Legislative Assembly of Ontario

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

CONTENTS

Thursday 8 February 1996

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Hon David S. Tsubouchi, Minister

Sandra Lang, deputy minister

Kevin Costante, assistant deputy minister, social assistance and employment opportunities

Mary Kardos Burton, director, social assistance programs

Lynn MacDonald, assistant deputy minister, corporate services

Sue Herbert, assistant deputy minister, program management

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing

Hon Al Leach, Minister

David Burns, deputy minister

Dino Chiesa, assistant deputy minister (acting), housing operations division

Anne Beaumont, assistant deputy minister, housing planning and policy division

Les Fluxgold, legal branch

Mac Carson, chair, Ontario Housing Corp

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président: Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

*Barrett, Toby (Norfolk PC)

*Bisson, Gilles (Cochrane South / -Sud ND)

Brown, Jim (Scarborough West / -Ouest PC)

*Brown, Michael A. (Algoma-Manitoulin L)

*Cleary, John C. (Cornwall L)

Clement, Tony (Brampton South / -Sud PC)

*Cordiano, Joseph (Lawrence L)

*Curling, Alvin (Scarborough North / -Nord L)

*Kells, Morley (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)

*Martin, Tony (Sault Ste Marie ND)

*Rollins, E.J. Douglas (Quinte PC)

*Ross, Lillian (Hamilton West / -Ouest PC)

*Sheehan, Frank (Lincoln PC)

Wettlaufer, Wayne (Kitchener PC)

*In attendance / présents

Substitutions present / Membres remplaçants présents:

Preston, Peter (Brant-Haldimand PC) for Mr Jim Brown

Baird, John (Nepean PC) for Mr Clement

Pettit, Trevor (Hamilton Mountain PC) for Mr Wettlaufer

Also taking part / Autre participants et participantes:

Cooke, David S. (Windsor-Riverside ND)

Ecker, Janet, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services

Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South \ -Sud PC)

Clerk pro tem / Greffière par intérim: Deller, Deborah

Staff / Personnel: Poelking, Steve, research officer, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 0904 in committee room 2.

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

The Acting Chair (Mr John C. Cleary): I understood that when we adjourned the Liberals had about 10 minutes left. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm not, we'll start with Mr Brown.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'd like to pick up a little bit on where Mrs Ross was yesterday when we were talking about child care. I am interested to know, as you've talked to your colleague the Minister of Education, if the ministry has been looking at what effect there may be with the now Ministry of Education's position that junior kindergarten will be voluntary. I understand that we don't have any idea exactly which boards may choose to opt out of junior kindergarten, but it seems to me that could and may have a substantial effect on the way we provide day care in the province of Ontario. I wonder what the minister's thoughts are on that situation, what contingency plans he may have in place to provide for those children who will now conceivably not be in junior kindergarten.

Hon David H. Tsubouchi (Minister of Community and Social Services): The government's position with respect to its child care review right now is to provide the parental choice and quality of services, affordability, accessibility -- I think accessibility is one of them -- that's part of really what Ms Ecker is looking at in terms of the child care review. It is quite a comprehensive review she is doing right now with respect to the child care area. Certainly, this is a factor that would concern many people in the province. That's something that has to be looked at by the committee of organizations and caregivers through the advisory committee, and certainly through the consultation process I know it will come up. That's something of course that we are looking at very closely as well. Did you want to add to that, deputy?

Ms Sandra Lang: Yes, I can, Minister. Thanks. We actually have been spending a fair amount of time with the Ministry of Education as it develops its plans. We are also sharing with them our plans. Until we have a better sense of what the takeup is going to be on junior kindergarten -- as you know it's been something that has been implemented in some parts of the province but not province-wide. So until we have some appreciation of where --

Mr Michael Brown: There are some boards without junior kindergarten?

Ms Lang: Absolutely, absolutely. So there will be an appreciation of that once we know directly from the school boards whether they're going to continue to offer that option or not. As you know, it will be voluntary on the part of the boards to offer that.

Mr Michael Brown: I understood the previous government to have made it mandatory. Is that not -- it just hasn't come into effect?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): JK? It was going in that direction but I don't think it was all in effect.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): It was 100% funded before. Now it's being funded the same as any other part.

Mr Michael Brown: Anyway, the impact I think is of concern to all of us.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think, Mr Brown, that by having the child care review committee look at that with Ms Ecker, and certainly with the ministerial communications and discussions with MET, we do believe that's something we must be looking at in light of how child care is going to be able to serve the people of Ontario.

Mr Michael Brown: Could you indicate, then, how many children are presently enrolled in junior kindergarten in the province as a whole.

Ms Lang: That would be something the Ministry of Education would have to provide. We don't maintain those stats.

Mr Michael Brown: I guess we should have asked that --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Of Mr Snobelen.

Mr Michael Brown: -- a week ago. Our ongoing concern is how people have been using this system, and I stand corrected. I did believe close to 100% of children were in it. I believe the last I knew there were 13 boards that weren't in it, but there had been a takeup even among those boards. I think we are looking at interesting times for the minister and Ms Ecker as they attempt to resolve that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That is a Chinese curse.

Mr Michael Brown: Well, I didn't mean it that way.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, I know that.

Mr Michael Brown: There have been news reports over the last couple of days talking about proposals by provincial governments to the federal government in terms of changing the social safety net in general. Some of those would appear to be quite dramatic. Now, I have not seen any of the proposals other than some news accounts of what the proposals might be. I wonder if the minister could comment on I believe a provincial proposal by all the provinces, I take it, to divest themselves of income support programs.

0910

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes. The particular newspaper article you're referring to unfortunately I don't believe really dealt with the facts properly. As I understand it, what had come out of that particular interministerial conference were discussion points and not recommendations. I believe many of my colleagues across the country and different other provinces and jurisdictions, territories, have not really decided upon their own particular policy direction in some of these areas that were mentioned by the newspaper article.

I might add that not only is that particular council providing some discussion points, but certainly the conference for the ministers dealing with social services, which is a bit of a different committee, has provided other discussion points as well. So really, I think the newspaper article gave the impression that these were solid recommendations that were being made, when in fact they really were not.

Mr Michael Brown: I understand that the press reports are somewhat unreliable at times. What I'm really asking, though, is what is the position of the province of Ontario and your government? Is it the position of your government that you wish to remove all income support programs from the province and have them administered directly federally?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There are two things. Firstly, we're still working on a number of policy areas. In fact, our mandate really is how can we best deliver the services for the best price and still somehow look, hopefully, to making the system better. To that end, of course, we're having discussions both federally and also with our funding partners to try to find the ways to make the system better.

What I'm saying to you is, we're not at this point in time excluding any type of system that may make things better for people in Ontario, yet at the same time I'm actually advising that we have not fully developed any policies in this area yet. We are having discussions with the federal government to try to find out how we can best do these things.

Mr Michael Brown: I appreciate the answer. That's quite an intelligent response, if I might say so, but it also kind of begs the question of what is our preferred position here? Everybody's in favour of efficiency; everybody's in favour of streamlining jurisdictional problems; everybody's in favour of all the things you just mentioned. The question is, how are you approaching this as a government? You must have some idea. To say that you're in favour of efficiency is sort of like being in favour of motherhood.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think part of the difficulty we've had is, we've had quite an odyssey to get to the point of discussion with Mr Axworthy and we haven't yet established a firm time to meet with Mr Young, his successor. So until we really have some sort of certainty in terms of what the federal positions are going to be in a lot of the areas which you're talking about, it becomes very difficult for us to have any type of idea of how we're going to formulate something from our perspective.

Mr Michael Brown: I understood this meeting to be about provincial ministers and that the provinces were attempting to develop a joint policy that they could present to the federal government, instead of just reacting to the federal government. It seems to me that if you're doing that, you have to have a position that Ontario's willing to take or is putting forward at such a meeting. What is the position we're putting forward, other than, "We're in favour of motherhood"?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The actual paper we're speaking about is really a discussion document for the premiers. It was an indication of areas in which the particular ministers involved with that paper felt that some discussion should be had at the premiers' level in terms of trying to decide what kind of directions the country was going to take -- understanding, of course, that both the premiers' conference and the social services conference were in reaction to the cut in the funding that we received from the federal government.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm just a little confused, as I think many people in Ontario will be, about what the position of this government is. We just witnessed the Americans. It's a different system, but the governors actually came and said, "This is how we want it done." They developed a position and obviously the governors and their cabinet ministers or secretaries, whatever they call them, had a position going into their meetings. I'm wondering what the position of the province of Ontario is.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think one thing we have had throughout is trying to -- once again, they are things you would describe as motherhood issues. I'm sure we would agree on most of these. How do we provide the best services for Ontario in light of the funding cuts under the Canada health and social transfer, to provide some sort of flexibility in the provinces for us to be able to deal with this? There are a number of factors in this whole dynamic that we have to pay attention to, yet we have to have some sort of idea what the federal positions are as well. We can't just formulate policy in a blind.

Mr Michael Brown: I agree with that, but obviously you have to be a little proactive in presenting the position that's preferred for the people of Ontario. Our position might be slightly different than perhaps Newfoundland or British Columbia --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It could possibly be.

Mr Michael Brown: -- and when we are at the table, being the largest province in Confederation, with the largest population, with the largest gross product --

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): The largest deficit and the largest taxes.

Mr Michael Brown: That's also true, that it's the largest deficit. I don't think it's true we have the largest taxes, but that's another matter.

It seems to me that we have problems. I'm not saying we don't. You're accepting -- you don't have any choice but to accept -- the federal reduction in transfers, although compared to what you've done to your transfers to municipalities, school boards, hospitals, colleges and universities, it's minuscule. We're trying to get a handle on where you're going. Are you going to an income-based system totally? A guaranteed annual income? A negative income tax? Are those in your thoughts? Are you presenting those kinds of ideas?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: A lot of what we're doing in terms of provincial policies -- we've clearly stated, for example, in terms of the seniors and disabled to get into a different income stream with them, right off the welfare system.

How that's going to coordinate with the federal policies or possible policies or these areas that have room for discussion I don't really know right now, because we don't know what the federal involvement might be. It's really difficult to formulate policies in a vacuum and that's really the position we're in right now with the federal government in terms of trying to find out exactly what their policy direction is.

Mr Michael Brown: They might say the same thing about you.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But we're the ones who are saying: "Let's sit down at the table. We want to meet with you." Frankly, I wasn't the one who cancelled a couple of meetings.

The other thing too is that you mention that maybe the funds that we are being cut from the federal government are insignificant -- not insignificant but --

Mr Michael Brown: I'm not saying they're insignificant; I'm saying versus the type of cuts that are being transferred to our transfer partners in Ontario. It's 2% or 3% of the provincial budget that is affected by the federal cuts.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But if you look at the absolute dollars, in 1996-97, it's $2.5 billion; in 1997-98, it's $4.5 billion. That's quite a significant amount.

Mr Michael Brown: Sure, I'm not saying it's not. Just percentagewise, compared to what's happening to our transfer partners, it's huge. It's all a lot of money. My constituents have a lot of problem with what a billion dollars is too. It all sounds like a lot of money to me. Sometimes in politics we use these big numbers without any real conception of what it might happen to be. All I'm suggesting is that in comparison, it is not huge; it's not what you're asking your transfer partners to cope with.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Getting back to really what you're asking about, these are discussion points for the premiers to look at, and once they've collectively reviewed that document, Ontario at that point in time will determine what our position is to support any type of national social policies.

I think the Premier needs to get a real handle on what the other provinces' thinking is as well. Right now it's a little bit too early to really know what kind of options are going to be pursued with the federal government and its desire to make expectations for national social programs.

0920

Mr Michael Brown: Being consistent with the Common Sense Revolution, we could expect that the government of Ontario will fiercely oppose any user fees that might be suggested by the other provinces, that a user fee is just a tax by any other name and any taxes that may be imposed would be fiercely fought by the government of Ontario, and that there would be no way there would be any user fees in the social services condoned by your government, other than I recognize you've already broken the promise at least once.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Just to put my last comment in perspective in terms of the funding, if I could just make a quick comment, and certainly the prior government's quite aware of this, not only are we looking at further constraints in terms of the funding from the federal government in the next couple of years, but the prior government had to cope with funding cuts in CAP over the last five years and they're certainly aware of that.

Mr Michael Brown: Actually the government before that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes, certainly the government before that. So we all know what it's like.

One of the things we're saying is that our theme right now is basically if this is going to happen and what are you going to do to really counteract that happening, we need a lot more flexibility to deal with this provincially. That's one of the things we're looking for.

Mr Michael Brown: But we can be assured there will be no user fees?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Sorry?

Mr Michael Brown: User fees would not be part of a suggestion suggested by the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We're looking at a number of measures.

Mr Michael Brown: I've read the CSR too.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think one of the things people are concerned about, when you talk about our transfer partners, is the fact that we had a 2.5% constraint last year, and we're aware of that. However, one of the reasons we're going through with some of the discussions with the community groups is to look at the community and start making some decisions in terms of a priority of programs. There are a number of other factors that an across-the-board cut does not recognize of course, such as the argument of high-growth areas, for example. It really creates a huge burden on them. We're actually looking to try to provide some sort of flexibility.

There are a number of organizations out there that have several programs in several areas of the province that are looking for some flexibility in the way they're dealing with some of the constraints. For example, they might say in one area they probably couldn't even absorb a 1% cut, yet in other areas they could absorb a 10% cut, and they're saying, "As an organization maybe we should get some flexibility to be able to deal with this rather than just say each area has to have this amount," recognizing that different areas might have different needs and different factors in each local community.

Mr Michael Brown: You're suggesting kind of a global budget for these kinds of agencies then?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, it's not my suggestion actually. That's a suggestion of one of the organizations to try to cope with some sort of flexibility. That's what they were saying to us as well. They say: "You know, if we're going to have to cope with any type of constraints, give us some flexibility in terms of how we can deal with it. Give us a little more leeway and deal with it in a logical manner rather than saying everybody's the same here."

Mr Michael Brown: I don't think anybody argues with that. It's just that we're a little nervous, having looked at Bill 26 and found out what the tools really are. Flexibility really means the ability to impose user fees.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's why we're dealing right now directly with the organizations to see what kinds of solutions we can come up with and working with the various programs and organizations.

Mr Michael Brown: I'm trying to say, are user fees in the game here? Tools, flexibility, all those kinds of code words --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This is not something that the government's put on the table in our discussions with them. I don't know. I mean we're talking to organizations now trying to find some solutions and we'll have to see what comes out of it.

Mr Michael Brown: Okay. We're having some difficulty, I guess you can imagine, in understanding what the policy of the government of Ontario happens to be today, and while we kind of enjoy the code words, they're kind of fun, to talk about efficiency and we're making flexibility, making things happens, you can understand our frustration. We're dealing with a set of estimates prepared by a former government, abridged somewhat by you, confusing to anyone in the opposition, trying to determine what direction the province of Ontario is going to go, because that is really the crux of our questions here, and not really being able to find out anything.

The province of Ontario doesn't have a budget, and this will be the first year in the history of Ontario we don't even have a budget document, which means your financial statement didn't provide us any idea of what revenues in the province of Ontario would be. It was really a transfer statement, not a budget, a mini-budget as people talked of it that way. Without a budget, with a set of estimates prepared by somebody else whom you obviously don't agree with on many items, we come and say, what are you saying to your provincial colleagues, what are you saying to the federal government, what is your position? We find out you want to be flexible. It's a little difficult for us to come to any conclusion about --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Brown, I think it's a little more than that. Frankly, it's very difficult for us, as I said, to really formulate any type of policy in a vacuum of knowledge about what the federal government is really planning to do. We have been pressing them to try to find out, and our difficulty is, of course, that we don't know what they want to do.

Secondly, this particular document you're referring to is really a document with discussion points for the Premiers so they can get some sense of where their colleagues across the province are intending to go with all this. After that takes place, and certainly after having our discussions with the federal government, we will have to have some idea of where we want to go with this.

Mr Michael Brown: I understand all that and that's --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The other aspect of all this is that one of the things we are certainly promoting in this ministry is having consultation. I don't know if we're being criticized for looking to have consultation right now with --

Mr Michael Brown: I'm not criticizing anybody for consulting, Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But I think that's what's important for us to do before we go forward.

Mr Michael Brown: What you're telling me is you don't have a position.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I'm telling you is we're --

Mr Michael Brown: What is the preferred position of the province of Ontario versus your responsibility?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's the difficulty we have.

Mr Michael Brown: What are you going to take to the table? What are you going to be saying, "In a perfect world, this is what we would like you to do, federal government; this is what we think the other provinces should do"? I understand there would have to be compromises. I understand you would have to live within a world that maybe you don't have total control over, but at least you have to have an opening position going into these talks, a preferred position, a position that represents what you believe is in the interests of the people of Ontario, as well as the people of Canada.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Believe me, I'm not going to give advice to other provinces. Let's look at the other level that we're talking about and that's dealing with some of the transfer agent partners we have. If we go in with a huge preconceived agenda and ask them to rubber-stamp it, then it really makes no sense, and I think you agree with that because of the way you sort of grimaced at me.

With respect to the federal government, it's like with the child care area. We need to know what's being offered before we say, "Yes, give it to us." I think the difficulty is you can't say yes and ask what the conditions are afterwards, because that may not be in the interests of the Ontario people. Similarly, with any type of a national policy, we want to get some sort of idea of what direction our colleagues across the country are heading in as well, because that's what this whole thing is about, to get some sort of sense of all this, and I think that's important before we actually go the federal government and say, "Look, this is really what we think."

Mr Michael Brown: I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm just trying to determine. The province of Ontario must have some basic criteria, must have a basic view of how social services need to be delivered in the province, and maybe the federal government is going to say to you: "Forget it. That's not how we think it should be done. We're going to have to talk about this." But to say that as a government that is now in power in Ontario, which had a clear view of how social services were to work in the province, you don't have preferred options, you don't have an idea of where you want to go, to just say, "Well, we'll have to be flexible and mush around and we'll have to deal with the realities everybody else has," is just almost shocking.

0930

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't think I'd really characterize it that way. I know that some of the other colleagues we have here sitting at the table with you have probably been to some interprovincial conferences, and --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes, and with me. The difficulty of even coming up with a consensus with your other partners at the table for a press release is almost insurmountable at times. I think that the provinces, of course, have to deal with the funding cutbacks. That's really where a lot of this is coming from. In order for us to come up with some sort of provincial position, and I mean provincial in the plural, dealing with the federal government, that's going to require a little bit of sorting out to do. I'm sure that Mr Curling would agree that's a very difficult process, to come to a consensus in these conferences. There's not a lot of consensus to begin with because a lot of the provinces are coming from different backgrounds and it ends up being a bit of a compromise to try to get some sort of sense of how we can all get some sort of agreement.

Mr Michael Brown: You know what? I think the only consultation that hasn't occurred is that the whiz kids in the Premier's office haven't told you yet. I think that's what's going on here, and I think that the largest province in Confederation, the largest GNP, the engine of Canada, doesn't have a position other than "We'll talk" is amazing.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't think that you're really giving the credit to the civil servants who work with us in our ministry. Quite frankly, I think that anyone who has had the privilege of being a cabinet minister in any prior government knows the amount of work that the staff does. It's incredible. Regardless of any type of policy directions or political directions, you have to have any type of policy based on some sort of solid foundation, and I believe that's where a lot of it comes from, is from the civil servants who work with us.

Mr David S. Cooke (Windsor-Riverside): I just have a couple of questions, and Gilles is going to ask some questions. It is refreshing to hear the minister talk so positively about the civil service, especially when I'm sure his ministry is going to make up a large portion of the 27,000 that his government's going to fire.

Could the minister just give us some idea about what he means by "core services for children's aid societies?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, as you're aware, there are mandated services that the children's aid society does provide.

Mr Cooke: What are those that you're referring to?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Children in need of protection, in danger, but frankly --

Mr Cooke: Preventive services are mandated services too, under the act.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think your mandated services have to form part of the core services, but what we're doing is, when we're working with these groups -- you sort of, I guess, don't believe we're working with them as closely as I would like you to believe -- basically we're trying to find a way to manage a better, affordable, effective system of social services. I suppose that means that these are some of the decisions in terms of the programs that we're looking for some direction with our advisory committees.

Mr Cooke: You must have some view. I mean, you're the minister. Of course, everybody's looking for more effective public services. All I'm trying to get an idea from you about is what services CASs are carrying out now that you believe need not be carried out by them or would not form part of the core services. We've had this debate for about 20 years and we expanded the role of CASs into preventive services. I think it's fairly basic to just ask you what's being looked at. Obviously a definition of core services means that something that is now being done is not going to be done by the children's aid societies.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think you're making some assumptions here as to what may or may not be done. Certainly, the Ontario children's aid society umbrella group is at the table with us.

Mr Cooke: Of course they're going to be at the table with you; their life's at stake.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, it's not just that. I think that they're at the table with us to really help us formulate what their structure and core services are going to be, and they're a very important voice at the table.

Mr Cooke: I'm sure they've also expressed to you concern about what the definition of "core services" could be.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: At which time I assured them that they, along with the other groups, will have a very strong say in what that will be.

Mr Cooke: That's all I'm trying to get. Since you're the decision-maker -- you're ultimately going to make the decision or the recommendation to cabinet -- for example, do you foresee that there might be amendments to the Child and Family Services Act this year or next year?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There may or may not be. Once again, you're right. Ultimately, the decision's going to be made at the ministry, but once we've gone through a thorough discussion with these groups and listened to the recommendations.

Mr Cooke: So you've not brought anything to the table. You've just said that you want to move towards core services but you don't have any view of what that means.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We're asking for their assistance in helping us define what they, as care providers, provide. The difficulty is, do you want to go to a real consultation or not? If you go to a real consultation, you listen to what the groups say before you formulate the final document as opposed to saying: "Here is it. Rubber-stamp it."

Mr Cooke: But, Minister, the groups want to know something about where the government is going. You don't go to the table and say: "We want to define core services. We have no view about what core services are. In fact, we don't even know what `core services' means, but we want your advice." You must have something that you or your ministry's brought to the table.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: This is a free-flowing dialogue that we have with them. It's not quite as simplistic as you make it out to be. It's a real dialogue we're having.

Mr Cooke: I don't think it's simplistic. I just don't think you're being fully forthright with the committee.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The real problem here is integration of services. Look, when we're starting to look at how to structure things and how to deliver those services, and you're quite aware of this as well, ministries in the past have developed programs in silos, and the social services programs have evolved -- actually not evolved, but have grown in such a hodgepodge that there's been no type of rationalization in terms of how these things have to be integrated, that there's a program needed here, and it's developed in isolation to what actually may be in that community as well. That's really the core of this.

Mr Cooke: Come on, Minister. This is a cost-cutting exercise that you're involved in and that's why we're redefining the role of children's aid societies. You and I aren't going to agree on much philosophically, so all I'm trying to get from you is an idea that I think the taxpayers and the public are entitled to know: what kind of direction you're looking at. Have you filed any paper at this point? Has there been anything, a discussion document or anything, that you have presented to --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Cooke, you're making the assumption that we're going to redefine what children's aid societies are going to be.

Mr Cooke: You've cut them back 5%. We've got children's aid societies that have gone broke.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: And you cut them back 1% prior to that, too. That's not really a reason to say we shouldn't be looking to see how we can better serve people.

Mr Cooke: Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's what you do to me.

Mr Cooke: -- that we don't want to find better ways of delivering services. But that's not your objective here. And if it is, then tell me what you mean by "core services." Give us some idea.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What makes you think that this government does not want to make things better?

Mr Cooke: I didn't say that.

Mr Bisson: Experience.

Mr Cooke: I didn't say that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, you have actually, because you're saying we're just looking to cost-cut, we're not looking to improve the system. Look, there's a number of problems with the system, and you, of all people, are very well aware of that.

Mr Cooke: I'm not in favour of the status quo.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There's a lot of confusion in terms of how to access the programs, what programs are there, the duplication in programs. There's a number of issues that have to be resolved somehow, and that's how you can make the system better. Look at the actual programs, too.

Mr Cooke: So you're not prepared to tell us today what your view of "core services" is. That's very clear.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I'm advising you today --

Mr Cooke: Can I ask you one very specific question, or can the deputy answer this? Has there been anything tabled with the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and the others that are being consulted on this that would be a discussion document or give any direction from the ministry of what's being looked at on core services for children's aid societies?

0940

Ms Lang: We've had discussions with the provincial associations. I think it's fair to say to you, Mr Cooke, we're not looking at just defining what are the core services of children's aid societies. What we're looking at, hopefully once and for all, is how we restructure children's services in this province, given that we've talked about it for about 15 years now, and determine what are the key functions that need to be operative in any given community across this province that ensure that we continue to provide mandated services as well as provide investment in intervention and early prevention kinds of services.

So we have been talking with all of the associations about what a new children's service system might look like, based on some of the experiences we've had with communities across the province that have been planning and have been putting together for us some very good ideas about how the system might function.

Mr Cooke: But could I just get back to the question. Have there been any ideas that have been tabled by the ministry that you could share with the committee?

Ms Lang: We have not tabled; we have shared some ideas with the provincial associations. They have offered us some feedback and some advice, both in the context of meetings with officials and meetings with the minister.

Mr Cooke: I can't remember the exact number, but there were a couple of children's services councils that were still around that did some local planning. I don't know where the ministry is going to ultimately go, but I think the only way you're going to end up having a rationalization of children's services at the community level is to have some planning mechanism at the local level and that the real failure of the councils was that back when Mr Drea cancelled a lot of them in the province, they never got to the final mandate of being able to actually implement some of the planning at the local level. What would the thinking have been in cancelling the couple of councils that still existed if in fact we want to rationalize and improve children's services?

Ms Lang: The rationale behind that was that we took a look at what the critical services were that needed to be preserved and continued in the province. When we made some options available to the government in terms of cost reductions, we looked at those components of the system that were not providing direct services. One of the considerations was, when you're not providing direct services, is there another way in which that function can be carried out? I think it's fair to say that in many communities across the province we bring people together through our area offices; we don't necessarily need to maintain an infrastructure. So the rationale behind the decision was to ensure that the money that was left was in fact going to direct service delivery.

Mr Cooke: But you're not moving with the view that regional offices would become the planners at the local level?

Ms Lang: I think what we would like to see is the area offices being very much part of supporting the planning effort that involves members of the community and individuals who have an interest in the certain system, much like we have in places like --

Mr Cooke: I must say that back in the 1970s, when the ministry moved towards the establishment of the children's services division and then regionalized the ministry, while I think there are a lot of good people who work in the regional offices, my view of it at the local level in my community is that the only thing that really happened was that there was a lot more staff. There wasn't anything being delivered in a more effective way, and the way that it was organized is that when the regional office in Windsor has to communicate with Toronto, they communicate with London, London communicates with Toronto. The number of people that have to be talked to before an answer can be achieved is not particularly helpful. But I guess I'd be really concerned if we were moving towards empowering regional offices and not empowering communities to make some decisions about rationalization of children's services.

Ms Lang: First of all, I think I should correct for you the impression you have that there are regional offices out there. We do not have regional offices any longer.

Mr Cooke: Local offices.

Ms Lang: In the previous administration, we restructured. We have local offices now who report directly in to an assistant deputy minister. Those local offices work very closely with their communities, as you know, and engage those communities, as much as they can, given policy direction from government, in what kinds of changes might be brought about. It is our hope that we can build on that and engage them in a very significant restructuring effort that hopefully will finally realize a vision that's been created for children's services in this province but has never been actualized.

Mr Cooke: Could I get some idea from you about what's on the table with the child care review? There's been lots of discussion about the voucher system. But at this point, maybe you can just start by giving me an actual statistic. I'd like to know, as you're answering this, how many child care spaces have been lost as a result of the 80-20 cost-sharing on the Jobs Ontario Training spaces as opposed to the 100%, because that's where we start with the tearing down of the child care system. Then, what's on the table? You've said in the House that everything is on the table, but you've also seemed to have given the impression that the voucher system wasn't something that you were particularly attached to or supportive of. So is the voucher system on the table or is that one of the things that you believe would not be appropriate for Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: To put that in context, when that particular matter came up it was in connection with some report. I said at that point in time that I had not seen the report, nor had it been presented to me. So I didn't give an indication one way or the other of my view on that.

In terms of the actual items that are before the child care review, as you know, I've given that task to Janet Ecker, who is my parliamentary assistant. The mandate of course is providing better child care, more accessible, more affordable, that whole range of items. I assume that the matters which we are looking at will be the whole range that will affect any of the points that affect creating a balance and accessibility and a better system.

Mr Cooke: So the voucher system would be on the table? I'm not saying that that's something you've adopted, but it's not been eliminated as one of the options you'd be looking at?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, a number of these groups are putting forth -- a number of the members may be putting forth some suggestions. There are a number of issues that they have to deal with. You're trying to get some sort of idea from me at this point.

Mr Cooke: Yes. A voucher system is pretty fundamental. I'm asking you, as minister, is it on the table or is it something that you have taken off the table? That's all I'm asking. I don't think it's an unreasonable question.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's not an unreasonable question. However, the items that are before the committee are certainly items that the committee itself brings forth as well.

Mr Cooke: You're the minister. None of us are paid to be the minister. You're the minister. So you've got to have some views on this.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'll tell you something: My view is only one. That's why we have the consultation process going on.

Mr Cooke: So you're not going to tell me whether, in your view as Minister of Community and Social Services, the voucher system is on the table or off the table?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I'm going to advise you is that we're looking for direction from the advisory committee.

Mr Cooke: Forget it. What's the timing of the report?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Well, I suppose, due to Ms Ecker's commitment on the committee hearings that had taken place during January, we've lost a lot of time. I know that this is an area of priority for Ms Ecker. Hopefully, as soon as possible. I can't give you a direct time line on it. We're depending on this child care review as well to give us part of the puzzle in terms of how this is going to fit into our workfare idea as well. It's very important to us, and it has been --

Mr Cooke: Oh, it's so important you can't answer anything about philosophy on it or timing.

I've just got a few minutes left in this round. Could I ask some questions of the ministry? I'd like to just go back to the supervision of the 16- and 17-year-olds and the process that's being used for those that are on social assistance and the fact that the new rules say they have to be living with adult supervision. I'd just like to get a better understanding of how that's working and what the placement process is.

Ms Lang: Perhaps we could ask Kevin Costante to come up again.

Mr Cooke: I know this was raised yesterday, but one of the concerns that I have, and I think I expressed to you when you were briefing us once, is that when you bring in a rule that 16- and 17-year-olds have to live with adults, I understand the objective, but I'm very concerned about where some of these teenagers are going to end up.

0950

If you're putting in place a rule that makes it mandatory that they live with adults then the ministry has some obligation to see how those placements are working, so I want to know what the process is. Are all 16- and 17-year-olds now living with adults if they're on social assistance? Are there visits taking place by the ministry to check on the appropriateness of these placements?

Mr Kevin Costante: First of all, I should say that it's not mandatory that they live with adults. We have asked that the municipal welfare administrators ensure that there is some adult contact, so we're talking of responsible adults who would provide some advice, some guidance to these young people who are somewhat on their own, and that's what we have asked them to put in place.

Mr Cooke: How is that being monitored? Everybody has adult contact. What does that mean and how is it being monitored?

Mr Costante: In terms of how the ministry monitors it, the ministry monitors compliance of policies through our program review officers. We have about 50-some program review officers across the province and they are responsible for checking, on a periodic basis, various policies that municipalities are empowered to enforce.

Mr Cooke: I may have asked the question wrong. I meant, how are the young people, the 16- and 17-year-olds, being monitored to see that this policy is being followed? In other words, they still qualify for social assistance but that the adult contact is appropriate.

Mr Costante: Again, the responsibility is with the local municipal welfare administrators and their individual case workers. I think when I was briefing you -- I believe that was before the House opened -- I had indicated that this was a practice that many municipalities had employed for some time. I believe I sent you the guidelines that the regional municipality of Kitchener-Waterloo was using in terms of how they would do that.

Mr Cooke: I didn't want to get into the details of what we said to one another but since we have, I think there was also an expression from myself and from our caucus of great concern but also that we might end up setting up what amounts to a children's aid society for 16- and 17-year-olds, and the response from the ministry was, "Maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing." I remember that very clearly so that's why I'm asking the questions here today of what exactly is being done.

When a new regulation is put in place saying that 16- and 17-year-olds have to have -- and I don't have the exact wording but it wasn't "adult contact," it was "adult supervision" when the press release went out. I think we have to follow up and ask what that means and how it's being followed up. The municipalities have some responsibility but the ministry sets the standards and sets the criteria since you've set the policy. And I'm really worried about some 16- and 17-year-olds who are going to find themselves in positions where they're going to be very vulnerable because of this rule.

So I think there's an obligation to tell us a little bit more about how this is being monitored in order to make sure that these 16- and 17-year-olds are not being put at risk because of a policy that, quite frankly -- not your doing -- a policy that's been set by a government that is basically pandering to those who are attacking welfare recipients and gave people the impression that there were hundreds of thousands of kids on welfare. What is being put in place to protect kids to make sure they're not being put in vulnerable positions?

Mr Costante: Obviously our intention and the intention of the municipal welfare administrators is that that not be the case. The intention here is that we are providing some responsible adult guidance to young people, 16 and 17 years old.

Mr Cooke: I know the objective and I appreciate that, Kevin. Of course, there would never be a policy that would be put in place by government that would deliberately put kids in a vulnerable position. Of course not. It comes down to, what are we doing to make sure that doesn't happen? At this point, I haven't been told anything that's being done.

Ms Mary Kardos Burton: If I can just add to it. I'm Mary Kardos Burton. I'm the director of social assistance. When the policy was developed there was extensive discussion with the local welfare administrators. In many of the communities, of course, some of them being very small, the welfare administrators have much more knowledge of the community situation.

In terms of what is being done, one example would be -- and Kevin is quite right -- a situation where it has to be a responsible adult who does not have to live with the individual but certainly has responsibility for overseeing whether or not the person is in school. But if there was a situation, for example, where there was a boarding situation, and our guidelines actually say this, the expectation would be that the welfare administrator would have some knowledge of that individual in terms of who was running the boarding house. What we don't want to have, and I'm sure you can appreciate this, is that the welfare administrator would be making personal judgements about the personal characteristics of individuals. I don't know whether that helps, but I think the confidence in our administrators in terms of how seriously they take this situation, we found that out certainly through the extensive consultations that we did when we redeveloped the policy recently.

Mr Cooke: Making judgements? You don't want welfare administrators to be making judgements. The policy itself has made judgements. The policy has basically said that 16- and 17-year-olds should not be living without adult supervision. So you're going to make it mandatory that there has to be adult supervision. Now, if you're not making any kinds of judgement, surely you're not saying any adult supervision. There have to be some criteria. Has there been any standard, any direction, set out in writing for welfare administrators?

Mr Costante: Yes, we've provided some direction. There are guidelines that go out with each policy that provide some direction. It's not detailed direction in terms of characteristics of individuals. It gives general guidance.

The other thing I would say in terms of the monitoring is that certainly our intention for our program review officers is that many of the new policies that we introduced last year would be on a list to be reviewed this year in terms of how the policy is being implemented.

Mr Cooke: If you're going to review it though, you've got to have a little bit more information than you're sharing with us about how it's working. I'd certainly like to see what you've sent to welfare administrators.

Mr Costante: We could provide you with the guidelines.

Mr Cooke: But there is no guideline that says there should be visits. If the supervision is direct, are there home visits? In other words, if the 16- or 17-year-old is living with adult supervision, is there any kind of a home visit?

Ms Kardos Burton: Do you mean home visits by the individual or --

Mr Cooke: By the welfare worker.

Mr Costante: The local home visit policy of the municipality would apply. You mean, visits to monitor --

Mr Cooke: Yes, to make sure. Just as children's aid societies do home visits, is there any kind of a home visit to approve the particular setting?

Mr Costante: I think that's done in discussion with the young person. Most municipalities, again to provide some context, have set up special workers who concentrate on young people, 16- and 17-year-olds.

Mr Cooke: What were we trying to achieve then, Kevin, that if in fact the determination of whether the arrangement is appropriate or not is done in consultation with the young person, then of course the young person is going to say, "The relationship that I have is appropriate and therefore I should qualify for social assistance." What was the original purpose of this policy?

Mr Costante: The original purpose, and there was a perception I think in the community that these young people were on their own, that they weren't perhaps properly motivated or attending school and that they needed some adult guidance to -- and expectations --

Mr Cooke: But attendance in school was already mandatory.

Mr Costante: Not before this policy came in.

1000

Mr Cooke: So now everyone, all 5,100 or whatever the numbers are, is attending school.

