Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Housing.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 30.1. Housing Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $371,800 on page 86 of the Estimates book.
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Some time during the last session of this committee, we had raised a number of issues that the minister had undertaken to bring some information back on. I wonder if he has that with him. We could begin with that.
First of all, I had asked about letters that I believe the minister had received from people at 400 Young asking about preparation of a tenants association. To the minister, perhaps if you have that, maybe we should start with that, and then move to the other issues.
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Yes, I have been brought up to date on what is happening there, and we are working with those tenants right now to set up a tenants association. I understand that they have had approximately 12 or 13 people that have signed up to be on that tenants association. I believe there is a total of 53 units at 400 Langside. Twelve people have indicated that they are wanting a tenants association. We are willing to work with these people, and I encourage them to set it up. So we will endeavour to accommodate them.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me what he means by we are working with people? What assistance is the government able to give in a matter like this? I know that this issue has come up in other blocks. I know it has come up in other parts of the city. I wonder why there have to be letters to the minister to get a tenants association put together. Why is there not a normal procedure within the department which would enable this to happen?
It seems to me to be in the interests of the tenants, in the interests of the government as the trustee of those buildings that tenants associations which take care of a building, which take an interest in it, which create a community within public housing, that those would be encouraged to be formed. I wonder if the minister has perhaps a position on this, that there might develop a policy within his department which went out and encouraged associations to form. Why did it have to come to the point of writing a letter to the minister?
Mr. Reimer: I do not know whether it has to come to a point of writing a letter to the minister. I think that if there is a willingness to get associations set up in any building, the tenants can do that. The tenants relations officer and our department are fully aware of that. I think that maybe it is a matter of communication, but any tenants association or tenant unit or complex can form. There is a per diem that goes with those associations of $24 per unit.
The only guidelines or stipulations we put in is that we would like to have one-third of the tenants signed up for an association of any complex. So that would be I guess some of the criteria until they get to that point. Then they can apply to be a tenants association. So the guidelines are one-third participation, and it is recognized then as the tenants association.
Ms. Friesen: Can the minister tell us how many tenants associations there are in buildings associated with Manitoba Housing?
Mr. Reimer: Approximately 50 tenants associations.
Ms. Friesen: That is--
Mr. Reimer: Five zero, I am sorry.
Ms. Friesen: I could not hear.
Could the minister tell me what assistance he is offering at 400 Young for the setting up of a tenants association? The minister mentioned the criteria. I do not think he gave me a sense of what assistance is being offered.
Mr. Reimer: Financial assistance, I believe you are asking for, is $24 per unit per year.
* (1440)
Ms. Friesen: Yes, you did mention that. I was trying to get out what the minister meant in his opening remarks about we are working with. What kind of organizational assistance? What kind of advice? What kinds of meetings are taking place? When is this likely to be in place?
Mr. Reimer: When I say work with the tenants association, we do have people that get involved with trying to set up the guidelines of operation, giving them or making sure that they have a unit to work out of. We do allow a unit to be utilized as sort of a meeting room in the tenants association office within the complex, so we provide for that. A lot of it is administrative help in working with the individuals and setting up their guidelines and the procedures to be an association. So, when I say working with, that is more or less what I was referring to.
Ms. Friesen: Two questions from that, could the minister provide me a list of where--not necessarily today, but at a later date--the tenants associations are in Manitoba Housing, the 50, five zero, that the minister mentioned? Secondly, could he give me an estimate of when he thinks the tenants association will be created at 400 Young?
Mr. Reimer: I think that, yes, we can supply that list to the member. At 400 Langside, the latest information I have is they have already 12 people indicated that they are willing to become part of the association. Eighteen, I guess, is the magic number when you say, one-third of the 53, so I would imagine that they need another five or six people--units I should say, not people, I am sorry.
Ms. Friesen: So the first step, in fact, is finding the additional people, and the department will be offering assistance in that.
Mr. Reimer: We will work with the designated person that is initiating that and try to point out what the benefits are of working with an association, because I feel that I am a strong advocate of working with tenants associations. I think that gives them a sense of appreciation and a sense of community and involvement with their complex, and they have proven to be nothing but beneficial in every complex that does have a tenants association. So I would encourage the tenants to join.
Ms. Friesen: Does the department have a standard brochure or a standard piece of information which is given to tenants in order to encourage this? Is it given to them at the time they sign the lease? How does the department make tenants aware that this is a possibility?
Mr. Reimer: As I have mentioned a little earlier in my answers to some of the questions of the importance of tenants associations, we are in the process of developing a brochure to be handed out to the tenants outlining the benefits of a tenants association. So hopefully we will have that compiled very shortly, and that will become sort of standard issue with the rental of a unit so that there is more of a participation by the individual. I forgot the second half of your question.
Ms. Friesen: No, that was it, the brochure.
Mr. Reimer: I am sorry. I thought there was a second part to the question.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell us how long that brochure has been in preparation? The government has been in, I think, nine years now, eight years, 10 years since 1988. I wonder why there has not been a brochure before.
Mr. Reimer: It has only been in preparation the last couple of months that we decided to have something in a more structured manner in talking to the--you know, to have available. Before, most of it was I guess through word of mouth that these associations could be formed. As has been pointed out, we also have looked to other provinces to see how they are handling theirs and see whether there is something we can learn from them. So this is why we want to have this going fairly soon.
Ms. Friesen: I had another series of questions, if the minister remembers, at the end of last time dealing with the removal of people from housing, public housing on Wolseley Avenue, the difficulty of ensuring that they found family-sized accommodation in an area that would still enable them to attend Mulvey School, the 11 students, I gather, that will have to find other accommodation. We had talked about the sale of the family-size and indeed family housing by Manitoba Housing in previous years, I think in the last two or three years, in that same area.
The minister had undertaken to bring back to the committee some information that I had requested on that. The minister's argument had been that those houses on Evanson and Arlington were the ones we were particularly talking about, several houses on both those streets. The minister had indicted that those houses were beyond repair and had to be sold, and I was asking for the written evaluation that gave us the cost-benefit analysis on the repair of those houses. Has the minister got that with him today?
Mr. Reimer: No, I do not. I believe that the department is still working on that. No, we do not have that information for the member right now.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, I am not sure what line we are on, but I am sure the minister can answer my questions on public housing. I have some short snappers, first of all, on Flora Place, and then some more detailed questions on St. Josaphat Selo on McGregor Street. First of all, with regard to Flora Place, could the minister confirm that CMHC are giving up their jurisdiction in Flora Place? My understanding is that it is a tripartite agreement, but CMHC is voluntarily, I guess, withdrawing.
Mr. Reimer: They are not withdrawing their support. I do not want the member to feel that it is interpreted that way, but part of devolution is the federal government, for lack of a better word, offloading onto the province all their stock, which would be part of--Flora Place would be part of it. It is not individualized. It is part of the whole program.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, so the minister can confirm that after this process is complete, there will only be two partners there and elsewhere, in this case, the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba. Is that correct?
Mr. Reimer: They would still be a funding partner. What they would be transferring to us is the administrative end of their portfolio and the management of it. The financial obligation would still remain with the federal government in the form of the subsidy that would flow through to the provincial government. As a funding partner, they would still be there, but the management and the administration would be provincially. Actually, I guess, as the member mentioned, then there would only be really two people making decisions on Flora Place, the City of Winnipeg and the province.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I was at Flora Place yesterday, and, of course, I got asked the usual question, and that is, are people going to be evicted? I said, as far as I know, there are no plans to evict anyone, but this is my chance to ask the minister, once again, on the record. So are there any plans to evict anyone from Flora Place?
* (1450)
Mr. Reimer: Flora Place is a very, very unique place, as the member mentioned--and I have had an opportunity to go in there a few times--in the sense that they are very, very small homes that people have become very, very attached to and lived there for many, many years, and they have been able to cultivate, literally, their own community for some of them and gardening and the freedom of movement that they enjoy in that area.
We have no intention of evicting anybody in that area. We will work with them. If they feel that they want to move voluntarily, we will move them. We will try to accommodate them in the best ways we can in that particular area, but we have no intention of going in there holus-bolus and kicking people out of there. We will work with them as long as they want to stay in there.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, does the Minister of Housing have any long-term plans for Flora Place?
Mr. Reimer: Flora Place is a unique situation where you had housing, what they called wartime housing built in, actually, the late '40s to accommodate on a very, very temporary basis people who were coming back from the war. What has evolved is that those buildings have continued to stay on as residences, and they are of a very, very tiny nature. In fact, as the member knows, some of the facilities in there are becoming very, very wanting of uplifting and revamping of that location.
The City of Winnipeg is a major player in that location, because eventually the ownership of those houses will transfer to the City of Winnipeg, and then they become the owner of those homes and properties, and that is not too far away. I believe that happens just after the turn of the millennium. So then the city will be the sole owner of these homes.
We have tried to work with various organizations and are trying to look at a redevelopment in that area; most recently, Habitat for Humanity. We are still interested in trying to look at partners that possibly are wanting to redevelop in that area or the best utilization of that area or the consolidation of residents in that area, and I can only say that we will try to work with the area residents and anybody who feels that they may want to try to prolong or to enhance that particular area on Flora Avenue. It is a unique area in Winnipeg.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for those answers. I would certainly support Habitat for Humanity building new houses on Flora Place, and I think the minister would. Can the minister tell me if there have been any meetings recently, either with himself and Habitat or staff and Habitat?
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that as recently as March there have been ongoing discussions with Habitat, and that there seems to be a willingness for them to come forth with a program or recommendation and course of action. So I guess, as long as there is that type of conversation and correspondence, there is room for optimism that something might happen at Flora Place. That is encouraging that they are still showing an interest anyway.
Mr. Martindale: I hope that some future summer both the minister and I will be on Flora Place with a hammer in hand and a hard hat on building new houses.
I would like to move now to 114 McGregor. I asked questions of the minister about this building in interim supply. Then I followed up with a letter dated March 30. The first thing I did was to correct the information that I had put on the record, I guess probably with more current information. I had said that there were 14 vacant bachelor suites. In fact, after phoning the building manager, I found there were 18 vacant bachelor suites and two vacant one-bedroom suites. The main reason for asking the questions in the follow-up letter was to see if the minister and his department are willing to convert some of the bachelor suites to one bedroom.
I must say I was very disappointed in the minister's reply, because in reply he said that I was questioning the number of vacant units at St. Josaphat Selo, which was not the purpose of my letter, and went on to say that one of the reasons for the vacancies is the number of senior apartment blocks, such as Canadian German Society manor, St. Mary The Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Millennium Villa and Ivan Franko Manor, presumably because there is a competition for tenants. However, in talking to the building managers at these other buildings, I do not think they are in competition at all.
For example, the German Society manor has a much better location at Mountain and McGregor. They are across the street from Safeway, and their rent for a one bedroom is $268 a month. The other two buildings, I do not think, even have bachelor suites, so they are definitely not in competition. Even their one bedrooms are I think probably much more expensive; at Ivan Franko Manor, $541 a month, and at St. Mary The Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Millennium Villa, $535 a month. So I do not think that the reason--well, I am quite sure that the reason for the vacancies is not the fact that there are other seniors buildings in the north end. The reason is that we, for some reason, cannot convince seniors to live in bachelor suites anymore. It is not unique to Burrows constituency or the north end. It is all over the city. My understanding is that in other places Manitoba Housing has converted bachelor suites to one bedroom or bedroom and a half. I am not sure what the end result is of knocking a hole in the wall, putting in a door.
I know that the minister's answers in interim supply were quite favourable that he would--I do not have it in front of me, I am sorry, but I recollect that the minister was sympathetic to the idea of converting some of these bachelors to one bedroom. I also suggested that the minister discuss my proposal with the staff and follow up with Mr. Balagus, the building manager at 114 McGregor.
So my questions are these. First of all, are you still in favour of converting some of these bachelors to one bedroom? Secondly, have your staff discussed it with Mr. Balagus, the building manager?
