Manitoba Hansard — 15 May 1984 (Sitting 22B, 32nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

32-3-22b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 228 - 8:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 15 MAY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, O.C., Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING , O.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, O.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, O.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vie SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Spring field Th ompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park Th e Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charles wood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Glad stone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP IND NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 15 May, 1984. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HOUSING MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Committee, please come to order. In this

section of the Committee of Supply, we'll now be dealing with Estimates of the Department of Housing. We shall begin with the statement from the Honourable Mini ster responsible for this department. Mr. Mini ster. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a copy of my remarks for my critic, Mr. Nordman. I am especially pleased to be able to deliver these opening remarks as the Minister of Housing. As you know, Premier Howard Pawley annou nced the establishment of Manitoba Housing in August of 1982.

At that time, the department consisted of th ree branches, the Office of the Rentalsman, the Rent Regulation Bureau, and the Rent Appeals Branch. The adminis trative and commun ications functions were provided by Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the majority of the 1983-84 fiscal year. In April of 1984, the staff formerly assigned to the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation (MHRC) were transferred to Manitoba Housing.

These Estimates before us today for the year ending March 31, 1985, represent our ini tiative to int egrate the full admini strative costs associated with 21 housing-related programs and the efforts of 250 staff operating under three acts. Expanding Manitoba Housing in this manner allows this government to place a clear priority on the housing needs of Manitobans. lt enables a more co-ordinated approach to the increasingly complex housing industr y. lt is a major task to develop a rational housing policy incorporating various aspects of shelter and shelter needs within a provincial context.

Manitoba Housing has been mandated to ensure an adequate supply of affordable housing for all Manitobans. This department-wide goal is composed of four objectives, to which all of our programming relates. These objectives are: 1. To enhance the affordability of housing for Manitoba ns, particularly low-income households; 2. To maintain and impr ove the qua ntity and quality of our housing stock; 3.

To provide a realistic system that is fair to both landlords and tenants by ensuring that the level of rent increases for households fairly reflects substantiated cost inc reases and the general rate of inflation; and 4. To provide an equitable basis by which relations between landlords and tenants may be governed and their disputes effectively arbitrated. 846 I would like to provide some examples to highlight the effectiveness of Manitoba Housing 's programs in fulfilling these four objectives.

The first objective of Manitoba Housing is to enhance the affordability of shelter within the provin ce, particularly for low-income families and for the elderly. In pursuit of this objective, my department administers a numb er of programs including shelter allowances, public non-profit housing, and mortgage financing.

I would like to interject here that the recent Affordable New Homes Programs, sponsored by the Jobs Fund and offering 10 percent mortgages for a five-year term, was judged by the building indu stry to be the most successful provincial housing program in Canada. lt was successful because it stimulated activity that other wise might not have occurred. Demand was created by people wanting to buy new homes. Financing was arranged through the private sector. Builders pre sold land and house designs, and now construction related trades are working to honour these commitments by building houses.

Manitoba is one of the four provinces offering Shelter Allowance Programs, the others being British Columbia, New Brunswick and Quebec. A total of 4,300 clients, both elderly people and low income families living in private sector rental units, received approximately $4.1 million in Shelter Allowance payments during 1983-84. This program provides a clear alternative to households with affordability problems who wish to remain in private rental housing. Pensioners renting accommodation from the private sector also receive annual rebates for the school tax portion of their rent.

During the 1983-84 fiscal year, approximately $1.1 million was paid to 6,300 pensioners. Much of this discretionary income Is then funnelled back into Manitoba's economy through consumer spending. Public housing also plays an important role in the provision of shelter altern atives. The Property Management Branch of my department administers and maintains in excess of 16,700 units thr oughout Manitoba. These units house seniors, families and the handicapped who are selected on the basis of need by local housing authorities. Rent is geared to income with 25 percent of a tenant's income going towards rent.

In Manitoba, there are 128 housing authorities and sponsors ranging in size from six to nine board members. These boards are generally composed of equal numb ers of people appointed to be representatives of the Provincial Government, the Municipal Government, and the tenants living in housing projects administered by the Housing Authority Board. In total, there are approximately 1,000 people actively involved in provincial housing authorities. That's quite an impressive number, 1,000 individuals, and each is serving without remuneration.

These facts reaffirm that housing authorities and sponsors are a tremendous human resource, a liaison between local communities and Manitoba Housing.

Tuadey, 15 May. 1184 have recently had the privilege of addressing mem bers of the housing authorites and sponsors at a series of workshops organized by my depart ment. This was a very worthwhile experience. The sessions provided a forum to exchange Ideas, to share concerns, and to encourage suggestions for improving housing related programs. My department will continue to work closely with housing authorities and sponsors. In fact, meetings will soon be held to review budgets. The co-operation of board members during periods of financial restraint has been much appreciated.

Manitoba Ho using has also maintained its commitment towards meeting the housing needs of the handicapped. The 75-unit facility known as Te n Te n Sinclair was considered to be a novel concept when its doors opened in 1975, and it continues to be a model of co-operation involving Manitoba Housing, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, The Canadian Paraplegic Association, Manitoba Community Servies and Correction and Manitoba Health.

My department shares in the operating costs of Te n Te n Sinclair in order to make rents more affordable Handicapped tenants who "graduate" from the educational and motivational environment of Te n Ten Sinclair are ready for more inde pendent living alternatives within society at large. Three Fokus projects have been developed to meet this need. Funds are made available for ongoing ret rofitting and modifying of public and private sector rental units as required by tenant turn over or, in some cases, as the environmental needs of individuals change because of progressive disabilities.

Rent supplements are also provided to make rents more affordable. I am pleased that negotiations are under way for the development of a fourth Fokus project, whereby handicapped tenants will be located within an apartment block owned and operated within the private sector. Landlords and property managers within the private sector, both entrepreneurs and non-profit group s, have also participated in Manitoba Ho using's Rent Supplement Program by providing some 1, 780 units. Ongoing subsidies are provided to enable low-Income elderl y, families and handicapped people to live in private rental housing.

This type of integrated approach is very effective and beneficial for all concerned. Assistance to enhance affordability has and is also being provided to home-owners. Under The Mobile Home Loan Guarantee Program, purchasers of mobile homes are able to obtain mortgage insurance similar to conventional housing. This program assists in making mobile ho mes a viable housing alternative for Manitobans.

Home-owners paying in excess of 30 percent of their income towards housing as a result of renewing a mortgage between July 1, 1981 and December 31, 1983 were eligible for assistance under the Mortgage Interest Rate Relief Program. Direct subsidies to a maximum of $275 per month are paid for up to 24 months. This applied to mortgage values of up to the first $40,000.00. Since its inception , this program has assisted approximately 1, 400 home-owners to keep their homes. The second objective of Manitoba Housing is to maintain and to improve the quality and quantity of housing stock province- wide.

During 1983, Manitoba experienced a three-fold increase in housing starts with totals soaring from 2,000 to 6,000. 847 The construction and sale of new homes during 1983 were stimulated by simultaneous federal and provincial funding. The $3,000 CMHC grant and Manitoba's subsidized mortgage interest rate under the Affordable New Homes Program worked in tandem. Some critics have weighted the credit for increased housing starts in favour of the lump sum grant. Howev er, depart mental survey results indicated the importance of a fixed low interest rate for a five-year term.

Permit me to review some of the specific results. The survey, conducted during the fall of 1983, polled a total of 200 Affordable New Home clients. lt was found that 44 percent of the respondents were ranters prior to buying an affordable new home. Of these previous ranters, 77 percent would not have purchased a new home without a provincial program and 61 perce nt would have remained ranters. The difference between those figures, or the 16 percen t, would have purch ased resale housing.

This indicates that the program was success ful in freeing-up rental units by providing an incentive for peop le to buy their own new homes. When asked about the most important factors contributing to the decision to buy a new home, purchasers noted the combination of the lower fixed interest rate, the longer term and the open mortgage. This same combination of features was again offered in Janua ry thr ough March of 19 84 to first-time purchasers of new homes so as to assist in releasing the pressure on our tight rental situation.

The reintroduction of the Affordable New Homes Program, sponsored by the Jobs Fund and without any federal program dovetai ling, produc ed results that corroborated the survey I referenced earlier. Mortages at 10 percent interest for five years are being arranged for approximately 580 new homes. These 580 new homes greatly surpassed our original estimate of 150 homes as uptake under the three-month program. Preliminary data analyzing the first 94 applications indicate that 11 percent of this new construction occurred outside Winnipeg.

The average mortgage was $5 1,2 00, which is considerably lower than the $62,270 allowable maximum including the mortgage amount and the mortgage insurance fees. Two-thirds of the clients purchasing affordable new homes were moderate income earners. Approximately half were marr ied couples without dependants. However, singles and people with dependants were also well repres ented. lt should also be noted that the Affordable New Homes Program was, to a large extent, responsible for the construction and marketing of houses within a more moderate price range.

Prior to the program's inception, new housing stock within the $55,000 to $65,000 price range was relatively scarce. This is no longer the case. The Affordable New Homes Programs of 1983 and 1984 have assisted in making the purchase of new homes a reality for more Manitobans. Jobs have been created in construction and housing-related industries resulting from the demand for homes and the retail sales of appliances, furnishings, decorating products and many other household goods and services. lt is also estimated that the Province of Manitoba benefited from the revenue generated by this activity.

The tremendous success of the Affordable New Homes Program is a credit to the effective working

Tueaday, 15 May, 1984 rela tionships between Manitoba Housing and the Home Builde rs' Associa tion, the Construction Assoc iation, the Real Estate Boards and Institute, and the Mortgage Loans Associa tion. More specifical ly, the Home Builders offered some program suggestions during the preliminary planning. Negotiations with financial institutions during program development resulted in six organizations agreeing to act as servicing agents for Manitoba Housing.

These financial organizations included: Assiniboine Credit Union Ltd., Bank of Nova Scotia, Caisse Populaires, CIBC Mortgage Corporation, Cuts Loan Corporation Ltd., and the Royal Bank of Canada. A series of five regional mee tings involving representatives from each of the associations was held to discuss program details. Program brochures were distributed throughout their systems to potential clients. Program advertising was also arranged at the initiative and cost of home builders, realtors, financial institutions, and co-operatives.

Manitoba Housing also developed the Meadows West Sub-Division at a time when rea sonably-priced Winnipeg lots were scarce. This step enabled home builders and individuals to purchase or lease over 300 lots in total. Arrangements are now being made for a regular bus service throughout the neighbourhood. The construction of local elementary and junior high schools is also scheduled to begin in the next year. The marketing of infill homes proved to be yet another success for Manitoba Housing during the 1983-84 fiscal year.

