* (1500)

Mr. Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The committee will come to order. While the member for Inkster is waiting for the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae) to get here, and I am sure he is on his way, he might have a question.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I have a number of questions that I was wanting to pose with the Minister of Urban Affairs, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), and in case the Minister of Education will want to know, it will probably be a little while. So whether it is 15 or 20 minutes, a lot depends in terms of the dialogue that is created between myself and the Minister of Housing. I think that is the area in which I would like to start on. The other day I posed a question during Question Period. Actually there was a series of questions that I raised in regard to housing value, the assessments and so forth. What I wanted to do was to talk a little bit about the whole issue of revitalization.

I know on a personal note I have had experiences in the past, prior to being elected back in '88, in dealing with some of the communities and the deterioration that was actually occurring. I know in many different older neighbourhoods, and that does not even just apply to the city of Winnipeg, areas in rural Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg where you see a certain amount of deterioration that has occurred. Having studied at least in part urban revitalization over at the University of Winnipeg, one gains a few ideas in the different types of things that government can do in terms of assisting our local communities.

Personally I have always believed that the best way is through empowerment of the local residents. That is something which I believe is critically important in terms of the long-term success of revitalization. If government chooses, for whatever reasons, to withdraw out of participating in that area, quite often what you will see is that downward spiral in which you see more and more slum landlords moving into houses that start to get boarded up before you know it. You have what would appear to be a very serious ghetto. Some might even, including myself in part, draw that ghettoization and compare that ghettoization to other major cities in North America, in particular south of Canada in the United States, and it raises a great deal of concern.

I, like no doubt all members of this Chamber, take a great sense of pride in the province of Manitoba, and we want to see it prosper.

One of the biggest concerns that I have as a whole is our housing stock. The housing stock is one of the things that ensures a certain standard or a certain quality of living. Every day I drive from my riding into the Leg. It seems that you see more and more of that dilapidation of homes, and it is quite discouraging.

Over the years I have seen housing prices just literally bottom out, and maybe they still have not hit the bottom yet. You have these beautiful homes, two-and-a-half-storey homes, of great character that are selling for literally peanuts, if in fact you can sell them.

I was driving down Burrows and there was one, this is a while back, home that was $10,000. For a city like Winnipeg and our size, I think if you mentioned that to any other citizen across Canada they would say, what, $10,000 for a house in a major metropolitan area, that is just a phenomenal price. For me, what it does is it really highlights the seriousness of the issue. I know the Free Press has done some stories in regard to some of the fire problems. It was quite sad to see the one house that implied burn me down, as in burn the house down. I think that is the mentality that many people are starting to have, and that is, the only way in which we are going to see the type of revitalization that is necessary is if we start to see some very serious vandalism and homes being burnt down and people just in essence giving up.

You have many seniors in the north end that have invested their life savings into their homes, now today to only see a good number of those homes drop in terms of prices. It was something which I was hoping to be able to address in the Housing Estimates, but unfortunately time did not allow for any form of dialogue with myself and the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) on this issue. So that is the reason why I chose to bring it up in concurrence.

I think the way in which you need to deal with it is community by community. My personal experience was in the community of Weston. When I had got out of the military, I had moved into the north end of Winnipeg and into the community of Weston and very quickly got involved with the Weston Residents Association. In every meeting there was a lot of dialogue from local residents, and I was really impressed with the number of people who chose to attend these meetings to express their concerns. Even though this is a number of years ago, we are talking 14 years ago, the issues that were being brought up were stop signs. Of course, it seems always to be somewhat of an issue, but next to the stop signs was the condition of the housing stock.

For a lot of the long-timers, the individuals who want to see their communities prosper or at least at the very least to prevent its deterioration, they are prepared to put in some time and make the sacrifices that are necessary in order to contribute to that community's development. Well, that is what we saw with the Weston residents group, with individuals like Ron Keller and Les, and so many, Olie–wonderful individuals who were sacrificing their time and coming up in terms of solutions, how we could prevent it. Fortunately, for me, in using their expertise and being taught at University of Winnipeg some urban revitalization programming, we came up with a number of what I believe were good ideas.

* (1510)

At the time, we used to have the in-fill housing program. The in-fill housing program, for those who are not familiar with it, was a program in which we saw whether it was a vacant lot or a dilapidated house, a house that was completely boarded up and really making the neighbourhood around it look that much worse. It is kind of like a dominoes effect. It has a negative impact on the neighbour's home. So what would happen is government would go in and, through subsidy, acquire and put up an in-fill house.

I am not too sure in terms of the actual number that we put up in the city of Winnipeg, but what I do know is that the community of Weston was fairly aggressive with that particular program. It is a program that, ultimately, I believe would work well in a number of different communities. It provided those residents who were wanting to participate in revitalization, a program that was very worthy. They did not mind investing some of that time in finding these homes and working with the government to try to change them.

Well, the community of Weston, and particularly along Alexander Avenue, had significant changes in the appearance of homes. That was done through things like the in-fill housing program, also beautification programs that were driven by residents. Then we had a wonderful opportunity through the Weston revitalization program which opened the window for really real involvement from the residents in the sense that they were able to come up, in many cases, with their own program. So whether it is parks that were greatly enhanced for community kids or providing facilities for our seniors who were living in the community, it really provided the opportunity for the community to come to grips and try to improve the area in which they live.

Mr. Chairperson, I believe that Weston, at least in part, because of the action of some local residents, has been able to keep its head above water, if I can put it in such a fashion. Had it not been for those residents, ultimately, we would have seen a community that would have deteriorated even more so. That would have had a negative impact in so many different ways. So I think that there are a number of programs that government needs to express its will to develop and ensure that residents in the many different communities across the province have the opportunity to participate in.

So my first question for the Minister of Housing is: what core programs does the Minister of Housing see as those types of programs in which residents would be able to directly participate in in terms of maintaining the appearance and the social fabric in a positive way in the many different communities across the province?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairperson, the member brings up some very interesting commentary in regard to not only his involvement with housing but also, I guess, his involvement with the social aspects of constituency involvement and constituency work that I think we all get involved with in our willingness to try to help not only our constituents but the residents and the people of Manitoba.

The member alluded to his former times at the University of Winnipeg studying urban studies. I guess he may have been one of the students or possibly in the same class with also another prominent Liberal in this province, Mr. Lloyd Axworthy. I am not too sure, but I think Mr. Axworthy taught at that time, maybe, because the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has still got youth on his side, so I imagine he has had the exposure of Mr. Axworthy.

Housing is naturally very much of a concern, and it has been coming to the concern of many of us just recently because of some of the articles in the paper and some of the incidents that are not very enviable or very noteworthy in regard to the fires and some the vandalism in regard to boarded-up housing. We are naturally concerned about that, not only as a government and as Minister of Housing but also as Minister of Urban Affairs in working with the city and trying to make Winnipeg the greatest city in Canada. We are striving to work with the city and the mayor and council and EPC, trying to work with their goals and their aspirations and working for the same outcome.

As Minister responsible for Housing, naturally my portfolio is involved with the administration and the upkeep and the maintenance and the improvement of our public housing throughout Winnipeg and throughout all of Manitoba. At one time, there was a participation between all three levels of government but predominantly the senior level of government, the federal government in housing in Canada, they were very much a partner in the establishment and the expansion of public housing throughout all of Canada.

But I think as the member is aware, the federal government, in most recent years, has pulled themselves completely out of public housing. They had initially informed the province back I believe it was in 1993 or '94 that there would be no more funding programs available for new construction of public housing in Manitoba or for that matter in Canada.

It was then further expanded to I believe it was 1995, where the funding that the federal government was participating in was capped, and the province was notified that there would be no new funding. In fact, the funding would be capped, and with that cap, there was a diminishing number of dollars that would be flowing to the province because of the payout on certain mortgages and loans that were made during the expansion of public housing. So, in essence, the major partner of public housing has pulled out, and that left either the municipalities or the provincial government to fill in the vacuum, and this could not be accomplished because of the tremendous costs involved.

What we have done is we have embarked on a program of modernization, of improvement and of upkeep on our public housing so that they do remain in a very liveable condition, so that people can still have access to a quality of public housing that they would expect from government. So we have continued that commitment.

The expansion of new housing, like I say, is not coming about, but we do have the ability, I guess putting on my Urban Affairs hat, to work with the communities in revitalization programs. One of the most beneficial programs that we did have was the Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program. That was matching dollars, that we had worked with the City of Winnipeg in actually three components. There was a five-year program that goes back approximately 12 to 15 years ago. I believe that was just over $6 million provincially and $6 million citywise. That was a program where there was emphasis put in various communities where there was a need for revitalization or improvement or community involvement, community participation, and it proved to be very successful.

It was renewed for a second program which was, I believe, again, over $6 million. There, again, this was a joint initiative between the city and the province, and it proved to be quite beneficial because a lot of existing and older communities that were on the fringe, if you want to call it, of deterioration were revitalized. For example, I know that Fort Rouge received funding and revitalization within their communities and in some of their areas. I know the Elmwood area was involved with the MWCRP program; the St. Vital area was involved with the MWCRP program. So they have proven to be fairly beneficial in directing funding to improve and to enhance neighbourhoods within Winnipeg.

* (1520)

There is provision in our budget for another program, if you want to call it a third program under the MWCRP program, but to date we have not had a response from the city as to how they would like to proceed with this new program, this second program. This one here has $7 million earmarked for it provincially and $7 million from the City of Winnipeg. But here, again, plans were more or less presented to the previous mayor and council and EPC. It seemed to have gotten a favourable response and a favourable recognition by the former administration and the mayor. It was then put over, with the election last October, to the new mayor and the new council to make the final decision on it, but I guess there was a different direction that was proposed or intended, and the city has not responded or has come back saying that they want a different type of program.

