Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Housing. Does the honourable Minister of Housing have an opening statement?
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the 1998-99 spending Estimates for Manitoba Housing. The Department of Housing is committed to assisting Manitobans in need to access suitable, adequate housing at affordable rates, maintaining and improving the quality of social housing assets and programs as an integral part of Manitoba's social system, promoting the development of suitable housing and the maintenance and improvement of existing housing stock, providing relevant housing programs and services to Manitobans in an effective and cost-efficient manner.
Currently, my department's primary business is in the ongoing operation of government-subsidized housing targeted to households with income levels that are too low to obtain suitable and adequate accommodation in the private market without spending more than 30 percent of the household income on housing costs.
The Department of Housing has subsidized close to 21,000 units over the course of its history. Its portfolio includes housing for the elderly, for families and for nonelderly single individuals, as well as crisis shelters for victims of family violence and accommodation for individuals and groups with special needs. While federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangements vary, depending on the specific housing programs, government subsidies generally cover the difference between total project operating costs and the rental revenues from tenants paying rent geared to income rental rates. Over 80 percent of the subsidized housing stock is directly owned by Manitoba Housing; however, the portfolio also includes projects financed through Manitoba Housing that are owned and operated by private, nonprofit organizations and rent-supplement units in not-for-profit or market projects where federal and provincial governments cost-share the difference between the market rent and the tenant rent geared to income rate.
The department operates in a complex and rapidly changing environment, and we must be constantly aware of the needs and demands of the clients that we serve. In our family housing, for example, a recent analysis revealed that 67.2 percent of family households are headed by single female parents. The average family has a household head age of 37 years and includes two children. Close to 69 percent of our family households receive social assistance as their primary source of income. As these clients benefit from new training programs and move into the workplace, their rents will be adjusted to reflect a rental rate geared to the household income.
Social housing's purpose is to help families break the poverty cycle by providing affordable rents so that other needs are not sacrificed or overlooked. Stability can improve the health and enhance the educational performance of children, giving them better skills and a capacity to support themselves and contribute to society in the future. Household stability is also linked with the stability for the community or the project in which the family resides. For this reason, it is important that appropriate measures are taken to ensure that a sense of community is fostered in family housing developments.
An example of what can be accomplished through stability, as I have cited previously, is our Gilbert Park complex. This project, with 254 units of family housing, is one of the largest, highest-density family projects in Winnipeg. The project consistently experienced serious social problems associated with projects of high density. In a process initiated in the early 1990s, the tenants association for Gilbert Park was encouraged to increase its involvement in the day-to-day operations of the project and to play a more active role in the prevention of vandalism and the handling of problem tenants.
Today the group operates a clothing depot and a food bank and provides recreational programs for the children within the project. More recently, the department began to provide the association with the support and the assistance necessary for them to assume greater responsibility for the management and the ongoing operation of their complex. We have also taken steps to enhance stability and safety in Lord Selkirk Park, another high-density project in Winnipeg. The MHA has provided the Winnipeg Police Service with space in the project to develop a community-based policing program similar to what was provided at Gilbert Park. This office serves as a focal point for relaying information between the MHA and the tenants. The presence of this office has already had a positive impact on the project as a community and has contributed towards the gradual reduction in the project's vacancy rate.
Additional incentives are being looked into to support the residents, to improve community safety, and to enhance the stability of the surrounding areas. These include the possible provision of a safe house to meet the needs of children and families who are at risk, working with local schools and agencies to provide work-experience opportunities for tenants and provide work with the tenants to develop a safety program that explores other areas of promoting a safer and more secure community environment.
Elderly housing presents entirely different challenges. A recent analysis revealed that 15 percent of our tenant population is more than 85 years of age. The fastest growing segment of the population is those 75 years of age and over. The aging of the population has major implications for both the Department of Housing and the Department of Health. As tenants in elderly housing projects age and become increasingly frail, a lack of service is necessary to permit aging in place, may be a significant factor in our vacancy rates.
At the same time, the health care system is faced with growing pressure on long-term and acute care facilities as well as increasing home care demands and costs. The department continues to provide noon meal programs where space and facilities exist. Congregate meal programs that operate independently of Manitoba Housing have been given access to kitchen facilities in elderly projects in rural communities.
Space for health clinics and for home care workers has been made available in certain projects. As well, tenant resource workers available in a number of elderly projects help tenants to identify their service and care needs and refer them to the appropriate service provider. However, with the continued and increasing need of our elderly tenants, we recognize that these initiatives might not be sufficient to meet the needs of all our tenants.
Manitoba Housing is now working in partnership with the Department of Health and a nonprofit organization to deliver supportive housing and assisted living units on a pilot basis. This initiative will meet the current needs and the future needs of the aging tenant population through the provision of 24-hour supervised and other support services such as meals, housekeeping, and laundry in the project.
* (1500)
The department has long recognized the challenges presented by the aging social housing portfolio. Over 62 percent of the social housing units in Manitoba were built prior to 1978. Many components such as heating and ventilation, plumbing, roofs, and unit amenities require replacement or improvement. In addition, changes to the building codes related to health and safety necessitate large investments to upgrade the existing portfolio.
Proper maintenance of the physical structure of our housing projects is important, as this is the asset through which we provide our services. Further, this asset represents a considerable investment on the part of the people of Manitoba.
To address the continuing maintenance demands, the department has prepared a project-by-project 10-year plan for required modernization and improvement of its public housing portfolio. While this plan includes all major anticipated capital expenditures, it does not include emergency expenditures or major expenditures that must be moved forward due to earlier than anticipated system failures or building upgrade code requirements.
Given current budgetary constraints when such emergency expenditures take priority, planned major expenditures must be deferred. Unfortunately, the age of the project leads to increasing maintenance costs at a time when responsible government is looking towards measures by which fiscal economies and savings can be realized. Through the use of information technology, we will be establishing and monitoring short-, medium-, and long-term plans so maintenance requirements can be prioritized and financial planning will enable us to address these maintenance needs.
Information systems are also being developed to improve our knowledge about our clients. By understanding our clients, we will be better prepared to provide accommodation and services that best meet their needs and expectations. Over the past year, clients' satisfaction with services surveys have been implemented and tested on a sample of projects in Winnipeg. Three-quarters of the elderly tenants surveyed were satisfied with their accommodation. Their primary areas of dissatisfaction were with the painting of their suite and with the heating and ventilation system. Of the family tenants surveyed, close to two-thirds were satisfied with their accommodation, with primary areas of dissatisfaction being the safety or the security of the project and their opinion of the housing project as a place to raise children.
As noted previously, this survey was initiated and tested over the past year. It is our intent to expand the survey to include more Winnipeg projects and to include at least a few of the rural districts. In addition to surveying our current tenants, we were also surveying tenants as they leave our projects to determine what we have been doing right and where there is room for improvement. Further, new clients are surveyed to determine their satisfaction with the application and the tenanting process, again so we know where we can improve the process.
These surveys will be conducted on an ongoing basis so we can see where progress has been made and where further action is required to better meet the clients' needs. Without a doubt, however, the major challenge facing the department is our changing relationship with the federal government. The department has been, and continues to be, heavily influenced by the federal housing policy. Following its January 1, 1994, withdrawal from new commitments to social housing, the federal government formerly offered to the province management responsibilities for the entire social housing portfolio in Manitoba in March of 1996.
