Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, before moving to Orders of the Day and on a matter of House business, I would like to clarify for honourable members a matter which should be clarified.

On Thursday morning, the Public Accounts committee will be meeting and as part of their deliberations, there will be, among other things, the Provincial Auditor's Report on Public Accounts and Operations of the Office of the Provincial Auditor for the year ended March 31, 1996, and Public Accounts, Volume 4, for the year ended March 31, 1996. I say this for clarification today to help avoid any confusion or misunderstanding when the Public Accounts committee actually sits Thursday morning.

Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Housing and the Department of Northern Affairs; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture.

* (1430)

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 83 of the Estimates book. I believe that the minister was just finishing some comments. [interjection] Well, if I might, I think the opposition critic had kind of finished a comment, not a question, and the minister was just making a comment, but at any rate, if the member for Radisson has a question, by all means.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): If the minister remembers the question, he is welcome to answer it.

Mr. Chairperson: Would the honourable minister like to make a comment?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): The comment I will make, just to refresh my memory before I go off into an area that the member may not want me to reply on, I will just get a bit of a reclarification of the question that was posed just as we were finishing off last night.

Ms. Cerilli: I am assuming that means from me and not from your staff, I do not know, but in a nutshell, I was wanting to find out what housing studies are being done through the government in co-operation with any other government departments to deal with housing needs in our province.

(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Reimer: Having the portfolio as Minister responsible for Seniors along with the Minister of Housing makes it an interesting combination of trying to come to the realization of goals and objectives between the two departments, because, as pointed out by the member, the aging population and the fact that a lot of our buildings are becoming more and more occupied with seniors, opens up a fairly significant challenge for us as to what are the requirements and how far we get into providing the services.

We have been doing some studies with the Department of Health in trying to come up with some sort of accommodation scenarios regarding some of the mental health patients through utilization of our housing stock. We have come up with assisted living program--I believe Donwood Manor--in a sense to address some of the seniors problem. We work closely with Family Services in the settlement and placement of individuals in our housing component.

It is an ongoing and a challenging situation right now because of the fact that the demand for our public housing has shifted in the purer sense from public housing to more social housing, and the social housing aspect has a fair amount of overlap with the Health department, with the Department of Family Services. We find that there is more requirement for this flow of information and the access to specifics so that decisions can be made regarding housing. So it is something that we work on continuously.

In fact, what I would like to do is just read into the record something that is of notice to our Manitoba Housing and how we have been approaching our goals and objectives in working within the parameters of the challenges that face Manitoba Housing.

What it is, actually, is a letter of recognition and congratulations from the Real Estate Institute of Canada, and it was sent to our Manitoba Housing, and I would just like to read it into the record because I think that it is of note that our Manitoba Housing is being recognized for its initiatives, and just for the member's clarification, it starts off: Congratulations, Manitoba Housing Authority has been nominated for REIC's Corporate Citizen of the Year Award. This award is presented to the corporation which demonstrates its recognition and support of the institute's goals and objectives by encouraging its employees to pursue an REIC designation by hiring REIC members and/or spouses in house REIC courses and seminars. The Manitoba Housing Authority is one of only four companies to be nominated across Canada, and the award will be announced at our awards dinner in conjunction with the national convention which will be held in Edmonton, May 7 to 13.

Then it just goes on to mention the registration and tickets and then closing. So it is an award that, as mentioned, only four other designations have received, so it is something of note regarding our Manitoba Housing Authority and how it has been trying to achieve its goals of management and the objectives of it.

So we strive quite conscientiously in trying to be aware of the needs and the goals and the directions that are required for the housing component, and I believe that it is an ongoing situation within the department, to try to upgrade itself into recognizing where the problems are.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I would appreciate it if the minister would give me a photocopy of that letter, and I think that aside, what we are wanting to discuss is research, and it did not sound like that letter is recognizing research.

I explained yesterday that my concern in this area is that certain kinds of housing are being built in certain parts of the province, and it is not necessarily the kinds of housing that are going to meet the needs in that area. I had used the example of single family dwellings being built and being encouraged to be built and the need is more and more for a variety of seniors housing, different types of services connected with that seniors housing.

* (1440)

I am not convinced that the government, either through this department or any others, has a strategy for how to assess the housing needs so that we are building the right kind of housing in the right place to meet the needs of the province. That is basically what I want the minister to clarify for me. Tell me if I am wrong. Is this happening with this government?

Mr. Reimer: I can give the assurance to the member that we were working more and more collaboratively with Manitoba Health in trying to come to some sort of recognition of where the seniors housing and the seniors needs should be fulfilled.

We look at the opportunity as a challenge within our own structure to possibly meet the needs of the seniors. We are constrained to an extent because of the facilities that we have within our portfolio and the best utilization of them and the configuration of the various suites and the components within the building and the availability of common areas. A lot of the seniors complexes now, because of the confinement of the seniors and their mobility, require onsite food services and sometimes, to an extent, onsite even nursing attention of some sort.

So there is a need for that. I guess where the fulfilment of that can be is trying to mesh our existing stock and whether it can be utilized into what the needs of the Manitoba Health have come up with as their objectives in providing accommodations.

We work under those constraints. Manitoba Health, I could not speculate as to totally what their objectives are in seniors housing other than that I know that when they look at building, they look at a new complex that fits in all the criteria that is available now and the needs can be easily met in a sense because of the newness of a new structure.

We are constrained by the fact that we are looking at existing structures and trying to reconfigure them. We tried to do that. Like I say, a good example is how we are working with Donwood Manor. I believe we are working with some other ones regarding some of the possible reconfigurations. So we recognize that the growing area is with the seniors and trying to fulfill their housing needs and, if anything, it will continue to be that way.

By the turn of the century Manitoba will have the highest per capita of seniors of any province in Canada, so we have to be prepared for it as a government. As a housing department, we are trying to recognize how we can reconfigure or we can satisfy within our parameters of making these accommodations available.

Ms. Cerilli: I do not think you are doing that, because today you have issued a news release where you are going to take apart another 20 units of housing. So, on the one hand, we have more and more seniors who require supportive social housing. They need more health services, more personal services and yet you have continued to get rid of what you see as surplus housing to decrease the portfolio of housing under the Manitoba Housing Authority.

Here now you are going to donate to Habitat the materials from basically taking down existing housing. I am wanting to find out, eventually, where this particular 20 units is and all that, but before we get there I just want to make the point that I understand the pilot project that is going on with trying to have mental health patients in the vacant bachelor suites. I have said before that can be a good thing as long as it is done with the appropriate services and training the staff and all that sort of necessary part of the program.

