Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this section of the Committee of Supply, sitting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Housing. When the committee last met, it had been pursuing a general discussion, as had been previously agreed, on the Estimates of the Department of Housing on pages 93 to 96 of the main Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I do not think we will pass. We will just give ourselves a chance to get ready here, and wait for the minister's staff.
Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Take your time.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, the issue that we were dealing with yesterday when we adjourned had to do with the ability to repair and maintain public housing stock in the face of the declining resources from the federal government. I had been referring to policy from Ontario that recommended that in all new residential housing developments or subdivisions there should be 25 percent of the units affordable. They do not say what that means, if that is in fact subsidized or social housing, but I guess something like this would be becoming increasingly impossible.
I am wanting to have the minister explain in more detail what he has done, what research has been done in the department, to support the call for not going in this direction of decreasing the support for social housing across the country.
* (1640)
Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Mr. Chairperson, the member is right in her assumption of what is happening with the housing stock and the availability of funding and the direction that has been implemented. It should be pointed out, this is all relatively new in a time frame that has come about since 1994 in which the federal government has indicated their positioning regarding the pulling out of the monies for new housing stock here in Canada.
So the evaluation that we are doing within the department is still lobbying in a quite strenuous manner with the federal government to try to recognize the importance, the implications of this sudden withdrawal of funding and to try to see whether there is a redirection or reallocation or, as they have indicated, that there are savings involved that they are instituting somewhere through the department and that these savings are transferred back to the provinces or to the areas of concern.
It is an excellent time for us to take this type of message forth because of the fact that there is a Housing ministers' meeting coming up in St. John's and that it will give us an excellent ability to talk directly with the federal government and convey our concerns about what may be happening and how we should be proceeding with this.
Ms. Cerilli: Maybe I was not clear enough in my question. I was referencing a policy from Ontario that recommended 25 percent of all new residential subdivisions were to be for low-cost or affordable housing. I also have in front of me another document that I am going to reference.
What I want to find out before I do that is: What is this government department doing in terms of research to prepare a case to take to the meeting of the Housing ministers across the country to make the case for social housing with the federal government, to not abandon this important program for low-income Canadians and Manitobans?
I am wanting to know what has been prepared by the department to show that this is a valuable and important program to be funded by the two levels of government.
Mr. Reimer: I have been informed that there have been discussions, and they are ongoing discussions, on the deputy ministers' level in regard to what the member for Radisson is alluding to. The discussion paper, from what I understand, is being initiated through the federal government and the Newfoundland minister, because Newfoundland is acting as the host for the conference that is coming up in early July. I would suspect that there would be some sort of indication coming out of that meeting as to the study that the member for Radisson is alluding to.
Ms. Cerilli: So the preparations are at the deputy minister level. Is there no research going on in the department to look at the advantages of social housing for the province?
Mr. Reimer: I think there is the existing commitment by the department for social housing. Part of the mandate within the Department of Housing is recognizing the need for social housing. The fact of allocation of fundings and where the fundings would come forth are more of a primary importance. The recognition of social housing as part of this government's mandate is there.
Ms. Cerilli: I think the minister has said before that there is a commitment. I guess what I am looking for is a rationale so that we could go forward to the Liberal government federally and say, what you are doing is going to make life worse for low-income Canadians. I think that case can be made well for social housing.
I will refer to a paper that I received recently. It was presented to the social security review committee of the federal government, the standing committee on Human Resources Development. It was prepared by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association, and it was a response to the review that was headed up by Mr. Axworthy. It makes a very strong case for social housing.
I am wondering, first of all, if the minister and the department are familiar with this document.
Mr. Reimer: From my indication, the department has been made aware of the document. To the best of my knowledge, I have not had the document come across my desk as yet.
Ms. Cerilli: I would be happy to share it with the minister later on. One of the things that it looks at, though, is money spent on housing through social assistance programs and if it is providing adequate housing. It shows clearly that those on social allowance that are in public housing are much better off than people who are using their social allowance to pay for private accommodations.