The total federal portfolio, which has been offered for transfer to the province, consists of approximately 17,500 units developed under several program and funding arrangements, the majority of which are owned and operated by nonprofit organizations. In 1996, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation announced that its annual funding share for the social housing portfolio would be limited or capped based on the 1995-96 expenditure levels. This funding allocation will be reduced in subsequent years of operation as project commitment and subsidy agreements mature and reach their expiration date. This will occur whether or not the province accepts the federal offer.
There are risks associated with exceptions of the federal offer. Rising interest rates could impact on our loan exposure, and inflation could impact on housing costs. On the other hand, there are also opportunities. The province would have the ability to harmonize all the housing programs thereby reducing duplication of services and enabling more efficient and effective program operation.
The new agreement would also allow the province to use the resulting savings to develop new and different housing programs to address unmet housing needs in Manitoba. Four provinces and one territory have signed the federal devolution agreement to date, however Manitoba wants to ensure this offer is the best way to meet the housing needs of all Manitobans.
CMHC would prefer that all provinces accept the devolution proposal, enabling the federal government to completely remove itself from the ongoing involvement in the public housing field. However, we are not prepared to make a hasty decision in this matter. This is not a challenge that the department takes lightly. A conclusion of our analysis of the federal proposal and our negotiation with CMHC will fundamentally change the policy environment for public housing in this province.
The final decision in this matter will ultimately determine our future role and the responsibilities and the management and the operation of the public housing portfolio in Manitoba. As I look forward to the coming year, I see exciting and challenging times ahead. My department has established the following objectives to meet these challenges:
First, we will continue to negotiate a strong provincial position with respect to the federal government's proposal to devolve responsibility for all housing programs to the province; secondly, my department will ensure that its housing assets are utilized to their maximum potential. We will accomplish this by continuing to take a proactive approach to marketing vacant units and by evaluating our services and programs to measure their effectiveness and to identify means of improving them; third, we will provide the tools and the technology for staff and management to make better decisions and improve the efficiency of internal operations. Finally, we will explore the potential for partnerships with other government departments and with the private sector to identify means and better, more cost-effective ways of providing services to our clients.
My department recognizes that housing plays an integral part in the health and the well-being of individuals and of the community as a whole, and we will continue in our efforts to meet the challenges that are before us.
This concludes my opening remarks, Mr. Chairperson. I look forward to a discussion on the Department of Housing's 1998-99 Estimates. Thank you.
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister for those comments. Does the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) wish to make an opening statement? No.
Under Manitoba practice, debate of the minister's salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of the department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line.
Before we do that, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table. We ask the minister to introduce his staff present.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, with me, I have my deputy minister, Mr. Bill Kinnear; my senior policy analyst, Linda McFadyen; my financial senior consultant, Mr. Henry Bos; and, my senior do-it-all man, Mr. Ron Fallis.
* (1510)
Mr. Chairperson: We thank the minister. We will now proceed to line 1. Housing Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $371,800 on page 86 of the main Estimates book.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I would just like to ask the minister to put on record that instead of going line by line we just ask questions in general, and then we will do the line by line after we conclude our questions and when our critic concludes her questions.
Mr. Chairperson: Is that agreed by the committee? [agreed]
Mr. Hickes: I had a few concerns raised to me from constituents of Point Douglas, especially pertaining to 55 Plus senior housing units. There is quite a concern among some of the residents. It seems to be that the senior residences, the so-called designated senior residences, are shifting away and are being made available to the so-called younger generation. It is creating some problems for some of the tenants where the habits and the hours kept by younger tenants who are moving into these so-called senior residences are not conducive to the so-called hours of seniors. Also, the activities of the so-called younger generation are not generally the activities that seniors are used to that have been in some of these residences for many years.
As far as my understanding, seniors housing units are for 55 Plus. Has there been a directive, or is there a change in policy where those are waived in some of the so-called seniors units to open the door for younger people to occupy these suites?
Mr. Reimer: I should point out to the member that this is not an overall policy adjustment that we have made within the department. I think what has happened, there are certain areas and certain situations where there have been chronic vacancies and the ability to fill these units has proven that there is a high percentage of people not wanting to move into the area. This has been used as an alternative to fill units. It has been done on a fairly selective basis. It is only because of, like I mentioned before, chronic vacancies, and we have had a problem in trying to get some occupancy in those units.
The member had mentioned the age. I think that it has come down from the normal, which was around 65 years, in looking at trying to fill up some of these units.
Mr. Hickes: What would some of the reasons be for the so-called seniors not wanting to move into seniors housing that has been in place for years? My understanding of the seniors housing was not 65, but it was 55 and over, that you had to be 55 to qualify for seniors housing units, not 65. People would have to reach that age, but I could tell you that there are some people who are much younger than 55 that are occupying suites, and they have totally, totally different lifestyles than what the seniors that have been in those suites have had for years. So what would be some of the reasons why we cannot or are having difficulty attracting 55-and-over seniors to these units?
Mr. Reimer: The member is right. I had mentioned 65. He is right. It is 55 in the age designation. A lot of the units where there are chronic problems are what we call bachelor units or studio units. This is where there seems to be a hesitancy for people to move in. This is usually where there is the change of trying to get younger people into these homes. We tried to accommodate those that are possibly in difficult situations of trying to get into units. This is one of the reasons that there is a younger crowd, if you want to call it, going into some of our housing, but it is usually because of, like I mentioned before, a chronic problem of vacancies or a high percentage of studio units and that we have had a problem in trying to fill them. This is one of the areas that we have moved in some selected areas.
Mr. Hickes: From the minister's comments, I have to assume that one of the biggest problems is that some of the seniors are looking more at one-bedrooms or bigger apartments. If that is the case, is there any thought or any plans to expand the rooms of some of those bachelor units where you can open up and make it into accommodations for couples instead of just looking at the mix and match that if we do not do something now it will escalate and you will have a harder time moving seniors into those units? The reason I raise it is because I received a call at home at eleven o'clock from a senior. She said to me come down and hear for yourself. So I did. The music was very loud, and there was a pretty loud party going on. She says we have never had this before. Hopefully, the staff of Housing or even the minister himself could check on some weekend nights and stuff and maybe take a tour at eleven or twelve o'clock and see what is happening there.
A lot of the seniors in those apartments are becoming fearful, because some of them are of advanced ages, and they are saying if things get out of hand, what do we do? The other big concern pertaining to that is the possibilities of fires. You know, when you have people who are inebriated and partying, and they only have a couple of elevators there, it is hard for the seniors to get out if there is a fire. The other thing is the whole aspect of someone taking their possessions or muggings, like, they are just fearful. I do not know, that is not what my understanding of seniors' housing was to be. It is not much fun if you are constantly living in fear when it is supposed to be your golden years.
So I hope the minister will look at that situation and hopefully address that.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the member brings up a very good point. This is one of the things that we have recognized that there is a problem where we have units, where we have an overabundance of bachelor units or studios in certain complexes, and how we can best utilize them. We are looking at some pilot projects. I believe we are doing some in Winnipeg, and we are doing some in some of the rural areas where we have looked at some of the complexes where it is structurally feasible. It has proven to be sometimes very economical in putting a combination of a door or an archway or something between two studio units to make them into a one-bedroom unit, and it has proven to be quite beneficial.
