Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Good evening. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. The committee will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Housing.

When the committee interrupted its proceedings in the afternoon, it had been considering item 1.(b)(1) on page 83. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I think when the committee adjourned, I had asked the minister a question, so I will wait for the answer now.

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): The four projects that were targeted for the younger people are 470 Pacific, 817 Main Street, 185 Smith Street, 269 Dufferin. We have been also successful at implementing the program for younger people at 375 Assiniboine, 24 Carlton, 260 Nassau, 170 Hendon. The member mentioned Monash Manor. It is not on the list for underage tenants.

Mr. Martindale: In view of the complaints that I have passed on to the minister, and now I actually have more details with me, complaints specifically about kids running around, partying, bringing in booze. Someone had to open the door to let in Meals on Wheels and there is an allegation that there was urine and feces on the floor, and the individual who is complaining is dying of cancer and feels that she does not need a party next door. I wonder if the minister can tell us if he has had complaints or Manitoba Housing Authority has had complaints about partying in suites where there are people under 55?

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, not to try to make light of the allegations, but staff have informed me that they have not received any complaints from the other tenants in these units. I can only say that if there is a problem that we would certainly, you know, pursue it so that there is not a disruption to the other members in any of these units but, by being informed by staff, we have not had any complaints to this nature yet.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I will talk to the people who complained to me and, in future, we will make sure that the complaints get directed either directly to Manitoba Housing Authority or to the minister.

I would like to start another line of questioning, and that is to follow up on our critics concerns about the SAFER and SAFFR. I presume that she might have been referring to both. I think I understand the minister's answer which he gave in Question Period today. That is somewhat of a miracle, although being a theologian, I would have to wonder what the miracle was. Maybe it is just that God works in strange ways. However, I think we can agree, I can even agree on the problem, and that is that if the take-up is lower, the budget is going to be lower. Now, I might get in trouble with my critic here for saying that, but I do understand what the minister was trying to say in his answer, so I think we need to focus on solutions. So I would like to know, how much advertising do you do of the SAFFR program?

Mr. Reimer: I can just give you some figures regarding the SAFFR program and the take-up on it.

In 1996-97 the budget for the number of people that we estimated would take up the program was 850 people. The budget expenditure based on that pickup was $1,500,000. The actual number of people that did apply for the subsidy was 762 clients, for a budget expenditure of $1.292 million, so there was a difference of around, as has been pointed out, just over $200,000.

So this is why there was a bit of a discussion as to the perception that the budget was underspent. It was in the fact that, in setting up our budgetary numbers, we based it on 1993-94. In 1993-94 there were 850 applicants; in '94-95 there were 810 applicants; and in 1995-96 there were 790 applicants. When we did our budget for '96-97, as I say, we budgeted for 850, but there were only 762 applicants. So, in looking at the slowly declining numbers when we did our '97-98 budget, we budgeted for relatively the same amount, 760 clients, for 1997-98.

So, theoretically, because the numbers have been consistently going down, this is why we did not underestimate what we took up last year. We remained at relatively the same for a budget expenditure proposal of $1.25 million. So that gives you an idea of where our numbers come from in looking at our SAFFR program.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I want to come back to that whole issue. I want to finish off on some of the questions we had been dealing with in terms of the public housing and finances section. We had been dealing before in the whole area of the problem of the surplus list and how the department is going about declaring property surplus. I know I have written to the minister a number of times, different ministers, in this portfolio about the government's sort of overall plans with regard to selling properties that are owned through Manitoba Housing. I am interested in getting any information about the number of properties that have been put on the surplus list over the last while. I remember that, when we had asked in Estimates last time, there was a lot of discussion about the amalgamation between the Board for MHA and the Board of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, and how that was going to affect this whole area. I am wondering at this point if the amalgamation to bring those two boards together is complete, and if there has been any new terms drawn up for this new authority, if there has been any change in the representation on that committee.

Mr. Reimer: The boards were not amalgamated. There was not a physical amalgamation of the two boards. What the legislation that was brought forth last year allowed was for the minister to make appointments to this board. Before the board was mainly the MHRC Board. The board was primarily at that time a board of civil servants, and the minister sat on the board. With the new legislation that was introduced, what it did was give the authority of the Lieutenant Governor to appoint outside people, if you want to call it, to that board. That was the main redirection of the MHRC Board. The two boards are still entities within our structure. They are not amalgamated together and serve as one board.

Ms. Cerilli: The other part of my question then was the new appointments that have been made then to the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation Board. If I could get that information.

Mr. Reimer: There are currently 11 board members and their appointments. The chairman is Mr. Neil Wither from Winnipeg; the vice-chairman is Mr. Ian Restall from Winnipeg; there is a Mr. Bill Henderson from Winnipeg; Ms. Wendy Bloomfield from Winnipeg; Mr. Ken Fulford from Minitonas, Manitoba; Mr. Dick Hildebrand from Altona; Mr. Guy Hobman from Winnipeg; Charles Reis from Beausejour; Mr. Lorne Sharfe from Winnipeg; Ms. Karen Stang from Winnipeg; Ms. Pauline Williams from Brandon; and also the deputy minister sits on the board, Mr. Bill Kinnear.

Ms. Cerilli: How many of those individuals are also then on the Manitoba Housing Authority?

Mr. Reimer: That is the MHA Board. I am sorry, I said MHRC. That is MHA Board.

* (2010)

Ms. Cerilli: My question was MHRC. The minister had clarified earlier I think in the Hansard that the legislation was to allow more citizen participation on the MHRC Board. So I think he needs to clarify for the record any additions in the MHRC Board, and if they are just people from this Manitoba Housing Authority list.

Mr. Reimer: The MHRC Board is comprised of the same people that I just read out to the member. The MHRC Board does not meet that regularly. The MHA Board meets on a regular basis, and the MHRC Board meets on an as-needed basis. So the only civil servant that sits on the board is the deputy minister, Mr. Kinnear.

Ms. Cerilli: I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, but was the minister correct when he said the reason for having the legislation was to allow more citizen participation on the Manitoba Housing Renewal Corporation Board? Because that is the one that is all civil servants.

Mr. Reimer: The member is right.

Ms. Cerilli: So the question I had is, then what are the new citizen representations to the Manitoba Housing Renewal Corporation Board?

Mr. Reimer: They would be all the same people that I just read out. These people sit on the two boards.

