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 1.(b)(1) on page 98 of the Estimates book.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Chairperson, when we were last together, the minister was discussing Manitoba Housing Authority's negotiations with some tenant associations through a tenant management. I think that is where I am going to pick up for continuity sake.

I was running downstairs because I wanted to make sure I had my copy of a document I passed on to the minister which I got from Ontario, which is the process and the agreement that Ontario Housing Authority is using in their transfer. Again, it is a pilot project. They are transferring one of their large complexes, it is called Alexander Park, over to a co-op management. The tenant association is involved in taking over the management of the 410 units there. The purpose, I think, is similar to the intended purpose in Manitoba where the tenants have more of a say, where they are more involved in local decision making, but it is using a co-op model rather than what has been used here, which is a not-for-profit-model.

I want to ask the minister some questions about that because I think he has said in the past that Gilbert Park in Manitoba will become operated as if it was a nonprofit. I want to figure out how that is going to work if they are going to have to form a new incorporated body that is going to have a mandate and a specific structure so that they will be then the property manager under this new tenant management model. That is my first question.

My other question following from the document that I have provided the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) is: have you had a chance to look at the very specific description in that conversion to co-op housing of Alexander Park, the process that was used? Because I am concerned that in Manitoba, there does not seem to be as clear a process. In Ontario, they worked very hard to come up with a business plan and agreed upon process. All the tenants participated. They had quite an extensive community consultation. There was a petition. There was then a referendum vote on moving forward with the final decision. There was 79 percent in favour, which is very high, a strong mandate then to move forward and, as we know, that did not happen in Gilbert Park. There have been a few bumps in the road.

So I guess that is my second question. Have you reconsidered, just based on your own experience, and are you now going to come up with something similar that is going to specify clearly so everyone knows what the process is going to be?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): This is, indeed, a very interesting topic and area of discussion, because I think that it leads into some very exciting prospects for different types of management and different types of direction in regard to public housing and public housing management.

I think that I am repeating myself, and I know the member has heard this before, that I strongly believe in tenants associations and, in fact, the idea of tenants associations taking on even more responsibility for the management of their complexes and their associations. That is one of the reasons why it is very important to work with an established tenants association that has a bit of a track record, a bit of stability and some leadership involved with the members who are on the tenants association.

The Gilbert Park Tenants Association has shown that type of leadership in initially coming forth with the suggestion of more tenant-managed responsibility in their particular complex, and I was very receptive to the idea. But one of the things that became quite evident right off the very top was the fact that the association themselves were very cautious in the amount of authority and the amount of ability to make decisions they undertook by themselves. They were very cognizant of the fact of trying to work slowly to understand, to comprehend and to have assurances and confidence in what they were doing. They were able to do it with the ability of satisfaction that was not only for themselves but in working with Manitoba Housing.

The member asked who would be the people whom we would be dealing with. We would be dealing with setting up an agreement between Manitoba Housing and the Gilbert Park Tenants Association so that they would become the managers, just like a private nonprofit association. While I am not saying that it would be a private operation, we would be looking at that type of model in the management facility of Gilbert Park. It is a different type of approach in the sense that the rules and the guidelines, you cannot blueprint an exact model over top of Gilbert Park and say that this is the way it is going to devolve, because I think it needs an awful lot of working together with the tenants association, and that is one of the reasons why we work very, very closely with them. We have started to devolve some of the authorities down to them in decision making. I would have to get more information from staff as to exactly what various functions are now being involved, and maybe as I am speaking staff could maybe just give me a bit of a list of what they are involved with right now in regard to decision making.

The member is right. There has been a change of the tenants association. I believe that they did have an election of new tenant officers or executive there. There have been some changes there, but I think that the basic desire to still proceed is still there. We have had no indication at all that they do not want to proceed. If anything, I think that they want to proceed a little bit more aggressively in trying to accomplish their objectives in setting out the changeover.

* (1510)

We do have a tentative target date for turnover to the Gilbert Park residents association. That is April 1 of next year, which is April 1 of 2000, and we are working towards that date. I think it is very important that we have an objective so that we can both try to come to some resolve by the time that comes about.

The report that the member mentioned regarding Alexander Park in Ontario, I have to admit that I had just a brief look at it, very cursory, and then I sent it in to the department for analysis and a briefing to come back to me. To date, I have not seen that. So I cannot really comment too much in depth regarding Alexander Park in Ontario, other than I can mention that, if it has been transferred to a co-op type of model, those are the types of things that we can consider. But, as I say, we have not done a closer analysis of Ontario.

Just going back to Gilbert Park again, as I mentioned, some of the things that have been transferring down to them for their supervision and involvement, we are looking at snow clearing, the grounds care in and around the buildings, the garbage pickup in and around the area. They are involved with the application process of people who are coming in for making applications for residency in the complex, and there is some commercial leasing involvement for input in regard to the centre that is used on a commercial basis like the literacy centre and the Four Feathers centre, I believe it is called. Also, what we are looking at are some of the other functions in regard to renting out of the units. So those are some of the things that we have transferred to the Gilbert Park Tenants Association, but, as I mentioned, it is all within the parameters of working very, very closely with the tenants association with my department in trying to come to the eventual turnover of Gilbert Park to the association.

Ms. Cerilli: So, in answer to my question then, the process that you are using is sort of, I would gather from your answer anyway, an incremental one where you have done these contracts for grounds, for cleaning of the units, for those types of things, and that incremental basis is the process that you are using.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, we are going slow, but, with each one of these devolutions I think there is a confidence building that comes about with the association. It is from there that we are building more responsibility.

Ms. Cerilli: I am also taking from your answer that you chose Gilbert Park because they were the ones asking for more local input, and I know some of the tenants associations, we both know, have no interest in this, but Gilbert Park did. So you are working with an established tenants association. Would you agree, though, that it seems like you have left the responsibility for communication with the tenants entirely with the tenants association? You just said as well that you were working closely with them, but maybe you would agree then that there have been some problems there.

Mr. Reimer: I am not too sure whether there have been problems per se with Gilbert Park. I think that what it is is that a lot of times there is a bit of uncertainty or an unknown quantity that they are dealing with, and we try to work with them very closely. When I say "we," I mean staff and the people who are involved with Gilbert Park. In fact, what we do, we even offer training to some of the staff there with our MHA staff so that they become aware of some of the administrative responsibilities.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, one of the minister's staff who is here today was at the same community meeting that I was at, and if the minister had been there, he maybe would have a bit of a different answer because there was a fairly heated debate. We have had an exchange of correspondence and petitions by different tenants. I think, as I would define it, the problem is not that people do not want to have some form of tenant input or tenant management, but the issue is with the way that tenants are going to actually have that input and be involved and feel like they are part of the decision making. One of the comments at that meeting was people do not want to find out what is happening to their housing by reading the paper. The majority of the tenants who were there did not know that the tenants association was taking a trip with the minister down to Washington.

What I am wanting to get at in terms of the process that the department is using to move towards this is that there be some kind of policy that requires the groups that are going to be involved with the tenants to make sure they are following a democratic process where people are informed and where they can participate in meetings. Even though perhaps everyone involved with the tenants association is well intentioned, the people who were calling me, that is not how they felt.

I am wondering, and I am back to my initial question, did you learn from this? Did you learn from reading the model that I sent to you and the steps that they went through to ensure that if you are going to have tenant management, you first have tenant support and input and ensure that the tenants are going to feel like their tenant association is representing them and their interests?

People at the meeting were raising really significant and legitimate questions. I asked some of those questions in the correspondence to the minister, and I have yet to receive some answers for those folks. So is there going to now be some kind of process for how pending decisions are communicated to tenants and so that people have input? Is any of that going to change?

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I think with anything that comes about in any type of new direction or new initiative, one of the most important parts is communication, not only letting the people know but letting the people be part of what the reasoning is behind changes being instituted.

There may have been some instances where the individuals in this particular complex were not brought up to speed, if you want to call it, or involved or knowledgeable of what was happening in regard to the various initiatives that the tenants association was undertaking. I think that is maybe where we as a department have to talk to the tenants association and make them aware that communications and the transmission of information that is happening is done in an orderly and consistent manner.

Maybe that is something that we should be talking to them about or setting up some sort of process of communication within the tenants association, especially in this particular area, so that the tenants are made aware, whether it is a monthly newsletter or a newsletter every two months or something like that, so that they are brought up to speed and have an awareness on a continual basis.

* (1520)

Maybe that is something that we should be talking to the Gilbert Park Tenants Association about because we certainly have people who are available in our staff who can help them set up a newsletter or a communication vehicle within the building.

It is easy enough to institute, just having a drop through all the mailboxes, like I say, every six weeks or whatever they feel is necessary. But I think that that is something that maybe we have to do a little closer monitoring about, getting a consistent communication vehicle or notice to the tenants as to what is happening.

Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate the minister accepting that recommendation, and I am concerned that was not what occurred in the first place because you are saying that the staff have been working very closely with the tenants association. I guess the way this is handled reflects on the way that the department generally works with tenants associations and the fact that it does seem to be sort of ad hoc. For example, the tenants groups do not have a very high quality manual. The manual that I have, which was developed for seniors housing, does not even have page numbers on it. It looks like it was photocopied and just sort of passed around. This whole area needs work, especially if you are going to start handing over the management for a complex with a multimillion-dollar budget without ensuring that basic things are in place.

I appreciate what the minister has said about starting to have a newsletter. That recommen-dation was made at the community meeting that I was at. There was talk there about having meetings and workshops as well to inform tenants, but that should happen prior to some kind of a vote of the board, or I would even think to have the minister–and maybe the minister can tell me how much money was spent on the trip to Washington, to have that kind of excursion without having sort of the local input from the majority of the people that live there.