I will quote directly from the report. It says, a survey of over 4,300 dwellings in the older inner city area of Winnipeg, it was determined that over 70 percent of households on welfare lived in an accommodation needing repair; 21 percent needed major repair and 50 percent needed minor repair. Then it goes on to speak specifically about the comparison for households living in social housing experienced a better overall living environment than households on social assistance living in private rental accommodation. Social housing is credited with providing a better overall living environment and greater residential satisfaction. The following comments from a number of studies highlight the additional benefits provided by social housing.
* (1650)
This is the kind of thing that I think would be very useful to us as we are trying to convince the federal government that it should not be doing what it is doing in abandoning its responsibility for providing for social housing. So this was why I was asking the minister what kind of materials like this are being prepared by the province in preparation for the cross-Canada Housing ministers' meeting.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairman, the member has brought forth some excellent suggestions through the paper that she is referring to, and I would think that in preparing a case scenario to be presented to the federal government with this conference, any type of additional help or any type of ammunition--if you want to call it--to strengthen our case and to show that our concerns are genuine in trying to evaluate the strength and the importance of the social housing that we have committed ourselves to, not only as a government but as a department, is of use.
I can point out to the member that the previous minister in the portfolio was of the same mind and she sent a very strong letter to Minister Dingwall, outlining our position when the announcement was made regarding the funding. I am sure we can make that letter available to the member if she would like that.
Ms. Cerilli: I would appreciate that and I would be happy, as the minister suggested, looking at how we can work together to make the case for social housing in Manitoba and across the country. This report has very specific benefits identified in the area of physical design and layout which reflected more sensitivity on the part of housing for the special needs of families. It says that social housing units were less crowded than private accommodation, there was better security, the social housing projects were better managed and there was a security of tenure. So these are all things that I think we want to see happening in communities, particularly for low-income families.
When I was dealing with the Estimates of the Minister responsible for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), which has the Residential Tenancies division, we spent quite a bit of time dealing with the issues facing low-income renters and the difficulty they are having. One of the big issues is the difficulty with having such a high percentage of the income of low-income people going towards housing accommodation and that is the area I want to get into now.
My concern is, although we have a good report that says there is a real positive case to be made for social housing, my concern--and I have raised this before with the previous minister--is that that whole purpose of ensuring that low-income people are not spending upwards of 50 percent of their income on housing is now starting to occur in social housing, so we are starting to lose some of that benefit. I know that can be blamed on what is happening at the federal level and their policy to move towards 30 percent of the rent geared to income, but one of my concerns is that, particularly in two areas for people on social allowance, there has to be a better system to connect social allowance with public housing.
One of the things I want to ask the minister is, if he is aware of the number of tenants that are in public housing. Are we able to ascertain the numbers of those people who are social allowance recipients in the province?
Mr. Reimer: I could not help but recognize when the member was mentioning about 50 percent for housing, and then she further alluded to the 27 percent of RGI income, that no one in our public housing pays more than 27 percent. For the bachelor suites, in fact, and in some remote areas, it is 25 percent.
In regard to the percentages of people who are on social assistance in Manitoba Housing, in Winnipeg, it is upwards between 65 percent and 70 percent of the occupants, and in the rural areas, it is between 35 percent and 40 percent of the occupants in the housing.
Ms. Cerilli: Just following through with this from this report then, there are still concerns that, as we have just been discussing for the last hour or so in these Estimates, the maintenance and the standard for the housing for these recipients, even if they are on social housing, it is below that for people, obviously, who do not have such a low income.
I am just trying to decide. There are a number of issues I want to raise in respect to this, so I am just trying to organize my thoughts so I can deal with each one in some sequence.
I guess just to conclude on the issue then of maintenance of social housing for these low-income renters, I will quote from the previous Minister of Housing back in '92. He said, there is not enough money in Manitoba to carry on a program of any significance at all without having CMHC as a funding partner no matter how limited they restrict their resources.
