The House met at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: O Eternal and Almighty God, from Whom all power and wisdom come, we are assembled here before Thee to frame such laws as may tend to the welfare and prosperity of our province. Grant, O merciful God, we pray Thee, that we may desire only that which is in accordance with Thy will, that we may seek it with wisdom, know it with certainty and accomplish it perfectly for the glory and honour of Thy name and for the welfare of all our people. Amen.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

private members' BUSINESS

House Business

Hon. Jennifer Howard (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I'd ask leave to go directly to Bill 217.

Second Readings–Public Bills

Bill 217–The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
(Expanded Grounds for Early Termination)

Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the minister from St. James, that Bill 217, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Expanded Grounds for Early Termination), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. [interjection]

Oh, sorry. She was here a second ago; sorry–by the member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick).

Motion presented.

Ms. Blady: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure today to rise on second reading debate of this legislation because it's legislation that has a place that's very close to my heart, based on the three very circumstances that it is meant to address. It has come to my attention within the past year or so the kinds of things that are missing from an otherwise very well-rounded and fulsome tenant protection package that we are expanding on, but there are three areas that, really, that this amendment is meant to address, the first being those that serve us in the Canadian Forces.

Having grown up in close proximity to 17 Wing and having had so many friends that were involved in the military, I saw how many of them had to come and go. I saw them having to move. Sometimes they were living in PMQs, that kind of thing, but a lot of times it was rental properties for folks, and sometimes just at the same time that they thought they were getting settled, orders would come to be shipped out. I mean, only this past week–I found out today that a friend that I grew up with, who now lives back in my neighbourhood and his–our kids go to school together, I found out that he was recently shipped to Italy to take part in activities related to what's going on in Libya. And I know that, again, at another time and place, it wouldn't have meant the ability for he and his wife and their kids to stay in one place; it might have meant movement elsewhere with being shipped out.

So for those that serve us, that ability to move so quickly to do what they need to do, we need to move on–we need to provide for them that framework that they need. And if it means that when they are given their orders to either relocate to another base or whether it is to be deployed in service of our country that they can move forward and do so in a way that relieves all of the already compounding stress that they have, then this is one of the things that I hope that this bill can address. It gives them that framework. It gives them that opportunity to know that that's one less thing on their plate.

So that's the first part of this bill is to deal with the Canadian military, and, again, it's a very small thank you for the work that they do in terms of looking after us and whether it is, again, overseas, whether it's domestic security or whether it is even the kind of work that they've been doing for us these past month or so in the flooding situation, their dedication is something that needs to be commended, acknowledged and appropriately rewarded.

The second area that it looks after are those with evolving health circumstances. I've had cases come before me in the past year where evolving health circumstances have meant that people are unable to adequately live in their apartments. It means that they've moved into a place in perfect health or in reasonable health and where their apartment or access to it was not unreasonable and then, unfortunately, evolving health circumstances have meant that they are literally trapped in their own apartments.

I know of one particular case where a woman who entered her building fully healthy over a dozen years ago found herself in a health circumstance where, literally, her apartment was causing her physical harm. She would fall; she, because of the layout of the apartment, was not able to get up; and then trying to get her in and out of that walk-up to get her to medical care actually compromised her health. And what happened was, when she was able to try to find another place that was more accessible, that had an elevator, had a verbal agreement, from, you know, from a superintendent, but then–that she would be able to go whenever she found something else. But when it came down to it, folks in the office, that kind of thing, wanting to follow the rules said, well, unfortunately, you're going to have to ride your lease out. There was no recourse for her at RTB because, again, they could only enforce the legislation as it stood, and that's why I believe that this amendment is so important, because what it means is if somebody has that evolving health condition that is documented by their physician, they can move forward. This woman was compelled to stay another six months in an apartment that, like I said, that was literally causing her physical harm.

So I believe that that second component, first of all, expands on what we already provide for those moving to personal care homes, but, again, provides what people need when they need it. And I think in an aging population with a larger contingent aging, we need to consider that and we need to, again, provide those things for people because it is in their best interest over the long term for their health.

* (10:10)

And then the third area is one that has great personal significance for me as a domestic violence survivor, because I was fortunate enough that when my ex-husband chose to assault me, I was the one that remained in and had the keys to the marital home. I didn't need to worry about fleeing somewhere; I could change the locks. Not every victim of domestic violence and stalking is so lucky. What happens if you're the person on–you're one of the names on the lease and the other person whose name is on the lease is your abuser? What happens when they say, you can't go anywhere; you've got to stay here because if you run away, you're still on the hook for 50 per cent of the bills.

And you get a lot of women that do not leave or that come back to abusive situations because they feel they have no way out. This will address that; that, by making that phone call into law enforcement, by becoming–coming into contact with Victim Services, this amendment would give victims of domestic violence and stalking that safety hatch, that one more tool in the toolkit.

There are so many things that victims of domestic violence and stalking need supports on, and this is one thing that, again, up until this point, has been lacking, and that, again, I see a real need for carrying this forward, because this means now that someone can make that call into Victim Services, and one of the questions that they will be asked about the supports that they need are: Do you need to get out of your lease; do you need to go somewhere safely?

And what's been really encouraging is to find out, through talking through the different groups and even through talking to some landlords, that the idea of being able to help in this situation, knowing that there's a provision in the law that allows them to get a victim out of their building, is something that they actually find useful. They consider it best practices, but this, now, gives both the landlord but, more importantly, the victim, a tool, a way to get to safety.

And, again, considering the work that I've done in the past and my own personal experience, the other thing I know is that as much as we put supports into shelters, they always need more and there's always that one more woman that needs to get in. And if there is a way that we can, through this legislation, make it a safe way that women can get out of their lease that currently holds them in harm's way, and get them to another place, get them to another location that's not necessarily a shelter, that gets them out of their lease and into an apartment elsewhere that's safe, that gets them one more step forward in their journey back to a safe place to live. And it might keep them out of the shelters, and we've got supports around for women that we can wrap around them so that they have–now have a choice. And if it means that one woman might be able to take that safer choice because she can break her lease and it leaves space for another woman to come into the shelter, that maybe for other reasons needs a little bit more and doesn't have that option, then I think that this is really significant.

So, what's most important in that respect, as well, is that this is–in–is groundbreaking legislation, that the only province, to date, that has this kind of legislation for domestic violence and stalking is Québec. In their civil code, there is an amendment there–there's a statute there that allows a 90-day notice. Now, they have a different rental system, but it's a 90-day termination window; 90 days, when you are in a domestic violence situation, can be a lifetime, or it can be the difference, literally, between life and death. This brings it down to one rental period. Again, it still can be a long time, but at least it cuts that down by two-thirds the length of time that women can get out of where they are living and into safety. And so, this is the thing, is it builds on the current definitions in The Domestic Violence and Stalking Act, but it takes this particular kind of legislation to a whole new level and something that is currently unprecedented in Canada.

So that combination of the safety that it can provide for victims of domestic stalking and violence, the health benefits that it can provide for those who have got deteriorating health conditions, and then again, those that serve us, providing them with what they need as they go forward to protect us, I really look forward to this bill being debated and passed onto committee. And I would love to hear now from colleagues in the Chamber about the importance of this bill and what it might mean to them and to their constituents.

I thank my guests for being here today. I thank you for the contributions that you've made, and now I leave the floor to my colleagues in the Chamber. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Portage la Prairie, and before I recognize the honourable member just for the record of the House, leave had been granted for us to move directly to Bill 227. My mike was off at that moment, so I'm just putting it on record.

Some Honourable Members: 217.

Mr. Speaker: Pardon me? 217–Bill 217. It was leave granted to move directly to it.

Okay, so, the honourable member for Portage la Prairie.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in second reading debate pertaining to Bill 217. It is a bill sponsored by the honourable member for Kirkfield Park. And, indeed, it is a rarity that the government brings forward a private member's bill that is indeed something that should have, perhaps, been carried on–out many, many years ago. The identified rationale for this bill is well founded.

In Portage la Prairie, we do indeed have–it's a military base, and have had occasions where landlords, for the very–for the most part, are very co‑operative and understanding of orders and reassignment, and not always in keeping with the annual lease agreements that airmen in Portage la Prairie are signing while residing in Portage la Prairie during their training period.

And–but it is incumbent upon we, as representatives are–of our community and responsible for the best interest of Manitobans, that this legislation, indeed, can be supported. However, it does–is curious as to how this legislation came before the House this morning.

Indeed, it is not only pertaining to military personnel that may be posted elsewhere and having to leave prior to the–their end of the lease that they have signed on rental properties; it does also address those that unfortunately are afflicted with health concerns and must leave their residence to be cared for either in hospital, extended care or long-term care facilities and are unable to return to their home and consequently are unable to maintain or continue with the lease agreement–not to their own desires or plans. But, unfortunately, the situation is that individuals should not be required to complete the contract agreement because it is not of their desire to–or plan. It is–comes about from health-care concerns. Also, too, we recognize that there are situations whereby the individuals that may be in a relationship and they're–which becomes untenable because of violence or threat thereof.

