CONTENTS
Wednesday 5 February 1997
Intended appointments
Mr Stephen McAuliffe
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Chair / Président: Mr Floyd Laughren (Nickel Belt ND)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr RickBartolucci (Sudbury L)
*Mr EdDoyle (Wentworth East / -Est PC)
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber PC)
Mr GaryFox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings /
Prince Edward-Lennox-Hastings-Sud PC)
*Mr MichaelGravelle (Port Arthur L)
*Mr BertJohnson (Perth PC)
Mr PeterKormos (Welland-Thorold ND)
*Mr FloydLaughren (Nickel Belt ND)
*Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot PC)
Mr FrankMiclash (Kenora L)
Mr DanNewman (Scarborough Centre / -Centre PC)
*Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand PC)
*Mr TonySilipo (Dovercourt ND)
*Mr BobWood (London South / -Sud PC)
*In attendance /présents
Substitutions present /Membres remplaçants présents:
Mr TobyBarrett (Norfolk PC) for Mr Ford
Mrs BrendaElliott (Guelph PC) for Mr Newman
Clerk / Greffière: Ms Donna Bryce
Staff / Personnel: Mr David Pond, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1004 in room 228.
INTENDED APPOINTMENTS
The Chair (Mr Floyd Laughren): The standing committee will come to order. The first item on the agenda is the report of the subcommittee on business dated Thursday, January 30. At that meeting the official opposition party selected two intended appointees to the Education Improvement Commission, and those two are Ann Vanstone and Dave Cooke.
Mr Bob Wood (London South): I move concurrence in the subcommittee report of January 30, 1997.
The Chair: All in agreement? Carried.
STEPHEN MCAULIFFE
Review of intended appointment, selected by third party: Stephen McAuliffe, intended appointee as member, Brant and Brantford Housing Authority.
The Chair: We're ready to deal with the intended appointee this morning, and that is Mr Stephen McAuliffe. Welcome to the committee. We have a tradition of allowing you to make any opening comments you might want to make -- you don't have to, but if you want to -- and then members can ask questions of you.
Mr Stephen McAuliffe: Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, just to give you some additional background, I was at one time many years ago a contractor for the Brant and Brantford Housing Authority. I have not been for quite some time; I am not now nor do I intend to be in the future a contractor for the Ontario Housing Authority or the Brant and Brantford Housing Authority. I have spoken to the chairman of the committee to obtain some background. You should also be aware that I own income property in the city of Brantford. That's all I have.
The Chair: We have your résumé, so we know more than that about you. Are there any questions from members on the government side?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll reserve our time.
The Chair: Official opposition?
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): Thank you, Mr McAuliffe, for appearing before us today. You said you were previously a contractor for the housing authority. What did you do? Was it renovations, snowplowing or what?
Mr McAuliffe: All of the above.
Mr Bartolucci: What do you do presently?
Mr McAuliffe: Presently I'm still a contractor, just not to the Brant and Brantford Housing Authority.
Mr Bartolucci: You live approximately 36 miles, or 60 kilometres, away from the board office, apparently, according to your résumé.
Mr McAuliffe: Not correct, sir. It's approximately 15 to 20 kilometres.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay, great. You met with the housing authority chair, which is great. How many project managers are there in the authority?
Mr McAuliffe: I have no idea, sir.
Mr Bartolucci: What's the annual renovation budget?
Mr McAuliffe: I have no idea.
Mr Bartolucci: There are approximately 800-plus units.
Mr McAuliffe: I believe 800-plus, and then individuals, 110 or something like that.
Mr Bartolucci: You're very familiar with the government's initiative with relocation of responsibilities -- we call it dumping; the government calls it downloading. What do you think of the initiative with regard to social housing in particular?
Mr McAuliffe: I'm not sure exactly where you're going with it. Could you perhaps clarify that a little more?
Mr Bartolucci: Sure. Do you agree with the government's initiative?
Mr McAuliffe: On which particular aspect?
Mr Bartolucci: On social housing becoming a municipal responsibility.
Mr McAuliffe: I don't have enough information to make a clear decision on that at the moment. I would like to see all the facts before I make a decision.
