Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Housing.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 30.1. Housing Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 86 of the Estimates book.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I want to ask the minister about policy that allows tenants associations to use units of Manitoba Housing Authority properties for their office space and other activities. I have written to him recently about the Triplex Tenants Association in my constituency, which he knows has been using a unit. Now they are also getting the use, again, of the community club or the building that was intended to be the community club. I was concerned that they were going to lose the unit at that complex, which they need, and I am hoping that is not going to happen.
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): I was just looking at the schedule of the allocation of units in regard to the project size. When a project is up to 80 units, they are allowed to use one unit. From 81 to 160 units in a complex, two units can be allocated. If it is 161 units or over, three units can be allocated.
One of the things, too, that is very important for consideration is the demand and the waiting list on complexes. If there is a strong demand for the normal use of the complex, for people to be housed in it, and there is a waiting list, we try to accommodate those people before we would free up units for a tenants association. But I think the member knows I am a very strong proponent of tenants associations, and I think that we try to accommodate them in almost all incidences where they are requesting a unit to be freed up.
In regard to the Triplex complex that the member is referring to, I believe that we do not have any plans on having them relinquish that particular space that they are now in for their utilization as a unit for the tenants association.
Ms. Cerilli: I just want to clarify a few things, but I am glad to hear that the Triplex Association is not going to lose that unit. As you know, they have been very successful in there in a short period of time.
But I am also wanting to clarify when that policy was developed, how old that is, and also if what you are saying is if there is a waiting list for the housing complex, then they cannot get more than what is allocated under that policy, but if there is no demand, then they could qualify for more units to be used by the tenants association. Is that what you mean?
Mr. Reimer: Yes. A good example is Gilbert Park and Lord Selkirk Park where there is--I am not sure how many units have been freed up for various organizations in there. [interjection] Eleven or 12 units have been freed up, but that is something of an exceptional nature in those two.
But we will, when there is a need for some amenities and things like that to be utilized in the buildings and there is a large vacancy and no waiting lists, and it is chronic, it is better to get some sort of community activity involved in there, and that is why we have freed up space for community policing, for Child and Family Services, for Boys and Girls Clubs. I know in Gilbert Park there is a unit that is used for the tenants for refinishing and upgrading of children's toys for the complex. So those are the types of things that we would certainly look at.
The member mentioned the date, and these criteria came into effect in 1994.
* (1450)
Ms. Cerilli: The other thing I wanted to ask about is the allocation for the SAFER and the SAFFR programs. I think when the minister was describing for me the explanation of the reduction for the Estimates this year, there was reduction in the allocation for shelter allowance program for $100,000. That is the program for elderly renters.
It is interesting to see that the shelter allowance for family renters has actually gone up, which is good to see. I know that we have had some debate about this, and the minister insists that there has been no budget cut. But here, again, we see another reduction for the seniors program which brings the total to $350,000 over the last two years that have been cut from that program alone.
There have been a number of letters written to the minister about the need for a legislative review of this program for consideration that it would be indexed. There have been complaints that the amounts in this program have not been updated for a number of years, and that the way that the program operates is now out of whack. It is not keeping up with the rents. So I am wondering what the plans are in the department for this program, and if the minister can explain why there is another $100,000 reduction, speaking first of all just about the SAFER program.
Mr. Reimer: In the SAFER program that the member is referring to, I think she is aware that it is driven by applications and demand. In doing the budgetary considerations, it is based mainly on what is the pickup of the previous year, so that when the budgets are estimated, there is a number that is put into that category. The member refers to the fact that it is down $100,00, but that is mainly based on the applications. There are fewer applications that were put forth so, therefore, there is a smaller amount of money that is paid out.
If there are more applications, and we do not deny applications if they meet the criteria, we will automatically adjust that figure so that, in essence, there is a possibility, if there is a high demand for SAFER program and there is a more concentrated pickup on the applications, then we would honour those applications.
