Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Housing.

When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 30.1. Housing Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits on page 98 of the Estimates book.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I think what I want to do today is sort of pick up where we were last time. I think we were discussing the Emergency Home Repair Program. I want to talk about home renovation and repair programs but in the context of urban revitalization and spend a little bit of time dealing with that issue, and then I think we will call it.

Actually, in the meantime, I want to ask a brief question based on the discussions we were having about the vacancies recently. Has Manitoba Housing been approached or given any consideration to or offered to have vacant Manitoba Housing properties used by Kosovo refugees?

Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): As it happens, we have made units available, and at the present we have three families that are into our Manitoba Housing complex. The three families are located in the St. Vital area. I believe it is a mother and two children in one unit, a mother and–I think we have the families here. But there are three families, and we are in the process of possibly looking at locating, I believe it is, a couple of more families that are looking at moving in. Two more, yes. So we possibly might have a total of five families within our housing complex in the next short while.

Ms. Cerilli: So how did that come about?

Mr. Reimer: I believe we were approached by the International Centre. They asked us whether we could make space available, and we were more than happy to accommodate these people.

Ms. Cerilli: Wonderful.

Mr. Reimer: Just to give a little bit of a further update on it. From what I have been told, they are all related, the families, and they asked to be fairly close to each other. So they are all in the same complex.

Ms. Cerilli: That is even better. Good, very nice. That could raise the issue then of how those units are going to be furnished. That is all provided by the sponsoring agency, I would assume.

Mr. Reimer: From what I understand, yes, by the sponsoring agency. Also, I believe the Salvation Army has stepped in and got them some furnishings and some clothing and things of that nature. From what I understand, there has been a fairly good uptake and response to supplying them with some of the basics.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay, that is good. I want to go then to talking about repair programs and community revitalization, the role that housing and your department will play in that in the province. We have been talking about what used to be the Emergency Home Repair Program and now is the Critical Home Repair Program.

With the change in the title, are there any other changes that have occurred in that program, and why did you change the title if you are not doing any other changes?

Mr. Reimer: The one thing that has always been evident when you deal with the government is you get these new acronyms and new expressions, and they seem to just grow like mushrooms. With every new idea, you get a new acronym and new initials to try to remember.

The member is right. It was a change. There was a change in name. The name now is the Homeowner Emergency Loan Program, and what it is, is it has gone from a grant program to a noninterest-bearing loan program to the homeowners. That is the biggest change between the two programs.

Ms. Cerilli: Then is there another program called the Critical Home Repair Program, or is that a different program?

Mr. Reimer: No, that program was replaced, from what I understand, about five years ago, so it is no longer around.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. So what went into the decision to change the program from a grant to the maximum amount of $3,000 to a loan of $3,000? Do you not think that that is going to affect the regions' uptake in the program?

Mr. Reimer: As I mentioned, the Critical Home Repair Program used to be a combination of loans and grants. With the change, as was mentioned, five or six years ago, I was just checking to see whether we had the statistics as to the take-up before compared to what it is now, and from what I am told, we do not have that type of information with us. So I am not too sure of the background as to the popularity or the amount of monies that were involved prior to this change, but we could get those numbers for the member if she would like them.

* (1600)

Ms. Cerilli: I would appreciate that, but I am also referring to the change in the Emergency Home Repair Program to the emergency home loan program. That is a different one that you said was changed.

What was the date for that change, and on that one, as well, will you get me the information and give me a little bit of background about why you made the change, the rationale for that, and if you do not have the stats, an idea of how it has affected the location of the pickup on the program, if you could get me that.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, we can get that information, too, for the member.

Ms. Cerilli: But are you going to answer about the rationale for changing the program?

Mr. Reimer: As it happens, this happened about three or four years ago, I guess, and the personnel I have with me right now were not involved with those decisions, but they have said that they can look into some of the background on that and try to give us a bit of a briefing note on that. So we can include that, too, with the information that has been requested.

Ms. Cerilli: So there has been a formal review of the pickup then, because even in the last program that the government ran, the Home Renovation Program where you had to spend $5,000 to get one, that really did not have much of an impact on the urban core in Winnipeg, some of the neighbourhoods that are most in need of home revitalization or repair.

So my concern would be, any attempts to sort of shift the responsibilities for higher incomes or to have a program like this go from being a grant to being a loan would mean that it is going to lose some of that emergency quality, but it is also going to mean that it is going to change the type of people who are going to be able to make use of the program just because of the fact that it has now got to be repaid. So was that not considered when you changed the program?

Mr. Reimer: The Home Renovation Program that was alluded to in the question was–some of the criteria on that was the assessed value had to be under $100,000, and the homes had to be built prior to 1981. From the recollection of some of the staff here, the biggest pickup was in area of assessed value somewhere around $70,000, $75,000 of home value. So there was a fair amount of pickup in that area.

