* (1440)

Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Housing. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 30.1 Housing Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 98 of the Estimates book. I would just like to say now that it seems that our opposition critic–no, we cannot say that either. We cannot talk about anybody that is not–we will just have to wait for the questions from the opposition critic.

Order, please. The committee has been called to order, and the member for Dauphin, I believe, was asking some questions when we last were together.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Thanks, Mr. Chairperson. Yes, the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) and I were asking some questions yesterday dealing with, at least in part, the tendering process and trying to think of some ways in which at the local level we could involve more people at the community level in certain communities in the Parkland and actually participating in the renovations and maintenance of housing units, and I think we had a very good discussion. The minister did indicate a willing-ness to look at the many things that we suggested yesterday, and I commend him for that.

The one area that I left unclear about yesterday was a demarcation between–I know the minister indicated that they were not in the business of building houses, but it was not clear to me just as I was leaving whether the projects by which the minister was talking applied to repair and the maintenance side of it, or, whether there were renovations such as the idea that I think the member for Swan River and the minister talked about in terms of converting bachelor suites into housing units that were more comfortable, more useful in the situations in some of the communities in the Parkland.

In the conversion of one type of unit, say, a bachelor suite into a one-bedroom or two-bedroom or larger unit, what realistically can local people expect in terms of their participation when those decisions are made? Can local people have an input into the types of units that are necessary and the numbers of units that are necessary, and, if he would maybe help me to understand, if they would then have an opportunity to actually work to do the rebuilding in these units?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): I think one of the things that we try to work very closely with in all parts, especially in rural Manitoba, is having the local community, having the local boards, the local administration, the town councils, made aware of and involved sometimes even with some of our decisions when we start to look at major renovations or upgrades or changes of some of the seniors complexes or buildings within our portfolio, because in most of the cases in the small towns and in the rural areas, a lot of our public housing is occupied by seniors.

It behooves us to try to work with the community in recognizing what some of the needs are as to try to make sure that the seniors in the community can stay within the community, and most of them do want to stay in the community. So we try to work fairly closely with the community groups, some of the resources in the community, like the local volunteer groups and things like that and the town administration whenever we start to look at some sort of renovations.

If we were talking about a specific complex in a specific town where we were looking at possibly converting some of the bachelor units to one-bedroom units, I think that we would want to get some input from not only the local tenants in that particular complex but a lot of the people who are associated with that complex, whether it is the local, like I say, volunteer group like the Kinsmen or Rotary that sometimes take an interest in these clubs, too, so that we get a feeling that there is definitely a need for some of these conversions. A lot of these conversions, like I mentioned earlier, can be fairly inexpensively accommodated. A lot of it has to do with the physical characteristics of the building and the physical makeup of the building, whether we can more or less just put a hole through the wall and finish it off and make it into a one-bedroom.

For expediency's sake and for cost efficiencies and trying to have it looked at on a local level, we would make local contractors or local construction people aware of what we are proposing and look at asking them to possibly give us a quote or an invitation to tender on these conversions because here again a lot of times the local townspeople, it is the local people that have a better knowledge, a better flavour of the community. We have to respect that, and we would try to work within that. Our biggest concern would be is it complying to the codes and complying to the safety of the integrity of the building, to meet the standards for all residents, but we would try to look at it on a local basis and give local recognition of their concerns in regard to not only the proposal itself but the implementation of a proposal.

* (1450)

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Chairperson, I think by the end of the day today we are all going to have a certain carousel song going through our heads as we leave tonight, but we will try to stay focused here. The only other part of the questioning that I did not get a chance to ask last night having to do with the tendering is that there are into my office many complaints saying that we did not realize something is being tendered; we did not see it anywhere. It usually ends up being something that once we take a look you can see in the local papers it has been tendered or in other areas. Is there a certain number of places that tenders need to be publicized so that local people can get in on some of the jobs associated with renovations and other projects that Manitoba Housing does?

Maybe the minister can indicate to me what the procedure is in tendering and where they have to publicize the project. That would probably help me a lot in serving the people who come to my office and ask about these projects and how they can be involved in them, whether it is through getting the tenders themselves and putting tenders in or having input at the projects to begin with.

Mr. Reimer: I am informed there are a couple of ways that are available for notification. We do advertise locally in local papers and local community publications for some of the tendering and some of the improvements or changes in our structures, but it also has been pointed out that through Government Services there is a registry. I am not exactly sure what it is called, but it is in Government Services, where contractors can register, and then it is all done through e-mail and through computers, that as work is being called for, it goes out to all these people who are registered on this computer network and through e-mail. This goes out as an automatic source of information, also. So if there are individuals who are looking for work from the government, they can register through Government Services. I guess it is an Internet service of sorts, and they are automatically informed of where and when projects are being brought forth.

So that is one way, and the other way is through local advertising which is done in the local papers.

Mr. Struthers: Thanks, that is good.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Chairperson, I apologize for my delay, but if I remember correctly, yesterday we were talking before I left about the ways that the government and Manitoba Housing are going to save money under the new devolution agreement, par-ticularly as it deals with the not-for-profits. I had been raising a number of ways that have been suggested to me by some of the property managers or board members that I have met with, so let us just sort of recap and get us back, get me back anyway.

We had been talking about the replacement reserves–that is it; that is what we were talking about–and the minister I think was explaining the way that the replacement reserves are operated under a formula, and that issue was dealt with, I think.

The other issue that I wanted to ask about then is the way that sponsor groups, when they approach Manitoba Housing to have their budgets approved for that year, how that is going to be approached in terms of the sponsor group or the property manager who brings in their budget, if you could explain what the process is that they go through in having their budget approved, how that review is done.

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, in doing the review of the budgets, it is usually done on not only the last year's budget. What is brought into consideration are two years budgets, and sometimes even three years is looked at in the review that the operation is running under.

The budget is brought forth. It is reviewed with the department or individuals responsible in that particular sector and looked at in its applications. If there is a request for additional funding for specific items or specific things that have to be attained to, they are looked at on an individual basis and assessed as to their applicability or their needs as to whether that is justified, so there is always room for, even though the budget may be a certain amount, for justification or for a case made for exceptional or above expenditures in regard to that particular complex.

* (1500)

The budget then goes into, of that particular unit, our global budget which goes through the normal Treasury Board process of approval. So each one is not necessarily approved by Treasury Board, but they become a package that is brought forth in a global amount for monies that are spent, that is approved by Treasury Board. The monies, if they are approved, then the complex knows that this is their budget, and this is what they have been approved to spend. So it is a bottom feeding of information, and then a global approval of a total budget once it has been presented to Treasury Board.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. Some interesting information there, but I am looking for, in terms of asking what the process is, things like: how is a housing corporation notified? Is it done on an annual basis at the same time? You have told me that they have to then send their information. They are not necessarily there for the first review, and then as I understand it, there is often a meeting with the chairperson of the board and the property manager where they are informed if their budget is actually going to be approved or not.

So what I am looking for is specifically how that process works and a little bit more detail about the kinds of things in the process that Manitoba Housing is looking for when you are going to approve or not approve the budget for any given housing corporation.

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that usually the process for the costing or the budget for the complexes start in about June or July of each year, and then their final approval comes somewhere in September or October. Towards the end of the year, they then become part of the Treasury Board and the budget process. In effect, what has happened right now, even though we are into our budget process, final approval of the budget does not come till after the Estimates process. So we do provide funding on the interim basis so the nonprofits can operate, but their budget theoretically is not approved until the Estimates process has been completed, which we are into right now.

So that is the process but we do give interim funding, so that they can take advantage of the building season or certain tenders that have to go out. Final approval does not come through until we approve the budget right here in this process right now.

Ms. Cerilli: How about the issue of what kind of things you are looking for in terms of approving a budget for a nonprofit housing corporation or a co-op?

Mr. Reimer: I am not sure what the member means by what type of things we are looking for.

Ms. Cerilli: How do you decide if you are going to approve their budget or not?

Mr. Reimer: I guess what we look at is we look at the history and the management and the proposals that are coming forth, whether it is a co-op or a nonprofit and the reasonableness of their requests. Those are decisions that are made on the individual basis in regard to the complex, so it is a matter of justifying what the expenses are and reasonableness of their request.

Ms. Cerilli: Maybe the minister can see where I am going with this or his staff can advise him, but if we look at some of the co-ops that have had difficulties in the past, where they have had to come to the government and ask for more subsidized units, and because they could not meet their obligations based on attracting people to pay market rents, those are the kinds of problems that these housing corporations are having when they are dealing with their budgets.

Places like the Veterans Manor, which we have discussed before, as I understand it, came forward and were told that their budget was not approved, that there were certain things that were no longer going to be allowed. For example, their security provisions were not in their lease. They had to be then removed, because they were not going to be allowed to spend money on the security provisions that were not part of their lease.

There have been other things like that brought to my attention, that nonprofit corporations feel like they are basically being nickeled and dimed to death. They feel like now they are going to be put through a situation, and approval of their budget is going to be denied. So that is where I am headed with this, and I am wanting for the minister to comment then on those kinds of considerations that are being made for nonprofit corporations and co-ops.

Mr. Reimer: I think in looking at the budgets of all the nonprofits and the co-ops, we have not really changed our process or our approach to budgeting in the last five to seven years in looking at differences or different account-abilities or a different type of timetabling or things like that. I think that we have always tried to work fairly co-operatively with the various boards in their budgetary process.

We have made staff available. I know that even when there have been problems, we have had senior staff go out and try to work with them and try to look at some of their budgets not only in the unit that the member mentioned, the Veterans Manor, but other ones in the city where there has been a problem with their budget and what they presented and what we felt was more in line with the expenditure models that we look at. I guess there will always be, to a degree, some sort of a disagreement or minor conflicts in regard to what is perceived and what is actual in regard to the amount of monies that are being requested and what can be allocated.