Mr Costante: They have to be in school or training, yes.

Mr Cooke: How is that being monitored?

Mr Costante: Again, that's the responsibility of the local welfare administrator. It's monitored like we monitor every other policy. They have certain delegated authority and responsibilities under the act and the regulations.

Mr Cooke: Teachers have said that they don't want to be part of monitoring attendance.

Mr Costante: I think most municipalities at the local level have set up quite good relationships with the local school boards in terms of working with them and the guidance counsellors etc in terms of providing some assistance, and just by having 16- and 17-year-olds --

Mr Cooke: Boy, I can tell you, the two years that I was Minister of Education, the first thing the school boards said when any of this was ever discussed, because we discussed it too, was: "We don't want to be welfare administrators. We're not going to be implementing mandatory attendance of schools at the school level. That's not my job as a principal or a teacher." You know that's been the view of teachers and school boards for quite some time.

Mr Costante: I'm not saying that we're going to abrogate our responsibility in terms of administering this.

Interjection: It's a policy.

Mr Costante: I think there have been quite good relationships, at the local level, set up between local school boards, local schools and the municipal welfare administration offices. If you go and talk to some of them you'll find that out. I've talked to a number of them. I think they're trying to do a responsible thing and help these people progress.

Mr Cooke: What we're basically saying is that there are no prior checks. The adults who are going to supervise, are they interviewed by the welfare workers before the arrangement is approved?

Ms Kardos Burton: They may be, but I wouldn't know in every case.

Mr Cooke: So no mandatory interview with the adults; taking the approval from the 16- and 17-year-old; no formal arrangements with the school boards. This policy is a joke.

Mr Bisson: It is.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: At least there's an expectation here that there's going to be a responsible adult assisting the 16- or 17-year-old which --

Mr Cooke: How can you say "responsible" when it's now been confirmed that they're not even interviewed?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But at least it's an expectation that the prior government did not have. Your government did not have any expectations at all.

Mr Cooke: They're not even interviewed, for God's sake.

The Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): Thank you, Mr Cooke. The NDP's 30 minutes is up. May I just raise a point now that we'll have to deal with. It will be easier to deal with it now than later.

The scheduled approximate time that this minister would have been here if things had gone normally would have been 12 o'clock and the Housing estimates would start at 1:30. You know the incidents that have been happening really have pushed us off, that by 12 o'clock we'd still have two hours and 20 minutes of the estimates time left for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. What I'm working up to is, do we give notice to the Ministry of Housing that its time will be at 4 o'clock, later on, or is there any consensus of what we do from here? I'm looking for guidance from the committee.

Mr Bisson: Tell our friend Al Leach to be here at 4.

The Chair: I'll take it we don't have consensus, then.

Mr Bisson: That's right. Onward and forward.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Curling, before you actually decide on that, it's my understanding that before we adjourned yesterday, around 4:30 or so, there was an indication at that time, at least for the time that was allocated for yesterday, that there would be at most an hour added on.

The Chair: I regard this process as the big clock and the small clock. The big clock continues to tick on and the other clock is for you to actually proceed by. It's 15 hours allocated to Comsoc, and we would proceed accordingly if there is consensus.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I believe there was consensus to this yesterday.

Mr Michael Brown: Just to be helpful, Mr Chair, I happen to be the member who was in the chair at the time of adjournment yesterday. It happened in quite a hurry, and the only thing that was really done by the committee or by the Chair was to adjourn the committee. There really wasn't any, at least, formal discussion. The committee did not adopt anything because obviously the nature of the circumstance was that we had to go.

Mr Bisson: Two hours and 20 minutes left?

The Chair: No. It will be two hours and 20 minutes left as at 12 o'clock if we proceed normally until that time. It seems to me that yesterday we did not have consensus, and I'm seeking consensus.

Mr Baird: How will that affect the committee's deliberations with respect to Mr Leach's appearance at the other end next week?

The Chair: Mr Leach will continue. As I said, the clock will continue. When he comes he'll have to do his 15 hours too.

Mr Baird: Do we know Mr Leach's availability?

The Chair: He should be available.

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): I think we have unanimous consent to reduce the Housing component down three hours so that in fact Mr Leach would finish on Monday.

Mr Bisson: No, there's no unanimous consent.

The Chair: As I said, you saw what I did, seeking unanimous consent and there was no unanimous consent in that regard.

Mrs Ross: With respect to the Housing issue?

Interjection: She's saying that when we get to Housing, to reduce the time from 15 to 12 hours.

The Chair: Oh, you're raising another point about Housing then, to reduce Housing.

Mrs Ross: Yes, from 15 down to 12.

The Chair: And you're seeking unanimous consent to do that.

Mrs Ross: Yes.

The Chair: We had that, or you're asking for that?

Mrs Ross: I'm asking for unanimous consent.

The Chair: May I ask the NDP --

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, I'm new to this process, so I'd just like to ask a question. Because Housing was our choice to come before this committee, is it not our decision then if we want to reduce the hours?

The Chair: No, it's not your decision. Once it's been voted on, it's selected that time; 15 hours is there. It's not your choice now to reduce the time. You can make the suggestion, as you're doing now.

Mrs Ross: Okay. Does it have to be unanimous?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): That's only a proposal on this sheet.

Mr Cooke: I think there was some discussion that took place between the staff of the three House leaders' offices on the Housing issue. My recollection, and I'm just going by memory, is that since the Conservatives chose Housing, our view at least was that if they wanted to reduce the number of hours, we shouldn't be precious about it. It was the choice of the Conservative Party for its estimates.

The Chair: You're saying that since they selected, your party would give consent to reduce the time and you'd agree with that. That's what I'm hearing.

Mr Michael Brown: It's not that we wish to be difficult over here. This is news to us, the idea that we would reduce the number of hours for Housing. We would like to think about it before we concur.

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, if I may just make the point that the purpose of this is because originally the schedules were different than what we have before us now. There was some error made in the schedules, and when they were changed, Mr Palladini, who was scheduled to appear Thursday morning, had something else on his calendar and is not able to make it Thursday. So in order to accommodate his calendar, we're asking to reduce the Housing so that Transportation would finish on Wednesday.

The Chair: There doesn't seem to be consensus yet. The Liberals are asking for some time, so let us get back to this afterwards.

Mrs Ross: Okay.

The Chair: May we proceed now and you could tell us your decision.

Mr Michael Brown: I was just going to suggest that maybe the subcommittee could chat about this informally rather than take committee time, and time away from the estimates.

The Chair: You've heard the views already. The Liberals can come back and tell me their position on that. May we proceed to the Conservatives with their time?

Mr Baird: There were a number of issues I wanted to discuss with respect to the estimates, Minister. The first is the issue of sponsorship default. I think one of the excellent components of our immigration system is the sponsorship element program. I think it helps the country to introduce immigrants into Canadian society, which I think benefits us socially and benefits us economically.

Having said that, I think the whole integrity of the sponsorship process is at times in question, albeit not anywhere near a majority of cases end up in default. I know that's a concern to many, more for the integrity of that process, because I think our system benefits particularly when there's a sponsor there to help the individual integrate into Canadian society and into Ontario society. It's not a huge direct cost to the taxpayers, and that's something I think should be very much encouraged. I tell you, I'm disappointed in the current federal government for continually decreasing the immigration levels.

1010

With respect to sponsorship, I wanted to know if you could tell us what degree of a problem this has been within the context of default in your ministry. Has it led to increased caseloads? What burden has it had with respect to the finances of the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, failed sponsorships are clearly a problem that we have in Ontario. The failure of sponsors to live up to their basic contractual commitment translates into an increased burden on the Ontario taxpayer and further pressure on our social service system. The changes recently introduced by the federal government are a good step in the right direction towards addressing this issue. We're currently evaluating the impact this is having on our social service system.

We've taken a variety of measures with respect to sponsorship default. Current regulations recognize that it's the sponsor's obligation to provide support, and in doing so reduce social assistance expenditures. So we recognize that there is an obligation there that sponsors should have as well and we're looking for long-term solutions right now.

Our discussions with the federal government have led to changes in the sponsorship arrangement which were announced very recently by the federal government. Such changes tighten the eligibility for sponsors, toughen the enforcement and target abusers, with a focus on minimizing reliance on social assistance.

A key initiative that we've taken as well on curtailing the sponsorship default is in a Peel pilot project. The purpose of the pilot is to test several intervention methods to limit sponsorship defaults, which will result in social assistance payments. It's a partnership between Peel, Immigration Canada and with our participation in it as well.

The other initiative is a listing of Ontario's social assistance legislation and the regulations of the federal Immigration Act. This listing will allow the federal government to take sponsors to court to recover moneys paid out in social assistance to their sponsored relatives.

So we have taken a number of initiatives in this area and we're working with the federal government to come up with solutions on this and get people to live up to their contractual obligations. Did you want to add to any of that, deputy?

Ms Lang: I think we could ask Kevin to perhaps give you some details in terms of numbers of sponsored immigrants who are on the system at this point in time.

Mr Baird: I appreciate that you've identified it's a problem and that there are a number of initiatives by the province to deal with it, which I think is important. We're dealing with the 1995-96 estimates. From time to time we forget that at these meetings. Is it possible to get an idea of what size of problem it is in terms of financial allocation? If you're able to, that would be terrific, or have it tabled with the clerk at a later time.

In terms of elements in our society, I think it's important that we maintain the integrity of the sponsorship program, particularly as the set immigration levels declined in the last two years, after increasing for 10 or 20 years. We just want to maintain the integrity of the sponsorship program. The defaults are a concern, because I think that creates an unfair characteristic. Are there any specifics you can give with respect to numbers and costs?

Ms Kardos Burton: Yes, there are. There are approximately 35,000 sponsored immigrants on social assistance. That has a yearly expenditure of approximately $350 million. As the minister said, the government has been working on a variety of measures in terms of sponsorship default. The provincial government was involved in negotiations with the federal government. We're working towards an immigration agreement, and sponsorship default was one of those areas. In December, the federal government also made a number of announcements related to sponsorship which are really helpful to the province. So the order of magnitude in terms of the problem is as I said, and there seems to be significant progress in terms of what we're doing on the issue.

Mr Baird: On that number, 35,000 cases at a cost of $350 million -- and it would be difficult, because I don't know how long the contractual agreement with respect to sponsorship would last -- is there any indication as to what percentage rate of default? Is there any information or statistics available? I appreciate it would be difficult, because obviously there would be a certain exact number of sponsorships per year and the social assistance rates could be in the second, third, fourth or any year. Is there any information with respect to the percentage of defaults in the system? You mentioned 35,000 on social assistance. Do we know what percentage that is -- 5%, 2%, 10% -- of the overall sponsorship? You only deal with, obviously, the defaults.

Ms Kardos Burton: Oh, I see what you're saying: in terms of the number of people who are sponsored into this country. Well, 30,000 are on social assistance, and of course that's one of the issues. When they sign a sponsorship agreement there's an expectation that they wouldn't be going to the public purse for any kind of public assistance. However, the issue has been that there has been no enforcement of the sponsorship agreements.

Mr Costante: We'd likely have to do some work in terms of getting you a number, a percentage. It would be quite difficult because I think over 100,000 people come into Ontario each year from other countries, many of them under sponsorship agreements -- some are under refugee status -- and the sponsorship agreements themselves are generally of five and 10 years' duration. We could see if we can get something of a general nature. It's kind of hard to be exact.

Mr Baird: I should say on the record that I have an appreciation that obviously you and your officials, your business is social services.

Ms Kardos Burton: It's not immigration policy.

Mr Baird: It's not administering the contractual agreements, so I appreciate you wouldn't have that on hand. But it would be interesting, in terms of our context, to find out how much of a problem it is, because 30,000 is a significant number. I think it's very much a secondary concern, an important secondary concern, with respect to the burden on the Ontario taxpayer, but I think firstly it goes to the integrity of the whole sponsorship process, and that causes me an equally great concern.

Mr Costante: I think that's why the federal government announced, in December, a number of measures to try to strengthen its management of the sponsorship system. Certainly a lot of those measures were as a result of comments by Ontario in terms of what it was doing to our social assistance system.

Mr Baird: I'll yield to my colleague.

Mrs Ross: Mr Chair, I believe we have unanimous consent that this caucus would agree to forfeit its time and go to the opposition parties so that we can move the schedule up and the minister could leave earlier and we could begin Housing earlier. I'm not sure if that's the proper wording.

The Chair: We have consent that the time that is given up is a part of the time given up for the estimates for the -- okay. What you have given up here is about --

Mr Peter Preston (Brant-Haldimand): Half an hour.

The Chair: No, no, all your time.

Mrs Ross: Yes.

The Chair: Oh, I see. Roughly an hour. Okay.

Mr Bisson: Just so that we're clear, how much time does that leave between the two opposition parties?

Clerk pro tem (Ms Deborah Deller): Could I just have a few minutes to figure that out?

The Chair: Yes. Could we just proceed. Is there unanimous consent that the time given up will be taken off?

Mr Bisson: Agreed.

The Chair: Mr Cleary.

1020

Mr Cleary: A member across the way, Mr Rollins, mentioned yesterday about the working poor, and I know there are many out there and they're proud people and the salt of the earth, in my opinion, and they've been neglected for many years. On page 4 of the minister's statement he says, "Social services will be provided to people in need across Ontario with fairness and sensitivity, respecting the diversity of our people and the varied needs of the province's regions." I would just like to get the minister's opinion on what he said and what one of his colleagues said yesterday.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't really recall the full statement of Mr Rollins with respect to your reference of yesterday. Perhaps I could get the Hansard reference.

Mr Cleary: I could stand to be corrected, but I think that he had mentioned the working poor, that there were not only the people who were on social assistance but there were the working poor in need of assistance too. Am I correct? I'm correct. He said yes.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think in terms of accessing our social service programs, and certainly the child care area as well, that we have to take into account people who are the minimum wage earners, because quite often they're disregarded and we concentrate on people who are on social assistance. I think you're certainly bring up a very good point, that we have to have accessibility, because these are people who are contributing right now --

The Chair: Just one minute, Minister. Could I just have a little bit of quiet, please, and have fewer meetings within the committee so that I can hear the minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: In any event, I think that you're bringing up a very good point, both you and Mr Rollins, in terms of making sure that our social services are accessible and affordable for people.

Mr Cleary: One thing that was mentioned in this committee was that there were jobs out there. I somewhat disagree with you that there are many jobs out there. In our part of eastern Ontario there aren't, because I know that people have been into my constituency office and they've tried everything and they would take anything, even try to raise their families on minimum wage. But I do know that some of them who are on minimum wage are having very difficult times. I am pleased if you're going to look into that. I've been a supporter of that for many years, subsidizing the working poor trying to raise families.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think you're really putting forth a view that's held by many people in this province. Certainly, Mr Rollins has said this many times -- many of our caucus members, many of yours as well -- that we have to make sure that the people who are working on minimum-wage jobs have accessibility as well to our programs and to the services of the province.

One of the things of course that we've been talking about is totally unrelated to the fact that we want to have more accessibility, but certainly in terms of the barriers to growth and your comment about jobs, there are a number of issues that the government has tried to deal with already to restore some sort of atmosphere in which to plan some growth in jobs in this province. Certainly Mr Eves has outlined many, many of them already. But you're right, I think we have to pay more attention to some of the people who are having difficulties but aren't on social assistance as well.

Mr Cleary: Getting back to child care, where I left off yesterday when we couldn't hear ourselves here any more, in your opinion --

The Chair: Let me just say this again: Could we just have a little bit of quiet, and could you speak a bit louder for me, because I know sometimes when the minister even asks his staff to respond, the staff haven't even heard what the transactions are. So could we speak a little louder and keep it a bit quieter, please. Thank you.

Mr Cleary: On child care, in your opinion, what is wrong with the current Day Nurseries Act?

Mr Bisson: That's a good question, actually.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That is a good question. I think it's more what's wrong with the system than the legislation. The legislation only supports what the system has in place. Once again, the real difficulties that the system has today are, I believe, having enough accessible and affordable spaces and having some parental choice.

Certainly one of the problems that we've had was the fact that with the policies over the last five years the commercial spaces have dwindled substantially. They've been told that there's no place for them in child care in the province. I think that we need to restore some balance to that, that in fact yes, there is a need for both sides of the equation here, but let's have a balanced approach and have more parental choice.

Mr Cleary: Are there any other reasons why you want to change it?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, I think that begs the question of the process. The basic reasons, as I outlined, as to why we think the system's not working, the hows and specifics and a lot of other issues that come from people who work in that particular industry are issues that are being raised right now in the child care review. I think there are going to be a number of issues and a number of recommendations that will come out of that child care review, but the reason for all this is generally the accessibility and affordability, and a balanced approach and more choice. I think these are things that we really need to have in our system today.

Mr Cleary: In your opinion, will the changes make it weaker or stronger?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's one of the reasons why we're going into the consultation process. We want to make things better. I think that's very key to what we want to do in this government. That's why we're consulting with the people who are working in the area. That's why we're having the advisory committee. That's why we're also having other consultations and visits. We're having a number of vehicles in which to get input into how to improve the system. Ultimately, whatever comes out of it, the aim is, and I certainly hope the goal achieved will be, an improvement to the way child care is in this province.

Mr Cleary: In the youth jobs corps what are community service activities? How do you define that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: With respect to the youth jobs corps, we really haven't spent a lot of time in developing this particular program. I think I indicated that a couple of days ago, that we are actually working on a number of issues right now. Particularly when you talk about community improvements, that'll be in the envelope of workfare. So in terms of the youth jobs corps, we haven't really spent a lot of time right now in that development.

Mr Cleary: You had mentioned, probably yesterday, that you want our input on this. What do you mean by that? Do you want proposals? What do you mean by that?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Sorry. On what?

Mr Cleary: On the youth jobs corps.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The government and certainly our ministry really look for input from all MPPs. If you have some ideas in terms of the direction that you want to take with this, some suggestions, I'm certainly open to meeting with you and listening to you. I've often said that our doors are open to all parties. We all want to make the province better somehow. If you have some means to do that, certainly I'm willing to talk to you about it.

Mr Cleary: So if we had any suggestions, we'd direct it right to you as minister?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Absolutely.

Mr Cleary: Okay. What are your plans in case of a strike? What services do you consider must be delivered in case of a strike?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm going to call out to Lynn MacDonald to come up, but just as she's coming up to the microphone, you're well aware that in terms of deciding what essential services should be provided, there's an agreement with both the union and the government to come to some sort of idea in terms of what those essential services will be. In fact, I think that we've had some sort of agreement on that. Lynn, would you like to give some details?

1030

Ms Lynn MacDonald: Certainly, Minister. Lynn MacDonald, ADM for corporate services. The ministry, in the event of a strike, will be offering services in three categories: essential services, mandatory services and other priority services. Let me explain what those are.

Essential services are negotiated essential and emergency services that bargaining unit members will provide during a strike despite the fact that their sisters and brothers will be on the picket lines.

Mandatory services are services that Management Board Secretariat requires that all ministries provide.

Other priority services are services that our ministry has decided are necessary we provide during a strike because they relate to our core functions.

Essential services, the ones that have been negotiated with the union, include delivery of general welfare assistance, and delivery of family benefits assistance including handicapped children's benefits. It will include the operation of the computer systems that support family benefits and that support general welfare assistance. It will include probation services.

Although at slightly reduced levels, we will maintain services that are required to ensure the protection of life, health and safety, and of course to prevent any disruption to the administration of the courts. Under children's services ,we will be providing adoption disclosure for emergency medical reasons or where a it is deemed a child might be at risk; also, emergency licensing decisions for homes under the Child and Family Services Act.

Within ministry facilities, the following services have been deemed to be essential and these apply not only to developmentally handicapped facilities, but also to the two children's facilities we operate directly and to young offenders' facilities. They include care of clients necessary to ensure protection of life, health and safety; care and control of young offenders; transfers to and from courts for young offenders; maintenance of buildings and equipment that is necessary to prevent their destruction in the case of young offenders' facilities, or serious deterioration; payments to individuals under vocational rehabilitation and under special services at home.

Those would be the essential services that we've negotiated with OPSEU.

Mandatory services then include services related within the ministry to health and safety requirements: payroll benefits and statutory services for management, excluded and essential services workers who are required to work during the strike; the capability to issue some manual cheques in the case of an emergency adjustment required to an FBA recipient; and the management obviously of strike issues before and during a strike.

The last category, the category of other priority services which the ministry itself deemed necessary to our functioning, includes the full functioning of the minister's and the deputy's offices in order that the affairs of the government may continue; services to fulfil legal obligations, for example, audit work that we do on behalf not only of ourselves but the federal government to ensure cost-sharing agreements are fulfilled; adoption orders, when delay would put a child at risk, and probation reports required for the courts.

Then there's a list of services that are more in the nature of support services to ensure that the actual mandatory and essential services can continue. They would include financial services to enable payments to clients and to suppliers, of course, and to provide urgent payments to vendors; distribution of social assistance payments, that is, the actual getting out of the cheque where they are not done by electronic deposit; conducting of hearings of the Social Assistance Review Board for up to three weeks after the commencement of a strike; issuing interim orders for social assistance by the Social Assistance Review Board; development but not implementation work on the automating social assistance project which has been discussed by committee members earlier; responses to strike-related workforce discrimination and harassment complaints; and investigations on allegations of client abuse either within our own directly operated facilities or where we're required to provide investigative assistance to our transfer payment partners.

That would be the full list of the services the ministry would continue to provide in the event of a strike.

Mr Cleary: I just wondered, would we have to get your remarks out of Hansard or would we be given a list of that in our constituency offices? I know that if there's strike, we're going to share your problems.

Ms MacDonald: Perhaps it might helpful to explain that the overall leadership for planning in the event of a strike is led by Management Board and Management Board Secretariat for the entire Ontario public service. Our ministry, Community and Social Services, has been working very hard, not only with the union to settle an agreement on the essential services work that will continue and to select the workers through a random draw selection process who will be at the job sites in the event of a strike, but we've also been working with Management Board and our colleague ministries to ensure that we have a really thorough system of communication with the public in the event of a strike.

There will be public service announcements which will list all of the key services that the public may continue to expect to be offered. I'm not sure what the timing would be on that, but it would be both immediately before, assuming a strike vote, and throughout a strike.

In addition, if it would be helpful to members of the committee, we could make an abstract of the document from which I've been speaking and make that available to you.

Ms Lang: If I could just elaborate a little bit on that, the Speaker's office will also be orchestrating, as I understand it, specific communications to go out to MPPs' offices, so that you will know all the services available across the entire government in terms of the essential services. There will be a communiqué coming out of the Speaker's office to support MPPs in their constituencies.

Mr Cleary: I hope we would get something like that. I hope we wouldn't get a 1-800 number that you can't get an answer on and it's bogged down. We've had some awful experience in the past.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's important that you get the message in terms of what services will be available. Certainly, as Ms MacDonald has indicated, we will certainly assist you from our ministry and I understand the Speaker is going to provide that in addition to what we will provide you with our ministry.

Mr Cleary: Thank you. My next question: I wondered, was it a commitment on your part yesterday to table a list of local agencies that were forced to close because of the June cuts? Are we going to be able to get a list of those agencies that are involved with your ministry, local agencies, local --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's news to me.

Mr Cleary: I thought it was touched on yesterday or the day before. If not, I'm putting it on the table now.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Okay, that's fine, I knew you were going to do that. Perhaps we can get Sue to discuss that a bit first.

Ms Lang: We do not have a final list at this time because most of the agencies that have been affected by budget reductions are making various and sundry rearrangements. Not all agencies receive total funding from our ministry, so there are a whole range of funding arrangements that many agencies have. We do not have a final list at this point in time because we are awaiting the deliberations of the various boards across the province. We may not know that until well into the new fiscal year.

Mr Cleary: I've sat in on a number of their meetings, and groups that are very familiar to all members have told me that they're going down the tube, right from Big Brothers and Big Sisters on down to a lot of other -- not that Big Brothers and Big Sisters will go down, but they're having a terrible time. There are some others that are in terrible financial problems being that the province cut back in June. I know I've sent letters off to the different ministries asking for their input, but anyway, the answers haven't been too favourable.

I think my colleague wants to talk about young offenders.

1040

Mr Michael Brown: An important function of your ministry that we haven't explored very much is your responsibilities vis-à-vis the Young Offenders Act. As seems to be our way in opposition, we seem to be somewhat confused by the direction of the government and perhaps you could help us.

We understand from various statements, both in your election document and elsewhere, that we are to see boot camps in Ontario and we're wondering what steps your ministry has taken, where these facilities will be, how many young offenders will be in them, what the additional cost or cost-saving, which I find difficult to believe, would be in turning young punks into tough young punks.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I don't believe that's the particular aim of any type of discipline program. As you're aware, on November 20 of last year, my colleague the Honourable Bob Runciman, the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, announced the appointment of a "task force of community leaders and members of provincial Legislature to develop a strict discipline program for Ontario young offenders."

He indicated as well that the government's interest in the program once again is tailor-made for Ontario, and I want to get that out front first. We want to look for solutions that are tailor-made for Ontario before we start having other directions and jurisdictions pointed at us, "that would expose the young offenders to the concepts of discipline and personal responsibility."

The task force is to "establish standards for security, work and basic skills training to maximize the self-worth and rehabilitation of young offenders." They are to "review Canadian and international models for strict discipline facilities," and that's one of the reasons I wanted to say up front that we're looking for a solution that's tailor-made for Ontario. We are looking at other jurisdictions to see what the best out of these other jurisdictions may be. The task force is to "make recommendations on how a program of strict discipline should be tailored for the effective custody, management and treatment of young offenders."

"Strict discipline programming for young offenders has recently been introduced in Manitoba and Alberta. Programs typically emphasize fundamental values such as personal accountability and self-respect in a highly structured atmosphere of rigorous physical discipline."

The task force is to be chaired by Gary Carr, who is the parliamentary assistant to Bob Runciman, and co-chaired by Janet Ecker, my parliamentary assistant, who has a huge workload.

For your information, other members who are sitting on that particular committee, and it'll give you a good sense, are Norman Inkster, who is the former commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; the Honourable John Seneshen of the Ontario Court (Provincial Division); Archie Ferguson, former commissioner of the Ontario Provincial Police; London criminal lawyer Norman Peel, QC; Franco Fragomeni, the supervisor of psychological services at the Belleville General Hospital; and Gary Allan, former special programs coordinator of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital.

My colleague Mr Runciman also indicated that new programming recommended by the task force will be implemented from within the current ministry budget allocation. The expectation is the recommendations are to be back by this spring.

Mr Michael Brown: I am constantly amazed. You know, you don't use the words "boot camp." Boot camp is specifically what you talked about in your election campaign. I'm amazed that the Minister of Correctional Services is taking the lead in this as it is your ministry that delivers the programs.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Oh --

Mr Michael Brown: No? Am I wrong that way? You can help me with that.

Ms Lang: I could, yes. The young offenders system in the province is split in two. The Ministry of Community and Social Services assumes responsibility for probation, open and secure custody for young people between the ages of 12 and 15. The Ministry of Correctional Services has responsibility for that same range of programs -- probation, open custody and secure custody -- for young people between the ages of 16 and 17. So there is an interest on the part of both ministries to ensure that whatever the task force comes up with, we look at its applicability to various ministries and to the appropriate age range in terms of the programming that does work and makes sense for those young people.

Mr Michael Brown: In other words, it may be, depending on the district court, that somehow you need -- which also amazes us, because you seemed to have a very clear idea of what you were talking about before the election. It may be your ministry isn't affected at all, because it may be the decision that the young people who are in your custody are not affected because of the age groups. That could be.

I guess why we're interested over here is, because media reports and information we have indicate a varied experience around the world with this sort of approach, we as members of the Legislature have the opportunity to review the report that is being compiled by Mr Carr and his committee so that we have some sense of the information that the government is going to use to move forward with this particular program.

I think it's unfair to Ontarians to ask them to buy into a program that they are not being provided with the same information that the government is using in developing this. It's unfortunate, but this entire issue seems to be more one of political spin than of reality. We would, certainly in the opposition, expect that this be tabled with the Legislature and with the people of Ontario. Do we have that commitment from the government?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Just to comment first on your prior statement, I think the reason why this task force is taking place is certainly to ensure that any implementation of a direction that might have been taken during the election is done properly, in an effective way and in a way that has results. I think really the direction for what we're trying to do in this government is to be a lot more results-oriented and of course make sure that we have done the proper research.

In terms of process, I'm sure the acceptable process, whatever that may be, that is followed in government will be followed. Whatever the proper steps are to be taken will be taken.

Mr Michael Brown: Do I have a commitment from you that the report will be tabled with the Legislature?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No. Actually, what I'm saying to you is that, first of all, corrections has the lead on this. Secondly, whatever the appropriate procedures that are there will be taken. I can't give you a commitment on this. I can certainly discuss some of the programs we have a lead on. We're working with them on this, but I think this is a discussion you're going to have to have --

Mr Michael Brown: That is totally incredible. Why is it so difficult to say, "We will provide the information we're basing the decision upon"? It's beyond belief.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr Brown. The 30 minutes are up. I'm just going to ask at this time that the clerk explain to you what time is left out of the estimates; where we are at with the timing with the estimates.

Clerk Pro Tem: We started out with five hours and 20 minutes this morning, which gave each party roughly an hour and 46 minutes and several seconds. If we go until 12:05, we will have used three hours of that five hours and 20 minutes. The government started out with an hour and 46 minutes and used 10 minutes, which left an hour and 36 minutes which they are giving up. That would leave us at 1:30 with 44 minutes remaining. And that is if the committee agrees to go to 12:05, only to make my numbers rounded.

1050

The Chair: Then meaning the sharing would be about 22 minutes on each side. Then carrying it a bit further, Housing would be 44 minutes beyond 1:30. Is that agreed upon? Then we'll give notice to Housing to be here 44 minutes beyond 1:30, to whatever time that takes us.

Mr Michael Brown: That's 2:14.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Chair, I assume you can't just carry through after noon. Do you have to adjourn and come back at 1:30 or can you not just carry right through?

The Chair: Again, it would be up to the committee what they would like to do.

Interjection.

The Chair: Carry through the 44 minutes?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That would certainly help my schedule, because I didn't realize we were going to go --

Mr Bisson: Yes, that's fine. And if you answer our questions, we might even finish earlier.

Mr Cleary: Just say yes to everything.

The Chair: Go ahead.

Mrs Ross: We just need to check on something. Apparently there was some sort of meeting that may have been scheduled. Could we continue on and then I'll --

Mr Bisson: Yes, okay.

Mrs Ross: We're agreeable to doing that, subject to, you know --

The Chair: Let's proceed again then. We've reached stage 3. I presume there's a stage 4, so it's the New Democratic --

Mr Bisson: It's this New Democrat first. I want to get back to a discussion you were having with our critic in regard to the whole question of core services, because if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is your ministry is now consulting with various stakeholders who are delivering those core services to children, but I'm not quite sure, what is it you're consulting for? You're saying on the one hand you're not giving them any direction about making any changes to core services but they're out there consulting on something. So what are you consulting? What are you trying to achieve here?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Well, I think the basic mandate is to provide a policy, a legislative and a fiscal framework for social services.

Mr Bisson: Can you say that again? Sorry?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's to provide a policy, legislative and fiscal framework for social services in order to manage better a more affordable, more effective system of social services, based on incentives for economic independence -- I'm talking about the whole system now, because we're talking generically first -- and assists in giving essential supports for those most in need.

Mr Bisson: But let's be clear here. If I was the Minister of Community and Social Services and I was out there consulting on something, in normal practices both within business and the public sector you would say: "Here's the objective I'm looking for. I want you to cut 10% of the total amount of money spent by those agencies. I want to make legislative changes that do" whatever. You would give them some kind of direction to say, "This is the work that I want you guys to look at so that you can recommend to me, the minister, the changes that I need to do in order to make that happen and at the same time keep in place those services for children."

I guess where I'm having a problem is that I wasn't worried until this morning, quite frankly, until I started hearing your answers, because either you have no idea where the hell you're going or you do know where you're going and you don't want to tell us, to be real blunt.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think the difficulty here is that if you focus on saying that the primary purpose of all this is to save money, that's not the primary focus that we should be having. The primary focus is to try to make the system better. If I can just put this in perspective in terms of what I'm really saying, I think the problem is that we have to focus on the flaws in the system and how to restructure the system to deliver the best services for the best price -- if I could just finish. The question here in terms of our advisory committees is, how will the system be structured for them, and what are the elements of the system that they need to have in place? That's the framework in which we're talking to them.

Mr Bisson: But that's a bit of an apple-pie statement. Unless I fell asleep since June of 1995, it seems to me that your government's whole idea --

Interjection: During the election.

Mr Bisson: No, I didn't fall asleep during the election; I got re-elected. Unless I fell asleep, it seems to me the mandate of your government -- I shouldn't say "the mandate" -- the direction that your government is taking is to reduce the overall size of the deficit of the government of Ontario to a zero deficit within four years --

Mr Baird: Five.

Mr Bisson: -- or five years, depending; all right, five, that's fine.

Let me come at it this way; we'll come from a totally different direction. Is your ministry expected to participate in the reduction of the deficit and do your bit?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Actually, we have been, as you're quite aware. We've taken quite a bite already.

Mr Bisson: So you've taken a bite. But do you, as a minister, expect that your ministry will have to give up more money to the Treasurer, to our Finance minister I should say, in order to reduce the deficit? Do you expect more money to leave the Community and Social Services budget?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think that all ministries have to participate in whatever the fiscal targets are.

Mr Bisson: So the answer is yes.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But I think --

Mr Bisson: No, is the answer yes, you will be giving up more money of your budget in order to balance the deficit?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think that's probably likely.

Mr Bisson: Okay, probably --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: But, if I might say, there are many opportunities here, and you must be -- because you're experienced, you've been in the Legislature for a long time --

Mr Bisson: But that's why I'm asking you the question. I'm going around it this way, obviously, because I'm bringing you down a road here. If it's clear that the government wants to be able to reduce the deficit and balance it over a period of five years, your ministry is going to have to take part in that and you're going to have to give up your share of the money from your ministry in order to get Ernie Eves to balance his budget in five years.

That being the case, you, as a minister, have to make a number of changes within your ministry. If I was the minister, I would have to do the same. I understand the process. I've been there before, and I've also got the T-shirt. The point I'm getting at is that a little while ago you said that when it came to core services you have a committee out there that you're consulting with in order to take a look at how you can better serve the clients of that particular area. I guess what I wonder is, is the premise in order to balance the deficit? Is the premise that you know you've got to give up money, so therefore you're going to these people and saying --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No. The premise, the primary purpose of this whole exercise, is to make the system better.

Mr Bisson: Okay. You're going to have less money, though.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Look at what you have in the system now, the duplication in the system, the costs that are allocated to administrative and overhead costs in a lot of the organizations out there, which is money really, and most of it should be put towards direct services to people out there. These are some of the issues that have been raised by these organizations.

Mr Bisson: I think on that point we all agree, because, quite frankly, if we had been the government, we would have been looking at the next big challenge after long-term-care restructuring, which was to go into children's services and find a way to make an integrated model that's easier for people to access. But there's a difference in going into that and saying that your stated aim is to make access easier and to make it more affordable or --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: And less confusing?

Mr Bisson: Yes, I don't disagree. But if your premise is to go in here just to reduce money, I think the approach of the axe to the restructuring is a little bit different. That's what I'm trying to get a sense of from you. You're telling me this is not a deficit-cutting exercise.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm telling you the motivation here is to make the system better.

Mr Bisson: But this is not a deficit-cutting exercise that you're undertaking with children's services?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What we're trying to do here is find efficiencies in the system right now. There's a lot of wastage right now in the system, and this is what's being told to us by their organizations.

Mr Bisson: But I want you to assure me and I want you to assure other people out there who rely on your ministry and those particular services that when it comes to core-mandated services that you have to deliver under the act that you find yourself, you're not undergoing this restructuring on the basis of having to give Ernie Eves more money in order to fulfil your promises in the last election.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The reason for this advisory committee and restructuring exercise is to make the system better.

Mr Bisson: All right. So you're telling me it's not on the basis of trying to reduce the deficit; it's on the basis of trying to make the system better.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Our motivation for this is to make the system better.

Mr Bisson: All right. So let's say that you go through this process and you find in the end that a certain part of the system needs more money. What would you do? That might be the case; I know, and you know as --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: In fact, it may very well mean that.