Ms. Cerilli: One person in particular that I want to ask about is Guy Hobman because he is then on the Manitoba Housing Authority and he is also the chairperson for the Winnipeg Housing Rehab Corporation. With all the events that took place around that corporation and City Hall not too long ago, I was interested in finding out his point of view with respect to Winnipeg rehab housing and if the Manitoba Housing Authority has had any involvement with the whole initiative with some members of City Hall to have that Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation disbanded, if he had been directed through Manitoba Housing Authority in any way to have a certain position. I find it kind of interesting that this fellow was on both of these public housing corporations.

Mr. Reimer: I should point out to the member that the individual mentioned does sit on both boards. On this Manitoba Housing Authority Board, there have been no discussions regarding the Winnipeg Housing Authority and the direction that it has taken, and we have not pursued an uninitiated action with Winnipeg on the Winnipeg Housing Authority--

Ms. Cerilli: Just a point of clarification.

Mr. Chairperson: Order, please.

Ms. Cerilli: You mean Winnipeg Housing Rehab.

Mr. Reimer: Yes. What did I say?

Ms. Cerilli: Winnipeg Housing Authority.

Mr. Reimer: Oh, pardon me. No, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) is correct. Too many authorities and everything here; you have got to think slow. But anyway, Mr. Hobman has not been involved in any type of discussion through our board, with our board regarding the Winnipeg rehab authority, and we are not in any pursuit of any type of knowledge or direction from him on that.

Ms. Cerilli: I know that the Winnipeg Housing Rehab portfolio is part of the portfolio currently managed by CMHC that would be transferred to Manitoba government portfolio, and I am wondering if that is something that the provincial government, if you have done an assessment on those properties, if you have sort of done an analysis of how you would deal with those properties with the Winnipeg Housing Rehab. I think it is 15, at least 15 of the properties.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, there has been some preliminary investigation of the Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation, but we have not made any type of formal decisions or close to making any type of decisions as to the acceptance or the devolution part of the application that the federal government has come forth with yet, so there has been no decision at all made to as to what direction we would do with the Winnipeg Rehab.

Ms. Cerilli: So have those properties gone through the process of assessment that we were talking about earlier today, that you are going through with all the properties that are proposed to be devolved from the CMHC portfolio, and could I get the information on those properties regarding their assessment?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I think that it would be very preliminary on our part. We have not made any type of decision as to the assessment value or even the direction that we would be taking with the offer that the federal government has come up with. We are not in a position to make those decisions as yet.

Ms. Cerilli: That is not what I am asking you. I know that you are going through a process though of assessing each of the portfolios or properties, and what I am asking is: Have these ones, with Winnipeg Rehab, been assessed? When they are, I would like to get that information.

Mr. Reimer: No, they have not been assessed as yet, and I would think that they would be part of the overall package that we would be putting forth for consideration regarding the federal government's proposition.

* (2020)

Ms. Cerilli: This is, I guess, one of the major issues that we need to discuss, this whole issue of the devolution. I wanted to do it sort of in view of the fact that it is part of the responsibility of the research division in your department, and I had mentioned earlier that I found it kind of confusing or bizarre that that division, meanwhile, it has got this major responsibility for negotiation and this whole research and assessment on all these properties, and it has seen a loss in staff, four professional/technical staff in this budget and one administrative person. So who is it that is going through this research and planning related to the devolution if there are so many staff that are reduced from that branch?

Mr. Reimer: One of the things that we are doing differently with our department, as I alluded to, I guess, previously when we were going through some of the other areas of discussion, was the fact that we were trying to initiate more of a team concept within our whole department as to contribution and participation in the decision making of our department and which way we are going.

It is true that Research and Planning, that would be a lot of their primary function. At the same time, we are making available contributions from other sectors and other areas of our Housing department, so that Research and Planning have a resource of multifacets within our department to rely on for information and for input. I think that this is what is making our plan of evaluation more effective, because more people that are so called in the field or are part of the field or have been exposed to other components of financing, possibly administration and information technology services have got the ability to participate with Research and Planning in coming up with directions and recommendations.

So though there is the apparent revelation in the Estimates book of the SYs going down from 12 to seven, the fact is that we are still able to look at the whole department in a team concept, we are still able to make effective decisions. We have the people there that can make the decisions.

So I have every confidence in the department in coming up with a thorough analysis of whether there is merit or whether there is a plan of action that we should come up with in dealing with the federal government. Hopefully, we are still doing an awful lot of evaluating of it, and looking at not only what is happening and what is being proposed here in Manitoba, but we are also dealing with the other provinces in trying to find out what has been put on the table there and what we can garner from where their negotiations are going.

Only two provinces to date have signed on, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, and this is very, very recently. In fact, I think New Brunswick was not even a week ago, or maybe 10 days ago I think it was that I got notice of it. So we are looking to them to give us a copy of their final acceptance and what their terms and references were. It gives us an idea and a basis of evaluating what we can compare for Manitoba and what has been offered by CMHC here to Manitoba. It is a mammoth undertaking, but at the same time I think that if it is done properly and if it is done in an expedient manner, whatever the decision is, we feel that we will have exhausted all the alternatives before we come to an answer that is acceptable to government.

Ms. Cerilli: So who is it in the department then that is responsible for taking the lead and doing the support work on the negotiations with the federal government around the devolution?

Mr. Reimer: I guess it will all come through and with to the deputy minister. He will be the lead contact. Then I guess from there it will come to myself and to government. But as it is right now, it is the deputy minister that is the lead character in the negotiations.

Ms. Cerilli: So it is Mr. Kinnear then that is actually sitting down with the federal government and going through the detail in terms of the finance and the cost.

Mr. Reimer: Yes. I should point out too an initiative that was undertaken by the Deputy Minister Kinnear. When this was first announced, which was almost a year ago, one of the first requests by the deputy minister was asking of me to authorize a meeting that he took upon himself with all the deputy ministers across Canada. It was upon his perseverance in calling the other deputy ministers across Canada that a meeting was concluded and held in Ottawa, I believe it was, with the idea of trying to find out exactly what was happening across Canada. For that reason the deputy of Housing was very instrumental in setting up a format and setting up an avenue of communications through all the deputies across Canada in trying to make sure that, when the federal government is negotiating with one, the other deputies are informed of the terms of references, the conditions, the directions that that particular province is having with the federal government.