So I am wondering if the minister would endeavour to answer those questions and clarify then that there is going to be a more transparent and open process that people are aware of as this goes forward and that we are not going to have to have hastily called tenant elections as a way for the tenants there who feel excluded to feel like they have got some kind of influence over what is happening with their housing.

Mr. Reimer: I take the member's suggestions to heart. I think that it is like anything. As I say, communications should be consistent, and they should be there before the people make decisions and mechanisms should be looked at and try to make sure that there is a vehicle, whether it is a newsletter or some sort of public postings or a combination of both, so that people are aware that not only are there meetings coming up but possibly what some of the topics of discussion are going to be put forth.

In regard to the costs of the trip that was down to Washington, the only costs that were associated with Manitoba Housing was myself and two staff that went down to Washington. The people who went down from Gilbert Park and from Lord Selkirk Park–and I think there was a total of eight, maybe nine people; I forget the exact number–that was paid by a grant from CEDA, the Winnipeg Foundation, and I believe one of the banks or credit unions came up with some money. So our cost was only the two additional staff plus myself.

Ms. Cerilli: So what was the grand total?

Mr. Reimer: I would have to check, but I think the airfare and the hotels would be the only cost in regard to our government.

Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate the minister getting me that information. Yes, I was aware that there was some community input in terms of financing for the tenants associations' representatives. So, getting back to my main point, though, are there going to be, as I referenced in the letter I sent to you on this, clear guidelines for the hiring of local people under the tenant management, including bulletining of positions and con-tracting out of work? Will there be a clear conflict of interest guidelines for the board members and the staff? What will be the security provisions around screening of tenants, having access to pass keys, all those other questions related to safety, when you are now going to have people who I guess are going to be hired through the board. There are some just based on the questions and the calls that I get.

It sounds like there are some long-standing issues involving tenant relations in this complex, and I have recommended that the tenant association representatives may consider having mediation. I know that there is supposed to be some kind of a pilot project involving mediation services, a community dispute centre I believe it is, and Manitoba Housing. So far the recom-mendations that I have been made–I can see the minister's staff are making questioning gestures so we will get to that issue. All of these kind of things may be warranted, because this is a very serious matter where people feel like they are now giving access to their homes and their property and to their families, to people who they want to ensure are going to be following specific procedures and guidelines.

So how is the department going to deal with that? Do you have policies for all those things I have mentioned developed, or are you in the process of developing that with the tenant association board? Will you make any drafts that you have available public to us?

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I have been informed that there actually has been a fair amount of work done in regard to what the member is talking about in setting up some of the guidelines and the policy issues and looking at the direction that we are planning with the tenants associations. What it is, is it is looking at not only what the member mentioned in regard to the co-op agreements, but also the property management agreements that we have with the R and H units.

We have the ability to get some extra resource because of the takeover of some of the CMHC staff that has come to us because of the devolution. They do have experience in looking at agreements from across Canada, so we are using them as a resource in setting up the conflict-of-interest guidelines, the confidentiality guidelines, the hiring guidelines. So we are working on that type of structure, and I am informed that there is a fair amount of work being done on that right now.

Ms. Cerilli: Is that new policy or is what the minister saying is that these are just going to be the same guidelines that would apply to any nonprofit, not necessarily one that is involved in this tenant management or these are new guidelines and procedures?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, they would be new because of the uniqueness of working with the public housing tenant associations. These would be new guidelines and new setups of procedures.

Ms. Cerilli: Sorry, I was listening to my colleague. I wonder if the minister could repeat that comment.

* (1530)

Mr. Reimer: I was just saying that the guidelines are new. The agreements would be new, that we are not just using, like I say, the existing ones. It would be a new set of agreements that would be set up with the tenants associations.

Ms. Cerilli: I think that is important, because there have been expectations raised here now, that tenants feel that they are going to have more input. I am wondering if the policies would also include then new guidelines or approaches for marketing and filling of vacancies and screening and maintenance. Is that all being sort of tailored to tenant management?

Mr. Reimer: Yes.

Ms. Cerilli: Further from that then, is there a specific role for the MMF involved in this project with Gilbert Park, either with the MMF itself or with their housing corporation?

Mr. Reimer: No, there are no relations with the MMF with this one, with Gilbert Park.

Ms. Cerilli: Is the minister aware then if the tenants association is just on their own to hire the staff where they will, wherever they want, and if what is actually happening is that the staff that are actually being hired are from the MMF's housing portfolio?

Mr. Reimer: To the best of my knowledge we have no relationship with the MMF with Gilbert Park. There is maybe an indirect relationship, because one of the fellows that is working with the Gilbert Park Tenants Association did at one time work with the MMF, but I believe that he was let go or he quit and he just happened to come on with the Gilbert Park Tenants Association, but I think that is, to the best of my knowledge, the only association with the MMF or any connection with MMF at Gilbert Park.

Ms. Cerilli: So the minister is saying that his department does not have any relationship with them but perhaps the tenants association board does or the members of the board, but I also thought that the staff that are being hired there have a history of working for the MMF housing corporation.

Mr. Reimer: To the best of my knowledge there has only been one person. That is Mr. Gordon Smith, who at one time worked for the MMF. Whether there were other people that worked for the MMF, I really do not know.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, this has been an issue that has again been raised. I think the minister has received the same correspondence as I did. Some of the tenants were concerned that there were these kinds of organizations that were involved with the development of this agree-ment. What is the minister's take on that?

Mr. Reimer: No, they have no input at all into the agreement that we have with Gilbert Park or the one that we are negotiating in regard to the tenants association.

Ms. Cerilli: One of the comments that is often made in referencing a movement towards tenant management is that it is going to save money, that there are going to be efficiencies found. That is often the phrase that gets used with these devolution agreements. I am wondering if the minister can identify which areas there will be cost savings in.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Environment): Am I permitted to ask questions also, or is it just only opposition?

Mr. Chairperson: Any member of the committee may ask questions, but how I have run my committees in the past is simply that the member of the opposition or the opposition critic gets the floor, and I really do not relinquish it to anybody else unless there is some point of order or something of that nature.

Mrs. McIntosh: I just have a question on the same topic.

Mr. Chairperson: Okay, perhaps the member can. When she is done, I will pass it on to the Minister of Environment (Mrs. McIntosh) before we finish.

Ms. Cerilli: We will see how long it takes.

Mr. Reimer: I am sorry, I temporarily could not remember what the question was. Now I can remember. The member asked me about the cost savings.

I guess where we look at cost savings is that one of the biggest ways to run the complex more efficiently is with more occupancy and more people in the units. Because of a strong tenants association and their involvement, I think what happens is that you get a sense of ownership within the complex and vacancies go down in it, and it has shown itself in the Gilbert Park complex. So that is one of the areas where there is cost savings.

I guess where there is possibly other cost savings is the fact that if there are more tenants in the units for a longer period, there is not that turnover, and there is not that need for possibly more renovations or possibly for repairs of units when there is a high turnover and there is a high possibility of abuse within the complex. Those are ways that we can save money in regard to the complex.

So I think good, solid management will show that there is a savings, which are intangible in the sense of trying to pinpoint exactly a specific dollar amount on it, but it is mainly because of the fact that there is stability and there is a sense of caring within the complex, and it becomes more efficient in its dollars.

Ms. Cerilli: I guess I can accept that answer in the sense that that is what is hoped for in the future, but I understand that the experience so far in Gilbert Park over the last couple of months is that a number of people actually applied for transfer when this whole issue came up, and the pending vote for a new tenant association. I am not sure how the department has dealt with all those requests for transfer, but, again, this is just going from some of the tenants contacting me, that there were a number of requests to move.

So maybe the minister can deal with that. Has this been one of the areas where there has actually been problems with the way it has been handled so far? How are you going to deal with requests for moves or transfer, and can you tell me how many there were?

Mr. Reimer: I think that initially there was possibly a bit of apprehension in some of the tenants as to what may or may not have transpired, because sometimes, again, what we go back to, which we originally started the conversation with, is the communications and the lack of clarity as to exactly what was happening. Some of the tenants may have reacted in a way of thinking that they had to move or they did not want to be part of it, but I am told that some of the applications have now cancelled the request for movement. There is more a willingness to stay within the complex.

I guess, like anything, if people are wanting to move, we try to accommodate them in their transfer request and it goes through a normal procedure of evaluation and location in trying to move them, but I have been told that the requests have died right down, so it is not a big concern as it once was initially when people were a little apprehensive as to what they perceived to be a change there.

Ms. Cerilli: So does the minister know how many people have requested transfer and how many have cancelled?

Mr. Reimer: We do not have that figure right at hand, but I am sure we can find that for the member.

Ms. Cerilli: I may want to come back to this issue when I have my copy of the document from Ontario, the proposal for the co-op there. I used to have that–being photocopied again. I will move on to another area.

Mr. Chairperson: If you are going to move on to another area, might I entertain a question from the honourable Minister of Environment?

* (1540)

Ms. Cerilli: Briefly, sure.

Mrs. McIntosh: I appreciate that all committee members can ask questions, and I am grateful to have that acknowledged. It has been a while since I have been involved. As Minister of Housing, I was the minister who was there when the Gilbert Park Tenants Association first came to lobby hard for the right to have the tenants association assume some of the property management. They had come and asked if, over a period of five years, they could take over the property management, and they had asked that because they had an extremely high vacancy rate, something like 77 percent vacancy rate or some horrendous figure. They were having problems with severe vandalism. Teenagers had been setting fires in the units, and so on, smashed windows, just all kinds of problems. They felt in their presentation to me, when they asked if they could have this devolved to the tenants association, that if somehow they could develop a sense of ownership for the area, that increased pride would lead to decreased vandalism, higher occupancy rates, et cetera. They were supported in this strongly by Kevin Lamoureux, who was their MLA, who accompanied them on their presentation to me and subsequently several meetings out at Gilbert Park with the tenants association as they laid out their plans as to how they would accomplish this.