1100

Mr Bisson: All right. Are you prepared as a minister, let's say for an example, on the question of children's treatment centres -- I was involved in that, and I'm sure that you're aware of the whole review that went on about how they're funded and the inadequacies of funding that you alluded to yesterday. If the question is that we need to change the funding formula, we need to change the funding structure in order to be able to recognize that -- I'm not saying specifically, but generally -- you're saying that you as a minister would be prepared to put extra dollars into these services if they're needed.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think we have to look in terms of the envelope we're working from in the ministry budget, and there probably has to be some adjustment to deal with issues just as you're talking about right now: What do we find are our priorities right now in government? So in other words, maybe there is a reinvestment.

Mr Bisson: But there's the key thing. You've said a couple of things that worry me a little bit here. You talked about priorities, and I guess we can argue that everybody wants to have priorities in government, but you talked about legislative reform. When you talk about legislative reform when it comes to core services that we have to deliver under the act, that tells me you're up to something. Does that mean you're going to diminish the role of the province and your ministry when it comes to the services children are entitled to now under the act?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think you're attributing a lot of direction or ideas to us right now when we're really in the consultation stage. We're going to depend very heavily in terms of direction from this particular area.

Mr Bisson: I want to wish you well. I truly want to wish you well, because you'll be the first minister in this government, if you achieve that, to actually have gone through a consultation. Our experience has been, under Bill 26 or under Bill 7 or in anything else that you've done, that you haven't been spot on when it comes to working with the community groups out there and consulting with them and trying to do real reform.

If your government is prepared to do the kinds of reforms that need to be done, that I think all sides of the House can agree on, which means we look at how we do things and we modernize our programs to recognize that we're in the 1990s, with the aim of making them more efficient but at the same time remembering that we need to provide those services, I'm all with you. But if the aim of this is to just strictly cut and burn, I think that's where the rubber will leave the road. I'm trying to get a sense of what your approach is. You're telling me it's a restructuring; it's not a slash-and-burn approach that you're taking.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Our whole aim here is to work with the communities to come up with a better system. I'm sure you're familiar with the London model that they're looking at.

Mr Bisson: Yes.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I had the privilege of seeing a presentation by the group. It's actually a very proactive and very progressive model of how the community can work together to try to come up with some solutions that try to make a better system. I think what's interesting about the London model is that it has really the backing of the community, the transfer agencies involved with it, the local council, our three MPPs up there, Dianne Cunningham, Bruce Smith and Bob Wood, and also Marion Boyd. Marion Boyd is very supportive of this particular initiative.

Mr Bisson: But you can also take a look at the model they've done up in the Cochrane district. How much time do we have left in our caucus?

The Chair: You have until 11:25.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You have plenty of time.

Mr Bisson: So I've got a couple of minutes.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If I could just say something on that. We're trying to be very proactive and very consultative in this area. We're going to have another meeting shortly with the London model coming up here and with the ministry and I have invited, you might want to know, all four MPPs, including Marion, to come and sit at the table. It particularly interests her because it's her area. She has been involved with it and she's very supportive of the model.

Mr Bisson: If I'm a little bit sceptical, it's because I'm talking to people I've worked with when we were in government in the area that your ministry touches and I am not getting from anybody that there's any consultation going on. Quite frankly, they're worried about what's going to happen because they have no idea what's coming down the pipe, and you're sitting here in estimates telling me that you're consulting. I'm a little bit worried. I've just got a couple of minutes and I want to turn --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Mr Bisson, before you leave that, you're striking upon something that's very important. Sometimes, at the local level the local organizations haven't had communication from the organizations that we're dealing with right now. I can only encourage the local organizations, through whoever their MPP is, to discuss this and get them to talk to the umbrella groups. We do have a list that I'm going to table for you of the organizations --

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much. That was my next question.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If I could just give you the sense, because I know this is of interest to other members too.

Mr Bisson: No. You read that yesterday, and I appreciate that. I will go back and talk --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Actually, not this list; the other list.

Mr Bisson: I appreciate your tabling that, because I will go back to my local groups and those that I deal with in northeastern Ontario and find out if that's happening. It worries me that people at the local level don't know what's going on. I know how difficult it was, when we were in government, even trying to do it in a very open fashion, how people sometimes feel out of the process. So we'll leave it at that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think that's an important process that we're going through.

Mr Bisson: So I can now be somewhat assured, is what you're trying to tell me, that the restructuring we're going to see in children's services is not driven by a need to get Ernie Eves's money in order to meet your promise of balancing the deficit.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You can appreciate that what makes this ministry different from other ministries is that we deal directly with people as opposed to institutions.

Mr Bisson: You're telling me.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The reason why we're looking at restructuring right now is to provide better services. That's what's driving this whole process, to make the system better.

Mr Bisson: Can I ask you a very short question? Then I'll pass it on to my friend Tony. Do you plan on introducing any user fees in the services that they now deliver through your ministry? Is there any plan? I hear there is some discussion about people who deliver services at the local level that are funded by your ministry.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There hasn't been a lot of discussion on this in a while.

Ms Lang: I could comment on that. The question of user fees is certainly something that needs to be sorted out, because the ministry does in fact have a variety of funding mechanisms now, some of which do include user fees, and it's all over the map, quite frankly. Part of what we need to sort out is, is there a funding policy that would rationalize the responsibility for individuals to contribute to services where that's appropriate? Right now we do not have a policy position on that.

Mr Bisson: So it is something that you're looking at?

Ms Lang: It has to be sorted out, because --

Mr Bisson: But "sorted out" means to say you're looking at it, right?

Ms Lang: -- if we're going to restructure children's services, then we need to restructure children's services in a way that rationalizes how they're funded.

Mr Bisson: There have been user fees introduced in the municipal sector now, broader powers for a municipality to charge user fees. That kind of approach might come into children's services or services to the disabled community or whatever. That is a possibility?

Ms Lang: I'm sorry. I missed the question.

Mr Bisson: I'm saying that under Bill 26 you gave the municipalities -- not you, Minister, but your government did -- broader powers to charge user fees. That's a decision of your government, and you will let the voters decide what to do with that after. What I'm asking you is, do you expect to give groups that deliver services to the disabled community or to the children's community, people who are delivering services to children, broader powers to charge user fees?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Actually, I think what the deputy is saying is that it's a hodgepodge that exists currently.

Mr Bisson: I understand that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There were user fees that were charged under your government.

Mr Bisson: There's a hodgepodge, but there's also --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's what she's trying to say, that there's got to be some sort of rationalization to what's out there. There are a number user fees that exist that were introduced by the former governments.

Mr Bisson: We all recognize that, and the Liberal government before us and ourselves didn't do a whole bunch when it came to increasing the charges or user fees that people have to pay for accessing those services. There are some that already exist. But when I hear that you're looking that over, is it with the aim to say, "We're going to give them broader powers to charge user fees for those services"? Is that where you're going with this?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think it's trying to understand what's out there right now. Just like the programs to develop, so are the fees out there, and there is no rhyme or reason to them.

Mr Bisson: We'll come back to that after. My friend Tony here has some questions.

1110

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): First of all I wanted to let folks here know that the minister has been very gracious. Some of you were here two days ago when we had this discussion about Community Living Algoma, the closing of the group home and the integrated day care centre and the concern I had for those very vulnerable people and that we needed not to be doing that, because in the Common Sense Revolution you said you would not touch programs or hurt programs for handicapped people. The minister has actually made an effort for his office to get hold of the office of Bud Wildman and myself and we're meeting on that next Tuesday.

I want you to know that for me that's a little light in a great amount of darkness at the moment, because there's lots of fear and trauma and trepidation out there in communities as we look at the very difficult financial situation that has been painted as life has unfolded and as your government has become more and more aware of how difficult it's going to be for you to meet some of your financial targets, the targets that were laid out in the Common Sense Revolution and throughout the election.

I asked you on Tuesday, and I didn't really get a chance to follow up on it because we were so focused on the specific issue, how you reconciled on one hand -- it seems to me the premise of the Common Sense Revolution and all the cuts that are taking place, and there are massive cuts happening across the board in every ministry, is that the economy is not well and that it needs to be stimulated, to be jump-started into creating more jobs and providing more assistance to the province.

Last week I shared with you one example. I know that at the end of the year and early into the new year, as I read the financial sections of newspapers, I noticed that the major corporations in this province, in this country, are declaring historical record profits. How do you reconcile the profits these folks are making and the promise that you made to give to those in this province who are already fairly well off who, because of the profits the companies they are working for are making, will be even better served in terms of their needs at the same time? I know that the example I shared with you of the impact of this on the group home and the integrated day care centre in Sault Ste Marie is only one example. We will begin to see, as time unfolds and as the reality of the reductions begins to set in across the province, that various programs will be downsized and disappear altogether.

How you can reconcile that kind of very difficult activity that is going to impact the very vulnerable, the most vulnerable among us in communities, the poor? You already took 22% out of the pockets of those who are at the bottom end of the income scale in the province. This has also hurt the working poor. Some of the numbers you've seen fall off the welfare roll are actually people who qualified for various sorts of top-up and ancillary services because they fitted a certain category and they don't any more.

How do you reconcile, Minister, the reality of an economy that really isn't in major trouble that is, particularly for the major corporations, generating historical record profits -- the fact that you promised a tax break to those in the province who are already doing okay and will be doing even better as the profit that's been generated gets spread out and shared and reinvested -- with the very difficult decisions that the people in your ministry, particularly those who are out in the trenches, are having to make around programming that needs to be done, that we've come to depend on, that actually provides a higher quality of life for those in our province who otherwise would not be able to have that; with your own obvious good conscience and ability to listen to the story that Mr Wildman and I shared with you on Tuesday and your very positive response to that with your obvious personal concern that we not hurt vulnerable people?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Part of that touches on what Mr Bisson was talking about earlier on. We're looking at restructuring our systems, both for the developmental services and the children's protection area, to make them a better system and find the efficiencies that are there. Quite frankly, there are many efficiencies that can be found in those areas, in terms of the administrative costs and the overheads and the duplications between ministries, in trying to make it a better system. That's our challenge right now, to somehow find and eliminate this type of duplication so we can provide more services to the people directly affected who really do need our help.

Secondly, in terms of where we want to head with our workfare programs, the intention of workfare is to really lead to a lot more self-sufficiency for people, to really give them a real hand up. I just direct you again to the employment programs we will be getting into, for which we are looking for a lot of assistance locally as well to find local solutions in employment programs.

I'm sure there are many in your area that are working, and are working efficiently. I would not hesitate to say that almost everyone in our own ridings will have a number of employment programs that are very efficient, that are very cost-conscious, that are working, but we need to have them tabled -- I look to your assistance to do that as well from your local area -- because we want to find the programs that work and to give them the funding to continue to get people back to work. I think that's very important.

Secondly, in terms of the community work, it's really an opportunity for people to get some training to really get, hopefully, a similar type of job experience that will carry them into some type of full-time work. From our ministry's perspective, we can do a number of things to help people we need to help, as long as you understand that when we're looking at restructuring, our motivation in our restructuring efforts is really to make the system better and to really better serve people in Ontario.

Mr Martin: Granted that your personal motivation is in fact to make the system better and to restructure so that programs can be delivered in a more effective and helpful way, my hunch is that at some point that becomes what you promised by way of a tax break particularly, and the very difficult financial situation you see yourself in; you're trying to get the deficit under control. You keep pushing it back. Initially it was going to be two years, now it's 2001, and we're not quite sure where it's going to be when the budget comes out in May; we're not sure where you're going to be.

Given that you, yourself, and your ministry want to do helpful things and that eventually all the cutting becomes counterproductive re that quest to do helpful things at a time when in fact the economy is not doing too badly -- you very clearly in your document, and the minister who preceded you from Education and Training in his opening statement, referred to this $1 million a day that we're spending --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: A million dollars an hour.

Mr Martin: -- whatever, that we're having to borrow. The sense people have when you say that is that money is somehow going into a big black hole somewhere or a Swiss bank account somewhere or somebody's pocket. It's important to have people know and understand that any money that's spent by this government, whether borrowed or otherwise, is going to support programs that help people and, in another very interesting way, is going into communities by way of economic stimulus. There are some communities that particularly in the early 1990s in this province, would have actually gone bankrupt had there not been some source of money coming to various people in that community through various government programs that was being spent in small businesses: grocery stores and garages and all the various small enterprises that happen in communities. At some point when you start downsizing in the massive way your government is doing to reach financial goals that are almost impossible to reach -- are you giving me the eye, Mr Chair?

The Chair: I'm giving you the eye all the time. I'm paying attention.

Mr Martin: Am I running out of time?

The Chair: No, you've got about two more minutes.

Mr Martin: Okay, I wish I had more time.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You have some more.

Mr Martin: Have you done any impact studies as to when does this become counterproductive? If you find at some point that it is becoming counterproductive and it's not helpful any more and it's going to hurt people, are you willing to go back to the cabinet table as the Minister of Community and Social Services and advocate on behalf of the people who are counting on you to make sure their wellbeing is intact, to say to your colleagues, "Hey, maybe the tax break was a mistake and maybe we should rethink it"?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You're raising some good points. One of the main reasons we're actually working with these groups out there, in the development of services area, children's protection area and a number of other areas, is to really work with them to find out what they really need, what they consider important to them. That has to be part of our ministry's plan to say, "Look, these are the services people really need out there and this is what we have to do to get those services to them." We can't do this without their assistance or working with them. I think Mr Bisson was quite right; it's very unusual for provincial governments to try and be successful at a consultative process. It's very difficult to do, and I'm sure you've had many efforts to do that.

We believe that by working with people through this process we'll be able to come up with workable plans that will still fit whatever fiscal constraints we have but still provide essential services.

1120

Mr Martin: If you find that you're not, are you willing to go back to your colleagues and say: "Listen, we made a mistake here. We're not able to do this"?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I'm saying to you is with proper planning and working with them and coming up with a proper plan for the ministry, I feel that would be unnecessary to do. I understand your point and I'm --

Mr Martin: Because I say to you, Minister, that yesterday's very unsavoury violence --

Mr Preston: Obscene.

Mr Martin: Well, I wouldn't call it obscene -- unsavoury violent demonstration that happened out front here is part of a very natural reaction in --

Mrs Ross: Excuse me. Smashing in doors is a natural reaction?

Interjections.

Mr Martin: It's in response to the violence that you're imposing --

The Chair: Let's stop. Let's direct some of those --

Mr Martin: -- as a government in this province.

The Chair: Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: When I was in high school, I was told in my physics class that --

Mrs Janet Ecker (Durham West): You support it then.

Mr Martin: -- for every action there was an equal and opposite reaction. I'm not supporting it. I'm telling you --

Mrs Ecker: So you support this.

Mr Martin: I'm telling you to expect more of it, and if in the end you're not willing to turn away from the very unrealistic program that you've set out for yourself by way of the tax break, this is what you're to expect. What they're telling you is that the impact of what you're imposing is so violent to them, emotionally, psychologically, and so threatening to them as people who want to look after themselves and their families --

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr Martin.

Mr Martin: -- and you will be responsible. You are responsible.

The Chair: We're going to move to the Liberals for their 30 minutes.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order.

Mr Martin: You don't understand the impact of the decisions you're making.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order. Could we settle down a bit, please.

Mr Martin: You really don't. You really, really don't.

The Chair: Mr Martin.

It is the Liberals' time for 30 minutes.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I asked the minister a couple of things, but firstly, he may be able to help me out with some information. Perhaps the deputy would know this, more than likely. The shelter allowances that you're providing currently, could you give me a figure, an amount, which the ministry expends on behalf of individuals for shelter allowance?

Ms Lang: I'll have to ask our ADM for social assistance to come up and give you that information, if we have a breakdown of the shelter allowance component of the social assistance program.

Mr Costante: I don't have an exact breakdown with me, but it's in the neighbourhood of $2.5 billion of the $6-billion social assistance budget that goes for shelter allowances. We can provide the committee with a more accurate breakdown.

The Chair: Did you say billion dollars? We can't hear you up here.

Mr Cordiano: I know it's $2.5 billion. I know that. Has there been any change that you've been able to ascertain over the last six months in that level?

Mr Costante: There would have been a change as a result of the rate reductions that occurred in October.

Mr Cordiano: That's true, but has the amount increased in any substantial way?

Mr Costante: Sorry, I'm not aware. I'd have to check the figures. Are you looking for month-by-month figures?

Mr Cordiano: I suppose if you looked at it in absolute dollar terms, the reduction would have changed as a result of the cut that was made.

Mr Costante: That's right.

Mr Cordiano: The reduction would have occurred. I think what I'm looking for is any increase as a result of that, what's occurring over the last six months. Do you notice an increase in numbers, people qualifying for that shelter allowance?

Mr Costante: The shelter allowance is part of the basic package, so almost everyone on assistance, unless they're in an institutional setting, has shelter as part of their benefit.

Mr Cordiano: I understand that. I'm trying to get at the numbers. We heard the minister tell us that the number of cases on social assistance has gone down. I'm trying to ascertain whether we can come at it in a different way and determine whether that's an actual reduction as a result of some other factor.

What you have failed to do as a ministry -- you, Minister -- is come here and convince us that the number of cases you cited, the reduction, was directly related to anything we would stand up and cheer about. I'm quite concerned that the reduction in numbers is not as a result of anything that's positive out there, that's occurring, as we discussed yesterday.

As well, what I'm concerned about is with respect to what your colleague the Minister of Housing might do in terms of his changes in policy, perhaps eliminating rent controls, people finding it more difficult --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: You can save those thoughts for him this afternoon.

Mr Cordiano: We will. We'll get to him this afternoon. I'm warming up. I'm asking if there's anything you're anticipating by way of increases in the caseload as a result of more hardship, more people finding it more difficult to make ends meet.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I really do anticipate that we will see, I think, shortly, that the employment programs we come up with, the workfare program we have, will assist people to get back to full-time employment. The best cure or the best solution for welfare is a job and that's really where we're trying to head, in that direction. That's very important to us.

Mr Cordiano: You haven't given us any details on anything, so I guess it's fair to say that you can't answer most of the questions we have with respect to any details.

Let's talk about workfare again for just a moment. I may have asked you these questions in another way, and I don't know if this is fruitless, because you haven't provided any information that is at all useful to shed some light on what you're doing.

Let me ask you this hypothetically: What do you anticipate by way of numbers of individuals involved with the workfare program, as a universal number that you would anticipate, the population of people on workfare? What are you anticipating you have to be ready for, X number of people? Surely to goodness you must have some projection or some idea of that, so we can get a sense of the size of the program you're going to undertake.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think it's going to be a substantial undertaking, obviously, because of the number of people on our caseloads.

Mr Cordiano: Give me a number. Try guessing at it.

Mr Preston: Hold a gun to his head in a month.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, no.

Mr Cordiano: Of course, it's a guess.

Mr Preston: That's the way things have been done in the past -- a guess.

Mr Cordiano: Well, wait a minute. I don't want to take this to a level that's less civil than we're having right now. You're the ones who said during the election campaign, "We have a specific plan for getting people back to work," and now you come before us again, I say, six months later, and you still haven't got a plan. People out there have seen one thing: a reduction in their assistance, with no alternative, nothing to turn to. That's why we're holding you in some contempt today. It behooves you to give us some sense of where you're headed, what direction you're headed in, because there are a lot of people who are on social assistance who believed you and voted for you as a result of that.

1130

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If I could give you a sense, Mr Cordiano, one of the things I have said today is that we are looking for assistance from all MPPs to really give us a sense of what their own community does need in terms of the community programs, but also in terms of the employment programs we're looking for. It really holds true and it's open to all members of the Legislature.

This was raised in the House in the last session by your colleague Mr Bartolucci, a program that he thought might be a worthwhile program for consideration in our employment program scheme. I took the opportunity to meet with Mr Bartolucci in Sudbury. He in fact clearly has a pretty good insight in terms of why his program is one that looks like it's a very positive program.

Mr Cordiano: I'm not surprised. He's a very capable man, one of the more talented members in the Legislature.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: He is quite a nice gentleman too. I think what you might want to do is just talk to Rick. Certainly if you have some sort of sense from him, you could certainly bring that up to me and we could work together on it.

Mr Cordiano: I'm asking you, because you're the minister. I think it's fair to ask you, since you get paid the additional dollars around here, to answer questions like that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Once again, there are two points to this. The first part is the employment programs that we're looking for in workfare. We're looking for programs that are going to be cost-efficient.

Mr Cordiano: Numbers of people you anticipate would make up this program. How many?

Mrs Ecker: Why don't you wait until he announces it? It might help.

Mr Cordiano: People can't wait. People voted for you anticipating there would be something for them to do, something they could look forward to so that they'd have some hope, so that they'd get the necessary training which you promised, so that they could move into full-time employment -- or part-time employment, for that matter -- so that they could top up their social assistance paycheques, which you have reduced by 22% and they're having a heck of a time living on.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It's 21.6%.

Mr Bisson: Who's going to argue about four tenths of a per cent?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Then let's call it 21.6%.

Mr Cordiano: You can appreciate the reasonableness of my argument, that people are looking forward to this.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: What I'm saying to you though is that we do need some leadership out there from our members of the Legislature, because your community itself will be involved somehow, in terms of providing us with some information about your local community and working with us. I don't care if you're a Liberal or an New Democrat or a Progressive Conservative, I think we have to work together to try to get people back to work.

Mr Cordiano: I don't doubt that there are many thousands of people who want to work with you. Let me ask you this as well, since that was pretty fruitless: What efforts are you making to work with the private sector, in addition to Rotary clubs. What are you doing to, say, include corporations, individuals who are self-employed etc in your efforts to make this program work? Are there any undertakings that your ministry has made with respect to those?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I've spoken to a number of groups, many chambers of commerce and boards of trade, but one of the essential elements that we're looking for is partnerships with the business community, partnerships with the community itself and partnerships with the clients who are going through these programs.

If I can just give you some indication of what I'm getting at here, what I'm saying is that some of the most successful programs that are working in the communities, whether it's your community or Mr Baird's community or someone else's community, are the ones that have successfully linked up with business as a partner. They are currently working with them already. That's why I'm saying we're looking for made-in-Ontario solutions.

Secondly, if there are programs that are effective and working -- and I don't care who brought them in, whether it's us or you or the NDP -- we should look and see whether or not they are linked with business and they can provide a job. That's the most important part of this whole thing: The programs must be linked to a job. You just can't train somebody for the sake of training and have an expenditure at the end of the day, and someone who's gone through the program does not have a job at the end. There has to be a guarantee of a job or else the funding doesn't flow.

Mr Cordiano: Minister, you've been in the job now for six months. I know it's a difficult job. Quite frankly, when the Premier appointed you, I thought, well, it's going to be quite a job for someone who hasn't been in the Legislature to do. I can appreciate the difficulty you've been handed, but I think after six months it's fair to say that you now have an idea of what it was you really were elected to do and I think it's fair as well to hold you to account for some of the proposals that were made during the election campaign, and that's precisely what we're attempting to do today. I think it's also fair to expect that you could give us some reasonable answers to our very reasonable questions about the efforts you're making and be a little more forthcoming in those answers. You haven't done that, quite frankly.

The philosophy you're putting forward sounds good. It sounds as though you want to work with everyone and everyone should come in and sit down and have a cup of coffee with you and talk about it. That's great, but we're talking about thousands of communities out there, we're talking about a massive undertaking, we're talking about something that quite frankly has never been attempted in this province before. It's new. No one seems to have any idea of how it's going to work, what the numbers involved are, what the dollars involved are. No one seems to be able to answer to anything. We're quite disappointed that you can't even begin to outline the general outlines of a program, you can't begin to discuss that with us today and you simply have no idea of what it is that you're going to do. Or if you do, you haven't told us. I would have appreciated a little more in terms of the workfare program, because that was a major cornerstone of your election platform. Again, there are many people who are anticipating something positive out of this. Quite frankly, we are disappointed that you haven't been able to do that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: If I may, there are several points that I have brought up to give you some direction in terms of the Ontario Works program. First of all, it's a combination of philosophy and also some very germane matters. Of course, it's mandatory that all able-bodied recipients have to participate in the workfare program, and those who refuse will receive no benefits. The welfare centres will become Ontario Works centres where workers will help recipients find opportunities, and the current delivery system will be streamlined by making it less confusing and eliminating the overlap. We will work with the private sector.

Mr Cordiano: How?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The larger corporate sector and small business community will be asked to help fight to reform welfare by sponsoring placement opportunities and also working with us in the employment programs. The private sector will play a key role in bringing back hope to people who have been trapped in the social assistance system for such a long time.

Mr Cordiano: In terms of placement, let me try and imagine this. What do you mean by that? A private sector employer will access your office --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think we should make sure we have no confusion in this, because there are two distinct areas of this plan. One area is the community improvement, the community work, that if you're not in an employment program and you're receiving your welfare cheque, you have to work for it. In that case we're looking to the private sector to assist us in sponsorships -- not to work in the companies, but sponsorships from them to assist us with some funding, maybe some materials, to help promote and work in community improvement projects.

1140

Mr Cordiano: So what are you looking for by way of funding?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: It could be a number of things. For example, there is a playground that was built in New Brunswick -- not under a workfare scheme, but to give you a sense of it, the materials were provided by private enterprise, the land was given by the municipal government and people came together as volunteers and built the playground. Now, that's the role that the private sector had: It provided the materials. They could provide some of the funding you need for community improvement projects. That's the community improvement projects.

The other side of that prong, of course, is the role that private enterprise will play in our employment programs. Our employment programs, whether there are non-profit organizations sponsoring these -- there's a number of them out there now -- have to have distinct links and strong links to the business community in order for them to have the placement opportunities. That's the failing I see in a lot of the programs right now, that they don't have a strong element of that placement opportunity and the links to business. That's training without that important link to business, that important link to a job, that this person's going to go through this program where it requires some life skills or some technical training to get there.

Mr Cordiano: So what you're telling me is that a private sector employer is going to take advantage of these programs that you're putting together and, out of the goodness of their heart, hire these people for some period of time and provide a training program for them, at the corporation's expense.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, not at all. What I am saying to you is that there are some good examples out there right now of programs that are working, I believe. Take for example, the employment program that they have in Vaughan where the organization itself -- which is I think currently funded by the federal government -- provides some aptitude training for people, provides some technical training for people. Then as a result of their working with business, a company might say to them, as they have in the past: "We need 100 people to work in our manufacturing plant. They need these specific skills. Can you provide us with people who have the aptitude to do that and the basic training to do that? We will hire them."

Mr Cordiano: What do you anticipate the numbers to be, the uptake of people by those corporate sponsorships?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That's why it's so very important for us to have those links locally, because quite frankly Vaughan is not going to be like Algoma, Algoma is not going to be like Scarborough. There are differences in communities, whether they're rural or whether they're urban, inner-city or suburbia, and that's why we need the commitment of our legislative representatives to work with the government to do this.

Mr Cordiano: What are you going to do to give us an indication today that you have any sense that this will lead to 50%, 100% of the people who want to do this being taken up by those corporations, by this program? What hope do we and the people out there who want to access these programs have that they'll have opportunities like this?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I believe you struck something, a true chord, earlier on, when you said that I can't possibly invite every group in to have a cup of coffee with me and discuss their program. You're right, I can't.

Mr Cordiano: You made it sound as though you're going to do that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, you can't. I do meet with a lot of programs and people, but don't forget, I have a committee of MPPs who are working with me, who are, as best we can, very regionally representative, to assist me, because I can't do it by myself. Other MPPs who are not on the committee --

Mr Cordiano: So they're going to serve the coffee and you're going to invite them in.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, not at all. I think we need to have a good community sense of what the communities need. Frankly, I think that's what the role of all MPPs should be, to assist us to find out what are the programs they need for their own area.

Mr Cordiano: What I'm trying to say to you is that you're not giving us any sense of the massiveness of this endeavour. Somehow you make it sound as though every community out there is going to be involved because you invite them in and you say: "Look, we need to do this. Take time off your busy schedules fighting global competition and making a bottom-line profit for your corporation. Take some time off doing that and do this, which is not going to require you to do very much."

I would submit to you that's either a naïve assumption on your part or an idealistic point of view. Unless you tell us, you're prepared to share with us what the system is going to look like -- and in fact there are going to be a number of things associated with creating that system: There's going to be an administration, there's going to be an effort on the part of the government to make this happen. We want to know how many people are going to undertake to do that. We want to know how many dollars are going to be allocated for that purpose. These are the real questions that have to be asked.

You're not providing any indication about what that's going to be, because quite frankly you have no idea. You're still in the process of designing it, as you said earlier, and so I have no comfort level that in fact you're going to do any of those things. It's great PR on your part. You're doing an admirable job, given the very difficult position you have. You've been bombarded over the last six months by just about every group out there and everybody in the House. I think that is as it should be because you're required to do and expected to do quite a bit. You're expected to do the impossible, quite frankly, in my opinion, unless this is all a hoax.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I can assure you this is a very real program. I have very real people working with me. I know that sitting in this room are people who are working with us on the workfare program. They know that we have progressed, that we are on track with it.

I just want to dwell on one thing that you said, and maybe it's the difference in our perspectives. I'm not viewing people on social assistance as somehow becoming a burden or an obstacle for private enterprise in terms of employment. It's almost like, the little slant that you had there, "What are they going to do in private enterprise to get the precious time to work with people and take these people on?" I'm looking at these people --

Mr Cordiano: Be serious, Minister.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I'm being serious.

Mr Cordiano: Companies are shedding workers out there, so unless they're prepared to hire these people --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Listen, I'll tell you, there is a need, and what we have to look at people for is the fact that they can be a very valuable human resource for private enterprise in this province. They're not going to be a burden on people. If they have received the training that in fact many of the organizations that are out there now -- and some of these programs were started by the former government and by yourselves, programs that actually do work, that have good links to private enterprise. They're the ones who are saying, "We can do it." I've seen a number of them, Mr Cordiano, who say: "We can do the job. We can provide you with success ratios of over 80% for people coming through our programs."

Mr Cordiano: I don't doubt they can do the job, but today you have not indicated to us very clearly what it is you're doing to make that happen. You have given us no details.

Let me move on to another quick question. I'm quite concerned. We've had information that leads us to believe there are schizophrenic patients out there who, as a result of the $2 that is being required of them to be paid for a dispensing fee in order to get their medication, are going to refuse to take their medication. What do you feel about that, Minister? I believe not only will they endanger themselves, there are other things that must be considered: the community at large. These patients need to have their medication on an ongoing basis, and if they refuse to take their medication because of the $2 dispensing fee, what are you prepared to do to alleviate their concerns?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would certainly hope that doesn't come to pass. I think this really begs the point that Mr Cleary and Mr Rollins were bringing up earlier on, that somehow we have ignored the minimum-wage earner in this province through the programs and non-accessibility to government programs, because with respect to the changes that were introduced by the leadership of the Minister of Health, an additional 140,000 people of low incomes will now have access to a system they were basically foreclosed from having access to before. Once again what we're trying to do is somehow level it so you have more access to people. Let's face it, if you're on minimum wage you really don't have a whole lot to really assist you.

1150

Mr Cordiano: Mr Chairman, there's too much noise in this room.

The Chair: Could we have some quiet, please.

Ms Lang: I think that in the interest of the disabled individuals that you were referring to, Mr Cordiano, the government did not reduce the social assistance rates for those individuals as part of the rate reduction decision of last fall.

Mr Bisson: There are some on GWA.

Ms Lang: If those individuals are on GWA, they are in fact eligible for FBA once they've been through the medical adjudication process.

Mr Cordiano: So what's being done to ensure that they make the switch?

Ms Lang: We have a very active process in place right now to ensure, by having additional medical adjudicators available to us, that we are assessing those cases as quickly as possible. We have moved a significant number of them into FBA if they've qualified.

Mr Cordiano: I hope we can expect that you would take an interest in those people who are still not on the new classification which would qualify them for that assistance. Certainly that is a concern for those people. So please make every effort to do that immediately.

Ms Lang: The minister has made it very clear to us that he wants that done, and we have pulled out all the stops to make that happen.

Mr Cordiano: Okay, with this particular group that we're talking about?

Ms Lang: The disabled individuals who are eligible, yes.

The Chair: We've just about run out of time for the Liberals. At this stage, I would say we have about 44 more minutes of estimates for Community and Social Services. There are a couple of options.

Mr Bisson: I'll make it very simple and very cooperative. We'll finish up the 30 minutes and that'll be it.

The Chair: Your rotation, that's 22 minutes.

Mr Bisson: No, it's 30 minutes. We'll finish our 30 minutes and then that will be it.

The Chair: It's 22 minutes. We have 44 minutes left, shared among two. So you have 22 minutes.

Mr Bisson: We're suggesting that we'll take 30 minutes, as the third party, and then go to the vote.

The Chair: For the third party?

Mr Bisson: Yes. We're going to do 30 minutes -- that's what we had talked about earlier -- because they just finished a 30-minute rotation.

The Chair: No. We were saying that we have 44 more minutes.

Mr Bisson: All right, we'll do 44 minutes. That's fine.

The Chair: We can divide it into two if we want.

Mr Bisson: We can divide it.

The Chair: We're going to divide it into two.

Mr Bisson: If you want to go 44 minutes, we can go 44 minutes; that's fine.

Mr Preston: It's 22 for you and 22 for --

The Chair: Let me clarify this before we can do that.

Mr Michael Brown: We would agree that they have 30 minutes.

The Chair: And you'll just take the rest, and then that's it?

Mr Cordiano: That would be it.

Mr Bisson: So we'll start our 30 minutes, and when we're finished our 30 minutes, that'll be it. We'll give unanimous consent to finish.

The Chair: Do you still want your recess now?

Mrs Ross: No, that's fine. Just go ahead.

The Chair: After 30 minutes, we'll be taking the vote for the estimates. The minister has advised me he has some matters to table. So we'll do it after all that.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much indeed. Let me get through some of my papers here. There are three things I want to go through with you kind of quickly, and I'll leave the rest of the time for my colleague Mr Martin. You'd be aware that your ministry is now, along with Management Board, going through a process of closing down the Elm Street office of Community and Social Services in Timmins, because I know you care deeply about Timmins and you've been watching the goings-on in that community very closely, because I know that you're a minister that does care and you want to make sure the community of Timmins is well-served, right?

Let me explain what's going on. I'm being a little bit facetious. There was an undertaking by our government when we were government to do co-location of various ministries in the Timmins area, from Community and Social Services, the Ministry of Health, MTO, MNR and Northern Development and Mines -- there was a project going on by which there is an empty provincial building called the CTRC, Cochrane-Timiskaming Resource Centre, in South Porcupine, and various ministries were being looked at in order to move from rented facilities into a provincially owned building so therefore we don't have to pay the rent and we're able to save some money.

We had started that process when we were in government. But when we had started it, we had found out fairly quickly, because the chamber of commerce, the downtown business association, mayor and council and a number of other people, mostly business concerns originally, were concerned that if we move all of our ministries from the downtown core of the city of Timmins, it will affect traffic patterns of people having to come downtown to do their business, then to go shop at the local shops etc, and there was a concern that if we move everything over that would happen.

The second thing, obviously, is the question of access for people. Downtown Timmins is well-serviced by a good system of transit buses. If you go all the way out to Porcupine, it would be equivalent of saying all the business of the city of Toronto is now done in Markham. It's just some people have a car and can make it and other people can't.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That would make Don Cousens happy.

Mr Bisson: That would make Don Cousens very happy.

But when we went through that process initially, the ministry, Management Board, when we were government, was pretty well talking to everybody about a possibility of moving there. We, because of the concerns of the chamber of commerce, the downtown BIA and others, had said: "Okay, we understand there are some legitimate concerns here on the part of the business community that it will adversely affect traffic patterns of people coming into the downtown, and we will look at a reduced move out to the CTRC. We will look at what fits out there and what doesn't, and we'll make sure that there's some kind of a presence in the downtown area after this move has happened so that you're still able to bring people into your downtown."

What has happened because of -- you know, you guys were elected and you have a mission, and your mission is to balance the budget in five years, and hopefully you won't go into reruns and syndication -- this has now accelerated. Now everybody's going. The decision has been made by Management Board, absolutely everybody from the downtown core who has a ministry location in downtown Timmins is going out to Porcupine, your ministry, everything. There will be nothing left.

So I have met with Management Board people and I have met with some of your people locally and I have met with anybody I can get my hands on to say: "Listen, there are still some legitimate concerns here. The downtown core is going to be affected." But specifically to you, the clients who access your services tend to be the poorest and those with the least ability to be able to get around, because most of them don't own cars, when it comes to accessing services of your ministry, and I'm a little bit concerned about the entire move of Community and Social Services out to Porcupine. Porcupine is a very nice part of our city, but it's not readily accessible to everybody.