Mr Bartolucci: Are you concerned that the councillors of the city of Brantford estimate that it's going to cost approximately $23 million of local taxpayers' dollars to assume this new role?
Mr McAuliffe: Actually, sir, you're a little low. The last estimate as of yesterday was $32 million.
Mr Bartolucci: Well, we have in our notes $23 million but I'll still ask the question: Are you concerned at all that it's going to cost $32 million?
Mr McAuliffe: I would be concerned that all of these estimates are premature.
Mr Bartolucci: Oh, so you're not concerned at all that there's additional dollars?
Mr McAuliffe: I would most certainly be concerned if that were true.
Mr Bartolucci: So you doubt that the city of Brantford councillors can make an accurate assessment at this point in time?
Mr McAuliffe: I would like to see all of the facts and all of this finished before I make a decision on it.
Mr Bartolucci: So you don't agree with the city of Brantford councillors that it's either going to be $23 million or, as you said, $32 million?
Mr McAuliffe: I don't agree that all of the facts are out yet.
Mr Bartolucci: I'm just asking -- just answer the question -- do you agree with the government's initiative to download this responsibility on to the municipalities, yes or no? It's a pretty simple question.
Mr McAuliffe: Well, not to me. That will depend, as you said, on whether or not it does mean that they will have to pay $23 million or $32 million. I mean, I don't want to see any increased hardship due to this particular procedure or process.
Mr Bartolucci: Regardless of what it costs, whether it be a smaller amount or a larger amount than is in our notes, do you agree with the government's initiative to download those responsibilities?
1010
Mr McAuliffe: That's a very broad question.
Mr Bartolucci: No, that's a very specific question.
Mr McAuliffe: Sir, I can't anticipate what it's going to cost until we know what it's going to cost.
Mr Bartolucci: I didn't ask you the costing question, Mr McAuliffe, I asked you whether you agree with the initiative to do it. I've asked you that question three times. You might think it's pretty --
Mr McAuliffe: If you're not putting any qualifiers with it, the answer is yes.
Mr Bartolucci: So you agree with that. Why do you agree with the initiative to dump social housing on to municipalities?
Mr McAuliffe: I agree that it should be downloaded to increase responsibility for the area. We can't manage things from Queen's Park all the time. Certain areas of responsibility have to be segregated and given to the municipalities, along with the proper tools to do the job.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay, and you think the municipalities can afford that?
Mr McAuliffe: Well, sir, I don't know that.
Mr Bartolucci: But you agree with the initiative anyway, regardless of whether you know that they can afford it?
Mr McAuliffe: Like I said, not "regardless." I would like to see all the facts before I made a decision.
Mr Bartolucci: If I understand the answer to my question, you said you agreed with the initiative that social housing should become a part of municipal responsibilities.
Mr McAuliffe: I did, but not regardless of all other mitigating factors.
Mr Bartolucci: What are some of the mitigating factors that would cause you to suggest to the government that they assume or reassume the responsibilities?
Mr McAuliffe: If it meant a tax increase to municipalities of 40%, then I would agree that it should not be done.
Mr Bartolucci: What if it meant a tax increase of 3% or 4%?
Mr McAuliffe: I would have to make that decision when the time arose.
Mr Bartolucci: So you don't care if there's a slight increase in taxes, or you do care?
Mr McAuliffe: I care that everything is done in a very balanced fashion.
Mr Bartolucci: Do you think this downloading of responsibility is balanced, that this is done in a balanced fashion?
Mr McAuliffe: We won't know that right away. We'll only know that when it happens.
Mr Bartolucci: Assuming that the city of Brantford councillors' statistics are even close to being correct and we have approximately $23 million, and you said someone has suggested $32 million, would you consider that to be remotely connected to any type of balancing of responsibilities?
Mr McAuliffe: I would not, at the moment.
Mr Bartolucci: Okay.
Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): Mr McAuliffe, if I may just follow up a bit on Mr Bartolucci's comments to you, obviously if you are appointed to this position, you'll be in an important position in terms of making some decisions, so I think it is important to get a sense of how you feel about this. What may be happening is that municipalities are going to be put in a position, because they're not just being asked to manage it; they're being asked to fund it --
Mr McAuliffe: I understand that.