We do not have the exact numbers of the program and the building permits that were associated with that renovation program, but from my memory, I believe it generated about–

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, I was using the old program that you did with Lotteries-run revenue as an example of how there is a danger. I do not need you to go into trying to remember about that program. I know the details and the history of that program.

The point I am making is, is there not a risk in changing this grant program to a loan program, to having the same thing happen where the pickup is going to be at homes that are in the higher end, and the homes that really need the program on an emergency basis in some of the older neighbourhoods that are really suffering right now are not going to be able to afford to use the program.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): The honourable member for Radisson does not have a point of order, but it is a point of clarification.

Mr. Reimer: I was just going to point out, too, that the program is income-tested and income-based, so it is not as if it would be picked up by people who were of substantial means. It is close to the core income levels for the pickup.

Ms. Cerilli: Well, I want to spend a little bit more time talking about some of the other programs that exist. I hope that I am going to get the book that I just sent the intern to get. It was a book that was a report from Manitoba Housing from 1984 that listed all the government programs that existed in Manitoba Housing in 1984, and there was a tremendous number. Now there is hardly any. The fact that we are–you know, just this last weekend, had another, what I would think is very good overview in the Free Press article on urban renewal and urban decline. The minister was quoted in that article making the same point that the programs that are there are not meeting the scope of the problem, the needs that are out there, and that this area has been neglected for so many years now under this government, and there is some responsibility for the federal government, as well, but that now we have this huge hole to fill.

I know recently the minister has made some increases into the RRAP program. I remember last year asking about this, asking why the provincial government has not been matching the funds, has not been putting the money into the RRAP program that it could be. Now you decided two weeks ago or so to put in $616,000 more dollars which is going to amount to an additional 45 or so properties. I have raised before with this program the fact that there is a waiting list for RRAP.

* (1610)

I am wondering, though, if the minister would agree that there is this huge unmet need in the community and that even the dollars that are in the RRAP program now are not going to meet the needs that are out there, are not going to keep up to the fact that the housing stock continues to decline and a program that now has not even $2 million or so, around there, in it that used to have over $10 million, as I understand it from talking to city officials, just for the city of Winnipeg back in the '80s, that more has to be done. Would the minister agree that there has to be more public money invested?

Mr. Reimer: It is interesting doing the Estimates on Housing and how there is a bit of an overlap into my other portfolio which is Minister of Urban Affairs where we are naturally concerned about the city of Winnipeg. Naturally, the core area is a very, very important component of trying to revitalize the city of Winnipeg and to be aware of where problems are and where there is room for work for the provincial government to be involved in the program.

One of the programs that was quite successful with the City of Winnipeg, and again I will answer this using my two portfolios in a sense, was what we called the Manitoba-Winnipeg Community Revitalization Program. That is a program that was started back in the '80s. It was a commitment by the provincial government and the City of Winnipeg to identify certain areas for regeneration of the community and housing and other areas of community involvement. I believe the funding allocations were upwards of $6 million to $8 million for Phase 1, about the same amount for the second phase, which was five-year increments.

It expired last year. It was felt by the City of Winnipeg and the province that an analysis should be done and an audit as to where this funding can get the best results and where we can get some better bang for our buck, if you want to call it. Both the City of Winnipeg and the province agreed. So there was a bit of a hold on announcing a new MWCRP program or whatever it was going to be called.

We had committed, as a provincial government, $7 million into this program, which was matched over five years. This was matched by the civic government or City of Winnipeg government for another seven. So we are looking at $14 million and how we can invest that into the best use for our communities.

We were asked to come up with a new program. When I say we it was in consultation with the City of Winnipeg and the province to come up with a different program. One of the components that was looked at very seriously was a home renovation program and also a block renovation program. This was more or less brought to discussions with the mayor. This was the previous mayor, Mayor Thompson and EPC and council at that time. There seemed to be a bit of an agreement and an understanding that this was possibly a good way to revitalize or revamp the old program. However, it was put on hold with the election of last year in October with the understanding that it would be incumbent upon the new mayor and the new council and the new EPC to re-evaluate this and to approve it so that we could get it going in this specific year, which is 1999.

I believe there was even a fairly extensive article in the paper regarding this program. Since that time the city has come back and said, no, we want to re-evaluate that program and come up with a different direction on it. Since that time nothing has happened. We have made overtures to the city asking how do you want to utilize these fundings that we have earmarked towards a new type of community revitalization program or a new community effort and in which areas? The city has come back and said that they are still re-evaluating.

So we have made the overtures. We have made the commitment. We feel that some of that money should or could possibly go towards a home renovation program or a block revitalization program–when I say block, I mean a block of houses, not an apartment block–and get some good bang for our various areas in the city we are using. But it sits there and there has not been a pickup by the city to that.