I know that this is not being looked at, but I'm making a request if there at least can be a commitment on the part of yourself as the minister to have your people look at what's going on in Timmins and to say, "Listen, there are some legitimate concerns." I accept that you're going to go there and I ain't going to fight you publicly on it -- I've said that in my community -- but I have concerns that those people who have to access your ministry, people who are either on FBA from a disability perspective or single mothers, whoever it might be, may have difficulty getting out to Porcupine, and if there could be a look at doing some sort of a storefront operation or a dropoff spot -- let's say I need to drop off papers that have to go in to the ministry -- that maybe you go to the municipal welfare office and drop it there. You create some kind of a partnership so that people can still do that. I'm wondering if you'd be averse to that.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I would certainly not be averse to meeting with you and discussing this further.

Ms Lang: Given that this is an administrative matter, I would be quite pleased to ensure that we give you an undertaking that we would look at the issues of access -- I suspect that we already have -- and ensure that there is that kind of capacity within the Timmins area to provide that sort of accessibility.

Mr Bisson: In fairness, people are looking at it, but I've been told as of my recent meetings with management both here and in Timmins that everything is going, there will not be any kind of dropoff, and that troubles me greatly.

Ms Lang: I think, Mr Bisson, we are quite prepared to take a look at it. I know for a fact that there are court offices in downtown Timmins and that may be a vehicle available to us. I'm getting a very strong nod from my ADM who's responsible for the field, and she has indicated quite clearly that we will take a look at it and ensure that there is access to services.

Mr Bisson: Is there anything concrete that you -- you have to come here to do that for the committee. You have to tell who you are and all that stuff.

Ms Sue Herbert: I'm Sue Herbert. I'm the ADM of program management.

As you probably know, our staff share the same concerns that you've raised, and we have undertaken to do a transportation study for our clients, both looking at where our caseloads are, where the individuals that we serve live, and what the transportation implications are for them. The staff have raised those issues with Management Board.

We are also looking at the option that I understand you've put on the table, which is the option of a dropoff point or other forms of access that would ease the transition. So we can certainly undertake to get back to you after we complete that.

Mr Bisson: Would it be easier, Minister, that I was to work with her or do you want me to work directly with your office?

Ms Herbert: Yes, work directly with me.

1200

Mr Bisson: What would be easier?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think directly with Sue would be the best bet.

Mr Bisson: If that could be done it would be greatly appreciated. I'll say for the record, on Hansard, quite frankly, I ain't gonna fight with you on this because I recognize there are some savings to be had. I don't like it and I'm sure a lot of people in the downtown don't like it, but we realize we are living in 1995, you do have to save money, and we'll do what we can to support you. But you have to also have assurances from the government that there's also going to be some access on the part of the people in our community.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think you're making a good point, because I think we have to really be cognizant of who we serve.

Mr Bisson: That's fine. I appreciate that.

Ms Lang: Mr Bisson, the challenge that you pose to us is exactly the same kind of challenge that this government has posed to us as civil servants. The opportunity for us to take a look at what other sources of government service may be available in downtown Timmins and determine whether we can give access to a range of government programs is certainly something that we're being asked to look at now. So it's very consistent with what the expectations are.

Mr Bisson: You should also know, just for the record, that the provincial courts, there may be a question of them moving out at the end of their lease in 1997, out to the resource centre as well. That's been discussed, so I think that has to be taken into consideration.

Ms Lang: But there's another court office there as well. There are a couple of them downtown.

Mr Bisson: Yes. I'm just saying there are different ways of doing it.

A couple of other things. You talked about the workfare model a little while ago in regard to the example of out east in one of the maritime provinces about the playground. I guess a whole bunch of alarms go off when we start talking about workfare. I think you're recognizing now as minister, because I think that you -- I'm trying to give you a compliment, but I don't want to be too nice. I'm sure that you're recognizing that workfare is fraught with problems. There's a whole Pandora's box of issues, and I'm sure that you're feeling them quite clearly. I just want to go through some of them with you and maybe just get a general comment from you.

If we were to follow that model that you talked about, where you want to build a playground in downtown Timmins and one of the local employers gives the land as a donation and we use the people on workfare in order to do the work and the government supplies the material, I think there are a whole bunch of problems with that. I think the first problem is, who the heck's going to be liable should an injury happen on the work site? The question of workers' compensation and other liabilities is one issue, just to scratch the surface.

The other one, I think which is a bigger one, is, will the private sector see that as a pool of cheap labour? I'm sure that you're trying to turn your attention to that and I'd like to have you comment on that a little bit, because I really fear what happens, depending on how you set up the model, is that if you've got a model where the private sector employers are able to pool into the cheap labour of workfare, it'll drive down prices of wages for other workers in the construction industry or whatever it might be, and to me that sounds very counterproductive to what any government should do as far as good policy.

The other issue goes into the whole question of -- and this is a philosophical one, and I'll admit it. I think you and I will part company on this one. It really smacks of we're going to go back to the good old days where community service and income replacement were seen as charity, where the employers, in order to be able to see and show themselves as being good employers and community-involved and really caring about their communities, end up doing charity in order to be able to show how good they are. I think we really open that box with what you're doing with workfare, because I think we've learned and we've understood in this country that when it comes to income replacement because people are unemployed or because people are disabled or whatever it might be, it's not a question of charity; it's a question of rights and a question of making sure that -- you know, we made a decision that we weren't going to follow the same path as the Americans when it came to that whole approach.

I guess I worry a little bit in the direction you're going with workfare. I tried to ask you a few questions yesterday about the principles of what you were doing on workfare. Now, you answered to Mr Corleone -- sorry, Joe. Jeez. Sometimes, I'm telling you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr Joseph Cordiano): Did he say Corleone?

Mr Bisson: I realized after --

The Vice-Chair: Watch what you say.

Mr Bisson: I think I'll end there and let you respond.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: That was a good one. And people have trouble with my name.

Mr Bisson: I want to apologize to the Chair.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: There are a number of issues. The first one is really the role of the private sector. The employment standards issues we have to look at as well; you're certainly right. The private sector: We have the two specific roles, and I think that's where it's leaving a lot of confusion in the public right now, what is the role of private enterprise in the workfare system?

There are really two roles, two distinct and different roles, for example, the one that we're talking about with the playground and that's just an example of volunteerism that was working out there. The private sector role in that area, the community work, is hopefully to sponsor projects by providing either financial assistance or materials to projects that the community wants to improve their community.

Separate and apart and distinct from that is a role the private sector will play in assisting us in terms of the employment programs. The employment programs are dedicated to providing people with real jobs at whatever the standard rate of --

Mr Bisson: Can I just interrupt? This is where I need clarification. Are your employment programs meant to be the workfare kind of projects that you talked about around the playground --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No, no.

Mr Bisson: -- or is it something more in keeping with actual jobs with actual training in actual workplaces?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Exactly. They're separate and apart from community improvement projects.

Mr Bisson: It's not a question of subsidizing, of trying to put pressures downwards on the wage structure.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Absolutely not.

Mr Bisson: All right, okay.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: We want to get people in real jobs through the employment programs.

Mr Bisson: I still think if part of your component of workfare is to do those community projects, most people would say on the surface, "We agree with that," but when you start to look at it, it's one of those things that really is fraught with problems, because it's something I've looked at in the past. I wish you luck. I think it will be a lot of things.

The other thing I want to ask just very quickly before I go off to Mr Martin, your government ran on the platform of creating some 725,000 jobs. That's what you said you were going to do, and the basis of that is going to be created, according to the mantra of the Common Sense Revolution, through the tax cut. Are you relying on the other part of that as being workfare? I got a giggle from the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Preston: A job's a job's a job.

Mr Bisson: A job's a job's a job.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think clearly what's intended, as you well know -- you're as familiar now, I think, with the Common Sense Revolution as we are --

Mr Bisson: Oh, yes, read it many times.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Our intention was clearly to create the proper atmosphere for job creation, and the other side of that is that in fact what the Premier is currently doing is promoting economic development in this country through partnerships with other countries.

Mr Bisson: You're not getting to my question, though. My question is, of the 725,000 jobs, are you going to be relying on jobs created through whatever your workfare program is as part of that 725,000?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: The employment programs we're suggesting through Ontario Works are to be really provided in partnership with business, and frankly, if you look at any other programs, even the ones you guys had that were currently in place, they work in partnership with business. It's a combination of a lot of factors, what's going to create jobs out there.

Mr Bisson: I think I'm not explaining myself well. If you put in place a program similar to Jobs Ontario where you have an actual training component and you put people in a job, I well understand that'll come into your overall numbers. What I'm asking is, with those volunteer kind of jobs where the person's given a welfare dollar in order to go out and do a community project, is that anticipated to be counted as part of the jobs you create of the 725,000 you promised Ontarians?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I wouldn't have thought so.

Mr Bisson: The answer's no?

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes, I would not have thought so.

Mr Bisson: Okay. That's what I'm getting at.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: I think the Premier was, and certainly we were, talking about real jobs.

Mr Bisson: The last point I want to make, and I'm raising this for all members because I think some of us might have tried to do the same thing: The Premier stood in the House last fall and challenged all us members to try to find ways of being able to find people employment by doing a number of things in regard to encouraging employment and encouraging employers to hire people on welfare.

We undertook in our riding, myself and separately through a coalition that was formed, which I think was a positive step towards trying to do what the Premier exactly asked us to do -- I as a member sent letters to all of our downtown business people and said: "There are a number of people who are on welfare who are looking for jobs who are ready, willing and able to work and have the qualifications. Here's who you've got to call to talk to some of these people about getting a job for them. Please respond." Not one response. That really shocked me, because I have a very good relationship with the downtown core and with the business community in my riding. That's one of the reasons I was re-elected.

1210

I thought at first maybe it's because they see this as being somewhat cynical. I guess if I was a Conservative owning a business and I got a letter from a New Democrat, maybe I would be a little bit cynical too, or vice versa. So I thought, well, maybe what I'll do is I'll follow it up and I'll go visit the downtown core. What they all said to me is: "Gilles, it's not a question that we see that as cynical. The question is, we're not hiring."

Here we were going -- this was in the month of November -- into the biggest rush, supposedly, of the retail season. There was really a reluctance that was twofold. There was not a lot of confidence in the future in regard to employment, as far as hiring people was concerned, because they didn't see things as significantly getting better in the economy; in fact, they were a little bit worried they were getting worse, and I think numbers are starting to show that somewhat now -- not in great numbers. The second thing was that there was really a stigma attached on the part of a lot of these employers to hiring somebody on welfare.

The comments the Premier made in the House about us taking that on are not enough. If you guys are serious about breaking the dependency of welfare, I really have fears the direction that you're going in is not going to accomplish that. I think you should look at -- the comment you made was you're prepared to look at what anybody has done and what has been successful. I think one of the biggest mistakes you made, because you've boxed yourself now, is that you did away with Jobs Ontario Training on the basis of it being an NDP program. I think you guys have really boxed yourself into a corner, because now whatever you do, you're sort of politically putting yourself in a box that you can't copy what we did and that was a very successful program.

Talking to employers out there, they liked Jobs Ontario. It worked. It wasn't always 100% successful, but it was in the neighbourhood of 85% to 90% successful and in any job training program that's pretty darned good. I just encourage you to go back and say, "Hey, we made a mistake here; maybe we shouldn't call it Jobs Ontario; maybe we should call it Mike Harris's Ontario," or call it the Conservative program or whatever. I don't care what you call it. I think you guys should go back and really take a look at that, because if you're going to get people back to work in the private sector, employers need the help to be able to do the training and to put these people in actual jobs and giving the employer some assistance to do the training.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: One of the elements of certainly our trying to improve on what's happened before is really the cost per client to put them into a job. I think that's the critical element we're looking at right now. We're looking for a system that's a little more economically accountable.

Mr Bisson: I bet you're wishing you hadn't done what you did.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: No --

Mr Bisson: I think so.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: -- I think there are programs that do work. But I think you're raising a good point, though, in terms of one of the reasons we have to view our employment programs as partnerships with business, partnerships with the community, partnerships with our clients is the fact that we have to overcome some barriers. You're quite right that there are some stigmas out there we have to look at and say, "Here are people who we have now taken and given some training to," and to overcome that barrier.

Mr Bisson: But understand what the problem is. When you put him into programs such as fixing the playground, it adds to that stigmatism. That's what I'm getting at. I think you're much better off as a province and as a ministry and as a government to find ways of getting away from that kind of programming, saying, "It'll be actual employment with a private sector employer," or a public sector employer if that is to be the case, the case of the agencies, not direct government involved, that follows the model of something like a Jobs Ontario. I think you'd be a heck of a lot further ahead and I think employers would appreciate it, and so would the employees.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Actually I was talking about our employment programs; I wasn't talking about the community work. However, I believe the community work aspect will give someone some experience working. Secondly, at least someone will then have the satisfaction --

Mr Bisson: You'll give some experience, but I think it adds to the stigma --

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: -- of doing some work for their cheque.

Mr Bisson: My colleague has some questions. I'll leave it at that.

Mr Martin: I just want to follow up somewhat on the discussions we had been having when everything got so heated just a while back. I am very genuinely concerned. I don't say that to try to fan the flames or pour oil on the fire. I am genuinely concerned that what you're going to get in this province is a reaction to an action that will be equal to the level of hurt that's imposed by the cuts this government is proposing, by what we hear and the announcements that are made and by what we expect because of the figuring that we've done looking at the numbers in the Common Sense Revolution and the promise you've made by way of a tax break and managing the deficit etc. I have some real concerns.

I just want you to know that I feel very strongly that you reap what you sow. If I might be so candid as to say to you, one of the things we learned when we were in government, and perhaps would do differently had we another shot at it, was that you can get yourself too far out in front of the people.

Your plans and your ideas may be good in themselves and may be well-intentioned and attempting to reach a goal all of us would want to reach, but if we don't bring people on board as we move along, if we don't communicate with people in a way that helps them understand how this is in their best interests and how it's all going to unfold, and the pieces that are part of that road, that puzzle we're trying to put together, we stand the chance of having the kind of civil disobedience that we had yesterday and that frankly we experienced when we were in government when we brought down the social contract, because we moved so quickly and it was such a surprise to so many people when we first brought it in and the process was so complicated, because we were trying to get everybody in the province to the bargaining table at one particular time, that in the end, politically certainly, it hurt us and it didn't accomplish the very, I think, high and valuable goals we were trying to achieve, which were to save jobs and to save services and to try to manage the financial situation of the province.

You've added a few things to that whole scenario. You've added the tax break, and where we had separated operating from capital by way of -- in your own home you have a mortgage for the house and the car, but your day-to-day paying for the groceries is another line of expenditure. We separated that. You have now put it all back into the one pot again and so instead of simply dealing with the shortfall re the question of how we manage the day-to-day operating, you've now complicated that by throwing the mortgage in there as well. You've created a monster. Frankly, I don't know how you're going to tame it. I don't know how you're going to get it in such shape, I don't know how you're going to communicate it and I don't know how you're going to get people on side with you such that in the end we can accomplish the things you've so very eloquently laid out in the submission you gave to us two days ago.

I'm wondering if you understand that and the question I asked you before was if in the end you find that the people you serve as Minister of Community and Social Services, those who are most vulnerable out there among us -- if you will advocate for them at the cabinet table and ask your government to back away from the tax break.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: First of all, I want to say that we just bought the house and assumed the mortgage.

Mr Preston: It's a big sucker.

Mr Bisson: It came with a limo.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: One of the reasons you have to look at both capital and operating expenditures -- and most businesses will have a consolidated statement that includes them both. I concede to the comment of my colleague here who said there's still only one paycheque that has to pay for these expenses, whether or not you expense them on the capital side or the operating side. None the less, I think what you're saying has some merit.

What we're trying to do right now is really -- there are limitations there, I recognize them, but I think what we have to do for us to serve the people who really need us to help them is through a restructuring, going through this consultative process. I know I sound like a record when I say that, but I think it's very important to us to have these very real and meaningful discussions with our funding partners out there, the people who are the front-line workers, in order that we can recognize what their needs are, what they do need so we can serve them.

You're right in another way, too. We have to be able to communicate. Certainly in terms of the workfare Ontario Works idea, we have to communicate not only with the general public out there but also with the clients we will serve and give the opportunities to to be in this particular program so they know what it's all about and for us to take away some of the fear, because we certainly look at it as a good opportunity for them to be assisted in either getting back in the direct job market or to attain some other skills they might not normally have.

I feel very strongly in terms of the direction the ministry has to take to work with the communities out there to provide for those who really need us, whether it's in the children's protection area or whether it's in the disabled area. It's very important for us as a government to look and help those we truly need to help. That's why our whole idea here, and we dealt with it earlier on today, is that our motivation in doing our restructuring is to provide a better system that's more accessible, less confusing, so people who really need to get accessibility to the system get it. That's ultimately the aim of all of us. You may disagree with my methodologies and the procedures, but certainly that's what our motivation is.

Mr Martin: My strong suggestion to you, in all sincerity, Minister, is to listen to the people and to realize that the poll that came out yesterday -- we all put emphasis on polls, depending on where they are; we had the same kind of polls -- said to you very clearly that the people out there are very afraid of what you're coming down with; they don't understand it and you should talk to them about it, because if you don't you're going to do the wrong thing and you're going to do it too fast. The other --

The Chair: I don't think you're going to have enough time to put another point of view on this.

Mr Martin: Another line of questioning?

The Chair: This will conclude the agreed-upon time for estimates for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I understand that the minister wants to table some information.

Hon Mr Tsubouchi: Yes. I want to table a couple of matters that were requested: the lists of the advisory group members for the children's services advisory committee and the one for the development services advisory committee, along with the social assistance statistics and caseloads that were requested before. I'm going to table that with you, Mr Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you very much. What we'll do now is proceed to the vote. We'll deal with the votes for the estimates for the Ministry of Community and Social Services. We have two votes.

On vote 701, shall vote 701 carry? Carried.

On vote 702, shall vote 702 carry? Carried.

Shall I report the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services to the House? I will so do.

I want to thank the staff of the ministry who listened very attentively to some of the soft voices of our participants, and the minister himself for being here, and the deputy. We now stand adjourned until 1:30.

The committee recessed from 1224 to 1335.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

The Vice-Chair: Good afternoon. We shall begin our proceedings. We have with us this afternoon for this session on housing the minister and the deputy minister and their staff, I'm sure. You can introduce them when necessary or if you'd like to introduce them at any time. We will continue with the same order, starting off with the opposition Liberals first and then --

Hon Al Leach (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): I have the minister's speech first.

The Vice-Chair: I'm sorry; yes, of course. I'm so anxious to get to the questions. There will be a statement from the minister and then, I suppose, responses from the opposition members or we'll go into questions. Starting with vote 1601, we can officially start the clock. Good.

Mr Bisson: Chair, before we get started, does the minister have a printed statement that he's going to be reading from?

Hon Mr Leach: We have the copies for distribution.

The Vice-Chair: Good. Could you make those copies available? Okay, Minister, if you'd like to begin.

Hon Mr Leach: Good afternoon and thank you, Mr Chairman and members of the standing committee on estimates. I'm pleased to be here today.

What you have before you, as you know, are the estimates tabled by the last government. To repeat a well-worn phrase, that was then and this is now. We have made some major changes and we will continue to do so as we pull government out of the housing business.

Let me just start by saying I believe the housing policy foundation of this province was inadequate to meet the task at hand. Today, we're going to try and bring back a little common sense to fiscal policy, government programs and services. We're reassessing existing housing policies and making appropriate changes.

We're turning it around in several areas, focusing on our core business. I would like to outline what we're doing, but first let's take a look at where our housing policy has led us and why it is that we're getting out of some areas in the housing business.

Non-profit and co-op housing was a good idea that went bad. First, non-profit housing: The Provincial Auditor has catalogued a litany of problems with non-profit housing dating back to his 1992 annual report. I'm talking about such things as pressure to speed projects through approvals; not enough experienced staff to administer the program; unsatisfactory controls to ensure projects were built only where needed and at a competitive price; project costs going up despite the large declines in land prices and construction costs -- average costs that came in even higher than those at the peak of the housing boom; the maximum price allowed by the government for each unit actually pumped up the cost of development because that was the price developers were aiming for; 25% of the projects the auditor looked at lacked approved operating budgets; multiple waiting lists for housing and inconsistent rules for tenant placement made it unlikely people would be treated fairly.

The non-profit housing program has seen major issues around land flips, gold-plated building standards, mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, conflicts of interest and fraud. There have been major concerns about program administration and other very serious problems.

Albeit that the former Ministry of Housing did make some headway in addressing concerns raised by the Provincial Auditor and the standing committee on public accounts, major problems persisted. They were outlined in the 1995 auditor's report and they're all there in black and white.

The ministry conducts its own audits on projects as well, and I'd like to cite some examples of problems from one particular audit. I want to spell out one example of non-profit housing gone wrong, where one person was involved either as a developer, a consultant and/or a manager of a number of non-profit housing projects.

In July 1994, after the audits of a few of the projects he was involved with, the ministry ordered a review of his total non-profit portfolio. The findings? Questionable procurement practices, weak financial controls, inappropriate use of ministry funds, late payment of property taxes followed of course by penalty and interest charges, lack of reporting to the boards of directors of the projects, unreconciled balances and inappropriate payments. Believe me, the list goes on.

This is not some nickel-and-dime operation. We're talking about more than $7 million every year in annual operating subsidies for the non-profit projects and rent supplement program managed by his company. This is excluding funds advanced while the projects were being built.

Here are just a few of the highlights of the review:

An employee of the company was charged with embezzling.

Funds were diverted from the reserves of one non-profit and used as deposits for possible land purchases for other corporations.

An extensive review of an intercompany account turned up unexplained entries.

A couple of projects had no annual income reviews of tenants who pay rents based on income.

Eviction notices were sent out but not followed up. A year and a half later, one eviction had still not happened.

For most projects reviewed in our own audit, the fact that the same contractor and architect were recommended over and over again is of concern, especially since their projects contained significant deficiencies which were not fixed and which led to two lawsuits.

There are ongoing problems in meeting Ministry of Housing submission requirements on final capital costs, annual operating budgets, base-year budgets, financial statements and annual information return packages.

It goes on and on: management misrepresentation; shoddy construction; unpaid invoices; cost overruns; a senior executive with access to all aspects of accounting, banking, cash receipts and spending; and so on. It was a horror show.

The problems with non-profit housing were widely recognized. The Liberals recognized them as well. They said that if they formed a government, they would declare a moratorium on housing allocations.

Suffice to say, there have been administrative headaches, especially dealing in subsidy payments to almost 1,000 sponsor groups. As well intentioned as the sponsor groups were, most of them were inexperienced in the housing business. And the costs are tremendous. Units brought under subsidy in 1992 cost the province an annual subsidy of $10,000 per unit. Let me add that if all the units were completed in 1998-99, as planned, there would have been more than 132,000 units under subsidy at an annual cost of more than $1 billion. That's $1 billion a year. That's what the taxpayers were in for.

Clearly, what all this points to is simple: In the terms of housing policy, Ontario was moving in the wrong direction. Government has no business in the housing business. It's a fiscal sinkhole. This business should be left to the private sector, which can deliver and manage housing better and faster and more efficiently.

This is crucial, especially in a time when we're facing a provincial debt load of about $100 billion and an annual interest payment approaching $9 billion, the equivalent of $1 million an hour. We have to cut spending and that's what we're doing.

As part of the government-wide spending cuts announced by the Treasurer in July, we decided to cut our approved capital and operating budgets. We took immediate action to contain our costs. Non-profit housing growth, largely in the form of operating subsidies, was going to bloat our budget, so we starting cutting there.

We cancelled funding for 390 non-profit housing projects which were not under construction. We cut transfer payments to non-profits, Ontario Housing Corp and to our rent supplement and community partners programs. Over the next five years, we expect to avoid spending a total of $782 million.

We said we were going to do it and we did it. We've held to our commitment. We're getting out of the housing business and leaving it to those who know it best -- the private sector.

Our government believes major changes are needed to overall housing policy in Ontario. The social housing system, for example, is broken and unfair. Right now, the system is only fair to those people who've managed to get through the waiting lists. But many people who've been on the waiting lists for years -- and there are 25,000 of them in MTHA in Toronto -- need help and they're not getting it. That's unfair.

We want to replace the existing social housing program by moving towards a universal program of shelter subsidies for the most needy. We believe that's the way to go. We have to fix the social housing system. A shelter subsidy is fair because it subsidizes the person and not the unit, and it offers housing support directly to the needy people who have not been able to get assistance. Shelter subsidies are also more responsive to an individual's need than public housing because they're portable and allow people to choose where they want to live.

We also want to curb inequities in the current system. I know, for example, that there are some students who are paying as little as $32 a month in rent while attending school. Whatever way you turn that, it's unfair to the taxpayers in this province.

Some people are getting a great deal and some people are getting no deal. This is unfair.

Ontario remains a generous province for those seeking help with their housing, spending more than $2 billion a year for shelter for people on social assistance alone. What we're going to do is review the current subsidy system and look at options for a new system. This is just a start. We expect to be making major changes to housing policy in Ontario, and the Ontario Housing Corp will play a large role in that.

We are currently looking at what do with our public housing stock. In the long term, the government is looking at such options as privatizing some 84,000 OHC units to tenants, perhaps, and at private property management opportunities for the housing complexes. We are now working on options for the future of these units and we are continuing to work to improve the effectiveness of OHC's operations while maintaining efficient services. For example, in terms of capital works, we're instituting an asset management program -- a better way to get value for money by spending capital dollars where they're needed most. I'm fully aware of the vulnerability of tenants in OHC, some of our province's poorest residents. Any decisions that we will make will be sensitive to their needs.

We have also taken steps to cut funding to tenants' organizations and housing advocacy groups, and we've reduced housing help services except in those areas of critical need. We couldn't justify subsidizing lobbying efforts for more housing at a time when we've pledged to reduce the deficit and get government out of the housing business.

Ladies and gentlemen, the efforts we have made to reduce our costs and deliver programs more efficiently are only the beginning of long-term structural changes. We think there are better ways to do business, to achieve better results at less cost.

We want to get out of the bricks and mortar of the rental housing market and we want to reform the current rent control system, which isn't working. We hope to introduce legislation some time this year which will mark the beginning of fundamental change to the system of rent control. That's because rent control, as it exists in Ontario, is not good policy. It's not good for tenants and it's not good for landlords.

Most think of rent controls as applying to people who live in apartment buildings, but rent controls cover a broad spectrum of areas. Let me give you some examples of how rent control doesn't work.

There's the situation of a trailer park in eastern Ontario that was brought to my attention. The local municipality was improving its water supply system and required the landlord of the park to hook up to it, at substantial cost. The landlord couldn't afford it. He was already barely covering his costs because of low rents, and rent control prevented him from raising his rents high enough to cover these new costs. The landlord estimated insolvency within two years if he couldn't pass the cost on to the tenants. What's more, the Rental Housing Protection Act prevented him from changing any use of his park. The landlord was caught, and the local municipality had to pass a special bylaw to allow the tenants to be billed for the hookup costs. We've seen many other cases like this, especially in northern Ontario.

Another example: Three senior citizens in southwestern Ontario put their life savings together to buy an old, run-down rental property. They went ahead with extensive repairs because they wanted to earn a rental income to supplement their livelihood. They found out that the rents had already been established on the old, broken-down unit and that the rent control severely limits the amounts that they could increase them by. As a result, the seniors were not able to recoup their investment. That's a prime example of how rent control discourages investment in capital repairs.

1350

Finally, there's the example of some renters in central Ontario who thought they were protected by rent control's annual guideline increase. They discovered, when their rents went up about $400 a month, that there are sometimes big differences between the ceiling a landlord may charge, the maximum, and what he's actually charging. They asked, "What can rent control do?" The answer had to be, "Nothing," because all the landlord had done was move his rent to the ceiling that he's allowed.

The program is just not working. Old stock is crumbling, nobody's building new buildings and the vacancy rate in Toronto, for example, is 0.8% and continuing to drop. The reality of the rental market is that rent control is one of the barriers to investment and new supply. We know builders won't build under the current system if government continues to tie them up in red tape and too much building regulation.

In our view, we need a new system, one that gives renters housing choices and protection, one that gives landlords incentives to invest in new buildings and maintain their old ones. However, I want to emphasize that I believe in tenant protection from unfair rent increases. We're not going to hang tenants out to dry. Nothing is going to happen until we're convinced we have a system better than the one we have now.

Our job is to put together policies that make sense. The industry's job is to build. We're going to get out of the way and let them do what they do best. It's a system that's worked well in the past. No final decisions have been made yet about what form this new plan will take. We're looking at all the options, including some models that are already up and running in Quebec in British Columbia.

From an administrative standpoint, the rent control program was costing us $22.5 million to deliver. Since last June we've got that down to about $19.5 million, and we're going to continue to look for efficiencies and fully expect program costs for our proposed system will be significantly lower than the current annual budget.

I want to say that in Ontario the past 20 years of rent control has meant one thing: Hardly any rental housing has been built. There's been plenty of non-profit and co-op housing built, and it's costing us billions.

As I've said, you and I and every other taxpayer in Ontario are subsidizing each and every non-profit unit to the tune of $10,000 a year. That's an enormous cost. As I mentioned earlier, I've got nothing against non-profit and nothing against co-op housing. As a matter of fact, we encourage it. We just don't think that it should be done with taxpayers' dollars. But I want to stress that we will continue to work with sponsors to make space in existing projects for people with special needs, and we're looking at continuing a number of supportive housing projects.

All we want to do is to bring some common sense back into housing.

When it comes to cost savings, I'm also very happy to say that the executive level of our ministry is cutting back. With the merger of the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, we will save nearly half a million dollars this year in the minister's office alone.

There used to be, under the previous government, three ministers doing what is my job alone, with a full complement of staff and three parliamentary assistants. We've reduced our staff by about half, and I now have one deputy minister, not two. I'm happy to say we're doing better with less, and we will continue to look for ways of doing business more efficiently.

The government has launched an internal administrative review as part of the government's commitment to cut spending, reduce the size of government, eliminate red tape and be more businesslike in the way we operate. Even before this, we had taken measures to begin to streamline internal administration and our delivery of ministry programs. Our goal is to reduce the cost of internal government administration by 33% by the end of 1997-98. I am confident that by reducing overlap and duplication, we can continue to reduce our costs and provide services more efficiently and more effectively in the future.

Today I have focused on the problems with the housing policy of the past and on those areas where our government intends to turn it around. We can no longer afford to subsidize inefficiency or tolerate abuse. We can no longer afford to let our rental industry spiral into decline. We have to bring back fairness.

We are cutting spending in areas where we believe the marketplace will pick up the slack. We'll pull out all stops to ensure the private sector increases the supply of housing to ensure all Ontarians have access to shelter and we will continue to spend in those areas that help the most needy in our society.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I'm not disappointed at all in what you have stated. You didn't say anything; you just came with threats and have put a lot of people into difficult positions ever since this government has come into place. Let me put things into perspective.

As you said, the estimates that we're dealing with for Housing were established by the former government, and we've got them here. You knew exactly what was going to be spent, how it was going to be spent and where it was going to be spent. You know the kind of mandate you're going to have. During that time, with the privilege of having estimates, your party brought out something called the Common Sense Revolution. As it goes on, it doesn't make much sense to many of the people who want protection and need help from a government. In other words, government did not become the friend of the people any more. I say that guardedly.

Then your minister released a fiscal and economic statement with all the talk. We had no budget; we had a fiscal and economic statement that said this is where it's going to go and what it's going to do. Then the minister brought the hatchet around called Bill 26 and decided, "I need all the powers I can get," powers that are unprecedented in our history, and said: "We will go about this without any laws and without any reproach. We'll do what we want to do." When the people responded in many ways and told you they would like to have input into some of the things that the government's going to do -- we call it consultation -- none of that happened. People reacted accordingly and told you that they want to participate in their government, because you're collecting their money and you're going to spend it on them for their aspirations, to help them through some challenges -- all people, business people saying, "We want proper regulations," people who are struggling, saying, "We need a hand up, some support by the government that came in."

Then, without any of those kinds of consultations, I heard yesterday and today that your ministers are saying: "We didn't get the message through. What we're doing is right. No matter what happens, we're doing something right but we didn't get the message through."

The first thing I would urge you to do, with all the compassion I'm hearing from previous ministers coming in here with their budget, with their estimates, is to say, "We want to listen, we want to consult after all the chops and the cuts have taken place." I don't believe you when you say you're going to consult with everyone; I think you will consult. You haven't really consulted, in your area, with some of the home builders' associations and all that. They were right at your table very quickly to tell you where they want to go, because you're speaking their language. They saw a whole great stock out there that you manage and they said to you: "You're talking our language. We can take this over."

Let me tell you straight out, Mr Minister, that they will not build for the bottom end of the market. You said, "Put it in the hands of those people who will help." Your government brought in rent control in a very haphazard way and screwed it up royally. Furthermore, all those flips that went on were under your government -- the mismanagement that went on in dealing with the housing situation in this province.

1400

The Liberals came in and put in a rent control program. It was not in itself complete and not in itself effective. We went some distance, but I would say there were others that were not dealt with to completion in the rent control legislation.

The NDP came along and tried to correct certain things with it and tried to make it improve and, again, did not complete the job. It's not an easy thing. It's a very difficult task, having rents be controlled at the level where people can afford them and also taking into consideration that landlords or owners of properties can make some sort of profit. And I admit unacceptable was being done.

Regardless of that, your illustrations and the examples that you stated in your statement here do not, I would say, give the full story. They don't, because there are rents out there right now at the top end that, when landlords offer them, they can't get them. So you see, don't feel, "My God, if they could raise the rents, everybody would come in and rent those units and therefore they'd make a profit, so therefore they would build, so therefore they would fix the units." They won't. They won't do it, and you know that. They will not build if you lessen rent control. We will deal with that later on.

During your estimates, as the couple of hours pass by, there are many questions I will be asking you for some explanation on, but I want to go right back to, what is this all about? Let us find out about Housing and your mandate, if you understand the mandate of your ministry.

Minister, you had the summary here. I would read it for the record, but I don't need to. I'm sure that you're quite familiar with the mandate of your ministry. I'd like you to answer some of the questions as we go along. Do you believe in the mandate of what you took over as the Minister of Housing? If you differ in any respect, I'd like you to explain in more detail how you differ from the mandate of what the Minister of Housing should do. I said I wasn't going to read it all, but let me read from part just to remind you, because at some time I want to put you back into focus. Remember now, you, the Minister of Housing, should be the best friend of landlords and the best friend of tenants, all tenants and landlords. You should be the best friend there, seeking a balance.

Let me tell you something. You're a wonderful friend of the landlord, it seems now. You're an enemy of the tenants. Let me tell you why. You are the second-largest landlord in North America. You hold a lot of properties, so to speak, as the minister, and the fact is we could almost regard the Minister of Housing now as the largest slum landlord we have. The properties are in a terrible state and they are not being fixed. So let's deal with that aspect of you as a landlord.

As a landlord, you have failed. As a landlord, when I was there, I failed. As a landlord, as the Minister of Housing, as we go through, we fail. We have not brought decent and affordable housing to the people of this province, and we must fix that. So I commend you to looking with respect to fixing the rental housing aspect in our province.

The way you are going, though, I'm telling you, you're going to run into deep trouble. "The ministry supports the increased supply of affordable housing through a number of community-based, non-profit programs." You are saying, "We are not in the non-profit business." I wonder who is in the non-profit business. I presume the developers would be in the non-profit business, or not-for-profit business.

All through your statement what you told me is that the administration of these things was screwed up royally. It wasn't the tenants who were at fault. The fact is, in administering this huge stock, it's the administration of that which really went astray. Who suffered? The tenants.

What you have done is, you came in. I want you to put yourself in this situation. You've got a home and, all of a sudden, without any notice, the bank walks in. All our homes are owned by the bank in some respect, because we have to pay our mortgage; you may be fortunate enough to have paid off yours. The bank could have walked in one day and said, "We're going to sell it from under you." You said: "No. My home?" "Yes, we want to sell it." "Who are you going to sell it to? Without notice? I'm paying my rent." "We're selling it." What you have done is, you have sold the bricks and mortar, because you conceive that a home for those people is just bricks and mortar. It is their home and, all of a sudden, you're frightening the daylights out of them and saying, "We're going to sell all of those homes from under you." As a matter of fact, you throw some little things in and say, "We will give the offer to the tenants first." Before you do so, go and visit England and see what they have done in that situation, and who bought and where the rest of those properties that are not being sold yet are.