We did then ultimately agree to allow it, not to save money, but to try to salvage the community there. My understanding was at about the time I left the Department of Housing, which was about four and a half years ago, that indeed the vacancy rate had changed. They now had a waiting list. The vandalism had sub-stantially decreased. The tenants association was doing a credible, acceptable job. In fact, last year the tenants association sent both me and Kevin Lamoureux beautiful paintings and pottery as a thank you for giving them the authority to show some ownership.

Having that as background then and being out of touch with what is currently happening, could the minister let me know, has that–I am intrigued by the questions, the implication by the member for Radisson–been taken over by the MMF, which was never the intent and never the request and never the thought. This is the first I have heard it, if that has been an issue raised to the minister, fear of control by an outside organization rather than the tenants, if that has become an issue. Secondly, if in fact the situation, the improved statistics that were coming out of Gilbert Park have now begun to reverse, if so, what would the minister think would be the reason? I am intrigued by the cost. Cost was never the issue. The issue was saving the community, but I am interested as well in whether that is costing increased dollars to accede to that kind of request for social reasons. Is acceding to tenants' wishes costing government money?

Mr. Reimer: The member is right. I followed in the footsteps of her work in regard to the tenants association at Gilbert Park. As I alluded to earlier, sometimes it takes a long time to get some changes done there, but it has been very, very worthwhile in the responsibilities and the whole appearance of Gilbert Park.

Vandalism has gone down. The stability has come back into the complex where there is not that much of a turnover anymore. I think the grounds are looking very well. There is a sense of ownership in and around the yards. There are flowers. The grass is cut. There is no more, well, I should not say there is no more, but there is not as much glass or broken bottles or things like that around anymore. I think that there is a strong sense of ownership within the complex.

The vacancy rate has gone down significantly. As of right now, there are 34 units available out of 254, but I should point out that some of those units are used for activities. So I would think out of those 34 vacancies, there is block of at least eight, I think, units that we use for various community activities in the complex. So the vacancy rate would be possibly less than 10 percent in that particular complex, so it has come down dramatically. So there has been a degree of stability put back into that community.

We alluded earlier to the MMF. We have had no type of indication that the MMF is looking at any type of management position, and we are certainly not going to be turning over any type of management of this complex to the MMF. We feel that the local tenants themselves would be the managing partners with Manitoba Housing, and not the MMF, so that has not entered into the picture at all. There have been no discussions in that area at all.

As I mentioned earlier, and actually because of a person's background, we are certainly not going to say that the person could not belong to the MMF or be an officer with the MMF, but I think that is a decision that the tenants association has to make as to whom they allow on their board. We certainly do not have any input as to the selection of the board. We do monitor the board, though, in a sense of setting up the election process to make sure that it is adhered to. We will do a residents' list check when the vote is taken.

I believe that was happening in the last election, which happened maybe a month to six weeks ago, where the residents were notified of a vote. They were given or asked to bring a sign of identification to the voting place to show that they were residents of Gilbert Park, and that was all monitored by Manitoba Housing. We are more concerned about the process and not the people that are running for office.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to ask the minister some questions about the information that he has provided me with. I have been waiting for some time to get the schedules attachments for the devolution agreement. Out of the possible 12 attachments, I do not have the information for five of them. So I am wondering why.

It seems to me that all the attachments that I do not have are the ones that are actually dealing with money matters. I know that when I first got the draft agreement sent to me, it did not include anything, and there were sections blocked out of it. At that time the minister had said that anything related to the financial component of it that was related to negotiations was not available at that time and would sort of jeopardize the negotiations. I accepted that.

But now I think that, especially as we are in this process of Estimates where exactly what we are dealing with is the budget Estimates and the Public Accounts of the provincial government that now has to manage all of the money in this devolution agreement that really there is no explanation for why I do not have all of the schedule attachments. The minister may or may not know that in other departments where there have been devolution agreements that all of the information has been provided to the opposition. I am thinking of agreements in immigration or Education and Training. So I am wondering if the minister has some other explanation for me.

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that it is protected because of federal legislation. That is what we have been told by CMHC, that it is not for release.

Ms. Cerilli: Which federal legislation is protecting the money that is coming from the federal government under CMHC to the Province of Manitoba to manage social housing? Is it another privacy legislation argument or what?

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that it is a federal legislation and that we just cannot give it out. From what I am told, if you went to the federal government and CMHC, the member would get the same answer.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister has to know what the legislation is that is meaning that they cannot divulge the funding information. If I was the federal member of Parliament involved in the federal estimates for housing with CMHC and you were the minister sitting here responsible for CMHC, are you meaning to tell me that that minister cannot talk about the budget for CMHC with the opposition critics?

* (1550)

I mean, this is all public money. I do not understand. Is this housing legislation? Is this privacy legislation? What kind of agreement has the minister signed giving away the public of Manitoba's right to know how much money is being spent on social housing in our province?

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that the funding allocation can be released. In regard to some of the other areas, there is a privacy factor that comes into account that controls other aspects. But the funding can be released.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, we will go item by item then, because the first one that I do not have under the schedules, I have Schedule A, which is existing federal provincial program agreements, and then I do not have Schedule B, which is the CMHC unilateral programs and properties in those programs. I actually think I have that document from somewhere else. So that is a list of all the properties. I think one of my federal M.P. colleagues retrieved that one from CMHC so that we could know the portfolio of properties involved in this devolution agreement for Manitoba.

The ones that we are really interested in is Schedule E, Annual Funding by CMHC. Is the minister saying that that one is available, and he can provide it to me?

Mr. Reimer: As for Schedule E, I have been informed that we can give the funding amount, but we cannot give the expiry date or the drop-off date when that funding comes to an end. I am told that we can do that for Schedule E.

Schedule F, I think that was another one possibly, and (f)(1) I believe is also the member is asking me about. What comes into play with those is an ownership and a financial arrange-ment in privacy, a privacy disclosure on those two that the federal government will not let us release. [interjection] The list of all the loans, yes. There is a privacy factor involved with those two. What was the last one?

Ms. Cerilli: I said I was going to go item by item. So far, we have dealt with No. E, which you said that you will provide me with. I am not sure if you have that here now. What I am planning on doing is going program by program based on the other schedule information I have. What you have told me about Schedule E is that you are not prepared to tell me when the mortgages are paid, which would be the date when the funding from CMHC per year funding is going to be completed and then we are on our own in terms of these properties. Is that correct, that you cannot tell me how many more years are left on the mortgage which would be the termination date for that funding? And why not?

Mr. Reimer: In regard to the funding, I have been told that it is approximately $75 million now, and it will slowing be decreasing to zero by the year 2032.

Ms. Cerilli: Excuse me, Mr. Minister. I read that in your news release over two years ago. Are you telling me now in Estimates, after this many years we are operating under this agreement, that is all the information you have for me? It is ridiculous.

Mr. Reimer: I am not too sure what the member is asking. I am telling you that the amount of money we have been allocated, we will be getting from CMHC is $75 million this year. It is on a decreasing scale, goes down each year until it reaches 2032, and it will be zero then.

Ms. Cerilli: I am telling the minister that that is not an acceptable answer; that I am going to go program by program and ask for specific information on how that $75 million is broken down under each program, whether it is public housing that is cost-shared 75-25, whether it is the co-op program or whether it is the non-profits. We are going to go through that exercise because I think this is really important.

We have been waiting a long time to find out how this devolution agreement works. I am interested then in pursuing information related to the interest payments on the loans as well, but right now I am going to focus on the annual funding. So we are getting $75 million, approximately, this year. I think from looking in the Estimates books, it is a little bit more than that, but I want to go through them.

What I had planned to do was to go through the Schedule C, portfolio programs and get the amount for each portfolio and the number of either units or the complexes that are under that portfolio. Now, I am sure that this is all information the department deals with on a regular basis. You must have all this at your fingertips or certainly at the fingertips of whoever is operating the computer, so I do not think that this is, you know, unwieldy. I think this is the kind of accountability that is why we have these type of Estimates.

* (1600)

We just went through at least, what was it, three years of negotiations with the federal government to deal with what is billions and billions of dollars of an asset of the social housing and public housing in our province, and I do not think I can sort of accept that all you are going to tell me is we are getting $75 million this year, and by the year 2031 we are going to have nothing. We have got to go through this exercise a little bit more carefully.

With that said, I am going to start off with the programs. Public housing programs, Section 79.(f)(p) is the name of the program. How many units, or however you calculate the numbers, and the total for that program.

Mr. Reimer: If the member would like to give us those numbers and what it is they refer to, we can get the department to try to get those figures for you. Would the member repeat it so that we can make sure we have got it down properly?

Ms. Cerilli: I will make it easier for the minister and his staff then. Basically, what I want to look at is take Schedule C of the port-folio programs, and under each program the amount of money for that program and either the number of units would be the most logical way to deal with it, or the number of complex apart-ments, whatever you want to call them. I think that going by units makes the most sense.

I am just looking here. There are 15 different programs, and this is what the minister often refers to when he is answering my questions is that there are all these different pro-grams in the portfolio. They all have different mortgage periods. They all have different formulas for calculating cost-sharing. I under-stand that, and I am not going to go into that much detail. All that I want right now is the total amount of dollars under each program and the number of units that is going to service.

I have some specific questions about some of the programs, but let us deal with this issue first.

Mr. Reimer: Sure, we can get the department to look at those requests.

Ms. Cerilli: Will I have that by Thursday morning?