Mr Gravelle: That's a significant difference and it needs to be said here very clearly. Municipalities will be put in the position, potentially, where they have to make decisions about where their funding will go. I'm curious about how you feel about social housing and public housing in general.
Mr McAuliffe: I'm not sure of exactly what you mean by the question.
Mr Gravelle: Do you believe it's an important component of the whole housing policy in the province?
Mr McAuliffe: I believe that social housing in one form or another is a necessity, yes.
Mr Gravelle: My concern is that you do not seem to be willing to take a position in terms of whether it's good or bad, or you're willing to say you think it's okay until you find the figures. Because of the fact that you're going to be on this particular authority, I don't think it's unfair of us to ask you to be more clear about how you feel about the downloading.
Clearly when you're asking a community to take on financial responsibility, and as you say, the figure now is $32 million, it may mean that communities will be forced to make choices. What I'm trying to find out is, if it were a choice between certain priorities, where would you put social housing on a priority basis? In so far as you're probably going to be on this committee or this --
Mr McAuliffe: I'm not even sure I understand the breadth of your question. This $32 million is comprised of a number of components, social services and a number of other things. Social housing isn't the only thing that's costing $23 million or $32 million or whatever it is.
Mr Gravelle: I understand that.
Mr McAuliffe: So basing it on a priority with what other things?
Mr Gravelle: Obviously the other factor is whether or not communities are forced to make some decisions. In other words, if a community will be asking people to pay a 40% property tax increase, how would you feel about that in light of your role in the housing authority? It's really a question of, did you say that if indeed it means a 40% property tax increase, you would think this downloading is a bad idea?
Mr McAuliffe: If it means a direct 40% tax increase to download the housing, the answer is no, I don't think it's a good idea; it's a bad idea if that's what it means.
Mr Gravelle: Then at what percentage point do you say it's a bad idea or an acceptable idea? I don't mean to be unfair.
Mr McAuliffe: I'm not going to say that at 39% it's not a good idea but at 38% it is, but then maybe at 37% -- I don't know where to stop or start. It would be based on the facts as they arise.
Mr Gravelle: I think I'm just a little bit startled because obviously you prepared for this session today, and I appreciate that. Certainly one of the big announcements in relation to social housing has been this dumping of responsibilities on the municipalities. Clearly it's a major financial responsibility, so I would have thought you would have more thought, more of an opinion on it.
Mr McAuliffe: I've thought about it greatly but I still don't have all the facts.
Mr Gravelle: But you know that all the financial responsibility for public housing is going to be put on the municipalities.
Mr McAuliffe: But there are also things, responsibilities, being returned to the government, so I don't know where the tradeoff ends and where it begins, who pays what for whom and how much of what is going to change. I don't know all this. I don't know anyone who does.
Mr Gravelle: Thank you.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Mr McAuliffe, why do you want to be a member of this housing authority?
Mr McAuliffe: Based on my past experience, I believe I can make a contribution. I'm familiar with procedures regarding the tendering process, I'm familiar with budgetary concerns and I think I can be of some assistance.
Mr Silipo: I appreciate your addressing in your opening comments the work you do, and you said very clearly you obviously would not intend to have that interfere -- I don't think you used that word -- in seeking contracts, that as a maintenance contractor you would not try to do that. Is that your way of dealing with what might otherwise be seen as a potential conflict, as a maintenance contractor and a member of a housing authority that among its duties also has to deal with how to provide the maintenance of the properties under its jurisdiction?
Mr McAuliffe: I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this. Could you narrow that down? Are you saying, am I declaring a conflict of interest?
Mr Silipo: It seemed to me you were addressing that potential issue. I'm just trying to see if I was correct in my reading of that. Let me ask you the question: Do you see that as a private maintenance contactor you might have a potential conflict in being a member of a housing authority where among your duties, among the decisions you will be making, you will have to determine who should be providing for the upkeep of the properties?
Mr McAuliffe: No, it's a very clear tender process. I don't feel that there will be a conflict of any type.
Mr Silipo: But you said you would not intend to --
Mr McAuliffe: Personally I do not wish to create a conflict within myself, therefore I would not pursue a contract with the housing authority.
Mr Silipo: That's all I was trying to put on the record, being supportive of what you had said at the beginning.
