Mr. Chairperson (Ben Sveinson): Good afternoon. 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 Consumer and Corporate Affairs. As had been previously agreed, questions for this department will fall in a global manner with all line items to be passed once the questioning has been completed. The floor is now open for questions.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): I would like to ask the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs–I guess in the name of the Minister of Government Services–some questions about a particular area of concern for me, both in the riding I used to represent or do still, I suppose, legally, and in the riding that I will be seeking to represent in the new election whenever Mr. Downey's Premier gets the courage of his convictions and decides to call an election–[interjection] Well, we will see, Jim; we will see.

I want to ask about areas of the rent control and Rentalsman's office. I do not know whether the minister is familiar with this office or whether he has the right officials here. Do we have the right officials? Okay. Would it be possible to have the minister introduce the officials that are at the table with him, Mr. Chairperson?

Hon. Frank Pitura (Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would first like to introduce Alex Morton, who is the Deputy Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Roger Barsy, director of the Residential Tenancies Branch. So it is Alex Morton and Roger Barsy.

Mr. Sale: I have had occasion to call the office a number of times in recent days, and Mr. Barsy probably knows the issue that I am speaking about in regard to 134 Smith Street. I want to say first that the officials of his office have been very helpful and very courteous, and I have no complaint about how the individual people in the office have responded to my concerns. I want to raise it on another level than individual staff service.

Just to give the minister some context which Mr. Barsy probably already has, an investor from Montreal purchased Place Promenade and what used to be called York Estates. It is a building at 134 Smith, which is the corner of York and Smith. It is a fairly large high rise, I think approximately 160 suites, maybe a few more than that. It was built about 20 years ago. At that time it was quite an upscale apartment–swimming pool and other amenities. I think it would be fair to say it was on the upper end of the Winnipeg rental market when it was constructed. Unfortunately, over the years of its existence, it has not had much in the way of maintenance, either preventive maintenance or the kind of routine maintenance that would have kept the building in reasonable condition. It has been allowed to deteriorate quite sharply. At the same time, the rents for the building were never increased very much either. That is probably because there was never any work done in the building, but unfortunately it ran down quite severely over the 20 or 25 years. Mr. Barsy can probably put the date of its construction more accurately than I can, but it is about 20 years old, I think.

The new investor from Montreal appears to have had, maybe we could say, unclear plans for the building. When his staff first approached tenants after the sale, he appeared to be saying that his intent was to make significant renovations to upgrade the building, refurbish the swimming pool, carpets, kitchens, a fairly major upgrading. He offered tenants, or his staff offered tenants, new leases with significantly higher rent, but in order to, I guess, mitigate the anger of the tenants that their building had been run down, nothing had been done at the date that the new lease was being offered, and there was going to be substantial dislocation during construction, he offered a discount to the rent.

The discount was significant. The rent increase was in the order of $115 to $125 a month, and the discount approximately matched the rent increase. Many tenants thought this was a reasonably fair deal. They were not unhappy with that initially. A few moved out, but initially many people thought this was reasonably fair. So many signed new leases. Very shortly after the new leases were signed, it is my understanding that the new owner indicated to the tenants that their rent discount was being discontinued immediately. The tenants, whose eyebrows went up somewhat and wondered about this, obviously, they thought they had a discount that was for their lease period which, for the most part, was a year, said: how can this be?

* (1610)

At least in one case, and I have that particular case in front of me, I do not have any other documented evidence, but in this case, it is the case of Mr. Pierson. I am sure Mr. Barsy probably has this documentation. If he does not, I would be glad to give him a copy because Mr. Pierson has given me permission to do so. The company changed the lease after he signed it. I have a copy of his lease, dated, signed, and then they claim that his lease had been converted to a month to month. What he signed and has shared with me is continuing until April 30, 2000, various other notes on it.

What Apex Realty has is circling a month-to-month tenancy. Of course, my word for that is fraud. Perhaps that is stronger than the minister might want to use, but if somebody alters a legal document to their favour and then attempts to collect on the basis of that altered document, I think that is fraud. That is not just an attempt to manipulate. I think that is straight fraud. I want to know first, what the policy of the Rentalsman's office is in regard to an issue like this where it appears at least that there is prima facie evidence of somebody altering a legal document in their favour. Do the Rentalsman staff treat this as a case-by-case thing, or do they say, wait a minute, we have got a pattern here of a building that obviously the new owner is trying to empty. I have now had several cases forwarded to me since, but I do not have the documentation from them yet. Or does the Rentalsman just say, you know, this is a one-of case; we will deal with it on a one-by-one basis? How aggressive do you get when you see this kind of–and I call it fraud; you call it whatever you want.

Mr. Pitura: I am just wondering if the honourable member, perhaps rather than my answering the question, would like to have the answer directly from Mr. Barsy. If not, I am prepared to answer.

Mr. Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to have Mr. Barsy answer this particular question? Agreed?

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I just would want this not to set a precedent in that I think it is important for ministers to answer, but this is a rather unique situation where the minister is not available so I think this is an appropriate way to do it. We will get it done a lot faster.

Mr. Chairperson: Agreed? [agreed]

Mr. Pitura: I would ask Mr. Barsy to answer directly.

Mr. Chairperson: Agreed.

Mr. Roger Barsy (Director, Residential Tenancies Branch): The case that you cited, the facts are essentially correct. The tenancy agreements were fixed-term agreements, and in some cases, for whatever reason, they also had month-to-month agreements. There is a difference because under the fixed-term agreement, the rent discount is valid throughout that tenancy agreement, and that is our policy.

In this case here, we deal with it each on an individual basis because each tenancy agreement may be different. It is not a case of a lease for the whole apartment complex. Each individual tenant may have something different. They may have a month-to-month tenancy. If that is the case, then the landlord, by giving one month notice, would be able to discontinue the discount.

So the answer is that essentially we do not treat it as a whole complex because we have to see which lease is different than the other to make sure that we are doing it consistently, and also that if there is a fixed-term agreement, that that rent discount is valid throughout that term of that agreement.

