Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing
Hon Tony Clement, minister
Mr Michael Fenn, deputy minister
Ms Nancy Bardecki, director, municipal finance branch
Ms Carol Kiley, manager, program development section, Ontario
Rental Housing Tribunal
Ms Elizabeth McLaren, assistant deputy minister, office for the
greater Toronto area
Ms Paula Dill, assistant deputy minister, provincial-municipal
relations division
STANDING COMMITTEE ON
ESTIMATES
Chair /
Président
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay / Timmins-Baie James
ND)
Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke L)
Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River L)
Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park L)
Mr Frank Mazzilli (London-Fanshawe PC)
Mr John O'Toole (Durham PC)
Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough PC)
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East / -Est L)
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex L)
Mr Brian Coburn (Carleton-Gloucester PC)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina ND)
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton Centre / -Centre PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et
participantes
Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence L)
Clerk / Greffière
Ms Anne Stokes
Staff / Personnel
Ms Anne Marzalik, researcher, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1545 in room 228.
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING
The Vice-Chair (Mr
Alvin Curling): I call the meeting to order. When last
we were here, I presume that you had finished the response, and
the rotation will start with the opposition.
Mr David Caplan (Don
Valley East): Before we begin, Mr Chair, I have a matter
of business for the committee. I just want to advise the
committee. I understand the House leaders have been in discussion
to extend this committee for an additional two weeks; in fact,
there may be a motion coming to the House tomorrow or at some
later time.
The education estimates for
1999-2000 cover both education and colleges, universities and
training. For the benefit of the ministers, for the benefit of
the staff, the Liberal committee members propose that the 10
hours of education question-and-answer debate be allocated as
follows:
On day one, two hours of
presentations-the ministers can decide among themselves how they
wish to deal with that-and half an hour of questions for the
education ministry; on day two, two and a half hours of questions
for the education ministry; on day three, two and a half hours
for the education ministry; and on day four, two and a half hours
for the colleges, universities and training ministry.
I trust this will make it
easier for the ministers and for the staff members involved to
allocate their time.
The
Vice-Chair: You mentioned this is 1999-2000; it's 1999
estimates.
Mr Caplan:
We're dealing with the 1999-2000 estimates, are we?
Clerk of the
Committee (Ms Anne Stokes): Yes, it's the fiscal year
1999-2000.
Mr Caplan:
Yes, it was a typo.
Clerk of the
Committee: That's a typo.
The
Vice-Chair: I'm just saying that your written stuff to
me will say 1998-1999, so it's 1999-2000.
Mr Caplan: I
didn't prepare it.
The
Vice-Chair: The presentation of the estimates for
education, colleges, universities and training, there are two
ministries, and within that there's a half-hour presentation. The
ministers at that time will decide whether they want 15 minutes
and 15 minutes for their presentations, not half an hour and half
an hour.
Mr Caplan:
No, no. According to the terms of this committee, there's a
half-hour presentation-
The
Vice-Chair: That's my understanding from the clerk
here.
Mr Caplan: A
half-hour presentation from-
The
Vice-Chair: They can make the presentation in their 15
minutes and 15 minutes.
Mr Caplan:
Or whatever. They may want to do 30-nothing or 10-20. That's
certainly up to the ministers to decide. Then it will proceed in
the normal rotation.
The
Vice-Chair: That might be so, but I'm trying to say to
you that it's not an hour, it's half an hour, and the minister
will decide if it's 15-15 or whatever.
Mr Caplan:
Yes, that's the way this committee is. That's the rotation of the
committee.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer
(Kitchener Centre): Chair, I wonder if Mr Caplan could
give that list again?
Mr Caplan:
On the first day, two hours of presentations, which would be half
an hour for the ministers, a half-hour response for the Liberal
caucus, a half-hour response for the NDP caucus and a half-hour
final response by the ministers-that would leave half an hour,
and questions to be directed to the education ministry; on day
two, two and a half hours of questions for the education
ministry; on day three, two and a half hours of questions for the
education ministry; and on day four, two and a half hours of
questions for the colleges, universities and training
ministry.
The
Vice-Chair: Is that OK?
Mr Caplan:
Just for the benefit of the ministers and their staff.
The
Vice-Chair: So noted.
I understand, Mr Caplan,
you'll start off making a comment or something like that, or is
it Mr Colle?
Mr Caplan: I
believe we're going into questions, and my colleague Mr Colle
will be the leading off.
The
Vice-Chair: It's 20 minutes, the rotation. I just remind
you.
Mr Mike Colle
(Eglinton-Lawrence): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Thank you
for being here again, Minister and staff.
Hon Tony Clement
(Minister of the Environment, Minister of Municipal Affairs and
Housing): My pleasure.
Mr Colle: Yesterday, I asked for a
list of the municipalities in Ontario that had not issued their
1998 property tax bills. I wonder if I could have that list?
Hon Mr
Clement: I think what we were able to circulate was a
percentage list based upon our understanding. Again, I don't
believe we're the lead on this, but Janet Mason, our assistant
deputy minister, did correspond with the clerk of this committee
and indicated that 80% of the municipalities had issued
adjustments to 1998 taxes and 45% of them had done so for 1999
final tax bills as of last Friday. That's our current
understanding. In terms of the actual physical list, perhaps my
deputy could speak to that.
Mr Michael
Fenn: It's based on a survey that the Ministry of
Finance and the Ontario Property Assessment Corp has done of
municipalities. Anecdotally, we have provided the software, the
CD, on which the billing is to be based to virtually all
municipalities. Over half of them have actually billed. They're
in a transition stage now. Among 500 municipalities that actually
do billing, it would be difficult to actually prepare a list
without going out and phoning them all and finding exactly where
they stand, but our survey suggests that the lion's share of them
are now in a position-
Mr Colle:
But this is for 1998.
Mr Fenn: As
the minister indicated, 80% of them have in fact billed for
1998.
Mr Colle:
You don't have a list of the ones that have not issued a 1998 tax
bill? I would think the Ministry of Municipal Affairs would have
a pretty good line on whether they've issued tax bills, and could
see whether the new collection system that you're helping fund is
working or not, and the new software is working. You don't know
the municipalities that have not issued a tax bill-not 1999
even-1998?
Mr Fenn: The
question that was posed to us yesterday was the number of
municipalities, and that was the number we gave you. In terms of
an individual list, what we're talking about here is adjustments
to 1998. We're not talking about people who have never sent a
1998 tax bill; we're talking about the adjustments to 1998.
Mr Colle: So
they haven't sent their final 1998 bill, adjustments
included?
Mr Fenn:
That's correct. The adjustments of the 1998 final bill.
Mr Colle: So
you don't have a list of those municipalities that have not-
Mr Fenn: We
can certainly provide one, since it's now been requested.
Mr Colle:
That's what I asked for yesterday.
Hon Mr
Clement: Mike, sorry. We thought you wanted the general
figures, so-
Mr Colle:
No. I asked for the number of municipalities, the list of
municipalities. Anyway, if I could have that, I'd appreciate
it.
Getting back to the Ontario
property tax analysis system, what is the total cost of
establishing that system, for the government? Putting in the
software, the maintenance, the operation, the staff time-what
does it cost the Ontario taxpayer to put in the OPTA system?
Hon Mr
Clement: Just to make sure that we are as precise as
possible, I'd like to ask Nancy Bardecki to come up front. She's
our director of municipal finance. Maybe she has the best
information for you, Mike.
Ms Nancy
Bardecki: I'm Nancy Bardecki, director of municipal
finance in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Sorry,
I was on my way out to secure the list that you were asking for
and I didn't hear your question.
Mr Colle:
The question is, the system that you put in, the Ontario property
tax analysis system, for municipalities so they can essentially
computerize their tax assessment-tax collection systems, what has
been the cost to the Ontario government of implementing this
system and maintaining it and updating it, so far?
Ms Bardecki:
If we're talking about the OPTA system-that is, the computer
programming and the system that does the calculations-I think the
deputy mentioned yesterday that it's about $1.4 million. There
are additional costs associated with the centralized management
of the frozen assessment listing.
Mr Colle:
Yes, and that's what I'm looking for, again, very clearly: all
the costs associated with OPTA, whether they be in software
development, data input, data revisions, data processing, the
consulting fees.
Ms Bardecki:
The costs are not yet complete because the frozen assessment
listing maintenance is an ongoing cost. What we can provide for
you is an approximation of what has been spent to date. As I say,
there are a number of different components. There is the OPTA
model itself, on-line property tax analysis model. It's a
computer program that initially did analysis of alternative
options that municipalities could choose to phase in property tax
changes and mitigate tax shifts. That model was revised.
Mr Colle:
It's still under revision, is it not, as we speak?
Ms Bardecki:
The model was revised to allow municipalities to calculate the
tax adjustments that were necessary to meet the terms of the
10-5-5 capping that was required by the Fairness for Property
Taxpayers Act.
