Social Housing Reform
Act, 2000, Bill 128, Mr Clement / Loi
de 2000 sur la réforme du logement social, projet
de loi 128, M. Clement
Ontario Non-Profit
Housing Association
Ms Catherine Boucher
Bethany Co-operative
Homes
Ms Kim Weiman
Guhbawin Co-operative Homes
Mr John Moore
Regional Municipality
of York
Mr Alan Wells
Association of Municipalities of Ontario
Ms Ann Mulvale
Mr Peter Hume
Region of Peel
Mr Roger Maloney
Tannenhof Co-operative Homes, Ottawa
Mr Bernard Daly
Ontario Association of
Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors
Ms Sarah Phillips
County of Grey
Mr Norm Gamble
Ecuhome Corp
Ms Angie Hains
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
JUSTICE AND SOCIAL POLICY
Chair /
Présidente
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex PC)
Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's L)
Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East / -Est PC)
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington PC)
Mr Garry J. Guzzo (Ottawa West-Nepean / Ottawa-Ouest-Nepean
PC)
Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre / -Centre ND)
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan L)
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre / -Centre
PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East / -Est L)
Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans)
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands / Kingston et les
îles L)
Mr Morley Kells (Etobicoke-Lakeshore PC)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York ND)
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff / Personnel
Mr Jerry Richmond, research officer,
Research and Information Services
The committee met at 1544 in room 151.
SOCIAL HOUSING REFORM ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 SUR LA
RÉFORME DU LOGEMENT SOCIAL
Consideration of Bill 128, An
Act respecting social housing / Projet de loi 128, Loi
concernant le logement social.
The Chair (Ms Marilyn
Mushinski): I'll call the meeting to order. Good
afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is a meeting of the
standing committee on justice and social policy to consider Bill
128, An Act respecting social housing.
Delegations have up to 20
minutes in which to address the committee. I regret that we are
running a little behind schedule again because of delays in the
House this afternoon. I will be very strict with my
interpretation of your time limits. You may take the full 20
minutes for groups, 10 minutes for individuals, or you may have
some time allocated for questions from committee members.
ONTARIO NON-PROFIT HOUSING ASSOCIATION
The Chair:
The first group to address us this afternoon is the Ontario
Non-Profit Housing Association, Robin Campbell and Catherine
Boucher. Good afternoon.
Ms Catherine
Boucher: Good afternoon. Bonjour. My name is Catherine
Boucher. I work in Ottawa in non-profit housing. I notice there
are a couple of members here from our neck of the woods: Mr Guzzo
and Mr Coburn.
Mr Garry J. Guzzo
(Ottawa West-Nepean): Be nice to us.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): If you're nice, it'll make a
difference.
Ms Boucher:
I hope so.
The Chair:
The members of committee are cutting into your time, Ms
Boucher.
Ms Boucher:
They're cutting into my 20 minutes. I'll remind them of that.
I'm here on behalf of the
Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. We represent over 720
private and municipal non-profit corporations and over 90% of
provincially administered units; that is, the units which the
province is targeting with this legislation.
Our providers come from
diverse communities and organizations including faith groups,
service clubs and the ethnocultural community. I know that Mr
Guzzo, for example, has two of our members in his riding: the
Ottawa-Carleton immigrant social services non-profit and the
Muslim non-profit. Our members are serving low- and
moderate-income families, seniors, singles and many people with
special needs.
I'm here today because our
members and the quarter-million tenants who live in non-profit
housing depend on a system that works. I want to preface my
comments by saying that ONPHA did not support the devolution of
social housing. We have noted publicly that we find this is a bad
public policy.
We certainly share municipal
concerns around the risk inherent with the capital requirements
and the ongoing, and obviously more important, issue of new
supply, which this legislation does not address and which we feel
and know that municipalities will not be able to address on their
own. We don't support overriding 35-year operating agreements
that our members entered into in good faith, including all our
volunteer board members.
Our deputation today is made
difficult by the fact that many of the important details around
this legislation will be contained in regulations which we have
not yet seen.
Notwithstanding my above
comments, the role of this committee is important, as this
legislation will impact on every aspect of our operations. It
speaks to a new funding model, new rules for providers around
rent-geared-to-income tenants, ineligibility, financial testing
and waiting list management and a new reporting and
accountability framework.
Our members need a system
that works, as do the service managers. We have tabled with you a
brief and an appendix which goes into quite a level of detail
around the amendments we are looking for. However, I'm going to
highlight the most important areas today. In this legislation,
possibly the most important point for us is the funding model
which is imbedded in the legislation.
The minister said in tabling
this legislation that he was looking for increased autonomy for
the providers, funding predictability and streamlined
accountability. I believe that our comments and suggestions will
enhance those promises that the minister made in putting this
legislation forward.
The funding model is to be a
business-based model which indicates that rents and RGI subsidies
would equal the expenses that the providers have. In order for
the financial model to work,
we are looking for four key amendments. It is critical that the
cost and revenue benchmarks be adequate. That is the basis of the
funding model.
In order to achieve that, we
believe that the legislation needs to ensure there is
consultation with the providers, including individual reviews for
each provider, as benchmarks vary from region to region and from
provider to provider, with good reason.
1550
The other significant issue
is that of having adequate capital reserves. I'm sure you will
hear this both from service managers and providers. Our brief
proposes that we look to the Condominium Act, which has pretty
clear requirements for condominium managers regarding annual
contributions and a regular update of reserve plans.
In order for a provider to
operate in a businesslike environment, there has to be adequate
working capital to address fluctuations in costs and revenues.
This is prudent business planning and also was recommended as
part of the funding model in the initial consultants' report on
the funding model. Our proposal in terms of how to ensure that
there is adequate working capital is to delete the requirement in
the legislation for providers to return 50% of the surplus to the
service manager.
We looked to the idea that
was originally in the funding models by the consultants, which
was that it would be prudent for providers to have a two-month
operating cost reserve in their portfolio. We did a projection of
what it would take under the proposed legislative funding model
and we came up with a figure of 80 years that it would take a
provider to accumulate a reserve of two months of operating
costs. I think you would agree that any business would be prudent
to have that kind of cushion to allow for the fact that there are
always unpredictable things which can happen, such as a winter
with high heating bills or a technical upgrade needed to provide
more efficient business.
If this return of the surplus
is not accepted, then our fallback position, which we hate to put
forward because we don't like to have fallback positions, would
be to apply a balance sheet approach to the surplus. That is, no
surpluses would be returned to the service manager as long as
there is a deficit on the books of the provider from previous
years.
The fourth item which is
crucial to having the funding model work is that it be adapted
for regions with flat or declining market rents, because the
funding model is based on an assumption of market rents going up.
I know that rents two to three years ago, even in
Ottawa-Carleton, with 5% vacancy rates, were actually staying
flat or declining. The funding model needs to be adapted to
account for that.
The hottest button for our
members when we talk about this legislation is the issue of
financial testing and access. This is the issue that speaks to
our work that has to do with people. Yes, we are operating bricks
and mortar, but people live in them. Those people are our
clients. The issue of RGI eligibility testing and waiting list
management transferred to the service manager is possibly the one
which resonates most dearly with our members.
We have all along said, and
we believe that an analysis of the cost-benefit of having the
service manager do this work instead of the provider will show in
every case, that it is more efficient to have the provider
continue to do this. We therefore ask that the legislation be
amended to allow the service manager to simply delegate this to
the providers through a notice rather than the more complicated
suggestion in the current legislation.
We want to note here, as
we've said on many occasions, on the issue of merging financial
testing for social housing with Ontario Works and daycare, that
only 16% of tenants who live in social housing are actually
receiving Ontario Works and only 7% use subsidized daycare. So
the overlap is really not significant.
The issue of rent collection
must remain a provider responsibility; that is, we are the only
legal entity which can deal with rent collection because under
the Tenant Protection Act we have the responsibility of dealing
with evicting tenants for nonpayment. This cannot be transferred
over to another party. The legislation supposes that the service
manager might impose other collection of fees to the tenant
directly and then we would have to enforce that. We need to be
sure that we receive adequate notice and that we're indemnified
against any financial loss if there's negligence on the part of
the service manager.
A very significant piece of
the legislation which is of great concern to us is referred to in
section 89 and it has to do with interference in our operations.
Section 88 talks about the duties of providers regarding
regulations and so on. Then section 89 has an open-ended clause
which says it allows local standards to be set by the service
managers. When we have spoken to ministry staff about this, they
have not been able to tell us in what areas the service manager
would be able to set local standards. I don't know what those
could be. Does it mean a service manager could tell us how often
we have to clear the snow? What is the level of a local standard?
Without any detail in the legislation, this is extremely
open-ended. So we want that amended to say that those standards
would only apply to the areas of municipal flexibility which are
named in the act and no others. We have suggested wording to that
effect.
We also obviously want to be
consulted in the areas of municipal flexibility. Our current
agreements require the province to consult us, and we believe
this benefits all parties and should be extended into the
legislation so that the service managers would also consult with
us.
The issue of supportive
housing waiting lists and the management of waiting lists for
special-needs housing is also of extreme concern to all of the
providers. We understand the desire to have everybody who is
eligible be aware of the resources in the community, but the
solution proposed in the legislation will not work. There may be
other solutions, but the interim solution is not what is proposed, which is to make
all the agreements that we currently have with special-needs
agencies null and void at the time of devolution. If there is
going to be a system of access, it has to be done in a
coordinated fashion and involve everyone who is affected. In the
meantime, the current agreements must be maintained in order for
the people we serve to continue to have security of tenure and to
receive the services they need.
We support the Social Housing
Services Corp in the delivery of common services. We do not,
however, support duplicating existing services, which include
group purchasing. ONPHA has a best-deals program which our
members use and which is a very good program. I believe the co-op
sector has the same. We do not support that the training for
providers be done out of the Social Housing Services Corp; it
should be done by peers through their own associations. The
best-practices system also should be operated by the social
housing sector because it should be a peer support and peer
review system, not an imposed system.
We also have been involved
significantly in the last year in setting up an investment fund
system along with the co-op housing federation. We've done a lot
of work on this issue. The ministry has been looking at our
proposal, and we believe the investment fund should be delivered
through a sector-based organization and not through the Social
Housing Services Corp.
1600
The issue of new supply is
not addressed in this legislation but we would like this
legislation to consider correcting an omission in the Tenant
Protection Act which will allow providers who are struggling, as
many of us are, to try and provide new supply to do that through
having the exemption necessary to provide rent-geared-to-income
housing in new supply. The current TPA does not permit that. That
is, we cannot do rent-geared-to-income housing in a new building
which is not covered under these programs, because the programs
are named in the TPA. So we need to have an exemption to the TPA
to allow us to use all of the programs that are out there,
including the provincial rent sup program and RRAP and all of
those municipal programs that are coming through in order for us
to do some new supply.
The Chair:
You have about two minutes.
Ms Boucher:
That was my last overhead. Thank you. Merci.
The Chair:
We have perhaps time for one question.
Mr David Caplan (Don
Valley East): Ms Boucher and Ms Campbell, thank you very
much for your presentation-very comprehensive.