Mr. Reimer: The conversion of bachelor suites to one-bedroom units has always been a bit of an attractive alternative to try to get accommodations and fill up buildings. Sometimes it can be done quite reasonably and quite efficiently just because of the configuration of the building, and other times, because of the bearing walls and load factors, a lot of these things cannot be done so we cannot do it. In some of the cases, too, what we have had fairly good success with is getting into a marketing arrangement with the location to set up literally a marketing program to try to fill the vacancies.
We have had some very good results in a few of our locations where we have done this. A good example is Fred Tipping Place and 269 Dufferin Avenue, where we have eliminated or brought down to vacancy rates of very, very small numbers because of the marketing options that we can bring into the area. There have been talks with the manager that the member mentioned, and, in fact, there is a meeting coming up I believe it is within the next week, 10 days, with the manager and the board members to discuss options for St. Josaphat to see whether there is a way to try to resolve some of the vacancy programs. Bachelor suites or studio units are a bit of a problem in a lot of locations, but we have gone into, like I say, a marketing program. I think at 185 Smith, we are down to 30 vacant units from well over a hundred and some vacant units just over a year ago.
So there are ways to try to fill the units, and I think that this is something that we have to work with the management over there and try to come to. If some of the solutions are making studios into one bedrooms, that is something that we should look at, too, because those are viable options if there is not a big factor or a structural problem in dealing with it that way. We would look at those options, too.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I would like to ask the minister if staff of Manitoba Housing have been out to St. Josaphat Selo and looked at the walls to see if they are load-bearing walls or not, and if it is feasible from an engineering or architectural point of view to convert bachelors to one bedrooms.
Mr. Reimer: To the best of my knowledge, discussions have not focused in on that, and they have not been down there to specifically look at the walls that way. This is something that maybe could be brought up at that meeting that is coming up with the manager and staff, I believe it is on the 17th or 18th.
* (1500)
Mr. Martindale: Perhaps the minister could tell me a little more about your marketing program and if you plan to do that with St. Josaphat Selo or whether that is one of just a number of options that are going to be discussed at the meeting the minister mentioned.
Mr. Reimer: When I say that we set up a marketing program, what I am referring to there is that a lot of times people in the area do not know what is available in that particular complex. So what we have is we have one or two staff that are assigned to sort of work with the sponsoring group to ask them to highlight all their good points that they have in that complex, whether they have a meal program, what events they have going on in their building, whether they have a bus that comes by possibly once or twice a week that takes them to the local Safeway or to Supervalu or something like that, whether they have various programs that they run out of their building. Also look at the area in advertising these types of amenities, if you want to call it, for that complex.
The one thing that has been noticed by the staff when they get involved with this is that a lot of times the people in the area think that those complexes are full. They do not really understand that there are vacancies in there. Until they are advertised and there is an awareness put into the community by working with the local churches, by working with some of the local community centres and drop-in centres, dropping off cards, sort of business cards, to the these groups saying: here is what we have, call by, drop by and take a look at our facilities, people then become aware of what they have to offer in there, and the results have been very positive in every place that we have initiated this type of awareness.
So these are some of the things that we would want to discuss with St. Josaphat's with their meeting to try to build up a business plan or a marketing plan of trying to fill up these complexes.
Mr. Martindale: That certainly sounds like a good idea and a good way of letting the public know that there are vacancies. The minister has given me an inspiration. I think I will write to everyone in Burrows constituency with a Ukrainian name and let them know about the vacancies both at St. Josaphat and Ivan Franko. Ukrainians make up the largest ethnic group of Burrows constituency. So it would be a good way to promote vacant units and their local MLA.
I wonder if the minister could tell me what other options might be discussed at the upcoming meeting between the board and staff at Manitoba Housing?
Mr. Reimer: I think what usually comes about with some of the preliminary meetings is getting to know each other a bit better and finding out what type of directions they would like to take. Possibly they may have parking problems. They may try to figure out how they can get around that, because more and more seniors now still have their vehicles. It is sort of an evolving process with some of the problems and the concerns. So I do not know whether I could give any more insight into what might be discussed.
Mr. Martindale: That answers compares with the answer I got to my letter unfavourably. It seems to me that there is only one item, unless the board has other issues that the manager has not shared with me, but the main problem at St. Josaphat Selo is that they have 20 vacant units. At least when I wrote to the minister on March 30, they did.
I would think that if your staff are meeting with the board that it is not a meeting to get acquainted or to find out about other imaginary problems that certainly I have not heard about but to talk about how to fill up 20 vacant suites. So far the minister has said that there were options, but the only two he has identified, one is a marketing program and the other is looking at the feasibility of converting some suites.
I guess there are no other options, but I hope that at least those two would be on the agenda and that the goal of the meeting would be to fill up those vacant bachelor suites or convert them to one bedroom.
Mr. Reimer: The other program that might be available is looking at a meal program in that building. That can create some stability in there, too.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, that is an excellent idea. I would like to see amenities such as meal programs or a meal program in that building. In fact, the second suggestion that I made in my letter of March 30 this year to the minister was to turn a floor or a part of a floor at St. Josaphat into a day hospital. Now, I did some research in the Department of Health on that, and it is not that easy these days to do that if the tenants do not have money of their own to put into it. But it seems to me that if more amenities can be provided in the building that either improve socialization or help to keep people healthy that we can save money by keeping people out of hospital. I am wondering if the minister or her staff did any follow-up on this other suggestion that I made in my letter of March 30.
Mr. Reimer: In regard to the member's query about a day hospital, there was a relationship that was set up and brought to my attention at 444 Kennedy, but this was a relationship with Health. Health has to be a funding partner in this. It is something that we have not explored with Health, and it would need further consideration before we would look at trying to put a day hospital in there.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I think further consideration is pretty vague. I am wondering if the minister would be willing to put on the agenda of the meeting between staff and the board possible other uses of suites, whether it is a day hospital or meal program or something to actually provide an amenity in this building, because there are not other amenities as there are in buildings such as Lions Place and Lions Manor.
Would the minister or his staff undertake to talk to Manitoba Health or any other department of government necessary to provide amenities in this building to help fill it up?
* (1510)
Mr. Reimer: What I have seen in some buildings is where they have utilized a unit for beauty parlours and also for foot care once or twice a week. Those things could be discussed, certainly are on the table at this meeting as to whether the people feel that they can utilize that to make it more attractive and utilize a small unit for that type of thing. That is entirely possible. That is something that the tenants would have to be in favour of, and they would have to be part of the decision making. But these are some of the things that could be discussed.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, my understanding is that the other reason why it is difficult to fill these suites is the perception by people who might be renters there and even by people who are already there that it is not a very safe neighbourhood to live in, especially if you are going to be out walking on the street after dark.
I have also heard tenants say that they do not leave the building after five o'clock. So a lot of people really feel like they are prisoners in these public housing high-rise buildings. So I would hope that this minister wearing his other hat as Minister of Urban Affairs, in co-operation with his colleagues, especially the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) and other departments as well, would do something in a proactive way to do something about the plethora of social problems in the neighbourhood, such as poverty and unemployment, vacant houses, vacant lots, and all of the things that are contributing to the decline of the neighbourhood that give it the perception that it is not safe.
One of the very specific things that I would like to see is extending the foot patrols which are currently in part of the north end, closest to Main Street, further west. I think there is a need to have foot patrols at least as far as McPhillips so that people feel safer in this neighbourhood. I hope that the minister will work with his cabinet colleagues to solve some of the social problems in the neighbourhood that make it hard to fill up these suites. Thank you.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, I will just make a quick comment on that, because I think it is a very important topic that the member mentioned. I will answer the question not only as the Minister of Housing but as the Minister of Urban Affairs. We have made available, I think, as he is aware, units in some public housing complex for police officers, for community offices. We have had excellent success in every one that we have initiated, like Lord Selkirk Park, Gilbert Park, in Elmwood. We are looking at other areas that the police are involved with.
If this is an area that possibly--and I have to admit that I know a fair amount of where the public housing is, but I just cannot visualize this particular St. Josaphat. I am not too sure whether it is conducive to having a community office for police in there, but that is something that, like in a lot of our public housing complexes, we will make arrangements and make available a unit for them to work out of. It has proven to be very, very beneficial for the area and for the stability of that complex. I do not know whether this is a unit that merits that type of consideration, but it is something that I would be adverse to not recommending.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I wanted to continue asking some questions about the budget for the department. I think when we were talking last week about the budget, I had asked if you knew at this time what the actual amount spent for last year was, the '97-98 year. Do you have that figure?
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that there are some private nonprofits that still have not sent in their complete statements, but all indications are that it would be very, very close to what is on page 6 of the Estimates supplement for '97-98, so it would be very, very close to that.
Ms. Cerilli: What is the deadline when the different properties have to submit their financial information?
Mr. Reimer: September 30 is the drop-dead date for everything that has to be in.
Ms. Cerilli: What does drop dead mean to a nonprofit?
Mr. Reimer: That means that all reports have to be in. That is the very last date.
Ms. Cerilli: What happens if they do not?
Mr. Reimer: Our financial statements have to be completed by September 30. The other, the department nonprofits, have to have their figures in before that date, pardon me.
Ms. Cerilli: It seems that there was a consistent pattern previously of underestimating the amount for a given year in the department, even though for a number of years there is as much as--I was just looking at it. There seems to be no regular pattern. Yes, the number of years, there was a consistent pattern where there would be an amount estimated and there would be sometimes quite a few more millions spent, and then the following year the estimate would not reflect that. It would still be quite low in comparison to the previous year.
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that the reason that there is that sometimes variance in fluctuation is because of mortgage write-downs and the MNI budget that can fluctuate because of unforeseen expenditures or emergencies that have to be accommodated in that particular budget cycle.
Ms. Cerilli: The other thing that we were talking about last time was the amount that you actually have received from Canada Mortgage and Housing, and I did want to take the time to go through that for the last number of years. Maybe you could just start off by explaining how the money from CMHC flows, and this is of particular interest as you are still negotiating an agreement on the devolution, but when you get the money from the federal government, does it come specifically earmarked for specific programs, or does it come--how does that work where the money is received from CMHC?
Mrs. Myrna Driedger, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
* (1520)
Mr. Reimer: On a monthly basis, we process claims of expenditures, and these are claims that are processed under various financial arrangements that we have with the federal government. Whether it is some of the programs as I mentioned before, where we are into partnerships of 75-25, 50-50 and 25-75, and even 12.5-78.5 percent, those are compiled monthly. We send it into the federal government and then they send us back the cheque based on those compilations. So it is done monthly.
Ms. Cerilli: The money would come then--for example, for RRAP, that may be different because it may come on a yearly basis, but it is broken down into the different segments. There is the urban program and the rural program, and then there are the different components under each program. I realize that that goes to the city for the city component. One of the things I also raised with you earlier, though, was the fact that that amount for RRAP has been decreasing over the years and also that it used to be matched by your department. So I am wondering if you can give me some more information about the amount the federal government has contributed in the different categories under RRAP and why it is you chose not to match the money in that program any longer.
Mr. Reimer: One of the things that became evident with the federal government involved with RRAP was that they were expanding it or continuing it on a year-to-year basis, and there was no stability involved with setting up a continuity. We are of the opinion that if you are going to get involved with the program, it is a continual program and that there is some sort of life to this program. They were in the habit of on a yearly renewal. They have just announced very recently that they are now into a five-year commitment for the RRAP program.
What it has done is it has made an evaluation on our part as to whether there is the possibility of participating in this again. We are doing a review of our program, but we have not made a final decision. I believe that they made an announcement, I think it was less than two months ago, that they are going to a five-year commitment, which is different from what they used to do before. Before it was always on a yearly basis, and then you never know whether they are going to just pull themselves out of it the next year or not. It lent to an instability for us to participate in, but, since they have announced the five-year program, it gives us an opportunity to evaluate it in the light of possibly getting involved with it again.