So we have been leading, if you want to call it, in trying to be up front with our federal counterparts in trying to find out exactly the terms, the references of any type of devolution of power. If anything, our knowledge of what is happening across Canada is more in tune with for accurate decisions than I would think maybe of some of the other provinces, but it is only because of the fact that we were first out of the gate through the deputy of the department in wanting to talk to the other departments in Canada to find out what was going on.

It still has not put us into a position where we are ready to make a decision because we are asking more questions than a lot of the other provinces and a lot of the provinces are coming to Manitoba to find out what is happening.

Ms. Cerilli: So have you reviewed the agreement with Saskatchewan and with New Brunswick? Have you had a chance to do an analysis of those agreements? I am interested particularly with Saskatchewan of seeing how their costs and the amount of money they have had allocated per unit would compare to ours. So, first of all, I am wondering if you can clarify.

Mr. Reimer: We have not received anything from Saskatchewan yet as to what their final agreement was, and what they finally settled on, and New Brunswick, we have not received any of that either. The only thing we have received is the news releases that the federal government puts out, and that really does not give us too much knowledge as to what the contents of the agreements are. So we are in the process of trying to get that information from our Saskatchewan neighbour and from New Brunswick and from CMHC. Hopefully, we can get those so we can make a more valued judgment on what has been put on the table.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I thought you just said that Manitoba was seen as a leader across the country.

Mr. Reimer: In asking questions.

Ms. Cerilli: Oh, the minister is clarifying: in asking questions.

Mr. Reimer: We are the province that is asking more questions than the other ones.

* (2030)

Ms. Cerilli: But it seems that other provinces have already signed agreements, so obviously they are further ahead. I am not suggesting necessarily that is the way that the minister should be charging ahead because I have heard a lot of criticism, first of all, in Manitoba, that you were trying to sort of hastily go through this process and were not involving enough some of the people that are currently managing the nonprofit developments in question. I know that you have now had meetings with ASHM. That is the Association of Social Housing Management for the benefit of Hansard.

I have also heard that one of the concerns across the country is that the federal government is not encouraging provinces to sort of co-operate and work together on this, that they are sort of trying to deal with provinces individually, one at a time. The minister, I guess it was the previous Minister for Housing at the federal level, had at the last minute cancelled a ministers' meeting before this whole process began that was supposed to have occurred. I think it was supposed to be in Newfoundland, and I do not think that meeting has ever taken place.

Is the minister agreeing with me that the federal government is dealing individually with provinces? One of the concerns is that there is not going to be any cohesion across the country in these agreements and, similar to what we are seeing with the devolution of apprenticeship and training, that we are seeing all sorts of different kinds of agreements and that it is sort of up to each province. It sounds like if you have not got the agreement yet, especially from Saskatchewan, that there is not a lot of communication between the different provinces.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, to a degree what the member is referring to is true. It is sort of like Monty Hall, you know, "Let's Make a Deal" with every province, and we are concerned about that, because some provinces may be doing a deal that we should be involved with or we should be privy to. There seems to be a lack of willingness to share information unless we keep asking questions, and as we ask questions we get answers, but it just seems that we have to be the instigator of all the questions to get some of the details. That is what makes is even more frustrating because it is like a spider web; you ask some questions and then it leads into something else and something else.

So we are working with Saskatchewan in trying to get their final agreements. We have not been able to get it. I have been told that we will be getting their final package, if you want to call it, but to date we have not got it. There has been contact made with New Brunswick, but we are not privy to their final package either. Some provinces have been very strong in their opposition to any type of devolution. In fact Ontario, as the member is aware, they are in the process of actually devolving their social housing onto the municipalities. So they have taken a totally different type of direction. They are not too worried about what the federal government is going to offload onto them because they will just keep pushing it down the line to the municipalities.

The other two provinces in the West, Alberta and British Columbia, we have been in contact with them. In fact, the deputy has been out there personally to talk to their departments to get a better understanding of where, what type of offers have been coming to them. It seems that they are of the same opinion that they just get dribs and drabs from the federal government and from the CMHC as to what they are offering. There does not seem to be a consistency of even dealings between CMHC in Alberta and CMHC dealings in British Columbia and what their dealings are here in Manitoba. Each province has its own scenario of priorities and circumstances. In British Columbia, there is a waiting list of well over 20,000 people waiting for public housing. Here in Manitoba, we have got vacancy rates that range from 9.5 percent right up to well over 40 percent in some of our units. In Alberta, they are not too sure what they are going to do with their housing stock. So each one of the economic climates, sort of, will dictate, to a degree, how they will negotiate or not negotiate with the federal government, you know, for the devolution of the housing stock.

In Manitoba, we are looking at, I think as I mentioned to the member, almost doubling of our units of social housing, plus taking on a mortgage portfolio of approximately $650 million which would put a total commitment in Manitoba of well over 36,000 units and a mortgage of almost a billion dollars. It is a tremendous undertaking, and it is a tremendous responsibility of decision making that the federal government has put forth for us to consider. So though it may sound that there is nothing happening, most of it--it adds more and more questions as you get into it. One of the things that we will be advocating, and what Alberta and British Columbia are suggesting, is that we do have a meeting in the next very short while to sort of compare notes again just to see which way we are headed on that.

The member is right. There was a Housing ministers' conference called last fall. It was cancelled abruptly. We are trying optimistically to try to reschedule that on a national basis, but with the possible federal election coming up nothing has been formalized or finalized. So again, we are sitting without being able to really get together to talk about this problem. It has put a lot of different scenarios on the table in regard to social housing in Manitoba, but I think the best way to do it is the way we are doing it, which is a very careful analysis of our strengths and our assets in the portfolio and concentrate on the areas that we can make changes and still be servicing the clients that we have to service.

The federal government has got a responsibility in this, too, but they are walking away from it pretty fast.

Ms. Cerilli: I am going to ask some very specific questions about this, and hopefully we can move through with more specific answers. Why have you not gotten the information from Saskatchewan?

* (2040)

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that they just have not forwarded it as yet. We have requested it, but they just have not forwarded it yet. We have got the verbiage but no numbers as to the actual black and white final adaptation.

Ms. Cerilli: Do you know from communication you have had with Saskatchewan that on the numbers, in terms of the dollars that are going to come for different kinds of housing, that it would be compatible? Are the costs in the portfolio compatible between Manitoba and Saskatchewan?

Mr. Reimer: Size wise, they are comparable. I guess where the difference would come, possibly, is in the numbers, the mortgage commitments, the maintenance commitments, the mix of units compared to ours, the rural and the northern component. Those would be the things that would bring into different perspectives the amount of monies that are involved.