You said that one of the hot
buttons or the hottest button was RGI eligibility. I know that
the minister has said, and I think even the parliamentary
assistant and government backbenchers have said, in second
reading debate and in other places, that the 30% threshold for
rent-geared-to-income is protected in this legislation.
I've read all 117 pages of
the legislation. The only reference I can find to that is
subsection 164(1), "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make
regulations respecting the following...." Under paragraph 8 it
says, "For the purposes of subsection 66(2) (amount of
geared-to-income rent), prescribing the standards to be used when
determining the amount of geared-to-income rent payable by a
household."
I haven't found any
protection for the 30% threshold. So my question to you is, have
you found it in this legislation?
Ms Boucher:
I haven't found the number 30% in the legislation, no.
Mr Caplan:
So, as far as you can tell, there are no guarantees?
The Chair:
Those are all the questions. Thank you very much.
BETHANY CO-OPERATIVE HOMES
The Chair:
The next presenter is Kim Weiman of Bethany Co-Operative Homes.
You have 10 minutes. Good afternoon.
Ms Kim
Weiman: Madam Chair and committee members, it's a great
honour and privilege to have the opportunity to share the
concerns of Bethany Co-operative with you today. My name is Kim
Weiman and I would like to introduce you to Joan Cyr, who is our
president, Judy Ormerod, who's our treasurer, and Dayle Yardley,
who is the coordinator at the co-op.
I hope that you will consider
the concerns I address today and begin the implementation of
recommended amendments to the legislation over the next week.
Thousands of co-operative members across Ontario are counting on
you to uphold the communities in which they have lived for many
years.
Bethany Co-operative is
located in Keswick, about one hour north of Toronto. We are a
68-unit townhouse-apartment complex with 98 members and 92
children. All of our members at Bethany are concerned about the
future of our communities. They have asked me to speak with you
today, simply to request that you listen to our concerns and take
them into consideration.
As you heard yesterday, and I
am sure you will hear today, sections of Bill 128 threaten our
communities and the structure of management that we are
accustomed to. Bill 128 moves the administration of social
housing from one provincial administrator to 47 municipal service
managers. The legislation that has been adopted will make it
difficult for co-ops to continue to operate as unique
corporations. We have always viewed co-operatives as a business.
We are professionals. We hire professional staff to manage the
daily operations of our co-operatives. Our management records
stand for themselves. We are fiscally responsible business
people.
Co-operative communities are
very different from social housing developments. Our communities
are member driven. Our members elect a board of directors who are
members of the co-operative. These individuals have a vested
interest in how the business is managed. This is their home.
You should have received letters from members of our
co-operative and you will also have received additional
submissions from the membership of Ontario.
This is a community in which
they have lived, raised their children and hope to share with
their grandchildren. Our members are counting on you to listen
and make the necessary changes before it's too late.
As things stand right now,
the legislation has passed second reading. We have found that the
legislation allows for a great deal of interpretation or
establishment of prescribed requirements. The prescribed
requirements are unnerving. Forty-seven municipalities are going
to establish their own rules and regulations and 47
municipalities are going to make mistakes. We have gone from a
handful of provincial operating agreements to 47 prescribed
interpretations. This concerns the members of the co-operative
because the rules of housing are going to change throughout the
province. As much as possible, we would ask that provincial
standards be established rather than allowing service managers to
set rules and regulations.
It is felt that each
municipality will establish regulations which meet their
individual municipal objectives or mandates. This may not be in
the best interest of housing longevity. Please acknowledge that
housing providers as well as the municipalities have an interest
in the municipal housing stock. Please accept CHF Ontario's
recommendations in a multitude of clauses and consult with
co-operatives in Ontario about the prescribed requirements that
will be incorporated into regulations.
Section 65 of the legislation
discusses waiting lists for units. Bethany Co-operative has an
extensive waiting list. Many co-operatives have families who have
been waiting for rent-geared-to-income assistance for years. It
would seem unfair to bump those individuals for new lists as they
are created. We would request that you add a subsection to
section 65 reading: "Where a housing provider has maintained its
own waiting list or lists as permitted or required under an
operating agreement, the housing provider may continue to fill
vacancies from such lists until they are exhausted."
The co-operative housing
sector does not fall under the Landlord and Tenant Act. We fall
under the Co-operative Corporations Act. We do not have tenants;
we select members. Living in a co-operative presents unique
opportunities for members: control over one's housing situation
according to the rules of democracy, participation in a
supportive community and mutual security. This is the type of
community in which members choose to live.
Volunteers from our
co-operatives interview applicants for membership. Co-operative
living is not just a roof over your head, it's a way of life. It
is important that applicants understand the participation element
as well as the commitment to the larger community. It is also
important that applicants and members remember that the
co-operative is a business. We are a business. Allow us to do
what we do best. Allow us to build communities around diverse
groups of people.
Co-operatives are well
managed because they are managed and maintained by their members.
Members have a vested interest in the homes in which they live.
They care about the common areas, and how their units are
maintained. Co-operatives give their members a sense of pride in
ownership. Co-operative members are fiscally responsible.
Subsection 98(2) "E" speaks to a surplus or deficit. At Bethany
Co-operative, we have 11 active committees assisting in the
day-to-day management of the co-operative.
Our operating costs are
reduced because our members cut the grass, they paint units, they
mop and wax floors, and they do it with pride. As a result of
their hard work, sometimes we see a surplus at the end of the
year. We at Bethany Co-operative feel that this hard work is the
key to our future. We want to add any surplus to our replacement
reserves in order to adequately provide for our future. Cost
constraints and increases in municipal taxes in the past few
years have ensured that any surplus would be minimal. Allow the
surplus to remain with the members who work so hard to earn
it.
Please consider amending
subsection 98(2) "E". Please add the following subsection:
"A surplus to be shared with
a service manager is a surplus that remains after:
"payment to accumulated
deficits;
"funding of operating
reserves equal to two months of operating expenses; and
"additional contributions to
capital reserves."
As we were reading through
the legislation, it was becoming increasingly frustrating to
realize that housing as we know it is going to change. We have
always taken pride in treating all of our members exactly the
same. We took pride in the fact that individuals did not know who
was on subsidy and who made market housing charge payments.
We are concerned about the
consideration of rent-geared-to-income calculations being
performed at the municipal level. Some 75% of the members at
Bethany require RGI assistance. Approximately 8% of that 75%
receive Ontario Works assistance. The balance are working
families, most of which do not require daycare subsidies. These
individuals may be required to report to the region that operates
from 9 to 5. The accessibility to the regional office will be a
barrier to the working class. In most co-operatives, we have
office hours which include an evening. This allows all of our
members access to the office and the coordinator should they need
it.
1610
Our internal infrastructure
is critical to the community development of our co-ops and
without that, our uniqueness will be jeopardized. The region is
not going to provide this service to our members. Keswick is
located about 30 minutes north of Newmarket. Members will be
required to travel to Newmarket to the regional office. Most of
our members do not have vehicles. Transportation and the cost of
travel are going to represent huge barriers to these individuals.
Please consider an addition to subsection 71, which would read as
follows:
"Service manager is required to consult with housing
providers on the administration of RGI programs. Administration
of RGI programs shall remain with housing providers until service
manager sets out a business case including cost and client
services for moving to offsite administration."
Recently, York region
released a community services and housing guide. We provided a
copy of the section I am referring to. I was hurt and strongly
opposed to the definition of social housing. I quote: "The
housing and residential services division administers social
housing programs which provide suitable, affordable housing for
people whose income, age, social or health needs prevent them
from finding adequate housing in the private rental market."
This may very well be the
definition of regional or municipal housing, but it does not
define co-operative housing. I chose to become a member of a
co-operative not because I could not find adequate housing in the
private rental market, but because I wanted to live in a
community in which my voice mattered, a community in which I
could learn, share and make a difference. I resent the
implication that I only chose to live in a co-operative because I
was unable to find housing elsewhere. It concerns me and other
co-operative members that York region has defined us without
taking our unique characteristics into consideration.
I would like to thank you on
behalf of Bethany Co-operative for providing us with this
opportunity to express our concerns. I hope that you will take
our concerns and the recommendations of CHF Ontario region into
consideration over the next week.
The structure of a house
protects, but the spirit of a house makes it home. Please be
aware of our unique spirit and our desire to provide exceptional,
not adequate, housing to our members. Housing is a business and
we do it very well.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Weiman.
GUHBAWIN CO-OPERATIVE HOMES
The Chair:
The next presenters are Lori-Anne Gagne and John Moore of
Guhbawin Co-operative Homes. You have 10 minutes.
Mr John
Moore: Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to take the
opportunity to introduce the people who are here with me: Sherry
Guppy, Lori-Anne Gagne and Lisa McKay. My name is John Moore and
I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present today. I've
lived in co-operative housing for over five years. I'm here today
representing the Guhbawin Co-operative Homes. Guhbawin is a
9-year-old, well-respected 50-unit provincial co-op located in
Sudbury, Ontario.
During my time at Guhbawin,
I've had an opportunity to do a number of different things. I've
served as the president of the co-op, I have served as a board
member at large and I've had the chance to serve on the
maintenance committee. It's been a pleasure to serve there
because my family received so much from living in a co-op. We've
gotten decent, affordable housing that's given us the
opportunity, both me and my wife, to return to school, re-educate
ourselves at university, get decent jobs and very shortly we're
going to buy a home and move out of the co-op. We wouldn't have
had that opportunity had Guhbawin not been there for us.
Members of the Guhbawin co-op
have asked that I speak to you about two of our main concerns
regarding Bill 128. These concerns pertain to the funding model
and the method of RGI administration proposed in the bill.
Although our concerns seem to be related to those of the entire
co-operative community, I would like to give you the specific
northern Ontario and more specifically Guhbawin's perspective on
those issues.
I'll start with the funding
model. Our biggest concern with the funding model is that co-ops
will be forced to share half of any operating surplus with
municipalities, even if they have an accumulated deficit.
Guhbawin does have an accumulated deficit. Our deficit is not a
result of overspending or poor management. In fact, our
manageable costs are far lower than the majority of our sister
co-ops. The deficit resulted from a stagnant rental market in
northern Ontario, which caused a huge gap in our bridge and RGI
subsidies as well as substantial vacancy loss when we couldn't
rent our units because they were just too expensive.
Guhbawin has successfully
renegotiated a fairer budget base with the ministry and has a
five-year deficit reduction plan in place. Guhbawin plans to
operate at a $10,000 per year surplus for five years. We have met
our goals over the last two years and have three more years to
go. This is a real goal, in the truest sense, for our members.
They strive to manage effectively so that we can have a surplus
at the end of the year to apply to our accumulated deficit,
thereby ensuring that Guhbawin will be able to provide decent,
safe and affordable housing for many years to come.
When our members heard that
with Bill 128, we would now have to share that surplus, our three
remaining years then became six. You can imagine our members'
disappointment and discouragement. Their motivation has been
substantially crushed.
This emphasizes what we have
said all along, that this section of Bill 128 promotes a
use-it-or-lose-it mentality and does not promote effective
management.