Ms. Cerilli: Why does that make a difference? Why did it make a difference to your department if it was five-year or a longer-term agreement or just year to year? You seem to run some programs on that basis, as well, where you make a decision after one year if you are going to do it again or not. So what was the difference?
Mr. Reimer: Having a funding partner that would only participate on a year-to-year basis makes it very hard in the budgetary cycle to plan for a program, and I do not know whether it would have been fair to the public in general to have the anticipation that this is there and then all of a sudden, because one of the partners pulls out, the program just drops totally.
We have seen that happen, and the member is familiar with other programs where the federal government has pulled out and the province cannot take up the full total participation of it. So with a degree of stability being brought into the program with the five-year announcement, it gives us a better way to do budgetary considerations.
Ms. Cerilli: So when are you going to make that decision about RRAP, and how much money would you look at putting in?
Mr. Reimer: What was announced was a five-year, $5-billion program, and Manitoba's share would have to be broken out of that. I think the indications are about $1.8 million. I throw those numbers around like peanuts, $1.8 million. The configuration of the RRAP program is a 25 percent participation on our end. So I guess you have to work back in your numbers to see how much it would involve with our budget, if we got involved with it. I do not have a calculator here, but it is $1.8 million, and 25 percent of that would be our participation in it.
Ms. Cerilli: If you can just come right back to me, we are going to be here until five o'clock.
Mr. Reimer: Six.
Ms. Cerilli: Six o'clock. I am only probably going to be here till a bit before that.
This sort of gets back to the original question I was asking where I wanted to be able to go through each year and see how much money the federal government has contributed to all the different programs. I am sure that you have that kind of information in the department. I do not want to go through that kind of detail sitting here right now.
Again, I mean, you can appreciate why I think people would be interested in this considering that we are going into this federal agreement. I wanted to be able to get that information for all the programs, to look at how much the federal government has put into elderly persons' housing, to the family housing, to co-ops, you know, for the nonprofits and the different programs through the different formulas. When I talked to staff at CMHC, they led me to believe that provincial governments could match the funding 100 percent for RRAP. Maybe that is something that is new under this new five-year agreement, I am not sure, but that program, it is not a lot of money. Like, $1.8 million for one year in all the different areas of RRAP is not a lot of money. So I am wondering if you can confirm that the provincial government could match those dollars 100 percent.
The other thing under RRAP, I am wondering if you are considering, and this is something that some of the community groups that you are aware of that are working to fill the void that has occurred in the need for low-income housing, is that they want to have access to some of the RRAP funds. What they are recommending is that there be a new category that would be for the community nonprofits like the north end housing project, the West Broadway project, you know, those different groups would have access to some RRAP money so that they could do the renovations. So is that something that is being considered?
Mr. Reimer: Firstly, the member mentioned about getting the numbers of dollars for the various components the federal government has. We can get those figures. I think we will have to compile them from the department, but we can get those for the member.
As for the 100 percent participation, the RRAP program has always been 25 percent on our part. It is not a 50-50 or a matching contribution. So I think that someone in CMHC may have been misinformed on giving that type of information to the member.
The third part of your question is looking at community base. I guess, right off, we do not have new money for housing, but that does not preclude the avenue of looking at partnerships where we do have existing buildings or property or something that can be utilized as a building place or a renovation process with some of the nonprofit organizations in the community to enhance housing.
It is with that in mind that I think we would try to outreach into the community and offer this type of support with our housing component. I think there is a lot of room for initiatives and various partnerships in the community. I have often mentioned to groups that if they are willing to meet with me or if they have different types of approaches, we will certainly try to entertain their aspirations.
* (1530)
Ms. Cerilli: I think there is something quite different though that I am inquiring about. You said that there is no new money. Some of the groups that I have talked to are interested in accessing some of the RRAP money for their renovations, and I think that there is some concern about that because what we are wanting to do is expand the available projects and available pool of housing that is available, the quality housing that is available for low income Manitobans. So, to simply sort of shift them the money that is now accessed through RRAP from individual homeowners and to some of these groups that are going to renovate homes, I do not think that that is what we are looking for really.
I also think that there is some concern with your response also related to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) for last week when we were talking about the CMHC properties that were offloaded and the ones that you had also sold in that Wolseley area. You mention there was one that was given to Mr. Lehotsky's parish. I think there is a problem with just handing over some of the properties that you are offloading to nonprofits for them to fix up.
I mean, they can access nonprofits or they can access properties from the private market. I think it is better that you would do that than just have them go to the private market as well. I am wondering if you do not see that there is a problem with your handing over properties to nonprofits and thinking that that is going to solve the problem. We want to see you upgrade those properties and manage them, particularly the ones that are single-family-size units in the downtown area rather than just putting the burden for maintaining those properties into the hands of the charitable sector.
Some of those groups are really struggling. I am wondering if you would agree that there is no way they can replace what government has done in the past, that we have had 32,000 units of social housing in this province up till now, and there is no way that the nonprofit charitable sector can take over that quantity of social housing. Even Habitat for Humanity, in all the years that they have been functioning, they only do a couple of homes a year, so I think what needs to happen is there needs to be some funds available to do renovations, whether it is through RRAP or some other program for both the independent, you know, individual homeowners, as well as these community groups, whether they are church-based or otherwise, that are cropping up now to try and fill the void and do some work in the housing area.
So I am wondering if you can respond to that, if you think that there is some concern with just handing over some of these properties, as well as if you are going to be developing any programs to assist some of these groups that are coming up so that they are not just taking over your properties and your problems but that they are actually going to be able to expand the available quality low income housing.
Mr. Reimer: The unit that the member is referring to, that Reverend Lehotsky took over, was a vacant unit. It had been vacant, I believe it was, almost two years, maybe in and around that area. We could not get anybody to take it over and it was becoming in disarray. This is where he approached us to see whether he could utilize it, so we have let him use that place as not only a training place for some people who are picking up their skills, but also as a place to renovate, so that they can utilize that for future expansions in the area.
I guess what the member is referring to is getting involved with the housing program and the housing market. Rebuilding and renewing the housing component is something that I guess we do not have the resources when we are the sole provider of it. It was very convenient, when there was a partner with the federal government, when there was housing being developed, that they were at the table with us and that they would be a participant. For us to carry the loan right at this particular time is not within the budget's considerations. Whether this would change, it is hard to say what the philosophies are and how devolution might unfold to us if we did go with the devolution program.
One of the components of devolution is the fact that monies that can be brought through for efficiencies of amalgamating the two partners can be reinvested into housing. In fact, that is one of the stipulations. So whether that frees up some extra money that can be utilized in some sort of innovative programs of regeneration or renewal or even rebuilding of our social and public housing component is something that possibly is an advantage of devolution. We have not come to any point of decision making on that, but I know that the federal government keeps saying that, you know, you can do what you want with the stock. You can renovate it, get involved with other types of housing components, and it is up to us to manage.
Like I say, if there are efficiencies that can be realized by the management of it, maybe that is where we can look at expanding the program that the member is mentioning, you know, and getting into some sort of regeneration of housing or housing components within our province, keeping in mind that any savings we make have to be put back into the social housing component of Manitoba. So there possibly is an opportunity to get those types of initiatives reawakened again.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister is saying that there is no new money for housing from the province--that is what you are saying--and you are saying that as long as there is no federal partner, there are going to be no new initiatives. But I am wondering if you would agree that there is a problem. There is a problem in many parts of the province, particularly, though, it is apparent to us, in downtown Winnipeg with boarded-up properties, with caving in of the property values, the decline in the property values. First of all, I am wondering if you will acknowledge that that is a problem.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
Mr. Reimer: Well, I think that we have recognized that we have to work more to make Winnipeg and all communities a safer and a more attractive place to live, to work and to raise a family. There are a lot of problems that are not only associated with housing but the social problems of trying to make our communities safer. So I think what it is, is it is a combination of a lot of departments and various components and the public itself coming together to recognize how we can create a better community that we want to live in. So it is not entirely a one-department problem.
Ms. Cerilli: I will take that, though, is that there is a problem, and it is not just up to your department to solve it. I can accept that as well. In your answer last week to the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) about the properties that your department sold in the Arlington-Evanson area, you were also admitting that there is a problem with not being able to fix them up in that neighbourhood, so that they would reclaim their value if they were sold.
That is the problem that a lot of Manitobans are facing right now. What my concern is is that your department, though not solely on its own, has to be a part of the solution. What is your department going to do to solve this problem of many property owners feeling that they cannot invest in their properties and fix them up because they are not going to get their money back? How is your department going to address that if it is not to develop some type of renovation schemes and other housing support programs? How are you going to deal with this problem?
* (1540)
Mr. Reimer: I think that the member brings up a very good point as to what the solutions are to a lot of the problems in the downtown area. Housing is a very, very important part of it, and it is a large component of any type of community in that where people live and what they live in dictates to a degree a sense of community and a sense of involvement that they feel they want to commit to. I guess we have always been of the opinion that there would be a role for government to play in providing for shelter and providing for housing and for accommodations of people who are in need and of consequence where they cannot provide for themselves. We have constantly been there for these people.
We still have this commitment to the social housing aspect of our government. I guess where we look at differences possibly is in the expansion of it when we do not have the wherewithal or the financial capabilities of expanding the portfolio in the manner that the member is referring to. Without the partnerships on the federal level particularly, it makes it very difficult for the province to be the sole provider of public housing.
So it is just a matter of what we do now is maintain the stock that we have. It still takes up a significant amount of money. I think, as mentioned through the Estimates, we are looking at well over $40 million a year. It is a commitment that we continue to make. I can only state that as for new housing, we just do not have that capability at this time.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, with all due respect, the minister is not really addressing the issue that I am raising. I am not talking about public housing right now. I am talking about the decline in the inner city in housing that is privately owned. I was using the example of the homes that you declared surplus in the Wolseley area as an admission of the problem. Your own department said it was not worth it to fix them up so you tried to dump them, and that is going on all the time. Some property owners are just boarding up their properties and walking away from them, and it is causing a real problem. It is contributing to the spiralling of decline in a number of neighbourhoods in Winnipeg.
My question to you is what is your department prepared to do to deal with that, especially given that you are also the Minister of Urban Affairs? I hope that it is not to say that, well, the federal government will not partner with us so we are not going to do anything.
Mr. Reimer: It brings in a lot of different components, because as the member mentioned, as Minister of Urban Affairs, our support for the downtown area and our support for Winnipeg has always been very, very strong and very committed.
In fact, if you look at the funding that we give to the City of Winnipeg in comparison to other cities across Canada, we are one of the highest proportion of funding partners within the city. I believe it is well over 17 percent or close to 18 percent of their budget is from grants that they get from the City of Winnipeg. We have had numerous funding initiatives in the downtown area.
I think the member is familiar with the Core Area Initiative, and now we have the--I do not remember what the final figure on that was, but I think it had to be close to about $100 million in the Core Area Initiative. The Winnipeg Development Agreement is for Winnipeg, but at the same time I think an awful lot of the funding that has gone into the Winnipeg Development Agreement is in the downtown area through some of the various initiatives.
I know our component of $25 million has been allocated a lot to urban safety, to downtown revitalization, to some of the other components with the downtown area. So we have had a strong financial commitment to the city of Winnipeg through the Winnipeg Development Agreement and through our other various components: The Forks--we have committed almost $30-million worth of expenditures in The Forks area. We still have a strong commitment of over $16 million a year to the Winnipeg Transit for funding. We have just announced another $5 million for street improvements for the city of Winnipeg, for street renewal. The municipal tax-sharing formula allocates almost $36 million of unrestricted funding to the City of Winnipeg for them to do whatever they want with it. So we have consistently been a very strong funding partner within Winnipeg.
The UCPA program that we just announced for $96 million over the next five years, which is over $16 million a year for capital and infrastructure programs in the city of Winnipeg, as part of the Winnipeg Development Agreement, there is the housing for high-risk people. We have announced, I believe it is three or four programs under that initiative, and we are still looking at more. I am encouraging some applications on there. There is activity that is being generated through these various funding initiatives, so I feel that this government has had a strong commitment to Winnipeg and the downtown area, and we will continue to have that.