It was targeted to lower income homes, and we were talking about some of the guidelines for expenditures not being as high as $5,000 but of a smaller amount, whether we would get a percentage back as a grant of their expenditures. But here again, the city has not come back with any type of acknowledgement in the sense of accepting or how they would like to proceed with this commitment of $7 million.

Whether it even goes forward under the old name, the MWCRP or a new name, it really is of no consequence to us other than to try to get the program going off the ground.

Ms. Cerilli: I am familiar with the news clipping that the minister is referring to, and as I recall following up when I read that, the city was asked for $14 million over five years. The minister is nodding that that is correct.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, there was a partnership of seven and seven for $14 million total.

Ms. Cerilli: I thought the way I read it was that the city was going to have to put in $14 million, and when I contacted the mayor's office about it and the city departments to find out what was being proposed, they said that they did not have actually anything concrete in writing, that you just sort of went and made this request. Now what you are saying is this had been a long-standing discussion with the previous administration, because that has changed over there, too, the whole structure. It was more the former mayor and council that had been involved in this negotiation. Does the minister not think then it is incumbent upon him to maybe revisit this with a review of what had been discussed, and can you demonstrate that there was sort of a concrete explanation of what you had in mind, particularly knowing the mayor's background and that he has hired staff specifically working on these kind of issues? I do not think they are closed to having initiatives in this area, but there has to be, I think, a concrete proposal of what you are asking them for. The $7 million over five years in the scope of things when we are looking at some of the estimates that are being made by community groups and the articles in the paper, that is not the kind of scope that meets the need either, even if it is $7 million by two or three levels of government.

I guess the point now is to look at what is needed to get this issue going again, and if this is the program that the provincial government wants to follow through on. If you are starting with $7 million, what specifically did you ask the current mayor and council for that money for?

* (1620)

Mr. Reimer: It was a very specific and concrete proposal because staff on both levels within our departments, Urban Affairs, and because there was a housing component, even some of my Housing department was involved with the discussions, and the City of Winnipeg. The negotiations for the proposals took upwards of four months. It was specific proposals. From what I understand, it was presented to the mayor in EPC, and it was, from what I understand, rejected at that level. It never went to council for council's perusal.

So we were told that they rejected it and that they were going to revamp it or redirect it towards something that they felt was of more importance and of a different direction. I guess that happened about–very similar to when that article came out in the paper, and I am just trying to guesstimate. I think that was about the end of February or March. So since that time we have asked, well, what do you want to do, and nothing has come back.

Ms. Cerilli: But the city is also undertaking a number of things. I guess this is one of the concerns that I am hearing in the community, is there is not a very good, co-ordinated approach to this at this point, that there seems to be a number of studies and a task force and things being announced. All of a sudden, there is the recognition, for whatever reason, that this issue has to be addressed.

How is the minister going to deal with that, then, that there is this lack of co-operation or communication or collaborative approach between the city and the province?

Mr. Reimer: One of the things that we stress as very, very important and a high priority is a good working relationship with the city because of the fact that Manitoba and Winnipeg are such an integral part of each other.

I meet with the mayor quite regularly. I meet with the mayor and EPC quite regularly. The topic has been brought up a few times since the new mayor and EPC have come into existence. I think that initially there was a feeling that, well, it takes a little while to sort of get the lay of the land with the new council and a new EPC. But I guess it is like anything, on our part it is a matter of communicating to them on a regular basis that we are still very interested; we are still willing to participate; show me the course and we will run with you or try to accommodate you in your directions that you want to take with the city.

As the member mentioned, I know that there is a fair number of studies and proposals that are flying around. But I guess it is like anything, until we get something concrete and specific from council, it is very hard for us to do it unilaterally and just say that we are going to do this specifically on this one when we are looking at a partnership of 50-50 funding, that there has to be a clear sense of co-operation between the both of us as to the directions we want to take.

So we are willing. We have made the commitment. We have worked out a proposal. They have rejected it, and I guess it is the old adage, well, you tell me what you want and we will try to work with you and accommodate you, but it has not come back that way.

Ms. Cerilli: I am sure the minister is aware that the mayor has a contract with a fellow named David Shore [phonetic], who is working specifically on policy and programs related to housing. I do not know if he has met with any of your staff. His task has been to come up with something that would be the city's response on some of these housing matters.

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that he has met with my Housing staff, yes.

Ms. Cerilli: Is that one of the ways that this is going to be worked out? Has that meeting resulted in any kind of an agreement?

Mr. Reimer: From what I understand, he is looking for information. He has met with staff. It could lead to some sort of programming. It could lead to some sort of redirection of utilization of that funding.

I certainly do not rule out various initiatives that the city may come up with in regard to how those programming dollars can be utilized. So I guess we wait to see what kind of report Mr. Shore [phonetic] comes up with.