But it just does not make any sense to continue to offload or sell or destroy social housing when we have this growing seniors population that needs a real wide variety, a range of variety of different types of housing. So, you know, you say that you are trying to match the needs to what you have, but yet you are issuing statements like this. The same thing on Behnke Road where you are willing to take down there, again, a number of units of housing to build a parking lot.

I mean, what is going on? This is like the garage-sale economics that we were talking about when we discussed the budget. You know, anything that you can get rid of, you are willing to get rid of it to save a little bit of money, but in the long run we are going to have thousands of seniors that can no longer stay in their homes and need supportive community housing. I do not know if you want to explain that to me more clearly of what the strategy is.

It does not seem that this pilot project with Health is adequate, but I am also interested in your telling me about the units that are in the news release today, these 20 units that are going to be sold for scrap. You say that you are going to get $540,000--no, that is the value of it; $540,000 is the value of the materials that are going to be recycled for Habitat.

I am wondering what the market value was of these properties, where the properties were, were their mortgages paid, what were the maintenance costs or improvement costs for these properties?

Mr. Reimer: The location that the member is referring to in the release is the property on Behnke Road where the property was sold to Home Depot for the utilization of their new hardware chain that they are building in there. The units themselves, 90 percent of the unit will be recycled. In talking to Habitat this morning, they are very excited about the fact that the materials that are going to be realized from these units can be reused. It truly is a public housing being reused for public housing through Habitat for Humanity.

There are two families that have been identified that will be able to benefit directly from this in getting their own homes, their own place of living. One was a young, single parent--I think she had five children--that will be able to realize a home out of this, and the other one was a gentleman--I believe he had three children that were with him today--that will be able to benefit out of a home from some of this material that is going to be utilized. The amount of money that was mentioned in the news release was the appraised value of the buildings themselves.

The Habitat for Humanity are starting the tear down, if you want to call it, as we speak. They were there this morning with the hammers and the nails, and it was being torn down so that they can reutilize those materials either as a reselling or reusing in their components here in Winnipeg.

In the negotiation with Home Depot, one of the things that we were concerned was to get the best utilization of those building components, so we suggested that we have as part of the agreement for sale that Habitat for Humanity be the people that tear it down.

Ms. Cerilli: This is truly astounding--

An Honourable Member: The tie. What are we talking about, the colour of the tie?

Ms. Cerilli: The colour--not the colour of the tie.

So you are trying to justify that this is reasonable to have. You are saying that two or three families are going to get a home out of this, but with 20 units and the life of these properties there could be hundreds, a hundred families over the life of these 20 units that could have lived at Behnke Road.

I know that Home Depot has also run into problems where they are building on Omand's Creek. This company, I do not know what kinds of deals they are making with City Hall, but this is astounding that they are now going ahead with this because it is less than a week I had phoned City Hall, and I know that there was no demolition permit issued for the demolition on Behnke Road. So unless this has all happened in the last 48 to 72 hours, considering there was a weekend in there, this is pretty interesting. I do not know why all of a sudden this is occurring. Home Depot, as I have said, is already expanding out on Omand's Creek. There are serious questions there, and I know my colleagues have been asking about that.

But this to me is the kind of bizarre thing that is going on in terms of urban planning and housing development and social housing in our city. I cannot believe that you are going to try and justify that this is a reasonable trade-off. I mean, I can imagine that you had to try and find something like Habitat for Humanity to take over the hardware from these 20 units, but it still is quite unbelievable that this kind of agreement has been made to tear down 20 units when they just had over $10,000, I believe, of renovations expended into this development within the last couple of years for their backyards and their fencing--I guess Habitat is going to get all that new fencing for their new construction--and there was landscaping done there, and that was in an area in St. Vital that is very popular.

* (1450)

I know there are waiting lists for public housing in that area, and if nothing else, this is an example of exactly what I am talking about where even if we have schools that are public assets and we know we have an aging population, that those kinds of facilities can be transformed into providing services, housing, recreation centres, maybe more health care facilities for seniors. I think the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) had said mind-boggling that this is occurring, where you are sacrificing 20 units so Home Depot can put up a parking lot. Joni Mitchell's song is coming to pass with Manitoba's housing. You know, they paved paradise to put up a parking lot.

I do not even want to spend any more time on this right now. I want to get into dealing with SAFER and SAFFR and all those other programs, but if you want to give any short explanation of how you can justify this manoeuvre and try to say that because a couple of families are going to get a home out of these materials, that it is a reasonable thing to do.

Mr. Reimer: The member must realize that this was not the primary reason for the sale of this property. The sale of the property was in conjunction with the packaging of a whole entity and that particular area of Behnke Road. The people who were in those units, everybody was accommodated into a different move to the extent that there are still vacancies in our family units of almost 12 percent--

Ms. Cerilli: Not in St. Vital.

Mr. Reimer: --in various areas of the city. It was part of a package that Home Depot brought forth in regards to--they have even indicated that they are willing to offer employment initiatives to the people who have been relocated. They have instituted a fund in the area, and it has been pointed out that the vacancy rate in that area is almost 8 percent, in the St. Vital area, so there are units. Even though we closed these 20 units, there still is a vacancy rate of almost 8 percent in St. Vital, and we paid for all the relocation of these families. There was no cost to them. This was a cost that was picked up by Home Depot. They paid for the relocation of these individuals. Like I say, they are offering jobs to these people in the area. They are offering training packages to them.

The package was a total one plus the fact that the units were going to be recycled back into public use through Habitat. These were all considerations that were brought forth. It was not just one thing that made the decision to sell the Behnke Road properties.

I should point out that when Home Depot does come on stream in that area, it will provide jobs for almost 250 people in that south St. Vital area. So the people that cannot find jobs, they would be able to stay in St. Vital and still work in St. Vital. So there are a lot of benefits to it.

Ms. Cerilli: Oh, you have not convinced me, I am sorry to say, because I know that those units were full. Just the other day I contacted your department, because there was a woman that was sexually assaulted in the inner-city area in public housing, wanted to move to a suburban, to St. Vital to East Kildonan, and was told, sorry, it is either Central Park or the core area or you have to stay where you are. This was a woman that was sexually assaulted in her unit, in her apartment.

So I am getting two stories here, and even if there are a few vacancies, it just does not make sense to be getting rid of this kind of social housing when there is no plan to have any more built. This is the other thing I want to raise with you before moving on to some of the other programs in the department. Now that the federal government has decided that they have no responsibility for financing new construction of social housing, what kind of leadership role is your department going to take to try to involve the community, involve the private sector? There are a number of community groups that are meeting to discuss this now. They want to figure out new ways of financing social housing, and what kind of leadership is your department going to provide in this area?

