Manitoba Hansard — 30 May 1978 (Sitting 52B, 31st Legislature, 2nd Session)

31-2-52b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 30, 1978 Time: 8:00 p.m. SUPPLY - EXECUTIVE COUNCIL MR. CHAIRMAN: Gentlemen , we have a quorum. We are on Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation, Page 6, Resolution 7. 5(a)-pass - The Member for Transcona. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have reflected a bit over the supper hour regarding the federal offer of providing some short-term inducements while , at the same time, taking away the cost -shared rent supplements or rent subsidies for housing co-operatives and non-profit housing. Also the fact that the Federal Government is interested in phasing out

Section 43 financing which means that also there will be no

Section 44 cost-shared subsidies applied to newly constructed senior citizens ' public housing because there wouldn't be newly constructed senior citizens ' public housing conceivably in three or four years if the Federal Government goes ahead with phasing out

Section 43 funds . It strikes me that the situation that we will have as a result would be, in a sense, moderate or middle-income senior citizens ' housing and non-profit entities and possibly in housing co-operatives and we wouldn 't have the possibility of getting low-income senior citizens into those too .

So I pass from this subject now with the request that the Minister pursue this matter very strenuously in negotiations with the Federal Government and frankly, when you consider the trade-offs , please don 't trade off that particular characteristic of past federal programs, namely the cost -sharing of subsidies especially with respect to senior citizens .

You can't predict operating costs into the future well and it strikes me that if we accept this new program or package that the Federal Government is offering and accept at the same time their getting out of 50/50 cost-sharing of subsidies, we'll be buying a pig in a poke and we should just turn it down . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I can only say to the honourable member that we will argue this as stren uously as we can with the Federal Government to get the best arrangement for Manitoba . I appreciate the member's concern.

We will put up an argument and I hope the member bears in mind that it might not be our choice in the end but we will certainly put up a fight on what you've just spoken of and what you spoke of this afternoon . MR. PARASIUK: If you might, just one little point on this. You might just draw up some examples showing that even under the interest write-down, it will be impossible for senior citizens who are getting an old age pension to be able to get a suite for $65.00 a month which is the rental they pay right now in a senior citizens' home owned by MHRC. MR.

JOHNSTON: Well, we've already provided just about all the data on this to the Federal Government . As I said, we have had five meetings with the federal people and the other provinces and we have pointed out to them the disadvantages that we see in the program as far as Manitoba is concerned and we will continue to discuss it with them although we must get something done pretty soon and come to some agreement on the negotiations with the Federal Government so that we can move on with our programs . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Chairman, prior to the supper hour break, among other things we were talking about the development of housing in the inner core . There was some discussion about expropriations and the method for obtaining land and the Minister made some comments about how he regretted having to use the mechanism of court or the technique of having the courts provide the evaluation , if you will, of the land . I'd like to ask the Minister then , how does he intend to proceed if he is not satisfied with the expropriation method in order to obtain satisfactory sites in the inner portion 2911

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 of the City of Winnipeg? How does he intend to proceed in future and to obtain suitable land sites for family housing? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I informed the Member for Brandon East before supper we were continuing with a large number of the expropriations . There are many of the people who were expropriated that weren't unhappy about it and certainly where it was derelict property, we are moving along . You're quite right, I don't favour expropriation.

I don't think any government should walk up at any time and one day and say, "You're property is mine." A MEMBER: They're doing that every day. MR. JOHNSTON: For roads or something of that nature, or parks, but when a person owns a piece of property that he believes is his for commercial use, I don 't really think it's the best way to go about it but it's been done; we are continuing with some of the expropriations and I can say that our real estate department is continually looking for pieces of property in Winnipeg.

We have been successful in a couple of small ones in that it enhanced the property we had which is our policy to only purchase land at the present time which will enhance what we have. In the City of Winnipeg at the present time, we have enough property to move ahead with what we want to do in the core area. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister says he has enough property to proceed. I take it he's referring to the 1978 construction year. What about the following year? Does he have enough land to build what may be a targetted amount to meet the need? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes we have. MR. EVANS: For the year 1978?

MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. EVANS: Well what happens when you run out of the land that has been acquired through this expropriation method?

Incidentally, I might say that my understanding was that the staff who identified these particular parcels of land and bits of property to be expropriated assured me that what they were zeroing in on would be either under-utilized or unutilized land or condemned vacant buildings, derelict buildings , fire hazards, you know, so that people weren't necessarily being forced out of existing accommodation but they were careful to obtain or they were supposed to be careful to attempt to obtain those properties which did not affect at least the living pattern and did not take away from the housing stock adequate housing accommodation but they were instructed to go after pieces of land that were either under-utilized or were not being utilized or property which contained perhaps condemned buildings, fire hazards and the like.

The point is, of course , that through the court system, people do have the opportunity to have a hearing and presumably get a just and equitable price and this is why we wanted to use the courts so that that would happen rather than us trying to set a price arbitrarily ourselves. But what does the Minister intend to do next year? Will this be the end of the inner core development program? MR. JOHNSTON: No, we have enough for next year too. MR. EVANS: You have enough for next year too. Well then , can the Minister advise what he estimates to be constructed this year? MR.

JOHNSTON: For the third time, I have said that we will be moving ahead with Midlands and our plans for the core area have not been finalized as yet and we are also waiting, in some cases, to find out what we will be paying for the expropriated land . I think I made that clear before that until we know what the land is going to cost us, until we know what participation CMHC are going to be a actively involved in after we know what the land is going to cost us, we won't be building on it. We have enough land of our own at the present time to move forward with some projects.

As I said, at the present time, we're strapped with $14 million which has to be spread around through the whole province. MR. EVANS: So, to recap what the Minister, as I understand the Minister, he's simply not in a position to give us any figure or any estimate of a quantity for that type of program in that

part 2912

... Tuesday, May 30, 1978 of the province, in the inner city of Winnpeg. He's saying that he's got problems, which he's just enumerated, and therefore he's not in a position to give us an estimate . MR. JOHNSTON: That's correct. MR. EVANS: What is the Minister or the government intending to do to stimulate construction by the private sector? You're saying that the feds, the Federal Government, may be bringing public housing to an end, the moneys for public housing at least, for new construction; you yourself have indicated, or the Minister's indicated, Mr.

Chairman, that he feels there is more room for private developers and he talks about the cost of subsidization of public housing and so on. So, my question then is, given his concerns, could he indicate how he may stimulate the private sector to fill the gap because as I indicated this afternoon, the reason government is involved , even the existence of the National Housing Act , indicates that the private sector. the private market or the pure market economy, doesn't work in providing housing for people. If it worked , there would be absolutely no government involvement.

There would be no NHA approved loans; there would be no NHA rates of interest as opposed to private mortgage rates of interest. There would simply be no government involvement in financing and so forth. But we don't have that; we have an industry that is very much controlled and affected by governmental regulation. But given the fact that we do have a Housing Corporation and given the fact that the Minister has indicated he would like to reduce the public portion, the public segment of its activities, what does he intend to do to stimulate the private sector? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr .

Chairman, I have indicated that if we are going to use a rent supplement of some kind, if we are going to be paying a total of $208.00 a month subsidy on every unit, split with the Federal Government, if it costs us $350.00 per month per unit of public housing in this province, there is no reason why that money cannot be used to be in accommodation owned by somebody other than the government. We have been through this before but I will say that I see nowhere in the terms of reference of the MHRC Act that says that the MHRC is a work project organization.

MHRC is an organization which is to supply housing to those of low income in need. When he mentions the CMHA projects and when he talks about the Federal Government having a CMHC, the Federal Government deals with all kinds of private people. They have AHOP Programs ; they have all kinds of programs that stimulate the private market to build and we can be in the same position. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, the Minister more or less is repeating what he said before and I heard what he said before but I was wondering if he could be more specific and elaborate just on how he is going to stimulate the private sector.

I understood him, from previous remarks, that he was going to possibly provide subsidies to supplement rents of low-income people and senior cit izens, in other words, help them pay the rental costs of privately-owned apartments. I heard that, but what other techniques? Is there anything else that the Minister is suggesting : subsidization of interest rates paid by private developers; giving the private industry private sector land for $1.00 or whatever? There are all kinds of ways and means that the government can hand out money to the private sector, there is no question about it.

But having done so, incidentally , Mr. Chairman , let's not talk about the market economy because market economy means no government subsidy . If you are talking about a market economy delivering housing , that means not only no government involvement in terms of programming, it means no government involvement, period, no housing subsidies whatsoever. The private sector makes it on its own and the people who are in the market to buy housing have to make it on their own.

So what the Minister is saying when he is saying he is thinking of a subsidy program to supplement rents, the government is still involved, there is no question about it even though he is going to rely more heavily on the private sector . So could he elaborate just on how he's going to cause the private sector to produce the kind of housing that is presumably needed by various groups in our society that cannot seem to afford that housing otherwise? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman , to give one example we could go the way they do in in Ontario in one of their programs.

Wherethe private sector if a man owns property he builds, he comes to MHRC, or in this case he goes to the Ontario Housing and he puts up houses that they approve of, they are rented to people and they subsidize them up to 15 years and then the houses belong to that contractor . That's one program that is used in Ontario. I told the member before that I firmly believe that the private sector will build.

There is no reason for us to be in the amount of construction that we are, but I've also said that we are not going to be completely out of the responsibility of looking after low-income people and senior citizens or families in specific areas where we feel it will be our responsibility and the private sector won't be involved. 2913

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Transcona MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to clarify a point that the Minister keeps making and that is that somehow the public sector builds housing in the past, and now the private sector will build housing under this particular government. The private sector builds both types of housing . The private sector builds housing for MHRC and the private sector no doubt will build housing for other private owners of property.

The question is ownership, who will own the proprty and who will own the facilities and I can think of very few Crown corporations actually involved in the construction. You had many companies , many architectural companies, many private engineering , structural engineering firms involved in the building of facilities which were owned by the people o·l Manitoba. So, I would think that when he starts talking about the private sector building now as opposed to not building in the past, I think he's being somewhat misleading in that respect.

I think that one of the reasons why we keep coming back , to asking the Minister whether in fact he has any concrete programs in place to stimulate the private sector is because hEl has made statements saying that he is not in favour of the public being the largest landlord, he has made those statements some time ago, he has indicated that he will be doing certain things to stimulate the private sector and we haven't seen any of the concrete specific proposals.

When a new government is elected it comes forward with a whole set of possibilities, and frankly, the Conservative Party in the last election, did put forward a number of suggestions. In fact, some people argued that it ran a completely negative campaign, I didn't think so, I thought that in the area of housing it was putting forward positive concrete proposals .

That's what it did in the campaign; un·lortunately, it's been government now for some time and we're coming into this construction se~1son, we're coming into a period where we're given the lead time required for apartment building, you need to get started on these concrete programs right now.

Because if your concrete programs are to have any effect two years from now, you have to announce them now, you have to let the people know what types of subsidy program they might expect if, in fact, they're going to say, undertake a $5 million investment in a fairly large apartment block which conceivably may provide apartment units to senior citizens, or conceivably may provide units to low-income families. So, that's why people in a sense on this side of the House or this side of the table keep asking for specific concrete programs .