But you have decided to sell those homes from under those tenants, without notice, without consultation, disregarding any feeling of compassion at all for them to say: "I am thinking about that. Let's talk about it. Let's look at a different way." No consultation. You went in and cut the hands and feet from these people and then said, "We will talk now to see how you can walk." That's what this government has been doing constantly. They go in with a hatchet and they cut away. Then they would say, "Can we talk now?" How can people talk when they realize they don't even know if they have a home?

I have hundreds of people who have called, and I say hundreds, who are saying, "Will I have a home later on? Because I hear the minister is selling my home," or, "My landlord is saying he's getting out of the business." It's funny how this landlord has a lot of talk. The landlord was picking up my taxpayer's money and redistributing it in a very equitable manner. The landlord himself really, really didn't do a great job of managing it properly himself, even within his own administration. The contracts were done badly, overspending -- all this was happening, but you did not address that first to say: "Let me clean that up. Let me go in there and really clean that up and see if we can offer affordable housing to my tenants and see that it's decent and affordable." No, what you're going to do is sell it off. "We're going to put you into the hopes and the hands of the private sector, which is much more concerned about you than we are as government."

You should really start thinking about that. Let me tell you, they are not as concerned and will not be as concerned as governments. That's our job. We were elected because we found that we wanted to deliver a fair system to people, and there are certain things that we have to be into. I agree with you, there are many things that we're in that as a government we shouldn't be in, but if we leave it all to the hands of the private sector, the first thing, like your Premier and you are talking about, is the bottom line, about cutting costs and about making a profit.

You are not in this business to make a profit. I'll say that again: Government is not in business to make a profit. Government of course must run it in a very manageable way and not be wasteful. Therefore, there's nothing wrong in running a housing business to make sure it's affordable for those people.

You said if we have rent control, what will happen is, they will not build. First, you know what they will do? Yes, I think maybe they will. They will start at the top end of the market. They must find how much money they can get for those who can afford it more and maybe start building $300,000 or $400,000 homes; or rental units at a certain level, one-bedrooms maybe, at $800, $900. Then, when they have saturated that part of it all, they will maybe build some cheaper ones, cheaper in the sense of no extras, and maybe build for those in the market of $800 and $700.

Let me ask you, when are they going to build for those who can't afford it, who can only afford $500 or $600? You said, "Of course, we will make shelter allowances." It's very interesting that you say "shelter allowances." What you're doing in itself is like any businessperson, as you said. You want a buyer. So you're going to strip yourself of all of the things around before you can get a buyer. They will come and look at your buildings and say, "We don't need that administration. Get rid of those," so you fire all those people.

What you will have is a fire sale. You'll have a fire sale and they will say, "I'll buy the building for $1.5 million," when it's worth $5 million. You'll say, "Take it off our hands." You're going to have a real fire sale and sell off those buildings themselves. If you were a good landlord in the first instance, if you wanted to sell, you would be getting good money for your property. But we weren't administering the buildings properly.

1410

I was at a meeting the other day and MTHA, the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, was there. What happened was that they were complaining that $7 million was being cut from their budget. They were telling these tenants and then hoped they would have gotten applause, hoping for support to get some more money back. A tenant responded this way: "I'm very happy that they cut you. They should have cut you $20 million or more." The place became very silent because the fact is, here was supposedly a supporter telling them. "You have been cut, your budget, and we want more from the minister," because the idea by your government is that all these people need is "want, want, more, more, spend, spend." The tenant was saying, "Don't spend any more." They asked her why she said that. She said: "I've lived in this building for the last 15 years. In the last two years, my window was fixed five times. It didn't need any fixing, but it was fixed five times. The carpet was changed many times when it didn't need changing." Then guess who is punished today because you're saying it can't be run properly. Guess who is punished. The tenant is going to be punished on this. Because the government could not run this administration in a very efficient and effective way, the tenant now will be punished.

What more? What are you going to do? You're going to offer these wonderful buildings to these new owners without rent control. You're going to tinker around a little bit and then try to eliminate rent control, and as you do that you will have your shelter allowances, you said. But we know what you're going to do too. You have no compassion and no care for those tenants who cannot afford it. You will give a maximum shelter. You will come around, as you and your colleagues have done with the social services, and say: "That's the maximum you'll get. You go out and hustle and try to negotiate out there." Throw them to the wolves. "If you can't get a proper place, tough. That's what the real market is like."

Because many of the people who need to be subsidized, who are paying 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% of their disposal income on rent, are now going to find it more difficult. What you and your colleagues -- I'm going to ask you later on about your interministerial committee and who's on that -- have done is walked into the most vulnerable people who are paying a high percentage of their income in rent, taken away 21.6% of their income and said, "Go out there now." Some of those people are paying up to 90% or 95% of their income now in rent. You took away maybe $200 or so from them and said, "Go and fight out in the sea like anybody else."

So when you take away the rent control and then you give the subsidy allowance, what you've done is make sure you look after your buddies over there and then say: "Well, we have a building now. We are not conforming to the rules that we have. We have no rent control. Now we can charge what we want." You will see, sir, that some of those units will be shut down because as soon as they reach a level where they can pay their bills and make a profit, they will be very, very selective of who they get into those buildings. You will have vacancies that are shut away and they won't have it.

When the government handles these things they can make sure they can assess people for various needs and assist them to it. You said if you're subsidizing people instead of subsidizing bricks and mortar, they have much more flexibility in the system in which they can go wherever they want in order to apply for accommodation. You can still do that. You can still do that without selling it off and giving it off to the other people.

I know that in your consultation with the home builders' association, they were so ecstatic when you first called them and said: "Come on in. You've got a friend now." You told them in your speech, "Now, for the first time, you've got a friend." I never knew that they had an enemy in the NDP or an enemy in the Liberals.

Hon Mr Leach: They thought they had.

Mr Curling: No. They only thought they had an enemy in the NDP or the Liberals when they felt, "We want a free run of what we want to do," and the responsibility of government is to say, "Just wait one second, we have to balance this."

We also come as representatives of the people, who are tenants too, not only you as landlords, developers or owners. We also have to balance the interests of tenants and home buyers. So sure, you never did walk into tenants' groups and say, "You have a friend now." You didn't say that. As a matter of fact, not only that, you ran scared. You didn't even want to go back to your own riding to sit and talk to the tenants.

Hon Mr Leach: When was that?

Mr Curling: Well, there were meetings that they told me you didn't want to turn up. The fact is it tells me then, what is the news you have that you couldn't tell these tenants? When I was the Minister of Housing, sure I got criticism, lots of it, from tenants and from landlords and from owners, but I told them that one has to have that kind of a balance. That's why the job is tough, no easy job at all that you have, but if you do not come fair in this process, at the end of that day, sir, you will be asked to give an account of why you sold out all of those homes from under the people, why you cancelled non-profit housing.

Talking about that, I want to ask you later on too -- and I hope your staff can tell me. Of course they will have it. They are a quite efficient group of people, people I've worked with, some of the hardest-working groups of people, who are very scared now anyhow. They're not quite sure if they'll have a job tomorrow because of the threat that your government is also giving to the civil servants, putting them in great fear about where they're going and things.

You should tell me, in the cancellation of all of this non-profit housing, where you feel, "I'm going to save so much," what are the legal costs that you're encountering now? Many of the companies have called me and said, "I was just in the process of getting the bulldozer to dig and to do my stuff and start my development, and I've been cancelled." As you know, many people have repercussions down the line who have made commitments themselves. I don't think you were sensitive to them. Those are not landlords and tenants I'm talking about, I'm talking about builders. You were not sensitive to them, sir.

The non-profit groups who had contracted them -- at one stage I understand that you told them you had no contractual agreement with them. They had contractual agreements with the non-profit organizations, so you go and work it out with them. You know that non-profit organizations made a commitment on the good grace that you or the government would have followed through at least with their commitment. They did not do so.

How can we trust the government now that has come in and cannot carry on a commitment that one government had done? Because you don't like the looks of it all, you change it just overnight like that, and throw a whole lot of people into bankruptcy. Some of the people have come to me and said they are bankrupt, because they need money and they have to pay for all the commitments that they had, and you're telling them: "I had no contractual agreement with you. You go back to the non-profit organization."

Another area I would like to touch on is the building code. I have a lot of sympathy here for you. Mr Bisson said I must not be too kind to you, but this is a very, very difficult area in which you are walking. It needs changes badly. It's inconsistent in many, many ways. It restricts, of course, many of the builders who want to get on with it. You have so many levels of approvals, as you know. But I would caution you, sir, as you move into the building code, make sure the standards of homes are not lessened because of that.

The builders will encourage you to do so. They will even tell you things like, "If you can get those costs down, what we will do is pass on the savings to the owners." Watch it. Watch it, Mr Minister. None of those savings will ever come to those home owners. It's almost like the banks today. It took them a long time to realize nobody would borrow their money because nobody can afford it. Every day we have the great announcement of how interest rates are dropping. And they will drop more, I would say, because the people cannot take on the loans any more. They can't afford it.

So I'm saying to you, as we look at the building code, it needs a lot of adjustment and a lot of attention. It must be looked at carefully that we don't put the standard of our homes to be less. Of course, I'm not here to attack the NDP process when they had those intensifications with the homes, in the cities, there were repercussions to that. We have to think things through. Many of the things -- you may be sitting there, all the bureaucrats, or the civil servants -- they don't have to be called bureaucrats -- hardworking civil servants who are there doing their job. Sometimes they don't even have a chance to go home, so therefore they may not know -- even when they get home themselves, their kids and their wives forgot what they looked like, they're working so hard. In the meantime --

Hon Mr Leach: I used to be one.

1420

Mr Curling: In the community what is happening is that when we make laws and make changes, especially intensification, and realize that when you get home the wife would say, "The amount of cars that are parked around -- why?" You said, "Well, there are so many different people concentrated in one area." She said, "Who made that law?" "The government." She said, "How do they do that?" And you said, "We were advised by the bureaucrats, that this would be the way to go." And she realized that the husband himself is one of the bureaucrats. "Did you do that?" He came home at 11, or she'd be home at 11 or 12 at night and everything should have been much quieter. She'd had problems with the schools because of the crowdedness, and now you're doing different things with the schools, so you want to solve it in a different way.

The fact is that when we're making changes to the building code and any kind of -- the Planning Act -- be very careful, consult. This time I use the work very seriously because your government felt they had this little book called the Common Sense Revolution, "So we have consulted and 100% of the people told us we are going in the right direction." You weren't going in the right direction with Bill 26, you were going in the wrong direction. You weren't going in the right direction in some of the repercussions that are happening right now, although some of them are so ugly. The fact is you're going in the wrong direction. Talk to people, because any law that you change has repercussions individually with people. It's not the bottom line that we have saved so many million dollars, we're going to balance that budget regardless of what.

The estimates here were carefully done, sometimes misguided, because we are the Liberals and we felt that somehow they were spending too, and there were things we could have done better. But the people didn't choose that way, they thought you could have done it better. Now they have also made a mistake again, I would say, because if they have not, why are they protesting?

Interjections.

Mr Curling: Why are they protesting so loud? As a matter of fact, they're protesting so much I gather too, Mr Minister, every minister now has about two bodyguards. The fact is that --

Mr Rollins: As long as you've got me you don't need two of them.

Mr Curling: It is important that we are in touch with the people, not to patronize them in any way, but to be sensitive about their needs. I tell you, they don't believe you when you come this time, therefore you have to be more meaningful in your approach.

Sir, I'm putting you on notice that there are many questions I'd like to be answered in regard to how you handle the non-profit housing, how you handle the building code, how you deal with your partners in this kind of a business, to convince me how you will come back on stream in building confidence in the people you serve. It is very important, and as your government chisels away at some of the income that people have, and the fear people have that we're in one of the greatest recessions, you must answer me, why you decide to beat up on the poor and those who can hardly afford -- and that is what you are doing. Why are you taking away those homes and handing them to the private sector? I am extremely concerned. I don't want to live in a country, or a province, that does not show some sort of compassion. Government is about people; government is about understanding those people, understanding their needs and addressing those needs. Taking their money and redistributing in an equitable and fair manner for all people: private sector, if you want to call them the business, and the others.

If we don't do that -- we don't want to stray to the left and feel we should take all the money and throw it all to non-profit groups, while the private sector plays a very important role. We don't want ideology like yours that swings it all to the private sector and says: "Government is not in the business of doing homes. Government is not in business at all. Give it to the private sector. We'll sit back and watch it, or what we will do, we'll disarm the opposition" -- disarming the opposition by taking away all the regulations and laws that make you accountable in the House, make you accountable in the courts -- and then say: "We can govern. We can govern in any way we can because we're not accountable."

Those are some of the things I'll be asking you in another couple of hours. I wish you well and hope that the bureaucrats or civil servants have made some sort of note and see what direction I'll be going.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling. Before I turn to Mr Bisson, I want to notify people in the committee that we received a call from the Minister of Transportation who wanted something to be made clear. He did not mean when he said in the House that you should use your cellular phone in your car on the highways, that you should use them in committee room. So I will remind you not to have cellular phones in the room, otherwise the clerk will have my head. Please don't have your cellular phones in operation while we're in committee.

Mr Bisson: Maybe we can give the cellular phone to the minister, and the clerk can have the minister's head. Clearly, we're allowed to do that.

Where do I start, Minister? I am just amazed, listening to the statement that you just made here today before this committee, in regard to what your views are and, I take it, what your government's views are, both in regard to housing policy and in regard to rent control. No big secret -- everybody I think expects us to be in opposition to each other on this issue, not because I'm a member of an opposition party and you're the member of the government. Quite frankly, I fundamentally disagree wholeheartedly with the majority of what you had to say in there, not to say that things never could be made better. I think we can all make apple-pie arguments about how we need to better manage government just as we always try to better manage our businesses. I think that's something we should all be striving for, both in the private and public sectors.

But some of your comments -- I wonder, is it rhetoric or do you really believe it? Sometimes I really have to shake my head.

I've got to say that the one honest thing you did when becoming Minister of Housing is that you got a chance to go to the Ontario municipal association annual meeting. I was there to listen to your speech, and at the beginning of your speech you said, "You know, the Premier appointed me as the Minister of Housing and I can't figure out why, because everything I know about housing could be fitted at the end of the pin." I think you're right. It's a pretty dull, darned small pin, and I think it shows fairly well in your understanding of housing issues and your understanding of what the dichotomy is between tenants and landlords. I think you really demonstrate just how true those comments were.

We'll just start from there, and we're going to get into specific questions later, but this 30 minutes is my opportunity to respond to your report. I will just go through point by point of what you said, so I can put on the record where you're coming from.

This whole notion that non-profit and co-op housing is a good idea gone bad is really misleading to the people of the province of Ontario. Yes, you can make an argument that when we came to government there were problems in the Ministry of Housing, and you can also make arguments, quite frankly, Minister, there are still problems; and I will make arguments after you leave four years from now that there are still problems, because you can always make it better. But to try to leave the impression that the reason we need to get at non-profit housing and co-op housing is because it's a badly managed system that we'll never be able to get a handle on and that it's somehow a big sink-hole of money going to some bad use of public funds, I think is really a statement that is amazing that is being made by a Minister of Housing and by a member of the government.

I think we would have learned through the time of Bill Davis to where we are now that there are reasons why this province undertook public housing policy, and that is, quite frankly, the private sector was not filling the gap in certain areas. Your own reports from within your own ministry point to this, along with everything that private developers have been saying for years. I'll get into that in a lot more detail, but there are far more problems that are holding up the construction in new apartment buildings than some of the things that you mentioned in your statements here today, and we're going to get into that in some detail. But to try to leave people with the impression that we need to go away from a policy that we've adopted in this province for some years now that had been followed to one degree or another by three different parties that have been in government over the last 10 or 15 years I think is really unfortunate, because you would think in government the one thing that we would learn as legislators is that we try to build on the good that has been done by others.

1430

If you come to government after me and you say, "I think it could be done better, and I can build on that," well, you know, we may have our political arguments, but in the end the public is better served if you're trying to better what we're doing. If you came to government and you said, "I don't want to do public housing to the extent that you did it as a New Democratic government" or to the extent that the Liberals did, we might argue about the degree. But for you to come here and say you don't believe in public housing at all and you want to sell it off, is basically what you're saying, and everything that has happened over the past 20 years was wrong, Jeez, it leaves me just shaking my head, because it goes against everything we've done over the past years.

First of all, all of those darned buildings that were built under the non-profit and co-op housing initiatives were built by the private sector. These are private-sector contractors who bid on jobs based on tenders that were put out either by the Ministry of Housing or by some proponent of a project, according to standards set out by the ministry, that were later audited. It was private-sector developers and private-sector jobs that build them; it's not the public sector that did it. The public sector put forward the money.

Yes, there were some problems. I'm sure that you, as minister, and I, as a former member of the government, can point to specific examples of where there were some inappropriate actions on the part of a contractor or on the part of a developer or on the part of a person who ran one of these units. But you and I know, Minister, you cannot stand up here in this committee today and say that the public sector does it all wrong and the private sector is good, because we well know there are all kinds of examples in the private sector where developers, quite frankly, have made a fiasco of managing building projects and apartment buildings.

Some very renowned people in our business community -- the Campeaus, for one; we all know what happened to the Campeau empire and what happened through his doing, the stuff that we've seen at Canary Wharf, what happened with Bramalea, what happened at Cadillac Fairview. There are all kinds of examples of where the private sector moved in and did investment and tried to do what they thought was the right thing, but for all kinds of reasons, leading from everything from mismanagement up to fraud -- it happened in the private sector as well.

For you as a minister to come here and to try to insinuate that because a project is put forward by the public sector it's fraught with all kinds of problems that cannot be addressed in a public sector system and we've got to put it all into the private sector because they know best, they're smarter than the rest, I'm sorry, that just don't cut it. The reality is that there are good public-sector-managed projects in this province. There are a whole bunch of them that you can point to that have been managed quite well, thank you very much, Minister. I think for you to come to this committee and insinuate that flies in the face of all the work those people have been doing for the past number of years in trying to fairly manage the dollars of the taxpayers of Ontario and provide housing to the people of this province according to provincial policy. I think, Minister, quite frankly, you owe them an apology.

To insinuate that the private sector can do it better, listen, I think there are all kinds of examples in the private sector where they're not exactly spot on when it comes to how they manage projects. I can probably go to a number of Ontario institutions called jails where I can find some people who actually got locked up for some of their activities in the private sector, as I would in the public sector. So let's put that to rest right up front. There are plenty of examples on both sides.

If you want to come to me and you want to argue as a government, "We want to restructure the way that we do it, and we want to find new partnerships where the private sector will play a different kind of a role but the government will still have a real say about how we develop housing projects and there's still room for the non-profit sector and we'll still be moving in that direction," I'm prepared to have that discussion with you, and I'm sure that the people of Ontario are equally prepared to have that discussion. But to say we're going to do one in exclusion of the other, I think, is wrong. For you to insinuate that the private sector hasn't been able to build all because of bad government policies, I think, flies in the face of everything that's happened.

In fact, I sometimes wonder, as I think a lot of people in this province wonder, where you people have been for the last 10 or 15 years. You seem to have this impression that there has been no investment in the province of Ontario over the last 10 years because bad old Mr Peterson and the Liberals from 1985-90 and that Mr Rae from 1990-95, they just stood at the border of Ontario and they said: "Hold that investment. We don't want it no more."

Excuse me, the reality is that there have been record levels of investment in this province under Liberal administrations and under NDP administration because of good, sound government policy. I think it's pretty damn arrogant for you guys to come in here and to try to insinuate that. If you want to build on the good, I'm prepared to do it with you, but don't come in with that attitude that you've been having.

You alluded to the problems within the Ministry of Housing in your summation to this committee, about how the auditor had pointed to all kinds of problems within the Ministry of Housing and about how it is an example of why we need to get rid of non-profit housing.

Again, I would say, "Yeah, we came to government, there were some problems in the non-profit housing sector." But the auditor himself acknowledged, after he first tabled those problems that he identified through the process of the audit that they did at the Ministry of Housing, that our government after that point worked very hard to address a lot of the problems, because we agreed. There were problems. And I would agree there probably are still some problems now. But to try to cite the reason of the auditor as a reason that we should do away with non-profit housing policy in this province I think is trying to find a crutch where none exists, to put it quite bluntly.

I want to get into the whole question of what happens in the construction industry. I've heard you on a number of occasions talk about the barriers to investment in the development of new apartment buildings and housing projects in this province. In one argument you argue that is a reason not to get into non-profit, but more in light with rent control to make the argument that people are just not investing in brand-new buildings because of rent control.

You know as well as I do, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Rent control is probably one of the least reasons that investors will not invest in a brand-new building, because you know as well as I do that market conditions will dictate what a rent is. If I go out and build a brand-new apartment building today, I've got a five-year provision under current rent control legislation that says I can set the rent according to what the market'll bear. That's the law and that's how it's written and I've got five years to do it.

So if the whole problem is that nobody wants to build a brand-new apartment building because they're not able to charge the rent, you should go out there and just ring the bells of investment, because people have had that right under rent control legislation ever since we changed it under the NDP government. You've got five years.

So what's the argument? The argument that you'll find -- and you talk to developers as I do, and I've got developers that are friends of mine, quite frankly, and are members of my riding association.

Mr Baird: Some of your best friends are developers.

Mr Bisson: No, I've got to say that. Some people will laugh, but I deal with a lot of people in my riding and I was quite active in the housing sector in my riding and across northeastern Ontario and got to meet a lot of people, before my time in government and since then, who work in the housing sector, and what the developers are telling me is the problem is how we tax apartment buildings. That's one of the big problems. We tax them at 280% of the rate that we'll tax a private building.

What are other problems? The fees that you have, and I will make an argument before Bill 20, and we'll get to that one later when we move on to Bill 20, I think those fees are necessary when it comes to development charges, because I think it's unfair to put all the development charges on top of the future taxpayer through their taxes. What the development charges do is put that charge directly into the mortgage. It's a question, do you want it in the mortgage or do you want it in the rent? But the argument of the landlords -- not that I agree with it, but they're saying, "One of the big problems I have is that if I go out and I build a new apartment unit with 100 apartments in it, it is not economical, and one of the reasons it's not economical is that all of the fees and permits I have to pay to build an apartment building on a $100,000 unit could be somewhere around the neighbourhood of $16,000, $18,000, depending on where you're building it." And when you're trying to recoup that through the mortgage of a 100-unit apartment building, that's a lot of money. That's what they argue to me about.

When I was in government, I never had anybody when I was in government, as a developer, come to me and say, "Gilles, I'm not building this unit because, you know, that rent control legislation is preventing me from building it." Alvin, did you ever have anybody argue that to you?

Mr Curling: No.

Mr Bisson: No. They came to my office, as they're going to yours and they're saying, "We're not building because we think there's a whole bunch of other issues out there." And the big reason is that the economics of building an apartment building in this province are such that it is not a profitable business for the developers to get in. Because by the time you purchase your land, the cost of construction, the cost of the material, the fees and permits that you pay, the taxes on the stuff that you have to pay, all of the regulation that's involved is what is making it uneconomical, and it's not the rent.

1440

If you were to take all that other stuff away, I would argue probably you would end up with a couple more units being built, probably more than a couple more. But it's not the rent control in itself, and to make the argument that we've got to get rid of rent control because somehow it prevents the development of new apartment buildings -- I've got to say, Minister, I disagree with you. I think you're going down a path, quite frankly, that's wrongheaded. I think it'll come back to haunt you. You recognize in your riding that 80% of your constituents are renters. What do you think they're going to tell you four years down the road when you get rid of rent control? They're going to say, "Hey-hey, ho-ho, bye, Al." That's what they're going to be saying. I have had the pleasure to meet with a number of people in your riding, and that's not to be partisan but because they do come to us. You've never been in opposition before. This is your first term. Like me, you were first elected to government, but people come to see us when they're not able to get what they want from the government. People in your own constituency are really worried about what you're doing because they recognize that there are instances out there -- and I won't argue that every landlord in the province, if you take rent control off, is going to jack the rents up, but I think a sufficient number will, if they get the opportunity, to the detriment of the tenants.

I have to ask myself one real simple question: If what prevents new apartment buildings from being built is not rent control, then why in heck do we have to get rid of it? I only can come to one conclusion. The Conservative government is playing special-interest politics. That's what they're playing. You're succumbing to the special interests of a very few people in our society who happen to be on the side of landlords and developers. I understand that. We all have our constituencies. You can sit there and argue with me, "You had your constituencies that came and lobbied you and you did things for them." I'll freely admit that.

But why don't you come clean? Why don't you stand here as Minister of Housing and tell me, "The reason I'm doing away with rent control is quite frankly because I have a lot of friends of mine in the development industry and the landlord business who want me to do it, and I am closely allied with them and ideologically I believe that tenants should pay more rent." If you did that, at least I would respect you for having the honesty of doing it, but to come in here and to try to prop up your argument with all of the weak arguments you're giving us in this summation that you gave us today, it irks me because it really is not, I think, a very honest way of doing things.

You and I over the years, as all members of this House have to work together, and I think one of the ways that we work best is when we're up front with each other. That's one thing I found in government: If I'm straight with the opposition, the opposition will be straight with me. But don't come in here playing; don't come in here trying to tell us that these are the arguments you have.

It makes me think of your colleague down the cabinet table, Mr Snobelen, who did a video when coming to government talking about having to invent a crisis in order to justify the changes that he wanted to make in the Ministry of Education and Training. I'll tell you something. I think that guy should have been kicked out of cabinet and you know what for? For divulging the secrets of this government. That's really what happened there. This guy was basically divulging what the discussion at cabinet was, which is, "We are going to create crises and, by those crises, we will be able to justify the changes that we want to make to Ontario policy to suit our ends and to suit our special interests that we represent as Conservatives in this province." That's really what's going on here, so don't come in here and tell me otherwise.

Yes, the government of Ontario has to pay a large sum of money in order to subsidize non-profit and co-op housing. That's a fact. That's in the auditor's report. Everybody knows that. If you want to get in here in a discussion and you want to work with the people of Ontario and with your members and with the opposition about how we make that more affordable, hey, I'm in there with you. I never resisted change. I was part of a government that did all kinds of changes and, in the end, my government paid for those changes because we did a whole bunch of things real fast and people weren't able to get used to it. I would say you're going to get the same problem.

The thing is, we need to understand why it is there is a Ministry of Housing in the first place. We have a Ministry of Housing and we have housing programs and we have rent control because it is a policy of the government that when we learned that when we didn't have those policies, tenants were in a position that was really untenable for tenants over the longer term. That's really what it's all about and it comes down to a very simple premise: Put your money where your mouth is. If you believe as a people that you have to be able to do non-profit housing in order to make sure that those people in society who are least able to get the income that they need in order to provide -- and we believe as a society it should be the right of every individual to make sure that they have a roof over their head at night and they've got a safe place to go in and they've got a place that they can raise their children that's clean, that's brightly lit and it's not in some dungy apartment somewhere, infested with cockroaches, that you pay $400 a month for, and we want to make sure kids aren't raised in that kind of environment, it's going to cost us dollars.

The debate becomes: Are we willing to pay the dollars or are we not? That's really what the debate is all about. I take it what you're saying is that you, as a government, believe you do not have to do that and that it should be strictly in the hands of the private sector and strictly in the hands of the tenants to fend for themselves. Let's get into that debate; it would be an interesting one.

I want to follow up on that point in regard to the shelter subsidy. We're going to get into this through the estimates a little bit later but, my God, here we are, you're saying we're spending $10,000 to subsidize the construction of new units in the non-profit co-op housing sector. In exchange what we're going to do is that we're going to provide a shelter subsidy that we're going to give to the tenant and then the tenant, he or she, is going to go out and say, "I've got this money from the government and I'm going to see somebody in the private sector and I'm going to go find an apartment."

We're going to be giving tax dollars to people to pass on to the landlord, and where's that money going to go? Do we get anything back in exchange as a province? We're not going to have any capital, no buildings or anything that we have as net worth at the end. All we're going to be doing is throwing money, through the tenant, directly to the landlord, and we've got nothing to show for it except for the policy of providing an apartment for somebody.

It begs a whole bunch of questions. What kinds of standards are you willing to put as a government to where the tenant can bring that subsidy? Are we going to be giving that money to the guy who runs the fleabag down on the corner that has cockroaches running around from one corner to the other? Is that whom we're going to subsidize? Are we going to be subsidizing people who have apartments who have some net worth to them? I wonder where that's going to go. Will there be any standards?

The other thing I wonder is, how much are you going to be giving? Somebody who is now living in a non-profit housing project, who's having their rent subsidized through the non-profit housing policies of this province, how much are you going to give them in a shelter allowance in exchange for them losing their apartment building when you privatize it? In some cases, we're paying -- at one particular unit, Kaleidoscope housing, for an example, in my riding, geared to income, I would be paying somewhere around $200, $250 a month of my welfare dollars into the project and the rest of it would be subsidized through the Ministry of Housing. Are you going to say that full amount between what they normally pay and what it actually costs for the unit will now be put in the hands of the individual and you're going to allow them to bring that into the private sector -- $700, $800, whatever it might be?

I don't think you're saying that. I think the shelter you're talking about is going to be a heck of a lot less. It's going to be a couple of hundred bucks at best if you're lucky. Yes, you should get worried when I bring stuff like that in. You're going to be giving people a couple of hundred dollars at the very most in a shelter subsidy and they're going to be out there fending for themselves trying to find an apartment somewhere, and it's going to mean the person who happens to be on FBA or GWA who's in a non-profit housing project or the working poor are going to end up paying more for their apartments. That's what it comes down to. And to boot, the gift is, "I ain't going to have no more rent control." I don't know, it really boggles my mind. We'll get into that one a little bit later.

The other thing you said, and I can't believe you said this, and I'm going to come back to this when we go through our presentations later, our questions, you said something to the effect that students pay as little as $32 a month to rent an apartment while they're going to school and that's not fair to the taxpayer. Are you serious? I'm not asking you to answer that right now. Really, we have made a decision, both the federal and provincial governments -- I take it you're talking about units that were built on campuses of colleges and universities -- no? Okay, we'll come back to that one later then. I'll leave that one alone for now. You shake your head to the negative, so I take it you're not jumping to the conclusion I thought you were jumping to.

I've got about 10 minutes left. Actually, I'd prefer at this point to get into questions. I've made the points I want to make. I still have a few minutes left. I've learned one thing in politics: When you finish saying what you've got to say, don't kill the next seven minutes, pass it on to the next one. I'll get to my questions later.

1450

Hon Mr Leach: My question, Mr Chairman, for the benefit of the committee: I had 10 minutes left on the clock, and could I use that 10 minutes to respond to the opening arguments?

Interjections.

The Acting Chair (Mr Michael A. Brown): We gave the minister half an hour to respond if he wishes? All right.

Mr Bisson: There's a half-hour block here. I thought it was 15-minute response?

The Acting Chair: If the minister's succinct, as we know by his opening statement, he won't need the half-hour, but we'll start with that, if that's the will of the committee.

Mr Bisson: Will it go 15-15 afterwards?

The Acting Chair: No, it will be half-hour rotations after that.

Mr Bisson: Sounds good.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and thank you, you two gentlemen. Quite seriously, nobody ever gets into government to do something bad. Every one of us comes into this business with the understanding that you're going to do something for your constituents; all of them, for that matter. Nobody intentionally says, "I think I'm going to run for office to go out there and see how much chaos I can cause."

Mr Bisson: You're doing a pretty good job.

Hon Mr Leach: Just think what we could do if we tried.

Mr Bisson: Can I use my seven minutes in jabs?

Hon Mr Leach: Interjected at 30-second intervals.

The Acting Chair: I think I've lost control here.

Hon Mr Leach: There are just a number of questions that arose from your response to my opening remarks and where we're going with OHC and the redevelopment and the privatization of Ontario Housing Corp. Mr Curling, I'd just like to ask, are you opposed to the redevelopment of Regent Park?

Mr Curling: Redevelopment?

Hon Mr Leach: Of Regent Park?

Mr Curling: I don't know your full plan. When you can tell me your plan --

Hon Mr Leach: Regent Park is probably -- well, it's the oldest OHC -- public housing complex in Canada.

Mr Curling: I know it.

Hon Mr Leach: It's close to 50 years old. It's pretty run down. There's a proposal that has been put forward now by that far-right leaning member of society, the former mayor of Toronto, to redevelop Regent Park using the private sector, turning the existing complex over to the private sector, having them redevelop it, maintaining the 163 units that are involved in the redevelopment for rent-geared-to-income people, providing opportunities for others to purchase, and changing the whole culture of the community to give people who are there some hope for the future.

That's one of the ways we're looking at redeveloping and turning the Ontario Housing Corp back into the private sector. It's a way to improve the lot of life for people who, quite frankly, have had a pretty tough haul over the last few years.

I think it's John Sewell, who is a member of your party --

Mr Bisson: I signed him up.

Mr Curling: A dreamer.

Hon Mr Leach: Well, you might call it a dream. I think it is a good dream as well, and it's a dream I hope comes true because it's a dream many people in Regent Park are trying to hold on to. That's what this government is trying to do. We're trying to give hope to some people that are out there.

By the way, I should clarify that this deal is a long way from being finalized, but I'm pleased with the progress to date. We would commit to ensure that the same number of people who are in rent-geared-to-income at the present time would still have the opportunity to do so there. It would be a mixed development which would fit right into the Cabbagetown atmosphere.

That's some of the things we're proposing to do.

Another thing you mentioned, and this is something I agree with you on, is that rent control could be done better. You must agree with that because you voted against the rent control proposals that were brought in by the previous government. We agree with you there. I think the rent control system could work better as well. It's just a matter of how we go about it. But I am glad you agree that it should be fixed.

Mr Curling: It should be improved.

Hon Mr Leach: It should be improved. It doesn't work. The one we have now doesn't work. That's what we're saying. The rent control system doesn't work. It should be fixed. I have said repeatedly that we're not going to do anything with the current flawed system until such time as we have a system that's going to provide better protection for tenants but I'm glad you agree that it has to be addressed.

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: The minister has the floor.

Interjection.

The Acting Chair: Not simultaneously.

Hon Mr Leach: He wants to use his 30-second little slots there, just drop them in.

One of the problems I have with the current system and the way the system has worked is that tens of thousands of people are on the waiting list, and have been there for years, through the full term of the previous Tory governments, of the Liberal government, of the NDP government, people who are paying 50%, 60%, 70% of their income for accommodation and get no help at all. Something has to be done with those. Why do we have a system that only responds to the luck of the draw? If you're lucky enough to be one of the people who gets to be able to get into a unit that's subsidized, then you're okay. If not, you can stay -- there have been people on the waiting list for years -- years.

Mr Bisson: It's not a draw. It's a point system. There's a hell of a difference between a draw and a point system.

Hon Mr Leach: What happens to those people who --

Interjection: Buy a lottery ticket.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. Every time they just about get the brass ring, bang, in comes somebody else who says, "Back to the bottom of the list." What happens when you choose to move when you're on a waiting list? You happen to have a unit in downtown Toronto but you want to perhaps go out to Peel to be closer to friends or relatives. You have to go on to another waiting list and maybe wait another 10 years before you get something. This system doesn't work. Quite frankly, I hope the three of us have an opportunity to sit down and try and develop a system that does work, because this one doesn't. That's all we're saying. This one doesn't work. We've tried it. We put it in. You made changes to it. The NDP made further changes to it. I think we have to admit, collectively, this doesn't work, so from there.

Somebody mentioned meeting with tenants. I've met with tenants' groups. I made a commitment with the federation of Metropolitan Toronto tenants months ago that every time I met with representatives from the landlords' groups I would meet with them one on one. If I meet with landlords' groups, I'll meet with tenants' groups. That's the commitment I made to them. Phone him. Ask him. His name's Hank.

You made the point about big developers making a lot of mistakes as well as the people in the co-ops. You've got to be careful. I'm not knocking the co-op sponsors because, as I think I mentioned in my remarks, they're well-intentioned. There are a lot of church groups, there are a lot of other groups. What they lacked was experience. They didn't know what the hell they were getting into. They were stumbling from one crisis to another crisis. It's not that anybody went in with any intent to do something wrong; they just didn't know what they were doing and, quite frankly, some of them were taken advantage of. That's where the problem arose. The other major difference between the big developers like the Bramaleas and so forth is it's taxpayers' money that went into the co-op program.

Mr Bisson: Where did they get the money from?

Hon Mr Leach: Probably shareholders.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Leach: But that's done by choice. It's done by choice. Nobody came and asked me if I wanted to subsidize $10,000 a year for every co-op. Well, they did ask me. I said no, and that's how I got elected.