To conclude this issue then of whether the government is keeping up with maintaining social housing in the province, I would ask the minister to give his assessment of that. Are we keeping up with maintaining and repairing the social housing stock in the province considering the serious incidents we have had recently?
I know in my own constituency there is public housing that has flooding problems because of cracked basements. These are very serious expensive repairs to make considering what we were saying the other day about not wanting the repairs to get so far along that it is going to be so expensive to repair them that it is going to be outside the chance of a cost-effective program.
So I want the minister to be able to assure us that we are going to be able to ensure that people living in social housing are going to be living in safe, decent and affordable housing.
Mr. Reimer: Before I answer the member's question, I mentioned briefly that there was a letter sent by my former predecessor in the department to Honourable David Dingwall, in fact, very recently on March 20, and I will just pass these across to the member and the other member from--
Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: Tabling?
Mr. Reimer: Okay, they are being tabled then.
Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for that information. The Clerk will copy and distribute.
* (1700)
Mr. Reimer: To continue answering the question that the member was asking me regarding the commitment to Manitoba Housing, I can tell the member that the commitment has been and will continue to be that Manitoba recognizes there is a strong need for social housing and its components in the structure of Manitoba. The funding allocation and the continual maintenance are naturally on an ongoing basis. It should be pointed out there is a large investment that the government is involved with, a large capital investment of the housing stock that is in the existing areas.
So there is an awareness and a conscious effort being put forth to protect that stock in a manner that warrants regular inspection. It warrants a maintenance program that is on a continual basis. It warrants the upkeep and the upgrading from time to time as necessary in the various components of the housing stock so the recognition that there is a large capital government investment and to keep that up into a level of affordable housing is on a continual basis, an ongoing basis within the department, so there are regular maintenance inspections that are carried out.
There is an evaluation of where capital costs have to be incurred where we are talking about possibly roof repairs or something of a major structure. These things are put into the budget and if there is an emergency the repairs are put into place. So it is an ongoing, and it is a departmental function that is of a certain amount of priority.
Ms. Cerilli: I will ask a more specific question then, because I appreciate that there is a recognition that this is a huge investment. Obviously it is, that we have had public housing in Manitoba for a number of decades.
My question, though, is, what is the system for deciding how the repair and maintenance is going to be scheduled? Are there criteria, particularly for spending of the $14-million capital budget for repairs that is in this year? Would the minister explain the criteria and how that scheduling is done so that we can find out which housing projects are scheduled for repairs over the next few years?
Mr. Reimer: What has been outlined is that the department works on sort of a three- to five-year plan regarding the vision of where the existing stock is and where the emphasis should be going. It is annually updated, the plan, so that there is an awareness of where the acute problems are and the direction funding is going in that way.
I should point out, too, that one of the primary functions and the first consideration is the health and safety of the tenants. That becomes the primary function. In that way, that would be an overriding first priority of any type of project in its maintenance or repair or upkeep in the evaluation.
Ms. Cerilli: Could the minister provide me with the criteria for how that three-year plan is developed, and what the three-year plan is that we are working on right now for Manitoba?
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairman, in looking at when we talk about a three-year plan, usually when the department looks at initiating something of a major area, they look at a certain housing project or a certain area, and they make the evaluation that because of the age of that complex, that within three years we have to budget a new roofing type of scenario for all the roofs in that area. Is that the right word, roofs? I do not know, something like that--or new doors or windows, things of that nature, so those are what we would call on a large scale.
On a yearly basis, we look at, as was mentioned, health and safety. Also, there is the evaluation of lighting. There is the approach to the best utilization of where the priorities are within the parameters of that particular complex. So those are going on, on a yearly basis.
There is a yearly inspection of all the units, and then from there, it is built into the model of priorities of what is needed and what goes into sort of a long-range approach for replacement.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister has listed some criteria. Is there a report that has been done on the status of social housing? Has there ever been publicly made available the criteria for allocating the dollars for repair and maintenance?