Mr Colle:
Because of the minister's announcement of yesterday, I guess
there will have to be further revisions, will there not?
Ms Bardecki:
I'm sorry?
Mr Colle:
The minister's announcement in the budget bill about the fact
that properties constructed after 1998 will also be-
Ms Bardecki:
There will be modifications.
Mr Colle:
What are the costs, approximately, of OPTA? This $1.2 million is
nowhere near what the total cost is. What is it, $50 million,
$100 million? What are we talking?
Ms Bardecki:
Oh, my goodness, no. As the deputy said yesterday, the cost of
the programming for OPTA itself, that is the model that does the
calculations-
Mr Colle:
And all the related costs, the consultants who have done it, the
software.
Ms Bardecki: I thought you would
like to know the different components.
Mr Colle: I
want to know the cost of all the components.
Ms Bardecki:
This is what I was trying to say. The programming component that
I just described is, as the deputy said yesterday, about $1.4
million. In addition to that, there have been costs associated
with the centralized management of the frozen assessment listing.
The responsibility for the frozen assessment listing actually
lies with municipalities according to the law, but on March 23
Minister Eves announced that the province would assist
municipalities by centrally managing the frozen assessment
listing. It's quite a complex job, a very complex job.
Mr Colle:
Sorry to interrupt, but I only have a limited amount of time.
Cost: How much has been spent by the government on this system
and related costs?
Ms Bardecki:
The $1.4 million was for the programming, and then I would
suggest that so far another approximately $2.4 million has been
spent for the centralized management of the frozen assessment
listing. As I also indicated, that's an ongoing process. We have
made almost a million changes to 220,000 properties so far, and
this will continue throughout the period during which the frozen
assessment listing is needed. So those costs will continue.
Mr Colle: So
this includes consulting fees and staff time for getting the
system up and running and operational.
Ms Bardecki:
That doesn't included ministry staff time. Ministry staff spent a
great deal of time testing the model for its accuracy.
Mr Colle:
Okay. What about consulting fees?
Ms Bardecki:
I was including the consulting fees in that. We do have a
consultant doing the computer programming and the frozen
assessment listing.
Mr Colle: So
that's part of the $2.4 million? So you think that OPTA so far
has cost the provincial government about $3.8 million, in that
range.
Ms Bardecki:
The cost that we've actually paid out of our pocket, so to speak,
yes. But as I say, there has been a lot of staff time put in on
this, first in testing the model and second with a help line
assisting municipalities to run the model. Those are costs.
Mr Colle:
OK. I'm just worried about hiring outside people and those
related costs more than actual staff time.
Hon Mr
Clement: She indicated that that was included in that
figure she gave you.
Mr Colle: So
basically, under $4 million for OPTA.
Ms Bardecki:
So far, but there are ongoing costs.
Mr Colle:
That's fine, then. Has the ministry calculated the cost of
implementing Bill 79 to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs? I know
the bill originated in part from the Ministry of Finance, but
it's your carriage also. Has there been a ballpark figure for the
cost of implementing Bill 79?
Hon Mr
Clement: I just want to make sure we understand your
question very specifically. Are you talking about the operating
costs or the flow-through costs? What costs are you referring to,
Mike?
Mr Colle:
The costs incurred by your ministry in terms of ensuring that
that bill is brought into fruition as law and that it's basically
a workable bill. Certainly you have a business plan for
everything you do in the ministry. You must have a business plan
for Bill 79. What I'm really asking for is, the bill has been
given to you and you're implementing it. What has the cost been
of implementing Bill 79?
1600
Ms Bardecki:
I'm sorry, we haven't actually tallied up every hour of staff
time that has been spent on Bill 79.
Hon Mr
Clement: Just to be fair to the ministry, based on my
experience, which admittedly is only for the past four years, it
would be rather unorthodox for a ministry to divide its direct
operating expenditures according to pieces of legislation.
Typically what they do is they have staff time; sometimes a staff
person is working on something related to one piece of
legislation or maybe a whole series of pieces of legislation.
That question is a legitimate question, but it's not something
that would automatically be in the estimates.
Mr Colle: So
basically you haven't got a costing of the implementation of a
bill like Bill 79.
Hon Mr
Clement: To be fair, we have not done it that way.
Mr Colle: If
you don't do it, you don't do it.
Hon Mr
Clement: I think Nancy wants to say something.
Ms Bardecki:
I was wondering if you would be interested in the financial
assistance that we provided to municipalities for their costs of
implementing Bill 79.
Mr Colle:
Sure, that would help.
Ms Bardecki:
To assist municipalities with the cost of having to do additional
billing in respect of 1998 to make those tax adjustments, we
provided to municipalities a $200 flat amount plus $40 per tax
account as per the roll as returned June 15, 1998, in the capped
classes; that is, commercial, industrial and multiple-unit
residential properties. That was something that we provided to
help municipalities with their costs. There was also interest
assistance provided to municipalities to assist them with the
interest income forgone or the interest costs they had to incur
if they had to borrow because their tax bills were later than
they would normally be as the result of having to make these
changes, including the 1998 adjustments in their 1999 interim
bills.
Mr Colle: In
terms of the municipalities themselves, when can we expect a new
municipal act to be tabled? I know discussions have been going on
for the last couple of years, but they seem to be coming to a
head. Is there a timeframe that you can talk about, Minister?
Hon Mr
Clement: Yes, I'll give you an update. We have asked
Brian Coburn, who's the parliamentary assistant in the ministry,
to do a final round of consideration and consultation on these
issues. He is then to report back to the minister and the ministry. In terms of
the timelines, I think we're looking at something next year. I
don't think it will be in this session. I think that would be
hoping for a bit too much in terms of making sure we have all the
adequate input, and there might be a few more wrinkles this year
than last year that we would want to incorporate.
Mr Colle: I
thought you might have been more into that.
The other thing is, in terms
of the restructuring, the ministry has gone through the four in
Haldimand, Norfolk, Ottawa and Sudbury. I was looking for it in
your estimates here. What has been the cost to the ministry in
undertaking those restructurings? You've had to pay the
facilitators and support staff. What has the cost of that been?
Is it anywhere in the estimates?
Hon Mr
Clement: I don't believe it would be in the estimates,
to be honest with you, Mike, but I think our projections are that
it would be under $1 million for all four special advisers.
Mr Colle:
That's for basically the restructuring, the lead people.
Hon Mr
Clement: And all of the costs of travel-
Mr Colle:
Yes, supports.
Hon Mr
Clement:-setting up the town halls, that kind of
thing.
Mr Colle:
There was a report in the Toronto Star today that said that the
former Minister of Municipal Affairs had suggested, according to
the report, that Mr Proszanski be brought in as a facilitator for
the Windsor amalgamation discussions. My question is, would you
look through your records to see if Mr Proszanski has been
retained by the ministry up until this date in any way, shape or
form; and if you know already, has he? If he hasn't, he hasn't.
If you haven't checked that, could you please check to see
whether he has been retained.
Hon Mr
Clement: I think it's incumbent upon me to suggest at
this time that those issues are before the OPP and so I'm a bit
reluctant to comment until the police investigation is complete.
But certainly if there was any request by law enforcement
officials, we've complied with every request.
Mr Colle:
If the OPP were to question ministry officials, they would
certainly obviously come forward with that information on whether
Mr Proszanski has been retained. But in the Windsor situation, is
there a facilitator for Windsor right now or someone trying to
mediate?
Hon Mr
Clement: No, there is not at this time.
Mr Colle:
I think there was a report I saw that said you were going to make
the Ottawa facilitator's report public.
Hon Mr
Clement: I think all the reports will be public.
Mr Colle:
They will all be tabled after they've gone to the minister. Then
they will all be made public, after they're in your hands.
Hon Mr
Clement: That's correct. What we're trying to signal is
that the end date for receiving the reports from the special
advisers is Friday, November 26, and I think we've indicated
pretty clearly that the reports will be public on Friday,
November 26.
Mr Colle:
OK. That's a good idea.
I have another question. In
terms of the city of Toronto, I know you referred yesterday to
their ability to save as a result of restructuring. What you also
have in the estimates is that you've made two $100-million loans
to the city, if I'm not mistaken. Have you made any loans to
other municipalities that are undergoing restructuring?
Hon Mr
Clement: Those were very specific and dedicated loans
because of the complexity of the situation in the city of
Toronto. We also had other programs that were designed to assist
municipalities in their restructuring efforts. Perhaps the deputy
can go into some detail.
Mr Fenn:
There's a municipal restructuring fund that assists
municipalities and counties and in northern Ontario to undertake
municipal restructuring. There's the northern transitional
assistance that dealt with annexation of unincorporated
territory. There was a one-time grant to the regional
municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth to deal with consolidating
their administration with the city of Hamilton, and there are
some other examples of that.
Mr Colle:
Could I have-
The
Vice-Chair: This will be your last question.