There is the Institute of Urban Studies. There are a lot of other organizations that could be brought together to look at financing; something that is very much needed, not just in the area of seniors, but today we had questions in the House about AIDS and the AIDS strategy. There are real housing needs for people with AIDS, for people with mental health problems, around all sorts of other social issues. So what is going on in that area?

Mr. Reimer: Well, the member covers a fair amount of topics in where social housing is headed, but I should point out to the member that we, under our public housing sector here in Manitoba, are still working with a fair amount of vacancies, and the utilization of trying to fill these vacancies really is of importance also in trying to come to our goals. In Winnipeg alone, we have almost 1,300 vacant units. Our overall vacancy rate throughout Manitoba is almost 10 percent. It is going up. It is even higher than 1995. Seventy percent of the vacancies of all our stock is in Winnipeg. We have vacancies available. We have room to accommodate a lot of the individuals in the areas that the member is talking about for people to live in.

Until we start to get to a point where we are very, very close to zero occupancy, I do not know whether we would, with this type of vacancy rate still available, consider building. We do not have the money for one thing because the federal government has pulled out entirely from their responsibility of providing funding for public housing. For the provincial government to step in and take over a 100 percent load of funding when at the same time the federal government is trying to offload their total responsibility onto us, the Treasury Board of Manitoba would be hard pressed to pursue a new initiative of expansion of our public housing when we have got high vacancy rates, when the federal government is not going to participate in the capital structure, where the federal government is capping the maintenance structure and where the federal government is offloading their responsibility onto us.

It makes it very hard to make decisions on public housing expanding with new endeavours. So I think that it behooves us to try to consolidate what we have now and to work within the parameters that we have, fill the units that we have, make the decisions, prudent decisions as to the viability and the direction that we want to take with our public housing before we look at even expanding it.

Ms. Cerilli: Let us just sort of set one thing straight at least. The vacancies are not a result of there not being the need. There is a need out there. There are a number of people who could live in these units. It is more of a problem, I think, problems with management. I think there is a real image problem. I do not know if the minister would agree with that. But there are all sorts of other linking that could be done. I mean, we keep hearing we have got this real shortage of group homes through Child and Family Services. I have listed a number of other areas, second stage housing for women that are fleeing violent situations, and I am not necessarily suggesting it has to be new construction, but there is financing that is going to be required then for some renovation, even the kind of renovations that you are dealing with in trying to change some of the bachelor units into, you know, one-bedroom or two-bedroom suites.

* (1500)

It just seems like there is no real vision or strategy in this area either to meet the needs that are there, using the assets that you have in your department, and it seems like your only strategy is to offload or to divest yourself of these assets and sell them off as quick as you can. I am seriously concerned that what is going to happen is there are going to be even more people, all those people that are impoverished and low income in our province that are going to be struggling down the road to find a decent place to live, because right now Manitoba Housing does not seem capable enough to deal with the problems that are causing the vacancies. The vacancy, it is ridiculous to me to use the vacancies as a reason to divest yourself of your assets. It just does not make any sense, particularly when the need is so high with a growing seniors population. You talk about wanting more immigration. You know, there are all sorts of other areas where you could be developing partnerships in the community, creative ways of filling these vacancies, and I just do not see it happening.

Mr. Reimer: Well, I guess there will always be room for some disagreement between the member and myself, to a degree, of the best utilization and the direction the department is going. I can only point out that we are very interested in forming good-faith partnerships with anybody that is willing to come forth with a program or initiative to utilize our property in some sort of constructive manner for supplying of housing needs, whether it is through the nonprofit organizations or the volunteer groups, the service groups. We encourage this type of participation if we can get into these good-faith partnerships.

A lot of the groups come forth with some excellent suggestions to try to utilize our properties in the pursuits of their goals in supplying services to particularly seniors. We have not shut our door, in a sense, by saying we can do it better and we are the only people that can do it. I think that is wrong because we have to look at trying to look at the assets in the community, and if there is a strong community group that has the ability to bring factions together and possibly even bring money to the table in the sense of providing some sort of incentive or direction to have things work well in that particular unit, we certainly will encourage it. We are not of the opinion that Manitoba Housing is the only player on the block in supplying housing needs. We have the ability to even offer up some of our units and complexes to various nonprofit organizations and service groups and say, if you feel that you can manage it better or if you feel that you can take it over, we will assign it to them. If these groups are willing to take on the responsibility of the payments and the maintenance and we can participate in a smaller way, I have no problem in talking to some of these groups and throwing it back to them.

Now, they have to have the willingness to do this. If it is totally government initiative to divest itself that way through partnerships, and it still serves the need of the community, then I feel that it is worthy of pursuit. It cannot be just Manitoba Housing providing all the initiative and all the direction and all the money because it is just not there anymore.

Ms. Cerilli: I do not know if the minister did not understand my question, but that is exactly the point that I was making, is if there is no more public money, then what are you going to do to show some leadership to bring members of the community together from the private sector, from financial institutions, from community organizations. A lot of the social housing that has been constructed has been sponsored by ethnic community organizations. They are still going to want to conduct that kind of activity, and I do not think that you can just turn your back on that whole area.

If what the federal government is saying is it is up to the private sector to a large extent, then there has to be, I think, still some leadership from government to bring all those people together and to develop some kind of strategy, to do the needs assessing and to make the services and the housing fit what is happening in Manitoba.

I want to move on and just make some comments about following up our discussion yesterday about devolution, as I did have a chance to talk to someone today from Saskatchewan and was surprised by what they told me. They said that they were actually not totally satisfied with the co-operation from the federal government in terms of getting access to information, but they had their staff go in and spend two full days going through the books. CMHC in the Saskatchewan offices basically opened the books and said here are the schedules and here is the financing, and they have come up with this agreement.

So I do not understand what the problem is between Manitoba and the federal government, but that is what Saskatchewan is saying.

Mr. Reimer: A few things have been pointed out to me, and I guess one of the biggest parts of the agreement that Saskatchewan signed was a clause that stipulated that if any other province got more than what Saskatchewan would get, then they would benefit.

So they are in a position where they can sign an agreement with the federal government through the negotiations by either British Columbia or Alberta or through any of the other eight provinces. There is a benefit, Saskatchewan will benefit from that, so they are really looking at the other provinces to cut the hard deal so that they can benefit. The member mentioned that they went through their books in two days. I am amazed that they can go through their books in two days and come up with an agreement with the federal government and still feel that they got the better of the deal. We have spent three weeks at it, and we still have not been able to come to a point where we feel that we can even justify coming to any type of further negotiations with them.