Mr. Reimer: I would think that because of the aging of complexes from--for example, there is social housing that came into being shortly after the Second World War, in the mid-40s, compared to housing that came on stream and is still coming on stream because of the commitments that evolved from the funding that was still allocated from 1994. There are still units that are coming on stream which are brand new. So they would fall into a different category of inspection and evaluation.
There is a standard criterion in the sense that everyone is yearly inspected, but the overall criteria of maintenance can vary from place to place, from rural to urban, and all the variables that would come into being are hard to standardize into a one-shot and one area of evaluation because of the fact that at a lot of the places, the incidence of repair may be a lot higher than what is available for the upkeep of the housing. So it is brought forth and the MHA board has an opportunity to look at the scheduling of it and has input at that time, too.
* (1710)
Ms. Cerilli: I do not want to spend too much time on this specific question, but I think it is important. I am sure the minister can see that there is a potential here for accusations of pork barrelling, but the challenge is to balance all those variables or make decisions with respect to all those variables in terms of rural versus urban, roofs versus basements, you know. That is what I am trying to determine, is how the department decides what to do with its resources each year.
We have a situation with subsidized housing on Flora Place, and I do not think we want to see that happen with very many other areas, where it is getting so deteriorated that I think there is a concern that the province is going to walk away from it and they are just waiting for people to move out. I do not want to see that become a trend or a policy.
So I guess one of the other questions I could ask is, in these repairs, does the government ever have to spend the cost of replacement? Are we often spending the amount of money in repairs as it would cost to replace?
Mr. Reimer: I imagine historically, if we looked at some of the complexes, the amount of money that we have put into the repair and upkeep on some structures, we could have bought and sold them two or three times maybe, with the total amount of monies that maybe have gone in there historically over the years over time.
The member mentioned certain areas. I guess the spending of monies in those areas is always of a concern, but it should be pointed out, as I mentioned before, that safety and security are always the primary decision making in the evaluation of the housing complexes. The allocation of funds on that area is there for that particular area, so those would be some of the primary areas of decision making and not so much preferentials in other areas, delicately putting it.
Ms. Cerilli: I would appreciate being directed to any kind of document that would assure me that the criteria are there to put safety and security ahead of other issues or other ways of making decisions. I am not convinced of that. I have just been looking at the government of Manitoba's housing program strategic assessment that was done back in '88 by Peat Marwick consulting group. I would love to say that I have read this, but I have not as yet. Maybe this is my summertime beach reading.
I am wondering if this has a recommendation for that kind of criteria, or if it does, in fact, review criteria for repairs of the housing stock in the province? [interjection]
Mr. Reimer: Yes, excuse me, it was pointed out that it may be beach reading for other people, too, but it is eight years old. At that time, the report that was generated was with the existing funding that was available through the federal government for new housing, and the report would be very involved with that type of venue. Right now, as we are faced with the fact of no funding, the report may be a bit dated as to its direction and recommendations.
Ms. Cerilli: So that report is not providing the direction for the department in this area or other areas.
Mr. Reimer: Being six or seven or eight years old, to jog the memory of my department at this particular time, they cannot remember some of the recommendations of it.
Ms. Cerilli: I will not wander down that path right now.
Just to finish up on this area then, I am wondering if we are losing social housing. I referenced Flora Place. The minister confirmed the other day that we have not had any new housing designated or allocated over the last two years, since 1994.
So are we losing social housing in the province? I remember I wrote a letter to the previous minister asking if there were plans to sell off any public housing properties. I was particularly concerned about single-family units, but I am wondering if we are now at a steady state, or if we are already, because of deterioration or sale, losing public housing units.
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, I guess what could be pointed out to the member is that the greatest activity of selling off, as was related by the member which is very small, in fact, some of the public housing has been in the rural area, where there has been a recognition of no demand for it, where there has been a high vacancy and chronic vacancy, and to a degree, I guess, even vandalism has crept in and has made the units just not that attractive because of the location.