Mr Colle:
Yes, the last question-a breakdown of what the other loans or
grants have been? I know the Toronto ones stick out because
they're quite large, but is it possible to get a list from the
ministry of all the financial help that the ministry has given to
municipalities undergoing restructuring, either in loan or grant?
I know there was also a change in Toronto in terms of ambulance
services. You gave Toronto, I think, an extra $80 million on top
of the $200 million for ambulance service payments. I just want
to get a handle on it in terms of the costs of the restructuring
across the province, so if I could get that kind of
information.
Hon Mr
Clement: I think we can certainly undertake to give you
that specifically. I'm just looking over at Crom here. Is there a
page in the estimates that would be helpful in that regard?
The
Vice-Chair: I would ask you to take this under
consideration and maybe submit the answer in the next round.
Mr Marchese, you have 20
minutes.
Mr Rosario Marchese
(Trinity-Spadina): Mr Chair, I just wondered whether my
other colleagues directly across from me have any other questions
or comments. I really want to hear from them. Have they had an
opportunity?
The
Vice-Chair: Are you giving up your time now?
Mr
Wettlaufer: Are you going to give all of your time to
us?
Mr
Marchese: No, I want to share my time. Of my half-hour,
I would like to give you 15 minutes.
The
Vice-Chair: You don't want to give it up. Mr Marchese,
are you saying you'll give up your time if they will take it?
Mr Marchese: I'll give them 10
minutes of my time because I want to hear from them.
The
Vice-Chair: Are there any comments or questions from the
Conservatives?
Mr
Wettlaufer: He wants to do 10 minutes.
Interjections.
The
Vice-Chair: Order. Yes or no?
Mr
Wettlaufer: We'll take 10 of his minutes.
The
Vice-Chair: Go ahead.
Mr
Wettlaufer: Thank you very much. I appreciate this.
First of all, I do want to compliment you, Chair, on being able
to take over on such short notice.
The
Vice-Chair: Mere brilliance.
Mr
Wettlaufer: The permanent Chair just couldn't make it
again today, as has been the case for the last two years. He
misses 50% of the time, and I think it's indicative of the
disdain that he holds for this committee that he doesn't show up.
It's unfortunate, but that's the way it is.
Mr
Marchese: Come on.
Mr Caplan:
That's really inappropriate.
1610
Mr
Wettlaufer: Mr Chair, I do want to make a comment here.
We have heard for the last two days how the Tenant Protection Act
was going to cause so many problems. We heard it for two years
when we were running around the province hearing the submissions
to the Tenant Protection Act before we actually introduced it to
the House. What I want to point out-I want this on the record-is
that I did a survey in my riding, which is a residential, urban
riding-50% of my riding is multi-residential-and we published the
results of this survey. Only 70% of the tenants in my riding
received a rent increase, so 30% received no rent increase after
the TPA. Of the 70% that received a rent increase, 54% received a
rent increase of less than 3%, between 1% and 3%. A further 11%
received an increase of only 4% to 7%, and that included all of
the allowance for maintenance of buildings, which we have heard
over the last couple of days was badly needed.
I want to point out for the
interest of the members of the opposition that since the Tenant
Protection Act has been introduced there has been an average rent
increase of 2.8% in the province. Under your governments, when
you had full rent control, we had an average rent increase of
4.6% and quite often it was as high as 6%. So let's not hear any
more nonsense.
Also, when we talked to the
tenants in my riding, they were unaware that the city of
Kitchener, as do all municipalities, set the property tax rate.
They were unaware that tenants paid 3.2 times what a residential
rate was-3.2 times. That's the fault of the municipal
governments. Now, our government has given tax relief to the
municipalities. We have taken back the education tax. In spite of
that, the tenants are getting stuck.
That's all I have to say on
this. I know my colleague Mr Mazzilli would like to ask the
minister a question. I'd like to pass it on to him.
Mr Frank Mazzilli
(London-Fanshawe): I too will be focusing on the Tenant
Protection Act. Unlike my colleague Wayne, I did not do a survey,
but I spent many years driving in our neighbourhoods and in our
communities.
One thing, Minister:
There's been a recognition by all three parties over the years
that some sort of rent control needs to be in place. That started
back with our government a number of years ago. Those controls
are to protect tenants from unreasonable increases but allow the
free market to allow more construction so that there's a
sufficient supply out there and people will make the investments
required.
As I followed the number of
governments in place, at the time when the Liberals came to power
an enormous bureaucratic system under the old Landlord and Tenant
Act had been put in place, although probably well-intentioned,
where a landlord did some renovations and then had to apply to a
board to get some sort of increases. That made the landlord spend
money on enormous legal fees, money that could have gone into the
repair of the building. Instead, it was spent on legal fees and
process, and in many cases enormous rent increases were granted,
thereby not helping the tenant at the end of the process.
Through the evolving of
time with the NDP, of course, that was stopped, that ability to
apply for rent increases based on capital improvements, if you
will. What that did, certainly in the London community, was that
not only did the economy run itself into the ground where
landlords were unable to easily evict people for nonpayment of
rent, but many landlords walked away from their buildings.
Certainly what I saw were buildings with no owners. The banks
refused to repossess them; the landlord had simply walked away.
Maybe two or three tenants left, the vast majority of them moving
out even while not paying any rent, because the buildings had
become unsafe. Although they were well-intentioned in trying to
protect tenants, it simply did not work.
My question to you,
Minister: Under the Tenant Protection Act what I've seen,
certainly in London, is not only the older buildings with capital
improvements but newer buildings being built. In your
professional opinion, sir, is the Tenant Protection Act working
for both tenants and landlords?
Hon Mr
Clement: Thank you for the question, Frank. I would say
it is. I think we have made some very definable and measurable
progress. Ultimately the Tenant Protection Act is about
protecting tenants' right but also balancing the needs of the
tenants with the landlords, because if the system doesn't work,
it's almost a pyrrhic victory where we think we're doing the
right thing and yet the unintended, perhaps, consequence of
attempting to do the right thing is that there is no marketplace
that is functioning and therefore no new units available on
stream. That ultimately is self-defeating. That's the pyrrhic
victory part of my commentary.
Under this act, the TPA,
this year the permissible rent increase was 2.6% for next year,
and that's the lowest it's been in 25 years.
The Vice-Chair: The generous offer
of the NDP is up. You've got 10 minutes.
Mr
Marchese: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to hear from
those folks because they don't get much of an opportunity to
speak. It's terrible for them to sit there and just have to
listen. I hope you find that my contribution was generous,
right?
Mr
Wettlaufer: We appreciate it.
Mr
Marchese: Minister, yesterday I raised some concerns and
I wonder whether you've had some time to reflect, and just to add
a few quick things so that you have time to respond.
First of all with respect
to maintenance, which you commented on yesterday and both of the
members commented on today, the fact of the matter is that a lot
of the landlords weren't spending the guideline increases to do
maintenance. Guideline increases you don't have to account for;
you just get the money. My view is, a lot of these people who own
these buildings did not spend that money to maintain their
buildings. In fact, many of them used it to buy other buildings
or to make other investments of a different kind. That's my
argument to you.
We also know from a little
study that we have seen-I forget whether it was Barnicke or some
other individual who in some limited way did a survey and found
that people were getting a 10% rate of return, meaning that even
in our bad times they were doing well. Maybe not every landlord
was doing well but a lot of them were doing well, even during a
recession.
So with respect to
maintenance, if you allow your buildings to deteriorate because
you're not spending the within-guideline increases, you arrive at
a point when you people get into power and say, "We have to
change the rules; the buildings are falling apart." Of course
they're falling apart; they're not putting any money into them,
the money they should have been spending on those buildings. I
wanted to raise that point.
I speak to your point that
you just alluded to again today, saying the private sector needs
to build, we need to change it so the private sector builds and
so on, let the marketplace take care of things. You will recall
two things I said with respect to the marketplace: that when you
have a high vacancy rate, you expect rates to go down. I pointed
out, and you must have had the study because there are so many
civil servants to help you out with this-
Hon Mr
Clement: Sometimes even that's not enough.
1620
Mr
Marchese: If they're not enough, good God. We have so
many soldiers here.
They indicate that even
when the vacancy rates are high, rents have still gone up in a
lot of parts of Ontario. So the traditional market philosophy
doesn't work. That's one.
In relation to the market
working or the private sector building, they're not building.
Your typical answer has been-yours and the previous minister's
and others'-that the system needs time. I know what the system
needs. The private sector needs a whole lot of support or money
or grants or free land and a whole lot of other kinds of support
from you guys to be able to build.
So we're reaching a crisis
point. When that crisis point finally hits all of us, including
you, you will then have to come and impose yourselves as a
government by saying, "We're going to have to intervene here."
You folks usually say you want government off our backs, right?
The crisis is going to become such that at some point you're
going to have to help the private sector, and then you're going
to have to do what we did in the 1970s and 1960s, where we
literally have to give you free land or grant systems to permit
you to build or a mortgage scheme that makes it beneficial.