* (1510)

But, like I say, in an overall sense, we have had very little change in our handling of these units or in our accounting, our accountability factors, and the whole approach. I think that there are always exceptions and I guess there will always be exceptions, but we try to work around them, and we try to work as best we can with the nonprofit groups because we realize that a lot of them–and the majority of them are volunteer, nonprofit associations–spend an awful lot of time in their commitment to try to help people, and that is a very, very valuable resource and a very commendable position that these people put themselves into. We recognize that a lot of times we are dealing with volunteers. We are dealing with people who are from various backgrounds, and sometimes it takes more of an understanding on our part to recognize and to try to direct the goals that we have a responsibility for in regard to the taxpayer and the taxpayer dollars that are being spent in these units.

There will always, I guess, be a bit of a difference from time to time where the priorities should be and what the expenditures should be, but we try to work very closely with the various groups, and, if anything, we bend over backwards in trying to accommodate most of them. Reasonable requests are looked at in a very prudent manner.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister said that there may be some minor disagreements. When it comes to dealing with the nonprofit corporations, some of them have not been very minor. I have referenced already the Veterans Manor. I mean, they were put in a position where they actually then said we are going to offer you the keys because we do not want to do it on a nonprofit basis anymore.

All these nonprofit corporations have had their budgets reduced by the federal government as well as your government, and I want to get into some of those kinds of details, but, first, I just want to see how many of these nonprofit corporations have been like Veterans Manor, have not had their budgets approved, where they have either had to go back and make revisions and come back again. How many have been put in that kind of position, let us say, in the last couple of years, two years?

Mr. Reimer: In looking at the budgets of the nonprofit associations and that, they are reviewed as I mentioned with the directors or the people responsible for drafting the budget. I do not know whether there is a set number as the member is asking that go back for review because I think it is an ongoing process with the department in looking at their expenditures and to get justification of expenditures. It is hard to put a number. I was just saying these budgets all come in clean so that they are automatically approved, and these budgets come in over and have to be adjusted. Because of the review process that is initiated, they are all reviewed in a sense of trying to be continuous. But actually the budget line, I believe, has stayed fairly static. In regard to the budgets, the private nonprofits and the expenditure line is up a little bit over '98-99 to '99-2000, so there is not that much of an adjustment on the private nonprofits.

I should point out that the complex that the member was referring to, the Veterans Manor, one of the reasons that it got into difficulty was the fact that under the original concept, it was strictly for veterans, and because of the demographics and the situation of the numbers of veterans, the number of people who were going into that complex was declining because there were just not that many veterans who wanted to or were available to move into that unit. So the occupancy rates there started to rise, and the expenditures that were associated with it could not be carried.

That is one of the reasons why they ran into some problems and they came to us for help. So that gives you a little bit of an idea of what was happening at the Veterans Manor.

Ms. Cerilli: I think the minister meant to say, in terms of Veterans Manor, that their occupancy rates were declining because they were running out of veterans.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, did I not say that?

Ms. Cerilli: No.

Mr. Reimer: Oh, sorry.

Ms. Cerilli: I understand that there was an approach made to them to start including as their tenants people who were not veterans.

* (1520)

Mr. Reimer: Right.

Ms. Cerilli: And I guess I would make the suggestion, based on the conversations I have had, that if that was handled differently, perhaps they would have been more open to considering that, but they felt that their mandate was for veterans. It is the way that it was presented and the way that their budget was dealt with. This is just the way that it has been presented to me, anyway, that they feel like they have to change the mandate for their organization which is supported by the legions which has a mandate to support veterans as well. So I was just using them as an example, though, but I did not want to let that go unaddressed.

Does the minister want to comment on that, or should I move on?

Mr. Reimer: I was not sure. I guess I did say–in regard to the declining numbers, they were because of the lack of veterans. That is what I meant to say. The member is right in correcting me.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, well, the issue as it has been raised with me is–let us talk about the cuts first, that nonprofit corporations in Manitoba, the housing corporations, have lost how much money from the federal government, just even in their maintenance line. I have met with one corporation that says that they have lost $150,000 from CMHC for their maintenance.

That is one corporation. That is a lot of money. They cannot raise their rents because they are all regulated. How are these corporations supposed to continue to exist on a nonprofit basis if they are receiving those kinds of cuts and reductions from CMHC? We know that there have been hundreds of millions of dollars cut from CMHC even before the devolution agreements were being signed, so nonprofit corporations operating housing have had serious reductions just in their maintenance budgets.

So do you have that information? I am looking at this both–you know, some of this is the responsibility of CMHC, but what have been the reductions in the maintenance budgets by both your government as well as by CMHC?

Mr. Reimer: I am just looking at the operations budget for the MHRC administered ones. In the private nonprofit ones, actually the repair and maintenance budget has gone up 5.4 percent from '98-99 to '99-2000. If the number has other figures than that, I would like to share them, but our figures show that the monies have gone up in that area. I am not too sure what she is referring to in regard to cuts to certain ones, I am not too sure. But our indications are that we are spending more money than last.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, we are going to obviously be spending more money now because your portfolio has doubled. So if the minister also then could clarify: is he looking at a document that I should have that is in an annual report or is this something else that the department has and if maybe they could share that with me? I am also still waiting for the other maintenance budget information that I had asked for the other day.

Mr. Reimer: What I was referring to does not include the federal portfolio. This is the portfolio that is under the provincial government. What I am saying is our allocation of funding in our expenditures have gone up by 5.4 percent over last year in our private nonprofit operated units.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, granted then, the minister is saying that in this budget year there is an increase in the maintenance budget for the nonprofit corporations that are now and have always been under the management of Manitoba Housing. The ones that I have meant have been previously with CMHC, and they are the ones that have been levied the maintenance budget reductions by CMHC.

Now, Manitoba Housing has inherited all of these housing corporations and they are dealing with the corporations that have been struggling under these reductions. Are you telling me that their maintenance budgets now are going to be getting an increase because you put more into the maintenance budget for your portfolio that you have been managing? Is the CMHC port-folio going to be affected by this?

I mean if the money you have been getting for those are capped at the '95-96 levels, I do not understand how that could happen, but we know, based on previous discussions we have had, that Manitoba has lost at least $5 million from CMHC over the last number of years so there have been reductions to nonprofit housing corporations that the minister is now responsible for.

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that it is a flat-line budget; there has been no decrease in what was allocated in regard to the CMHC portfolio. Unless there are specifics that I should be made aware of, our indications are that the amount of monies that were allocated through the CMHC to their projects has remained the same and it has not been cut as indicated by the member.

Ms. Cerilli: I am going to have to ask the minister to repeat the last part of his answer.

Mr. Reimer: What I was saying was that our indications are that there has not been any reduction in funding that has been flown through from the CMHC to the portfolio that we have inherited from the federal government. So unless the member has specifics, our indications are that it is the same amount of money.

Ms. Cerilli: Is it not true though that there has been–I remember one budget year, and I have some of the specifics somewhere in my stuff here, that shows one year there was a $270-million reduction in the budget for CMHC and that was going to be spaced over a couple of years. We had the discussions in Estimates previously that that was going to affect Manitoba at $5 million a year over that. I think it was a three- or five-year period that those cuts were going to cover. If the cuts did not come to housing corporations based on their maintenance budget, how are those cuts spread out by CMHC? Again, this is a portfolio that you are now managing, so it makes sense that we would be able to get this information.

* (1530)

Mr. Reimer: In talking to the department, we were discussing the fact that there was mentioned a couple of years ago where the federal government had mentioned that they were cutting their global amount of funding that amounted to, as I think I alluded to, it was over $200 million. As to how it filtered down into Manitoba, as to how that affected Manitoba, there does not seem to be any direct correlation or direct area that can be pointed to to say that this was money that we did not receive, which would have amounted to, I think the rough estimate was somewhere around $5 million. As to where it may have affected our department, there does not seem to be any type of specific area that can be pointed to and say that this is the result of that specific reduction in funding.

Ms. Cerilli: This does not make sense because, for example, the maintenance budget for the province, I think the minister has referenced before, this year is about $11 million. The $5 million per year then is almost half of that budget. I would realize you would not take it all out of the maintenance budget. So you have spread it throughout the department somehow.

My questions right now are how this has affected some of the nonprofit corporations like Veterans Manor that were told: you are not going to be allowed anymore to pay for this security system that you have, because that is not specified in your lease. We are going to follow the lease to the letter and that is not in there so you are not going to be allowed to spend that money on that anymore.

So what if your seniors are living off Higgins and Main and they feel that that security system is helping them remain tenants in this building? That was the message that was given to that specific housing corporation. Now, I guess that is one small example of how that $5 million has been spread out through the department. If the minister cannot clarify for me more than saying there has not been an effect of $5 million, which amounts to almost half of your maintenance budget, then there is something wrong here.

I am asking this based on the meetings I have had with a number of different nonprofit corporations, and phone calls. What they are saying to me is that they are afraid that they are being controlled by the budget process, that it says in the devolution agreement that the operating agreements with existing third-party corporations have to be followed but Manitoba Housing still holds the hammer in terms of that they are the ones that are going to sign off and approve their budgets or not. They feel like they are being nickel-and-dimed, as one corporation put it, or that they are being controlled through the budget approval process.

Mr. Reimer: I think one of the things that comes about sometimes when there is a different type of approach or different type of change or a difference in direction is that there is always this bit of apprehension or this so-called resistance to change, that something new is going to be a detriment to the status quo.

This is one of the reasons why when we were in negotiations, I should say, with the federal government on the devolution that it became quite evident that what we were looking at maintaining was the status quo, was looking after the private nonprofits, all the other direct and sponsored, managed units in working for a status quo.

We did not change their relationship, because we felt it was important not to create any anxiety among the groups. I think what happened or what may have happened is that there was this apprehension and the assumption that Manitoba Housing was going to come in with a totally different type of approach or a more dictatorial type of attitude or a more direct hands-on type of management for these private nonprofits or whatever group it was and that there was going to be a change.

We have not changed our procedures or our directions or our programming in regard to the handling of these units. The reporting mechanism has remained the same. I think the perceived difference is and the only difference is the fact that the reporting mechanism now goes to the provincial government instead of to the federal government. For some reason people seem to think that is going to be an infringement on their decision making or their ability of independent thinking and making decisions.