Mr. Sale: I understand that is the law and I do not have any quarrel with that, but here we have a situation where it appears that agents of the owner changed a document that had been signed. This is not just a month-to-month lease with a discount that someone thought was lasting for a year and was legally changed. I still think that is bad business practice and not particularly honest to offer a discount and then discontinue it a month later. I mean, I think that is shoddy business practice; it is probably not illegal. But the change of the lease from a year-to-year lease, which Mr. Pierson has his signed copy of showing, to a month to month and then withdrawing the discount, I think that is fraud. That is not just bad business practice. That is dishonest when you change a legal document, one copy only. What do you do in that kind of case?

Mr. Barsy: What Mr. Pierson would do and I would counsel him to do is he could make an application to the branch and we would certainly take a look at the facts of the case. I cannot tell you all the facts of the case on this. I do not know the exact particulars, so it would be improper for me to make an adjudication at this point in time, because matters come before our branch and it would seem like we are sort of prejudging the case. So I would not want to do that, but he could come to the branch and certainly make an application to have this determined, and we would certainly overrule that. Now if we found that this was a practice that was happening, we certainly can contact the landlord, the property management company, and advise them as to what this practice is, their wrongful practice and sort of put them on notice that those kinds of practices are not ones that will get any favour at the Residential Tenancies Branch.

Mr. Sale: Well, Mr. Chairperson, Mr. Pierson did approach the branch, and I believe there is a gentleman by the name of Mr. Beck, I think, who is one of the staff who is a mediator. To me, the issue here is not trying to get him a hundred bucks so he will move willingly. This gentleman had a valid lease and a valid discount. He is not an unreasonable man. If the landlord has a real need for him to vacate the building, he is not unwilling to negotiate, but he is certainly not willing to leave for a hundred bucks. The act requires $350 in any kind of move where you are forcing the tenant to move, getting vacant possession or whatever, so right off the hop, the landlord is out of line by offering anything less than that.

Secondly, there is another factor here, and that is that this man has a valid lease, and he cannot be forced out if he is in compliance with the conditions of his lease in paying his rent. He has the right to stay there until the lease expires, and they need then to provide him with quiet–you know, all the conditions of a normal lease, not with threats to cut his water off, to cut his power off, all of which have been made, including, I would say, a malicious accusation that Mr. Pierson is causing vandalism to their property.

* (1620)

I guess I am asking Mr. Barsy to be a little more assertive on behalf of Mr. Pierson. I do not think Mr. Pierson is an unreasonable man. I do think he has been significantly abused as a tenant in this building. I have also called the fire department and the building inspections people because what is alleged at least is that the building is in an increasingly unsafe condition, with exit doors left open at night, fire equipment unserviceable, elevators out of date, in terms of the safety inspections of the elevators.

Clearly there is a bad situation here, and you should know, Mr. Minister, that Mr. Pierson actually took a job working for the new owner, thinking that it would be an improvement over the old situation where the building had been let rundown, and he was quite hopeful that even though there might be some inconvenience under the new owner while the building was brought up to standard, at least at the end of the day it would be a better building. He quickly came to the conclusion that this owner perhaps was not the kind of person he would want to work for after a few weeks of doing this. So Mr. Pierson is a very capable person, and I would ask that the Rentalsman take a more aggressive approach with this new owner and explain to him the facts of life in Manitoba. I do not care where he is from, but you cannot force people out on a few days notice.

I want to go to a second case, and that is the case of Mr. Charles Cuthford. At least he shows on the vacancy list as Cuthford, C-U-T-H-F-O-R-D. This gentleman is well over 80 years of age, and he has lived there for 16 years, I believe. He is a very competent senior who volunteers at Lions Manor and other places playing the piano and entertaining people, certainly a very capable man to speak with.

He was told two days ago that he had to be out by the end of the month. He tells me he has never received written notice, and of course I think Mr. Barsy would confirm that he is entitled to three months notice, if he is to vacate. He is on a month-to-month lease in the case of Mr. Cuthford. But my understanding is that it does not matter whether it is month to month or year, that he is entitled to three months notice for vacant possession of the building. His claim at least, and I cannot verify it, is that he has never received any written notice from the new owner about leaving the building. He has a degenerative disc. He is well over 80. He asked me not to say how far over 80 he is, but he is well over 80. Your department, Mr. Gagnon, did say you have a program for vulnerable seniors or vulnerable people who need to be relocated?.

Again, Mr. Cuthford is not an unreasonable man, but he was quite–I should not say–he was very agitated, let us put it that way. He said I have no family; I have no people that can help me move. I do not have any place to go. I cannot get out of here by the end of the month. I just cannot do it. Again, he is not saying he would not move. He prefers to stay. If you want a vacant possession of a building, you have to work with at least some of the people who are not going to immediately be able to find housing. So I ask Mr. Gagnon to be in touch with Mr. Cuthford as well.

Am I correct that he is entitled to three months notice, written notice, if the landlord wishes to terminate his tenancy?

Mr. Barsy: The landlord can terminate the tenancies for various reasons. If it is for cause, it can be less than three months; if they have not paid the rent, if they have caused damage to the rented premises, those kinds of things. If the landlord wants to recover the premises for reasons of their own use, it is three months. If they want it for the purposes of repairs and renovations, it is three months notice. So it does depend upon the reason that they want it, but they must give that notice in writing. So no notice is effective unless it is put in writing. The one thing he should know is that he cannot be removed from that premises. That notice, if it is not in writing, if it is oral, is not effective, and there must be an application that must be made to our branch so that the process is followed, which includes mediation, before a tenant can be removed from their premises.

Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, that is the indication that I had from Mr. Gagnon, and I gave to Mr. Cuthford and Mr. Pierson. I am asking that the office take a particular interest in this building. I believe there are only 20-something suites still occupied at the present time. There are some floors where there is only one person on the floor, for example. I think, in many cases, these are people who are vulnerable. They are not middle-income, middle-aged family-types with support systems around them.

I am worried, frankly, that we are going to have a tragedy in this building because of the pressure that is being put on people to move on short notice or under conditions that–you know, none of us would want to have to try and find a place to live on a week's notice when we have lived somewhere for 16 years. The thought of cleaning out my basement is terrifying. For a senior, the difficulty that they would face on that kind of notice–and I think the minister knows and Mr. Barsy certainly knows that that kind of threat can seem insurmountable to someone and can trigger either behaviour or health problems that none of us want to have happen.