You're going to have to do that at some point, and I wager that
you will do that. I know that you will do that, if you're still
in government, and I have a sense the crisis is reaching the
proportion where you may have to do it within this current term
of yours.
So nobody is building. You
quite frankly say you're out of the business. The feds have
gotten out of the business, but they might come back in. Who
knows? We have a crisis that's really big. The Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corp has told us we need 80,000 units-it's not me;
it's them saying it-and we're not anywhere near meeting that need
by 2001. We will only build 6,000 units, I was saying
yesterday.
So what do you think? Do we
have a housing problem? Do you think there's a housing disaster
out there? What do you think about what these people have told us
in Where's Home, Part II, which says people are paying more on
rent than they can afford, that over 300,000 people are paying
over 50% of their income on rent? How are you addressing that
issue? How do you feel personally about it? How do you think we
should be addressing that particular issue?
Hon Mr
Clement: I thank my friend for his very thoughtful
comments. I think it's important to make it very clear-I hope I
was clear yesterday; I will be clear again today-that we, on our
side of the House, believe that the old system, which included a
top-down, not-balanced approach on so-called tenant protection,
although it was self-defeating, and certainly the approach of the
government of Ontario being integrally involved in the bricks and
mortar of low-income housing, did not work. It did not work.
It was perhaps the law of
unintended consequences, perhaps it was the fact that it was such
a top-down approach, that a lot of perverse incentives were built
into the system, but the fact of the matter is it didn't work for
Ontarians. It didn't work for Ontarians who were tenants, it
didn't work for Ontarians who were new to this country and needed
a decent place to live. It didn't work for anybody, except
perhaps the high-priced consultants and the high-priced lawyers
and the high-priced architects.
From our perspective, we
did make a sea change and said that we are not interested in
something that does not work, we are not interested in being
involved as government
in bricks and mortar, because government is not very good at
these things.
Mr
Marchese: Yes, it's bad. OK. Move on. All right.
Hon Mr
Clement: So we decided to move on.
You raised a couple of
points, and I do want to turn to them a little bit. First of all,
we do have in the Tenant Protection Act provisions about
landlords who fail to maintain their buildings.
Mr
Marchese: We did too.
Hon Mr
Clement: Sure you did. I can say quite honestly we made
it tougher. There's always going to be a sliver of the population
that is not playing by the rules. I deal with it in my other
portfolio when it comes to polluters, for instance. There are
some landlords that try to take advantage of the system; there
are some tenants who try to take advantage of the system. Even
though, by and large, the great majority of tenants are good,
there are some rogues. Even though, by and large, the great
majority of landlords are good, there are some that are trying to
milk the system.
So if you have any
evidence, despite our best intentions, of someone who is trying
to get around the system that we have put in place in good faith
in the Tenant Protection Act, please let us know.
Mr
Marchese: Minister, I don't mean to interrupt you. I'm
very singular in my approach. Housing is my most critical
interest. The housing crisis, the fact that nobody is building,
that's of critical interest to me. All the other stuff I'm
interested in too, but we don't really have much time. I just
want to know how you're going to address that.
Hon Mr
Clement: That's fine. We as a society do have some
challenges in this area, there's no question about it. But I
think we are making progress.
The problem with the
statistics is that they are very directed at a certain type of
rental accommodation. I don't want to get into the lies, damn
lies and statistics metaphor, but there are some problems with
that because they don't count everything. For instance, we have
had great increases in home construction and home ownership,
which in turn allows new units to be made available. We have a
number of condominiums that are being built, and our information
indicates that up to 25% of those condominiums are used for
rental accommodation because they are sublet. So that, combined
with 40,000 housing starts, does have an impact.
There is more to do, and in
fact we do call upon our federal counterparts. There was a lot
that was identified in the Lampert report that David mentioned
yesterday, talking about cutting the GST costs for new-unit
construction, talking about reducing the CMHC insurance premiums.
Those will help us create a functioning market, which we have not
had in the past.
We're making some steps
here. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that since our
discussion yesterday, the Canadian government did sign the social
housing agreement today. So that's good news. That means that
10,000 new families, more families, will have access to rental
supplements as a result of our commitment; $50 million was the
commitment because of this Canada-Ontario social housing
agreement. So we are making progress.
It does get frustrating,
Rosario. I share your frustration. We all want the progress to
happen tomorrow. If I had a magic wand, believe me, this is one
of the areas where I'd use the magic wand. But we live in the
world of reality and the here and now. I take some comfort from
the fact that the TPA and other measures that we are pursuing are
making definable, discernible progress on the issues that you and
I care so much about.
Mr
Marchese: Minister, it's not discernible at all in terms
of the progress. We are not seeing it. If the deputy assisted you
in telling you that we're doing great in the housing market, that
is true in terms of those individuals who can buy houses. They're
doing OK. Their incomes are five or six times higher-
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Marchese.
Mr
Marchese: You're kidding? Did we run out of time?
The
Vice-Chair: Yes. You were just on a roll, but you gave
up your 10 minutes. May I ask the government, are you sharing
your time too?
Mr R. Gary Stewart
(Peterborough): It's doubtful; I'll share it with my
colleagues.
Minister, I want to address
a question to social housing as well. I also just want to make a
comment that I had the privilege, I guess, to sit on the hearings
for the Tenant Protection Act, and I don't think there's any
doubt that the private sector will build social housing units.
There's absolutely no doubt they will, provided, as in anything,
that they know they are going to be paid for the product they
produce. I'm talking about that they know they are going to get
their rents.
1630
It's rather interesting for
me to hear that there's a great outcry because people have to pay
30% of their income for housing-32%, I guess it is, to be exact.
I'm probably older than some in this room-not all, but some-and I
can remember when I was out looking at rents and I was looking at
buying a house etc. Then, they said, "Don't ever spend more than
50%." I can assure you we didn't have cable TV and call display,
portable phones and all of these things. I guess in your mind you
have to decide what is really necessary. Is it good housing, an
apartment, or a portable phone etc? Just a couple of comments. I
still believe, and with my own children, that if you want to buy
something, make sure it's not going to cost you more than that
50% if you do.
Anyway, there certainly are
families in this province who are facing housing problems.
There's no doubt we're going to address them and I think, to a
point, we have. That is, there is close to $30 million worth of
increase-$29 million to be exact-in the social housing portion of
this particular budget.
Would you like to comment
on that and maybe explain this item, what the taxpayer can see
with the extended programs down the road?
Hon Mr Clement: I'd be very happy
to, and thank you for your perspectives on it. If I can just add
parenthetically, the challenges one faces in government become
altogether different when you're in a boom period versus when
you're in a recession. Of course, when you're in a
recession-which my colleagues to the right of me had the
misfortune of having to deal with, I suppose, although I think
they did contribute to that in some fashion-of course vacancy
rates decline because people put off moving out of the home of
their parents, or put off immigrating to our province because
they don't want to be part of an economy that isn't creating jobs
and opportunity. Our challenge is to deal with our success, to
deal with our prosperity, and that's a particularly complex
challenge.
But yes, we have had almost
a $29-million increase in the social housing portion of the
budget. We spend about $1.5 billion every year to subsidize
social housing in this province. Subsidies to each of the 275,000
non-profit units per unit are about $10,000 per year.
We're trying to do this in
a way that helps Ontarians. That's our job. But that means
taxpayers too. They have to make sure that every dollar we spend
on this reaches its goal, does its job. That's part of it too. If
money is spent with the best of intentions but doesn't do what
it's supposed to do, we have not only failed the person we're
trying to help but we've also failed the taxpayer. That's the
kind of discipline that we've added to government in the last
four years.
When we look at maintenance
and repairs, I can tell you it's required on all current housing
stock. We've made adjustments to make sure it reflects the true
nature of how this money was being spent. It's being allocated on
operating expenses, rather than just capital expenses. That meant
we've moved $48 million from the capital budget to the operating
budget, which I think is more realistic. It's more
commonsensical.
I can tell you as well that
through a little bit of serendipity but also through good
management practices, we've saved nearly $20 million in mortgage
rates. If you offset the $48-million increase with the $20
million, you've got a $28-million increase in the social housing
budget because we plowed all that money back in.
We do want to tackle the
housing issue-this is part of our mandate, it's part of what
Ontarians expect of us-but we have to do it in the right way. You
can't just rely on the old ways of doing things, which clearly
are not working any more. I doubt sometimes whether they worked
in the initial phase as well. Maybe we just hid it better in the
days when we spent money but didn't account for it in the same
way that taxpayers expect us to do now.
Throwing money at the
problem doesn't help. We've got to ensure that we have a good
plan that actually makes sure the money is focused in on where it
should be spent.
I can go through a little
bit of the litany, Mr Chair, if I have your indulgence. Under the
previous Liberal government here in Ontario, rental housing
starts fell by 21.4% and total housing starts declined by 40.5%.