So there has been some selling off in the rural area mainly. I understand that there was some sell-off in the Brooklands area, I believe, that was also alluded to, but those are the areas that have warranted action.
Ms. Cerilli: So I do not have to worry about this government, or I do not know if this government feels that the federal Liberal government is using this as a way of rationalizing its stepping away from a commitment to social housing.
I also see from the report I referenced earlier by Peat Marwick that there was a section on expanding the role for the private sector, and there is a comment that a number of the housing initiatives, expenditures currently undertaken by the department, could now be undertaken by the private sector without significant deleterious social impacts and at considerable cost saving to government. The minister has also already said that this report is not necessarily directing the department.
I am wondering if he would like to comment on the idea that this is a chance or a way that the federal government and this government could be moving away from social housing because of not being able to keep up with the repairs.
Mr. Reimer: I think I alluded to it a little earlier that there is still new housing that is coming on stream. This is housing that was committed from fundings that were still in place back in 1994. So there is still a trickling-down effect of some new housing still coming into the market, so that there is still that type of slow growth or small growth.
I should point out that one of the areas when we talked or alluded to in the private sector is through the use of rental supplements that can be made available to the private developer, private landlords, if you want to call it, and their housing complexes. So there is that type of availability of accommodation that can be made available through rental supplements also.
* (1720)
The member is correct when she alludes to the fact of the federal government in its direction of funding. They have not, to the best of my knowledge, come out in a direct manner and said that they are not going to be involved with social housing to any degree or cut back totally in a housing degree. In fact, the letters from Mr. Dingwall to the minister have indicated that they are still of a strong mind to continue with social housing. They use the words of redirecting of savings and the reallocation of fundings, but it still is a significant amount of money when we look at across Canada of approximately, I believe, it is $240 million, give or take some, of a cutback in their allocation of funding. I believe that relates to about $5 million in Manitoba or approximately $5 million of less funding, which I believe we talked about the other day, of less funding for Manitoba housing.
I guess what it is going to entail is a closer analysis of cost not only within the department but costs of the allocation to maintain and sustain the housing market and the housing responsibilities that we as a government have, and it will mean that there is a recognition of where the funding is and how it is spent right.
Ms. Cerilli: Would the minister provide me with a list, even after the Estimates, of where the loss in social housing has been, the locations, over the last few years in the province?
Mr. Reimer: Yes, the department will work on those figures for the member.
Ms. Cerilli: I will move on then to the other issue I was raising as we started talking about this difficulty in ensuring that low-income Manitobans have adequate housing that is well maintained and repaired.
I have had constituents tell me that they are paying as much as 50 percent of their income to the rent for social housing when they look at including in their utilities, so I guess the first question I want to ask is: How do you account in the rent geared to income for different properties that include the utilities or do not include the utilities? Simply put, are the renters who are paying their own utilities paying more money?
Mr. Reimer: The 27 percent is the basic criterion for paying for rent. If the utilities are included in the rent at the building, then there is an amount taken off the rent that is paid. For example, say on a two-bedroom unit that the electrical heat is $67, that amount is taken off the 27 percent, and that is then paid to the utility company for that particular unit. But the 27 percent is the constant within the framework of what is charged to that individual, or what that individual pays. Everyone has to pay the 27 percent, plus the electrical utility, and the 27 percent or the RGI, as we refer to, includes the heat and the hot water. If they have to pay separately, then they pay less of the RGI.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay, I understand that. I would also appreciate then getting--I see that the minister is working from a chart, having access to that as well.
Mr. Reimer: Sure, I will file it with the Clerk. It is what is called an Info Key. It is a reference guide on the Core Need Income Thresholds, the Rent Geared to Income, as we mentioned, the Amenity Rates, the Utility Rates, the Social Assistance Rates, so the member has all these figures.
Also I should mention, too, that there is an appeal process available to the tenants regarding the utilities and the charging so that they can be looked at. They can talk to the staff through the tenant relations officer for their concerns.
