MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

CONTENTS

Wednesday 17 November 1999

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Hon Tony Clement, minister
Mr Michael Fenn, deputy minister
Ms Nancy Bardecki, director, municipal finance branch
Ms Carol Kiley, manager, program development section, Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal
Ms Elizabeth McLaren, assistant deputy minister, office for the greater Toronto area
Ms Paula Dill, assistant deputy minister, provincial-municipal relations division

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

Chair / Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)

Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James ND)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke L)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)

Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East / -Est L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester PC)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)

Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence L)

Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes

Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, researcher, Legislative Research Service

The committee met at 1545 in room 228.

MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING

The Vice-Chair (Mr Alvin Curling): I call the meeting to order. When last we were here, I presume that you had finished the response, and the rotation will start with the opposition.

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): Before we begin, Mr Chair, I have a matter of business for the committee. I just want to advise the committee. I understand the House leaders have been in discussion to extend this committee for an additional two weeks; in fact, there may be a motion coming to the House tomorrow or at some later time.

The education estimates for 1999-2000 cover both education and colleges, universities and training. For the benefit of the ministers, for the benefit of the staff, the Liberal committee members propose that the 10 hours of education question-and-answer debate be allocated as follows:

On day one, two hours of presentations-the ministers can decide among themselves how they wish to deal with that-and half an hour of questions for the education ministry; on day two, two and a half hours of questions for the education ministry; on day three, two and a half hours for the education ministry; and on day four, two and a half hours for the colleges, universities and training ministry.

I trust this will make it easier for the ministers and for the staff members involved to allocate their time.

The Vice-Chair: You mentioned this is 1999-2000; it's 1999 estimates.

Mr Caplan: We're dealing with the 1999-2000 estimates, are we?

Clerk of the Committee (Ms Anne Stokes): Yes, it's the fiscal year 1999-2000.

Mr Caplan: Yes, it was a typo.

Clerk of the Committee: That's a typo.

The Vice-Chair: I'm just saying that your written stuff to me will say 1998-1999, so it's 1999-2000.

Mr Caplan: I didn't prepare it.

The Vice-Chair: The presentation of the estimates for education, colleges, universities and training, there are two ministries, and within that there's a half-hour presentation. The ministers at that time will decide whether they want 15 minutes and 15 minutes for their presentations, not half an hour and half an hour.

Mr Caplan: No, no. According to the terms of this committee, there's a half-hour presentation-

The Vice-Chair: That's my understanding from the clerk here.

Mr Caplan: A half-hour presentation from-

The Vice-Chair: They can make the presentation in their 15 minutes and 15 minutes.

Mr Caplan: Or whatever. They may want to do 30-nothing or 10-20. That's certainly up to the ministers to decide. Then it will proceed in the normal rotation.

The Vice-Chair: That might be so, but I'm trying to say to you that it's not an hour, it's half an hour, and the minister will decide if it's 15-15 or whatever.

Mr Caplan: Yes, that's the way this committee is. That's the rotation of the committee.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): Chair, I wonder if Mr Caplan could give that list again?

Mr Caplan: On the first day, two hours of presentations, which would be half an hour for the ministers, a half-hour response for the Liberal caucus, a half-hour response for the NDP caucus and a half-hour final response by the ministers-that would leave half an hour, and questions to be directed to the education ministry; on day two, two and a half hours of questions for the education ministry; on day three, two and a half hours of questions for the education ministry; and on day four, two and a half hours of questions for the colleges, universities and training ministry.

The Vice-Chair: Is that OK?

Mr Caplan: Just for the benefit of the ministers and their staff.

The Vice-Chair: So noted.

I understand, Mr Caplan, you'll start off making a comment or something like that, or is it Mr Colle?

Mr Caplan: I believe we're going into questions, and my colleague Mr Colle will be the leading off.

The Vice-Chair: It's 20 minutes, the rotation. I just remind you.

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you for being here again, Minister and staff.

Hon Tony Clement (Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): My pleasure.

Mr Colle: Yesterday, I asked for a list of the municipalities in Ontario that had not issued their 1998 property tax bills. I wonder if I could have that list?

Hon Mr Clement: I think what we were able to circulate was a percentage list based upon our understanding. Again, I don't believe we're the lead on this, but Janet Mason, our assistant deputy minister, did correspond with the clerk of this committee and indicated that 80% of the municipalities had issued adjustments to 1998 taxes and 45% of them had done so for 1999 final tax bills as of last Friday. That's our current understanding. In terms of the actual physical list, perhaps my deputy could speak to that.

Mr Michael Fenn: It's based on a survey that the Ministry of Finance and the Ontario Property Assessment Corp has done of municipalities. Anecdotally, we have provided the software, the CD, on which the billing is to be based to virtually all municipalities. Over half of them have actually billed. They're in a transition stage now. Among 500 municipalities that actually do billing, it would be difficult to actually prepare a list without going out and phoning them all and finding exactly where they stand, but our survey suggests that the lion's share of them are now in a position-

Mr Colle: But this is for 1998.

Mr Fenn: As the minister indicated, 80% of them have in fact billed for 1998.

Mr Colle: You don't have a list of the ones that have not issued a 1998 tax bill? I would think the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would have a pretty good line on whether they've issued tax bills, and could see whether the new collection system that you're helping fund is working or not, and the new software is working. You don't know the municipalities that have not issued a tax bill-not 1999 even-1998?

Mr Fenn: The question that was posed to us yesterday was the number of municipalities, and that was the number we gave you. In terms of an individual list, what we're talking about here is adjustments to 1998. We're not talking about people who have never sent a 1998 tax bill; we're talking about the adjustments to 1998.

Mr Colle: So they haven't sent their final 1998 bill, adjustments included?

Mr Fenn: That's correct. The adjustments of the 1998 final bill.

Mr Colle: So you don't have a list of those municipalities that have not-

Mr Fenn: We can certainly provide one, since it's now been requested.

Mr Colle: That's what I asked for yesterday.

Hon Mr Clement: Mike, sorry. We thought you wanted the general figures, so-

Mr Colle: No. I asked for the number of municipalities, the list of municipalities. Anyway, if I could have that, I'd appreciate it.

Getting back to the Ontario property tax analysis system, what is the total cost of establishing that system, for the government? Putting in the software, the maintenance, the operation, the staff time-what does it cost the Ontario taxpayer to put in the OPTA system?

Hon Mr Clement: Just to make sure that we are as precise as possible, I'd like to ask Nancy Bardecki to come up front. She's our director of municipal finance. Maybe she has the best information for you, Mike.

Ms Nancy Bardecki: I'm Nancy Bardecki, director of municipal finance in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Sorry, I was on my way out to secure the list that you were asking for and I didn't hear your question.

Mr Colle: The question is, the system that you put in, the Ontario property tax analysis system, for municipalities so they can essentially computerize their tax assessment-tax collection systems, what has been the cost to the Ontario government of implementing this system and maintaining it and updating it, so far?

Ms Bardecki: If we're talking about the OPTA system-that is, the computer programming and the system that does the calculations-I think the deputy mentioned yesterday that it's about $1.4 million. There are additional costs associated with the centralized management of the frozen assessment listing.

Mr Colle: Yes, and that's what I'm looking for, again, very clearly: all the costs associated with OPTA, whether they be in software development, data input, data revisions, data processing, the consulting fees.

Ms Bardecki: The costs are not yet complete because the frozen assessment listing maintenance is an ongoing cost. What we can provide for you is an approximation of what has been spent to date. As I say, there are a number of different components. There is the OPTA model itself, on-line property tax analysis model. It's a computer program that initially did analysis of alternative options that municipalities could choose to phase in property tax changes and mitigate tax shifts. That model was revised.

Mr Colle: It's still under revision, is it not, as we speak?

Ms Bardecki: The model was revised to allow municipalities to calculate the tax adjustments that were necessary to meet the terms of the 10-5-5 capping that was required by the Fairness for Property Taxpayers Act.

Mr Colle: Because of the minister's announcement of yesterday, I guess there will have to be further revisions, will there not?

Ms Bardecki: I'm sorry?

Mr Colle: The minister's announcement in the budget bill about the fact that properties constructed after 1998 will also be-

Ms Bardecki: There will be modifications.

Mr Colle: What are the costs, approximately, of OPTA? This $1.2 million is nowhere near what the total cost is. What is it, $50 million, $100 million? What are we talking?

Ms Bardecki: Oh, my goodness, no. As the deputy said yesterday, the cost of the programming for OPTA itself, that is the model that does the calculations-

Mr Colle: And all the related costs, the consultants who have done it, the software.

Ms Bardecki: I thought you would like to know the different components.

Mr Colle: I want to know the cost of all the components.

Ms Bardecki: This is what I was trying to say. The programming component that I just described is, as the deputy said yesterday, about $1.4 million. In addition to that, there have been costs associated with the centralized management of the frozen assessment listing. The responsibility for the frozen assessment listing actually lies with municipalities according to the law, but on March 23 Minister Eves announced that the province would assist municipalities by centrally managing the frozen assessment listing. It's quite a complex job, a very complex job.

Mr Colle: Sorry to interrupt, but I only have a limited amount of time. Cost: How much has been spent by the government on this system and related costs?

Ms Bardecki: The $1.4 million was for the programming, and then I would suggest that so far another approximately $2.4 million has been spent for the centralized management of the frozen assessment listing. As I also indicated, that's an ongoing process. We have made almost a million changes to 220,000 properties so far, and this will continue throughout the period during which the frozen assessment listing is needed. So those costs will continue.

Mr Colle: So this includes consulting fees and staff time for getting the system up and running and operational.

Ms Bardecki: That doesn't included ministry staff time. Ministry staff spent a great deal of time testing the model for its accuracy.

Mr Colle: Okay. What about consulting fees?

Ms Bardecki: I was including the consulting fees in that. We do have a consultant doing the computer programming and the frozen assessment listing.

Mr Colle: So that's part of the $2.4 million? So you think that OPTA so far has cost the provincial government about $3.8 million, in that range.

Ms Bardecki: The cost that we've actually paid out of our pocket, so to speak, yes. But as I say, there has been a lot of staff time put in on this, first in testing the model and second with a help line assisting municipalities to run the model. Those are costs.

Mr Colle: OK. I'm just worried about hiring outside people and those related costs more than actual staff time.