Ms. Cerilli: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Then there is the issue of trying to get the federal government involved, and I am wondering if you think that it is reasonable, on an issue with the scope that we have here which estimates, where did I read this, that there are 6,100 homes in the core that would cost approximately $183 million to repair. That is quoting from the most recent Free Press weekend article. Is it reasonable to expect the cost-sharing to be on an equal basis, in terms of the federal government or provincial government and the city, to address that kind of a problem, that the city should be putting in as much as the other levels of government?

Mr. Reimer: I read the article too, and they do seem to indicate and they throw in the scenario of the federal government into the equation, but our indications are that the federal government has given no indication at all that they want to be involved with housing of any kind anymore, in the bricks and mortar. They have indicated that they are more interested in possibly programming funding, but the bricks and mortar and any type of development in a city-wide area, they have just said that they do not want to be part of it.

So in the article I think that maybe there is a bit of an overly optimistic view that the federal government would be a willing participant. We certainly do not get that indication of, in our dealing not only in our Housing department but in our Urban Affairs department when we are dealing with the Winnipeg Development Agreement or The Forks-North Portage agreement, that the federal government does not want to be part of the downtown development corporation. They are not looking at a new Winnipeg Development No. 3, or No. 2, I guess you might call it.

So the federal government is not that willing of a partner that we get that indication. I think it would take a bit of a re-evaluation or a recommitment on their part to be part of something like when they talk about $183 million.

Ms. Cerilli: I have another article here here Axworthy seeks $2 million for a "fire zone." He is looking that the money would come from his negotiations with the Public Works minister, Alfonso Gagliano, to tap the $50-million federal fund for rehabilitating the nation's housing stock. What happened to that $2 million?

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that is the RRAP program that we are talking about. That is where that $2 million is. The same dollar gets spent three different ways.

Ms. Cerilli: The article does mention that what we are trying to do is get a special cut on it, the money established for Manitoba, over several years of the program that would allow us to do some stuff immediately. The $50 million for the RRAP that was announced by the minister before Christmas has prompted a large part of homelessness in many urban centres. So what has happened, you are telling me, is that the federal minister said there is $50 million more for RRAP. Is that then the same money that you are announcing, the $616,000 additional for RRAP. That is provincial money, I thought, now federal money.

Mr. Reimer: That is right. That is part of that program, yes. You see, the $50 million is a national program right across Canada, and our share was somewhere around $2 million, whatever. So what Mr. Axworthy is alluding to in that program is, I guess he is just pre-empting Gagliano's announcement of the RRAP program. So he is spending the $2 million there.

* (1630)

Ms. Cerilli: So is the money you announced for RRAP on–what did I do with that now; I want to get the date right; here it is–May 14 of '99, was that money provincial money, $616,000?

Mr. Reimer: Yes.

Ms. Cerilli: Is that the total amount that the province puts into RRAP?

Mr. Reimer: Yes.

Ms. Cerilli: The total federal contribution to RRAP now is up two million. It is for a total of, then, what? Why are we only putting in $616,000?

Mr. Reimer: What it is, the RRAP program is a partnership. It is a 75-25 percent partnership, 75 percent federal and 25 percent provincial. The federal contribution is $1.8 million. The provincial contribution is just over $600,000, so it gives you about $2.4 million or so of total dollars for the RRAP program for Manitoba.

Ms. Cerilli: I have talked to CMHC staff who have queried why, though, the provincial government is not matching the federal dollars. I have seen the overview of the RRAP program which says that that is something that the federal government intended. Are you telling me, though, that that was never the intention, that it is a 75-25 program?

Mr. Reimer: I have been told that it is. It has always been a 75-25 program, and the contribution has always been that way.

Ms. Cerilli: But the minister knows that there is a waiting list of a couple of years on that program. Have you ever considered that that would be one vehicle for addressing some of the needs out there, is to simply increase the funds into that existing program?

Mr. Reimer: I think that is one of the areas where we can look a little bit more critically at trying to expand for provincial funding in a sense, because if there is a way of tying in the federal dollars and get their dollars spent in Manitoba, and we have the ability to–one of the things with our devolution is our ability to redirect funding that is realized into different programs or different subsidies or whatever. This is something that maybe we should look at, because if it is a way of saving some money somewhere and redirecting it into another program where we can tap into additional RRAP funds or something like that, that is something we should look at more.

These are some of the things that I think could be of a benefit, to free up some of the waiting lists that there are on the RRAP program, because I know that not only is there a waiting list here in Winnipeg but throughout rural Manitoba. Anytime that I am out in the rural market, that program comes up continuously. If you do not get asked one question about RRAP, you do not feel like you have been out doing your job in the country.

Ms. Cerilli: So this is an important point then. What the minister is saying, then, if they can create these efficiencies, as we have been talking about in previous days, in anywhere else in the portfolio under the agreement with the federal government, maybe those monies could be put into the RRAP program.