That was between 1987 and 1990, just for the Chair's records. The
NDP was a complete disaster. Rental housing stocks plummeted by
74.4% during their mandate and total housing starts declined by
43% during their mandate.
Would I like to see housing
starts higher than they are now? Absolutely. But do you know
what? At least the private rental unit starts have gone up under
a Mike Harris government. Total housing starts have increased by
50%. These are auspicious trends. They show that the market in
housing is starting to heal itself. Again, if I had a magic wand,
it should all be done tomorrow, but you know, it took us 20 years
to get into this hole and it does take a little bit of time to
get out of the hole that was dug by previous governments, to be
brutally frank. Perhaps I can be even more frank and say,
governments of all three political stripes.
We've learned a lot from
those years. We've learned a lot of what not to do. When you try
to impose a solution and say, "Government can do it better.
Government can build these units better," do you know what? You
spend a lot of money on administration and a lot of money on
extraneous expense. Do you know what we found out? Not a lot of
the money goes to the people we are trying to help. That is the
biggest crime of all, I think, and what we are determined to
avoid.
I hope that answers your
question. I remain optimistic. Maybe I'm an optimistic person by
nature, but I see tangible evidence of the market healing itself
and having a direct positive impact on women and men and their
families who are seeking the kind of accommodation that should be
available in a province like Ontario
The
Vice-Chair: Mr O'Toole.
Mr John O'Toole
(Durham): Thank you for a very informative session here.
Just switching the subject a bit, I know it's an important area
for all of us, but I'd like to look at regional restructuring, if
I could. I see there's a line item in the budget that there is a
reduction.
Just a little background:
As you would know, Minister, I have for a brief period of time,
perhaps the last 10 or 15 years, been involved in local
government and regional government in Durham region. I can even
recall when the regions were formed, some 25 years ago. It was
quite a visionary activity at the time but very controversial,
not unlike the whole debate around the city of Toronto debate
which is very controversial, trying to wring out waste and
inefficiencies and streamline. We just use more sophisticated
words today, but they were all there at that time as well.
I see a member of your
staff here whom I've seen on previous occasions as part of those
restructuring reports, very professionally done. I was on council
in 1990 when the Ottawa-Carleton single-tier study was looked at.
There were arguments for and against, the very issue to which
your ministry has now appointed special advisers.
I guess the point I am
trying to make is, it's not new. I think it's expected of
government to show vision and leadership. In fact, I think the
whole GTA debate itself started-I don't know, I'm not an
academic, but probably 20 years ago I remember reading a report, I
think it was called Vision 2020 at the time, about the GTA and
its potential outreaches.
How does this apply really?
The signal you've sent to the four municipal areas that are
looking at restructuring, what's the message for Durham region,
or any of the regions in the GTA? There is this new legislative
structure around it. But we know Ajax and Pickering are in
discussions as we speak about what to do. The whole region of
Durham has a special committee looking at governance and
duplication.
I go back to previous
government, to give them some credit. The Golden commission was
looking at the same issues and how to restructure. Have you got
any advice?
Perhaps that formed the
question that I would put to you. In the budget you've removed
about $44 million from a line item. That was part of the
municipal restructuring fund. In the context I've just described,
the ongoing anxiety of change, is that an appropriate budget
reduction of $44.5 million?
1640
Hon Mr
Clement: I thank you for the question and just to put
that on the record, because that was part of the original
municipal restructuring fund. That phase of our municipal
restructuring is winding down and so it is entirely appropriate
that the funding for that would start to wind down as well.
We're also learning lessons
along the way here. Of course, the city of Toronto amalgamation
will remain in the record books for a while as the largest
amalgamation in terms of population affected in the history of
Ontario, I dare say. We also have smaller municipalities that are
part of the restructuring as well, so the process of dealing with
that streamlining is going to become more efficient as well.
I can say to the committee
that we've approved about 118 restructuring proposals to date and
that reduces the number of municipalities from about 815 down to
586. Again for the record, the number of municipal politicians
has been decreased by 1,059. I think I said yesterday but maybe
I'll state it for the record again that municipalities have so
far reported a total savings of more than $220 million annually.
This process is ongoing. We've had a lot of backing from a lot of
sources. Even Dalton McGuinty has encouraged us to get on with
the job of restructuring in Ottawa-Carleton, for instance. I'd
like to thank Mr McGuinty for his confidence that we're on the
right track to create stronger, better and more efficient
municipalities.
That's what it's all about:
making sure that we are delivering better services more
efficiently, better services for less cost to the taxpayer. The
taxpayer is the one who is footing the bill for overlapping and
duplication. It means more streamlined government because of
fewer politicians, or fewer levels of government in certain
instances, and it means more accountability as a result of that.
Those are the criteria that we are using in all of these
cases.
You mentioned specifically
Durham. I want to talk about that because as part of the GTA
we've signalled that we want to make sure that the GTSB knows
precisely what its terms of references are. We've given them a
little bit of time. It's a new body, a new committee or board
that is now on the scene that is taking a very aggressive and
long-overdue stance on transportation issues, making sure there's
integration on transportation issues throughout the GTA. How did
they get the authority to do that? It was through our decisions.
They've got to work out some of their terms of reference a little
bit first and we've given them time to do that.
It is very heartening to
know that there are municipalities even within the GTA that are
taking the lead and starting to consider and consult, starting to
do reports and the research on how to deliver better services for
less for the taxpayers.
I would only encourage
Pickering and Ajax and the region of Durham, just as I am
encouraging my own home region of Peel and the constituent
municipalities within that region, and indeed anyone else who
needs that encouragement, to initiate these processes, get some
information on the table, discuss these issues with your
citizenry. I think we can all say as politicians that there are
always new and creative ways to deliver services better. It is
our job, 24 hours a day and seven days a week, to find those
solutions, to be creative in the ways to do so.
Maybe in 1974 the way we
had it set up in the GTA regions was the way to do it, but is it
entirely appropriate in 1999? In some instances perhaps so, in
other instances perhaps not, but we have to go through that
process. By taking the lead in Pickering and Ajax and in the
region of Durham, they are starting a process that will be very
positive for the taxpayers in your region. That's how we're going
to judge things as a caucus and as a government.
Mr
O'Toole: Just a quick follow up, if I may. It may not be
a fair question, Minister, but there's a municipal election in
the year 2000. Are you expecting anything particularly
interesting in that context? There may have to be some changes
for that particular municipal election in the year 2000. Is that
in any way being discussed?
Hon Mr
Clement: Certainly in the areas where we have the
special advisers, the ministry and the government have announced
the intent to move as expeditiously as feasible upon the release
of the special advisers' reports. Our intention at least, if at
all possible, is to have some solutions in place for the upcoming
municipal elections in those particular regions. Other regions
are already initiating some proposals which we will obviously
take and duly consider as expeditiously as possible.
I am reluctant to say,
carte blanche, that all of this should be in place for the 2000
elections. In some cases it will be appropriate and in other
cases, because of the complexity-there are no cookie-cutter
solutions here. Each individual region and municipality and
county has to be looked at according to its individual
circumstances. That requires some deliberation. We are not in the
business of, "Ready,
fire, aim"; we're in the business of doing things right for the
taxpayers of Ontario and to ensure that those services are
delivered efficiently and effectively. I would prefer to look at
it on a case-by-case basis with respect to those municipalities
outside of the four that have been held up for particular
attention with respect to the special advisers.
The
Vice-Chair: You've got a minute.
Mr
Stewart: I wanted to get back to social housing again,
Minister, if I may. Certainly, if you look at the estimates
binder, a large portion of the municipal affairs and housing
estimates is made up of social housing. They're now being shifted
so that the municipalities will pick up a major portion of the
cost. I use the word "shifted" because I believe the Who Does
What initiative was a shift of services to the level of
government that can best do them and can best do them at the best
price. I'm also very concerned about who pays the bills and how
they're collected. Could you give me an idea on how the ministry
deals with municipalities for the costs that are related to this
service?
Hon Mr
Clement: Sure. There have been some changes in this
area. I believe it was in early 1997 that we announced the local
services realignment and that transferred the responsibility of
social housing to the municipality. That's when it was done. The
funding responsibility of social housing was transferred
effective January 1, 1998, through what we called the Social
Housing Funding Act, 1997. As a result of that, the billing to
municipalities is based on what we call the actual cash flows, so
the bill for a specific month is an estimate of the subsidies for
that month and then is adjusted in the next month to reflect the
actual amount of the subsidy, because, of course, this shifts and
changes over time. We have found a high level of credibility with
this billing process. We expect that the initial forecast of
social housing costs provided to the municipalities in early 1998
was about $876 million and was based on current provided budgets.
We later reduced that by $40 million when we announced that the
dedicated supportive housing would not be devolved to the
municipalities.
The
Vice-Chair: Mr Caplan.