I would ask an undertaking from the minister, through the staff, that a particular emphasis be put on mediating and resolving the issues for the remaining people in that building, making sure that they know their rights and then can exercise those rights. Whether they choose to leave on a mediated settlement or not, that is obviously each one's choice, but they should not be threatened by this new owner, and they should not be living in conditions that are not reasonable.

Mr. Pitura: I can appreciate what the honourable member has brought forward with respect to the rental unit on 134 Smith. I guess the main thing to understand is that the Residential Tenancies Branch–and under the act, it is an act that basically deals with the complaints and a mediation process that deals with disputes between landlords and tenants. So, therefore, if the member is requesting that the Residential Tenancies Branch moves in to each individual that is now presently living in that block and contacts them to try to help them through this process, then it would almost seem as if the Residential Tenancies Branch was basically taking a position of one side or the other.

The alternative would be, if the honourable member would not mind, to ensure that each tenant is contacted so that they make the initial contact with the Residential Tenancies Branch. From that standpoint, any type of mediation process that takes place would be seen deemed to be fair to both sides. I am wondering if you can appreciate that the flow of which way the complaint comes from is important in this case.

Mr. Sale: I have already done that, Mr. Minister. I wrote to every tenant in the building about two weeks ago. I want to be very fair to the Rentalsman's office. I am not being critical of them. But what a number of people said was: We have tried; we have not gotten anywhere. Mr. Pierson, for example, was offered a hundred bucks when he was legally entitled to $350, and to have to ask for that, that is his minimum entitlement.

So I think the perception is on the part of at least some of the tenants of the building that the Rentalsman's office is on the side of the landlord now. That is the perception. I am not saying it is correct; I am saying that is the perception I have had shared with me.

* (1630)

So I want to rebuild confidence in that office's impartiality and fairness. I have given the name and number of the Rentalsman's office to all the tenants still in the building already. I do not know how many of them are contacted because, again, I am not party to that, and I should not be. It is not my right to know whether somebody has contacted a government office or not. So I am a bit in the dark in saying that I fear for what is happening for some of these people, but I have no way of knowing. I just know the three that I know about, and there is not many left in the building. I know that the city inspections people are concerned about the building. They were back in there yesterday, I guess it was, or was it Friday. It was either Friday or Monday–no, Monday, they were in the building, and I do not know what they found, because again they would not necessarily let me know because I am not the person that can remedy the problem.

So I hear the concern, but I gather you have a staffperson working with people in the building; Mr. Beck, I think, is probably doing all of those cases. I do not think it would be stretching things to at least let others know, again, that if there are issues in regard to moving out, as the landlord appears to want people to, that the Rentalsman's office is available to mediate disputes. I think if there are only three, then I have heard about them all and that is fine. Let us deal with those.

But if there was a little bit of proactive effort on the part of the office to say not we are on your side but we are here, we are available, and we will do everything reasonably in our capacity to mediate any disputes you have and concern with the planned renovations of the building, I think that would just be good service for the tenants and would help to restore some confidence that the Rentalsman's office is truly impartial. Right now there is a sense that the landlord has gotten away with murder, and he should not have.

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Chair, I am advised that if the tenants would request as a group that the Rentalsman works with them or talks to them–

Mr. Sale: As a group, did you say?

Mr. Pitura: Well, if they make the request to the Residential Tenancies Branch, I am advised that an officer could be sent out to them to talk to them as a group, to talk to them and tell them about their rights that they have in their agreements. So they, as a group, can then take a proactive approach to dealing with the landlord.

Mr. Sale: That seems like a very reasonable suggestion, Mr. Chairperson, and I will talk to the people in the building who have contacted me and make that suggestion to them, and then it is up to them to pull that together. Thank you very much.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Chairperson, I am just going to be asking a few questions, and then my colleague the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) is going to ask some questions.

I wanted to start off by asking, first of all, where the minister is because I was surprised when I came in here that the director was answering questions on the record.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): The honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey), on a point of order.

An Honourable Member: Oh, I am out of order, am I?

An Honourable Member: Yes, you are.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): I would concur with the point of order raised by the honourable member for Arthur-Virden. Indeed, the honourable member for Radisson is making reference to the presence of an honourable member and I would ask her to–

Ms. Cerilli: I would ask for the Chairperson to check the rules on the issue being a minister in Estimates and we are not in the House and if it is a different situation.

Ms. Cerilli: I will proceed then with some questions. I know there has been a lot of attention over the last year or so with the problems in some older neighbourhoods with boarded-up homes and arson and absentee landlords, and I am wondering if the Residential Tenancies Branch has been involved with any discussions with other government departments in the city or municipalities in dealing with this issue and if there are any proposals that have come forward in relation to The Residential Tenancies Act.

Mr. Pitura: In response to the honourable member, in the past there has been a fair amount of reluctance on behalf of agencies of government, whether they be the city government or municipalities, to work proactively on this issue.

I am advised though that, within the city of Winnipeg, for example, the City of Winnipeg can file a health order with the Residential Tenancies Branch, and that now, after many meetings with the City of Winnipeg, that the City of Winnipeg is now working quite closely with the Residential Tenancies Branch, and they are actively pursuing some of these derelict type properties and actually posting health orders on them, or with them, and as well with the Residential Tenancies Branch. The branch then can enforce the order, and they have the ability to move in, have the necessary repairs done according to the Health department order and charge that back to the landlord. So what has not been working well in the past is working a lot better now.

Ms. Cerilli: So are you saying the health order is now being posted right on the property? The other question had to do with any sort of involvement of the branch right now with any of the discussions that are going on with a variety of initiatives related to these issues of dealing with run-down properties and landlords who are not making the necessary repairs.

Mr. Pitura: I am advised with respect to the health orders that they are posted and also registered with the Residential Tenancies Branch, so they are in public view.

With regard to the derelict properties that the member was referring to, at the present time, the Residential Tenancies Branch does not actively participate in terms of identifying these types of properties for future action but relies on the City of Winnipeg or the municipality to identify the properties in conjunction. But I am also advised that, with regard to any specific program, no, there is no program at the present time that is being structured and put into place. However, discussions are taking place with the intent of possibly, in the near future, having a program in place that is a co-operative approach to this whole problem.