So, a two-day analysis, I have to give Saskatchewan a tremendous amount of credit if they feel that they can deal with the feds and come out as winners in a two-day negotiation. All the more power to them. I have more confidence in my staff, and if it takes three weeks, I want them to spend even more time to make sure that we cut the best deal we can if we are going to cut a deal with the federal government. As to the composure of Saskatchewan's units, over half of their units are nursing homes and those are really, you know, an easier approach to take over, if you want to call it sort of a captive market in a sense of the composure of half of their portfolio. So their portfolio is a lot different than ours, and I can only say that 7,500 units were all that were involved in Saskatchewan compared to what we are talking about here in Manitoba of 17,500. So they may be able to jump to the pump quite quick there in Saskatchewan, but we are the ones that are going to get hosed somewhere along the line if we do not do it properly.

* (1510)

Ms. Cerilli: Well, first of all, the fellow told me this morning that it was 9,800 units that are going to be really physically transferred, and if what the minister is saying is that they must have had a fairly quick review of the information from CMHC--but I thought you said last night that you did not have any access to information at all, and then today you just said that you have had three weeks of looking at the information from CMHC. So if they have have had a couple of days to deal with what is, you know, a small fraction of the size of your portfolio, maybe it is not that bad. But what I am more concerned about is have you or have you not had a chance to look at the books with CMHC and do some analysis of the value of their assets?

Mr. Reimer: What I have alluded to is even though we have been working at it for weeks, as you progress through their books, if you want to call it, more questions are raised than are answered and the fact that we are working towards trying to come to some sort of resolve, it is an ongoing process, and I feel that warrants even a closer scrutiny of what they have in front of them. It is not as if the total package presented to us is in an entirety because there are a lot of other questions that we have to ask and as we ask these questions, there is no access to the information, so we have to wait for information. The information may not be totally complete so we ask for further clarification on it. So we are not dealing with a totally complete set of information and/or records, and that is what causes the delay of decision making.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, then, what you are clarifying today is that you have had some look at the books, so to speak, and what is the value of those assets and the costs for maintenance and administration and, you know, maybe even the vacancies then if you are looking at all that information. Maybe then it is not the vacancies because I can see the staff are shaking their heads.

It seems like there is a bit of a different story coming from the government of Saskatchewan. It is interesting if the minister has said that they have a clause in their agreement. I have gone through it, the narrative part anyway, and if there is a clause there that says that if any province has financially a better deal, that the same kind of deal will then have to flow to Saskatchewan--what he is saying is that his staff are the ones who are going to have to do the real tougher negotiations to try and have those advantages comes to the provinces.

I am actually going to move on to a different area, if the minister wants to make any additional comments on that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 1.(b) Executive Support.

Ms. Cerilli: No, I am not going to pass anything. I just want to ask some different questions.

I want to ask some questions about, first of all, the Shelter Allowance for Family Renters. Now, I am sure by now the minister has had a chance to sort of reconsider the issues I was raising in the House the other day, given that the Children and Youth Secretariat report for the Early Childhood working group made a recommendation that the SAFER and the SAFFR programs would both have a strategy developed to promote them so that there can be better uptake, because over the last number of years there has been over $300,000 in those programs that has gone unspent.

It is not, again, because there is not the need in families and amongst seniors in our province to utilize those programs. There may be some difficulties in the way the programs are operating, but I am wondering now if the minister is going to take that recommendation seriously, and rather than have a 20 percent cut, $250,000 to the Shelter Allowance for Family Renters program, if he would consider following the recommendations from the Children and Youth Secretariat working group in developing a strategy to better promote that program and not have this kind of program reduced in availability for Manitobans when, again, you are claiming in your throne speech and in your budget that you realize that there is an unacceptable level of poverty in this province and you want to start trying to deal with that, and this is exactly the kind of program that does that.

On average, about $125 per month goes a long way when it is a family that is earning what some of these families are, and I can see the minister is looking at the pamphlet and will know that these are families that are often earning less than $10,000 a year.

So this is the kind of program that is really necessary, but there has to be some commitment by the government to really have it be utilized, and that includes better promoting of it. I have a couple of suggestions that I am going to offer in how to do that, but, first of all, I just want to see if you are going to reconsider this now, given what the Children and Youth Secretariat is recommending.

Mr. Reimer: The member is alluding to the report of the Child and Youth Secretariat. I have the report that was presented, I guess, at the same time the member got it. There are benefits that are identified in there through the SAFER and SAFFR programs, and I guess the comment that can be made is that the program is there for the benefit of anybody who wants to apply for it.

If they meet the eligibility criteria through the application form, there should be no reason at all why they would not be accepted. The member is aware that it is based upon incomes, where we pick up up to 90 percent of the eligible rent costs over 25 percent of the income. So it is a fairly significant amount of monies that can be realized. Under the SAFFR for families, the maximum benefit is $180 a month and under the SAFER program it is $170 a month. It is based on eligibility. We do not restrict who can--I mean, how many people can apply? We base our budgetary considerations on the history of the applications.

Over the last few years, I can point out that in 1993-94 under the SAFFR program, there were 850 applications; in 1994-95, there were 810 applications; in 1995-96, there were 790 applications. The applications are going down. In 1996-97, there were 762 applications, and in our Estimates of this year, the '97-98 budget that we are dealing with right now, we have said that okay, even though they are going down, we will keep it at the same level and we have budgeted for 760 clients, for a total expenditure of approximately $1.25 million. Granted, last year we budgeted for 850 clients; only 762 applied, so naturally what we budgeted for was $1.5 million, but the take-up on it was just over $1.2 million. So the budget has not gone down; it just means that there has not been that type of take-up that we anticipated.

So if people meet the eligibility criteria of income and file the application, they will be accommodated. I do not know whether there is anything simpler that I can really bring forth for the member at this time.

* (1520)

Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister is entirely missing the point. The Children and Youth Secretariat working group did not recommend more money in the program. They recommended you promote the program. I mean they can get the Estimates book and read the budgets just as well as you and I. They must have been able to see that it was underspent in the last annual report by over $300,000. So what they want to see is the program promoted, and this is the kind of lowest common-denominator approach to your programs. It is the same thing you are doing with public housing. To try and say, oh, there is no one uptaking the program so we are going to eliminate it, that is completely unacceptable and this is serious. This is a program that prevents people from having to go to food banks. It is not the kind of program that should be reduced at this time.

So will the minister answer the question about promoting the program? I realize that people have to qualify. I realize they have to meet the criteria. But the problem is they do not know that the program exists, and what is being recommended is that it be promoted and that there be a complete use of the budget so that this program can do what it is supposed to do and help beat back the jaws of poverty that are gnawing at more and more families in this province under this government.