Mr Caplan:
I have many questions to go over, Chair. I'm going to try to be
very direct and I would hope that you would direct the minister
to give direct and succinct answers to the questions I'm going to
ask.
First of all, I'd like to
thank the staff of the ministry for providing a list of
properties in response to the question that I asked yesterday
here in committee. However, there is one difficulty. This is the
official Hansard of the Ontario Legislature and I'll just read
you the response of the honourable Chair of Management Board of
Cabinet, who says, "There are a few pieces of property that, with
the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, we'll consider for
sites to help the homeless." He says, "On the specifics,
he"-referring to myself-"can ask the Minister ... exactly which
properties."
I've been provided a list
of all properties that have been in the tender by the Ontario
Realty Corp. First of all, did the Chair of Management Board
misinform the House? Exactly which properties are up for
affordable housing projects?
Hon Mr
Clement: No. Absolutely not.
1650
Mr Caplan:
OK. Then would the minister or the ministry staff be so good as
to indicate which of the hundreds in this list are specifically
being designated for affordable housing projects.
Hon Mr
Clement: We are going through that process right now and
I indicated to you yesterday-
Mr Caplan:
So that has not happened.
Hon Mr
Clement: -to be fair to me and to be fair to the record
of this committee, that this was a very complex process. It's all
very well to say that this particular land is available, but then
we have to make sure that it is appropriate in terms of the
services that are available, that it is the most appropriate for
a housing initiative.
So the answer to your
question is, in the fullness of time when we make sure we get it
right, when we make sure we have a process that gets it right for
the people of Ontario, you will find out as soon as we find
out.
Mr Caplan:
The commitment by the Harris government was made eight months
ago. I would submit that the work is proceeding incredibly
slowly, if it has proceeded at all.
I have several questions
regarding the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal, which the minister
alluded to in his opening remarks. I'd like to ask how many
hearing sites or locations have been closed since June 1998 and
where those locations are. If the minister or the staff members
cannot provide the answers here today, and they certainly can be
provided at a later time, I would understand.
Ms Carol
Kiley: I'm Carol Kiley. I'm the manager with the Ontario
Rental Housing Tribunal. Since June 1998 there have been no
hearing sites closed-June 17 is when we started-there have been
no district offices or client service offices closed. We're still
hearing all of our hearings in the county seat of the county
where the residential complex is located. If that isn't
convenient, if the tenants would rather go to one of our district
offices, we can accommodate them that way.
Mr Caplan:
If I may, further: The Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal used to
hear cases in Richmond Hill. Is that correct?
Ms Kiley:
That's correct.
Mr Caplan:
Do they any longer?
Ms Kiley:
Yes.
Mr Caplan:
They used to hear them in Brighton and Napanee. Do they still do
that?
Ms Kiley:
Yes.
Mr Caplan:
The information in a letter from the chair of the Ontario Rental
Housing Tribunal indicates that this is no longer the case.
Ms Kiley:
The letter that went out, I think it was in August or September
1999, what that did was redistribute the caseload so that
applications for Richmond Hill or Napanee or certain of the areas
that you mentioned would be heard by adjudicators from the North
York office rather than
from the central office, which was located in Mississauga. That
change came about because we found that those adjudicators in
Mississauga were spending too much of their time travelling and
it was easier for the adjudicators from North York. So it was
never a change in office, merely a change in how the tribunal
itself distributed its workload.
Mr Caplan:
So you are still hearing cases in Richmond Hill.
Ms Kiley:
Absolutely.
Mr Caplan:
You are still hearing cases in Napanee.
Ms Kiley:
Yes.
Mr Caplan:
OK. Thank you.
Are there any plans for
closures of any of the sites? The letter of the chair of the
tribunal indicates that there would be further reorganization of
the hearing sites and locations.
Ms Kiley:
I don't have the letter with me, so I can't recall exactly how it
was worded. I think the intention has always been not to close
sites or reduce access but to redistribute the workload. As you
must understand, we did not really know where our workload would
be coming from when we set up our offices and our locations.
We're looking at redistributing workload but not limiting access
in any way.
Hon Mr
Clement: Can I just add, to make sure the record is
completely clear on this: The tribunal is doing the operational
review, and in the future they may make some recommendations, of
which I'm not aware at present but I'm thinking ahead here. If
they make recommendations in the future that can deliver better
services for less, which means a potential reallocation, that's
something we would have to look at. That's the criterion: It
would have to be at least the same level of service or
better.
Mr Caplan:
OK. I certainly at this point take the minister at his word.
Have there been closures of
document filing centres? If there have been, how many, and where
are they, please?
Ms Kiley:
There was one document filing centre in-I can't recall where-
Mr Caplan:
Newmarket?
Ms Kiley:
Newmarket-that did not wish to continue. We did not close it;
they didn't want the business, so we were looking to replace that
one.
Again, the minister is
absolutely right. The operational review may lead us to do things
more cost-efficiently while providing the same level of access,
but as of now I think it was just the one in Newmarket. There may
have been one in Windsor that we relocated.
Mr Caplan:
Are there any plans to close-I guess pending the operational
review, as you mention.
Hon Mr
Clement: That's correct.
Mr Caplan:
That's fine.
Ms Kiley:
We're also looking into ways in which we can utilize the common
counters and other access points.
Mr Caplan:
I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?
Ms Kiley:
The common counters-what are they called?-shared services bureaus
of the government.
Mr Caplan:
I had earlier been advised that particularly in northern Ontario
and remote areas there is the use of teleconferencing and
videoconferencing. Could you tell me how many times each one of
those procedures has been used by the Ontario Rental Housing
Tribunal since June 1998.
Ms Kiley:
I can't give you that figure. I can find that out.
Mr Caplan:
I would appreciate that.
Ms Kiley:
You want both teleconference and video-
Mr Caplan:
If you could break it out.
Ms Kiley:
Just in northern Ontario?
Mr Caplan:
No, in the province.
Ms Kiley:
In the province, OK. I can find that out.
Mr Caplan:
That would be greatly appreciated.
Hon Mr
Clement: We'll submit it to the committee.
Mr Caplan:
Yes, and where the sites are specifically that it's being offered
out of, if that be Sudbury, Toronto, Windsor, wherever it happens
to be.
Ms Kiley:
Sure. I'll get you the information.
Mr Caplan:
I have more of a philosophical question specifically for the
minister. You are a lawyer by training, I understand. Yes?
Hon Mr
Clement: Yes, I am.
Mr Caplan:
In a quasi-judicial or judicial process, one of the most
important aspects, I'm told-I'm not a lawyer, sir, just so you
understand-is the ability to assess the credibility of the
various participants. Yes? That's a tenet, yes?
Hon Mr
Clement: Certainly in the case of evidence, you're quite
right.
Mr Caplan:
How is an adjudicator supposed to assess credibility over the
phone? Doesn't a judge or a quasi-judicial arbitrator or
adjudicator need to be able to see the person to be able to get a
sense of credibility?
Hon Mr
Clement: Let me give you a hypothetical. In some cases,
the evidence is in dispute and therefore you have to weigh the
different depositions on the evidence and make a finding, either
implicit or explicit, as to credibility because you've got to
weigh the evidence. There are other cases where the evidence is
not in dispute and there's a legal issue involved where
credibility is less of a factor and it's merely a case of
deciding how the law is to be applied.
Mr Caplan:
That's well and good, but if credibility is an issue, and it
often is in judicial or quasi-judicial matters, how is an
adjudicator supposed to assess credibility over the
telephone?
Hon Mr
Clement: I'll tell you, this is the challenge for all
judicial and quasi-judicial tribunals and courts because there is
an increasing use in evidentiary issues of other means of
obtaining evidence, which are sometimes less direct than
historically has been the case in our common law system.
I guess through the
jurisprudence there has been an ability of our adjudicators in
this province and throughout Canada to do the proper weighing of
evidence. Sometimes that
evidence is directed person to person. Sometimes it is evidence
that is weighed that is not the usual, I guess, historical way of
dealing with these cases. That's part of their job as
adjudicators. If they don't feel comfortable, then that's one
case.
I should say that if you're
referring to the tribunal, they've never done a telephone
hearing, just so you know.
Mr Caplan:
So teleconferencing has never happened?
Hon Mr
Clement: In terms of the hearing part, that's the
information I'm led to believe.
Mr Caplan:
OK. That's fine.
Hon Mr
Clement: There might be mediations and things like
that.
Mr Caplan:
Sure. There are other things that the tribunal does. I would
submit that the tenant is at a distinct disadvantage in terms of
being able to have credibility assessed by a telephone
conversation, and I would hope that it would be the ministry's
desire to see that justice is equally available to both
participants in any kind of dispute.
I have a question, as well,
regarding the provisions of harassment under the Tenant
Protection Act. First of all, how many investigations, how many
prosecutions, and how many convictions have there been for
harassment since June 1998?
Ms Kiley:
I have estimates. I don't have actuals. We've had about 1,400 to
1,500 applications for tenant rights, and those include
harassment.