To close this section, I
would like to bring you back to the fact that Guhbawin is a
northern Ontario co-op. In 1995-1996, we had a
record-setting-cold winter season. The heating costs and snow
removal costs for co-ops in northern Ontario that year well
exceeded most budgeted amounts. Just for an example, yesterday,
Sudbury had 40 centimetres. You can't predict that. You don't
know if that's going to happen when you set your budget or
not.
The 1995-1996 costs caused
several co-ops to incur slight deficits in that operating year.
However, we have always had the flexibility to examine our
upcoming year's budget and ensure that this deficit could be
quickly made up. With Bill 128, we no longer have this
flexibility. You want half of our surpluses, but you're not
willing to share in half of our deficits.
Guhbawin is asking that you please consider
amending this section so that the sharing of surpluses is done on
an accumulated basis so that all parties involved, provider and
government, are looking at the big picture and not just one year
at a time.
The second major concern
pertains to RGI administration. Bill 128 states that the
municipalities can centralize all or part of RGI services and
integrate it with other social services, such as Ontario Works or
with childcare.
It's our understanding that
this option was included based on the assumption that the
majority of our members who receive rent-geared-to-income
assistance are also on Ontario Works. That's simply not the case.
In our co-op, 25% of our members who receive a subsidy are on
Ontario Works, 10 out of 37 members, as a matter of fact; 19% of
them are people who would be categorized as the working poor; 5%
are senior citizens.
It will create a much more
difficult system for our seniors to have to travel to the local
Ontario Works office to have their housing charges calculated.
Guhbawin's office is located on site and it is still convenient
for seniors to provide their information even when they are ill.
I'm sure that many of you have seen local Ontario Works offices.
You've seen the indestructible chairs, you've seen the Plexiglas.
Would you send your mother there? I wouldn't want to send my
mother there.
Those whom we call the
working poor will now have to take time off to go to the social
services office. Guhbawin co-op is open one evening per week to
accommodate our members so that they don't have to miss any time
from work to bring in financial information. Can you tell us that
Ontario Works offices are going to be so flexible?
When you consider that
co-ops have successfully administered RGI programs for more than
30 years, we strong believe that onsite administration is the
best and most sensitive way to deliver this service to
members.
We urge you to make sure
that no changes be made to the income-testing system without a
business case that looks at both cost and client service and can
truly prove that a change would be beneficial.
I would ask you to please
take the time to read the written brief that we've provided to
you. It's only five pages; it won't take you very long. More
detailed information, including the proposed amendments that we
would like to see made to Bill 128, is included in that
brief.
In closing, I would like to
express Guhbawin's support for the many points raised by our
co-operative housing colleagues. Guhbawin has limited its
presentation to only two points due to time restraints and not
due to a lack of interest in other portions of the bill. I would
like to thank you for your time and encourage you all to read the
written portion of our presentation.
Do you have any
questions?
The Chair:
Thank you, Mr Moore. There's probably time for one question.
Mr
Marchese: Thank you for coming. As you can see, some
deputants are lucky to be able to get a question in, answered at
least. We only had two days of hearings; this is an important
bill and the sad thing is that it's not just happening with this
bill, but it's happening with many bills.
What you've raised, of
course, many other people have raised. What you have said, as
co-ops and many others, is that you do things very efficiently.
It's wonderful that you can manage your own affairs and because
you do that, as the previous group said-because people paint
their own units and they mop and wax floors and do it with
pride-sometimes you have a surplus. If you do that efficiently,
they're going to take it away from you, is the suggestion.
You're obviously arguing
that to take it away would be largely inefficient, aren't you;
and you are hoping these members will listen to you, aren't
you?
Mr Moore:
Yes.
Mr
Marchese: Perhaps you can make an appeal to the members
that they will listen; they often do not in many of the hearings
that we have. Perhaps you might make that appeal.
Mr Moore:
I'm sure this government builds most things upon a business case
and on sound business principles. It only makes sense that if you
tell an employee to work harder, to make more profit for your
company, and that you're going to pay him less, he is not going
to work as hard. I think that's a pretty simple argument.
I realize municipalities
would like to reap the benefits of possibly gaining additional
revenues through the downloading of social housing. In theory it
might sound like a good idea, but in principle I don't know how
well it's going to work. I hope you give that some
consideration.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Moore.
1620
REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK
The Chair:
The next delegation is Alan Wells from the regional municipality
of York. You have 20 minutes.
Mr Alan
Wells: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I'm
joined by Sylvia Patterson, who's our director of housing
services at York region.
It's a pleasure for me to
be here representing our municipality. I'm the chief
administrative officer. I've formerly been commissioner of
community services and general manager of housing, so I have a
degree of understanding of the matter.
I am very pleased to see
Bill 128 proceeding and a schedule established for the transfer
of social housing. As a member of the municipal reference group
for this transfer, I am particularly pleased to see that the
legislation addresses many of the concerns identified by the
CMSMs. Those are the 47 municipalities and the combination of
municipalities which are now responsible for this service.
I would also like to extend
our appreciation to the ministry for its continued effort to work
in partnership with municipalities in the development of this
transfer.
The province will continue to be an important
partner in supporting and protecting the social housing system
across Ontario by establishing performance standards and working
with municipalities to minimize the financial exposure of
municipal taxpayers. This transfer must not be just about
ensuring the long-term stability of existing housing programs,
but must also support municipalities in meeting the growing
housing needs of our communities.
Bill 128, as proposed,
provides a framework for social housing reform and the new
relationship between the province, providers and the CMSMs. Many
of the details will be articulated in the regulations, which are
still to be made available. It is these details which will
ultimately guide the development of programs administered by
CMSMs. Obviously we're interested and anxious to see those
regulations.
It has been very important
that there be ongoing dialogue between the CMSMs and the province
as the regulations are developed. We have appreciated the
opportunity to work with the ministry through the development of
the legislation and we look forward to continuing to do so
through the development of the regulations and supporting
material. We would ask the ministry to continue to support CMSMs
in developing local approaches to program administration and to
ensure the regulations provide the flexibility needed to do
so.
Recently, the province has
indicated several ways in which they will assist in managing the
risks of the social housing program, including centralized
mortgage administration, retaining environmental liability on
public housing, transferring the $58 million in federal funding
for capital issues, 100% guaranteed flow of provincial funds
through to the CMSMs and confirming the CMSMs' power to deal with
projects in difficulty. However, it remains a significant
financial risk for CMSMs in assuming responsibility for social
housing. For CMSMs in the GTA, which I'm part of, these risks are
magnified by the pooling of social housing costs. CMSMs are
accountable and will plan to manage costs and risks within a
reasonable framework. There is a need for commitment by the
province to establish a limit on the overall risk of the social
housing program.
There has been significant
discussion among regional CAOs with respect to the risks
associated with this transfer. In that regard, I've attached as a
supplementary the report of the Regional CAOs of Ontario. It's a
staff report. It hasn't been before our councils because we've
just had an election and our councils haven't met, but it
reflects the combined knowledge of that group. That summary
outlines the potential for both transitional and long-term costs
to significantly impact on the local taxpayers.
I would like to add at this
point that it was the municipal group which asked that the
surpluses be shared. That was a comment made by the two preceding
presenters. We did that to ensure there's fairness in the best
use of the total funds within our area and to ensure that surplus
funds are available to all providers in the event of unforeseen
issues and extraordinary costs. That's part of the sharing of the
risks program we put forward.
We're really concerned with
stability on issues like mortgage rates, the unfunded capital
costs and replacement reserves, transitional costs, which we
really don't have a handle on, and the overall fiscal exposure
for things like rising fuel and those sorts of things. The risks
are now all in our court.
We understand that the
Social Housing Services Corp arose out of a concern that there
was a need, at least on a transitional basis, to support smaller
CMSMs in ensuring cost-effective coordination of some services to
the social housing system. However, the legislation as proposed
does not provide the flexibility needed to both respect the
capacity of CMSMs and allow the social housing system to mature.
We think this organization would be very beneficial and helpful
in coordinating and managing the replacement reserve funds, and
we suggest that be the only mandatory portion of it.
We suggest that, through
dialogue with the CMSMs, if there are other items that
municipalities want to use that vehicle for, especially the small
municipalities, such as joint purchasing and insurance
requirements, that that be available. However, the larger
municipalities are already doing this. We're already doing these
functions in relation to our total municipal expenditures, which
are close to $1 billion, and in particular with our own housing
corporation. So this is not a new business to us. However, it
would be helpful for small municipalities. Insofar as
benchmarking, our group, the CAOs of Ontario, has established the
benchmarking best practices forum. We think we have the
capability, along with our colleagues in AMO, to implement that
without having it being enshrined in a private corporation.
As a minimum, we would
propose that the legislation provide the opportunity for review
after three years to see if the mandate is being met, needs
review, needs changing, or if in fact we would be mature enough
by then to have it completely eliminated.
The province has provided
CMSMs with a number of tools to maintain and protect social
housing over the long term. One of the most important is the
minister's commitment to the 100% flow-through of federal
dollars. We understand that the province will be managing the
distribution of that funding. It's proposed that GTA pooling
payments be managed through that process. It is paramount to both
the region of York and the other GTA members that this process be
transparent and auditable to ensure that we meet the needs of our
citizens for accountability of public funds. I just want to let
you know that although we share, between social housing and
social services, $80 million raised in York region to supplement
Toronto, we too have program needs in York region, and that money
could well be used so that we can catch up with our increased
needs. We have to ensure that it's well used and appropriately
used.
There is no doubt that
province-wide standards are required to ensure consistency in the
delivery of social housing, but these same standards must also be
flexible enough to allow
for local discretion in appropriate program areas to address the
variety of situations that exist across the province. As
municipalities, we strongly support performance measurement and
work to ensure that best practices are put in place in all of our
business areas as a key part of our mandate. We are pleased to
support the implementation of benchmarking and best practices
within the social housing program.
1630
We applaud the province on
its work on integrated income testing thus far, but await the
details of the regulation in order to assess the opportunities
and challenges for implementation. York region is ready to take
integration of human services to a new level in a
well-coordinated effort. We look forward to the support of the
province in developing guidelines that will support that
work.
I'd like to say, in
listening to the two preceding speakers and particularly the one
who addressed issues in York region, that we don't propose to
model our responsibilities in social housing as an add-on to
Ontario Works. They're separate programs. We want to use the same
systems, the same forms and the same definitions, but the points
were well made by those two speakers, and we don't intend to vary
much from their present systems. In particular we do have branch
offices-the example given of our office being 30 miles from
Keswick. Our branch office is a mile and a quarter from that
location, and we'll design the system to meet the customer and
client needs we have to address.
The province has supported
the integration of services at the local level and encouraged
CMSMs to design local solutions to fit local needs. In York
region's case, we are moving to consolidating operations of our
municipal non-profit and our local housing authority into the
regional corporation. In this way, we can gain new efficiencies
and develop new flexibilities in program delivery. In order to
successfully complete this process, we require the support of the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in clarifying a number
of items in the legislation and assisting us in dealing fairly
with housing authority staff.