Would that then force the federal government to also increase their dollars into the RRAP program? Could that be a position that could be negotiated with the federal government to say, look, if you are looking for a way to help us out here in Manitoba, this would be it?

Mr. Reimer: Yes, that is a way that we can sort of lever and try to negotiate more funding, but it is an excellent way to try to get at some more of the federal dollars.

Ms. Cerilli: There is another initiative that you are involved with. It says that you are working with the city on this one. Getting back to that theme, this is a discussion about a $100,000-study on housing in the core, and it is money that is from the WDA, I believe. That would be then $50,000 committed from the city portion and $50,000 from the provincial portion.

When I last was inquiring about this, they were still looking at proposals from different consulting firms on who was going to actually conduct that study, and the parameters or terms of reference for it were not completed. I believe that I was told that it was going to be looking at issues around the decline of property values in some of the older neighbourhoods. So can you fill me in on what has happened with that tendering process and that study and what the expected completion date is and results for that?

Mr. Reimer: The contract was tendered and it was awarded. We can get you the name of the company that is doing the study for us. I believe the time frame on it–and it has just been awarded very recently–was 90 days or in around that amount for the study. It is happening right now–[interjection] Oh, the firm is not in there, but we can get that name. We thought we had it with us here, but we do not have the company that is doing the work for us.

Ms. Cerilli: What I am more interested, though, is the terms of reference or sort of the expected results of the study and that kind of thing.

Mr. Reimer: Yes, it was housing, as was mentioned, specifically geared towards the downtown, in and around the downtown, looking at the market, what was the availability, what was the developmental potential, what were the demographics of the particular area, the expectations of housing components in regard to the mix of units regarding free-standing or condos or townhouse type of developments. I believe it even got into some of the locations possibly for development in the downtown area locating or identifying specific areas. I think those are mainly what the study was comprised of.

Ms. Cerilli: So it sounds to me, then, in terms of the expectations of that study, the purpose of it is to try and identify the types and the locations for housing developments in the downtown. These would be new developments or renovations?

Mr. Reimer: I think it was a combination of both. I believe they were even looking at some of the existing structures and buildings, and they could possibly re-evaluate it or redirect it towards housing too, residential housing.

* (1640)

Ms. Cerilli: So is the idea that this would then guide a plan with the city to do that kind of redevelopment so that people could be encouraged to live downtown and more people would be brought downtown to live?

Mr. Reimer: The study of the Winnipeg housing market was required to facilitate investment by private developers, financial institutions, homeowners in marketable downtown residential projects and homes. Increasing the number of owner-occupied residences in the downtown contributes to the quality of life and living, enhances safety and strengthens the commercial sector, generates tax revenues, public infrastructure, the amenities and the programs. It said: to assess the market demand for housing in the Winnipeg centre, to recommend and prioritize actions based on findings to support expanding residential living in the city, in Winnipeg centre.

Ms. Cerilli: I was under the impression that part of it too was to try and do some analysis to understand what it is that has contributed to the decline in the property values in those neighbourhoods. Is that part of it?

Mr. Reimer: No, that was not part of the parameters.

Ms. Cerilli: Would this be a public study when it is done? Will it be available to the public?

Mr. Reimer: Here again it is shared between the city and the province, and we would have to be aware of their requirements on that, too. The implementation of it would, I think–to a large degree, the city of Winnipeg would be the benefactor of the study. How they look at their handling of it, whether it is a zoning application or building code variance, or things like that, would come strictly under the city's purview.

Ms. Cerilli: Has there been an analysis done that the minister has been privy to that does try to explain what has caused the current situation in some of the older neighbourhoods in the city in terms of decline of property values and the housing needs?

Mr. Reimer: One person I enjoy having lunch with on a fairly regular basis, and I do it purposely because he has a tremendous wealth of knowledge and background in the city as a constituent of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), is Mr. Bernie Wolfe. Bernie Wolfe has a long memory and a long involvement with civic government here in Winnipeg. I remember once having a luncheon with him, and I asked him about studies that have been done in the city of Winnipeg for the City of Winnipeg. He supplied me a book–believe it or not there is a book. It was updated lastly in 1997, I think it was, or something like that. It has all the listings of all the subjects that the city of Winnipeg has had studies done on it. The number that I saw at that time was something like 1,600 different types of studies done on the city of Winnipeg, in the core area, in and around Winnipeg, regarding various components, and they all dealt with some sort of social aspect or studies of different natures within the city of Winnipeg.