I should not say that there is an appeal board. There is not a formal process, but there is the tenant relations officer that is available to help them, to be understanding and the notification of any anomalies that the individual renter might be experiencing.
Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister for that information. The Clerk will copy and distribute.
Ms. Cerilli: I have spent quite some time on the issue of the rent increase, the rent geared to income increase from 25 percent to 27 percent over the last couple of years.
I have in front of me another very good document put out by the Institute of Urban Studies, and it again makes the case for not increasing the rent geared to income to 30 percent. I guess I will start off by asking if the minister and his staff are familiar with this, and if again they have used any of this kind of rationale in making the case with the federal government for not moving forward with its policy change on the rent geared to income.
* (1730)
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Chairperson, the article that the member is referring to, I have been informed the department may not have seen that article as yet. So, to comment on the content of it, I am not that familiar with it and no one in my department is as of yet.
Ms. Cerilli: I am getting a little concerned here. This is from winter '94. I remember using this, I think, in the House in my first debate as the Housing critic because there are a number of things I am going to address in here that were quite a surprise to me. It is a concern, then, that the department, through its research section, is not doing this kind of work to make the very strong case that there is to be made for social housing and for not increasing the rent geared to income.
According to the article, it used to be that the rent geared to income was on a sliding scale so that public housing rent would increase from approximately 17 percent to 25 percent. I am wondering if there has been any analysis to having that kind of a sliding scale now. There is also the concern that I have that when you get people who are working and living in public housing, they are getting to the point where it does not make any sense for them to pay 27 percent of their income because that puts them beyond what they could pay for accommodation in the private market.
So there are a couple of things happening, I think. We are not dealing with the reality of what the situation is for the term often applied to these folks as the "working poor." I remember the previous Minister of Housing making quite a to-do about this when we raised it in the House that she was going to champion their cause and go to Ottawa, but I am concerned that this analysis has not been done and, I guess, to get back to the issue of looking at some kind of a sliding scale, looking at some kind of a cap so that people who start to finally have some stability and decent income are not forced to move out of public housing as soon as they are able to have a small increase in their income by getting more hours at work because that, as we know, tends to force a lot of instability in communities because then these people will be forced to move.
Mr. Reimer: It has been alluded to a little earlier, regarding the article that the member is referring to--I should point too that I do not have all the staff for the department here. So there is a good possibility that some of the other staff within the department are cognizant of that report. As I only--I should not say only, but with the four staff I have here now, they have told me that they, in particular, have not seen the article. But the report may not be in the department, and somebody else may be using it as a reference in his or her evaluations.
The member alluded to a scale of rent to income; it should be pointed out that, to a degree, there is a bit of a scale when we look at the 25 percent for bachelors and 27 percent for the RGI evaluation on it. But it should be pointed out too that the public housing is hopefully a transitional type of scenario for the people. It is offered as a place where, because of a person's position or their social outcome at that particular time in their life, there is an availability for housing or accommodation that they can go into.
As their income goes up, they pay more when they are based on the percentages, and inversely, if they are caught in a situation where their income is decreasing, they are paying less rent also. So the figure of 27 percent is fixed in a sense of what is there now, but the opportunity or the availability of living in a bachelor suite for 25 percent is also available for recognizing that is a different scenario.
Ms. Cerilli: I think that the 25 percent for bachelor suites is just to introduce that element of the markets to try and lure people to rent those suites where we have already determined there is a higher vacancy. So I am not really looking at that as--it is not really the same issue.
I guess what I have raised before is that moving even to 27 percent is not looking at the reality of the poverty that a lot of these people live in. I will make some reference to the article here, which was quite surprising, for one thing that the average income of families on social housing in 1990 was $12,000, and approximately 56 percent of all tenant families and senior citizens had incomes below $10,000; 81 percent were below $15,000. So I am not convinced that what the minister is saying applies.
I think the people that we are targeting with social housing are still in transition. Unfortunately, with the economy that they are in, it is taking them years to make this transition, and as soon as they start getting a leg up, because of the formula, the public housing is not really providing any greater advantage to them.