First of all, we need the
same degree of flexibility to transfer our housing corporation
into the regional operations as with the OHC assets. We need to
deal with the transfer of those assets and staff at the same time
and with the same degree of fairness. If you look at the report
of the CAOs of Ontario, you'll see that a number of human
resources or personnel matters need to be addressed. We have a
short time to do that, and we need to know the resources are
there to deal with the liabilities-the sick leaves and other
payouts that are part of the current benefits programs-and that
we're not assuming unfunded risks that will burden our operating
budgets.
The legislation provides
the ability to transfer public housing properties without
attracting land transfer taxes. We require clarification that the
same provision will be applicable to municipal non-profit
properties during the transition process in order to allow assets
to be consolidated within the regional corporation.
As well, we require
clarification that there will be provisions to allow CMSMs to
hold mortgages on social housing properties which will be owned
by the regional corporation. Currently, the Municipal Act
restricts municipalities to the use of debentures for such
purposes. You can see that if we're going to respond to the unmet
needs and the need to increase housing, part of that will have to
be through the same leveraging of mortgages that is currently
available in other housing programs.
Finally, we require
confirmation that the province will assist CMSMs in ensuring that
housing authority staff are treated fairly by ensuring that
funding is made available to pay out accumulated sick leave and
attendance credits as well as addressing severance entitlements
where employees are being transferred into the regional
corporation. In York region, these costs are estimated to be in
excess of $300,000 for just 20 employees. If you project that
across the whole portfolio, it's about $15,000 per employee. Our
colleagues in other CMSMs are projecting similar impacts running
into millions of dollars, related not only to employee costs but
to capital cost repairs and requirements. We want to be assured
that we're not left holding and carrying an empty bag when the
transfer takes place. I do want to add one other point: we are
embracing these changes very much, and we look forward to taking
on the responsibilities, but we can't just look at the current
portfolio.
My last comments are that,
as I noted earlier, the transfer of social housing responsibility
not only requires CMSMs to take on the administration of existing
housing programs, but also to begin to develop solutions to meet
the growing demands for affordable housing in our communities. In
York region, the waiting list stands at more than 4,500
households. The demand on all our shelter facilities far exceeds
supply, and while funding has become available to assist in
meeting the needs of the homeless, we need new dollars to meet
the need for permanent affordable housing.
The Social Housing Reform
Act opens the door to providing municipalities with new tools to
develop new housing supplies. We ask that these tools be
clarified, and encourage the province to join the municipalities
in developing new solutions to this pressing need.
In closing, as I've said,
we embrace the transfer and taking on the responsibilities as
part of the local service realignment swap, but we don't have the
resources to deal with unmet needs. Those resources have to be
shared by both the federal and provincial levels if we, as a
growing municipality, and other municipalities are to be able to
respond to the continuing need for good housing in all
sectors.
If we have time, Madam
Chair, I would highlight the recommendations of the CAO group,
which is in the last attachment. I won't read the whole thing but
will just highlight the recommendations.
The CAO group recommends
that the regulations be circulated in draft form to permit review
and input prior to finalization, so we can get an idea of what's
happening and give you our response quickly.
We recommend the province assume more of the
financial risks associated with the future operation of existing
social housing, as described in this report.
We have a lengthy section
on human resource risks and liabilities, and we recommend the
provincial government provide 100% funding to deal with the
transitional costs of human resource liabilities that may arise
through the transfer process, including any resignations or
layoffs subsequent to the creation of the local housing
corporations, in conjunction with service managers' decisions
with respect to local housing corporations, and that it be
consistent with the legislation.
Insofar as the federal
funding transfer, we recommend the provincial government provide
more open-ended assistance for properly documented transitional
funding, as is proposed to be done with respect to the cost of
title searches and transfers for public housing. We further
recommend that the allocation formula for federal monies be
discussed with service managers before any decision is made.
The Chair:
You have about one more minute, Mr Wells.
Mr Wells:
We recommend that the role of the Social Housing Services Corp be
confined strictly to the responsibility of replacement reserves,
which I had mentioned previously. Finally, we would recommend
that the legislation be amended to allow service managers to hold
mortgages. We further recommend that the legislation be amended
to permit service managers to treat their municipal non-profit
housing corporations in the same manner as provided with respect
to the local housing corporation, including provision of
exemptions from other provincial acts which may apply to the
transfer of assets.
Mr
Marchese: With all those changes, we might as well
withdraw the bill.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Wells. There is no time for
questions.
1640
ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO
The Chair:
The next presenters are Ann Mulvale, president of the Association
of Municipalities of Ontario, and Peter Hume. You have 20
minutes.
Interjection: Congratulations on
your election.
Mr Guzzo:
Let the record show that the councillor from Ottawa beat not one
mayor but two. I think that's very important.
Ms Ann
Mulvale: Madam Chair and members of the committee, we
thank you for your kind words of congratulation. We hope you feel
similarly when we leave you.
Peter Hume has chaired the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario's social housing
committee and will be speaking for most of our time today. We're
assisted by Dino Zuppa as the AMO staff who's had a great role to
play in the recommendations that have emanated from our
committee. This submission is prepared with the assistance of
AMO's social housing task force, the Ontario region social
housing group and Ontario municipal social service housing
workshop group.
With Bill 128, the province
has taken some positive steps. Minister Clement, at the recent
AMO conference, confirmed that all federal social housing dollars
will be flowed to municipalities in a transparent fashion: the
provision of transition funding related to start-up costs, local
housing authority realignment, property management software and
normalization of title; $58 million in one-time risk management
funding; streamlined administration of some programs; the
development of province-wide standards; the transfer of public
housing to municipal jurisdictions; and additional powers to deal
with projects in difficulty.
Although social housing has
been devolved to municipalities, the province must still play an
important role in protecting and enhancing the future of social
housing and minimizing the financial risk to the municipal
property taxpayer.
AMO-and likely you've heard
this from others-has consistently expressed concerns about:
Income redistribution
programs funded through the property tax base: we believe that is
wrong.
The financial capacity of
municipalities to increase the supply of affordable housing: we
are really uncertain about that capacity.
Protecting municipalities
from significant future financial risk related to housing
programs: we believe an inappropriate exposure has been passed
down.
We're concerned about
maintaining the condition of existing social housing, ensuring a
smooth social housing devolution from the provincial to the
municipal order of governments, and providing maximum flexibility
and accountability regarding social housing administration.
The provincial role in
removing income redistribution programs from the property tax
base is one we engage you in at every possible opportunity.
Income redistribution programs should not be funded by property
tax. AMO offers that the time is right to begin removing income
redistribution programs from the property tax base since the
provincial fiscal house is in order. To its credit, the
government has already taken some positive steps in this
direction with the further reduction on education property tax
and the move to 50% cost-sharing of ambulance and public
health.
We believe the province has
a role in increasing the supply of affordable housing. It is a
critical role. Municipalities remain concerned about the
provincial perspective that municipalities are fully responsible
for creating new affordable housing for their citizens. The
increased incidence of homelessness, combined with the lack of
new affordable rental housing in many areas, illustrates the need
for immediate federal and provincial funding and aggressive
action to build more affordable housing. This problem exists
throughout the province, and the members of AMO-and we represent
97% of the population of this province-continually remind us of
that need.
Municipalities require a full range of power to
ensure creation of more affordable housing, like bonusing and the
ability to register on title any financial investment by CMSM and
the DSSABs to make sure property tax dollars are protected.
With that positioning, I'll
hand the balance of our submission over to Peter Hume, the chair
of our social housing committee.
Mr Peter
Hume: Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
committee. I'm here to talk to you about the provincial role in
protecting municipalities from significant financial risk
because, as I'm sure you are aware, we're very concerned that we
be protected from any risk associated with this bill.
The government has
recognized that we, as municipal leaders, clearly have the
ability to successfully manage and administer a variety of
services, including social housing. We have the ability to
integrate human services into the social housing portfolio, which
make sense both for the client and for efficiencies. However, the
Social Housing Reform Act seriously exposes municipalities
financially. What we are looking for is full disclosure on assets
and liabilities and to structure the transaction so that there is
some sort of protection for us from the liabilities associated
with social housing. We believe what we are asking for, and our
approach in protecting municipalities, is critical, and I'm going
to go through a couple of issues for you.
Capital repairs: adequate
funding should be provided to offset any identified shortfalls in
capital replacement reserves and funding for public housing.
Capital risks associated with future repair and replacement costs
which cannot be paid from the normally funded reserve accounts
provoke one of our greatest anxieties. While $58 million in
one-time funding has been identified for future capital funding,
we anticipate there is unfunded exposure to Ontario
municipalities in the order of an additional $40 million a year
for provincial non-profit social housing units. An agreement is
needed with the province for the development of a mutually
acceptable process to define and limit these potential
liabilities and to compensate for any shortfalls.
We're also looking for a
portfolio assessment. A financial assessment of each portfolio is
needed, along with complete due diligence exercises, technical
audits and a complete review of the organizational and financial
health of housing providers. The province must fund this work as
part of its transfer.
Market fluctuations: I'm
sure we all benefit when markets are good and we all suffer when
markets are bad. What we're looking for is a mechanism for
dealing with the impact of cyclical depressed market rents, which
need to be addressed in the funding model. We know the funding
model will be dealt with through regulation, but what we're
looking for is some indication that this concern will be dealt
with.
A further mechanism is
needed to protect municipal property taxpayers from increased
social housing costs stemming from such matters as rising
interest rates, increased utility costs or operating subsidy
requirements. Mortgage interest changes in particular can result
in dramatic subsidy increases. I'll come back to the good market
and the bad market. We estimate that every sustained one point
increase in mortgage interest for social housing will increase
Ontario municipal subsidies by about $32 million a year. This and
the other matters mentioned bring a great deal of uncertainty and
risk to the municipal financing responsibilities.
Another financial exposure
for property taxpayers is possible with the loss of federal
social housing subsidies in the future. We must be protected from
this potential exposure.
While the legislation
provides us with some processes to deal with projects in
difficulty, funding or risk limitation is required from the
province with respect to underfunded reserves, projects with
deficits and projects in difficulty.
There are numerous pieces
of legislation and regulations that will impact on social
housing. For example, proposed changes to the Ontario fire code
or the Ontario building code could impact on costs that are
beyond our control. A mechanism is required to limit our exposure
where changes could not be reasonably planned for within the
normal operating parameters of a housing program. The province
should commit to funding any increase in costs associated with
changes in legislation or regulations that impact social housing.
Provincial policies and standards directly impact costs and
therefore the burden on the taxpayer.
While there are some
privileges within the legislation, municipalities inherit costs
associated with reasonable efforts, grievances, pensions,
sick-time payments and severance packages related to the transfer
of provincial staff. These are not part of any transfer funds and
must not be passed on, as they could be very significant. As the
minister has some granting authority, this is clearly an area
that must be part of transition funding as the impacts become
apparent. I should recognize that the government has provided
some transition funding which they announced at the AMO
conference, and for that we're glad, but there's clearly a need
for more.
