

Mr. Reimer: One of the things that was outlined quite extensively in the throne speech which we just heard the other day was the fact of this province’s commitment to the City of Winnipeg in trying to look at resolve in a lot of the programs. One of the initiatives that was introduced was the Take Back the Streets initiative where we will be looking at working with the City of Winnipeg, empowering the neighbourhood associations. In fact, we are looking at neighbourhood renewal committees to look at how we can try to look at capitalizing on the assets of the community, looking at the government in a role that can work in consultation with the City of Winnipeg because there has to be a partnership not only with the community but the City of Winnipeg in trying to get the resolve of some of these problems.

So it is not totally a government initiative and a government directed and a government funding agency that is involved. There is a partnership that is involved with a lot of these things. I think that this came out very, very evidently in last night’s meeting. The public, the constituents out there, the interest groups that were there, they wanted to see a change, and they were looking for government to be there in a catalyst role, not as a totally funding organization.

Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that, after 11 years of government, they have no specific plan for a specific number of homes with a specific budget for a revitalization program. I want to ask the minister again: can you give us more than some sketchy rhetoric about your program for revitalizing old neighbourhoods?

Mr. Reimer: One of the things, we are working very closely with the city because we must recognize that there has to be a partnership involved with working with the City of Winnipeg, and we believe that that is the best way to try to get results. We are looking at a joint review of the inner city housing and the housing components of the neighbourhoods, and this is a joint venture between the City of Winnipeg and the province. It will be announced very shortly, the parameters and the direction that it will take. These are some of the things that we feel that we have to get into to get a knowledge of where the money is going to be going. It is not just a matter of throwing money at some of these problems and some of these areas, to think that all of a sudden the problems are gone. There is room to grow with these communities, and this is one of the reasons why we feel that there is that direction.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.