The one thing that has been done, I think, is the city of Winnipeg has been studied to death in regard to what causes certain things and how things have changed. I think it is becoming more and more evident, even in conversations with the mayor and council, that it is time to try to get some sort of handle on how we can make the city of Winnipeg change and be a better place for everybody to live and work. I am not saying that we do not need any more studies, because I think, if anything, the city of Winnipeg is like a flowing river. You take a snapshot at a particular time for a specific incident, and you cannot make your evaluations just strictly on that specific time. But I think that a lot of things that are happening in the city of Winnipeg, we know what the problems are. It is a matter of let us make some solutions and get some things changing and look at the resources and look at the availability of what we can utilize in the city of Winnipeg to make these changes.

I know that it is not addressing more or less what the member is asking, because I do not have a specific answer as to what the basic problem is in the downtown area. I think it is a combination of not only the problems possibly with my Housing department and possibly with my Urban Affairs department, but there are problems in the social aspect. There are problems in the justice aspect; there is health. It is a myriad of problems that come together in trying to find out where things can change in the city. It is a big undertaking.

But I think there is willingness to make things change. I really do. I think there is a willingness to make things change because people realize that if you want to make Winnipeg a great city, you have to have a strong central core, if you want to call it, of residential components, business components, social components. All these things have to come about in the inner city. You cannot neglect them because if you neglect them, all it is is just a growth of decay, and it just spreads. So we have to set up programs to try to address it.

Ms. Cerilli: Of course, the minister realizes in asking that question I was not asking him about his favourite studies or more studies. I was asking him because I want to know what his view is in terms of what the underlying problems are in causing the kind of decline that older neighbourhoods are facing in the province.

I guess at the end the minister started answering that part of the question in terms of saying that it is not just related to housing. There are social factors. There are a variety of interwoven issues, and I would agree with that. But when I talk to people, too, one of the things that is being said now is that there is no demand. There has not been a demand. Because of all the issues, the social, the crime, the poverty and economic issues, there has not been a demand for the residential properties in some of those neighbourhoods, and when there are no demands, then we are going to see what is occurring. There is going to be a decline with people moving out.

So I am wondering if the minister would agree then that because the demand has shifted elsewhere, and for this we are talking about demand in terms of the sort of higher, not even higher income but more medium and toward higher income, that what has happened is the demand for properties has been out to the suburbs and even outside the city, and that demand has been supported in all sorts of ways by government policy.

Would the minister agree that what has happened is there has been sort of a tendency, then, for people to move out of those neighbourhoods, who have the means to do that, and that is one of the things that has affected the demand for housing in those areas and contributed to this decline?

Mr. Reimer: I guess there are a lot of factors that can be brought into effect as to why certain neighbourhoods decline and other ones stay stable, and pride of community comes about in some places and not other places. It is tied in sometimes with the convenience of whether it is neighbourhood shopping or neighbourhood activities. The demographics have changed, I guess, have a lot to do with it.

Winnipeg has an awful lot of older stock homes. Winnipeg is one of the "older homes" cities in Canada, because a lot of the homes that were built were back in the '30s, '40s and '50s, and they were occupied by a lot of new people coming to Canada. There was that sense of striving to achieve, striving to accomplish. That was reflected in their homeownership, their streets, their conditions. I think that became quite prevalent throughout all neighbourhoods in Winnipeg.

* (1650)

At one time, there was no such thing as what we see in some neighbourhoods. There was always a pride of ownership on the streets and in the yards and on the sidewalks, things like that. A lot of it had to do with, like I say, the immigrant movement into Winnipeg, the sense of working to strive for betterment in their community. New generations have come in, different attitudes, different types of goals and objectives. The different type of family make-up is a different factor. At one time there was always the two-parent homes. There is a tremendous amount of one-parent homes in the inner city now. With that brings the responsibility of raising children with only one parent. Those things all contribute to a degree of instability of pressures on the family, and when there are pressures on the family, it is reflected in the community and the neighbourhood or in the sense of commitment that people have, or the time commitment that they have.

There is a myriad of problems that can be associated, but one of the things, it was pointed out to me, that a study is looking at the amenities, looking at amenities that we would want in a downtown and how you can bring people into the downtown and what they might be looking for. I think that looking at some of those things we can relate to some of the other cities that we have revamped and renovated some of their downtown areas because they have gone after some of the housing and some of the warehousing component and things like that to try to get people, young professionals, downtown to work and look after their buildings. Those are some of the things that can happen to renovate, to regenerate, if you want to call it, some of the downtown areas. I think there are a lot of components that can come about to make it a better place to work.

Ms. Cerilli: One of the areas I wanted to really have some time to discuss is then your government's response to all of this. We have sort of been discussing that a little bit with the RRAP program and that. One of the major things you had in this throne speech was this Take Back the Streets initiative. I do have with me the article. It talked about the $14 million between the province and the city for your grime and crime program, as the Free Press called it.

Is this the same thing? Is the proposal you went to the city with for their $7 million, is that also the Take Back the Streets initiative, because here you talk about a program that would deal with the shoulder communities, neighbourhoods, for grants to repair their homes, to be more attractive and safer from crime. You talked about city-wide renovation grants. You talked about downtown businesses offered grants to fix up their storefronts. Is that the kind of program you are talking about for Take Back the Streets? Are these two the same thing?