One of the things that the federal government has indicated is they want to cap the amount of money that they would forward to the provinces at the '95-96 level which gives us a big problem, a big problem because we are dealing with an aging stock, an older stock, and yet the monies that they are saying that they are going to give us they are capping it at a lower rate, plus we do not know in what type of cycle their funding was in '95-96.

We are fairly confident in knowing the expenditures of our housing stock because we can look at the history as to how we are spending our money. We do not have that availability of history from the federal government. We do not know whether they are at the high end or the low end of their funding. If they cap it at a low end and their costs and their projections and their expenses against their various replacement components in this housing are all starting to come due in the next five to 10 years, that number at '95-96 can be significantly out of whack.

Ms. Cerilli: Keeping with Saskatchewan for a minute, what is the minister's understanding, and especially if the deputy has been talking with the deputy in Saskatchewan, of the rationale for Saskatchewan moving fairly quickly on this? What types of assurances have they gotten? I mean did they accept that they got the capped funding at '95-96 level?

Mr. Reimer: We are not privy to the final numbers that the Saskatchewan government settled with. We do know that the federal government was trying very hard to try to get--they had put a self-imposed deadline of April 1 of trying to have everybody signed up. They had a specially formulated team. Literally, this is what it was. It was a team that went into the province with the goody bags and everything else like that, and they made the deals. I really could not speculate as to what was the final outcome with Saskatchewan as to what their cap was or whether there was a contingency allowance put into that or some other things that they may have negotiated on a side deal. They may have capped it at '95-96 and then had a bunch of add-ons somewhere else.

We are trying very hard to get hold of this type of information. I believe that we will. It is just a matter of being persistent with them in trying to get that.

Ms. Cerilli: I know from my correspondence with you and discussion with you that Manitoba is at the stage of a fourth draft on this. Can you confirm that or maybe now since then there is more progress than that? Maybe outline for me the format and the way that draft is laid out.

Mr. Reimer: The member is right. We are in the fourth draft of this exposure. What we can do is, we can get the member a copy of it if she likes and have that. Sure, we can get you that draft.

Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate that. I am wondering if one of the criteria or requirements for this negotiation on your part is that you are concerned about vacancies in the federal portfolio and if you can tell me what the vacancies are in the federal portfolio. I know that there is rural and native housing, urban native housing, co-op housing and then nonprofits. It has been nonprofit sponsors, so I am wondering if maybe you could break it down into those groupings and give me a sense of what the vacancies are in what you are saying now is 17,000 units, and if this is one of the concerns and one of the things that has caused you to slow down on this, your concern about the vacancies in some of these developments.

Mr. Reimer: As much as it may seem ironic in stating this, we have not been able to get this information from the federal government. In all our correspondence and conversations, we have not been able to get a detailed information from them as to their vacancies of their stock and some of the other financial implications. They keep promising to get it to us, but we have not even had access to this type of information.

Ms. Cerilli: But you do know which developments and units, what housing projects are going to be in this offload. Have the staff not gone and met with the existing social housing managers and perhaps representatives from the boards of these, especially the nonprofits? They would also have a lot of that information.

Mr. Reimer: It is true we do know the location of the federal CMHC housing buildings and homes, and we have done a conditional inspection of them, but the actual numbers of occupants and the vacancy rates we do not know. It has been pointed out that through our elderly infirm act that we have with the seniors homes that we can sometimes find out through them what the occupancy rate is, but this is all sort of back-door analysis when all we should be doing is asking the federal government to give us this information on a need-to-know basis. They still have been reluctant in giving us any type of information like that, so it makes it very hard to make an effective evaluation and analysis of any type of consideration of a takeover. They have been very difficult to deal with.

* (2050)

Ms. Cerilli: I was asking you about trying to get some of that information by working with the existing social housing management. I know that this has been one of the concerns of the Association of Social Housing Management is they have felt even more in the dark perhaps than you are. I know that you have met with them, and I have talked to a number of their reps as well, but would you not be able to get some of that information by going directly to them? It would be a lot more work than just having the federal government be forthcoming in giving the information that you need to have to make this kind of decision. So there are two concerns there. There is one, that you are not getting the information, but the second one is that you are not involving the people that perhaps know best the costs and the management and the needs of this CMHC managed social housing.

Mr. Reimer: We have been assured that CMHC will give us this information. It is just a matter of them trying to get it to us. The member is right; I guess we could go to the individual units and ask that way, but I guess when you are dealing with such a mammoth amount of buildings and the portfolio, to try to get an accurate reading on the occupancy and the amount of people in there would take an awful long time of our staff running around when the federal government should just hand it over in a very simplified manner. With computerization and the availability of information now, it should not take that long. CMHC just seems to feel that there is--they are just reluctant in trying to get us this information that we are wanting to get.

Approximately, from what I am told, around 700 different projects are in the federal portfolio. So that would take a fair amount of running around and knocking on doors to try to get information from them.

Ms. Cerilli: But as I understand it, you are having to go through a process of assessing for yourself the condition and the needs and the maintenance necessary, the value of all these properties. I mean it is an onerous job, but you know, you want to know what you are getting and what you are going to be dealing with. Again, this is one of the concerns of some of the people that I have talked to is that they are concerned that this is going to be occurring in a very sort of haphazard, sort of last minute kind of fashion, that this kind of assessment of this federal portfolio.

So I am wondering if you have even gone so far as to just write a letter to the 700 properties and ask for the management there to submit it to you, and explaining to them sort of what is happening and ask for recommendations from them in terms of what they see as their priorities and their concerns.

Mr. Reimer: Well, I guess there is always a way to get the information. I guess in the analysis that we are going through in a sense we have to be aware of exactly what the entitlement and the devolution involves and how many units it is and where they are located, but more importantly as the member mentioned, their occupancy and their condition. To do the ongoing inspection of the federal portfolio is in itself a very major undertaking, and at the same time it is like a set of dominos, you do not know whether you should be making a decision full right and working towards a decision of taking this portfolio. It sets in a totally different type of scenario of acceptance and finality of being the landlord for all units here in Manitoba. At the same time, as you are going into the evaluation, other questions come up as to, well, maybe we should not even be doing this. Maybe it is too big; maybe it is too cumbersome; maybe it is too onerous on our part to take over all this portfolio, along with the fact that the funding that is going to flow with this or the commitments that we are going to be faced with over the next while for the upgrading or the M and I on it is going to be too big to justify even proceeding with any type of evaluation. So you are caught, in a sense, between a rock and a hard place in trying to come to a decision: is it a go situation, is it a withdrawal situation? At the same time, you are looking at the evaluation of what the other provinces are going through in trying to come to some sort of understanding as to, well, did they get a good deal or what was the deal that they got. So you wait for their reports so that you can feed it in with yours.