Hon Mr Clement: She indicated that that was included in that figure she gave you.

Mr Colle: So basically, under $4 million for OPTA.

Ms Bardecki: So far, but there are ongoing costs.

Mr Colle: That's fine, then. Has the ministry calculated the cost of implementing Bill 79 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs? I know the bill originated in part from the Ministry of Finance, but it's your carriage also. Has there been a ballpark figure for the cost of implementing Bill 79?

Hon Mr Clement: I just want to make sure we understand your question very specifically. Are you talking about the operating costs or the flow-through costs? What costs are you referring to, Mike?

Mr Colle: The costs incurred by your ministry in terms of ensuring that that bill is brought into fruition as law and that it's basically a workable bill. Certainly you have a business plan for everything you do in the ministry. You must have a business plan for Bill 79. What I'm really asking for is, the bill has been given to you and you're implementing it. What has the cost been of implementing Bill 79?

1600

Ms Bardecki: I'm sorry, we haven't actually tallied up every hour of staff time that has been spent on Bill 79.

Hon Mr Clement: Just to be fair to the ministry, based on my experience, which admittedly is only for the past four years, it would be rather unorthodox for a ministry to divide its direct operating expenditures according to pieces of legislation. Typically what they do is they have staff time; sometimes a staff person is working on something related to one piece of legislation or maybe a whole series of pieces of legislation. That question is a legitimate question, but it's not something that would automatically be in the estimates.

Mr Colle: So basically you haven't got a costing of the implementation of a bill like Bill 79.

Hon Mr Clement: To be fair, we have not done it that way.

Mr Colle: If you don't do it, you don't do it.

Hon Mr Clement: I think Nancy wants to say something.

Ms Bardecki: I was wondering if you would be interested in the financial assistance that we provided to municipalities for their costs of implementing Bill 79.

Mr Colle: Sure, that would help.

Ms Bardecki: To assist municipalities with the cost of having to do additional billing in respect of 1998 to make those tax adjustments, we provided to municipalities a $200 flat amount plus $40 per tax account as per the roll as returned June 15, 1998, in the capped classes; that is, commercial, industrial and multiple-unit residential properties. That was something that we provided to help municipalities with their costs. There was also interest assistance provided to municipalities to assist them with the interest income forgone or the interest costs they had to incur if they had to borrow because their tax bills were later than they would normally be as the result of having to make these changes, including the 1998 adjustments in their 1999 interim bills.

Mr Colle: In terms of the municipalities themselves, when can we expect a new municipal act to be tabled? I know discussions have been going on for the last couple of years, but they seem to be coming to a head. Is there a timeframe that you can talk about, Minister?

Hon Mr Clement: Yes, I'll give you an update. We have asked Brian Coburn, who's the parliamentary assistant in the ministry, to do a final round of consideration and consultation on these issues. He is then to report back to the minister and the ministry. In terms of the timelines, I think we're looking at something next year. I don't think it will be in this session. I think that would be hoping for a bit too much in terms of making sure we have all the adequate input, and there might be a few more wrinkles this year than last year that we would want to incorporate.

Mr Colle: I thought you might have been more into that.

The other thing is, in terms of the restructuring, the ministry has gone through the four in Haldimand, Norfolk, Ottawa and Sudbury. I was looking for it in your estimates here. What has been the cost to the ministry in undertaking those restructurings? You've had to pay the facilitators and support staff. What has the cost of that been? Is it anywhere in the estimates?

Hon Mr Clement: I don't believe it would be in the estimates, to be honest with you, Mike, but I think our projections are that it would be under $1 million for all four special advisers.

Mr Colle: That's for basically the restructuring, the lead people.

Hon Mr Clement: And all of the costs of travel-

Mr Colle: Yes, supports.

Hon Mr Clement:-setting up the town halls, that kind of thing.

Mr Colle: There was a report in the Toronto Star today that said that the former Minister of Municipal Affairs had suggested, according to the report, that Mr Proszanski be brought in as a facilitator for the Windsor amalgamation discussions. My question is, would you look through your records to see if Mr Proszanski has been retained by the ministry up until this date in any way, shape or form; and if you know already, has he? If he hasn't, he hasn't. If you haven't checked that, could you please check to see whether he has been retained.

Hon Mr Clement: I think it's incumbent upon me to suggest at this time that those issues are before the OPP and so I'm a bit reluctant to comment until the police investigation is complete. But certainly if there was any request by law enforcement officials, we've complied with every request.

Mr Colle: If the OPP were to question ministry officials, they would certainly obviously come forward with that information on whether Mr Proszanski has been retained. But in the Windsor situation, is there a facilitator for Windsor right now or someone trying to mediate?

Hon Mr Clement: No, there is not at this time.

Mr Colle: I think there was a report I saw that said you were going to make the Ottawa facilitator's report public.

Hon Mr Clement: I think all the reports will be public.

Mr Colle: They will all be tabled after they've gone to the minister. Then they will all be made public, after they're in your hands.

Hon Mr Clement: That's correct. What we're trying to signal is that the end date for receiving the reports from the special advisers is Friday, November 26, and I think we've indicated pretty clearly that the reports will be public on Friday, November 26.

Mr Colle: OK. That's a good idea.

I have another question. In terms of the city of Toronto, I know you referred yesterday to their ability to save as a result of restructuring. What you also have in the estimates is that you've made two $100-million loans to the city, if I'm not mistaken. Have you made any loans to other municipalities that are undergoing restructuring?

Hon Mr Clement: Those were very specific and dedicated loans because of the complexity of the situation in the city of Toronto. We also had other programs that were designed to assist municipalities in their restructuring efforts. Perhaps the deputy can go into some detail.

Mr Fenn: There's a municipal restructuring fund that assists municipalities and counties and in northern Ontario to undertake municipal restructuring. There's the northern transitional assistance that dealt with annexation of unincorporated territory. There was a one-time grant to the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth to deal with consolidating their administration with the city of Hamilton, and there are some other examples of that.

Mr Colle: Could I have-

The Vice-Chair: This will be your last question.

Mr Colle: Yes, the last question-a breakdown of what the other loans or grants have been? I know the Toronto ones stick out because they're quite large, but is it possible to get a list from the ministry of all the financial help that the ministry has given to municipalities undergoing restructuring, either in loan or grant? I know there was also a change in Toronto in terms of ambulance services. You gave Toronto, I think, an extra $80 million on top of the $200 million for ambulance service payments. I just want to get a handle on it in terms of the costs of the restructuring across the province, so if I could get that kind of information.

Hon Mr Clement: I think we can certainly undertake to give you that specifically. I'm just looking over at Crom here. Is there a page in the estimates that would be helpful in that regard?

The Vice-Chair: I would ask you to take this under consideration and maybe submit the answer in the next round.

Mr Marchese, you have 20 minutes.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): Mr Chair, I just wondered whether my other colleagues directly across from me have any other questions or comments. I really want to hear from them. Have they had an opportunity?

The Vice-Chair: Are you giving up your time now?

Mr Wettlaufer: Are you going to give all of your time to us?

Mr Marchese: No, I want to share my time. Of my half-hour, I would like to give you 15 minutes.

The Vice-Chair: You don't want to give it up. Mr Marchese, are you saying you'll give up your time if they will take it?

Mr Marchese: I'll give them 10 minutes of my time because I want to hear from them.

The Vice-Chair: Are there any comments or questions from the Conservatives?

Mr Wettlaufer: He wants to do 10 minutes.

Interjections.

The Vice-Chair: Order. Yes or no?

Mr Wettlaufer: We'll take 10 of his minutes.

The Vice-Chair: Go ahead.

Mr Wettlaufer: Thank you very much. I appreciate this. First of all, I do want to compliment you, Chair, on being able to take over on such short notice.

The Vice-Chair: Mere brilliance.

Mr Wettlaufer: The permanent Chair just couldn't make it again today, as has been the case for the last two years. He misses 50% of the time, and I think it's indicative of the disdain that he holds for this committee that he doesn't show up. It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.

Mr Marchese: Come on.

Mr Caplan: That's really inappropriate.

1610

Mr Wettlaufer: Mr Chair, I do want to make a comment here. We have heard for the last two days how the Tenant Protection Act was going to cause so many problems. We heard it for two years when we were running around the province hearing the submissions to the Tenant Protection Act before we actually introduced it to the House. What I want to point out-I want this on the record-is that I did a survey in my riding, which is a residential, urban riding-50% of my riding is multi-residential-and we published the results of this survey. Only 70% of the tenants in my riding received a rent increase, so 30% received no rent increase after the TPA. Of the 70% that received a rent increase, 54% received a rent increase of less than 3%, between 1% and 3%. A further 11% received an increase of only 4% to 7%, and that included all of the allowance for maintenance of buildings, which we have heard over the last couple of days was badly needed.

I want to point out for the interest of the members of the opposition that since the Tenant Protection Act has been introduced there has been an average rent increase of 2.8% in the province. Under your governments, when you had full rent control, we had an average rent increase of 4.6% and quite often it was as high as 6%. So let's not hear any more nonsense.

Also, when we talked to the tenants in my riding, they were unaware that the city of Kitchener, as do all municipalities, set the property tax rate. They were unaware that tenants paid 3.2 times what a residential rate was-3.2 times. That's the fault of the municipal governments. Now, our government has given tax relief to the municipalities. We have taken back the education tax. In spite of that, the tenants are getting stuck.

That's all I have to say on this. I know my colleague Mr Mazzilli would like to ask the minister a question. I'd like to pass it on to him.

Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe): I too will be focusing on the Tenant Protection Act. Unlike my colleague Wayne, I did not do a survey, but I spent many years driving in our neighbourhoods and in our communities.

One thing, Minister: There's been a recognition by all three parties over the years that some sort of rent control needs to be in place. That started back with our government a number of years ago. Those controls are to protect tenants from unreasonable increases but allow the free market to allow more construction so that there's a sufficient supply out there and people will make the investments required.

As I followed the number of governments in place, at the time when the Liberals came to power an enormous bureaucratic system under the old Landlord and Tenant Act had been put in place, although probably well-intentioned, where a landlord did some renovations and then had to apply to a board to get some sort of increases. That made the landlord spend money on enormous legal fees, money that could have gone into the repair of the building. Instead, it was spent on legal fees and process, and in many cases enormous rent increases were granted, thereby not helping the tenant at the end of the process.