I would ask if the minister has any information from his department to convince me otherwise, to show that someone who is earning this kind of salary is better off once they get up to earning, you know, even $20,000, if there are a few kids involved in the family and they are starting to look at the amount that they are paying in public housing as opposed to the private market. I will let the minister answer that question if there is anything that he could advise me of to convince me otherwise.
* (1740)
Mr. Reimer: I guess it can be pointed out that there is not an ongoing research that has been done in the department as to the quest that the member is alluding to. It could be pointed out that, because the rent is based to the RGI of 27 percent, as the individual becomes better in his or her positioning of income, they have the ability to make decisions at that time that they feel they want to go on to either private-market accommodations or possibly even the availability of buying for their own type of housing.
It is meant to be transitional type of accommodations for the people, and the most equitable way is to give it towards their income. As mentioned, if they go down in income, they have the luxury of still staying in the--pardon me, I should not use that. They have the ability to stay in the unit itself, recognizing that if their income goes up, then their rent goes up accordingly with their income. The people have the ability to enjoy the accommodations that are available based really on their income. It is meant to be sort of a transitional period for them.
Ms. Cerilli: I guess I will just end by saying that I think, with the changes that we have seen, not only most recently but historically of its even moving to 25 percent of rent geared to income, that social housing, even though, as I said earlier, there have been shown to be a lot of advantages, still is not ensuring that low-income people are going to be treated in an equitable manner.
I would like to ask the minister if he thinks it is fair to expect that social-housing tenants, with their lower incomes, would pay the same rate for housing as people with a higher income, even considering that they do not have the equity that is being built up from home ownership.
Mr. Reimer: I guess there is an interpretation of really two areas: the income that the individual has for himself or herself and the availability to generate income; and the area that we are involved with or that we are addressing, which is the housing and the accommodation for that particular individual. The correlation actually, I guess, is looking at the social consequences of where monies are going and the welfare system, to a degree, the social safety net that governments set up and initiate and the overlap between the two. The interpretation, I guess, is something that is hard to see, where the justification and the priorities of decision making are as to which is proper and which is more valid and which falls into line with the other.
It makes the whole area sort of an evaluation of the social responsibilities of government in various areas, not only within the housing area but in the social responsibilities within the social welfare department through the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), and I guess we overlap into social security with the federal government and the income that is derived through that. There are a lot of variables in regard to what is justified and what is so-called fair as to value for dollar, if you want to call it, where the person is living.
Ms. Cerilli: I guess this gets at the issue of--
Mr. Reimer: Social philosophy.
Ms. Cerilli: Yes, very much so and how our attitude to what equity means and creating equity, if part of the purpose of social housing is to provide equal access to decent housing even for people who are of lower income.
I guess it begs the question then that treating people of different means the same, that is, assessing that they should pay the same percentage of their income for that housing, is not going to create equality. We have to, I think, consider that we have to have people with lower incomes paying a lower percentage of their income for housing.
I think that, when you look at what is actually happening, though, people of lower incomes are actually paying a greater percentage of their income for housing. That is the real problem. That is why this is such an important issue in terms of dealing with poverty. We talk a lot about Manitoba being the child poverty capital of Canada.
This same article from the Urban Institute talks about how the average shelter-to-income ratio for all homeowners in Canada in 1990 was 95 percent and for renters it was 23.9 percent. That is a pretty astounding statistic to me, that people who are least able to pay are paying a greater percentage of their income for housing.
I guess I could just recommend--the minister has said on a couple of these issues that there is not the kind of analysis going on in the department. I guess we could look specifically at the Research and Planning section to identify what that section is doing if they are not looking at these kinds of issues, to do some analysis to see if our social housing program is actually doing what I think it has set out to do: to provide some quality housing for low-income citizens. I think the recommendation, then, would be for that division to look at some of these equity issues. Does the minister want to comment on that?