Ms. Cerilli: We could debate that for a long time, but in all the litany, the list that the minister has just given, only $1 million is allocated for housing. Under all that WDA, and all those other initiatives, it was transportation, it was all these other initiatives, only $1 million is for housing and that is a high-needs program that is part of the WDA.
My concern is that is a drop in the bucket: $1 million in all of Winnipeg for housing-related programs to try and do some refurbishment or redevelopment or improvements is not really going to make that much of a difference. It may to the few groups that get that million dollars, and I am going to ask him in a minute to describe for me who has got that money, but I am just wanting to see if you would agree that $1 million for the whole city of Winnipeg in terms of all the housing problems that are going on is really not sufficient, and you have to look at the other issues that I have raised before, bringing back some other kind of home renovation programs, looking at getting more involved with RRAP and developing some other ways of partnering with some other community groups than what we have here or Winnipeg, and other parts of the province, as well, are going to continue to decline.
Mr. Reimer: The member alluded to the Home Renovation Program, and that was a program that I think she was aware we had in '95-96, and that was a $10-million program. That generated expenditures of almost $86 million, if I recall, in almost an 8 to 1 ratio of monies that we spent compared to what was spent in the area. It was a Manitoba program, but it almost broke out by population percentage-wise, with Winnipeg enjoying almost 70 percent of the participation of the home renovation. The guidelines were geared to lower income housing. I believe it was under a $100,000 assessment for the selection criteria, and it worked out very good. We have not brought back that program, but that does not mean that it is something that should not be brought back for consideration again and see whether it can regenerate that type of involvement.
The member mentioned the housing for high risk and the $1 million in there. There was also the Strategic Initiatives Neighbourhood Infrastructure Program that we have funding for of over $3 million for the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, so there are other areas possibly that we can look at in bringing forth funding for that.
* (1550)
Ms. Cerilli: Let us get into some of the detail, then, of those two initiatives, if you can describe for me the three or four programs and the amounts of the $1 million that have been approved for the high-risk groups program, as well as under the Program 14, the Strategic Initiatives section of the Winnipeg Development Agreement.
Mr. Reimer: Under that component, the ones that have been approved are renovations at Seneca House, Westminster Housing Incorporated, Teen Challenge, and L'Entre-Temps in St. Boniface--four programs.
Ms. Cerilli: The first one again?
Mr. Reimer: Seneca House.
Ms. Cerilli: And explain to me what Teen Challenge is.
Mr. Reimer: It is called Teen Challenge, but I have been informed, and I was aware--what it involves is the renovation of a downtown building for the treatment and housing of addictions. It is not just primarily for teens. It is called Teen Challenge, but it is for adults and people with addiction problems. [interjection] Mr. Chair, 18 to 24, I have been informed.
Ms. Cerilli: So I wanted you also to explain or give to me the amounts of money from the approximately $3 million. The figures that I have show that it was $2.5 million, but I have an old list of the WDA program allocations, so just to confirm the amount in that Strategic Initiatives segment, if it is indeed $3 million, and then explain the amounts that each of those four projects received. Maybe you can also tell me where the Teen Challenge building is.
Mr. Reimer: The building, I do not know the exact street, but I know it is right across from Central Park downtown--Edmonton, I believe it is. Yes, 414 Edmonton. Now we are getting it right. You asked me some other questions. I forgot.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, the dollar figures for each of those four, and just to confirm the actual amount in that program, you said it was about $3 million. I am wondering if that is $3 million over the life of the agreement. That is not $3 million per year. Is that right?
Mr. Reimer: The $3 million that I was referring to was the Neighbourhood Infrastructure Program, under the Winnipeg Development Agreement. The housing for high risk was just over $1 million, that the member is referring to. The programs that I outlined, the four programs that I alluded to, would be in the housing for high risk. That is $1 million.
Ms. Cerilli: So, again, the amounts that each of those four got, the Seneca House, Westminster, Teen Challenge and the one in St. Boniface.
Mr. Reimer: The approved amounts for Seneca House were $16,000. For the Westminster Housing incorporated, it was $200,000 over two years. The Teen Challenge was $375,000, and L'Entre-Temps was $60,000.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay. Then under the Strategic Initiatives, part of the WDA, that also has some housing-related expenditures? Or is that the Neighbourhood Infrastructure you were talking about?
Mr. Reimer: The Neighbourhood Infrastructure Program, when I was referring to that, I was talking about the general concern. The broad topic that the member was bringing up with regard to commitment to the downtown area and what we were talking about, that has no housing component involved with it.
Ms. Cerilli: So just to clarify then, the only component of the WDA for housing is that high-risk allotment, and that is $1 million over the life of the agreement. Is that correct?
Mr. Reimer: I am trying to figure out the numbers in my mind and I cannot remember, because we do not have our Winnipeg Development Agreement under my Urban Affairs booklet here, but there are other components in our other two funding partners. The federal government has some sort of Home Equity Program in their part of the Winnipeg Development Agreement that applies to home ownership. The City of Winnipeg, under their $25-million component, I believe, have some sort of housing component in there, too, but I do not know the category. I would have to check with my Urban Affairs department and my Winnipeg Development Agreement book to find out for sure.
Ms. Cerilli: So what I am understanding from what the minister is explaining to me is the housing assistance program that is administered by his department and that is why he is referring to it, what you are saying then is you are not aware of the housing components really that are part of the municipal and the federal WDA program. Okay, I can get that after, but I am wondering if you know the approximate amounts of money under the WDA federal Home Equity Program, I believe you called it, or the City of Winnipeg program.
Mr. Reimer: I do not have that with me, but I think that my assistant is coming in with it. She was listening to me downstairs, so she is bringing it up to me right now. So I will have it here. If we can just take one second as the page is walking down the aisle here with the information, and she dropped it. Now, I gotta wait some more. Here she comes. No, no, do not worry about it.
Under the Winnipeg Development Agreement, under the Canada portion, there is a component called the Aboriginal Community Facilities for $2.5 million.
Ms. Cerilli: And these are housing?
Mr. Reimer: Well, it is how they interpret it, you know, and that is within their parameter.
Under the Manitoba component, there is the Neighbourhood Infrastructure, the one I was referring to earlier, but that does not involve housing, and that is $3 million. The housing for high risk is the one mentioned by us as $1 million. There is Home Equity. Home Equity is only half a million dollars.
* (1600)
Ms. Cerilli: I just want to clarify. These are the amounts that are over the life of the agreement, right?
Mr. Reimer: Right.
Ms. Cerilli: Which is three years?
Mr. Reimer: Five years.
Ms. Cerilli: Five years, so it is half a million over five years.
Mr. Reimer: Right. There is one other one here that I guess could be interpreted as possibly housing, and that is called Buildings Preservation. That is $5.5 million, and that is under the Winnipeg component.
Ms. Cerilli: Is that the one you were referring to?
Mr. Reimer: No. The city of Winnipeg has $5.5 million designated for Building Preservations. I will just look at a few more here. There is another one here under Downtown Revitalization for the city of Winnipeg. That is $4 million allocated for that, and Downtown Revitalization can include all kinds of different components in that one.
I should point out that we are initiating a housing study of our downtown area through the Winnipeg Development Agreement in regard to looking at and assessing housing needs. We hope to get this off and running within the next month to six weeks and get this type of initiative going, so that it not only gives us a clear indication of where the housing needs are and what direction it should take, but it also gives us an idea as to where we can look for improvements and different directions with the housing.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, I actually have that booklet, as well, downstairs, and I can look at it more closely myself after. I guess I was just trying to make the point that in terms of housing through this federal-provincial-city agreement, WDA, there is not a lot of money there for housing, and the minister is nodding in agreement with that.
I am glad to see you are doing a study. I think that is positive. I have asked about housing need studies in other years in Estimates. It is in the downtown only, you are indicating, but, hopefully, that will start to address the problem that we were just discussing in terms of this spiralling and loss of property values. I am wondering if that is one of the intentions, is to specifically look at how to address that problem, that a lot of people have lost value in their homes. They do not have any equity any longer. Is that going to be addressed by your study?
Mr. Reimer: We are in the embryonic stages of setting up the parameters of discussion, and these are some of the things that possibly could be included in it.
Ms. Cerilli: Before we leave talking about some of these issues related to the downtown, I wanted to follow up on the issue raised by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) last time in terms of the six properties that you declared surplus in the downtown. Were they sold? If you now have records available about who they were sold to and what the value was, can you get me that information?
Mr. Reimer: The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) was here a little earlier and she had followed up on those very same questions. What I had indicated to her is we have not been able to get the specifics on it, and the department is looking into it. I will also make sure that the member for Radisson gets the same correspondence that we sent to the member for Wolseley.
Ms. Cerilli: In the '97-98 fiscal year just passed, how many properties did you declare surplus and how many of them have actually been sold?
Mr. Reimer: What we have sold in the last year are 46 units of housing, which represents 31 buildings. These are buildings that are spread out all throughout Manitoba. We have also declared, in the same time frame, '97-98 year, 47 that are declared surplus. A lot of these are single-family units in the rural area.
Ms. Cerilli: So the 47 units, mostly the single families in the rural area, that is above and beyond the 46 units that have actually been sold?
Mr. Reimer: Right.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay. And the reason that those are being declared surplus is what? Is it because they are vacant on an ongoing basis? If that is the case, I am wondering if it is also the situation that you described in the Wolseley area where they need repairs, and you feel that there is no value to be added in doing the repairs.
Mr. Reimer: A lot of these are chronic vacancy units in the rural area. We have tried to rent them in the neighbourhoods or in the areas, and they have just chronically been vacant. We just cannot seem to get people into them. That is why they become declared surplus. Once they are declared surplus, we will try to sell them to the townsite or the municipalities. They will have the availability to buy them. We then will ask the--I guess the first thing we do is we ask our own departments whether they have a use for them, and then it goes to the tenant if there is a tenant in it, and then it would go to the town or the municipality if they are interested. Then the last one that it goes to is the public listing.
* (1610)
Ms. Cerilli: How often is it that the tenant will actually take up the offer? They will then have to purchase it outright? Can they assume the mortgage? The other part of the question I had asked is if some of these properties are in a state of disrepair, so that the interest in them is not as--
Mr. Reimer: They are not necessarily in a state of disrepair because we have an obligation to keep them up to standards of rentability. If there is someone that is wanting to rent them, they have to be of a standard that is acceptable for that tenant to want to move in there. They would not be in that great a state of disrepair. We have an ongoing inspection program, an ongoing maintenance program, so that these units would have to be rentable more or less on a short notice, in a sense, so we would keep them up to par. [interjection]
Mr. Chairperson: Order, please. In order to be in Hansard, you have to be recognized and then that is--if we would try to follow that.
Ms. Cerilli: I was just wondering if the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) wants to know if any of them are in her constituency. She may already know if some of them are vacant.
Another thing that I am wondering--and you have described briefly the process that you go through in checking out the situation when you are declaring a property surplus. I am wondering if, when you approach the municipality, they have any process in place to look to see if there are any other community organizations that could use the property, rather than just having it move out of sort of the social housing or nonprofit sector, and just having it handed over to a private owner.
If you will check with women's organizations, women's shelters, youth shelters that are necessary, group homes, a lot of other uses that are potentially needed in the community so that in the view of this it would still then be used as housing, but it would be more in the line of what is being done with the Winnipeg Development Agreement, the kind of groups that are using that high-needs assistance program. I am wondering if the department has any process like that in place, or if you would consider that.
Mr. Reimer: When we are dealing with the municipalities, usually the reason that they want the units for is to keep people in the community, and a lot of time it is seniors because seniors represent a very large component of our housing stock. Because of sometimes the formulas for rent calculation, under our guidelines, because of the CHMC commitments, we have to work on a rent geared to income, you know, of a certain percentage. Sometimes what the towns have told us is that they would like to take over the unit, and then they can charge a town rent or a market rent that they feel is more in line with what they feel that they should charge.