Through the evolving of time with the NDP, of course, that was stopped, that ability to apply for rent increases based on capital improvements, if you will. What that did, certainly in the London community, was that not only did the economy run itself into the ground where landlords were unable to easily evict people for nonpayment of rent, but many landlords walked away from their buildings. Certainly what I saw were buildings with no owners. The banks refused to repossess them; the landlord had simply walked away. Maybe two or three tenants left, the vast majority of them moving out even while not paying any rent, because the buildings had become unsafe. Although they were well-intentioned in trying to protect tenants, it simply did not work.

My question to you, Minister: Under the Tenant Protection Act what I've seen, certainly in London, is not only the older buildings with capital improvements but newer buildings being built. In your professional opinion, sir, is the Tenant Protection Act working for both tenants and landlords?

Hon Mr Clement: Thank you for the question, Frank. I would say it is. I think we have made some very definable and measurable progress. Ultimately the Tenant Protection Act is about protecting tenants' right but also balancing the needs of the tenants with the landlords, because if the system doesn't work, it's almost a pyrrhic victory where we think we're doing the right thing and yet the unintended, perhaps, consequence of attempting to do the right thing is that there is no marketplace that is functioning and therefore no new units available on stream. That ultimately is self-defeating. That's the pyrrhic victory part of my commentary.

Under this act, the TPA, this year the permissible rent increase was 2.6% for next year, and that's the lowest it's been in 25 years.

The Vice-Chair: The generous offer of the NDP is up. You've got 10 minutes.

Mr Marchese: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to hear from those folks because they don't get much of an opportunity to speak. It's terrible for them to sit there and just have to listen. I hope you find that my contribution was generous, right?

Mr Wettlaufer: We appreciate it.

Mr Marchese: Minister, yesterday I raised some concerns and I wonder whether you've had some time to reflect, and just to add a few quick things so that you have time to respond.

First of all with respect to maintenance, which you commented on yesterday and both of the members commented on today, the fact of the matter is that a lot of the landlords weren't spending the guideline increases to do maintenance. Guideline increases you don't have to account for; you just get the money. My view is, a lot of these people who own these buildings did not spend that money to maintain their buildings. In fact, many of them used it to buy other buildings or to make other investments of a different kind. That's my argument to you.

We also know from a little study that we have seen-I forget whether it was Barnicke or some other individual who in some limited way did a survey and found that people were getting a 10% rate of return, meaning that even in our bad times they were doing well. Maybe not every landlord was doing well but a lot of them were doing well, even during a recession.

So with respect to maintenance, if you allow your buildings to deteriorate because you're not spending the within-guideline increases, you arrive at a point when you people get into power and say, "We have to change the rules; the buildings are falling apart." Of course they're falling apart; they're not putting any money into them, the money they should have been spending on those buildings. I wanted to raise that point.

I speak to your point that you just alluded to again today, saying the private sector needs to build, we need to change it so the private sector builds and so on, let the marketplace take care of things. You will recall two things I said with respect to the marketplace: that when you have a high vacancy rate, you expect rates to go down. I pointed out, and you must have had the study because there are so many civil servants to help you out with this-

Hon Mr Clement: Sometimes even that's not enough.

1620

Mr Marchese: If they're not enough, good God. We have so many soldiers here.

They indicate that even when the vacancy rates are high, rents have still gone up in a lot of parts of Ontario. So the traditional market philosophy doesn't work. That's one.

In relation to the market working or the private sector building, they're not building. Your typical answer has been-yours and the previous minister's and others'-that the system needs time. I know what the system needs. The private sector needs a whole lot of support or money or grants or free land and a whole lot of other kinds of support from you guys to be able to build.

So we're reaching a crisis point. When that crisis point finally hits all of us, including you, you will then have to come and impose yourselves as a government by saying, "We're going to have to intervene here." You folks usually say you want government off our backs, right? The crisis is going to become such that at some point you're going to have to help the private sector, and then you're going to have to do what we did in the 1970s and 1960s, where we literally have to give you free land or grant systems to permit you to build or a mortgage scheme that makes it beneficial. You're going to have to do that at some point, and I wager that you will do that. I know that you will do that, if you're still in government, and I have a sense the crisis is reaching the proportion where you may have to do it within this current term of yours.

So nobody is building. You quite frankly say you're out of the business. The feds have gotten out of the business, but they might come back in. Who knows? We have a crisis that's really big. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp has told us we need 80,000 units-it's not me; it's them saying it-and we're not anywhere near meeting that need by 2001. We will only build 6,000 units, I was saying yesterday.

So what do you think? Do we have a housing problem? Do you think there's a housing disaster out there? What do you think about what these people have told us in Where's Home, Part II, which says people are paying more on rent than they can afford, that over 300,000 people are paying over 50% of their income on rent? How are you addressing that issue? How do you feel personally about it? How do you think we should be addressing that particular issue?

Hon Mr Clement: I thank my friend for his very thoughtful comments. I think it's important to make it very clear-I hope I was clear yesterday; I will be clear again today-that we, on our side of the House, believe that the old system, which included a top-down, not-balanced approach on so-called tenant protection, although it was self-defeating, and certainly the approach of the government of Ontario being integrally involved in the bricks and mortar of low-income housing, did not work. It did not work.

It was perhaps the law of unintended consequences, perhaps it was the fact that it was such a top-down approach, that a lot of perverse incentives were built into the system, but the fact of the matter is it didn't work for Ontarians. It didn't work for Ontarians who were tenants, it didn't work for Ontarians who were new to this country and needed a decent place to live. It didn't work for anybody, except perhaps the high-priced consultants and the high-priced lawyers and the high-priced architects.

From our perspective, we did make a sea change and said that we are not interested in something that does not work, we are not interested in being involved as government in bricks and mortar, because government is not very good at these things.

Mr Marchese: Yes, it's bad. OK. Move on. All right.

Hon Mr Clement: So we decided to move on.

You raised a couple of points, and I do want to turn to them a little bit. First of all, we do have in the Tenant Protection Act provisions about landlords who fail to maintain their buildings.

Mr Marchese: We did too.

Hon Mr Clement: Sure you did. I can say quite honestly we made it tougher. There's always going to be a sliver of the population that is not playing by the rules. I deal with it in my other portfolio when it comes to polluters, for instance. There are some landlords that try to take advantage of the system; there are some tenants who try to take advantage of the system. Even though, by and large, the great majority of tenants are good, there are some rogues. Even though, by and large, the great majority of landlords are good, there are some that are trying to milk the system.

So if you have any evidence, despite our best intentions, of someone who is trying to get around the system that we have put in place in good faith in the Tenant Protection Act, please let us know.

Mr Marchese: Minister, I don't mean to interrupt you. I'm very singular in my approach. Housing is my most critical interest. The housing crisis, the fact that nobody is building, that's of critical interest to me. All the other stuff I'm interested in too, but we don't really have much time. I just want to know how you're going to address that.

Hon Mr Clement: That's fine. We as a society do have some challenges in this area, there's no question about it. But I think we are making progress.

The problem with the statistics is that they are very directed at a certain type of rental accommodation. I don't want to get into the lies, damn lies and statistics metaphor, but there are some problems with that because they don't count everything. For instance, we have had great increases in home construction and home ownership, which in turn allows new units to be made available. We have a number of condominiums that are being built, and our information indicates that up to 25% of those condominiums are used for rental accommodation because they are sublet. So that, combined with 40,000 housing starts, does have an impact.

There is more to do, and in fact we do call upon our federal counterparts. There was a lot that was identified in the Lampert report that David mentioned yesterday, talking about cutting the GST costs for new-unit construction, talking about reducing the CMHC insurance premiums. Those will help us create a functioning market, which we have not had in the past.

We're making some steps here. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that since our discussion yesterday, the Canadian government did sign the social housing agreement today. So that's good news. That means that 10,000 new families, more families, will have access to rental supplements as a result of our commitment; $50 million was the commitment because of this Canada-Ontario social housing agreement. So we are making progress.

It does get frustrating, Rosario. I share your frustration. We all want the progress to happen tomorrow. If I had a magic wand, believe me, this is one of the areas where I'd use the magic wand. But we live in the world of reality and the here and now. I take some comfort from the fact that the TPA and other measures that we are pursuing are making definable, discernible progress on the issues that you and I care so much about.

Mr Marchese: Minister, it's not discernible at all in terms of the progress. We are not seeing it. If the deputy assisted you in telling you that we're doing great in the housing market, that is true in terms of those individuals who can buy houses. They're doing OK. Their incomes are five or six times higher-

The Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese.

Mr Marchese: You're kidding? Did we run out of time?

The Vice-Chair: Yes. You were just on a roll, but you gave up your 10 minutes. May I ask the government, are you sharing your time too?

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): It's doubtful; I'll share it with my colleagues.

Minister, I want to address a question to social housing as well. I also just want to make a comment that I had the privilege, I guess, to sit on the hearings for the Tenant Protection Act, and I don't think there's any doubt that the private sector will build social housing units. There's absolutely no doubt they will, provided, as in anything, that they know they are going to be paid for the product they produce. I'm talking about that they know they are going to get their rents.

1630

It's rather interesting for me to hear that there's a great outcry because people have to pay 30% of their income for housing-32%, I guess it is, to be exact. I'm probably older than some in this room-not all, but some-and I can remember when I was out looking at rents and I was looking at buying a house etc. Then, they said, "Don't ever spend more than 50%." I can assure you we didn't have cable TV and call display, portable phones and all of these things. I guess in your mind you have to decide what is really necessary. Is it good housing, an apartment, or a portable phone etc? Just a couple of comments. I still believe, and with my own children, that if you want to buy something, make sure it's not going to cost you more than that 50% if you do.

Anyway, there certainly are families in this province who are facing housing problems. There's no doubt we're going to address them and I think, to a point, we have. That is, there is close to $30 million worth of increase-$29 million to be exact-in the social housing portion of this particular budget.

Would you like to comment on that and maybe explain this item, what the taxpayer can see with the extended programs down the road?