Does the name Ataratiri ring a bell? If you want to talk about mismanagement, we just had to write off $340 million on a plan that was just fired out. "Let's do something good. We'll go out and spend a couple of hundred million bucks." What happened? It ended up putting thousands of people out of work. It's got a whole section of the community in my riding that's just sitting there dormant. Not a thought was given to what the implications were of doing all that. Probably the worst land deal that was made in the history of man, except for maybe Manhattan, but it comes close.

You agree, I think, and I agree again with you, that rent control alone -- you're going to be surprised at how many things we do agree on. Changing the Rent Control Act alone is not going to stimulate new rental stock. I agree with that. For example, I can't understand why on apartment construction you pay 7% tax and on a condo you pay 4%. It doesn't make any sense. That's got to be fixed. There are any number of things. Development charges is another good example.

1500

There are a whole pile of things in the Rental Housing Protection Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act as well, little things, not huge things. There are many, many good things in those pieces of legislation, but there are other things that directly inhibit the people in the building business from going back in. That's all we want to do.

I think you have to admit that we've got a problem, and I'm using the city of Toronto as an example, where you've got thousands more tenants coming in every year and no more buildings going up. No wonder there's a zero vacancy rate, or almost. There haven't been any new apartments built, or very, very few, in the last 20 years. What are these people going to do? If we're going to give tenants a choice of types of accommodation, we have to find some way to entice the private sector back into the building business. I agree, rent control is just one of the issues. I think on page 17 of my remarks, if you note, I said that. It is one of the barriers. It is not the total barrier, but it is one and it's one that's going to have to be addressed.

I touched on this point before. One that really bothers me the most is the people who are on the waiting list, because I get calls from them. As Minister of Housing -- and Mr Curling would know this, I'm sure -- when you're Minister of Housing people in your riding think that you can snap your finger and solve that big problem of being on a waiting list for years.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Leach: Well, maybe the Liberals used to juggle with the lists, but we don't.

It's really one of the most difficult things I have to deal with, when I get somebody who comes in who's paying well in excess of 50% of their total income in rent and has been on a waiting list for four years, who really needs help. They say: "Can you help me? What can I do?" You say: "Where are you now? I can find out where you are in the list. You're 7,012." Something has to be done to fix that program, and I think we're all going to agree on that.

Shelter subsidies I believe is an opportunity to do that, to be able to, say, give a subsidy to an individual so you can say, if you're living in Toronto now and you want to move out to Peel or you want to move out to Scarborough to be closer to your family, or whatever, you can do that. You're not in a position where you're stuck in a unit because you've got a subsidized unit and if you leave that unit, you're out in the cold. You're back on another waiting list for another 10 years. What does that do? Something's wrong with that system. That has to be fixed.

The co-ops: You mentioned that if we do a subsidy like that, what does the taxpayer get back? The taxpayer right now is going to spend billions in subsidy -- $856 million, I believe the number is, or $852 million a year in subsidy for co-op housing, and at the end of 35 years, what does the taxpayer get for that? I'll tell you what he gets. He gets zip. He gets nothing. The building, the whole complex ends up in the ownership of the co-op. The taxpayers have spent $10,000 a year for 35 years on average and get zip. There's something wrong with that program. There's something wrong with that one.

You mentioned that they pay $270 a month on what is $1,000 rent, from the numbers you were kicking around there, something like that. Right now the taxpayers pay 70% of the operating costs of a co-op.

Mr Curling: Who's a taxpayer?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm one, everybody in this room is one.

Mr Curling: The same one who's renting pays for the taxpayer.

Hon Mr Leach: So you're saying that a select favourite few should get handed $10,000 a year in subsidy. A select few should get $10,000 a year in subsidy while there are tens of thousands of others waiting on a waiting list who get zip, get nothing, and have been there for years. Is that fair?

Mr Curling: Everybody's a taxpayer, I'm trying to say.

Hon Mr Leach: Those people on the waiting lists are taxpayers too. Those people who are paying 50% of their salaries for shelter are taxpayers and they get no help, while others who can make a large income -- people in co-ops are not restricted to the level of income. You can have somebody living in a co-op who can make any amount of money.

Mr Curling: They pay market rent.

Hon Mr Leach: Get a life. Come on, get real here. Market rent in a co-op bears no relationship to the operating cost -- none. The operating cost on average for a co-op is $1,250. The average rent is about $800; $350 to a guy who could be making $100,000 a year. He's still going to get the advantage of that $10,000-per-unit subsidy, while those other guys who are making minimum wage, on a waiting list, have been waiting years. And you think that's a system that works? Well, I don't.

So I'm quite prepared to get into this debate, I'm quite prepared to get into the answers on this program, but I'm also quite prepared to sit and work with you, because I think we're all going to agree in the end that there's a better way to do this. There has to be a better way to do this and it's our obligation, as members of this Legislature, to find it. That's what this process is all about.

The Acting Chair: We'll start the rotation with the official opposition, Mr Curling, for half an hour.

Mr Curling: Minister, your arguments don't really wash and I'll prove to you that they don't wash. First, you consistently tell me that the government is awful people who have mismanaged the operation of non-profit housing or the housing business that they are in. They mismanaged it terribly, and you intend to fix it all up and then give it to the private sector. Wouldn't it make sense if you cleaned up your act and kept it? By cleaning up your act, you'd reduce all overhead expenses and then you'd be able to run it efficiently.

You tell me that somebody who's making -- well, you didn't use a figure -- a high income and is in a co-op, and you tell me the operating expense is high. Is it the fault of the tenant that your operating expense is high or is it the inefficiency of the administration? The fact is that the person in the co-op who is paying $1,200, for instance -- if they're at market rent -- for a two-bedroom or three-bedroom can go across the road in the private sector and rent for the same amount in the private sector. You're saying, "Oh, we have a higher cost." Then get real, we've said to you and your administration, clean that up and don't blame the bad management on the tenant and don't beat up those who are paying market rent. You know the concept, why they are paying market rent in the co-op. There are others who are subsidized. So don't tell me that I must get real, or get a life, or what you attempted to say. I know what life is out there on that.

Do you think the government is running the non-profit housing business efficiently?

Hon Mr Leach: No, the government wasn't running non-profit housing efficiently and that's why we wanted to get out of it. But I'm glad you agree that we have to start working efficiently and we have to cut costs, because that's what our economic statement on November 29 said, that we have to start working efficiently and we have to cut costs.

Mr Curling: But why are you blaming --

Hon Mr Leach: Let me answer the question. You started talking about economic rent and market rent. The average market rent, what is classed as market rent, is about $750 to $800. It bears no relationship to the operating cost of the co-op. The operating cost, the economic rent, is about $1,150. The balance of taxpayers, including all the people who are on the waiting list looking for help, are subsidizing that, and that's not right.

1510

Mr Curling: As I said, you're going to clean that up --

Hon Mr Leach: We are -- we did. We stopped it. We stopped the boondoggle.

Mr Curling: -- and then you're going to give it to the private sector, when in the meantime you could have made that --

Mr Bisson: Alvin, he's missing the point here.

Mr Curling: Yes, right.

Hon Mr Leach: I'm trying to figure out what the point is.

Mr Curling: The incompetence of your staff or incompetence of the organization is being blamed on the tenants. That's what you're doing in saying that those people shouldn't be there, they should go to the private sector. I will leave that point and maybe it will sink in to you a bit later on.

I want to go to a very current happening -- and I won't touch Regent Park yet. I will come to that and I have my views about that. Homelessness: It is said that there are about 20,000 people outside there in the streets who are homeless. What responsibility do you take for that?

Hon Mr Leach: I don't think all the homeless people, the unfortunate people who are out there, have come in the last 24 hours. But I can tell you one of the things that would help them: If they had a shelter allowance system that would give them the ability to move around and find places for accommodation, it would be a big help.

Mr Curling: I'm going to bring you back in focus, Minister. This is the idea: I want you to understand the constituency that you serve. Those homeless people are not the type of homeless people I'm talking about, who need accommodation and can't find a rental unit.

Hon Mr Leach: Are we talking about the estimates of the Ministry of Housing or are we talking about the responsibilities of the Minister of Community and Social Services?

Mr Curling: We're talking about the estimates of the Ministry of Housing and how you handle this wonderful, big, huge budget to address the needs of people who need homes, who are homeless in every way, and this huge staff you've got here, the millions of dollars you're going to spend on getting affordable housing to people. That's what I'm speaking about, how you spend that money. I'm asking you first, before I ask you in other detail, about what responsibility you take in the sense that 20,000 people are homeless out there, and you're telling me you're going to give them subsidy and maybe they'll find accommodation out there. That was your response: Shelter allowance will solve that.

Hon Mr Leach: It would go a lot further than anything either of the two previous governments did, I can tell you that.

Mr Curling: Wonderful. I see them walking around with cheques in their pocket and saying, "We'll find accommodation."

Hon Mr Leach: Well, having the ability to be able to pay some rent or having nothing; let me give that option to them and see which one they choose. You gave them nothing. We're at least willing to look at a policy that would assist them.

Mr Bisson: Al, lighten up.

Interjections.

The Acting Chair: Order. Mr Curling has the floor.

Mr Curling: The solution to the homeless then, we'll have to wait until --

Mr Bisson: Get all the people in Regent Park to take a cheque.

The Acting Chair: You'll have your opportunity, Mr Bisson.

Mr Curling: If that's the case now, when do you see some of those people out there, some of them who are dying on the streets because there's no place to go --

Mrs Ross: Oh, come on.

Mr Curling: They're not dying?

Hon Mr Leach: This is really a stretch.

Mr Curling: I was trying to make the point that some people are dying on the street because --

Mr Baird: Did they die when you were minister?

The Acting Chair: This works a lot better if we have one person speak at a time.

Mr Curling: Minister, just to kind of ease the ire of your colleagues in your party, they die whether it is NDP, they die whether it's Liberals, they die whether it's Conservatives, so don't get antsy. People are dying on the street because they are homeless, and I'm asking you as the minister, what are you doing? How do these estimates, the spending, address that kind of need there?

Hon Mr Leach: Actually, what you're looking at are estimates that were put forward by the previous government, but what we're going to do that's going to improve upon that is that we're in the process of developing a policy for people with special needs. And believe me, I've got a little bit of knowledge about this because we have more people with special needs in my particular riding probably than any other riding in Ontario, special needs for the hard-to-house, special needs for people with problems recovering from alcohol, special needs of people who have mental problems.

That's the kind of program we want to develop. We want to develop a special-needs housing program that would provide assistance for people who fall into those categories, and that's under development by the ministry staff at the present time.

Mr Curling: You're thinking about this, so you'll want to do consultation. You have no plan right now?

Hon Mr Leach: Oh, you don't want us to have consultation with anybody? Is that what I heard you say? We shouldn't consult with anybody before we adopt this plan?

Mr Curling: I said you have no plans now.

Hon Mr Leach: I said we're developing plans, but I think we would like an opportunity to go out and get input into what we're developing to make sure that it fits the needs of people. We want to talk to the people who serve people with special needs.

Mr Curling: I want you to consult, of course. I don't think I believe you will consult, but I want you to consult, because all of a sudden consultation is a role of this government now.

Hon Mr Leach: I thought you just wanted us to implement our plan.

Mr Curling: No. I just asked you what plans you have in place. You said you wanted to consult. That's your plan.

Hon Mr Leach: I said we were developing a policy. It's under way at the present time. We're meeting and consulting with people who are involved with people with special needs, and we'll do that. When we find out the best way and method in a very short period of time of what that should be, we will implement it -- something that hasn't been done for the last 10 years.

Mr Curling: It looks like there are 10 years where nothing happened, not a thing at all.

Hon Mr Leach: Lots happened; not very much right, but lots happened.

Mr Curling: All of a sudden nothing has been done in the last 10 years.

Could you tell me about your interministerial committee? What are the other ministries that work with you? Is there an interministerial committee that sits down and works out some of your strategies of how you're going to address the needs of your mandate, affordable housing and non-profit homes that are being built?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes.

Mr Curling: Who are they? What do they do?

Hon Mr Leach: It's a subcommittee of P and P, policy and priorities.

Mr Curling: Yes, but who are they?

Hon Mr Leach: Who are they? Snobelen, Tsubouchi, Elizabeth Witmer and myself.

Mr Curling: You're not quite sure which ones.

Hon Mr Leach: I just told you which ones. You should start to listen more, Alvin.

Mr Curling: I'm going to listen keenly now. You tell me again, because maybe I wasn't. I just want to know which ministries and who the ministers are that are the interministerial committee. I heard you say Snobelen; you grumbled about Snobelen, and you grumbled about Witmer. Who else? I don't hear Wilson or Health; I don't hear Comsoc.

Hon Mr Leach: Tsubouchi. There's a group that is involved in the social side of policy development that is a subcommittee that works closely together to ensure that all ministries in government have input into policies that are developed.

Mr Curling: I'll tell you, Minister, why I'm getting more concerned. To deliver affordable housing and to get to your philosophy, which we all want to do, so that we don't address bricks and mortar, we must work very closely. I'm sure you must be working very closely with the other ministries -- the very thought that you sit down and you face them so often -- that you could easily say, "The ministry or the ministers and I who sit down daily to combat and to deliver affordable housing to the homeless, to those in need are: the Minister of Community and Social Services, and we work on that aspect of it; the Minister of Health, so we work on that aspect of it." That's what I wanted to know. You say to me Snobelen. What role does the Minister of Education and Training play in housing, then?

Hon Mr Leach: You don't think that education has a large part to play in housing policies?

Mr Curling: Minister, I'm the one who asks the question.

Hon Mr Leach: I can tell you right now that my firm belief is that education is one of the largest components of a housing policy: where schools are located, what types of schools, for whom, where, how far apart?

Mr Curling: So Transportation is there too? You've got to have roads to go to the homes.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, sure, Transportation is a part. We don't exclude anybody from the consultation process. But there are certain ministries that have a closer relationship to social issues than others, and Education and Training is certainly one of them.

Mr Curling: So your interministerial committee has the Minister of Education and Training; the Minister of Community and Social Services, you said, Mr Tsubouchi I heard; and what other ministry again?

Hon Mr Leach: It's a subcommittee of the policy and priorities board.

1520

Mr Curling: But I really need to write them down because we want to address the problem of housing and affordable housing. I want to make sure that we carry out the mandate you're given. So you have Education and Training, you have Labour. Who else do you have?

Hon Mr Leach: Leach, Witmer, Tsubouchi, Snobelen; I think that was it. It's a subcommittee of policy and priorities on social issues.

Mr Curling: Yes, I know that. I know it's social issues. "Social issues" is rather general.

Hon Mr Leach: If there is a need, you can request other cabinet ministers to get involved. We also bring parliamentary assistants into the process.

Mr Curling: So you don't have an interministerial committee that you sit and meet with regularly? Like when those people died on the streets because they're homeless, you would address that with your monthly meeting or your quarterly meeting with the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health, because some of the ex-psychiatric people may be straying on the road, who has a home, to sort of see that things are coordinated. You don't have that?

Hon Mr Leach: That's what this does.

Mr Curling: I seem not to get an answer out of you that way.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't know how many times I have to tell you that we have a subcommittee of the policy and priorities board that is responsible for social services.

Mr Curling: I will leave that, Minister. I will then put down that you don't know.

Hon Mr Leach: I'll put down that you don't understand.

Mr Curling: Put it that way too, Mr Minister. When you've told me -- I don't understand what you're saying.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't think so either.

Mr Curling: Let's go back to Regent Park. Is the policy paper out on what you're going to do with Regent Park, the direction you're going to go? Is that up for consultation now or is this being done? Is it a done deal?

Hon Mr Leach: It's not a done deal. There is a paper that has been published to the community and all of the interested parties. It's a public document. It was put together by what I'll refer to as the Sewell group. They've been meeting since last September. They've held I think 15 public meetings. They printed their submission in about five different languages. It outlines the various options. It also outlines the various tasks that have to be carried out in the future. It's quite an interesting concept.

Mr Curling: So the document, you said before, has been handed to you as the minister now and you went off consulting, or it is something --

Hon Mr Leach: It hasn't been presented to me as minister, as of yet. It's been presented to the community. It's been discussed or is in the process of being discussed with the city of Toronto, which has been involved from a planning standpoint. It has been discussed with the Ontario Housing Corp. I have had several meetings with the participants, including the residents' groups, to keep track of the progress and it's proceeding quite nicely.

Mr Curling: So I don't misunderstand, as you feel that I don't get it all the time: When you started doing your statement you said, would I disagree with the Regent Park program? So would I get it that you agree with what they're doing?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, I think the concept has a great deal in favour of it. It's a way to redevelop a social housing project by involving the private sector and the residents, ensuring that there is accommodation for those who need it while integrating it with the balance of society.

Mr Curling: Will it still be a social housing project when you decide to sell off Regent Park?

Hon Mr Leach: One of the commitments is that there has to be a one-for-one rent-geared-to-income unit for every one that is replaced. This will give an opportunity to people in Regent Park to redevelop that community, integrate it with society, very much like many of the neighbourhoods in Cabbagetown, for example, where you have very expensive $300,000, $400,000 and $500,000 units next door to rent-geared-to-income units. So here's an opportunity to take a social housing project that has outlived its useful life pretty well and redevelop it for the benefit of all society.

Mr Curling: Will you be selling off Regent Park to the private sector?

Hon Mr Leach: This is a redevelopment project that involves the private sector. The details of who would own the land, who would own the buildings, are being discussed now with the four major players: the developers themselves; the federal government, CMHC; OHC; and the city of Toronto. All of the players, all of the various levels of municipal government are involved, the tenants are involved and the developers are involved.

Mr Curling: Will the government of Ontario have an interest of investment money in it?

Hon Mr Leach: Right now the Ontario Housing Corp is the owner of the buildings.

Mr Curling: I know that. After this new plan is completed, will the Ontario government have shares?

Hon Mr Leach: That's yet to be determined. As I said, negotiations are ongoing with all the various levels of government. We have to find out what the position of the federal government is; we have to find out what the position of the local government is; we have to take a look at what changes in infrastructure are required for streets and services and sewers and so forth. That is all under way at the present time. The government of Ontario is a player in that game and we're at the table, and I'm glad we are.

Mr Curling: Are you prepared to own shares, the government of Ontario?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said, those details haven't been finalized as of yet. If there are ways and means of the individuals involved, all with ownership, let's see what happens, but let's go to the table. It's called consultation.

Mr Curling: So it's not done yet. I just want to understand it, because sometimes I get the impression that the deal is already done when you say you disagree. You have explained that there will be consultation, and I just want to know what role the government will be playing in it, whether it would have investment and be owning some aspect of it. How do you see the tenants owning this? I heard a statement that you will give the tenants the first choice to purchase. Is that one of the options being considered?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. I think tenants should have an opportunity to purchase if they so choose. That would be their option, and I think they should have the opportunity. I don't think that opportunity should be denied to them.

Mr Curling: Will they be asked to pay a deposit? Some people will not be able to come up with a deposit, I'm sure. What kind of process do you see them participating in in paying down and buying into this project?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said earlier, none of the details is worked out, but I want to assure you that we're going to give tenants the opportunity to purchase if they choose to. If they're in a position where they cannot purchase, then we've also indicated that we're going to ensure that there are rent-geared-to-income units on a one-to-one basis for each one that's being replaced.

Mr Curling: So the rent-geared-to-income would be the government owning some of that and the tenants who can't buy will be renting from the government again.

Hon Mr Leach: The rent-geared-to-income could work with shelter allowances.

The Acting Chair (Mr John R. Baird): Mr Curling, could we ask you just to move into the mike so that Hansard can get you.

Mr Curling: I thought I had a booming voice. They say I can boom over everything. I'm sorry.

Is the concept that you're going to do for Regent Park the same concept you're going to do for the other units you have that are owned by the Ontario Housing Corp?

Hon Mr Leach: It's certainly one that could be explored. I think it's got a lot of merit. This is a good opportunity to see how well this would work, where the benefits are, where the problems are. It's being looked at and reviewed by all of the tenants' associations to make sure that people who live in social housing at the present time in Regent Park understand and appreciate what the changes mean for them. We're giving everybody an opportunity to have a part to play and a piece to say in redeveloping their community.

1530

Mr Curling: So after you sell off Regent Park to some tenants who can afford it and the private sector who really is able to afford it, you will move to do the rest of the Ontario Housing units in the same way.

Hon Mr Leach: By doing that, what we've said in this particular redevelopment proposal is that we will ensure that there are the same number of subsidized units, rent-geared-to-income units, when the development is completed as there are now. So there won't be anybody who has a rent-geared-to-income unit now who wouldn't have an opportunity to have one in the future.

Mr Curling: The reason that I'm asking you those questions in a bit more detail -- and I respect the fact, as you said, that your program will have some consultation, you haven't formulated a strategy -- you have scared the dickens out of your tenants out there.

Hon Mr Leach: No, I haven't; others have.

Mr Curling: You have, your statements have, and you have to own up to that.

Mr Preston: It's a misinterpretation of his statement.

Hon Mr Leach: Others have.

Mr Curling: No, you told them that you're going to rid of rent control and then when you're pushed to that extent, you say, "Well, we've got to find something that is fair." People were phoning --

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Curling, I think the very first question that you asked me in the Legislature is, "What are you going to do about rent control," and I said that we were going to get rid of it but we weren't going to do anything with it until such time as we had something that worked better.

Mr Rollins: Right.

Mr Curling: Let me tell you something. As I --

Hon Mr Leach: You have a very selective memory.

Mr Curling: No. You said that, of course. There is no selective memory in this regard. I want to note about your selective memory that during the campaign you said you would certainly not get rid of rent control, it was so sacred, rent control.

Hon Mr Leach: Are you talking about the blue one? Get the blue flyer. Is that the one you're going to produce?

Mr Curling: No, no. This guy, would you sell a car to -- no. The Common Sense Revolution book where you talk about your rent control. I'm saying that you're saying --

Hon Mr Leach: I don't think there's anything in there about rent controls.

The Vice-Chair: Can you move up, Minister? We can't quite get you.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes.

Mr Curling: They want you. Your voice is escaping from the mike.

At one stage they got the impression that they would not get rid of rent control. The question I asked in the House is to make it plain, because I say there are people outside there who are concerned about you musing around the place afterwards talking about getting rid of rent control. That's what was the view. When I asked you, you said you intend to look at rent control, and you won't do it until you replace it with some other means that are -- I'm paraphrasing what you said.

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Curling, you just agreed not more than 20 minutes ago that the rent control system doesn't work and that it should be fixed.

Mr Bisson: It's okay, he's a Liberal, he can do that.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order.

Hon Mr Leach: I asked you a very deliberate question: Do you think the rent control system should be improved? You said it should be improved. It doesn't work; we've got to fix it. So we're in agreement on this issue.

Mr Curling: I'm always tolerant to those on the left who will give away everything and don't have accountability, and on the right who say we don't want to be in government, we'll give it to the private sector. We ourselves are saying there is a balance that can be done here, protection.

Hon Mr Leach: That's right. Again, I agree with you. There is a way to balance the system to ensure that tenants are protected and that there are incentives to get the private sector back into the building business. You have to have that balance.

Mr Curling: Spoken like a true Liberal.

Mr Baird: Unparliamentary language.

Mr Curling: I said, Mr Minister, and Mr Chairman, the reason why I go through that in that detail is because people are concerned out there. They feel that you have not been a friend to them; they feel betrayed by the minister, who should be supportive of and protecting their home; and they feel it's going to be sold off. That is why I go into detail of when you're going to do this. That is why I go into detail that, are you going to have some sort of rent control? The reason I say that, you remember when we were in power too, we played with the name of it. We didn't call it rent control; we called it rent review so that people could be able to maybe don't get panicked about all of this left wing -- like we only protected tenants and not the landlords.

I understand, and that's why in detail I wanted to say that people are very anxious out there. There are many seniors who fear what they're hearing, their homes are going to go very quickly, and where are they going to go?

Hon Mr Leach: Again, that's why we're in agreement. I think we both agree that there's a need for additional housing stock. Now what we have to do is find the way to create that. You know, tenants don't get out there and build it. They need the private sector builders to do it. The private sector has to have the incentives to do that. There are many clauses in existing legislation that prohibit them from doing that, and what we want to do is develop a program that is going to provide benefits and protection to tenants while encouraging the private sector to build; and we will do that.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you, Mr Curling. Your time has elapsed. Mr Bisson.

Mr Bisson: Let's go back a bit. Why don't we start with new unit developments in the non-profit or co-op housing.

You make the statement, and you did it in your opening summation and you did it in your response to both the opposition critics and then again in the exchange that you just had with my colleague from the Liberal Party, the Housing critic, and you made the statement that non-profit and co-op housing is unfair because the actual market value rent of the co-op doesn't reflect adequately the cost that it really does cost to provide that unit. You used the example, and I agree with you, somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $800 a month that I would pay on a rent-geared-to-income unit and the actual cost is somewhere around $1,100. Right?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. It's in that neighbourhood.

Mr Bisson: And your argument is that that shows inadequacy. That shows that the system is not fair.

Hon Mr Leach: That's true. It provides subsidies for a select group regardless of financial circumstance, when there are many others in society who need help and can't get it. That's the unfairness part.

Mr Bisson: Okay. All right. Put on your developer's hat.

Hon Mr Leach: Never took it off.

Mr Bisson: You're going to go out and get a piece of property -- eh?

Hon Mr Leach: Never took it off.

Mr Bisson: Never -- that's an admission. Where's the Hansard? We need that one. Say that again.

All right, put your developer's hat on; you never took your developer's hat off. Now just turn the corner and be a developer for a second. You got a piece of property, you're going to develop it, you're going to put an 100-unit apartment building on it, the same kind of standards that exist today in regard to building standards as what a co-op would have to go through. What would you have to charge on a 25-year mortgage in order to be able to bear out the cost of that unit? What would be the rent having to charge?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. We've had this conversation before, and that's why I said there's more than one issue that has to be addressed to get the cost of building down. Don't compare the cost of building a co-op --

Mr Bisson: No, no, but this is the whole point, Minister. Hold it a second, here.

Hon Mr Leach: The whole point is --

Mr Bisson: No, no, this is the whole point. Hang on. I ask the questions and you answer.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, but you won't let me answer.

The Vice-Chair: Order.

Hon Mr Leach: First of all, you let me answer the questions. You said, "Put your developer hat on, and tell me how you would go about that."

Mr Bisson: And the question is, how much would you have to charge for each of those units in order to recoup your cost?

Hon Mr Leach: Under the existing legislation that's out there and under the policies that are there now, I don't think that you could build a unit that you could rent at a reasonable rent. That's why the legislation that's presently there has to change. That's why you have to get rid of the 7% tax and development charges and so forth that are detrimental to the building of these --

Mr Bisson: You know and I know that if you go out and build an 100-unit apartment building in the city of Toronto or in Timmins and you charge the rent that is necessary for you to recoup the cost of building that unit, paying all the development charges, paying the 280% tax you would have to pay in municipal taxes to cover the cost of tax, all of that, you'd have to charge somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $1,100 a month.

1540

Hon Mr Leach: Yes.

Mr Bisson: All right?

Hon Mr Leach: I agree.

Mr Bisson: And that's what it's costing --

Hon Mr Leach: Again we agree.

Mr Bisson: No, no, but that's the point. That's what it's costing the co-op in the actual costs of that unit, and the point is that the argument you make is a facetious one. Wouldn't you agree?

Hon Mr Leach: No, I wouldn't agree. I wouldn't, no.

Mr Bisson: Because what the $1,100 reflects --

Hon Mr Leach: You ask me if I agree and then you never give me an opportunity to answer.

Mr Bisson: No, hold it a second. Let me finish --

Hon Mr Leach: You ask questions; I answer.

Mr Bisson: Let me finish asking the question and then you get a chance to answer.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Bisson, order.

Mr Bisson: No, I haven't finished asking my question.

The Vice-Chair: We're going to have to be a little more concerned about allowing somebody to answer a question --

Mr Bisson: I haven't finished asking my question.

The Vice-Chair: -- and allowing somebody to ask a question.

Mr Bisson: I haven't finished asking my question.

The Vice-Chair: We need to do that. Otherwise, Hansard will get it all confused -- more than it already is.

Mr Bisson: It's very simple. I will say I'm finished asking the question and then you can answer it. How's that?

Hon Mr Leach: Okay.

Mr Bisson: The point I'm getting at is that --

Hon Mr Leach: Let me know when you finish.

Mr Bisson: The point is simply this: You go out and you build an apartment building with 100 units in it. The cost of building that whole unit and charging back what you need in your rents would dictate that you have to pay somewhere about the same cost as what would be the actual cost on a co-op. There's no difference.

But the point I'm trying to get at here is that you're saying the difference between the market value of what's charged, which is a subsidy that we pay through the Ministry of Housing to the market value rent, because there's a policy there -- and we'll get into that a little bit later, why we do that. We do pay the difference. But you can't come in here and start arguing it's because it's non-profit and it's because of the co-op and they are somehow adding the cost from the $700 to the $1,100, because you and I know the actual cost reflects what the actual cost of building is. It has nothing to do with the subsidy that we pay.

So the question I'm asking you is simply this here: If you were to go out and to build a unit out somewhere in Toronto, wouldn't you have to charge about the same amount of money as the full cost, the actual audited cost, would be of a co-op here in Toronto?

Hon Mr Leach: It would be close, but it wouldn't be the same.

Mr Preston: He didn't say he was finished yet.

Mr Bisson: I'm finished. Thank you. I appreciate that, Peter.

Hon Mr Leach: It would be close, but it's not a good comparable, because the standards that have been built in, the regulations for building co-ops, are far higher than they are for the private sector on energy. Energy features, for example, are mandatory in co-ops. There's a number of other standards that are compulsory to be included in a co-op construction which drive up the cost.

Now, taking that out, I agree with you the cost to build a rental unit right now is too high, and I'm saying --

Mr Bisson: All right.

Hon Mr Leach: I'm not -- remember the rule.

Mr Bisson: Go ahead, finish.

Hon Mr Leach: You ask; I answer.

Mr Bisson: Yes, you finish answering.

Hon Mr Leach: Okay. What has to change is that you have to take steps to reduce the costs of building new rental stock. There are a number of things I have mentioned previously: the difference in the tax rates, for example, the different not just property tax rate but construction costs, from 7% to 4%. If we can move to correct these inequities in building rental stock, we'll entice the private sector back into doing it.

Mr Bisson: But the problem I've got in what you're doing here is that you're trying to mix in development issues, issues that you as a government and you as a minister are trying to address. You're saying, and your position of your government is, there are all kinds of issues that face developers, that are typical to developers, that add to the cost of building an apartment building.

Let me finish. Whoa. Let me finish.

Your argument is that you have to address a whole bunch of issues around development of new units in the province of Ontario in order to make it competitive for the private sector to build. That's your argument, and those are development issues.

But you can't come into this committee and you can't stand here, as the Minister of Housing, and tell me that somehow, because market value rent is $750 a month in a co-op, or $800, where the actual value cost is about $1,100, and try to build the impression that the difference somehow is the cost of the co-op, where you and I know full well it's an actual development cost and if that was a private sector development the rent would be $1,100.

The difference is, and you know, that we have made a policy in this province that says in co-ops we want to be able to provide mixed housing, and one of the things we will do is that we will provide mixed housing at what we consider to be the market value -- and there are formulas by which you come to what the market value is in the rest of the community -- to attract tenants who are higher-income tenants in with lower-income tenants and we pay a price for that. That's part of the policy that was developed.

I guess where I've got the problem is that I'm saying if you want to address the question, if you want to address the difference of the $300 in the co-op and you're saying that's the problem and that's the reason why we have to get rid of public sector housing and pay for private sector, because co-ops cost more, you can deal with that through the development issues that need to be addressed, according to your own words, and you don't have to get into selling off all to the private sector.

Hon Mr Leach: That's exactly what we've been saying. Get rid of those inequities and then you wouldn't need the billions of dollars in government subsidy. If you can eliminate those inequities in the high cost of putting up a building, then you're not going to need the subsidy for those who don't need it. We're subsidizing people who don't need subsidy.

Mr Bisson: But I don't know how to put it any plainer. The problem is that you're trying to mix into this -- I'll let the deputy explain it to you here, all right? The problem that you're getting into --

Hon Mr Leach: You wouldn't want to hear what she had to say.

Mr Bisson: No, I will because I know she's a good deputy and she wants to give you --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Maybe I do. Anyway, the problem I have in your approach is -- and we'll talk just about the non-profit stuff and keep rent control out of it for now -- if you were to come to me and say, "We have a policy by which we want to make non-profit housing more affordable for the government and the taxpayers, and we want to find a way to increase the efficiencies about how they're run and make building costs cheaper so that the private sector can compete head to head with the non-profit housing projects and where appropriate the non-profits will go on and where not appropriate the public sector will go on," I think we can have that discussion.

Hon Mr Leach: Well, maybe we can have that discussion.

Mr Bisson: No, you're coming to the people of this province through your job as the Minister of Housing and you're trying to use all the examples that you can that fit your argument about why you need to get rid of public sector housing. What I'm saying is, you're being dishonest to us and you're being dishonest to the people of this province in trying to make people buy the argument --

The Vice-Chair: Order. That's not an acceptable word to use. It's unparliamentary.

Mr Bisson: There's nothing unparliamentary about saying it's a dishonest approach; I didn't say he was dishonest. I would never infer the motive that the minister is dishonest.

Mr Curling: Confused.

Mr Bisson: Confused. The point is that you're trying to lump all of these issues together as the crux of the argument to support doing away with non-profit housing. I just want to put on the record, just before we get to the next question, that quite frankly, you're using it strictly in order to prop up your argument. The example that you use about the co-op being unfair is a facetious argument, at best. Wouldn't you say?

Hon Mr Leach: No.

Mr Bisson: Then come back to me and explain to me how that's unfair. Explain your logic.

Hon Mr Leach: I think it's unfair to provide in excess of $10,000 subsidy per unit to every unit in a co-op when you have individuals who are living in that co-op who may not require any subsidy. I think that's unfair to the general taxpayer. I think it's unfair to the people who are on waiting lists looking for shelter assistance. I think that's unfair --

Mr Bisson: No, no, one issue at a time. Don't mix them all up. We're talking about --

Hon Mr Leach: You said, "Why is the subsidy to a co-op unfair?" They're the reasons why it's unfair.

Mr Bisson: No, no, we're talking about people who are paying market value. Okay? You explain to me your logic how it's unfair that they're living there at $800 a month when you and I know that the actual cost is $1,100. You explain to me the unfairness of that on the market value.

Hon Mr Leach: Let me make sure that I understand your question.

Mr Bisson: You better.

Hon Mr Leach: You're saying that the operating cost is about $1,100 a month.

Mr Bisson: Yes.

Hon Mr Leach: The guy's paying $750 a month.

Mr Bisson: Market value.

Hon Mr Leach: He could be making $100,000 a year.

Mr Bisson: Or $50,000.

Hon Mr Leach: But we're going to subsidize him anyway.

Mr Bisson: That's right.

Hon Mr Leach: You consider that to be fair and you don't consider it's fair that we look at a proposal to provide assistance to those who don't get any subsidy?

Mr Bisson: But then the point is, what you're saying is that you don't believe in mixed housing.

Hon Mr Leach: No, I believe in mixed housing, but I think that the person who is there who can afford to pay the actual operating cost of his unit should pay the actual operating cost of the unit, not ride on the backs of the taxpayer for $10,000 a year regardless of what he makes.

Mr Bisson: Do you agree that in housing projects, either private or public sector, in this province we should take a mixed housing approach?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, I do, and that's exactly what we're looking at in the redevelopment of Regent Park -- exactly that.

1550

Mr Bisson: We know already that the new units are not being built because they're not economical. That's the issue. If I go out and build 100 units next to the co-op and I charge the full actual cost, I would have to charge $1,100 a month to get that rent back. The point is that in building the co-op we've set in place a policy that says we'll pay the difference, because if you charge the $1,100, everybody else's rent, buildings that were built before under lower costs, is $750 or $800. So how would you attract somebody into that co-op housing development if you charge $1,100? That's why we pay the subsidy.

Hon Mr Leach: I think the light's starting to come on for you.

Mr Bisson: They've been off with you for a long time.

Hon Mr Leach: What we're doing, what I've been saying for about the last hour, is you have to get rid of the inequities that drive the cost up to $1,100.

Mr Bisson: No, no, you're not answering my question.

Hon Mr Leach: I pointed out a number of the inequities that are there.