So there is a program out there that is waiting to be used and utilized which we are willing to participate in, but there has not been a formal alternative brought forth by the City of Winnipeg as to how it could be utilized. That component had a fairly strong housing sector in it in regard to revitalizing, revamping or renewing housing structures and renovations throughout this component, this program. So there is that availability of possibly looking at incentives for housing upgrades in that area.

There is a program that is available called the RRAP program, which is the Residential Renewal Assistance Program that has a total funding of $1.8 million, I believe it is, $1.8 million, $1.9 million. The provincial contribution of that–I believe it is $616,000 that we participate in that. That is a joint program with the federal government. But that RRAP program is a program that is utilized by all of Manitoba. It is utilized not only here in Winnipeg but throughout Manitoba, and, in fact, it is mostly picked up by the rural residents. In that component, I believe that the amount of money that is available is a maximum of–I do not have the exact numbers with me, but I believe there is funding available of around $16,000 maximum with a $12,000 forgivable portion of it. I believe that is in southern Manitoba, and in northern Manitoba I think the numbers are even higher.

So that program is available, but it is very, very severely oversubscribed. There are a lot of applications for that program. I understand that there is quite a waiting list for that program. That is a program that is available for residential rehabilitations. Like I say, I believe that the total for all of Manitoba, with the federal and the provincial contribution, is about $1.8 million or $1.9 million.

There have been other programs that have been made available for community initiatives, because I think that it is not necessarily just a housing issue in the sense of how to try to renovate housing or get housing in a better condition. I think that there is also a responsibility for various justice initiatives in regard to vandalism or gang activity or graffiti. There is an overlap with some of the social programs and some of the programs that can be utilized in the community. There is very much a need for community participation. I know the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has mentioned that a few times. I agree with him a hundred percent, that if the community is not involved, if the community does not buy into the programming or part of the solution taking ownership of the problems and the solutions, these things just will not work.

It is not just necessarily government funding and government money that makes the difference of all the successes. It has to be a community participation and community leadership that gets involved and can take on the responsibilities of making results. I think that is where government can fit in as a catalyst funder or a supportive funder of sorts. The community itself would become the leader and the instigator of the change.

There is always room for those types of initiatives. I think that Manitoba and Winnipeg do have the advantage that we do have a lot of very active and very participative types of community organizations and people that do want to see a change. I think particularly in the last while people here in Winnipeg have become very, very proud of their city, and they do want to see it change. They want to see a difference in some of the problems that are always sort of highlighted by the press and by the media as to what is wrong with the city of Winnipeg, but Winnipeg has a tremendous amount of assets that can be capitalized on. It is this community capacity that we have to build. I think that those are the places where we can make significant changes and contributions as a government to be involved with these changes.

There have been various forums, there have been various studies, there have been various discussion groups as to what the alternatives are and what can be done. I think that that is the healthy part of decision making. To just go holus-bolus into communities with money and the offering of so-called change because somebody has identified a problem sometimes is not the best way to attack these programs, because I think that there has to be community involvement and community initiative.

This is one of the reasons why we have initiated the Take Back the Streets program. I think that that is the alternative to making change on a random basis, but more on a selective basis where things can change, where neighbourhoods can identify their problems and be part of the solution. It is for that reason that a lot of my colleagues and myself have been out into the communities talking to groups, meeting with groups, encouraging groups to come forth, identifying where they feel that there are problems.

I know that there is a conference coming up, I believe it is this Wednesday, initiated by the mayor, which I intend on going to. Hopefully, the House does not keep me here in the sense of time commitments, but it would be a very interesting discussion group to be at, because it is challenging the community to address some of the problems and to come up with some of the solutions.

So there are a lot of things happening that do not get the perspective and the notoriety because maybe they do not hit the front page or they do not make the television of the day, whereas the number of people who are out there working for change, wanting to be part of their community, I think is a very commendable number. It is those types of people that we have to reach out to. It is those types of associations and those types of groups where the positive changes and the community capacity can be built upon. That is where the opportunity lies for government and for agencies to be involved with not only the volunteer groups, but I believe there is the ability for private entrepreneurs and private businesses and the responsibility that the businesses have to put back into the community.

I think more and more businesses are recognizing that just as there is an economic dividend to be realized by doing business in a community, there is a social responsibility of putting back into the community. It is that type of synergy that we have to generate to get some sort of response back from the various players in making change in the community.

* (1530)

So I am not saying that everything is on the rosy side or anything like that, but I think that the opportunities for change and the opportunities for constructive directions are coming about because communities are recognizing that they have to be part of the solution, they have to be part of the change, and that the opportunities are there for them to do these things.

Like I say, I wear two hats in the sense of the Minister of Housing where there is a concern for having adequate and comfortable housing for people who are in need and then as the Minister of Urban Affairs, being very concerned about anything and everything that can be of benefit for the citizens of Winnipeg, and our commitment by this government to the city of Winnipeg goes unchallenged by any other provincial government in Canada for our continued support for the city of Winnipeg and for the citizens of Winnipeg. I think that those are some of the things that possibly deserve consideration when we talk about how we can make changes within our city and within our province.

Mr. Lamoureux: I think that where the minister and I agree is the need for community involvement. The minister has demonstrated that first-hand, I know, in terms of other projects which I have had opportunity to have some dealings with the minister on, in particular with respect to Gilbert Park.

But having said that, once we get past that, as I say, we do agree in terms of the involvement. You know, one of the things that I believe makes us noticeably different in terms of opposition parties is, in fact, the budget vote. I believe, very much so, that there are certain aspects of the budget that were presented in which we could have presented some better ideas. One could always be very nit-picky and so forth and virtually go through every department, and no doubt the minister might even ask, okay, if you are going to enhance resources here, where are you going to start cutting back in order to enhance those services, which would probably be a fair question to be placed.

Having said that, the RRAP program, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, is a program which I am quite familiar with. I would hazard a guess that if you go back to the late '80s, you will probably find the community of Weston definitely had–at least I would be surprised if it did not have not only its fair share in the province of Manitoba but in terms of Canada. That was because we aggressively, as a group of residents, saw the benefits of that particular program and made a decision to promote it extensively from within the community.

I know, myself, I had the opportunity to be able to literally knock on doors and talk to people about the program, and I believe that we had greater participation, I would suspect, than any other community. It was because the local residents took the initiative to say, hey, here is a great program, and what are we going to do to promote it? They came up with a number of ideas. In part, I was even paid to do some of that work.

But having said that, you look at the line of expenditure, what the minister is hoping is to spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.8 million of which half would come from the province. If you take a look at the demand, and the minister makes reference to the demand, the demand far outweighs, as well, as I would have expected it to under a normal situation, let alone if you started to promote the program, the supply. There is very little doubt in my mind that this particular program, whether the feds cough up more dollars or they do not or maybe we approach the city and put more of an emphasis on this particular program than even some of the revitalization programs, the government has committed $7 million, I believe, is what the minister has said to revitalization programs, even using some of that money in order to promote the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program. The primary reason for that is because, as the minister points out, it is not a program that is just focused necessarily in one area, that it can have an appeal to all communities in Manitoba.

The thing that you have to watch out for is the parameters that you set around the criteria for those who would be eligible to receive some form of assistance. What you need to do is you have to look at the overall housing stock in the province of Manitoba. In some areas of the province, a program of this nature might be wonderful to have, but the need is not as great. In certain areas of the province, and the area that I am most familiar with, north Winnipeg, I know the demand is exceptionally high.

Now if we at this Legislature started to promote this particular program, I really and truly believe that you could virtually quadruple the amount of money that is being provided in this program, and you still might not be able to meet the need, the demand for it. Right away one might say, well, how much money are you prepared to throw in? What you need to do is you have to look at the consequence of the dollars that you are spending. If you look at the administrative costs, let us say, of the revitalization program compared to a RRAP, on the surface, I do not know where they are in reality, but one would hope that the administrative costs would be less at the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, and that could be wrong on that point. The point is that we need to better focus on those communities that can assist in the promotion and getting some of that housing stock fixed up. I really believe that the problem is going to get a lot worse before it starts to get better unless the government makes the political decision to get deeply involved.

A couple of years ago, the government had a program–and it escapes me. It was in the budget announcement or possibly the throne, a couple of years ago, for housing renovations. That sort of a program in allocating money out for that kind of a program, again, there is merit for it, but what we really have to start looking at when we talk about our housing stock is the question of need. Where you neglect, where the need really is, you are going to see those communities continue to deteriorate. Last Canada Day weekend, I was out doing some driving around along McGregor and Salter between, let us say, Burrows and Selkirk, maybe a few blocks south of Selkirk. It gets quite depressing in terms of the poverty that you see and the housing conditions that you see. I would find it quite difficult to live in some of those blocks, because they even give a scary appearance.

Now if you are a seven-year-old or a six-year-old, I guess, if you grow up there you have a bit of a different focus, but I think that these are areas in which I believe there is a very strong need for programs of ensuring that the housing stock is maintained. That is why again you have to look at the residents, the community local residents, to empower them to start watching over the communities, promoting the different programs, getting people excited about the programs. You know, tying in or providing no interest loans to low interest loans for some of these areas, through a modified RRAP program, could go a long way in ensuring that windows that are boarded up get windows put in, or glass put in as opposed to boards; could ensure that roofing, doorways and things of this nature–in fact, those sorts of renovations–do, in fact, take place. It is through those types of changes, the cosmetics, that will ultimately, I believe, assist those communities in terms of overall development.