But it was not our intention when we took over the federal portfolio that we were looking at changes. We tried to reassure them. I know I met with MASHM. I talked to their executive to assure them that we are not looking at trying to disturb their relationships. It is a reporting mechanism that instead of going to the federal government now, it just goes to us. We do not look to change these types of relationships. The reporting mechanism is the biggest change and, like I say, it now goes to the provincial government instead of the federal government.

Ms. Cerilli: The minister is not answering the specifics of my questions. He is making general statements that they have not changed their system, but the nonprofit corporations, he is right, are seeing that there could be a difference between dealing with the federal government and the provincial government. Nonprofit housing corporations are seeing the difference. They, as given by the examples I have just mentioned here today, are seeing that the budget approval system, which some people dealing with CMHC would find it just routine, and now they feel that they are either in some cases, as I mentioned the other day, they were not given any information about who they are supposed to be dealing with, and, on another hand, their budget is scrutinized to the point where they are handing over the keys to the government. Rather than developing sort of a working relationship and trying to keep the volunteer nonprofit group involved, that was jeopardized.

So my point, though, is to try to find out exactly how much nonprofit housing corporations have been affected, whether they were managed by CMHC or not, and I hope that that is going to be part of the information I am going to get in terms of the maintenance schedules that I had asked for the other day, because I had in the past received information about which corporations or housing develop-ments were going to be scheduled on the public housing side, but I am also interested in seeing how that budget process works for allocating monies to nonprofit corporations as well. So the minister can comment on that if he wants; then I am going to move on.

Mr. Reimer: No, it is okay. You can move on.

Ms. Cerilli: One of the other concerns that has been brought to my attention is that there are some family units that were operated by CMHC that are now under your portfolio. They had an RGI of 25 percent, not 27 percent as the RGI is for the Manitoba-operated family units. How are you going to deal with that?

Mr. Reimer: That would stay the same. We are not planning on making any changes in that.

Ms. Cerilli: So there is now going to be a difference in the portfolio that are family units. How do you anticipate that is going to affect the portfolio as a whole?

Mr. Reimer: I do not believe that that is going to effect any changes at all because the 25 percent was for the rural and native housing. That was there prior. We have taken that under provincial responsibility now, and we will not be changing that formula setup at all.

Ms. Cerilli: I am certainly not advocating that there be a rent increase, but I am, again, just bringing these concerns forward that have been raised with me by some of the nonprofit corporations. They will be happy to hear what you have just said. They will be happy to know that they are not going to get a rent increase.

* (1540)

Mr. Reimer: I should point out that since I became Minister of Housing, we have not had any rent increase in our percentage regarding the formula rent, even though the federal Liberal government has advocated that they go to a 30 percent RGI threshold. But we in Manitoba have maintained our present threshold of 27 percent for family and 25 percent for bachelor and for rural and native housing. So even though the federal Liberal government has advocated a change, we here in Manitoba have not changed that way.

Ms. Cerilli: I know we have had this discussion before, but I will just mention it now, because I know I have had letters and I have copied them to the minister, where I have had the federal minister–at the time, I think it was Mr. Dingwall–say that they did not have any policy change on their portfolio, and we know that that is true. Theirs stayed at 25 percent and Manitoba's was increased to 27 percent. Granted, that was before this minister became responsible for Housing in Manitoba, but it must have made for some pretty interesting negotiations or discussions with the federal government when you are sitting down with them and here they are trying to get you to raise your rents and they are keeping their rents at the same level and they are trying to negotiate an agreement with you.

How do you deal with that? How did you respond? Because you just confirmed there is a differential rate on family units that is now in your portfolio. So the federal government came to you and said: increase your rent and we would like it to go up even as high as 30 percent, but we are keeping ours at 25 percent.

Mr. Reimer: The member is right. It had interesting conversations. I was not part of them, but I know that staff were down in Ottawa doing that type of conversations. So the member is right.

Ms. Cerilli: Then to top it off, the government in Manitoba takes the whole portfolio anyway and lets the federal government off the hook and allows them to cap their rate of funding, allows them to eventually completely get out of funding social housing into the province. I just think that the government has let down low-income people and that we are starting to see in other provinces the housing and homelessness.

It is amazing how quickly the effects of the cuts, the effects of the elimination of any new construction has had an effect. I mean, it has been combined with reductions in social allowance rates. It is combined with a number of other policies, particularly in Ontario, where they have also changed their rent control legislation. We are seeing day after day the problems they are having with homeless people, the problems that they are having dealing now with a crisis situation, providing emergency shelter.

I am wondering if the minister would agree that there has to be again a federal role in housing, that there has to be a federal commit-ment of new dollars for new programs to address the crisis and the situation that has been created. What has his department's approach with the federal government been since the signing of this agreement?

Mr. Reimer: When the federal government set on its path of getting out of public housing, which it initiated back in the early '90s, with not only their pulling out of the participation of building new public housing, which then went later on to a capping of the dollars to public housing, which later led to the devolution, the one thing that was very evident right from the very beginning was that the federal government was going to do what it wanted to do whether you liked it or not. It was more or less put to the provincial governments that we are getting out of public housing, you have the opportunity to negotiate with us to the best of your abilities for what you feel is adequate for your requirements in regard to taking over our portfolio, but we are getting out of it. So you are left with the position of trying to make the best deal, just like Monty Hall, in trying to come up with what is good for Manitoba.

This is one of the reasons why the program and the devolution process took a fair amount of time and effort on the department to not only negotiate for the best deal for Manitoba but to also be aware of what the stock was, what the conditions were, what the programs were, what the arrangements were, what the financing package was with the federal government had with the various groups and housing sectors so that when an evaluation could be made as to what the true dollars could be associated with it, when we went there we were fairly confident that we could be well represented in the sense of getting what we deserved for Manitoba. The federal government told us that if you do not negotiate with us and if you do not want to become the landlord, we will make arrangements with somebody else, but we are getting out of it.

So I guess the thoughts were or the consensus was, well, let us try to make some lemonade out of these lemons and see how we can get the best deal for Manitobans and come out with something that we can work with, because we can utilize the monies that flow, we can utilize any type of surpluses that are realized, and we can make decisions more on a local basis in regard to a made-in-Manitoba housing policy.

Those are some of the things, the pros and cons that were brought forth for discussion when we were looking at the devolution package.

The member is right. The federal govern-ment has pulled itself out of public housing. Whether they would turn around and come back into it, I think most provincial governments would look favourably upon federal participation back in public housing. We would always welcome some sort of partnership arrangement where they felt that they could be a partner involved with public housing just like there was before where you actually not only had the federal but you had the municipal governments also being partners. It is those types of arrange-ments that I think we would be willing to look at again and to try to promote with our counterparts.

I know there is a ministers' meeting coming up sometime this summer. That will be one of the topics under discussion, the federal government's involvement with housing. One of the hardest things we have ever had to do and the one thing that has not come about in the whole time that I have been Minister of Housing is to have a Housing ministers' meeting with the Minister of Housing for the federal government attending. He or she, well, he, it has been male, but neither one of the Housing ministers ever attended any of the Housing ministers' meetings that the provincial governments sponsored. He was always invited but never attended.

So there is an invitation to him again this summer for the Housing ministers' meeting. Whether he will attend, we do not know. The federal government has been very reluctant to make any type of commitment towards public housing of any sorts. Like I say, we are not the only province I believe that is looking to the federal government to fulfill some of its responsibilities and the social obligations that we feel are necessary.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister's answer raises a number of other questions. We know that there are other provinces that have said, no, thank you, to the federal government, and they are continuing to operate. It is interesting that those are the provinces, particularly B.C. and Quebec, that also have their own funded social housing construction program at this time.

* (1550)

I am wondering if the minister has had any discussions with those two governments or his department has had any discussion with B.C. or Quebec about how they are now operating with CMHC. I assume then that their budgets are also now capped at the same year even though CMHC would still be managing that portfolio. You can clarify that. But what are the advantages? I mean, we had a discussion the other day about the fact that the only way you are going to plan on saving money is by not hiring as many of the CMHC staff that were involved in managing their portfolio. You really did not have a lot of other specific explanations about how you are going to find efficiencies or savings.

So, again, I go back to the statement I made earlier that you simply let the federal government off the hook. By the year 2030 in Manitoba, they are going to have completely walked away. I want to also ask the minister about any other specific discussions he has had with particularly the new minister that has been assigned for homelessness in Canada. What is that new minister going to offer us? How does that fit in with the kinds of discussions you have been having with the federal government?

Mr. Reimer: In doing an analysis or a comparison between the provinces that the member mentioned, each one of the provinces has its own uniqueness in its component and in its relationship with the federal government in regard to public housing. There is a bit of a similarity.

I guess our closest similarity in comparison really is with Saskatchewan in our numbers and our mix of housing, because other provinces have a different type of mix, particularly in British Columbia. What has happened there is because of the land prices and the appreciation of a lot of the properties in the downtown area, what the provincial government is able to do there is they have been able to sell off some of their public housing, and with that money realize some significant appreciation of capital dollars that they can reinvest into additional housing, so the housing in British Columbia enjoy a market that gives them the ability to take advantage of a fair amount of appreciation.

In British Columbia, too, they have a very, very long waiting list. In fact, I have been told that their vacancy rate is very, very low, and they have over 40,000 people who are on a waiting list to get into public housing in British Columbia. So British Columbia is in a bit of a different scenario than Manitoba in regard to numbers and quality and quantity of houses, plus the fact of the amount of people who are wanting to get into public housing.