We are hampered in a lot of buildings because of structural configurations and bearing walls and access that we cannot do that readily with--[interjection] Yes, you have to be careful of what wall you take down sometimes.
An Honourable Member: Or put up.
Mr. Reimer: Or put up; it can cause problems. But we recognize that is one way to try to overcome some of the conversions from the studios to one-bedroom units. I think that we are willing to do it more readily as these pilot projects have, from early indications, proven to be successful in that they are occupied fairly readily when we do convert them. We are going to be looking at the feasibility of doing more of them, because some of them have proven to be quite inexpensive in putting a doorway through or an archway. Here, again, there are a lot of buildings we cannot do it with, but some of them we can. We will look at them very seriously at doing those type of conversions.
* (1520)
Mr. Hickes: So what I hear the minister saying is that they will be developing or will have a pilot project. It amazes me, because if you look at all government departments, this government seems to have more pilots than Air Canada has. There are pilot projects in Family Services, there are pilot projects in Northern Affairs and on and on, but I think we should look at something that is more permanent and maybe taking from those pilot projects but putting it into action, because I think it is really needed.
The other problem that has arisen from this, and I hope that the minister will be serious about the zero-tolerance policy that was brought forward by the minister and his government. Right now, because of the declining-age acceptance of residents in the seniors buildings, there is exposure to drug use and prostitution in those buildings, which was a very rare occurrence but now is being conducted right in the seniors residence. I hope there is a real stringent and strict orientation or scrutiny of the potential tenants before they even move in to try and weed out some of those, because that is something that some of the seniors have never really seen first-hand. They are not too pleased about it, and I do not blame them. I hope that will be addressed.
The other issue that I want to raise is 470 Pacific Avenue. Because of the younger tenants being moved in, and there is no security provided there, they are asking the possibility of providing security at night where some individuals have had other residents break right into their apartments and force their way in and almost terrorized the tenants to hand over certain things. They are scared to report. Is there a possibility of putting security in place at 470 Pacific Avenue which is a seniors home?
Mr. Reimer: The member is pointing out a problem. Possibly what I can do is try to get a further explanation for the member. I can tell him that we do have a security program in that area. It is on a 24-hour basis with one of the local security companies called Elite Security. The information that I have been given is that they are available when a call is made to them. They are not onsite, but if there is a problem, they will respond on a phone call's notice. If there is more of a problem, maybe we will have to take a closer look and see how we can try to get a closer handling of some of the problems there.
Mr. Hickes: I think the point that was being made to me was that if there was onsite security, it would make people think twice before they acted negatively on the seniors that are living in those residences. If there was onsite security, because of the intimidation factor, you phone the security and they know exactly who that individual is, and they are scared of the repercussions after. So I think what they were talking about was onsite security, that individuals, be it if they were off the street or whatever, would have to go through a security person at the desk before they could enter the building later in the evenings.
Also, it is not the Housing issue, but if you had security, what probably would help is that there is prostitution action right outside of 470 Pacific, which was not there before. They are getting quite concerned about that. They feel that with the security right on site, it would help a lot, and it would give them a really firm sense of security and assistance if they needed it on really quick notice.
Mr. Reimer: One of the things I know that the member is quite aware of is working with tenants' associations, you know, in working with them in trying to resolve some of the problems in the various complexes. I am not familiar with this particular building, but if this building has a tenants' association that the member is aware of, and if he feels that there is something that we might be able to accomplish by meeting with this group, I would encourage maybe that if he would like to initiate a meeting with the tenants in that particular building, and we can talk to them and see whether they can come up with possibly some ideas or that we can resolve maybe some of the problems that they may feel that they want to talk to us about. I would be willing to try to make an arrangement with a meeting with the member and the tenants in that building, and we can see if we can try to resolve some of their fears.
Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for that response. I will follow up on it and see if we can arrange a meeting.
I just have one more issue I would like to deal with. What is the process right now or what is the development of Lord Selkirk development? I know that about two years ago we met with the minister with the tenants association, hopefully for them to take more responsibility. Since that meeting, Gilbert Park has taken on more responsibility, and I think what they are looking at is along the same lines. Is there any further development to that?
Mr. Reimer: Lord Selkirk Park has certainly proven to be a challenge in trying to bring a sense of stability and sense of community in that area. I think that we have tried very hard to work with that whole area, and I must give a compliment to the tenants association. I have seen a marked notice of difference in attitude since there has been more of a stability in the tenants association with, I believe Donna Harrington is the president of the association right now. I have met with her. In fact I had a meeting with her just, I guess it was less than six weeks or not more than two months ago. We sat down with her. She had a bunch of concerns and items that she was wanting to clarify with us.
The idea is to try to delegate more responsibility to Lord Selkirk Park. I think that the initiative that they have shown in trying to take hold of their community and some of the efforts that they have come through is commendable. The idea with the constable onsite, with some of the family services onsite, I have just made accommodations for David Livingstone School next door to occupy a suite for some sort of parenting program that they were wanting to put on.
So I think that there is a degree of optimism that we have at Lord Selkirk Park that we have to still capture more of in trying to get them more involved with their community. I am of the opinion that if they show the willingness to take on the responsibility, I will certainly delegate more authority to them and decision making.
* (1530)
We can see it already in our vacancies. One year ago we had about 130 vacancies in there and we are down to 30 now. It has turned itself around. I think that the more that we can act as a catalyst in getting the community to take hold of it themselves, I think that it is a normal process to delegate more authority to them and funding decision making in where they feel that they would like to spend money and how they would like to improve their area.
We are working now at trying to eliminate some of those walls around Lord Selkirk Park. We have been trying to get rid of those things for the last two years, but I know that we are going to do it soon and that we will have a noticeable difference there with some of the walls coming down, because I know even the police have mentioned that. I am certainly willing to meet--as the member has mentioned, he had arranged one other time with the tenants association. I do not want to sound like a broken record, but I think that working through the local MLA in some of these areas and working with the tenants association, we have seen some positive results. I can relate to Gilbert Park. In that way, I certainly can relate to Lord Selkirk Park
In Transcona, we have been able to work with the Triplex people, and that is mainly because of just a willingness to show direction to let the people get involved with the decisions that they feel that they should make for their own community. So I support what the member is trying to do in Lord Selkirk Park, and I will try to work it out with him in any way I can to try to improve the Lord Selkirk Park area.
Mr. Hickes: I thank the minister for that. Since I was elected in 1990, the Lord Selkirk development is like night and day. You are right. There is a lot more stability, and the tenants have more resources. With a lot of the boarded-up units, their boards have come down. Families have moved in. But now to me is the next step where you have stability and you have communities that want to move forward, and all the resources that have been put in place from the community policing to more involvement with the schools, the tenants association and on and on and on.