You've given us a fairly extensive résumé, which I appreciate. It shows very clearly the fair amount of involvement you've had in a number of areas. One thing that isn't, and I wouldn't have expected it to be, on here: I tend to ask regularly people who appear in front of the committee whether they are now or have been members of a political party, and if so, which one. I'm sure that people told you before you walked in that this question would likely be asked.
Mr McAuliffe: It would be the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.
Mr Silipo: It would be or it is?
Mr McAuliffe: It is.
Mr Silipo: Thank you. "Would be" is hypothetical but "is" is a little more certain.
I want to come back, Mr McAuliffe, to this question --
Mr Peter L. Preston (Brant-Haldimand): I get that question next week.
Mr Silipo: Yes, I'm waiting eagerly. The Conservative members have the first crack at the questions, Mr McAuliffe, so they get to ask this first if they wish. But they don't seem to, so I'm left, as the third one in line, to ask this question.
I want to come back to this issue of the downloading of services and costs on to the property tax base. I'm not going to repeat the questions you had from my Liberal colleagues. I just want to understand your role as you see it in this process. I appreciate that you were saying you don't know what the exact numbers are, so some of this has to be hypothetical. We won't get a chance to call you back if the numbers turn out to be as we think they will or as the city is now saying, so this is the only crack we get at this.
Mr McAuliffe: Maybe I can answer it before you ask it. If you're looking for, would I be a nice, quiet Conservative and sit on the board and not squawk if Brantford got a 28% increase, say, the answer is no. I would not be a nice, quiet, shy boy and sit there and take it. Is that your question?
Mr Silipo: Yes, that's one question I was going to ask you, so I appreciate that. The other is just pursuing that a little, and that is, what would you see your role being as a member of the housing authority if as a result of that -- again assuming sufficient downloading of costs -- the council said, "Sorry, from among the choices we have to make, we can't afford to continue investing the dollars required to make up that shortfall," and as a consequence what you're then facing is reducing the number of units that would be available to the public in the Brant county area? What would your reaction be and what would your actions be as a member of the housing authority?
Mr McAuliffe: That would depend on a number of factors: first of all, how much demand there is for the units at the time; how much more efficient the operation of theses units and complexes could become. It's a very broad question. I'm not sure how much of this you want me to take into account when I'm answering it.
Mr Silipo: Whatever you think is relevant.
Mr McAuliffe: Okay. Could you repeat the question?
Mr Silipo: I'm not trying to pin you down to a step-by-step response, but more the approach you would take if as a result of the downloading, assuming the numbers we have are remotely correct, council says, "We can't afford to put that amount of money into the housing stock," and therefore the consequence is reducing the number of units available. There are now some 876, we're told, under the Ontario Housing Corp and another 130 units under the rent supplement program covered by the area, Brant county. I'm looking for, what would you do? Would you say, "Oh well, that's life," or would you take some steps to say, "No, this is something that has to be addressed," either through the council or the provincial government? What attitude would you take?
Mr McAuliffe: Based on what I think you're looking for, I would most certainly, as I said before, look at the demand and how much need there is for the housing. I would look at --
Mr Silipo: Assume for the sake of argument -- I think it's true, but I don't have figures to back it up -- that you have a waiting list. Therefore the demand is there; you're convinced the demand is there. What do you do?
Mr McAuliffe: Then I look for ways to find funding or I look for ways to have it reversed or I look for ways to have that particular need filled.
Mr Silipo: And you would do that, as you said earlier, even if it meant not being a quiet Conservative member?
Mr McAuliffe: Yes.
Mr Silipo: All right. Thank you.
The Chair: Any questions from the government side?
Mr Bob Wood: We'll waive our time, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: Okay. That completes the process with you, Mr McAuliffe, and we thank you very much for appearing before the committee this morning.
Mr McAuliffe: Thank you, Mr Chairman.
The Chair: All right. We are prepared for the concurrence process.
Mr Bob Wood: Mr Chairman, I move concurrence in the intended appointment of Mr McAuliffe.
The Chair: Any debate on this motion by Mr Wood? No? All in favour of Mr Wood's motion? Opposed? It's carried.
Thank you very much, members. I know it was a tough morning, but you held up well under the strain. We are adjourned.
The committee adjourned at 1025.