Quebec, we are not really sure what type of arrangement Quebec has with the federal government in regard to its housing. I can recall talking to the Quebec Housing minister at one of our Housing ministers' meetings. Their arrange-ment for public housing down there is–I do not even know how to explain it. I would have to really delve into that to give a correct answer on that. As to the minister of homelessness that has been appointed by the federal government, she has been invited to the ministers' meeting. I do not know whether she has replied to it–to come to the Housing ministers' meeting–but I should say that I have had no correspondence from her. There has been no contact on the federal, unless it has been to the department, but we have not had any type of overtures or contacts or inquiries from the new minister of homelessness. So the only contact that we are aware of is that there has been an invitation sent to her to attend the Housing ministers' meeting which is sometime this summer, and homelessness is on the agenda.

Ms. Cerilli: So the minister's own department has not had any direct correspondence to find out what kind of programs they are going to offer. What does it mean to be the minister of homelessness in Canada? What is she going to do? Have you not made that kind of inquiry to the federal government?

Mr. Reimer: I guess there has been contact made on the senior administration level as a runup to the meeting that is scheduled for this summer where the minister of homelessness has been invited. It would appear on the senior administrative level of the various governments that there has been either correspondence or conversations as to try to bring forth some sort of presentation package or presentation to the minister of homelessness at that meeting. That is one of the reasons why she has been invited and why it is part of the agenda for that ministers' meeting.

Ms. Cerilli: That leads me to the question then: what would the Minister of Housing in Manitoba say? What kind of presentation or requests would you be making to that new minister?–especially given your comments about B.C. You made some references there that suggest that, well, you did not sort of carry it through, but you were implying that because of these differences in the market between Manitoba and B.C., you were implying something. I do not know what you were implying. So that is what I am asking you is: what kind of message would you be taking to our new federal minister of homelessness?

Mr. Reimer: I think that one of the things, from what I am told on the senior level, is that the various levels of provinces across Canada are interested as to what this–we are also interested in–function or the parameters or the decision making that this person has in regard to addressing homelessness and whether it does have a possible allocation of funds or some sort of new direction to address the homelessness in Canada. I guess one of the reasons for the ministers' meeting is to try to get some sort of cohesiveness and everybody around the table at the same time so that there is this exchange of objectives that we expect from her and that would initiate some sort of movements on our part as to what we can address for considerations in trying to get some sort of movement towards homelessness that has been addressed as a problem by the federal government. I guess we would look to her to present her position, and then it is a response on our part as to how we can take advantage of that program.

* (1600)

Ms. Cerilli: Would you not be a little bit more proactive in the sense of saying to the federal government, okay, you have a new minister for homelessness. Here is the situation in Manitoba, and that is why I referenced. I understand it is different from B.C., but here is the situation in Manitoba. Here are some recommendations of how you can help, the kinds of programs that we think would meet the needs in Manitoba, the kinds of funding initiatives, that kind of thing. Have you not had the initiative to do that?

Mr. Reimer: The department is doing some background and some research as to what should be discussed in regard to homelessness, and areas that would be considered would be areas in around the rural and native housing of home-lessness in that particular area and also in Winnipeg. So there is some background. I know that there has been, as mentioned, work with CMHC in getting some of their materials together, and the department is working on briefings of that nature for presentation at this ministers' conference. So there is some research being carried out by the department on that right now, yes.

Ms. Cerilli: I would like a little bit more detail on that. The minister has made reference to the situation in rural and northern Manitoba in respect to native people, I think you just said, and in terms of in Winnipeg. Can you be a bit more specific than that?

Mr. Reimer: I have been advised that the agenda is still being worked on. In fact, senior staff will be going down to Ottawa this weekend, I believe it is, or this week sometime to finalize an agenda on it. So these are in the planning stages. The information is looked at in a broad sense to be part of an agenda. It is on the agenda, but as to the specifics as to what is going to be part of it, I guess the staff is still working on that. When I say staff, I mean not only staff within here in Manitoba but staff right across Canada for the senior levels. When there is a ministers' meeting called, the senior staff get together and look at the various components of the agenda, and then that is what is finally brought forth for the meeting for the ministers for discussion. But the one item, like I mentioned, that is on the agenda is home-lessness. As to what components it is, that is still being worked on with all the provinces.

Ms. Cerilli: And this meeting is this summer, at some point.

Mr. Reimer: No, it is okay.

Ms. Cerilli: I asked when the meeting was.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, it is this summer, in July.

Ms. Cerilli: Could I ask just for a short break so I could talk to my colleague here just for a second? Excuse us just for a minute.

Thanks for letting us take that quick break. Where were we? We were talking about the new federal minister for homelessness. I was trying to get a little bit more information about the way the minister would portray the needs of Manitoba with respect to housing and home-lessness to this new minister. I can appreciate what he said, that the department is still sort of working on the specifics of their presentation, but I guess I just want to ask the minister generally the kind of message that he would take to the federal minister about the situation in Manitoba. What are our needs in Manitoba?

* (1610)

Mr. Reimer: I guess, as looking at housing as a Housing minister here in Manitoba, I can only relate to the fact that here in Manitoba we do have a fair amount of vacancies. We have vacancies throughout most of Manitoba for housing units. This housing is available for people of need, and we certainly do not have a waiting list like some areas, like some of the large metropolitan areas like Toronto or Vancouver, where there is no place for people of need to go to in a sense to try to find accommodations. Here in Winnipeg or here in Manitoba, even throughout all of Manitoba, in a lot of the small towns and small cities we do have public housing. Public housing is prevalent in the towns and in the villages and in the city here in Winnipeg, and there is generally a fair amount of vacant units available.

So, as Housing minister, I would say that we have units available. We have the ability to process claims in a very expedient manner. We have ability to assign people to try to help people fill out forms or to make sure that they have the access available, not only through our central offices or some of our site offices where we have people available to fill out forms. So, I would think that, if there is a need for someone who needs accommodations that we still have the ability within our Manitoba Housing portfolio to accommodate a fair amount of people still that need a place to stay here in Manitoba.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. I wonder if the minister would not agree–and I appreciate what he said about the vacancy rates, and the fact that someone coming and looking into the situation in Manitoba would see that there are vacancies not only in the public housing sector but also in the private market that are high compared to some of our other cities in Canada. So would the minister not agree that the problem in Manitoba then is more the quality of the housing and the affordability of those units vis-a-vis peoples' low income, vis-a-vis the people that are either on social allowance or that are working for minimum wage or so? Would he not agree then that would paint the picture of the housing need in Manitoba? It is more the fact that the quality of the housing, particularly on the private market, that is in the range of people who are lower income. Is the issue and the fact that because of the declining value of properties, the maintenance of a lot of the properties is an issue, that the quality of the stock of housing is declining and that is part of the picture in Manitoba?

Mr. Reimer: I think that if people are on social assistance or in a low paying or a low income situation, we still will accommodate them in public housing. We certainly do not discriminate against a person's economic position that we would not let them get into public housing. I think that we would always look at them in a manner for occupancy in one of our units. As to the conditions, I guess we always try to be very, very diligent in our maintenance and our upkeep of our buildings, and I would think that the conditions certainly should not be a detriment to moving into public housing.

Ms. Cerilli: The minister is not answering my question, and maybe he is not realizing my point. What I am trying to do is get the minister to explain to me his view of the situation in housing for low income people dealing with homelessness, as he would present it to the minister, federally, for homelessness. We are talking now about both private market housing where a lot of Manitobans who are living on those low incomes or welfare rates are living. They are living in rooming houses, they are living in properties that are not in very good repair in a lot of cases, and that is what I am asking you. Is that the kind of message you would take to this new federal minister to say, look it, the situation in Manitoba is not like it is in B.C. or Toronto? It is different here.

That is what I am wanting to get from you, is to describe how you see it. So what are the needs? What kinds of ways then would the federal minister for homelessness be able to make sure that there are programs that are going to meet the needs in Manitoba, that they do not design a program dealing with homelessness that is only going to meet the needs of Vancouver or Toronto, that we want something that is going to be available that is going to meet the needs of Winnipeggers, the people in Brandon or Flin Flon or Churchill where I understand there is a real shortage of housing as well.

Mr. Reimer: What the member is referring to, I think, is a fair amount of input or situations that are not necessarily under the jurisdiction of Housing because of the overlap with Family Services and social services and some of the problems that are associated with that, and it is hard for me to speculate too far in that particular area because they do not really cover my portfolio. My portfolio covers public housing and the supply of public housing to people that are in need and to make sure that the public housing is of a standard and a quality that is of acceptance by the people. A lot of the social aspects and the other aspects regarding homelessness are not necessarily tied to the affordability of housing. There are the other factors that are tied in to the social aspects and the social services that are possibly needed to address some of the problems that are in the homeless situation.

Our department is not equipped, not directed to that type of analysis in regard to the problems of homelessness. Our department is geared towards trying to supply the housing at a need-analysis basis for people who need public housing. But, as to the homelessness factor, I believe that there are a lot of other social factors that are involved with that that I do not feel our department is qualified to answer along those lines.

Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify then, I am talking to the minister who is going to go to this meeting. Am I not talking to the minister that is going to go to the meeting of federal ministers of Housing where homelessness is on the agenda? The minister can talk about how there are other social issues related to homelessness. Yes, that is true, but if you are the minister who is going to go, you are the minister who is going to have to have a pretty good sense of what the needs are.

* (1620)

Maybe there is a requirement for other departments to have input down the road, but it sounds to me like you are the minister who is going to have to come up with the plan through this meeting of other Housing ministers. So to suggest that you are the minister just for public housing and that is your mandate is not so. Your mandate also includes references right in the Estimates booklet about market housing. I do not think all that is going to be discussed is homelessness vis-a-vis sort of social housing and public housing.

So I do not know how to approach this any more with the minister in terms of asking him to put his own view of the situation in Manitoba forward in terms of what the needs are, and how can Manitoba take advantage of the opportunity now being presented by the federal government. Maybe they assigned this new minister purely for political reasons, and maybe they just saw that, yes, homelessness was becoming an issue. One of our federal M.P.s has done a cross-Canada campaign and has done a lot of work to try to raise the issue. Lo and behold, the federal government has now appointed this new minister. So I would think that Manitoba would want to be part of putting forward the needs that are across the country.