I hope that we do not just say, well, okay, they are on their way now; that is good enough. Now they are going to be on their way. I hope that does not happen. The reason I say that is because the family resource centre has made a huge contribution in the turnaround of the whole community. As we speak, they have proposals out for funding. They have applied to the Family Services. I know that is not your department, but, if you have any influence, I hope you will use that, because everybody working together has made that a much better place and a much healthier place for the individuals to live. If we start losing the resources that made it so positive, it will go back to the way it was before. I hope that never, ever happens, because there are too many good things happening, and the people are very happy. And, yes, the tenants association today is very strong. They have good leadership in Donna Harrington and her association. I just wanted to say that I will ask her to give the minister a call and to see if something could be set up where maybe more responsibility could be shared and passed along.
I know we have always had a very good working relationship. I look forward to that because we belong to different parties, but I think our hearts have to be for the people. It only can be accomplished if we work together. So, with those few questions, I thank you for allowing me, and our critic, I thank her for allowing me to have the opportunity to raise some of these concerns on behalf of my constituents. Thank you.
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): I am pleased to hear that Selkirk Park has undergone such a sea change, and I am sure it is entirely due to the MLA. He has been there since 1990, so now we are handing compliments around.
I wanted to begin by telling the minister it is kind of fortuitous us meeting here today, because later on this evening I am going to the Ecumenical Council apartments on Stradbrook for their 25th anniversary, their silver anniversary. The apartment was begun in 1973 under the Schreyer government, and there is a celebration this evening. I do not know if the minister or any of his staff are going to be present, but if the minister would like me to take any message from him, I would be more than happy to do that.
Mr. Reimer: Certainly the member can take greetings on behalf of the Minister of Housing and congratulate them on their 25 years of providing service to the community. It is kind of odd that the member should mention that because we were out in the rural area just a couple of weeks ago, staff and myself, and we were doing the tour of some units down in Deloraine and areas down there for celebrating 25th anniversaries of housing complexes. So they are all starting to get into that cycle. So certainly the member for Osborne can take my greetings to them and wish them all the best as they go for another 25 years.
Ms. McGifford: And now to get down to business.
I wanted to begin by asking the minister a question about the Mayfair-Stradbrook area because my understanding from some of my constituents who live there is that they have been attempting to establish a kind of residence committee and had requested an apartment block in the development--I do not know if that is the right expression or not, but let it stand for now--and were not able to have one. I wonder if the minister could explain this to me. Is it because everything is full? Does this resonate with his staff?
Mr. Reimer: I have been advised that the staff has not been made aware of any request. One of the things that we look at when we are allocating units for community use is where there is not a waiting list. A lot of units in some areas do have a waiting list, so we feel that it is more important to have an accommodation in those units, and then we can free up for a meeting room or something like that sort.
But in some areas, I encourage the use of a unit for the community in the area because, as I mentioned earlier, it brings a sense of stability. But in some areas where we have a high demand and a waiting list, we cannot free up that unit.
Ms. McGifford: Perhaps I will check with the residents and write to the minister about it.
I also wanted to ask some questions about the Centre of the Deaf. There has been a lot of activity, it would seem to me. On January 15, 1998, I attended a meeting at the School for the Deaf, and it was facilitated by Mr. Sanderson--obviously, the minister knows Mr. Sanderson--and there were all kinds of speakers. My understanding is that it was turning around a potential new director for the centre. There was also some controversy about money from housing being used solely for the centre, as opposed to money which apparently or may have been used to promote certain services in the centre.
Then I believe it was on February 23, my information is that there was a meeting attended by Mr. Adrian DePorto, a Crown attorney, and Bill Nakratz, and it was said that as of March 2--and I am checking information out with the minister. I am not quite sure that everything I have here is correct. I am understanding this person to be Bill Nakratz--I am unsure, again, about the pronunciation. Pardon? [interjection] Nickarz, okay, would become the property manager of the centre, but for the housing only, and this would leave the board responsible for the health unit. I believe there have been other negotiations and discussions and conversations. I believe the board wanted to ask Manitoba Health to take over the health unit. Anyway, there seems to be some confusion.
* (1540)
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
Rumours are rampant, and I wonder if the minister could confirm or tell me today exactly who is staying, what is going on, what is the future of the Centre of the Deaf?
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the Centre of the Deaf that the member is referring to, I guess there is a bit of a history involved with this association. I think it has been--this is the fourth time that they have run into some sort of major redirection of their structure and their management at that complex. This last time, I guess, it was all predicated with the resignation of a director and then there was a problem with the paying of the bills in this unit which predicated Manitoba Housing to get involved, along with Manitoba Health, Manitoba Housing to the extent of managing the housing component of the Centre of the Deaf and the Department of Health in the management of the 22-bed PCH component of it.
As the member mentioned, Mr. Bill Nickarz is now managing it, but it is on an interim basis until there is a stability brought back into the structure. That is the same with the Health department, in running the PCH, until there will be another licensed operator that would take over that component. So the member is right. There is a bit of a transition mode but hopefully with the measures that we have put in place with the Department of Health and the Department of Housing, the building will stay. There is no inconvenience to the tenants or the residents; it is more of a management restructuring. The idea is that it is not to affect the tenants.
Ms. McGifford: I appreciate that the intention may not be to affect the tenants, but does Mr. Nickarz know ASL?
Mr. Reimer: No, he does not.
Ms. McGifford: Well, I am sure that the minister understands that when people are deaf and their means of communication is ASL, communication becomes a difficulty if the manager does not know ASL. I wonder if there has been an arrangement, if there is a person, a translator available, and how many hours per day that person is around. What has been worked out in this regard?
Mr. Reimer: I have been told that there is staff that is available there that can sign with the tenants, and in fact, in the evenings, there are residents who act as a safety component in providing assistance to the management at that building also.
Ms. McGifford: Well, Mr. Chair, I do not think trusting in a resident, who may or may not be available, is really an adequate way of providing translation services to people in this apartment.
My understanding is that Adrien Deporto, the Crown attorney, and Bill Nickarz attended a meeting on the 23rd, and it was said that they would be taking over, Bill would be taking over as the property manager for housing only as of March 2. I also understood that there was an agreement to give 30 days notice. I want to know if this was the case, and if it was the case, why that was not honoured.
Mr. Reimer: I just want to clarify something from the previous answer that I gave to the member in regard to people in the evenings for signing. I have been informed that these are paid employees that are there to give assistance in the evenings.
* (1550)
In regard to the 30 days notice, I would have to get clarification from the actual--what was happening there because we are not really sure whether there was a verbal or a written communique to that effect, so we would have to check on that for the member to get better clarification. So we will get back to the member on that.
Ms. McGifford: Yes, thank you. I would appreciate further communication on that. One of the other questions I would like to ask the minister: he spoke about Manitoba Health being in the premises on an interim basis until a licensed operator could assume responsibility. I would like to ask some clarification as to what he means by a licensed operator.
Mr. Reimer: I am informed that PCHs work under a licence component in--
Ms. McGifford: I am sorry, PCH?
Mr. Reimer: Personal care home.
Ms. McGifford: Thank you.
Mr. Reimer: PCHs or personal care homes work under a licence agreement, and for an operator to take over the deaf centre, they would have to be licensed in that specialty. So this is what I am referring to when I say a licensed unit.
Ms. McGifford: Has it been run by a personal care home before, or is this a new development?
Mr. Reimer: The deaf centre was running the unit before, or the program before under a PCH licence. They ran into problems, as I mentioned earlier, in regard to the paying of bills and their financial obligations. This is where Manitoba Health stepped in and have taken over the management of it to a degree.