Mr Bisson: We'll come to development charges later. What we're talking about --

Hon Mr Leach: I'm talking about other inequities that are there. I'm talking about the property tax assessment, I'm talking about the tax on building materials. Get rid of those inequities and get the price down so that --

Mr Bisson: I said I recognize what the government is doing. The question I have for you is simply this: If you charge the actual cost of the co-op unit apartment price, the $1,100, would any mixed housing occur in that unit?

Hon Mr Leach: It's quite possible that it could. Why couldn't it?

Mr Bisson: This is the point you don't seem to understand, that the units that the co-op is competing with are units that were built in the past under costs that were a hell of a lot lower and the rents are set at $750 or $800 a month. If I can get the same unit down the road at a 10-year-old building at $750 a month and I'm going to pay $1,100 in a market value co-op, where the hell do you think I'm going to live?

Hon Mr Leach: I know a couple of people who were on the taxpayer payroll, making about $60,000 a year apiece, who chose to live in a co-op.

Mr Bisson: What's wrong with that.

Hon Mr Leach: Getting the subsidy, having the taxpayers subsidize them by about $10,000.

Mr Bisson: But the point is, what you're failing to realize is -- and this is what bugs me about this; talk to your ministry people and have them brief you -- there is a policy in the province of Ontario, by the Ministry of Housing, a decision that was made that we wanted to encourage mixed housing in co-ops. That's what we wanted to do. You agree; you're nodding to the affirmative.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes.

Mr Bisson: To do that, if you had to charge the full cost of building that unit, you wouldn't be able to attract the people in because the rent would be $1,100 a month, but that's the same cost that you would have if it was a private sector development. You follow?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. That's why I'm saying, let's get the cost of putting that building up down.

Mr Bisson: But then why do you have to bail out of the non-profit housing project to make that happen? Deal with the development charges; don't deal with selling off the non-profits.

Hon Mr Leach: No, because the co-op housing project, as I said at the very beginning, was a good idea that just didn't work. It was filled with so much inefficiency, so much waste, it just got totally out of control. You had sponsor groups in there that went in with the absolute best of intentions to help people in their communities, and it turned into an absolute shamble, into a real boondoggle. The auditor's report is there. It's not our report; it's his report.

Mr Bisson: No, it's our report.

Hon Mr Leach: Hundreds of pages that just point out, time and time again, why this program was a mess.

Mr Bisson: You're repeating your lines, and I can't believe that you actually believe what you're saying.

Hon Mr Leach: I believe what the Provincial Auditor tells me, whether you do or not.

Mr Bisson: No, no, listen. I really don't know what to think of you any more. I thought you were a lot brighter than that. It's $1,100 a month to build that unit. That's what the actual cost is, right?

Hon Mr Leach: Let's get the cost down. Think of that.

Mr Bisson: One argument at a time. The problem is that you're not following the logic of this. It's $1,100 a month for the market value unit, for the co-op, right? Build it by the private sector. How much would that unit cost the renter? It would be $1,100. So the co-op didn't cost more money to build because it was a co-op; the cost is a reflection of the actual development charges and everything else. what I'm saying to you is that the reason that we're paying that subsidy, the difference of the $300, or whatever it might be, is because we chose as a province that we wanted to have mixed housing. To be able to be in sync with all those other units that are out in the market that were built 10 to 15 years ago, you have to provide that subsidy. You, as minister, should know that.

Hon Mr Leach: I think the very first words I said when we started this debate were that the cost of co-op units are higher than private sector units because of standards that are placed on the development of co-op units. That drives the cost up quite a bit.

Mr Bisson: Let's move this ahead. Let's go to that issue. Are you then saying, as the Minister of Housing, that you want to build units that are of a lesser quality and lesser standards for the renters of this province?

Hon Mr Leach: The standards that are put into co-ops should be the same standards that apply to all buildings in Ontario. Whether it's private sector or social housing or whatever, you should have a set of standards that apply to that building, not gold-plated.

Mr Bisson: All right, but are you saying that the private sector should meet the standards of the co-op or the co-op should drop down to the standards of the private sector?

Hon Mr Leach: I think that the building code should apply to construction and that all units of construction should fall under the same set of rules. I think you would agree that there are many conditions in co-op housing that would be looked upon as somewhat extravagant if you were doing it in your own home, for example.

Mr Bisson: So what you're saying is -- and I want just a yes or a no -- drop the standards for the non-profits down, if you were to do it today, to the current standard of what the private sector has to meet, the same standard.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes.

Mr Bisson: Don't you recognize that one of the reasons there's a higher standard in co-ops and in non-profits is because the Ministry of Housing, through policy of the Ontario government, wanted to make sure that we take the lead in certain areas to develop the attitude that is necessary so that we can have a vehicle by which to show us examples of changing the standards in buildings in this province? Accessibility?

Hon Mr Leach: That was a really smart move, because what you did was drive the cost of construction out of sight so that nobody can afford to build it, and if they did build it, nobody could afford to rent it. That's what you did by putting in gold-plated standards. I mean, you just drove the cost of construction up and then you stand back and say: "My goodness, nobody is building anything. What a surprise."

Mr Bisson: I'm amazed how little you know about your ministry. I'm really amazed. You know absolutely nothing about housing. You weren't kidding; that's the scary part.

Hon Mr Leach: I originally thought you knew what you were talking about, but it didn't take long to --

Mr Bisson: No. First of all, the standards that are in place for building private sector housing developments are standards that have been set in place over a period of years, that weren't all put in place by the bad old NDP government. It's stuff that has evolved over the years. But the point that I'm trying to make here is that we set a higher standard in co-ops and in all non-profits because we said, "We don't want to put more onerous controls than we need to in the private sector when it comes to building units."

Let me give you an example. When it comes to accessibility, we have certain standards that we meet that are higher than what you would meet in the private sector when building co-ops, because we say we want to show what could happen in regard to trying to do good developments when it comes to dealing with accessibility questions. So we try the standards out within the co-ops to see if they work or they don't work. In some cases they worked -- in most cases I would argue they did -- and in some cases they didn't. But then we can look at that and the experiences that we learned as examples of what we need to do in the private sector's standards. That's how we developed the standards for building in this province. That's one of the ways. Don't you recognize that's part of what was the policy?

Hon Mr Leach: I think the way that we would do that is we would consult with the disabled community, as was done when the standards for accessibility were put into the building code. Now, are you sitting there telling me that you think there should be better standards for co-op housing than there are in the building code? Is that what you're telling me?

Mr Bisson: What I'm saying is that I recognize that what we've done with co-ops and non-profits is that we've allowed them to be built with tougher standards in order to learn from the experience of those standards about how they apply and how they work once they're in place. Then we take those lessons that we learned and we put them into the private sector standards. That's what it's all about.

Hon Mr Leach: If it's a lesson learned, then it was a bad lesson, because what we learned --

Mr Bisson: Oh, my God.

Hon Mr Leach: -- was that we drove the cost of co-op housing up to a point where we now have got the taxpayers in for a billion dollars a year in subsidies, $10,000 a unit.

Mr Bisson: Did you guys brief this guy, or what?

Hon Mr Leach: You think that's a good policy, to drive the costs up so that it's so expensive that we can't afford to build any more? Is that a good idea? That's what you're saying.

Mr Bisson: No, that's not what I'm saying. You don't really understand, do you? You don't understand. Why don't you just say, "I was right at the Ontario municipal association, and what I know about housing could fit at the end of a pin." Say it again, Al.

Hon Mr Leach: It would be more than you know.

Interjection: Got you.

Mr Bisson: We'll see who got who when. It's amazing that you really have no grasp or understanding of the policies of your ministry. Have you been briefed?

Hon Mr Leach: Give me a break.

Mr Bisson: No, I'm asking you the question. Have you been briefed?

Hon Mr Leach: You're asking questions; I'm giving you answers. You obviously don't understand what the hell you're talking about.

Mr Bisson: No, you have no clue.

Hon Mr Leach: The policies of your government drove the cost of co-op housing out of sight, to the point where the taxpayer could not afford it.

Mr Bisson: No, no. We are talking at this point --

Hon Mr Leach: I'm answering.

The Vice-Chair: Order. I'm not one to stand in the way of a good debate, but this is descending into a non-debate and more of a personal squabble, so I will try to restore some order.

Mr Bisson: I'll try to be nice. I really don't come in here wanting to be combative with you, but it amazes me, the approach you're taking coming in here.

Mr Baird: He can't help himself.

Mr Bisson: No, seriously. We were here at estimates a little while ago. Your minister decided that he was going to do the best he could to deal with responding to questions to Community and Social Services. As long as people are trying to answer questions, you do the best you can on this side. It's amazing.

1600

Shelter subsidies: Do you have any idea how much you expect the budget to be on shelter subsidies when you bring in your system of favouring private sector landlords?

Hon Mr Leach: Actually, we're developing the policy now. We're looking at a pilot project, for one, for some of the most needy, that we might be in a position to introduce later this year. A full-scale shelter assistance program is going to depend on a lot of things. It's going to depend on what happens with the feds and the CMHC, where we go with subsidies that come from the federal government. There are a lot of issues that have to be taken into consideration and clarified before you can develop a full-fledged shelter program. We're working on it. There's a whole lot of additional information that we require. Hopefully we'll have something out on it within the year.

Mr Bisson: Do you have an idea how much you'd be looking at? If you're spending a billion bucks a year now basically on subsidizing non-profits --

Hon Mr Leach: That's a billion we can't get out of.

Mr Bisson: No, you're spending about a billion bucks a year now to pay for the subsidies on non-profit co-ops in Ontario housing. How much do you expect to pay in shelter allowances? Do you have any kind of idea? What is it currently now? How much are we paying in direct subsidy to landlords now?

Hon Mr Leach: It's $2.5 billion.

Mr Bisson: It's $2.5 billion?

Mr David Burns: The shelter component of social assistance at the moment is around $2 billion a year out of that spending envelope. The part of the spending on the social housing programs, which is a bit over $1 billion a year gross, that is, effectively the rent subsidy portion, is around $700 million of that number. Looking at it another way, the social housing program is organized in three parts, and we've mainly been talking about the non-profit co-op part here. There is the part that supports Ontario Housing Corp, and then there are a number of rent supplement programs which I think you may be alluding to. Rent supplement programs, some of them, support RGI units in non-profits and some in the private sector. The private sector unit total is 16,000 dwellings. But that's not a portable shelter allowance, that's in effect a very close cousin of non-profit co-op housing, because we're still providing subsidies through a unit.

Mr Bisson: To fill the need that's out there, with the current levels of vacancy we're seeing here now, do you have any kind of a ballpark? What kind of pressure will be put on that part of the budget going up when it comes to paying the subsidy directly to the landlord through your shelter subsidy?

Hon Mr Leach: They're working on the shelter subsidy policy now. A lot of issues have to be addressed and information provided by others before we can --

Mr Bisson: But surely you have an idea.

Hon Mr Leach: Well, it depends. If the feds continue to support the program --

Mr Bisson: No, that's not my argument.

Hon Mr Leach: -- if they take it off the units and put it into shelter subsidy in the same amount -- it depends.

Mr Bisson: Mr Leach, I understand that. I understand you're affected by constraints of how much the feds have and, quite frankly, by your own constraints. That's not the argument. You must have an idea going into this. If you're moving from one policy direction in Ontario in housing in favour of a shelter subsidy, you must have a ballpark idea of how much that would cost you in the worst-case scenario if everybody has to get into the program? Is it $1 billion, $1.5 billion, $2 billion, $3 billion?

Mr Curling: More money or less money?

Mr Bisson: Or is it going to cost us less money? Is that your argument?

Hon Mr Leach: As I said, we're working on developing that program. Ballpark numbers are --

Mr Curling: More or less.

Mr Bisson: So you don't know. You'll be bringing that back.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes.

Mr Bisson: Do you have any idea of what kind of criteria you're going to be setting, who can qualify for that? You make the example about how the person who's trying to get into non-profit housing is on a list for ever and ever, and we'll get to that one a little bit later. Do you have any idea what the criteria will be? Will it be income tested? Will it be socioeconomic issues? How are you going to determine who gets a subsidy?

Hon Mr Leach: My view would be that it would be very similar to the process that you would adhere to to get on a social housing list now. If you qualify for a social housing unit --

Mr Bisson: It would be income testing on a point list of some type, weighted somehow.

Hon Mr Leach: It is weighted.

Mr Bisson: All right. Would you expect the amount of money you would have to give to the individual tenant going out to look for the apartment or pay for the apartment they've found would be a similar amount to what you're now having to pay through the non-profit and co-op programs? My geared-to-income rent is $250 a month. The actual cost, like you say, is $1,100 a month. The government pays the difference either in direct subsidy or indirect subsidy. Are you going to be giving somebody $900 a month?

Hon Mr Leach: I think the average cost of a unit in OHC is a whole lot less than $1,100.

Mr Bisson: Yes, they are older. I agree with you there.

Hon Mr Leach: I think it will depend on what part of the province you're from and everything else.

Mr Bisson: Well, let me try it the other way --

The Vice-Chair: No, I'm sorry.

Mr Bisson: Okay, we'll come back to it later.

Mr Rollins: Are you just getting a coffee, Al? Okay, one of the questions I'd like to know, to the deputy --

Mr Bisson: The minister won't deal with his own caucus, eh?

The Vice-Chair: Why don't we take a short break for 10 minutes?

Mr Curling: Tell them it's five minutes so they'll come back.

Mr Preston: Make it 10 minutes. Take five off my first question.

The Vice-Chair: Any more? I think everybody needs a 10-minute break.

The committee recessed from 1607 to 1619.

The Vice-Chair: We can carry on. Mr Rollins.

Mr Rollins: To the minister and probably to your deputy, the average rent that the majority of the co-ops pay, per se -- and I know it just has to be an average for the whole province -- what would that be?

Hon Mr Leach: I think the average rent paid is about $350, but I'll go to the deputy.

Mr Burns: I think that's for people who are paying on an RGI basis, but I know our staff here have the data. I'd invite the person who's got the summary numbers, Dino Chiesa, who's the acting assistant deputy minister for housing operations, and in front of him is a great long sheet of numbers that have to do with the program.

Mr Dino Chiesa: The average rent in a co-op and non-profit is about $387. That's including the market and subsidized rents, so the average revenue per unit is about $387. The average market rent's about $750.

Mr Rollins: So that totals up to give you a cost per unit of approximately, adding that on to your $10,000-plus a year, somewhere around $14,000 a unit income, where you put that income along with the cost to the government, going together?

Mr Chiesa: Yes, the average economic cost is about $1,200 a unit a month.

Mr Rollins: Then that's $387 taken off that $1,200?

Mr Chiesa: Right. The $1,200 is the average economic. If you take off the $387 you get an approximate subsidy of $820 per unit per month, times 12 gives you roughly a $10,000 subsidy.

Mr Rollins: Those figures need to be pointed out because with that kind of a subsidy that we as the province of Ontario subsidize, many people who have houses, mortgages and the whole thing are not paying anywhere near that. I know there's a difference between having a house and paying a mortgage and that thing, but that's one of the perceptions that people in Ontario don't realize -- that's a real support on the part of the minister and our government. Those figures are extremely high for the cost of being able to put subsidized housing into the operation. In hard, cold numbers, you could walk out on the street and give a person a $700 or an $800 cheque a month and say, "Hey, go and find your own place to live," and we, as the province, would be a lot better off.

Mr Curling said he was very upset. He thought that maybe if we got out of the complete control, there would be a whole lot of construction, housing starts, and some people would build some houses that would be allowed to rent at some high prices. That's what free enterprise is all about. Let's get those houses being built and create some jobs. That's what this government's about. Yet you don't seem to think we should be able to go ahead and change the rules so that we can let private enterprise start and build houses again.

Mr Bisson: No, that's not we're saying.

Mr Rollins: That's a fact of life, what is happening. Those things need to be addressed to make sure those people have that privilege. How do we adjust those tax rates? Do we have the privilege of changing the tax structure so that we're not having condominiums taxed at a higher per cent than the other buildings in our taxation department?

Mr Burns: At the present time condominiums are taxed in the same way that single-family dwellings are taxed, as ownership housing. Rental housing is taxed as a commercial enterprise and in many communities in this province pays a much higher level of property taxation, let's say on a square-foot basis, than condominiums or ownership. Cooperatives pay property tax on the same basis that condominiums do, that is, on the same basis as single-family dwellings. The rest of social housing, non-profits, pay on the same basis that commercial landlords pay.

Mr Rollins: Who has the ability to change that? How do we change that? It isn't the Minister of Housing, I'm sure. He isn't the one who comes in and --

Mr Burns: No. These rules derive from a system that is set up as a consequence of the Assessment Act. The Assessment Act, in the way that things are organized at Queen's Park, is the property of the Minister of Finance. However, because property taxes generally have such a tremendous importance in the housing industry, it's been a subject of conversation between the two ministries over time, and is again. The minister indicated earlier that there are a bunch of issues that have to be looked at if you're going to answer the question, can we create a climate in which people would be prepared to invest in rental housing? Clearly the tax treatment of rental housing is one of them.

Mr Rollins: Is it the biggest factor you probably think of or a good chunk of it?

Mr Burns: In terms of comparing the cost of operating new rental housing to what's going on in the marketplace now, the single biggest dollar component of the difference is the difference in property tax treatment.

Mr Rollins: If we can get that fixed, and then we can get the standards of the construction cost, making such things in condominiums where there are bulletproof walls and things of that nature that's in that building code structure that seems to be a little bit more elaborate than in a single-family dwelling, that would bring those things down where then the private sector may well be interested in getting back into the renting business.

Mr Burns: If we can deal with enough of the things that create significant costs for people building rental housing, and if we can continue to have a pretty good interest-rate environment, then there is a good chance we can come to a place where people would be prepared to invest in rental housing again. But we do have to finish the process of assessing what those barriers are and then begin the process of removing them, which as the minister alluded to earlier, will take a bit of an effort.

Mr Rollins: There's some concern out there when you hear that we're all prepared to sell everything off and that we're going to change and remove all rent control and everything's going to happen yesterday or the day before, and I don't think, Minister, there's any intent to make it happen that quickly. It'll be in a certain amount of stages with consultation with different people and let them come up with a decision that is suitable.

Hon Mr Leach: Absolutely. At OHC, for example, we're partners with the federal government in most projects. CMHC has paid 50% of the costs in the most of them. In many instances we're involved with other levels of government as well, so even if you wanted to go out and whack a For Sale sign on a building tomorrow morning, you couldn't do it. It's going to take a lot of consultation with a lot of other levels of government that I think share our view of getting out of the bricks and mortar business.

Mr Rollins: It's only taken us four hours to have that said because when I sat here listening, I was sure from the other side that we had them for sale this afternoon. That's the end of my questions.

Mr Preston: I hope so. You said it was going to be short.

Mr Rollins: Well, it was. Are yours over with already?

Mr Preston: No. Maybe I can simplify things and maybe I'm going to oversimplify them. Maybe the answer, when the question comes up, why are you doing this, why are you doing that -- tell me if I'm oversimplifying too much -- it's just that private enterprise can do it much more economically than any government, whether it's mine, yours or the third party's. Any time. I am renting now what I consider to be almost a luxury apartment in this town, on the waterfront, for less than it's costing you to run this non-profit housing.

Mr Curling: Then get rid of the big administration. Don't rid of the tenants.

Mr Preston: Hey, that's a good idea.

Hon Mr Leach: Well, that's one of the problems and that's a very good analogy because this is where the waste and inefficiency issue come into play. The cost of administration in the co-op program was one of the big nails in the coffin. They've driven the cost of operating co-op housing up to such a point that it's no longer affordable for the taxpayer. It's affordable for the people who are getting the $800-a-month subsidy but it's not affordable for the taxpayer any more.

Mr Preston: Gee, another four hours and we got agreement from Mr Curling. That's great.

Mr Curling: Oh, I've said for a long time, stop beating up the tenants. Don't blame the tenants. Clean up your act.

Mr Preston: I don't believe it's the tenants' fault.

Mr Curling: I said clean up your act.

Mr Preston: It's the fault of government. Now we all have come to an agreement on that, it's the fault of government. Get the government out of the business.

Interjection.

Mr Preston: Don't go that far, okay. You'll agree with me to a point. There's one other matter I'd like to address and it's too bad it happens.

Two days ago we were blaming the Minister of Community and Social Services for people dying on the street. Today we're blaming the Minister of Housing for people dying on the street. Let's get very plain about the types of people that are dying on the street. During the last cold wave, there were 100 empty beds in one firehall. That was the night the man died. There were churches that had many beds empty on the night that the other one died. There was a third one who died because he was curled up inside his sleeping-bag and they drove over him and they didn't even know he was there.

1630

There are certain people in society -- if you remember back to Lucille Ball in a very factual film called The Bag Lady, and that was factual, regardless of what they did for that lady, she wanted to live on the streets. No matter what subsidy, no matter how many buildings were available, that lady was on the street because she wanted to be there.

In Thunder Bay, a gentleman passing through from British Columbia decided to build himself an ice hut near the CPR tracks. The CPR police broke it down. There was a big hue and cry by certain factions that they had disrupted this man's way of life. When they finally investigated, they found out that there was room in the shelter but the man had been kicked out because of continuously disrupting the people there and stealing what little possessions they had.

Certain people are going to be on the streets regardless of what you do for them. Some of those people are going to make a miscalculation and die in intensely cold weather. That is not the fault of your government because of the way you set things up or of our government because of the way we're trying to change things now. To blame any particular ministry or minister for that I believe is dishonest, it's untrue and it's cruel.

Mr Curling: I never did blame the minister for the responsibility he takes.

Hon Mr Leach: Thank you for that. The point is that we are looking to develop policies to provide help for those who are hard to house. There are a number of complexes in my riding, on Gerrard, that presently house people who have a great deal of difficulty, street people, as they're known. There are individuals in our society who devote their lives to getting people in that unfortunate situation off the street, into shelters where they can help them rehabilitate themselves, so to speak, and get them back into society, but there are others who will refuse that help as much as it's offered. It's unfortunate. They're very few in number, but they do exist. As much as we try to provide assistance to them, it seems the more resistance they have.

Mr Baird: I wanted to discuss an issue with respect to the community partners program. I was reading the estimates and wanted to compare them with actions that you've taken since you became minister. They're being reduced by approximately $1.8 million for 1995-96. My understanding of that program is that it's primarily advocacy-based activity rather than program delivery. Could you give us a sense of how much has been cut and the plans for the future?

Hon Mr Leach: There are some specific numbers the staff have that can bring you right up to date. Anne, could you advise us on those numbers, please.

Mr Cordiano: Take a seat anywhere.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Are we in your seat?

Ms Anne Beaumont: Maybe you'd like to answer the question.

Mrs Marland: Sure.

Ms Beaumont: The community partners program was one that actually came into being in 1993, when the government of the day rolled together a number of programs that had existed in the ministry -- one in the policy division, one in Ontario Housing Corp and one in the rent control programs area -- that had provided different kinds of support to various tenant groups and community organizations. So the programs were rolled together in 1993 to create the partners program with a budget of something in excess of $11 million. That program was reduced somewhat the following year, and the reductions that have been made at this point in time, as you indicate, are a cut of currently $1.8 million. We are, though, anticipating substantial additional cuts to that, so that as a mature program we're expecting it's going to be something less than $4 million.

Mr Baird: I know this is the estimates committee, but do you have an idea of how much was spent in 1995-96?

Ms Beaumont: It was about $8 million.

Mr Baird: Probably this is the political position rather than directing it at you. I think the people of Ontario expect the dollars to go to core services, particularly in this environment, particularly program delivery, and that the government can't do everything.

Having said that, I think there's an additional concern that people have had for many years: They don't believe that their tax dollars should be given to interest groups that then seek to lobby the government perhaps even for more money and to get preferential regulatory or legislative changes.

I think that if a group is representative of the constituency, they can fund it themselves, that this is the best way to ensure that the accountability is there for the group, for the members of the group, that it is reflected in the advice and pressure you get. I go to the example of the Canadian Federation of Students; it's actually CFS-O, because the Ontario Federation of Students and the Canadian Federation of Students simply couldn't survive. Their members themselves decided that they wanted to withdraw their university campuses. I know they withdrew at an 80% level of support when I was at Queen's University. I know at the University of Toronto, another member who was there led a campaign to have the University of Toronto withdraw; and yet, with such huge numbers -- 80% wanted to withdraw -- the lobby group none the less expressed the view to decision-makers in government that they were representing X hundred thousand people.

This is a concern I have with respect to funding advocacy and lobbying activities by government to the private sector. It's inherently inflationary for one thing, because you're basically giving money to those outside to lobby you directly for more money. I think in any time, but particularly in these financial times, every single dollar that's being spent has got to be spent for that core service where there's a genuine need and a genuine role for government. That's a concern that I know people in my constituency have and I think it would be fair to say that people across the province of Ontario would have.

I know the federal government got itself into myriads of these types of commitments, ranging from arts funding to heritage funding to funding for certain groups within society. I think it's just fundamentally wrong for government to be taking taxpayers' money and giving it to groups representing in some cases, purportedly, tens of thousands of people. Surely, they can get their $1, $2 for every person they represent in some form, like the vast majority of other groups get, and that would be an indication to you that, gee, this is a group that speaks for the people they purportedly represent, because there's an inherent element of accountability there.

I wondered, have you given thought to putting this program to zero, so when you would come in 12 months' time the estimates would have no funding for this?

Hon Mr Leach: I agree entirely with you. I support a lot of the lobby groups and advocacy groups. I think they're good things. I just don't think they should be paid for by the taxpayer. We've cut the cost of the program by about half this year and we're looking at going down to zero. We have contractual agreements with a number of organizations and we're going to live up to those commitments. When the commitments have expired, then their funding would end as well.

Mr Burns: I might just add that, as Anne Beaumont said earlier, because this program, if I can call it that, contained a bunch of different elements, it's important to just disentangle them a little bit. The part that has gone to advocacy and organizations in the way you described is being entirely wound up, as the minister indicated.

There's another part that supports local services, not advocacy and the kind of organization you're describing. That service is essentially to help people who are homeless or who are evicted or who are in very difficult situations in difficult markets to find their way in the market. That residual program has been sustained although, as the minister indicated, it's going to be reviewed. The part that you are addressing yourself to is going to zero in the way you described it, but there are a couple of other components of this that are still being funded at the moment which are not of the character that you describe but rather are actual on-the-ground services.

1640

Mr Baird: This is a rather detailed question. When there were contracts entered into under this program, were they annual contracts? When were they last renewed?

Mr Burns: There's a significant mixture of situations. In some cases it was annual; in some cases it might have been multi-year but with a review; in some cases there would have been a notice period for winding up a contractual obligation; in other cases there might not because of the diversity of activities.

What's in place is the windup at the first moment that is possible under whatever particular contractual format we have in place. Some of those were very quick. It happened almost within weeks of the minister's policy decision, which was announced as part of Mr Eves's statement in July. In other cases we've given notice to people that as the contractual arrangement draws to a conclusion, that will be the end of the arrangement. Some of those have taken place this past fall; some will take place over the course of this year.

Mr Baird: The reason I asked with respect to the time line is that there's a significant amount of debate, I know, on a number of instances where grants were given after the election by the previous government, perhaps after the Parliament was prorogued.

I was reading the Canadian Parliamentary Association's publication that they put out regularly which had a significant article on what was the ability of government to function once the writs had been issued on the federal level, for example, through actions taken by the previous Conservative government federally.

Can you say which elements of the program? Were there annual contracts or two-year contracts? When last would they have been reviewed and signed? Was that out of the normal course of events?

Ms Beaumont: The ongoing annual contracts, renewable annually, were with the province-wide organizations. These were organizations such as United Tenants of Ontario, CELA dealing with law issues. There was a variety of contracts with individual tenant organizations, with individual advocacy organizations around the province and those had varied time frames, as the deputy indicated. Some of these time frames allowed for an ending of the contract with a certain notice period. Those notice periods varied. Some of them only allowed for an entering of the contract at the end of the defined contract period, which may be two years.

As the deputy indicated, what we did, as soon as we had a discussion with the minister in the very early days of the government about this program, was to do a review of each and every contract under the program to determine what was the earliest feasible date at which the contract could be terminated without us sustaining legal costs that would be in excess of the costs of termination.

Mr Burns: In terms of the timing of things, in the period between the writ of election and election day the ministry continued to deliver and administer programs under its responsibility and, in the case of this ministry, received no ministerial direction during that period to do anything additional or different from what had been in place on the first day. On the day after the election we ceased adding any contractual obligations within our program structure during the transition, and in the case of our ministry received no ministerial direction to do anything to the contrary in our particular circumstances.

Mr Baird: I would think that's of credit to you and your officials, deputy, and to be fair as well to the previous minister. I think a number of us were very concerned that contracts were even entered into in the last 100 hours of the previous government, and that caused a tremendous amount of concern that in some cases hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars were being entered into. That certainly speaks well to you and your officials and, to be fair, your previous minister.

In terms of the community partners program, or the programs that made it up, you mention 1993 as the date where they were consolidated or started?

Ms Beaumont: Consolidated. All of these programs existed prior to that, and they had varying starting dates and different defined purposes. So what was done in 1993 was to roll them all together, reduce the overall cost of the envelope and allow for some flexibility as to how that money was to be used.

Mr Baird: How long do these programs go back? Five years, or 10 years, or more? Or is this relatively new?

Ms Beaumont: The oldest of them would go back six or seven years.

Mr Baird: I appreciate that. How much time do we have, Mr Chair?

The Vice-Chair: One minute.

Mr Preston: Gilles wants a question with your minute.

Mr Baird: I would yield then, Mr Chair.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much.

Mr Baird: I would yield to my colleagues of the official opposition.

Mr Bisson: I just want to know how come you're doing such a good job. That's what I say when I'm sitting here on this side.

Mr Curling: Mr Chairman, to determine cost of building non-profit housing and the administrative costs -- and my colleagues over on the other side said that it took them a couple of seconds to simplify it and say that's what the problem is. I've been saying the same thing. I'm saying again that the costs of non-profit housing, the high costs, are a fact of how the administration is being run, and if we can clean that up -- and the minister agrees in that, that's just where it is. The high cost of doing this has driven up the cost of building non-profit housing, and it's not the tenants who have caused that.

What I'm saying to you, as soon as you clean up all this situation here, what you're going to do, you're going to give it to the private sector. The fact is as soon as you've got your act together and know where the problem is, you turn around and give it to the private sector, and then moving along, taking away rent control will drive the price up. You say the price is going to go down in the private market. It's not going to go down.

I want to go back to what the deputy had stated too, that one of the main problems, costs, is taxes, and who can deal with that, as you ask? The government. None of the governments have yet had the guts to deal with that property tax issue. I hope your government will deal with it, and I say that sincerely. And I'm going to say to you too, it's going to be very tough, because even my area, in Scarborough, some parts pay a tremendous amount of property tax on their home and the same type of home maybe down there are paying half the price or even a third of the price. Some of those costs really affect how we build and who can buy.

Mr Preston: We've done all the easy things, so the tough things are not going to bother us.

Mr Curling: Well, that is a tough one. So if we can deal with that situation, it will come down.

Taking away rent control, I'm telling you, will not do very much. As a matter of fact, it will do worse. I didn't say that. The builders say that too. The private sector told me that, "If you take rent control off, we will not build." We're not going to see any buildings going up. But they're saying of course -- let me just be straight with you what they also said -- they would love for rent control to go, but they tell you that that will not create any more new buildings, new rental units in the province. So let us be fair about that.

I want to go back quickly to when we talk about the blame on each minister for the homeless. I asked what responsibility the minister is taking. I was trying to push the minister, maybe not in a good tone, but I wanted to say to him that the homeless problem out there, it's not a single ministry that can deal with that. It really has to work together with Health; it must work together with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Housing. The others we will bring in later on, with Labour and all that, and assist in maybe changing the act and all that.

That is why there are those who, no matter how much you build a home and it's there, may not find their way there because of other incidents and other situations that they find themselves in, the mental state they may be in or some sort of physical state that makes their mental state not let them coordinate back to home.

1650

So we've got to work together. We can't just turn our head and say, "Listen, they will always be there." We can't do that. We are in that business to look after all citizens, and it's going to be tough at times to find them, and you will pick up the first individual and put them back home and turn your back and then they're back out there again. There's a tremendous amount of people who need that kind of support. I just say to you, Minister, when you're at the table at the cabinet and they're cutting all the civil service staff and they're doing all that, if you don't have those people out there doing that, it costs lives. It really comes down that if you cut back on money that would provide for welfare workers, individuals in our system, our civil service, it could cost lives because you don't have enough to monitor those people, and it is our responsibility.

When I had the exchange with you about the taxpayer, I regard every single soul in here as a taxpayer in this province, whether they're working or not. They pay taxes in one way or the other. So when I hear your government and your party saying that it's not fair to the taxpayer, it's like you were saying, there are some people over there, why should the taxpayer fund you? The person is a taxpayer too. So let us be kind of reasonable about that.

Having said all of that, I want to go to an area that is very close to your heart, Mr Minister, and it's that cancellation of the non-profit housing. You stated how many of those were cancelled, and I'd like to know, are there any legal cases against the ministry right now, any court cases against your action, how many and what's the cost so far? What do you anticipate will be the cost?

Hon Mr Leach: We committed to any of the non-profit units that were cancelled that we would compensate them for costs that they incurred under the program guidelines. We did this. It should not and is not an admission of liability or responsibility to the groups. We are living up to our requirements under the terms of the agreement with the non-profits. Many of them are under discussion at this point in time. Some of them have decided to take legal action and as a result any discussion on amounts paid out etc would be inappropriate.

Mr Curling: In your answer you said there are lawsuits now against the ministry for those contracts that you have broken.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. The ministry has been notified by a number of --

Mr Curling: How many?

Hon Mr Leach: I don't have the exact number.

Mr Curling: Could I get the amount?

Hon Mr Leach: I could ask Dino to provide you with that number, but I want to caution you that we're going to refrain from commenting on the merits of any of the actions or proposed actions.

Mr Curling: I don't want to discuss the case itself. I'm neither the lawyer or the judge.

Mr Chiesa: Yes. There are three actual lawsuits.

Hon Mr Leach: Three out of 390?

Mr Chiesa: Three out of 390. To be fair, however, there are an additional approximately 130 notices of claim that have to do more with the timing issue for statutory provisions other than that they're going to proceed or not we are trying to settle, and we are being quite successful in settling most. Right now, however, we have three lawsuits.

Mr Curling: How many contracts were cancelled?

Mr Chiesa: There were 390.

Mr Curling: It goes up.

Mr Chiesa: There were 385, and then there were an additional five cancelled, so it's approximately 390.

Mr Curling: Would you say that any of those cancellations -- not the 130, not the three, but those that did not come forward -- it was because of lack of funds or just intimidation of the big bully that they said, "I won't take on the government," and that's why they haven't come? In other words, have you spoken to them?

You say "out-of-court settlement," but some settlements have been happening. Are there some that have not come forward because they don't have the wherewithal, and have been intimidated by the government, to come forward to say, "I'm going to sue you?"

Mr Chiesa: Of the approximately 390, we've received in excess of 300, about 312, responses to date from the groups. There is a number that we haven't yet because some of the groups dissolved. Some of the groups won't cooperate, but they're in the minority. The majority of groups are cooperating and we have received in excess of 310 packages in.

Mr Curling: I'll just ask the minister, but stay there a bit. Don't escape. Did you anticipate when you cancelled or axed those 390 contracts that you would have 312 people screaming at you saying, "What have you done to my life"?

Hon Mr Leach: Actually, we anticipated about 390.

Mr Curling: You expected 390.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. Obviously, people who were going to be involved in this cash cow of programs that was going to provide them with subsidy --

Mr Bisson: Now you're really pushing it.

Hon Mr Leach: I'm sure that people who were disappointed were the consultants that were getting a percentage of the total cost of the building, and the developers that were building gold-plated accommodation. There were a lot of people who were disappointed when this boondoggle was stopped. There's no doubt about that.

Mr Curling: Were they doing anything illegal?

Hon Mr Leach: Some of them were, as the Provincial Auditor pointed out.

Mr Curling: What have you done about that?

Hon Mr Leach: There were actions taken against them. I know one was sent to prison for embezzlement. A number of actions have been taken against those who were mismanaging the program that caused a lot of these problems. These aren't things that this government is saying, these are things that were uncovered by the previous government. Actions were taken, and rightly so, to its credit, by the previous government to try and clean up the God-awful mess that was there.

Mr Curling: Therefore, it was management, really.

Hon Mr Leach: It was a lot of things. That's one thing you have to be very careful of. You don't want to attach any blame to the well-meaning sponsor groups that had nothing but the best interests of people in their community and trying to help them. Many of them were taken advantage of by various individuals who got involved in the non-profit business.