Mr. Reimer: Yes.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, good. Thanks.

One of the other issues I want to ask about is related to the rent supplement program, which is No. 3 on the schedule of programs, in (h)(a) Section 82, Rent Supplement Programs. I just want to make sure that I am understanding this correctly. The rent supplement programs for the whole portfolio, do they come under this schedule or under this program, or do the rent supplements for each of the other, let us say, the public housing? They have rent supplements that are attached to that program, so what the federal government is giving us in terms of the financing for that program is a sum that would address the capital needs, the maintenance, the mortgage payments and then on top of that there would also be some funds in that same program for rent supplement or subsidizing the rental fee of the units.

Mr. Reimer: In regard to the section that the member has referred to, No. 3, rent supplement program there, any monies that are funnelled through that particular area go strictly to the private market that is giving rent supplement. The other area–I maybe try to anticipate the next question–in regard to the rent supplement program in No. 4, funding that flows through that section can go to the Co-op Housing program, ILM program, and also to the private sector. Number three is for private sector supplement.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, then, answering the other part of my question, that means that all the other programs in the document include the rent subsidy as part of the money that is being transferred from the federal government for that program. These programs, then, they are different from SAFER and SAFFR, which I understood were completely financed from provincial government revenues.

Can the minister explain to me which programs, specifically No. 3, rent supplement programs, we are dealing with in the private sector?

Mr. Reimer: I think it really only pertains to the private sector. That rent supplement program in No. 3 is only for private sector. I think maybe I will ask the member to ask me the next question.

Ms. Cerilli: I am wanting to know which program in the private sector. I mean, I am aware that there are some rent supplement programs for people with disabilities. Are these programs like RRAP, which is money that goes to private homeowners? These are completely different programs. I wanted some explanation of the kind of programs that this is financing. Are they private, nonprofits? That is what I meant to ask.

Mr. Reimer: There are agreements made with private sector landlords where there are units, maybe a certain amount of units in a certain complex or a certain block of complex identified that get the rent supplement. That is where the agreement is with the landlord. These people, some of them, may be on disability or just in situations where they qualify for a rent supplement. That is the way the program is administered, really.

Ms. Cerilli: This is one of the reasons I am spending some time on this, because these are not programs that I am that familiar with. I am more familiar with some of the other ones. As I have talked with groups in the community, particularly with groups that represent people with disabilities, people with mental health problems, these are the kinds of programs or this program or these units I think are the ones they talk about, this whole idea that it, if I am understanding this correctly, the subsidy is going to a private, for-profit landlord. These are not nonprofits. Is that right?

Mr. Reimer: In most instances, it is with private operations.

* (1610)

Ms. Cerilli: I know that you have said that you are going to get me the more detailed information on all of these programs, but I am wondering if specifically you have more information on this one in terms of the number of units in Manitoba that are serviced by this program and if you can also tell me what the rent supplement is and how it works.

I am reading in the description here: Fully targeted applicants for housing assistance under this program will be selected on the basis of being financially unable to obtain affordable and suitable and adequate housing on the private market as determined by Manitoba Housing Renewal Corporation and qualified within the housing income limits established by Canada Mortgage and Housing.

So what does that actually mean in terms of dollars?

Mr. Reimer: We can get that figure for the member and the numbers of units that have rent supplement and the dollar amount.

Ms. Cerilli: I was waiting for the minister to tell me–

Mr. Reimer: Yes, we can get the figures for you.

Ms. Cerilli: But are you going to explain how the program works, in terms of dollars? I thought I heard your staff say it was rent geared to income. I am wondering if those have been subject to the same changes in the rent geared to income as other programs have.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I think that I have got some information for the member here. In regard to the rent supplement units, it is designed to assist low- and moderate-income family and elderly households to obtain suitable housing in the private rental sector and in the nonprofit housing projects. The provincial government has entered into agreements with owner-operators of private rental stock wherever the province subsidizes the difference between the approved market rate charged by the landlord and the rent geared to income paid by the qualifying tenant. The program is administered by the Manitoba Housing Authority and subsidies costs are shared by the federal and provincial government on a 50-50, 50 percent federal, 50 percent provincial, basis for units committed prior, pre-1986, and on a 75 percent federal and 25 percent provincial basis for units committed post-1985.

In Winnipeg, all districts, there are 1,755 units. In District 3, which is Selkirk, in Inwood there are eight; in Selkirk there are 13; in Stonewall there are 10; in Teulon there are 15; and for Woodlawn there are four, for a total of 50 in the Selkirk District, which is District 3. In District 4, which is Altona, there are four in Landmark, four units in Morden, seven units in Rosenort, 20 units in Altona, for a total of 36 for District 4, which is Altona. In Portage la Prairie, which is District 5, there are three in Carman, one in Fannystelle, two in Gladstone, 37 in Portage la Prairie; in Swan Lake there are two, for a total of 45 in District 5. In District 6, which is Brandon, in Brandon itself there are 86 units; in Carberry there are 13; in Deloraine there are 12; in Miniota there are six; in Newdale, there are two; and in Souris there are six for a total of 125. In District 7, which is Dauphin, there are 30 units in Dauphin; there are four units in Gilbert Plains, for a total of 34. In District 8, which is Roblin, there is zero; there are no rent supplement units. In The Pas, which is District 9, there were 13 in Flin Flon, 35 in The Pas, and 13 in Thompson, for a total of 61. In District 10, which is Churchill, there are no rent supplementary units. So in the total of all districts there are 2,106 units for rent supplement units. I have been informed too that this is a snapshot, so it can vary.

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to clarify, is the minister reading that from an annual report? That is from the annual report? From which year is that one?

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, 1997-98.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, well, I will take a look at that, but I am interested then in knowing, and I am assuming this information is not in the annual report, the apartment locations for where those units are. If he could provide me with that list, like the property owners that have those units subsidized in their apartments.

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that we can give those numbers, but we cannot give the exact locations because of the confidentiality of the tenants that are on rent supplement.

* (1620)

Ms. Cerilli: This is a new thing I am running into when I am calling your department, and I am assuming that this is the privacy thing again. When I talked last time with your department, it was making requests about the number of elderly and infirm person housing units that have received a licence, and I was told that the department is reviewing if the privacy legislation as it is newly enacted would affect that. Has that decision been complete? Are you now telling me that these ones are also under that umbrella and you cannot tell me where the public money is going in terms of who is receiving the rent supplement because that would be identifying those tenants as low income?

Mr. Reimer: That is correct.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to have the minister then give me some kind of written recommendation, or legal opinion, I guess, from his department with respect to this, because this is something new as it relates–and it does not seem very consistent, because when we are dealing with public housing, there is information that is made public on a regular basis about where those units are. So, when it comes to elderly and infirm persons licences, and now when it comes to the list for private apartments under the rent supplement, I am not getting the addresses. On the other hand, there is lots of information made public that identifies Manitobans as receiving assistance and thereby implying that they are low income.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I have been told that there is a written legal opinion on this disclosure, and we have to abide by the directive that has been put forward to us, that these are not available.

Ms. Cerilli: So is the minister saying that he is going to give me the legal opinion so that I can sort of see what it says and what the–okay, we will start with that.

Mr. Reimer: We can provide that.

Ms. Cerilli: Before we leave the whole issue of the rent supplement program, though, I have a few more questions. Let us go back to the rate rent. It is rent geared to income? What percent is it at, and are they subject to the same sort of guidelines or criteria to social housing?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, it is 27 percent, and they are the same regulations.

Ms. Cerilli: So is there a policy in place that determines which units are going to get the program, because one of the other answers the minister gave is that this is continually in flux, that units may lose the rent supplement or additional units may be added on. I am interested, though, in the criteria for how it is determined which properties are going to get the rent supplement.

Mr. Reimer: The number that I referred to the member, when I say that it is in flux, I think what I was referring to is that that is the maximum number that is available. They may not all be prescribed to at that particular time. So this is what I mean. It may not be as if it is a constant. That is what I was referring to when I say that it is a snapshot in time.

Ms. Cerilli: The minister has a habit of doing this. He never completely answers the previous question, so I have to go back again. So my question was how do you determine that? How was it determined which apartments would get the rent supplement? What are those guidelines? What is the policy?

Mr. Reimer: I guess we have to look back to a little bit of history in the development of the rent supplement programs. They were in conjunction with the federal government because the federal government was a funding partner in regard to rental supplements. So they were negotiated back in I guess the '60s, '70s and '80s in regard to the numbers. They have remained the same because the federal government has pulled them-selves out as a funding partner, so that the numbers remain static as to what was agreed upon.

So there has been no change in the partner-ship we have had with the federal government in regard to the numbers of rent supplement units, but it was arrived at back when public housing was quite evident in regard to expansion with the federal, provincial and municipal governments.

Ms. Cerilli: The minister still has not answered my question. I want to know how it was decided that a certain apartment would get a certain percentage of their units designated as receiving the rent supplement. What is the criteria? How did you pick the 2,106 units that exists with the rent supplement, why those 2,000 units and not some other ones? There are all sorts of questions that flow from that. Obviously, especially in the current climate, property owners and landlords are clamoring for some kind of assistance in the rental market. I have read recently articles in different publications that are promoting this kind of rent supplement program. So I think it is a really important question. What is the criteria for determining which apartments? If there are no criteria, then explain how was it determined which apartments were going to get the supplement?

* (1630)

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that since a lot of these numbers came about under previous times and under previous staffing, we would have to look back into our records as to how it came about with the numbers. But from what I understand, they were done a lot of times through tenders and proposal calls for the supply of these units and were tied to the agreements with the landlords, too, in regard to the allocation of the specific numbers in specific buildings. So it is a matter of doing the research back into our files and our agreements with the various landlords. We do not have that type of information here with us.