* (1640)

Ms. Cerilli: That is what I was really getting at is if at this time the branch is involved in discussions that are going on with the city. I know that through the Housing department they are working on this issue. They have a study that is funded through WDA, and the city has people in the mayor's office, and they are doing a lot of work. There are community groups that are doing work. I just wanted to see if the Residential Tenancies Branch, with its experience in dealing with landlords and tenants, is involved in that. It sounds like you are.

Maybe following up in the Estimates, we could get a report of what kind of program discussions and what kind of a co-operative approach is going to be undertaken or is being proposed. I wonder if the minister would agree to provide me with that information after the Estimates or after today.

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Chairperson, just to clarify for the honourable member, I mentioned the word "program" but I am a very, I guess, positive-thinking person because in my own home communities when I realize that a whole number of groups are having discussions that ultimately probably will be giving birth to a program. Not to say that there is not the possibility here because I think, as the member indicated, that so many groups now are addressing the issue that ultimately, if everybody is working together co-operatively and as partners in this whole thing, a program might be born out of it that has some structure to it and has reasonable objectives and it can accomplish a lot. Residential Tenancies, I am sure, would be, if that was a part of it, part of the entire scheme.

Right now, Residential Tenancies, of course, is working with a number of community groups throughout the city with regard to this type of a problem and certainly not only working with the City of Winnipeg health officials, with health orders, but also with the offices of the Fire Commissioner in the fire department as well, and translating this into working with the local community groups in terms of addressing some of these issues. But overall, I do not believe there is a structured program in place right now with regard to this whole issue of run-down properties and properties in desperate need of repair. That is not to say that, over the next period of time, there might not be something as a result of the discussions that take place.

Ms. Cerilli: I also know, I have had some correspondence with the minister and the department about the review of the Residential Tenancies Branch and the act and sort of the parameters of that review, and I want to find out what the status of that is now. I am assuming that the contract has been awarded and that it is ongoing. I know that you have had a few focus groups and I do not have the letter with me where you gave some description of the parameters of the review, but I want to just find out when we can expect that to be completed and the kind of report and recommendations that you are looking for.

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Chairperson, I am advised that the clarification for the member is that the review that is going on is a review of the business practices for the branch, not the legislation, not the act, and when this review is completed, I am told that they are expecting it in the late summer to be tabled with the branch, so that is all I can share with the member right now.

Ms. Cerilli: I know one of the issues that both landlords and tenants are questioning in terms of the operations of the branch is the fact that there is not that great a record on compliance with orders, that residents, tenants and landlords can go before the board and the commissioner and a decision is made, and it is not necessarily the case that the decision is complied with, that if a tenant is awarded a return of a damage deposit or if a landlord is awarded damages because of a tenant skipping rent or damaging their property, collecting is a problem. I am wondering if the branch is in any way trying to address that and if that is part of this review at all.

Mr. Pitura: I am advised that the Residential Tenancies Branch vigorously enforces the issue of security deposits, and in order to enforce that they will even go as far as having rent redirects in order to cover off the security deposit. Other outstanding issues between the landlord and tenant with regard to money–any order that is made by the board is filed with the court. Once that is filed with the court, then the judgment has to be addressed by the claimant or the petitioner, petitioned through the court in order to get the judgment carried out. But the order is filed with the court, and that is as far as it can go.

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to begin with a procedural question for the Chair, and that is earlier this afternoon did the committee grant leave to allow staff to answer questions directly.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): The honourable minister should respond to the question.

Mr. Pitura: I am assuming that the honourable member is asking whether staff can answer questions directly. The answer is if the member wishes to have the staff answer directly, I have no problem with that. We did it earlier in this committee today on the basis of one issue. So if that is suitable with the member, it is suitable to me.

* (1650)

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): The decision in which to involve staff directly in the questioning at the Committee of Supply certainly can be accomplished with the unanimous consent of the committee. Seeing that we do have that at the present time, I would then ask the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) to identify whom you would like the question to be answered by and to ask his questions at this time.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Render) has excellent staff in the Residential Tenancies Branch, all my questions will be for the minister, not because I am trying to give this particular substitute minister a rough time, but only because I believe in our system of parliamentary democracy that the ministers are politically accountable, not civil servants.

My first series of questions has to do with casework of one of my colleagues. So the director of the branch might be familiar with two downtown buildings, 400 and 410 Webb Place, which have recently been sold to a new Montreal-based owner. The landlord has made a curious application before the Residential Tenancies Branch or board. Complaints have been received from some residents of that building who received a notice from their landlord that the owner had applied for a 9 percent rent increase. Meanwhile, the tenants across the hall, with an identical two-bedroom suite, have received notice that their rent is to increase by 18 percent. I would like an explanation as to why this particular landlord would apply for differential rent increases for identical two-bedroom suites.

Mr. Pitura: With regard to the specific property that the honourable member is referring to, I am advised that there is at the present time a current application to the branch, which you may be aware of, and as such cannot make a specific opinion with regard to the individual mechanics of the question that the member was referring to as it is under adjudication. However, I would point out and add that the tenants will all be advised by the branch of the landlord's application that they have received, and they can appear at the branch and state their case. It is advised that they do this on an individual basis, although that does not preclude them from doing it on a group basis as well, if they so choose. They can take a look at all of the information that was supplied to the branch by the landlord to justify the landlord's request for a rent increase. In most cases, or in all cases, the rent increase has to be based on either the operating costs, as an issue for rent increase, or the capital costs, in the case of doing some renovations to the building, or if the landlord is posting a loss on an annual basis and therefore would request a rent increase in order to cover the loss. But the tenants in those particular units will be advised as part of the process so that they can respond to the application by the landlord.

Mr. Martindale: I can appreciate that the minister cannot get into specifics of a particular application, so I will ask a more general policy question. It would seem to me that a landlord could ask for any kind of increase that he or she wants on any unit in a building, but would a landlord normally be justified or successful in getting different rent increases, for example, a 9 percent increase on one suite and an 18 percent increase on an identical suite in the same building?

Mr. Pitura: I am advised that if a landlord makes an application for a rent increase in a rental unit, that the global amount of the rent increase has to be spread out equally amongst all the units. However, what can happen is that the landlord has the authority and the power to reduce the amount of the rent increase, i.e., a discount. The member might wonder why one would even want to make a discount. However, I am advised that if you have an apartment that is opening onto a backlane, it may well be discounted as opposed to the apartment that is facing the park on the other side of the building. So these kinds of differentials take place in these rental units.