Hon Mr Clement: I'd be very happy to, and thank you for your perspectives on it. If I can just add parenthetically, the challenges one faces in government become altogether different when you're in a boom period versus when you're in a recession. Of course, when you're in a recession-which my colleagues to the right of me had the misfortune of having to deal with, I suppose, although I think they did contribute to that in some fashion-of course vacancy rates decline because people put off moving out of the home of their parents, or put off immigrating to our province because they don't want to be part of an economy that isn't creating jobs and opportunity. Our challenge is to deal with our success, to deal with our prosperity, and that's a particularly complex challenge.

But yes, we have had almost a $29-million increase in the social housing portion of the budget. We spend about $1.5 billion every year to subsidize social housing in this province. Subsidies to each of the 275,000 non-profit units per unit are about $10,000 per year.

We're trying to do this in a way that helps Ontarians. That's our job. But that means taxpayers too. They have to make sure that every dollar we spend on this reaches its goal, does its job. That's part of it too. If money is spent with the best of intentions but doesn't do what it's supposed to do, we have not only failed the person we're trying to help but we've also failed the taxpayer. That's the kind of discipline that we've added to government in the last four years.

When we look at maintenance and repairs, I can tell you it's required on all current housing stock. We've made adjustments to make sure it reflects the true nature of how this money was being spent. It's being allocated on operating expenses, rather than just capital expenses. That meant we've moved $48 million from the capital budget to the operating budget, which I think is more realistic. It's more commonsensical.

I can tell you as well that through a little bit of serendipity but also through good management practices, we've saved nearly $20 million in mortgage rates. If you offset the $48-million increase with the $20 million, you've got a $28-million increase in the social housing budget because we plowed all that money back in.

We do want to tackle the housing issue-this is part of our mandate, it's part of what Ontarians expect of us-but we have to do it in the right way. You can't just rely on the old ways of doing things, which clearly are not working any more. I doubt sometimes whether they worked in the initial phase as well. Maybe we just hid it better in the days when we spent money but didn't account for it in the same way that taxpayers expect us to do now.

Throwing money at the problem doesn't help. We've got to ensure that we have a good plan that actually makes sure the money is focused in on where it should be spent.

I can go through a little bit of the litany, Mr Chair, if I have your indulgence. Under the previous Liberal government here in Ontario, rental housing starts fell by 21.4% and total housing starts declined by 40.5%. That was between 1987 and 1990, just for the Chair's records. The NDP was a complete disaster. Rental housing stocks plummeted by 74.4% during their mandate and total housing starts declined by 43% during their mandate.

Would I like to see housing starts higher than they are now? Absolutely. But do you know what? At least the private rental unit starts have gone up under a Mike Harris government. Total housing starts have increased by 50%. These are auspicious trends. They show that the market in housing is starting to heal itself. Again, if I had a magic wand, it should all be done tomorrow, but you know, it took us 20 years to get into this hole and it does take a little bit of time to get out of the hole that was dug by previous governments, to be brutally frank. Perhaps I can be even more frank and say, governments of all three political stripes.

We've learned a lot from those years. We've learned a lot of what not to do. When you try to impose a solution and say, "Government can do it better. Government can build these units better," do you know what? You spend a lot of money on administration and a lot of money on extraneous expense. Do you know what we found out? Not a lot of the money goes to the people we are trying to help. That is the biggest crime of all, I think, and what we are determined to avoid.

I hope that answers your question. I remain optimistic. Maybe I'm an optimistic person by nature, but I see tangible evidence of the market healing itself and having a direct positive impact on women and men and their families who are seeking the kind of accommodation that should be available in a province like Ontario

The Vice-Chair: Mr O'Toole.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Thank you for a very informative session here. Just switching the subject a bit, I know it's an important area for all of us, but I'd like to look at regional restructuring, if I could. I see there's a line item in the budget that there is a reduction.

Just a little background: As you would know, Minister, I have for a brief period of time, perhaps the last 10 or 15 years, been involved in local government and regional government in Durham region. I can even recall when the regions were formed, some 25 years ago. It was quite a visionary activity at the time but very controversial, not unlike the whole debate around the city of Toronto debate which is very controversial, trying to wring out waste and inefficiencies and streamline. We just use more sophisticated words today, but they were all there at that time as well.

I see a member of your staff here whom I've seen on previous occasions as part of those restructuring reports, very professionally done. I was on council in 1990 when the Ottawa-Carleton single-tier study was looked at. There were arguments for and against, the very issue to which your ministry has now appointed special advisers.

I guess the point I am trying to make is, it's not new. I think it's expected of government to show vision and leadership. In fact, I think the whole GTA debate itself started-I don't know, I'm not an academic, but probably 20 years ago I remember reading a report, I think it was called Vision 2020 at the time, about the GTA and its potential outreaches.

How does this apply really? The signal you've sent to the four municipal areas that are looking at restructuring, what's the message for Durham region, or any of the regions in the GTA? There is this new legislative structure around it. But we know Ajax and Pickering are in discussions as we speak about what to do. The whole region of Durham has a special committee looking at governance and duplication.

I go back to previous government, to give them some credit. The Golden commission was looking at the same issues and how to restructure. Have you got any advice?

Perhaps that formed the question that I would put to you. In the budget you've removed about $44 million from a line item. That was part of the municipal restructuring fund. In the context I've just described, the ongoing anxiety of change, is that an appropriate budget reduction of $44.5 million?

1640

Hon Mr Clement: I thank you for the question and just to put that on the record, because that was part of the original municipal restructuring fund. That phase of our municipal restructuring is winding down and so it is entirely appropriate that the funding for that would start to wind down as well.

We're also learning lessons along the way here. Of course, the city of Toronto amalgamation will remain in the record books for a while as the largest amalgamation in terms of population affected in the history of Ontario, I dare say. We also have smaller municipalities that are part of the restructuring as well, so the process of dealing with that streamlining is going to become more efficient as well.

I can say to the committee that we've approved about 118 restructuring proposals to date and that reduces the number of municipalities from about 815 down to 586. Again for the record, the number of municipal politicians has been decreased by 1,059. I think I said yesterday but maybe I'll state it for the record again that municipalities have so far reported a total savings of more than $220 million annually. This process is ongoing. We've had a lot of backing from a lot of sources. Even Dalton McGuinty has encouraged us to get on with the job of restructuring in Ottawa-Carleton, for instance. I'd like to thank Mr McGuinty for his confidence that we're on the right track to create stronger, better and more efficient municipalities.

That's what it's all about: making sure that we are delivering better services more efficiently, better services for less cost to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is the one who is footing the bill for overlapping and duplication. It means more streamlined government because of fewer politicians, or fewer levels of government in certain instances, and it means more accountability as a result of that. Those are the criteria that we are using in all of these cases.

You mentioned specifically Durham. I want to talk about that because as part of the GTA we've signalled that we want to make sure that the GTSB knows precisely what its terms of references are. We've given them a little bit of time. It's a new body, a new committee or board that is now on the scene that is taking a very aggressive and long-overdue stance on transportation issues, making sure there's integration on transportation issues throughout the GTA. How did they get the authority to do that? It was through our decisions. They've got to work out some of their terms of reference a little bit first and we've given them time to do that.

It is very heartening to know that there are municipalities even within the GTA that are taking the lead and starting to consider and consult, starting to do reports and the research on how to deliver better services for less for the taxpayers.

I would only encourage Pickering and Ajax and the region of Durham, just as I am encouraging my own home region of Peel and the constituent municipalities within that region, and indeed anyone else who needs that encouragement, to initiate these processes, get some information on the table, discuss these issues with your citizenry. I think we can all say as politicians that there are always new and creative ways to deliver services better. It is our job, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, to find those solutions, to be creative in the ways to do so.

Maybe in 1974 the way we had it set up in the GTA regions was the way to do it, but is it entirely appropriate in 1999? In some instances perhaps so, in other instances perhaps not, but we have to go through that process. By taking the lead in Pickering and Ajax and in the region of Durham, they are starting a process that will be very positive for the taxpayers in your region. That's how we're going to judge things as a caucus and as a government.

Mr O'Toole: Just a quick follow up, if I may. It may not be a fair question, Minister, but there's a municipal election in the year 2000. Are you expecting anything particularly interesting in that context? There may have to be some changes for that particular municipal election in the year 2000. Is that in any way being discussed?

Hon Mr Clement: Certainly in the areas where we have the special advisers, the ministry and the government have announced the intent to move as expeditiously as feasible upon the release of the special advisers' reports. Our intention at least, if at all possible, is to have some solutions in place for the upcoming municipal elections in those particular regions. Other regions are already initiating some proposals which we will obviously take and duly consider as expeditiously as possible.

I am reluctant to say, carte blanche, that all of this should be in place for the 2000 elections. In some cases it will be appropriate and in other cases, because of the complexity-there are no cookie-cutter solutions here. Each individual region and municipality and county has to be looked at according to its individual circumstances. That requires some deliberation. We are not in the business of, "Ready, fire, aim"; we're in the business of doing things right for the taxpayers of Ontario and to ensure that those services are delivered efficiently and effectively. I would prefer to look at it on a case-by-case basis with respect to those municipalities outside of the four that have been held up for particular attention with respect to the special advisers.

The Vice-Chair: You've got a minute.

Mr Stewart: I wanted to get back to social housing again, Minister, if I may. Certainly, if you look at the estimates binder, a large portion of the municipal affairs and housing estimates is made up of social housing. They're now being shifted so that the municipalities will pick up a major portion of the cost. I use the word "shifted" because I believe the Who Does What initiative was a shift of services to the level of government that can best do them and can best do them at the best price. I'm also very concerned about who pays the bills and how they're collected. Could you give me an idea on how the ministry deals with municipalities for the costs that are related to this service?

Hon Mr Clement: Sure. There have been some changes in this area. I believe it was in early 1997 that we announced the local services realignment and that transferred the responsibility of social housing to the municipality. That's when it was done. The funding responsibility of social housing was transferred effective January 1, 1998, through what we called the Social Housing Funding Act, 1997. As a result of that, the billing to municipalities is based on what we call the actual cash flows, so the bill for a specific month is an estimate of the subsidies for that month and then is adjusted in the next month to reflect the actual amount of the subsidy, because, of course, this shifts and changes over time. We have found a high level of credibility with this billing process. We expect that the initial forecast of social housing costs provided to the municipalities in early 1998 was about $876 million and was based on current provided budgets. We later reduced that by $40 million when we announced that the dedicated supportive housing would not be devolved to the municipalities.