I can appreciate the Minister saying well, you know, this is what they 're doing in Ontario or this is what they're doing in Alberta or this is what they're doing possibly in the United States, but I think that the people of Manitoba can ask, well, what are we doing? What specifically are we going to do of a positive nature with respect to housing? I think that's a fair quElStion. MR. JOHNSTON: It is a fair question and I think I've been trying to answer that as soon as we have our long-term arrangements settled with the Federal Government we will be moving ahead.

I have every confidence that the private sector will be very happy. In fact, we had some people come forward to us, I think the member mentioned in the House, that the private sector will come to you asking for subsidies for people in low-income housing . There's all kinds of plans that can used that we are looking at at the present time, and I outlined some of them to the Member for Fort Rouge the other night that we are presently studying. MR. PARASIUK: But you have no specific commitment to make at this particular time. MR.

JOHNSTON: I . .. the specific commitment to date at this particular time and we are studying it as I said . But I can say that there are no plans in the works right now for any pub lic housing in the core area other than the Midland Developmen t. MR. PARASIUK: How many would there be in the Midland , I forget? MR. JOHNSTON : We have pretty well worked with the City of Winnipeg on that particula r developmen t . A group of people down there have come forward and they want to go ahead with 56 single family dwellings at the present time. MR. PARASIUK : I think 56 single fam ily dwell ings is better than noth ing.

I think the Min ister would agree that given the magn itude of the housing dilem na in the core area, that' s not enough, but I'm thankful that we're proceeding with 56. In this connection I'd like to ask the Minis ter whether he has had further discussions with the City of Winnipeg regarding the City of Winnipeg Non- Profit Housing Corporation. I had asked him some questions in the House on this regarding the $1 million commitment and the Mini ster , if I can recall, said that - well, I wasn't quite sure abo ut his answer.

He said the $1 million is there, does that mean the $1 million is there committed to 1he City of Winnipeg , or the $1 million is there if the City of Winn ipeg wants to use it , but it hasn 't qu ite made 2914

- Tuesday, May 30, 1978 up it's mind, or it hasn't formally asked him, I wasn't clear on that situation . What is the status of the City of Winnipeg Non-Profit Housing Corporation? Does the province intend to provide any seed money toward it to get it off the ground? MR. JOHNSTON: At the present time, Mr. Chairman, the commitment to the City of Winnipeg regarding the Non- Profit Housing Corporation , the $1 million that was set aside for them has not been spent, it's still set aside to work with the City of Winnipeg in their non-profit housing.

One of the reasons we didn't proceed with it is that we couldn't see that the $1 million was going to become a revolving fund the same as it was intended to be, so we're going to work with the City and many of the organizations that are working down their to try and put that money to the best use. We have been discussing that over the past month and we'll be pursuing it very fast in the near future as to what that $1 million will be used for. MR. PARASIUK: Is that a carry-over from last year, the $1 million? MR.

JOHNSTON: The $1 million , no, it wasn't a carry-over, it was a commitment that was made to the city by the previous premier that we have decided to honour . MR. PARASIUK: So, the government of Manitoba is honouring the commitment of the previous Premier of Manitoba that $1 million would be provided to non-profit housing in the City of Winnipeg, when the City of Winnipeg gets its organization underway and conceivably ties into the Federal program. MR. JOHNSTON: The $1 million is capital that was in the Winter Works or Municipal Loan Fund. MR.

PARASIUK: So, that means it is a carry-over from last year if it was in the Municipal Loan Fund. MR. JOHNSTON: It was not in our budget. MR. PARASIUK: So that is a carryover from last year. That is part of the "deficit" and is being carried forward and it will be utilized in this year or the next year, in terms of programming? MR. JOHNSTON: No, I think you'd have to get that clearer from somebody else other than me. The million dollars was never in the budget of MHRC. MR.

PARASIUK: Well, I just want to clarify this because you can't have a million dollars that's there for the city and not have it voted anywhere by the House, and I would think that it must have been voted somewhere in the House . It might be under Unallocated Capital, but it still exists . MR. JOHNSTON: It's still there from where the previous Premier made the commitment from. MR. PARASIUK: Okay, and it's there and the province is not reneging on that commitment, and you are in the process of negotiating with the City of Winnipeg, as to the best ways of spending that million dollars . MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct.

MR. PARASIUK: For housing in the City of Winnipeg . MR. JOHNSTON: That is correct. MR. PARASIUK: Because I had heard Councillor Bockstael , who I think is head of the non-profit housing corporation, indicate that he had been having some, possibly lack of communication with the province in this respect and that he would be trying to raise this matter up with the official delegation meetings with the city . He said that what they needed right now to get on the road, so to speak, was not a million dollars, although I'm glad that the million dollars is there, but $150,000 .00.

Has the Minister been apprised of that need by Councillor Bockstael, who is also head of the City of Winnipeg Non-Profit Housing Corporation? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. 2915

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. PARASIUK: Do you agree with him that that's what is required to get the ball rolling with respect to non-profit housing in the city? MR. JOHNSTON: Well , I'm in agreement with the money going out gradually; I think that 's a very commendable suggestion of Councillor Bockstael. We're not completely in agreement with the way the money was going to be used . MR. PARASIUK: How did they want to use it? MR.

JOHNSTON : Well , the money was going to be used to purchase older homes, and the older homes would then be repaired , fixed up and resold, and the money that comes from them would be back into a revolving fund to be continually working in the area doing just what I described . There is no way that we can see that the money would become a revolving fund ; it would be gone in less than two or three years .

If you purchase a house in the core area for $15,000 , and and you spend $15,000 on it, you 're now into the $30,000 area of a house in the core area which you probably will have trouble getting your money out of, then you will have to rent it or Maybe start in the subsidy . The program is just not going to preserve the million dollars the way they expected it would be done. We would like to talk to them on better uses of that money in the core area. MR. PARASIUK: Have you made any counter proposals to the city as to how they could get that? MR. JOHNSTON : Not as yet. MR.

PARASIUK: Because I think possibly , since municipalities haven't been that involved in the provision of housing or looking at housing problems per se, that sometimes it requires some leadership on the part of a more senior government to get the ball rolling , and I think that in the case of the City of Winnipeg possibly MHRC staff , who had some experience in developing housing prog rams, could be a bit creative and put forward some creative suggest ions to the City of Winnipeg Non-Profit Housing Corporation .

Otherwise , there will be a lot of talk about non-profit housing but there will be very little perfo rmance and I just note that CMHC has in the past talked a great deal about non-profit housing . And yet when I looked at their budget for this year and when I checked with the regional off ice, desp ite all their talk about non-profit housing , they had no start-up money in the b udget so that if a non-profit corporat ion came to it and asked for the $10,000 which has now been expande d to $75,000, thi s start up seed money, the y couldn 't get the $1 0,000 beca use there was not hing in the Federa l budge t.

So what I am afraid of, are paper programs withou t anyth ing act ually happening , and it strikes me what CMHC has done is increase the seed money to $75 ,000 from $10,000, but they n ever had the $10,000 in place in the first pla ce. So I am again suggest ing to the Minister that he sit down with the city and see if he can get the ball rolling with respect to this non-profit housing corpo rati on. MR. JOHNSTON : Well, we certain ly intend to. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Lac du Bonn et. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, the Minister was indicating on a number of occasi ons durin g the course of the Estimates Debate, the intent to rely more on private sector through subsid ization. What kind of assurance is he prepared to give to the private sector who pre sumably would want to invest certain sums of money towards low-cost housing, or subsidized housing? What are the mechanics of encouraging that kind of investment?

The reason I raise that question is that unles s there is some contractural arrangement over a long period of time , that no sane individua l with any money to invest would want to risk the vagaries of governments in power, and governments coming in and going out of power . They certainly couldn't risk millions of dollars of investment on the so-called policy of an existing government. They would have to have greater assurance than that. So what are the mechanics that would give them that kind of assurance? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr.

Chairman, the housing constructed by MHRC has resulted in a fifty-year commitment of subsidies . MR. USKIW: A government commitment. 2916

.: - Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. JOHNSTON: The government. Now there are a variety of programs being contemplated that would lock the province into subsidies not to exceed 15 years , while at the same time prov ide the flexibility required to meet the changing housing needs that we have. There are programs that can be utilized . The honourable member just doesn 't seem to realize that the provincial government has gone mainly on one particular program for housing in Manitoba, which is to build public housing owned and operated by the province . There are other programs that are available to shelter people. MR.

USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, is the Minister indicating that he is prepared to enter into a program wuere the public would be committed for a fifty-year period in terms of subsidization of private shelter . Is that what the Minister is suggesting to this committee? MR. JOHNSTON: I said up to 15 years is the sum of the programs that we have been looking at. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, has the Minister any indication from investor groups as to the conditions that they would want in their arrangements with the province in terms of the time span and so on, in terms of a guarantee in other words? MR.

JOHNSTON: I think the conditions would be ours and we have had lots of people approach us, interested in working with us. Under the rules and regulations of CMHC that the programs that are available to us. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman , the Minister indicates that the conditions would be the conditions of the public . That isn't necessarily so because one can place all sorts of conditions that may not bring forward one penny of private capital, so that in essence the conditions are the conditions of the private sector.

The government would not be successful in inducing private investment capital into housing if it were government conditions . The only way in which that could happen is if the private sector was able to impose some condit ions to protect its investment. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman , the contractor or the person building is probably not going to be building unless he has somebody or some guarantee , or some arrangement with us that we will be taking a subsidy for a certain length of time .

Now if he is not going to build on the basis of a unit we believe should be subs!dized, I think that we're both in a very good negotiating position. He would be using a private lender . The multi-housing Council of HUDAM in Manitoba has expressed a definite interest in this type of a program that has been carried on in Ontario . MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman , does the Minister agree though , that the private sector would only be involved if there was a fair amount of profit to be made out of the program in more than one way perhaps: a profit on rent plus perhaps some fairly substantial capital gain profits that may accrue over a long period of time. But it seems to me only logical that we would be building in fairly substantial profits into the housing program in which we are going to accommodate people who are of necessity going to be subsidized in terms of their rental payments. MR. JOHNSTON: No, we would not be building in very great big profits. MR.

USKIW: Mr. Chairman, can the Minister then indicate to us what the margins of profit are to be or anticipated to be, with respect to any investment group that would put money into such a program . MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman , at the present time we are the ones that own and operate ; we are involved in the maintenance in the program that I am speaking of, the other man owns it. He has a right to have something for maintenance and investment, and certainly there will be a profit to be made by the private sector , but every indication is that the subsidy costs of the province will be substantially less.

In fact, where we subsidize in privately owned accommodation , our average subsidy which is split by the Federal Government, is $208 per unit. Our average subsidy , when we subsidize in private units , is $80, which is a substantial saving to the province . MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman , could the Minister indicate to us, and perhaps he has already , but if he has perhaps it wouldn 't be difficult for him to repeat it , what Manitoba 's p rofit position is in MHRC.

That is, the gain on assets accum ulated over the years ; do we have a figure on that, the value of our assets today compared to o ur investment cos ts. 2917

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman , the question of assets , if you want to talk about replacement value , that's one thing; if you want to talk about assets and the value of the assets, that's another thing . And the best experience I can give you on government assets is Nassau Square where we have lost our shirt, and Bell Avenue, where we have lost our shirt, and it doesn't look good in Selkirk either.