Seven designs for homes to be built on narrow, 25-foot or 30-foot lots in the core area of Winnipeg were selected from a novel architectural competition during the fall of 1982. A total of 69 such houses have been constructed on scattered sites, and have been sold. Public inter est in this program has been very gratifying. The infill program's innovative designs have been lauded nationally, and were recently the subject of an

article in the Canadian Architectural Journal. I should also mention that one specific design, the Patterson designed by Giovanni Geremia, recently won an award in competition organized by the Design Institute of Manitoba. Turning from home-ownership to the residential rental market, it is true that vacancy rates in Manitoba are very low. The most current CMHC vacancy rate is 0.9 percent. There were, however, approximately 2,400 privately initiated rental units started in Manitoba between January, 1983 and March of'84.

Winnipeg will benefit from approximately 2,080 of these units, and Brandon will benefit from the remaind er. During 1982, the construction of 690 apartment units was initiated with 655 located in Winnipeg and 35 located in Selkirk. The total number of apartment starts for 1981 was 148. lt is understandable that such little activity has taken place previou sly, given the high interest rates and especially the loss of population during the 1977 to 198 1 period.

The availability of mortgage capital, labour and materials, and the basic law of supply and demand have also had significant impact on privately-initiated · rental construction activity. lt is also understandable that the industry should have taken some time in adjusting to the more recent reversal in the population trend. I am pleased to reiterate that the industry is clearly now responding to this positive turn of events and, 848 along with our own progr ammin g activities, it is expected that the vacancy rate will incr ease ac cordi ngly.

The broad rule of thumb suggests a one percentage point increase in the vacancy rate for every 600 units added to the rental market. However, the latent take up potential for these units is unde termined. For example, people may be staying with friends or relatives, and young adults may be remaining in their parents' home longer than anticip ated. Some movement in tenancy may also occur as individuals and families choose to relocate from the core to the suburbs or vice versa.

Manitoba Housing is monitoring the effect of these new privately initiated rental un its, and we are considering the launching of a new inc entive program for the development of additional units. The provision of residential rental housing also involves the construction of public and private non profit housing for families, seniors and people with special needs. The number of public housing units built on an annual basis is limited by the unit allocation given to the province by CMHC.

During the 1983-84 fiscal year, Manitoba Housing lobbied at the local, regional, and national office levels to demonstrate the need for further units. CMHC acknowledged the strength of our arguments and the sincerity of our commitment to provide adequate housing by doubling the allocation of units with the accompanying funding. As a result, Manitoba Housing is entitled to 405 units with the accompanying financial assistance. The net provincial share of costs total $20 million.

This dramatic increase in unit allocation and funding clearly demonstrated the effective working relat ionships between Manitoba Housing and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As recently announced, Manitoba Housing has developed a three-year building plan based on the CMHC alloca tions and needs in commun ities throughout the province. This three-year plan brings us a step closer to our stated intention to develop a rational housing policy incorporating various aspects of shelter and shelter needs within a provincial context.

Funding in the order of $1 ,040,000 was provided to six non-profit housing corporations for the construction of 372 units. This money was given in the form of capital grants equiv alent to 5 percent of the approved capital cost of constructi on. As mentioned before, lower income resi dents in these private non-profit projects are eligible for Shelter Allowance Assistance.

I would like to take this opportunity to commend the tremendous work being ac compl ished by these non profit housing corporations. lt is one thing to identify a local need for shelter; it is quite another to take the initiative to raise money, to prepare plans, to obtain financing, and to supervise construction. I applaud the efforts and the dedication of the people involved. Manitoba Housing also plays a role in assisting co operative groups in their quest to establish housing co-ops. This is accomplished jointly with CMHC and Manitoba Co-operative Dev elopment.

My department is keenly interested in exploring the possibilities of facilitating the development of co-operative housing in Manitoba as a unique alternative between rental and home ownership. I have spoken at length about the activities of Manitoba Housing directed toward ensurin g an

Tueaday, 15 May, 1984 adequate supply of housing throughout our province. Our successes in this endeavour must not totally overshadow the construc tive steps taken toward the maintaining and impr oving the quality of existing housing stock. A large percentage of Manitoba's housing stock was built prior to the 1950's. Maintenance, renovation and conversion are required to enhance the life-span of these homes, to upgrade for energy conservat ion, to protect the unique character of older neighbourhoods, and to meet the current housing needs of local residents.

To address this challenge within Winnipeg, Manitoba Housing has provided financial assistance and direction to the Winnipeg Housing Rehabilitation Corporation (WRHA). The renovation and conversion of various projects has enabled the WHR C to hone their knowledge and skills. This type of expertise will become increasingly critical to the housing industry in the near futur e. As evidence of this growing demand for renova tions to existing housing stock, I would like to highlight some pertinent statistics. Statistics Canada figures reveal that money spent for renova tions doubled between 19 78 and 19 82.

The total Canada-wide expenditure amounted to more than $5 billion, which represents a 12 percent annual increase after Inflation. A similar doubling in expenditur es for renovations resulting in increased value of housing also occurred in Manitoba. A total of $1 05.6 million spent in 1978 jumped to $200.2 million in 1982. On a houshold basis, the average family expenditure In 1978 was $321 in comparison with $568 in 1982. lt is clear that Manitobans are allocating part of their inc omes to home improvements. This demand has resulted in work for tradespeople thr oughout the province.

With this increased activity, problems have arisen concerning work quality. The Manitoba Home Builders' Association has both confirmed the swelling Importance of home renovat ions, and has announc ed the imple mentation of a vehicle for monitoring the renovation aspect of the housing market. My department welcomes the introduction of a renovation program initiated and administered by the industry. The Manitoba Home Builder's Association, in particu lar, is to be congratulated as a driving force behind this endeavour.

I am also heartened that my department's active encouragement of the Association to move in this direction was heeded so quickly. Financial assistance for and inspection of renovation and upgr ading work com pleted as a result of government assistance are provided directly by Manitoba Housing. Under the Critical Home Repair Program, grants and/or loans are available to moderate and low-income families and pensioners for the purpose of making necessary repairs. Critical repairs are intended to extend the long-term viability of the home. Major plumbing, electrical and foundation repairs qualify.

Repairs of this nature were made possible for approximately 2,800 households during 1983-84 at an expenditure of $3.6 million. Departmental inspection staff conducted about 800 inspections of homes re ceiving financial assistance under CMHC's Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program or Manitoba Hydro's Home Owners' Insulation Loan Program and for other provincial departments 849 on a request basis. This co-operation among provincial bodies and between levels of government again reflects the integrated approach being cultivated and maintained by Manitoba Housing.

The third objective provides a system of equating rent Incr eases to substantiated cost Inc reases and the rate of inflation. December, 1983, marked the first full calendar year of operation for the Rent Regulation Bureau. Manitoba landlords applied for increases above the 8 percent increase guideline in 1983 for 9,008 units.

This repres ents 9.4 percent of approximately 96,200 rental units in the province that are subject to rent regulation. lt also represents a 40 percent drop in application over the previous year. lt is true that tenants' objections to rent incre ases at or below the 8 percent guideline were four times the 1982 rate. However, the 358 tenant objections represent a very small percentage when compared to the total number of rent increases reported.

In short, the 40 percent decline in landlord applications above guideline and the relatively few tenant objections below guideline suggest that the guideline of 8 percent was realistic. Preliminary data for 1984 indicate that the average requested rent increase continues to drop from previous years' figures. lt appears that landlords are carefully assess ing their financial positions, and are requesting more moderate increases. Due to the early stage and tentative nature of the 1984 data, no further conclusions can be drawn at this time.

The fourth objective of Manitoba Housing is to provide an equitable basis by which relations bet ween landlords and tenants may be governed and their disputes effectively arbitrated. For this purpose, The Landlord and Te nant Act was dev eloped and the Office of the Rentalsman was established. I have often heard it said that, "lt is not who is right but what is right." This is the attitude taken by staff when they fielded approximately 94,000 telephone inquiries, and handled over 6,000 complaints during 1983.

The Residential Rent Regulation Act allows both landlords and tenants to appeal any recommendation of a Rent Regulation Officer. Appeal panels generally consist of three people who review written submissions and hold hearings to listen to both sides of the case before rendering a decision. During 1983, there were 1, 643 appeals in comparison with 3,885 in 1982. This marks an ove rall decrease of 58 percent In the numb er of recommendations appealed. The proportion of landlord to tenant appeals has also shifted in a more balanced manner.

About 60 percent of the appeals were initiated by landlords, and 40 percent by tenants. Appeal panels upheld re commended rents in 65.9 percent of the rental units review ed. Meanwhile, 23.9 percent of the appeals resulted in Increases, and 10.2 percent resulted In decreases. I would like to take this opportunity to mention the working relationship that exists between members of my department and the Manitoba Landlords' Association and the Profes sional Property Managers' Association. Formal meetings and informal contacts have been undertaken. Their suggestions for improving

Tueeday, 15 May, 1984 sections of The Landlord and Te nant Act concerning security depo sits and evictions have been sought. The Professional Property Managers subm itted cost projections for upgrading residential rental buildings to meet new City of Winnipeg fire safety by-laws. I look forward to the continuance of this type of constructive working relationship. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate the priority that our government is placing on housing. lt is a complex area that requir es effective formal and informal working relat ionships among all segments of the housing industry.

Manitoba Housing is doing its part to administer 21 programs affecting over one-quarter of our population in all stages of the life cycle with varying shelter needs. Our range of programming is designated to support a variety of shelter alternatives and does, in fact, offer a broader range than any provided elsewhere in Canada. The increase in funding is in recognition of the fact that housing dollars are perhaps the best investment in meeting the various economic and social objectives of government in harder economic times.

Making the transition to a department has been difficult on the staff of Manitoba Housing. Change is difficult, even when it is positive. I would like to voice publicly a note of thanks to the stall of Manitoba Housing for their ded ication to fulfilling their jobs and for their commitment to serving the housing needs of Manitobans. MR. CHAIRMAN: Consistent with customary usage in this Committee of Supply, the Chair now calls upon the lead ing opposition critic to kindly make his reply, if he so wishes. MR. R. NORDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the Minister for his opening remarks, even if they were pretty extended. I don't particularly wish to get into any long dissertation of facts, but would rather choose to get into the Estimates to seek out information from the Minister, and to attempt to discuss reasonably the activities of the department. I'm sure that we will touch on almost every phase of the Minister's speech during the Estimate procedure. So, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further to comment on that. We could possibly go right into the Estimates at this point. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Before we go to the Main Estimates, the Chair now invites the membe rs of the departmental stall to take their respective places. Deferring Item 1.(a)( 1) which relates to the Minister's Salary for later consideration, we shall proceed and begin with Item 1.(a)(2)(

a) and 1.(a)(2)(b), namely, Current Operating Expenditures, Executive Support, Salaries, Other Expenditures - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, on the Salaries, I just assume, it's just a minor increase there. I don't imagine there have been any cuts or any additions. 1· just assume, Mr. Chairman, that this is a normal increase in wages? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, there has been no increase in the total numb er of stall within the department in 1984-85 over 1983-84. 850 MR. R. NORDMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Could you give us some explanation as to the increases in Other Expenditures?

