CONTENTS
Wednesday 9 October 1991
Ministry of Housing
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
Chair: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South PC)
Vice-Chair: Marland, Margaret (Mississauga South PC)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South PC)
Daigeler, Hans (Nepean L)
Farnan, Mike (Cambridge NDP)
Johnson, Paul R. (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings NDP)
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville NDP)
McGuinty, Dalton (Ottawa South L)
McLeod, Lyn (Fort William L)
O'Connor, Larry (Durham-York NDP)
Perruzza, Anthony (Downsview NDP)
Wilson, Gary (Kingston and The Islands NDP)
Substitution: Poole, Dianne (Eglinton L) for Mrs McLeod
Clerk: Carrozza, Franco
The committee met at 1548 in committee room 2.
MINISTRY OF HOUSING
The Chair: I would like to call to order the standing committee on estimates. We are reconvening today to continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Housing. We have five hours and four minutes remaining and, as we follow in rotation, I would like to recognize Ms Poole, unless the minister has some items she would like to table with committee members that flow from yesterday's questions. Perhaps now would be an appropriate time to share those.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, we do have answers tabled by the assistant deputy minister in charge of planning for the ministry to questions that were raised by the Liberal critic and we would be quite happy to provide the committee with copies of those.
Also, there were further questions she raised yesterday. Staff have not written the answers, but they are certainly prepared to answer questions at the convenience of committee members.
The Chair: At this point it would be helpful to the process if we circulated that material which is available to be circulated. If you have a source document with no copies, I would relieve you of that. Is it the same as the one that is being distributed by the clerk?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I believe so, Mr Chair. That is it.
The Chair: If there are subsequent submissions that can be brought before the start of our next meeting, which will be next Tuesday, and if sufficient copies are photocopied we will distribute those. You can distribute them in advance to the clerk and he will make sure they are in the hands of committee members prior to Tuesday, if they can be developed and responded to in that time.
Hon Ms Gigantes: If it is the pleasure of the committee today, I am going to repeat the offer that staff are prepared to respond to other questions that have been raised.
The Chair: I believe everyone heard you make that statement, minister. In the time allocation format, which this committee is accustomed to it can revisit any or all those questions as it sees fit. I appreciate your offer that staff are here today prepared to respond to those verbally.
Mrs Marland: These are the answers to the questions raised by the Liberal critic. I gave the deputy minister a copy of my questions. Do you also have the answers to those?
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I do not think we have written answers, but I believe there are staff here prepared to answer your questions orally at this point. We can provide written material later.
Ms Poole: Mr Chairman, maybe I could clarify for Mrs Marland. These are primarily questions I asked, but also a couple that the Conservative critic asked during the Bill 121 hearings, so these answers stem from August 1 and August 27.
Mrs Marland: That is fine. I thought they were answers to yesterday's questions.
Ms Poole: No, I just raised this yesterday as a point that I would like these answers available.
The Chair: Thank you for that clarification. I now recognize Ms Poole.
Ms Poole: Since we have just been talking about rent control and Bill 121, perhaps I could start off on that particular topic. The minister may not feel comfortable in answering these questions, but I am assured she would certainly be capable of answering them since they relate more to the philosophical-ideological base, as opposed to specific ministry programs.
If we look at the NDP campaign promise of 1990, it was very clear that the NDP supported one rent increase per year based on inflation. If I recall the words correctly, they were, "There will be no extra bonuses for capital or financing costs." Somehow that is indelibly embedded on my mind. When you came up with the long-term legislation, Bill 121 was significantly different from the promise you made in 1990. Would you please share your thoughts with us as to why the change and why your party has decided to allow capital cost pass-through in this legislation?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The bill is considerably more elaborate than our election discussion. That is quite accurate. The framing of that bill, as you know, was the result of a very extensive consultation undertaken with a great number of groups and individuals across the province. There were over 1,000 contacts with groups and individuals by letter, through direct meetings, through public meetings, you name it. I know you are aware of all that because you were in the Legislature, you were in your riding and you were acting as Housing critic then, so you are aware of how very extensive the consultation process was.
At the end of that process the product was Bill 121 which, as you indicate, does allow for a pass-through of certain kinds, capital costs and some extraordinary costs, and that is as a direct result of the consultation process.
Ms Poole: I suppose the first thing I would take issue with is your terminology, "extensive consultation." The one thing landlords and tenants have both been able to agree on to an amazing extent is that this process under the so-called consultation on Bill 121 was hurried and meaningless. I attended meetings where tenants told you this and where landlords told you this, that they both wanted you to slow down the process and allow for meaningful consultation. It was to the stage where your predecessor had sent out one million questionnaires across the province inviting people to write back in, inviting people to ask for the green paper. Yet there was a huge backlog of requests even to receive the green paper before the end of the consultation period that were not answered.
Second, the legislation was already in its second draft three weeks prior to the end of this so-called consultation process. It was a mockery. I was invited to go to the minister's public meetings. I was not allowed to speak, nor was the Conservative critic. It is a strange kind of consultation where these types of things go on. I said to the minister at the time that I was quite sympathetic with his concern that this not be a political forum, that I was willing to keep my comments just to factual matters, to ask questions primarily, as opposed to even making statements, and still was denied that opportunity. So I really have to question that anything came out of that so-called extensive consultation.
I really cannot comprehend how your party can try to sell this as some modification. It is a basic reversal of your campaign promise, and certainly tenants see it as a major betrayal.
I would like to ask you about one other policy direction which I believe your party supported prior to becoming the government, and that is the establishment of capital reserve funds. Perhaps the minister could elaborate on why they chose not to go with a capital reserve fund, either a building-by-building fund or a province-wide fund.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would be pleased to. I do not know how you can suggest that nothing came out of it, because a bill came out of it. The bill is one that we are still working on.
I am just going to put on record, if I may, an account of what happened during that process. Some 20,000 English copies of the consultation paper were distributed; there were 1,400 copies in French distributed. Some 980,000 copies of the summary tabloid were circulated to tenants in multiple-unit apartment buildings, and those tabloids included a questionnaire. The former minister held seven public meetings across the province in major urban centres. The parliamentary assistant and the member for Wentworth North, who assisted her, held 13 invitational meetings across the province on their own, separate from those held by the minister, and there were 25 direct meetings held with interest groups. Responses included about 1,200 people who came to meetings and expressed themselves. Over 17,000 people responded to the questionnaire, and in some cases that represented households, not just individuals. Some 1,600 people added to the questionnaire letters outlining their views, and the process involved the submission of 500 briefs.
I think it was probably the most extensive consultation process that has ever gone on in this province. Having been a member of the House previously and having watched other consultation processes, I can tell you I have certainly never seen anything of the scope of this one, and I think the responses indicate that people took it very seriously.
1600
The Liberal critic suggests that it was a mistake not to have the opposition critics join in the consultation. It was a feeling of the minister, and I think he explained this to both the critics and to the Legislature, that in fact this process was for people in the communities in Ontario. He felt that the input and questions of members of the Legislature could be raised in the legislative setting. That was his rationale. I can certainly understand that rationale, and I think that within the time period, which was fairly extensive, the number of contributions we had from people across the province was quite wonderful.
Oh, I forgot to speak to the question of whether we might have a fund developed which would provide for the renewal of apartment buildings. This is a matter in which I personally have a great interest, and I am certainly going to pursue that interest and see if we can develop a good proposal.
Ms Poole: I would like to explore that in just a moment but first I have to correct several things that were said about this so-called extensive consultation.
The green paper was issued in late February and I believe the submissions deadline was April 6 or April 7. There were six weeks allowed, and that included trying to distribute these 20,000 copies. Many people had not even received their copy of the green paper by the time of the deadline for submissions. I talked to many people at those meetings, because I went to a number of those so-called public meetings, and they were livid about the fact that they could not speak. They were not public meetings; they were hearings by invitation where carefully selected individuals and groups were invited to make commentary and to ask questions.
There was an attempt to make it balanced as far as landlord and tenant are concerned, but I can tell you that there was no opportunity for the public consultation. We almost had a riot in north Toronto when we had 300 to 400 people who came expecting to be able to have some sort of input and it was denied them. The local paper carried an article about it saying: "What's going on here? What kind of process is this?"
You ask Dan McIntyre of the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenants' Associations. I know, Madam Minister, you know him well. Ask the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations. Ask the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. Ask any of those tenant and landlord groups and, to a one, they all said the same thing -- that they wanted more time, that it was a massive undertaking to review the current system and try to make fairly massive changes, and certainly that kind of response time was totally meaningless.
I realize you were not necessarily intensively involved in the process at the time, you were not minister, but as opposed to being one of the best processes this province has seen, I consider it to be the opposite. It was a mockery where you hit the top of the waves superficially. "Look at all the things we've done. We've sent out a million questionnaires." But the questionnaires, by their very nature, that they were being sent to all these tenants and groups in such massive quantities, were very limited in the information they gave. They asked questions without enough information so that people could make an informed decision. Those people who wrote in and said, "I want more information; I need more information to make an informed decision," could not get the green paper back to them in time to meet your six-week deadline.
That is what it is all about. Perhaps Bill 121 came out of it. I can tell you that very little of Bill 121 came because of that consultation. It was all predetermined. There were very few real surprises from the consultation paper as far as changes when Bill 121 came out. I think it was ministry-driven as opposed to public-driven, and I take great exception to this being painted as a true consultation because I think it was the furthest thing from that.