As much as it sounds, it is a convoluted way of trying to come sort of decision as to whether this is viable or not. Plus the fact, as the member has mentioned, there is an awful lot of anxiety out there by a lot of individual groups and people that are affected, and they would like to get some sort of stability in their relationship. I have made the offer to MASHM that I will include them in any type of discussions. If we come down to a point where we are deciding either for or against the federal offer, I would make sure that they are informed of where the position is

It is a convoluted way to do things, but at the same time the magnitude of it is that it is a very delicate and go-slow operation. I would rather be a little bit more hesitant going into the situation now than to go into it and then find out that we cannot afford it or we are stuck with a situation that is going to cost not only the social housing but the taxpayers of Manitoba something.

Ms. Cerilli: As I said, I want to ask some specific questions and, hopefully, get some specific answers. What is the federal time line on this, on the transfer of this portfolio, and have they given you now another date? You said it was April 1, '97, and are you now working towards another deadline?

Mr. Reimer: The date that they had given us was April 1 of this year to get it all signed. We have not even come close to even to that date. There has been no so-called extension where they have said, okay, let us make it for July 1 or anything like that. Our indications were that it was April 1. That has certainly passed, but they are still in correspondence. In what I received from Minister Marleau recently in which she announced the signing of New Brunswick, she alluded to the fact that she is still in negotiation with other provinces in hoping to conclude further arrangements. So it was left as an open type of situation where they are still encouraging negotiations to go on, even though it is passed the April 1 deadline.

* (2100)

Ms. Cerilli: Your understanding, is it an option not to take this offer? Is it an option that you would not just say to CMHC and the federal government, no thank you?

Mr. Reimer: What I should do is, I will endeavour to give the member the original letter that was sent to me by the minister, Marleau, in which she outlined the position of the federal government and their reasoning for the devolution. There is reference in the letter stating that even though--I should not put it that way because I do not have the letter in front of me. But it was something to the effect that if agreements were not signed, they would still continue their obligation to fulfill--their housing requires it--in the interim. I can get that letter within the next day or two. You can have that on your file, so you know exactly the way the federal government is positioning themselves with us.

Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate that. I am wanting to go back to the whole issue then of confirming what the size of the portfolio is. Maybe I will just go through each of the different components. So the number of units for the rural--is it rural native or rural northern housing?

An Honourable Member: Rural and northern.

Ms. Cerilli: Rural and northern.

An Honourable Member: Rural and native.

Mr. Reimer: Yes. What I can do is I can give you the breakdown. The nonprofit housing, they have 7,900 units. The private, nonprofit which was pre-1986 is 4,150 units. Their co-op housing pre-1986 is 1, 350. The co-op indexed-linked mortgaged housing is 800 units. The urban native nonprofit is 400; that is pre-1986. The urban native, nonprofit after 1985 is 1,000. The rural and native housing is 1,900 for a total of 17,500 units. That represents 667 various projects.

Ms. Cerilli: What procedure or process is the federal government recommending to you to determine the assessed value on these units and to determine the amount of dollars for maintaining them and for the administration? What are they proposing?

Mr. Reimer: I alluded earlier to the member regarding the '95-96 cap that they are referring to in wanting to keep their funding at. We have a problem with that, as mentioned, because of the fact that the budgetary cycle at that time had an allocation of just over $41 million towards the federal cost of maintaining that portfolio. If you combine that with our portion of the portfolio you are looking at almost $80 million of expenditure between our portion and the federal government. But they would cap theirs at around, like I say, just over $41 million. It gives us big concern in regards to trying to maintain any type of quality or any type of sustainability in those approximately 17,500.

Ms. Cerilli: That is all that they are telling you, it would be 41. That is all they told you so far. How do they expect you to assess what it is worth? I mean, it is sort of like, trust us. Is that what is happening?

Mr. Reimer: I think the member can see the response from my staff. They said yes. Like Monty Hall. It is like "Let's Make A Deal." There is even more. I have just been told that it locks in our cap too of just over $38 million. So it really puts a tight squeeze on trying to maintain that type of commitment to that social housing, because they are not only locking in their cap but they are locking in our cap.

Ms. Cerilli: This is a huge concern, because that has also happened, and I do not know if this is what you did of your own volition. But the federal government, in the last few years, since '94 was really when they stopped putting any new money in. You have also reduced the amount that you are putting in, equivalently. What they are proposing in their agreement is that the province would not be able to increase the funding beyond the existing level as well. But that would not necessarily be a '95-96 level. That would be whatever level you are at when you sign this agreement. What would be their rationale for doing that? Are they really serious about killing social housing in this country or what?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I think the member is realizing why this is such a great concern to us. It is the fact that the federal government is capping and they are also capping our contribution, but, more importantly, too, is their contribution. Once the mortgage runs out, their contribution stops, and then it even becomes more paramount. We as a provincial government then have to assume more responsibility in regard to maintaining these units. The taxpayer of Manitoba is very vulnerable in this proposal that the federal government is touting around to all the provinces.

* (2110)

Ms. Cerilli: Not to mention the people that live in this housing being vulnerable. I realize that that was what was going, but that is part of the proposal, that when the mortgage runs out--excuse me, when the mortgage is paid, then that is the end of their commitment. Would that also go for any kind of maintenance costs as well? I mean, that is it?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, everything.

Ms. Cerilli: Is CMHC proposing that this current staff with CMHC--or is the federal government proposing that the current staff with CMHC that are responsible for doing the administrative work on these properties currently, that review the budgets from the social housing and everything, would also be transferred, or how would you deal with that staffing component? You would have to have more staff to deal with almost twice as many units in your portfolio. So what are the agreements in other provinces looking like on that front?

Mr. Reimer: What they will be doing is they will be moving their office out of Winnipeg and moving it to Calgary. They are talking about a reduction in their staff of approximately half. They have a staff there now of about 100, and what would happen is that approximately 50, theoretically, would be transferred to our part of the portfolio to take over.