The Vice-Chair: Mr Caplan.

Mr Caplan: I have many questions to go over, Chair. I'm going to try to be very direct and I would hope that you would direct the minister to give direct and succinct answers to the questions I'm going to ask.

First of all, I'd like to thank the staff of the ministry for providing a list of properties in response to the question that I asked yesterday here in committee. However, there is one difficulty. This is the official Hansard of the Ontario Legislature and I'll just read you the response of the honourable Chair of Management Board of Cabinet, who says, "There are a few pieces of property that, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we'll consider for sites to help the homeless." He says, "On the specifics, he"-referring to myself-"can ask the Minister ... exactly which properties."

I've been provided a list of all properties that have been in the tender by the Ontario Realty Corp. First of all, did the Chair of Management Board misinform the House? Exactly which properties are up for affordable housing projects?

Hon Mr Clement: No. Absolutely not.

1650

Mr Caplan: OK. Then would the minister or the ministry staff be so good as to indicate which of the hundreds in this list are specifically being designated for affordable housing projects.

Hon Mr Clement: We are going through that process right now and I indicated to you yesterday-

Mr Caplan: So that has not happened.

Hon Mr Clement: -to be fair to me and to be fair to the record of this committee, that this was a very complex process. It's all very well to say that this particular land is available, but then we have to make sure that it is appropriate in terms of the services that are available, that it is the most appropriate for a housing initiative.

So the answer to your question is, in the fullness of time when we make sure we get it right, when we make sure we have a process that gets it right for the people of Ontario, you will find out as soon as we find out.

Mr Caplan: The commitment by the Harris government was made eight months ago. I would submit that the work is proceeding incredibly slowly, if it has proceeded at all.

I have several questions regarding the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which the minister alluded to in his opening remarks. I'd like to ask how many hearing sites or locations have been closed since June 1998 and where those locations are. If the minister or the staff members cannot provide the answers here today, and they certainly can be provided at a later time, I would understand.

Ms Carol Kiley: I'm Carol Kiley. I'm the manager with the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal. Since June 1998 there have been no hearing sites closed-June 17 is when we started-there have been no district offices or client service offices closed. We're still hearing all of our hearings in the county seat of the county where the residential complex is located. If that isn't convenient, if the tenants would rather go to one of our district offices, we can accommodate them that way.

Mr Caplan: If I may, further: The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal used to hear cases in Richmond Hill. Is that correct?

Ms Kiley: That's correct.

Mr Caplan: Do they any longer?

Ms Kiley: Yes.

Mr Caplan: They used to hear them in Brighton and Napanee. Do they still do that?

Ms Kiley: Yes.

Mr Caplan: The information in a letter from the chair of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal indicates that this is no longer the case.

Ms Kiley: The letter that went out, I think it was in August or September 1999, what that did was redistribute the caseload so that applications for Richmond Hill or Napanee or certain of the areas that you mentioned would be heard by adjudicators from the North York office rather than from the central office, which was located in Mississauga. That change came about because we found that those adjudicators in Mississauga were spending too much of their time travelling and it was easier for the adjudicators from North York. So it was never a change in office, merely a change in how the tribunal itself distributed its workload.

Mr Caplan: So you are still hearing cases in Richmond Hill.

Ms Kiley: Absolutely.

Mr Caplan: You are still hearing cases in Napanee.

Ms Kiley: Yes.

Mr Caplan: OK. Thank you.

Are there any plans for closures of any of the sites? The letter of the chair of the tribunal indicates that there would be further reorganization of the hearing sites and locations.

Ms Kiley: I don't have the letter with me, so I can't recall exactly how it was worded. I think the intention has always been not to close sites or reduce access but to redistribute the workload. As you must understand, we did not really know where our workload would be coming from when we set up our offices and our locations. We're looking at redistributing workload but not limiting access in any way.

Hon Mr Clement: Can I just add, to make sure the record is completely clear on this: The tribunal is doing the operational review, and in the future they may make some recommendations, of which I'm not aware at present but I'm thinking ahead here. If they make recommendations in the future that can deliver better services for less, which means a potential reallocation, that's something we would have to look at. That's the criterion: It would have to be at least the same level of service or better.

Mr Caplan: OK. I certainly at this point take the minister at his word.

Have there been closures of document filing centres? If there have been, how many, and where are they, please?

Ms Kiley: There was one document filing centre in-I can't recall where-

Mr Caplan: Newmarket?

Ms Kiley: Newmarket-that did not wish to continue. We did not close it; they didn't want the business, so we were looking to replace that one.

Again, the minister is absolutely right. The operational review may lead us to do things more cost-efficiently while providing the same level of access, but as of now I think it was just the one in Newmarket. There may have been one in Windsor that we relocated.

Mr Caplan: Are there any plans to close-I guess pending the operational review, as you mention.

Hon Mr Clement: That's correct.

Mr Caplan: That's fine.

Ms Kiley: We're also looking into ways in which we can utilize the common counters and other access points.

Mr Caplan: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

Ms Kiley: The common counters-what are they called?-shared services bureaus of the government.

Mr Caplan: I had earlier been advised that particularly in northern Ontario and remote areas there is the use of teleconferencing and videoconferencing. Could you tell me how many times each one of those procedures has been used by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal since June 1998.

Ms Kiley: I can't give you that figure. I can find that out.

Mr Caplan: I would appreciate that.

Ms Kiley: You want both teleconference and video-

Mr Caplan: If you could break it out.

Ms Kiley: Just in northern Ontario?

Mr Caplan: No, in the province.

Ms Kiley: In the province, OK. I can find that out.

Mr Caplan: That would be greatly appreciated.

Hon Mr Clement: We'll submit it to the committee.

Mr Caplan: Yes, and where the sites are specifically that it's being offered out of, if that be Sudbury, Toronto, Windsor, wherever it happens to be.

Ms Kiley: Sure. I'll get you the information.

Mr Caplan: I have more of a philosophical question specifically for the minister. You are a lawyer by training, I understand. Yes?

Hon Mr Clement: Yes, I am.

Mr Caplan: In a quasi-judicial or judicial process, one of the most important aspects, I'm told-I'm not a lawyer, sir, just so you understand-is the ability to assess the credibility of the various participants. Yes? That's a tenet, yes?

Hon Mr Clement: Certainly in the case of evidence, you're quite right.

Mr Caplan: How is an adjudicator supposed to assess credibility over the phone? Doesn't a judge or a quasi-judicial arbitrator or adjudicator need to be able to see the person to be able to get a sense of credibility?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me give you a hypothetical. In some cases, the evidence is in dispute and therefore you have to weigh the different depositions on the evidence and make a finding, either implicit or explicit, as to credibility because you've got to weigh the evidence. There are other cases where the evidence is not in dispute and there's a legal issue involved where credibility is less of a factor and it's merely a case of deciding how the law is to be applied.

Mr Caplan: That's well and good, but if credibility is an issue, and it often is in judicial or quasi-judicial matters, how is an adjudicator supposed to assess credibility over the telephone?

Hon Mr Clement: I'll tell you, this is the challenge for all judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals and courts because there is an increasing use in evidentiary issues of other means of obtaining evidence, which are sometimes less direct than historically has been the case in our common law system.

I guess through the jurisprudence there has been an ability of our adjudicators in this province and throughout Canada to do the proper weighing of evidence. Sometimes that evidence is directed person to person. Sometimes it is evidence that is weighed that is not the usual, I guess, historical way of dealing with these cases. That's part of their job as adjudicators. If they don't feel comfortable, then that's one case.

I should say that if you're referring to the tribunal, they've never done a telephone hearing, just so you know.

Mr Caplan: So teleconferencing has never happened?

Hon Mr Clement: In terms of the hearing part, that's the information I'm led to believe.

Mr Caplan: OK. That's fine.

Hon Mr Clement: There might be mediations and things like that.

Mr Caplan: Sure. There are other things that the tribunal does. I would submit that the tenant is at a distinct disadvantage in terms of being able to have credibility assessed by a telephone conversation, and I would hope that it would be the ministry's desire to see that justice is equally available to both participants in any kind of dispute.

I have a question, as well, regarding the provisions of harassment under the Tenant Protection Act. First of all, how many investigations, how many prosecutions, and how many convictions have there been for harassment since June 1998?

Ms Kiley: I have estimates. I don't have actuals. We've had about 1,400 to 1,500 applications for tenant rights, and those include harassment.

Mr Caplan: Of the 1,500 applications, how many resulted in conviction?

Ms Kiley: Our investigations unit is separate from the tribunal. It's under the auspices of the ministry. I think there are 20 cases currently being prosecuted. I don't have the actual figures. I would have to get that for you.

Mr Caplan: You can provide the actual investigations, prosecutions and convictions?

Hon Mr Clement: We'll undertake to circulate that to the committee.

Mr Caplan: Thank you very much.

How many default orders by the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal have been issued since June 1998?

Ms Kiley: Forty-five per cent of all of the orders issued are default orders.

Mr Caplan: Forty-five per cent of all orders?

Ms Kiley: Forty-five per cent of all orders are default orders.

Mr Caplan: Where essentially people haven't responded and so a default order is issued?

Ms Kiley: It's where people have not indicated that they wish to dispute the application.

Mr Caplan: Correct. But how many default orders have there been?

Ms Kiley: I'm trying to think. I know there were 60,000 applications as of June 1999. I couldn't tell you exactly, but I would suspect it's around 30,000.

Mr Caplan: You can provide specific figures?

Ms Kiley: I will provide actual stats for you as of the end of October.

Mr Caplan: That would be acceptable.

Did the ministry project an expected number of default orders that would be issued when it set up the system? Do you project ahead and say, "We expect there will be so many types of cases"? What was that figure?

Ms Kiley: We based our projections initially on the information we received from the Attorney General, because they had heard the landlord and tenant cases prior to the tribunal. The Attorney General had a 70% default rate. We felt that since our access was more informal, we didn't project that high a default rate, so we projected initially 60%.

Mr Caplan: You've had 45%?

Ms Kiley: We've had 45%, so we've had more disputes filed, by 20%, than we had anticipated.

Mr Caplan: More disputes filed by?

Ms Kiley: Yes, more people filed a dispute and said they wanted to go ahead to a hearing, so the application could not go to a default.

Hon Mr Clement: One of the conclusions is that the process is more accessible now, because more are taking advantage of it.