Ms. Cerilli: But you are going to get me then the criteria that were used, even if it was back in the '60s and '80s. It is quite interesting that these same apartments have had a supplement for those many years going back as far as the 1960s, that there has been an agreement in place that some landlords are getting rent subsidies. The reason I am wanting to spend time on this is because as I have talked with community groups, this is an issue that they have been raising. Both landlords and tenants are talking about these programs out there.

It would be interesting if we looked at some of these apartments, how they would compare in terms of repair and maintenance. Are there requirements if tenants are living in a rental supplement unit that the landlord has in terms of reporting maintenance to either CMHC or now Manitoba Housing Renewal Corporation? I remember when I first became the critic, I was surprised; it was SAFER and SAFFR. There is not inspection component at all. We always hear about the amount of rent money that is going to substandard housing. What kind of requirements are there on the part of the landlord that goes along with these programs?

Mr. Reimer: I was just talking to staff and they were mentioning that some of these things go back into the '70s and that. But the agreement should be they that they would be able to search them and find out the criteria at that time, and I believe that is what the member is looking for, some of the criteria for selection at that time. We can certainly try to accommodate that.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. One of the other things that is interesting with this program is requests that are being made from the community. I do not know if the minister has met with some of the same groups that I have, that are the tenants in these units, but one of the things that they are calling for is for the supplement to move with the tenant rather than to have it fixed with the unit. I am wondering if the minister and his department have heard that request, and if they are considering that at all.

Some of the groups that I have met with, the AIDS Shelter Coalition, a variety of groups that deal with Manitobans with disabilities, those kinds of groups, I guess, are the ones that benefit from this program or their clients benefit from this program. I am wondering if the minister is dealing with that at all.

Mr. Reimer: I had alluded to it a little earlier in the discussion regarding the rental supplement program, that the agreements are not tied to the tenants. They are tied to the units and to the landlords. It would take a different type of approach to tie it with the tenant. I know that the one program that is tied to the tenants, that they can so-call shop around with it is the SAFER and SAFFR program. A person can choose where he or she may want to live with that program, but under the rent supplement program, it is agreements with the landlords and it stays with that particular complex. It does not travel with the tenant.

Ms. Cerilli: I am of aware that, Mr. Chair-person. To the minister, that is the question I am asking, though. I am aware that is the way the program exists. My question is: have you been approached by community groups to change that, and is that being considered at all? Perhaps it would be a new program, but this is what community groups are asking for, that they have a program for people specifically with disabilities or illnesses where they can have more flexibility in choosing where they are going to live, that they would have a rent supplement that would travel with them and not be attached to a specific unit.

Mr. Reimer: I have not been lobbied by any groups along those lines. In regard to those types of suggestions, as to the change of it, it is something that is relatively new, only brought forth through discussions right now as to the possibility of looking at the changes. As I say, I have not had that type of overtures by any individuals or groups of individuals.

To the best of my knowledge, overtures may have been made to people in the department, but it has never come to my attention.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. Moving on then, would this specific program, the rent supplement program, Section 82, under the devolution agreement, does this program run out as well, given that it is in the private sector and it is not bound by the mortgage payments through CMHC?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I am told they too would run out. Most of them were in around the 30- to 35-year agreements. I imagine the timing would be very similar to what I outlined a little earlier regarding the year 2032. I think that is what I alluded to earlier, about then, within that range.

Ms. Cerilli: If these were 30-year agreements that were signed in the '60s, they are going to run out sooner than that. So I am wondering if we are even now losing some of these units. How many subsidized units are we losing per year? Has that been occurring over the last number of years? It has certainly passed 35 years since 1960.

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that 1974 was the date, not in the '60s, approximately 1974.

Ms. Cerilli: So the program was initiated in 1974. Can you give me the time frame? We now have 2100 units across the province. Do you have sort of a rough estimate of when the last unit was declared as having a rent supplement?

Mr. Reimer: I am informed that it commenced in October of 1974 and it ceased in 1992. I am not too sure of the months.

Ms. Cerilli: That is okay, 1992 is good enough. Maybe, rather than going through these questions, the other thing I can get from the department is, of those 2100 or so units, even roughly in blocks, the number that were initiated throughout that time. Again, this is the type of program I know on the industry side you always hear landlords and property managers calling for. They do not want social housing. I hear it all the time when I meet with landlord groups. They want these kinds of rent supplement programs.

One of the other questions that flows from this is: as the government looks to developing programs as it sees fit under the devolution agreement now, is this the type of program you are considering? I know that in your opening statement you talked about an overall plan that is being developed for the larger, doubled size of the portfolio. One of the things that you have talked about is that you are going to be looking for efficiencies. That was one of the ideas of going into this devolution agreement. So I am wondering if this is a direction that you see your department going in.

* (1640)

Mr. Reimer: As was alluded to in my opening statements in regard to the devolution program, one of the factors that was taken into consideration in looking at the devolution was the fact of the ability for the province to be the central decision maker as regards the public housing and the administration of the 37,000 units. One of the things that is quite interesting and I think represents an opportunity is to try to look at new and innovative ways of providing public housing with the same responsibilities of always having public housing available for people that are in need of it or in a dis-advantaged state where there is a call for public housing. It gives us the ability to be quite innovative in our approach to supplying public housing and not necessarily mean that we are in the bricks and mortar trade. We would be in some sort of program where we can try to look at possibly expanding a rental supplement program, look at possibly looking at innovative ways of funding rental accommodations to individuals.

One of the options that is worthy of consideration is some sort of expansion of a rental supplement program. As to the charac-teristics of it or the working mechanisms of it, well, that is something that I think we would have to look at and work at. These are some of the things that I think the department looks at in a very challenging manner, because it gives them the opportunity to look at innovative ways to still provide public housing and public accommodations but not necessarily because of the restricted dollars that are available for bricks and mortar and for expansion, the redirection of savings that are accrued by the amalgamation and the devolution and redirecting those savings towards public housing of some component, because one of the criteria that the federal government did make very abundantly clear to us was the fact that if we do take over the devolution and the management of it, any savings that are realized have to be put back into a public housing component.

So those are some of the avenues that we feel we have an opportunity to look at redirecting funding possibly into a rental supplement program of sorts where, as the member mentioned, the supplement travels with that person and that person can maybe shop not only within the public housing sector but also within the private sector or for other avenues of support. Those are some of the things that I think we would be looking at. The department I think is quite excited about looking at new directions.

Ms. Cerilli: I thought the minister said in his earlier answer, when I asked about the lobbying, in terms of a moving rent supplement program, that that is not something your department was considering. Maybe you are going to take that idea and run with it, but I am asking specifically: is your department looking at a rent supplement program, as this one exists, in terms of the kind that the property managers really like, the lines that are specifically tied to a certain property? That is the sense that I get. I am not sure if there have ever been conversations between some of these tenant groups and the landlords and property managers groups talking about a movable rent supplement program.

Am I to understand from the minister's answer that your approach as you are looking at new innovations and how you are going to expend all this money you are going to save from your existing portfolio that you are looking at rent supplement programs, that that is the direction you are looking at and that may now include rent supplement programs where the supplement goes with the tenant and not with the unit?

Mr. Reimer: What I alluded to when the member was asking me whether I was enter-taining these, I was not entertaining them in a sense because of a group coming forward. I thought that she was asking me whether groups had approached me on this, and no group has approached me on this. What I am saying is, I have directed my department to look at ways of possibly looking at a program or something like that and look for models or look for innovative ways of how rental supplement can possibly be transportable, as the member has mentioned, with the individuals and looking at the various options. That would certainly be one of them.

It is not a situation that I dismiss and say that we would not do. I am saying that we would have to look at ways to do that and to initiate it and to, as mentioned, maybe even expand the existing program. So it is certainly not off the drawing board. It would be part of the option package that we would bring forth or we would look at. So I have not been lobbied that way by any groups, as I mentioned, and maybe I misinterpreted the question, but that is something that we as a department would look at possibly expanding.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, I was left with the distinct impression from that question that you were not looking at any kind of a supple-ment that would be a movable supplement. I think I asked that. I was just suggesting that this is where it has come from in terms of my consultations.

I am sure the minister has problems listening to two people at once, as most of us do, so I will just wait. Are you okay now?

So, just to clarify, this muddled situation we are in is that the government is looking at policy directions toward rent supplement programs. That would be one of the ways that they would use any of the monies found in efficiencies from their existing portfolio. It would be redirected into rent supplements, and that would be either a unit rent supplement or, perhaps, even looking at tenant rent supplement programs. Okay. I see the minister is nodding yes. He wants to add more.

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I believe the member is right. That is my indication. Yes, certainly, we would look at all options, and that, certainly, would be one of them.

Ms. Cerilli: One of the big questions, then, is: how are you going to identify these cost savings or efficiencies in your management of your some 37,000 units that you now manage, in managing your existing 2,100-or-so rent supplement units, just under that one program? How are you going to identify cost savings?

Mr. Reimer: I think one of the things that has come about fairly fast in the devolution is the fact if we looked at the total numbers of people that were involved with the federal government in their administration of their complex here in Manitoba–I do not know the exact number of people that were involved with that office originally, but I think that what we have been able to do is that we have been able to amalgamate that number of units into our portfolio. I think we have added two dozen, about eighteen and a half staff years to part of the complement. So that right there shows a significant amount of savings that is realized by the amalgamation of the two departments.

I think what it has also brought forth is it has given us an opportunity to do some redirecting of priorities within our own department. I think I can speak for the department where there is a fair amount of enthusiasm and optimism for innovative thinking in how that the department can be redirected towards the operations with the amalgamation. With anything of that nature, it gives you an opportunity to look at innovative ways to save money, to possibly look at amalgamation of various administrative areas.