Perhaps the member has more specifics. Well, I should not be asking for more specifics, but perhaps the member has an idea of how these apartment units are laid out or perhaps another question along that regard.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell me then if it is possible or conceivable that the landlord might be successful in having different rent increases for different suites? Does this happen? Is this a common occurrence?

* (1700)

Mr. Pitura: Just to further add to the information that I provided the last time, talking about the global rent increase as being spread out equally amongst all of the units, they had to be equal in either (a) percentage or (b) dollars. So in the case of a percentage increase, the calculations would have to be done to see if the rent increase is indeed equal in terms of the dollar increase per unit before an issue would be identified. So that would be an important criterion, but they are subject to that rule, I guess, and it is pretty vigorously enforced.

Mr. Martindale: My other question was: do landlords often or occasionally get differential increases on identical units?

Mr. Pitura: Maybe I will just start off and maybe have to get some more information for the member later. But if you are looking at a multifloored apartment complex, that if it is a 10-storey complex, of course the apartment units on the 10th floor will probably have a higher value to them than they are on the main floor. So there are a number of variables that have to be taken into account in terms of doing the overall calculation to determine if there was not a fair and equitable distribution of the rent right across all the units. So right from the start this whole process, when you are talking about equal percentage, equal dollars, if you are looking at a multifloored apartment block, it becomes skewed because, No. 1, you have the multifloors, two, you have the view, which way you are looking out from your apartment window. So you have to take all those factors into consideration and then do the calculation and then see if indeed all of the apartment units were in fact treated equally.

I guess one of the challenges and responsibilities facing the Residential Tenancies Branch is when they look at the application from the landlord they would have to determine if indeed the landlord has, when asking for the rent increase, spread it out equally amongst all the units in a fair and equitable basis.

Mr. Martindale: My other question is: what does a landlord need to do to justify such massive increases, or, in a more general way, increases over the province's rent control limits? I think I know the answer to that, partly because I helped write the act and partly because the Minister of Government Services has already answered that question. The answer is that the landlord has to justify either operating costs or capital costs or if he experiences a loss on an annual basis.

What concerns me is that we might have a case where there is a new landlord, he or she is asking for a rent increase. It seems to me that if the rent increase came fairly quickly after the landlord acquired the building that they could not justify on the basis of doing capital improvements unless they had actually spent the money on capital improvements. If they are a new landlord, they would not have a history of losses, so they could not use that to justify a rent increase, and if they are a new landlord, they would not have experienced operating cost increases.

Now I hope that the landlord in the particular case that I want to ask about but cannot get answers for a reasonably good reason will not be able to justify an increase, because if they are a new landlord none of those criteria would apply.

Mr. Pitura: Just in response to the member's comments, talking about a new landlord taking over an existing building, in terms of the parameters that were laid out, they would not necessarily apply. However, in my limited economic background, part of your operating costs of course would be your annual amortization costs as well as part of your ongoing costs. I stand to be corrected on that, but if there is an enhanced value for the property, in terms of the sale, indeed this could be part of the cost, and part of the capital cost of the building that would tend to change the numbers.

So it seems simplistic with just taking those three areas and saying you have to qualify under these otherwise you are not going to qualify for the rent increase, but again, the operating costs with the capital costs having a negative margin or a negative loss on the operation is all something that takes quite a bit of detail to work out.

Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that answer. Even without having studied economics, I understand the minister's answer and the situation because it assumes that the new landlord paid a higher price for the building than the previous landlord. Now, if they paid a lower price, it would be different, but if indeed they had paid a higher price for the building then immediately the amortization costs would be higher and therefore the minister would be correct. So I am going to have to go on to another area. [interjection] Oh, the minister wants to give me more information. Okay.

* (1710)

Mr. Pitura: I just love to share as much information as I can.

An Honourable Member: Just read me the act.

Mr. Pitura: Yes, I am just going to read you the act, and this is not the riot act. I am just looking here that if a residential complex has been sold in the preceding three years, then the Residential Tenancies Branch can take a look back over the previous three years with respect to any increases in costs to repairs or maintenance, or if there was inadequate maintenance, what kind of maintenance would be required now that would enhance the present day costs or the amount of increases and cost increases in previous years as a pattern, and the effect of the accumulation of all these costs on the rent increase applied for.

So there is that ability for them to take a look back into the history of the building for the previous three years to try to ascertain whether the rent increase is, indeed, justified on the basis of and in terms of the operating costs of the building, so I just thought I would share that with the member.

Mr. Martindale: I think a lot of the confusion and even anger, because I have dealt with tenants with huge increases in the past, is that people do not understand that we really do not have rent control, strictly speaking. We have a rent pass-through system, so that under many different conditions, the landlord can pass on increased costs to tenants. That is not always easy to explain to people, because they think that because there is rent control and the landlord only gets an automatic 1 percent increase that their increase should only be 1 percent each and every year. It is much, much more complicated than that, as the director of the branch knows.

I heard my colleague for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) earlier asking about a review of, I think she said, The Residential Tenancies Act. Can the minister tell me if there will be landlords and tenants involved in this review as there was in the 1980s?

Mr. Pitura: To respond to the honourable member: when the honourable member for Radisson was asking a question, it was not a review of The Residential Tenancies Act. It was a business processes review of the Residential Tenancies Branch in terms of the way they do their business. They did have focus groups with both landlords and tenants–[interjection] I am advised that they had the landlords in one focus group and tenants in other focus groups, too, to try to ascertain as to what they liked about the delivery of service from the Residential Tenancies Branch, what they did not like, and what they suggested for improvements. So that is the extent of the review that is being done. There is no intent at the present time, at least in the immediate near future, to review the act.

Mr. Martindale: It would be my understanding that basically we have a complaint-driven system, which is true of probably most government departments and government agencies, whether it is City of Winnipeg health department or the Residential Tenancies Branch or whatever. That is okay for people who know what their rights are or for people who can hire a lawyer or people who take the trouble to go to Queen's Printer and buy legislation, but for a lot of people who do not know their rights, the system does not work very well.