I would also be most interested in your comments on the capital reserve fund. You were interested in proceeding on this. I wonder if the minister could clarify whether she intends to proceed with this during amendments to Bill 121 or whether she is talking about a long-range project where this could be incorporated at a later date.
Hon Ms Gigantes: To get back first to the question of the consultation, I think the very fact that 17,000 people felt it worth while to send in those questionnaires contradicts your sense that they did not find them useful.
Ms Poole: Out of almost a million.
Hon Ms Gigantes: There were 980,000 copies, yes. It is still a very high percentage return.
Ms Poole: A very low percentage return.
Hon Ms Gigantes: There you and I disagree. Of those people, 1,600 also wrote letters. I would like to know when else a ministry of the Ontario government has received 1,600 letters in response to a consultation. Perhaps you can cite an example, but I certainly have never seen this before.
Ms Poole: You were the previous Minister of Health, and I would cite the Health Professions Legislation Review.
The Chair: For the record, I had you all beat when we did the separate school funding bill. It holds the record. Sean Conway, myself and Richard Johnston sat through 900 briefs over a four-and-a-half month period.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is a bit different, Mr Chair. I was about to come to that.
The Chair: Separate school funding?
Ms Poole: Your party has already endorsed it.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The process was a bit different. We also received 500 briefs, so that has to be added up.
Beyond that, the critic seems to imply that the consultation process ended the moment anything was put in proposed legislation and that the consultation process does not include the discussions that go on once a government has put forward proposed legislation. In my view, that is part of the consultation process too. In this case, as you know, it was extended through summer hearings, and round after round of groups appeared. They made presentations, they wrote briefs, they talked to representatives of the government and the opposition during the pre-tabling period. Then once the legislation was tabled, they again responded. Many of them appeared before the committee during the summer.
In addition to that, there have been a series of meetings with the ministry and certainly with this minister -- and I am sure that was true with the previous minister -- apart from that whole process, and in some cases after, to the point where I have been meeting with groups as late as, I believe, last Thursday to discuss where we would go now in terms of moving the bill forward and, having been aware of the hearings this summer and other people's contributions, what their feelings were about what the amendment should be if they were coming right down to the point of making a choice.
I think the process has been one where the consultation essentially has gone on since February 18. It is still going on, and it will continue when we go through the clause-by-clause. I am sure we will have more discussion with more groups around this. So there you are.
The Chair: So endeth the section on questions on consultation. I would like to move to Mrs Marland now, please.
Ms Poole: Mr Chair, could I just ask at the beginning of our next 15-minute session if we could return to the question I asked, which the minister did not get an opportunity to answer, about the capital reserve funds.
The Chair: Absolutely. It is your time. You can lead off by making that request. No problem.
Mrs Marland: Madam Minister, will I receive written answers to my written questions on yesterday's opening statement?
Hon Ms Gigantes: It depends very much on your preference. We have people here who would be able to answer your questions orally now and probably provide you with a better sense of discussion around the issues you would like to raise than will be easily achieved by a written answer. So it is really your preference.
Mrs Marland: I would ask that I have the written answers, because I do have a whole lot more questions.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Very good.
1610
Mrs Marland: Thank you. I look forward to receiving those. Just to open today, I really want to ask you whether your government sees its responsibility as being in the land banking business and also in the business of being landlords. Is that the philosophy of your party? Is that where you are going to be heading down the road?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Is that all we are concerned about? I am not quite sure I understand what it is you are asking about.
Mrs Marland: No, I am not asking if that is all you are concerned about; I am asking whether you think your government should be in the business of land banking and the business of being landlord.
Hon Ms Gigantes: In fact, the tradition of the government acting as a landlord goes back many decades in this province, and 84,000 units of housing are in the portfolio of the Ontario Housing Corp. They were all built before 1976 and we continue as a landlord in that sense. In the broader context, we have not become landlords; we have assisted other people in developing co-op and non-profit housing which is run on a local basis. It is run with assistance from the provincial government and very often with contributions from the federal government. I do not know if that responds to your question on that score.
In terms of land banking, we have become the owners of land perforce. One case that comes to my mind, the Seaton case, is the inheritance of land assembly which was undertaken when the federal government was planning to build an airport in the north Pickering area, so we built on that land. There is land held by various agencies and corporations of the province of Ontario and Ontario Hydro, much of which has been owned by the government over long periods of time. I am not quite sure what you mean.
If you mean, on the other hand, are we out to try to put together large parcels of development land à la Ataratiri, certainly I think the experience with the difficulties of development is one that would make our government, and I am sure any government, thinking of assembling large pieces of land that way, think very seriously about what the realities of that process are going to have to be. I cannot give you a very simple answer on that. I hope that responds to your interest.
Mrs Marland: When I look at the cost of what your government is doing, it just seems to me that you are getting deeper and deeper into a business that totally excludes the alternatives, which is the private sector. You said yesterday that affordable land is the problem in terms of providing affordable housing. You mentioned Seaton; let's talk about Seaton for a few minutes.
Seaton is another concept and program you have inherited from the Liberal government. Frankly, when we are faced today with the problems we have in Ontario with the cost of what urban sprawl demands in terms of infrastructure, we know now and we have, unfortunately, many examples of where urban sprawl has become a very expensive way of providing accommodation for people in terms of shelter. Frankly, I am not a supporter of the Seaton concept because I think when we look at what Seaton will be, we are ignoring a tremendous potential of whatever money we put in to develop Seaton and ignoring the potential for that investment to be made in the existing urban downtown area of Toronto.
We are looking at making people dependent on cars for commuting to their jobs from Seaton. We are dependent on major capital expenses in terms of the infrastructure of those roads, but also of the sewage treatment and water supply. In the city you could invest the same money in redevelopment and you have the infrastructure in place. You have the schools, libraries and recreation centres, and yet we are going to go up there.
I heard yesterday there are 30 stakeholders, so I assume those are the private developers. We are talking about 20,000 acres. We are still talking about a tremendous infusion of government money to make Seaton come on stream, unless you are going to turn around and say to those 30 stakeholders -- some of them, I recognize, are other levels of government -- municipal -- and other levels of agencies, such as conservation authorities and so forth, that also are dependent on public money.
I really want to ask you what you see as the merit of developing a Seaton with the phenomenal infusion. I am sure nobody in this room can tell us how much Seaton is going to cost. If we are not going to put people in cars and continue to pollute the atmosphere, we are going to have to build a GO Transit lane. I am sure, if you talk to the Toronto Area Transit Operating Authority, it does not have any money to build an additional GO line in that direction. As much as it wants to, it cannot expand the services to the existing urban development in the greater Toronto area.
I really would like to know what you think personally, minister, of a Seaton project that is going to make such demands for capital infrastructure and the payment of that capital infrastructure in the areas I have outlined for the taxpayers of this province. Where is the merit of doing that, versus redevelopment in our city core areas where the infrastructure exists?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, the Conservative critic is suggesting that we are getting into a business which totally excludes the private sector. I am not quite sure what that means; I really do not know. The private sector is an intimate player in the residential development sector. There is no way that anybody is trying to exclude the private sector. I just do not understand that.
She suggests that she is not a supporter of the Seaton concept, but as far as I can make out, there is no such thing yet as a Seaton concept. If you know what a Seaton concept is, I do not. If you say it means there shall be no development in areas outside the city boundaries, I do not know what that means either.
Yesterday one of our staff, Dino Chiesa, mentioned the kinds of groups involved in the Seaton consultation process. I would be glad to table that with the committee.
Mrs Marland: The Seaton concept is another area that is brand-new, that is being totally developed. That is what I mean by the Seaton concept.
1620
Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Chair, she has suggested we are trying to make people dependent on cars to be transported to downtown Toronto. I think the discussions that have gone on around the notion of developing a community called Seaton have been discussions where people have tried to talk about a community that functioned as a community, not that was a bedroom for the city of Toronto. It is certainly not our intention to have people involved in developing the Seaton community as an alternative to intensification in core areas in Toronto or any other place. We think it is very important. I hoped the discussion yesterday of the question of the housing policy statement would have indicated and reassured the critic that we are very committed to good urban intensification and making full use of those community facilities -- transport, sewage, water, schools, parks, you name it -- which exist in urban cores, and looking to that kind of development to provide us with the kind of future development we are going to need in urban areas in Ontario. We consider it very important and I personally do too. We do not consider any discussion of the Seaton community as a substitute for that.
Mrs Marland: I am old enough to remember when Don Mills was designed by Carl Fraser and I think that was about 40 years ago. Don Mills was developed as the first satellite self-contained community that was going to have its own services, its own employment centres and its own commercial-retail centre. When it was built it was not connected to the city of Toronto. You are talking about a Seaton which you and I both know, if you look at the project proposal, is not going to have the jobs for all the people who are going to live there, so you are going to have people commuting.
If you are going to have 20,000 acres developed and have a mix of development, some commercial and some industry -- look at the size of Mississauga and how many people work downtown who live in Mississauga. Those communities are not self-sustaining in terms of the employment they can develop within them. You end up driving people out their doors in the morning and into their cars and on to the highways.
You say it is not going to be a bedroom for Toronto. I am sorry, I can sit here on record and wager you how many of those people will not be employed in Seaton. Certainly there will be some self-supporting commercial-retail and some professional in Seaton, but the majority of people are not going to work in Seaton. They are going to be thrown out on the highways with all that involves. Anybody who commutes can tell you about the stress of commuting.