We are bound to a degree on putting a figure forth for Estimates when budgetary considerations are made, but at the same time we are also committed to the fact that if applications do come in and they are more than the Estimates, we would still continue to process them. We would still continue to pay them out, and we are bound by application approval, not necessarily that we would stop because of that number being hit of $4.3 million. If there was more than $4.3 million of requests, they would be honoured, and they would continue to be processed on their eligibility criteria. So that, I think, maybe gives a bit better explanation on why it seems that there is a reduction, but the reduction, like I say, is based upon the demand. If the demand is higher, it could easily go back up to $4.4 million, or possibly even higher. What we would do then is we would just go back to Treasury Board for supplementary funding, because the demand is there.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister not believe that if there were some changes made to the program, there could be more uptake and more demand? Some of the changes that Manitoba Society of Seniors have been asking for, some of the reviews that are being requested, I have heard that both these shelter allowance programs, if there were some changes made, there certainly would be the uptake. I think that the department has been running these programs for quite a few years. Maybe it is time to take a look at them and see if there are some changes that need to be made so that indeed--because there certainly is again, we do not have to look too far to know that there are lots of people out there that need assistance in making their rent payments. We know that we have a problem with poverty in Manitoba. So there certainly is the population out there that could utilize some assistance with their rent.
Mr. Reimer: The member brings up an interesting point because we do feel that the SAFER program is a very valuable program. This is one of the reasons why we have advertised it outlining the shelter allowance program. I believe we have brochures in all the offices that are there when people come in for their payments or for their inquiries into our housing offices. In March of this year, we ran ads in, I believe it is, 46 papers throughout Manitoba, in the weekly papers here in Winnipeg, and also in the northern papers, papers that do not belong necessarily to the association, Manitoba's community papers. I forget the acronym that they have. So we have made advertisements of it.
There is a total of 52 rural papers and the papers here in Winnipeg--Canadian Publishers, there are the local papers, plus the French paper, La Liberte, which we advertised in. The advertisement more or less starts out: Are you eligible for the shelter allowance program? It outlines the program. It says where the applications can be picked up or even there is an 800 number for the rural residents and a city phone for the city of Winnipeg. So we do advertise it. Like I say, we do have the brochures that are available in all our offices, too, that are out for easy access by the public as they enter our buildings.
Ms. Cerilli: I am pleased to see that the program is being advertised more. I know I asked lots of questions about that last year. I hope the same thing is happening for the family program and that is why maybe there is a little bit more in the budget if that is also reflective of an increase in applications for that program.
Again, I have talked to members of the community that feel that the family program needs to have some revamping. One of the concerns is that any funds that are allocated for rent are then taken into consideration at income tax time and deducted, so a lot of families feel like they are really not getting ahead. When it comes to the end of the year, they lose the benefit when they lose the money that they would get back on their income taxes. I am wondering if that is also going to be considered for that program.
Other people think that there should be some support available to people on social allowance. That is a different story, I guess. But I am wondering if the minister could respond to his department's consideration on those two issues for the SAFFR program, the Shelter Allowances For Family Renters.
* (1500)
Mr. Reimer: The member mentions the SAFFR program, the Shelter Allowances For Family Renters. It is something I have been informed that we are in the process of doing a review on the eligibility criteria. There has been no decision made on it yet, but it is something that is under consideration--some of the suggestions that she has brought forth.
Ms. Cerilli: When do you anticipate you will complete that review?
Mr. Reimer: I do not know whether a time frame has been set on it other than I know that the department has said that they are in the process of evaluating it. I do not know whether there has been a definite date saying that they want to have it completed other than the review process that they are presently undertaking.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the other issues I wanted to ask about is the government's policy. I call it one of their get-tough policies on tenants in public housing, the one-strike policy, the minister is saying. Recently, some of the tenants were at Lord Selkirk Park. I believe the president of their tenants' association was concerned that actually the policy is not being implemented to their satisfaction. I am not sure if it is capable of being tougher. One of the things that I was concerned about at the beginning is that to actually make this as tough as I think, some of the public thought it was that it would take an amendment to The Residential Tenancies Act. I was also concerned that tenants know what their rights are under The Residential Tenancies Act as this program is being implemented.
I think that it is understandable that people want more control and security in their community, but it seems that the government is having some difficulty in implementing this policy. So maybe you can give me a little report on the number of evictions that have occurred under this policy, or any other way, that you plan to evaluate it or review it.
Mr. Reimer: The member is right. The house rules, as we call them, we have had inquiries about people wanting to make them even tougher than what we have come forth with. I know that I had a meeting with the president of Lord Selkirk, Ms. Donna Harrington, and she had some suggestions to even toughen up the rules for the association there at Lord Selkirk Park.