They have offered us, for the 50 people that we would take over, $550,000 as a staff component, so you can see their offer is not very generous: for 50 people, $550,000. That is just over $10,000 a person. The offer is not very lucrative. More importantly, it is very disheartening for the staff and the morale of CMHC and the way the federal government has been handling it all.

Ms. Cerilli: I can see that. Presumably, then, this $550,000 for the staff would also be capped, and it too would run out when their obligations under the mortgage ran out. So then you would be on the hook for dealing with any staffing requirements that would still be needed once the mortgages were paid.

Mr. Reimer: The amount of money that I mentioned, the $550,000, was only good for three years.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, this is pretty incredible then, that they are proposing this kind of thing. So I think it is a good thing that you have slowed down this process, but I am wondering if it is possible for Manitoba to also take over administering the mortgages on these properties, or will CMHC still have responsibility for dealing with the mortgages? Is that something that you have considered? Are you looking at doing that?

Mr. Reimer: I understand that the option of administration is within our purview, that we could do that. Yes, we could do that.

Ms. Cerilli: Does that change the financial fortunes at all in terms of this looking better?

Mr. Reimer: The merits of it are really not that conducive for us to do it. There is no big significant saving or indication that it is of a benefit for us to do it.

Ms. Cerilli: So that is something that you have looked at, though, and that is not necessarily part of the agreement that you are interested in pursuing.

Mr. Reimer: We have not made any decision on that.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, is the government expected to honour the existing agreements? I mean, I know that there is a myriad of different kind of formulas that are used with all those different portfolios of Housing, but I understand that there are agreements now with co-ops and the federal government on cost for administration and maintenance. Will all of those agreements be transferred with the portfolio, or will you be able to go back and negotiate new agreements with the social housing managers and the boards, or would you have to honour the existing ones?

Mr. Reimer: What the federal government is proposing, to an extent, is a renegotiation of some of the agreements that they have between us and the federal government, which would have an indirect relation with the agreements that we have with some of our stakeholders. It is entirely possible that we may have to look at, you know, if we play out the scenario of renegotiation, if the federal government puts us into a situation where there is an abnormal imbalance, we have to start to look at our relationships with our other ones.

It is truly a domino effect as to what would transpire because of what the federal government is coming forth with. So it again sets up a lot of concerns on our part as to the relationship and the stability of the housing market that is already established. If we have to possibly go in and renegotiate and revamp our positioning because of what the federal government has come down with, it creates uncertainty and apprehension within the various components, so it is a concern.

Ms. Cerilli: This is one of the largest areas of concern for those in the community. It would affect then the staffing of all the existing caretakers and social housing managers. How are they deciding the management for these, the administration costs for the management then? You told me the abysmal deal they want to give you for the CMHC staff. I mean, it would suggest that they have got the same thing in mind for the existing staff that work for the boards of the social housing developments.

* (2120)

Mr. Reimer: Yes, I would think it would have that type of an effect, that if they are looking at the capping of expenditures through their '95-96 budget year that it would have to have an effect down the line with the relationship with others, exactly like the member has pointed out. The scenario is played out that way.

Ms. Cerilli: So all the agreements then, contracts between the social housing managers, any caretakers and other staff would all also be up for grabs and they would be open for change?

Mr. Reimer: I guess where there is an interpretation is in regards to the way the federal government will interpret their agreements. They have agreements that have been signed, as has been pointed out, but if they cut back their funding in their allocation, it will have an effect on the individual nonprofit organizations or anything like that. That just becomes part of the reality of what the federal government is doing there.

Ms. Cerilli: One of the other concerns that the nonprofit housing corporations have is what administrative procedure is going to be followed under these new agreements. I do not know if you have any information from Saskatchewan or any other provinces. Some of them actually like the CMHC procedure better and they like the relationship with CMHC--sorry to tell you; this is what I heard--rather than having to deal with Manitoba Housing. So is that a requirement that CMHC is making, or maybe that is one of the areas where you are going to have your own authority to make your decisions. But this is something that the social housing managers are concerned about. They feel like, I think, they have more autonomy with CMHC, and I have heard the words "more bureaucratic" used when it comes to dealing with your shop.

So I am wondering if this is something that you have considered or you are looking at in terms of the agreement. Maybe there could be some changes made to the procedures that are used with you in relationship to dealing with the nonprofits.

Mr. Reimer: We have not come to any decision on it, so it is hard to speculate.

Ms. Cerilli: How will you deal with inflation in these agreements? Is it going to be capped so there is no room for inflation in terms of costs in maintaining the housing, or it is up to the provinces?

Mr. Reimer: The federal government has given no indication that they would tie in any indexing or inflation factor to their number other than the flat number based on '95-96, and as odd and incomprehensible as that seems, that is exactly what they are proposing.

Ms. Cerilli: I think I remember hearing that they are proposing that the money would flow into two separate allotments or two categories. Is that the case?

Mr. Reimer: The cap will remain the same, the 41.6 or whatever I mentioned, '95-96. There is provision--what I believe the member is referring to is the Mortgage Insurance Fund that is involved with the properties. That fund may be adjusted because of the fact of--it is a protection for mortgage renewals when higher rates go up. There will be some adjusting in that fund, but the other fund will stay the same. So I think this is maybe where there is the allusion to the two funds that are being set up. It is a one-time fund for $4.8 million.

Ms. Cerilli: How about dealing with a cap on liability costs?

Mr. Reimer: The federal government has indicated that they want us to take full liability and absolve them from the picture entirely. So the liability becomes a provincial responsibility.

Ms. Cerilli: Even though they could and likely would maintain sort of the administration of the mortgage?

Mr. Reimer: That is right. This is what they are saying to us.

Ms. Cerilli: What requirements are there, according to the federal government, in these agreements for the housing to continue to operate it as social housing? I know from talking to some people that they felt that in--and this is sort of secondhand information I am getting from talking to people in the field--but they were concerned that in some of the proposals that they were hearing that there, for example, could be a subsidy given or an agreement made. The only thing that I understand they are saying is the money that goes has to continue to go into social housing. Then, if that property is sold, the money would still go to the province under the agreement. It could then maybe be used for rent supplement programs or something like that. Could that occur?

* (2130)

Mr. Reimer: What the federal government is proposing, they are saying, we are absolving ourselves of our responsibilities and giving it to you. We are going to be giving you a certain amount of money for the adjustment period. We will give you a certain amount of money for the staffing component of it. If you want to make other types of savings in your Housing portfolio, which you now have total control over regarding selling off a building or doing something like that, you are allowed to do that, but that money has to go back into the social housing component of the portfolio.