You are talking about, as I did, Seaton versus intensification. Government cannot be all things to all people. We cannot expect the taxpayers of this province to pay for everything. Why do you not set a priority? Is it not more responsible to use the money for intensification, where the infrastructure exists, than building another whole new community where you have to fund the infrastructure to connect it to the employment sector, which obviously is Toronto?
You cannot do both. You do not have the money to do both. I am just saying that if you are going to leave Seaton to be developed by the private sector totally without any government funding, fine. I do not even know which developers are involved up there. They cannot afford to put in the infrastructure that will service Seaton and make it become a realistic link to where the employment sector is.
I cannot see the logic of that kind of investment, when you have a location with existing infrastructure in Toronto that could be redeveloped. You only have to go to other cities all around the world to see how redevelopment works if it is done properly. The correction to the urban sprawl theory, where people have moved out to the suburbs and the downtown areas are being redeveloped, is a very successful program, but it does need some government assistance. Obviously, if -- I mean, I hear that your government has a $10-billion with a deficit. I am sure you do not have money to throw after projects you cannot justify in terms of priority. I certainly hope your government will see a priority in where you spend the money, because you do not have it. Or do you have it that you can spend on intensification and building the infrastructure to a brand new community, which is out of date? Don Mills was fine in its time, but Seaton is out of date.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I am very pleased to hear the Conservative critic lend her support to the intensification of our downtowns -- and I guess the plural -- not just Toronto. I am also delighted to know that she does not want to see the same old thing built over and over on the suburban fringe. I think she is quite accurate in her analysis of the problems that creates. She is quite accurate in identifying that we have to take a new kind of path to future development. I am hopeful that when the Seaton consultation process produces a report, as it will, we can sit together and take a look at it, see if it makes sense and make sure it is not a repetition of the old suburban development pattern.
Mrs Marland: You are spending $5 million on it this year.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Actually, I do not think we are going to end up spending that much because the whole process of getting the consultation going --
Mrs Marland: That is what is in your estimates, I think.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but I think the whole thing has taken so much effort to get together that we probably will not end up following through with all that spending. There may be somebody here who can give me an estimate on that.
The Chair: They are scrambling, but we will have a taker in a moment.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Am I right on that?
The Chair: I see Mr Chiesa is going to boldly go where no other staff would go. Thank you, Mr Chiesa. Identify yourself and your title for the record. That would perhaps be interesting. We did not see you in the latest printing.
Mr Chiesa: I am Dino Chiesa, special adviser, land development.
Mrs Marland: The question is $5.3 million, page 234.
Mr Chiesa: Right. I understand there was an amendment to that budget line. Do you want to take it, Arnie?
The Chair: Welcome. Introduce yourself, please.
Mr Temple: My name is Arnold Temple. I am the assistant deputy minister of corporate resources. As part of the Treasurer's mid-year adjustment, $2.3 million was removed from that because it will not be spent this year. The advances to the North Pickering Development Corp will not be spent. They would be loans that were planned and they would be paid back with the revenues that would be generated from the plans.
Mr Chiesa: Right. The balance of the $2.5 million would only be expended should the North Pickering Development Corp become active. In other words, the consultation process will take us one more step. The bulk of the money would only be spent if in fact the North Pickering Development Corp becomes operational, a chairperson is put in place, a CEO is hired and it is designated an urban growth area. That decision has not been made yet. The actual moneys that are being spent in staff time and in studies now are very small.
The Chair: Mrs Marland, with the committee's indulgence, I am going to let you go on because you have the staff assembled, but we are at time. I will make up the time before the day is out if I have the permission of the committee. Can we extend Mrs Marland a period of time? We will adjust accordingly, but while we have the staff, please proceed.
Mrs Marland: The estimates I have say $5,388,000. What is the revised figure?
Mr Temple: About $3 million.
Mrs Marland: Are you saying that $3 million is for a chairman and a CEO?
Mr Temple: No. Those would be other loans and advances, including the staffing, to the north Pickering corporation.
Mrs Marland: Loans and advances to whom?
Mr Temple: To the North Pickering Development Corp, which would be the one that would expend the money. Those would be loans and advances to the corporation, which ultimately would be paid back to the consolidated revenue fund.
Mrs Marland: So why do you have to loan them money?
1630
Mr Chiesa: The reason is that the North Pickering Development Corp has a very major asset, which is the 20,000 acres of land. The book value of that asset is zero. My understanding is that the North Pickering Development Corp does not have the ability to capitalize on the value of that asset. That asset has a very substantial value if sold on the open market, but it is written down to zero. The advance would be towards doing development plans and doing some water feeder mains and those kinds of things. When the land is actually put up for sale and tender, that money would be paid back, of course, and some money realized from that.
Mrs Marland: This is very interesting. If I own some property and need some help developing it, can I borrow money from the government to get it up and going?
Mr Chiesa: No, but if you had collateral, you could certainly borrow money from private financial institutions. The North Pickering Development Corp does not have that ability as yet.
Mrs Marland: If I have the same ability as the North Pickering Development Corp, are you going to loan me money? Is that what we are doing now?
Hon Ms Gigantes: But Margaret, you are not a public asset.
The Chair: She is in Mississauga South.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I couldn't resist.
Mr Chiesa: I guess the question very simply is that if this were a private enterprise and we owned that land, we could borrow on the open market from a bank or anywhere else and we could self-finance. It was very much a self-financing project.
Mrs Marland: We are saying it is totally a government project then?
Mr Chiesa: No. We are saying it is a piece of government-owned land that may or may not be developed over time, depending on the wishes of the government.
Hon Ms Gigantes: How old is the North Pickering corporation?
Mr Temple: This is off the cuff, but I think in about 1974 or 1975 the legislation was passed creating the North Pickering Development Corp.
Mrs Marland: In fairness, and I will come back to this, are there any other amendments to this estimates book that will come as a surprise like this last one, and why do we not have them?
The Chair: We may address that issue in a moment. There are what are referred to as supplementary estimates, and I did not routinely inquire if there were supplementary estimates in a position to be tabled. I am told by the clerk they are not yet ready.
Also, it is the custom of this committee, with what have been referred to already as mid-year adjustments -- we did last year when there was an adjustment announced by the previous government -- that we would be requesting that the minister identify those areas slated for cuts. That has been a customary question raised. We would request that, at the earliest convenience, you document where those cuts are to be made for the committee to allow time during deliberations in which committee members can work with that information. I will make that request on behalf of the entire committee. That has been the practice and custom in previous estimates.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That question was raised yesterday by the Liberal critic. We have staff here who could enlighten committee members and remind me of my enlightenment right now whether that is the will of the committee.
Mrs Marland: Rather than take up the time, if we could just receive the copies, I can feed them into my estimates book tomorrow morning.
Hon Ms Gigantes: The Chair is indicating they will not look like your estimates book.
The Chair: Supplementary estimates do not.
Mrs Marland: It does not matter.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Certainly we can put them in written form.
Mrs Marland: Yes, and I can make my adjustments.
The Chair: I am in the hands of the committee. If they wish to have a verbal walk-through of where the substantive cuts are for the estimates book, if you are prepared to present it in that fashion, we could proceed with that. On the other hand, if they would like to have it in writing, I am sure staff will have sufficient time to have that ready at the very latest for the reconvening of next Tuesday's estimates.
Hon Ms Gigantes: We could do both.
Ms Poole: The government members have not even had an opportunity to ask questions today, and certainly we have many more. I suggest that this be tabled in writing with our committee by the end of the day next Monday so that we will have an opportunity to peruse it before going into estimates. If the minister thinks that is a reasonable timetable, it would certainly be fine with us.
Mr Johnson: Monday is a holiday.
Ms Poole: Nine o'clock Tuesday morning?
The Chair: We are going to be eating turkey instead of acting like turkeys. We will not be here.
Deputy, could you advise us as to whether your staff will have that ready in sufficient time? I am getting nods on Hansard. Thank you.
Mr Temple: Yes, we will have a written response to that particular question that was raised by Ms Poole for Tuesday.
Ms Poole: Would it be possible to have it in the morning so we could have a chance to look at it before getting to estimates in the afternoon?
Mr Temple: We will certainly make every effort to do that.
The Chair: For the record, we are asking for all identified areas of cuts, in accordance with the Treasurer's memorandum. That is what we are asking, not the specific cuts associated with Ms Poole's question. We are talking about all cuts.
Hon Ms Gigantes: You do not want to limit yourself to cuts. You want to know about all constraints and changes and everything, so that is what we will --
The Chair: Fair ball, but I want to underscore that we are asking for those that are the identified cuts for the adjustments that are associated with the Treasurer's memorandum.
Mr O'Connor: On this point, my office not being in the Legislative Assembly here but up at St Clair and Avenue Road, perhaps those changes could be sent to me in the House on Tuesday.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Faxed.
Mr O'Connor: Or faxed or something. If they are sent through the regular process, they may not show up for a week or two.
Mrs Marland: Do you have that trouble too?
The Chair: I am not going to touch that one.
Mr Lessard: I got an interesting letter yesterday from the city of Windsor, and in that they included a report which is called the Windsor-Essex Access to Permanent Housing Committee report. It is a response to the documents that were released during the summer or the springtime with respect to a housing framework for Ontario and government land for housing.