That is why, when I look at the bottom line, the bottom line being the 600-and-whatever thousand dollars going into RRAP, I personally do not believe that that is, in fact, enough money, that the need is so great today that the Minister of Housing needs to re-evaluate that need and what it is that the government is prepared to provide. If we address it today, it could save a number of communities even outside of north Winnipeg, because north Winnipeg is not alone; there are many areas throughout the province, throughout the city that could benefit tremendously by this particular program.

* (1540)

So my question for the Minister of Housing is in regard to the monies that have been allocated for RRAP. Does the minister feel that the only way in which the province would put in more money is if he had more money being matched at the federal level, or would the minister be prepared to even sit down with the city? He talked about the revitalization program, the $7-million offer. If they are not biting on the $7-million offer, well, maybe we can shuffle some of that money over into RRAP and get the city to agree to contribute to that, so I guess it is an open-minded question.

At the very least, if it at all possible within this particular budget, it is to do some form of a reassessment later in the year on these two particular programs or how the government might be able to top up the RRAP contribution that it has put into place today.

Mr. Reimer: The program that the member is referring to, the RRAP program, is a very popular program, and it has proven to be quite beneficial, as the member mentioned in addressing problems in various sectors of Manitoba, and, in particular, as he mentioned in the western area of Winnipeg. The program is a successful program, and I guess, as he says: why do we not build upon these successes?

I guess one of the things that can be made available through funding and through possibly the reallocation of funding is the fact that, with the devolution agreement that we just recently signed with the federal government where we now become the managers and the administrators of all public housing in Manitoba, whether it is federal or provincial, one of the key elements of taking on the total portfolio was the fact that the federal government has said that, if there is a savings realized by the one-desk administration and the management of this program, you can keep–when they say "you," they mean "the province"–can utilize any type of savings. It does not have to be turned back to the federal government, but it has to be reinvested back into public housing of sorts. Now, it was an open-ended situation where the funding can be reallocated back into public housing in a way that we feel is appropriate.

The RRAP program is, and has proven to be, quite successful in Manitoba. As mentioned, the actual participation rate is a 75-25 breakdown. The federal government has a 75 percent contribution; the province has a 25 percent contribution. Does it trigger more money by the feds if we add to our 25 percent? That is something we would have to talk to the federal government on a more serious basis, as to how we can lever the 75-cent dollars from the federal government. It is something we could possibly look at as we start to get into the evaluation of how housing can be better utilized and how the program can be–and the administration of it. But the administration of it is entirely by the federal government. They do the administration of it on the RRAP program, but it is something we can look at.

Our commitment, as I said before, is just over 600. In fact, it is $616,000, so that is something that can be looked at in a very possibly serious manner as to how we can get better utilization of it. It has been used an awful lot in the rural areas, as I mentioned. The rural housing component has addressed the monies through RRAP on that program. There has been a fair amount of utilization of it, but, in the same manner, there is a tremendous waiting list from what I understand as to the uptake.

From what I understand, some people have been on the list for two and three years waiting for an approval of their applications, so by that it gives a strong indication that there is a good pickup on the program. Maybe there is something that can be looked at in the future as to utilizing that program even more extensively.

Mr. Lamoureux: I am really pleased with the minister's remarks at the very tail end of his comments, where he said that maybe we could look at something else. I think that is a very important point.

If there are some sort of obligations, of matching or whatever, there might be in terms of agreements and so forth in place, and if it is a question of fulfilling those agreements to the t and the i, then there is nothing that prevents the government at the very least from going on its own or entering into another program of a similar nature.

At one time, and I do not know to the same extent, if we have the Emergency Repair Program today? [interjection] We do. Maybe it is a hybrid between that program and the RRAP program in which the province can, in essence, just start discussions right away between the province and the city.

I know Mayor Glen Murray has indicated that he wants to see something happen with residential housing. I would be surprised and quite disappointed if he was not prepared to participate in a program with the government providing some financial assistance that would see some form of a RRAP or a home Emergency Repair Program initiated. I would ask the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) to keep on his agenda the need for the government being more proactive, and I say that because maybe the best way to put it would be to ask some questions.

I do not know if the minister will actually have the specific answers here, or he might even want to guesstimate. When we talk about the housing stock, you can put it in many different ways. I guess the simplest way of putting it is in terms of percentages and try to date our housing stock. So, for example, in the province of Manitoba, we might have–this is a pure guesstimate–750 homes, whether it is apartment blocks to single-family detached dwellings, urban and rural.

Does the ministry in any fashion look at the overall housing stock and try to get an assessment? Specifically we might say, again, I would not want to be quoted on these numbers, because I am sure the numbers are out. Let us say 20 percent of our housing stock is 60 years and older. Out of that, does the staff have the ability to say out of that percentage that is 60-plus years of age, such and such percentage has, we can anticipate, gone past the point of any form of rehabilitation where it is only a question of time before we are going to have to start tearing down those homes? Is that sort of statistical information actually conducted through the Department of Urban Affairs?

* (1550)

Mr. Reimer: The member brings up a very interesting scenario. I guess you have to be a bit of a history buff of Winnipeg and the development of western migration through western Canada. Winnipeg is a very, very old city in comparison to western Canada. One of the first areas settled with the Red River Valley, with the early settlers, the expansion of the fur trading business and the capital of Manitoba at the Red and the Assiniboine rivers. Winnipeg at one time was thought that it would even rival Chicago in its world trading, its hub of activity, its rail transportation, its grain handling capabilities. Winnipeg became a very, very concentrated area for development of the transportation, the cereal grain industry. I guess, everything started to change really with the completion of the Panama Canal where there was a different route to get to Asia.

So Winnipeg actually has an awful lot of old buildings or old stock, if you want to call it, of buildings that were built at the turn of the century, some very old. We are blessed in Winnipeg with some very, very wonderful heritage buildings. Some buildings have a tremendous amount of character that is recognized now because, as we know, of the film industry. The film industry has captured Winnipeg and its essence of where they can make some very, very interesting movies and use the facilities here in Winnipeg, because of our heritage buildings and our old buildings, and the condition of them. A lot of the buildings, granted they are buildings that are boarded up and they may look derelict, but there is a tremendous amount of character in behind the façade and in the façade. A good example is the bank building on Main Street, the Imperial Bank of Commerce building that was just opened recently just for public inspection, not public inspection, just for public preview, if you want to call it. It had been closed for, I believe, almost 20 years. The character and the structure is something that rivals any building in North America.

So Winnipeg has an awful lot of old, not only heritage, buildings because of the stone and the tyndall that was laid and also residential homes. The residential homes, in comparison to other cities, there are statistics available. I have seen them at one time, and I was quite interested in them, because it showed that a lot of the homes that were built in the early '30s, '20s and '40s are still standing. There are a lot of homes that were built in those times. We identify certain areas that these old homes are in, like River Heights and the north end, the downtown area, the Wolseley area, the Broadway area. These are all areas that have character homes that go back, well, I should not say hundreds of years but almost a hundred years, some of them.

So the emphasis on old buildings here in Winnipeg is quite predominant, compared to, say, a new city, if you want to call it, like Calgary. Calgary is all new buildings, new homes. Your population is younger; your buildings are young; your industry is younger. Winnipeg has a core of older, more stable homes. Our population is older. Our seniors population is the second highest in Canada. In all likelihood, we will pass to become No. 1 in our portion of seniors compared to the other people in our population within the next few years, because Winnipeg and Manitoba, people seem to have stayed in Manitoba. They settle in Manitoba and they are aging in Manitoba. So we have a different not only demographics of peoples, but we also have the demographics, if you want to cal it, of construction.

There is a need for these types of renovation programs and upkeep and the maintenance of these programs because a lot of these buildings have come to a cycle in their life, if you want to call it, where sometimes major structural repairs have to be done or upgrades or roofing or plumbing and heating and things like that. Nowadays, whenever there is a building that has to be touched up or renovated, there are totally different types of codes that come into effect in the application of it.

We find that ourselves in our Manitoba Housing program. Even though a lot of the buildings that we now manage were built in the '70s and '80s under the former administration of the NDP, those buildings now are becoming–because of the condition of them and the codes that are applicable, whenever we go in to do some major renovations, we are faced with a different type of scenario, and naturally your costs are reflected in what has to be part of the decision making at that time. So these are some of the things that have to be brought into play when we look at other programs in doing the evaluation.

We are very concerned, naturally, about Winnipeg and the housing component of it. This is the reason why we entered into an agreement with the City of Winnipeg for a joint funding project for the study of a residential market analysis of the Winnipeg centre as to its liveability, its market ability, the condition of housing, the alternatives for housing, the availability of possibly conversions to loft units or condo units or housing units that are part of a parcel of retail outlets. I think that the City of Winnipeg has shown its willingness to look at possibly different types of variances in their housing codes and in their application of the codes so that they can try to accommodate this. I think the city is recognizing that sometimes the codes are too restrictive in trying to redevelop some of these buildings that are vacant or that can be utilized for housing, for various components, whether it is a condo conversion or just a building for residential use. So there is that type of emphasis that is available.