So the municipalities or the towns really do not mind taking over the ownership of these units because that gives them an avenue of keeping seniors and keeping people in the town. They want to stay in the town, in the neighbourhood, and this works to an advantage for them.
So I have worked with a few towns that have bought--I am thinking of one in particular that bought a duplex because they wanted to see it better utilized, and they felt that they had a market for it. So they made an offer and we worked with them and we came to settlement.
Ms. Cerilli: So we are still waiting for the information on the rural area, but if you do not have it yet.
Mr. Reimer: Minitonas, I believe, is in the member's riding. There were two units sold in Minitonas and a duplex that was sold in Birch River, and the apartment was not ours. I guess there was an eight-unit complex that we took over, because it went into mortgage arrears, in Swan River.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Chairman, since we are talking about my constituency, I would like to ask, you were listing the units that were sold, but are there still other units that are vacant and for sale?
Some of the areas where we have the highest need for housing is in the Northern Affairs communities, and I am wondering whether any effort has been made to move them to those communities and still be maintained as Manitoba Housing units.
Mr. Reimer: The cost to move houses is very expensive, and CMHC, being one of the funding partners, has shown a reluctance to get involved with the funding of the movement of housing. So there has been no consideration of moving them physically to another location.
Ms. Wowchuk: Then I would ask the minister if he really thinks that that makes sense, if you have in one community a shortage of housing, and I think particularly the community of Duck Bay, where there is I think a waiting list of some 20, and Camperville has a long waiting list, that it would make sense not to move.
You are saying it does not make sense to move them, because it is too expensive, but on the other hand you have people who are in need of housing. The house is built already and if it could be moved into that community and provide much needed housing I think that it would be a worthwhile investment. I wonder whether you have pursued that very vigorously with the federal government to reconsider that possibility of moving it. Does the province have a policy, or is it the province, as well, that does not support the concept of moving houses?
Mr. Reimer: The community that the member is referring to, Duck Bay, I have been informed is solely under the CMHC's jurisdiction as for housing and that. So this is one of the reasons why we have not been involved with some of the decisions with regards to housing or the lack of housing in that particular area.
In dealing with the federal government, as I mentioned before, as a funding partner, sometimes their decisions are binding on our part, and we cannot do it without their participation.
* (1620)
Ms. Cerilli: I think that there are a lot more things that could be considered in dealing with these properties, rather than just losing them completely to the community as either low-income housing or some other kind of shelter. So the question that I was asking is: are you willing to consider that? If it is not in the process when you go to the municipalities to see if even other government departments, I mean, you say you go to government, but I am thinking even of youth shelters, maybe some kind of seniors centre, all sorts of resources that are needed in all these communities across the province, if you consider looking at having a little bit more consideration to using that property as a resource.
I think we have talked enough about and a lot about how a lot of times the larger single-family homes that you are divesting yourselves of are the ones that are most needed, particularly in Winnipeg. But if you are not going to use them for that, at least then look at using it as another kind of service to the public.
Mr. Reimer: I think the member's suggestion is worthy of consideration because I think that one of the biggest benchmarks would be in working with the community itself, the local town or the local R.M. or whatever it is, in letting them know that we are looking at or letting them know that there are surplus units in such and such an area and whether they have any considerations as to how it could be better utilized.
If there is a willingness that the community feels that there is a need for some sort of community component of betterment, whether it is through a shelter or through a drop-in centre or whatever, I think that we are willing to look at trying to accommodate those communities, because they are in the best position to utilize those buildings instead of just, as earlier mentioned, possibly tear them down or dispose of them in a sense, because a lot of times a community itself may have something that they have in mind or someone that wants to get involved as a senior centre or a drop-in centre. I have seen some very successful operations in some of the small towns where they are utilized as part of a hall or something like that.
We see that here in Winnipeg where we use, in our public housing, part of the units for some sort of drop-in centres or family service centres. A good example is Gilbert Park where they use a unit for rebuilding Christmas toys by the children in the area. So I am entirely amenable to the idea of utilizing it somehow within the community.
Ms. Cerilli: The other thing you had mentioned when you were describing some of the process that you go through in declaring a property surplus is you look at a tenant, you look at the departments in the government and then at tenants, so do you sometimes declare a unit surplus, even though there are tenants there? Does that happen?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, we have had situations where people are physically living in a unit, and they have approached us in wanting to buy it. We will go into the process of saying, okay, that is a surplus unit, and we well sell it to them. Yes, we will do that and make an arrangement with them to take possession, sure.
Ms. Cerilli: Or else what we have seen in other circumstances, if they are not able to take possession, they are evicted. That was the other part of my question earlier, that if they take possession they can assume the mortgage, so they can--
Mr. Reimer: Yes, they have to arrange for their own financing, but it is worked on an appraisal system.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, I think we could discuss that a lot longer, but I am feeling the need that I have to move on. I think that it is interesting to know that you have done that in the past. I am wondering if in some cases there was a down payment that was avoided if these potentially--they are low-income Manitobans, so if there was some arrangement where they had to make a very minimal down payment.
Mr. Reimer: Usually what happens is there is an agreement on the price. The individual then would arrange for financing, and then they would pay us out and then we are cleared of the asset that way.
Ms. Cerilli: There was one thing I wanted to ask about the Estimates book. There was a change that was made that I found was kind of bizarre. It struck me when I looked at the chart on page 7. You have changed from describing the Housing Administration and Finance to now talking about the Housing Executive which, as I understood it, was only the assistants to the minister's office.
That does not tell us very much, so when I then look on page 10, you are talking about the staffing in the Housing Executive office and Housing Program Support, and in last year's budget book, it was Admin and Finance. So now we have no way of knowing about the staffing and the funds expended in Administration and Finance.
Mr. Reimer: The Housing Executive is myself, the deputy, my staff and Bill's staff.
Ms. Cerilli: Yes, I am aware of that and that is why I am raising this. It seems like this is a mistake, because there is no documentation that describes the staffing levels and allocations for Admin and Finance. When I look at the last year's Estimates on page 10, it is Administration and Finance that is described in that chart, not just the Housing Executive office, so if that is a mistake, I can accept that. If it is a decision to change the format, I think I want to complain, because I think it is much more important that we have more of a description of the money spent and the staffing in the whole division that would be considered Admin and Finance.
Mr. Reimer: I think if the member would look at page 19 and page 23, it has an outline of the Financial and Administrative Services and the numbers associated.
Ms. Cerilli: I am assuming that that is the same as the book from last year's Estimates. What I am wondering is why, when I compare page 10 from this year which is the staffing by the department, you described only the staffing and Housing Support and then Housing Executive, whereas last year it was housing support programs and Admin and Finance. Why was that change made?
* (1630)
Mr. Reimer: Yes, I think that why there seems to be a bit of confusion is the fact that in the reporting categories, the deputy and myself now are broken out as individuals within the individual category, and then the other one, it was a combined in last year's book. The member is right. It is a little different, but part of that was because of the reorganization within the department, so the member is right.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay, so I am wondering if you would agree then that it is important to show the staffing levels on a chart like this for Admin and Finance. The other thing I think it is important to show--I am not sure if I have raised this other years--is the staffing with the Manitoba Housing Authority. When I look later on in the Estimates book, I think there is a total of 311 unionized staff, but the Estimates that are described here are only talking about the ones who are with the department and not the ones with the Manitoba Housing Authority.
Is that correct, and I am wondering if we could get a little bit more detail on the staffing with the Manitoba Housing Authority itself.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, that number is correct. The member is referring to the public servants who are shown in this book as a number and the fact that the non-civil servants are not shown in this book as a number of employees. The expenditure appropriation for the funding, though, is in the book. It does show the amount of money that is spent, but the numbers, the SYs, are not shown as a number of people employed--the member is right--other than on page two, I believe it is, where we refer to the component of approximately 300 staff who do not have civil service status and roughly a hundred caretakers who are employed on a contract basis.
So that would be the closest that the member would have for numbers that do not have civil service status.
Ms. Cerilli: What I was asking is if you could provide me with a little bit more detail about them. You do not have to go through it all now but just to give me the information for the Manitoba Housing Authority; you know, the number of managerial, secretarial, clerical, whatever the other categories are. If you have a comparison of that going back a few years, that would be interesting, too.
Mr. Reimer: Okay.
Ms. Cerilli: Because I was noticing that if we went back to the year 1995, there were 126 staff years in the department, and now projected for the end of 1999, there are 80 staff. That is quite a decline, and that is just in the department. I imagine if we looked at the Manitoba Housing Authority, we would see the same kind of decline in the number of staff.
I get complaints as I am sure you do, Mr. Minister, from tenants that are saying that repairs are not done in a timely manner. You know, there is concern that there is not the staff there to do the kind of housing supports that are necessary in a lot of our developments. We are seeing a very large drop in the number of staff in the department. I am wondering if we are starting to compromise the kind of quality of service in Housing.
Mr. Reimer: In looking at the difference in the numbers that the member is referring to, there was a large component of people who were involved with our departments when we were in the physical building of building buildings, and since we have moved out of that area, we naturally do not need to have that many people employed, so that is where the greatest number of declines of numbers that the member is referring to have occurred.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay, well, let us ask a few more specific questions about some of the people that have been let go. In the housing support programs--I am on page 9 in the Estimates book--the three staff that were declared surplus, what did they do?
Mr. Reimer: In looking at the reductions of 10, in the first part, three declared surplus upon evaluational operations and related staffing, one was a loans administrator, and then two were in the accounts payable department. The next line, in regard to the implementation of the desktop management, there were two declared there. In the re-engineering and the reprocessing for the shelter allowance programs, a lot of it had to do with the new programming of computerization in that department and a new re-engineering of the process. So that was mainly the result of the downsizing of five people in that particular area. So that more or less takes up the difference of the 10 people.
* (1640)
Ms. Cerilli: So, you explained the three that were declared surplus, but now you are also telling me that you lost five. They were not declared surplus. Did they get moved somewhere else? They are not working on shelter allowance programs anymore.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, they were declared surplus, and some were vacant positions too.
Ms. Cerilli: I have raised a lot of issues in the past with the shelter allowance programs, so I am concerned to see that five staff are also not working there. It sounds like you have implemented a re-engineering process--is what it says. What does that mean?
Mr. Reimer: I just wanted to get some further clarification on that. It mainly resulted in the fact that a lot of the programming and the management of it was done on a manual process applications. With the advent of different aspects of computerization, we were able to make it more efficient and involved, and we were able to declare five positions vacant.
From what I am told there were some vacancies in that prime area before, so this is how the number of five are indicated in that particular area.
Ms. Cerilli: I remember last year in Estimates, we talked a lot about the large number of positions that were filled on an acting basis. I am wondering if that has changed, if you can give us a report on the number now in the department that are working on an acting basis, and also if the positions related to tenant relations and tenant support have been filled.
Mr. Reimer: I think that what was happening in the last Estimates review process is there was a lot of acting positions because of the reorganization that the department was going through. Since that time, there has been a degree of stability put back into the department, and, in fact, most of the acting positions have now been transferred to a permanent position. So it has settled itself down, and I believe there are very few acting positions, very, very few. They are all permanent now.
Ms. Cerilli: The other part of my question was the positions related to tenant support, tenant relations, what has happened to that whole area? Have those positions all been filled?
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that they have been filled, yes.
Ms. Cerilli: So how many people now are working, first of all, in the Winnipeg region, and then outside the Winnipeg region in the area of tenant support and tenant relations, community relations?
Mr. Reimer: In Winnipeg we have a total of 10. We have four tenant support workers and six tenant relations workers. In the rural area we have three tenant relations officers.
Ms. Cerilli: That sounds like a very small number of tenant relations officers for the whole rural area. How many units are they dealing with? If it is a problem to get me that exact figure, I can understand that.