And I know that the honourable member for Kirkfield Park made reference only to those female gender; however, I will say that I am well aware of two cases whereby the male individual within a relationship was the one that was experiencing threats and was forced to leave the residence because of personal well-being. And it is, I believe, incumbent upon all members of the House to recognize that it's not just a female situation; it can also be a male involved in stalking and domestic violence.

This is indeed a piece of legislation which, I believe, is unfortunately necessary because there are some landlords that do not want to be understanding and accepting and co-operative with situations of which I describe, and they are described in the bill, but we must, unfortunately, for the small percentage of landlords that are of this mindset, we must address. But I do want to, for the record, state that the vast majority of landlords around the province of Manitoba are very understanding, very co-operative and obliging in situations which this legislation addresses.

* (10:20)

Also, too, I want to say that there–the situation that this government has overseen for the last 11 years is a vacancy rate which is extraordinarily low across the province. And this government has, I think, been delinquent in not speaking with the various associations that are made up of landlords and developers across the province that have expressed their concern regarding the current taxations regime which is really a true impediment for them to effectively develop here in Manitoba.

Although there are some exemptions currently available to them as far as renovating and restoring and the new construction being of a high-end nature as far as rental goes, the situation remains that if persons do sell their properties and want to take those monies as proceeds from that sale and reinvest in a new development, that this government impairs that ability because they are still responsible for taxes on the sale of the property.

I wish the government would look at this current situation as it exists with farmland. A farmer can effectively sell his properties and not have to pay taxes on that sale if those proceeds from the sale are reinvested in farmlands within the two-year period. And I don't see why this could not be the same situation for developers here in the province of Manitoba, where we could then, I believe, see a significant reinvestment in rental properties, properties that would be available for the housing shortage, which we are unquestionably experiencing here in Manitoba.

One only has to look at the appreciation of properties here in the province of Manitoba over the last couple of years that has been skyrocketing because of the shortage of available homes. The realtors association said there's a very scant inventory of homes available in the marketplace today and that they are very hotly bid upon, exceeding the asking prices on most cases.

And this is a situation which, for the first-time homebuyer, makes it extraordinarily difficult to come into a marketplace that–where values are significantly increased because of a shortage. I can speak of, very personally, of a nephew, when recently wed, and they went looking for a home and paid an extraordinary amount for a very, very modest home. And both myself and the parents of the young fellow that recently wed were shaking our heads as to how they are going to be able to pay for such a modest home and yet consider raising a family.

And that is not a unique situation, and I believe this government should be looking at the situations out there from Manitobans' perspectives, not as an individual seated here and looking to garner every tax dollar because of an insatiable appetite to spend.

So, Mr. Speaker, with that–those few comments, I believe this is legislation that requires further debate in the House because of the points that I've raised but, indeed, the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady) has brought forward situations which I believe need to be addressed. Thank you.

Hon. Jennifer Howard (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I also want to thank the member for Kirkfield Park for bringing forward this legislation and all members of the House for allowing us to go forward and debate it today, and welcome the guests we have with us in the gallery, people who I know have worked very hard on issues like this with the very people that this legislation is going to impact.

I believe, you know, today, we have an opportunity in front of us to make some progress on a bill that's really going to impact people's lives, and it's going to impact their lives at a moment when they may be undergoing great stress, great trauma.

And I want to tell a story of constituents of mine who I first heard about this issue from. And I think, like all members in this House, I was a bit surprised that this would be an issue because, as the member for Portage la Prairie has said, the vast, vast majority of landlords in these situations are understanding, are going to make those kinds of allowances and are going to do the right thing. I believe that and I know that to be the case.

But in this situation, I had constituents who lived in a beautiful, charming, old apartment block that only was accessible by stairs. And these constituents, one of them had a progressive illness that meant that she was no longer able to climb those stairs. And so they had been trying to get out of their lease because they'd found a more accessible apartment, and they weren't able to break their lease. And that was really the genesis of some of these changes to the legislation.

So I think, you know, the other thing that that tells us and that we need to not only, I guess, remind ourselves of, but I think remind Manitobans of, is that when you raise issues, when you raise concerns with people who you elect, it does result in change, not immediately, often, but eventually. And I think it's so important that we in this Chamber continue to be out there talking to people, to Manitobans, and listening to their advice and the concerns that they have in their lives, and then we take that information back here and exercise our responsibility to try to make things better and to try to make a change.

This bill does build on some provisions that I understand are already in the legislation. The legislation does already permit early termination of rental agreements when a tenant is no longer able to live independently or is admitted to a personal care home, and that's important protection that's in the law. But it didn't allow for situations like the one I described where people may be still able to live very independently, may be able to live in rental accommodation or other accommodation which they can afford to pay for, but they're not able to live in a place that has physical barriers.

And so, you know, I think just as it's important that we continue to take steps to reduce those barriers in accommodation, and we've seen an awful lot of investment in this province in Manitoba Housing to reduce those barriers, we've also seen that provision for accessible and visitable housing, a key part of a lot of our agreements with developers on creating new housing. I think, recently, we have seen articles not only in the Winnipeg Free Press but also in The Globe and Mail that is lauding the downtown development strategy in Winnipeg, and a key part of that strategy has been the development of housing downtown so people can live and work and play in the heart of the city. And part of that housing is also dedicated to people who need accessible or who need visitable housing.

The other organization I'd like to just speak for a moment of about their commitment to developing and really innovating in the area of accessible housing is Ten Ten Sinclair. I have had the opportunity–I know many members have had the opportunity–to tour some of their developments, their kind of foundation apartment block at 1010 Sinclair. I had the opportunity to tour there, and they've come up with amazing innovations to allow people to live independently, even people who, I think, previously we had thought would never be able to live independently. People who are relying on ventilators are living in their own apartments and are living independently through Ten Ten Sinclair.

We had the opportunity to work with them to build Place Bertrand in St. Boniface, which was the site, I think, of an old lumberyard that now houses not only people with disabilities but newcomers to Manitoba, newcomer families. And we are currently working with them to build another site in St. Norbert on Pembina, I believe, that is going to be another model of that kind of inclusive community.

So this piece of legislation, I think, moves forward our commitment to accessible housing one step farther. It is going to really impact people's lives at a time when they need some help, at a time when they don't need one more hurdle put in their path as they're trying to create a safer environment for themselves.

So I thank, again, the MLA for Kirkfield Park for bringing this forward, and I look forward to our ability to move this on to committee. Thank you.

* (10:30)

Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Good morning, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for this opportunity to speak to what I think is a very good bill, a worthwhile bill here this morning in the Legislature.

And one of the great things about private members' hour or private members' business is that there's a lot of good ideas that come forward from Manitobans in–through individual MLAs. I think it's sometimes–one of the times that we get the best ideas. This is one of them. I think it's a worthy idea that's come from constituents who have raised concerns.

I also know, I look on the Order Paper, and we've discussed in the past, at this particular hour, the need to have universal newborn hearing screening so that children can get an early identification if they're having a hearing problem. That was brought forward by a constituent. We've had that debate. It hasn't moved on to committee, but it's an important bill.

We've talked about seniors' rights on private members' hour a few weeks ago and that didn't get passed on to committee, but that's also an important thing to ensure that our seniors are protected.

And, of course, Bill 200, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act, that's been debated here at private members' hour and that's about ensuring that the interests of children in the Child and Family Services system is put first; that children are protected. And I add that, this bill, brought forward by the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady), to that list of good bills that should be going forward to committee for debate.

I think that if Manitobans were to hear this morning that we brought forward and passed bills that were to ensure that individuals who are the victims of stalking or of domestic violence could find a way out of their lease, they'd say that's a good idea. If they heard that we passed legislation to give rights to seniors, they would say that's a good idea. If they heard that we passed legislation to ensure that children, young children that are born, could get universal or get screening for hearing, they'd say that's a good idea. And if they heard we passed legislation to protect children in the child and family services system, they would say that's a good idea. And they would applaud us, as legislators, for doing a lot of good things, a lot of good work on behalf on the people of Manitoba.

So that's my hope; that we're able to get these bills bundled up and passed into committee and we can all say that we've done the good work of our constituents here this morning and in this session.

I know that those are negotiations that happen between the House leaders and I don't want to interject myself in between those negotiations. I know we have a month left in this session and during that month there will be plenty of time to ensure that this bill, brought forward by the member for Kirkfield Park, and the other bills that I've referenced, get passed because we don't want to make any of this a political issue. We want to ensure that we're doing the work of the people. And by bringing forward good ideas and passing bills like this, and the other ones, to protect seniors and children, I think that we can all hold ourselves in good stead at the end of this session, and a month from now, when we get those bills passed and show Manitobans that their ideas that have come to us, have been brought forward to fruition.

So I look forward to the fruitful negotiations between the Government House Leader and the Opposition House Leader and seeing some of this legislation passed, and we could have a good record leaving this particular sitting of the House.

Certainly, this particular bill adds a lot to the protection of individuals who need protection. Nobody would argue, I don't think, that we should be giving flexibility to those who are victims of domestic violence or stalking.