Just recently, a couple of years ago, this government passed legislation giving the City of Winnipeg the ability to give tax credits to heritage buildings. That has proven to be very beneficial because what it has done, it has opened up the ability for some of these heritage buildings, instead of to sitting vacant, they can be upgraded; they can be modernized. They can be improved with modern facilities such as heating and lighting and air conditioning and things of that nature to make these heritage buildings now liveable and accessible for use, not only as a residence but possibly as a commercial endeavour. That is one of the things that this government brought in to help the City of Winnipeg, and it is something that I think is recognized as an emphasis for these heritage buildings to get back into utilitization.

I think what can revitalize the downtown area more that anything, and faster, is the fact of getting these buildings back into circulation and back into use. Once you have people living in the downtown area, you are going to have commerce; you are going to have activity; you are going to have growth; you are going to have participation. So those are some of the things with which I think we will be willing to work with the city and look at their proposals. I look forward to working with the city in trying to explore some of these wonderful alternatives.

* (1600)

Mr. Chairperson: The hour is four o'clock. Is it the will of the committee that this committee rise to deal with some House business and then we can come back at the will of the House? [agreed]

Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, a number of years ago, the province came up with this wonderful idea of gambling in their attempt to really cash in on rural Manitoba. [interjection] I will tell you what, I will still make the point. The minister can choose to respond to it, if he feels comfortable in doing that. That is that we had the VLTs brought into rural Manitoba. I think that it far outreached the imaginations of this government in terms of the amount of cash that these VLTs were going to generate.

The initial argument of course was that with the VLT revenues, we are going to reinvest that money into rural economic development. My question to the minister is: can he give us some sort of an idea of the actual percentage of the VLT revenues that the province collects in rural Manitoba? How much of that in percentage terms, even if he wants to guesstimate, goes toward rural economic development?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): I am pleased to respond to that question. I think, if we go back to the time when VLTs were introduced in the province of Manitoba, we will all agree that it was a time when our rural communities were facing some pretty desperate times. Specifically with regard to hotels that were in small rural communities, there was a problem. We were going to start losing a lot of our rural hotels. So the concept of VLTs was introduced into the province of Manitoba initially to assist small rural hotels so that they could survive in these small communities, and, secondly, that we would use the revenues that were generated to the province to assist in economic development in the province of Manitoba.

We approached the sharing of these revenues in two ways. One way was to share revenues directly with municipalities through a 10 percent grant or 10 percent share of the revenues that came from VLTs to the councils, to all the R.M. and municipal councils throughout the province. In addition to that, we also shared the revenues with the native communities as well, so that there was a distribution of these benefits throughout the province.

The other way of distributing funds into rural communities is through projects that are going to have long-lasting benefits to the communities. There are some criteria, and these criteria were developed under a program called REDI which really stands for Rural Economic Development Initiative. Twenty-five percent of revenues that are generated from VLTs are shared with Manitobans through that initiative. Under that initiative, I might inform the member, there have been some very, very positive things that have happened in rural Manitoba. I guess it does not matter where the revenue comes from, but because the Rural Economic Development Initiative program and the Grow Bonds Program were developed, we have something in excess of $100 million that has been invested in rural Manitoba as a result of REDI. Over $28 million of that has been leveraged as a result of the Grow Bonds Program. Something in excess of 1,500 jobs have been generated. I am speaking just from the top of my head with regard to the numbers that have been generated through the REDI program, and over 700 jobs have been generated in the Grow Bonds Program.

So if we look back, the two initiatives have really been positive initiatives. Now the member will, I know he will, remind me that there are problems with the issue of gaming and VLTs in communities. I would acknowledge it is the same kind of vices we have, and there are others that we have in our society. But when I go around the province and talk to communities about VLTs and about the negatives and positives of VLTs, most communities will tell me that it is a form of entertainment for citizens in their communities. We have to learn how to live with them. We have to be cautious about the impacts on those who have addictions, and we have to have programs in place to help those who fall into that category of addiction.

As I go around and talk to some of the vendors, I think that people are becoming much more aware today, that there are, in fact, problems, that there are problem gamblers that they have to be aware of, and it is their responsibility as well to make sure that they help these people as much as they can, whether through referring them to places and professionals who can help them or at least being cognizant of how much time they are spending at the machines and that sort of thing.

* (1640)

So, by and large, I think the program has worked in rural Manitoba from the financial side, and it does provide Manitobans who are outside the city with some opportunity for that form of recreation. I think it would be very unfair of any government to treat rural Manitobans as second- or third-class citizens by not allowing any form of gaming in that regard to exist in communities. I also agree that it is important for communities to set their own destiny. If they decide that for their community it is not fair to have VLTs or it is not their community's values to have those types of gaming machines in their municipality, they have the right to make that decision, and certainly we as a province need to respect that kind of a decision when that is made by the population of a community.

Mr. Lamoureux: There might be an opportunity, I am not sure if we will be able to continue the dialogue. Prior to our being interrupted to having to go back into the House, I was having a series of questions with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer), and what I would like to be able to do is to resume that line of questioning. I appreciate the response from the Minister of Rural Development, a most interesting response which could generate a number of discussions and questions in itself. We will have to wait and see if time will permit for it.

Having said that, I did want to, as I say, move back to the Minister of Housing. The minister had indicated that he was familiar with one particular report which he was somewhat fascinated by in the sense that it gave some idea of the percentage of housing stock and so forth in terms of its age. I would definitely suggest that it would be beneficial for this Chamber in the next Housing Estimates process to have some of those stats made available at the beginning of the Estimates process. I think it would go a long way in terms of some very good debate inside the Chamber. I say that because, as I indicated, the concern that I have, or our party has, with the overall condition of the housing stock–and so much of it is in dire need of some form of government promotion.

It does not necessarily have to be direct dollars going into each and every house that needs to be fixed up. Quite often, what you will find–and again I will go back to the RRAP program because we were just concluding our remarks on it before our interruption–is that, if you provide incentive in certain areas, what will happen is neighbours start to say, well, look, you know, John is fixing up his house, and there is a little bit more pressure on him or her to fix up their house. It kind of has a snowball effect which, I think, is very beneficial for the community.

Having said that, I wanted to move off the RRAP. That was one of three programs that the minister had initially made reference to. The second one that I wanted to touch upon was the revitalization program. I, in the past, was a member of a revitalization program, and, as I indicated in my starting comments, witnessed firsthand in terms of the benefits of a program of this nature. As the MLA for Inkster, I have been able to follow a revitalization program in the Shaughnessy Park area, and again you will see a number of improvements that occurred that would not have occurred had that program not been available.

I think that there needs to be discussion as to how these revitalization programs can achieve their biggest bang for the buck, quite frankly. I have always had some concern in terms of administration costs and how that money is ultimately allocated out. I have always believed that there needs to be that extra push through revitalization programs on housing. I have seen parks and community clubs built with these monies, which is nice to see, but I think that there is a cost if you sink so much money into two or three projects in the community. I recognize the benefits of it, but I do not want to see future programs of revitalization that do not have a stronger housing rehabilitation program, because traditionally what we see is these revitalization programs go into older neighbourhoods. These older neighbourhoods you will find, I would think and speculate, homes that would definitely benefit by some sort of special attention through revitalization programs.

So I would start off by asking the Minister of Housing specifically on the revitalization program. If the City of Winnipeg did come up with the $7 million, does the government already have determined where or which communities would benefit by the joint $14 million?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Urban Affairs): The member had alluded, in his conversations, about the Manitoba Home Renovation Program which was initiated by this government back in 1995; I believe it was 1995-96. That program was grants of $1,000 to people that did $5,000 of eligible repairs in owner-occupied homes. I believe the criteria was homes that were assessed at under, I believe it was, $80,000 or $85,000. [interjection] $100,000. It proved to be very beneficial. In fact, when we got the final wrap-up report in May of 1996, there was a total of 10,200 applications for grants received. Grants were provided to 9,607 applicants for a total expenditure for the whole program under the Manitoba Home Renovation Program of $9,575,633. Of this total, it was estimated that the amount of money that was spent, the approximately $9.6 million in grants, leveraged approximately $74 million in renovation work. That equated out to 1,260 person years of employment throughout the province when this program was initiated.

So the return is fairly significant if you look at an investment, if you want to call it, of $9.6 million and you leverage over $74 million in renovation programs. It has a significant rippling effect through the economy. Those types of dollars in renovation work would account for the builders, the suppliers, the material that is used and the upgrades that people look into doing their program. So the program was very, very successful in its application. I remember–I do not have the numbers in front of me–the breakdown as to the percentage-wise of rural and urban participants, and it was fairly well proportioned to the population breakdown between Winnipeg and the rural markets. So the money was well utilized by all areas of Manitoba. A program that would be specifically for Winnipeg, as the member is alluding to, is something that we have not looked at in its entirety.

We are looking at various ways to try to help the City of Winnipeg and respond to some of their requests. I know the mayor has indicated that he is quite interested in coming up with some sort of housing approach to the inner city area. I think that where he has to also get over the hurdle of is that he has to get the approval of his council and his EPC as to where funding can be allocated or where the money is available to look at a housing type of component. I think that what we are looking at right now is sort of a conceptual approach to how and where monies can flow. I do not believe that there has been a formal discussion with EPC and with the city councillors as to where the funding is going to come from or whether this is part of a reallocation of what I referred to earlier today, the MWCRP funding, because the MWCRP funding had various different types of community component spending involved with it, so it was not particularly all housing. In fact, in the two other original programs, there was very little, I believe, if any, housing. There was no housing component involved with the other two MWCRP programs other than infrastructure for streets, for landscaping, for parks and for community endeavours and things like that. The actual renovation of homes was not part of the other two MWCRP programs.