So through management efficiencies, through cutting back of expenses, maintenance and repairs, or something like that, we save a certain amount of dollars. They are saying that you are allowed to do that, but you have to reinvest it back into the housing component. They truly are devolving themselves of the portfolio, but they are still retaining a very close hands-on approach as to what we can or cannot do with our portfolio. It really is a one-way street that we are travelling with the federal government.

I should point out that, as the member has pointed out, it started back in '94 when they stopped getting involved with the shared cost of housing. The next year in 1995-96, they cut the budget totally across Canada. I think it was around $240 million. It had an effect here in Manitoba, and now this year they are devolving the market totally. The member is right. It looks like they are trying to position themselves entirely out of the public housing market.

Ms. Cerilli: What they are also doing here is they are encouraging you to sell and consolidate the portfolio, because that is the only way it seems that you are going to be able to even finance the ongoing maintenance costs and administration costs, because they are not going to give you enough to pay your staff. They are not going to give you enough to maintain the properties. So do you agree that that is basically what they are encouraging you to do?

The other part of my previous question was could you also flip that money that you are getting for the properties, if you sell them, into rent supplement programs for market housing?

Mr. Reimer: We have had a vivid discussion here, and I guess that money cannot be used for rent supplements, so it has to somehow be allocated into a new project or something like that, but rent supplements would be a natural for it to go into but I have been advised that that is not part of it.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, I would ask the minister if he agreed that what is being encouraged here, then, is to consolidate the portfolio and to go through further offloading to municipalities, or whoever else will purchase them, and that is maybe where Ontario sort of saw what was coming and jumped the gun, I mean, jumped ahead of the whole mess you are involved with here. I am certainly not advocating that, but that seems to be what is being encouraged here at the federal level. It really is reprehensible if they are setting up this kind of a situation.

Mr. Reimer: A lot of what the member is saying can be interpreted along those lines, because it does make the management and the efficiencies of the portfolio very, very strenuous in trying to maintain a quality of housing component within our government and be restricted in our abilities to utilize the funds or to have the access to funds that the federal government has put a responsibility in providing. The efficiencies that we have to look at to maintain a quality of stock will dictate sometimes that we have to look at a divestiture of some of our stock, and that is true. It might happen.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, we are also dealing with federal government. Just wait a minute. It looks like the minister is getting some new information. Maybe he can supplement that answer.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, it has just been pointed out to me that of the 17,500 units that I mentioned to the member earlier, most of them are in the nonprofit housing component of the sector which cannot be sold, as we go down the list here, unless they get into real difficulty--

Ms. Cerilli: Ontario found that out quick too, right?

Mr. Reimer: Yes. So out of the 19,500 you take off 1,900. The rest cannot be sold, so that does put a very tight restriction on trying to maintain these units.

Ms. Cerilli: That is why I was worried about these Winnipeg Housing Rehab ones because they are, I think, ones that can be sold. If I am not mistaken, those are on some good real estate, some of them on riverbank property. They would be able to be transferred to the private sector, and I think that is a concern. So I am wondering if that is something that the minister would be considering or the department would be looking and advising to do.

Mr. Reimer: We have not really looked at those.

Ms. Cerilli: I was talking about, you know, this is the federal government. I remember before with the rent geared to income when there was a recommendation that increased the rent geared to income. They had said if there were any savings that were going to be made, that you could keep the savings or the additional revenue. Then they changed their mind on that, and they ended up keeping the money.

I am wondering if similarly there will be some guarantees with CMHC this time around that if there are savings that are found in administration, you know, administering this money, these agreements will be adhered to, and there will not be the ability for CMHC to continue to conduct their business in that way.

* (2140)

Mr. Reimer: I guess if there is a savings to be realized, it can be utilized, but at the same time the restriction that the federal government is putting on that it has to go back into the housing component, so the efficiencies that we do generate through management, we cannot put in a rainy-day fund, no. I do not think there would be too much realized, either.

Ms. Cerilli: Maybe just then to clarify what responsibilities the provincial government will have to CMHC if all that they are doing is still administering the mortgage, what will your responsibilities be in dealing with them? They will still have some staff. I mean they will still have some dealings with the portfolio.

Mr. Reimer: Our responsibility would be to make a report annually to CMHC as to how the money was managed and the disbursement and the utilization of the funds. That would be our only requirement is the accountability of the funds. The management of it would be under our purview then, but they would still ask for accountability of the funds.

Ms. Cerilli: Will the agreements include a formula to ensure that a certain number of units operated in a co-op or a seniors' block are going to continue to be social housing, subsidized, low-income rents?

Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that we cannot decrease the amount that had been targeted under that program. I am just trying to look at the co-op housing here. We have 1,350 pre-1986, and after it is 800 of the indexed-linked mortgages. So that is a total of 2,150 co-op units out of the 17,500.

Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify then. I did not write down the numbers but about 1,200 of 1,350 are operated in the co-op sector now as low-income, subsidized units. What you are telling me is that that would have to remain at that level, that it could not be reduced under the agreement.

Mr. Reimer: That is right. Yes.

Ms. Cerilli: Again, that is one of the large concerns that I have about the way that these agreements are going to function. Similarly, there can be quite a variance. Even if you compared the seniors housing blocks that are operating as nonprofit social housing, you are going to find that there can be quite a range in the rent. I am wondering if part of the exercise you are going through in doing this assessment is trying to compare the different seniors blocks to look at the per-unit cost, look at the dollars per year per unit, the costs that are being required in those units, and then even looking at comparing from apartment to apartment the different rent levels that are being charged. Is that making sense?

Mr. Reimer: Yes. When we deal with the stock that is under our portfolio, we can do a fairly accurate assessment as to the cost per unit and the utilization of the units within our portfolio, and we can come up with some fairly definitive numbers as to the viabilities and the directions that we are going and the cost per unit and the maintenance per unit and things like that.

Where we have run into a problem is trying to get this type of information back from the federal government. If and when we get that type of numbers, it will not take that long of a time to try to give it that same type of scrutiny as to the viability and the availability of fundings through the various components in looking at the federal government's portfolio. We can do that, but it is just that we do not have the basis to make those types of analyses right now. The fact is that the CMHC has not given us that type of information. But, yes, we can make those types of analyses regarding the cost per unit and the revenues and the expenditures in their end of the portfolio. Our end is that we have those figures available.