I would go a little further. I know, both from a professional perspective and from talking to individuals, that those court orders that are imposed, those protection orders for those who have domestic violence issues within their families, or stalking, they're often not adhered to properly; there's often not proper enforcement. And I hear from many individuals who have protection orders, that are put in place by the courts, and they should be protected, who aren't getting that kind of protection. They sometimes say to me, it's not really worth the paper that it's written on; it doesn't make them feel any safer. Maybe because they don't feel there's enough enforcement around the order itself. Or perhaps they live in a community or a place where the police aren't able to respond quickly and to ensure that somebody who has an order against them isn't coming into contact with somebody who they've threatened and who the court has determined they are a threat to an individual.

So I would say, Mr. Speaker, that this is important. But I would also ask all of my colleagues that we need to go further and look further how we can protect individuals who are the victims of stalking or are the victims of domestic violence by looking at those protection orders.

So often we hear in the news of somebody who has become a victim again. And it will say in the article that there was a protection order issued and that somebody wasn't supposed to be in contact with the person they have now harmed. And yet they ignored that order. They didn't feel that it was something that was important enough to adhere to. And all of us have to work together to find ways to ensure that those protection orders are actually doing the work they're supposed to do–protecting individuals, Mr. Speaker.

And I think that that's not happening enough in our society. And many times I hear from, particularly, as I know my member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) brings up a good point that it's not simply one gender, but it primarily is those females who are saying to me that we don't feel safe, even when we get that protection order that the court issues them, but we don't think that they are being enforced. So we want to ensure that that's happening.

Often, when protection orders are breached, there's a warrant that's issued for an individual, and it's added to the list to–for the police to go and track down somebody who's breached a protection order against somebody who is a victim of domestic violence or stalking, and those warrants aren't actually collected. They're not–the police don't have the resources to go after the individuals who have breached that protection order. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I think that members in this Chamber, and perhaps the general public, would be shocked to know that there are 15,000 outstanding warrants in the city of Winnipeg alone. And I wonder how many of those outstanding warrants are related to domestic violence or to stalking?

My guess is that it's a significant percentage of them would be, that there are individuals who have breached their orders against those who they've been either accused or convicted of stalking or being involved in a domestic violence situation. A warrant has been issued and nothing happens. And that's the clear message that is sent to individuals–that, you know, we are going to press a charge or we're going to issue a warrant, but that's it. And there's no real repercussion or consequence.

And I think that one of the greatest messages we could send to those who are being victimized is that we're going to be much more vigilant in going after those who are breaching their–and not adhering to those court orders involving domestic violence or stalking, that we're going to ensure that when you get a protection order, when you get a do-not-contact order, that it actually means something, that it's not just something that's being issued by the court and there's no follow-up and enforcement. And that would go a long way, I think, Mr. Speaker, to helping address a very, very serious situation in the province of Manitoba.

So this is an important piece of legislation. It certainly is a tool that can help provide flexibility to those who are being victimized and, of course, in other situations where there are accessibility issues and also our armed forces, where they're being transferred to a different situation or a different posting. We've all seen over the last number of months the great work that our armed services do. Sometimes we think of the work they do as simply as an international effort but, of course, it's also a very local effort in times of disaster.

So the bill is an important bill–it's a good bill. There's more we'd like to see done, in terms of domestic violence to ensure that we're not just having people flee a situation, that they can actually stay in their home, that they don't have to feel threatened because those court orders are being enforced, because those warrants are being tracked down. And then the individuals who are actually causing the harm have a consequence against them, because we don't want to see all of the consequences fall to the individuals who are the victims. We don't want to have somebody have to leave their home because they are a victim. We want them to feel safer in their home. And if we can go after those protection orders, breaches and those warrants that are issued as result of it, I think that we can make a big effort in ensuring people don't have to leave their home to flee a situation, Mr. Speaker.

So I look forward to the fruitful negotiations between the two House leaders here, the Opposition House Leader (Mrs. Taillieu) and the Government House Leader (Ms. Howard). And we can bring forward a couple of these bills, maybe three of them, those that help protect children, those who help protect those who are victims of domestic violence, those that would help children get screening for hearing when they're born, and we can all, at the end of this session, I think, say that we've done a good job in terms of bringing forward the ideas from our constituents and making a–good things happen in a legislative session before a election.

I know sometimes there's a lot of partisanship that happens. We want to be above that, but I think one of the ways we can be above that is packaging together these pieces of legislation, ensuring they go through and then before we go into the campaign, we can all shake hands and say we did a good job in getting some good legislation passed in this session. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

* (10:40)

Ms. Marilyn Brick (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wanted to thank the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady). I want to congratulate her on this piece of legislation that she's brought forward. I think she's identified some issues that are out there in society, and some issues that we all need to address here in the House.

I'm very happy to hear the member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) say that he's looking forward to seeing this legislation go forward and go to committee. So I'm very happy to hear that he's in support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the opportunity to welcome our guests here to the Legislative Assembly and I wanted to thank them very much for their advocacy on this particular issue and their advocacy on the behalf of women and families who very much need their support. So I wanted to thank them very much for all the hard work that they do for people here in Manitoba who need their support.

Mr. Doug Martindale, Acting Speaker, in the Chair

Mr. Acting Speaker, the intent of this legislation is to allow tenants to end their rental agreements before they expire in the case where they may face domestic violence or they may face health issues or they are transferred or deployed to–in military service and they're not able to continue with the remainder of their lease. And I'm very happy to see that under this legislation, landlords would be entitled to one month's notice or notice of whatever the length of the rental period payment is.

In terms of health concerns, Mr. Acting Speaker, we know that we currently do have under Residential Tenancies a permit. It allows for early termination of rental agreements when the tenant is no longer able to live independently or is admitted to a personal care home. However, this does not allow for situations in which people who live in a walk-up apartment may become too frail to climb stairs or they may be unable to access their building because of things that are prohibiting that; something like being able to be mobile enough to get up the stairs is a good example. We know that there are persons who are no longer to able access their rental unit because of deteriorating health, and this would make them eligible for early release from their rental agreements. Under this proposed legislation, tenants would provide landlords with a certificate from a physician that would confirm that due to deterioration of their health they can no longer access the rental unit, and under this they would only need to give one rental payment period to end the lease.

In terms of domestic violence, we know that victims of domestic violence or stalking could also be released from their lease if they believe their safety or the safety of their children is at risk if they were to continue to live in the house or apartment they are renting. Early lease termination provisions for survivors of domestic violence would reduce the barriers faced by victims, particularly those with fewer financial resources, as they move towards establishing independence from their abusers. To give landlords assurance that their tenancies are only being terminated when absolutely necessary, tenants will give landlords a certificate from a designated authority–in this case, it's good to see that we're already using a service that exists, the Manitoba Justice Victim Services–confirming that they have reviewed the tenant's circumstances and that they've terminated–the termination of the tenancy is needed to keep the tenant safe. Manitoba Justice services will also be able to educate survivors of domestic violence on lease termination as a component of safety planning, and this will make sure that women are aware of all the options that are there for them.

Mr. Acting Speaker, I had the opportunity to attend a conference a couple of years ago on stalking and found out how very threatening that is in terms of women's safety and their feelings of security, and I'm really happy to see that the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady) has brought this forward. With Google and the types of things that are happening out there in terms of access to information, we know it's very easy for people to be able to find out where people are living, so it's really good to see that this is on our books here.

The director of domestic violence services at A Woman's Place said that women shouldn't be forced in unsafe situations or face financial hardship because of an outstanding lease. Manitoba is once again on the forefront of providing innovative solutions to address the realities of domestic violence.

In terms of military personnel, the Canadian Forces and reserve personnel who are posted to another location would also be able to terminate their rental agreements before they expire. We know, Mr. Acting Speaker, that military personnel may often need to relocate quickly to best serve our country, and while the Canadian Forces will reimburse them for the money they lost, it would be a much more efficient system if we had a way for them to get out of their lease as long as they could provide that that was necessary.

Manitoba is very proud to be able to support the people who put their lives at risk for our safety and our freedom, and we've actually, over the last little while, been able to see how so very important our military is to our safety here in Manitoba with the flood that's occurred and with the involvement of the military and their amazing strength in terms of helping us fight that flood.

So I wanted to once again thank the member for Kirkfield Park for bringing this forward and giving me the opportunity to second this legislation, and I look forward to seeing it passed by all members in the House. Thank you.

Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): I'm certainly speaking to Bill 217, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, brought forward by the member for Kirkfield Park, and there's the three main parts of this bill, as the bill enables the tenant to terminate a tenancy early in the following cases: domestic violence or stalking, declining health that adversely affects accessibility and a change of posting for a member of the Canadian Forces or reserves. And those are all very valid points, and I know the member for Kirkfield Park spoke of her personal experience in terms of domestic violence, and it's certainly something we appreciate her input and her input into this bill.