So, if there is a direction that the city is wanting to redirect that funding from the MWCRP towards a housing component or a housing renovation program, I think that I would have to wait for direction from City Hall in the sense of a proposal from council or a strong indication that council is wanting to redirect the funding totality towards the housing component. It is going to be interesting, as I mentioned. There is a housing forum this Wednesday at the Freight House, I believe it is, and I believe that the mayor is making representation at that meeting to talk of various scenarios or directions that he feels that should be explored. I intend on going there. If I am not there, I will certainly have staff there to be aware of the proposal or the discussions that are transpiring so that we can be part of trying to come to some sort of solution or be part of the process of trying to look at different components of housing.

As was mentioned earlier, the Manitoba Home Renovation Program was very successful. It was instituted back in 1995-96. It generated an awful lot of repairs. It had a ripple effect of, as I say, from $9.6 million to a leverage of over $74 million and 1,260 person years of employment. Those are things that affect everybody in the community when you have that type of participation. Whether we look at a program similar to that, that is a decision that has not been made at this time, but it is good to see that there is success to build upon. Those are some of the things that will make decisions possibly easier to explore when serious discussions start to transpire.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I think, in part, the minister makes the joint case that has been presented in terms of rehabilitation when he talks about the government's program where government spent $9.6 million roughly and $74 million was as a direct result of that initiation by the government through this particular program. If you take a look at the number of applicants, again it shows because at the time that was a very high-profile promotion that the government took on in terms of making sure that Manitobans were aware of the program. As a result, you had in excess of 10,000 people who made application for it.

* (1650)

I would think that a program of a similar nature that would be more directed to really low-income or fixed-income individuals in Winnipeg and outside of Winnipeg–changing some of those criteria, one could even make it everything from interest-free loans at least in part, pending on another financial commitment from the homeowner–would go a long way in improving the housing stock, with special emphasis being placed on homes that would say be 30 years plus and older. I say 30 years primarily because I think that is a critical time for a home, everything from, let us say, the shingling to siding to windows and so forth. But it is something in which I think is definitely beneficial for the government to look at bringing forward yet another program with some different criteria that would address that specific area.

Having said that, my interpretation of what the minister's comments were regarding the revitalization program, that there is out of that $7-million commitment from the province–and I would ask the minister to correct me if I am wrong–but there is no real tangible housing program that is set up that is a part of the program. I know that it would not be anything new, that in previous programs there was no real obligation. A lot depended on the volunteers at the time and their priorities, but if the minister could just enlighten me a little bit more as to what obligation he would see these volunteer boards having in terms of housing condition with any money being allocated out for revitalization.

Mr. Reimer: When we were working on the so-called MWCRP 3 program, which was part of, as I mentioned earlier, a $7-million commitment by this government and the matching $7 million from the City of Winnipeg, we had instructed senior staff from both sides, from the province and the City of Winnipeg government, to look at alternatives and look at a different approach for the expending of funds. After the MWCRP 2 program, there was a requirement for sort of an audit, not only a financial audit, but a program audit as to the effectiveness of the program, what we had accomplished, where there was need for change, where there was possibly overlap or duplication, just to get a sense of whether we were getting the best value for the dollar that was being spent and, more importantly, whether we were getting the best results in the community that was part of the objectives of the MWCRP.

When this so-called audit was finished, the recommendation was that we would look at various alternatives or various different type of program expenditures or directions to take the MWCRP. In fact, one of the things was to change the name because it became quite an anachronism. They were looking for something that was maybe a little bit more precise or more compact, so its acceptability and its visibility possibly could be more attractive to getting things happening in the community. So they were even looking at a different type of name.

This was not an approved program. It was just a working suggestion that was brought forth between the two senior bureaucrats. Like I say, it did not get final provincial or municipal approval through the City Hall, but it did have a component of housing renovation. There was a certain portion of that funding that would go towards housing renovation. There would be a certain portion that would go towards literally block revitalization, what I mean by that is a block of homes in a certain area. If that community in that particular area felt that there was something that should be identified as an improvement or a revitalization within a certain block, that block could also be identified for funding in that program. Like I mentioned, there was a residential component of looking at revitalization.

The other thing that was quite interesting about the discussions was looking at the so-called shoulder communities around the core area. The feeling was that if you try to work from the core out, it was not as beneficial as working from the shoulder communities working into the core area. So you worked from the established areas, the areas before they got to the deterioration stage or where they got to a stage where they were of consequences where it was hard because of the deterioration. Look at the areas where there was strong community participation, strong involvement by communities and people involved and work with those groups, and move them towards so-called the core area. So that you are working towards the centre for improvement instead of working with the centre and trying to always look at the core area for improvement, not that that area does not need it. There was a funding component involved with that, but there was a different approach by looking at the shoulder communities and see whether we can work with them and bring them into a constructive direction so that they can help rebuild in towards the core area.

That was more or less some of the discussions in regard to a new MWCRP program, but like I say, there seemed to be a buy-in by the previous mayor, the EPC, and I believe possibly council have been exposed to that general concept; however, there was not a final approval on it. There was no formal resolution on it. The final decision was to be made by the new mayor and the new council. The mayor at that time felt it was incumbent to have the new look, if you want to call it, at City Hall make the final decision, because the final program sort of came together just very, very close to when the municipal election in Winnipeg came about.

Since that time, like I mentioned, there has been no new program or new alternative brought forth by the city other than the fact that the number the mayor is using as a housing component, that he is feeling that whole, total amount should go towards one particular area, but that is something that I am not privy to, that type of decision or that type of discussion that has taken place. So I look forward to the discussions that come about. Possibly on Wednesday there may be some sort of indication from the mayor as to what he feels is appropriate and how things can be redirected.

But there, again, we would respond, naturally, from a council perspective as a council resolution or a council directive saying that this is what would go. At that time, that is when we would have further discussions as to how the so-called MWCRP 3 program would be initiated.

So that gives the member more or less as much information as I have as to what may or may not happen and how it can be allocated or in which type of direction it would go. I think the biggest thing is that there is a willingness by this government to continue with dialogue and to continue working with the city in trying to come to some sort of resolve.

The advantage of having Urban Affairs, the portfolio, and the Housing portfolio, is there is a linkage and there is an overlap. A lot of times it makes it easier to relate between the two for setting up possibly different types of programs or different types of housing components, so it works to an advantage not only for Manitoba but particularly for Winnipeg.

* (1700)

Mr. Lamoureux: I appreciate the response from the minister. In making a suggestion, I am interested in knowing whether or not the minister would see the merits of possibly articulating, so that when ultimately an agreement, and hopefully an agreement will be established, that future revitalization programs under whatever name one might want to call it, where you get joint partnership, that the direction from the province would be one of at the very least bringing to the attention of the stakeholders the need to ensure that there is some sort of a housing stock component.

For example, the question could and I would argue should be put to any potential future board of revitalization: how do you see the resources that have been given going to improve directly the housing stock in the community in which the money was meant to be spent? When I say directly, I am referring to programs or direct action from a committee in dealing with housing stock, not, well, we will put a playground here in hopes that in time the housing will improve because there is a much better playground on the other side of the street-type thing. I mean more direct involvement.

A suggestion, for example, if I was sitting around a board today, I posed the question earlier in terms of the percentage game, the percentage of homes that are in that state of not repairable and the role that they could play in a demolition or getting assistance from the private sector in rectifying that particular issue. So I make that more so as a recommendation.

I did have some questions for the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae), but I did want to conclude on one more question, and if time permits, maybe we will be able to get back into some discussion on it, and that was the infill housing. The minister made reference that this government was looking at three things. One is more of a social active role. I think it is the Street Smart program. Then he went to the revite program, and then he went into the residential rehab program.

Well, the two that we have covered thus far, the revite and the rehab program, there is a third one in which I have been a long advocate of. That was the infill housing program. I do not know to what degree the minister is familiar with the infill housing concept? I think that it is a program that does have some merit. If government, in some areas, can assist by moving in and taking down some eyesore as opposed to building–I was never really a big fan of building a house on a vacant lot. I know infill housing was done, they did do that. I much prefer where the government actually assists the community by taking an eyesore that is just not reparable down and then promoting it. And it can be done jointly with the private sector.

An example of a modified infill program would be to allocate $5,000 or X number of dollars to a private firm or an individual who would be prepared to go in and take down an old house in favour of seeing a newer home built, ideally of a similar architectural design. I know in some areas it would work well with the private sector. In other areas you might need to have some other form of assistance through local residents and so forth. Does the minister have any intentions on revisiting the whole infill housing concept?

Mr. Reimer: I think the member is aware that we, this government, do not have funding available for new housing. Since the federal government pulled out of the public housing sector we cannot participate. We do not have any programs of loan agreements or funding available to generate new housing. But I share his concern in regard to a lot of the abandoned housing and some of the derelict housing that is in Winnipeg. I think that this is one of the reasons why we are very, very interested in working with the city in bringing forth an amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act that would give them the ability to act more prudently and more expeditiously in the ability to tear down derelict buildings or abandoned buildings.

I believe that there is an amendment that can be brought into The City of Winnipeg Act. One of the things that was brought to my attention, if the member is aware, one of the requirements for the Cuff report was the rewriting of The City of Winnipeg Act, which we are in the process of doing. It was brought to my attention that we can help the city by giving them this type of an authority. One of the things that we will be seriously looking at is giving them that type of ability. I think with that type of clout the city can then have a little bit more enforceable by-laws and some ability to bring landlords or derelict homes to task, in a sense, and if they do not comply that they have the ability to tear them down and to make that space into availability for other buildings or private development or possibly even green space or parks within the inner city area.