Mr. Reimer: I think the mix is what sometimes gives us the emphasis of the various relationship in relations officers and support officers. In the rural area we have a lot of single-family homes and they do not have the concentration as they do here in Winnipeg with the large highrises where they are working within concentrated areas of public housing. So this is why in the rural area it may sound small, but the configuration does not support the numbers as it does in the city of Winnipeg where there is a high concentration.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the things that those tenant relations officers are supposed to do is help tenants set up tenants associations. Again, I know that the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) was asking about this last week, but one of the issues is to clarify the department's policy for when a housing development has a number of vacancies. There is the 30 percent rule that there has to be 30 percent of the tenants interested in the tenants association. That is then 30 percent of the number that are actually living there, not 30 percent of the number of units because it would seem pretty unfair if it was otherwise, if it was actually 30 percent of the number of units. Are you following me?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, it is 30 percent of the number of units in the complex, not the tenants.
* (1650)
Ms. Cerilli: Would you change that policy? A unit does not become a member of the tenant association, the tenant does, so it seems that it should be 30 percent of the number of tenants who are actually living there at the time that they form the tenants association. This is posing a problem, I believe, for some of the groups that are trying to form tenants associations. If there is a vacancy rate that is a little bit higher, then they are having a more difficult time getting the numbers to come out to the initial meeting and that, so I am wondering if you would consider amending that policy.
Mr. Reimer: That is a very good point because what, in essence, you are doing is you are penalizing a place that wants to possibly bring itself up. People want to get an association, but because they have a large disproportion of, say, studio units that cannot be rented out. No, it is a good point, I will certainly take that as good advice.
Ms. Cerilli: Hopefully, we can move through these other ones just as quickly. I am wondering if the finance and administration division, who is responsible for dealing with financial policy or maybe through the Research branch, there was admitted some recommendations for dealing with the RGI calculation policy and trying to figure out how you could implement a cap. I am wondering if there were some recommendations put forward by staff that you are considering in the department.
Mr. Reimer: One of the things that has caused some problems and some concern that the member and I are both aware of is the RGI formula in trying to even build a stability into some of the communities. You get people who are finally getting off of welfare, in a sense, and starting to work and starting to accumulate some money, and because of their added wealth, they have to pay more rent. A lot of times, they are even forced to move out of the community or out of the complex because of that.
One of the hamstrings, if you want to call it, is our federal CMHC partner. They are very stringent in their interpretation of the rules regarding the RGI formula, and we have to adhere to them. We have made cases in individual areas where we have put in ceiling rents or cap rents, community rents or whatever we call them, and we have shown to them on pilot projects that because of very, very high vacancy rates, chronic vacancy rates, in trying to bring some sort of stability into communities that they will allow us to do that. So it is something that I know is worthy of consideration, and it is something that possibly we have to pursue a little further.
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
This, again, has been pointed out to us under the devolution program, where if we had control of it, we would not have to worry about RGI, we would make our own rules. They pointed that out as one of the other benefits of taking over the federal portfolio.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay, well, it is interesting to know that this could change more easily under a devolution agreement, but what I am asking more specifically is: are you considering then some scheme of more generally? I know you have done it in certain areas of capping the rent, but I am wondering if you are looking at changing the policy in some way across the board.
Mr. Reimer: One of the mandates, if you want to call it, with public housing has always been to try to accommodate the people that are in need of having a place to live and shelter. The guidelines and the strictness of the CMHC program have dictated that we have to abide by their 27 percent and 25 percent guidelines. We have resisted numerous overtures by the federal government. They have constantly wanted to bring this up a point at a time. In fact, some of the provinces are up to 30 percent.
An Honourable Member: That is not what we are talking about, Jack.
Mr. Reimer: I know, but we would certainly try to entertain areas where we can try to accommodate people into the communities and into the complexes through possibly a cap rent or a ceiling rent on some of the units. The biggest proponent of our doing that is that, when we have very high chronic vacancies, we can sell this program to our federal counterparts and do it. We have done it, too, and we are doing it, in fact, right now in Lord Selkirk Park.
Ms. Cerilli: What I am wondering, though, is if you have some specific proposals that you are considering to deal with some of the problems that I have raised in letters I have sent to you and your department in terms of making it easier for people to get out once they start earning some income so that they are not paying more than the market rate for months while they are trying to save up to put a down payment on a new place.
I was surprised to look at some of the leases and to realize--I know that in Transcona you can get a three-bedroom townhouse on the market for just over $500 a month. Some of the leases for residents in public housing are--the maximum rent that they can pay is, like, $900 a month on their lease. You know, it is crazy. Just because they happen to have their rent calculated based on their working income, and yet they have been trying to move. So I do not want to get into a big discussion about the problem. We know what the problem is. What I am wanting to know is if you can describe to me any programs or proposals that your department is looking at to deal with this problem in a word.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, I can say that we are looking at it. It comes under the purview of devolution because through devolution it does give us an opportunity to look at exactly what the member is talking about as to how we could better manage the entire portfolio as to efficiencies. One of the biggest benefits of devolution is the decision making made on a local basis within our province for what we consider to be the housing needs of our community. That again, and I repeat myself, is one of the things that the federal government has made overtures to us as part of the devolution so that we could possibly entertain those types of things and look at them, because I think that there are efficiencies that can be brought into the picture by management under one portfolio, and there is a very strong possibility that we would look at some of those components.
Ms. Cerilli: I will write you another letter on that one.
Mr. Reimer: Okay.
Ms. Cerilli: But on the rent geared to income, the other thing that I have written to you in the past about is the complaints from tenants that they continue to receive notices that they are going to be evicted or given an order of possession because they have not had their rent in by the third of the month. In some cases, the rent is not even coming from them entirely; it is coming from social allowance, which is where all their information goes. In other cases, they get paid biweekly, and their pay period does not end until past the third day of the next month. So they cannot get their information in on time, and they are getting these notices.
In some of the cases, it also seems like this is this new, I will call it the get-tough policy, where you have issued statements that they have to have their rent in, and you are starting to step up this notice-to-tenants practice, particularly if they have had arrears in the past. So I am wondering if you have re-evaluated that, if you have gotten the kinks out, so that tenants who are good tenants, who always pay the rent are not getting notices when they have no control over giving you the information, or, if they had been notified and you have explained to them if there is something in your system that you cannot change that, so that they are not feeling, once again, that Manitoba Housing Authority is the big, bad landlord, is not sensitive, or anything like that.
The other question related to this is with the new policy where you have stepped up this notice practice with tenants that are in arrears. I am wondering if you have a report on the number of people that have been evicted or have moved and, also, if you have collected more money. I think when I talked to the department in the past, I did get a report that showed the total amount of money that you are in arrears for the current tenants, as well as the arrears for tenants that have left, and I am wondering how much of that you have collected.
* (1700)
Mr. Reimer: I think the member is right in regard to the rent. The leases are made on a monthly basis with rent due on the first of each month. I think that what we have done is we have tried to work with individuals that have shown some sort of problems in getting the rent to us on a timely basis. The idea is that with the system that we are into now and the advent of computerization and everything, everything goes on a cycle. It is easy to have notices programmed, in a sense, to come out, and this is what happens.
We try to work with the individual. I do not think that it is the cold, hard landlord at the door type of thing, but we try to explain to the people. We try to get them on a timely fashion of having their rent to us on the first of the month, and most of them do. Most of them have got some sort of a system in place, and if there are incidents where something else has happened, I think that we are more willing to work with them if they have a good record of paying their rents and everything. It is not our intention to hassle them or victimize them if the intent is there and the history is there; we will work with them.
Ms. Cerilli: I can tell you that people do feel harassed and they do feel victimized, and they are getting notices every month. This is an across-the-board policy that you have made, and yet you are saying that people have to come to you on an individual basis and phone, for example, if their pay period goes beyond the end of the month. I can see that what you have probably done is programmed your computer for anyone who has been in arrears in the past that they are getting these notices. What I asked is to see how many people have either left or been evicted under this new policy, and how much money you have collected.
When I called the Manitoba Housing Authority previously, I was told that--this was as of January '98--the arrears were, in one month, over $250,000, and your former tenants' arrears were over $1 million. So I am going to be asking some questions about the former tenants in a minute. Right now I am just dealing with the existing tenants.
Is this new policy working? Are you collecting some of that arrears money or are people just leaving and what you are finding is that your former tenants' arrears are going up because people are abandoning ship and they are feeling threatened? I also want to ask you how clear the notices are to people? My concern is a lot of people do not understand the residential tenancies process. They do not know their rights. They get the first notice which says that they are going to be receiving an order to vacate within seven days, and they think they are on the street within seven days. I have gotten phone calls, people in a panic, feeling like they are going to have a nervous breakdown because they think that they have to be out of their apartment in seven days upon the first notice.
So I think that especially with these tenants that have been in an arrears, they have to get some clarification of what the residential tenancies procedure is and what their requirements are in terms of payment and what the notice provisions are. I hope you will take this seriously, because it is causing a lot of stress. I do not know if that is the intention that you have, you want to put the fear into them hoping that they are going to pay their rent. My concern is what is happening is they are leaving Manitoba Housing properties as quickly as they can, and maybe that is your intent too. If they are bad tenants, you figure they are not paying their rents, they are not good tenants, and you are wanting them to get these notices and feel like they are now all of a sudden under the gun with this new policy and you want them to leave.
Mr. Reimer: To the end of March, March 31, our arrears are just over $168,000 for the department. We have had a history of just over $168,000, you know, until the end of March, March 31. We have a history of write-offs of some fairly substantial numbers. In fact, since 1992-93, we have written off $2.4-million worth of write-offs. Some of this is damage and some of this is rental arrears, but the biggest portion is rental arrears.
So the board has adopted a policy in the department saying that we have to try to get our rental arrears in line of a more manageable position. This is why possibly, you know, it may appear that we are coming down harder, but, in essence, what we are doing is we are trying to instill a sense of responsibility of, you know, on the first of the month the rent is due and to work within the parameters of that.
Under the guidelines of the Residential Tenancies, the member is right. Within seven days there is the ability to evict someone, kick him out, unless there is an appeal file. Most of the time, if it comes to that, they do appeal, and then it becomes a part of the process of appealing it.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
We work within the guidelines of the residential tenancies Association. We are governed by their act, but, like I say, the majority of our people and the biggest majority of our people do pay on time.
* (1710)
Ms. Cerilli: Quickly then, will you give some information to your tenants, particularly the ones who are getting these notices under the new policy, the arrears policy, something that explains to them the residential tenancies process, so that they realize that after seven days they have to file their appeal, and that does not mean that they have to move out immediately? Remember, these are public housing tenants.
Mr. Reimer: It has just been pointed out to me that it may be on the notice, but we would have to check and see whether it is on the notice that is first given to the people. We could make sure that it is conveyed to them, that they do know that there is an appeal process.
Ms. Cerilli: A couple more things while we are on this topic, and then I am going to hand it over to my colleagues here.
One of the other things that has been raised with us is that there is a new policy related to pets. Again, this is what we are involved with here at Manitoba Housing. Tenants can only have 24-hours notice and they have to get rid of their pet. Tenants are concerned that this is actually going to be a policy that gets used against tenants by other tenants, or, if tenants are concerned that if they raise any issue, that Manitoba Housing is going to tell them to get rid of their pet.
Now, I do not know how you are dealing with this, but the serious question, though, of having a tenant contact Housing about their neighbour and the fact that they do not like their pet. I am wondering if any special consideration is given to tenants that require the dog for security. I think again we have written letters on behalf of women who have dogs, for example, for safety. They do have a police report that they are being stalked, and they have restraining orders and that. So I am wondering if any of those considerations are being made.
Mr. Reimer: If there is one thing on the agenda that comes up at meetings with the MHA board nine times out of 10 is pet policy, what is happening with Fluffy, and how do we handle him or her. The policy actually for dogs for security reasons is, no, we do not allow that. We do allow dogs for seeing-eye dogs and things like that of that nature. There is no problem with that.