So the value of your assets is what you can get out of them and anybody purGhasing any public housing , or if it was to be for sale, it's only valuable to somebody who is going to be guaranteed a subsidy, because the square footage in the senior citizen units that we build, are not such that a person could rent them for market without having a subsidy, they couldn't be rented for market . And much of our pub lic housing is not in that good shape or situation that you cou ld get what you call market prices. I can say to you that the replacement value is probably double what it was originally worth. MR.

USKIW: What would that be in terms of millions of dollars, Mr. Chairman? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, our value of the asset, I think we've spent $200 million -(lnt ,erjection) $225 million. MR. USKIW: Is that the cost , the original cost, Mr. Chairman, or is that the present replacement cost? MR. JOHNSTON: That's the book value of the assets . MR. USKIW: As of now? MR JOHNSTO~ Yes. MR. USKIW: What percentage over and above cost is that, or what is the difference bE!tween cost and the present value? MR. JOHNSTON: That's cost less depreciation on the basis of the amortized payment of the capital. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Chairman, then we're not talking about replacement value. MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the replacement value, that 's a fairly hard figure to come up with . MR. USKIW: Well not really , everybody ... MR. JOHNSTON: Well, if he wants to take all the blueprints that we've got on file and have them re-tendered again to get it, fine. I would say that it is considerably more to replace it now than it cost us to build it. MR. USKIW: Mr. Chairman , everyone knows that a building put up ten years ago is worth a lot more money today than it was ten years ago, even though theoretically it should have depreciated in value .

Not only the building but the land on which it sits as well, and that's the point that I'm trying to get from the Minister. What is the estimated present value of MHRC assets in terms of the replacem ent value, not in terms of their costs? MR. JOHNSTON: We don't have one. MR. USKIW: Well, what is the benchmark then? How does one calculate this? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I would say to replace it today would cost more than it cost us to build it, but I cannot tell you what the value that you're speaking of is. Market value is what you can get for it and our experience has been not good in that particular area. MR.

USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the reason I raised that is because this is a point intentionally or otherwise lost sight of by members of government from time to time in discussing the cost::; of certain government programs versus the benefit of the program and they never do include the appreciation of value in physical assets. They always tend to set those aside as if they are meaningless, and that is not the kind of bookkeeping that you have in the private sector. MR. JOHNSTON: Well , I think it is close to the same type of bookkeeping that you have in the 2918

• Tuesday, May 30, 1978 private sector . I think everybody knows that if they have something to sell they get what they can for it. We don 't know what it would be worth on the private market today; we know it would cost us more to rebuild it. The other argument is that we are tied in on those for 50 years . Where it has happened in most areas they are tearing them down before 50 years and letting private builders rebuild them and then subsidizing the private builders , which is what we are talking about now, and it is happening all over the place . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Mr.

Chairman , the Minister made a statement a few minutes ago saying that about the only thrust - or words to this effect - about the only thrust of the previous government with MHRC was to put up public housing . While there was a great emphasis put on that and many units were built and as we recognize today - it was stated today - over 12,000 units have been put in place .

Well, having said that, I would point out to the Minister , and it is available in all kinds of documents, in CMHC budgets of the past , in Annual Reports of Manitoba Housing, it is quite obvious that the previous government, through MHRC, was engaged in a whole host of programs over and above and beyond public housing . For example, in the 1977 CMHC budget , sure there was $32.3 millio n for

Section 43, Public Housing, $32.3 million . But there was another $67-odd million for .. - other purposes. Let me just enumerate these and it is in public records as to where moneys were being spent. The Rural and Northern Program, $9.8 million was allocated in 1977. That Rural and Northern Program is a program whereby the person purchases a home - with a subsidy, yes, but he purchases it over a 25-year period . Co-operative Housing, $10 million.

Section 15.1 Housing , $9.9 million.

Section 42, Land Assembly , $6.1 million, and I would point out that land assembly is not land assembly for public housing only , it is land assembly for all kinds of ownership housing, private, co-operative, as well as public . Water and Sewage, $13.1 million - this is a CMHC allocation. Moneys in the NIP areas. There is RRAP moneys, Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, $1 .8 million . There is RRAP moneys for non-profits, 1/3 million; RRAP moneys for Rural and Native Communities, $1.2 million. NIP, Neighbourhood Improvement Program , 1/3 million . Direct Lending through AHOP, 1.1.

Assisted Rental Program, 2.7. Then there is some other residual mortgage lending . What I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if you look at the list of programs engaged in by Manitoba Housing in co-operation with CMHC over the years, you will see that while a great deal of public housing was built , nevertheless, tens of millions of dollars have been made available for housing infrastructure through NIP, through assistance to co-ops , through Rural and Native, through various subsidy programs, land assembly programs and so on.

There is a great deal of moneys that were spent over and above and beyond public housing spending and I would submit that in many years these funds totalled far more than public housing expenditure. So you cannot say that all we were concerned about was building public housing. Yes, that received a Jot of attention, but I am saying that millions , tens upon tens of millions of dollars were spent on Co-op Housing, Rural and Northern, which is ownership type, Land Assembly, NIP, and so on. 1 would like to ask the Minister what is happening to the Uphill Neighbourhood Program? I don't know whether he has . . . MR.

JOHNSTON: I think the honourable member is reading from the 1977 CMHC budget. MR. EVANS: Well, their allocation . I am not saying that that was spent, but I am suggesting that there are . . . Or you could read this MR. JOHNSTON: You are not saying it was spent? MR. EVANS: No, I said it was the budget , there was an allocation . I am doing that to indicate that there is a broad spectrum of programs that MHRC has been engaged in in the past.

Or you could read this report, your Annual Report , and read the same thing and read throughout descript ions of the Critical Home Repair Program which is moneys to tradesmen essentially to repair privately-owned dwellings and it's not public housing . There are mill ions of dollars , as the Minister knows, goes into that program . There are some AHOP funds that go for the province . There is moneys from the province into the northern and native housing . There has been moneys by the province into NIP and so on, and this is reported in the Annual Report. The point I am making , Mr.

Chair man, i s th at you can 't say that public housing was the only thrust of the Corporation . It was one major fundamental thrust, but it is only one of a big spectrum 2919

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 of housing and support housing programs. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman , I haven't had the opportunity to be questioned on that particular area. My statements have been , as far as the public housing and shelter for people has been concerned , has been mostly directed and was directed to

Section 43. It was passed out today . In 1977-78 , the vote on Assisted Home Ownership was $125 ,000; this year it is $150 ,000. The Elderly and Infirm Persons Housing Act , $200,000 voted in 1978; we have done the same thing. Critical Home Repair, voted $2 million; we have voted $2.9 million. Co-op Housing, there was none voted last year ; there is $170,000 up front this year. Neighbourhood Improvement Program, $715,000 in 1977-78; this year we have gone $1 ,308,000 in the NIP program . Naturally the NIP program is over. Northern Research Studies is down but it was 81; it is 12.4.

Administration, your sinking fund provisions . If the honourable member would take a closer look at the book , he would find a $900,000 figure for a loss on Bell Avenue and Nassau Square and he will find another $275,000 for a loss that is going to be in 1977-78 . So I'm well aware of the programs at the housing that we are involved in but these programs are with CMHC. The Rural and Northern Program is an ownership program , that's correct. Naturally we think it is a good program.

As a matter of fact , this year, it was asked, in the Rural and Native Program for 1977 will be $10 .5 million, 174 elderly units and 155 family units. These units will be built in 1978. Pardon me, the elderly are rental; we don't sell those, but 155 family units. Those are being worked on and discussed with communities at the present time. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister then recognizes that the thrust of MHRC was multifold, that we were into assisting people buying houses .. . MR. JOHNSTON: The thrust of MHRC was mainly

Section 43 housing . That's why, and I say to you, there are other programs that you can put low income people into houses other than

Section 43 and that's what we're looking at. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman , I said to the Minister that while public housing was our major thrust, there were many other programs that MHRC was engaged in, so you can't make out as though that's all MHRC had done in the past when it's engaged in neighborhood improvement programs, that is a program that helps a particular

section of a city, whether it be the City of Winnipeg or a smaller city, and that benefits everyone that's in that particular area, and the Minister knows that. And likewise with all these other programs, whether it be land assembly or what have you. The Minister mentions Bell Avenue and the loss. Now that's something that started before I was Minister , and I really th ink that MHRC and the Manitoba Government was trying to be overly kind to the community of The Pas. I would think that that maybe is the case. You're talking about the Bell Avenue subdivision in The Pas.

I think that's unfortunate that the private sector was not building houses in The Pas. The private enterprise was not providing housing for the citizens of The Pas, so MHRC came along and said, " okay we'll build some houses to sell - these are to be privately owned . These are not public housing." The MHRC had built a lot of public housing in The Pas. The Town Council didn't want to have any more public housing for rent as I understand it.

MHRC agreed to build this housing subdivision for sale to individuals and unfortunately the market was simply not there, and MHRC was pressured into building private houses for sale to private individuals. I think that this was a mistake. They should not have acceded to the wishes of the Town Council. They should have told the Town Council that the market was very weak for privately owned structures even though the Town Council wanted to see that and it's tough.

You know , I'm afraid that a harder-nosed attitude should have been taken by the corporation, but the fact is that there was a need for housing and the private sector wasn't providing that housing. And so what are you going to do? To help the town the corporation stepped in with this private subdivision . In retrospect that shouldn 't perhaps have gone ahead . They should have concentrated on low income rental housing , which there is a great need for in the Town of The Pas.

So I would say, although that was before my time, if it was to be done again obviously nobody would do it, and you'd simply have to tell the Town Council of The Pas that sorry, you can't have your way, you want us to build a private subdivision? Sorry, if the priva tE·' builders won't put it up, we're not going to engage in it either . We'll engage in some sort of subs dy program or low rental program which there is a great demand for in The Pas which the Town Cc unci I didn't seem to want more of, and leave it at that. MR.

JOHNSTON: It was built by the government, and if you want to tc ke up the argument with the mayor of The Pas as to how it was there I'd suggest the member do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. Is he finished on that ~;ubject? The Member for 2920

, Tuesday, May 30, 1978 Transcona . MR. PARASIUK: I just wanted to comment single enterprise communities are communities that have one major enterpr ise and do run into problems of trying to provide a steady stream of housing . That's happened in Thompson. I would think that there are a number of private apartmen t owners who have vacant housing. You have private house owne rs there who have difficulty selling the ir houses .

They're probably selling their houses at a loss from what they paid for them two or three years ago, and you have that situation in The Pas and you're going to have it in Sudbury undoubtedly . So that it's just not a problem that is inherent to the public sector.

It's a tricky th ing in these communities where you don't have that strong a market in operation and that's usually the case in northern or rural communities, so I would hope the Minister doesn 't wind up taking a blanket position on the Crown being somewhat innovative with respect to some of the northern developments because I'm pretty sure that the Crown will have to step in in one way or the other to provide some type of guarantees to ensure that some housing goes in place .