The group that looked at those two documents -- they were referred to as the green papers, I guess -- were members of the Windsor Housing Advisory Committee and the Windsor-Essex Access to Permanent Housing Committee. They got together and prepared this report during the summertime. It went to city council, and city council endorsed the recommendations that were made by the committee and forwarded them on to me. I am sure that a copy has been provided to the Minister of Housing as well.
She has probably had an opportunity to read through it and digest all the comments that they have made. There are a couple of interesting points made in that report. They do not really make any strong recommendations within it, but they do indicate the common concerns that resulted from their study of the reports. One of them at the top was with respect to increasing access by individuals and families to adequate and affordable housing, the point being that in order to increase access by individuals and families to affordable housing, you have to identify the need within the community, and one of the ways to do that is to develop a common waiting list.
I know within my own community there are a number of organizations and agencies that offer services to people who are looking for affordable housing, and in fact sometimes people come to my office to ask where they can look for affordable housing. We have actually gone to the extent of drafting about a two-page list of areas where they can access this sort of information.
We have also heard from those same people and the agencies that when persons are looking for housing, they just get on everybody's list in the whole community, and because of that, efforts and energies are expended by a number of different organizations. There is really no co-ordination between them all and it is seen as a real problem. I wonder if the ministry is considering some way of trying to satisfy this concern.
1640
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, it is frustrating not only for the agencies involved but first and foremost for the people involved. This is one of the items that we raised deliberately in the housing policy framework in order to get people's responses. The more people who let us know from around the province that they think it is a good idea to have common waiting lists, the happier I am going to be and, I think, the ministry will be.
There has been reluctance in the past for agencies -- some of them direct agencies of the provincial government; local housing authorities, for example, within the Ontario Housing Corp -- to work with other agencies such as community-based co-ops and non-profits. I think the problem has been, essentially, on the part of different kinds of housing organizations to come up with the same kind of way of treating applicants. There have been different ways in which people have had their applications treated by non-profit organizations or co-ops or the local housing authorities of the Ontario Housing Corp.
In some communities there has been some degree of work on this. In Ottawa, for example, there has been some work over the last few years to try to make sure that there is co-ordination of the waiting list. There are still problems in making that a smooth operation. I think it is important and the ministry thinks it is important. That is why it was raised in the housing policy framework. I am really glad to hear there are people in Windsor who think it is important. We are also going to be looking forward to some very specific suggestions, particularly from the housing organizations involved, about how we can make this work. Where people have been is sort of halfway there in terms of co-ordinating the whole process of treating applications in different organizations. It is still by no means a perfect result in terms of the mechanisms.
Mr Lessard: The other interesting comment made within the report was with respect to the rent supplement program. That is not something I am really familiar with, and I do not know whether other members of the committee are. Maybe you could explain to me how that program operates.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I doubt I am the best person to explain it to you in detail. You will find a description of it in your estimates briefing book. If somebody will tell me what page, then we will be off to explore it. Who is going to help us with this one?
Mr Casey: My name is Tim Casey. I am the assistant deputy minister for housing operations. With me is Murray Wilson, the executive director for field operations. Mr Wilson will attempt to locate the page number in this thick book.
Essentially, the rent supplement program is a program whereby the ministry enters into contracts with private sector landlords to rent apartments in existing buildings. In effect, the ministry pays the full rent and the individual who is living in the rent-supplemented unit has his rent geared to his income. The end result is the ministry is paying net between what the tenant pays with rent geared to income and the full rent for that particular apartment.
The rent supplement program with the rent-supplemented units is actually administered by the local housing authorities under OHC. Did we find the page number?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Page 124.
Mr Casey: Page 125.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Page 124 too. I could add that the budget for this year, I believe, was raised over that of last year. Am I correct in that? Yes. Was that a new initiative addition? I believe it was.
Mr M. Wilson: You are referring to 1991-92?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, 1991-92. Was that the $12,527,000? I think that was a new initiative.
Mr M. Wilson: To the best of my knowledge I believe the minister of the day had certain funding options he could consider in meeting government anti-recession initiatives and one of those was the funding of the rent supplement program for 1991-92. If there was any increase, it was very, very marginal over the previous year. But again that money went to service anti-recession initiatives the government wanted.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Right, primarily directed to employment.
Mr Lessard: In Windsor there is a great deal of interest and support for non-profit and co-operative housing initiatives, and some of the people who were involved in preparing this report are involved in those initiatives as well. So I was somewhat surprised about their support for expanding the rent supplement program.
I would think that one of the reasons they were considering that was that there are a great number of vacancies in the private sector in Windsor right now. Rather than encouraging construction of co-operative or non-profit housing and leaving empty apartments around the city, it might be worth considering supporting the rent supplement program instead. What sort of balance is struck between those two areas is really a decision the minister has to make. Is there room for some regional variations in trying to balance those two initiatives?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I am sure there must be. In fact, you are right when you say it is a program which obviously is of most benefit in terms of the service for the dollar spent in communities where there is a healthy vacancy rate.
Mr M. Wilson: One of the requirements for us in the funding we provide is to determine, where possible, what is available for rent supplement purposes and in fact to exercise as much of that as we have a budget for. By the way, Mr Casey described our rent supplement operations as they relate to privately owned buildings and contracts with landlords.
A number of other programs are funded under the rent supplement ambit, like social housing programs that come out of, if you will, days of antiquity, though these buildings were built not that long ago really. They were built under social housing programs of the day that really provided for rent supplement arrangements, jointly funded between the federal and provincial governments. If you want to, you can certainly go into it, but it is a tremendous amount of detail to go into in terms of the different programs.
The important thing is, you are talking about a balance between where you can avail yourself of rent supplement opportunities in the community. The thing the minister is made cognizant of from staff is that in exercising rent supplement opportunities, our experience has been that, generally speaking, when vacancy rates are high, the private sector offers units for housing people of low income. When market conditions improve and vacancy rates tighten up, landlords -- not all, but certainly some -- tend to walk away from those opportunities and exercise the opportunity of finding people who are capable of paying for their own rent and not requiring rent geared to income. That is an experience our ministry has had over the years.
1650
Mr Lessard: Have there been any steps to deal with those types of experiences, like long-term leases or promises by landlords to ensure that a certain number of units, for example, are used for the program?
Mr M. Wilson: Yes, we have tried a number of different program solutions. Some of those have been long-term leases and, where landlords are prepared to provide those, we do exercise those. But generally speaking, for a variety of reasons, a three- to five-year term is what is entered into between a privately owned building and the Ministry of Housing.
The thing I emphasize here is that there are, as I mentioned to you, other arrangements which are longer term, 35-year arrangements. In the case of private sector units, we try to go for the longest term possible and that, generally speaking, is in the three- to five-year range, because the landlord wants to keep his or her options open as well.
Mr O'Connor: During the summer I was fortunate enough, or unfortunate enough, to travel some of the province on the standing committee on administration of justice hearings. While I was in London, as a matter of fact, I ran into a person who was a housing advocate for native issues.
Coming from a riding that has a native constituency -- and I imagine there are quite a few of us who have native constituents within our ridings -- the needs are great. As I was talking with this individual, he spelled out some of these great needs, some that needed to be fulfilled on the reservations and perhaps some that, because natives were not living there, needed to be met off the reservations.
The problem they had, of course, was funding, so in the spring of the year when initiatives were announced as part of the anti-recession package, there was a large component that was put forward for repair and rehabilitation of native people's housing, which I found very important, seeing that I have a native constituency within my riding.
Looking through the estimates, I see that the figure on page 154 was to the extent of $6 million. The need is indeed great out there within our constituencies that have native peoples, and in some of the northern communities I am sure the extreme goes to the point where some of the housing perhaps is not even safe. I just wonder how the project is proceeding. Because this is part of the anti-recession capital project that I as a government member, of course, am very proud of, I just wonder how we are proceeding with that. Are the people accessing the funds that are needed? A general update, if you could, please.
Mr M. Wilson: There is an agreement that has been reached with respect to the distribution of these funds for on-reserve and off-reserve. There may be somebody here today who remembers the exact distribution; I have forgotten what it is. That was an agreement reached with the minister of the day, the native groups and, quite frankly, the Ontario Métis and Aboriginal Association, OMAA.
We have entered into delivery agreements with OMAA to deliver the portion that is off-reserve. The numbers are $4 million for on-reserve and $2 million for off-reserve, someone has just advised me.
Certain chiefs of bands representing the Chiefs of Ontario -- I think that is the group they were representing -- actually assumed responsibility for making the distribution decisions on-reserve with respect to that $4 million. The takeup of that is supposed to be reported back to the Minister of Housing at an appropriate time. We are supposed to get quarterly reports, so we should have one due any time now, and certainly by March 31 the minister is to be advised as to how much of that has been taken up by the different native bands.
Mr O'Connor: Because that was one of the new initiatives, will that money still be available then? Does it have a sunset, as a lot of these moneys have, and is there any way of ensuring that this money is being appropriately distributed where it is needed?
Hon Ms Gigantes: The battle for money goes on. It is a never-ending battle. Certainly this is a program that deserves serious support. I think we still have a lot to learn about the best way of providing service on the new terms that this government has undertaken with aboriginal people. In particular, in dealing with the on-reserve aboriginal population, we have to learn a whole new methodology of developing programs together and making sure we are doing the right things from the government end. I know there will be many members of the government caucus and the cabinet who will be interested in seeing programs of this nature continue.
The Chair: Mr O'Connor, I appreciate your line of questioning, but I would like to move to Mr Johnson and then to Mr Wilson.