Once there is a stability brought back into that relationship, it is entirely possible that they may be able to remanage that facility, but until that time, I guess Manitoba Health would be the manager of that particular program, because I think, as the member knows and I referred to earlier, we have two distinct operations within the same building, a personal care home component, or a PCH, and a housing component. Sometimes it can be a little bit confusing in trying to distinguish between the two of them.
Ms. McGifford: So the minister is saying that, currently, Manitoba Health is, at least on a temporary basis, taking over the management of the personal care home aspect of the building, and that this is not going to be contracted out to any private company or anything of that nature, and that when the building gets back on its feet, if you will, that management of this area may once again pass back to the hands of the board.
Mr. Reimer: As clear as mud. Manitoba Health right now is supervising the running of the Deaf Centre Manitoba on the personal care home. You have to be careful there because to say one thing is applying it to both of them, but for the personal care home. We run the other one, but once it has been established into a more concrete relationship, then they will look at relinquishing the licence to a party that would run it.
When the member is referring to private operators, she has to remember that under the so-called parameters of private operators, they were operating it prior to this as a private operator. It was not run by the government or Manitoba Health. It was run previously by the deaf centre on the PCH end of the spectrum, so they were the managers of the complex.
Ms. McGifford: Then the housing part of the deaf centre, which I understand Manitoba is currently managing, will pass this part of the building back into the hands of the board once Housing is satisfied that the centre is running in a fashion that it considers to be fiscally sound?
Mr. Reimer: Eventually we are working to that end. It is hard to say exactly when that is going to transpire, but the ultimate end is to put it back into this previous operation, yes.
Ms. McGifford: The obvious question, of course, is how long? I understand that the minister cannot give us a day and month, but I wonder if he could hazard a guess based on the expertise of his staff as to when that might be.
Mr. Reimer: It has been pointed out it is hard to give a definite time or even a guesstimate on it because it is relatively new in taking over and in trying to come to some sort of resolve as to how to get the management team or the management capabilities back in structure for the place. I could not even--you know, to speculate at this time is a bit premature.
Ms. McGifford: So Manitoba Housing has not set a target for itself.
Mr. Reimer: No. I think it is more important to have better management and the capabilities to have it working efficiently than to try to restrict it to a definite time frame.
Ms. McGifford: Well, I think we all agree on the importance of sound management, but I think that we might also agree on the importance of community involvement in the management of the centre and particularly the board. I wonder, in view of this, why the minister has not set at least a target as to when the responsibility could pass back to the board.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, I agree with the member that there should be parameters. I guess at this particular time, because of the complexities and also trying to get the deaf centre back into the loop, if you want to call it, it is taking some time. It has been pointed out that they are working towards trying to get it resolved. As the member mentioned, it is better to have a better management in there than just a quick-fix and trying to get things back in a proper manner.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Chairperson--
Mr. Chairperson: Could I ask you just to pull your mike a little closer.
Ms. Cerilli: Sure.
Mr. Chairperson: Thank you.
* (1600)
Ms. Cerilli: I intend to start asking some questions more on the budget. I appreciate that my colleagues have focused in on some issues related to their constituency, but after listening to the discussion on the Centre of the Deaf, I do want to ask just one question, and it does relate to the financial management of the centre.
I also attended some of the meetings that the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) was at, and I was quite concerned about--I think there was five staff there from the department, and there was a hesitation for any of the staff to answer questions. The audience there was a full house, and they were angry. They were very frustrated. They felt offended, was the words that were used after. The staff, I think, claims that they were not invited there to speak, that they were invited to a meeting. But out of courtesy, I think that the staff could have answered some of the questions being asked by the tenants there. They really were also offended at the fact that someone was placed to manage the building who could not communicate with the residents.
I guess I am going to get into some questions later on about general policy in Manitoba Housing related to special needs groups like deaf tenants, but it does raise a lot of questions. So there are two things I want to focus on now related to that, and that is one of the issues that was raised is the problem that Manitoba Housing currently does not have any funds that flow to address the fact when there are special needs tenants, particularly when there are multiple handicaps, and that that can lead to additional wear and tear on a building and additional demands. You just can think, for example, with wheelchairs that are continually bumping into doors and walls, that there could be a requirement for having additional funds to do painting and renovations, repairs. That is just one small example.
In the past, the practice has been for Housing just to fund bricks and mortar kinds of services, and they do not account for when there are special needs funds. So I am wondering if that issue is going to be addressed by the department.
Also, Manitoba Housing does not provide any additional funds for the kinds of support staff that a place like the Centre of the Deaf needs. What has been happening is they have been using some of their funds that have come for management of the building and putting that into paying for support staff who deal with the needs of the tenants. They have been managing this complex as one whole unit which has a whole range of housing support services, as well as the finances for paying the bills--the rent, the mortgage and all that--to Housing.
So that is another issue that has come to light through all of this, is that there needs to be funds, if not directly through Housing, then in partnership either with Family Services or Manitoba Health so that a place like the Centre of the Deaf can have the housing supports that they need without having to dip into the money that they get from Housing for the bricks and mortar type things. As I understand it, this has led to a debt of what was $250,000. They were losing approximately $75,000 per year.
The other question then is: how could this happen? If this is a property that is owned by Manitoba Housing, it is one of the sponsored buildings, there should have been some intervention before Manitoba Housing had to sort of sweep in and simply take over the place. I have seen the report prepared by Mr. Sanderson, who was put there to try and work with the board to find a solution, and it seems like Manitoba Housing rejected the report from the staffperson they placed there and chose, in turn, to just take over the building.
So those are, I guess, three issues I would like you to respond to just on that issue at the Centre of the Deaf.
Mr. Reimer: It has been brought to my attention--I guess it is a combination of events and things that have happened at the deaf centre that have come to a position now where there is that taking over, as the member mentioned, by Manitoba Health and Manitoba Housing for the managing of it.
Originally, when the Centre of the Deaf was first built, the tenants of that building were people with hearing disabilities. The management of the building interpreted possibly the admissions to a point where a lot of people that were admitted to the building had more than just normal hearing problems, and this created a problem of funding in trying to accommodate these types of people. This, in relationship to what a Housing budget is comprised of, put a severe drain on the fundings that are typically allocated to a Housing component in the public housing sector. The funding of it actually overlapped into a Health responsibility so the management, in their efforts to accommodate people, brought people in that required additional funding levels of support, which the Housing component was not involved with in the funding formula.
So this is where the problem came in with the overexpenditures, with the Centre of the Deaf, where Health possibly should have been the component that was funding these instead of Housing because the Housing component is built to certain specifications in the budget parameters which does not entitle or encompass a lot of the problems that the Centre of the Deaf accumulated upon itself in the admission of some of these peoples. So that is where the funding got overexpended, and this is where there was the problem that arose for the sake of trying to pay their bills where the Manitoba Department of Health and Manitoba Housing had to step in to try to rectify the problem.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister did not answer my question. He just repeated what I said. My question is: why did you not address this? You should have been reviewing the financial statements for this complex yearly and realized what was happening. This government seems incapable of having Manitoba Housing and your Housing department work with any other department.