And one of the things that he's pointing out , for example, is that the Federa l Government is prepared to provide guarantees to the private sector and he is indicating that he is prepared to provide some types of guarantees to the private sector as well. It may turn out that having provided those guarantees they might be called. I would like to know how many pri vate apartments are being subsidized right now by the MHRC program? MR. JOHNSTON: I think we gave that figure the other day. MR. PARASIUK: I missed it. I'm sorry . MR. JOHNSTON: Is it 1,834? MR. PARASIUK: So, that's quite a large number . 1,834.

You're talking about something under six - you're talking about a six. Does MHRC have any targets with respect to this program for the next year? You're talking about doing more precise planning. I would think that if you are doing more precise planning you would have a very good idea of the target of subsidized private apartments . MR. JOHNSTON: Our unofficial report from the Federal Government is that we can go to 590 units of rent supplement. MR.

PARASIUK: So you would expect that you can go up by roughly speaking another 600 units , so next year at this time we'll have something in the order of 2,430 subsidized private apartment units, if in fact you take up your full allotment. Is that an allotment that you 're given in terms of the 50-50 cost share subsidy? MR JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. PARASIUK: How do they determine that allotment? Do they do it on the basis of need or do they just sort of take a number and divide it by ten? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, when he says that there'll be another 600 units I go back to the statement that I made before that we have examined all of the applica tions on senior citizens ; we will be examining all the applications on the publ ic housing units and going over them very thoroughly, and on the basis of need we will be accepting applications and studying them from that point of view. MR. PARASIUK: But I'm just trying to determine whether the allotment for 590 subsidized units is sufficient or insufficient.

You know , just because the Federal Government has allotted that amount it doesn 't mean that it's the proper amount and I would like to know what the corporation feels about this, having done their analysis . Is this enough or is it too much? Maybe you should tell them it's $90.00 - $90 X amount too much and give it back ; or secondly maybe it's not enough at which point you should obviously ask for more and demonstrate that you need more given the need that you can document. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Chairman, then the member again is saying that we should go down and be in negotiation with the Federa l Government which we intend to do. I said that that is not an offic ial document that we have. It's the proposal s tha t have been presented to us. Now, if we go over 590 at the present time if tha t' s what we have, we pay 100 percent so we would have to go 2921

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 back and negotiate with the Federal Government . Now the allotments to the provinces have been going on for years and this won 't be the only government that didn 't use all their allotment, and as I pointed out MR. PARASIUK: I know , you pointed that out before and I could appreciate that.

I think what's required though, if in fact that you feel that this is a good approach to take as you seem to indicate , and I think it's been done before, there is a good record to go on so you have some experience to draw on, that if this is the case I think the province should take a very tough approach with CMHC . MR. JOHNSTON: In fact, Mr. Chairman, one of our thrusts with CMHC is that we believe that we should be stimulating home ownership much more than we should be stimulating rentals . We believe in home ownership. I would like to answer the other member 's question .

You know , some of the experiments that have gone on - over here on Nassau Square when he talks about north - those are right in the City of Winnipeg and we haven 't sold the units. The member 's probably very aware of the fact that we have six houses in Wabowden, Manitoba that cost us $372 ,000 working with the Federal Government which was an experiment, a straight experiment . We have the completion on the Pakwagan Log bi-leve8 two units, $71 ,000 each - completion 80 percent, experimental component $4,529, which was ours .

The probable selling price of the buildings is $67,000, expected down payment is $600, probable loan amount is $66,400, full monthly payment is $665.00, and estimated monthly payments , $147.00. I can tell you that the experiments that we're talking about at Bell Avenue - you can speak of the north as you please but we have them right down in Winnipeg, and we have an experiment of housing in the north that has cost us all of this money which we will never recover - with a report after they were checked on that the construction practically was colder than the ones that were built in the normal fashion.

Now , you wonder, Mr. Chairman, why I have been sitting here for three days saying that the present government is taking a look at every possible approach we can for housing. We're taking a look at every possible program that can be put in place . I mentioned the Safer program that's in Alberta . I've mentioned the certificate program for hunting for houses. They're all being looked at. Now, I don't know what more I can say to you. We will have some work being done this year which has not been decided on as yet. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Chairman , as I pointed out before the Minister raised these issues again , seven months after a government gets in, having been elected with some positive aspects to their program , one of the positive aspects being a housing program, that it's not unfair to ask what's happening with respect to that particular portion of their election platform , because they did have some specifics and we certainly will be raising some of these. And the Minister goes back and points out some problems that have arisen over an eight year period, and I think that if you look anywhere in Canada you'd find those types of problems .

You point out the S from Alberta; afer program take a look at Fort MacMurray, we had two private companies tied into Syncrude, or CGIS, the great Canadian Oil Sands , providing lots and the lots there are selling at $35 ,000 a piece, and most of the people as a result are living in a traile r court. And they've had horrible experiences with fires over the last three years. So it's not just cut and dried , and it's not black and white, everything that the public sector has done has been bad and everything that the private sector has done has been good.

I think you have that varied experience and I would hope that the Minister would keep an open mind when he looks at all these experiences that are occurring across Canada , and not just pick out some examples of the public sector doing something that didn't turn out exactly according to plan. I think that is if you go over the Osborne Street bridge you will see a foundation that's been there for a long time . I don't assume that that foundation is a public foundation but perhaps it is. I don't know. But it's been sitting there for a long time. I thought someone was starting an apartment a while back . MR.

JOHNSTON: They sure wanted to sell it to us. MR. PARASIUK: No doubt. That's usually what the private sector does when they run into difficulty . They try and have the public sector bail them out and it's happened far too frequently in the past. -(Interjection)- Well, I think that the government also facilitates a lot of their development. Take a look at every suburban developer. MR. JOHNSTON: And I might say, Mr. Chairman, if I may without interrupting - if I'm interrupting, I'm sorry - it was in the recommendation of things that we should purchase when I became 2922

, Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. PARASIUK: I don't even know how the recommendations come about in MHRC. On the one hand the Minister says, "We've got fine staff", and I agree that he's got fine staff, and then he turns around and says, " I'm getting these crazy recommendations " , so I don't think you can play it both ways. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: If I could interrupt the Member for Transcona . Specifically what was it that the staff had recommended that the Corporation should buy, exactly what? What property is the Minister referring to? MR. JOHNSTON: By the bridge. MR.

EVANS: To buy the what? MR. JOHNSTON: To purchase the property over here by the bridge, the foundation. MR. CHAIRMAN: The southwest side of Osborne Street bridge . MR. EVANS: I don't have any recollection of that , but I presume that's something recently that the staff had recommended or I don 't know who recommended it. MR. PARASIUK: I think that person has been transferred to Shamattawa . I don't think he'll be making any more. . . MR. EVANS: Maybe Red Sucker Lake . MR. PARASIUK: n I continue with my particular tions? MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The Member for Transcona and then the Member for St.

James, and then the Member for Pembina. MR. PARASIUK: Thank you . I wanted to ask, following this program sheet that was distributed this afternoon, whether the MHRC has any idea of how many co-operative units may in fact be started in this coming year? I know you budgeted $170 ,000 for co-op housing. I don't know if this means that there is a corresponding reduction in the Department of Co-ops; I have not been able to check.

Maybe you're anticipating something regarding the Department of Co-ops that we're not aware of, but nevertheless, how will this $170 ,000 be spent since it has not been spent in the past, to new programs? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's the high impact rent and there are three of them : Brandon, West Boyne, and Pembina Woods. MR. PARASIUK: Brandon, West Boyne, and Pembina Woods. So there's none in Winnipeg? MR. JOHNSTON: No. Brandon , West Boyne and Pembina Woods . MR. PARASIUK: Okay .

Is it going to be the intention of the Corporation to provide land to these co-ops as they come forward trying to get some projects off the ground? Is that how you envisage the co-operative housing program working? MR. JOHNSTON: We haven't made any policy as to whether we'll . .. reading from here, "revisions of federal program make it necessary to complete review of the provincial status . Rent supplement will not be available from the Federal Government. " MR. PARASIUK: Why wouldn 't they want to provide a rent supplement to a co-op housing project when they are prepared to provide it to a private landlord?

I just can't understand that, you know , they won't provide it to non-prof it housing , they won 't provide it to co-op housing , but they will provide it. . . MR. JOHNSTON: I am informed with the new discussions that they are receiving a 2 percent interest rate, and they are also providing the opportun ity for the co-op owners to buy the units. 2923

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. PARASIUK: I can appreciate all of those aspects , but at the same time, surely we shouldn 't lose track of a principle that I thought had been established quite a while ago, and I think had been promoted by CMHC in the first place , and that's that lower income families shouldn 't be spending more than 25 percent of their gross income on rent or on housing . And it strikes me that CMHC is building in a lot of pressures and institutions whereby they will be paying a lot more than 25 percent for their housing . MR.

JOHNSTON : Well , as I said earlier, they are changing that to not less than 25 percent on the new program . MR. PARASIUK: Has the province taken a position with respect to that? Have they taken a formal public position saying that this is a comple te departure from past federal programs and policies and a complete departure from the past federal policy which in a sense was pushed upon provinces by the CMHC many years ago? MR. JOHNSTON: We haven't said it in those words . I have informed the Minister that I am not in favor of that going to 25 percent base on the new ones .

The effective interest rate of 2 percent makes it more reasonable for the co-ops to finance the land through the CMHC rather than 5 percent rate to MHRC on the land provided . MR. PARASIUK: It strikes me that what CMHC is doing and it might be smart politically , but I don 't know if it's that smart in relation to the real need that exists . They're spreading their money around to different income groups in society , and that , you know, has some attractiveness but at the same time what happens to those people at say the bottom quarter of the income ladder who virtually can 't afford any type of housing.

If you look at any of these particular programs they just will not be able to get decent accommodation . Is it going to be a system whereby newer and better accommodation will go to , in a sense, the moderate middle income people , and the dregs will somehow go to the lower income people . I don 't know if that's our conception of what constitutes fairness and justice in our particular society .

I think it 's important for us to make our position clear in Manitoba as to what our position is regarding the desirable mixes within a community and the fact that we don 't think that lower income people shouldn 't necessarily be living in blighted and substandard conditions . MR. JOHNSTON: Well, Mr . Chairman , I have said to the member on two or three occasions that we are going down and we're still negot iating with CMHC . I find it very hard to debate or give you the reasons why CMHC are doing what they are doing .

I have told the member that we are negotiating to have the best arrangements for the people of Manitoba and we will continue to do so. I just hope we can get the negotiations over with as soon as possible . MR. PARASIUK: And all I'm doing , Mr. Chairman , is indicating to the Minister my concerns about certain parts of that negotiation which I think , all told , all through the discussion , he generally tends to agree with those concerns and I think that 's fair . MR. JOHNSTON: Well, I do , and I appreciate the member 's concerns , and we are doing what we can. MR.

PARASIUK: Could I go on to the Assisted Home Ownership Program? We have how many units being provided for under this program? MR. JOHNSTON: Six hundred and seventy-one units were approved ; approved for federal subsidy was 299. MR. PARASIUK: Excuse me, I didn 't get that. MR. JOHNSTON: There are 671 sales. Approved for federal subsidy was 299, 45 percent ; and approved for provincial subsidy was 90, 13 percent. MR. PARASIUK: Now, given the dollar amounts here, this program isn't that large a program .