I know it's not a great deal, but it is an increase. What is the rationale on that, please? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The increase from $32,000 to $45,000, is that the question? MR. R. NORDMAN: Yes that's right, Sir. Could it be inflationary? HON . J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm advised by stall that the increase is primarily due to increase in transportation costs, and the greater effort on the part of the department stall to get out into the field and deal with the local authorities and so on. MR. CHAIRM AN: Are there any other que stions? If not, 1.(a)(2)(

a) Executive Support, Salaries. MR. R. NORDMAN: I thought we were going to deal with the Minister's Salary at the later date? MR. CHAIRMAN: Ye s. lt is now 1.(a)(2)(

a) Executive Support, Salaries- pass; Executive Support, Other Expenditures 1.(a)(2)(b)- pass. Proceed ing, 1.(a)(3)(

a) relating to Research and Planning, Salaries, along with 1. (a)(3)(

b) Other Expenditu res - the Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure whether this is the appropriate time to discuss the contents of a news release by the department on May 1 1th announcing the three-year, $60 million housing plan, but in particular it refers to: "For the first time, stall will be able to plan project development on a provincewide, longer-term basis." So I assume that maybe I could discuss this under the general area of Research and Planning? MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreea ble to the comm ittee? MS. M. PHILLIPS: Is it agreeable to the Minister?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it agree able to the Minister? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: If he would like to discuss that particular aspect at this point, I have no object ions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well I wonder if I could ask the Minister then, under this announcement of a three-year, $60 million housing plan, it is indicated that 1,200 housing units have been committed. The y're under specific programs, as I understand it. I wonder if the Minister could indicate what have been the commitments under those specific programs in, say, the past lour or live years.

What have been the numbers on an annualized basis comparatively? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: These units are part of an allocation under

Section 56. 1 Non-profit, The National

Tuesday, 15 May. 1184 Housing Act. I'm advi�ed that, in 1982, the allocation for Manitoba was 125; 1983, it was 75. The commitment, 125 units were committed in 1982; and 75 in 1983. These are approximate numbers. We don't have the exact ones here. MR. G. FILMON: What were the numbers built during those years? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm advised that somewhere in the neigh bourhood of 250 to 300 units have been built in those two years. MR. G. FILMON: So it was in excess of the numbers committed? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: There would have been some that had been previously committed, but there was a carry-over so that the 250 to 300 would represent a carry-over, from let's say 1981 or 1980. MR. G. FIL�ON: Can the Minister Indicate - although I'm a former Housing Minister, the number of years that go by since that period of time, the duller my memory becomes - 56. 1 is the non-profit senior citizen. I have a theory about this and what happens is that as new information comes, it replaces . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. CHAIRMAN: ·The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr.

Chairman. I'm having difficulty holding the floor. In any case, Mr. Chairman,

Section 56.1 was the non profit senior citizens housing that saw 90 percent of the funding put up at low interest rates by the Federal Government; 5 percent by a non-profit organization; 5 percent by the Provincial Government. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: If we look at 56.1, the program that we started off speak ing about is the one that was announced in that news release. The province puts up the capital and Canada Mortgage and Housing shares in the operat ing costs, I unders tand, by effec tively bringing down the interest rate to 2 percent.

Now the 56 non-profit sponsored housing is of the type, such as, let's say Lions Manor, where they would receive their capital from Canada Mortgage and Housing. We, as the province, put in our 5 percent of the total capital cost. MR. G. FILMON: Is the Minister telling me this Is or this isn't the same program? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: They are two dif ferent programs. MR. G. FILMON: They are two different programs? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Right. In both situations the eff ective interest rate is brought down to 2 percent through the assistance of Canada Mortgage and Housing.

What we are talking about in the news release 851 are homes that are constructed using Manitoba's capital. MR. G. FILMON: These are both

Section 56. 1 loan programs? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: We are referring to a 56. 1 program, yes. MR. G. FILMON: Under this program during the coming year, will there be units constructed on the basis that I described, where 5 percent of the capital is put up by a non-profit organization, 5 percent by the province, and 90 percent in the form of a written down 2 percent interest money by CMHC? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, there will be. There are quite a number of projects under construction at the present time, or contempla ted as being constructed this year. MR. G.

FILMON: In addition to these, how many units are projected to be done under that program, and similarly, how many units were constructed under that program in 1982 and 1!183? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I am advised that it is projected that about 500 units will be constructed during this fiscal year and that in the previous years the level was somewhere between 500 and 600 per year. MR. G. FILMON: Can the Minister indicate to me what num bers of units were constructed under th ese particular programs back a year or two, before the figures he gave me, say 1981 and 1980? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I'm advised that the level of construction would have been about the same, possibly slightly lower, but in that neighbourhood. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, are the commitments by CMHC based on a demonstration of need in the Province of Manitoba, in terms of the lists that are provided - waiting lists for housing, the demand lists? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, the news release dated May 11 th, says that the allocation for 19 84-85 represents an increase from 220 originally allocated to 405 units.

Has it ever occurred In the past that CMHC has increased its allocation to the province along the way, in various programs? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I am advised that it does happen from time-to-time. In 1982 there was an increase midyear. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, is it done as a result of demonstration, that there is an unfulfilled demand for the type of housing involved and CMH C consequently responds to the evidence presented of the unfulfilled demand? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, as I had indicated in my opening remarks, there is a very positive relationship

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 between Manitoba Housing and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. During their meetings they have had the opportunity to review or assess the needs of the elderly and low-income families, and on the basis of these discussions, Canada Mortgage and Housing increased its allocation from what its initial allocation had been. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, the News Service release ind icates, "This increase in Manitoba's allocation is a direct result of the close co-opera tion which has developed between the staff of CMHC and the staff of the Manitoba Housing, Mr.

Bucklaschuk said." Does that indicate that there was not a close co-operation in the past between the staffs of the two organizations? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I think there's always been a good rela tionship between Canada Mortgage and Housing and the Department of Housing. I think that the staff were able to more effectively get their views across to CMHC this year. MR. G. FILMON: Does that indicate that CMHC wasn't listen ing in the past then, Mr. Chairman? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I just think that Manitoba Housing is more eff ective. MR. G. FILMON: Manitoba Housing is more effective than what, Mr. Chairman? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Than previou sly. Certainly they were able to - shall we use the word - "lobby" more effectively for an increase in alloca tion. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, is that as a result of staff changes that has transpired? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: lt would partly be due to that, although some of the staff that have been involved in negotiations have been with the department for a number of years. I think another reason why CMHC would have increased this allocation is that it supports many of the initiatives that the department has taken over the past number of years. MR. G. FI LMON: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister is indicating that CMHC didn't support the initiatives that were taken in previous years then? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I don't know how you respond to that. MR. CHAIRMAN: I guess it's a matter of degree. The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I'm just looking for· substantiation as to why this close co-operation that's developed has resulted in something that wasn't done before. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I can say that we do have the data that very clearly demonstrated the need for 852 social housing in Manitoba. The numbers in total, I believe, were derogative.

The allocation nationally suffered a decrease, so we were fortunate through the efforts of the Department of Housing staff to convince Canada Mortgage and Housing that there was need for further allocation, and we were success ful in doing so. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, it was because the num bers justified the increase that CMHC made the decision, not because the department is somehow giving more co-opera tion to CMHC than they have in the past? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I would like to believe it's because of the aggressiveness of our Department of Housing. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, I am not looking for what the Minister would like to believe, I'm looking for the truth. So would the Minister indicate to me . . A MEMBER: Are you saying there's a difference? MR. G. FILMON: We ll there appears to be, because the Minister has indicated that it's the numbers that justified the increase. Then he is telling me that he would like to believe that it was because the staff have done a better job of lobbying. Which is it? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I would maintain it's a combination of the two. Mr.

Chairman, it may be that the Canada Mortgage and Housing, also looking at the neighbouring provinces who seem to be ge tting a larger allocation than Manitoba because of previous agreements, felt that to address this, what appears to be some inequ ity, was justified, could cer tainly justify an increase in allocation to Manitoba. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, it's a question of being able to justify the need and justify the rationale for the figures as opposed to being better lobbyists. Is that the case? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: We seem to be on the same question for the last five minutes. MR.

CHAIRMAN: There are some rules about repetit ions, I would like to remind the members. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister could indicate, he's announced the intention of CMHC to provide 405 units under these particular programs in 1984-85. What assurance does the Minister have - and then having announced the 405 commitments, he has indicated that actually the province is prepared to commit 1, 200 units.

Now what assurance does the Minister have that CMHC will not change its program priorities over the next year, over the next couple of years so that they will not, in fact , be able to support the same numb er that they have, say, for the past year? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I don't have the news release in front of me, but I do recall that we had indicated that our proje ct ion was contingent upon Canada

Mortgage and Housing continuing to provide social housing, and providing that the Federal Government saw it as a priority to the same degree that the existing government does. MR. G. FILMON: There is no que stion that's the point of what I am getting at. I quote from the release, it says, "The three-year plan is contingent on CMHC continuation of funding under the public non-profit program, and upon future allocation levels similar to those received this year. " The point is, what assurance does the Minister have that CMHC will not change its program priorities over the next year or two? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: We have no assurance. Central Mortgage and Housing though, in dealing with our staff, have indicated that as long as the existing program is in force they will commit the number of units currently being allocated providing that we are able to demonstrate our ability to deliv er. But, it's very obvious that if the Federal Government decides that their budget can no longer afford a given expenditure on housing, then that will be cut. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, then what is the point of the Minister indicating a program of 1,200 units over three years when really all he's able to commit is 405 units this year? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The commitment is there for 1,200 units, providing that Canada Mortgage and Housing maintains its existing level of programming. In announcing the three-year program, it enables us to do better planning, to do much closer or better consultation with the local authorities, and it enables us to give us a better perspective of where we are going in terms of meeting the housing needs that are out there. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, what good is the planning if there is no commitment on the part of the major funding partner? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: As I indicated, the indication from Canada Mortgage and Housing is that they are prepared to support that number of allocations on the condition that we can demonstrate our ability to deliver. MR. G. FILMON: it's my understanding from a news report that CMHC said that they are unable to commit beyo nd one year. it's quoted in the newspaper, the Winnipeg Free Press. That's their policy, so how can they have a commitment for three years? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Wel l, it is a likeliho od or they have indicated they are prepared to support the same levels. I don't believe, at any time, I had indicated that they were committing those numbers. All things being equal, without any major changes in CMHC policy, then those numbers of units will be delivered. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding, for instance, that CMHC is actively invest igating their entry into a program of shelter allowances and other 853 program priorities. What if they were to change their program priorities?

Then, what good is the projection and the planning that this will facilitate? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Wel l, if Canada Mortgage and Housing changes its priorities, then we will react accordingly. I have not received any formal word from Canada Mortgage and Housing or their Minister that they are scrapping the existing policy. There has been an evaluation of 56.1. As far as I know, that's as far as it's gone. lt may be reviewed at the present time, but we have, as a Provincial Government, both I and the Minister of Co-operative Devel opment, written the Minister and indicated our support for the existing program. MR.