Mr. Reimer: The article that the member is referring to is the one that I was talking to earlier regarding the offshoot of the MWCRP program. That was sort of the alternative that we were proposing and that is where that $14 million is at. That is the program.

Ms. Cerilli: So then what about the Take Back the Streets initiative? Is that going to have a housing component? Is that going to focus then on the older neighbourhoods and not so much the shoulder communities?

Mr. Reimer: The Take Back the Streets program is something that is more or less directed out of my Urban Affairs portfolio, and I can certainly talk about it at this part of the Estimates.

It is a program that looks at trying to work with the assets and the values in the communities. When we talk about that, we are talking about the community groups, the community centres, the nonprofit associations, the people that are involved with change in the communities. That is where we are talking about the Take Back the Streets initiative. It is working with the communities, working with trying to get them to find out where their priorities are, where their needs are, and working with them in a way that if once these problems are identified, then government can possibly help with some sort of possible catalyst funding or support funding and things of that nature to keep good programs going and to build further on programs that are showing results in the communities. So those are some of the directions with the Take Back the Streets program is to work with–excuse me, the communities, the places where there have been results, places where they have shown where there are positive initiatives and to work with those types of groups and peoples and trying to make it better for the streets or for Winnipeg.

Ms. Cerilli: You talk a lot about working with community groups. Would you acknowledge that what the community groups are looking for though is the kind of programs we have been talking about is a program for renovations specifically, and is that part of the partnership piece you are going to bring to this?

Mr. Reimer: I think in reference to the article the member has there, I think that is the type of initiative we would like to be part of in working with the city is working with a housing component, working with a community revitalization, if you want to call it or a block revitalization or a community revitalization, someplace where you can tap into the resources and build upon those resources. It is not necessarily going out there and trying to reinvent the wheel for every new component within the community. It is to going to the community and identify where there is change being made and where you can help that change and where you can possibly foster additional change by resources or the redirection of funding or programming dollars, so that you can build upon those. You do not necessarily have to layer upon them with new programming or new initiatives.

I think this is where the community itself takes hold of initiatives and has the ability to make more changes and more positive initiatives, because they are people that are on the street if you want to call it. Those are the people that are involved with the day-to-day operations or exposed to the community more than anybody else, so why not rely on their wealth of knowledge and experience and contacts and the ability to do things, and try to help them? I think that is how you can initiate more changes in a community, because it then becomes a spider web effect of working more positively.

I think there is a great opportunity that government can be part of, but it does not have to be the overall leader in the sense of being up front. You find the leaders, you find the groups, and you let them initiate the changes.

* (1700)

Ms. Cerilli: But what the minister, when he gives me the same answer all the time, does not seem to acknowledge though is the community groups are doing that. They are coming to the federal government, provincial governments, city and they are saying, come on, we are trying to do this. Where is the money? We cannot do it without resources. I have articles here where the minister will maybe hand over a couple of units to a group, I guess if he likes the people in that group. I do not know how he decides who gets what.

What the community groups are doing is coming with proposals, and I have one in front of me from the inner city Housing Coalition and the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. I know the minister has this. It is for 1,250 homes over five years. It has specific allocations for funding from the provincial government. They have done their background. They have commitments from other private sector financial institutions. They have other things in place in terms of training resources.

In this particular case, have you responded favourably to this program, and more importantly, is this how you see it working? Is it that a community group comes up with a proposal, then it comes to the provincial government and says can you fund this? Is that how you see it working? Do you not see it working where you come up with a few programs that are funded, then all sorts of community groups across the province can get themselves going to apply and qualify for the funds in those programs that would provide for all the different areas that are going to revitalize a community, but specifically we are dealing with housing that would then qualify for community grants to do revitalization and renovations and retrofitting for housing?

Mr. Reimer: The study that the member is referring to, that one there, I have met with that group. We had an excellent meeting with them. We did not outright reject anything that they had brought for us, but what they agreed to in conversation with us was that they did have to come up with a business plan. We are working with them. We have had meetings. We are still working with that group. That is an excellent example of various factors coming together for a common cause and meeting with me. I know that it has merit.

We certainly have not rejected that type of approach to it, but at the same time, like I said, they were the ones who suggested when they came to meet with us, it was on a preliminary basis, just to see exactly what the member mentioned, are we barking up the wrong tree or what should we do to complement this. In the discussions, it was decided that you should have a business plan. I believe that they also wanted to take it further to some of the financial institutes and they were going to get some background on that. They are working with some of those groups. We have not heard back from them as to how far they have gone, but I know that we have been working with them in that particular group.