What seems to be the difficul ty? 1 think it 's not a matter of not having sufficient funds ; is there a problem that people really can 't keep up with the monthly payments? MR. JOHNSTON: Well , I am told by my offic ials that the type of multiple housing units in the 2924

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 market don't meet the expectations and that's basically the reason is the type of unit$ that have been built. It has not been a popular program, there's no question about that. MR. PARASIUK: Is it that the private sector hasn't been responding to this particular program ,- in not providing the supply of housing that would qualify for this type of program, or that the people who are purchasing homes haven't been too responsive? MR.

JOHNSTON: Well, the cost limitation of $39,500 I am told, is not allowing the people to build the type of accommodation that they want to build - single family units - and in Winnipeg we've had a lot of multiple units built. MR. PARASIUK: Well, you see, I can appreciate some of the comments that the Minister was making yesterday with respect to South St. Boniface in particular, but even West Selkirk. And I think that in this respect, the private sector hasn't been as responsive as I think it should have been in providing the type of mix that I think it's technically capable of providing .

I would hope that the Minister would watch this very closely, use whatever moral suasion he can on the private sector , and if necessary act directly in the case of South St. Boniface which I think he can, and provide lots which possibly would enable people to buy a single family detached house for under $40,000, which I think they want, and I think there is a very strong market for that. It's a matter of technically trying to make that breakthrough.

I've looked in other cities, and I see that they are providing single family detached housing, which qualifies for AHOP assistance although in other cities the ceiling might be a bit different. But I do think there is a tremendous market there. I think that a lot of people do in fact, want home ownership; I think that they also want single family detached home ownership .

I think that one could develop a lot of technical arguments as to why it would be very good for them to live in row housing, and there are some very good row houses, but human nature being what it is they move slowly in that direction, so I think most of them are still looking to some good type of single family detached housing . MR. JOHNSTON: Well, the member is right. In Western Canada, people are looking for single family units, or detached housing. There is no question, I have a son who says, "I will rent one of the others, but I won't buy it." MR. PARASIUK: Yes.

Now, on this, you were saying that a revised provincial form of assistance has been reviewed with the Federal people; they have not advised of its acceptibility. Could you inform us what type of program that is, and whether in fact you have specific targets in mind for that program? MR. JOHNSTON: We have been discussing with the Federal Government because of their change in their program, a revised Federal program, a revised provincial form of assistance has been reviewed. We have been looking at another program with them. ; Well, Mr.

Chairman, we have to come up with a program that defers the first five years because they're not allowed to stack with this new program, and we are working on - I'm hesitant to say exactly what it is because I'm not too sure at the present time that we will be able to do it, and I would prefer not to tell this committee that we are going to do something that we might not be able to do, because we have to get the arrangements settled with the Federal Government because we have to work in with their program, and anything we discuss with them they have to say, "Well, you can ," or "You cannot ," and at the present time I'd be very hesitant to say what we have been discussing with them .

But I assure you that the House will be the first to know when we come to any agreements on that. MR. PARASIUK: I believe that you are running into the problem of the Federal Government not allowing stacking on their AHOP program. That's a problem that I think the past administration had as well. I think that it was trying to actually diversify its program and this is an area of difficulty that they ran into with the Federal Government and you undoubtedly are running into the same problem.

Again on this though, if I could just pass on another bit of advice and I can appreciate that at 9:25 after the third day it is certainly gratuitous advice, but sometimes the Minister appears as if he is going to take the Federal position as being final and definitive. My experience with them is that you shouldn 't do that.

I think that there will be instances , if you establish your priorities , where you can get much tougher with them than you think and they also have a responsibility in this area and it is up to them to ensure how the Assisted Home Owne rship Program will actually fill the need even though they won 't allow you to modify it in Manitoba in such a manne r that wou ld allow it to meet the needs of Manitobans in a better way. This is always the problem that exists in a federat ion like we have in Canada where in the centre people establish guidelines and regu lations 2925

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 which in a sense they assume fit the common denominator, which often is in Toronto, and that's not the area that you are representing and that I am representing either. So I would hope that the Minister would use his legendary ability to occasionally pound the table or speak in a very gentle voice and get his point across occasionally . 1 hope that we will leave him with sufficient strength tonight so that he can go out there tomorrow and be a bit like Harry Truman. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a)-pass?

Before the Member for Brandon East, I just thought that the Member for Transcona was going to leave the Minister with some strength. I thought he meant that he wanted to approve his Estimates at that point. The Member for St. James, then the Member for Pembina have been patiently waiting . The Member for St. James . MR. MINAKER: Mr. Chairman , I am glad that you finally recognized me and my comments really relate to what Mr. Uskiw was talking about and his concern about appreciation of the value of the houses that have been constructed by MHRC . I think, Mr.

Chairman, that the former government and particularly and possibly Mr. Uskiw , has lost sight of what the objective of MHRC is which is to provide shelter to not only senior citizens but also to the low-income people in our society . I think the objective is to provide that shelter at the least cost to the public of Manitoba. Really, it doesn't relate to the appreciated value of the facilities unless you are planning to sell them.

If we look at the main objective of providing shelter for people who cannot necessarily attain it on ~ their own income , then we have to look at the public sector as well and I understand and it is my thinking that our government is looking at this now, not just from its own point of view of building the facility itself but also looking at the private sector to see if in fact they can provide it at a better benefit to the people of Manitoba in terms of cost.

I think that what has to be considered when the government looks at this is what happens to the overall picture of Capital demands on the government itself , what Capital is available for certain priorities and obviously the opposition has spoken on that to great lengths so far this session. I know too that another consideration has to be the cost of the land to build these facilities . I know of my own personal experience when I was on council in St.

James-Assiniboia some seven years ago, I guess, when MHRC started to get active in this particular field of constructing and operating and maintaining the facilities, we saw the price of land in St. James-Assiniboia double overnight. It went from something like $15,000 an acre to $30,000 an acre because MHRC for some reason wanted to buy land in our area. So this again has some impact on the overall picture, on whether the private sector or whether the government can do it more economically.

I am not really trying to create debate at this time of night, but I think that we must remind ourselves of what the objective is of MHRC . It is not just to necessarily own our own facilities but also, really, the prime objective is to provide facilities at the least cost to our people. I believe that it is not mandatory, but I think it is the responsibility of the government of the day to look at all avenues of providing these particular facilities at the least cost for the people of Manitoba and our government is looking at the idea or looking towards the private sector providing these facilities.

I don't believe that really the appreciated value of any facility that the government owns becomes important unless you are going to sell it. Really, that is when it becomes important, if you are going to sell that particular facility . Then the question comes up: what is the market value of that particular facility if in fact the only people who would be interested in purchasing the facility would be the low-income or senior citizen people who have limited income? So I question whether, you know, what is the market value or what is the appreciated value of a facility of this type .

In the private sector , the market value would be, how much could they rent it for? In other words, I would think , in most cases, that is the revenue source for that particular facility if the individual cannot use it himself? For this reason, : I think that a responsible government has to look at both cases and obviously our present government and the present Minister is looking at both situations and has indicated the cost of operating the present government-owned facilities and is looking into the avenue of private sector in providing similar facilities and seeing what the cost is.

With the idea of a private sector providing the facilities, we can always control, through contracts, just how much they will want to charge for the rent of the facility. That can be controlled in a contract and for a certain length of time. I think the fallacy that government-owned facilities or operated facilities can be just as efficient or more efficient than private isn't necessarily correct and I can give you an example of opening the drawer that is in front of me to see what we have got in here. You wonder when it was last cleaned and we look at the newspaper and what does it say?

Wednesday, February 11, 1976, so we can't blame our present Minister of Public Works. We can blame him because it wasn't cleaned 2926

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 this year but we can blame the former Minister of Public Works. So we just can 't take the idea that a government-owned facility is going to be better maintained than the private one. So we have to look at all avenues when we are dealing with the subject because, Mr. Chairman -(Interjection)- The 1976 report is in there for Autopac?

What I am getting at is that the main -:- objective, I would hope, of any government, particularly with regard to MHRC, is that we provide the services at the least cost and we are not looking at speculating on building the facilities and selling them because I have never known a government who has done any good in the speculative field, really. I would hope that our friends in the opposition don't lose sight of the fact that our objective is to provide shelter for the people of Manitoba who cannot provide it for themselves, and we don't lose sight of that. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina . MR.

ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a comment first and then ask the Minister a question. In the course of the comments by the Member for Transcona, he indicated that he didn't have that much confidence in the private sector vis-a-vis supplying housing for a given set of circumstances. As an example , he used the fact that private homes in The Pas were not ~ selling properly.

Well, I might comment to the Member for Transcona that it is little wonder that private homes in The Pas aren't selling very well when there are nine homes on Bell Avenue plus 40-plus row houses from Bell Avenue that are for sale and on the housing market in The Pas right now. That would depress any small real estate and housing market and I don't think it indicates any detrimental reference to the private sector at all. Mr. Minister, I would like to enquire about one line on the Statement of Operations from MHRC .

On the bottom line, there is an indication that their staff man years of 99 in 1977-78 and 93 this year, in going up to about the middle of the Grants aspect of it, we see in Administration that there is a decrease of about $855,000 in Administration Grants. My question, Mr. Minister , would be, how was that large an apparent saving in Administration accomplished through so few staff man years being eliminated? It looks pretty efficient. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I think that I announced that to the House and answered that question at the end of March when the press and everybody was asking me.

We had a reduction of 20 contract employees. MR. ORCHARD: Okay, thank you. MR. JOHNSTON: I just wanted to say, in answer to Mr. Minaker 's question that we are looking at it from the point of view of the most economical for the people of Manitoba . I think you have to take into consideration that by the time we pay the debt, we will have paid, including interest, four times the original cost of the buildings and the buildings will be 50 years old .

Now, we feel that if the private industry and it is owned by somebody else other than ourselves providing the supplement in the units, rather than us owning all the public housing and I repeat again, we will own some - there is no question, there are areas where we will have to and we won 't back away from that obligation - but we do feel there are many more ways to be looking at it, getting low-income people into shelter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Has the Member for Pembina got a further question? Proceed please. The Member for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman .

I would just like to congratulate the Minister -(Interjections)- We seem to be getting a lot of adve rse comments here and I can't understand why. But I would like to congratulate the Minister on his ability to not have the blinders on and look at only one aspect of public housing , in keeping his scope wide open to various methods of providing housing needs in the province . I think that is commendable.

I also want to comment that I fully hope that under his guidance in the department, that no longer will ten housing units , whether they be elderly housing or private housing, be built in Russell or any other town in the province for that matte r, without you knowing, as was the case last year undei the previous Minister 's jurisdiction . I think that is the kind of, shall we put it, casual mismanagement that we don't need anymore and I congratulate the Minister on developing a broad , forward-looking program . MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your broad comments. You have just added an hour to the debate . 2927

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 The Member for Transcona , then Brandon East. MR. PARASIUK: I can't pass up that last comment. I would like to congratulate the Member for Pembina who obviously must be angling for some type of Legislative Assistant position and 1 can appreciate . . A MEMBER: He wants to get a new senior citizens ' home in Pembina . MR. PARASIUK: In what particular area? Is it housing? I would have thought that he must be angling for something to really polish the apple that much .