In terms of declining health that adversely–accessibility, well, we either have parents or relatives or members of our community that we've all been involved in, in terms of declining health and how it affects accessibility. This past Saturday I spent the day lugging furniture in the rain while we moved an aunt of mine from one assisted living facility into another one that was much easier for her to get around in, so I am very aware of what happens there and under those types of circumstances. And, certainly, a change of posting for the members of the Canadian Forces, reserves–we've seen our Canadian Forces working both internationally and here at home, and especially we appreciate the–first-hand, we appreciate their efforts here at home in helping us during this flood event of the last number of weeks and as they continue to be here.

Mr. Speaker in the Chair

Really, and I guess we will be able to get into it, should the bill pass into committee, that we will be able to have some questions there, but I guess one of the first questions I would ask is why this bill stands alone on itself. We already have a rather lengthy bill here in Bill 40 and from the minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I would have thought that this part of it could have been included in this rather omnibus bill that's been brought forward in Bill 40.

And so, be that as it may, I guess either the minister didn't see the need for it, or the member wanted this to be in her name, and that's admirable also. And as my colleague, the member from Steinbach, mentioned that there are number of private members' bills that have been brought forward, and we certainly respect and tread carefully when we talk to our House–respective House leaders as to how the bills proceed within the House, as they do an admirable job of navigating these bills through the House during this session.

But there are a number of private members' bills that come from personal experience and come from community experience for our members–from our members, so we would–and certainly, the three that were mentioned, and I would like to mention them again, is The Child and Family Services Amendment Act, The Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Act and The Seniors' Rights Act. And, in terms of The Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Act, yesterday we were–my family was together and we were reminiscing with one of our sons about the hearing loss that he suffered when he was very young. I believe he was around three years old when we finally discovered that he wasn't hearing and he–because he wasn't speaking, and we were–and it was somewhat humorous yesterday as we looked through the scrapbook of him going to a speech therapist and getting his tubes put in his ears and then having them out again. And while we could have humour talking about it now, certainly, 20-some years ago it was not–there was no humour involved in that and it was very concerning.

* (10:50)

And if a bill such as this Universal Newborn Hearing Screening Act, if it had been in place then, and this is over 20 years ago, this is getting closer to 30 years ago, actually, that that had been in place, we would've caught his hearing loss when he was born, when he was in the hospital and newborn. And we've–it just becomes a burden on the whole health system when you have to go back later and do this, and so I would certainly encourage the government and the House leaders to get together and revisit a couple of these private members' bills because they are important and they do come from–they come from genuine circumstances.

This is–and when these bills such as even the Bill 217 or Bill 215 as–if they were to go through committee and come back for third reading and be passed, it's not about the members going out and saying, well, I did this; this is my bill. This is an effort on the part of all members here and that we–that we're–we are here for the greater good of Manitobans and that's why, again, we're debating this bill this morning, Bill 217, and going back on this bill here at–I realize that there are circumstances where there–and it's been outlined in here why tenancies would have to be terminated early.

I do believe and I believe it was the Government House Leader who mentioned it also, that the vast, vast majority of landlords in this province would be very recognized of particular circumstances where leases need to be terminated, and it certainly, in terms of landlords, it's not–it really is not an issue of–for them to terminate leases early, because we have such a tight vacancy rate that apartments or rental facilities would not stay empty for long at all, because there is such an overwhelming demand for places to live.

And it's–this tight rental market and it's–makes for very few options for a number of families, and it becomes an issue for Manitobans that are looking to rent as to whether they can find safe and affordable rental units that they can fit within their budgets. And as these situations happen, it's also a concern that for those that have to terminate the tenancy early, because of whether it's one of the three reasons given here, but to make sure that it is as easy as possible for the–both the tenant and the landlord to negotiate through the lease to make sure it's terminated early in an equitable manner to both parties, that we don't want to create situations where one party or the other is financially liable. And that adds on, on top of whether you're talking about domestic violence or declining health or a change of posting, the last thing we really want to have is more encumbrances. We want to make it as easy as possible for this transaction to take place, because the lease agreement is a legal document and there are binding positions in there, so we want to make sure it does work in an equitable manner for both sides.

And so I look forward should this bill go to committee, then I certainly look forward to asking some of these questions that I brought up and, again, I would just urge the government to look at some of these private members' bills and let's work co‑operatively together. We're certainly there to do that, and this bill is an example of that, and if we can come to some sort of an agreement on that, it is–well, it may be somewhat of a feather in the hat of the private member to have a private member's bill through, it really is for the good of all Manitobans.

And so, with that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to make a few remarks on this, and we look forward to it moving forward.

Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): It's my privilege as well to–wanted to put a few words on the record in regards to Bill 217, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Expanded Grounds for Early Termination), and I respect the fact that these have come forward at this time, Mr. Speaker. And, of course, there's been other opportunities and I–but I want to commend the member for bringing this forward, dealing with this issue in a very forthright manner.

We have a very tight situation in regards to affordable housing that is available in the act that we've got today and–or under the circumstances, not under the act, Mr. Speaker, but under just the realm of what we face in Manitoba on a daily basis is a tightness in the amount of spaces available. But this–and this becomes a concern in times when we are looking at people relocating to various positions, and directly to this bill, though, there's a–it does enable a tenant to terminate a tenancy early in some cases, and there are a number of good reasons why that would happen. And I know that one of these is, you know, in areas of domestic violence or stalking, as the member from Steinbach has mentioned earlier; the declining health that adversely affects accessibility, and I know how that can happen; and the change of posting for a member of the Canadian Forces and reserves. And I think these are all very sound reasons that the member has brought forward for being able to terminate a lease or a tenancy early in some cases.

And I think that that's imperative that we as citizens of the province provide that opportunity for these people, because they don't necessarily–well, they certainly don't know ahead of time that these situations will arise in their lives, and, you know, whether it's a reposting of an individual or the situations in domestic violence or declining health, and, you know, at some point we'll all be faced with declining health situations that–or certainly know family members, as the member from Carman has just pointed out, where people will have to change their venues of living from time to time, Mr. Speaker.

And so, while I commend the member for bringing this particular residential tenancies amendment act forward, I feel that it could have been part of some of the programming done by the minister in bringing forward bills that have already dealt with some of these areas. And I question why this one was–this particular section was left out of those bills that the Minister of Family Services and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Mackintosh) has brought forward in the House already. But, nevertheless, it's–I agree with the fact that this has been an opportunity to deal with the circumstances that we're faced with in a very upfront manner.

My colleagues have indicated the concern around bringing these other bills forward, and I commend the House leaders, as well, for dealing with these issues. I'd like to have them deal with some of the other ones that have come forward as well. And whether it–a number of them deal with children in other areas, also with children with hearing and screening problems to be dealt with at birth, Mr. Speaker. And I think that there are a number of private members' bills on both sides of the House, this one particularly from the government side and, as well, a few that have been brought forward to deal with children's circumstances from my colleagues in the House–on our side of the House. And I look forward to the two House leaders being able to bring those bills together, to bring them into the House so that we can deal with them before the end of the session, as has been pointed out, and to the benefit of all Manitobans. These are great opportunities to be able to put forward sound legislation on these issues and deal with them in a very forthright manner. We have got several weeks left to go in the session and I look forward to–

* (11:00)

Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have five minutes remaining.

The time now being 11 a.m., we will now move on to resolutions, and we'll deal with Resolution No. 12, Affordable Housing and Tenant Protection.

Resolution

Res. 12–Affordable Housing and Tenant Protection

Ms. Sharon Blady (Kirkfield Park): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert (Ms. Brick):

WHEREAS the Province's long-term housing strategy, HOMEWorks!, is aimed at providing housing leadership that contributes to the health, social and economic well-being of all Manitobans; and

WHEREAS improving housing options for people of different income levels will require investments in new housing units, upgrades to existing housing stock, benefit for those who need assistance and strong partnerships with other levels of government in the private sector; and

WHEREAS strong rent regulations have helped provide stability and predictability for renters while maintaining among the lowest rents in Canada; and

WHEREAS the average annual one-bedroom rent in Winnipeg is $1,392 cheaper than in neighbouring Saskatoon, which has no rent regulation and has the same vacancy rate as Manitoba; and

WHEREAS construction of new rental housing in Winnipeg is higher than other major Canadian cities such as Toronto, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver with 2,836 rental starts over the last five years.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Manitoba Legislative Assembly urge the provincial government to continue to strengthen protection for tenants while encouraging landlord investment; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly be urged to reject the argument that rent regulations be abandoned, which has been the position of the Official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the resolution as printed? [Agreed]

WHEREAS the province’s long-term housing strategy, HomeWorks!, is aimed at providing housing leadership that contributes to the health, social and economic well-being of all Manitobans; and

WHEREAS improving housing options for people of different income levels will require investments in new housing units, upgrades to existing housing stock, benefits for those who need assistance, and strong partnerships with other levels of government and the private sector; and

WHEREAS strong rent regulations have helped provide stability and predictability for renters while maintaining among the lowest rents in Canada; and

WHEREAS the average annual one-bedroom rent in Winnipeg is $1,392 cheaper than in neighbouring Saskatoon, which has no rent regulation and has the same vacancy rate as Manitoba; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Manitoba Legislative Assembly urge the Provincial Government to continue to strengthen protections for tenants while encouraging landlord investment; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly be urged to reject the argument that rent regulations be abandoned which has been the position of the Official Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: It's been moved by the honourable member for Kirkfield Park, seconded by the honourable member for St. Norbert:

WHEREAS the Province's long-term housing–dispense?