We have had good response to this new direction that we have brought forth. The tenants were informed of it right from the very beginning that this was what we were intent on bringing in. When tenants renew their leases, they are given a copy of the house rules that they have to sign and date. So they are totally aware. They become totally aware of what is expected of them in regard to keeping the crime element out of the housing areas, and the undesirables.
We have had 10 people so far that have come under the rules or the enforcement of the rules, if you like to call them. Six of the people have gone, left our housing units. Two took their appeals to the Residential Tenancies board and lost, and there are two--[interjection] Oh, we lost, pardon me. We lost, so that the people are still in. There are two now before the Residential Tenancies board. The six who were confronted with the violation of the house rules, they left voluntarily once they were confronted.
The one thing that we have initiated, too, with the house rules is we work very closely with the police. The police become very much a factor in the valuation of the breaking of the house rules, and they become a very, very strong proponent of either acting or not acting on some of these violations. It has certainly acted as a deterrent value for the house rules. When people come in, they recognize that they have to abide by certain standards. In fact, I believe one of the people who was associated with the violation of the house rules was a child molester, and he left voluntarily when he was confronted by the tenants and the people who were concerned in the complex.
So we have had very good results with the house rules and the changes. We call it a strike-one policy, and, if anything, if it takes re-evaluation, it may take re-evaluation along the lines of possibly increasing it to have more classifications, but this would come in consultation with the tenants associations, so that it becomes their initiative, too.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not want to spend too much more time on this, but I do want to mention that as the minister talks about consultation, he knows that I raised last year the concern that this policy was brought in in consultation only with some of the tenants associations in the core of Winnipeg and that tenants associations in suburban housing developments as well as in rural areas have said to me that they felt very much excluded and that they think that they should be part of any further progress in this way or in new policies like this.
I am wondering, in that vein, if the minister has also received any complaints or concerns by some of these tenants in other areas, or are they just phoning me? I mean, I often tell them to call the department.
Mr. Reimer: I have had no correspondence to the detriment of the house rules, to my knowledge.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister want to verify that with his staff?
Mr. Reimer: No, there does not seem to be any correspondence that has come across from the rural area in regard to this.
* (1510)
Ms. Cerilli: In the letter that I wrote to the minister on this issue, his response included answering questions I was raising on another issue as well. You said, Mr. Minister, in your letter: We continue to explore the potential for partnerships with other government agencies and the private sector to provide more cost-effective means of providing shelter and services to our clients and to enhance the marketability of our portfolio.
You also talked about you provide tenant resource workers and meal programs and support for the daily living requirements of these and other special needs groups. I wonder if you could explain in a little bit more detail what you are talking about there. What are you exploring? Is it only cost-driven, or are you actually looking at what other services you could provide to attract tenants, and what other supports are you providing to the daily living of your special needs tenants?
Mr. Reimer: When we are talking about partnerships that have been referred to, there are various components that we are referring to along the lines of rental subsidies in regard to people living in private accommodations or privately owned buildings, where there are rental subsidies that would go with that individual. We are talking about possible meal programs in some of our complexes where that can enhance the marketability, if you want to call it, of a unit for people to come to because they can also get meals in their units.
Some of the units we have also made available for some of the amenities like a hairdressing salon in a unit or foot care in a unit or chiropractic care that can be utilized on a weekly basis or something along those lines. One of the things that we have just announced, too, is we can look at another area of assisted living at 880 Arlington on a trial basis to see how that can fit in. That is a partnership with Health in trying to accommodate the people in the area.
One of the things that we are looking at is a major renovation of Ten Ten Sinclair Avenue, if the member is familiar with that complex, for the disabled people in there. We are looking at doing some major renovations in there of the units. What we are looking at is working with the Aboriginal Centre for the supplying of manpower and training. We would supply the materials and that and they would be able to get involved with some of the renovations in there. So I think that is more or less along the lines of what I am talking about with partnerships.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to spend just a little bit of time left talking about the whole federal-provincial negotiations on the agreement to take over the CMHC units and to first ask a little bit about specifically the co-ops. The minister is familiar with the Co-op Housing Federation of Canada's proposal on new administration for co-op housing programs. They are proposing that it not go to the provinces; that the co-ops would actually go to a nonprofit agency nationwide that would manage all the co-ops across the country.
I am wondering if the minister has responded favourably to this type of third-party administration, if you have considered it in your department, and if you would think that would be an appropriate way to go.