I do not know how to answer this. Just give me a sec or two to consult here to see what the latest--I think what we have tried to accomplish is that people who do have pets, we have grandfathered the clause so that they can keep them. What we do is we make it very clear to people when they do move in, there is a no-pet policy. So we do not want to jeopardize, especially, some of our seniors who have had their cat or their dog with them for years.
Ms. Cerilli: Just a clarification for the minister, I understand what the policy is. What I am asking is how do you take into account the fact that this could be used by one tenant against the other tenant in terms of their phoning on their neighbour and saying their cat or dog is bothering us? Is that considered? How do you deal with that? How do the tenant relations officers deal with that?
Mr. Reimer: That is something that I think that we take into consideration. We certainly do not feel that it is appropriate for vindication or for repercussions from one neighbour against the other one. I think that the tenant relations officer or the person will try to work with the two parties and try to come to some sort of resolve on it. If it is used vindictively like that, the tenant relations person will try to get other opinions in the building or something so that it is not just one person's word that becomes the absolute law on it.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister said that people cannot have a dog for security, but it sounds as if they can also not get a security alarm on their property, a security system if they live in public housing. I have written the minister about the property in The Maples area and all of the tenants--I believe there is a tenants group there--want to install alarms with a code. They have agreed that the code could be the same one for all of the tenants, which decreases the security to some extent, but that is what they are doing to try to accommodate the Manitoba Housing concern, which is that the caretakers would find this a problem when they have to access the units.
I am wondering if you have reconsidered. This is something that could actually increase the value of the property. They are all willing to pay for them themselves, but Manitoba Housing has said, no, they cannot install a security system.
Mr. Reimer: The member brings up a very interesting scenario because the idea of controlling our asset, if you want to call it, our building with tenants in it and the concerns of all tenants have to be considered when there is an installation of an alarm system. There is also the concern that, when the person leaves, they will take their alarm system out, because most of these are drilled into the walls or wired into the walls or something like that, and the payment of the alarm system when they leave, and then the monitoring of it, if it goes to the police and the police have to get into the unit through a front door or something like that.
So there is a fair amount of concerns that have to be addressed, but that does not preclude the idea of trying to come to some sort of agreement or understanding possibly on an individual location, if it is a small complex where there is a willingness of the neighbours to work co-operatively on that or to come up with some sort of program together on it with understanding. As has been pointed out, some of these alarm systems have literally sirens and very loud sound systems associated with them. Where is that located, and how does that affect the rest of the tenants if it is an apartment block?
So just as it has a certain aspect of security, it also brings in a fair amount of questions as to responsibility and how it can be best managed. The member has mentioned this group in The Maples. I think maybe we would have to sit down and talk to them and see maybe there is a way of managing it. So it is not as if it is an outright rejection.
* (1720)
Ms. Cerilli: Just to wrap up on this issue then, I think it is a good idea if the tenants relations officer would meet with the tenant group there. There is an association. It is the properties at 1391 and 1411 Fife Street. If they have all agreed as a tenants association that they want to do this, then I think it is good if you talk to them.
The last issue I just want to touch on is back on the arrears issue and your utilization of collection agencies. We established back in '95 that your department or government cannot allow a collection agency to charge interest when they are collecting rent past due, but at the same time then I am wondering what the agreement is with these, if you have got a percentage that you have agreed that you would share with the collection agency? What is your budget for an organization like Equifax in terms of the amount of the arrears that they are going to get? Is this being effective, or is this helping you collect your arrears?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, there are three different agencies that are employed for collections, and their percentage of reimbursement ranges between 17 percent and 25 percent on the collectibles.
Ms. Cerilli: Are they allowed to use any sort of tactics or strategies or methods that they deem appropriate, or do you have something in the agreement that limits them from phoning people at work and harassing them at work which could lead to people losing their job--which is one of the concerns that I have had expressed to me where people are being phoned repeatedly at work--or other methods of the way people are talked to on the phone by collection agencies, if you are aware of that, and if you have in your agreement some things that sort of try to limit the kind of harassment that people suffer when they are being pursued by collection agents?
Mr. Reimer: Anybody that we would employ--I mentioned the three agencies--what we would expect from them and would be part of the agreement is that they would comply to the guidelines that are set up in the residential tenancy guidelines of collections, and we would not expect them to deviate with any type of ad hockery in how they would collect things, collect their money. They would be guided by the guidelines that are part of the rental tenancies agreements, collections.
Ms. Cerilli: Then maybe the minister can tell me if his staff are aware if the guidelines allow for collections agencies to repeatedly phone people at their workplace, use foul language on the telephone.
Mr. Reimer: It has been pointed out that, if a person feels that they are being harassed, there is an appeal mechanism through the rental tenancies association so that, if they are being harassed at work or through phone or something like that, they do have recourse through that.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I want to raise some questions on remote housing with the minister, remote housing programs. I want to preface my remarks by indicating that obviously I am not suggesting that the Minister of Housing or the provincial government has the jurisdiction for all northern communities in terms of remote housing, and that the comments I am about to make could just as equally be addressed to the federal government.
I want to begin by indicating that I really believe that we are in a very critical situation in northern Manitoba currently in the communities I represent and in many of the other communities I have been able to visit. I would say the No. 1 issue in many communities is that of housing, both in terms of the quantity of housing and also the quality of housing, and I want to indicate that the amount of work that is taking place generally in terms of dealing with the housing needs in northern Manitoba does not even keep up with the growth in the waiting lists in pretty well every community that I am aware of.
A lot of people are, in fact, now relocating from their community because of the lack of adequate housing. I think you could walk down the streets of Winnipeg, the streets of Thompson, you could walk down many communities' main streets, and you will find people from Nelson House, Split Lake, Cross Lake, Norway House, Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei, and they would all tell you that they are living in the city not strictly by choice, although that is the case in many cases, but in other cases because of lack of adequate housing. I would like to stress "adequate" because that deals with the fact that some people just do not have a unit, period, but also that there are completely unacceptable housing conditions in many northern communities. Third World conditions--there is just no other way to describe it.
I could take the minister to visit some of my constituents in Thicket Portage and Pikwitonei, which are both Northern Affairs communities, by the way. I could take him into the Nelson House community, also a Northern Affairs community. I could take him to the Nelson House First Nation, and I think the minister would be absolutely horrified at some of the housing conditions that people continue to live in. I just visited part of Nelson House a short time ago. They have been fortunate recently to have sewer and water finally added to a section of the community, but the sewer is now backing up, and they have problems with people contracting infectious diseases.
I might add that the housing conditions in that area are just absolutely unbelievable. This one house in particular in which a family is living--they are being transferred to a new unit, fortunately--is just about the worst housing I have ever seen. No sewer and water hookup, basically panels, wood panels. The house is actually not that old, but I do not think you would want someone to use it as a garage or even for any kind of habitation, let alone human habitation. It was that bad.
I want to ask the minister, to begin with, what he is doing as Minister responsible for Housing, either directly within provincial jurisdiction or at the federal-provincial level to address the huge problem with housing in remote communities, and the fact that over the next five, 10 years, I think, you are going to see a social and economic and health crisis that is going to be very much centred around the fact that housing in northern communities is absolutely inadequate both in terms of number of units as well as overcrowding and absolutely abysmal health conditions.
Mr. Reimer: The member knows quite readily a lot of the conditions in the North because of representing his constituency and the conditions throughout northern Manitoba. I have had the opportunity to go up to the North a few times and do some of the touring of some of the housing stock. The member is right. A lot of that stock is in very, very poor condition, and the lack of even more housing is evident.
I had the opportunity just recently to be down in Ottawa at a national housing conference. You could actually close your eyes and if you did not know who was speaking, you would think that they were they were speaking about northern Manitoba or some other areas. These were people from other areas in Canada when they talk about lack of adequate housing in the remote areas. It is becoming more and more of a focused point of discussion in various ministers' meetings and in various areas of conversations whenever I talk to some of my counterparts across Canada. It is with that in mind that some of the recommendations that came out of the meeting when I was at down in Ottawa. The fact that there be some sort of concentrated effort of awareness made to the parties. A lot of times, and I am not trying to put off the blame to the federal government, but their total abrogation of social housing and public housing in Canada is actually a terrible detriment to trying to build any type of community or community stability because of a lack of housing. If there is not housing, or if there is a lack of housing, there naturally is not going to be the growth, the development and the well-being of the community because housing becomes the primary need and the focus of every person.
* (1730)
So there was a strong recommendation from this national housing conference that we were to come to some sort of awareness program to the federal government in making these things known. Here in Manitoba, we have not spent more money on new housing--the member is aware of that and I am aware of that--since 1993 when the federal government pulled out of the housing portfolio and more or less abandoned it. That does not mean that there is still not a need for more public housing in the North. One of the things that the federal government has come forth with in the last while and something that we have been evaluating fairly stringently is what they call a devolution offer by the federal government to get out of social housing and public housing completely with the idea that we, as the Manitoba government, would take over all of their portfolio other than on-reserve housing and aboriginal housing that is now the federal government's responsibility. They would keep that as their responsibility, but all other aspects of public housing would be transferred to the provincial government for management and for administration.
There are certain conditions and advantages and disadvantages of taking over this portfolio from them. This has caused a fair amount of analysis by our department, and we still have not made a final decision on it. One of the things that is of note and has a degree of optimism in looking at housing for northern Manitoba and for all of Manitoba, in a sense, is the fact that the federal government has said that any monies that are realized through the management of the combined portfolios can be reinvested into public housing. That is their stipulation. If you are saving money or making money or realizing money through the sale of assets or through the redirection of assets or through the refinancing of assets, the monies that you save must be reinvested into public housing.
This gives us an opportunity to come up with I think some very innovative new programs and new ways of utilizing funding for either shelter allowance programs or for rental supplement programs or possibly even the addition of new housing totally in partnership with communities. It also gives us the opportunity to get closer involved with communities that want to become self-sustainable in providing more housing in their communities. So there is a degree of optimism that there may be this available for us to further utilize in getting some housing into the areas where there is a great need, which is in the North and which is in some of the isolated communities. That is one of the components that the federal government is throwing to us as a carrot, if you want to call it, in looking at this devolution offer.
It is a big portfolio to consider because, in essence, what we would be doing is we would be doubling the administration of our portfolio from approximately 17,000 units to almost 35,000 units, but the management of it and the decision making would be then done on a Manitoba level for Manitobans, and how we would want to better enhance public housing in our communities. So that is one of the options that we are weighing in looking at in trying to increase housing and the need for housing in the rural and northern housing in Manitoba.
We do not have a program right now. We do not have a partner to initiate new housing starts, but, as I say, there is room for some possibly innovative redirection of funding if we went down the road with devolution and we have the ability to manage our own portfolio.
Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the response from the minister, but I want to put on the record that I think it is going to take more than obtaining some savings by amalgamation between the federal and provincial governments to deal with the problem. For example, take a large, but not one of the largest reserves, such as Split Lake or Nelson House--and I am talking about on-reserve housing here--you will find waiting lists of several hundred. You will find similar problems in Thicket Portage, a much smaller community, but it is a Northern Affairs community in a provincial jurisdiction, again, huge waiting lists.
Of course, in remote northern communities, there is no commercial market; there is no commercial value in the case of reserves. There is also the additional limitation in terms of the assignment of reserve land, so you end up with public housing essentially being the only option that is available to people, and there are a number of models that have been used which do involve some sweat equity, either by the community or by the individuals involved. I know there were a number of units constructed in Pikwitonei recently under that model.
I want to stress again how serious this problem is. If one looks at Stats Canada information, you can see it. There are communities where the average occupancy in a house is nine or 10 people--the average. You are dealing with two or three families living in a house, but, if you have the opportunity to talk to people directly, you see even more than the statistics will show just how much of an impact it has. It impacts on health, with contagious diseases, for example. That is clearly documented.