Ms. Cerilli: So where will the money for this kind of initiative come from from the provincial government if you are going to meet the obligations in here; $1.7 million invested by the municipal government and the provincial government. They figure that would leverage $11 million. So they are asking you for $1.7 million. Where would that money come from?

Mr. Reimer: We have not identified specifically where funding can be allocated from because at this time we do not know exactly what their total requirements are and what their commitments are with other programs. What we have said is that if there are strong cases to be made, then it is a matter of looking within the departments or the various sectors within government to see where monies can be freed up to support that type of initiative.

Ms. Cerilli: This is what I think that I and a number of the community groups are getting at when they say that is what they need governments to do, and that is the kind of leadership. They want a government to make a commitment. You started doing that I guess by approaching the city and saying: we want you to cough up $7 million, and we are going to cough up $7 million for some of these types of initiatives. But you have to have that in the budget. That is why we have been raising this. We are concerned that you do not have that in this.

Mr. Reimer: That $7 million is in the budget. That is in what we call the UCPA budget. There is an allocation of $7 million in there.

Ms. Cerilli: So then groups like the inner city Housing Coalition would be guaranteed that they could get money for their program, and it may come from the $7 million allocated, the money that is set aside for your MWCRP?

Mr. Reimer: I think the member knows I cannot guarantee anything until you get approval, but there is a willingness to certainly work towards them. If anything, like I say, they were not ushered out of my office with a noncommittal. We said let us see what we can try to work together on this one.

Ms. Cerilli: Okay. I am just going to keep going until the other department shows up, so maybe the intern should go and let them know–the page, sorry. It would be the Minister of Culture, Mrs. Vodrey, here she comes. I am going to then just ask a few specific questions about this $14 million program under MWCRP, and then we can just pass everything very quickly.

Mr. Reimer: Okay, go ahead.

Ms. Cerilli: Under that program then, have you gone through the specifics like this? I am going to put the questions on the record, and you can respond quickly. How large would the renovation grants be that you have referenced under that program? Have you dealt with criteria including income limits? Would they be a matching type grant or a loan or some combination of those?

One of the things that a lot of the community groups are looking for is community-designated programs that you have, for example, renovation-type programs that would be for homeowners, and then you would have a certain pool of money, for example, in the RRAP program that would be designated for community groups. Is that something that would be considered as part of this program? And again, would those programs be sort of targeted to certain neighbourhoods?

Mr. Reimer: I think that every one of the questions that the member raises are questions that we would be working with the City of Winnipeg is to come to those numbers because they have not indicated that they would want to even participate in that program. But I think that those are the types of things, and those numbers are all legitimate questions, that we would want to work with because those are the same types of initiatives that we would want. We would want to know the maximum amount of dollars, whether it is a loan program or a grant program. We would want to look at specific communities that could be identified working with the city. Those again are part of the program that we wanted to work with the city, but hopefully–I guess I am a bit of an optimist–I think that we can still work towards that.

Ms. Cerilli: So did you have all those details worked out with the former mayor and City Council?

Mr. Reimer: From what I understand, those were the type of things that were worked out on an administrative level but were never approved by the city.

Ms. Cerilli: I think we are going to have to pass.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Item 30.1. Housing Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $391,100–pass; (b)(2) Other Expenditures $88,500–pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from Urban Affairs ($239,800)–pass.

30.2. Housing Program Support (a) Finance and Operations (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,236,900–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $365,200–pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($364,400)–pass.

30.2.(b) Planning and Portfolio Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,002,800–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $106,000–pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from other appropriations ($496,800)–pass.

30.2.(c) Human Resource Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $266,400–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $46,400–pass.

Then moving on to 30.2.(d) Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $942,400.

* (1710)

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to interject here, and I am sorry that the staff have already gone. I asked at the beginning today, again, the maintenance budgets and schedules that you were supposed to have for me today, what happened to that?

Mr. Reimer: I will get them for the member. I guess, they may have had them with them and we forgot to ask them.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Going back to 30.2.(d)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $942,400–pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,332,300–pass.

Resolution 30.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,437,200 for Housing, Housing Program Support, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Then coming back to 30.3. The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation (a) Transfer Payments $32,952,800–pass; (b) Grants and Subsidies $5,920,300–pass.

Resolution 30.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $38,873,100 for Housing, The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

Then to 30.4. Amortization of Capital Assets $433,600–pass.

Resolution 30.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $433,600 for Housing, Amortization of Capital Assets, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Housing is item 30.1. Housing Executive (a) Minister's Salary $13,500. Shall the resolution pass?

Some Honourable Members: Pass.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): It is accordingly passed.

Mr. Reimer: Oh, thank you, guys.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Dyck): Resolution 30.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $253,300 for Housing, Housing Executive, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 2000.

This completes the Estimates of the Department of Housing.

The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the Committee of Supply are the Estimates for the Status of Women.