* (1650)

It gives us a chance to consult with the nonprofit groups as to the savings that they may be accruing through efficiencies in management and setting up a better type of accountability. We look at ways for them to improve their management of the nonprofit associations. The comment has even come back that is easier for them to operate now because the contact and the familiarity of staff within our portfolio give them the ability to make decisions more quickly. So those are some of the ways that various monies can be saved in the administration of the two portfolios.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to try to get a little bit more specific. You gave me one specific example, and that was that you are going to have fewer staff; that you have not necessarily transferred all the staff positions from CMHC over to Manitoba Housing. I know that is referenced in the Estimates book. I was looking at that. So that means that there are going to be fewer managers dealing with the budgets and administering that nonprofit portfolio. Are there other specifics like that? I will ask the general question, then I will get into some of the things I have been hearing in the community.

Mr. Reimer: The member is asking about the specific savings. I should point out that it has only been since actually just a few months ago, March of this year, that the 18.5 people came over into our envelope. With the increase of staff of 18.5, the ability to look at the efficiencies is just beginning. I can only point out that, from the high of around 100 or 115 people at one time with CMHC working here in Winnipeg, managing that portfolio of housing under the federal government, to take it down to, with our administration, approximately, as I say, just over 18, I would think that there is a significant amount of money that was associated with that other cost factor for housing, that we could realize a fair amount of savings that could be redirected in other areas of housing that we feel have priorities. So there is that.

In the consultations, as I mentioned earlier, with the nonprofit associations that we now can have contact with in trying to work with their budgets and their budget allocations, we feel, as I say, that these monies can be saved. We can redirect into innovative programs that I was outlining a little earlier.

Ms. Cerilli: So we still only have the one specific, then, on how you are going to save money, and that is on the staffing. That is all you have said really. I have been in contact with some of the community groups, and I guess the minister and his department would see going from over 100 staff at CMHC to 18.5 is a good thing, but perhaps some people in the community are having a bit of a different experience.

One fellow, who manages a nonprofit, described for me how he went to Manitoba Housing and actually had a $21,000 cheque for a surplus they had. They were surprised that they did not know who their new portfolio manager was going to be. No one was there to sort of receive him. He had not been given any information about who he was now going to be dealing with, and he was surprised, because he was dealing with a large budget for managing his nonprofit and made it sound like to me that the transition at least had not gone very smoothly.

What information has gone to nonprofit managers about who they are dealing with over at Manitoba Housing? How is this going to affect people if one of the ways you are saving money is with staff? The other thing that people are concerned about is that you are going to force nonprofits to deal with their portfolio as a whole, that you are going to expect, for example, a nonprofit corporation that is managing a number of different properties to deal with them all together and that savings from one are going to have to be used for another apartment. Is that another policy direction that you are taking? And how do you explain the fact that there was no direction given to some of the nonprofit managers as to who their portfolio administrator was going to be?

* (1700)

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I have been advised that we tried to keep a continuity in regard to the contact persons and once things were established, a letter went out to all of the complexes stating who their contact person was. In fact, in looking at the transference of, I mentioned earlier there were about 18.5 people, I believe it was almost eight people or so were actually assigned for continuity to be part of the contact group that people had dealt with before, so that there was not that sense of anxiety. But one of the things that we emphasized right at the very beginning was that we were looking at the status quo. We were trying to maintain a continuity of reporting, a continuity of accountability, and we tried to make sure that they were aware of who their contact person was right off at the very beginning. There may have been possibly the odd glitch in the transferring, but I would think that would be more the exception than the rule.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, how about the other part of my question in terms of the way that you are having nonprofit corporations deal with their buildings in terms of not have a budget for each building but sort of deal with them as a lump sum and have them find their own efficiencies, as you could say, of then having them use the money that is saved on one property put into another property? Is that something that has been a policy direction that has been given to the nonprofit corporations?

Mr. Reimer: I can only reiterate that we are looking at a status quo. We are trying to maintain it the same as it was before, the way it was done in the past. That is more or less the way we are trying to accommodate the housing, the change.

Ms. Cerilli: The minister realizes that I am not necessarily just dreaming up all these questions myself, that people in the community are approaching me with their concerns, and I am raising them here, which, I guess, is my role as the opposition person for Housing. One of the other concerns that has been raised with me is that the replacement reserves are not necessarily being paid on all the properties. This may be not only the ones that are nonprofits, but the ones that are existing Manitoba Housing portfolio that have always been Manitoba Housing, which are the public housing, that there is actually an unfunded liability in the sense that these replace-ment reserves have not been paid.

I am wondering if the government can make a commitment that the money that comes from both levels of government that should be going into the replacement reserves for nonprofit co-ops and all the social housing will actually be paid.

Mr. Reimer: I am informed that, with the nonprofits, we do not fund their reserve. They are responsible for the funding of their own reserve. That is part of their budget. It is not a separate type of budgeting process or allocation. They are responsible to put it in their budget. They receive an annual amount to be put into their reserve allocation fund, and it is in their operating agreement.

Ms. Cerilli: So those specified dollars for the operating reserve fund or the replacement reserves, those are being paid to the nonprofit corporations, and it is their responsibility to put them into that fund. Has that amount, then, been decreasing, the amount of money that has gone to the nonprofit housing corporations for that purpose?

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that the amount of money that has been allocated is a percentage of the capital costs. It is six-tenths of 1 percent up to the capital cost replacement fund that is established. Once the fund amount is reached, that is it. That is their capital allocation fund. It is included in their operating Estimates each year.

Ms. Cerilli: We will pick up here when I resume in the committee, and then I will be replaced by my colleagues from Swan River and Dauphin. They are going to be asking some questions about their regions and we can pick up on some of these issues on Thursday, I guess it would be. Thanks very much.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Chairperson, housing in the Dauphin area is a very important issue. I am approached quite often by constituents who have different problems, not just specific problems, the case-work sort of things that come into every MLA's office but also some questions, and quite often from constituents, some advice on the broader policies.

For example, in some of the communities in the Parkland, I know I have been approached and other MLAs have been approached in terms of number of houses in the Metis communities, houses not on First Nations but other areas where there is public housing, and requests for houses to be built, requests for houses to be renovated, requests for houses to be repaired and maintained. One of the concerns that I am approached with quite often by community councils, I know in my constituency, the community council at Waterhen has approached me. A community council, I am sure the member for Swan River knows, at Duck Bay, for example, has approached me and has asked questions in terms of who gets to do the work on these houses.

* (1710)

I have been approached from the angle of we need the work in our communities. It is a good way to provide employment for people. We have people in the communities who have the skills to either build houses or repair houses or renovate houses that are in their communities. I get people approaching me from that perspective. Also, there is a feeling that these houses could be better built by local people taking into consideration local concerns and local requests by people who are eventually going to live in these homes.

So, to begin with, I would like to ask the minister, in the programs in which his department are involved in the Parkland area: is there a policy for preferential treatment? Does a local community get first crack at the jobs that are available, or is there another process by which the houses are tendered for building? I used the words "preferential treatment," and I do not want the negative content. It is not a negative term, at least not the way that I intended. I think the minister understands that it is not preferential treatment in terms of one person over another but in terms of having local people do the work on local projects. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Mr. Reimer: I think that in looking at the process within our own administrative Housing portfolio, naturally we try to go to a tendering process as much as we can in regard to any type M and R projects or remodelling programs within all districts. In the particular district that the member is alluding to, I think that what we try to do there also is look to local service contractors or service providers. We would certainly welcome them to have their names put forward on our tendering package so that they are made aware of when there are programs available for remodelling, whether it is a plumbing program or an electrical program or something like that.

We would encourage the local tradespersons to have this type of contact with our Manitoba Housing through our district office in Dauphin there, to make themselves known that they are interested in being on the tendering process, and that when we do have calls for work in the particular area, that we can look on a localized basis in the tendering process. I would encourage, if the member has people who are willing to make themselves known, to have those names forwarded to our local office, and then we can look at trying to get that type of recognition when tenders are awarded.

In regard to locations where some of the repairs are done, if it is under our jurisdiction we are the ones that handle the tendering, and we are the ones that put out the calls and the proposals. There are other units that are managed by the MMF under a management contract with Manitoba Housing. They do have units in and around the particular area, I believe, that the member was mentioning, Duck Bay and the Waterhen area. The maintenance of those units are managed by the MMF. We do not have any direct administrative control on their tendering processes, but we do encourage them to look at the same type of tendering process that we do, looking at the local tradespersons to help them.

Because it is an agreement with Manitoba Housing now that it is done on a local basis instead of on the federal basis, there is our ability to monitor things in an open way that we are made aware of. I can only suggest that if the member is made privy to certain situations and that there is an apparent problem, we would certainly want to hear about it and try to address it through our means of communications with the various people who manage our properties. The specifics we can certainly look at. Like I say, in general terms we try to abide in a very open area in tendering and encouraging local people to be involved.

Mr. Struthers: I thank the minister for that answer. The question that ran through my mind as I was listening to him was for what he said with the tendering process. Does that include building and renovating and repair and maintenance, or are there different processes for each?

Mr. Reimer: It would not apply to building, because we are not in the building of new buildings anymore, so it would apply to the tendering and the tradesperson and the supply of trades and materials in the various areas, but not to building. We do not build anymore, but we do renovations, we do upgrades, we do refits and things like that. We look at the most efficient area, and a lot of times going locally is efficient. The person is familiar with the area, has the local contacts, and it behooves us to look at ways that are the most efficient for awarding tenders.