The municipal tax base
cannot sustain the apparent and not-so-apparent financial risks
associated with social housing. It is up to the provincial
government to implement sufficient and stable financial
mechanisms in order to protect property taxpayers and municipal
governments, not to mention safeguarding the future of social
housing. AMO hopes that as part of the ministry's estimates
process, the ministry plans for these matters and supports us as
we take on this important responsibility.
1650
I want to move on from the
financial to the provincial role in providing municipalities with
maximum flexibility for the administration of this important
program and accountability related to the transferred social
housing portfolio. Providing flexibility in program design
recognizes the diversity of municipalities across Ontario and the
value of different approaches to satisfy varied needs and circumstances. This
principle is critical, but its application is uncertain as much
of the implementation is through the regulations following Bill
128. Municipalities must have influence in both sets of
regulations: the regulations for the Ontario Housing Corp units
and the regulations for non-profit units. Not knowing the details
of the regulations or having any influence in the drafting of
regulations constrains municipalities. The ministry's regulatory
work must benefit from our perspective.
Although some sections of
Bill 128 respect local flexibility, other sections do not. The
Social Housing Services Corp is one example where local
flexibility is not respected. The Social Housing Reform Act
requires that all CMSMs and DSSABs become members of the Social
Housing Services Corp. There is more prescriptiveness than
flexibility related to the proposed corporation. The governance
structure of the corporation is fixed. AMO has consistently
expressed concern for accountability from any special purpose
body, and this entity is really no different. The SHSC will
conduct business that municipalities already conduct: bulk
purchasing, insurance, pooling reserves. After the year 2004,
municipalities will be responsible for financially funding this
new special purpose body.
Accountability for social
housing must be through elected municipal councils and not
through third parties or special purpose bodies. In a municipally
funded and managed social housing system, we believe there is no
need to replace the provincial government with a province-wide
body. Rather, authority for social housing should be devolved
directly to the municipal level of government. No new
province-wide organizations should be set up for the housing
system unless municipalities determine the need and unless they
decide on the purpose and composition of such organizations. At
the very least, it would have been preferable to have afforded
the 47 CMSMs and DSSABs an opportunity to self-determine how the
benefits of co-operative effort for efficiencies could be
achieved.
The Chair:
I'm going to have to ask you to wrap up, please.
Mr Hume:
OK. In summary, Bill 128, the Social Housing Reform Act, does
give us some say for pay, and the province has adapted some of
our ideas for the transfer, but we believe there is more to be
done.
In conclusion, we are
calling on the province for the following: the provision for due
diligence on the state of the social housing stock; financial
assistance with capital repair costs; protection from any
significant future financial risk; and assistance in meeting the
demand for social housing. Thank you.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Hume. Unfortunately, we don't have time
for questions.
REGION OF PEEL
The Chair:
The next delegate is Roger Maloney, region of Peel.
Mr Roger
Maloney: Good afternoon. My name is Roger Maloney. I am
the chief administrative officer of the region of Peel and, prior
to assuming that role in 1997, I was the commissioner of housing
for Peel and the general manager of Peel Living, so I have an
extensive background in housing and a lot of knowledge in the
housing field. Keith Ward, our commissioner of housing and
general manager of Peel Living, is with me here today.
I want to thank you for the
opportunity to appear before your committee today on this
important legislation. In my presentation, obviously you're going
to hear some duplication of what you've already heard, but I
think that just reemphasizes some of the key issues in this
legislation that have a lot of us concerned.
In my presentation, I'm
going to focus my remarks in five specific areas. I'm going to
start with a little background on Peel region, I'm going to talk
a bit about new housing stock and I want to talk about the
financial risks from the view of municipalities. I also want to
talk about the inadequacy of the replacement reserves and some of
the limitations on the municipal authority as proposed in the
legislation. Then I will make some concluding remarks.
First of all, some quick
background on Peel region. Peel is often lost in the shadow of
Toronto and is sometimes misunderstood because of that. With
approximately one million people, Peel is Ontario's
second-largest municipality and is thus the second-largest
service manager designated under the Social Housing Reform Act.
Approximately 10% of the total provincial housing bill for social
housing is paid by Peel. To put that in perspective, it's $83
million on about $765 million.
Peel was one of the
earliest municipalities to set up a municipal non-profit housing
corporation, a corporation that prides itself on being a
responsibly run business with a strong social conscience. Peel
has steadfastly promoted the interests of affordable housing for
well over two decades.
Peel has enjoyed tremendous
political support for housing within our municipality: 18 out of
22 members of our regional council sit on the board of directors
of our housing corporation, and that has been consistent over the
term of the corporation, which is over 20 years.
Peel is perhaps unique in
Ontario in experiencing both tremendous growth-we grow by 25,000
to 28,000 people per year, and that's been consistent since
1974-at the same time as our two major cities, Brampton and
Mississauga, are maturing and showing signs of demographic shifts
and inner-city problems that go along with that maturity.
Our poverty rates are
dramatically outpacing provincial norms. In Peel itself, in 1991
the poverty rate was 9.7%; in 1996 it was 15%. We expect in the
next census that it's going to be even higher.
Our housing needs are
increasing and they are increasingly complex. Our municipal
non-profit waiting list is now more than 10 years long, with more
than 30,000 people on the waiting list for housing. We have been
forced to get into the
shelter business, a business we would like nothing better than to
shut down. We have two shelters that we opened in the last year
or year and a half because of the crying needs in the
community.
Given these needs, which
our staff and our elected officials are so aware of, and given
our desire to see the best, most cost-effective service to both
those people in need and our taxpayers, Peel has been anxious for
this legislation to come forward. We fully support the
government's view that we, as the local level of government
closest to the community, can do it better. With minor changes to
this bill we think we can do just that, but it will take more of
what this bill does not speak about, and that's money, for us to
really do that job. Peel is not poor. We have managed our growth
prudently, but absorbing the full cost of an income distribution
program as large as social housing is beyond our capacity and
beyond the capacity of most municipalities.
Consider that social
housing used to be only 1% of the provincial budget. Consider
that Peel is now paying 22% of our net budget toward social
housing. That's within Peel as well as the contribution to
pooling in Toronto. It's pretty obvious who has the room to
handle such big risks inherent in social housing programs and
projects. Any increase in subsidies could have an unacceptable
impact upon the property taxes that our citizens pay. Of course,
this is a big concern to the municipal sector, and not just in
Peel.
In terms of new housing
stock, first of all the province must provide assurances to
protect the existing stock of affordable housing. The province
and the federal government must provide the resources to respond
to current and emerging unmet needs with new housing stock. We
are a partner in the creation and delivery of responses and we
will work enthusiastically with the government toward a
restoration of provincial resources toward housing. We will
gladly do our part. We've had discussions internally with our
council about waiving levies. We see that as something that a
regional municipality can do. We'd be remiss if we did not ask
you to do your part toward new housing from the provincial point
of view, and we need to ask the federal government, for new
housing stock will require a tripartite approach, from our
perspective. It involves the province, the federal government and
the municipalities, and we all have to share in the production
and the costs of things.
In terms of financial
risks-you've heard a lot of that today-aside from our dismay
about the withdrawal of both the federal and provincial
governments from helping people in need, our major concern with
this legislation revolves around the financial risks that are
being passed down to us. Throughout all the devolution discussion
leading up to the introduction of this bill, no one in the
province has provided any hint that the risks we have perceived
will be offset in any way. The legislation continues that theme
and thus prolongs the anxiety for us.
1700
Peel believes certain costs
would most appropriately be borne by the provincial government.
Examples of those costs are:
-Costs associated with
design, construction, financial or organizational decisions
predating our involvement. We should not be paying for someone
else's decisions.
-Compensation for physical
and organizational review of all projects coming under our
jurisdiction. We should know the condition of the buildings and
that should be provided to us and be paid for by someone
else.
-Initial funding or a
guaranty of future funding either to put the replacement reserves
on sound financial footing or to pay for remediation needs
exceeding the capacity of existing reserves. That's something I
want to talk about a little more.
-Operating subsidy demands
driven by economic factors beyond our control or capacity. We
need some help with that in the future if the economy turns
around. If mortgages start going up instead of going down the way
they are, just like on the Ontario Works side, if we get into a
situation where Ontario Works caseloads go up, there's no way
municipalities will be able to pay those costs. In the long run
we'll need help.
-Repairs and retrofits
necessitated by changes in federal-provincial regulations. As
you've heard before, if there's new legislation, we shouldn't
have to pay the tab.
-Transitional costs
pertaining to the creation of new local housing corporations, and
with the subsequent transformation of those corporations into the
appropriate locally determined municipal model, including
severance costs attributable to employees' tenure under the crown
and all liabilities carrying over from their time under the
province. I go back to the change with OPAC. When the Ontario
Property Assessment Corp was introduced, the province picked up
those costs. That's what we're asking for. Those costs should be
picked up to the end of this year. We assume new costs from
January 1 onward, and from our view that's fair.
I'm aware that the
submissions from both AMO and the regional CAOs and other
municipalities got into more detail on some of the risk areas. I
just want to focus on the capital side and the reserves from our
perspective because Peel has done some specific work.
As some committee members
are aware, a number of regions have undertaken technical audits
and replacement reserve studies for projects in their areas. Peel
was quick off the mark, and ours is still the most comprehensive
study because of both the size of our sample and the in-depth
nature of the engineering analysis that we undertook. We spent
more than half a million dollars on these studies for independent
engineers alone. That's how seriously concerned we are about the
potential future hit. Having said that, all the studies from the
regions have come up with similar conclusions. The result is
clear: based on the amount of money already set aside in project
reserve funds, and the additional amounts set aside each year
according to the provincial formula, we're going to run out of
money.
Based on our work, a very
conservative estimate for our housing stock of almost 6,000
units, we're saying we're short $57 million. If you look at the
full stock across the
province, we're saying we're short $1 billion and there are two
choices. The province could fund that $1 billion upfront, which
is highly unlikely, or you can look at funding it over a longer
period of time by increasing reserve contributions and having the
province pay some of that.
I don't want to be an
alarmist. In the scheme of the entire program it's not a
staggering number, particularly to ensure a stable supply of
affordable housing at far less than what it would cost not to
maintain the stock properly and be forced into premature
demolition and replacement. I'm sure you've all seen pictures
from the US and Britain, where they blow up their old housing;
they dynamite it and start over again. We certainly don't want
that to happen in Ontario, and if we don't take care of the
future in terms of those reserves, that's what we're going to end
up with.
I find it somewhat ironic
that social housing would run afoul of the new provincial
Condominium Act. I headed up a condominium myself, so I'm
familiar with it. The act requires just the sort of study that we
have started to do in Peel and which all service managers would
like to see done across the board. The act further requires that
reserves be bolstered to levels determined by the studies.
Our problem at the
municipal level is that every dollar added into the reserves from
now on is another dollar added to the property tax base, unless
the province steps in as we request, so that's a crucial issue
for us.