There are a number of issues where this is the case, whether it is in dealing with placing mental health patients, whether it is dealing with the Centre of the Deaf. We have got issues now with women's shelters with Family Services. It seems like the Department of Housing has to improve its ability to work with other government departments to ensure that the tenants in Manitoba Housing receive the services that they need. This is the case with the Manitoba Centre of the Deaf.
It seems to me that Manitoba Health needs to develop a program or a number of programs to provide support services for Manitoba Housing tenants, and my question was: are you going to do that? Why has that not happened up till now, till you get to this point where you have a $250,000 debt with this Centre of the Deaf? So I guess generally you can answer this from a general policy point of view, whether it is with mental health patients, who, as the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) raised, are being placed into seniors apartments, or whether it is the other examples we have just discussed here now. What is your department doing to ensure that, whether it is Family Services or Manitoba Health or other departments, you develop a partnership in programs so that tenants get the services that they need, the housing support services that they need?
* (1610)
It seems like there is some kind of battle over who should be funding these services. If Manitoba Housing is going to stick by that they are only there to provide property management and property services and maintenance, then another government department has to provide the support services. I believe that you have to show some leadership as the minister of making sure that is going to happen.
Mr. Reimer: The member brings up some very interesting points and observations in regard to the direction with Manitoba Housing and the responsibilities. In particular to the Manitoba School for the Deaf, we in essence have a building there that we turned over to these people to manage. I guess you have to, you know, feel that there is a management capability within that structure and that board to manage the building properly. If they are getting involved with the addition of people who need additional services or additional care or health components, then that management of that building should be talking to the various stakeholders in trying to arrange for this type of care in their buildings.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
You have to have some sort of confidence in the people who are managing these buildings for you that they recognize where the problems are too and can address them in a sense of going after the proper channels of funding that are available and the admissions of the people into their building which they are responsible for. So it is a two-way street.
Granted, it is our building, but when you give the management to a group, you would think that they have the capabilities, or you would hope that they would have the capabilities, to manage it properly. It would appear that the management that has gone into this building now has had to be bailed out four times by government to get it back on track, that possibly the management has to be looked at in a more serious manner. This is one of the reasons why, when we talked about housing being part of the component, we are in no rush to run out of it yet, because there is a degree of stability that we want to bring back into that whole complex.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not want to belabour this point too much, but I cannot let it go without pointing out that I have a chronology which I will be happy to send to the minister that points out that the board did raise this matter with the government on a number of occasions, that they did go to Manitoba Health, that it seems like it is the government's problem in being able to co-ordinate services for tenants with special needs, that there is a lot of investment that has gone on in some of these properties.
When we were at the meeting that the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) referenced, they talked about how Manitoba Housing has made no investments on upgrading and how the Centre of the Deaf has done all the fundraising to do even painting. They would have volunteers come in and do painting, and this is a Manitoba Housing property. I found that incredible.
It seems like there has to be some onus on the government. They review the books when they have an agreement with service clubs like the Kiwanis Centre in these sponsored housing developments. So putting all the responsibility onto them--and I will do up a letter on this and send you a copy of the chronology that I have. I know that there have been a number of meetings between yourself and staff. Maybe you have not been, but I know that the staff in the department have had a number of meetings with the board members and tenants at the centre, but I guess I am just raising this in the larger context as well from a policy point of view.
It is frightening to me that you are going into another agreement with the federal government to potentially take over another 17,000 units where a lot of those tenants may also have special needs. I know a lot of those developments are specifically designed for housing tenants that are not without a high level of special needs.
There has to be a better way that the government can have relationships between the various departments and ensure that housing support services are put in place, because it is a lot more expensive after the fact, as you are seeing now with this complex. I mean, if this could have been dealt with at the centre after the first year, if you saw that there was a problem where they were having to use monies from Manitoba Housing to provide for services they were not designed for--and I understand that that is what was happening--then it should clue the government in that there is a problem here.
This government does not have any programs to provide support services in its own properties where there are special needs tenants, and I would think that is possibly another reason why you have some of the vacancy problems that you do and why you have some of the high turnover, and you have to bring in some of the policies that you have had.
I know, from doing some research in other jurisdictions, there are a lot of really interesting things going on across the country and outside the country in Housing in co-operation with other, whether they are community agencies, but to provide the kind of support services that tenants need so that they can successfully, independently live in their own apartments as independently as possible.
So I do not accept the approach that your department has taken on this, and I do not think that it is working very well for the department, because you are obviously having to deal with all these problems which end up being much greater after the fact rather than just having them demonstrate that there is a problem and a need for a new approach to providing the kind of support services.
I do not know if the minister wants to respond to that, but I would like to just ask some other questions about the budget. I had raised this issue in Question Period as well with the minister. I started doing some examination of the budgets for Housing over the past number of years, and I went back to 1983-84. First of all, I was just looking at the Estimates numbers, and I was quite concerned to look at what the Estimates were. In 1983-84, it was just under $40.5 million. The Estimates went up to a high of $51.2 million in '90-91, and now we are back down to $43.5 million. That showed a real interesting peak and then drop down again, but when you compare that with the amount that was authorized and then the actual amount that was spent, you get a much erratic spending in the department.
I had asked the minister to explain why it was that when in '96-97 there were over $65 million spent, the next year's Estimates could be only $44 million, and the minister explained to me that that was because of a $10-million injection into maintenance and improvements, and that is shown in the documents of the government. But other than that one year, we are still on this downward trend of spending in the Estimates.
So I guess my question at this point is: do you have a sense now in this fiscal year if you are going to be on-line for the budget Estimates last year, if you are going to meet that budget estimate?
Mr. Reimer: I have been advised that by all indications we should be very, very close to what our budget estimate was of just over $44.6 million.
Ms. Cerilli: So this year the estimate is $43.5 million. How do you explain that there will be a $3-million reduction?
* (1620)
Mr. Reimer: There are various components that come into play when we look at the difference between the two numbers. It is a decrease of just over $1.1 million between '97-98 and '98-99, and it is composed of a few different things. Maybe I can just share this with the member.
The Housing Program Support will be down just over a half a million dollars, almost $572,000, and that is because of the reduction of some staff in various departments throughout the Housing component. In the Financial Services department, through Desktop Management and through some of the Client Services area, there has been a reduction in the staff. There is also a reduction in the administration fees for the CMHC units of over $800,000. There is a decrease in interest associated with the land inventory. There is an increase in the repair and maintenance budget that offsets some of the decreases. There is an increase in the grants under the shelter allowance program of $100,000.
Where else have we got some decreases? The Housing Program Support decrease is primarily a result of salary and operating costs associated, a decrease in inventory costs for land. There is a decrease in taxes and interest costs for units administered under Housing operations. So it is a various combination of different pluses and minuses that comes up with the difference of the $1.13 million, so, like I say, there are some increases and some decreases, so it finally comes out with that number of just $1.1 million.
Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate that kind of detail. We will get into some of those specific areas later on, but the other thing that struck me when I was looking at comparing this year to last year is that we are actually going to get more money from CMHC. I stand corrected earlier. I had said $3 million. It is really not, it is 1.2 difference, but we are going to get roughly over $250,000 more from CMHC this year, even though whenever we ask questions, the minister always complains about how we are getting less money from the federal government. I have asked questions about the way that the CMHC funds are shown in the Estimates books and that. How can you explain, with the federal cuts that we have had across the whole country, that we are actually getting more money from Canada Mortgage and Housing?