Mr Caplan:
Of the 1,500 applications, how many resulted in conviction?
Ms Kiley:
Our investigations unit is separate from the tribunal. It's under
the auspices of the ministry. I think there are 20 cases
currently being prosecuted. I don't have the actual figures. I
would have to get that for you.
Mr Caplan:
You can provide the actual investigations, prosecutions and
convictions?
Hon Mr
Clement: We'll undertake to circulate that to the
committee.
Mr Caplan:
Thank you very much.
How many default orders by
the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal have been issued since June
1998?
Ms Kiley:
Forty-five per cent of all of the orders issued are default
orders.
Mr Caplan:
Forty-five per cent of all orders?
Ms Kiley:
Forty-five per cent of all orders are default orders.
Mr Caplan:
Where essentially people haven't responded and so a default order
is issued?
Ms Kiley:
It's where people have not indicated that they wish to dispute
the application.
Mr Caplan:
Correct. But how many default orders have there been?
Ms Kiley:
I'm trying to think. I know there were 60,000 applications as of
June 1999. I couldn't tell you exactly, but I would suspect it's
around 30,000.
Mr Caplan:
You can provide specific figures?
Ms Kiley:
I will provide actual stats for you as of the end of October.
Mr Caplan:
That would be acceptable.
Did the ministry project an
expected number of default orders that would be issued when it
set up the system? Do you project ahead and say, "We expect there
will be so many types of cases"? What was that figure?
Ms Kiley:
We based our projections initially on the information we received
from the Attorney General, because they had heard the landlord
and tenant cases prior to the tribunal. The Attorney General had
a 70% default rate. We felt that since our access was more
informal, we didn't project that high a default rate, so we
projected initially 60%.
Mr Caplan:
You've had 45%?
Ms Kiley:
We've had 45%, so we've had more disputes filed, by 20%, than we
had anticipated.
Mr Caplan:
More disputes filed by?
Ms Kiley:
Yes, more people filed a dispute and said they wanted to go ahead
to a hearing, so the application could not go to a default.
Hon Mr
Clement: One of the conclusions is that the process is
more accessible now, because more are taking advantage of it.
Mr Caplan:
So the 45% number, you're suggesting that's an acceptable figure
to you?
Hon Mr
Clement: The figure is the figure.
Mr Caplan:
I understand, but is that considered to be an acceptable figure
to the ministry?
Hon Mr
Clement: What do you mean by "acceptable"? Do you mean
that we're happy?
Mr Caplan:
That a certain number of default orders have been issued, as
opposed to people who respond to defend themselves.
Hon Mr
Clement: I think we're neutral on it. We have a system
in place to allow tenants and landlords to ensure that their
rights are upheld, and I think we're neutral as to the outcome as
long as the process is a fair and reasonable process.
Mr Caplan:
I understand there's a three-step process to set aside a default
order, or a three-step test, if you will. Is that correct?
Ms Kiley:
If you have a default order issued-it means you have not
responded or have not disputed or have not called us or faxed us
to let us know that you wish to dispute it-and a default order is
issued, you can file for a set-aside within 11 days. The test is
quite simple. The test is that you were not reasonably able to
participate. That's the only test.
Mr Caplan:
That's it? You don't have to provide an excuse for why you didn't
file a response? You don't have to demonstrate that you attempted
to act quickly? You don't have to have a good defence on the
merits of the matter? I understood that to be the three-step test
that is being imposed by the rental housing tribunal in order to
achieve a set-aside.
Ms Kiley:
The legislation is quite clear. The only test to be granted a
set-aside is that you were not reasonably able to participate.
The case is then heard. If you have convinced an adjudicator that
you were not reasonably able to participate because of illness-I
don't know what kinds of
excuses or what kinds of situations they consider; I'm not an
adjudicator-then the case is heard on its merits.
Mr Caplan:
That's very interesting, because I had occasion to be at a legal
clinic here in Ontario, in fact, just last week, and I was told
by the folks at the legal clinic that in their opinion it is
easier to set aside the judgment of a court than it is to set
aside a matter that's had a default order in the Ontario Rental
Housing Tribunal setting. I'm going to relay your response to
that legal clinic, because obviously there is some
miscommunication somewhere about what the process is and how it
is supposed to operate.
I trust that I can bring
these matters to the minister's attention if the correct
procedures are not being followed in certain jurisdictions in
areas in Ontario.
Hon Mr
Clement: Absolutely, you can. May I say, as well, maybe
we're confronting a bit of human nature here. Under the old
system, there was no consequence for being involved in the
process, and now there is a consequence, so one has to keep that
in mind as well. If the process was free and available and
whatnot, then of course people are going to use the process.
I think we have to make
sure the process is accessible. That should be our absolute
number one aim. At the same time, we don't want frivolity to be
the order of the day. We're trying to get to that balance. If
there is a particular problem in a particular area, let us
know.
Mr Caplan:
I will be sure and do that.
Minister, as well, you
mentioned in your comments today that you have recently signed
the federal-provincial deal on housing.
Hon Mr
Clement: That is correct.
Mr Caplan:
Congratulations.
Hon Mr
Clement: Thank you very much. I am very pleased to have
been able to do that.
Mr Caplan:
I understand you anticipate realizing some approximately $100
million from this deal. Is that correct?
Hon Mr
Clement: A hundred million? I'm not sure about that.
Janet Mason, who is our chief negotiator, is here. I'd ask her to
come up to the front. I'm aware of the $50 million, in terms of
the amount that has been made available to us because of the
calculations, that we can then plow back into the rental
supplements. Plus we've got the $30-million portion that is
designed for capital-
Mr Caplan:
Perhaps we could get into the other, if I could ask you,
Minister. The $50 million that you're going to put into rent
supplements, I don't seem to find it in the estimates here,
although the program was announced back in March. Can you please
show me the page where I could fine the $50-million figure?
Hon Mr
Clement: That was the problem, you see, because the
negotiations dragged on and on, and we were getting quite
frustrated. I must say-
Mr Caplan:
Is that the regular course of events, that announcements are made
without the dollars to support it being in place?
Hon Mr
Clement: No. I want to assure the honourable member on
this. At one point we had a federal government that was seeking
an agreement, then we had a federal government that decided not
to seek an agreement, and then they decided to seek the agreement
again. That's why there has been a length of time, but I'm very
pleased and wish to applaud Minister Gagliano for signing the
agreement today. That allows us, because of the way the federal
funds are calculated, to divert some of those funds that are
saved as a result of the calculation for those women and men and
their families most in need of rental supplements. That's 10,000
families, as a result of these calculations, who are going to get
rental supplements.
The
Vice-Chair: With that wonderful note-
Mr Caplan:
My time is up?
The
Vice-Chair: Yes, your time is up.
Mr Caplan:
I'm sure there will be another round.
The
Vice-Chair: I wanted the opportunity to warn the members
that when coming into a committee meeting, would you mind either
leaving your cellular phones outside or turning them off when you
get inside here. They could be interrupting the proceedings.
The next round would have
been the NDP. They're not here. I presume that the round then
goes to the Conservatives.
Mr
Wettlaufer: I wonder if we could have a ruling. Being as
the third party isn't here, what are we going to do with their
time? Are we going to divide the remaining time equally?
1710
The
Vice-Chair: The fact is that it's your rotation now and
you could take your twenty minutes now.
Mr
Wettlaufer: OK. Thank you, Chair.
Minister, almost two years
ago we had one of the most-well, I guess it was the most
devastating natural disaster in Canadian history. We see every
day pictures on television of what earthquakes do and what
hurricanes do. The ice storm that hit eastern Ontario and Quebec
was absolutely devastating. While I didn't get down into eastern
Ontario, we do have a number of friends who sent us photos of
what happened, and I have to say that I was totally shocked,
having looked at those photos and seen the effect that it had on
people's lives and property. I recall seeing one photo of a very
large evergreen tree, I think it might have been a blue spruce,
of which all that was left was the trunk; all the branches were
stripped right off.
Now, of course, people's
lives are essentially back in order, repairs are made. We've
received many compliments from the people of eastern Ontario for
our efforts. I wonder if you could share with us-you mentioned
yesterday a figure of $200 million, I believe, that was spent by
our government and I think you said 80% of it was recoverable
from the federal government. I wonder if you could give us an
indication or maybe even detail-and if you can't, if one of the
bureaucrats can-of what your ministry did to help the people of
eastern Ontario.
Hon Mr Clement: I'd be very happy
to go into some detail. Maybe I'd ask Elizabeth McLaren also to
come up front to give her perspective a little bit as well, but I
wouldn't mind starting out because this is what we hope to be a
unique event, obviously, because of the tragedy involved and the
great expense and human cost, if I can put it that way. This was
the largest disaster in Canadian history, let's make no bones
about that. Just to give you an example, six times more claims
were submitted than for the Red River flood in Manitoba. If you
are looking at comparators, nothing compares to this ice
storm.