Mr. Reimer: I have had meetings with the association I think at least twice now that I can recall, and then I was down in Ottawa a couple of months ago, I guess it was. The Canadian Housing and Renewal corporation had their annual meeting and trade symposium down there. So I had a chance to talk to some of the co-op people down there when they were making presentation.
The group that is representing the co-op movement is a national organization. They do not represent necessarily 100 percent of the co-ops. Here in Manitoba they represent about half the co-ops in Manitoba, and what they are proposing is that they would take over management of all the co-ops. I have not had any contact from the co-ops that are not associated with this particular organization. So I do not know whether they would be in favour, pro or against it, but I do know that this group only represents about half of the co-ops in Manitoba.
What has happened in other parts of Canada that have signed on with the devolution program, and there are five of them, there are Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, the federal government has said to them that the co-ops are part of the devolution project in those provinces and that they would not take them out of the devolution package.
British Columbia is also negotiating a devolution package. They are of the opinion, and they wrote, in fact, the Minister of House there, I believe it was, wrote to the minister of housing nationally, Mr. Gagliano, requesting that they not be part of the devolution process. The minister wrote back to the minister of British Columbia, that we received a copy of, stating very categorically that the co-ops would be part of any devolution program and they would not be considered out of the package.
So taking that into consideration, the optics and the realities are that the federal government has said that they have to be part of the devolution program. They cannot be taken out of the devolution process. The provinces that have signed have taken over the co-op association. The co-ops that have wanted to opt out in British Columbia where there is a very huge concentration of co-ops have been told that they have to be part of a provincial takeover in any devolution. That is the direction that they have told us here in Manitoba, too. I should say that told us directly, too, that the co-ops have to be a part of the devolution program. It is pretty hard to say that we are going to be different when the federal government has said that, no, they will not accept them and they have to be part of the devolution program.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, there are a number of things I want to follow up on there. First of all, would it not be possible, in Manitoba, once you had an agreement and you did take over the co-ops that you could develop a separate agreement with co-ops in Manitoba? I am wondering if that could not occur nationally as well, once all the provinces have decided if they are going to sign on or not.
I thought that B.C. also indicated they were not interested in devolution, but they were interested in having the co-ops have their own national management. The other thing I am wondering is if you would consult with the other co-ops who are not members of the Manitoba chapter of the Co-op Federation to see if they are interested. As I understand it, the Co-op Federation that exists now would not be the organization that managed the portfolio, that they would set up a new, separate organization that would do that.
So with those few questions I just wanted to follow up.
* (1520)
Mr. Reimer: I think that what is happening nationally is that every province, because of the diversity of every provincial portfolio, it has become quite evident that there is no uniformity in a sense of evaluating, well, what is happening in one province should happen in another. We found that in looking at trying to get a commonality, other than the fact that we are both into public housing, the arrangements and the various obligations and the funding of differentiations are vastly different between every province. The evaluation has taken for us a fair amount of time because we have to more or less invent our own wheel in Manitoba, because we cannot just necessarily take the Saskatchewan model or the New Brunswick model because of their different mix and their different financial obligations.
So this is what has taken a bit of time here in Manitoba to come to a final agreement on it, or, if we do take the devolution program. As for the co-ops, in talking to the other ones, I have not had any type of overtures other than from the association itself of letters and requests for meetings. I do not know whether the other 50 percent of the co-ops have an association or whether they have a spokesperson, but I have indicated to all stakeholders in public housing, including MASHM--I have met with MASHM a couple of times--that I am certainly willing to sit down and talk to them and have their concerns addressed. I have indicated to them that the existing arrangements or agreements that they have with the federal government and with us are not in jeopardy in any way. We are talking about administrative change more than anything else in the devolution of the housing stock.
I have tried to assure all of the various stakeholders or associations of complexes and things like that, that if they feel uncomfortable or have questions, by all means, I will meet with them and talk with them and try to allay their fears.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, I think there are a lot of concerns out there, but I am not sure if you answered my question about consulting with the other co-ops, because I understand you saying one of the reasons you are not considering the co-op proposal is the federal government has said no, and, secondly, the existing federation only represents half the co-ops. So I am wondering if you are going to talk to the co-ops that are not represented by the Co-op Federation.