Mrs Marland: I think they are out of time.
The Chair: They are almost out of time. I would like to let Mr Johnson get his question in.
Mr O'Connor: I look forward to speaking to the minister on many more occasions around these issues. Thank you.
Mr Johnson: I want to ask the minister a question with regard to rent controls. We often hear opposition members suggest that we should have some kind of shelter subsidy program, as opposed to rent controls. Rent controls are something that do not cost the government any money. Shelter subsidy programs would, I have no doubt. Of course, the opposition members also argue that we should reduce government spending.
Ms Poole: Mr Chair?
The Chair: I think the minister is going to correct the statement that rent controls do not cost the government anything, but if we let Mr Johnson get his statement on --
Ms Poole: This actually was a different point of order. I just ask that Mr Johnson clarify to which opposition party he is referring.
Mr Johnson: Okay, I will be more specific.
Ms Poole: I do not mind being branded with my own statements, but the Conservatives can make their own cases.
Mr Johnson: Okay. I do not know if I could identify the person singularly, but I think that the Progressive Conservative Party has mentioned this.
Ms Poole: The caucus.
Mr Johnson: My question around these comments that I have made, whether they are correct or not, is whether the ministry has done an analysis with regard to the cost of bringing a shelter subsidy program into place, whether this has been a comprehensive study and just what kinds of costs we would have to deal with.
Hon Ms Gigantes: To go back to the question of rent controls for the moment, there is no such thing as free rent controls, unfortunately. You will see by the allocations outlined here that such is the case.
In terms of the interest the ministry has had in the use of something akin to a rental subsidy, the item we just discussed before, in fact, is along the lines that have been suggested by members of the opposition in the past, certainly the Conservative opposition. Essentially what we are dealing with here is the question of providing moneys that fill the gap between what a tenant can pay and what a landlord is charging in rent. We have just had some of those programs described to us.
Again, they are useful in areas where the vacancy rate is a healthy one, because if we are providing people with money in a market where there is no vacancy, we really have not addressed the problem. We have addressed the affordability problem maybe, but we have not addressed the accessibility problem. So it is not an overall answer in a very tight rental market situation around the province.
Also, according to the estimates we have seen, it would be quite expensive. The most recent estimate that I have seen is one that was used in a joint study by the federation of co-ops of Ontario -- have I got it right?
1700
Mr Burns: Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario.
Hon Ms Gigantes: They combined efforts with the association of non-profit housing organizations. Their estimate was that it would cost about $1.2 billion to provide a full gamut of rent subsidies in Ontario.
The Chair: It should be on the record as well that Mr George Thomson, who was responsible for chairing the Social Assistance Review Committee, also addressed the issue. He is now a deputy minister of the government and is on record on this very sensitive issue. I also encourage the member to examine his very important work on this area.
Ms Poole: If I could ask the housing operations people to come back just momentarily, I have a supplementary on the rent supplement program. I was trying to get my two fingers in there and get a supplementary in at the time, but Mr O'Connor moved too quickly for me, so I have to bring you back. I was looking at pages 126 and 134 of the estimates book and it is quite difficult to figure out exactly where the rent supplement agreements with the private landlords are, as far as total numbers, because it appears that the programming ended in 1988-89 and then after that it was transferred to another program. Could you simplify this for me and tell me how many units you have today in Ontario where there are rent supplement agreements with a private sector landlord; the bottom line, give or take. All I need is a rough guesstimate.
The Chair: We do not encourage you to do that. We encourage you to give us the accurate numbers if you have them.
Ms Poole: They were looking very hesitant, Mr Chair.
The Chair: That is why I think they have the accurate numbers.
Mr M. Wilson: I can give a rough estimate, but the rent supplement program changes literally every day because you have units being deleted from the program and units being added to the program.
Ms Poole: Just roughly.
Mr M. Wilson: A ballpark figure?
The Chair: You could show what the high is and what the low is. I assure you that number is not hard to acquire. As a former chair of a housing authority, I used to look at them regularly.
Mr M. Wilson: You would then be aware, as a housing authority chairman, that the numbers change quite substantially.
The Chair: Precisely.
Mr M. Wilson: Especially if you are a large --
The Chair: Which is why we reconciled them on a monthly basis. So you can give us a high and a low and that would not be too complicated for this committee.
Mr M. Wilson: If you want a high and low, I suggest they would be between 8,000 and 12,000 units and the average would be about 10,000 units of rent supplement taken from private sector landlords throughout Ontario.
Ms Poole: This would be within 1991?
Mr M. Wilson: No. That is since they invented the program. Some of those I know go back to 1971 and I am sure there were some before that.
Ms Poole: Yes, but I am saying as of the present date that we would have an average of 10,000 units where there are existing agreements with private sector landlords.
Mr M. Wilson: That is right, but not necessarily taken during -- I am sorry, I misunderstood.
Ms Poole: No, I just wanted to know right now that this is the number.
Mr M. Wilson: Yes, that is right.
Ms Poole: Has this basically been a stable figure the last few years? Has there been an increase in the last year?
Mr M. Wilson: You really have to get into some of the complications of the rent supplement program because it goes across a variety of programs. There is the index-like mortgage co-op program we provide rent supplement for. There is the community-sponsored housing program we provide rent supplement for. There is the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority that operates 15,700 units for senior citizens that are all funded through a rent supplement arrangement, 50-50 cost-shared between the federal government and ourselves.
There are a number of other arrangements and programs. For instance, there is a program we call the private assisted rental program whereby in Ontario we built 15 projects. The number count, just off the top of my head, would be in excess of 2,000 but I cannot remember the precise number. All of those would be 50-50 cost-shared, and certainly those would be privately owned units, together with the stuff we have taken from landlords in various marketplaces throughout the province.
With the federal government, up to 1986, the number of units taken from the private sector could either increase or decrease, and prior to 1986 the federal government had imposed on this program, through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, what was called a netting-out principle. So in fact, if you lost an agreement in a privately owned building with a landlord, you could not say, "We lost those 20 units; we are going to take 20 units from you," even though you were prepared to provide them at the same rent and everything else. In effect you lost 20 units from the program. During that time, with additions to the program and the deletions from the program, there were sort of marginal increases year over year.
Since 1986, the total number of units taken from private sector landlords remains relatively constant because we got rid of that in our negotiations with the federal government in 1985-86.
Ms Poole: Thank you, that has been quite helpful. It is a program that I have always felt has been underutilized and that I would like to see utilized to a much greater extent. Granted, it does not provide new housing; however it does provide very cost-effective housing to people who are in need of shelter subsidies, and certainly at a much more cost-efficient rate than building a new building through public housing.
Could the minister give us an idea of whether she favours an increase in these types of in situ allocations where tenants are subsidized in their existing buildings if the landlord has an agreement that could be signed with the government.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No, at this stage I could not give you an idea because I have not done enough of an examination of the program, nor enough of the examination I feel I would like to do of alternative programs such as the ones you mentioned in terms of co-op and non-profit housing. I regret I am really not at a stage yet to be able to give you that.
Ms Poole: I appreciate your candour and if at some stage you do make a decision in this regard, I would be most interested in hearing your comments.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I would be delighted.
Ms Poole: As I say, I feel that both under our government and under yours it is underutilized and could be a very cost-effective way, in addition to building some new housing. This is a program we could better utilize.
I think the minister has been off the hook long enough, so we will go back to my original question about the capital reserve funds. Thank you for your assistance, by the way.
If I am not mistaken, I asked if the minister planned to try to incorporate some sort of capital reserve fund in Bill 121 as we go through the amendments in the coming months, or if she anticipated it would be a much more long-term project in that Bill 121 might be amended at a later date to incorporate that concept.
1710
Hon Ms Gigantes: Without suggesting that it would be by way of amendment to Bill 121, certainly it would be the longer-run effort that I would propose. As you know, Bill 121 did not include a principle of this nature and, as with the previous minister, I have suggested that what we should do is stick to the principles of Bill 121 and look for amendments that do not affect those principles and see if we can make the bill better.
Ms Poole: Basically you are saying that you would like to revisit the issue to see if there are other forms of capital reserve funds that have not been explored, or be able to look for other alternatives in the long-term process.
Hon Ms Gigantes: When I think about it, I think about it more specifically than as a capital reserve fund. I think of it as a building renewal fund. There are certainly buildings in the rental stock in Ontario, and principally buildings that were built between the late 1950s and the early 1970s, where we know, because of the technology that was used -- they are high-rise, they have underground parking, they often have balconies and elevator systems which do not prove adequate for the design goals -- there are major problems. They have not been addressed in many cases, in spite of the fact that the problems are clear.
Certainly there are many organizations -- including the city of Toronto, a blue-ribbon report to the mayor of Ottawa some years back -- that have indicated we need to take this whole matter quite seriously as a social project and it is one that I intend to put work into.
Ms Poole: I guess perhaps that leads to the question as to why there has not been a reserve fund created under Bill 121 for new construction.
I certainly comprehend the difficulties in trying to put one in place in existing buildings that are 20, 30, 40 or 50 years old. It is very difficult to try to build it up to an extent that would be necessary in this older stock. But it would seem to me there would be quite a good case made that we could at least do it with new construction, build in a capital reserve fund so that at the point 15 years down the line, when many of these things do need replacing, there is an existing fund available and the landlord should not have to go to rent review.