Mr. Reimer: The one thing that I should point out when dealing with the federal government in working with the housing component, there are so many different components regarding the housing allowances and the housing relationships and the percentages of participation between the two levels that it becomes very, very time sensitive to try to understand exactly where you are getting the ups and where you are getting the downs.
In some areas there shows an increase in funding availability, but, in other areas associated with the federal government, there is a decrease in funding. So you take in the overall picture when I say that the federal government's funding is going down. It is going down in the overall picture, but, in certain areas, because of the funding arrangements and the percentage differences, we do get some funding increases, but, in the overall, so-called big picture, we are still going down in our funding from the federal government.
Ms. Cerilli: That was my point. The Estimates book on page 2 for this year says that Canada Mortgage and Housing anticipated recoveries are $36,691,400, and last year the same line was $36,426,900. So the total is more this year by over $200,000, and I am asking for an explanation why. I am quite prepared to have you go program by program and explain the difference. I have got my pen ready here. This is a big issue.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I can only refer the member, for a more detailed explanation, to page 42 of the Housing Estimates Supplement to point out where the fundings are coming from and what we will realize. You see our total operating expenditures are just over $108 million, and then the recovery is 36.6, and in comparison to the year before was 36.3 over $108.6 million, so this gives us a more accurate picture of what our Housing operations cost and what our recoveries are from the federal government.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, those numbers still show that we are estimating that we are going to get more money this year than we estimated last year, so I am not getting an explanation of why that is. It could be maybe we actually did not get that amount from the federal government. If you want to compare this year's estimate to last year's actual, I would be happy to hear that figure.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, I think part of the reasoning is because we are spending more money on buildings where we have a higher percentage of recovery. Recovery rates are variable. There are some projects where we are only at 12.5 percent participant, other units where we are 75-25 participant, and other areas where we share 50-50 participation with the federal government.
* (1630)
There are variables, and where you spend the money will dictate what type of recovery you get. If you spend monies in a 75-25 relationship, where we get 75 cents back for every 25 cents that we spend out of a dollar, you know it is more favourable to us than some of our buildings where we are on a 50-50 ratio. So it would depend on where the emphasis has been placed on expenditures of maintenance, so that we get a higher percentage back from our partners.
Ms. Cerilli: Now that is an explanation that makes sense. I just want to see if I am understanding it correctly. You are saying you are spending--I want you to clarify what you mean by spending--that is maintenance. Does that also mean when you are filling vacancies? Does that also apply to--is there a difference in the subsidy that you get?
Mr. Reimer: That is right.
Ms. Cerilli: So you are basically choosing then to maximize the money you get back from the federal government by putting more of your dollars and investment into those properties.
Mr. Reimer: I am sorry, I did not hear the member's question. I was just getting some further clarification on the point that I was just making.
A good example is Lord Selkirk Park where we are only 12.5 percent participants in that project. So when we spend a dollar in there, we are theoretically only spending 12.5 cents, and we are getting back from our partners 87.5 cents. There we would show some fairly significant recovery of dollars compared to other areas where we are spending 50-cent dollars.
As I pointed out earlier, Lord Selkirk Park, where we have gone from 130 vacancies last year to 30 vacancies this year, naturally is going to show as a decrease because we have higher rental income coming out of that unit.
Ms. Cerilli: To clarify then, though, in all these properties, Manitoba Housing is the owner of the properties.
Mr. Reimer: No, not all of them.
Ms. Cerilli: In some cases, the minister said, no, not all of them, so in some cases you are a joint owner with CMHC--
Mr. Reimer: That is right.
Ms. Cerilli: --or with a sponsoring agency.
Mr. Reimer: Or nonprofits, but we are not even owner at all.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay. So, I am just trying to think this through then. I mean, it would seem on the surface that this would be a management practice where you are really taking advantage of the potential for getting money from the federal government, but, on the other hand, if it is going to mean that in properties where the federal government does not have as much of an investment, which is more than the responsibility of investment for Manitoba Housing, those buildings under this strategy will not be getting as much maintenance and will not be getting the same number of tenants, is that correct? Staff are shaking their heads.
Mr. Reimer: No, I think it is more of a policy that all buildings are assessed for their needs and their stress values and their wear and tear, and if it needs it, we will budget for the allocation. It is cyclical in a sense that it just so happens that last year we were spending more money on the 50-50 buildings than this year with 75-25 buildings.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay, that explains it. So it is not something you have chosen to do. It is part of the management plan for these buildings, and it just so happened that over these years the properties that are more of a federal responsibility for financing came up. That is why you have more federal recoveries. The other thing, though, because since '94 the federal government has not put any money into new financing for new buildings for construction, that means neither has the province. Is that correct?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, the final carryover, the member is right, our final billings that we came on stream with were in 1996, but there has been no new funding. She is right.
Ms. Cerilli: How much has the provincial government saved by not funding new construction over the last four years?
Mr. Reimer: I do not know whether there is a saving. We still have vacancies and we still have overall about a 10 percent vacancy, so there are still units to be filled.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not want to get into a debate over the vacancies at this point. It seems, though, that the government quotes the vacancies as a justification for not constructing, and that was not what I was asking. Maybe I will phrase the question in a different way. Let us say the four years previous to 1994, how much money had you been budgeting for new construction a year?
Mr. Reimer: That is something that staff do not have readily here. We may be able to go into our archives and try to find out what we were spending for new housing, say, from 1990 to '94 until the end of the program. We can get that for the member.
Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate the minister getting me that information. I am going to turn over the mike to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) to ask some Housing questions related to her constituency. I think we will have to resume on Monday.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask about some issues that have arisen about a tenants association at 400 Young Street. I believe the minister has had some correspondence on this issue from residents. The minister is looking puzzled. He has not received any?
Mr. Reimer: Unless it has been very recently. I cannot recall anything regarding 400 Edmonton, I believe she said.
Ms. Friesen: No, Young.
Mr. Reimer: 400 Young. It may be in my correspondence, but I have not come across it yet. Unless the member is saying it was sent quite a while ago, then I would really have to check why I have not got it.
Ms. Friesen: I think it would certainly be at least three weeks ago that I received a copy of it. My colleague from Radisson has also received a copy of a letter sent to the minister. It raises issues of the difficulties in forming a tenants association. It raises issues of a particular caretaker and the constant changing in caretaking arrangements at that facility, which has had some impact upon how the residents have been able to deal with each other.
I do not want to go any further if the minister has not got the letter, but I am very puzzled as to why I have it, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has it. It is copy of something that has been sent to the minister and he does not have it.
Mr. Reimer: I can assure the member that I will do my utmost in the next little while to find out exactly where it is. Staff seem to feel that they do not recall seeing it come in either, so it is either stuck somewhere, but we will track it down. Maybe I could ask the member if she would indulge me to get a copy from her file, if she is willing to share it with me, and we can speed it up even faster.
Ms. Friesen: If I had thought the minister had not got it, I would have brought it with me. I do not have it with me, but we will certainly pick up on that at the beginning of the next session on Monday.