Mr Caplan: So the 45% number, you're suggesting that's an acceptable figure to you?

Hon Mr Clement: The figure is the figure.

Mr Caplan: I understand, but is that considered to be an acceptable figure to the ministry?

Hon Mr Clement: What do you mean by "acceptable"? Do you mean that we're happy?

Mr Caplan: That a certain number of default orders have been issued, as opposed to people who respond to defend themselves.

Hon Mr Clement: I think we're neutral on it. We have a system in place to allow tenants and landlords to ensure that their rights are upheld, and I think we're neutral as to the outcome as long as the process is a fair and reasonable process.

Mr Caplan: I understand there's a three-step process to set aside a default order, or a three-step test, if you will. Is that correct?

Ms Kiley: If you have a default order issued-it means you have not responded or have not disputed or have not called us or faxed us to let us know that you wish to dispute it-and a default order is issued, you can file for a set-aside within 11 days. The test is quite simple. The test is that you were not reasonably able to participate. That's the only test.

Mr Caplan: That's it? You don't have to provide an excuse for why you didn't file a response? You don't have to demonstrate that you attempted to act quickly? You don't have to have a good defence on the merits of the matter? I understood that to be the three-step test that is being imposed by the rental housing tribunal in order to achieve a set-aside.

Ms Kiley: The legislation is quite clear. The only test to be granted a set-aside is that you were not reasonably able to participate. The case is then heard. If you have convinced an adjudicator that you were not reasonably able to participate because of illness-I don't know what kinds of excuses or what kinds of situations they consider; I'm not an adjudicator-then the case is heard on its merits.

Mr Caplan: That's very interesting, because I had occasion to be at a legal clinic here in Ontario, in fact, just last week, and I was told by the folks at the legal clinic that in their opinion it is easier to set aside the judgment of a court than it is to set aside a matter that's had a default order in the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal setting. I'm going to relay your response to that legal clinic, because obviously there is some miscommunication somewhere about what the process is and how it is supposed to operate.

I trust that I can bring these matters to the minister's attention if the correct procedures are not being followed in certain jurisdictions in areas in Ontario.

Hon Mr Clement: Absolutely, you can. May I say, as well, maybe we're confronting a bit of human nature here. Under the old system, there was no consequence for being involved in the process, and now there is a consequence, so one has to keep that in mind as well. If the process was free and available and whatnot, then of course people are going to use the process.

I think we have to make sure the process is accessible. That should be our absolute number one aim. At the same time, we don't want frivolity to be the order of the day. We're trying to get to that balance. If there is a particular problem in a particular area, let us know.

Mr Caplan: I will be sure and do that.

Minister, as well, you mentioned in your comments today that you have recently signed the federal-provincial deal on housing.

Hon Mr Clement: That is correct.

Mr Caplan: Congratulations.

Hon Mr Clement: Thank you very much. I am very pleased to have been able to do that.

Mr Caplan: I understand you anticipate realizing some approximately $100 million from this deal. Is that correct?

Hon Mr Clement: A hundred million? I'm not sure about that. Janet Mason, who is our chief negotiator, is here. I'd ask her to come up to the front. I'm aware of the $50 million, in terms of the amount that has been made available to us because of the calculations, that we can then plow back into the rental supplements. Plus we've got the $30-million portion that is designed for capital-

Mr Caplan: Perhaps we could get into the other, if I could ask you, Minister. The $50 million that you're going to put into rent supplements, I don't seem to find it in the estimates here, although the program was announced back in March. Can you please show me the page where I could fine the $50-million figure?

Hon Mr Clement: That was the problem, you see, because the negotiations dragged on and on, and we were getting quite frustrated. I must say-

Mr Caplan: Is that the regular course of events, that announcements are made without the dollars to support it being in place?

Hon Mr Clement: No. I want to assure the honourable member on this. At one point we had a federal government that was seeking an agreement, then we had a federal government that decided not to seek an agreement, and then they decided to seek the agreement again. That's why there has been a length of time, but I'm very pleased and wish to applaud Minister Gagliano for signing the agreement today. That allows us, because of the way the federal funds are calculated, to divert some of those funds that are saved as a result of the calculation for those women and men and their families most in need of rental supplements. That's 10,000 families, as a result of these calculations, who are going to get rental supplements.

The Vice-Chair: With that wonderful note-

Mr Caplan: My time is up?

The Vice-Chair: Yes, your time is up.

Mr Caplan: I'm sure there will be another round.

The Vice-Chair: I wanted the opportunity to warn the members that when coming into a committee meeting, would you mind either leaving your cellular phones outside or turning them off when you get inside here. They could be interrupting the proceedings.

The next round would have been the NDP. They're not here. I presume that the round then goes to the Conservatives.

Mr Wettlaufer: I wonder if we could have a ruling. Being as the third party isn't here, what are we going to do with their time? Are we going to divide the remaining time equally?

1710

The Vice-Chair: The fact is that it's your rotation now and you could take your twenty minutes now.

Mr Wettlaufer: OK. Thank you, Chair.

Minister, almost two years ago we had one of the most-well, I guess it was the most devastating natural disaster in Canadian history. We see every day pictures on television of what earthquakes do and what hurricanes do. The ice storm that hit eastern Ontario and Quebec was absolutely devastating. While I didn't get down into eastern Ontario, we do have a number of friends who sent us photos of what happened, and I have to say that I was totally shocked, having looked at those photos and seen the effect that it had on people's lives and property. I recall seeing one photo of a very large evergreen tree, I think it might have been a blue spruce, of which all that was left was the trunk; all the branches were stripped right off.

Now, of course, people's lives are essentially back in order, repairs are made. We've received many compliments from the people of eastern Ontario for our efforts. I wonder if you could share with us-you mentioned yesterday a figure of $200 million, I believe, that was spent by our government and I think you said 80% of it was recoverable from the federal government. I wonder if you could give us an indication or maybe even detail-and if you can't, if one of the bureaucrats can-of what your ministry did to help the people of eastern Ontario.

Hon Mr Clement: I'd be very happy to go into some detail. Maybe I'd ask Elizabeth McLaren also to come up front to give her perspective a little bit as well, but I wouldn't mind starting out because this is what we hope to be a unique event, obviously, because of the tragedy involved and the great expense and human cost, if I can put it that way. This was the largest disaster in Canadian history, let's make no bones about that. Just to give you an example, six times more claims were submitted than for the Red River flood in Manitoba. If you are looking at comparators, nothing compares to this ice storm.

There were almost 30,000 insurance claims that had to be settled by the insurance industry, that totalled about $52 million. Municipal damage estimates were around $78 million, just on municipal damage. Then we had the ministry and their transfer agencies, which reported costs of about $236 million. The municipal electric utilities reported costs of $24 million. Ontario Hydro reported costs of $250 million, and finally $15 million for private poles and wires. We all have a memory of some of the human cost and the human discomfort and suffering, but there are some hard numbers as well.

We did act quickly and generously. We committed $50 million immediately following the disaster. We committed $11.9 million for the Emergency Help Fund, which was provided to municipalities and to victims in January and February, and then we announced this up to 4-to-1 ratio of provincial-local funding; that meant for every dollar that was raised locally, we'd be committing four dollars, and that was under the Ontario disaster relief assistance program.

There were a number of components-I'll let Liz talk a little bit about that-and there was this federal-provincial side agreement which cost-shared 50-50 some of the items that were particularly in need of being shared.

I would say we acted responsibly. We acted swiftly. There was an incredible amount of coordination that had to be done and I think we can all be proud of-I don't mean proud of our government. You expect your government to act in situations like this; I think proud of individuals in Ontario, who gave their time, who left their jobs to be there in a volunteer capacity, neighbours helping neighbours, strangers helping folks who needed help. There was a real confirmation of the community values that are so important in Ontario and that have made Ontario such a wonderful place to live, work and raise a family, if I can use that terminology.

Liz, do you want to go into some detail?

Ms Elizabeth McLaren: Certainly, Minister.

I'm Elizabeth McLaren. I'm the assistant deputy minister for the office for the greater Toronto area in the ministry. That's the long story why I did ice storm.

As the minister said, eastern Ontario began experiencing damaging ice storms on January 4, 1998, so we are approaching the second anniversary of that, leaving a large portion of eastern Ontario without electricity. Sixty-six municipalities were eventually declared in a state of emergency.

As the minister has said, the province responded quickly and generously. An initial commitment of $50 million was made within days, with the promise that more money would be there as required. Again, as the minister has said and as Mr Wettlaufer said in his question, it is projected that $201.6 million will eventually be eligible for cost-sharing with the federal government. So it was quite significant.

To give you some other details to show you the magnitude of the storm, 84,000 private insurance claims were filed with various insurance companies across Ontario and they have now been settled for in the neighbourhood of $213 million, which is quite significant in Ontario terms.

As the minister said, we had six times more claims than the Red River flood and it was interesting that when the eastern Ontario disaster relief committee was established, which was the umbrella committee for the eight local committees established throughout the area, these local committees then sent out claim forms. The deadline date to submit a claim was June 15, 1998. By June 15-actually, over 50% of the claims came in the final two weeks, so not until June of last year-we received a total of 29,726 claims from individuals, farms and businesses. As the minister has stated, a lot of credit needs to be given to the volunteer committee, the eastern Ontario disaster relief committee, that worked. By May of this year, which was less than one year from the final date of submission for the claims, all 29,726 claims had been processed. That was a significant record, and faster than has been the case in other disasters, both in Ontario and across Canada.

What was interesting too was that when the committee had completed going through all 29,726 claims, because this disaster had evolved and the guidelines that were used to establish the claims had been changed, a decision was taken to go back over every one of those claims to make sure they had been handled fairly and equitably and that people had received exactly what they deserved. That review was completed and all claim payments were made to claimants by September 24 of this year. Through that second review, an additional $11,416,000 was paid out. We think that review was certainly worthwhile in terms of claimants in eastern Ontario. The total assistance paid out to date by the eastern Ontario disaster relief committee is about $49 million.

One of the other issues when claims of this magnitude are being handled is fairness and equity, so when the original claim payments were made, claimants were given an opportunity to ask that their claims be reconsidered. Out of the almost 30,000 claimants, only 1,000 requested a reconsideration of their claim. Of those, about 888-most of them-were reviewed. As I said, as we went through that second review period over this summer, those 888 were paid automatically as a result of improvement to the guidelines. Only 88 were actually ineligible and were to receive no further assistance.