Mr. Reimer: I should point out that these programs that we are talking about, SAFER and SAFFR, are not new programs. These programs have been around since 1980, and it is not as if this is a brand new program that nobody is aware of. It has been utilized through the '80s; we are now into almost the year 2000. It has been utilized. The people that are on social assistance and working through the social services department are well aware of this program as to its availability and the criteria.

Whether the member is suggesting that we have some sort of a radio campaign and we spend our Housing dollars that way in promoting where we can, where the people can utilize this program, I would take exception to that. I would rather spend money advertising in putting it back into the need area of providing housing or providing maintenance or providing some sort of standard that the people expect from our housing and not put it into advertising programs and glitzy campaigns and TV shows or billboard advertising that costs thousands and thousands of dollars that would have to come out of my budget somewhere else that would put some sort of strain on some other component that we feel is very, very important regarding the Housing portfolio.

So I can only reiterate that being a program around since 1980, people know about it. People would have this availability with them, and advertising money is something that I think should not be considered out of our Housing budget to promote this type of initiative.

Ms. Cerilli: I cannot believe the minister's answer. I cannot believe that you would not, if you find your program as important as this, as beneficial as this, does not have the uptake, that you do an evaluation. Was there an evaluation done on this program prior to you deciding to eliminate 20 percent of its budget?

Now I know that also there was a KPMG study that was done in '88, '89 that recommended that this is the kind of program the Department of Housing should start to focus on, and I know that there are also at least 34,000 individuals and families that are using food banks in this city and that they are the ones that would benefit from this program.

I am not suggesting that your promotion or your strategy in dealing with this is billboard campaigns, but I will give you one strategy that I want you to consider, and that is to put information in with families' and citizens' income tax return--the package, the section that the provincial government is responsible for--that will tell them that if their line on the income tax statement, their income is a certain level and they have considered the dependants that they have, that would tell them that they would qualify for this program.

That is one strategy that you could use to inform people. It would not be expensive. It would include putting information in with materials that are already prepared through Finance, and I know that this is something that we have checked on that would be reasonable, that you do have the capacity to do this through the Department of Finance.

So I am wondering if that is one thing that you would consider to try and comply with the recommendations coming from your own working group on dealing with families particularly that are low income, rather than trying to use poor management of the program or poor uptake and poor promotion as a justification for cutting back on the program.

Mr. Reimer: I really am at a loss to try to explain it further as to the reason why the amount on the budgetary line is less, other than has been pointed out. It is totally driven by the demand. If there are more applications and more people taking advantage of the program, more clients, then naturally the expenditures are going to go up on it. If there is less and it is a difference between our expenditure line and our budgeted line and what the actuals are, that is not a cutback as the member is referring to or alluding to, that we are cutting back on our amount of commitment to the people. The shelter allowance amounts, the criteria and the eligibility remains the same. The people are not being jeopardized in the sense that we are cutting back on the amounts. We are cutting back in the expenditures because it is a demand-driven situation.

We budget so much for utilization and we put a number on it, and if we do not get that amount of people that does not mean that money is a cut. It just means that it is not utilized. As for the fact of advertising it, these brochures--I know they are in our Housing department. They are available for distribution. They are in all the Family Services offices, the people that go in there--

* (1530)

Ms. Cerilli: They are not eligible if they are on social allowance.

Mr. Reimer: They may be in low income situations and it gives them the ability to do some consultations as to whether there are savings available. I can only say that if a person fills out the application and they are within the criteria, it is approved and they are eligible for this subsidy.

Now I do not know how much more I can say about the program. It is there; it is to be utilized. People do utilize it, and we are getting a good take-up on it.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, you are not getting a good take-up on it, because in the last annual report it shows that there were $344,000 that was not used in the program. I would say when you have gone through your budget exercise, that is how you have decided to, this year, eliminate $250,000 from that budget line, which I find completely unacceptable.

My question to you though is if you will have a discussion with your Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) to look at including something in the income tax return form that will put a notice to Manitobans to suggest to them that, based on their income, they may be eligible for these SAFER and SAFFR programs, and some of these other housing supplement programs. That is what I am asking you to do; to have a discussion with your Minister of Finance to look at using that strategy to inform people that they can qualify for this program, so then you might have the uptake.

Mr. Reimer: It has been pointed out to me that in the Manitoba Tax Credit that is part of our return, the $250 I believe it is, one of the things you have to do is show proof of your shelter allowance, and if people are getting--if it is in the form right now, it is being advertised in a sense when people make this application for the tax return.

So in a sense they are already being informed that the eligibility of a tax shelter subsidy is there and it exists. I think that is an important part of the analysis right now of what the people have available for them. They do have the ability to recognize that there is a shelter allowance availability. The numbers--actually the member keeps alluding to the fact that the budget is going down, but it is the takeup that is going down. It is the clients who are utilizing it.

In 1993-94 under the SAFER program--I was referring to SAFFR before--there was 3,656 who utilized the program. In 1995-96, the number was 3,602, going down. In 1996-97, it is 3,548. It is still going down. In our Estimates of this year, we are increasing it a bit up to 3,590. So the utilization of these programs, both are on the decline, even though, as pointed out, there is a recognition in the tax return that goes out, through the Manitoba subsidy of $250, that your rent subsidy has to be noted to get the property tax rebate.

I do not know how further we can make it more clear to the people that they have this availability and that if their criteria and their eligibility is there, they get it.

Ms. Cerilli: I am wondering if the minister can explain then, he has now admitted that there has been, you know, low uptake on this, have they done an evaluation on this? How does he explain that there has been this low uptake? Has he considered how the program affects low-income Manitobans' tax returns? When they file their income tax, what is the ratio of the money that they lose off their tax return if they have to account for an additional, say, $125 per month more from this program as income on their tax return?

That is one of the other concerns that I have heard, is that people like when they get their tax refund, income tax refund, that they get a lump sum, and that with this program, if it, that money, is taken almost dollar for dollar away, then it is not much good in the first place; maybe to help people get by month to month, but when the end of the year comes they get it given with one hand and taken with the other at a different time of the year. So I am interested in finding out what kind of evaluation was done on this program prior to your making the decision to eliminate $250,000 from it in this budget.

The same goes for the same amount for the seniors program which--it is a lower percentage for the seniors program because it is a larger program, but the uptake on that is also declining, and it is certainly not because seniors incomes are increasing. We know that it is just the opposite, that the real take-home income of Manitobans is going down and that these programs are not indexed in the same way that seniors pensions are.

Mr. Reimer: I should point out to the member that even though the average income or the mean income or the level of income in Manitoba may have been going up over the last while, the eligibility criteria under the SAFER program is still the same as it was in 1991, so we have not adjusted our eligibility income since 1991 as to who will qualify. So, in essence, even though the Manitoba economy is doing better and there are more people working and there are more people making money and having their income rising because of the economic performances of Manitoba, the qualifications for and the eligibility under the SAFER program are still in the 1991 mode.