Ms. Cerilli: My understanding is that these social housing developments, nonprofits, really do operate independently. There is no formula now that sort of says, that sort of advises, I do not know, directs them to have a certain per-unit cost for their administration and for their maintenance and all that kind of thing. Is that something that you are considering, or is it something that maybe does exist?

Mr. Reimer: I think that what we have to do is we have to--because the nonprofit organizations sometimes work within budget parameters that may not have the strict guidelines that we would like them to have, because under our operation or our purview we can get a fairly accurate analysis as to what is the expenditures per unit and the cost per unit and the efficiencies that we can put in control. When we apply those types of same parameters to the nonprofits, sometimes they do not fall into line, if you want to call it, as to what the recommended expenditures should be. So we are looking at trying to bring in some closer scrutiny into their management of their units through consultations and through bringing the budget limitations within their structures so that they would become more aware as to what is expected in relationship to what we do with some of our managed portfolios.

For some of the nonprofits, it is a learning curve that they have been put on, and we are doing that over a period of time so that they will become more efficient in their analysis of their budgetary guidelines that we would expect them to operate under. So it is a process that we are initiating, and it is something that I think they will become part of, the same type of standards that we would have and expectations from our portfolio that we manage.

Ms. Cerilli: You know what is happening, though, and again this is what I have heard, is that some of these social housing, nonprofit corporations are comparing themselves to Lord Selkirk Park. They look at Lord Selkirk Park and then they see themselves as much more safe and clean and well maintained, and all that kind of thing, and they are terrified, quite frankly. One of the things that they are worried about is, if they are conducting themselves where let us say they have a reserve fund, they are putting money aside because they know that down the road they are going to have to fix the roof or do whatever, they are concerned that they are going to be able to maintain and control, that those funds will stay with their properties. Is that the case?

Mr. Reimer: They would be able to retain their reserves that they have accumulated and they are working towards, yes.

* (2150)

Ms. Cerilli: One of the other concerns that I have is that this is occurring at the same time as you are going into the health care regionalization, and there are many seniors housing developments, in the rural areas in particular, that have a unique relationship with a seniors home and a hospital board, so there may be a hospital board and there will be a personal care home and there will also be seniors housing that will have their own ward. Will they be able to retain that even though they are sort of under the umbrella of the hospital board and the hospital board will no longer exist because they are going to be replaced by the regional health authority? Has that been something that you have looked at that these nonprofit corporations will all be able to maintain their boards and continue to function as independent nonprofits?

Mr. Reimer: It is an interesting time because as the member pointed out, there are changes especially in the rural areas where we are going to the regional health boards. There are incidents, as she has pointed out, where you have buildings that not only have the hospital but you have a PCH, you have a seniors complex and there is the administrative boards and the volunteer boards that sit with those. We are in the process of working with the various components in trying to come to some sort of resolve of direction and authority on that. It is something that is of a relatively new ongoing feature within our Department of Housing, because the amount of time that will be spent for the administration and things like that, or something has to be worked out, but it is an interesting scenario that is being played out. I can only give the member the assurance that we are working on those, and it is the only wrinkle that is going to be brought forth for resolve.

Ms. Cerilli: In a lot of the discussions we have had over the last number of hours, it seems like the way that--perhaps, in some cases, you are being forced to operate--but the way that we are operating is very reactive. We had talked initially about the program that the City of Winnipeg is proposing for this tax break on new homes, single-family dwellings, and then we are seeing all these cuts in social housing and other rent supplement programs. We have not yet talked very much about the need for seniors housing, and I am concerned that there is no housing studies being conducted, that you are not looking at what the needs are in the community.

We know we have an aging population, and there are all sorts of problems now with, you know, your government is eliminating Classes 1 and 2 of personal care homes. That is completely the opposite of what needs to be happening in terms of seniors and housing, in particular. There needs to be more of a range of housing options, and we need to I think really look at the needs that are in the community in terms of housing. There are all sorts of special populations whether it is new Canadians, whether it is people with AIDS, whether it is second-stage housing for victims of violence, students and youth.

So I guess just to sort of wrap up for the rest of the time we have tonight to sort of more generally--what is the department doing in terms of really developing a plan for housing in this province so that we are going to deal with some of these demographic changes, that we are going to deal with the increasing demand in some of those special populations?

Another real concern is the whole area of mental health, housing for mental health outpatients, the whole government approach that you have had with deinstitutionalization in mental health, and yet there is no attention paid in the community to how to house these people. There are certain areas in the city, even just near where the Legislature is here, where I have been told that there are 300 or 400 mental health patients that are living in that one area. Their housing conditions are deplorable, and there is the whole relationship between violence and abuse and mental health and poverty and how that affects people's housing.

What is going on particularly, again, in the research division of your department to try and do some forward-looking planning to address the housing needs that are going to be coming down the road and that are existing right now, even for the seniors population particularly that we have, that there is not the range of housing that is necessary? I mean, go out and visit rural areas. What they are saying is they may have built huge personal care homes, but unfortunately they do not have enough social housing or other options so that they have people there that do not need to be in that kind of housing. I realize that there are problems especially in smaller communities where you cannot expect to have state-of-the art facilities of all the different types in every community. Often the problem that occurs is people do not want to leave the community where they have lived for a long time. This whole area of doing housing needs assessments seems to be lacking in the department and particularly in the area of seniors. That is why one of the reasons that I was concerned about this tax rebate program, or tax free program that the city of Winnipeg for a new homes, is it is going to build single-family dwellings.

I am not convinced that single-family dwellings are what is necessary. I think that if there were more options for seniors, a lot of them, especially even just in my constituency when I go doorknocking, they tell me they are alone now. Their spouse has passed away. They do not want to have to take care of the house and the backyard and shovel snow and all the rest of it, but they do not have any option in terms of moving into the kind of housing that they need at that stage of their life.

So how is your department addressing this? It does not seem that there is very much of that kind of analysis going on or research.

Mr. Chairperson: The honourable minister with about a half a minute.

Mr. Reimer: I guess what has been mentioned is a lot of things that are of a concern I guess not only in our department, but they transgress into the Health department, they go into the Family Services network and into some of the other components like Justice, and that is to trying to make things safer and healthier for various components of our population.

The member mentioned the seniors part of the scenario for housing, and we look at--

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