1720

As of September 30 of this year, just to make sure that a fair process was implemented, the eastern Ontario disaster relief committee hired an independent ombuds adjuster to go back over those remaining 100 or so claims to make sure that they in truth had been dealt with equitably. The final 156 claims were reviewed by this outside adjuster and their claims settled by the end of September. So the eastern Ontario disaster relief committee who, when we asked them to serve, were assured they would only have to be there for six weeks, will now wind down their operations and we expect that the committee will be closed by December 31. So before we hit the two-year mark we hope to have said thank you to all the volunteers.

As you know, the payments to individuals was only a portion of the government's response to the ice storm. The government established a program, the ice storm assistance program, for public authorities. Because of the magnitude of the damages, it was determined that municipalities and conservation authorities, universities, schools and hospitals were also going to need some assistance in getting back to normal.

The municipalities so far have made claims for eligible ice storm costs. They make these claims on a quarterly basis. The sixth-quarter claims were submitted in August of this year and to date municipalities have received payments of $53.5 million. This is generally the first time that municipalities have actually received any money during a disaster. Normally, it's expected that municipalities will bear their own costs, but because of the magnitude the government did institute this special program.

To ensure that all of these payments are being made appropriately and where they are needed, there is a joint federal-provincial audit, which is currently going on. We hope that the final quarterly claims from the municipalities-the final quarter was to have been September of this year. We are expecting those claims to be in by November of this year and we hope to be able to complete the audits and finalize the payments by March 2000.

We have worked closely with the federal government. This was Ontario's first opportunity, I guess, if you can put it that way, to participate in the federal government's disaster relief program. In order to be eligible for that program, the province has to spend $1 per capita. So the provincial cost has to exceed the $11 million to be able to even start.

We heard from our colleagues in other provinces that have not been as lucky and have had to access that federal program repeatedly: Quebec for several of their disasters, Manitoba and Alberta. There was a suggestion that there might be some difficulty in settling with the federal government, so we've worked very closely with the federal government and we have already received our first interim payment and they are continuing with their audits of the provincial ministries and of the municipalities. They are currently reviewing the books of the eastern Ontario disaster relief committee and are assuring us that they are finding that everything is in order. So we hope to also set another record by being the first province to complete its audit by the federal government and we're hoping to get most of that share by March of next year.

Some of the other programs: You mentioned having pictures of the ice storm, and one of the things that will linger with us all is the sight of the devastation to the trees in eastern Ontario, because the forest cover in eastern Ontario will probably never recover. I've been told by foresters that my great-great-grandchildren will still be able to see the damage in the forest when they walk. So one of the things the government decided was necessary was to try to have some special program for trees and for tree replacement. We were able to negotiate some federal support.

The federal government had already announced in concert with us that there was going to be the $70-million program to assist farmers and small businesses, and we were able to expand the eligibility of that to trees and to tree owners. Quite a detailed farm and tree assessment has gone on to provide extra assistance for people to clean out their wood lots.

One of the things we've learned that will be a benefit: Right after the ice storm, many foresters in the area were telling people which trees to cut down, and some people did act on that. We've now been studying areas where in fact the trees were not cut down, and we found that the trees that were recommended we should leave because they would recover were in fact the ones we should have cut, and the ones perhaps that we thought had lost 60% to 70% of their crown and would not survive but where we did say, "Don't say cut them. Let nature see what it will do," it's amazing. The last tour I had of some of the forests in eastern Ontario, those trees have come back. Foresters are now expecting that they will be able to eventually be harvested and possibly retain most of their value. There has has been important science going on, and that science program will continue for I think another two years, until March 2002, so that we can follow that and be able to provide advice to farmers, and especially maple producers.

Maple producers were obviously very hard hit. The storm occurred in January. It was very hard for them to get out to clean their maple-producing fields, and they had a tough crop in 1998. We did try to get out and fast-track their claims in January and February of this year to ensure that they would be able to harvest the maple syrup and keep that very important Ontario industry alive and well.

Besides the tree program for individuals, we have also decided-one of the major municipal claims was also for tree replacement, because the municipal streets and the trees and also along the forests were also damaged. Again, we went back to the federal government and found out that our colleagues in Quebec had instituted a similar program. So we have been able, in August of this year actually, to announce yet another program to assist with tree replacement.

The municipalities are currently preparing tree replacement plans. One of the problems is that there really aren't enough seedlings in eastern Ontario for us to be able to do all of the plantings that will be necessary. Again, speaking of the science, you can't plant a maple tree seedling from southwestern Ontario in eastern Ontario; it doesn't have the same genetic background and it wouldn't survive. We're having to actually spend a lot of time this year harvesting seeds of the various varieties so that those seeds can be planted and trees grown so that over the next two to three years the municipalities will have the sorts of trees that are necessary and that they want and that will have the ability to survive in eastern Ontario.

We're working very closely in eastern Ontario with the municipalities, with our sister ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and of course with the conservation authorities to make sure the money that we have for this tree program-it will work out to about $8 million provincially-will be able to be distributed where it's needed most across eastern Ontario and in the municipalities that were the hardest hit in eastern Ontario.

The Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms McLaren. I think the time for the Conservative comments or questions is up. Mr Colle.

Mr Colle: Mr Minister, as you know, what is happening more and more throughout the province is that we have development applications, and the developers are going directly to the Ontario Municipal Board. They are not, essentially, waiting for the decisions of local council or regional council. They are going directly to the Ontario Municipal Board, to that point that a lot of municipalities are now forced to dip into their reserves to pay for their legal representation at the OMB. Some municipalities like Uxbridge and Durham region may have to pass a special tax levy to pay for legal representation to the Ontario Municipal Board.

I say to you, this is not good planning. It's not the way to do planning, because what it really does is basically nullify official regional plans or local plans.

What is the ministry doing, especially in the 905 area, to stop this queue-jumping that the developers are doing and to recognize the integrity of local and regional plans?

Hon Mr Clement: Thank you for the question. I'm going to ask Paula Dill to come forward, and in the meantime I do want to share with you, Michael, that we do have the list of the municipalities not known to have issued 1998 or 1999. I could share that with the clerk. Perhaps that can be photocopied for the committee.

1730

Mr Colle: I appreciate that.

Ms Paula Dill: I'm Paula Dill, the assistant deputy minister of the provincial-municipal relations division.

In response to your question, the Planning Act, as you know, was amended in 1996, and the time frames for making application-one of the objectives was to streamline the planning process.

Mr Colle: The 90-day provision was put in.

Ms Dill: Yes. You were referring to the fact that a municipality doesn't make a decision within 90 days and then there is an application that is referred to the Ontario Municipal Board, and you made reference to queue-jumping.

About three years ago, the average time frame to achieve a hearing at the Ontario Municipal Board was quite lengthy, so it was considered efficient and expeditious on the part of an applicant, if he felt he was going to go to the Ontario Municipal Board, that it wasn't going to receive a fair hearing or the right decision, in his opinion, from the council, to get in line. That has changed, and the hearing times that are available from the Ontario Municipal Board are quite efficient, so that does not exist in terms of the myth of lining up to get into the queue to the Ontario Municipal Board.

The official plan of the municipality is the document that is adopted and guides the framework for development, and there is a process, the natural justice process, where the Ontario Municipal Board is allowed to adjudicate on matters between the parties-the municipality and the developer-and obviously ratepayers are third parties.

That is the process that is in place. It's one of the fundamental underpinnings of the provincial planning system, and it seems to work well, so I don't think queue-jumping will help.

Mr Colle: I'm just wondering, how can it be good planning when the municipalities are faced with the spectre of raising taxes when the developer comes and says: "I've got this application. If you deny the application, the municipality may have to raise taxes to pay for legal representation to the OMB"? How can this be good planning when the planning is basically based on the fact of affordability? Developers know that. What they are doing is, they've got deep pockets. They go to the OMB. They can hire the best lawyers money can buy. The local municipality, on the other hand, says, "If I fight this at the OMB, I may have to put on a special levy." Therefore, where is the integrity of local or regional planning if you can essentially go to the OMB and supersede what has been worked on for years by the regional government or local government?

Hon Mr Clement: Let me just say this: The OMB is there to be an unbiased, fair way for disputes between parties to be heard and resolved. That's the essence of the OMB, so if the municipality wants to defend its official plan, they have every right to be there, and that's the way they do it. I'm not sure what you're suggesting as an alternative.

Mr Colle: They can't afford to defend their official plan because they don't have the money and the resources to match the legal clout that the developers have. I gave you a couple of cases in point. I know the town of Richmond Hill has had to now set up a special reserve fund of $1 million to fight for their rights at the OMB. As I said, Uxbridge is contemplating a special tax levy. Durham region may have to do the same thing. Good planning shouldn't be based on whether or not you can afford it.

In some cases, municipalities have decided not to go to the OMB and have settled with the developer, not because they agreed with the development application but because they thought they could save the taxpayers money by not going to the OMB. So we're essentially seeing the economics of planning supersede the good community-based planning which, by the way, they've spent millions of dollars doing. As you know, the official plan process as it goes on in regions costs tons of money.

So the plans sit there, and eventually the developers say, "I don't care what this plan is; I'm going to go to the adjudicator, around the plan process, and make them adjudicate it." So you take your chance with the adjudicator, and I know that in some cases they have made some good decisions. There was the recent one down at the bottom of Toronto here, and I applaud them for doing that. I'm just saying, what happens to a local municipality now that has this plan that used to protect them, supposedly, that is no longer protection? In fact, they are now intimidated by the cost factor of protecting their planning process and they can't afford to do it.

Ms Dill: Generally speaking, OMB hearings that you are referring to are not the norm. A normal hearing is not a huge million-dollar hearing. So if you put that in perspective overall within the system, the average hearing is not that large in terms of dollars. However-

Mr Colle: Wait a minute now. You have to hire traffic planners, sound, water, hydrologists-it gets up into hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you know that. It is a big cost to municipalities, and it's not just the hearing per se. You have to have the experts because you know the developer's going to have a whole battery of experts defending their case, which they have the right to do.