I am raising this because it is important, because Manitoba and the situation in Winnipeg and across the province is unique. It is different here. The fact that the property values in the core of Winnipeg have gone down so dramatically is a significant issue. The fact that the housing stock that your department manages has historically had a high rate of vacancies is significant. So how are you going to portray then the fact that there are still needs here, that there still is a problem here? The fact is that, you know, the situation is different here. So that is why this question is important, and why I have not just dropped the matter. I think this is serious.

The federal government has opened an opportunity here for the provinces, I think, to be saying: Good, get the federal government back into this issue. Get the federal government back into providing some leadership and some dollars and some programs to deal with the fact that there are people across the country either living on the street or forced to live in housing situations that are dangerous to their health and their well-being.

So I am going to ask you one more time: what is the picture in Manitoba that you are going to present?

Mr. Reimer: I think one of the things that is going to come out of the meeting is inviting the minister of homelessness to this meeting to find out exactly what the federal government's criteria is and what its plans are and what its agenda is in addressing the situations that have been outlined in regard to homelessness.

We would look towards the federal government to define its role and its objectives and its criteria. From that, I think that we would be able to chart a course or chart some sort of direction or decision making as to the response that we feel is appropriate for Manitoba. It is more or less going down there to know the house rules and then coming up with a program that we can adapt for the best made-in-Manitoba type of solution. To go down there without the know-ledge of exactly what the criteria is or what the federal government is possibly proposing is really the horse before the cart in a sense of trying to anticipate what the federal government may or may not be coming forth with.

So I think that there would be a more constructive approach to trying to come up with a program for addressing Manitoba's problem in regard to homelessness to know exactly what the federal government is proposing as to what they feel is a necessity and what they feel their direction should be. Maybe, as the member mentioned, maybe the federal government just appointed this person as window dressing and there is no meat there at all, and it may just be a fact-finding minister that has no clout. Nothing may even come out of it, but we will not know that until there is a meeting and a direction or intent comes out of that and then we can respond to it. So I think that that is the best way to approach any type of programming that Manitoba wants to put forth to try to take advantage of any type of perceived or anticipated programs that may come out of the federal government.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I think the minister and I are disagreeing on this, and it may seem like we are having a chicken or the egg kind of argument, what comes first. If you want to have a strong case presented, what do you do? Do you wait to see what the government federally is going to say, or do you go forward to them and say look it, here are what the needs are in Manitoba. Develop your criteria and your programs based on what we have to say that is going to deal with the situation in Manitoba. But your wait-and-see sort of take a position after the federal government has already come up with its program, I think that it is going then to be tailored not necessarily with Manitoba in mind.

So I am concerned about the approach that you are taking to this. I would think that we would want to go forward not as the minister is suggesting with the cart before the horse, but I think the minister is going to be closing the barn door when the horse is gone and that the minister is going to be trying to then fit into a federal program on homelessness that is not going to meet the situation in Manitoba. I am wondering if the minister is just not wanting to divulge his view of the situation in housing in Manitoba in Estimates now or if this is some other kind of strategy that he just does not want to have to come forward with what his view is. I mean, I am asking you for your own view here.

Mr. Reimer: I just did a double-check with the department again and they inform me, other than the announcement, nothing has come down in regard to criteria or direction in regard to this new ministry, and, in fact, I think it was mentioned that we do not even have a telephone number for this new department that the federal government is proposing. We look with anticipation to some of the things that might or might not transpire from meeting Madam Minister.

Ms. Cerilli: I am going to ask the minister if he will consider a proposal that is being made as we speak. Basically, this is a proposal that is being put forward by one of the M.P.s federally, and it is going across the country, and basically they are asking for support. I just got it myself in the mail today, and I am pretty sure I brought it up with me.

I cannot find the sheet of paper. I will just have to go by memory. The proposal is being put forth by the M.P. for Vancouver East, Libby Davies, and she has conducted across Canada a consultation and has done a report calling an unnatural disaster, declaring homelessness a disaster across Canada. What she is calling for is for public support of a motion that would ask the federal government in the next budget to add an additional 1 percent of the overall federal budgetary expenditures into housing.

I am wondering if this is something that the minister is aware of yet. Again, it is a fairly new initiative. The motion is going to be debated this month in federal parliament, and if it does pass, then it would go forward to the government. The position would obviously require a large portion, I think–I am not even sure. I do not have the information in front of me, as I said, and I do not think it actually indicates then what 1 percent of the federal budget would mean. But I am going to follow this up myself, and I am wondering if the minister would agree to follow this up as well and consider supporting such a motion, if the Manitoba government would support the federal government allocating an additional 1 percent into housing for Canadians?

Mr. Reimer: I have not seen that proposal that the member is mentioning. Maybe it got put into the department. I will have the department look in their mailboxes and try to see what it is encompassing in regard to any type of proposal, but we would follow that with great interest.

* (1630)

Ms. Cerilli: This notice does have the Liberal homelessness minister as Claudette Bradshaw. We can solicit her support for motion M-604 by her e-mail. Her fax number is on here. I would be quite happy to get a copy of this to the minister, and I am interested in his getting back to me then on his consideration of support for this motion. I think it would be a good thing as well if this were discussed at your ministers' meeting, if this is the kind of thing that the federal minister should hear is that provincial ministers are saying: you know, federal govern-ment, you have to start investing again into programs to house low-income people.

So I will make a copy of this for the minister. I am assuming the minister will wait for that, and he can, I guess, consult with his staff and figure if there would be consideration of Manitoba to endorse such a proposal.

There are a couple of specific issues that I want to get into from the devolution agreement while we are still talking about federal-provincial issues. Now, actually I have made a copy and I have circled the number on here, page 5. This is a document the minister gave to me quite a while ago, the social housing agreement. I will just pass that to the minister so he can look at it. Basically my question is to get an explanation of what this means, No. 6, Authorities and Responsibilities, (b)(2).

Mr. Reimer: What that is referring to is that when they are talking about targeted households, we are talking about households that are under the RGI designation and that they would be the ones that would receive any type of benefits that were realized and that the funding could only go to those and we could not change those, could not change or redirect funding that is under the existing, you know, to the targeted households in that designation.

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to have that explained to me again. I was not following you.

Mr. Reimer: What it means is that when you are talking about targeted households, targeted households are households that have been identified that get the RGI, that are on the RGI formula. Any monies that are realized from that cannot be retargeted or redirected to programs that are not under the RGI formula. So we cannot just put that money anywhere else. It has to stay within that program.

Ms. Cerilli: I understand. I appreciate that clarification. Similarly, you gave me back the copy, but I was going to give you another one on here. It is under Principals, Nontargeted Amounts, (e)(2). So that would be on the previous page to that. It would be page 4, the last item.

Mr. Reimer: I think in reading any type of legalese, you know, sometimes it is the wording itself that becomes quite compounding and disjointed, but that is why we have so many lawyers on staff.

But I am told that this particular paragraph, what it means is more or less what I mentioned right from the beginning, that any monies that are realized by any type of removal, sale or disposal, destruction and any funding that has been tied into that through CMHC funding, that funding has to be reallocated back into housing of either an RGI nature or under targeted programming. It cannot just be pulled out and not utilized back into the housing sector.

So I think it goes through here and it says that there may be different ways, but it all refers back to the idea of housing funding stays within housing. Any realization of surpluses stays within housing or is targeted for housing.

* (1640)

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I think one of the things we need to do then, and I do not think this is even in here, and that is deal with a definition for targeted, because that seems to be one of the things that is confusing. Some people might think that targeted means families or seniors or something like that, but what you are telling me is targeted means RGI units.

For example, we know–and this is an issue I am going to be dealing with soon because I have raised it with you before, is if you have a family that is paying of $700 a month for an RGI unit, you are taking all that money in, but that money has to go back into the property. You cannot sort of take money out.

Can you take money out and sort of put it into a fund in the department that would still be designated for housing, or is this agreement saying it is even more specific than that, that it has to go back into sort of those RGI-targeted units?

Mr. Reimer: No, we cannot bank it or hold it. It has to be redirected back into the RGI or housing projects, yes.

Ms. Cerilli: Similarly, then, with respect to the other one, where if you sell a property, the revenues also have to go back into the existing portfolio. You cannot take money from the sale of one of the properties and put it into a fund that would even go to other new programs?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, you can, but as long as that funding is redirected towards a targeted nonprofit funding program. Possibly a new program, yes, but it has to be a targeted program. I should maybe refer back to page 2, the member may have there. There is a definition of what they mean by "targeted household," and I will maybe just read it into the record: a targeted household means a household which at the time of its entry into housing in the portfolio qualified or qualifies within the housing income limits referred to in paragraph 5(c) or at the time of its entry into housing in the portfolio before the effective date met income requirements for housing assistance then enforces established by CMHC and MHRC.

So when we are talking about targeted households, that is more or less what we are talking about.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. That gets me into the other issue that I wanted to get into which is the housing income limits, and this is what I was referencing the other day as well. There is another part of the agreement. It is one of the schedules that now requires that you have to make sure there are housing income limits, so I want to find out what are the housing income limits for the RGI units, for bachelor, one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom?

Mr. Reimer: The member was referring to the income limits, this is for 1998; 1999 has not been set yet. But 1998, for example, here in Winnipeg, the one bedroom is $18,500; the two bedroom is $23,500; the three bedroom is $29,000; and the four bedroom is $32,500. It varies in different districts.

In the Thompson area it is a little bit lower right across the board on each one of the components. In Thompson it is $18,000, $20,000, $27,000 and $30,000. In the Selkirk area it is $18,000, $22,500, $25,500 and $29,000. In the towns of Beausejour, Dauphin, Steinbach and Swan River, it is $17,500, $21,500, $25,500 and $29,000. Other rural areas, it is $17,000, $19,500, $22,500, $25,500. In the Brandon area, it is $17,000, $23,000, $26,500 and $29,000. So you can see that it varies from place to place.

Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate the minister reading that into the record. I can get the information from there. I stopped trying to write it all down. I will just work from the one that I did keep track of, which is Winnipeg, to start off with.