Perhaps the minister could comment as to why it was not envisaged that new construction could have this kind of fund.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is an interesting concept. I do not know if you are suggesting that we should apply the rent control system to new construction. Is that what you are suggesting?
Ms Poole: No, actually I am not. I am saying that under Bill 121 right now, as probably most people in the room are aware, there is a five-year exemption from rent control for new construction. What I am asking is, starting from day one, once they are in the ground and occupied, why those buildings could not be required to have a capital reserve fund set up where they would put in a certain percentage of the rents every year and at some later date down the road the landlord could utilize that.
Hon Ms Gigantes: That is certainly an interesting suggestion. It is one I will consider.
As you are aware, most of the units that end up being put on the rental market these days are actually produced under a condominium framework. In those situations, there are capital reserves associated with the condominium corporation. In our non-profits and co-ops there are also reserves. Your suggestion is an interesting one. I will certainly consider it.
Ms Poole: Thank you. Just before we move to another topic, I know this is a fairly meaningless thing in light of the seriousness of the Housing estimates, but people might like to know. I have been handed an anonymous message that the Blue Jays are still leading three to one.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yea. I did not know the score at all. That is great.
Ms Poole: The minister is really enmeshed in Housing estimates.
Going to the Residential Rental Standards Board, the standards board has enjoyed quite a strong level of support from both tenants and landlords.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, I think that is fair to say.
Ms Poole: In fact if there was one criticism of the standards board, it is that the jurisdiction should have been expanded to make it more time effective. The way the standards board is set up right now -- I guess I should call it the Residential Rental Standards Board, but for purposes of today I will call it the standards board -- the one criticism has been the length of time it would take, once there has been non-compliance with a work order that has been registered with the board, for the board to actually issue a notice to the tenants that there would be no rent increase.
The major reason for this is that the standards board had to go through the rent review system in order to get this order. I am very curious why, instead of strengthening the board and making it a very effective mechanism for trying to solve the problem of outstanding work orders and the maintaining of standards in our buildings, Bill 121 chose to disband it totally and put these issues into rent review, where they are subject to backlog and all the other problems that the rent review system has had over the last number of years.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think the intent here is actually to make the system more timely, and I am very hopeful that is what Bill 121 will do. If you have suggestions about how that can be improved in Bill 121, I would be delighted to receive them.
Ms Poole: I guess my first suggestion would be to reinstate the standards board and make it more effective. Again, as we went through our hearings, virtually every landlord and tenant group that I talked to about it was unanimous. They liked the system and they would like it to continue, but improve it. I think if you want to make these issues of maintenance and standards more timely, we are basically throwing the fat into the fire to give it to rent review to do, because in my estimation that is going to do nothing but delay the process. If we get into a situation where we have the Bill 4 applications, for instance, the outstanding balance of capital applications that have been frozen under Bill 4, if we have them going into the new system at the same time that we are trying to deal with an increasing number of tenant applications, I am afraid that standards and maintenance and compliance with work orders will get fairly short shrift because the ministry's priorities will be to clear the backlog, as opposed to dealing with the standards issue. I would like to see the standards board reinstated and not have the standards board have to go through rent review to make a decision, but give the standards board the power to make those decisions itself.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It is not a question of reinstating. The standards board function will be integrated within the rent control system. I would very much appreciate if we could have Anne Beaumont speak to this because I think what we are looking at is a proposal for a much more effective system.
Ms Beaumont: My name is Anne Beaumont. I am the assistant deputy minister for housing policy. With me is Bob Glass, who is the executive director of rent review programs. Bob deals with the operational side of rent review.
If we look at the standards board as it is currently constituted and as it has been constituted under the existing legislation, it essentially performs two functions. One is the function that Ms Poole is talking about, which is that it receives work orders from those municipalities that choose to send them to the board and it reviews those for substantial infraction of a substantial standard.
Ms Poole: Subsisting -- I think that is in there as well.
Ms Beaumont: It reviews those and then may send those on to Bob's people in the programs area for a further review. This is an elongated process.
The other function the standards board performs is that it is a forum where landlord and tenant representatives, and representatives of other people with interests in this process, can sit around the table and discuss issues.
In the green paper, as you will probably recall, we made two suggestions. One was to streamline the process of actually taking action on serious maintenance problems to get action on those work orders faster, and the other was to maintain that forum for discussion. There was no support in the discussions for the retention of an advisory committee function which the standards board had been playing, which was a disappointment to the ministry. What we have proposed in Bill 121 are ways to move work orders through the system more speedily.
Exactly the same kind of review as the standards board staff currently undertake will be undertaken by the staff in the programs area. Perhaps Bob would comment on how he plans to handle that so things do not get bogged down with other applications.
1720
Mr Glass: Essentially the board's headquarters function consists of 16 staff members, most of them engaged in work of the nature of public relations, working with municipalities to develop effective standards and so on. The field work, the inspections at the local level, are done by contract employees.
We would see the municipal work orders coming directly to our local offices and a penalty being imposed immediately after, with 30 days after the time lines have expired on the municipal work order for compliance. We would see it very much as almost a clerical function in terms of the order coming to us, the order going out and the penalty being rescinded once a reinspection is done by the municipality. So we think it would be a much simpler system and a much more direct system. We would expect the headquarters' work with the board, working with municipalities to develop more efficient and effective standards, to continue.
Ms Poole: I feel like I am batting my head against a brick wall. I just fail to understand how you would try to expedite any system by sending things through rent review. Look at the history of rent review and, I predict, the history of rent review under this government. You will find it is not going to expedite the matter; it is going to be throwing the fat into the fire. The way the standards board is composed, there are tenant representatives and there are landlord representatives. This is something I do not see in any rent review system you have described.
I do not see any type of recognition of extenuating circumstances. If I am not mistaken, section 15 of the Residential Rent Regulation Act listed some extenuating circumstances where the standards board might decide not to act. For instance, seasonal factors: If at the time the work order was put on it is the middle of winter, it is exterior wall work which obviously cannot be done until spring, until things thaw out, which sometimes tends to take a long time in this country; instances where there has been a construction strike, so the underground parking garage simply cannot proceed -- again, underground parking is a prime example; instances where the landlord has gone bankrupt; instances where the Rental Housing Protection Act approvals would have to be obtained in order to eliminate the problem. There are all sorts of extenuating circumstances.
I plead no case for landlords who do not maintain their property and want to have a slum -- or do not care if they have a slum, is probably a better way to put it. I want to solve the problem of getting at those people. But legitimate landlords, whom I respect very much, who run good buildings in my riding and in other parts of the city, have told me they are very worried by this. The fact that you have taken out any type of ability for a landlord to appeal under extenuating circumstances is going to really create hardship for good landlords trying to do a decent job.
The Chair: If I could have a brief response and then the minister would like to have the final word on that point. Then I wish to move to Mrs Marland.
Mr Glass: Perhaps I can clarify the organizational arrangements at the local office level. We do not see the municipal work orders following the hearings and administrative review route that our whole-building reviews and tenant applications would follow. We see this as a specialized operation that deals exclusively with this particular type of penalty.
Ms Beaumont: To come back to the other issues Ms Poole was raising, the involvement of the tenant and the landlord groups -- that was the function I was talking about that was really the advisory function of the board. Actually dealing with the work orders was done quite separately, though, by the staff function. As we look at that, coming to your issue of extenuating circumstances, under Bill 121 it is anticipated that the 30-day time period, before there is an actual rent penalty where a work order has not been acted on, would only come into place after the whole process at the municipal level.
The municipal building inspector would issue a work order which may have a series of items on it which would have varying time periods for action to be taken on. It may say, "You've got to fix this one thing within 10 days, this other thing within three months," because there is a recognition it is going to take longer. You get a work order of that kind.
Let me say this: These two items, 10 days, three months -- your three-month is a big item. Maybe there is a construction strike and you cannot get things done. The normal practice would be that the landlord would then ask for an extension on the work order, which could be granted by the municipal building inspector, or may actually appeal the work order or contest it in some other ways and get the building inspector back into the building. So there is a whole process that takes place at the municipal level before it would come into the provincial purview. It would only come into the hands of Bob and his people when the time for all municipal action and municipal appeals has expired. So the landlord at that time would have deliberately done nothing. Then Bob takes over. That is the intention of the act.
Ms Poole: I appreciate that time is of the essence, but even if it is docked from the committee --
The Chair: It is not of the essence, it is ordered up. But make it very brief, because the minister wants to comment.
Ms Poole: I just have to comment that a number of the people I have talked to who have expressed concern about this system are municipal inspectors from the city of Toronto. The city of Toronto is probably more diligent than many municipalities in trying to enforce some of these work orders.
The Chair: Indeed not all municipalities have comprehensive building maintenance bylaws, but I do know the minister wants to comment, and then I must move to Mrs Marland.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I was simply going to make the comment that Anne Beaumont made, which is to outline the process. I think we have to make up our minds on this item whether we want to have some kind of effective maintenance standards or whether we just want to throw up our hands. The process that has gone on, even with the Residential Rental Standards Board, has not been one that has made people satisfied that maintenance in this province in rental buildings is adequate. Bill 121 is an attempt to improve that situation. There are difficulties still, as the Chair points out, in terms of the municipal role in this whole business. It is something we are going to have to work on.
Mrs Marland: To get back briefly to the North Pickering Development Corp, when are you going to appoint the chairperson?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I do not know. That will depend very much on what kind of report we get out of the consultation process. I am going to take this one step at a time.