The more people you have in a small area, the more readily those diseases are passed on. If you add to that the lack of sewer and water or inadequate sewer and water, you end up with that being compounded. You end up with social problems, disputes between families. I do not think it takes too much to figure out that if you have several generations of a family or people related living in a home, it creates more difficulty. That has been expressed to me by people, that it has led to severe problems both within families and within communities, and it even compounds itself further. I have talked to students who are trying to get back into school, finish off high school, continue with a university education. I do not think it is too much to anticipate that if you have a large number of people in a small home, you essentially end up with very difficult circumstances for students. I could go on and on in terms of the personal, family and community problems that come from inadequate housing.
There is also a problem, too, and that is in terms of design of housing. This has been an ongoing discussion and debate, but I am still amazed that we see homes constructed in northern Manitoba, the few that are constructed relative to the need, that would be more suited to the minister's constituency in the city of Winnipeg than they are to northern Manitoba. There has been some progress I know in insulation values, but they often are totally culturally inappropriate.
* (1740)
If you go to First Nations communities, Metis communities, there is a different background, different source of heat, for example. When you have wood stoves, you have a completely different situation in terms of humidity, also in terms of what is seen as appropriate with walls, barriers within the house. You end up with those kinds of circumstances being quite different. I am always amazed when you see a significant number of homes now with electric heating where you have direct electric power with insulation values that are, I do not think, appropriate for northern Manitoba, often poorly finished off. I can take you to literally dozens of houses that I have seen myself where the contractors have not completed the job. They have left wires hanging. The doors have not been fixed, windows. You name it, you can see it. I have raised this, by the way, with CMHC in terms of inspections, and that is often a problem. Occupancy is obtained in a unit, final inspections are not necessarily done, and, in fact, if the houses are not completed, the work is not necessarily done for quite some time afterwards.
I can show you also the renovation needs of northern Manitoba. That is something that is just so apparent wherever you go, and the system in place is often not responding directly because of the lack of capital money. I have often raised concerns--and I want to give CMHC credit, by the way. With the former director Roy Nichol, I had a good working relationship in terms of contacting CMHC. Work was done where it was identified. But, you know, you were dealing with a very difficult circumstance, even for CMHC, with large areas to cover. It is hard to get into communities. You know, it is well known in the communities that if you want to get work done, you better be on this side of the fiscal year, rather than the back end of it, because of funds running out, et cetera.
I am wondering specifically--to deal with the renovation side--if the minister can indicate whether there has been any progress at the federal-provincial level on renovations. I just want to give a quick example of a community where this was raised with me. It is in York Landing, so once again we are dealing with on-reserve housing. The housing director in the community said to me that there are a lot of units which were poorly built, in one sense, but are still structurally sound in the community. He, at the time, was trying to get significant amounts of money to upgrade those houses, and it is a lot cheaper to give a retrofit of a house to $15,000, $20,000 than to build a new one.
What I was amazed at was looking at how serious the problems were in that community and some of the housing that was built in the 1970s and early 1980s in terms of mould. Once again, inappropriate ventilation; in many cases, no ventilation at all; inappropriate humidity levels; poorly constructed houses; poor material--you know, every principle of housing construction violated in some way, shape or form.
I want to indicate, by the way, that I am no expert on the construction of housing, but even with my own knowledge as a homeowner and the kind of work I have had to do on my house, I have been appalled at the conditions that I have seen. It is a legacy, in many ways, of neglect, but I am wondering if there are any specific measures to deal with ways of keeping the existing housing stock.
Mr. Reimer: The member, I think, is aware that back in '95-96 we had the Home Renovation Program, and it turned out to be very, very successful. It was a program of almost $10 million. I think the budget item was $10 million. One of the things that was quite noticeable about that program was that what it did, it generated almost an 8-to-1 involvement. The government's investment of $10 million generated, I think it was, $87-million worth of expenditures of home renovations in the province. It was a province-wide program. It was well received. The selection criterion was under $100,000 of appraised value, and the pickup on that program was roughly along the same lines as the percentages of population in Manitoba, with almost 60 or 70 percent of the pickup in Winnipeg and the rest in the rural areas. We had very good success with that program, and it is something that is noted in our departments through my Department of Housing and through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) as to the return into the economy. So it is something that possibly, you know, deserves merit to resurrect.
The program that the federal government has come out with in the last little while, which we were associated with too to a degree was what we call the RRAP program. That is a program where we participate with about 25 percent provincial money and 75 percent federal money. One of the problems with that was that, when the program was announced, it was announced on a year-to-year basis by the federal government. There was no indication of stability or long-term planning on their part as to the continuity of the program. So we as a provincial government did not partake in the RRAP program. So it was strictly a federal initiative. One of the things that we indicated to the federal government in our analysis of the RRAP program was that, if there was a degree of stability and long-term commitment to it, then it would be something that possibly we as a province would consider.
As it happens, I guess it was less than maybe about two months ago, the federal government announced that they would sign a RRAP program for a five-year commitment, which is a very good sign for us to possibly re-evaluate our participation level. The amount of funding that they have allocated, I believe it was about $1.8 billion for right across Canada, and our component of it here in Manitoba would be about $1.5 million, I guess, if you look at the comparisons of population and density of populations for all the provinces of Canada.
We do have an opportunity to possibly look at piggybacking onto the federal RRAP program and seeing whether there are points of discussion, because, as I mentioned before, when you do not have a degree of commitment, which the federal government did not have before, it makes it very hard for the province to do any type of long-term budgetary planning when all of a sudden a program is there and then the funding capability is pulled and then we are faced with funding it on our own.
So I would think that is one program that we could look at possibly tying into, and look at renovating and the stability of renovations in Manitoba. So the RRAP program possibly is something that we look at, and then we can also possibly look at maybe expanding our own programs through, as I say, what I mentioned earlier, with the redirection of funding through our possible devolution program that the federal government is coming up with. If we have the ability to redirect funding, shelter allowance could be part of it, and the Home Renovation Program could be part of it, so we would look at trying to accommodate that.
Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the comments of the minister, and I want to turn the mike over to my colleague, but I just want to finish off by saying that I really mean what I say: I am really concerned about the housing circumstances. I am quite aware, too, of what the minister pointed out in the withdrawal from the federal side. Quite frankly, when they are running a surplus, certainly an operating surplus and a surplus when one accounts for other costs, interest costs, et cetera, I think they have to start reinvesting in housing. I mean, there are a lot of the communities that I am talking about--if this were in the Third World, they would be eligible for foreign aid; they would be getting help. That has been pointed out to me by my constituents, and I think it is absolutely unacceptable that in 1998 we have people in northern Manitoba that are living in Third World conditions.
I just want to once again urge the minister to push for a strong federal-provincial commitment, and to start reinvesting in our housing stock, and not just relying on relatively minor additions on the housing side right now, and a slow but steady decline with the existing housing stock. That just simply is not good enough, and it is just absolutely inappropriate for the 1990s. Thanks.
* (1750)
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I have a few questions in the time that is remaining here with respect to Housing. I had written to the minister some time ago, and to go even further back to his predecessor for his department with respect to the public housing in the community of Transcona.
There have been a number of complaints that have been drawn to my attention. In fact, the residents of the community have brought me into their homes, the public housing which is their home in the community, and have shown me the condition of those housing units. I have written to the minister in regard to those, in particular on Dowling, but also there are other units that are on McMeans, and I believe there were some on Allenby, and perhaps on Paulley Drive.
These housing units that I referenced for the minister, I cannot state strongly enough the deplorable condition in which I am finding these housing units. In the case of Mrs. Jackson, who has been referenced in my letters to the minister, and the minister has responded with respect to that individual in that housing unit, there are basement windows that are broken that are allowing water to come into the house in addition to rodents that can enter and exit from that building. You have got stucco on the outside of the building near the door, the only door to the housing unit, that is starting to slide now, which causes me to become suspect of whether or not that is a safe condition, whether or not that particular stucco is going to fall down upon people going in and out of that structure. As I have written to the minister on this in the past, there were some problems with ventilation interior to the building structure, which has caused further problems interior to the building with respect to moisture conditions.
This is not the only housing unit that I seen. I was into another one just last week again, at the other end of that particular street, which is also a public housing unit on Dowling, and I can tell you it is in deplorable condition. I do not know when the last time your department put a coat of paint on those buildings. The fences are falling down; the doors are falling off. Yes, they come out occasionally and fix it--I guess when they are hounded to death to do so, but no one seems to come there and to really give a darn about those properties and the condition of them, and the condition in which those families have to live. I have got people that are not living in public housing units, that live in surrounding area to those units, that are calling me and complaining about the deplorable condition.
So it is not only the people that are living there, but it is dragging down the well-being of the surrounding neighbourhood itself, and those are comments coming to me from residents, private homeowners in the vicinity of those public housing units. Although I am not going to discourage them if they want to take out a petition to lobby the minister's department to start doing something, I would hope that the department would be responsible enough to deal with those issues in a mature type of way and to respond to the needs of the people that are living there and the surrounding community.
But perhaps the minister can indicate to me what type of a maintenance plan do you have for those public housing units, those side-by-sides which make up the largest part of those units that we are talking about here? What type of a maintenance plan do you have to upgrade those units in this particular budget year so that those families do not have to continue to live in what I would consider to be, for my community, substandard living accommodations? Perhaps you can tell me what your plan is so that I do not have to keep writing you on the same issue over and over again.
Mr. Reimer: I have just been informed that one of the biggest problems in that complex is foundation problems, that the member is referring to, as he mentioned about the doorways and that. It is something that has been brought to our attention, and, in fact, I have been informed that it became very much a topic for discussion at the board meeting, MHA board meeting. A member or members decided that they wanted to go out there personally and take a look at the problems there that have been referred to.
I guess, in regard to the cycle of maintenance, we do not have the maintenance co-ordinator here with us, but it is something that possibly I can get back to the member with as to the cycling of inspections and when it goes on and possibly in what type of manner we can approach some of the problems there. From what I understand, it has been pointed out, it became quite a discussion topic. In fact, the foundation seemed to be the problem there, and we have to look at how and what it might cost to remedy the problems.
Mr. Reid: I appreciate the minister is indicating one particular property. I think it is on Dowling, that one that I had written to the minister on a number of times. In fact, I encouraged the minister to have his department get involved with that particular structure, but there are other ones in the surrounding area there, in that part of Transcona.
What I see developing here is that the province is starting to become a slum landlord, and that is what it is working into. I do not want to see that from a government, any government, either this one or future governments, to be in that particular marketplace. God knows, we have enough problems in trying to provide adequate housing stock and to discourage people from investing in those types of properties. So when I see the government not maintain properties, public housing units, it can only indicate to me that we are moving in that direction. I would like to discourage the department in the strongest possible terms from falling away from their responsibilities with respect to maintenance of these structures.
With the other properties that are there, I would like to know--you indicated that you have people from your board who are going to be going and paying a visit to this one particular site. What about the other properties in the area, the other public housing units on Dowling, McMeans, Allenby and Paulley Drive, et cetera, that are part of the public housing unit stock for the area? Will you be visiting those sites, as well, to check on the general maintenance of those properties, and when?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, I believe that was the intent, and from what I understand, it will be done in the next two to three weeks.
Mr. Reid: Two to three weeks seems reasonable here even though it has been some time that I have drawn this problem to the attention of the department. We hope that you will send people out and that appropriate corrective action or maintenance procedures will be implemented in this budget year so that, as I indicated, those living conditions can be improved not only for the people there but the surrounding community.
I had written to the minister with respect to the balcony charge of $5 if you have a balcony in another public housing unit at 30 Wynford Drive. Perhaps the minister can indicate to me why you have not levied that charge, because in your recent letter to me you said that it has just come to your attention that you have to levy a $5-balcony charge against people living there. I do not understand the logic of that. When did this come to your attention, and why are you starting to levy this now? When the province constructed this unit, did you tell the residents at that time that they were going to be faced with a $5-balcony charge in addition to their rental costs?
Mr. Chairperson: The minister will have time to answer this first thing tomorrow when the committee reconvenes.
The time being six o'clock, committee rise.