So we would look at that very favourably in bringing forth an amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act to help them accomplish that. As was mentioned, we do not have a program of new building or additional new home construction throughout any part of Manitoba, but that does not mean that we still have not got an obligation to look after our own public housing and the maintenance and the repair and the upkeep on all our public housing throughout all of Manitoba. We take that very, very diligently.

In fact, just last year I think we spent over $10 million on our M and I budget. I believe this year we have got allocated almost $11 million in our budget for the upkeep and maintenance of our public housing here in Manitoba. So the commitment will be there for public housing. The only component that we do not have, as I mention, is the ability to finance our loan money or guarantee funding under a building renewal program.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, I did, as I indicated, want to move on to the Minister of Education, but you know there was quite a bit more dialogue that no doubt could have occurred in terms of revitalization in the whole commercial area, and it just really illustrates the point, for me at least, for government to recognize that it does have some role to play. It is a question of to what degree and how it can best accommodate saving some of our communities, and that is one of the reasons why I think that there is even some merit to having some form of a public forum or discussion where you get local residents who are concerned about their communities and look for some ideas.

In a few minutes we were able to have some dialogue, I think, on things that could really make a difference. I think that there are a lot of good ideas that are out there, and I would encourage the department to be very open minded in receiving some of these ideas that are out there in our communities and maybe not be as much concerned with turf protection and things of that nature, because at the end of the day it is not necessarily healthy for many of the communities in which we live.

Having said that, Mr. Chairperson, unless the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) is willing to respond, I am going to move on to the Minister of Education (Mr. McCrae), if I may. Last Thursday I was in the midst of trying to portray to this House a very serious issue, the issue, of course, being the breach of the standards exams. I was quite surprised to have heard or to have read yet other allegations of the breach, and what really amazed me is that it was at the same school as these allegations were, in fact, being made. The author of the report had indicated that he was unable to conclude in essence either way, whether or not one of the allegations was true or false, but the individual that had made the allegation–again, I do not know who that particular individual that made the allegation is. I can only suspect that it might have been a particular individual that I am aware of, but that individual said that they would even be prepared to state it in a court of law.

* (1710)

Well, when you start making statements of that nature, I think that one has to give some credibility to the issue, and what I would like to be able to do is, at least in part, to pick up on that point. But, prior to really getting into any dialogue with the minister, a number of days have passed since I raised this issue with the Minister of Education, and I will be right up front and ask the minister: has he had the opportunity to rethink his position on the need for having a truly independent investigation into this breach of security that has been admitted and other alleged breaches that have been referenced to in the report from the same facility?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Chairman, I will say one thing to the honourable member, and that is, that I do not agree with the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans), who puts forward the position of the Leader of the Opposition in this matter when he says that what the honourable member for Inkster is doing is making mountains out of molehills. I say this to reassure the honourable member for Inkster. I do not agree with the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) speaking for the New Democratic Party when he says that what the honourable member for Inkster is raising is much ado about nothing.

I do not agree for reasons I have already given, and the response of the member for Brandon East speaking on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is somewhat shocking to me as a citizen of this province and certainly as Minister of Education. The honourable member for Inkster is hearing from residents in his constituency about difficulties that individuals are facing as a result of the action of Mr. Brian O'Leary, who is now, I understand, an assistant superintendent of public schools in the Seven Oaks School Division. Previously, Mr. O'Leary had been principal of the Maples high school.

I was doing my reading and I note that there have been a number of newspaper articles about this matter. One of them appeared in the Winnipeg Sun for yesterday under the headline: Doer changes rules to suit NDP. After criticizing Tories, he bends own ethics.

Mr. Chairman, this is significant in that the honourable member for Brandon East has said that the serious matters being raised by the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) are much ado about nothing. I know that there are other members in the ranks of the New Democratic Party who feel that way, including the Leader of the Opposition. We know that because it was only recently that the Leader of the Opposition brought forward an NDP code of ethics. This was his response to the Monnin inquiry. We know honourable members opposite have had a lot to say about the events which gave rise to the Monnin inquiry, and they have had a lot to say about the inquiry itself.

But Mr. Tom Brodbeck writes for the Winnipeg Sun, and he has made a few observations which may bear repeating here today in response to the honourable member for Inkster, who wants to see this matter properly fleshed out, and he is right to want that, in the same way the honourable member for Inkster is right to want certain matters fleshed out in regard to another matter that he has raised with us related to one of our private vocational schools and a motor vehicle accident involving some of the students there. Just as the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) is right to want to get to the bottom of things in regard to that, so is the honourable member for Inkster right to want to get to the bottom of things with respect to the wrongdoings of Mr. Brian O'Leary, who just happens to be the assistant superintendent of Seven Oaks School Division.

But the reason I refer to the honourable member for Brandon East and the honourable Leader of the Opposition is that these people have said that this is much ado about nothing. Well, Mr. Brian O'Leary is the campaign manager for the New Democratic Party. Is that why it is much ado about nothing? I think that, all of a sudden, those standards and principles and ethics of New Democrats somehow found their way out the window when issues come to bear on these matters relating to a good friend of theirs, obviously, their campaign manager, one Brian O'Leary.

Here is what Mr. Brodbeck had to say. He said and I quote: NDP Leader Gary Doer made a last minute change to his party's code of ethics last week when he let his campaign manager, Brian O'Leary, off the hook for breaching standards exams security. He goes on: Doer released a draft copy of the new NDP code of ethics last month, and it is a good thing it was only a draft copy because Doer, after refusing to apply the same ethical standards to his own party that he has applied to others, will probably want to add the following: all high-ranking party officials who breach provincial government directives, who compromise the integrity of a government program, and who violate basic fairness principles within a publicly funded institution shall be exempt from any sanctions by the party and will be permitted to maintain their position within the party.

Indeed, I did not hear the NDP complaining when Mr. O'Leary was actually promoted within the Seven Oaks School Division. It is funny. All we hear from them is really from their seats. We do not hear any statements about this matter other than the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) who says this is much ado about nothing. You know, as an educator, I would think the honourable member for Brandon East, a person with a vast political experience, I have to say I was somewhat surprised, coming from that honourable gentleman, to hear him say that a breach of the standards exam protocol and all that that entails, the message that sends to educators and students and parents right across this province is all much ado about nothing. I have to admit, I was disappointed in my friend and colleague across town in Brandon, the honourable member for Brandon East, for taking that position in such a baldfaced way. I found it somewhat strange coming from him.

In any event, after weeks of reticence, the article goes on: Doer finally took a position on his campaign manager's transgressions last week. He said he will take no action against O'Leary who will be able to stay on as campaign manager. The article goes on, after months of attacking the government Tories for a series of what they called "ethical breaches," it seems Doer has turned off the ethics metre when it comes to his own party. There is a fair bit of hypocrisy around in this matter, in my unbiased view.

* (1720)

The article goes on: O'leary, the principal of Maples Collegiate did not try to rig an election like some of his counterparts in the Progressive Conservative camp. Granted, but what he did do when he broke open a package of Grade 12 provincial exams and hand out a copy to a teacher last year was thumb his nose at the very explicit provincial directive. By law, under The Public Schools Act, school principals are obligated to obey Department of Education directives. This article says that Mr. O'Leary thumbed his nose at that, and by their action and inaction and demeanour, every single member of the New Democratic Party opposite is guilty of doing the same thing.

The article continues: O'Leary violated that responsibility when he openly and knowingly breached exam security. His boss, Seven Oaks School Division Superintendent John Wiens, concludes in his report made public last week that O'Leary's actions caused no harm. O'Leary's actions caused no harm according to this article's report on Mr. Wiens' report, therefore, case closed he says, which I presume is the position of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and honourable members opposite. Case closed. It is all done. No harm done according to Mr. John Wiens.

Now who is Mr. John Wiens? Well, Mr. John Wiens is the superintendent of the Seven Oaks School Division, is he not, and the person who conducted this review? Now there are people who will tell you more about Mr. John Wiens and his experience, shall we say, with the New Democratic Party, but I will leave that for others to point that part out. He says case closed, but Mr. Brodbeck goes on and says that is about as credible as arguing Tory efforts to rig the election in 1995 caused no harm, because all the ridings targeted by them were won by the New Democrats.

I guess that is the position the opposition is taking with respect to their Mr. O'Leary, that much ado about nothing here. It is only a province-wide provincial standards testing scheme that we are talking about here which we do not like anyway, which the Manitoba Teachers' Society has told us we have to take some strong positions on, and we know New Democrats only do what their union boss friends tell them to do. We have seen evidence of that enough times. But that is really where the hypocrisy is here with honourable members. It is like do as I say but not as I do, or just allow me to have rules for you guys, but we do not have to obey those same rules. We make rules for our own people, but we exempt people like Brian O'Leary because, well, after all, he is a New Democrat, and we are better than everybody else in this province. That is what I am reading between the lines here, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this matter.

The fact is, according to Mr. Brodbeck, there was plenty of harm done by O'Leary's actions. This bears upon the perception of the matter, perhaps the reality of the matter, brought to us compliments of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who has recognized early on that there are issues here that go beyond the simple actions that we know of, let alone the ones we do not know of, but the honourable member for Inkster has managed to divine exactly the problem here, and that has to do with our standards tests. He has said he has problems with the Grade 3 test, the honourable member for Inkster has. He said, however, that he believes in a system that has a good, solid curriculum. He believes in a system that has appropriate testing at appropriate levels. I think I am quoting the honourable member for Inkster correctly.