In the past there have been some very good programs which Mr. Barsy will be familiar with, such as CARUMP which is an acronym that stood for Core Area Residential Upgrading and Maintenance Program. It was funded by the first and second core area initiatives, but the funding was not continued when the money ran out for the second core area initiative, and so CARUMP was folded. It was a good program because they had door-to-door inspections. They had housing inspectors on the staff. They had social workers on the staff, and they had homemakers on the staff. The reason that they had several disciplines on the staff was that they were using this program primarily in low-income areas. Frequently, as the result of inspections, houses or apartments had to be closed in order to do substantial repairs. So the social workers on the staff helped people to find another place to live, and sometimes they found people that really needed help on a daily basis with surviving, I guess might be a good word, and so they put homemakers into their home.

Currently, I think that there is a need for this kind of program. We have I believe it is about $60 million from the Department of Family Services going into rent, mostly in the inner city of Winnipeg. I have often contended that taxpayers are not getting good value for their money because much of this is going to substandard housing. But in Family Services the philosophy is that social assistance recipients are responsible for finding their own accommodation and that if you take that away or if you involve staff in finding accommodations, somehow you take responsibility away from people. I would look at it slightly differently and say, yes, it is good that people are responsible for themselves in finding their own housing, but frequently with the amount of money that they are allowed to pay for rent, they end up in substandard housing, and there is no one who is, to my knowledge, regularly inspecting it or approving it before a worker says to the landlord here is the rent money, which in many cases goes directly to the landlord. It does not even go through the tenant's hands. So it is basically guaranteed rent for the landlord.

I am wondering if the department has considered reviving a program like CARUMP or any kind of door-to-door inspection program, whether that was broached when the Winnipeg Development Agreement was being negotiated or whether the department thinks it is necessary or would consider it in a future budget, assuming that this government has a future budget.

Mr. Pitura: The member is correct when he states that the Residential Tenancies Branch is a complaint-driven branch. The reason it is a complaint-driven branch is that their primary role is as a mediator in a dispute resolution between landlord and tenant. They have the ability to place orders, but only in specific cases such as the security deposit, for example, on a rent is where they can actually take some vigorous action. The Residential Tenancies Branch is working with the City of Winnipeg health department, I think I mentioned that earlier, where if the health department identifies a building and posts it, then the Residential Tenancies Branch has the ability to carry out the order and make the necessary improvements that are necessary to comply with the health order and charge the landlord with the cost of that work.

They are working with various agencies: I mentioned health; the police will help identify some properties; or, the fire department. They are also working with local community organizations, such as the West Broadway area group, and if necessary, for example, in a health order, they can take action against the entire building. Also, in the case of a building owner who owns other properties, they can redirect the rental income from those other properties to help pay for the costs over this building, that way maintaining the rent at a reasonable level and not giving the landlord the justification to ask for a huge increase because of the costs involved.

* (1720)

So there are a number of things that the branch can do, but there are probably many things that they cannot do, based on the legislation that they work under The Residential Tenancies Act. The member talks about the people who are receiving assistance from the provincial government with regard to the rent that they pay. Yes, I suppose you could make a very strong argument to say, well, we have good accommodation over here, you live there because we are paying the rent, we want value for our money. At the same time, you also have to understand that each and every individual family would also like to have the desire to maybe live where they would like to live. Maybe the type of accommodation that they prefer, which the honourable member referred to as substandard housing because of the area, may be what they are willing to live in. The honourable member and I could take a look at that same accommodation and say, well, this is substandard, this is not possible, it should not happen.

But, again, you know, there are some interesting stories, going back through history, of somebody coming in and saying, you know, I am from the government, I am here to help, and totally almost destroy a culture. We have that example right here in Canada. I can give you countless number of examples that are done through sociology throughout North America and around the world where this has been attempted. So, I guess, what I am saying is that I like to always be a little bit careful as to how much you want to control as to where people would like to live.

The other thing, too, is that even if you had a very elaborate program in place to repair and bring up the standards of the so-called substandard housing, indeed, you are still going to have a level of substandard housing. You are not going to get all the housing at the same standard. There will always be some that will be substandard. It is the same thing as there will always be the very rich, and there will always be the poor. It does not matter how far up you bring the poor, there will always be somebody at that low level. It is just something that the cycle goes on.

The member makes a valid point that certainly it would be desirable to have better quality housing available for these families. I think the Residential Tenancies Branch, within the purview of their act, are doing what they can in terms of co-operating with the other agencies and some of the community groups being able to target some of the properties in terms of getting the landlords to improve these properties so that there are adequate accommodation for these people.

If I might be able to add this, Mr. Chairperson, I am also advised that in the case of an occupancy or a failure to comply with an order filed under the act and is so substantial that the occupancy of the rental unit is or would be unfair to a tenant, or endangers or would endanger the health and safety of a tenant, prohibiting the landlord from renting the rental unit until the contravention is remedied or the order is complied with, that part of the act has some teeth to it. If the housing is so sub-standard, perhaps an order of prohibiting the landlord from even renting that unit would be the best.

Mr. Martindale: Could the minister remind me of what section of the act that is?

Mr. Pitura: The section of the act is 154(1), paragraph 10.

Mr. Martindale: We could probably debate for a long time whether people are forced to accept substandard housing or whether they indeed have a choice, but I should probably better take that up in Family Services Estimates.

I was pleased, however, to hear about the role for the Residential Tenancies Branch in situations where the Health department is involved. I assume that the minister was referring to places that are placarded "insanitary." I have quite a few of those in my constituency, so this is of great interest to me.

I think that the City of Winnipeg health department is the best department–notwithstanding there are some hardworking people in the department under discussion today–of any level of government, federal, provincial or civic. When I phone and ask them to inspect a particular address, they inspect it within 24 hours, they get back to me with a report, and they will tell me if they issued work orders and what the work orders are. I cannot think of any other government department that has a 24-hour turnaround time for a complaint. It is very impressive. They are very responsive, and they get thousands of calls every year. They are always in their office and available from 8:30 to 9:30 in the morning. They have cell phones when they are out in the community doing inspections the rest of the day, and they never fail to visit an address about which there is a complaint or to follow up. I do not how they do it, but it is very much appreciated by myself and my constituency assistants and others when we are doing case work on behalf of constituents.

I wonder if the minister can tell me if the branch can get involved in collecting rent when we are talking about single-family detached houses that are being rented, as well as apartment buildings.

Mr. Pitura: The simple answer is yes.