An Honourable Member: Dispense.

Mr. Speaker: Dispense.

Ms. Blady: It's a pleasure to rise today on this resolution because it urges the provincial government to continue to strengthen the protection for tenants while encouraging landlord investment and then, again, to reject–[interjection]–oh, okay–and that we reject the opposition's position that rent regulations be abandoned.

It's been my privilege to work with the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Mackintosh) as, first of all, as his assistant on tenant issues and now as his legislative assistant, to work on some issues that really matter in my neighbourhood. And one of the things that has been so important has been the idea of providing affordable housing for so many people, and our HOMEWorks! program is really one of those things that helps so many different people, and, again, there–it's part of a larger package.

We've heard loud and clear that times are tough for too many people and that's there's displacement, especially when there's a low vacancy rate, and it can have a very destabilizing impact on an entire family and their health and well-being. And what's interesting to know is that it's our rent regulation regime that has ensured some of Canada's most affordable rents. The report recently put out by Hugh Grant really reinforces that and says that it's been rent regulations and those guidelines that we've had in place that have really made the housing market much more secure and safe for tenants while at the same time respecting what landlords need to continue investing in housing stock, whether it's as new housing stock or to keep the upgrades up to keep current housing stock viable and a great place to live.

So, with rent regulations, I guess the one thing that I can recall is being a student and having family members that are seniors is that, really, it can be stressful. If you are in those, among other circumstances, trying to live on fixed incomes, and the last thing that people need to be worrying about is whether or not they can pay their rent from month to month. And this rent control adds stability for renters.

And the rent regulations were introduced in '76 and have been in place continuously since 1982. And what's interesting is that our rental housing vacancy rate stood at 0.9 per cent, or 0.8 per cent in Winnipeg specifically in October, while Canada's average was slightly higher than 3 per cent. This is rather unusual. The last time I lived in a housing market like that, it was in Ontario in the late '90s, and I can tell you that the Harris government's legislation at the time that exists was called the tenant protection package. And we took everything–every piece of legislation that came through that government, whatever it was called, it was the exact opposite. So we all knew it was the landlord protection package.

So, again, a very different environment in terms of what protections are here now under this circumstance for renters in Manitoba than what I experienced previously in Ontario. And what's interesting is that we continue to strengthen those things. In June of last year, we strengthened the protection by extending the eviction notice to five months, depending on the vacancy rate when an apartment was to undergo major renovations, and requiring landlords to pay up to $500 for moving costs when terminating tenancies for major renovations.

But, more importantly, we've moved towards things like more apartments. We're always looking at ways to ensure that there are more housing units on the market. And what's interesting is that we have seen the biggest investment in Winnipeg in apartment construction known in provincial history. So we are seeing the kinds of investments that are needed to ensure that there are private housing stocks, and more than 800 new rental units are now under construction, outpacing other Canadian provinces and setting a historic record for Manitoba. And last year the Free Press even noticed–noted, on January 12th of this year, they noticed–noted that last year there were more rental units built in Winnipeg than in any other year since the late 1980s. So, again, that progress, that moving forward, is really important in providing better housing stock, more housing stock and much-needed housing stock. And, in some cases, the rate of new–the rate of construction for new rental housing is 300 per cent higher in Winnipeg compared to other major Canadian cities such as Toronto, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, with over 2,836 rental starts over the last five years.

Winnipeg is growing. The investments made in this past decade, be it in infrastructure, be it in housing, be it in education, have all meant that Winnipeg is a destination place to live, but if we are going to have that destination place to live, coupled with retaining affordable housing for those that are already here, then we need to keep working. And this is where the goal of this resolution is, is to make sure that we stay on track. And to stay on track we are continuing to develop strategies, including the introduction of tax increment financing to stimulate downtown construction.

The member for The Maples (Mr. Saran) introduced legislation having to do with granny suites, so now we're working on granny suite incentives and the historic public investment through HOMEWorks!, as I mentioned before.

And this February we announced that we're going to set up broad working groups to discuss rental housing shortages, and it will include all those key stakeholders: landlords, housing advocates, tenants and other public- and private-sector players. And that's what's so important as so much of this is always based on teamwork. It's about working with all of the players, finding out what's needed from the grassroots up, and then finding out how to move that forward.

And with moving things forward, it was a real pleasure to be part of the announcement on May 18th for the new tenant protection package. And the thing about the package–and I even remember when the minister was trying to explain all of this, and when we were trying to get backgrounders and a–news releases together–was just how much information there was there. There wasn't–it wasn't just here's one or two things that are key; it was here is a whole package of things that address a variety of issues to provide so much more for tenants in this housing market that exists right now.

And so one of the things that it does, it will better protect tenants from excessive rent increases and uncontrolled condo conversions, two things that have come up so frequently in terms of casework. And it's what really matters to those folks on the ground, so wanting to address that promptly and effectively.

In terms of greater affordability, we are moving forward with RentAid which helps low-income people pay their rent. Some might have known it previously as shelter benefits, but this benefit will now increase from $720–to $720 from $600 a year for those on employment and income assistance, and to $1,452 from $1,320 a year for a low-income senior, and it will rise to $1,632 from $1,464 a year for a working family of four.

Also, under this year's budget, the education property tax credit will now increase by $50 a year, and up to $150 for seniors.

So the thing is, is that we will work on these kinds of things. And we will also work with landlords in terms of how those larger package things that they are putting together in terms of keeping up their building as far as the capital expenditures by increasing the amortization rate from six to eight years. It still allows them a rather compact amortization rent–rate, but, at the same time, it allows something to happen that's a little bit more favourable and a little bit easier for renters to handle. So, for example, on a $100,000 roof and foundation upgrade to a 12-unit apartment, it would allow an owner to increase the rent above guidelines, yearly guidelines, but each tenant would pay almost $350 less in increased rent each year. And so this, again, it makes the upgrades possible, but it makes them more affordable for the tenant.

* (11:10)

The other thing, too, is that we are looking at how–we had to look at how tenants' rights needed to be protected, and renters who were evicted for renovations would now have tenure rights in cases where units are rerented after conversion to condominiums. We've been working with working groups to do things with student housing. We've worked also on regulating condo conversions and, most importantly, in terms of working with enhanced tenant relations, that this has to work for both sides of the equation. And it's been a pleasure to work with so many people from different parts of the equation to see where things go with this, And, I guess, what I'd like to be able to, sort of, say in conclusion, is that we keep moving forward. A housing market is never static and we need to keep changing, but the one thing that we need to know is that in changing that we keep moving forward.

And, in moving forward, we have to remember what can happen without rent control. And I think back to statements made just, well, back in May, 2009, where members opposite blocked the tax increment financing legislation for nearly a year, saying it was unnecessary and that it should, I quote, never be used to finance anything that could be financed by private enterprise alone.

An Honourable Member: Private enterprise loves it.

Ms. Blady: And, meanwhile, as members here have said, private enterprise loves it. This is what happens. We also have–you know, the members opposite have said they are out of touch and don't, you know, need to come to an understanding of the average Manitoban. They are out of touch. They are campaigning against a minimum wage and, again, it's interesting to note that they are quoted as saying, the member from Portage, it's perhaps the time to go in the other direction insofar as to acknowledge rent controls are not working and that we should perhaps abandon them altogether and let things go to the free market, end quote.

All I can say is that Hugh Grant says otherwise in his report, and I look forward to the debate as it proceeds and look forward to the passing of this resolution.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): It's great to get up and speak to this resolution this morning. We've heard many good speakers already this morning talking about different issues dealing with housing. We all know that for various reasons, whether it's immigration, economic times that have faced, not just our country but nationally and internationally, that we've seen a tightening up of the housing market. We know that banks are a little bit more careful with the way they lend money and it's put a little bit of a crimp on new housing and all kinds of different developments taking place. But fortunate for us here in Manitoba, we have a Prime Minister who clearly loves Manitoba. I mean, besides the fact that he appointed the former premier as the ambassador to the United States, if that doesn't show great love for our province, I don't know what does.

An Honourable Member: He got a free house, too.

Mr. Schuler: Yes, great appointment, he gets a free house and a free car, and he's representing Canada well in Washington.

But, besides that, he–the Prime Minister has also given Manitoba a lot of money for public housing. He has forwarded lots of different opportunities for Manitoba to access funds. In fact, if you drive by the old Bell Hotel, which used to be a fine, fine establishment here in the city of Winnipeg, in fact, I know of–one of my aunts and uncles, that's where they went for their honeymoon. It was just one of those beautiful places, but over the years it certainly declined and ended up becoming a fairly derelict and troublesome building. But with the help of the federal government, now, the building is being renovated and repaired, and they are doing a really good job on it. And it's nice to see the Bell Hotel will once again serve a good purpose, will serve our community well and will provide housing for probably the most needy amongst us. And though we disagree to a degree on certain components of the way that facility will be used, but still it is important that those who need it most have the opportunity to have access to housing.