Mr. Reimer: One of the things that the member is aware of and I am made abundantly aware of in dealing with the co-ops is that they are fairly independent in their setups and their philosophies of operation. They have not made overtures, or I have not sensed that there is an overture of anxiety in that particular grouping of co-ops. I think that if we had phone calls or inquiries--I would have to check with the department just to get a monitoring of that, and if there is an indication that there is a fear or an uncertainty, I will meet with them. I do not feel that I would say, no, not to meet with them, but I would have the department check and see whether there has been these types of concerns phoned in or conveyed to any of our staff. So I will have staff check on that.
Ms. Cerilli: I think the minister earlier mentioned a meeting that he went to. I know that recently there was a meeting. I think it was May 21 of this month of the Housing ministers from all the different provinces.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, that is the one I was referring to, Canadian Housing and Renewal.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay, I think we have got all that straightened out. I will just ask my question now. One of the issues I understand that was discussed at that meeting was changes to the federal housing act. I am wondering if the minister could clarify that and provide a little bit more detail and report on what the federal government is anticipating, what kind of changes they are proposing to make to the federal housing act.
Mr. Reimer: I think what the concern was was that because of the nature of the Canadian housing act, that what they were doing was in contradiction to the act in the sense of saying that they wanted to devolve their housing stock, but in the analysis of the act I believe that they were in contradiction.
What it was, the route they were taking did not fall within the act because the act was very rigid and very strict in its parameters and its interpretations, so they were going to have to change the act. That was more or less the context or the gist of why there was a concern with the Canadian housing act. It had to be changed to accommodate what the minister and what the department was trying to accomplish.
Ms. Cerilli: To get a little bit more specific, what specifically was it related to, funding? Was it related to management, maintenance?
Mr. Reimer: It revolved around, to a degree, the cost-sharing arrangements and the funding arrangements of certain programs. That was where there was a contradiction or a conflict between what had been proposed and what was outlined in the act. That had to be changed.
Ms. Cerilli: My goodness, I do not think we would have legislation made now that actually put a funding ratio or agreement into law. That is, I think, a thing of the past. It seems though with the kind of legislation this government brings in now, I do not know if you would ever put something like that into law. What was your position related to the proposals? What are they actually going to do to the legislation, just withdraw any of the requirements that commit the federal government to funding cost-sharing?
Mr. Reimer: My meeting with the minister, Mr. Gagliano, was to point out those discrepancies. He conveyed to me that they were aware of it and that they would change it. That was my presentation to him, you know, it was along those lines, showing him that there was a difference here and and he was aware of it. As I mentioned, they said that they would change it to accommodate that.
Ms. Cerilli: So it is my understanding that this was not something that the federal government had initiated, that you initiated the discussion on the need and change in the legislation at the federal level.
* (1530)
Mr. Reimer: Yes, they were aware of it, but we were down there for the meeting for the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, and at the same time I combined it with a meeting with the minister of housing down there. I thought I would get two-birds-with-one-stone type of thing.
We had a good time in Ottawa. I saw the Picasso exhibition, had a chance to see the Picasso exhibition, very nice.
Ms. Cerilli: So the federal government though has initiated these changes, and you went there and said to them, you are not going to do anything until the changes are made. Was that what you said? I am not clear what happened.
Mr. Reimer: We were trying to get a timetable, and they were as evasive as sometimes some of my answers are. They did not have a time, other than they would say that it was brought forth, that it was a concern, and they were going to change it. I believe that it is in this legislative package right now before Ottawa, but I do not know for sure, other than what he said is we are changing it as soon as possible.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not think it is in this, I could be wrong, but for the kind of questions I am getting from Ottawa, it does not sound like it is, from the NDP in Ottawa, I do not talk to the Liberals in Ottawa.
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that it sounds like they may have it for their September schedule.
Ms. Cerilli: So this is really interesting though. What is this fact that the federal legislation really does not have the flexibility necessary for the current agreements to maybe be legitimate, or to be legal? I do not know if that is a problem. Are these other agreements then in jeopardy because the federal legislation has specific requirements for federal commitments in housing for cost-sharing?
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that it does not affect the agreements that have been signed with the other provinces. It applies mainly to one program, and that is the program, the Section 79 program, which is the 75-25 cost-sharing of expenses. I have been told that administratively it can be adjusted, so that it is not a problem that has jeopardized the signing so far.
Ms. Cerilli: Generally, though, in this meeting that you had with the federal minister of housing, did you also take forward a progress report on the Manitoba consideration of the devolution? Can you tell me what that is?