Here we've had a Minister and I don't really criticize him and we haven't been that critical , but here we have a Minister saying, " Look, I'm exploring , I'm trying to figure out different options and I haven 't been able to conclude on any of them and I don 't have anything specific or concrete to tell you in the way of programs, " and the Member for Pembina winding himself up, or having been wound up by someone , says, " I congratulate the Minister ." That' s fair enough .

I guess we will have to see in August or September whether in fact he gets a reward or not , but I really don 't think that is the way to go about it. I wanted to comment on some of the comments by the Member for St. James in that I don 't think it is just an either / or situation , I think we have discussed the Estimates of the Department of Public Works and in that situation , I think five-sixths of the facilities are publicly-owned and one-sixth are privately-owned and the Minister said that seemed to be a good ratio and he would be pursuing that.

Even this incredibly monol ithic NDP government had a proportion or ratio which was fairly close to that . You know , you had something in the order of 2,000 subsidized private apartments and you had over 12,000 publicly -owned units . The Minister is saying that he may increase that but at the same time he may also, while increasing the number of subsidized private apartments , he may also be increasing the stock of publicly-owned housing with the Midland Development and some other developments , surely the Rural and Native Housing Program as well.

So I am glad that he, at least , is keeping some perspective and I hope he doesn 't throw it into an either/or situation . Often when you get both sides arguing , they tend to throw it into that context . I would like to point out to the Member for St .

James that I can recall landlords coming up before the Rent Review Agency saying they did not like the rent controls because it wasn't fair to those apartment owners who refinanced the building and they would say, well , you know , we were charging rents on a building that was valued at $100 ,000 and now we have refinanced it in relation to what the market value of that facility is and it is refinanced at $150 ,000 or $200,000 so they would like suffic ient rents .

They found that they could probably manage in a market situation, especially in a market situation where the vacancy rate is 1.3 percent , they could charge a rent that would amor tize that refinanced apartment. -(Interjection)- Well, I would think that if the Finance Minister would do some checking with CMHC , he might be able to determine that there is a 1.3 percent vacancy rate in the City of Winnipeg. MR. CRAIK: What part? MR. PARASIUK: It's the entire City of Winnipeg and those are the statistics that just came out last week . If the Min ister disputes that, that's fair enough . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Address your remarks through the Chair, please . MR. PARASIUK: I just couldn 't help but overhear a comment that really was quite untrue and just wanted to point out to the Finance Minister that his understanding there was not correct, that CMHC has indeed pub lished figures showing that the vacancy rate is quite low. But the point that 1 was trying to make , Mr. Chairman, to the Member for St. James is that there is a dange r, if you rely totally on the private sector , that people will be refinancing their apartment units and then trying to amortize that refinanced value in their rents .

If you took the publicly-owned housing into account and you said , well , what if we refinanced it all and the Min ister has indicated that what cost $200 million to build is now worth $400 million , so if you wanted a 10 percent return on that , in the first instance, you would have to pay something in the order of say $20 million. -(Interjection)- No, it wouldn 't, but the point is that the private people will refinance it. MR. MINAKER: But if they are in contract with them what difference does it make? MR. PARASIUK: How long will they be in a contract for? Now, you know, you are not going to 2928

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 be able to establish a 50-year contract because surely when you get into the area of providing housing for senior citizens, it is going to have to be done over a long period of time. You are not going to say, we're just going to do it for 15 years and get out of it because 15 years from now you will still have senior citizens around ; you will still have senior citizens around who require housing and some of those senior citizens will require some assistance . I think it would be very very problematic if you put your hands entirely into the private sector.

No entity that I know of has done that, even Ontario has looked very closely at its Public Works Department and it has determined that it is probably best to have a ratio something in the order of five-sixths public, one-sixth private. Now, I don't think we are in a position yet to try and establish that type of a ratio for housing but I do hope and I expect that the Minister will keep an open mind on both sectors and also on the third sector.

Again, I hope that the third sector can become a viable option but it will only become a viable option if rental subsidies can be applied to it as well as to the private or public sector. If the rental subsidies aren 't applied to the non-profit sector , it really will be a nice paper facade . I would like to turn from the Assisted Home Ownership Program to the Neighbourhood Improvement Program and I believe there are about three more programs that aren 't on this list that you gave us.

One is the Critical Home Repair Program, the other is the Rural Mortgage Lending Program, and the other possibly isn't your program but I would like to ask one question about it and that's the Federal ARP Program because I think it does have some impact on the whole area of providing accommodation to those people who can't get it through the unassisted market. MR. JOHNSTON: I can answer a couple of the member's questions .

The 15 years he was talking about is we would be talking about a 15-year contract with an option , that is the way that it has been working in other areas and if you have a family, the contractor owns the unit. There is a 15-year contract with him or rent subsidy, with an option that we can take a look at it if the people involved, their income has not gone up accordingly or if there has been any problem that we haven't been able to foresee in 15 years time .

The other thing is that the rents - I just have the report here, April 1976, or pardon me, let's not go back that far, well, we can - April 1976 was 1.4; October 1976 was 1.1; April 1977 was 1.1 vacancy; October 1977 was 1.9; and April 1978 is 1.6. Now, we have a very definite indication from people in the industry that we have been working with in surveying, that it can get as high at 12 to 15 percent in some areas of the city, the vacancy rate, and I must say they are newer apartments , but you can get that high in some of the suburbs . CHMC has a way of doing this.

They just have somebody making a call to the janitor. I'm not being critical but I can tell you that I don't think their survey is as accurate as the ones taken by the industry at times and we have indications from them that we have vacancies in apartments in Winnipeg, or in areas of Winnipeg , that are up as high at 15 to 17 percent. The survey that you were provided with which indicates a vacancy rate of April 1 for properties which have come onto the rental market within the last two years.

It does not take into account the older buildings which at this time show a lower vacancy rate because of the rent control and the lack of movement in these buildings . St. James, 15.78 percent vacancy; Fort Richmond , 8.28; the Kildonans, 15.59; St. Vital, 25.88; Charleswood , 10.55 vacancy rate . Downtown, it is a brand new building that they are talking about and it has got 100 percent vacancy rate in it because it isn't finished yet or rented yet.

The member must realize that with the Federal program, the tax shelter situation, we have got some more coming on-stream later on this year , so our vacancy rate in Winnipeg is not going to be that low as some of the CMHC reports indicate. The last report that I have from CMHC, the one done in the fall of last year which is very extensive by district, does indicate that different districts are higher and they take an average . So it isn't just as black and white as that report shows. I agree with the member that the core area is in that area of 1.6. MR. PARASIUK: Mr.

Chairman, if these figures are true that the Minister is giving us and if we are ending up with - it's a weighted average of 1.6, then we have virtually no vacancies in the inner core - if you have a weighted average and if you have these types of figures for the suburbs. " The Minister has been trying to make the point in previous sessions that it is quite important for the province possibly not to put too much public housing in the suburbs but rather to put it in the inner core and no one has been disagreeing with him that much.

We have been saying yes, let's put it in the inner core and let's get more than 56 units in place . I do question his relying on the sources only from the industry. I think that CMHC over a number 2929

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 of years has developed a fairly accurate objective technique of determining what the vacancy rate in the city is and when I hear a figure of 25 percent vacancy for , I don 't know, was it St. Vital or North Kildonan or one of those places . MR. JOHNSTON: They are new buildings . MR. PARASIUK: . . . well , I would think that with new buildings you are possibly going to have a 25 percent vacancy rate .

In fact, yesterday , the Minister made a point of saying that with the new buildings of MHRC with respect to senior citizens , we have a vacancy rate of less than 1 percent but he said that that 1 percent is a critical problem facing the public sector and was a sign of the inefficiency of MHRC. He has just given us statistics indicating that brand new buildings built and owned by private individuals or private corporations have vacancy rates as high as 26 percent and I think that possibly is the situation with brand new units , whether they are public or private.

You might get what I think might be called lumpiness , you can 't get 80 or 100 people coming into a particular area right at that time , or aware that that facility is available right at that month when the survey is taken. I would like to ask the Minister some questions about the Critical Home Repair Program . There was $2 million budgeted for it in 1977-78; there is $2.964 million budgeted for 1978-79. Is this carry-over or is it in the Capital request for this year? MR. JOHNSTON: It is not carry-over , it is part of the $20 million .$ MR.

PARASIUK: Sorry , right , and it is not seen as Capital , it is going through straight as .. . How many units did you do in 1977-78? MR. JOHNSTON: There were 2,332 applications ; there were 54 cancelled ; there were 402 approved . And when you go back to 1976-77 program , there were 12,509 received ; cancelled 1,949; and approvals, 7,421. That was 1976 ... MR. PARASIUK: For one year or ... No, that's an accumulative . MR. JOHNSTON: That's an accumulating . . . MR. PARASIUK: I'm trying to get some idea of how many, roughly speaking, are processed per year.

I thought that there had been some general target as to how many would be done per year, in a rough and ready number . MR. JOHNSTON: About 6,000 . MR. PARASIUK: Six thousand per year? MR. JOHNSTON: As a target. MR. PARASIUK: You are saying that only 2,280 were done in 1977-78? MR. JOHNSTON: In 1976, received . MR. PARASIUK: That 's because you cut out applications . So what would the backlog be then?

Just to get some idea of where we are because I see a fairly large, or an increase in the Critical Home Repair Program and yet we have our differences in semantics as to whether the program is deferred , cancelled , frozen , what? MR. JOHNSTON: As of the date of this report , which is February 15, 5,015 we have on hand. In 1977 there were 4,400 which were serviced. I believe it is in the area , as I said in the House the other day, of approximately 4,000 backlog at the present time . MR. PARASIUK: Has there been a reduction in the number of staff?

I don 't know if this has been dealt with elsewhere but there have been some rumours that the staff in the Critical Home Repair -: Program have been reduced to the poin t that the backlog really is a self-fulfilling prophecy and that it really can't be reduced because you don 't have enough staff to reduce it. I don 't know that ; I am just asking that specifically. MR. JOHNSTON: Well , many of the contract employees who were let go were involved in the winter 2930

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 and summer painting program . We have redeployed people from our construction department , at the present time, who are working on this backlog . MR. PARASIUK: Do you have the same number of staff working on it this year as you had last year? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, applications are being processed quicker than they were last year at the present time. MR. PARASIUK: So when do you expect to get through this backlog and when do you think you might be asking for applications? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, it's 2.9 million and the 2 million is to take care of the backlog that we have.

The 1 million is to take care of the program for the balance of the year. Now, we hope to open up the program. I have been targeting for the end of July and I think we can do it. I have got my staff shaking their head at that but we would like to get it done. -(Interjection)- September . Well, we're going to have to try harder for July. You know, there is just so much you can do. The backlog was built up over a period of time with the increase in the program . There was an increase in the program. MR. PARASIUK: I think the increase is understandable, if I might interject, Mr.

Chairman, in that it is tied to the unemployment situation. It is a double-barrelled program in a sense. It tries to reduce unemployment and also provide a socially needed good, that is, repair to homes, privately-owned homes, especially senior citizens. So I think that both sides of the House were in agreement with the general objectives of that particular program. It is just a matter now of determining what the capacity is to carry that program and whether in fact it should be opened up soon.