So this is actually of a benefit for people that look at the level of their existence in a sense of we have not adjusted the rate to, as the member says, inflation of the annual income. What does happen is when the federal government looks at their social allowance and the benefits that they recognize, they do consider shelter as part of the indexing process. So the federal government, when it is adjusting their pension eligibility and their monies that the person is receiving, it may increase because of the indexing of their pension. Our program here under the SAFER and SAFFR programs is a rent subsidy program. It is not an income subsidy program. It subsidizes rent, not income, but it is based on the eligibility of income, and we have not adjusted it, like I say, under the SAFER program here since 1991.

Ms. Cerilli: I mean what this is really amounting to, no matter how the minister tries to explain it away, is the government is turning its back, once again, on low-income Manitobans. Even though he says it is not an income support program, it is a rent supplement program. The income tax statement, when it is prepared, considers the money that they get under this program, like so many other government tax credits, as income, and that is what I am trying to get at is how much--if people get--

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): The honourable minister, on a point of order.

Mr. Reimer: Shelter allowance benefits are not taxable.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): The honourable member for Radisson, on the same point of order?

Ms. Cerilli: No.

* (1540)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): There was no point of order. It was simply a matter of factual statements or information. The honourable member for Radisson.

Ms. Cerilli: Then this is one of the problems with the program because people in the community that I have talked to, people who are working with low-income families, that is not clear to them, and low-income families and those support workers believe that that is what is going to happen. So this may explain one of the reasons that the uptake is down, because that is not clear to them. That may be clear in the pamphlet, but when you are dealing with seniors and a lot of other families that, you know, are disadvantaged, they have trouble dealing with information that is just in a pamphlet, and they may need some additional ways to help with--there may be problems with literacy, there may be problems with just figuring out how to just fill in forms, Mr. Chairperson.

So I think that there does need to be a strategy to promote this program, to clarify some of these problems, because when I talk to people in the community about this, that is what they said is that people are going to lose that money as it would be refunded to them on their tax return. That is what I am trying to identify in this program is what the ratio is. If they get $125 per month and they have to account for that on their tax return, what impact that has on their tax refund.

Mr. Reimer: I guess it is like all programs possibly within government. Sometimes there is a misrepresent--I should not say misrepresentation. There is a misinformation of the interpretation regarding how the programs are initiated and what the goals and objectives of them are.

What I can give the assurances to the member is that I can bring these items forward to not only my department for more close analysis regarding the applications and the availability of applications, I can also, through my Seniors department, make sure that there is access to these types of applications and these types of information forms so that it will, hopefully, maybe, start to put some more factual information into the hands of the people that are eligible to make the decisions and possibly even give better avenues of consultation through Family Services so that the forms that are available, that there is the ability for them to respond in a more knowledgable manner when people are seeking advice on these things.

I guess it is like anything. It is a matter of trying to get the right information into the people's hands so that they can make an informative and an accurate assessment as to whether they would want to apply for these programs and whether, more importantly--the eligibility and the criteria that must be adhered to. So I guess it is like anything; the more that you can get this information into the people's hands through the available channels, the better they are able to make informed decisions on it.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I cannot imagine that this kind of program would increase their income level to so much to put them in a different tax bracket. If that is what the minister is saying cannot happen and there cannot be any loss, then I would just encourage him to even go beyond having his department consider looking at the suggestions I have made but to make a commitment to better promote this program. There are lots of ways you can do free advertising. You have now undertaken to have a special group in your department do marketing so that you can fill your vacancies. I mean, this is another similar kind of problem that you have in your department in terms of the uptake on this program.

I also want to ask you, especially with the program for seniors--it has been brought to my attention that there have been some changes in the way that the seniors have to account for their income, that there has been a change from moving to net income to looking at taxable or total income, and that figure continues to be changed. I am wanting some explanation for why that has occurred with this program. Why are you using a different number?

With a lot of these government programs, it is always baffling to people why you look at the difference between their gross and their net, and they do not actually have their income figured out by what they actually get to take home and put in their pocket. It is before all the reductions and taxes are taken into account. So that is another area, I think, that you should look at and that is a concern, and I do not understand why there has been this move to have net income no longer used and you are now looking at taxable or total income.

Mr. Reimer: To the best of our knowledge, it always has been based on gross income, and that is the calculation of the RGI. There has been no change.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I have copies of one individual's tax return who has brought this to my attention. All I can do--I will write a letter and I will share this with the minister, but I encourage you to take a look at this year's tax return, because this is an issue that also the Manitoba Society of Seniors are interested in, that they are looking at as well.

Further to that, in following up other questions I have asked in the House, this program has had a requirement in regulations--the seniors program now I am talking about. The seniors rent supplement program has had a requirement in the regulations that the formula would be reviewed annually, and now I understand that is no longer occurring, that there has been a change. Can the minister confirm that or clarify that for me?

Mr. Reimer: I am informed that it has been reviewed, but there has been no change in the application of it.

Ms. Cerilli: I am looking at the section of the regulation 3.(3) that speaks to this. The income ranges and rent ranges to which the formula is set out in subsection (1) are applied shall be reviewed no less than annually and revised as required by the board. I would be interested in getting some kind of report that summarizes the analysis of that review, to look at any recommendations or reasons that are being given for either maintaining the program as it is or not maintaining it.

* (1550)

You know, it is the same issue that we are always dealing with when we are looking at rent geared to income. Again the minister can correct me, but as I understand it, that is not decided based on the amount that tenants have as take-home income, as that they actually get, but it is on the income that they have prior to having any deductions made.

Mr. Reimer: I think the member is well aware that I have resisted the area of trying to always make our budgetary commitments through the raising of additional revenue through the raising of our rental formula. We have resisted this now for the last two or three years. We have resisted this approach because I do not feel that we should be making our budgetary commitments and obligations on the backs of some of the seniors and some of the people that cannot afford the situations of rental increase.

The federal government has advocated and lobbied very extensively to raise the rates to 30 percent. Other areas of jurisdiction in Canada have done this. We have been of the opinion that we can possibly look within, or changing our priorities in a more constructive manner of the best utilization of our funding to meet our budgetary commitments through other avenues of endeavours. We have been able to, fortunately, do this, and a lot of it is due to the credit of the staff and the commitment of our people in the department of looking analytically at where the money is going and how it can be better utilized, or how it can be deferred possibly for another year and redirected into some areas where it has a better use.