Mr. Reimer: We were trying to remember what was on the agenda at that meeting. One of the things that was on the agenda when we met was what we were talking about earlier, the co-op housing. The minister, I do recall his stating that, as I mentioned to the member, the co-op housing was part of devolution and that he reaffirmed that personally to me at that meeting, because we wanted to talk to him about that. We got that answer.
One of the other things that we wanted clarification on was the reserve and off-reserve housing responsibilities for the federal government, to reiterate and reconfirm that they still would have that responsibility. He confirmed that that was not part of the devolution. Reserve housing and certain types of aboriginal housing, and some of the housing that is owned by First Nations would stay within the federal jurisdiction. Those were the topics that we talked about.
Ms. Cerilli: Maybe I can get you to provide me with more detail after the Estimates specifically on which of the aboriginal housing is going to still be separate out of the devolution agreement.
Mr. Reimer: Staff is taking that as notice.
Ms. Cerilli: I also wanted to raise questions about--similar to the co-ops proposal, there is an aboriginal proposal. I am not sure if you have seen this. It is a new document called Halt the Transfer, Aboriginal Control of Off-Reserve Housing. It is from the National Aboriginal Housing Association. It is dated May '98. So it is very new. It is basically putting forward a proposal similar to the co-op one that a separate, national, aboriginal nonprofit should manage specifically the off-reserve housing portfolio. It makes reference to Kinew Housing locally as being one of the first aboriginal housing corporations. This would affect corporations like Aiyawin Housing Corporation. I am not sure if you have met with the leadership from that organization who are very concerned about this. I am wondering if that was one of the things discussed with the federal minister: if control of aboriginal housing is considered a treaty right, if it is considered a legal right, if it is considered that aboriginal groups should have control of their own housing portfolio.
Mr. Reimer: The brochure that the member is referencing, I have not read that. I know the department is saying that they have not seen it either yet. May of '98, that is very new then. We have indicated to the aboriginal groups that are managing in partnership with the federal government that we would not jeopardize or change that type of a relationship that they have. In fact, I believe we have met with the two groups, Aiyawin and Kinew; they would be of the same direction, that we would not jeopardize the relationships that they have with the federal government.
Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate that, and that would be, I think, a requirement under the agreement that the existing contracts or agreements that these corporations have with the federal government have to be honoured with the provincial government. But my question is: are you also aware and are you considering with the federal government that the aboriginal portfolio would be managed independently of the province, that it would not be transferred over, that it would be managed nationally by an aboriginal organization?
Mr. Reimer: There are a fair amount of different aboriginal associations out there that are managing the aboriginal housing. They do not all work under necessarily the same type of arrangements. I would be hesitant to say, unless I knew specifically which group it was, whether they would still stay under the federal jurisdiction or would be part of the devolution.
To do it on a total basis, I would not feel comfortable with that because I am not totally familiar with how many different--because there are a fair amount of different groups that are being operated under different types of arrangements. We would have to look at them on an individual basis just to see which ones would possibly fall under those criteria or not. As the member is aware, the MMF manages a very big portfolio of housing, and presently they would be part of the devolution program to the provincial government. Then it would be an arrangement that we would have to make with the MMF.
* (1540)
Ms. Cerilli: I will just read a section of this to the minister, the section called The Law of Contracts: Nevertheless, no matter how law or policy, whether housing is treated as a treaty right, a legal right, or a right enshrined in social policy, is viewed in relation to aboriginal housing, one thing remains constant--that is, Canada has entered into long-term contracts with aboriginal institutions for aboriginal housing. These agreements must be honoured, utilizing the court's philosophy that the honour of the Crown is at stake. As such, the governments cannot unilaterally change the terms and conditions of these agreements without the consent of aboriginal people.
So, what these groups are saying is that they cannot negotiate federal devolution without having aboriginal people, even go so far as saying that they must be sitting at the table when these agreements are being negotiated, and, maybe even further to that, that these aboriginal organizations that have been managing also have to be given consideration that they would consider to manage the portfolio.
Mr. Mervin Tweed, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair
So I am wondering if your department is considering that at all. How do you view these agreements? Are they legal rights? Is it simply social policy, or are these treaty rights?