In terms of limitations on
our municipal authority, there are a couple of things. The
additional authority conferred upon the service managers in this
act permitting more effective action in the promotion and
delivery of affordable housing is most welcome, first of all. The
authority would be made more effective with a couple of changes
which we believe everyone should be agreeable to. Without these
changes, options would be limited and less than optimal choices
will be forced upon us, reducing the benefits that otherwise
would be achievable under the legislation.
Refer to the absence of the
authority of service managers to take out mortgages and the
absence of flexibility to deal with municipalities' own housing
companies as they are permitted to deal with under the new local
housing corporations. Given the securities involved in mortgages
and given the scrutiny exercised to the mortgage-lending process,
nobody could act irresponsibly even if they were so inclined.
In Peel we're struggling to
find ways to create new housing through partnerships with the
private sector. We've talked to a lot of developers who have some
interest. The best use for us is traditional mortgage financing
instruments, and we'd like to have the chance to explore those
opportunities and possibilities.
In Peel we intend to merge
the Peel Regional Housing Authority, soon to be called a
corporation, into our own municipal housing company, Peel Living.
Our position for the last 20 years, in fact before that
provincial housing authority was set up, was that that was a
duplication of service in Peel and it never should have happened.
The province set up a separate body when we already had one that
was three or four times the size of it. So from our point of
view, we're pleased that's finally going to happen, that we can
actually merge those two organizations, save some money and get
rid of some confusion for the taxpayer. We're pleased that
someone has listened to us on that.
Unfortunately, this
simplification now has to contend with the different rules
governing the operation of the governing bodies. There are some
severe impediments to rationalization. The paperwork and costs
can be largely dispensed with through amendments to this bill.
Matching treatment for local housing corporations and municipal
housing companies, including corresponding exemptions from
legislation applying to asset transfers, with land transfer tax,
would do the job.
In conclusion, it is
difficult to comment on this legislation in a detailed way, since
its implementation is going to rely on the regulations, which we
haven't seen yet.
It's important to
acknowledge that we're moving in the right direction. It's
important that both service managers and housing providers be
involved in the formulation and review of the regulations. In
Peel we recognize that the province and our own housing providers
are, and always will be, key partners in effective program
delivery. We look forward to the province being a partner, not
just in the programs on hand in the legislation, but in programs
yet to come. Needs that just will not go away challenge all of us
to find new ways to work together.
I want to make one final
comment on what I heard about surpluses a little earlier. The
perspective of the region of Peel is that those surpluses should
be shared. There has to be some incentive in the system, and
we're saying the housing providers have to have some incentive to
find savings and to find best practices; that's what benchmarking
is all about. And we want a share of those savings. We're saying
to Toronto, "Our housing costs are down. Why aren't yours down?
You should be emulating our best practices to get your costs
down, to get our pooling numbers down." There has to be some
incentive. We said to Toronto, "Let's share the savings 50%." Our
view is, there has to be some emphasis and some push to get
people to find savings. If you benefit from it, you're going to
look for them. If you don't benefit, you're not going to look for
them.
I'll close on that and take
any questions.
The Chair:
We have perhaps time for one question from the government.
Mr Carl DeFaria
(Mississauga East): I want to thank Mr Maloney for his
presentation. He is the CAO for the region I represent, and
before he started I turned to my colleague, the parliamentary
assistant to the minister, and told him to pay close attention,
because you are a good money manager for the region, and the
region has done excellent work. That's all I want to say, Madam
Chair.
Mr
Maloney: If I could make one supplementary comment on
how good a money manager the region is, we're debt-free, AAA
rating. We haven't had a tax increase in 10 years and won't have
one this year.
The Chair: That brings us to being
right on schedule. Thank you very much, Mr Maloney.
TANNENHOF CO-OPERATIVE HOMES, OTTAWA
The Chair:
The next delegation is Bernard Daly, chair of the board of
Tannenhof Co-operative Homes, Ottawa. You have 10 minutes.
Mr Bernard
Daly: I speak for Tannenhof Co-operative Homes for
seniors in Ottawa. I read this brief at our AGM last night and
got the seniors' equivalent of a standing ovation.
Our 74 units are home for
12 couples and 62 individuals, all over 55 years of age,
including one soon to be 100-year-old lady who volunteers on
Thursdays to help the seniors at St Pat's home. We have 21 market
units and 53 assisted households, and we are in our 12th year of
solid business operation.
In general, we support all
the brief and the clause-by-clause review of Bill 128 by the
Co-operative Housing Federation. Please consider that brief as
part of our presentation.
Our coordinator does all
the income verification for members of our 53 income-assisted
units. These members truly live in fear that one result of Bill
128 will be that responsibility for income verification will be
taken out of the secure trust and confidentiality of our in-house
office and centred in some distant municipal building, where they
will always have to deal with complete strangers. We therefore
strongly urge that Bill 128 be amended, and eventual regulations
written, in such a way that income verification can remain in
co-op homes. There are recommendations in the brief, which you
know.
1710
Also, we have a great
concern that a future funding formula will force us to charge
market rents that may be beyond the means of our middle-income
pensioners. At present, the provincial government recommends an
inflation factor, but we are not obliged to enforce the full
amount. To balance our budget, we can weigh and balance the
inflation factor, the risk of revenue loss if excessive charges
cause vacancies, and savings realized on other aspects of our
operation. CHF recommendations on sections 98 and 99, among
others, apply here.
In general, we want co-op
homes to have the level of responsible autonomy provided by our
present contract. Under Bill 128, which cancels our contract, the
aim should still be to keep business affairs at the local level
as much as possible and not with big government, whether
municipal or provincial. We support all the CHF recommendations
about limiting bureaucracy and consulting local housing
providers.
With others, we urge that
the management of our capital reserves be left with us. We have
been prudent, creative and responsible. Please amend the relevant
parts of section 98 and others. Local autonomy should also
prevail for such details as managing our own waiting list, so
please amend secton 65.
Recently, we were required
to participate in co-ordinated access to the Ottawa-Carleton
social housing registry. Initially, we were expected to download
40,000 files each weekend to update our waiting list. That took
up 23 solid hours on our office computer, making it unavailable
for our own use every Monday. Eventually we negotiated to receive
a short list faxed once a week. Maybe someone needs those 40,000
computer files, but to us they were examples of the hazards of
"bigness." What perhaps looked to planners like an economy of
scale was just a high-cost nuisance at our level of local service
to people in need.
Shortly before Tannenhof
opened, Statistics Canada published, in 1990, a study of co-op
housing in Canada. It noted that government policy at the time
saw co-op housing as a way to provide lower- and middle-income
persons with safe, decent, affordable housing that was not
subject to the convulsions of the rental market. Census data
gathered for that study showed that co-op housing resulted in
just what the policy aimed to achieve. Ten years later, our co-op
still does that. It provides excellent, affordable homes for a
vibrant mix of lower- and middle-income seniors who take pride in
our ability to manage our own business in full compliance with
all government demands and despite all the market ups and downs
over the years. Nobody is just a paying tenant. Everybody is a
member called to help make the place work. Co-operative homes do
work, and seniors can keep their own co-op working well.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr Daly. We have time
for perhaps one question from Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan:
Thank you, indeed, for your presentation.
A couple of weeks ago there
was a reception here, in the legislative dining room, for all the
co-operative industries-credit unions, all the folks from around
Ontario who engage in co-operative principles. There was a speech
by Mr Young, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of
Finance and member for Willowdale, extolling the virtues of the
seven co-operative principles.
You are well aware of the
seven co-operative principles, but for those who may not happen
to be, they are: open membership, democratic control, economic
participation, independence, co-operative education, co-operation
among co-operatives and community.
I want to leave some time
for you to reply, but my basic question is this: what does Bill
128 do to those seven principles of co-operatives that the
parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance was extolling
not three or four weeks ago?
Mr Daly:
We don't really know yet, because we don't know all the
regulations, but our fear is that we will lose our autonomy, that
we'll lose the possibility of being creative within our community
and building according to our own capacities and that we'll be
beholden to regulations that come from outside and which we have
had no share in developing. That's our main concern.
Mr Caplan:
So open membership is lost through the central registry.
Democratic control is lost to government regulation-
The Chair: Mr Caplan, you've had
your question. Ms Lankin?
Ms Frances Lankin
(Beaches-East York): Actually, it's a question I have
been exploring with groups in my own riding and I think I want to
give you a little bit more time to continue to pursue that. I
think co-ops are a very special part of housing options that are
out there. People who live in co-ops choose to live in that
setting where there is a philosophy behind that type of
lifestyle. So the issues of accessibility, open membership and
democratic control and the responsibility resting within the
co-operative: this bill has an impact on them. Perhaps you can
continue to elaborate.
Mr Daly: I
think one of the things that's most apparent in our own house is
that there are certainly people, especially some of the older
women who are single, who would never be able to live in the kind
of community in which they live if it were not a co-operative, if
they were not with people who have more ability and are prepared
to share, helping them to make the place run. If these people
were living just as individuals in the rental market, they would
be at the lowest level of poverty, whereas now they enjoy
something like a decent quality of life because of the
environment that's created by the neighbourhood and by the
community of a co-op.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Daly.
ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF NON-PROFIT HOMES AND
SERVICES FOR SENIORS
The Chair:
The next submission is Sarah Phillips, board member of the
Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors.
You have 10 minutes.
Ms Sarah
Phillips: Good evening. In addition to being a board
member on the Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and
Services for Seniors board, I'm also general manager of a
seniors' supportive housing project in London.
For over 80 years, the
Ontario Association of Non-Profit Homes and Services for Seniors
has represented the not-for-profit organizations across Ontario
that are dedicated to meeting the housing and long-term-care
needs of seniors. Member operations span the full spectrum of the
not-for-profit long-term-care system, including seniors' housing,
facilities and community services. More than 70 member
organizations are involved in the ownership and management of
non-profit housing for seniors in communities across Ontario.
These include projects previously administered by the federal and
provincial governments, some of which receive supportive and/or
community service funding from the provincial government to
deliver services.
1720
OANHSS is pleased to have
the opportunity to present the views of not-for-profit
organizations across the province that serve seniors to the
standing committee on justice and social policy. What I'd like to
do is just summarize some of the recommendations. We're
submitting, obviously, something in writing. I would just like to
highlight some of our recommendations. There are 13 of them:
(1) In conjunction with the
introduction of the Social Housing Reform Act, the provincial
government must pledge renewed support for funding new subsidized
social housing.
(2) The Social Housing
Reform Act must require that service managers ensure that any
savings in expenditures on existing social housing are reinvested
in new housing or in enhancements to existing housing. The level
of total government expenditure on social housing should be
maintained at least at the current level.
(3) The legislation must
balance the need to protect the interests of the province and the
municipality with the need to ensure that housing providers have
the flexibility to exercise good judgment and continue to be
responsive to local community needs.
(4) The province of Ontario
must require municipal service managers to involve the owners and
managers of social housing in the development of any new rules
related to that housing.
(5) Both housing providers
and municipal governments need to know how the province intends
to deal with the likelihood that future capital replacement costs
will exceed the reserves available. For example,
there was a recent study done in London on the technical building
audit and reserve fund studies which clearly showed that reserves
are inadequate to meet future needs, especially in years four and
five prior to or after a download.