Mr Curling: Let me go back to the acting assistant deputy. I hope they confirm you and pay you the right amount of money for all the work you're doing there.

Mr Chiesa: Thank you.

Mr Curling: How much has the ministry spent so far on legal fees and how much does it anticipate to spend on legal fees?

Mr Chiesa: On the question of legal fees, the costs have been internal costs, and I don't know that number. In terms of the anticipated legal fees, we don't know that number either because we hope that the majority, if not all, of the issues will be resolved through the process we've set up to resolve those issues.

Ms Beaumont: We've not to date hired outside legal counsel.

Mr Chiesa: We have Les Fluxgold from our legal division here.

Mr Curling: This is a lawyer here. Okay.

Mr Les Fluxgold: I must say the question -- I'm a little lost on it. The ministry itself is handling, through the Ministry of the Attorney General, all legal actions against it, so there are no outside lawyers that have been hired by the ministry to defend it against the three claims that have actually been started.

Mr Curling: So the Attorney General's office won't send you a bill.

Ms Beaumont: Only the normal bill we get for ministry lawyers.

1700

Mr Curling: Well, we have to account for every penny, because it's good management. Don't say to me, "Well, there are lawyers floating around in the Attorney General's with nothing to do." You don't know if they'll send you a bill?

Ms Beaumont: Well, there are lawyers assigned from the Ministry of the Attorney General to our ministry, as there are to all ministries, and it's those lawyers who are working on this as one of their files right now.

Mr Curling: And these lawyers weren't on any other case. You didn't anticipate that in your estimate here. I just wondered how much money you put aside to say, "These are going to be legal fees I've got to deal with." The money has to come from somewhere.

Hon Mr Leach: I'd have to remind you again that these are not our estimates; they're the former government's estimates.

Mr Curling: I know, but you spent it. You took over in June.

Ms Beaumont: These estimates though were developed by the previous government for the year beginning April 1. The decision wasn't anticipated at that time. So these estimates would not have taken any of these anticipated legal costs into account.

Mr Curling: But things can change along the road -- the Common Sense Revolution. Things can change.

Are you telling me then that this estimate, which I know wasn't developed by you, and these lawyers who will be working on these cases, will be paid through the Ministry of Housing?

Mr Fluxgold: It's through the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Mr Curling: But they won't send you a bill. What I'm saying, Mr Minister -- and maybe I ought to be much clearer -- is that they're going to be very busy. You're saying 390 of those contracts you have cancelled; 312 responded -- I presume you must look at the legal part of it -- 130 have given notice of claim. I presume work is being done on all this. I want to know if there's a cost.

Ms Beaumont: There are lawyers in the Ministry of Housing who are assigned to the non-profit portfolio. If we'd been proceeding with the development under that portfolio, those lawyers would have been undertaking other legal work that had to do with non-profit housing. That work no longer exists. They've been reassigned to this file.

Mr Chiesa: We've added no more legal staff in the ministry as well to accommodate that.

Mr Curling: That's the answer. That's fine. Your Common Sense Revolution, I think, had projected $250 million in savings through these cuts of non-profit housing. How much saving have you found so far in this?

Hon Mr Leach: By stopping the 390 projects, we will not incur costs of approximately $200 million next year. If all of those projects had gone to subsidy, we would have moved from about $850 million to over $1 billion.

Mr Curling: So you have saved, you said -- you call it "saved." I like the word "saved."

Hon Mr Leach: Well, if I don't have to find it --

Mr Curling: There's a human cost to this too actually. You don't put the human cost in these things.

Hon Mr Leach: There's also some direct savings.

Mr Chiesa: Minister, the actual mature cost is about $160 million a year for those projects that were cancelled, and next year, because of the phasing of the building, it was about $111 million for next year.

Mr Curling: So roughly, in two years, about $260 million.

Hon Mr Leach: Well, in the first term of this government, over the next five years, we'll save about $500 million by getting out of this program.

Mr Curling: On this project itself?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, $500 million will not be spent as a result of the actions that we took on this program.

Mr Curling: What are some of the repercussions you see in the cancellation; the negative impact?

Hon Mr Leach: I see lots of positives.

Mr Curling: That's why I'm asking about the negatives. These are the tough ones, you see. Don't tell me that when you cancelled this, everything was just rosy and wonderful.

Hon Mr Leach: I'm trying to think of a negative that goes with saving $500 million. Not many pop to mind.

Mr Curling: None pop to mind?

Hon Mr Leach: We ended a program that created hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies, cost the taxpayers $10,000 a unit, and saves us $500 million in our first term of government. I'm hard pressed to find any negatives for that.

Mr Curling: I understand that. I understand that you'd be hard pressed and many of your colleagues would be hard pressed to see any human suffering in that. I understand all that. I understand too that if we didn't build non-profit housing, and those who want it, regardless of the mismanagement of the complex --

Hon Mr Leach: I think the human suffering occurs when you take hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and give it to --

Mr Curling: Oh, here we go again.

Hon Mr Leach: -- some people who don't need it, while you still have thousands of people who don't get any help.

Mr Curling: You are the one who also said there are needy people out there who need affordable housing.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, there are.

Mr Curling: The way we were going about it, you said, was too expensive and we almost agree with that. And I said, "Is there any one negative impact?" I thought I saw some. I would say to you that if we cancel out the non-profit housing -- that people who are in need for it, and in the meantime the administration was such a boondoggle, or whatever the word is, that these people would not have access to the affordable housing because you shut that down, you cancel out those. What provisions have you made then that those units that were coming on stream, although costly -- I agree with you, fully agree with you -- too costly too, but in the meantime what provisions have you made for those people who were in anticipation of coming into affordable housing?

Hon Mr Leach: Any of the units, and there were 118, that had reached the approval stage are going ahead.

Mr Curling: That's the good news.

Hon Mr Leach: That's more good news. You see, I've told you I couldn't find a negative. I think 113, actually, is the number.

Mr Curling: So there is nothing negative at all about cancellation --

Hon Mr Leach: Well, the only negative I could come up with is that we probably didn't do it fast enough.

Mr Curling: Ah, so you don't mind those people are waiting. You're the one who just --

Hon Mr Leach: Well, of 113 projects -- anything that was committed or under construction is continuing. So those individuals are all being looked after. We also are proceeding with 13 projects for special-needs groups.

Mr Curling: I know that, and you're going to redefine "special needs" or "disabled." You're going to redefine that at one stage anyhow, your government, and your Attorney General didn't even read the regulation to find what's the definition of disabled, so therefore you'd have less to deal with. But that's another matter.

But you're telling me then, nothing will be interrupted -- those people who are waiting for that non-profit housing to come on stream. Forget about the mismanagement and the terrible ways that the government is doing. These are people who are waiting to go into non-profit. They'll be accommodated just the same way?

Hon Mr Leach: We're dealing and negotiating with a number of non-profit and co-op sponsors now, developing ways and means of their proceeding with their projects without the heavy influx of subsidy. There are about a dozen that we're in negotiations with. Some of them look extremely promising, where the sponsor groups are going to find ways and means of getting the building up.

Along the same line, we are working on the aspects of getting the cost of putting a building up reduced. We hope to reach a point where we can make the construction of co-ops and non-profits, and apartment buildings for that matter as well, affordable so that you won't require large subsidies from the general tax base.

Mr Curling: It seems to me the problem that we had, and we all agree here, is that those in need weren't at fault for what happened. But the developer or the consultants and the government did a poor job, increased that cost. It seems to me that we have now taken the victim and almost blamed the victim for all of this, and they are the loser in this, for this mismanagement itself.

Hon Mr Leach: The major loser was the general taxpayer who has to absorb all of these outrageous costs. It's a fact of life. We're spending $1 billion in subsidy for a handful of --

Mr Curling: I want to get off the bottom line here with you. You can be like an accountant.

Hon Mr Leach: -- select few, some of whom don't need any help. You're providing subsidy to people who don't need it and leaving people who do need it out on the street with no alternatives.

Mr Curling: Mr Minister, I'm not talking about those. We are building affordable housing and non-profit housing for those in need and also a mixture of people who will pay market rent. We're building them; we know that. I'm not talking about the incompetence of the government and where people can gouge the government and get a lot more for building a unit at the great cost and the great expense to the taxpayer, which is wrong. I was talking about those who needed that access and the denial that they have had now. I'm just trying for you to come on side to see: Are they being hurt? Will they be delayed later on?

1710

Let me just jump to another aspect of it quickly. There are people who have been declaring bankruptcy and have had a hard time. Is there any extra attention paid to some of those contractors, consultants -- not consultants so much as the contractors and developers who had invested their money, committed themselves, and have complained to me? I'd hoped to have gotten in touch with you. I couldn't reach you in those times because it was such a secret. I have had letters coming to me saying, "Help, I'm bankrupt, my family" --

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Curling, I'm not aware of a single phone call made by you to my office on this subject.

Mr Curling: No? Well, we won't get into that, because this is getting picky.

Hon Mr Leach: Nor am I aware of a single piece of correspondence from you to me.

Mr Curling: The reason I won't get into that is because that part of the estimate --

Hon Mr Leach: Because there isn't any. I'll ask the assistant deputy to deal with that other aspect.

Mr Curling: I have made calls, and we've had people who have written and said they can't get through.

Is there anyone there that has been having difficulty? I want to deal with those who are hurting there. Forget about me. It's insignificant.

Mr Chiesa: Maybe to put it in a bit of a context: To unwind or to pay out and look at settlements on a program is not an easy thing to do. I'm sounding defensive, but it's not easy. You've got to do it within a framework of public accountability; you've got to have an audit trail; good business practice; and you have to be fair. Some of that takes time.

Looking at claims, you have to ensure that the claim is a relevant claim within an allocation validity period to make sure it's a valid claim. We have to make sure that it was a claim that resulted from a program-generated cost, and we have to review those invoices in a fair and equitable way.

At the beginning we were a little slow. In the last few months we're getting a little quicker. What we've done now is, we're dealing directly with some third-party claimants, some architects and some consultants directly now -- we've made some payments directly to them -- because in some cases, as you know, the groups disappeared or the groups were not cooperating. Some third parties were in fact being injured from that perspective, why there weren't so many claims.

We worked through the community groups first, and then if we weren't getting a response we're dealing with the third-party claims directly. We have a process. We met with the architects' association, for example, and we're going through that. The number of complaints have gone down. We have cut a number of cheques and it's a well-known process now and it's moving. But yes, it was slow at the beginning; yes, there was some hardship at the beginning for some, but I think the bulk of that is gone. To my understanding, no one's gone bankrupt as a result of it. We are settling amicably.

Mr Curling: That's a good response. I'm not trying to trap you, sir. I'm only trying to tell you that these are concerns I have and I want to know that when those who have called me -- this might be a little bit dated now in the sense that maybe it has been dealt with and I would follow up on this, the final, how this gentleman in this company in London, Ontario, has phased out with this government because they feel that --

Hon Mr Leach: You're absolutely right, you know. It was very difficult to deal with some of it because we were legally obligated to deal through the sponsor group. There were many third parties that found themselves without any avenue that we could deal directly with them. If one of the sponsor groups was one of the three that decided to sue us, obviously we can't make settlements with the third parties.

So here we have a situation where we want to get out and help resolve the issue. We don't want to see the architects or the developers or any of the suppliers hurt in any way. I'm sure that you can understand that we have this situation where we can't deal with them while the sponsor has us in the courts. It's unfortunate, but in many instances we have been able to sort it out. Do you want to add to that, Dino?

Mr Chiesa: Yes. If Mr Curling has any specifics in his constituency or anywhere else that have to be looked at, we have a process through the regional offices to deal with those. We'd be more than pleased to deal with any individual cases that he has, because the last thing we want to see is anybody hurt or any more apprehension of the system. We're trying to make it easier.

Mr Curling: You expressed to me that you knew there were difficulties having some answers. I presume you didn't work out your process when all this was done, what forms to fill out and all that. That's the point: We couldn't get through, and many people were calling us. At that time we didn't know how many were cut.

Mr Chiesa: That's a fair criticism.

Mr Curling: Before I even get back to you, I would then check with it, because there's no use wasting your time and my time, get back to the individual and say, "How are things going as of today?" and you could say: "I can't get you." I'll be back again at you, Minister.

Hon Mr Leach: I'll be here.

Mr Curling: You'll be there? Good. I'm going to go to a new area altogether. How much time?

The Vice-Chair: One minute.

Mr Curling: One minute. This new area will take about an hour. I'm going to put them on notice, then. I want to know if the employment equity office is there, and we can have some questions on Monday on this one. You don't have to answer now at all.

Mr Bisson: He's putting you on notice again.

Hon Mr Leach: Okay. I'll be put on notice that this question is coming in our next session.

Mr Bisson: I just want to remind you, Minister, that as a former government member I found it amusing when you made the comment that you'll be there. Always remember that you serve at the pleasure of the Premier, and you never know how long you'll be pleasurable.

Hon Mr Leach: He's away, so I'm sure I'll be here till Monday.

Mr Bisson: Minister, I don't think I understood correctly, and that's why I just want to clarify: Were you saying a little while ago, through your ADM, that the people in those projects that were cancelled, who were at times thinking of bringing you to court but who eventually you settled with, all of them settled off amicably, that they're happy?

Hon Mr Leach: There's a number.

Mr Chiesa: Of the 390, we have about 70, 75 who either have signed off releases and/or didn't need the releases to be signed off that we've settled with. Yes.

Mr Bisson: They did this and they're happy with it?

Mr Chiesa: They signed releases. We negotiated, we paid all the bills that were inventoried that were within the period.

Mr Bisson: I just want to point out, because I've talked to a lot of these people, in some cases they've cut their losses and said, "We're not going to bother with this any more." I think you should acknowledge that it's not a question that they're amicably signing off; it's that they've thrown in the towel and said, "That's enough of that."

Mr Chiesa: I guess it's like a willing vendor and a willing buyer. I guess we negotiated it. I guess "amicably" was the wrong word, a bit of a stretch.

Mr Bisson: It was a bit strong. Okay, that's all I needed. I just wanted to clarify that.

The other thing is, do you have a list of those that have been settled and those that are outstanding?

Mr Chiesa: We have a list of those that have been settled, and obviously the balance are those that haven't been settled.

Mr Bisson: Could you provide us with a list of the 300 projects that were cancelled, what stage they're at in regard to: They've been cancelled, they've settled off or they haven't, and is it possible to get, not the exact details, but how much that cost per project?

Mr Chiesa: We can give you a list of those projects, the 390. I'd have to get some advice first on whether or not we can give you those that were settled. Certainly, I can't give you yet the numbers related to that because of the negotiation process we're going through now.

Mr Bisson: I recognize that you can't give me the details, but I think it would be public information that you can provide me with -- if there are 75 that were settled, how much they got individually.

Mr Chiesa: I'll give you everything I can give you within the framework of --

Mr Bisson: That's fair.

Hon Mr Leach: We provided, originally, the list of the 390 projects to everyone.

1720

Mr Bisson: I recognize that. You gave us the list, and I appreciate that. But what I'm asking is where it's at now and how much that cost, because there is a cost attributed to this.

Hon Mr Leach: I just don't want to create any situations where we would upset litigation by anyone.

Mr Bisson: No.

Hon Mr Leach: Subject to the advice from our legal people, we'll get that information to you.

Mr Bisson: I fully understand -- been there before. I understand what you're talking about. What you can provide us with would be beneficial. Thank you.

I want to go back now to the shelter subsidy but from a bit of a different perspective. Let's say there's a brand-new housing co-op somewhere in Ontario that was built last year. When it was opened, as a matter of fact, I went over with my friend Richard Allen and we cut the ribbon.

It's now open and it's now got people in it. We know that the average geared-to-income rent is somewhere about $380, $390 a month, somewhere in that ballpark. The actual rent that could be charged in order to make it economical is somewhere around $1,200, so for all intents and purposes, about an $800 difference. Agreed?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes.

Mr Bisson: That's the scenario we're working with. I take it that what you want to do, in moving out of the non-profits and out of the co-ops, is to stop paying that subsidy that they're getting. If you start giving a shelter subsidy, I take it that it will apply as well to those people living in co-ops?

Hon Mr Leach: I'm sorry. I missed the second part.

Mr Bisson: Okay, I'll just give everybody a second. I take it, when you're talking about creating shelter subsidies and cancelling and getting out of the non-profit housing business --

Hon Mr Leach: They're two unrelated issues, really.

Mr Bisson: Okay. So you're saying you will carry on with those that are there now?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. Co-ops that are there now continue to exist under the contracts that we have with them, which run for 35 years.

Mr Bisson: So you will not reduce their budgets as far as the amount of money they get to make up the difference between the RGI and the --

Hon Mr Leach: What we're going to do is ensure that they become more efficient in the operation of the co-op. What we want to do is make sure that they're managing the project as efficiently as they possibly can.

Mr Bisson: That's a laudable goal.

Hon Mr Leach: It's quite possible that there would be less money, but it would be as a result of efficiencies.

Mr Bisson: That's a point. You're telling me the only cuts that co-ops can expect to get from you are in places where we're able to identify savings, and that those savings then will be transferred into reduction and --

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. We go right back to the project that you went over and cut the ribbon on last year. They have a 35-year operating agreement with us, and we will abide by that agreement. There won't be any changes in any existing co-op that is there. They will continue.

Mr Bisson: Okay. I just want to make sure we've got this really clear. An existing co-op that is now running, that's there now, that's being subsidized by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will not have its subsidies reduced other than what you're able to find in --

Hon Mr Leach: Administrative savings.

Mr Bisson: Administrative savings. So there's no danger -- because my fear is that if you reduce that too far, if you were to reduce it, it puts at risk your mortgage.

Mr Preston: Then we'd have to buy it out. We wouldn't want to do that.

Hon Mr Leach: That's one of the issues, that we have this $800-million nut that we're going to be carrying for a long time. That's one of the problems we face.

Mr Bisson: Let's move over to those units that you are interested in privatizing.

Hon Mr Leach: There is one other aspect: the split between market units and rent-geared-to-income units. In some of the units, they have moved away from the agreed-to split. For example, if it was going to be 50% market and 50% rent-geared-to-income, some of them have moved up to 60%. They filled units, for example, with rent-geared-to-income rather than market. We're going to go back to the co-op organizations and say: "Look, you signed the agreement that it would be split-split. Live up to the agreement."

Mr Curling: Who's paying the difference on that?

Hon Mr Leach: We are.

Mr Bisson: I'm going to make a friendly suggestion here in regard to co-ops. You and a lot of members here have worked with co-ops in their ridings, I'm sure. The co-op model is a good one. I think we can all agree it's not the type of housing project we would all want to live in, but for a number of people that is a very good way of being able to provide affordable housing. We need to figure out some way, though, of making sure that the boards that run the co-ops have a certain amount of supervision, not only from the property manager who might be there that's hired by the board, but to have some sort of supervision on a larger scale.

One of the things that I found, in working with the co-ops in my riding, is that often there tend to be arguments with the board that transcend into problems in the co-op. Often they're caused by people really not understanding what the rules are, and sometimes games are played between the board itself and the person who happens to be their employee, if you follow my drift. I'm not going to get into any names, because I think we know what we're talking about.

Hon Mr Leach: The audit that you had carried out identified a number of those problems.

Mr Bisson: The only thing is, I wonder if the minister is interested in pursuing that as part of the work that your ministry does. I take it that what you've just told me is that you're going to cancel those co-ops that are there now, and I can go back to the sector of the housing and say categorically: "The ministry has told me co-ops are not going to be privatized. Those that are there now are staying." I'm glad that you're saying that and I congratulate you at least for that.

I would also like to be able to say to them --

Hon Mr Leach: You got that in writing?

Mr Bisson: No, listen. I have learned one thing, being in government and coming over to opposition: One thing that used to drive me absolutely crazy with you guys, quite frankly, was that we could never get any kind of cooperation on anything, and I said if I ever -- God forbid -- end up in opposition, I ain't going to do what the Tories did.

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: No. You guys don't know. You weren't there.

Hon Mr Leach: Is this the spirit of cooperation that I'm hearing?

Mr Bisson: Listen, it's a totally different discussion. I was talking to some of your colleagues. I think that one of the things we have to do in this Legislature, quite apart from the Ministry of Housing, is to figure out a way, as politicians and legislators, of doing some real parliamentary reform so that this place works, because right now it ain't working, and part of it is your approach as a government.

Mr Curling: You shut up the opposition.

Mr Bisson: Part of it is your approach as a government, and I'll be critical where I need to be critical. But I also recognize that 20%, 30%, 40% of it is the cause of our system and how it works, and I think where we can cooperate we should.

The Vice-Chair: Is that the end of the housing questions?

Mr Bisson: No. We're moving along here.

This is a friendly thing that I'm just going to put forward to you: Are you interested in looking at trying to figure out a way -- and I won't use the words "make them more accountable as boards," because I think there are a lot of co-op boards out there that are doing some really good work and there are a lot of hardworking people doing the best that they can. Are you prepared to take a look, through some process where we can be involved as members of the opposition and the general public if possible, at how we can strengthen the present co-op system so that there is better accountability of boards, education for boards, that there are ways of making sure that boards are able to follow their bylaws and are somewhat in sync with each other, those kinds of issues?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes. There are a lot of procedures and regulations they have to follow now. If they were followed, we would be in a better position to see what's happening to them. One of the problems you run into and some of the problems that were identified by the auditor are, you get changes in staff, you get changes in boards, you get individuals who come in who don't understand the process, and by the time your next review is ready to take place, they're off on bad footing with tenants and other members of the board.

Mr Bisson: I'll use an example that you're not going to like, because it has to do with unions. In the union movement you have a staff representative who works for the union, who oversees a number of locals to make sure they're following their constitution and that they're doing things properly. I guess what I would suggest is that we have a similar kind of structure with somebody who can at least oversee what's happening with some of the boards to make sure that they're not doing things --

Hon Mr Leach: We have that type of process in our regional offices that oversee and visit on a regular basis.

Mr Bisson: I will talk to you privately about some of the issues I've had to deal with. I think there's really a lot of work to be done there.

Hon Mr Leach: If you have some suggestions of how we can streamline that process, I'd be glad to hear them.

Mr Bisson: We'll set up a meeting and we'll talk about that. Anyway, this is not the time for that. I was just sidetracked there.

In regard to other Ontario Housing projects, is it a stated position of the government that you wish to move to privatize or find other kinds of ownership arrangements for those units that are controlled by the Ministry of Housing?

Hon Mr Leach: That's correct.

Mr Bisson: When you do that, there's obviously a subsidy that's paid, and it comes back to the first question I asked around the co-op. The Ministry of Housing, from the rent that you're receiving to what it actually costs to run that place, which would be less than the $1,200, because they're older units -- I don't know exactly -- do we have an idea of what those numbers would be, on average, on the older the Ontario Housing units?

Hon Mr Leach: Mac Carson, head of OHC, is here.

1730

Mr Bisson: What I'm looking for is what would be the average rent that you would have to charge in order to recoup the costs of the Ontario Housing units? Actual operating. Do you have a ballpark? It's about $1,200 for co-ops. I take it it would be less for the OHCs.

Mr Chiesa: Roughly $510 or $511.

Mr Bisson: So it would be about $510 or $511, and the average rent paid is how much?

Mr Chiesa: Average rent paid is $281.

Mr Mac Carson: It's biased by Metro.

Mr Bisson: Okay. On average, those units tend to be a heck of a lot older. They were built 10 or 15 years ago, some of them 20 years ago.

Mr Chiesa: They're 20 or 25 years old.

Mr Bisson: Yes, they're coming to the point of having to put more money back in. Okay, you've given me the information and now I can go back to the minister.

On those particular units, Minister --

Hon Mr Leach: Don't go away, Dino, because I didn't hear your answers. I'm sorry, I was tied up.

Mr Bisson: It's all right. We're talking about the Ontario Housing units now.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, I was tied up with your Liberal friend.

Mr Bisson: On average the rent you would have to charge if I was a private landlord would be about $510 on the existing costs of that building, versus $281 of what you're getting in rent.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes.

Mr Bisson: So on those Ontario Housing units you're paying the difference between the $281 and the $510. If you go to a shelter allowance, and a private sector landlord was to buy it -- that's the scenario I'm talking about -- there's a couple of questions I have around that.

First of all, would you guarantee that the actual cost of the rent -- let's say your actual cost now for the ministry is $510, would you allow the landlord to push that cost up higher in order for him to build in a profit margin or how would you do that?

Hon Mr Leach: I don't know. There are a number of details that we're working out on the policy. It's an issue that's going to take a lot of investigation. There have been other areas that have looked into shelter allowances. Some of them have been successful, some of them have not. Before we make a decision on implementing that policy I want to make sure we have the answers to all of those questions that you're asking.

Mr Bisson: Okay, let me try it this way: If the average cost is $510 per unit and I buy it, do you plan on limiting the amount of rent they could charge?

Hon Mr Leach: It's very difficult to say because if the private sector manager or owner was in place it's quite likely, or not unlikely, that they would be able to manage the building at less cost, retain the existing rent --

Mr Bisson: It would probably go up.

Hon Mr Leach: -- and show a profit. Not necessarily. It's pretty hard to come to that conclusion without having all the facts.

Mr Bisson: This is not combative. The reality is you're doing it at a not-for-profit basis at $510 per month.

Mr Chiesa: The $510, before you get off that number, what I didn't add and I should have added -- that's only the operating. We also spend about $100 per unit per month on capital, so the actual is about $610.

Mr Bisson: All I'm saying is that as it is now we're running it as a not-for-profit. I'll just let you get your answer there. You're running it now as a not-for-profit and if I were to take it over as a private sector there's only certain things that I can do in order to reduce costs. I may have to increase the price in order to recoup my investment. That's only market forces, that's a possibility.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, that's a possibility. It's also a possibility that the improvement and efficiencies may be able to take the costs down.

Mr Bisson: Well, it could happen. Let's follow it under two scenarios, and these are hypothetical. Private sector landlord takes it over and for whatever reason is able to run it at the same cost as what it cost you, $610 a month. You're paying, on average, the difference between the $281 and the $610. Is it your intention to pay the shelter allowance to tenants in the exact amount that they have now so that they're no worse off than before? Would that be your intention?

Hon Mr Leach: We haven't developed that program as yet. As I mentioned, we would like to move to a shelter allowance program. There's many questions and many issues that have to be dealt with. The one that you're bringing out now is one of them.

Mr Bisson: But there must be a premise that you're doing this by. Being in government --

Hon Mr Leach: The premise is, there are a lot of people in OHC accommodation who get this type of subsidy. My concern is the tens of thousands who aren't in OHC, who are on the waiting list, who don't get any subsidy. What I'm trying to do is --

Mr Bisson: There are all kinds of issues.

Hon Mr Leach: I don't know. We're still working on the program. It may be -- and I want to emphasize the may be -- that you have different types of programs. You may have a program for subsidizing people in OHC and a different shelter allowance program for people who can't get subsidized units.

Mr Bisson: But I'm trying to take it one issue at a time. If we mix all those issues in, we tend to get sidetracked, because there are a lot of issues involved here. I guess the problem I'm having is that if I was the Minister of Housing and we were the government and we said, "We want to privatize" -- not that we would, but let's say that would be the basis -- "We want to privatize the non-profits within the control of the Ontario government," there would be some premises by which you would do it: "I want to put it in the private sector. I don't want to let tenants be any worse off than they are now." There are certain premises that you give to the study so people can go out and do the job and say at the end of the day, "Mr Minister, we've done the work, we've looked at what you've told us, and this is what it's going to cost if you do it the way you want. Here are the scenarios. You can do (a), (b), (c) or (d)." You must have given some direction to people.

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, we did, and it was all of the things that you mentioned. There are different scenarios. Do you get rid of all the subsidy programs you have now and develop a total shelter allowance program? Do you keep the subsidy system you have now for OHC and develop a shelter allowance for those who don't get anything? Is it parts of both? There are a number of issues. As you pointed out, there is (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) that have to be thrown into the mix.

Mr Bisson: Never take (g). I've learned that. Never take (g). All right? Never trust them when they come in with a (g). All right? I did that once, been there before.

Hon Mr Leach: Staff are in the process now of coming up with the effects of each of the various options: "We can do this if we have this amount of money. We can do that if we have something else."

Mr Bisson: But let's push this a little bit further. Can you assure people who are now living in geared-to-income housing under the control of the government of Ontario that once they move to a private sector, because I take it not all of them will be privatized right away, but those that you do privatize, if they get a shelter subsidy, they will be no worse off than they are now? Can you guarantee them that at this point?

Hon Mr Leach: No, I can't guarantee that, because we're living up to the commitments that you made several years ago when you advised the residents in OHC that their rents were going to increase --

Mr Bisson: Yes, at 1% per year.

Hon Mr Leach: -- at 1% a year, so that it's going up to 30%, so --

Mr Bisson: No, no, let's follow that. We made a decision as a government it would go from 25% to 30% over a period of four or five years.

Hon Mr Leach: You had circumstances that --

Mr Bisson: No, no --

Hon Mr Leach: Let me -- this is a friendly argument here.

Mr Bisson: Let's go for a beer, Al.

The Vice-Chair: Count me in because I'm ready to leave. I've been trying to leave for an hour now.

Mr Bisson: Six o'clock, I was told.

The Vice-Chair: Who cares about the clock?

Hon Mr Leach: There were conditions that came to light when you formed the government where you said the subsidy rate is now 25%.

Mr Bisson: Oh, yes. I have the scars to show for that.

Hon Mr Leach: These conditions have come in that are going to cause us to raise that RGI to 30%. I can't guarantee you there won't be another set of conditions at some point where we'll create another review.

Mr Bisson: I understand that part, but that's not the point that I'm dealing with. I recognize at one point what you may end up having to do is move it from 30% to 35%, that could happen, but the question I'm asking, the premise by which you do the switch from being in a non-profit Ontario Housing unit to going into the private landlord who buys it over, can you say to the renters of those units, "Now, our intention is you'll be no worse off than you were the day the transfer happened?"

Hon Mr Leach: It's difficult to say. We've asked OHC to go out and look at the portfolio, see what parts of the portfolio we may be able to privatize now and, by the way, this is not new. For example, I know there were OHC units that were privatized by the NDP.

Mr Bisson: Oh, yes, there were some that you'd switch over, yes.

Hon Mr Leach: You switch over. That's what we're looking at now is the immediate effect of, "Okay, what units do we have in the system now that are appropriate for switching over?" and I don't know what the effect of that is going to be.

Mr Bisson: You don't know at this point?

Hon Mr Leach: No. It's under review by OHC.

Mr Bisson: All right. There's no use shaking this tree, there's nothing falling out of it. Now, on to the next one. How much time do I have? How much time do I have for when I come back tomorrow?

The Vice-Chair: Six minutes.

Mr Bisson: Six minutes? Can I take them tomorrow morning, first one up tomorrow?

1740

Mrs Ross: Monday.

Mr Bisson: Monday, I should say.

The Vice-Chair: The Conservatives have 10 minutes left for today. Finish your six minutes.

Hon Mr Leach: I'll tell you what. We'll walk away from our 10 minutes if you walk away from your six.

Mr Bisson: You're not a committee member, you're the minister.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Leach: I'm trying to be a conciliator.

The Vice-Chair: You heard that?

Mrs Ross: That's a good suggestion. I'll agree to that.

The Vice-Chair: They agree with that. Do you agree?

Mr Bisson: No, I don't.

The Vice-Chair: It's five minutes.

Mr Bisson: I want to move over to the other tree just for a second. On the question of waiting lists --

Hon Mr Leach: This may be a tough one and I may have to concentrate for about five minutes.

Mr Bisson: Don't fall asleep on me, now. On the waiting lists, one of comments you make, and I disagree with you, quite frankly, is that you see them as being unfair because people who are on the list wait for a long time to get on. But do you recognize that there are waiting lists that are based on need and it's based on your circumstance?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, it does, it is on need, but that doesn't mean the people who don't make it aren't needy as well. Because you miss the brass ring by one point doesn't make you very much less needy.

Mr Bisson: But is it possible I'll miss the brass ring when it comes to my shelter subsidy by the same point and not get the shelter subsidy and not be any better off?

Hon Mr Leach: Well, that's one of the things we're reviewing. I mean, what happens? We know we're going to make things better for a whole lot more people, but I guess, is there always somebody just on the other side of the boundary? It's difficult to say. We know what the ultimate goal is, and I think you would agree with it and I think it's something we all strive to try and sort out as members of the Legislature, to try and eliminate that list, if it's at all possible to eliminate that list.

Mr Bisson: No, I would argue I'm not trying to eliminate the list, never have, because there are people who apply for non-profit housing units, quite frankly, who are very low on the point standing who will never have a chance of getting in. That's what the system was intended for, because we built the non-profits -- no, just one second. We built the non-profits on the basis -- and we'll talk about only one sector, let's say, housing for seniors -- of those who were most in need are the first ones to get in, those who have less need are further down the list, and if we tried to fill the entire list, we wouldn't have enough money to do it. Do you agree?

Hon Mr Leach: Yes, but if you went to a shelter allowance program, one of the other options that could be looked at is that the shelter allowance isn't the same for everybody. If you have people who are very low on the list, very little need, perhaps they get a small amount of shelter allowance, just the amount they need to help them over the edge.

Mr Bisson: But that's what we do now in geared-to-income rent, people paying varying amounts of rent, based on their income status. It's the same thing.

Hon Mr Leach: But that's all based on a unit. It's rent geared to income on a subsidized unit, and rather than giving it to the unit, let's give it to the individual.

Mr Bisson: No, but the problem with what you're saying is that if you're saying everybody on that list should be given an opportunity through a shelter allowance program, the opportunity of getting a varying amount money in order to go find an apartment somewhere, based on their situation, it's going to cost you a heck of a lot more money than what it's costing you now for non-profits.

Hon Mr Leach: Not necessarily. Let's use a hypothetical situation. You might have a single mom with two or three kids who can't afford to rent an apartment, so she lives in a basement apartment or something along that line. If you develop a subsidy, she doesn't meet the quotas thing because she's got a job and she's making X number of dollars and she misses the brass ring by a couple of points. If we provided a shelter allowance --

Mr Bisson: Look at the hole you're making here.

Hon Mr Leach: -- it would allow her to improve her position.

Mr Bisson: You're digging a pit. That would cost a lot of money if you tried to do it that way. If the point of what you're trying to do is, somebody who's now getting a geared-to-income rent is no worse off under your shelter subsidy allowance system, and you lower the threshold so that people who didn't qualify on the list of the non-profits are going to qualify under your program, it's going to cost us a heck of a lot more money than what we're spending now.

That's the problem I'm having in your approach. I accept that you want to do some changes on ideological principles. I may not agree with it but I accept that's your position and I respect you for your views. But the arguments you're putting together here don't stand up. It doesn't add up. What you've got to do is to come clean at the end.

Hon Mr Leach: I understand where you're coming from. I understand your position on this.

Mr Bisson: But the last point, and this will be the last point of the day, is that if you want to protect people who are now in the system and you do what you suggest, it's going to cost you a heck of a lot more money. The tradeoff is you're going to have people fall out of the system. That's really what it comes down to.

Hon Mr Leach: Not necessarily. I recognize where you're coming from but I don't fully accept that position.

One of the other problems I have with subsidizing units instead of subsidizing individuals is that if that individual decides to move, for whatever reasons, to another locale, from Toronto to Mississauga, he's back out in the cold again.

The Vice-Chair: That's it. You can go and have a beer now.

Mr Bisson: All right, Al, where we going?

The Vice-Chair: It being 6 of the clock --

Mrs Ross: It being 10 to 6, we're willing to forfeit 10 minutes of our 30 minutes.

Mr Bisson: Oh, no. Come on.

The Vice-Chair: Therefore, I will deem it to be 6 of the clock and we shall adjourn till Monday.

Hon Mr Leach: Mr Chairman, I need some advice from the committee. On Monday morning, Bill 20 goes to committee. I have to make an opening statement and be there for the response from the opposition parties, which is about an hour. I'll be guided by the committee. We can either start an hour late or whatever.

Mr Bisson: As long as we don't lose time.

Hon Mr Leach: Or the deputy --

The Vice-Chair: Why don't we have the deputy, yes.

Hon Mr Leach: The deputy can be here and the staff can be here, and if there are questions that you want to direct to me, we'll do them later.

The Vice-Chair: That's fine.

Mr Bisson: I'll see you on the other committee. I'll be responding to you.

The Vice-Chair: We're adjourned.

The committee adjourned at 1748.