Well, for the most part, I think he is in agreement with what we are doing here. I know that the massive majority of our population are very much onside with the honourable member for Inkster, because that is also where the government of Manitoba stands on these matters.

We know the New Democrats hate testing. We know New Democrats hate anything that points to personal excellence. We know that they hate anything that leads to things that lead to success and ultimate happiness for the population, because we know–

An Honourable Member: How about Daryl Bean? I have not heard Daryl Bean. I have not heard Daryl Bean yet.

Mr. McCrae: We are going to get to Daryl Bean. I was not going to talk about Daryl Bean today. I say this to the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) because I think he may be personally acquainted with–[interjection]

Oh, the honourable member for Transcona assures me he is not listening to me. That gives me great comfort. [interjection] I was not going to talk about Daryl Bean today–[interjection]

But now the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) insists on it, and the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) brought Mr. Bean up. Well, I will just make a note of that and try to see if I can work him into the time available to me. The fact is, according to Mr. Brodbeck, there is plenty of harm done by Mr. O'Leary's actions. I think it is somewhat irresponsible on the part of the New Democrats simply to ignore that because it is one of their buddies who did this wrongdoing. That is what Manitobans are going to judge honourable members on.

Honourable members like to laugh about it, make faces and make funny cartoon caricatures, and we hear people like the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans) who has simply trivialized something that is very important to the people of Manitoba. I think that he may have to rethink that.

The honourable members opposite should probably discuss this further. It is just my advice. They will do whatever they want. They do not very often follow my advice, I am sorry to say. But in this case Mr. Brodbeck says the fact is there was plenty of harm done by O'Leary's actions.

He goes on: "the contents of exams are kept secret from students and teachers in order to ensure no one has an unfair advantage over another."

Do not honourable members of the New Democratic Party believe in that principle about fairness and that nobody gets an unfair advantage? Do they not believe in that? It is in their rhetoric all the time. How come their rhetoric and their performance are never the same? Why is that? Can anybody explain that to me? All I hear is silence on that point. Nobody knows the answer why the New Democrats are like that, why they have a double standard that other people have to do what they say but they do not have to do it themselves.

The contents of exams are kept secret from students and teachers in order to ensure no one has an unfair advantage over another, be it a student or a teacher preparing a class for an exam. Teachers have a large stake in seeing their class do well, and maybe principals have a large stake in seeing their schools do well. I am sure any educator would agree with that.

Bad class marks reflect poorly on them. Principals have an even larger stake in seeing their schools do well. The teacher that O'Leary gave an exam to the day before testing wrote the exam. He then went to his colleagues, some of whom were preparing their students for the exam the next day, and spoke about the contents of that test.

Now this is getting way beyond the initial allegation, what Mr. Brodbeck is writing about here, and I do not blame the honourable member for Inkster for being concerned about this and for raising this matter. As a result, Mr. Brodbeck continues: teachers may have been tipped off about what was on the exam. That would have given some teachers an unfair advantage over others when preparing their students.

The honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) is a teacher, and he understands these things. Yet what do we hear from him about this? [interjection] We are all human is what he says; we are all human. So now it is a mountain out of a molehill, much ado about nothing, and we are all human. But that is okay because it was Brian O'Leary. He is a friend of ours, and he is our campaign manager.

Let us be hypothetical for a moment. Some honourable members are going to have trouble with this, but let us just assume Mr. O'Leary was the campaign manager for the Progressive Conservative Party, and the honourable member for Inkster is raising these matters in the House because he is concerned about test security and some level of integrity in our exam system, and Mr. O'Leary is the campaign manager for the Progressive Conservative Party. Where do honourable members opposite stand on that? [interjection] I think so. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) says that there would be 25 members of the Legislature calling for my head on a platter.

* (1730)

Funny how circumstances alter cases, is it not? Funny how when you apply certain principles to other people it comes out one way; you apply them to yourself, and, well, it is different, it is different here. It is just a mountain out of a molehill. We are hearing a lot from the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) who, I understand, is an educator himself. Are we hearing so much chirping from the honourable member for Dauphin because he is particularly sensitive about this, because Brian O'Leary–pick one, Mr. Chairman–(a); (b) is he a personal friend of one Mr. O'Leary? (c) is he a great admirer of one Mr. O'Leary, like the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), who made it very clear last week about how he feels about Mr. O'Leary? The ground he walks on is not probably good enough for some of us to get even close to, so take your pick, Mr. Chairman. You do not have to do it right here. [interjection]

In my view, the honourable member for Dauphin, and maybe others, but the honourable member for Dauphin has joined the group, the group that seems to be chaired by the Leader of the Opposition but also a member of it is the member for Brandon East (Mr. L. Evans), who thinks this is much ado about nothing; the member for Crescentwood who just thinks the ground Mr. O'Leary walks on is hallowed. Now, the latest adherent is the honourable member for Dauphin who has been bowing down as if Mr. O'Leary were some kind of godlike creature that deserves our worship and adoration.

The point is, I understand Mr. O'Leary to be a human being, as pointed out by the honourable member for Broadway, and he made a mistake. The honourable Leader of the Opposition said: yes, he made a mistake, but it is okay, he is okay. The fact that he has been promoted, that is okay, just produce the report without the white-out on it. That is what they are relying on. Pretty thin gruel relying on an argument like that to try to defend the indefensible. But that is where they are at here.

Mr. Brodbeck went on–I do not know if honourable members have read this or not: That would have given some teachers an unfair advantage over others when preparing their students.

And I guess the honourable member for Dauphin is in favour of that or something, because his demeanour here suggests that.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I am used to a fair amount of latitude with respect to questions and answers during this course of debate. I was quite confused, in fact, from where the minister is commenting as to, in fact, what the actual question was that was raised by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) in terms of the course of this debate. He indicated to me that the question, I believe, was, and I am paraphrasing: are you going to have an investigation into a matter? I know that the minister is relishing this opportunity, but I wonder if the minister might be relevant in terms of trying to at least deal, without limiting debate–the minister is clearly being combative and clearly attempting to prolong debate.

I wonder if you might call the minister to try to deal with the question at hand, which was raised by the member for Inkster. You know, if the minister wants to go on and on, that is perfectly all right, but it does use up valuable time when the minister is being irrelevant, completely irrelevant to the question as raised by the member for Inkster, which was: will you have an investigation? The only thing the minister has not done is dealt with the Magna Carta, and I am half expecting that to be during the course of his comments.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order raised by the honourable member for Kildonan, Mr. Chairman, coming from that honourable member I have to chuckle just a little bit that he would raise the point of order based on relevance. Was he not the same honourable member with whom I had the pleasure as Minister of Health of spending some 55 or more hours during the Estimates review process answering each and every question that he raised no matter how relevant or irrelevant those questions were. I think that is the same honourable member.

But he misses the mark on the point. I know that he is sensitive about this O'Leary situation. All New Democrats are pretty uncomfortable because they have a double-standard that is so very clear to everyone who is watching this discussion. But the fact is I was being relevant. The honourable member for Inkster is asking about a report, making a further investigation into matters, and in order to lay the proper groundwork for appropriate answers to questions like that, one has to get into a little bit of the detail of what has been going on here. I respectfully suggest that the honourable member for Kildonan, as much as I respect his knowledge of these things, and I think he has actually memorized the Beauchesne book, much as I respect that of him, I think he has missed the mark on this particular occasion.

Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable members for their advice on this matter, but the honourable member for Kildonan did have a point of order. The minister was at the 18-minute point of his answer. The member for Inkster did pose a direct question. I would ask that the minister attempt to be relevant to the question put.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to conclude his response.

Mr. McCrae: Well, as they say on Law and Order, Mr. Chairman, I will attempt to link it up if that would be satisfactory to the honourable member for Kildonan, and I hope it is.

The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) quite seriously asks that this government bring about an appropriate investigation. I think he feels pretty strongly that the report I tabled in the House last week is pretty insufficient, to say the least. I mean, I know the New Democrats like to make fun of the fact that in order to protect peoples' identities and innocence and to protect people from defamation through the Freedom of Information process, names had to be blanked out. I know they ridicule that and have a lot of fun with that. I do not mind that because I do not mind being responsible for taking account of the law of this province. We are being ridiculed by New Democrats for obeying the law. I think this is sort of coming through more and more with New Democrats, that the law is pretty important when it applies to everybody else except themselves.

So, with or without the markings or the white-outs or whatever it is called on this report, Mr. Chairman, it is an unsatisfactory report. It does not deal with the things that it is supposed to deal with. It does not get answers to the appropriate questions that surround this whole sorry matter.

So I have said to the honourable member, and I say it again in direct response to his question, that I think the bigger issue for me–I know that members of the New Democratic Party are sort of keeping an eye on what is happening with respect to Mr. O'Leary, hoping he can sort of hang on by his toenails and his thumbnails and his hangnails to the job that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has given him, but, you know, at the end of the day when people really do look at where people are and where they stand, they are going to say, well, what did the New Democrats say about the vote-fixing matter? What did they say about that, and did they apply those principles to their own situation when it came to the Brian O'Leary matter–some say the Brian O'Leary scandal, whatever you want to call it. The honourable members have taken a different position, and I am the first to say, of course the circumstances in those matters are different. I mean, everybody can see that. I think honourable members in the New Democratic Party think everybody but themselves is stupid.