Mr. Reimer: I think that the article that the member is referring to is something that, if possible, we can get a copy of, or if we are given the information of where it came from, why, then we can make sure that gets into the library at the Housing department and is used as a reference and a sort of analysis.
Ms. Cerilli: Could the minister answer the question as well of what the goals, objectives and the outcomes are of the Research and Planning division of this department?
* (1750)
Mr. Reimer: I should point out that in that particular area there are five employees in Research and Planning. As their objective, I can just mention that it is to provide the planning, the program development, the program co-ordination, the forecasting and statistical support services to the department, the MHRC and the MHA in support of strategic and operational decision making.
The activities that are identified, there is co-ordinating the department's planning activities, intergovernment/interdepartmental negotiations, program development, co-ordination of the federal-provincial delivery, policy analysis, and they assist in budget preparations. There are others that are mentioned: monitoring and evaluation of program operations and also the recommendations with respect to corporate assets. There are a fair amount of other so-called duties as assigned in the Expected Results that I can refer the member to in the Estimates book on page 30.
Ms. Cerilli: I appreciate the minister reading what is in the Estimates book, but I guess I am looking at the specific issues that I have just raised here. For example, it sounds like this division has the mandate to do this kind of research. Let us simply ignore for a moment homeowners; let us just look at renters They could look at high-income renters as opposed to lower-income renters--we are talking about people who are living at the poverty level here--and compare the percentage of their income that they spend on rent. Could the division do that kind of analysis?
Mr. Reimer: I should point out that the Research and Planning department was very actively involved prior to the decision by the federal government regarding the funding that was cut back for new housing. This department was used extensively in the recognition and the identification of where housing and accommodations should be located, where the needs were, where the assessment was done, a lot through this department at that time. Having the five employees in that department and, as pointed out, some of the objectives that are being done right now, they also prepare the manuals and the operating manuals for the MHA. They look at the vacant bachelor apartments, which was mentioned a little while ago, the review of the utility rates and also the review of the housing needs in the areas.
I could point out to the member that the article that the member is alluding to can be sent over to this department for their information and input as to usage.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not know how often it is that the opposition MLA critic does the research for the department, but I am certainly willing to do that. I am just, again, concerned that the minister says it has had the mandate to assess needs, but it does not seem that it is really looking even then at evaluating if the programs are meeting the need that is there.
I am going to bring up another study, Canadian social trends magazine. The most recent spring issue has a couple of good sections on housing trends, and it says that 80 percent of renter households with an affordability problem in 1991 had an income of less than $20,000. So I think this supports what I was just saying earlier, that there is a disparity. There is a problem for low-income people in paying a greater percentage of their income for housing and of having a problem with finding affordable housing. I guess the other thing that I am suggesting is, with the trends in social housing across the country, social housing is no longer really addressing that problem. It is not keeping pace with the very real decrease in real family income. So, again, I want to just encourage that the Research and Planning division in the department would undertake to ensure that this kind of analysis is done, it is going to be incorporated into the programming.
The minister had mentioned earlier, when I referenced the possibility of moving to more private-sector involvement, and talked about how now there are more rent-subsidy programs where the rent is given to private landlords to assist low-income renters. I guess we will talk later about some of the problems with that approach.
I am going to conclude this area but just want to encourage the minister to look seriously at some of these trends and the fact that perhaps these programs are not addressing the severity of the situation for people on low incomes.
Mr. Reimer: I just wanted to point out to the member that there are studies that have been brought forth by this Research and Planning department. Two of the areas that I should mention are within the Alzheimer's group--there is a study being initiated by the Research and Planning department as to working with them on a study--and also a study regarding the women's shelters that was also a part of this, still going through this department. So there is an evaluation of not only within the department regarding the Research and the Planning, but there is also the evaluation when this is brought forth for analysis as mentioned with the Alzheimer's.
With that, I guess, we are at time. Is that right, Mr. Chairperson?
Mr. Assistant Deputy Chairperson: The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.