Mr. Martindale: So, in future, if I am calling a health inspector to look at a particular house, and if he is issuing work orders and/or placarding it insanitary, should I also be phoning the Residential Tenancies Branch?

Mr. Pitura: I am advised that perhaps the protocol that the member may want to pursue is that when the house is placarded, that in terms of the proactive approach the member could carry out is to ensure that the health department registers that health notice, order, with the Residential Tenancies, although I would point out, as well, that there has been a great deal of co-operation between the City of Winnipeg health department and the Residential Tenancies Branch in recent times and that the city health department does register the health orders with the Residential Tenancies Branch.

* (1730)

However, they do not do it or are not required to do it in every case, and, certainly, they do not do it in all cases, so if the honourable member sees a situation where he would like to ensure that that health order is registered with the Residential Tenancies Branch, to perhaps get the city health department to register that with the branch. Then the branch can undertake the action necessary as a part of that health order in terms of upgrading the rental unit.

Mr. Martindale: I must say I am not surprised to hear that this is happening in recent times, although–

An Honourable Member: We are doing great things, Doug.

Mr. Martindale: Well, you might want to disagree with what I am going to say next because with the Pan Am Games coming, you have never seen so many houses demolished in the inner city in your life. Whereas it used to take years, now it takes months. They are on a big cleanup, believe me, in the inner city, in the north end, including in my constituency, and they were doing one a day last fall. I do not know what they are doing now, but there is a big push on, and that is what civil servants tell me, is that it is because of the Pan Am Games.

So I think the words "recent times" was probably a well-chosen expression on the part of the minister, but, you know, I am still glad to hear that the health department is registering their work orders with the Residential Tenancies Branch. That is good to hear.

I would like to ask the minister if he feels that as a result of the Residential Tenancies Branch getting involved at the same time as the City of Winnipeg health department, that the branch is being successful in getting landlords to repair properties and put them back on the housing market, as opposed to doing nothing and having the city follow up, because when work orders are issued they do a re-inspection, and if nothing happens, then they can proceed with a demolition order which does take time, but some landlords are choosing to do nothing and have the house demolished and sell the lot.

But I would be interested in knowing if some landlords, as a result of the branch being involved, are fixing up houses and apartments and putting them back on the market.

Mr. Pitura: I am advised that the City of Winnipeg has given feedback to the Residential Tenancies Branch that when the Residential Tenancies Branch does participate in these particular projects with the City of Winnipeg health department, the city is finding out and experiencing that, because of the fact Residential Tenancies can do something about the rent, the City of Winnipeg is reporting back that the landlords are indeed doing the repairs much more expediently because of the fact that they can lose the rent from that particular dwelling.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I am certainly happy to hear that. I wonder if the branch has any statistics on the number of landlords that are choosing to do repairs and the number that decide not to and let the house or building go.

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Chairperson, the statistics that the honourable member is asking for in specific, we advise that we cannot supply the statistics as in terms of being able to use them as a comparative analysis, but certainly the statistics are available for the number of requests for repairs. I can share those numbers with the honourable member right now.

If you take a look at 1997-98, the number of units that had repairs was 677, and if you look at 1998-99, the total number of units under repair was 753. So that is a fairly substantial increase one year over the next. I am advised that it is attributed to the extra activity that has taken place as a result of the City of Winnipeg health department and the Residential Tenancies Branch working on a more co-operative basis.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I am certainly happy to hear that. I wonder if the minister would be willing to ask or direct the branch to send a memo to MLAs who represent inner city constituencies and let them know about this co-operation, which is news to me, which I think is quite helpful information and will certainly benefit many constituents in the inner city. Now it appears to me that it is happening automatically. Maybe the minister could confirm that or not.

If I am phoning the city health department, I would certainly like to put in a request that the Residential Tenancies Branch be notified. So I am wondering if the branch or the minister would be willing to send a memo and advise at least inner city MLAs, if not MLAs that have large numbers of tenants, which would also include Brandon and Thompson. I do not know if you get a lot of complaints like this from suburban Winnipeg. I would be rather surprised that you would get the health department going in and issuing work orders in suburban Winnipeg, but perhaps. What about the basic request? Is that something you would look on favourably?

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Chairperson, I think in response to the honourable member's question, that is a question I will have to take as notice, and I will ensure that the minister responds directly to the member on that.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, I was pleased to read in the most recent annual report of the department that there is an activity that I was not aware of. Maybe one should read all the annual reports. In fact, we used to get all the annual reports and they did not get read very much, and in an attempt to save money, only the critics get the reports and the research staff gets the reports.

An Honourable Member: But do they read them?

Mr. Martindale: Well, this critic reads them from cover to cover, but I only get one.

I was pleased to see the tenant education volunteer program described here, and perhaps the requests for repairs are up because tenants are more aware of their rights as a result of tenant education being done.

I am wondering if this program is something that I as an MLA and other MLAs could tap into. Can we phone the branch and request that staff do tenant education with our constituents at a particular building or at a public meeting?

* (1740)

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Chairperson, I am advised, and we had some discussion on this the previous time, that the Residential Tenancies Branch does put out a fairly comprehensive education package with respect to the rights that tenants have in the written form. They are, of course, welcome to take that information home and read it.

I am also advised that there are staff or volunteers, I guess, at the Residential Tenancies Branch. I was going to say hires, but then you have to pay them. They bring them into the fold of the Residential Tenancies Branch on a volunteer basis. They go out and, based I guess either on request-driven or a need identified, speak with groups to advise them about their rights under The Residential Tenancies Act and what the landlord's obligations are with respect to the rental accommodations. So the more education that is done in this manner, the tenants in any kind of rental accommodation will have a better idea of what their rights are.

It is not going to be foolproof and capture everybody, but, certainly, as more and more people become aware of The Residential Tenancies Act and what it stands for, we will be more able to take action to protect their rights.

Mr. Martindale: I wonder if the minister could tell me if I can put in a request to have volunteers come out and do education in the Burrows constituency. Is that a possibility?

Mr. Pitura: Well, I say yes and I say a qualified yes. I am assuming that the member for Burrows is willing to sponsor such an event and to provide the coffee, doughnuts, meeting hall, et cetera, for the many hundreds.