(6) We believe it is
critical that the benchmarks reflect the real cost of providing
the supportive living environment that seniors need, including
the sometimes less tangible social support provided by OANHSS
members. As the costs of different projects are compared to one
another, it is essential that the comparison involve projects
that are similar. All of the factors that contribute to higher
costs must be considered.
(7) OANHSS members are
concerned that a coordinated access system will not be sensitive
to the unique character of certain housing projects or respect
their historic relationship with their founding community.
Coordinated access systems must respect the mandate of housing
providers to address the needs of particular ethnic, cultural or
religious communities which in many cases have made significant
contributions to the organization and rely heavily on the
volunteers within those communities.
(8) Development of a
coordinated access system for people with special needs must
involve collaboration with the provincial support ministries and
sector associations like OANHSS which represent the organizations
that provide housing and support services. So the references
would be to MCSS and the Ministry of Health being involved in the
coordinated access development system.
(9) Any coordinated access
systems that are put in place must undergo a thorough evaluation
after the first year,
involving input from all stakeholders, to ensure objectives are
met.
(10) The most effective
scenario for seniors' non-profit housing is to have the income
verification remain with the individual non-profit service
providers versus a centralized income verification system.
(11) If the centralized
pooling of capital replacement reserves were pursued, we strongly
emphasize that housing providers must have unimpeded access to
their funds when they are needed.
(12) The province, in
finalizing the transfer, must require that service managers work
collaboratively with the community-based organizations
responsible for delivering social housing in their communities.
These discussions need to include the process the service
managers will put in place to manage their responsibility for
financial testing and coordinated access.
(13) OANHSS members want
assurance from both the federal and the provincial governments
that the federal not-for-profit programs will be flexible enough
to allow federal stock that currently operates as long-term-care
facilities to continue delivering much-needed long-term-care
services.
In conclusion, I'd like to
say that OANHSS members, like the ministry, are committed to a
process for transfer of responsibility for social housing which
has no negative impact on the people who live in that housing.
Our association is prepared to work with the province and
municipalities to ensure that this is accomplished.
The Chair:
Thank you, Ms Phillips. There is time for a couple of questions.
Government members, anyone have a question? No? We'll turn to Mr
Caplan.
Mr Caplan:
Thank you very much for your presentation. A number of your
recommendations follow along the lines of the coordinated access
system. I'm very curious what you believe will be the
experience-perhaps you could give us the benefit of your
experience-with the access system for special-needs housing, and
what's going to happen with 47 different attempts around the
province, certainly as far as consistency, but perhaps with some
other things you might have some expertise in.
Ms
Phillips: I think the concern of most members is that in
the legislation it doesn't define special needs. For example, is
"special needs" a religious group, an ethnic group, a physical
disability, a mental problem? I think we're looking for a little
bit more clarification on who exactly falls into the category of
special needs.
I understand your point
about the confusion of coordinated access systems. I think that
relates to the whole confusion that this bill presents in terms
of having 47 municipalities delivering, potentially, an
administrative model that varies from community to community, and
it would be the same with coordinated access. What we're looking
for, I guess, is a bit of flexibility in the bill that would
allow a coordinated access system to be developed locally, as it
does state in there, so that each special-needs group, such as
seniors' supportive housing, could maintain or develop their own
waiting list that would meet the needs of their community
locally.
Mr Caplan:
Do I have time for another question?
The Chair:
No, you really don't, Mr Caplan.
Ms Lankin:
I also thank you for the presentation, the number of interesting
points. I want to pick up on your recommendation number 6, which
talks about how critically important it is that benchmarks
reflect real costs of providing supportive housing. I'm reminded
of the time when as Minister of Health I was attempting to work
with a group to provide housing on the top floor in a new
building that was being developed for ventilator patients who
were in a long-term-care facility but could live in an apartment.
The Ministry of Housing's benchmark on costs didn't allow for an
apartment large enough to accommodate a ventilator wheelchair. It
was a real, practical example of, through ministry silos, the
problems.
It was a problem when it
was run by the province. Now, bringing it down to the
municipality level, and with the presentations we've heard of
municipalities looking at cost savings and surplus and shared
surpluses, maintaining those shares without a guarantee of that
money being reinvested back in, I'm really worried about these
benchmarks and what they mean for different groups.
For the group that you
serve, can you tell us why housing costs might be higher than an
ideal benchmark and what it might mean for you to be driven to
that level?
Ms
Phillips: I'm glad you brought that up because that's
exactly the concern. There's a fear in a lot of our members that
when the ministry is embarking on this benchmarking exercise,
they won't take into consideration the special-needs group.
For example, if you're
looking at a capital reserve study that gives assumptions in
terms of the life expectancy of carpet or paint or flooring, the
general life expectancy of carpet in a capital budget is 15
years. Anyone who runs seniors' supportive housing or supportive
housing in general knows that you're lucky to get two or three
years out of your carpeting. So I think we're looking at those
increased costs in terms of designing and maintaining buildings
that are physically able to meet the needs of seniors. But then
also a lot of seniors' supportive housing providers and generally
supportive housing providers within their management costs have
built in enhanced management dollars. So not only are they doing
administration but they're also doing social service work,
counselling, reassurance and a lot of other things. So if you're
looking at and comparing administrative costs across the
spectrum, if you don't isolate out those special-needs groups
that may be doing more than just administrative, I think that's a
risk for us.
Ms Lankin:
A really good point.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Ms Phillips. We appreciate your
submission.
COUNTY OF GREY
The Chair:
The next presenter is Norm Gamble, chief administrative officer
of the corporation of the county of Grey.
Mr Norm Gamble: Thank you,
Chair, members of the committee. I am Norm Gamble. With me is Rod
Wyatt, the general manager of our local housing authority. I'd
like to thank the Chair and members of the standing committee on
justice and social policy for the opportunity of addressing
you.
My experience with social
housing is somewhat limited, although my experience with the
devolution of social housing and with the transfer of service
responsibilities between the province and municipal government is
substantial. I have been involved with the devolution initially
on working groups with the Crombie Who Does What panel. After
social housing was included in the transfer mix, I participated
on a roles and responsibilities working group with the social
housing steering committee. Following that, I was appointed to
and continue to be a member of the municipal reference group
established by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. At
the same time, I've participated in numerous task forces of the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario as well as being a
provincial appointee to the provincial-municipal liaison task
force of consolidated municipal service managers, CAOs and
assistant deputy ministers of various ministries.
Coincidentally, I am
currently the president of the Ontario Municipal Administrators
Association, an organization of city managers and CAOs. Today my
representation is restricted to that as CAO of the county of
Grey.
At the outset, a point that
must be reiterated is the draft legislation's failure to
recognize that this is a transfer of responsibility from the
provincial government to the municipal government. The draft
legislation makes reference to service managers. There was
considerable difficulty in the establishment of consolidated
municipal service managers as designated by the Ministry of
Community and Social Services. Not the least was the effort by
the municipal sector to have municipalities designated, and not
leave the opportunity for special purpose bodies either at that
time or down the road. This is with the exception of the district
service boards in northern Ontario.
This most recent draft
legislation for some reason fails to even use the same
terminology of CMSMs. Unless there is some logical and necessary
reason, reference should be made to "designated municipalities"
and boards in northern Ontario, as opposed to service managers,
whatever that might entail. Although this point of terminology is
minor, it is a continuance of an aggravation in the devolution
process.
Another difficulty with the
draft legislation is the immense amount of regulatory powers
which will be left out of the legislation itself. As those
regulatory powers are not yet established, we must speak not only
to the draft legislation but to the presumed regulations in order
to give the committee a full picture of the concerns in this
area. That being the case, I apologize if some of my comments are
made in reference to future regulations as opposed to the
particular draft legislation as we know it today.
1730
I am attempting to address
the committee only in terms of administrative and operational
concern. The question of whether social housing is a
philosophical fit with the municipal sector should be left to the
political arena, although I would offer from my observation that
there are a number of benefits to local operations as opposed to
provincial operations. Many other service transfers are already
finding efficiencies. Later in this presentation I will highlight
some of the benefits I see in terms of local operation. The
future financial liability questions have no doubt been brought
to your attention many times and are responsibilities which the
provincial government should retain.
A province-wide body: the
legislation includes the establishment of a province-wide
municipally controlled body for pooling of mortgages, insurance
etc. As you have no doubt already heard, this body is not
required. Municipal governments have a history of pooling where
and when appropriate and/or meeting their needs in many ways. The
perpetuation of yet another province-wide special purpose body is
not necessary and should not proceed.
Local housing corporations:
the draft legislation has an interesting, overly simple process
in the establishment of local housing corporations replacing
local housing authorities. Provincial staff have time and time
again indicated that this process is necessary to avoid 47
different processes as a result of the existence of 47 CMSMs. I
would argue that there are a maximum of three processes required.
Those who wish to establish and use a corporation for their
purposes is the first. The second is those who may wish to
integrate the housing portfolio with another existing
corporation, presumably a municipal or a non-profit corporation.
The third process would fit those who have no wish to establish
or maintain a corporation, which effectively would look and act
as another special purpose body. It is already apparent that
CMSMs have made their choices, and I assume the majority fall
into the third process, which does not require the establishment
of the arm's-length corporation.
Human resource issues: as
the committee has no doubt heard, there are a number of
outstanding issues in regard to the transfer of employees of
local housing authorities and the potential employment
opportunities for ministry staff. Of particular concern is the
responsibility for severance payments, if required, and the
responsibility for accumulative sick leave plan payouts to
employees. Part and parcel of the human resource concerns is the
need to move extremely quickly due to the timing of the draft
legislation. There are CMSMs, such as my own, which are in a
position today to make employment offers to all affected
employees and thereby give them some sense of security for the
remainder of 2000 and for their future, come January 1, 2001. In
order to do so, there must be clarity of severance, benefits,
pension conversion and reasonable-efforts positions.
Local autonomy: in tandem
with the human resource issues is an overall concern that the
legislation and the devolution process itself not be overly
prescriptive. Municipal government has shown again and again that
it is quite capable of assuming new and different
responsibilities on behalf of the provincial government. Each
ministry responsible for devolution of a service feels theirs is
by far the most complex and important devolution in the history
of municipal and provincial relations. Naturally, all service
transfers are important; however, we have considerable experience
under our belts at this time with provincial offences, land
ambulance, family benefits, highways etc, and the caution of the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing is at times more than
necessary. While it is recognized that municipal governments will
have a learning curve with the assumption of housing, for many of
us it is no more significant than the other transfers.
That being said, there are
numerous reasons to move forward as quickly as possible with the
transfer, as there are many benefits that can be passed on to the
tenants and the community as a whole. In Grey county it is our
plan to administratively integrate housing with other short-term
accommodation needs, such as homelessness and hostel portfolios,
as well as the county's long-term-care responsibilities in the
operation of three homes for the aged. By establishing a single
administrative unit that will be responsible for the shelter of
our citizens, be it for 24 hours or 24 years, we will immediately
focus, not on a single program such as subsidized housing, but on
the overall community need of accommodation.