G. FILMON: Of course, Mr. Chairman, the Minister has not received any indication that they are going to scrap the program. They're operating a year at a time. They've given him a commitment for this year, but they have also indicated that th ey can't give him a commit ment beyond this year. Why would the Minister want to change a firm commit ment of 405 into a non commitm ent of 1,200 and then announce that to the public as though it were a commitment? Will the province commit itself to build t�ose units without CMHC assistance, regardless? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Well again, I must reiterate that I did use the words contingent upon the existing program being in place. Should Canada Mortgage and Housing decide that they're going to come up with a different program, then we will tailor our programs accordingly. MR. G. FILMON: If the rationale for this announcement of 1,200 units over three years is that it will facilitate better planning, why could that planning not be done internal ly, based on an assumption, instead of indicating to people a commitment that isn't there? There's no federal commitment, therefore the program itself cannot be committed.

All you can commit is that the province intends to do that, but, Mr. Chairman, the Minister's telling me that if the Federal Government doesn't carry through with its support on the program, there is no commitment. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: We ll, the comment has been made that you do this thing Internally. I had indicated that part of the purpose of a three-year program was to enable us to carry out better consultations with local authorities, with municipal authorities. There is a need for obtaining options on property, purchasing property, rez oning.

These things cannot be done internally and that is why we've looked at a three-year program, so that we can be assured tha t when we make a commitment or announcement, that we will deliver those units. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that gove rnments in the past, Housing Ministers, the Housing Department in the past, have made assumptions of that nature, saying we're ass uming that we're going to be getting 400 units and went out and spoke to groups based on that kind of assumption. What difference does this make?

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm sorry, I don't get the point of that question. MR. G. FILMON: Wel l, the point of the question, Mr. Chairman, is that I suggest that the Minister is so desperate to try and make an indication that he's doing much more, that he's willing to exaggerate the actual commitment that his department and his government has made, from 405 units to 1, 200 units, when there's no assurance and no commitment on the part of the major funding partner , CMHC, to participate in that figure. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, I can assure the member that I'm far from desperate.

In view of the performance of Manitoba Housing over the past couple of years, I don't need to be desperate. I think the record speaks for itself. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, if the Minister doesn't need to be desperate and is willing to stand on his record, why would he make an exaggerated claim like that? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I certainly do not agree that that's an exaggerated claim. I think it is an indication of our commitment to providing social housing to meet the needs of Manitobans and it gives us plenty of room to plan and to make sure that we deliver on our commitment. MR. G.

FILMON: That's exactly what I want to know then, Mr. Chairman. Is the Minister saying that he will commit those units regardless of whether or not CMHC partici pates? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Here we go round the mulb erry bush. Contingent upon that program being in place from Canada Mortgage and Housing, and should Canada Mortgage and Housing come up with a different program, then we will certainly review it and try to re-t ailor our program, to still meet the needs that we are trying to address with that announcement. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Mem ber for Wolseley . MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Chairperso n, on a point of order . I'm wondering whether hypothetical questions and what happens in the future are out of order in committee, as they are in the House itself? I ask for your guidance. MR. CHAIRMAN: The rule that is really being infringed on the periphery is that Citation 357( 1)(

d) which says that a question cannot "repeat in substance a question already answer ed." The Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We ll, in· that case, I just thank the Member for Wolseley for making my point, that this news release is a hypothetical news release and Ministers of the Crown should not be utilizing Information Services for public relations to try and exaggerate the truth, and to try and make the efforts of their department and their government look 854 better than they really are. That's the point that has to be made.

This kind of nonsense shouldn't come out of the office of a Minister and is an exaggera tion and an attempt to mislead the public. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Ho nour able Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Going back, Mr. Chairman, to the $60 million that is being stated in this news release and the Ministerial Statement, I want to get it clear in my mind, is this federal money, CMHC money, or is this money that the MHR C is borrowing from CMHC? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The moneys that we're talking about, the $60 million, is provincial money - MHR C money borr owed from the Department of Finance. MR. R.

NORDMAN: What are the differences in this program than the program that is already in place? Is this program not just a continuation of an existing program? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, it is a continuation of the exis ting program, but the level of activity is considerably grea ter. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we want to leave it on the record, some of the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition. I think that his hypothetical questions indicate a total lack of understa nding of what planning rea lly is.

The announc ement made by the Minister is an indication that we take seriously the commitment to public housing, unlike the Member for Assiniboia, who indic ated in re sponding to the Min ister's announcement, that he wasn't sure whether we needed any more public housing, and that comment, Mr. Chairman, is on the record and I think is an indication of where - not only he - but where his party stands on public housing. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order is being raised. MR. R. NORDMAN: I did not state in my statement, "You can go research Hansard." I said we didn't need any more subsidized housing, not what you said.

HON. J. STORIE: I thank the member for the clarificati on. MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the member that a difference of opinion is not a point of order and the function of a Committee of Supply is to hold the Minister responsible, to ask questions. There is a proper forum for debates - it is in the House, in the Chamber. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I accept your admonishment. I will accept the member's clarification. I'm not sure that there's any difference between public housing and subsidized housing. However, I will ask a que stion of the Minister and that is whether the announcement that

Tuesday, 15 May. 1984 he made was, in effect , a statement of planning for housing development?

The Minister indicated that there were a number of im portant reasons for making tha t kind of announcement, in terms of getting zoning ready, in terms of making land available for public housing projects, and the Leader of the Opposition was the Minister resp onsible for the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation and should be aware of the fact, although they don't believe in planning generally , that there is some planning req uired, that you can't drop a 40-unlt housing project in the middle of nowhere, that there are zoning by-laws and so forth to be taken care of. MR. G.

FILMON: Is that how the Premier goes away without telling anybody where he's gone? Is that good planning? HON. J. STORIE: I'm sorry he didn't tell you. Mr. Chairman, my question to the Minister is, does the th ree-year plan provide any benefit to the department and to inter est groups, in terms of their ability to prepare and make sure that the project is deliv ered on time? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Very much so.

With the three-year program, we can take a look at, let's say, the 19 84 allocation of 405 units; we can almo st immediately meet with those communities that are affected and get started on doing whatever has to be done, to ensure that the projects are started as soon as possible. At the same time, once we clear that, that offers us the opportunity to then go out to those areas where, in the following year, we'll be trying to address the needs of the elderly and the low-income families in providing shelter there.

So there is no que stion that one of the prim ary purposes of this exercise was to plan more ef fectively, to ensure that we are able to deliver whatever allocations are made available to us. HON. J. STORIE: One should never get into these things because it always reminds one of other questions. I'm wondering if the Minister could comment on the clarification made by the Member for Assiniboia, on whether there is any need for subsid ized housing? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I would suggest that anyone who feels that there is not a need is living in a dream world.

The reality is that there are many, many people within our society who, for one reason or anothe r, are not able to afford adequate affordable housing. This Is just one way in which we are attempting to meet that need. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, on the program of 56.1 that the Minister is speaking about, where $60 million will be borrowed by the province, is that program - the housi ng people or the non-profit housing organization - will they still be putting up 5 percent of the capital and the province still putting up 5 percent of the capital as a grant? 855 HON.

J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, maybe the Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek was a little late in arriving here. There are two different . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: No imputation. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm sorry, I didn't mean it that way. MR. CHAIRMAN: The question has already been asked and it has been answered . HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'll just repeat that, that there is another program under 56. 1 where the non-profit sponsors such as Lions or Kiwanis, put up their projects.

We contribute 5 percent towards the capital, they put up 5 per cent, and the remaining 90 percent is financed by Canada Mortgage and Housing or is financed in the private sector. I believe Canada Mortgage and Housing helps reduce the interest to an effective rate of 2 percent . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I was here and I'm asking a question because I was. Mr. Chairman, In this particular program the province puts up 90 percent of the money? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Under the 56. 1 non-profit sponsored projects, that is correct.

The $60 million that's referred to in the news release are MHR C projects, in which MHRC puts up 100 percent of the capital. MR. F. JOHNSTON: What Is the Federal Government's participation in that program? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Canada Mortgage and Housing's participation Is In writing down the Interest to an effect ive rate of 2 perc ent. I believe it works out to 70 to 75 percent of the operat ing cost Is picked up by Canada Mortage and Housing. MR. F. JOHNSTON: The province doesn't have any participation in the writing down of the interest rate.

In other words, they don't participate in writing down half of that Interest rate; it's strictly CMHC that writes down the interest rate? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The province provides additional assistance, and that's the 30 percent I had indicated, in writing down the operating costs to enable the tenants to handle a rent which Is equivalent to 25 percent of their income. MS. M. PHILLIPS: I don't know whether this is a clarification of my point of order , but maybe you can help me, Mr. Chairman.

In terms of a hypothetical question, is the re not a difference in terms of the statement of an intention to deliver versus a question that deals with - what if another jurisdiction, i.e. the Federal Government, does this or does that? lt was the statement about the Federal Government, what if they do this or do that? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair intends to deal with points of order as they come up. I will call the item now.

TuHday, 15 May, 1984 1.(a)(3)(a)- pass, Research and Planning, Salaries; 1. (a)(3)(b), Research and Planning, Other Expenditures -pa ss. 1.(a)(4)(

a) Commu nications, Salaries, along with 1. (a)(4)(

b) Other Exp enditur es - th e Memb er for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: On the communication side, have you hired one person? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The person that is doing commun ications is a reallocation from with in the department. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, there is an increase in salaries here of $23,200, so is that distributed amongst all the rest of the - how many persons are we talking about in this department? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: In the Communications Sec tion, there are two persons, a Director of Communications and a Communications Assistant. MR. R. NORDMAN: I see, that's fine.

Now going on to other expenditur es, you've almost doubled your budge t from last year in this year 's budget or Estimate. Could you give us a reason for what you plan to do with the additional $5 1 ,000.00? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The increase from $52,700 to $104,000 is a reflection of a greater emphasis on material, such as pamphlets and so on, to help advertise the 21 programs that the department delivers. MR. R. NORDMAN: This then, Mr. Chairman, is basically advertising of the programs that MHR C or the Housing Department comes under? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, that is correct. MR.

CHAIRM AN: 1.(a)(4)(a)- pass; 1.(a)(4)(b)- pass. 1.(a)(5)(

a) Support Services, Salaries, 1.(a)(5)(

b) Other Expendit ures - the Mem ber for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Okay, salaries certainly jump here of $128,000.00. How many people were hired in support services and what is the staffing of Support Services at this point? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The projected figur e increase of $129,000 is a refle ction of our experience in 1983-84, four-year costs - no additions to that. There is no additional staffing for 1984-85. MR. R. NORDMAN: How many staff are in this particular division? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: There are forty-six and two thirds staff. MR. R. NORDMAN: Wha t percentage then, Mr.