And, Mr. Speaker, affordable housing, just like tenant protection, are issues that are of great concern to Manitobans. As such, we welcome the opportunity to raise the profile of the issues surrounding housing in this province. As such, the problems plaguing Manitoba's housing stock cannot and should not be ignored. In fact, during Estimates, we found out that there were many, many vacant suites that were available whether because they were being retrofitted or whatever and we know that there's a lot of federal money now going into retrofitting public housing. We are just surprised that there were so many suites that were empty.

So we know that there are problems that are plaguing Manitoba's housing stock, and, again, they should not be ignored. Many Manitobans are forced to take whatever housing they can find, even if it means living in unsafe and unsanitary conditions. And, unfortunately, for the people of Manitoba, we have a terribly soft-on-crime provincial government that has allowed crime to infest a lot of the good communities of this city and of this province.

In fact, you know, spending a lot of time traveling the city and the province for various sports events, it's shocking when you've parked on a street for a weekend of volleyball tournament and you find out the next Tuesday that there was a grow op that was busted in–almost right in front of where you had parked your car, or there was a shooting or a stabbing. And that certainly has plagued a lot of the housing in this province. And it's problematic because I think everybody–everybody has a right to live and to be able to raise a family and move on in life in safe and secure accommodations. And that's something that they don't have under this NDP government. And I'm surprised that the private member's resolution doesn't reference the crime problem, that we're the murder capital of Canada, and that should be referenced.

And the fact that, you know, last week we were debating a bill about the expunging of warrants. And we spoke how the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan) went nilly-willy through all of these warrants and deleted them with almost careless abandon. And that shows the kind of–soft on crime that we have from the NDP and that affects the kind of housing that people live in. And that affects the concerns they have.

We know that there is some low vacancy rate that plagues Manitoban urban centres such as Brandon and Winnipeg, in particular. It is no secret that Manitoba suffers from a chronically low vacancy rate. In fact, it is the lowest in the country today at 0.9 per cent. To compound the problem, much of the existing housing stock is old and deteriorating. And what is surprising is that this government has received lots and lots–tens of millions of dollars from the federal government to deal with this problem. And they haven't seemed to get a handle on it, and that's very unfortunate.

Rental vacancy is a problem all across the province, while Winnipeg's vacancy rate is 0.8 per cent; and Brandon, the vacancy rate is 0.5 per cent; Thompson, the problem is even worse at only 0.3 per cent. As a result of these persistently low vacancy rates, Manitobans are hard pressed to find affordable rental housing. The housing stock is aging, meaning that if affordable renting housing can be found, it is often not in the state desirable for living or in areas with great social and crime-related problems. And, again, the crime issue, we know that that comes up on a continuous basis. You'll see that the–on a regular basis, there'll be a shooting on a very quiet nice street, and neighbours will walk out and say, you know, this is not a place where we want to raise our family.

Under the NDP, crime has infested our neighbourhoods and taken over, and people now live in fear. And, you know, the member from The Maples who just won his nomination meeting, hopefully, now, he will spend some time going through his community and talking to people. And one of their big issues is crime, and the crime rate and the kinds of crimes that are infesting The Maples are a serious issue. And now that he's going to be the candidate in the next election, I would encourage him to get out and start dealing with the crime issues, because that is certainly hurting the kind of–kinds of places that people want to live. And if there is a low vacancy rate and they can't get a suite or a home where they'd like to live, then they're forced to move into an area where, perhaps, it isn't as safe.

* (11:20)

And The Maples, which has a proud, proud history of being a great community, a great area to raise children and family, you know, frankly, under the member for Maples, under his watch, we've seen 'deteriation.' So I encourage him. I encourage him to take this one on and come forward with policies that may be counter to the front bench of his party, of his caucus. And, yes, we know they tried to defeat him in a nomination, but he stood fast. Now it's his time to stand up against the Minister of Justice (Mr. Swan) and his Premier and say, we need real–real–laws that will take on criminals and stop giving them the Slurpees and the free movie passes, stop standing at the gates deleting records and letting criminals walk free. That in of itself will help housing go a long way.

We know that for low-income earners, affordable housing can be nearly impossible to find. To make what matters worse, there are long waiting lists for Manitoba Housing units. This leaves undesirable housing as the only option for low‑income families. And that has been the record of this government. Not just is it soft on crime, not have they just welcomed the Hells Angels in during their watch, allowing the patch to happen, not just did they allow these things to take place, now it's affecting housing issues and individuals who want to raise their families.

And I say to members opposite, many who represent these communities, stand up, even it means standing up against the terrible policies of your government, and say we have to deal with crime. We have to deal with those issues to make our communities a safe again, a safe and great place for our people to live. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I'm happy to take part in this debate on affordable housing and tenant protection, the private member's resolution by the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady), and I commend her for bringing this in.

I was hoping that the previous speaker would actually make a connection between his concerns about crime and affordable housing, because there is a connection, but he probably doesn't see the big picture. He probably doesn't get it. But I would be happy to point out one of the connections.

For example–and our Speaker probably remembers this from the early 1990s–Kinew Housing had an executive director whose name was Stan Fulham. And Mr. Fulham wrote a book that was, I believe, published by CMHC and it was a wonderful little book about the history of Kinew Housing and affordable housing. And the one thing that I remember about that book that really stood out for me was that he said that when he started 70 per cent of his tenants were unemployed and 10 years later only 30 per cent were unemployed, and he said the reason was that they had stable affordable housing, that when they stayed in one place instead of constantly moving around they were able to do things like go back to school and upgrade their education or their skills and their training and to find work, and that provided stability for themselves and their families and so they–and because they didn't need to move, they were able to make progress in other areas of their life. And we know that people who are unemployed are much more likely to get involved in crime and that people who are working are much less likely to get involved in crime. So there is a connection.

I know the member for–the member who spoke previously doesn't see the connection or didn't make the connection in his speech, but there is a connection between crime and affordable housing, and so I'm happy to support this resolution today.

And I have some experience in the area of rent control, which is part of our balanced approach to providing affordable housing for people, because, actually, the first time I came down to this Legislature was in 1981–well, it might have been 1980, I can't remember, but it was when Sterling Lyon was repealing rent control. And I came with people from the North End, mostly tenants, and with some of the staff from CEDA, Community Education Development Association, and their executive director, who at the time–well, at that time–I can't mention his name, but I can mention him by title or by constituency. Our now-Premier, the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Selinger), was the executive director at CEDA.

And so people from the community presented briefs and tried to tell the government why it was not a good idea to get rid of rent control. But, of course, the government of the day and Premier Sterling Lyon didn't listen to them, which is maybe one of the reasons why he was only a one-term premier. Had he listened to the people and had a more moderate government, perhaps he would have got re-elected.

I do remember that rent control was an issue in the November 1981 provincial election. In fact, I remember driving through Osborne Village and seeing signs on the balconies of apartment buildings, NDP election signs. And so, we know that that was a motivating issue for people in Osborne Village and elsewhere, who were renters and, indeed, the government did change and Premier Pawley was elected with a good majority, and one of the reasons was the issue of rent control.

And, then, in the summer of 1982, the NDP government, I believe, Eugene Kostyra was the minister of Housing at the time, brought back rent control and I came and presented a brief. In fact, it was something that I enjoyed. I remember, at that time, there were no time limits and I remember MLAs asking me questions and afterwards thinking that, you know, I could enjoy this. And when I got elected in 1990, I remember talking to the member for Morris and he remembered me making a presentation in the summer of 1982, which quite surprised me.

So we have a balanced approach. In fact, if you talk to staff at the Residential Tenancies Branch, they will tell you that they get an equal number of complaints from landlords as they do from tenants. So they say, well, we must be doing a good job because we get complaints equally from either side.

And, you know, we hear from the real estate industry and people like members opposite, that, you know, we should get rid of rent controls. But, you know, we don't have rent caps. We don't have a strict limit on rents. What we really have is rent passed through legislation. So, if a landlord wants to make capital improvements, the act allows for the landlord to do that and amortize it over so many years and recover 100 per cent of their capital costs or expenditures and, then, the rent is on a new plateau. That's actually a very easy way for landlords to raise rent, is to pass on capital costs and get a new base for rent. However, we do have protections for landlords as well.

We believe that strong rent regulations have helped provide stability and predictability for renters while maintaining some of the lowest rents in the country. Now, if you listen to our critics, they will say, well, the problem with rent control is that it inhibits the building of new construction.

But our government commissioned a study by the University of Winnipeg economics professor, Hugh Grant, somebody that I know, and his independent study on the impact of Manitoba's rent regulations on the availability of apartments, found that our rent control policy strikes a good balance between protecting tenants from unwanted rent increases and encourages landlord investment, just what I was saying that we have a balanced approach. The Province commissioned this report, partially in response to concerns from groups such as Winnipeg realtors, arguing that the government's rent control policy had caused Winnipeg's low vacancy rate and has deterred investment in rental properties.