If it is opened up, as the Minister indicates it might be in July, what type of program does he foresee, or is that too premature at this stage? MR. JOHNSTON: I foresee it as a very similar type of program to what we have now except that there has to be some changes in it. The one change that I think has taken place already, that as far as the senior citizen was concerned, you could have up to $150 .00 if you were a millionaire. That has been sort of discontinued at the present time.

In other words, if you had a roof that had to be fixed and it was regarded as critical and it cost $125 .00, the honourable members in this room could have had it fixed - I shouldn 't say that, not all of them are over 65 - but anybody over 65 could have it repaired. The Member for Fort Rouge asked if it is a declaration with tax slips, etc . to qualify, but the program was greatly expanded. It is the type of a program that it not only expands, it gets into the position that if you make one mistake, the neighbour next door says if he got it, I should get it. It is a very hard thing to police in that respect.

We would like to get the program working smoothly again, as it was before. We said it is a good program and we will continue it. MR. PARASIUK: I look forward to it and I think that the greater priority is to try to get the money to those who need the program more . So if you are saying that millionaires could get a $150.00 grant, I think there possibly is some merit in taking that away although I don't like all these programs coming out strictly as welfare programs .

I notice that with respect to the pensioner tax assistance program or the elderly citizens school tax assistance program, I understand that given the Conservative program there, a millionaire will get an extra $100.00 on his or her property tax so I think that in that respect, the administration is a bit fragmented . MR. JOHNSTON: I think the honourable member knows that percentage is very small. MR. PARASIUK: The same thing with the Critical Home Repair Program . MR. JOHNSTON: About the same percentages, no kidding around about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(a)-pass - the Member for Brandon East. MR.

EVANS: I have a series of questions I want to ask the Minister . The Minister talked about new programs, investigations and research and so on. Could he advise us if the Corporation or if he and his staff are now investigating a starter home program, $5,500 mortgages to supplement the $38,000 allowed under the Federal Assisted Home Ownership Program, otherwise known as AHOP, as Ontario has apparently done? I gather that the homes would be only semi-finished and 2931

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 designed for easy future expansion . Is the Minister and his staff investigating such a program to provide this type of funding for people who are interested in starter homes? MR. JOHNSTON: I am informed we have done some work on that program . It isn't one that we have been putting a big push on at the present time . We are taking a look at all programs but there comes a time when you can keep looking and looking forever, you know . There comes a time when you have to say this is the proper thing and we think it is right and go.

I have been saying that we have been studying but I also admit you can study forever and on that particular program, no, we haven't been working on that to any great extent. MR. EVANS: A related program would be what has been referred to by the Conservative Party as the Uphill Neighbourhood Program , loans up to $5,500 to help first-time home buyers upgrade older homes , a one-year payment holiday and foregiveness based on length of residency and personal financial contribu tion . Could the Minister advise whether that program is under consideration?

I might say that when I was Minister , we were looking at a program to help people buy existing or older homes , older homes in particular, younger families who were trying to get started, with some type of assistance toward their monthly payments. This was not brought into being but we were very much on the way to implementing that. I gather the Uphill Neighbourhood Program is somewhat similar in intention at least if not in technique. Could the Minister advise whether any progress has been made in that respect or whether he intends to bring in such a program? MR.

JOHNSTON: There has been a lot of progress made in that respect. I can't say whether am going to bring in that program right here and now, but I can assure you it has been worked on very hard . I think the member would be surprised if we weren't putting some attention on what was said during the election . MR. EVANS: In regard to the rental accommodation, that other plank in the Conservative platform was low- interest loans to improve apartment block buildings to owners who accept controlled rents until the loans are repaid . Has anything been done in that respect? MR. JOHNSTON: Not to any great extent.

The statistics that we have from the department don't show us at the present time that that will fit in all that immediately. MR. EVANS: Another plank in the Conservative election platform was with respect to senior citizens building or buying smaller neighbourhood residences and possible financial assistance to families who care for their senior relatives. Now, there are two things there: building or buying smaller neighbourhood residences for senior citizens ; and the second one, possible financial assistance to families who care for their senior relatives . MR.

JOHNSTON: Well, the second one would not be in the Department of Housing . That would be in the Department of Social Welfare. As far as building individual houses for senior citizens, no, that particular one has not been worked on that much . MR.

EVANS: The final one that I read in a statement that was made by the present Leader of the Conservative Party and the Premier , Sterling Lyon, at a special news conference to discuss the Conservative housing program , this is dated October 6 of last year , the last of the five points is respecting public housing: " To allow tenants to buy suites as their income rises and the income-related rent is converted into mortgage payments ." There is another

section of that but I'll just ask that particular one . Is there any work, any program development along this line? MR. JOHNSTON: To buy suites? MR. EVANS: Yes, allowing the tenants in public housing to buy suites as their income rises and the income-related rent is converted into mortgage payments . In other words , I guess it is something like a condominium , they would buy their suite and they would be making mortgage payments in the future , rather than rental payments . MR.

JOHNSTON: Well , in the new non-prof it co-operative program with the Federal Government , that becomes an option , that they will be able to purchase their units . We are going to be pursuing that with them as we mentioned before . The Federal program where co-ops are concerned' I'm not too sure that the co-ops are going to be all tha t happy about the fact that the Federal Government is going to allow the people to buy their units but that is what they are planning to do at the present 2932

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 ' time. We are studying that program very carefully . MR. EVANS: As a matter of clarification, Mr. Chairman, is the Minister talking about conversion of existing suites, existing projects, or those under construction from rental to ownership-type, in the co-operative sector? Or is this for future built . .. ? MR. JOHNSTON: No, the best-buy principle , I think we are talking about for co-ops on that, aren't we? Non-profits. MR. EVANS: I'm sorry is it co-ops and non-profits, or co-ops? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, with the best-buy principle. MR. EVANS: And non-profits .

This would apply to the new housing coming on stream in that segment , would it, or does it apply to that which is already in existence? MR. JOHNSTON: Are you speaking of our public housing? MR. EVANS: No, I am referring to the statement that the Minister made, Mr. Chairman, himself, saying that the new Federal program would apply to co-ops and non-profit housing, where they would have the opportunity to buy or own that particular suite such as a condominium. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, that's on the new ones . MR. EVANS: So it doesn't apply retroactively to let's say an existing co-operative housing project? MR.

JOHNSTON: It could, if refinancing can be arranged, it could. MR. EVANS: The other part of that last platform plank, the fifth plank, relating to public housing, it says: "Minimized concentrations and densities of public housing to blend into existing communities." In this respect, I would like to ask the Minister about the proposed high-rise for senior citizens at York and Garry. Now, I now the project has been deferred for various reasons ... MR. JOHNSTON: This is the third time I have answered that. MR. EVANS: Well, I have heard the Minister in the past. The Minister says he has answered things three times .

MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, I have, I have seen the people trucking back and forth and I am really wondering why I have to answer questions three times, once from the Member for Fort Rouge, once from the Member for Transcona, and now from the Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that the Minister without Portfolio , I should say to him join the club because in eight and a half years as Minister . . MR. JOHNSTON: I sat in th is committee last year and never left it. MR. EVANS: ... I have had the experience of being asked a question about the same item several times .

This was primarily in Industry and Commerce where I have had more experience, where people wandered in and out. I had the same experience of answering the same question several times. So it is nothing new and I answered them, of course , of Conservatives who were asking me the questions and they were wandering in and out and this has gone on for eight years. So we are not talking about a new phenomena and patience is a virtue . What I was particularly concerned with is whether or not, is this project completely dead or will it at some time go ahead?

I relate that to the Conservative platform on concentration because if you follow that platform on concentration I guess you don't build a Garry and York project ever . MR. JOHNSTON: I would say it is close to completely dead. MR. EVANS: It is close to completely dead? 2933

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. JOHNSTON: I would say very close. MR. EVANS: Is the Minister knowledgeable about the waiting list at 185 Smith Street , at least it used to be very long? Apparently that is, I was told by staff many many a time that 185 Smith was our most popular senior citizen development in the City of Winnipeg. This is where most of <::< the old people seem to want to be.

They want to be downtoWn , close to the stores and the library and whatever, all the other fac ilities that exist there and for that reason , there was some merit, it was thought , to have additional housing in the downtown area and particularly if it was related to 185 Smith . You could provide additional programming , particularly enriched housing which would involve the Department of Health and Social Development. But nevertheless, this might be possible .

At any rate, I am asking the Minister if it is still the case, is it still true that 185 Smith Street, the senior citizens ' building there, a very large one, is it still true that it is probably the most popular of all the senior citizens ' buildings in Winnipeg in terms of the waiting list of people to get in? Is this still the case? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes, but 185 Smith is not just popular because it is 330 units . 185 Smith is popular because it is downtown and it has a restaurant down there for senior citizens . It would be just as popular if it was 150 units and the waiting list would be just as long. Mr.

Chairman, the letter I read the other night from the Minister of Health to the Honourable Leonard Evans at that time, suggesting that he not proceed with Garry and Smith, is something that we have taken into consideration . We have looked it over very carefully. We have talked to people in many social areas. We have talked to people in the Salvation Army and others. Placing 800 or 900 senior citizens in one square block is not going to be a benefit to them . We have other properties we can look at.

When he speaks about the enrichment, that means that it becomes nursing and everything else, with 900 to 1,000 people , senior citizens , in one square block, you haven't got enough facilities down there to handle them in that square block . What about the parks? What about everything else that has to go with it? Mr. Chairman , it is almost what you might call ghettoizing senior citizens . There is no question they want to be downtown . MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman , I didn 't suggest that 185 Smith was popular because it was a high rise as opposed to being 150 units . MR.

JOHNSTON: Then you agree with me, it is popular because it is downtown? MR. EVANS: Yes, but then the economics come into place . We were always accused of not being cost-conscious but the fact is that to build a 150-unit building in that part of the city is very very expensive . The most expensive land in the Province of Manitoba is in that area. MR. JOHNSTON: I suggest that there will be one about 150 in that area and it will not be any more costly than the other . MR. EVANS: On a per unit basis? MR. JOHNSTON: I believe so. MR. EVANS: Well , I guess we can see.

As far as the Minister of Health is concerned , I have talked to the Minister of Health . He had some input to make with regard to the enriched housing program . He never conveyed to me in discussion or at any other meeting we had that he was against this particular building and certainly the feedback we received from the senior citizens at the time was very positive. However , the Minister is entitled to make his own mistakes as everybody else is. MR. JOHNSTON: It is a mistake to put close to 1,000 senior citizens in one square block . We had a person who died in there and we didn't find him for four days .

Now, that happens when they are too big and you cannot have these things happening. You have to take a look at the size of those units and I assure you that the popularity of Smith is not because it is big; it is because it is downtown , period. MR. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I never said it was popular because it was big . MR. JOHNSTON : Well, then you agree with me. You are agreeing with me that it is popular because 2934

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 it is downtown. MR. EVANS: Of course, I have said that. MR. JOHNSTON: We agree that there will be some more downtown. MR. EVANS: Of course, but the point is that it becomes very very expensive to start covering downtown property with small buildings. It is just very very uneconomical and for a government that is very cost-conscious, I am surprised. MR. JOHNSTON: 1 can asssure you that plans to build over the lane and around the corner and everywhere else were just about as uneconomical. MR. EVANS: The Minister makes reference to someone who died and not being discovered .