Mrs Marland: That is not what it says here. It says the chairperson should be appointed and the corporation should be partially staffed, its administrative and human resource procedures should be established and it should have taken over most of the activities of the Seaton interim planning team. That is the program delivery listed in your estimates.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, but as we explained, there has been a revision to that projected work plan. It involves now a stage of full consultation with a wide variety of interested parties in that area.
Mrs Marland: So you are going to administer $3 million without a chairperson.
Hon Ms Gigantes: There will not be any money spent until there is a recognized line of accountability for that money. I perhaps should get some better-informed advice from Dino Chiesa.
Mrs Marland: How much are you going to pay the chairperson?
1730
Hon Ms Gigantes: As we are not in the position of advertising for a person, I have given that no thought, nor have I received any recommendation on it from staff.
Mrs Marland: Could the staff tell me what they are going to recommend that the chairperson be paid?
Mr Chiesa: We have not made that decision yet or looked at the remuneration.
Mrs Marland: They have not decided anything.
Mr Chiesa: We have. We have decided to consult on the process of how to develop or if we should develop those lands. We have made some ballpark provisions as to what the budget requirements might be should the North Pickering Development Corp be activated some time in 1992. What a chairperson actually will be paid has not yet been determined.
Mrs Marland: So we are saying we have $3 million going in loans and advances to this corporation that does not even have a head.
Hon Ms Gigantes: No.
Mr Chiesa: No. To explain, $3 million would only be expended should a decision be made to activate the North Pickering Development Corp and actually appoint a chairperson, get a board active and make it functional. Should the government not decide to go that route, then of course those moneys would not be expended.
Hon Ms Gigantes: We are in a pre-operation phase. We are not going to spend money until we are in an operation phase. We will be sure to describe that step if we are ready to take it.
Mr Chiesa: Just as a point of clarification, there is a very small interim group now looking at it, which really comprises two people full-time.
Mrs Marland: I think it is a pretty heady game. From your answer, it is very hard to understand from the outside looking in why there is even $3 million still left there. It is like a ship going without a sail or a rudder, from my own impressions.
Hon Ms Gigantes: It may be. We thought it fiscally prudent to provide within the budget line for the possibility that we might be at an operation stage by the end of fiscal 1991-92. If we are not by the end of fiscal 1991-92, the Treasurer will be pleased, and presumably you will be. If we are in shape to make a proposal for how to move the community development forward, we will certainly look to you for advice about that process.
Mrs Marland: Mr Johnson was making the comment about rent controls not costing the government money, which you corrected. On page 14, I see housing and rent review operations have an increase of 44%. I also see that housing and rent review operations have almost doubled since 1990. Frankly, I would like to know the reason for this. A 44% increase in one year in the operations for housing and rent review certainly tells you what rent controls are costing. If you are happy to have people living in apartments for the rest of their lives and not help them to achieve first-time home ownership with any incentives, you have to explain why there is a 44% increase there.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think Mrs Marland is looking at page 14, about three items down on our columns where it says "Housing and Rent Review Operations." That includes not only rent review but housing operations accounts. If we are to look at the rent review section, perhaps somebody could quickly indicate --
Mr O'Connor: Page 103.
Mrs Marland: You only have to go down two more lines and you have the rent review boards, with a 15% decrease in the past year.
Hon Ms Gigantes: If I understand what you are interested in taking a look at, we should be looking at page 103.
Ms Beaumont: I think it is page 107.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Page 107. Thank you, Anne. That gets us a better understanding of the cost. You will recognize that there was a period -- and I cannot quite identify the date lines, because I was in the Legislature as a representative for some of it but not for all of it -- in which there was an enormous backlog in dealing with applications for rent review. I believe it was during the early period of the new government that an extra effort was made to clear that backlog. What we are looking at will certainly reflect some of that. Is there somebody who would like to help us understand these accounts?
Ms Beaumont: I also was not in the ministry at that time, but let me try to recall what happened. In the early years of the development of the current rent review legislation, there was indeed a backlog.
Mrs Marland: Excuse me, Anne, for interrupting just a second. The focus is on that total line with the 44% increase. If it includes the rent review, fine, I would like your explanation. But that 44% increase on page 14 is very significant. If you want to explain the rent review first, that is fine.
Ms Beaumont: Why do I not explain the rent review, and Tim will explain the whole line, because the whole line is his entire budget, as the minister indicated.
Mrs Marland: Okay.
Ms Beaumont: The substantial increases in the budget allocation for rent review under the current legislation -- because that legislation was very substantially different from the past. The offices undertook as well major public information exercises with regard to landlord and tenant, where they get, I believe, currently over 650,000 phone calls a year relating to landlord and tenant legislation. So a combination of the new activities in terms of landlord and tenant education combined with increased workload because of the extension of rent review to new classes of tenancies -- there was an increase. But if you look at the figures from the 1991 estimates to the 1991-92 estimates, there was in fact a decrease in the budget for rent review operations for the first time since 1986, I think.
Mrs Marland: Yes, I just said that. But I also said yesterday that I thought that was as a result of Bill 4.
Ms Beaumont: It was partly as a result of Bill 4, but it was also partly a result of clearing the backlog. There really has been a major reduction in that backlog. That is the major factor in that reduction in budget.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Let us not suggest the backlog is cleared. It is just a lot more manageable than it was.
Mrs Marland: Well, I am bringing a letter in tomorrow to deal with a building in my riding that has been waiting for a hearing to be rescheduled. If the staff want to prepare for that question, I guess it will be on Tuesday. It is a hearing, I think, on 2333 Truscott Road. It is something to do with a Mrs Pappas, who was on that review board.
The tenants in that building have been waiting over a year for a response and for a continuation of the hearing. I just throw that out because I will bring you the letter tomorrow.
Ms Beaumont: When I commented on the reduction in the backlog, as we look at the workload in the rent review area, the current system has two phases. There has been a considerable backlog at rent review services, at the administrative review within the ministry. That is a budget that is dealt with on page 107. There is in the current system an optional further step, which is to the hearings board. That is a separate budget.
Mrs Marland: Right. It is the hearings board that has the reduction, is it not?
Hon Ms Gigantes: They both have a reduction.
Mrs Marland: I also see on page 107 that you have a 216% increase in grants for landlord-tenant education projects.
Ms Beaumont: Bob, can you comment on that?
1740
Mrs Marland: Just while you are getting there, it is the non-profit groups and organizations that are eligible to receive financial assistance to help fund landlord and tenant education projects. That is where you have a 216% increase.
Mr Glass: That is correct; from $205,000 to $300,000, to reflect what we felt would be increased educational needs as a result of new programs, of the new rent control legislation and the Bill 4 legislation being brought forward.
Mrs Marland: I am just making the point because it emphasizes what this legislation costs. I am not emphasizing it to you, I am emphasizing it to the public. You know what it costs.
Ms Beaumont: I think one of the concerns the government had in developing new legislation was to look for ways to simplify the current system in order to reduce the potential for the kind of backlogs you are referring to there. One of those ways was to reduce it to a one-level process rather than the dual process of an administrative review followed potentially by a hearing.
Hon Ms Gigantes: We also hope Bill 121 will lead to a more understandable system of rent control, though I think we have to acknowledge that in the period in which we will still be dealing with appeals based on the existing legislation, Bill 151, plus Bill 4 appeals which will come in after the proclamation of Bill 121, we are going to have a period in which helping both landlords and tenants figure out what is happening is going to be tricky. Our educational component will probably need to remain up for a while.
The Chair: While Mrs Marland is finding her place perhaps I could ask a quick question on the rent registry. Is that included in that line item, and is the rent registry operational at this point?
Mr Glass: The rent registry is included in those budget estimates. The rent registry is operational in the sense that we have information on 695,000 units across the province out of a total of about 1.1 million units in the province. We are now working on a program that will begin to bring the other rent information in to us.
The Chair: That still does not tell me if it is operational. Is the public accessing that information at this point?
Mr Glass: Yes, they are.
Ms Beaumont: There is information on page 104. One of the lines in there indicates the number of inquiries on the system.
The Chair: I am sorry, Mrs Marland. Please proceed.
Mrs Marland: That is all right. I have so many questions to ask.
Under housing field operations, I notice on page 65 we have a 71% increase there. Not all the units under the Homes Now program have come on stream and only 7,000 are actually completed and ready for occupancy. The term "delivery" is misleading.
Where does Project 3000 currently stand? How much has been spent to this point on this initiative and what are the reasons for the reduction?
Hon Ms Gigantes: Which reduction is that?
Mrs Marland: Project 3000.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Perhaps our experts would like to speak to it. My understanding is that Project 3000 has reached full subscription.
Mr M. Wilson: Certainly in terms of Project 3000, it is fully subscribed. Any offsets that would be planned would be obtained from planned reduction from Assured Housing for Ontario Phase 2 and Project 3000 initiatives. Speaking about Project 3000, there would be little, if any, saving from that, but Project 3000 was part of assured housing 2.
I guess the reference there may be confusing. If it is, the reason is that it was part of that. There were a series of programs as part of the assured housing 2 strategy -- to name a few, convert-to-rent, the low-rise rehabilitation program, some of the disabled programs, and the Ontario home renewal program I think also received an increase in funding during that period of time. Any saving we would see would be obtained from the long-term administration of those, I suppose.
The Chair: Very briefly. We are in 15-minute segments again.
Mrs Marland: That is interesting. Under long-term administration, I see that is grouped under services.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Could somebody help me and tell me the page number we are on?