Chairman, of an increase in salaries would these people be getting? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The increase, I am advised , is as follows: For two contingency staff, full-year costs 856 - and these were added in 1983-84 - is $40,000; allowable increases, $4 1, 700; one full year for cost accounting, $32, 700; and we have a figure of $25,000 in there for ove rtime. MR. R. NORDMAN: In your other expenditures, the increase is of $573,000.00. What is the pu rpose of this sect ion, this support services? What do they actually do? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: We ll perhaps I could give some of the titles.

Within Su pport Services, we have a Director of Support Services; we have a Manager of Administrative Services; we have a . . . MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, what is the function of the support services? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Assiniboia is asking about the function of the unit. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The function is financial administration services . MR. R. NORDMAN: Oh, fine. That's what I wanted to know, sir. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(a)(5)(a)- pass; 1.(a)(5)(b)- pass. 1.(b )(1)(

a) Property Management and Landlord and Te nant Affairs: Administrative Costs, Salaries, 1.(b)(1 )(

b) Other Expenditur es - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Could the Minister again explain the salary increases here, and how many people that we're talking about? How many people are functioning in this department? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I am advised there are 91. 5 staff in this secti on. MR. R. NORDMAN: And what changes have been made to create such an increase, or have there been any changes made at all? Is this normal increase in their increments? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The number of staff is the same as it was in 1983-84. The increase primarily reflects allowable increases in full-year salary costs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(b)( 1)(a)- pass; 1.(b)(1 )(b) - the Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: I just had a question arising out of a constituency concern related to The Residential Rent Regulation Act. We have a large number of CMHC units in Thompson which are not covered by the act, however, CMHC in the past has indicated that it has been following the rent regulation guideline figures. In fact, as a result they rolled back a number of their rent increases approximately a year- and-a-half ago.

I'm wondering if the department has received any current communication from CMHC, as to whether the y will be continuing to follow rent control guidelines? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Cer tainly I have not received any corres pondence to that effect , and my Deputy is

Tuesday, 15 May, 198C not aware of any correspondence or communications from Canada Mortgage and Housing MR. S. ASHTON: I certainly urge that consideration be given to this particular point. I know, as I said, it affects a large number of tenants in my area. General ly, people are very happy about the results of rent controls, both those who are directly affected and those who have been indirectly affected. Particularly in the case of CMHC tenants, there has been some concern with the removal of the Federal 6 and 5 Program that they may face larger increases than those tenants covered by rent controls directly.

So I would just like to raise that constituency concern at this point in time. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(c)( 1)(

a) Program Deli very , Adminis trative Costs, Salaries, 1.(c)( 1)(

b) Program Deliv ery, Administrative Costs, Other Expenditur es - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I just assume that the increase in salaries is the same as before, allowable. lt's $159,000, but what are we doing differently under other expenditures? What services are we supplying now that we didn't last year to the tune of just about $1 million? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Basically three different com ponents have resulted in this increase. The department assists in administering the Home Insulation Loan Program. There's an increase for the del ivery of the HIMP 2 Program ... MR. R.

NORDMAN: Which? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: HI MP, Homes in Manitoba Program. And a small part of that reflects allowable increases in full-year salary costs. MR. R. NORDMAN: Would the Minister be kind enough to explain - I missed it in the previous question there - the recov erable portion from Canada. You've got it there in two different places , $1 25,000 In one area just above, and then 150,000 in this. What is the rationale there? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm sorry, I don't quite see that. MR. R. NORDMAN: At the bottom there, Recoverable from Canada, on Page 99. lt's $150,000 and, under (b), there's 125,000.00.

Can you see it there? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, I see it now. Right. MR. R. NORDMAN: Could you just explain that? I don't know what it's all about. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The $1 50,0 00 is the administrative fees that we recover from CMHC for administrating the RAP Program. MR. R. NORDMAN: Okay, fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(c)(1 )(a) - the Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, it says that, "related to the construction and renova tion of exist ing housing stock and activities related to financ ing and subsidization of renova tions and acquisitions of housing stock." First of all, I would ask, how much atten tion is being paid to the renovation of existing housing stock, and also the attention being paid to it, and are the percentage costs of renova tions and upgrading of the housing stock In line with natural or deterioration of housing stock for that age or for that type of housing that was built several years ago? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I'm not sure I got the question, but our department is very heavily involved in upgrading exist ing stock through the Critical Home Repair Program - we will discuss that lafer, I presume - and through the administration of the fed eral RAP Program which involves substantial upgrading. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm referr ing to the existing public housing stock and some of the sen ior citizens' housing stock which is getting fairly well on in years now. Is the renovation of that housing stock becoming exce ssive, or is it in this particular Estimate? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: This

section does not include the upgrading or maintenance of existing MH RC-owned housing. I believe that comes in under a later item. MR. F. JOHNSTON: This refers to the amount of mone y, the program deliv ery, referr ing to the amount of money for renova ting of housing stock which is purchased. Is this the Winnipeg Rehabilitation Program, Housing Rehabilitiation Program? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No, the administrative costs here are basically in relationship to our responsibility of delivering a number of programs.

I think probably one of the best known would be Critical Home Repair , where we're involved with, I think, 2,800 units under RAP. I don't quite know the number there, but it's 600 or so, and the other programs, such as the Manitoba Interest Rate Relief Program, the Shelter Allowance for The Elde rly, Shelter Allowance for Family Ranters and HIMP Program as well. 857 MR. F. JOHNSTON: How many people are presently involved In the Critical Home Repair Program? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The number of persons involved In the administration of the Critical Home Repair Program are eight and one-third staff years. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Does that include the inspectors in the Critical Home Repair Program, or is it just the admin istrative staff of the Critical Ho me Repair Program? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That figure reflects the admini strative staff. In respect to the numb er of inspectors, there are 31. MR. CHAIR MAN: 1.(c)( 1)(a) - the Memb er for Assiniboia.

'l'l.Jaday, 15 May, 1984 MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minis ter, The Buy and Renovate Program seems to be in limbo. Have you any plans to encourage and bring this program back into being? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The member is quite correct that for the time being we have stopped accepting applications under the Buy and Renovate Progam. lt has undergone a review for the past month, or month and a half or so, to see if there are ways that we can streamline the program. I'm advised that the review is almost completed.

We 'll be taking a look at that and hopefully re-initiating the program in the near future. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, the Buy and Renovate Program basically attracts the low-income people with subsidized housing, but would you give any consideration to initia ting a program that would encourage higher levels of income to return to the downtown area? I believe the maximum is $64,000, or it might be up to $68,000 by now.

But would there be a better mix if you could get other larger houses, more expensive houses, in the downtown area and get some of the people that are in the suburbs now maybe moving back downtown by instjtuting a program such as that? Is there any consideration being given to anything like that? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Well, I guess our efforts have been preoccupied at the present time to make the existing program work better. Certainly any program that would attract home-owners to the central part of Winnipeg would be. MR. R. NORDMAN: I'm not just talking about the core area I'm speaking of the whole downtown area.

There are the older areas of, say, around Churchill and south on Osborne where the houses are much older but could be made very very liveable. This is the area that I'm speaking of. Would you kindly give some thought to that process along those lines if you are going to reinstitute the Buy and Renovate Program? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Ye s, on that, Mr. Chairperson, I notice in the Annual Report where the Buy and Renovate component - it seems to me that it says that there were only 18 applications approved up to March 31, 1983. Was that the beginning of the program?

Were there Buy and Renovate applications approved in'8 3- 84 which are, you know, in the last fiscal year? Is it included at all in the Estimates anywhere? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, the member is quite correct in refe rring to the Annual Report which goes to the end of March of'83. At that time there were 18. Up until December 31s t of'83 there were an additional 101 buy and renovates. MS. M. PHILLIPS: So this Annual Report was just the beginning of the program, and then the majority were from March to the end of Dec ember , 100 and how many? 858 HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: 101 applications.

The program, as I reca ll, was announced in the fall of'82 and all new programs take some time to start. This one ... MS. M. PHILLIPS: So in following up on the question of the Member for Assiniboia, are you then considering continuing this program with modifications, because I personally agree that it's a very valuable program? I don't agree with the member that the problems are in the maximum limit on the houses. I think that some modifications that need to be made.

But I think the principle of restoring older homes at a reas onable price is a very valid principle, and certainly a program that affects my constituenc y. I would like to see substantial work done on modifications of the program so that it can benefit not only the neighb orhoods in the inner city, but certainly young families to come back and modify those houses and restore them to the condition that they can achieve. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I quite agree. I just want to clarify somet hing. I understand that there is no upper income limit for eligibility for the Buy and Renovate Program.

Initially there had been a cap above which a person would not be recei ving subsidy to assist with the payments. But cert ainly if a 50,000-a-year person wanted to apply for the program there's nothing to stop him or her from doing so. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: I think that that was the kind of problem, that the amount of money one needed to participate in that program, the amount of cash one needed for the renovations, either that they borrowed or that they had themselves, meant that it was prohibited to average Income earners or low Income earners, and that a $50,000 income person probably would have the cash aside to participate. From my recollect ion of that program when I examined the brochures it see med that, you know, you either needed $5,000 or $10,000 or $1 5,000 cash to match grants.

I wondered if that was a prohibitive factor for making the program more successf ul. Are those the areas where modifications need to be? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, I'm not so sure I agree with you that the program was such that those on low incomes could qualify. I recall seeing some . MS. M. PHILLIPS: Couldn't qual ify. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: . . . well, but we have persons with incomes of $11, 000 and I believe down as low as $10,000, that did qualify for the program and are now living in their own build and renovate type home.

Certainly we might be wanting to take a look at adjustments as to the - I believe at one time it was lim ited to a purchase price of 30,000, or 35,000. We might want to raise that a bit so we're looking at better housing stock to start with. But the basic problem In the program was the mechanics of the program. lt was a fairly complex program, as the newspapers had indicated, something like 90 steps from the time you started with the program

TUaday, 15 ... ,. 1884 to the time you had owner ship. We're attempting through our review to ste amline the mechanics of the program. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Ye s. one final que stion then. Is this not the program where one had to be a first-time home buyer? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No, it was not necessary to be a home-ow ner. But in order to qualify for some of the grants, that was one of the stipulations that you had to be a first-time home-buy er. MS. M. PHILLIPS: You did have to be. This had to be your first home that you've ever purchased, to qualify? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, I'm advised that to qualify for the Core Area Home Ownership grant or . . . that applied only to those persons who were first time home-owners. Otherwise an existing home-owner could qualify for the program. MS. M. PHILLIPS: The Buy and Renovate one? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes. MS. M. PHILLIPS: All right, thank you. MR. CHA IRMAN: 1.(c) (1) (

a) Program Delivery: Adminis trative Costs, Salaries- pass; 1.(c)( 1 )(

b) Program Delivery: Other Expenditures- pass; 1.(c)

(2) Grants and Subsidies - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: This kind of throws you when you see such a drop in the Grants and Subsidies here. Could you explain where this money went last year, and why don't we need it this year? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I could perhaps go through some of the decreases.