However, the study concludes there is no evidence that caps on rent have slowed the pace of new apartment construction or spurred a spike in condo conversion. And, as I was saying, it's not really a cap on rent because capital costs can be passed through. Indeed, the report argues that criticisms of rent regulations, that is, that they reduce the quantity and quality of rental units, are ill founded and are well-worn myths that come from simplistic models meant to apply to programs as they existed in the 1950s.

In comparison, with a more sophisticated analysis with programs we have today, indicate that well-designed rent regulations can improve tenants' economic security and make the market more efficient. Rather than assuming that rent regulations throw off the equilibrium of a balanced market, it is more realistic, especially with rapid increase in demand as we have seen in Manitoba, to recognize that well-designed controls can improve the equilibrium of an imperfect market.

And, in fact, I think it's very obvious that our increase in population in Manitoba is really what's driving the demand for new construction. So that where there's a demand–I mean, these people, after all, believe in the free market–that there is a response in more construction.

Now, I don't think that they're interested in providing affordable housing or housing for low‑income people. And so, there is a role for government to provide affordable housing in terms of rent subsidies or Manitoba Housing units. And that, as a government, we have been doing.

* (11:30)

We have incentives built in to rent regulations, Mr. Speaker, such as temporary exemptions from rent caps, which have encouraged rather than discouraged improvements to properties. According to 2006 census information, Winnipeg scored lower than the Canadian average on the percentage of rundown rental units built after World War Two.

Now, what would the opposition do? What would they do if they were government? Well, I'd like to quote the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) who said: Is it perhaps a time to go the other direction insofar as to acknowledge rent controls are not working, and that we should perhaps abandon them altogether and let things go to the free market?

And he said that on June 2nd, 2005. And I have no reason to think that he might have changed his mind, because, after all, members opposite are free market supporters. They support the ideology of a free market.

And we now have a good example of that with the federal government, with the Canadian Wheat Board, and they are going to kill the Canadian Wheat Board. And how are they going to do it? Well, they're not going to repeal the Wheat Board Act. They're just going to change it slightly, so that people can take part in dual marketing and the private sector will get a bigger and bigger share, and then, eventually, the Wheat Board will just wither away. So they're going to do it by stealth, because these people believe in the free market.

Let the multinational grain corporations take over, just like they would like to do with the rental market. Let the market decide, and then rents will be much, much higher. In fact, we know that, as a result of our new legislation, that people were–will save a lot of money in rent, and, unfortunately, I don't have time to put that on the record. But I'm sure that one of my colleagues will put that on the record, because there is a big difference when you elect an NDP government and you have a balanced approach. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and for the opportunity to speak this morning regarding this particular resolution. I know my friend, my colleague from Springfield, mentioned the good work–not just the good work, but the financial backing that the federal government has been putting into housing across Canada. And Manitoba has certainly gotten its fair share of those funds. I was disappointed during the last federal election to see so many New Democratic members campaigning against that and speaking against the federal government. Clearly, they aren't–you know, they're supportive one day in the House about affordable housing, but then they go out on the street and their actions are completely different. They–essentially, they did vote against it by going door to door, trying to defeat a government that wants to continue to put money into housing. They–essentially, they spoke with their feet by going out and supporting other parties other than that party that supports the affordable housing. So, in essence, they did vote against it, and we say shame on the members opposite.

We also know, Mr. Speaker, that, not only has the federal government been particularly supportive of housing, that they've been very generous to Manitobans. In fact, they've been generous to all Manitoba, to all parts of our great province, unlike this government. You know, when I look at the resolution, what's conspicuously absent is much mention of rural Manitoba. In fact, there are many housing issues in terms of shortage of housing in my own community that I live in, in my constituency in the city of Steinbach. There are significant issues regarding affordable housing–[interjection]–and the ability to get affordable housing.

I know the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) is quite enthused this morning. He believes that they're going to take Steinbach in the next election and, you know, I wish him well. I believe in democracy. I think that you never take things for granted. You never assume that anything is going one particular way or the other. You work hard every day. It's a great thing about being an MLA. You know, you wake up and you say now how can I make a difference in my community today in the province; how can I work hard?

You know, the minister–the member for Kildonan, the minister of energy, he just wakes up and says, well, I'm just going to take it for granted. We're going to take this riding, and we're going to win that riding. He just thinks that he has some sort of divine right–the divine right to ridings, when, in fact, Mr. Speaker, we know that you have to work hard every day.

And that relates to housing, because when it comes to affordable housing, you have to continue to work hard to make sure that everybody is able, because everybody deserves to live in a place where they feel at home, and where they have security.

And in my own community it's been difficult for many people, a lot of new Canadians coming to the community, to find housing that's affordable, to find housing that's available, to find housing that's accessible within their particular financial reality. And I would encourage this government to sort of look at other communities as well that are struggling. I know the federal government has been adamant in ensuring that those dollars be divided across the province of Manitoba, but this government, I think, has ignored a large segments of the population that are dealing with the same kind of difficult issues when it comes to housing.

Now, of course, one of the specific difficulties when it comes to government housing, and it was referenced already by the member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), is safety, and safety within those housing units, because, of course, people have the right to be able to live in a place where they feel safe, where they feel secure. They deserve to have a place to live, but not just a roof over their heads, and I think that that's where this government has missed the mark. They assume that just because there's a place where a person can live, that has a roof over their heads, that that's enough, that then they go, okay, well, you know, there's a place now, so we don't have to worry about anything else. But that's only one part of it, Mr. Speaker. It's not enough to say, well, we're only going to focus on the issue of trying to ensure that there is spaces available. What kind of spaces are available? And they don't seem to care about the quality–about the quality of the housing that individuals might be able to move into.

I mean, is it good enough to say, well, you can go and live in that particular affordable unit, but you can't live safely? You know, you can go and put your bed in there, but you might not be able to sleep at night because you're worried about what's going to happen during the night. Oh, sure, we've got a place for you. You might not want to have your kids there; you may not want to have your kids living in that particular housing unit because we haven't ensured their security there, but there's a place anyway. So you can go there.

And I think that that's the great problem with this particular government. You know, they sort of hang up the mission accomplished sign when there's a few additional units that are open, but they don't look any broader than that, because it's not just the ability to live in a place, but it's the quality of life that you're going to have there. And I would encourage all the members to think about that more broadly, not to be so narrow-minded in scope, not to be so rigid. You know, they've got to get past some of this mean sort of perspective that they have where they say, well, we're going to have a unit, a place where you can live, but you're not going to have the quality of life that you want.

And security is a big part of that. You should be able to live in a housing unit that is run by the province's largest landlord, which is the government of Manitoba, and feel that you can live there securely, that you can raise your kids there, that you might be able to let them go to the park that's nearby and not constantly be worried, you know, about their safety.

And that's one of the primary responsibilities of government, is to ensure that there is public safety. It's one of the great things that a government can do, is to ensure that their citizens feel safe within their communities and within their home. And all of that is missing. When I look at their resolution, it's as though there's a great big hole in it, Mr. Speaker. There's a great big hole in it because it talks about the number of units and it talks about the need to have units but it doesn't go any further, then, about the quality of those places where individuals can live.

And so I would encourage the government–maybe, you know, they could take–we have a bit of a time either this morning or another morning in the next month or so that we have here in the House. They could take this resolution back, and the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady) could realize, oops, I missed a few things; I missed out a majority of or a good part of the province of Manitoba; I didn't mention them at all in the resolution. So, yeah, okay, that was a mistake. And, you know, it happens; mistakes happen. And so we completely forgot about the province; we'll put that in.

And then she might realize, oh, yeah, that's right, and I didn't really talk about quality of life that people might have within these units. I just talked about the units themselves, and, oh, yeah, I guess it is important that people should be able to live safely in the places that we establish. And so, that's okay, I can understand, you know, we're all busy as elected representatives; maybe she just missed that part of it.

* (11:40)

And so she could take this resolution back to her caucus and say, you know, it can be improved. We need to ensure that we can talk about the quality of life, that people can live safely in those affordable housing units. We want to ensure that people can have a pride in the places that they're in, that their kids can grow up in a safe environment, because it's tough, you know, to get a quality education. It's tough to be involved in sporting activities or those other things that we encourage our kids to be involved in, to develop as they grow older. If you don't feel safe, if you have a minister of Justice who believes that there are minor crimes that you don't have to worry about. If a minister of Justice who believes, well, you know, if people avoid their warrants long enough we'll just delete it from the record.

It's pretty tough for kids, you know, to grow up to be the kind of citizens we all want them to be, to give them that opportunity. We should look at every child and believe that they all have the opportunity to be in this Legislature, to do whatever else they want when they grow older. But it's tough for them to achieve that potential that we want them to achieve. If they aren't in places where they feel safe, where they feel encouraged, where they know that they can go and go and participate in other things and to return home safely.