Mrs Marland: Page 76. Services has a 179% increase and long-term administration is grouped under those services, I understand. What I would like to know is exactly how much is being spent on long-term administration of non-profit housing projects.
Mr M. Wilson: We do not know the exact number. We will get back to you through the minister with the actual number, if that is satisfactory.
Mrs Marland: Are you talking about the actual dollars? That is what I would like. When you say "the actual number," Murray, are you saying the dollars?
Mr M. Wilson: Yes, the dollars. I just want to be very clear. You are saying the long-term administration of the non-profit housing initiatives and you are referring to the services line. The only thing I would say off the top of my head is that in terms of the long-term administration of the non-profit program, as you well know from your own experience, there are the community-based delivery groups -- municipal non-profits, private non-profits and co-ops -- which have an administration charge built in related to the management of the project itself.
There is a ministry administration responsibility that relates to the minister having her estimates approved, and therefore we have to satisfy ourselves that those are legitimate expenditures. If you look at the salaries and wages line, some of the increases in the salaries and wages line would be attributed to long-term administration costs of the non-profit program.
Mrs Marland: The figure I would like is exactly how much is being spent on long-term administration of non-profit housing projects.
Mr M. Wilson: Exclusive of what is --
Mrs Marland: What is locally administered?
Mr M. Wilson: Yes.
Mrs Marland: Is not what is locally administered built into the cost factor of what those rents have to be to carry that project?
Mr M. Wilson: Those numbers are individual budgets and what we get is their net subsidy requirements. We do not go through a line-by-line item on what, for instance, Peel Non-profit Housing Corp would charge in terms of administering its municipal non-profit housing program. We are more interested in what the subsidy costs are for Peel Non-profit. We can certainly give you our number.
Mrs Marland: I want to know what it costs the Ontario government for that long-term administration.
Mr M. Wilson: Okay.
Mr G. Wilson: My question relates to the frustration that surrounds the provision of affordable housing. I know probably all of us, as MPPs, have groups in our ridings which are continually coming to us to find out the status of their request or their project. Even when they get an indication that they have a go-ahead, they still have to go through various things in the community to get to the point of a building permit. I was wondering what the government is doing to help these groups in their quest for the building permit in the community.
Hon Ms Gigantes: Could I suggest the deputy would be delighted to comment.
The Chair: That is a question he would like to handle.
1750
Mr Burns: Yes, that is right. I can just summarize to make sure I directly address your comment. First, there are questions that arise when people have organized and would like to build a non-profit or co-operative before they get a commitment from the provincial government, questions about what is going on and how to understand it. I think that is common in the system. There are a lot of people who would like to build.
We have an internal review system that assesses all the applications against a province-wide set of standards. Unfortunately, it means that for a period of time between an application and knowing, you are going to be uncertain about the status of it. I am sure you have discovered, as a result of making inquiries, that you do not get an answer other than, "It's being assessed against the standards." What we have to do eventually is simplify and make that process work a little faster. The reason I think it has not is this year we are dealing with more applications and more decisions about groups and more commitments than at any point in the history of the province. That is a strain on the system itself.
Once a group has some support and commitment but is struggling with the local planning process and perhaps also with the decision-making process at the ministry, there are some specific sources of help. First, there is a branch in the ministry called the housing advocacy branch. One of its jobs is to help people who are stuck in a problem of community understanding of what the proposal is and to get the local political community and the civil service to understand the case and perhaps help all the way up to a municipal board hearing. I have forgotten the exact number, but it is a considerable number of municipal board hearings, over 100, where the ministry has assisted the non-profit or co-operative group in getting its case organized and put in its best way to the board.
Hon Ms Gigantes: With a good success rate.
Mr Burns: With a good success rate.
Second, the ministry has provided quite a lot of support to the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association and to the other key advocacy groups in the sector to themselves help the sector develop and work on its own problems. ONPHA has been active certainly in the larger communities in the province helping coach people, train them, train boards, including boards of organizations which are just going through the planning process. If you have local groups which have a problem, in addition to the help they could get from the advocacy branch, they should look to the organizations whose mandate and function is to support the sector at large.
Third, for a lot of the problems, they can get direct help from the project co-ordinator they are dealing with in housing field operations, the person who is handling their application and looking at the elements of it. In a lot of cases we are talking about voluntary groups, community groups. They are learning how to do this as they are going through the process. A significant amount of what happens with a program co-ordinator and an applicant is education and teaching. They should certainly look for that part of our organization to help them as well.
Is it easy? No. I have been in this business myself. I have had applications take 24 months and still not get dealt with easily at the end of it. It requires a fourth ingredient and that is an absolute determination on the part of the group to hang in there for a long period of time. I think anything you can do to remind people and encourage them to hang in -- that this is not easy but will work in the end.
Mr G. Wilson: Thanks very much for that answer, especially dividing it into two parts, the before and after, as it were.
Even the formation of the group -- I have talked to groups that have said they did not know how they stuck in so long. It came as a surprise to find out the determination that they would have to have, and the perseverance. Perhaps we do not want to educate them to that point of view; it might cut down on the number of groups.
I was wondering whether you could suggest ways that this could be done. For instance, should there be more of a proactive approach by the ministry in recruiting groups? Would that help in perhaps establishing the environment where it was easier to find places where affordable housing could be put up, for instance, or even more support in the community as these issues were discussed?
Mr Burns: I think three years ago the ministry and the active groups in the sector quite vigorously encouraged community organizations to consider being active in housing and you now see in most communities church groups and residents' groups and advocacy groups and community service organizations active in the housing world. In fact, if we have a problem at the moment it is that there are more of those organizations that would like to be active in housing than we can really cope with. That is not to say it is not important that they continue to consider doing that; they should.
The second part of your comment, though, I think maybe does need a bit more work and perhaps not just by the ministry, but perhaps by the organizations in the field. As groups begin to look at housing, perhaps there should be a straight-up workshop or training on organizing the very early steps on a non-profit housing company and a little less straight amateur activity. I do not think we need to drum up any more. As you know from what you asked before, there are more people who want to do this than we have money to fund right now.
Mr G. Wilson: I guess that turns into the political question of whether there is the will to put up the housing. I wonder whether the minister might want to respond to this as far as the environment she has found for the support for housing since she has become minister is concerned. For instance, some of the questions here almost suggest that government should not be involved in both the aspect of putting up new housing, or assisting housing, as well as the rent control aspects of it. I would say probably all NDP members see housing as a right. I am wondering whether even you would see that as a problem in the community at large, establishing it as a right. Second, how can we come together in communities to make sure there is a provision for housing, whether that is rented or socially assisted in the form of co-ops and non-profit housing?
Hon Ms Gigantes: I wish I thought there was a simple answer. I think the degree of support for assisted housing will vary from municipality to municipality and from block to block within a municipality. The experience of groups has ranged all over the experience of possibilities.
Overall, people in Ontario have a very strong sense that we need to be providing decent housing people can afford and that provision of non-profit housing is a good way to be doing that. It does not mean, in my mind, there is not a lot that we could and should be thinking about in terms of perhaps reviewing our programs, tailoring the programs, bringing in some creative ideas about how to get them up and going. I am looking forward to that kind of work over the next few months and years, with any luck.
On the whole, people have a strong conviction that decent housing is an important contribution to health and to the social setting we have generally, so I feel fairly confident that there is a large measure of public support for what we are doing, particularly right now in a period when employment is a large issue. We are creating jobs in the residential construction sector now that are vital. Overall, this particular government's efforts to move right now in the creation of affordable housing has a large measure of public support.
Mr G. Wilson: It may be a bit backhanded, but has any other system worked any better? We are in this position historically and, looking back, I wonder whether other methods or arrangements have worked any better than what we are doing. I suggest they probably worked worse, in the amount of housing, especially for seniors, for instance, and the development. I know in my riding that the progression from what we considered adequate a few years ago to what is available now shows a marked improvement, and I think that is another aspect. By doing it as a community, we can provide a lot higher standards and find the support to meet those standards.
Hon Ms Gigantes: I think you are right, and I also think the problem we face as a society and within our urban centres in some ways changes and grows more intense as time goes by. The fact of growth in our urban centres over the last few years has put a lot of pressure on land prices and housing prices and has increased affordability and accessibility problems. So we are moving to a new level of magnitude in terms of what we have to be ready to undertake for solutions and motions that are going to help.
The Chair: If I may, I do not believe, Mr Wilson, you meant to imply that non-profit housing is built to a higher standard than the private sector in this province. I am sure the minister, because time expired, did not have an opportunity to clarify that all homes are built to a standard because of the building code in this province. This was understood, I suspect.
Mr G. Wilson: Actually, I was trying to evaluate the range of housing that is available. It has always struck me as surprising that there is a concept of substandard --
The Chair: Well, then, I would encourage you to ask the ministry for numbers on housing starts. You will be quite impressed by those statistics when you see that the public sector number of units constructed in rental, for example, has overtaken private sector construction, and what year that occurred.
Mr G. Wilson: Are you asking questions or are you the Chair here?
The Chair: No, I am encouraging you to seek that information and put it in the form of a question.
Mr G. Wilson: I encourage you to sit among us when it is done.
The Chair: At this point, I would like to recognize that it is 6 o'clock. We will adjourn until October 15 and reconvene at 3:30 on that date. We have two hours and 50 minutes to complete the estimates for the Ministry of Housing. The committee stands adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1802.