Under the SAFER Program we project a $1 50,000 increase; under SAFFR, a $150,000 increase; under the Core Area Home Repair Program, there is an anticipated decrease of $450,000 to reflect a more realistic expectation of program takeup; under the Manitoba Inter est Rate Relief Program, we're proje cting a decrease of $2 13,900; a slight decrease under Co-op Housing; a slight decrease under Urban Renewal; a major decrease under the Grants to Non Profits, it's approximately $1. 8 million, but this reflects a change in the manner in which that 5 percent grant is to be provided to the non-profit sponsor.

So the total decrease in that sec tion, I believe, is $2.230 million. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister said, major decrease in the non-profit, but didn't give us a figure. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Oh, it's $1.810 million. MR. F. JOHNSTON: The Minister also said that would come about because of the way that it was paid to the non-profit organization. I wonder if the Minister could explain that. 859 HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Okay. Up to the present time, when a non-profit sponsor was involved In a project, the provi nce would make a 5 percent contribution up front.

We, in the 1984-85 fiscal year, will still be making the 5 percent contribution, but it will be In the form of a grant that is amortized over the term of the mortgage, or an alternative to that might be to consider, say a $10, 000 grant per unit amortized over the life of the project. What I am saying is that a non-sponsor, as we had previously discussed, normally puts up 5 percent of its own money; the province puts up 5 perc ent, and 90 percent is mortgaged with Canada Mortgage and Housing.

Under this proposal, the non-profit sponsor would still put up the 5 percent; Canada Mortgage and Housing would pick up the 95 percent of the mortgage, with the province contributing 5 percent of that. So in effect the provincial contribution is the same. it's just that it is not paid up front, but amortized over the 25- year or 35-year term. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I'm afraid I am just mis sing that.

You're saying tha t the non-profit organization Is putting up 5, and now the Canada Mortgage and Housing will be putting up 95, and the province will be then paying back r-anada Mortgage and Housing, over a period of time, that 5 percent? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes , that's correct . MR. F. JOHNSTON: The non-profit organization still gets as much money up front as required. it's not going to cost them more interest. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: it should not cost the sponsor any more than it does at the present time. MR. F. JOHNSTON: So you're financing 5 percent witll CMHC.

The province's 5 percent is being put up by CMHC. They are financing your 5 percen t, and you're paying it off over the period of the time of the mortgage? Is that correct ? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm sorry. Can you just go through that again? I was temporarily distracted. MR. F. JOHNSTON: If the province is still putting up 5 percent and CMHC is putting up 95 and the sponsor is putting up 5, is the CMHC financing the province's 5 percent, and the province is paying CMHC back over the period of the time of the mortgage? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: The decrease that I made reference to, the $1.81 million, reflects a different method of making that 5 percent contribution to the sponsor. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Okay , that's the 5 percent contri bution to the sponsor by the Pro vincial Government which, up until now, has been 5 percent of the cost of the project basically up front, and you are now going to pay that 5 percent to the sponsor, how? CHMC aren't going to pay them. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The 5 percent will be paid to the sponsor, but that will be done in a form of a

TUesday, 15 May, 1984 loan from capital authority and then it will be retired over the term of the mortgage, so that the operating - and that's what we're dealing with here - will be the portion that is being shown in the expenditures, will reflect the repayment of the loan that brings about that 5 percent contribution. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, P. Fox: The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well then, I think I know what the Minister is saying.

The 5 percent which is paid to the sponsor by the Housing Corporation, that Is borrowed from the Minister of Finance, will be paid back to the Minister of Finance in a different way? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That is correct. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's fine, as long as the sponsor is not having to find more up-front money at more interest, that's fine. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 1.(c)(2)-pass - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: The grants and subsidies with the School Tax Assistance Program, is that figure pretty steady? Are you looking at $2 million every year or will that fluctuate? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: The Pensioners School Tax Assistance doesn't come out - it's paid by the Department of Finance. MR. R. NORDMAN: I know, it's an in-and-out figure. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That's right. MR. R. NORDMAN: But it still comes under the guise of Housing? HON. J. BUCKLASCHU K: Because we administer it, that Is correct . I'm told that that is probably the maximum that we can anticipate. MR. R. NORDMAN: I see. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, will that cost the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation any more money or the Department of Finance any more money in interest? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The proposal of the 5 perc ent? MR. F. JOHNSTON: lt's a nice way of bringing down your Budget and throwing it onto the Minister of Finance. lt's going to cost somebody some more money. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The question could only be answered if one knew what was to happen with the interest rates for the next 25 or 35 years . 880 MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santoa: Item 1.(c), 1.(c)(2)- pass; 1.(c)(3)(

a) Other Grants, Pensioner Te nant, School Tax Assistance Program- pass; 1. (c)(3) (

b) Less: Recov erable from Finance-pass. Item 1.(

d) Transfer Payments to the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation -t he Member for Asslnlbola. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister. Would you give us an explanation of what this is? I'm not familiar with it so I really don't know what HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Perhaps I could itemize the increases and that will help explain what that part of the budget is all about. The increases, you will notice, are slightly over $4 million.

The reasons for the increase are as follows - I'll just go in thousands - $443,000, this is an increase for property management due to additional occ upancy of low-income rental units; $1 .479 million change In acco unting presentat ion. I'm told that this is basically an accounting change which more accurately reflects the revenue and expenditures of the management of housing stock. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, where was it before? If it's only a change in accou nting, then where was it before? HON. J.

BUCKLASCHUK: I am advised that the recovery was netted in the past and now we have, in another section, an increase in re venue. MR. R. NORDMAN: So do they offset each other? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: So they offset each other and this is basically an accounting change. Pardon me, there were another two increases I wanted to - $84,000, that was a figur e that's required for the Interest subsidies under the HIMP Program; and $2 .1 million interest subsidies for the HIMP 11 Program, for a total of $4. 1 million. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1.(d)- pass; 2.(

a) Capital Grants pass. Item 2.(b)( 1) Canada-Manitoba Winnipeg Core Area Agreement:

(1) Core Area Home Ownersh ip Assistance Program. MR. R. NORDMAN: This again, Mr. Chairman, is a bookkeeping effort from what I can see of it. Is that correct? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s. MR. R. NORDMAN: Just out of curiosit y, Mr. Chairman, while we're on the subject, what is happening with the Logan Redevel opment Program that we should know about? MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me call that one first. Item 2.(b)

(2) Logan Redevel opment Program - so I am calling both Core Area Home Ownersh ip Assistance and Logan Redeve lopment Program. The Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: I had a question on (b)(1). In the report, we have Winnipeg Core Area Improvement

l'ueeda J, 15 ... ,. 1184 Program and the program was designed as a special component to the Core Area Initiative Program, to provide financial assistance in terms of 25 percent provincial grant to the City of Winnipeg. Does this take in the Core Area Initiative Grant Home Owner's Program, is this all? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: No, it doesn't. MR. F. JOHNSTON: What program does this refer to as far as the core area is concerned regarding the Mani toba Housing and Renewal Corporation participation, this Winnipeg Core Area Improvement Program, Core Area Initiative Agreement? Maybe I'll put it another way, Mr. Chairman.

What programs are being administered by CMHC that you're recov ering the money from, from the core area? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'm sorry. Was that CMHC? MR. F. JOHNSTON: By MHRC, I'm sorry. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: The Manitoba Housing administers the Core Area Initiatives, the grant to the home owners, and we also admini ster the Logan Dev elopment and the Core Area Initiatives Home Repair Program. The Communi ty Impr ovement Program though is administered by the City of Winnipeg. MR. CH AIRMAN: 2. (a)-pa ss; 2.(b)

(1) Canada Manitoba Winnipeg Core Area Agreement: Core Area Home Owners hip Assistance Program- pass; 2.(b)

(2) Logan Redevelopment Program- pass; 2.(b)

(3) Less: Recoverable From Urban Affairs-pass. Resolution 104: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,1 72,500 for Housi ng. Expenditures Related to Capital Asset s, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1985- pass. We have to return to 1.(a)( 1) which relates to the Minister's Salary. 1.(a)(1) the Minister's Salary - the Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Ye s, Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Minister about the - I'm not sure what they call it - the program that allows someone to buy a home with the - what is it - five years at a 10 perce nt mortgage.

I hadn't realized that we would be going into Housing so quickly and be finished so quickly, so 1 don't have the exact information here, but I thought I would like to tell about a horror story that happened in the depar tment. There is a young couple.

They had picked out a lot and they thought they had it confirmed - this went on from December to, I think, January or February - had the builder, had the house plans, everyt hing they thought was set; then when they went to finalize it, it turned out that it hadn't been their lot, it was given to someone else through an error in the department, but no one had thought to tell them. When they got over that disappointment - I just got a call from her, I think, a week or 10 days ago, in fact, maybe it's just a week ago - and asked her to write ever ything down and she hasn't got it to me yet.

But they picked out another lot in the same area. They had been called about 10 days ago to two weeks from the bank to say that ever ything was arranged , their lawyer, all was arranged, the mortgage was signed. They had taken their money out of their Home Ownersh ip. After all this was signed, everyt hing was set for the lot, they received a letter from the department saying that they didn't qualify because it had been appraised at $77,000.00. Now that had been back around the beginning of April - I think she said around April the 4th - that information had been received .

Now this was a pretty long time to let somebody know when th ey're in the process of arranging the mortgage. So they are now stuck with a house and a mortgage that they probably wouldn't have gone ahead with, had they known that they weren 't going to come in under the criteria of the particular program. There is nothing they can do, because they can't go back.

They can't certainly put their money back in the Homeowners, and they are stuck with this house which, I suppose, in the long run they're going to happy with, but it's pretty hard to be happy when you are going to be paying full price for your mortgage when they really were doing it because of the program.

I just wanted to point out to the Minister and I'll get the information to him but I wanted to point out that possibly he could pass on to his staff, that when there are programs like this and they know that people are proceeding on the information that they have, to hold a letter for two or three weeks when they might be going ahead with mortgages, that this has really hurt this young couple. I don't know how many other people that this might have happened to because someone just didn't get a letter out at the right time and I wonder if the Min ister would look into it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Is the Minister willing to reply? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: All I can say is, I would certai nly be interested in receiving details of this particular situation and following it through, and seeing where the problem was. I was not aware of this. 861 MRS. G. HAMMOND: I appreciate that. I think they were feeling so very disappointed with the first error that happened, as far as they were concer ned, through the department, and then this one. Of course, this one is so costly to them.

Since I haven't received all the information as yet, I'm just relaying what she had told me over the phone and she is going to put it down in writing, and I certainly will get it to the Minister. But I think it's so important that staff people are aware of what can happen when information like that isn't given immedia tely. MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. On the Minister's Salary, 1.(a)( 1) - the Member for Assiniboia. MR. R. NORDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have one question that I would like to ask the Minister before we pass his salary. The Deputy Minister, Mrs. Cameron, Miss Cameron or Ms.