You know, they have found out over a few elections that maybe they should look in the mirror if they want to find out who really is kind of ill informed or reading the program incorrectly. The fact is, I share the concern of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). I think New Democrats do, too, but they are worried about their own hides, and that is what it is about here. They are worried about their own hides, but, you know, while they worry about their hides, they are forgetting altogether about the importance of their credibility. Why is it that New Democrats have forgotten about the importance of their own credibility? Why is that? I think something is clouding their vision.

I look to members like the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) because he is a man of integrity. He rises in this House on a regular basis and talks about that, and appropriately so. I am looking at the honourable member for Broadway to use his considerable clout and influence in his caucus to persuade his colleagues to put the children of Manitoba ahead of their own selfish political interests. Where do the kids stand in all of this, in all of this joking going on in this place, all of this ridiculing and trivializing the whole system of education for our children? While they are doing all that, do they take a moment to think about how this looks to the people of Manitoba?

* (1740)

I mean, you know, I can understand the hurt. I have been through it. I understand the hurt of watching a friend or a colleague in difficult circumstances, or I understand the hurt of being in difficult circumstances myself. I understand all that, but honourable members are applying a different standard to themselves than they are to others, and you are not going to be able to carry that forward. It is simply not going to work that way. You may think so, but all the while, as you go merrily about your business defending wrongdoers, somebody along the way is going to say these people cannot be believed. They did not have the courage of what they said was right. When it came to the vote-fixing business, they had all kinds of high-sounding words and phrases and used them often, but when it comes to a matter of ethics in their own ranks, it is a whole different thing, and people simply will not accept that.

Mr. Chomiak: I really do hesitate to rise again, and I would rather not insofar as the minister is having a time of it, but I noticed in the last five minutes the minister actually moved toward answering the question, and actually to quote the minister, to paraphrase: and I recognize what the member for Inkster said about an investigation, and we are–and then, Mr. Chairperson, I am afraid that he fell off that track again which he was trying to construct and has spent the last five minutes criticizing members of the opposition which is fair ball. I am prepared to accept that, but I would ask you to report, with respect to your previous ruling, that if the minister is going to answer the question he should answer the direct question, and then he can go on and criticize us all that he wants.

But let us get to the heart of the matter that I know the minister was struggling to get to but unfortunately fell off of the path, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, on the same point of order.

Mr. McCrae: On the same point of order, the honourable member for Kildonan is absolutely right. I was just that far away from getting to that very point that the honourable member was sitting on the edge of his seat waiting to hear me talk about. I was just there when he stood to his feet on a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does have a point of order on the relevancy side, but the minister does have three minutes left in his 30 minutes to conclude.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, with three minutes to conclude.

Mr. McCrae: I do appreciate that I only have three minutes left. The honourable member for Kildonan, in a very parliamentary way, has brought my shortcomings to the attention of this House on more than one occasion, I must say, but he always does it in a way that gets the job done but, on the other hand, also leaves me feeling well. Now here is a gentleman who can listen to reason as well, and in my closing three minutes, Mr. Chairman, I would make the–I know the New Democrats have been saying: have an inquiry. I mean, I do not know why they are saying that, but I guess that is for them because maybe it will buy them some time or I do not know what.

It is their own, whatever their reasons, the point is we do tend sometimes in this House to make a little bit light of some pretty serious matters, and honourable members are very guilty of that in this particular circumstance. The honourable member for Inkster is one person who has perhaps as much of a stake as anyone, but all the children in this province do have a stake in this matter. But some of these specific allegations arise in his own area, his own constituency, amongst his constituents, and so it is right and proper for the honourable member to be raising this and to be somewhat impatient if he wants about where are we going with this matter.

From my standpoint, I leave to the judges, the lawyers, the arbitrations and all of those things, those issues that are appropriately handled by those people, but in my responsibility, in the running of an Education department, we know that Manitobans demand fairness and integrity in their education system. It is lacking in this case, and we will be doing something about that. The honourable member is right to be asking about what it is we are going to do. As I have said, we have significant powers at our disposal; and, when you have such powers, one wants to be very careful about how they are used.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, the question in essence was: is the government prepared to now look at an independent investigation, given the report? He has had a number of days to look over the report. In listening to the Minister of Education, one would quickly surmise that the Minister of Education is not a fan of the report, at least the report which he had tabled, for a number of reasons. I guess I should maybe try a different tactic.

There was a great deal of concern in terms of the author of the report, and I looked to the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), Broadway (Mr. Santos), Thompson (Mr. Ashton), Transcona (Mr. Reid) to please correct me if I am wrong. The author of the report being John Wiens, I have had very serious allegations that were made in reference to Mr. Wiens, everything in terms of a political connection within the New Democratic Party. One of them was that he was one of the speakers for annual general meetings, that he has been education advisor to the NDP.

These concerns, Mr. Chairperson, have been raised to me from individuals, at least two individuals, who, I would say, are quite credible, individuals whom I have a great deal of respect for. It has also been raised with me by other individuals wanting to, as much as possible, protect those interests because they do have a direct interest, wanting to try to get the government to recognize what I believe some people believe to be fact.

I think that there is a role for the Department of Education to be straightforward with this Chamber on this particular issue. As I have indicated and hearing absolutely no objections from any one inside the Chamber, does the Minister of Education not recognize that if there is any reason to believe that the report that the minister tabled, my version of the report which is the edited version of the report, has any credibility at all in which I have questioned, in which I believe it does not have the credibility from what I have read of the report, if the minister believes that it has any whatsoever, would he not concur that given the role that has been explained to me by a couple of others, and I have raised the issue inside the Chamber before in terms of Mr. Wiens' role within the New Democrats, in particular as education policy advisor and that there is no objection to that fact, has the Ministry of Education been made aware of it?

If this is in fact the case, would not the Minister of Education see that there is a conflict at the very least, that you cannot have a person in that position, given the background, doing the report in the first place? That is if you do not buy into the argument that I have put previously. I think that people who are affected directly and indirectly by this incident are looking at this. Some of them have an understanding of that particular relationship and do not necessarily understand why it is the government does not see, as we feel from within the Liberal Party, the need to have that apolitical independent investigation.

* (1750)

I am not asking the department to spend $100,000-plus, Mr. Chairperson. Look at the money that you spend on protecting the interests or the integrity of the standard exams. We are asking for a relatively small portion of that money in order to go towards whether it is a lawyer, not necessarily a judge–it is not of the same magnitude of the vote-rigging scheme–going to an independent lawyer who does not participate in party events. I just throw the name of a Bill Norrie. I do not know if he has political leanings off-hand, but someone that would at the very least be able to look into a number of allegations. I am looking–

An Honourable Member: Norrie is a Tory.

Mr. Lamoureux: Is Norrie a Tory? I do not know. If in fact Bill Norrie is a Tory, then we would scrap the idea of Bill Norrie. I would be prepared to look into tabling a number of names of which I would give the assurance that they do not appear on the Liberal membership list and ask for the same courtesy from the government to ensure that that individual who is appointed is not on any Tory list, with expectations that the New Democrats would do likewise, thereby being as much as possible apolitical.

What I am asking from the Minister of Education is given that political nature of involvement that I have heard by at least two what I classify as credible, strong individuals to others who have informed me of it, is there not any merit today to acknowledge that, yes, there is a need, in order to get justice on this issue, to have that independent investigation? Upon hearing that, I think then we could possibly expand on the dialogue of how that particular individual could be chosen.

Mr. Chairperson: Now, we have some house business that we have to take care of, so what would be all right with the members? Maybe the minister could answer this question the next time we come back to committee because I know there is no way he is going to answer this in three minutes.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, if the minister is going to take more than two minutes to answer the question, then I would suggest, yes.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, the honourable minister with two minutes, so that leaves me three in the House.

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the points raised by the honourable member, and I certainly do not take issue with anything he said about Bill Norrie, former mayor of the City of Winnipeg. I know Mr. Norrie, as I think everyone around here does, and he distinguished himself as mayor of Winnipeg. I will take the honourable member's point under advisement on that.

When he talks about education advisors to the NDP, without saying too much about Mr. Wiens, because the honourable member has suggested Mr. Wiens has connections to the NDP, or some credible people have suggested that to him, all I know is that whoever the education advisor is to the New Democratic Party, they are not doing a very good job.

Mr. Chairperson, the NDP is all over the place on education. They do not have a coherent policy. They seem to relish the idea that you can just cheat on standards exams and it is okay. They support people who do things like that with impunity and laugh about it and make jokes about it and ridicule people who are concerned about it. I think the NDP have a little comeuppance here to be done. They need a little attitude-reality check, is what the New Democrats need, and I am afraid that knowing them as well as I do, that that is not likely to happen. I have been watching them closely for years and they do not learn. They just think they teach and impose and intimidate and get other people to do their bidding, and sometimes they go a little too far with it.

But I look forward to the next opportunity to discuss this further with the honourable member.

Mr. Chairperson: Let us call it. Committee rise. Call in the Speaker.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to rescind some of the changes that I made this afternoon to the Industrial Relations committee, the ones that we were going to have for tomorrow morning. That was the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), and the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed).

Secondly, I would like to move, seconded by the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Tuesday, July 13, at 10 a.m., be amended as follows: the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine); and the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura).

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), seconded by the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), that the previously moved composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations for Tuesday, 10 a.m., be rescinded. Agreed?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

It has been moved by the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), seconded by the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for 10 a.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, July 13, be amended as follows: the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) for the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), and the honourable member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura).

Is it the will of the House to call is six o'clock? [agreed] This House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).