We are of the opinion that a better utilization of funding can be done by not raising our rent, our RGI percentages, but we have always consistently used gross income in our RGI calculations. That is very similar to what we mentioned before. That has been our policy, and we have no intention of changing that. In fact, it is actually a requirement. It has been pointed out that this is part of our requirement in our federal-provincial obligations. So we cannot change it to a different analysis other than the gross.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I am going to have to clarify that at a later date, because I have dealt with this in casework in my own constituency. But I want to ask a few more questions about the shelter allowance for senior renters, and again I have information. I am going to put the details in a letter, but just on a general trend, it seems that there is a problem with this program as well because this fellow since '89 has had his rent continue to go up. His income has gone up marginally, but his SAFER supplement has gone down. What would be any changes that have been made in the program since '89 which would have caused this?

Mr. Reimer: Not knowing the specifics of the case, and as the member has indicated she is going to send me more detail on it, I can only venture to say that if the individual's income goes up and the formula is based on income, then naturally the benefit that he would derive from the program would go down. That is the only correlation I can see between the two of him saying that the amount of money that he receives is going down. It is in direct correlation to his income rising.

Ms. Cerilli: But I think, when the minister looks at the figures for the actual amount that the senior is netting, that the program is doing less to supplement the rent than it has in the past. So it is not a fair reflection of how much the income has gone up, but I do not want to get into the detail of numbers here in Estimates. I would rather do that by correspondence with the minister.

I do want to ask one similar kind of question though about the co-op share loan program which has also been reduced in this budget and which I know, according to phone calls I have gotten, has been put on hold in terms of accepting new applications or giving out new loans for Manitobans that want assistance in becoming a member of a housing co-op. So I would like some explanation of why these changes are being made in this program. There has been, just in the Estimates from last year, over $36,000 that has been reduced in the budget line, but then, as I understand it, this has also been frozen.

Mr. Reimer: What the member is referring to is the ability for new tenants to purchase shares to become members of the co-operative, yes. What this is, is it provides an interest-free loan to assist them in the purchase of these shares. In looking at the amount of applicants in 1996, there were only 18 loans that were applied for, for a total expenditure of just over $9,000.

Looking at that type of criteria and the declining pickup on it and the participation with the co-op shared equity loan program, decisions as to the budget line were adjusted accordingly to the demand on it. I will just get my budget book to see exactly where that--I am just trying to figure out where the member had that notation of the amount of money that was on that. What page were you on?

Ms. Cerilli: It is in the Estimates book, page 36. Oh, this is Complementary Assistance. It is not shown at all in the Estimates book, so maybe you have completely eliminated the program.

Mr. Reimer: It is in the Loan Program, part of our loans.

Because this is a interest free loan for the purchase of these memberships, we show the interest that we charge to ourselves for the utilization of these monies. As has been pointed out, it is on a very declining nature, and the pickup on that has not been very significant.

So the amount of loans that have been asked for and applied for, like I say, in 1996 was only 18. The expenditures and the interest that they would have had to pay which are brought forth through our department as an expense item was just over $9,000; nine thousand, four hundred and something dollars. So the program does not have a strong pickup and a strong appeal for the utilization of it.

Ms. Cerilli: I think that given what the minister has said, there has not been a big

pickup. First of all, I would object to that same analysis being used whether it is with public housing, whether it is with SAFER and the SAFFR, that it is not reasonable to eliminate these programs based on that kind of analysis.

But further to that, I think that the co-op housing programs in the country and in Manitoba have all sorts of problems, that essentially co-op housing is at risk of being wiped out because of the formula that was used by the federal government in designing their program. I know that Manitoba has another small program, but I just want to urge the minister to do an analysis and an evaluation of this program, as well. I know that the co-ops do rely on it to develop new membership and that it does not really cost anything in the long run because these loans are always paid back. I have also written the minister specifically about this program, and I guess I will wait for your response in writing to my letter from March 7 without going into any more details on to that.

* (1600)

There are a few other issues I want to deal with quite quickly. This actually has to do with a development that is in the minister's own riding, I believe. There was an agreement developed with Ladco in 1989 to develop lands that are near the Bishop Grandin area, Bishop Grandin and Highway 59 area, and there is a problem, as I understand it, where the revenue projected to flow from that development has not occurred. The revenue has not developed. So I am wanting to find out in 1989 what the projections were for revenue, and how that compares with the final cost and any profits here in 1997 for this development. Maybe I can get that verbally now and then get a commitment to get the year-by-year statistics after we are finished with the Estimates.

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that one of the reasons why the revenue expectations were not realized was the fact that they did not have the pickup of the units, the housing stock, or the building of new homes in that particular area. That is one of the reasons why we did not realize monies that were budgeted. It was just the market dictated that homes were not being built and not being sold. So naturally it affects our revenue stream on the joint venture.

Ms. Cerilli: As I understand it, there was a $2-million initial investment into this project. Could you confirm that, and tell me then what the cost to government has been on this? What has been the loss to the public of Manitoba?

Mr. Reimer: I should point out that what we are talking about is the development of a joint venture to approximately develop 1,900 building lots in that whole complex if it came to fruition. However, the total acreage is 475 acres. MHRC contributed 179 acres, and the rest was with Ladco. The profits that are generated are naturally based on the relationship, so it is approximately 62 percent for the developer and about 37 percent for MHRC. So far in phases 1, 2 and 3, 305 lots have been developed. Only 196 lots have been sold, and our realization to date has been just over $650,000 as a return on our investment.

Ms. Cerilli: So how does that match with what you projected to have by 1997, if you have got $650,000?

Mr. Reimer: I would think that it would be far less than what we expected in looking at the total development of 1,900 lots. When you have only got 305 developed out of 1,900, naturally that is going to reflect on the capabilities of recovering the monies that are projected on the revenue side. So it is all relative to, as more lots are sold, our percentage share will grow but market will dictate whether we ever come to 1,900 lots in that particular area. That is an awful lot of homes.

Ms. Cerilli: You have the number with you that you have $650,000 as of this year, but what I am interested in finding out then is what you had projected to have this year. There was a schedule that would have been developed to try and project what your profits were to be, and I think it is important that we know that.

Mr. Reimer: Those are figures that we can work on and get them back to the member. We do not have the projections with us at this particular time, but we can certainly make those available.

Ms. Cerilli: Do you know how many lots you had anticipated to have sold by this time?

Mr. Reimer: I guess it is all in the same package of projections and that would be part of the answers that we will be providing to the member.

Ms. Cerilli: What is the duration of this agreement, and how many years did you anticipate it would take to develop all 1,900 lots?

Mr. Reimer: I am not sure of the exact date. It was entered into in 1989 and a comment has been made it is either a 15 or a 20 year joint venture.