So, this is like a pie that only has one piece in it, Mr. Speaker. The member for Kirkfield Park has missed out a lot of other pieces. She missed out the issue of quality of life, missed out a good portion of the province. I know they don't care a lot about rural Manitoba, but it's still important to have this in the debate, because I think that really all Manitobans believe in that equality. And so I would encourage her to go back, bring this resolution for some fine tuning, to give it a bit of a tune-up, and then maybe when those elements are brought into the resolution, we can have a more fulsome debate, and one that will receive support from all members of the House, because it won't be missing those critical pieces of quality of life and all of Manitoba.

So, I offer that in a bipartisan spirit and with the intentions that the member will be able to go and improve the resolution and then we can have a further debate about it at another sitting of this fine House. Thank you.

Mr. Mohinder Saran (The Maples): I congratulate the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady) for bringing this resolution forward, and I also thank the member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler) who did work–like with–the Free Press, did not do it. The Free Press put the article before the nomination, but they were silent after the nomination. But I thank the member for Springfield, and I did very well, and I got 1,067 votes. The person in second place got 413 and the person in third place got 291. But the most exciting part was how much The Maples residents like the NDP party. They signed about 2,400 members. I don't think the PC can say that they can sign that many members anywhere.

So they were so excited, and even the member from Springfield while doing door knocking was there, and he found out how popular the NDP is there. So we are doing a great job. You know why? Because we have an experienced government and a new leader. We have an experienced government and a new leader, so we have balance there. That's why people like us. That's why people like us, and Maples residents are really excited because we brought granny suites incentives and, that, because of their culture, East Indian and the Filipino culture, they come from the culture where they want to keep parents in the same house. Also they want to provide them independence while living there.

But also we want to take advantage of their wisdom. So that's the way to reduce crime. Crime cannot be reduced just putting in so many jails. You cannot be narrow minded, you have to be thinking from all these sides. And getting wisdom from those seniors and having them in the same household, you can reduce crime that way. And creating affordability, you can reduce crime that way. You cannot only reduce by putting so many jails, either saying tough this law, tough this law. Toughness won't do anything until you change the culture. You must help to change the culture.

And people from The Maples, they are really excited because we are open for them to provide any help they want. They come to my office, they want to know about shelter benefits because they are–the majority of them are new immigrants and they want to–they want to know where we can get those forms, how we can fill out those forms? We provide this service. That is why people were so excited to renominate me.

And also we are increasing RentAid which helps low-income people pay rent. This benefit will increase to $720 from $600 a year for those on employment and income assistance, to $1,452 from $1,322 a year for a low-income senior and to $1,632 from $1,464 a year for a working family for four.

Under Budget 2011, the education property tax credit will increase by $1.25–by $50 per year and up to $150 for seniors. You know, we did a great job since our government came in. From $252 we've gone up to $700, that credit, and people appreciate that. That's why people from The Maples were so excited to sign 2,400 members because they like the NDP.

And we will lower rent increases in certain cases because landlords would recover the cost of some capital expenditures over eight years instead of six, for example, on a $100,000 roof and foundation upgrade to a 12-unit apartment building, which would allow an owner to increase rent above the yearly guideline. Each tenant would pay almost $350 less in increased rent each year under the new rules than under the old ones. On a $50,000 upgrade to a 12-unit building, each tenant would pay $172 less in increased rent each year under the new rules.

For whole-building rehabilitation approval, landlords would have to improve two major building items, plumbing and heating, for example, instead of just one, and would have to spend more on a per-unit basis.

New rights: Renters who are evicted for a renovation would have tenure rights in cases where units are rerented after conversion to condominiums. A working group will develop a new protection for those in student housing. Tenants with tenant services such as meals would receive new rights such as 48 hours to cancel a new agreement, advance notice of fee increases or cuts in services, a limit of one increase each year, the right to terminate tenancy if a necessary service is cut, and input on services.

Municipalities would be able to limit condo conversion when vacancies are low.

I think I could continue to count how much work our government did, but I also want to give time to other members to speak. Thank you very much.

Mr. David Faurschou (Portage la Prairie): It's a pleasure for me to rise once again this morning to participate in debate in private members' hours.

I will say, though, that while I was modestly supportive of the honourable member for Kirkfield Park's private member's bill, I am sincerely not of her resolution proposed here this morning. Speaking from personal experience, it is something that I believe is–the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady) has–and the government–has clearly missed the mark.

The situation in public housing is something that I believe honourable members on the government side of the House should be very, very disappointed as to their government's performance as it exists today. Looking at Manitoba Housing stock and the largest landlord in the province and their responsibility to provide accommodations for persons that are in need, the government has failed dismally.

* (11:50)

The situation, as I know it first-hand, we are seeing Manitoba public housing stock with individuals now being accommodated that do not form a homogeneous clientele within the complex, speaking very specifically of complexes that housed seniors that are now also housing parenting individuals, young children, also individuals that are, unfortunately, suffering from degrees of brain impairment. And this is causing significant grief and anxiety to those residents of–in senior years that are now afraid to come out of their own unit because they're–of the activity in the hallways and in the common areas that are extraordinarily disturbing to seniors.

And yet this government continues to have a policy that makes for senior Manitobans–where we should recognize their contribution through their working careers to our province. And this is how this government is currently treating our seniors. Also, too, we–there are housing complexes here in the city of Winnipeg where use of illicit drugs is taking place. And, seemingly, this government is not taking a stand as the previous Filmon administration did, that if you are engaged in an illegal activity, then, in fact, you are ineligible to maintain a residency in public housing. I don't know why this government has relaxed or even totally discarded that residency policy but, indeed, that is the fact today.

Now, I believe that the honourable member for Kirkfield Park has indeed missed the mark totally in her resolution before us this morning. It is praising the government for their activity as it pertains to public housing and tenant protection. I mean, my goodness gracious, if they cannot protect tenants in their own facilities, how are they expected or expecting the government to protect that–the tenants in privately owned facilities when they are–should be leading by example and are definitely not.

And currently dealing with a situation in my constituency where the unit was completely inundated with mites and bedbugs and other insects because the individual was a hoarder and there was no capacity to clean the facility. And if you don't think that that impacts upon other residents within that complex, you are only kidding yourself. And this is a situation that, unfortunately, develops but it is incumbent upon the Province, as the landlord, to make certain that these situations do not develop to a crisis proportions that then the entire complex is affected before the government takes action.

And this is again a situation where the government is not looking at the clientele to which are residing in the government-owned facilities and addressing the effects of that residency upon not only themselves, but other residents of the complex. And this is what the government is known for, and, unfortunately, I don't believe that members on the government side of the House really, truly understand what the situation is. If they would, perhaps, get out and look and visit those in the Manitoba Housing complexes in their own constituencies, I don't think any single one of the government side of the House would be standing in the Assembly today praising the government as to its performance in–as a landlord in the province of Manitoba.

And I still believe that the honourable member for Kirkfield Park is an honourable member of this Assembly and truly believes in caring for those less fortunate, but to be duped into putting this resolution before the Assembly today, I think it is really unfortunately naive of her to do so, because there isn't a clause within the resolution that really speaks by fact.

And to say that Winnipeg is leading–leading–the large cities such as Toronto and Saskatoon and Calgary and Edmonton and Vancouver in construction of new units, I do not know where the individual that put this clause in here got those facts. Having recently come back from Calgary and to see the activity in the housing starts and multiple-unit complexes under construction and to come back to Manitoba and see scant percentage of that here in our province, I don't know how anyone can put forward to the Assembly a statement such as that. It goes beyond my comprehension and those on our side of the House how a statement such as this could possibly be made.

And to also say that you are protecting tenants and those that visit those in the complexes, again, we've had changeover in management and cutbacks insofar as what I've seen that some complexes now–and I don't know whether the situation has yet been addressed–but we had emergency medical staff trying to access a secure Manitoba Housing facility and they were denied access because there was no one there to bring the–to push for the security door access, and that is a significant concern. And, although I have not heard as to whether or not it has been addressed, it certainly was extraordinarily dismaying to myself and to the individual that was in need of emergency medical services staff on the premise and was unable to buzz in the–those medical services staff. And I believe that it was the Manitoba Housing Authority's responsibility to have a 24-hour response to the key–access to the two facilities for this very specific purpose.

And so members of the government side of the House should indeed take the remarks that are coming from this side of the House very seriously as they look at public housing and tenant protection in this province. Thank you.

Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): It's indeed a privilege to put some words on the record with respect to this resolution on affordable housing and tenant protection in Manitoba. And I want to thank the member for Kirkfield Park (Ms. Blady) for bringing this forward for discussion today because I think it's important that we have the opportunity in this debate to put some facts on the record with respect to the–some of the deplorable conditions within the Manitoba Housing units that some of our constituents are living in under this government's policy when it comes to affordable housing in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker.

I've had on several occasions people come forward and say to me, Mr. Speaker, from my Manitoba Housing units within my constituency, there's been two major issues, one being the infestation of bedbugs and the other being the issue of safety and crime within these housing units. And both times, I brought issues forward to this government, and yet these issues continue, and I think it's extremely unfortunate that this is a government that says that they stand for affordable housing–

Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have nine minutes remaining.

The hour now being 12 noon, we will recess and reconvene at 1:30 p.m.