* (1640)
I have another question, Mr. Chairman, and it deals with the housing--I think I have already raised this informally with the minister--on Wolseley Avenue from which tenants are now being moved. These are townhouses on Wolseley. Certainly, I think we both recognize that there has been a federal responsibility for this, but there was a provincial undertaking I believe to find substitute housing for the people involved.
One of my concerns is that the housing that people were in on Wolseley, first of all, was large housing. It enabled people to have families of two, three and four children. There were a number of large apartments and houses in that particular block, which is very unusual in low-income housing. There were at least, I believe, 11 children in that area who were going to Mulvey School. As the minister may not know, but Mulvey School has had for a long time, and has tried to deal with it continuously, issues of migration, as many inner city schools do. Mulvey has at some times been very successful in maintaining people within the neighbourhood. They have had, for example, a housing co-ordinator who has maintained within the school lists of available housing. It is not easy to come by housing of three and four bedrooms in that area.
So my concerns are threefold. One is the federal withdrawal obviously is really hurting neighbourhoods and communities. Secondly, that the people in those housing blocks be accommodated as soon as possible and in the best manner possible. Thirdly, that the children be enabled to remain in the neighbourhood where they can still attend Mulvey School.
Eleven children, and there may be more, but I know that there are at least 11 children--I mean that is quite a large chunk out of a relatively small school. The importance of maintaining stability and continuity in inner city schools, I think, is one that we would all support. So this particular withdrawal of federal funds and what I understand is a relative slowness on the part of the province to find alternative housing for people of a similar quality and in the same neighbourhood really does have a very serious effect on a number of institutions, not just on the individual families, but on the whole community.
I wonder if the minister could give me some update on the residents of that housing complex and the efforts which have been made to find them places within the reasonable vicinity of the school.
Mr. Reimer: I was just getting an update as to the situation that the member is referring to. She did allude to the fact that it is federal housing that is being devolved through SAM Management. My information is that at the end of September of last year our department was informed, I guess, by SAM Management that they were in the process of having to do something with these particular units. The notification, from what I understand, did not go to the residents until the end of January, January 28, that this was happening.
We had indicated--when I say we, I mean Manitoba Housing--that we would be willing to try to accommodate these people, as many as we could, in our units and in our area as best we could. I have been informed that out of the amount of people who have been notified of the move, only eight people have sought housing with Manitoba Housing, from all the people that are being relocated.
As of the end of March, we do have four-bedroom units available, and in fact we do have five-bedroom units available, but they are within various parts of the city. They are not in that particular area in and around Wolseley. So there are units available, but it does mean they do have to move to a different area.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me what the rental was, say, on a three-bedroom unit in that particular complex?
Mr. Reimer: We do not know. We were not involved with those in that particular complex. So I could not give the member those numbers on that particular complex.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me where the four- and five-bedroom units are that he has at the moment, and what the rental is on each of those?
Mr. Reimer: These are units that are on the what we call the RGI formula, rent geared to income. So the 27 percent of whatever their income is, that is what they would be charged for the rental.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me where they are?
Mr. Reimer: If the member would give us a day or two, I am sure that we can find out exactly where they are because they are throughout Winnipeg, from what I understand, and it is a matter of just compiling where they are, or I can go through the list while the member waits.
* (1650)
I was just going through some of the statistics here for the four- and five-bedroom units. In the downtown area, there is none available. In the St. James area--and this is till the end of March, as I should point out--there are 10 four-bedroom units and four five-bedroom units. In what we call the north end, there are two four bedrooms and one five-bedroom. In the Brooklands area, there are two four-bedroom. In the Fort Garry area, there are four four-bedroom and three five-bedroom. In the Fort Rouge area, there is one four-bedroom unit. In the east end, there are three four-bedrooms and one five-bedroom. That is it.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me how many, approximately, large units--and we are thinking three-, four-, five-bedrooms--in the downtown area, and what is the housing stock that is available? I realize it is full, but in terms of the department's planning, what?
Mr. Reimer: We would have to provide that because all I have been provided with is the vacancy numbers and not the total numbers. If the member would like, I can get those for the downtown area. These are just vacancies.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, the minister has quite a number of staff here. Would it not be possible to venture a guess on what the proportion of housing in the downtown area for low-income people, under Manitoba Housing, is of the larger variety? Are we looking at 10 percent, 5 percent, 20 percent? Obviously, these are requests which must be made quite frequently. If Manitoba Housing's large units are all full in the downtown area, then you must have a sense of what proportion, it seems to me, is of that scale.
Mr. Reimer: Staff, like the member mentioned, are trying to sort of give it a guesstimate of numbers, in and around 30 units they feel would be, you know, in around that area, in the downtown area.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell me: in the selloffs that this department has been involved in since the 1990s, how many of the houses that have been sold, or accommodations sold by Manitoba Housing, have been of large units downtown?
Mr. Reimer: We have not sold any downtown.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Chairman, I am thinking of houses in my constituency--Evanson, Arlington--which were owned by Manitoba Housing and which were sold off within the last two to three years. So I assume that those exist in other streets outside of my constituency in the downtown area as well.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, I was just looking in what, I guess, the interpretation of "downtown" may be what we are looking at. There have been some units sold. The member is right. For example, Arlington and Evanson, there have been units sold. In the north Point Douglas, there has been a unit sold, on Ross Avenue, and the rest are out of town. Brooklands, pardon me.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister provide me with a list of those addresses of ones that have been sold? Obviously, you cannot do that today, but you perhaps could tell me today how many of those were family units, that is, more than two bedrooms.
Mr. Reimer: Those were all family units.
Ms. Friesen: Well, the obvious question is: why did you sell them when you have a demand in the inner city for family units? Here are people who have been turned out of housing now on Wolseley. They could have gone--had that housing been available--into Manitoba Housing units within two or three blocks.
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that a lot of these homes that were sold were of such a state of disrepair that the cost of revamping them possibly far outweighed the ability to realize payback on them.
I was just going to point out, too, that we did give some units to Reverend Lehotsky--I am trying to remember his first name--Harry Lehotsky, yes, for renovations, too, and those were units that had been boarded up previously for quite a few years.
Ms. Friesen: I think the minister gave one house to Harry Lehotsky that has been converted into three units. I wonder if the minister, since we are going to be back here on Friday, could provide me with the estimates that he received, the renovation costs to each of the houses that was sold, each of the units. The minister said the renovation costs would have been too high for the payback. Presumably, the government, in disposing of those assets, had, first of all, an estimate, and one would assume good practice would be to have at least more than one estimate. Secondly, there would have been a cost-benefit analysis on the payback rate. I say this particularly because every day we are seeing in west Broadway and in Wolseley houses which are being renovated.
The payback, as the minister uses the term--it is not a term that I would use--but the payback, as he says, is there for families. Why is it not there for the government in providing for low-income families, stabilizing neighbourhoods, stabilizing schools, providing the benefits to everyone, not just indeed to the individuals?
So I would like from the minister a list of all the units that were sold, their addresses, the amount they were sold for, the estimates that were done for the government on renovations and the cost-benefit analysis that was done on the disposal of those units.
Mr. Reimer: We will try to endeavour to find out those figures for the member.
Mr. Chairperson: Just for the committee's information, we will be back on Monday.
The time being five o'clock, time for private members' hour. Committee rise.