I can tell him that it is the case that a lot of older people have died living in single-family housing and they haven't been known or discovered for many many days . MR.JOHNSTON: Do you think that is good? MR. EVANS: Of course it is not good. MR. JOHNSTON: Well , that's fine. I am saying that we will try to avoid it as much as possible. MR. EVANS: The argument just doesn't hold because you have got 20 floors rather than 10 floors , that all of a sudden it's . .. The point I am trying to make is that the Minister's logic is faulty and if the Minister would take the time to find out, he would know , Mr.

Chairman, he would find that the senior citizens have an arrangement, I hope still , whereby they monitor each floor. They do this on a voluntary basis and they co-operate and they check . Now , I don 't know what happened in this particular case. MR. JOHNSTON: I have taken the time and I have found out and we still have a problem. MR. EVANS: I think the tenants are to be commended for this. At any rate, it is categorical in that there will not be a new large development at Garry and York. Another question I have, Mr. Chairman -(Interjection)- MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Brandon East has got the floor.

The Member for Emerson can have his turn when he puts his hand up. MR. EVANS: With regard to tenants ' participation, the Minister is experimenting, I guess is the word, with utilizing private real estate or rental agencies to administer certain newly-constructed public housing units. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman , that answer is in Hansard . MR. EVANS: Well, what is the question? MR. JOHNSTON: Twice, about using Oldfield, Kirby and Gardner for management? MR. EVANS: Yes, well, what is my question then, -Mr. Chairman? If the answer is in Hansard, what is my question? MR.

JOHNSTON: All right , ask the question and we'll see if it is in Hansard. MR. EVANS: My question is, how is it possible for tenant participation to take place when you have a privately-administered rental unit? In Winnipeg - not only in Winnipeg but throughout Manitoba - I believe we have a very admirable setup whereby the local housing boards are comprised of one-third appointees by the local municipality ; one-third by the province ; but also one-third by the tenants themselves .

To what extent , therefore , can the tenants have a role to play in an . area where you have privately-administered units , particularly if you go into a smaller town where there may only be one apartment block? Talking about this method in principle, if there is only one apartment block and it is administered by a private group , to what extent will the tenants 2935

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 be able to participate in the decision making as they can now? MR. JOHNSTON: It is in Hansard but I will say it again. The tenants are represented by three tenants who are voted to be on the Winnipeg Regional Housing Authority . Oldfield, Kirby and Gardner are answerable to them as to who goes in it. The Winnipeg Regional Housing Authority can also make recommendations as to what is happening in those particular apartments that are being managed by other people .

I gave a commitment the other day to the Member for Transcona that I would take a very close look at that particula r situation to make sure that the people who are in those particular units will be represented . MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman . Going to a different subject then, with regard to Inkster Gardens , can the Minister give us an update on the lot disposal program? Just where does that now stand? Have you got lots available for sale and if so, who is handling it? Have you got any prices for us; what are lots selling for and what other detail you can give us as to the progress of Inkster Gardens? MR.

JOHNSTON: I have made a commitment. When the decision is made on how the lots will be disposed in Inkster Gardens , I will announce it in the House and we are just maybe an inch away. I made that commitment to the Member for Seven Oaks . MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Transcona. You are taking the Member for St. George's time . MR. PARASIUK: Yes, because we are on this topic and I think that if we can clear this topic up, it would be useful. You are saying that you are very close to arriving at a lot price or a disposal policy for the Inkster Gardens .

That means, then , that you will be announcing the lot prices in sufficient time so that builders and private owners could actually get houses constructed in this construction season? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. PARASIUK: That means then that the sewer and water services are in place; that means that the roads are in place but not necessarily paved - I don't know if they are paved or not? MR. JOHNSTON: They are nearly all paved . MR. PARASIUK: Okay . How many units do you foresee coming on stream in this particular construction year? How many lots would be available? MR. JOHNSTON: Two hundred and twenty-five . MR.

PARASIUK: Will you be offering them all for sale - 225 lots? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. PARASIUK: And these are generally standard lots, 50 by 100. Do they range? MR. JOHNSTON: The design of the project is that there is single family , there is duplex, there is multiple, there is . . . R1, R2, RPL, R381 , R382, park area and schools . MR. PARASIUK: So the entire development will be coming onstream this year? MR. JOHNSTON: Phase I. MR. PARASIUK: Phase I. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you , Mr. Chairman .

I know there were some questions raised about the Critical Home Repair Program in terms of the numbers of staff that are going to be continuing on with the program . 1 have a few specific questions that I'd like to ask the Minister . Could he give me a breakdown of the staff that was handling the Paint Program and the Critical Home Repair Program in separate numbers and which staff have to date been laid off in terms of numbers? 2936

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. JOHNSTON: There have been 20 contract employees laid off by the Corporation and the numbers . .. MR. URUSKI: What would these people have been primarily handl ing in terms of workload , the Paint Program or would they have been the Critical Home Repair Program? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, I can only say that we are processing more applications at the present time this year than we were this time last year . We just mentioned that we have approximately still a backlog of about 4,000. To give you a breakdown of the actual people that were . . . MR.

URUSKI: I don 't want the names, but I'd like the ... I will go on and tell you why I am asking these questions. MR. JOHNSTON: They were involved in both ; they were involved in Critical Home Repair; they were involved in Painting and where we felt that one person could handle the job , the recommendation of who was kept and who wasn 't came from staff . MR. URUSKI: All right. MR. JOHNSTON: We have moved some staff from our construction department into working on Critical Home Repair at the present time . MR.

URUSKI: In terms of moving the staff from construction , these would have been staff that were handling actual on-site projects of supervision or what type of work were they doing in the construction area? MR. JOHNSTON: Civil servant inspection staff . Construction inspectors. MR. URUSKI: Of whether it would be low income housing or elderly persons housing and the like. All right. MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. URUSKI: Are you going to be taking on new staff in terms of the Critical Home Repair Program or an expanded staff? MR. JOHNSTON: Only if required .

We are handling as I said more now than we were handling last year at this time when we were . . . We can do about 6,000 or so a year and we are working at it. MR. URUSKI: You indicated in your early press releases that you would be down to a manageable level by July, and that was an announcement that was made in the early part of the year . Could you now give us an update as to how the numbers compare today relative to last - I think the announcement that you made was in February - how you have done in terms of numbers, that you have 4,000 left to go? MR.

JOHNSTON: We were at 5,015 at the end of February ; we are approximately at 4,000 at the present time . MR. URUSKI: So then you have handled in March, April, May - in three months - you've completed a thousand applications? MR. JOHNSTON: Approximately. MR. URUSKI: What were you handling then a month prior to that? If you say you are doing much better .now today .. . MR. JOHNSTON: Well, we are doing much better now because the snow is away. November , December , we were averaging around 200, the staff tells me. MR. URUSKI: A month? 2937

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. URUSKI: But in similar times of the year previously , would you have been handling more or less? MR. JOHNSTON: Well, we obviously have been handling more . In March , April, and May, we have been handling more . We don't handle as many in the wintertime. I said that we were handling more this year in Apr il and May than we were last year in April and May. MR. URUSKI: In April and May. You indicated that by July you would be in a position to announce whether you would be taking on any new applications .

Have you made any announcements during the course of your Estimates now or are you still holding on that there will be no new applications taken until the backlog is completed and what do you consider as a manageable backlog before you will announce a continuation of the program? MR. JOHNSTON: I'm still aiming for the end of July . As I said twenty minutes ago, my staff are a little bit in doubt, but I'm still aiming for the end of July . MR.

URUSKI: Well, if you're still aiming for the end of July, what mechanism are you going to be using to bring down the figure of 4,000 down to what numbers, what numbers are you going to indicate will be a manageable level where you will be in a position to announce that you will be taking further applications under the Critical Home Repair Program? MR. JOHNSTON: I would say that it becomes more manageable when it's down to about 2,500 . MR. URUSKI: So are you indicating that when the numbers reach a working level of about 2,500, you will be then announcing that new applications will be taken? MR.

JOHNSTON: That is the intention at the present time, yes, and we have always intended to keep the Critica l Home Repair Program going . MR. URUSKI: Okay, I want to know that - so you expect that we will be down in the months of June and July, that you will be doing 1,500 - that you will be able to complete the 1,500 to reach the 2,500 number mark? MR. JOHNSTON: I hope so. MR. URUSKI: You hope so. MR. JOHNSTON: The staff are making every effort and I hope they accomplish it. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Chairman, it appears that although the Minister in his words is indicating that the Critical Home Repair Program is going to continue and he is hoping all kinds of things that the staff will complete the program, there certainly isn't any evidence to show or to indicate that they will be able to accomplish that given task in light of what has transpired in the last six months or in the last number of years that the program has been carried on.

Are you intending to continue the program at its present level or how are you intending to operate it for the balance of the year, if by July you say, you indicate that the numbers - the magical figure of 2,500 before you will reopen applications - will be reached? How do you intend to operate thereafter? With the same numbers of staff or are you intending to hire new staff? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Chairman, the program was in the position of being a year behind. When we get the backlog down to where we are hopefully 2 to 3 months behind, and that's what we're aiming at.

The honourable member knows the way the snow falls in this province as well as I do. In March it's still pretty hard to work on some roofs and outside. In April and May, we've made real progress. We've come from the end of February to around 4,000 or less at the present time. In June and July , we expect to be moving ahead to get it down to about 2,500. Now if the honourable member can guarantee me no rain, nothing's going to happen in that respect, I think I could guarantee him I'll make it. I said we are hoping to and the staff is working hard .

It is not our intention to hire new staff ; there 's only so much you can handle in the administration of the program . MR. URUSKI: You are not hiring , you have no intention . 2938

Tuesday, May 30, 1978 MR. JOHNSTON: You can have a thousand inspectors out there and if you don 't have the staff to back them up, they 're not going to get anything done . MR. URUSKI: Yes. There 's only so many contractors going . It's not my figures , Mr. Chairman , that I'm using . I have asked the Minister to come up with a figure that he intends to move and reannounce the program so that people who are in need , will be able to apply. There have been of course many requests about applications and people do realize that they will have to wait and take their turn .

But certainly there is concern , these existing applications will continue on for a long period of time and there will really be basically no program , and that's the kind of concern that is being expressed. I wanted the assurance of the Minister that roughly the figures and the month he has given of the end of July, that he hopes to reach a figure of approximately 2,500 applicat ion workload , that the program will be reinstituted, the applications will be taken in and around that figure . And he has given me that assurance, that it will be reinstituted at a working level of staff at the present time.

Could you give me the numbers of staff - I know you have probably given it to other members - that are currently employed on the Critical Home Repair Program? MR. JOHNSTON: There are 26 people spending all or part time on the program . MR. URUSKI: Twenty-six. That would include the secretarial, the contract staff and the permanent staff? MR. JOHNSTON: Yes. MR. URUSKI: If there is an intention to bring on any new people, will the Minister consider bringing on people who have had previous years experience who may wish to continue with that work who were on contract previously?

Will consideration be given to those people that had experience in that program? MR. JOHNSTON: Contract employees will be allowed to apply if we take on any new staff, but it is not the intention at the present time. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Minister for his informatio

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-2-52b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 2nd hansardpdf 52b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	dd3e5795ff19008e82a231314d78571dbe8864eb

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