There are a number of questions I want to ask about this. It is a pretty serious issue because, as we know, we have got families that live in Manitoba Housing specifically because their income fluctuates. This provides a lot of labour requirements to the department to have to continually recalculate people's rent. It also means that there is the other job of trying to calculate the base rent, which goes on their lease.

I want to first of all ask the minister to explain–I will use the three-bedroom in Winnipeg example–$29,000 is the housing income limit. I am assuming if someone applies to Manitoba Housing and, at the time they apply, their limit is exceeded, that they will just be told: I am sorry, you do not qualify, you are going to have to look in the market.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, that is true.

* (1650)

Ms. Cerilli: The problem we get into then is when people enter into public housing and their income is lower than the income limit but, while they are living there, their employment improves and their income goes up. That is the kind of situation that creates a difficulty then for the tenants in feeling like they are continually earning more money but 27 percent of it is going to Manitoba Housing and that total amount is continuing to rise. They feel like they cannot keep up. They feel like they cannot save enough to get out and they cannot continue to pay the increased amount because they just see it as raising money for Manitoba Housing, and quite legitimately. If our mortgage on our home continually went up, I think we would find that difficult.

I want to ask the minister if the department sees this as an issue. Do you see this as a problem in terms of people entering Manitoba Housing, particularly if they are on really low income? The family that I have been dealing with most recently entered at $14,000. Their income went up, good for them, to $26,000, and now it is at $39,000, which is $10,000 more than the housing income limit. Do you see this as an issue?

Mr. Reimer: I think we have to look back to the original concept of providing public housing. Public housing was initiated as a need to help people move up through their progression of not only life but also their work cycle and their income cycles and their improvement in their lot in life.

As was mentioned, there are a lot of people who come in way under the threshold. Then if they do improve their job prospects or their income level, they are tied in to a formula, but we do find that a lot of people, as they progress up the income level, they come to a point where they find that possibly they can get a better deal in the private market or into moving onto possibly even buying their own type of home.

With the attractiveness of some of the very, very low down payments now, sometimes it is more beneficial for the person to look at getting into their own home. I understand now that you can get into a home for less than 2.5 percent down payment when you take into account your 5 percent, and 2.5 percent I believe can be used as sweat equity, I believe, in some of these purchases.

So the purchase of homes is an option, but with the formula rent, as the person's income does rise and they do become, as the member mentioned, higher than the threshold, they will be paying more rent. There is no doubt about it, because it is on a formula.

Ms. Cerilli: So I will conclude from the minister's answer that this is not an issue for the department, that the formula is there, if people come in and they earn more money and if, then, in the case of this family, they are more than $10,000. They have four kids, twins that are three. This family spends $200 a month on diapers. They are having difficulty saving money. They have Hydro bills that are incredible. They are having difficulty saving money living in Manitoba Housing so that they can get out.

I read the minister the quote from the downtown little paper–I do not know if he ever gets this. It is called the West End Streets. It calls Manitoba Housing Hotel California. You can check out but you can never leave. I will make the minister a copy of this too. It talks about how families feel trapped, how they can never get out of Manitoba Housing, because they either have–it is interesting the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) is here. I will make her a copy of this too, because it involves social allowance in this particular case.

Maybe I will just read some of this: Manitoba Housing is like Hotel California. You can check out anytime, but you can never leave. That is, unless someone, a knight on white horse, comes along or you get evicted. The latter was my experience. I had been waiting to move away from Manitoba Housing for over a year. I had searched for a supportive community and believed I had found one. With a positive reference from Housing, I was accepted and ready to move. Then welfare stopped me dead in my tracks. You can move, they said, but you have to pay your own moving expenses and your damage deposit. So I stayed. There you have it. Hotel California.

So this is a situation where they felt like it was social allowance that was putting up the roadblocks, but in the case of this other family, which I have written to the minister about, it was actually Manitoba Housing that was continuing to raise the rent on the base of the formula.

So the question I want to ask the minister is, like I said, it sounds like you do not think that this is an issue, but how do you calculate the base rent for their lease? Because that is the problem here. In the case of this family, they are paying over $700 a month for their rent. They have checked around the private market. They can get a similar three-bedroom townhouse now on the private market from between $525 and $560 a month.

So how is it that we have public housing leases that have a rent that is higher than the market? If someone has such a variance in their income that at one point then they are higher than the income limit, how does the department deal with that? I mean, if they are already a tenant there, but their income limit has gone beyond what your threshold is, how do you deal with that? How can you just work that into their lease and have them at some times paying such a high rent that they cannot save to move?

Mr. Reimer: The formula that is used, as we mentioned before, is a set formula. It is 27 percent. Just as we have a lot of people who live under the threshold, who live in these various units under the income thresholds and pay rent, we do have people who make over that threshold limit, who do pay rent that is, as the member mentioned, maybe more than what is in the immediate market.

But people have a choice. They can move to a different location. The member mentioned that these people say that there is a townhouse for I think she said $550. People can move out, but some people stay within our Manitoba Housing complex and pay the rent, and they are quite happy because of friendships or community or an area that they feel that they want to stay in. So they have a choice.

Ms. Cerilli: Maybe the minister is not hearing or is not reading the mail he is getting, but the point is they do not have a choice, and they feel trapped because they are in this ever-escalating higher-rent payment to Manitoba Housing, that because they are making more money, 27 percent is an ever-increasing amount, and they cannot save enough to pay the down payment on a new place, plus make the month's payment to Manitoba Housing, to ever move. Or to move, sometimes it takes them years, especially if they are in a situation where they are seasonally employed.

* (1700)

I can appreciate that some of the tenants are, where they may be in a situation that for part of the year their income is below the income limit, but then for another part of the year, it is way higher than the income limit. In those kinds of situations, the family may decide that they just want to stay in Manitoba Housing, and it sort of equals out over the whole year, but in other situations, they feel like they are locked in. They have signed a lease with you, and what I am trying to understand is the formula you use to calculate the rents that are so high, that are more than what is on the market.

First of all, the first question is do you understand that they do not really have a choice, that they have signed the lease? The lease says that they can pay as much as over $700 a month if their income goes that high. The other question then following from that is what is the formula you use to calculate the rent for that base rent that goes on the lease? The other question is what is the formula for calculating the housing income unit?

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Arthur-Virden, on a point of order? [interjection] No, for clarification.

Mr. James Downey (Arthur-Virden): It is for clarification. I am having a hard time under-standing, too. I guess the question is what stops the individuals who are renting the Manitoba public housing unit from giving notice? What is the time frame they would have to give notice and move into the less costly leased facility that the member is referring to?

When she says they are trapped, it seems to me that if they could give one month or two months or three months or six months notice–what is the time frame that they would have to give notice, so they could–

An Honourable Member: He is out of order.

Mr. Downey: Pardon me. I am just trying to get clarification because I am trying to get a better understanding of the problem that you are speaking to, but that is the question: how much time do they have to give notice, so they could rent this lower cost facility which is a bit different?

Mr. Reimer: In regard to the time frame, we give 90 days notice of any type of rent increase. The tenant then can give us 30 days notice that they want to move. So theoretically if we get their income statements, and we say: your rent is now going to be going up because you have additional income, we give them 90 days notice that within 90 days your rent is going to be adjusted to this X amount more because your income has gone up. They can give us 30 days notice that they are going to move, and they are still paying the old rent, so it is not as if the rent increase becomes immediate. The tenant has an advantage of almost 60 days to get out of that additional rent that they are being asked to pay, so it works to the tenant's favour.

If they realize that when they come to us with their income statements, the calculation is done and it says, okay, we notice that your rent is going up, we are giving you effective the first of the month 90 days notice that in three months it is going up to this amount. That tenant then can say, well, I do not want to pay that rent, I am giving you 30 days notice, and I am moving out. Fair game and it happens.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. Now we are getting some-where. So the minister's position is that the family would have two months to save up the required moving cost, expenses, damage deposit on a new place, that they would have at least two to three months to make that decision and to sign a lease on a new place. I guess we will just have to sit down with some of these families and see how that actually works out in terms of the amount that they actually have to have.

I mean, again, I am raising this because I have had numerous families approach me and say this is a problem for them, that they are not making it up. Maybe the situation is occurring when the families are to a point, especially if they have a number of children, when they realize that if they can make the savings for a down payment on a home and that sort of changes everything, then that is the situation when, even though they only have to give you 30 days notice, it is going to take probably more than three months for them to actually save up to make a down payment on a home.

In the meantime, they go through this cycle of having their rent go up in three months and then again in another couple of months, and again over a period of time. So if I might just finish, how does the minister approach that, because we do have a lot of families with a number of children that are facing this situation?

Mr. Reimer: I should further clarify to the member that the rent does not go up all the time. It goes up only once during a 12-month period. However, if that person unexpectedly gets laid off or is terminated, they make immediate application to us and the rent goes down immediately. We take the rent down as fast as possible when a person comes into difficulties, but we give them 90 days notice when it goes up. It only goes up once during a lease period which is signed on a 12-month process.

I mean, we try to accommodate that tenant as much as we can. They come into a situation, laid off or seasonal or something like that, they come down to our office and say I got laid off Monday, boom, we adjust it.

Ms. Cerilli: I understand that in terms of what the minister said of how the rent goes down automatically. But I have sat down with tenants and I have seen their leases and I have seen the statements they get for the rent. I want to clarify that what you are telling me then is if the base rent–and I have seen some of them as high as $900 a month. That is on their lease. That is the maximum that they could spend on rent on their lease. Are you telling me that if in a 12-month period, during that time of the lease, their income continues to go up, that they will only have one rent increase?

Mr. Reimer: That is right. When the lease comes up for renewal and they come to us with their income statements–and we take the numbers from Revenue Canada, that they report–and their income went up, their rent will go up then for the next 12-month period.

Ms. Cerilli: Then, perhaps, some of the people that–[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister, to complete his answer.

Mr. Reimer: I am sorry. And there again, I am saying they have 90 days notice that the rent is going to go up again.