Mr. Reimer: There is a fair amount of content in what the member read into the record regarding the report from the aboriginal association. I would want to look at it a little bit closer in the context of how it is written. I could say that it would not be our intent--that if there are contractual obligations that are between the federal government and the First Nations, we would honour those contracts.
The management of various other components of aboriginal housing do fall under the purview of devolution. They would come under various other types of negotiations between the provincial government and the organizations that would be part of the devolution. As I mentioned before, the MMF, in their management agreement, would fall under the negotiations between themselves and the provincial government instead of the federal government, because they would be part of the devolution.
Some of the other associations that are with the First Nations and the federal government would stay with the federal government.
Ms. Cerilli: I will have to follow up that issue in more detail I think after the Estimates. I am cognizant of the time. I just want to ask then, generally, for an update on the status of negotiations with the federal government on devolution with Manitoba now. Have you come up with any more drafts of an agreement? I think the last time we discussed this there was a third or fourth draft stage, and maybe explain the delays that have been occurring.
Mr. Reimer: The member is right. This has been a fairly long and detailed analysis since it was first proposed a year or so ago or two years or three, oh, whenever it was. One of the main reasons is because of the vast divergencies or differences of associations and arrangements between the various stakeholders and the complexes in regard to the funding and the funding formula and trying to get clarification and clarity as to the responsibilities.
One of the first things that we found when we got into looking at the devolution process was that there was not a proper inventory actually of the federal stock. This was frustrating because we could not evaluate or make decisions as to what type of direction we would take because they could not even provide us with a list of their units and where they were and the condition.
We ran into problems of also trying to get proper records on a lot of the conditions of the buildings and their histories and what their budgetary directions were that they were taking with these buildings and what the responsibilities were in trying to come to an understanding with the federal government on that.
We also ran into some of the problems regarding codes, fire codes, safety codes in some of their buildings that they were proposing that we would take over as part of the devolution. We were very concerned that a lot of the codes were not up to spec, so we naturally had to do an inspection not only for our satisfaction but for costing of responsibilities, and what it would cost our Treasury to bring these up to code.
Mr. Chairperson in the Chair
These all became part of the negotiation package and proposals that we started to talk about with the federal government. To compound it, the federal government was in a very rapid downsizing of their department. The people that we were in contact on a regular basis here in Winnipeg slowly were dissipated and left the system, and it left us dealing then from Winnipeg. We started to deal with people in Calgary, because they were moving people to Calgary. There was a transition because some of the people that we were dealing with decided to take early retirement, and they left Canada Mortgage and Housing portfolio. So we had to deal with different people, and the learning curve associated with these people got prolonged. We then had to deal with people out of Ottawa to get some sort of consistency, and that meant either them coming here to Winnipeg or staff going to Ottawa or long conference calls trying to clarify positions.
So it has taken an awful long time trying to get to a decision as to whether there is a proper evaluation of the condition of the buildings, the budgetary process of finding out what the expenditures were, what the expectations of return are for monies coming back to the provincial government. It has taken a long time. We are still working on it. I would tell you that we have come a long, long way on the road trying to come to a decision on it. We have not come to a final, you know, black and white decision on it yet, but all indications are that the major concerns have been addressed. It is just a matter of doing final evaluations and seeing whether it is of value to pursue it for the benefit of Manitobans and what can come out as a benefit for Manitoba. Because, if anything, it has to be of a benefit for public housing in Manitoba and the taxpayers of Manitoba.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay. Well, the minister is saying they are still at it, and it sounds like it has been a bit of a nightmare in terms of the federal government's, you know, changing their staff all the time and not being forthcoming with information. So I am wondering now if you have a draft that you are happy with that you think is a draft agreement that you could actually sign, and if you have some target date for signing an agreement with the federal government.
Mr. Reimer: No, we do not have a final draft. We have not put a final date on it as to when and if we would sign, but I can only hope that expediency would prevail because I know that it has created some uncertainty for the various stakeholders. I would think, you know, that we would try to get a decision on it fairly soon.
* (1550)
Ms. Cerilli: Sorry, I was distracted at the beginning of the minister's answer there. Could he just repeat his response to the issue of the draft agreement?
Mr. Reimer: No, we have not come to a final draft agreement or a final wording as such as to what we would present to the federal government.
Ms. Cerilli: Are you at the stage now where you have got all the information you need, and you are now working on looking at efficiencies that you could extract from the portfolio? I am wondering if you have come to any decisions, then, on how that would work. One of the questions I had asked earlier is if you would increase the rents to 27 percent of rent geared to income for the properties that are now with the federal government, if that is something that you can do or if that is part of the agreements that you cannot touch.