Cameron - whatever - what has happened with her? I mean, she came to us with such glowing reports and I imagine we all felt that we had an emplo yee that was of high cali bre. What happened? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: There is certainly no question about the competency or the high calibre of

Tueacler, 15 Mar. 1984 performance that Mary Cameron showed. Miss Cameron asked for a leave of absence, and she has been granted a leave of absence. MR. R. NORDMAN: She has been granted a leave of absence? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: For personal reas ons. MR. R. NORDMAN: I see. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (a)(1), Minister's Salary-pass. Resolution 103: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $40,297,500 for Housing, Current Operat ing Expenditur es for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1985-p ass. Comm ittee rise. SUPPLY - EDUCATION MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee come to order. We are considering the Estimates of the Depart ment of Education, Item 3.(

a) School Grants and Other Assistance - the Memb er for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister whether or not private schools are eligible for refund or rebate un der, let's say the payroll tax. That's something that I understand. MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Minister. HON. M. HEMPHILL: The Health and Education tax, no. MR. C. MANNESS: Call it payroll tax, yes. How does the government distinguish as to who should receive this re fund levy within the educational field, and what rationale is used not to refund that particular tax to independent schools? HON. M. HEMPHILL: We ll, Mr.

Chairman, I think it's probably fairly clear that the rationale that was used was to exempt the educational facilities that were in the public school system. MR. C. MANNESS: We ll, I'm astounded, Mr. Chairman, I have no wind left in my lungs. Is the government giving any consideration whatsoever to requests - and I have, of course, a copy of a letter to the Minister of Finance from the Mennonite Collegiate Institute requesting that they be treated in the similar fashion to the public school system - is the government giving any consideration whatsoever to that request? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Chairman, any information about exemptions of that levy would have to come through the Minister of Finance. MR. C. MANNESS: We ll, Mr. Chairman, is the Minister of Education, realizing that it looks very discrimin atory to say the least, is her department making that recommendation to the Minister of Finance, and If not, why not? 882 HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, we made what recommendations and provided what information we wanted to provide and make to our colle agues In order to make this decision. I am here commun icating the decisions of government on funding and exemptions. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for La Ve rendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Ye s, further on that particular item, I wonder if the Minister could inform the House whether or not the department on behalf of a school like Winnipeg Bible College has made any represent ations to the Minister of Finance, to exempt them from paying the payroll tax? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Same answer, Mr. Chairman. MR. R. BANMAN: We ll, Mr.

Chairman, in light of the fact that the government last year provided some funding to help that school survive, it seems kind of ludicrous on the one hand to go ahead and provide grants, emergency loans or assistance of different kinds when you are, on the other hand, taking a 1. 5 percent payroll tax from the employees that are working at that particular facilit y. So, Mr.

Chairman, if the government really believes that they want to see these particular institutions survive and if they are not going to treat them the way they treat the public school system, then really, In essence, what they are saying to the private schools is that we really don't want you because, on the one hand if you are going to exempt the public system and you are not going to exempt the private school system by virtue of policies dictated by the government, really what you are doing Is discriminating against them and then of cou rse, really making it much more difficult for them to survive and in essence are telling the private school people, we really don't want you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, I just want to state a few things about the aid to independent schools. In our community - it's not right in my constituency - we have St. Charles Academy, which has been around - I don't know if it's 100 years - for a long time, and it's a part of the community in our area. I think that attitudes today are changing with respect to the funding of independent schools. I hate to call St. Charles Academy a private school because it really is a community school, and I think that I'm a case In point because I'm what you can call a convert.

I was one, like many others, who just felt all the funding should be to the public school system, but since de clining enrolment, closing of schools In commu nities, parents not being sure from one year to the next if their childr en are going to go to the same school, they are looking for an alternate way of sending their children to schools. In the independent schools, like the Academy and the school that went Into Columbus in my own area, which was the Winnipeg Mennonite Elementary School, these are serving a real need in our communi ty.

Rather than move their children again and with another review coming up In our area,

lUesday, 15 May, 1984 in the We stwood family of schools, where children may be moved again, other teach ers, other children, even though it's a small commun ity, they have chosen to send their children to the Mennoni te Elementary School. So there's a real need now in the commun ity. At one time, I didn't see it the same way. The need possibly was there, but now it's even greater to allow people to have the freedom of choice in the commun ity. I think that these two schools are great example s.

Often they give examples of Ravenscourt and some of the other schools to show that only the rich can go. lt's not the rich that are atten ding these commun ity schools in the neighbourhood. I really do strongly support their staying in the commun ity. 1 find it very strange to think that the Minister is suggesting that there is more funding coming to them when they don't get a return of the 1.5 payroll tax. I just think that is ludicrous. lt's like not giving them anything if you don't give that back. That's taxing them far too much.

These are people that pay taxes in the communi ty, and their schools are viable, they're filled. I was at a tea a couple of weeks ago at St. Charles and the place was jammed all afternoon. The parents, the time, and the commitment they spend to keeping up the schools, because not ever yone can afford all the enrol ment costs today, and so there's a lot of fund raising that goes into it. While I'm not · asking for a lot of funding, I think it's time that a formula was set up so that these schools know what they might expect.

I think that's probably the least that can happen as far as independent schools are concerned. I'm just wondering if the Minister - and this may have been covered as I had to leave for about 15 minutes - about the shared services and the special needs for the independent schools and how they're being treated now. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, shared service agreements are being treated exactly the same as they were before.

I said last year that I sign every shared service agreement that comes across my desk with any two groups that want to have a contract and there has been some incr ease in the number of shared service agreements. There is, I think, about 28 school divisions that have shared service agreements. Now they're being handled exactly the same way as they were previous ly. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, does that include the special needs? Do most of the divisions, do they have a shared service agreement for the education support services? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Chairman, I think we find that with the shared service agreements, actually I said there were more than there are. There are just shared service agreements with, I guess, about 16 divisions involving 900 students. Most of them are in the home ec., and industrial arts area, but they're not precluded from having a shared service agreement in special needs. In other words they can, it's allowed, if the school division and the private school wish it. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Is the shared service, and the special needs, is that an extra cost to the school divisions over and above what they would have themselves? 863 HON. M.

HEMPHILL: I would think probably not because I can't imagine that they would hire additional staff in order to be able to provide the shared service res ources. In most cases the division has to agree to do it, and when they agree it's usually because they have the ability with their resources, to cover the private schools without adding staff. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I wonder if the Minister would find out for sure on that issue, Mr. Chairman, because if it's not an increased cost I can't think then why divisions wouldn't be entering into that service with the schools in their divisions. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Chairman, yes, I will get that information. I'm not sure why. I know that they can if they want to and I'm not sure what the reaso ns would be that there aren't shared service agreements in that area. I think the independent schools - and I was just trying to check this, I will check this back to - they have had access to clinicians, or special needs people, not necessarily through shared services but simply through the sharing of resources that existed in the Winnipeg School Division and I think an agreement and understanding that if they had a child that needed assess ing or needed help, they would cover.

But that has not been done through a formal agreement but it has been done by agreement . MRS. G. HAMMOND: Is it possible that the reason the shared services, say in a division like St. James Assiniboia, where St. Charles School the students come from both Assiniboine south and St. James School Division, is it possible that this would preclude an agreement being set up because they would be servicing, say St. James would be servicing childr en who should be in another division? HON. M. HEMPHILL: We can confirm this. I am being informed by staff that he thinks at one time St.

James School Division did make the point that they would service children who were resident in their school division but not resident, not childr en who were outside. So, that may be a policy or a position of the board that precludes. Ther e's nothing that I know of in our regulations that would restrict them from co operating or providing that service. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, on this I just have one other point to make. The Minister had indicated that private schools were not set up to save money, but because of the numb er and the number of children that go to private schools, obviously they do.

If all these childr en did come back into the public school system , the cost would be astronomical. I think that should be taken into acco unt if even two or three of the schools were to close. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for La Ver endrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a few more comments with regard to aid to private schools. I think it's very apropos today that we have the Minister of Health sitting just back of the Minister of Education

Tueeder, 15 Mey, 1884 watching her and making sure that she doesn't make any statements that he might not agree with. While we might smile and chuckle about that, it really isn't anything to smile about because we all know on this side of the House, as well as many members who have been in this Legislature for many years, that this has been one of the largest bones of contention that the Minis ter of Health has had with this particular government. We know on this side that the mem bers opposite, the majority of them, hate to give any money to private schools.

That has been evidenced here today with the payroll tax, with the way they've been treating the private schools in the last couple of years. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would not be doing my job as a member of the opposition if I didn't take issue with a statement made by the Minister when she said that the opposition didn't do anything with regard to aid to private schools when they were in govern ment. Mr.

Chairman, I think she owes the Member for Roblin an apology. lt was this opposition when in govern ment, supported by one or two mem bers of the New Democratic Party - one of them being the Minister of Health - who brought in a bill which once and for all dealt with the shared services problem. lt was a Conservative Government that did that; it was not a New Democratic Go vernment, because a New Democratic Government when dealing with that particular issue had a Cabinet Minister, namely, Sid Green, resign from that Cabinet, who went ahead and organized and worked against the Premier of that day and the Member for St.

Boniface, and saw that that resolution was defeated . When, Mr. Chairman, the Minister gets up and says that the previous administration didn't do anything, I take extreme exception to that. The figures, of course, point that out very clearty and we all know on this side that every time a ticklish issue comes up, the Minister of Health gets up and says the one thing that's really dear to my heart and that I'm fighting for is aid to private schools.

We know that probably the majority of members opposite would not want to provide aid to private schools, because when it was before the House the majority voted against it. A MEMBER: How many Conservatives voted for it? MR. R. BANMAN: In 1978, all the Conservatives voted for it. A MEMBER: How many in 1972? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Chairman, in 1978, and what's at issu� tterl'! right now and the House Leader fails to reme mber is the fact that his Minister of Education said the previous administration didn't do anything to help private schools.

So, here we are dealing with this particular subject matter. We know that many of the people in the New Democratic Party would like to do away with that particular appropriation, they would dearly love to do away with it. All I'm saying here today is that when the Minister of Education gets up and said the opposition didn't do anything when they were in government, Mr. Chairman, the figures don't lie and if she goes to the statutes, they don't lie eit her. We know for a fact, from the track record of the New Democratic Party, that the majority of them are opposed to aid to private schools. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Chairman, just adding further to the words of my colleague, the Memb er for La Ver endrye, I know that it used to be virtually a command performance on the part of the New Democratic Party when assembled in convention, that among the many resolutions they passed at those gatherings, there was an affirmation of no aid to private and parochial school and any public moneys used in education to be used solely in the public school system. 864 Now I haven't been keeping that close watch on the recent conve ntions of the New Democratic Party, and I do know and I do suspect that the presence and the influence of the Minister of Health, perhaps in the past conventions, has prevented that kind of a resolution from coming forward and being passed in the New Democratic Party Conve ntion.