Mr. Struthers: I am wondering, in the tendering process, is there a weighting procedure, a weighting process as part of your tendering process? Does a local firm get extra points when they put their tenders in? It would seem to me that might be one way of encouraging local entities to get involved and put some people to work in renovating and repairing these homes.

Mr. Reimer: No, we do not employ any type of weighting program in regard of that, but we do encourage, as I say, the local tradespersons to make sure that they put in a request to be on the list for tender calls and that. We do not look specifically for a certain area. We look at the best efficiencies not only for the taxpayer of Manitoba but for the local area too in a sense.

* (1720)

Mr. Struthers: I am interested too in knowing just who gets to put their bids forward in the tendering process. What types of entities or organizations would the tendering process be open to? Is it just a private firm, a contractor who would put the name forward? Could a community organize themselves into something other than a company? Could it be an association, a local community association from a community? Could it be a co-op, if that was an idea, that a local community had to form a co-op and tender on that basis? What I am hearing from constituents is that there needs to be a bit of a review on the whole concept of housing and renovations and maintenance, and I am wondering just how open the minister is to different ideas that could come forth. I would suspect that any of these groups would need to be incorporated or some form of identification like that to put their bids forward, but I am wondering how open the minister would be to other suggestions.

Mr. Reimer: I think that one of the things that we are always very concerned about when we make requests for proposals or tender calls, whether it is a refit or whatever the call is for, is that the codes and the guidelines being requested are adhered to. That would be one of our primary concerns, the fact that what we are requesting is done to the specifications and the codes that are acceptable by Manitoba Housing.

As to an individual or a group or, as the member mentioned, a co-op, I would think that as long as they had the incorporation papers and the abilities to tender as an entity, that their tender could be taken as seriously as anyone else's. If the accountability is there, the trans-parency of results is there, and, like I mentioned earlier, the accountability of the tax dollars is spent in a way that is prudent to the guidelines that are outlined, if a third party or a group that is incorporated comes forth, as the member mentioned, a community group or a co-op group, and they felt that they could come forth with a tender, they are certainly open to be part of the process.

Mr. Struthers: So any new entity that would decide it wanted to get into the home repair business in these communities, would they work through your department in terms of licensing, or is that a different department?

Mr. Reimer: I think that they would have to first become incorporated, and that would be through Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They could take out a nonprofit incorporation licence. A good example that I alluded to earlier and that I had discussions with the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) on was in what we are doing with the Gilbert Park Tenants Association.

They have become an incorporated group, and what we have done is we have devolved spending authorities to them. They have taken over some of the maintenance. They have taken over some of the grounds-keeping and things like that within their own complex, and they are expected to be accountable for the dollars that we allocate to them. This is a nonprofit organization, but it has to be incorporated, and that could apply to somewhere in the member's area, in the Dauphin area. If there was a group that came forth that wanted to do some management or some upgrading or maintenance programs and they comply to the tendering specifications, they certainly would be considered, yes.

Mr. Struthers: The minister made mention earlier about the Manitoba Metis Federation and their role in housing in Manitoba. Is there a protocol of some kind between the Department of Housing and the MMF to standardize tendering procedures? Is there a protocol in terms of assisting the MMF in administering its portion of housing decisions made in this province? Is there any kind of formal arrange-ment between your department and the Manitoba Metis Federation?

Mr. Reimer: In working with the MMF, one of the things that we took over–when I say we, I mean when this government took over the devolution program, the MMF had a working relationship and agreements with the federal government in regard to the management of their portfolio. With the devolution, this was moved over to the provincial side of the spectrum. We now have taken over the administration of the federal portfolio, which included the agreements with the MMF.

One of the things we did from the very beginning–and I should say that the official turnover is not that long ago; in fact, I guess it is less than six months, not even that, January 1 of this year, pardon me–was take over, like I say, the responsibilities that the MMF had with their management agreement. One of the things we indicated was that we would not be changing any type of agreement, not only with the MMF but for some of the other associations that the federal government had agreements with. We took them over in their entirety. We did not want to disturb the relationship that they had with the federal government. So the MMF had an agreement with the federal government which we have taken over.

What has transpired since the take-over is our becoming more familiar with that agreement with the MMF and all its implications. We have been meeting almost on a monthly basis, looking at their operational review, their administrative review so that we become more familiar with their operation. As the agreement, because it is a year-to-year agreement, from what I understand, comes up, we will be in a more knowledgeable position to work with the MMF.

In fact, what we have done is, we have assigned a person to work specifically and solely with the MMF to get an understanding and an assessment so that we can look at not only how we can work more efficiently because of their efficiencies but how they can learn from us. Initially the agreement that we have taken over is identical to the one that the federal govern-ment had but, like I say, it has given us a chance to work more co-operatively with the MMF and find out how we can have better relationships or expand on the relationships that we have with them.

Mr. Struthers: I am quite often put in a position where I feel a lot like some of the people who are looking for housing, feeling like a ping-pong ball sometimes from one juris-diction to the next. I am sure I am not the only one feeling that sometimes. Maybe the minister himself feels like it sometimes in the whole area of housing.

The one thing we do know in our area and throughout the North is quite a significant lack of housing and quite a shortage that any level of government would want to move to try to alleviate. I am struggling sometimes to figure out what the role of the CMHC is, what the role of provincial Housing is, where the MMF fits in. The minister has cleared some of that up for me here so far today. The only angle that I have not asked about in terms of this, from my understanding, is the federal government's role now and what exactly it is that demarcates them from the provincial government in terms of jurisdiction? Maybe the minister can help me with that.

* (1730)

Mr. Reimer: With devolution, what has happened is that all jurisdictions that the federal government had in regard to housing in Manitoba, other than on reserve–the reserve housing still stays with the federal government–but anything that the CMHC was involved with or the federal government was involved with has been transferred over to the provincial govern-ment under our jurisdiction for the management and the administration of their portfolio.

In return for that, they transferred all their funding that went with CMHC. They transferred that to the provincial government. Now, where the opportunity comes about with us–when I say us, I mean our provincial government–are there any efficiencies that we can realize out of the administration of that portfolio? That total port-folio now, we can transfer back into some sorts of different types of housing components, because that is one of the things that was made very clear. The federal government says, okay, we are going to give you the transference of all these approximately 17,000 units. With that transference comes a lump sum of money. You administer it, you manage it. If you can find efficiencies, you can keep that extra dollar, but that dollar has to be transferred back into some housing component.

So it has given us an opportunity to look creatively at that total package now. Now do we not only have to manage our own of about 17,000, but we have inherited the federal government's other 17,000. Looking at the total picture, there are efficiencies that we feel that we can realize from that, and the monies that we save on that gives us the opportunity to look at possibly reinvesting into other housing components, whether it is a rental supplement program or some sort of home renovation program or other areas where we feel that there are more dollars, that we can get a bigger bang for our dollar.

We will have a responsibility to be involved with social housing, the ability now to make decisions on a local table is much easier for us to look at innovative ways of doing this. Some of the things maybe looking at some sort of programming for the rural areas in regard to housing or supplementing housing in that area or some sort of programming. These are some of the things that the department is looking at, and I think that this is one of the things why the department looks at fairly optimistically in trying to come to some sort of new directions with our housing programs here in Manitoba, because it gives us the ability to make decisions on a local level now.

Before decisions could not be made because we had, as one of our primary partners, the federal government, and it would take all the time and effort of trying to move up the chain in Ottawa or through the CMHC, and a lot of times it was against their policies, or the policies could not be changed, and you had to just accept that and say, no, we cannot do anything for you. We can now do localized decision making in regard to housing, and any monies that we save we have to put back into housing. That is the biggest criterion that the federal government came down to us, saying that we will transfer this, we will give you the funding, but any savings you have to put back.

That is fair. I think there is nothing wrong with that. I think that it is a good way to look at trying to utilize the best we can for housing here in Manitoba, because then it becomes a made-in-Manitoba solution for housing. So I think that there are opportunities there, and some of the ways are looking at innovative ways, not only from the city of Winnipeg area but from all areas of Manitoba.

Mr. Struthers: Yes, and I would certainly encourage the minister to look at any ways that he can to incorporate local input and local folks into providing solutions to housing problems in rural Manitoba.

The last question I wanted to ask was: can the minister indicate how much money was transferred from the federal government to the province through this devolution?

Mr. Reimer: It is $75 million that was transferred. It is on a diminishing scale tied into the mortgage and the paydown, and it will peter out to nothing by 2032.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I have a couple of questions that I want to ask as well. One of the issues that comes very often to my constituency office is people who are looking for assistance to repair homes. Now I recall back in the '80s there used to be an excellent home repair program where people could get money whether to repair their roof or to upgrade their house. If I recall correctly, a certain portion of that might have been forgiven or else it was a loan program, but there is no assistance now, and when people look for funds, whether it is repair their roofs or those kinds of things, they are told that there is no money. There is money through RRAP, but the waiting list is so long that by the time they get anything through that program they become quite frustrated.

I wonder whether the minister recognizes this is a serious problem when we see the quality of homes deteriorating and some people living in some very poor conditions and homes that should be repaired but because of low incomes people just cannot afford to do it on their own. I would like to ask the minister if he recognizes this is a problem and whether he has any suggestions that I can give to these people who are looking for assistance in home repair but nothing is available right now.

Mr. Reimer: The member is right. There are some programs available for home renovations and upgrades. The RRAP program that was mentioned has been very, very beneficial. In fact, we just announced an additional $616,000 into the RRAP program, our provincial contribution, recognizing that there is the need for safe and well-maintained homes. It is an additional funding to the federal government, and the gross number then in Manitoba will be just about $2.5 million in the RRAP program which will be available for these types of upgrades.