We also look forward to
administrative integration in terms of the management of the
bricks and mortar in the housing portfolio along with other
properties of the county. Administrative support in the areas of
finance, human resources and corporate research will provide more
support to the local housing operation than was previously the
case from distant provincial supports.
For these reasons, we are
in fact looking forward to the devolution and can see that given
autonomy, flexibility and, yes, responsibility, we can make for a
far better system than currently exists.
We must also urge the
provincial government to not be wholly prescriptive in its
benchmarking proposals so that integrations as previously
mentioned are either not possible or restricted.
In conclusion, the points I
would respectfully recommend to the committee are as follows:
(1) Amend the legislation
to be clear that it is municipal governments that are to be
responsible and not some entity which could be established in the
future.
(2) Amend the legislation
to not require the establishment of the Social Housing Services
Corp.
(3) Amend the legislation
to allow for opting out of the local housing "corporation"
process as an unnecessary step.
(4) Have the human resource
issues of severance, benefits and pensions resolved
immediately.
(5) Push on with the
passage of the legislation and, just as importantly, the
announcement of regulations, so the municipalities can make this
as effective a transfer as any of the previous.
Thank you for your
invitation to speak and your kind attention.
The Chair:
Thank you very much, Mr Gamble. We have time for a couple of
questions, starting with Mr Gerretsen.
Mr John Gerretsen
(Kingston and the Islands): Mr Gamble, just so I'm
clear, are you in favour of the devolution to the local
municipalities or are you not in favour? Because I take it that
when you were a member of the Who Does What committee, you were
not in favour of the devolution. Is that correct?
Mr Gamble:
That's correct. At that point in time I was not in favour of it.
I am finding now that the more experience we have under our belts
that, yes, I would be in favour of the local operation of
housing. I am not in favour of the local financial
responsibility.
Mr
Gerretsen: Just so that I'm clear, you're familiar with
those sections in the act-coming back to the earlier part of your
presentation-for example, subsection 47(2), that no action can be
commenced against the government, in effect, or the Ontario
Housing Corp, on the basis that a transfer constitutes or gives
rise to anything mentioned in subsection (1)? In other words, an
action cannot be taken against the government once you've taken
it over. You're aware of that provision, aren't you?
Mr Gamble:
I'm not aware of the specifics of that provision. I can only
assume that it's a similar relationship problem that exists
between municipal and provincial governments.
Mr
Gerretsen: There's also another section-
The Chair:
That's your question, Mr Gerretsen.
Mr
Gerretsen: I'm sorry. Isn't there 20 minutes for the
presentation?
The Chair:
I said there was time for a few questions and you've had your
time. Ms Lankin?
Ms Lankin:
It's my turn now, Mr Gerretsen.
Mr
Gerretsen: Of course. I realize that now.
Ms Lankin:
You want to share, don't you?
Mr
Gerretsen: Absolutely, I want to share.
Ms Lankin:
I understand the points you were making about the efficiencies
from integration, and particularly when you talked about
administrative support to various types of housing programs that
are there, "the management of bricks and mortar ... along with
other properties." I understood that.
My ears perked up a little
bit when you talked about the integration of programs. On the one
hand, I like the words "a program for accommodation for all of
our citizens," but it's a bit nervous-making when I hear
"amalgamation of programs" around long-term care, around
emergency shelters, around affordable housing and supportive
housing. There are a lot of different goals and target
populations, and I'm not sure what you meant by that, so I'm
hoping you can put my fears to rest and perhaps elaborate on what
you think the efficiencies and the benefits are of that kind of
integration.
Mr Gamble: I would hope that
you wouldn't misread what we've suggested as being a melting pot
of responsibilities. We fully recognize the distinctive nature of
different programs and different operations. What we find
appropriate is to put a governance model and an administrative
model that is concerning itself with all aspects of social
accommodation. That doesn't mean that we're able to integrate the
intake process of homes for the aged with the intake process of
housing. We know that's not possible and perhaps not appropriate.
But we think having a single governance at the county level that
concerns itself with short-term, long-term and all types of
accommodation needs is a good philosophical approach.
The Chair:
Government members?
Mr Brian Coburn
(Ottawa-Orléans): No, we'd like to give as much
time as possible to the presenters.
Interjections.
The Chair:
Members of committee, please. We want to make sure that everyone
who is listed to speak has the opportunity to do that. We all
know there is a vote this evening, so I think we should go to the
next presenter.
Thank you for your
presentation.
ECUHOME CORP
The Chair:
The next presenter is Angie Hains, executive director of Ecuhome
Corp. You have 10 minutes.
Ms Angie
Hains: The first thing I'd like to do is send regrets
from Jim Pike, the vice-president of our board. His mother is
critically ill and he is with her in the hospital today.
Ecuhome is pleased to have
the opportunity to speak to you about Bill 128, the Social
Housing Reform Act. Ecuhome was formed in 1983 by seven Christian
faith communities to respond to the lack of housing and support
for single homeless people, particularly those who were leaving
psychiatric hospitals. Initial funding was provided by the
Ministry of Community and Social Services because there was no
other funding vehicle available at the time. However, a few years
later, the Ministry of Housing provided the funding that allowed
Ecuhome to expand.
Ecuhome has grown a lot
since 1983, and now has 400 units in 56 houses and three
apartment buildings across the old city of Toronto. Tenants in
the 56 houses each have a locked bedroom and share kitchen and
bathroom facilities as well as the common areas of the house.
Ecuhome's housing is all rent-geared-to-income and the housing is
dedicated to people who are homeless and hard to house.
Ecuhome has not supported
the idea of downloading the responsibility for social housing to
the municipal level. We believe that senior levels of government
need to stay in the housing business. We do not think that
municipalities have the tax base to sustain social housing
programs through economic downturns or to create new affordable
housing.
However, we are committed
to making the system work as well as it can. Ecuhome's goal
continues to be to provide safe, secure, affordable housing for
people who have been chronically homeless and have difficulty
maintaining stable housing. It is in that spirit that we offer
the following comments on the legislation, and there are really
three main areas I would like to speak to.
The first is a new funding
model. In order to survive as non-profit housing providers after
devolution, we need a funding model that works. The benchmarks
the new funding model will be based on need to reflect real costs
and allow flexibility to carry non-profits through lean years.
The financial model does not mention any allowance for an
operating contingency. We believe we need an operating
contingency to see us through years where there are unexpected
costs that are beyond our control; for example, a particularly
cold winter or a particularly hot summer or big jumps in utility
rates such as the ones that are being discussed at the moment. As
a non-profit provider whose housing is 100%
rent-geared-to-income, we are unlikely to have an operating
surplus, no matter how businesslike a manner we operate in. We
cannot generate a surplus by increasing market rents, because we
don't have any market rents.
Ecuhome has effectively
housed people who have been homeless in shared housing for over
17 years. Our houses are located in many neighbourhoods in
central Toronto. Unlike most non-profit housing providers that
began with new buildings, we began with older houses, typically
60 to 80 years old. The tenants we house can be hard on our
properties. Some lack life skills and cause damage to the
property or equipment either unintentionally or out of
frustration. With a tenant mix and a housing portfolio like ours,
there are unexpected costs that cannot be planned for. In order
to continue to provide good-quality housing, we need to have an
operating contingency built into the funding model that will
allow us to respond to these events without going into debt.
The next area I would like
to talk about is financial testing. Bill 128 gives service
managers the responsibility for financial testing. This includes
initial rent calculations, notice to tenants, annual
recalculations, and entering into arrangements with tenants for
repayment of rental arrears, all of which are currently the
responsibility of non-profit landlords.
Our tenants have been
chronically homeless and have had difficulty maintaining stable
housing. Well over half of our tenants have a serious mental
illness. Most of the people who apply to Ecuhome are coming from
the street, or from hostels, treatment centres or hospitals. Many
of them have no form of income when we first see them. It has
been a long time since many have lived in permanent housing. Our
relationship with the tenant often begins with our staff giving
the tenant an offer of housing and assisting them to apply for
Ontario Works. It takes time to develop a trusting relationship,
but this is the cornerstone of the support we provide to tenants.
As well as being a landlord, we provide the support our
hard-to-house tenants need to keep them in stable housing. Our
goal is to help them maintain their housing, to prevent them from
being evicted and ending up back on the streets and in the hostel
systems.
Rent calculations and recalculations and
repayment schedules for people who have fallen behind in their
rent are all part of our function as a landlord, and we believe
this function should stay with the housing provider. I'd like to
give you an example about developing repayment schedules to
illustrate the point.
At Ecuhome, we regularly
work out repayment schedules for our tenants who have fallen
behind in their rent. Some of the tenants get behind because
they're having a mental health crisis. Others, who are in
recovery from addiction to drugs or alcohol, may relapse and
struggle to maintain their sobriety. Our concern, as a supportive
housing provider, is to help the tenant maintain their housing.
This usually entails helping the tenant get the support they need
to work through their crisis and, when this is accomplished,
working out a repayment schedule with the tenant that's tailored
to their situation. If the repayment schedule is not effective,
Ecuhome may apply to the tribunal for a mediated settlement and
it allows the tenant another chance to repay the arrears and keep
their housing. We go to great lengths to keep people housed. Our
tenant population is not only hard to house, but they're hard to
keep housed. We believe it's more effective and efficient to help
people keep their housing than it is to rehouse them once they've
been evicted and are back in the hostel system or on the
streets.
It doesn't seem likely that
a service manager, no matter how well intentioned, will have the
time or the knowledge of the individual's situation to allow them
to develop an effective repayment schedule. Our fear is that
cookie-cutter repayment schedules will not be effective with the
hard-to-house population and the result may be more of our
tenants being evicted and ending up back on the streets.
The last area I'd like to
talk about is special-needs access.
The Chair:
If I could just ask you to try to keep it as short as
possible.
Ms Hains:
OK, I won't read it; it's in the handout. But I'll tell you that
as far as special-needs access is concerned, I don't think the
service manager-
The Chair:
You've got about three minutes.
Ms Hains:
I'll speak real fast.
The issue, as I see it, is
that centres for special-needs housing being left up to the
service manager is not going to be particularly effective. If
you're looking at the housing that's devolved to the municipal
level at this point, there's usually a support service ministry
involved which is paying for the funding for the support service
that's going into that housing. Whereas the service manager may
have control over access to the housing, they don't have control
over access to the support system.
I think we would all agree
that it's important to have transparent, clear, easy access
systems for people who need housing and support, but that's best
done in consultation with the support service ministries, the
housing providers, the support service providers and the service
managers and not just left up to the service managers. If it's
left up to the service managers, it's just not going to work, no
matter how well intentioned it is. That's all I really need to
say about that.
I'd like to thank you for
the opportunity of presenting my comments, and I have more copies
of my presentation.
The Chair:
Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms Hains.
Members of committee, that
does conclude the public presentations. We will be considering
clause-by-clause of this bill on November 28 at 3:30 in this
room. I would remind members of committee to please have
amendments in by November 23 at noon.
Again, I would remind you
that November 28 is a Tuesday and not a Monday. Thank you.