Ms Dill: What I was going to say was that overall, on average, they're not that kind. In those specific hearings that you're speaking about, there are major urban expansions and significant growth-related issues that are at stake, as well as technical issues, that are going to be tested before the board. The issue in terms of whether the municipality is prepared at this point in time may be the watershed issue that would be tested. The official plan document, over time, should provide the municipality the up-to-date security or the policies within which they would guide development.

What is happening in these hearings is the municipalities' plans are being tested with respect to new information. In other words, as development gets more sophisticated, the official plan has to keep up with it. The initial test at the outset for the major principle-of-development issues is being tested there. After that happens, the municipality has the strength and the security and in fact the OMB behind it on its plan in terms of the test.

Mr Colle: But they don't have the financial resources to match the developers, especially in the significant ones you've talked about. Those are the ones I'm worried about. The large, significant developments are-no pun intended-very taxing on local ratepayers. All of a sudden you've got them at a great disadvantage. This is a trend I'm just alerting the minister to that is very worrisome, because if this continues, it'll mean essentially development based on one's ability to finance your experts at the Ontario Municipal Board. I don't think that was the original intention of the Ontario Municipal Board, but it's becoming a very expensive proposition. It's costing municipalities hundreds, if not millions, of dollars.

I just wondered how many of these applications, since you changed the legislation, have gone directly to the OMB. Do we have any idea of how many of those there are?

Ms Dill: I don't have the-

Mr Colle: Could I get that at a future date?

Ms Dill: Yes.

Mr Colle: Just to see, as a result of the legislative change-

Ms Dill: Are you talking about for all of Ontario?

Mr Colle: Yes, I'd be interested in all of it. Most of it would be, I would think, in the southern Ontario region. I would think most of the major ones have been-

Hon Mr Clement: Just so I get it right, because there are thousands of applications that go before the OMB: You're asking for the ones where the developer went directly to the OMB?

Mr Colle: Yes, they went directly to the OMB. They didn't wait the 90 days.

Hon Mr Clement: OK.

Ms Dill: It will take some time to collect that information.

Mr Colle: I would appreciate that. I'd like to have that just to see the reaction to the legislative change, so I have that at my disposal.

Hon Mr Clement: And you understand why it's not our information? It's usually the municipality and the developer, in your scenario, going at it at the OMB-the ministry may be not be represented there-and it's a quasi-judicial tribunal.

Mr Colle: No, but the OMB is an agency of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, so I hope you would have that information.

Hon Mr Clement: We will undertake to request that information from the OMB. That's the only source we have for that information.

Mr Colle: Yes. If you could get that from the Ontario Municipal Board for me, I'd appreciate that.

I'll just pass it over to my colleague.

Mr Caplan: I understand, Mr Chair, that as a member of the Liberal caucus you wanted to ask a question.

The Vice-Chair: I have a quick question. Mr Colle, do you want to take the chair?

The Acting Chair (Mr Mike Colle): Mr Curling, you have the floor.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Minister, over the years Frontiers Foundation usually gets some funds from the ministry-sometimes from the Ministry of Housing and I think sometimes from Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

The Frontiers Foundation is a non-profit organization that helps First Nations people rehabilitate their homes. I know this might be pretty new, but some of the wonderful and efficient staff you have behind you are quite aware of this. I'm not putting you on the spot at all from that point of view.

1740

I just wondered if you could look into the matter of having some funding given to those homes in order to rehabilitate them. They have not had those funds, and some of the First Nations people are living in some terrible conditions. It's not an extraordinary amount of money. Can you tell us if the ministry has ever taken a look at that kind of funding, and if not, would you assure me that you will do so and that some funding could flow into the Frontiers Foundation to assist them?

Mr Fenn: Mr Chairman, maybe I can respond. The member is correct that in the past through the Community Futures program there was funding of a variety of organizations, including the one to which he referred. As the member will be aware, the government felt it was worthwhile to have municipalities in a position of decision-making on these kinds of programs and to fund them where they were seen to be of benefit to finding housing or dealing with relocation issues, and the government has announced the transfer of that program and the money associated with it to municipalities.

As the minister indicated, we have certainly taken a position that these kinds of local, community, neighbourhood-based decisions about housing matters and other issues of this kind are better handled by community governments, because they are community issues. Perhaps the appropriate direction for that request would be on the municipal governments, which are now in a position to make those determinations and to decide whether grants of that sort are well placed with organizations such as that.

Mr Curling: While I appreciate the deputy minister's response, you know that it's kind of a nice shift to say it could be handled by the community, but the fact is that it's not being done. At this moment, as you go through this transitional time of who should take responsibility, there are people living in very appalling conditions. I would ask the minister if he could look into the matter even in this transitional time to see that some of this is being done.

The winter is coming again, and people are living in very appalling conditions. They're a voluntary organization and will assist so that the costs are not extraordinary. Could you somehow give me some reassurance that this project could be looked at for some funding? It's not an enormous amount of money. I just wondered if the minister would take the responsibility to look into the matter and see about some funding.

Hon Mr Clement: Certainly what I can suggest to you, Alvin, is that if you've got some information you'd like me to see, I encourage you to give me that information. It seems as if you've got a pretty good handle on this particular project. So if you would like to share some information with me, I'd very much like to see it, and at that time, I can give you an appropriate response.

Mr Curling: Thank you very much. That's all I need.

Mr Caplan: I still have a number of questions. I'll try to get them all in under the time.

The Acting Chair: It's about six minutes, I think.

Mr Caplan: Currently Bill 11 is before the House. It changes the Ontario Housing Corp to the Ontario Mortgage Corp. What is the intention of the ministry in making that kind of a change? Is the ministry indicating that they're getting out of housing entirely? Please, could you explain what the rationale is behind that change in designation?

Hon Mr Clement: I think we are trying to signal that we are continuing to change the way we see social housing being delivered in this province. I wouldn't put it in quite the terms that you put it, but as I say, I indicated earlier that we're moving away from bricks and mortar, that we don't see it as advisable that that is our long-term mandate. That apparently is similar to what the federal government has decided as well, although I guess we'll wait and see in the next budget.

We see our role as helping the individual through a combination of rent-geared-to-income supplements and a properly functioning private sector that can help us create the housing stock that we all need here in Ontario. That's the underlying philosophy of what we're doing, and we are trying to disentangle ourselves from some failed policies of the past.

Mr Caplan: I'm going to save the debate for the House, but thank you for the answer. In the estimates as well, and you did make reference to it in your opening statement, there is $4 million for a provincial sales tax rebate. My question to you, Minister, is, how many of these funds have been spent to date and how many requests have been made for this funding?

Hon Mr Clement: It's part of the budget bill.

Mr Fenn: Yes, as the minister indicates, it's part of the budget bill. It's a program that is about to be announced or about to be rolled out. The application process will be backdated to the date to which the member referred.

Hon Mr Clement: We do have to have the bill passed a little bit before we-

Mr Fenn: I would make the other observation, which is that the intent is that it show good faith on the part of the province, because the primary objective is, of course, to have a similar concession from the federal government in connection with the GST, which would be much more significant.

Mr Caplan: So far you are saying you have to make legislative changes in order to have access to these dollars.

Mr Fenn: Mr Chairman, I misled the minister. It's not in the budget bill, but the program announcement is coinciding with the budget bill.

Mr Caplan: I thought the program announcement was made last March.

Mr Fenn: The program was announced, but the application forms, the information about how to make the claims, that kind of thing is-

Hon Mr Clement: And then what we're doing is that we're backdating it so it will be available retrospectively.

Mr Caplan: So there have been no applications and no funds spent but people can apply and it will backdate back to the March 23rd announcement or back to the date of the budget?

Hon Mr Clement: I'm presuming to the announcement.

Mr Fenn: There's an effective date in the material. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's in there.

Mr Caplan: OK, so effective earlier. The $4-million fund will be over a three-year period of time, according to your estimates, so this will be $4 million for each of the next three years. What will happen if the dollars are not claimed or nobody comes forward and makes sufficient application? Where will the dollars go then?

Hon Mr Clement: As a government, we're always evaluating our programs, and if the programs are not providing the kind of service that we had intended, if there's a problem with the program, I think we have an obligation on behalf of the taxpayer to always assess our programs, always look for new ways to do things better. If we have a program that is somehow not being part of the solution, then I think we have an obligation-I'll state it quite clearly-to reassess that program and perhaps reallocate those funds to programs that are going to help solve the problem we are seeking to solve.

Mr Caplan: Perhaps I can be a little bit more clear in my question. You're going to have $12 million that you're going to put into this program over the next three years. Let's say, for sake of argument, $2 million is claimed or application is made to get a PST rebate. What will happen to the $10 million that you have reserved in this program? Will it go into general revenue? Will it stay in housing for the purpose of providing affordable housing? What will your ministry do?

Hon Mr Clement: First of all, it is $1 million per year, David. It's not $4 million per year; it's $1 million per year over the life of the program.

Mr Caplan: It's $1 million per year? That's it, really?

Hon Mr Clement: On this particular announcement that you're referring to, yes.

Mr Caplan: OK. Great.

Hon Mr Clement: You know, the only way this is going to work absolutely perfectly is if the feds come on board in some way as well. I think it is part of the solution. We're not saying it's the entire solution; it's part of the solution, it will help, but we do need to have some relief on the insurance issue for CMHC, and we also need some relief from the GST. There's no question about it. That will make the program more effective. But we're putting our money where our mouth is, and then we're waiting for the federal government to realize the importance of the program.

Mr Caplan: I know that's a constant theme, always waiting for either the municipal or federal governments to do something before the province.

Hon Mr Clement: You know as well as I do that these programs require coordination. It would be lovely if one ministry or one government with a magic wand could solve the entire issue, but the reality of our lives is that we need the municipalities at the table, we need the federal government at the table, we need individuals at the table as well. So we want to do our part, we want to lead by example, and any assistance that you can provide in these other levels of government would be most appreciated as well.

The Vice-Chair: It's unfortunate that our time has run out today.

Mr Caplan: Oh, darn. I'm sure I'll have plenty of other opportunities.

The Vice-Chair: I know, I know. You will have quite a lot.

Mr Caplan: We still have time left.

The Vice-Chair: We stand adjourned until Tuesday at 3:30. We've got one more hour of estimates on housing and municipal affairs after routine proceedings on Tuesday. We will stand adjourned until then.

The committee adjourned at 1750.