Ms. Cerilli: So we are almost at--well, we are into definitely the eighth year of this agreement, and it looks like you are running a loss in this program. How can you explain that? How do you explain that this program, where you have invested $2 million into housing on the outskirts of the city of Winnipeg, is costing the taxpayer?

Mr. Reimer: I can guess we can look back to, I believe it was called the Leaf Rapids Development Corporation that was set up by the previous administration and some of their visionary projections as to why we should have bought this property and why we are still trying to develop it.

This was part of a package that, I believe the honourable minister at the time, Parasiuk, negotiated through the Leaf Rapids Development Corporation, and this was part of the land that was purchased at the time. The development of a joint venture is something that is pursued for the fact of if it is a property that can be developed and there is a developer out there that is wanting to get in on a joint venture, that we should pursue it. Otherwise it is just vacant, raw land that sits there, that we carry a tremendous debt on through the purchase of I believe it was called the Leaf Rapids Development Corporation, set up in the 1980s.

This is one of the ways of trying to recuperate some monies out of it anyway, and it would be nice to feel that there would be a stronger demand for housing. Possibly with some of the initiatives that are coming about and the buying habits of the people, we can realize a faster return on it, but at least what we have done with this joint venture is we have started at the point of recuperation of some of our monies outstanding on it.

Ms. Cerilli: Just to wrap up then, I wonder if I could get agreement from the minister to provide me with information on the actual expenditures from last year's budget. Since in this process we always are comparing, through the Estimates book, estimate to estimate and we do not have the annual report for last year, I would like you to provide me for the budget lines in the Estimates book, the actual amounts that were spent last year. Maybe at the same time you could tell me when you anticipate having the next annual report ready, which would be for '96-'97

* (1610)

Mr. Reimer: Just trying to find out where the program is, pardon me, where the whole program of expenditure analysis comes in. I have been told that, hopefully, we are trying to shorten the time requirements and the reporting stages naturally so that there can be more of a co-ordinated effort on it. I have been informed that, hopefully, we can do this shortly after the summer, in the month of September, that these numbers would be available.

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to clarify what you mean by the numbers. Do you mean the annual report or the spending from last year?

Mr. Reimer: The annual report.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, then would you agree to the first part of that question, which was to provide me with the actual spending that would compare with the estimate from last year. So what I am interested in having is the actual spent from '96 to '97 for the budget lines in the Estimates booklet.

Mr. Reimer: I believe that the department is meeting with the auditors now. They are trying to come to a speedy conclusion on it so that we can resolve our books. I can only make the commitment to the member, as soon as we have it, we will try to make it available as fast as we can.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Item 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $576,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $142,600--pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from Urban Affairs ($218,100)--pass; 1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,752,700-pass; (2) Other Expenditures $457,500--pass; 1.(d) Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $686,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,060,400--pass.

2. Housing Program Support (a) Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $146,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $29,300--pass; 2.(b) Research and Planning (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $352,800--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $163,600--pass; 2.(c) Client Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $833,400--pass; (2) Other Expenditures $309,400--pass.

Resolution 30.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to He Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,834,900 for Housing for the year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

30.3 The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation (a) Transfer Payments $32,483,600--pass; (b) Grants and Subsidies $5,820,300--pass.

Resolution 30.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $38,303,900 for Housing for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998.

The last item for consideration for the Estimates, Department of Housing is the item of the Minister's Salary. At this point I would ask the staff to leave the table, and we thank you before you leave. Thank you very much for your assistance and kind co-operation.

Mr. Reimer: Just before we pass this line regarding the Minister's Salary, I just wanted to make comment and give credit to my staff of Manitoba Housing. I can honestly say that being a cabinet minister sometimes takes a lot of perseverance and understanding, and you can only have that type of understanding if you have good and capable people around you. I feel very fortunate that the people I have with me with Manitoba Housing, right from my deputy minister down to the caretakers in the units and the hundreds of people that work for Manitoba Housing, give forth an effort that I am very, very proud of. I just want to say that if it was not for the staff and the commitment that I have right from the top down, the job would not be as enjoyable and as fruitful as I have experienced it over the last year. I just feel that I should give credit to the people who do the decision making and give me the advice to make this a very, very productive department.

So with that, Mr. Chairperson, I just wanted to say that.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): Thank you very much. The item of the Minister's Salary.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to take one minute here, and there is one thing, and I am going to see if the minister can answer this question when his staff are gone. We were just discussing the SAFER and the SAFFR programs, and I am wondering if he knows if those programs are supported at all by transfer payments from the federal government, or are those completely financed through the budget of the Manitoba government.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): I will allow the question if the minister chooses to answer. However, the item that we are debating or considering at this time is the Minister's Salary. We have passed the Estimates. If the minister wants to answer he can.

Mr. Reimer: As to the question that the member asked, I believe that the program is a Manitoba initiative and because we are in joint sponsorship with our Manitoba Housing and the federal government, their funding in regard to the transfer to Manitoba would indirectly have some bearing on the amount of monies that are allocated through the SAFER and SAFFR programs. It is a program that we have initiated as a responsibility of our government, so I would think that the allocation is a commitment that we have within our government for the program to succeed and to fulfill the applications that come forth.

Ms. Cerilli: One other question is: Have there been any meetings between the minister's deputy and perhaps other senior management with his department and members of Treasury Board or the Premier's Office that the minister has not attended?

Mr. Reimer: My deputy minister meets with a lot of people that I am not aware of on a continual basis of who he meets with and into what types of conversations. I can only give him the latitude of making decisions and making meetings that he feels are appropriate to the administration of his office. I do not put restrictions or classifications as to who and what he can see or who he can or cannot talk to. I rely very heavily on his judgment and his ability to seek advice whether it is through my department or any department in government here in Manitoba or even within other jurisdictions. I have the confidence that his ability to come forth with a valued opinion that I seek from time to time is researched to the best of his knowledge, and I have utmost faith in my deputy as to his abilities to make decisions.

Ms. Cerilli: What is the schedule for the minister's briefings? How often is the minister briefed?

Mr. Reimer: I guess every day is a briefing process because as events arise and situations arise, I have no problems at all, whether it is done on a formal basis or phoning my deputy or phoning my department or phoning right down to some of the people that are on the front line to find out answers or questions that come about. So there is not a formal schedule of briefings by myself by my department. I feel that if there is a question that I want to know about or, pardon me, an answer that I want to find out, I will either have someone find out for me or else I will make the phone call myself. So I do not restrict myself to not talk to my staff at any level.

* (1620)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Penner): The item for consideration is item 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $12,900--pass.

Resolution 30.1: RESOLVED that it be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,471,600 (for Housing for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1998).

This completes the Estimates of the Department of Housing. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Thank you very much to the critic and all members of the committee.