Mr. Reimer: We cannot tinker with any formulas until we have more or less taken over the administration of the portfolios. That is one of the plums, if you want to call it, that the federal government puts before us, the fact that decision making then becomes on the local level for made-in-Manitoba decisions. That does have the appearance of an advantage, where we can make our own decisions and we are not bound to the percentages that the member mentioned. We have the ability to make adjustments or revamp it or to redirect housing funding in a manner that we felt appropriate. So those are some of the pluses of the whole complex.
Ms. Cerilli: While all of this has gone on, the federal government has been offloading some of their properties. Is that being done in consultation with Manitoba Housing, or are they still off doing their own thing? The portfolio that you are going to agree to take over, then, is forever shrinking, it seems like. I am wondering too, the question that I just asked is if you have some projections in terms of cost savings that you would free up. In your analysis of the portfolio, have you got to that point? If you could share that with the committee.
Mr. Reimer: No, we have not come to that plateau in the analysis of the proposal, but the member is correct when she says that the federal government has offloaded some of their complexes. These were strictly under their jurisdiction and purview, and we as a provincial government had no input into that decision.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the provincial government support their doing that? How do you feel about them? In the meantime, they are negotiating on a portfolio, and all the while they are chopping it up and halving it off and selling it. Some of those, like we discussed the other day when the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) was here, are in areas that there is a real need. I am wondering how you feel about that.
Mr. Reimer: I think that what was pointed out to me is that the units that they sold were in mortgage defalcation, and we do not get exposed to those decisions that the federal government undertakes. In fact, I think it was just as much a surprise to the member as it was to me when I saw the units listed in the paper saying that they are for sale, because nobody in the department knew that that was happening, I do not believe.
Ms. Cerilli: So in response to my question, you felt surprised.
Mr. Reimer: I felt surprised.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay. I think just to conclude, I want to ask a few more questions about the staffing in the department. Previously there had been some problems in the department. I think it occurred through the transition of when your government chose to eliminate the 81, I believe it was, housing authorities and consolidate them into the one Manitoba Housing Authority. There were all sorts of grievances that were filed, and it caused a lot of problems. So through that there was a lot of turmoil in the department, but it seems like that has continued on. They now have just gone through another major reorganization.
So I am wanting to get a report from you on the number of grievances that are currently filed within the department, whether from grievances with the union, or if there are any complaints being filed with the Human Rights Commission, that kind of thing, if you can give me a report on that?
Mr. Reimer: I was asking staff whether they had any number that I could give to you for, say, the last year as for grievances. We do not have that type of information or the individual here that would have that, but I can get that for the member if she would like. Presently there are, I believe, two grievances that are outstanding. I am not too sure of the content of those grievances, but, from what I am told, there are two that are outstanding right now.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay. I would appreciate if the minister can get that information for me, and that would be for the entire department, both the Housing Authority as well as the department, I should say.
Mr. Reimer: Yes, we can do that for the last 12 months. The member is asking for the last year or during the last year or last fiscal year, whatever.
Ms. Cerilli: I think going back the last couple of years, okay?
Mr. Reimer: Okay.
Mr. Chairperson: 30.1. Housing Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $371,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $88,500--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from Urban Affairs (230,100)--pass.
30.2. Housing Program Support (a) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,792,000--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $423,900--pass.
30.2.(b) Research and Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $475,900--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $171,300--pass.
30.2.(c) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $254,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $44,100--pass.
30.2.(d) Information Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $680,700--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $906,800--pass.
30.2.(e) Client Services - nil--pass.
Resolution 30.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,749,500 for Housing Program Support for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
30.3. The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation (a) Transfer Payments $32,596,000--pass; (b) Grants and Subsidies $5,920,300--pass.
Resolution 30.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $38,516,300 for Housing, The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Housing is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $13,200. At this point we request the minister's staff to leave the table for consideration of this item.
30.1. Housing Executive (a) Minister's Salary $13,200--pass.
* (1600)
Resolution 30.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $243,400 for Housing, Housing Executive, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1999.
This completes the Estimates of the Department of Housing. The next Estimates that will be considered for this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates of the Children and Youth Secretariat. Shall we recess briefly? [agreed]