Ms. Cerilli: I know there is an appeal mechanism now, and they can go and see the property managers and staff, and they can have a recalculation done, and I often recommend that people do that, but I am certain, as I have sat down with some of these tenants and looked at all their documents, that there have been times when their rent has gone up more than once in one lease agreement. So maybe it is just a case of an error being made in their situation, I am not sure. But it is good to have this policy clarified, and I will make sure the good folks who have contacted me are aware of that. I am surprised that they could not get that information just from your department.

We will see if that satisfies this family, if we sit down and look at what their budget is, if they are in a situation where maybe there are some other expenses or something that are not accounted for, that we are not considering. It just seems to me when you now have a family with four kids, their income is now that much more, $l0,000 more than what you would allow them to have when they moved in, and they are still paying 27 percent of that, you can see how they would feel like they are subsidizing Manitoba Housing. It is not subsidizing them. You are nodding. So I am feeling like we are making some progress here in the sense that we are maybe just understanding the situation more clearly that people are faced with.

* (1710)

I want to ask you then, though, because one of the criteria under the devolution agreement talks about how, and I am on page 4, Housing Income Limits (c)(1): housing income limits reflect the minimum income for households to afford appropriate accommodation without spending more than 30 percent of its income for shelter.

So I guess that is part of the consideration in developing your formula for the housing income limit, but that is the other point I have made a number of times, is that a number of these tenants who are living in public housing are paying way more than 30 percent. I mean, if you are calculating it based on 27 percent of their gross, not their net, then you are automatically–this does not even include hydro or other utilities. When CMHC came up with this figure of 30 percent, it was intended to include all those other housing costs.

So I do not understand how increasing the RGI to 27 percent could ever be in keeping with these housing income limits and the situation that we are placing low-income people in who are living in Manitoba Housing.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I tried to get some clarification on this. Under the CMHC rules, to qualify for the housing income limits, the minimum income that the person has to qualify, has to be paying more than 30 percent of their income for shelter. If they are paying more than 30 percent for their shelter, then they can qualify under the CMHC rules if they meet this limit. That is the way it has been interpreted to me.

Ms. Cerilli: Let me check this out with the minister. You are interpreting this section as meaning that if the tenant, when they apply to Manitoba Housing, is paying more than 30 percent as they are renting or living when they apply, that means that they would qualify. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Reimer: Provided they hit the income limits, yes.

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to try again to under-stand this because it is important. It says here the housing income limits reflect the minimum income for a household to afford appropriate accommodation without spending more than 30 percent of his income for shelter. To me, that would mean that housing provided by CMHC and Manitoba Housing would ensure that the tenants are not paying more than 30 percent. This does not say the people, as they apply when they are paying market rent, when they apply they qualify if they are paying more than 30 percent. I do not read that in here.

Mr. Reimer: One of the advantages of having staff with you is sometimes they are very knowledgeable about these things, and it takes a little bit of clarity to get it to the minister sometimes too. If the member is willing, I can have one of my staff try to explain it to her, if she is willing to let one of my staff talk through the Chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Does the committee agree to allow one of the staff to answer this particular question? [agreed]

Mr. Reimer: The lady will be Ms. Joan Miller.

Ms. Joan Miller (Research and Planning): Okay, there are two steps here. When they establish the hills first of all, they look at the income amounts in the province at which people would qualify using the 30 percent guideline. If they pay more than 30 percent in market rent, that is how they arrive at that income guideline. So that is step 1 for eligibility.

Step 2 is we look at what they are paying in their private market accommodation, and if they are paying over the 30 percent, no matter what their income is, as long as they are within the hills, they qualify. So there are the two steps there that have to be taken into consideration.

Ms. Cerilli: So it does not matter if, when they move into Manitoba Housing, they are paying more than 30 percent of their income to housing?

Ms. Miller: Yes it does matter. That is one of the eligibility criteria. There are the two criteria.

Ms. Cerilli: So how do you deal with folks that end up paying more than 30 percent of their income for Manitoba Housing once they are living there?

Ms. Miller: Once they are in housing, they pay at a 27 percent RGI level of their income.

Ms. Cerilli: But that is based on gross pay. Was this 30 percent criteria for CMHC also based on gross pay?

Ms. Miller: Yes, it is.

Ms. Cerilli: Would you not agree though that it was also to include utilities, and when you calculate your 27 percent, it does not include utilities for a lot of families?

Ms. Miller: When we calculate the 27 percent, that is for all utilities inclusive amount. Now, if they are paying utilities on their own, except for domestic electricity lights, they get an allowance that is a deduction from their rent to compensate for utility costs.

Ms. Cerilli: I notice that there were some exceptions there which are utilities, lights and things like that. So, as I asked earlier, I am interested in seeing the formula. I have sat down with tenants, and I have looked at the form that they get that is part of their lease, but I am wondering if the department, to make this simpler, would provide me with the formula that is used for calculating the base rent for the lease, and if there is something different that is used in calculating the monthly rate and then whatever is used to calculate the housing income limits.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, we can make that available to the member.

Ms. Cerilli: Good. One of the other questions that I asked on behalf of this family had to do with the fact that they were told by the staffperson that was reviewing their rent calculation that their rent could go up again, and maybe that was meant that it would then go up the following year, because, as you have already said, you could only have one rent increase in a fiscal year.

Mr. Reimer: That is right.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. I understand that there is a transfer freeze on in the department during the negotiation of the devolution agreement. Is that true that there was a freeze on transfers in Manitoba Housing?

Mr. Reimer: Maybe you could clarify what you mean by transfer. Of personnel or transfer of–

Ms. Cerilli: A transfer of tenants. The tenants requesting to move were told that there was a freeze on transfers.

Mr. Reimer: No, there was no such directive.

* (1720)

Ms. Cerilli: Is there a backlog on transfers?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, there is.

Ms. Cerilli: What does that look like?

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that there are approximately about 300 on the transfer list. I guess there are a number of variables as to location, sizes and things of those sorts that come into play as to the availability of transfers and how fast and how speedily they can be looked at. Also, in certain areas, there are certain waiting lists for certain types of accommodations also. So it is all brought into consideration when people are asking for moves or when they can be moved too.

Ms. Cerilli: So what are tenants told then when they want to transfer, because there is a waiting list for transfers and because there is a waiting list, I understand, for the larger units.

Mr. Reimer: I am informed that it is fairly hard to put a time frame as to the waiting list regarding requests for transfers. But, with anything, we are looking at trying to smooth that operation out and make it more efficient. One of the ways we are looking at is going to a computerized system to accommodate the waiting list. In fact, I believe the computer system is fairly close to being brought on-line shortly. One of the things we will be doing–because sometimes some of the transfers are for health reasons or for specific reasons of security or other things–there is a point system that will be assigned to the transfers for requests for transfers, so hopefully that can also put some bearing and meaning as to trying to accom-modate these people as they look for different types of areas to move to or different types of accommodations. So we are trying to address it that way too.

Ms. Cerilli: I know in past years I have a list of the waiting times for the various regions. Can you provide me with that again?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, we can accommodate that.

Ms. Cerilli: How about in the seniors blocks? I have a note here from a woman who is living at Rotary Villa, and she wants to move. She wanted to get on the waiting list for all the different regions in the province that she had identified interest in. She was told that she could only go on one of the waiting lists at a time. Is that the policy of Manitoba Housing? What is the explanation for that?

Mr. Reimer: Again, looking at improvisation and the utilization of computers, one of the things that will be available is putting individuals onto a vast amount of requests into various locations that can be accommodated. At the present time, it is done manually, and I guess the efficiency is not there. But, with the computerization coming on stream very shortly, this is one area where we feel that we can also address some of the problems that the people are experiencing.

Ms. Cerilli: How long has Manitoba Housing had computers? So it is the policy that they, in the past, have only been able to be on one waiting list and that is because it was just such an onerous job to keep track of the waiting list. Is that what you are saying?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, and we are looking for bigger and better ways of handling this and addressing this problem now with the advent of computers.

Ms. Cerilli: Just as an aside, I do not know if I ever told the minister this, but when I was a summer student one year I had one of the most boring jobs of my life at Manitoba Housing where my job was to put Cardex cards on a huge Rolodex for the SAFER and the SAFFR programs, and that is how they kept track of the applications. [interjection] I know that it has only been recently that you have made some changes to an ongoing application renewal process for SAFER and SAFFR, so I am wondering if that is the kind of system that Manitoba Housing is still using.

Mr. Reimer: I have not seen that big Rolodex there, but maybe it is hidden somewhere. Maybe there is someone up there still doing that. I do not think so, though.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask the minister, too, the policy in terms of providing a transfer for medical reasons. What is the requirement from a tenant in terms of a doctor's letter, and then how is consideration given in terms of the waiting lists?

Mr. Reimer: I think that that is one area where we try to accommodate. I think maybe I could mention, there is really a couple of areas that we work on a fairly high priority and that is in an abusive situation where a spouse is in an abusive situation. We will usually transfer that person in a very, very short manner to get that person out of a situation, and in trying to accommodate someone who has a medical problem or a letter from the doctor saying that they should be closer to a certain facility or a certain area. We will try to accommodate them in a very expedient manner. The first priority has always been the abusive situation for movement in an expedient manner.

Ms. Cerilli: So what happens? Do they just get put on the top of the waiting list?

Mr. Reimer: An abusive situation, we can move people almost immediately, the same day.

Ms. Cerilli: You can move people into a vacant unit right away.

Mr. Reimer: If it is an abusive situation, we will act within hours. If it is brought to our attention, we can move someone, we will move someone. Witness protection programs, we work on those, too. It is a very, very expedient manner.

Ms. Cerilli: I know I have made that request on behalf of my constituents and people have been moved quite quickly, but I am just trying to understand if there is a waiting list and there are no vacant units, particularly if it is a family that has a couple of kids and they need a three-bedroom suite where there are waiting lists, where do you move them?