But I say to the Minister quite seriously, even without getting into the debate as to the dollars that are available - we know they are difficult times; they are doubly difficult for independent schools - it would be a help; it would be moral support for those responsible for the adm inistration of independent schools if the Minister could, for instance, indicate to me that has she been successful as Minister of Education - she's had the portfolio now for the last two or three years - to have her party accept in principle, by res olution, the fact that aid to private and parochial schools or aid to independent schools is now an acceptable expend itur e of moneys for a New Democratic Party Government.

I simply ask her that question, has she been able to convince her party colleagues, when assembled in convention, not just leaning on the Minister of Health, because the Minister of Health you know, whenever this subject comes up, he threatens to resig n and the Minister of Health is still regarded appropriately with the kind of Influence that I'm prepared to acknowledge he deserves when one looks at the make-up of members opposite and the government opposite, but one always has that feeling that if it weren 't for an individual like the Minister of Health, continued aid to independent schools would be long gone.

So I ask the Minister if she can stand and Indicate, not just to us in this committee, but to those who are deeply concerned about the continued viability of independent schools in Manitoba, whether or not the New Democratic Party in 1984, has matured to the extent that they can accept that as policy within their party? Because, Mr.

Chairman, If I wanted to, I could do a little bit of rese arch; I wouldn't have to go back to too many conventions where formal resolutions were passed and where, by far, the rank and file membership of the New Democrat ic Party rejected any thought of aid to private and inde pendent schools. So it would be a help, Madam Minister, if the current Minister of Education could indicate, In a clear and uneq uivocal way, that the New Democratic Party does not have any further hang-ups about provi din g assistance to independent schools.

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, I think that our position is being communicated very clearly in this House and to the public of Manitoba, not just through words but through action, and when I say that, I mean not just through words by people standing up and saying that they are concerned about the viability of private schools -and I will reiterate what I said before, and deal with the issue they raised about the increased num bers but reiterate what I said before -by saying that in the four years they were government, they did not increase the grant, the existing grant by one cent.

Added to that, the first three years of the Education Support Program that was in by their laws, they did not add any increase to the grant through the inflation factor, so when they had the chance, where was their concern for the viability of the Independent school? Where was it? I mean, these words are absolutely useless. Where was your action the four years that you were in office in terms of increasing the grant? Now, just a minute. I want to make it very clear, that when I said you didn't do anything, I said you didn't do anything to increase the grant. You did do something.

I want the Member for Morris to listen to this. Would you guys tone it down, please. When he made the point about the incr eased numbers, and I said earlier that there was increased dol lars in priv ate school because of incr eased enrolment, and I am quite prepared to give some credit due, and to indicate what it was that the members opposite did, what they did was take shared service agreements that were being delivered under the table, that everybody knew about, but that weren't legitimized, I suppose.

They were being done, but they weren't legitimized, and they brought in a system where they were allowed to have agreement. That did encouraged some boards to sign shared service agreements where they were not prepared to sign them before. To that end, the numb er of supportable students increased. lt increased significantly, yes, it did. So that what happened by that move is that you increase the numbers of students and the num bers of schools that were eligible for the existing grant.

I said that the increased money that was there was because of incre ased enrolment and increased num ber of schools, but what I also said is while that was done you have to also take either the credit or the blame for the reality that you did absolutely nothing to alter or increase the $435 grant that was brought in; not one cent in four years.

We were in government for two of those years and we had a legislative program that had an inflation factor built In that could easily have applied to private schools, had your concern for their viability been demonstrated by action, Instead of by words; by putting private schools into the Educational Support Program, instead of under Other so that the inflation factor wouldn't increase. What I'm trying to say is you get credit on the one hand for allowing shared service agreements so that the numbers of supportable students and schools increased.

You had lots of opportunity and you did absolutely nothing to demonstrate your concern by adding one additional cent to that grant. I do not believe that $820,000 in one year, because that is the amount of money that is going to be required to cover the cost of this increase, is an Insign ificant dollar amount, nor would be seen to be an Insignificant dollar amount by anybody's imagination. 865 MR. C. MAN NESS: Mr. Chairman, obviou sly, the Min ister has the 1983 figure in front of her. I don't, I'm wondering if she can provide it to me, as far as the support to private schools? Dollars, please? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: I think that this is the correct one, $4, 103,2 00.00. Is that the correct figure? Just a minute let me check. MR. C. MAN NESS: it's 4. 189 million this year. HON. M. HEMPHILL: 3.963 million is the figure that we have. MR. C. MAN NESS: 963? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister made reference to a $600,000 increase. I don't know over what year she's talking about, because 4.189 million over 3.963 million,'84 over'83, is roughly 200,000 that's changed. Maybe she may want to give me that detail. HON. M.

HEMPHILL: I can understand the confusion of the Member for Morris, because he's looking at the dollar figure in the Estimates for aid to private schools which clearly is not a sufficient amount to cover the total dollars that I have indicated. What shows in the Estimates and what was built Into the Estimates, because they were done at an earlier time, was the basic 3 percent increase that was given to the public school system.

The cost, though, of the $80 increase in the grant and the $10 Increase in the Print/Non-print is a $750,000 increase for the grant and a $70,000 increase for the Print/Non-print Increase, for a total of $820,000.00. The additional amo unt will be covered thr ough Supplemental Supp ly. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, the Minister Is then saying that the $4.189 million shown on the statement that she provided to me this morning is to be supplemented in the future. For the record, the Minister Is nodding, yes. Mr.

Chairman, my final point specifically on this discussion and argument we seem to be having regarding the Minister's claim that we have done nothing. In most of these discussions, the truth lies maybe somewhere between what we're both saying. The Minister is saying that shared services, which was occurring under the table, now became accounted for and therefore showed up as a figure. My colleague, the Member for Lakeslde, says there were also many many other students attending independent schools who received support for the first time during those years, '78 and' 79.

Now the part that I wish to take issue with the Minister, she says we locked In the $435 per private student grant in the new Education Support Program. Of course, everybody knows the first year of that program was in 1981. lt also was a th ree-year program ending just five months ago in 1983. The Minister should also be aware that the government of the day, which was her government, administered that program in 1982 and 1983.

Tueect.y, 15 May, 1884 The Minister said that she was legislatively frozen into that commitment. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister has received gr eat raves and notices for all the supplemental operating support she's given the school divisions outside of the legislative portion of the Educ ation Support Program by way of an additional grant. Is she telling us now that she could not have given that same increase to the private schools by way of a grant outside of the legislative Educational Support Program? HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr.

Chairman, I certainly am not, because the Member for Morris will recollect that we did give an increase last year. But the first increase to the $435 ... MA. C. MANNESS: Then why do you blame that on us? HON. M. HEMPHILL: . . . was a 10.4 percent increase when the grant for the first time went from 435 to 480.00. I didn't say we couldn't make the change. I said you didn't. That's exactly what I said. You didn't do it for your four years of office, and you didn't build it into the Education Support Program. MA. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, the Support Program came into being in 1981.

We left office in the fall of 1981. What is the Minister talking about 1977? I have given the figures here. lt showed the increases in 1978 and'79 and'80. The first year that we were locked into a legislative program was in 1981. We lost the election in'81, so what is the Minister saying? They have administered two out of the three years of the Education Suppo rt Program. So don't say that we were locked into 435 when we administered it for one year, the first year we introduced it. MA. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Lakeside. MA. H.

ENNS: I don't wish to prolong the debate, but I do just want to underline the point that my colleague already made. Certai nly on behalf of the schools that I have a particular interest in, that is, those schools of the Mennoni te faith, they for the first time received assistance from the public purse, along with many other schools of that kind.

I don't know whether it was the Jewish schools that were involved at the same time. lt was essentially the Catholic parochial schools who had enjoyed the support through the years, I suppose, right back to 1916 when the two-school system was abolished in Manitoba where commons ense arrangements, even though they were so-called under the table and I'm sure not at all satisfactory to the Catholic commun ity, but it was essentially the Catholic parochial school that had the Support Program that the Minister speaks of for many years with their arrangements, as we call them, un der-the-table arrangements within their school divisions.

But for many other inde pendent schools - I speak particula rly of the Mennonite schools, the Westgate Mennonite School here, the Elmwood Mennoni te School, the Gretna facility in southern Manitoba - they received for the first time what's referred to as the shared services cost of any kind of assistance at the 866 time when it was a Conservative admin istration's opportunity to provide that aid. MA. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to offer my last question in this area.

I introduced the whole area by asking the Minister to indicate to us whether she had any genuine concern, or whether there was a commitment to the private school system , not only in terms of dollars but in terms of principle, whereby her government would be prepared to work towards a longer-stand ing formula, one that would of course give the private schools some assurance that they also knew where they were going, just like every educational body in the province wishes to have.

My final question to the Minister in this whole area is whether she considers her mandate as the Minister of Education as upholding the public school system , or whether she considers that mandate to be responsible for the education of all - and I underline the word "all" - students within the Province of Manitoba. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Chairman, my responsi bility clearly covers all of the childr en in the province who are being educated and, in the process of educating, being provided funds from the Manitoba Government and Department of Education in a way that makes them conform to The Public Schools Act and the curriculum and our conditions. That includes the private schools. In other words, in order to receive the grant, they have to meet our conditions.

Those conditions, as I outlined before, are the hiring of certified teachers, the following of our curriculum, and being willing to have an examination by somebody from the department, to be inspected , as it were. To that end, we have to carry out the respo nsibility to make sure that those conditions have been met in order to be able to provide the funds. MA. C. MANNESS: Just a final point, Mr. Chairman. I'm curious as to why the Minister would not make an announcement regarding the total grantable amount of moneys to the private schools. I suppose we've been asking for that on our side for a period of time.

I pose that question, particularly in light of the answer offered by the Minister just 10 minutes ago where she said there would be additional amounts of money brought forward under, was it supplemen tary supply? Again I wonder why the Minister wou ldn't make this announcement and let us know where all the funding increases are coming from, and why she has seen fit to sort of keep it closeted to such a degree, and such that we had to pull it out, I think, in a manner which has taken a lot more time than need be. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that it had to be pulled out.

I think that I was expecting to present the information during the Estimates process at the time that we reached that line on the item. That's the way that we're handling all of the grants, it's not being handled in an extraord inary way, and it cert ainly isn't being hidden because it's rather hard to believe that you could or would want to hide an $820,000 increase in support. MA. C. MANNESS: We ll, Mr. Chairman, we'll move on then out of the private school area unless any of my colleagues have additional questions.

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 I will be asking and posing a number of questions related to the statement given to me this morning by the Minister's office. I would hope that the Minister and her staff, I imagine, would also have copies of this. Before, Mr. Chairman, we move into a specific que stion on that sheet, I would ask the Minister what will be the total amount spent by school boards and school divisions throughout the province in 1984? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, the total amount will be $734,308,450.00. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister how much was spent last year by all the scho

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-3-22b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 3rd hansardpdf 22b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	56ea03c967212b6c84260325c2565d83ea5f8824

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).