It is assistance to homeowners who occupy and own substandard housing in need of repairs. The maximum loan in southern Manitoba is $18,000 of which $12,000 may be forgivable, and the loan limits are slightly higher in northern Manitoba. I do not have those numbers with me, but I can get them for the member. I know southern Manitoba. Also, some of the funding is available through the RRAP program for disabled people, people who are looking to upgrade their homes who have disabilities, and even people who own rental accommodations, landlords, can get assistance, and here again it is forgivable loans up to $18,000 per unit which are available for rental properties and up to $12,000 per bed in rooming houses. So we made that money available. We have just announced an increase, like I say, of just over $616,000.

* (1740)

There is another program that is available for home renovation for seniors, and that is called our HASI Program, which is Home Adaptations for Seniors' Independence program, and to that program, we have added some more funding in that area of almost $75,000. These are small loans and assistance under the HASI Program is in the form of a forgivable loan. These are forgivable loans for expenses that are incurred by a senior adapting his or her home. The loan maximum there is $2,500, and it is limited to one loan per household. There, the applicant must be 65 years of age and have an income of between $17,000 to $30,000, also depending on the location of the home.

So we do have some programs available to try to upgrade and renovate homes which we have just announced. Like I say, the RRAP here in Manitoba we will have a total of $2.4 million, and the HASI Program will have a total of just under $300,000 available for people to do renovations in their homes that way. So we feel that we may be of some help with those two programs.

Ms. Wowchuk: Can the minister indicate what the waiting list is for RRAP and who administers it?

Mr. Reimer: I am informed that we do not have the numbers on the waiting list, but I have also been informed that the waiting list necessarily may not be true numbers because of the fact that sometimes the eligibility has not been established. People have made application, but their application has not been processed in a sense of eligibility, and we do not have those numbers available.

In the rural area, the MMF administer the RRAP program, so they are the people that would have possibly more accurate number lists. It was just pointed out too that we do not administer the program, but CMHC administers the whole program. We are adding additional funding to it, but the administrator is CMHC and the federal government.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Chairman, if the province is contributing money to the program, but you are not administering it, surely you must be provided with the number of people that are on waiting lists. I guess the question is, well, you talked about having somebody working closer with the MMF now. Would you be able to get those figures? Because in my constituency it is a very serious problem where people are told there is really no point in applying because the waiting list is so long that you are not going to get any assistance. These are not people in many cases who can afford to be taking on the whole cost of renovating those homes themselves and eventually they will pay back the money, but it is an area where we definitely have to have something developed, so I am looking to the minister to find out where we can get some accurate figures and asking whether perhaps the department can get those for us as to how many people are on the waiting list because if we have 1,000 or 500 people on the waiting list and the province has put in $600,000, that is not going to mean anything.

I believe there is a much greater need than can be addressed with this amount of money, but we cannot seem to get any definite answers as to how many people are on the waiting list, what is the real need out there. So is there a way the department can get those figures and let us know what the actual number of people are that are applying and being rejected and the number of people on waiting lists, whether it is federal or provincial?

Mr. Reimer: I think that we can try to get those numbers for you, because it is true, if we have got over $600,000 in there, I think we should know where that money is going and the accountability and the transparency of actions that are taken in regard to the Manitoba taxpayers' dollars, so we certainly can try to get numbers for the member.

I should point out too, and this is one of the reasons why, and I alluded to it a little earlier in regards to the MMF and the agreement that they have with the federal government, as I said before, we did not want to disturb the agreement that we have with the federal government that we inherited, and one of our conditions was that it would stay the same, but one of the things that we have instituted and which I have instituted, as I say, through my department is that we have now moved a person over physically into the MMF office. He is on our payroll but he is at the MMF office with the sole intention of getting involved with their operation, getting a knowledge on their operation so that we can look at the accountability and the transparency of our dollars that are going into these various programs so that we do get the best return for the taxpayers' dollars, and we get to know where the money is going and the best utilization of it.

The concerns that the member mentioned regarding the long waiting list, that has been brought to my attention quite a few times by various people in the rural areas specifically. So we are saying, if we are going to be putting this type of $2.4 million into this type of program, I think that we want a good accountability of those taxpayers' dollars and where the money is being spent. So those are some of the things that I think we will have a better accounting for in the next while.

Ms. Wowchuk: Then I take it when you have that information you will provide us with a copy of it.

Mr. Reimer: We will try to dig up those numbers for the member, yes.

Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you very much. I want to talk about the changes that have taken place in Housing. When the government moved to closing many of the small Housing offices in many of the communities, people were not too happy with that. We were told that there was going to be a toll-free number put in for people to call in to and that worked sometimes. We have a Parkland East and a Parkland West office.

Now, can the minister tell us whether there is a manager in both Parkland East and West, or is one manager managing both of those offices?

Mr. Reimer: I am told that there is only the one manager, and he works out of Dauphin.

* (1750)

Ms. Wowchuk: Could the minister indicate when that change was made, because when we made the switch over to having central offices it was my understanding that there was going to be a manager in the Dauphin office and in the Roblin office, one to look after each region?

Mr. Reimer: I am trying to get the proper sequence in my mind, excuse me for the time. I believe what the member was saying is we do have the office in Dauphin, and there is a manager there who looks after the districts in around there and including Roblin. We do have staff in Roblin who are also part of that management district, district office I should say. So there are still people involved with both offices.

Ms. Wowchuk: But there has been a reduction of staff in the region is the question.

Mr. Reimer: I believe there is a vacancy in that district, yes.

Ms. Wowchuk: Are there plans to fill that vacancy?

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that there is a process of bringing new computers into not only this district but I guess throughout the whole province. They are looking at the staffing requirements throughout not only that district but in other areas as to how it is going to impact the filling of these positions. So I guess more or less the way it stands right at the present time is we are waiting for the system to be brought in.

Ms. Wowchuk: I want to ask a question about a specific elderly persons' housing unit in Benito. The people in Benito that live in the elderly persons' housing unit are wanting to get mail service. We have talked to the people at the post office. They are quite prepared to do it, but we seem to be running into roadblocks as far as Manitoba Housing goes. Is there any reason why Manitoba Housing would not be interested in working along with the residents of the Benito unit who want to have mail delivery? I mean when you build units now, you put mailboxes into them. People can have their mail delivered there, and it is very convenient for these residents. We have been trying for some time now to make arrangements through Manitoba Housing and work with the manager there, but we have not been able to be successful. Is there any reason why Manitoba Housing would have difficulty with installing mailboxes for a few residents so that they could have their mail delivered to the unit?

Mr. Reimer: I am sure that we can try to accommodate that. I mean, if it is just a matter of, if there is the availability of local delivery in Benito, I am sure we can come up with mailboxes for that particular complex.

Ms. Wowchuk: I would hope that we can work through that because it is a problem that we have been trying to work through for almost two years now. The manager there says that we should not be involved in it; he is going to work it out. These people continue to want mailbox service, so if the minister would tell me who on his staff I should get in touch with, I would very much like to see this issue resolved.

Mr. Reimer: I think that if the member, when we break up here in the next five to seven minutes, if she would like to spend a moment with Ron Fallis and give him the details and the particulars, we will get it fixed.

Ms. Wowchuk: On another issue, we have many elderly persons' units throughout the Parklands area and in other parts of the province, and in some of the areas we have a very high vacancy rate. We find that the units are vacant. I look at Ethelbert where there are 11 units vacant, but they are bachelor suites. Nobody seems interested in going into them. I just pick out the one off the list here because that is the one in my constituency, but there are many of those. We have heard the issue of bachelor suites discussed many times in the House, and I am sure you may have even talked about them here in Estimates. Is there any plan to look at these units and perhaps convert them in some way so that they are more comfortable? When you have 11 empty units in Ethelbert, I think that if you could convert those to maybe a smaller number of units but more comfortable, we might see the occupancy rate going up higher than it is.

Mr. Reimer: We would look at converting some of these units if it is feasible. Some of the things that have to be taken into consideration naturally are the architecture and the bearing wall situation and, you know, the stress points of the buildings. But if it is feasible where it just means putting a hole through a wall type of thing and putting a doorway through, we have done that. We have looked at various ones throughout Manitoba, and we have accomplished that in a relatively inexpensive way. I can certainly direct staff, through this meeting here today, to take a look at Ethelbert and have someone go out there and take a look at these units and see what the structure is and maybe talk to the residents and bring them into the decision making and look at possibly converting some of them. If it is feasible, we will certainly look at it because we have done it in others, and it has proven to be quite successful.

Ms. Wowchuk: I guess what I would hope that the minister would do is not just look at–I picked Ethelbert off the list, but throughout the Park-lands, whether it is in Birch River or in Swan River or Minitonas, there are many places where these bachelor suites are available but people just do not want to live. That may have been suitable years ago, but they are looking for changes. So I hope that the minister will direct his staff to do a review of the housing units throughout rural Manitoba and look at ways that could be more comfortable for the residents.

As I look at this list of where there are units, I do not see Camperville and I do not see Winnipegosis on it. I know that there is elderly persons housing particularly in Camperville, and there are units in Winnipegosis. Is there some reason why they are not included in Parklands East? Do they come under different manage-ment, or why are these units not accounted for?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I have been told they are not managed by Manitoba Housing, they are managed by Sagemace. They are the managers of those units. They are under a separate property management agreement.

Ms. Wowchuk: Those would be the units in Camperville that would be managed by Sagemace Housing Corporation. Can the minister indicate then: is that an entity that stands on its own or, as a management unit, what kind of accountability do they have to the government? Do you give them a pool of money and they manage, or is there an annual accounting? Does somebody oversee the management of those units?

Mr. Reimer: They have to report back to us on a regular basis. The accountability has to be there, the audit has to be there, the expenditures are all accountable. They have to report back to us, yes, they do.

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