However, probably the best way to facilitate the process would be, if you have a group that is identified, that when you are having discussions with them that they have an interest, then they can certainly make contact and the branch will be more than happy to come out and set up a session with them. That is an ongoing thing, and I guess there is, you know, depending on availability of resources and the number of volunteers who are available at any given time, they certainly have no problem trying to fill that kind of a basic need because the education is very important as to how people understand the legislation that affects them with regard to their accommodation.

You know, there are many acts of this Legislature that are out there that we as citizens of this province must know and understand because it affects us. They have that old saying that ignorance of the law is no defence, so it is everybody's responsibility to know the legislation. If the Residential Tenancies Branch can help with regard to the education because they are a mediator, and, of course, if they can do less mediating or when they do a mediation that they have basically a process that is well in place, it will make everybody's life a lot easier.

So the more education that is out there, the better.

Mr. Martindale: I know that the government is constantly being lobbied by landlords to get rid of rent control, and we have met with landlords on the same topic. I am wondering if the minister can tell me what it is that landlords want these days. Do they want to get rid of rent control entirely? Do they want to see the legislation amended? What is the government's response? Are you committed to rent control, or are you promising to get rid of it after the next election?

Mr. Pitura: I see the honourable member has asked for my personal opinion.

Landlords, certainly they have been lobbying the provincial government for larger increases in the rent control, but I look at the whole area and the number of years that rent controls have been in place. Certainly, you know, during the high inflationary periods, the rent increases were fairly substantial.

But the interesting thing about looking at rent controls and rent increases is that each and every year they go up. If you look through the recessionary years, they did not go down. So for all the landlords who would put a very positive argument for the justification of the rent increases going up, you can say, well, if you did not have rent increases and you had a very open, competitive market to try to rent out rental units, it, in fact, may have dropped, but everybody was faced with a uniform 1 percent increase. So my own personal viewpoint when I take a look at rental increases being patterned on that and we have control over the rental increase is that you may be controlling the minimum type of rise, but you also are creating a maximum.

That is one of the things that even as a bureaucrat working for the provincial government, was that every time we had maximum levels for the amount of dollars that you could recover for your meal expenses, okay, it was listed as a maximum, but it was really a minimum. Everybody claimed the maximum, so it became the minimum, and that is one of the things that if you take a look at the rent control guidelines, that indeed you are, and if you go back over the number of years, it has always gone up.

There are things in this society in terms of the economic competition that certainly during the recession went down. So as much as I can appreciate the arguments that are coming forward, you know, when rent controls are in place, I am not in a position at this point in time to be able to indicate to the member what the future has in store for rent controls. It is an issue that has to be collectively agreed to by the government of the day, and that is something that may indeed in the near future come up in discussion, or it may not.

So I really cannot give the member a straight answer on that one, as much as I would like to, but he certainly has had some of my own personal comments on it.

Mr. Martindale: I think the minister's answers just leave me confused because it sounded like he was defending rent control, but I did not hear him say that his government is irrevocably committed to keeping rent control in place. It sounds like the minister is kind of waffling on the issue of rent control. He is sort of defending it, but he is not saying that his government is committed to keeping it in place. One of the things that–[interjection]

An Honourable Member: So what is the position of Her Majesty's official opposition?

Mr. Martindale: We are committed to rent control.

An Honourable Member: That is on the record, I presume, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Martindale: Well, I will repeat it. The NDP is committed to keeping rent control in place. I do not have any problem putting that on the record. I was hoping to get the minister on the record, but I was not successful.

* (1750)

One of the things that landlords do not tell us when they are lobbying us or maybe do not acknowledge or maybe do not want to acknowledge is something that tenants have figured out. For example, I met with tenants from, I believe, Roslyn Road. They had received rent increases, and they have done a lot of figuring on what goes into landlords' calculations, particularly when it comes to increased rent on the part of the landlords. What they pointed out to me, which was very, very interesting, is that every time the landlord justifies a rent increase because they have in the most common example spent money on capital improvements for a building, the rent goes up, and that becomes the new plateau. Any increases are based on that new plateau, but after the landlord recovers their costs from the rent, the rent does not go down. It stays at that plateau

I guess as long as the landlord is in a position of being able to raise the rent because of the rental market in their particular neighbourhood, they can take advantage of that. Now, obviously, that does not work if they cannot attract tenants, but if they are in an extremely attractive rental neighbourhood like Osborne Village, their revenue is constantly going up, not just because of recovering their capital costs but because of the new plateau.

I cannot even think of a question to ask on this because I see the staffperson nodding his head. Oh, well, I will let the minister respond. Does the minister agree with me that that is the case?

Mr. Pitura: Mr. Chair, the honourable member is talking about the rents and the rent increases. The thing that is missing out of the equation often when you are taking a look at having rent control increases is that one is always assuming there is 100 percent occupancy in all the rental units in Winnipeg, and that is far from reality.

The rental units in Winnipeg, of course, are driven largely by the market in terms of supply and demand. I think what the member pointed out, too, is that if you are in an area of the city that is a prime market area and you happen to own a rental accommodation there, the rent that is recouped on those units is probably a very healthy level of rent. If you are in an area where there just is not the attraction, then you are going to have to adjust your rents in order to be able to attract people to live there who feel it is a good deal.

That is still the basic driving force behind everything that we do in this province, is that ability of the market of supply and demand. You can argue that rent controls were put into place at a time when inflation was jumping along pretty good and you could argue justifiably that none of the properties warranted the huge rent increases that were being brought in, so rent controls tended to cushion that blow during the high inflation period. But, at the same time, every time you put in a government program of that type, you end up controlling it.

You have to sit back and wonder and take a look at the number of years where the rent increases have been regulated to 1 percent over history, and because of that fact, you look back and say, well, what if they were not there? What would have happened if they were not there? You always have to ask those questions. I find myself asking myself these questions in many aspects of everything that government has got itself involved in, is what would have happened if government had not been here and other forces were able to be exercised?

There are many areas in agriculture I ask that question as to where we would be today in many areas of our agricultural industry–

An Honourable Member: All the farmers would be bankrupt.

Mr. Pitura: Well, the member's opinion is that many farmers would be bankrupt, but there may also be the opposite side, that agriculture may have been totally different than what it is today. So I will leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.

The Acting Chairperson (Mr. Faurschou): Is there agreement to call it six o'clock? [agreed]

The hour being six o'clock, committee rise.