Mr. Reimer: Usually if it is an abusive situation, that person wants to get out of that situation, and we will move them into a–we have vacancies in certain areas that we will move them into, and as the situation unfolds they may be moved again. But the first priority is to get them out of that situation and into another accommodation. It may mean going to a different part of the city, but the priority is the safety and security of the spouse and the family, and then we will worry about possibly relocating them to a different area after that. But the priority is to move them, and we will always have space for that.

* (1730)

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. I wanted to ask some questions about Churchill. The minister has received a letter from one of my colleagues the MLA for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), and he raised a pretty serious concern about the rate of rent there. One resident was paying more that $1,100 per month for rent because he was behind in his rent, it says here, and Manitoba Housing is virtually a monopoly on all the housing in Churchill, and it is imperative that you ensure that it treats rents fairly. I know that generally the cost of living in the North is very high. How have you responded to this letter and the fact that this situation exists in Churchill where Manitoba Housing must have a lot of people who are beyond the housing income limit living in Churchill public housing, especially if they are paying rents that are that high?

Mr. Reimer: In regard to the individual, the one that the member is referring to in regard to the $1,100, if we could get a little bit of further details on that, we can follow up on that one. Churchill, as I mentioned, is sort of a unique area in Manitoba regarding public housing. Most of the units in Churchill are on what we call RGI formula. However, there are, I believe, some complexes that are on market rent in that complex too, and then there is RGI up to a maximum also. So Churchill has some different and unique rules in comparison to the rest of Manitoba.

Ms. Cerilli: I would think that would be what the MLA for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) is looking for in this case, that there would be a ceiling, as the minister has suggested, and maybe the fellow who is paying $1,100 per month for rent is in a unit that does not have a ceiling or is not on market rent. So I am wanting to see if you could get the information for me about the number of units in Churchill, the number that are on RGI with a ceiling, the number on the market. I would be interested in finding out the total revenue that is being collected in Churchill in Manitoba Housing properties and how that would compare with the cost for the mortgages and other maintenance and costs in Churchill. I mean, it sounds like they are more than paying their share if there are a number of people who are working and forced to live in Manitoba Housing properties simply because of the fact that there is no other housing being built in Churchill, there is no private market.

Mr. Reimer: I can assure the member that the rent that we realize out of Churchill certainly does not cover the expenses of maintaining the stock and the heating and the condition of the housing units in Churchill. I do not know, but I think the heating alone is very expensive. I believe they have to use propane there. No, that is certainly not a positive cash flow coming out of Churchill.

Ms. Cerilli: But you provided me with that information. You have already answered my other question about the utilities and that it is not electric heat, which is also very expensive on the hydro bill, but it is actually propane. I am not aware of what it costs to heat, let us say, a two-bedroom home on propane.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, those are some of the things that I think we can get for the member.

Ms. Cerilli: One of the other concerns that has been raised with me is under the new policy at Manitoba Housing, there have been sort of get-tough rules in terms of gang activity and other criminal activity, but there has also been a notice that went to tenants telling them that you are going to start eviction proceedings if they do not pay their rent by the 3rd of the month, which is what The Residential Tenancies Act requires. But I am wondering if these policies have resulted in an increase in the number of evictions from Manitoba Housing. Can you give me a report over the last couple of years on the number of evictions that have occurred, the number of eviction proceedings that have even been initiated?

Mr. Reimer: In looking at the evictions, there has been no appreciable difference in numbers over the last couple of years even with the new house rules that we are applying and, as the member mentioned, the compliance with The Residential Tenancies Act in regard to the notice of evictions. We do not see any type of dramatic increase, but we have made a policy of working with the tenants if they do go in arrears. We do try to work with them in setting up a repayment program, but we monitor it very, very closely. I guess if it is two months, then unfortunately we have to give them an eviction notice and they have to vacate our premises. But as I mentioned, in general there is no great increase or noticeable difference in the last couple of years.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I would appreciate getting those numbers. I am also interested then to see what the results of the new policy have been. Has it affected your arrears line in terms of having a benefit to your bottom line, this new policy of get tough on rents kind of approach?

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that one of the things we are trying to work with very closely is the arrears and trying to monitor it very closely. As was pointed out, and I was just getting information, we have set up some site offices. In fact, just this afternoon or late this morning I was at the opening of our new office on Logan Avenue, Logan and Elgin. Then we have also opened one up on Blake Gardens. Then we are going to be opening one up on Panet Road. The idea behind that is to have some of our staff right on site, and the availability of the tenants and our staff to have a closer outreach to the communities in trying to encourage and to ensure that there is a compliance to the rent and working with them in trying to adjust to the rent. So these are some of the things that we are trying to work towards in working with our tenants.

But the Panet Road one, I guess we are looking at some time this summer.

* (1740)

Ms. Cerilli: Well, the Panet Road one may be in Radisson, actually. I am not sure what the cross street is or the address.

Mr. Reimer: I will make sure the member knows where it is.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I appreciate finding out about the opening of these new offices. That may deal with some of the issues that have been raised by tenants in frustration with–if they want to go and have their rent recalculated, they often go and there is a notice on Manitoba Housing's door that they are closed, and they have taken the bus and carted their kids downtown, and that whole difficulty that they are presented with.

So maybe some of those issues will be improved for tenants, but I do not know if you addressed my question about the arrears and how it has affected your bottom line in terms of dealing with tenants as specified by The Residential Tenancies Act where you can take this approach where they automatically–I am assuming you have this sort of computerized system where these letters get sent out of the computer if the rent has not been received, and they sort of go in the mail automatically. What tenants are finding is sometimes their pay stubs span a different period than the end of the month. I have raised this before with the minister. He is nodding his head. I am wondering if, you know, clear up how that process works and if you are going to give me an update on the arrears situation.

Mr. Reimer: The closest I can give the member is what we have until the end of April. If we look at our various district totals, just for example in Winnipeg, total of Winnipeg, April of '98 we had arrears of just over $96,000. In April of '99 it was approximately $93,000. So it has gone down a small amount there. If you take into account all of Manitoba, which includes the districts of Selkirk, Altona, Portage, Brandon, Dauphin, Roblin, The Pas, Churchill, and Winnipeg, the total of April '98 was almost $189,000; in 1998 it was $188,903. In 1999 it is $182,226. So it has gone down.

Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate that, but it sounds like the rural areas are creating more arrears than the urban area, but I would think that there is more housing in the urban area.

Mr. Reimer: The total rural area in 1998 was $92,574, and the total rural area in 1999 is $89,162. So it is also down. So the rural is down and Winnipeg is down.

Ms. Cerilli: But my point is the division of where the properties are. Are there not more units in Winnipeg than the rest of the province?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, there are 7,600 units in Winnipeg, and in the rural it is 5,200.

Ms. Cerilli: So the trend is then, well, maybe it is not that much difference in terms of the collection rates, rural versus urban. At first I thought there was but it does not seem like. There may be a bit of a difference.

With only a little bit more time today, I actually want to ask some questions about the Emergency Home Repair Program. When I was looking in the budget Estimates book, if I can find the page now. Maybe the minister and his staff can help me out. I am trying to find the page that references the responsibility of the department for the Emergency Home Repair Program. I am not sure if that is just in the objectives.

Basically, my first question is what is the budgeted allocation for that program this year?

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, if I could refer the member to, if she has this book here, the annual report. [interjection] Oh, you do not. Okay. The Homeowner Emergency Loan Program, I can maybe explain it, or the member knows that it is a loan of up to $3,000 to eligible homeowners for repairs of health, safety or emergency nature. They must meet low-income criteria.

* (1750)

Eligible repairs include emergency repairs to heating systems, foundations, plumbing, elec-trical, roofing, repairs to improve accessibility for disabled household members. The amount of the dollar assigned to this is $250,000, and it is under The Loans Act authority which is part of the budget Estimates. We were trying to find exactly where it is in the book, but we have not been able to find it either. It is in The Loans Act authority part of the book. So that is why we could not find it, but the amount was $250,000.

Ms. Cerilli: This is one of the reasons that I am raising this because maybe I am remembering reading it this year from the minister's opening statement. I am going to have to check that as well, but I thought I had flagged it in my Estimates book but I did not see it on page 35 which lists–35 and 34–all the other programs, so why is this repair program–I guess then it is in the Department of Finance Estimates book under The Loan Act, but have we not in the past had the former program that was based on Lotteries Funds? That also had a portion that was repayable, and there is the RRAP program as well, so first of all, clear up for me why some of the home loan programs are listed in the Housing Estimates and some are not.

Mr. Reimer: It has been explained this is a loan program, and this is why I imagine it may fall under the Finance Department under The Loans Act authority. The Home Renovation Program I think that the member might be referring to regarding that $10 million, we recovered that from Finance, the $10 million on that program.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, getting back to the current Emergency Home Repair. This program has been around for how many years?

Mr. Reimer: I think it has been around for at least four or five years. This has been around, I have been told, for quite a few years, but it was under different names, but the one that was referred to here, the Homeowner Emergency Loan Program, has only been around for four or five years. A program of this nature has been around for quite a few years under different names.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. I am actually looking for a very old Manitoba Housing information sheet on the program that I know is from the 1980s, and what is interesting to me is the maximum grant amount for the last 20 years or so has been $3,000. So does $3,000 still buy you the same amount of emergency home repairs as it used to? What are the kinds of repairs that have been done under the program, and has that changed over the last number of years?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I am just looking at some of the criteria here. What it is, as mentioned, is an interest-free loan, and the only thing it alludes to is repairs of a health, safety or emergency nature. Repairs include heating systems, plumbing, foundations, electrical, roofing, of that nature, but $3,000 is what it is limited up to, so that has been the amount.

I would point out that the average loan during the year 1998 was just over $2,000–$2,113, instead of out of the three.

Ms. Cerilli: What is the uptake on the program? Is there a waiting list? Is there a delay in people accessing the program?

Mr. Reimer: The number of loans that were totalled from '94-95 through '97-98, the total has only been 317 loans.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. The time being six o'clock, committee rise.