There were almost 30,000
insurance claims that had to be settled by the insurance
industry, that totalled about $52 million. Municipal damage
estimates were around $78 million, just on municipal damage. Then
we had the ministry and their transfer agencies, which reported
costs of about $236 million. The municipal electric utilities
reported costs of $24 million. Ontario Hydro reported costs of
$250 million, and finally $15 million for private poles and
wires. We all have a memory of some of the human cost and the
human discomfort and suffering, but there are some hard numbers
as well.
We did act quickly and
generously. We committed $50 million immediately following the
disaster. We committed $11.9 million for the Emergency Help Fund,
which was provided to municipalities and to victims in January
and February, and then we announced this up to 4-to-1 ratio of
provincial-local funding; that meant for every dollar that was
raised locally, we'd be committing four dollars, and that was
under the Ontario disaster relief assistance program.
There were a number of
components-I'll let Liz talk a little bit about that-and there
was this federal-provincial side agreement which cost-shared
50-50 some of the items that were particularly in need of being
shared.
I would say we acted
responsibly. We acted swiftly. There was an incredible amount of
coordination that had to be done and I think we can all be proud
of-I don't mean proud of our government. You expect your
government to act in situations like this; I think proud of
individuals in Ontario, who gave their time, who left their jobs
to be there in a volunteer capacity, neighbours helping
neighbours, strangers helping folks who needed help. There was a
real confirmation of the community values that are so important
in Ontario and that have made Ontario such a wonderful place to
live, work and raise a family, if I can use that terminology.
Liz, do you want to go into
some detail?
Ms Elizabeth
McLaren: Certainly, Minister.
I'm Elizabeth McLaren. I'm
the assistant deputy minister for the office for the greater
Toronto area in the ministry. That's the long story why I did ice
storm.
As the minister said,
eastern Ontario began experiencing damaging ice storms on January
4, 1998, so we are approaching the second anniversary of that,
leaving a large portion of eastern Ontario without electricity.
Sixty-six municipalities were eventually declared in a state of
emergency.
As the minister has said,
the province responded quickly and generously. An initial
commitment of $50 million was made within days, with the
promise that more money would be there as required. Again, as the
minister has said and as Mr Wettlaufer said in his question, it
is projected that $201.6 million will eventually be eligible for
cost-sharing with the federal government. So it was quite
significant.
To give you some other
details to show you the magnitude of the storm, 84,000 private
insurance claims were filed with various insurance companies
across Ontario and they have now been settled for in the
neighbourhood of $213 million, which is quite significant in
Ontario terms.
As the minister said, we
had six times more claims than the Red River flood and it was
interesting that when the eastern Ontario disaster relief
committee was established, which was the umbrella committee for
the eight local committees established throughout the area, these
local committees then sent out claim forms. The deadline date to
submit a claim was June 15, 1998. By June 15-actually, over 50%
of the claims came in the final two weeks, so not until June of
last year-we received a total of 29,726 claims from individuals,
farms and businesses. As the minister has stated, a lot of credit
needs to be given to the volunteer committee, the eastern Ontario
disaster relief committee, that worked. By May of this year,
which was less than one year from the final date of submission
for the claims, all 29,726 claims had been processed. That was a
significant record, and faster than has been the case in other
disasters, both in Ontario and across Canada.
What was interesting too
was that when the committee had completed going through all
29,726 claims, because this disaster had evolved and the
guidelines that were used to establish the claims had been
changed, a decision was taken to go back over every one of those
claims to make sure they had been handled fairly and equitably
and that people had received exactly what they deserved. That
review was completed and all claim payments were made to
claimants by September 24 of this year. Through that second
review, an additional $11,416,000 was paid out. We think that
review was certainly worthwhile in terms of claimants in eastern
Ontario. The total assistance paid out to date by the eastern
Ontario disaster relief committee is about $49 million.
One of the other issues
when claims of this magnitude are being handled is fairness and
equity, so when the original claim payments were made, claimants
were given an opportunity to ask that their claims be
reconsidered. Out of the almost 30,000 claimants, only 1,000
requested a reconsideration of their claim. Of those, about
888-most of them-were reviewed. As I said, as we went through
that second review period over this summer, those 888 were paid
automatically as a result of improvement to the guidelines. Only
88 were actually ineligible and were to receive no further
assistance.
1720
As of September 30 of this
year, just to make sure that a fair process was implemented, the
eastern Ontario disaster relief committee hired an independent
ombuds adjuster to go back over those remaining 100 or so claims
to make sure that they in truth had been dealt with equitably.
The final 156 claims were reviewed by this outside adjuster and
their claims settled by the end of September. So the eastern
Ontario disaster relief committee who, when we asked them to
serve, were assured they would only have to be there for six
weeks, will now wind down their operations and we expect that the
committee will be closed by December 31. So before we hit the
two-year mark we hope to have said thank you to all the
volunteers.
As you know, the payments
to individuals was only a portion of the government's response to
the ice storm. The government established a program, the ice
storm assistance program, for public authorities. Because of the
magnitude of the damages, it was determined that municipalities
and conservation authorities, universities, schools and hospitals
were also going to need some assistance in getting back to
normal.
The municipalities so far
have made claims for eligible ice storm costs. They make these
claims on a quarterly basis. The sixth-quarter claims were
submitted in August of this year and to date municipalities have
received payments of $53.5 million. This is generally the first
time that municipalities have actually received any money during
a disaster. Normally, it's expected that municipalities will bear
their own costs, but because of the magnitude the government did
institute this special program.
To ensure that all of these
payments are being made appropriately and where they are needed,
there is a joint federal-provincial audit, which is currently
going on. We hope that the final quarterly claims from the
municipalities-the final quarter was to have been September of
this year. We are expecting those claims to be in by November of
this year and we hope to be able to complete the audits and
finalize the payments by March 2000.
We have worked closely with
the federal government. This was Ontario's first opportunity, I
guess, if you can put it that way, to participate in the federal
government's disaster relief program. In order to be eligible for
that program, the province has to spend $1 per capita. So the
provincial cost has to exceed the $11 million to be able to even
start.
We heard from our
colleagues in other provinces that have not been as lucky and
have had to access that federal program repeatedly: Quebec for
several of their disasters, Manitoba and Alberta. There was a
suggestion that there might be some difficulty in settling with
the federal government, so we've worked very closely with the
federal government and we have already received our first interim
payment and they are continuing with their audits of the
provincial ministries and of the municipalities. They are
currently reviewing the books of the eastern Ontario disaster
relief committee and are assuring us that they are finding that
everything is in order. So we hope to also set another record by
being the first province to complete its audit by the federal
government and we're hoping to get most of that share by March of
next year.
Some of the other programs:
You mentioned having pictures of the ice storm, and one of the
things that will linger with us all is the sight of the
devastation to the trees in eastern Ontario, because the forest
cover in eastern Ontario will probably never recover. I've been
told by foresters that my great-great-grandchildren will still be
able to see the damage in the forest when they walk. So one of
the things the government decided was necessary was to try to
have some special program for trees and for tree replacement. We
were able to negotiate some federal support.
The federal government had
already announced in concert with us that there was going to be
the $70-million program to assist farmers and small businesses,
and we were able to expand the eligibility of that to trees and
to tree owners. Quite a detailed farm and tree assessment has
gone on to provide extra assistance for people to clean out their
wood lots.
One of the things we've
learned that will be a benefit: Right after the ice storm, many
foresters in the area were telling people which trees to cut
down, and some people did act on that. We've now been studying
areas where in fact the trees were not cut down, and we found
that the trees that were recommended we should leave because they
would recover were in fact the ones we should have cut, and the
ones perhaps that we thought had lost 60% to 70% of their crown
and would not survive but where we did say, "Don't say cut them.
Let nature see what it will do," it's amazing. The last tour I
had of some of the forests in eastern Ontario, those trees have
come back. Foresters are now expecting that they will be able to
eventually be harvested and possibly retain most of their value.
There has has been important science going on, and that science
program will continue for I think another two years, until March
2002, so that we can follow that and be able to provide advice to
farmers, and especially maple producers.
Maple producers were
obviously very hard hit. The storm occurred in January. It was
very hard for them to get out to clean their maple-producing
fields, and they had a tough crop in 1998. We did try to get out
and fast-track their claims in January and February of this year
to ensure that they would be able to harvest the maple syrup and
keep that very important Ontario industry alive and well.
Besides the tree program
for individuals, we have also decided-one of the major municipal
claims was also for tree replacement, because the municipal
streets and the trees and also along the forests were also
damaged. Again, we went back to the federal government and found
out that our colleagues in Quebec had instituted a similar
program. So we have been able, in August of this year actually,
to announce yet another program to assist with tree
replacement.
The municipalities are currently preparing tree
replacement plans. One of the problems is that there really
aren't enough seedlings in eastern Ontario for us to be able to
do all of the plantings that will be necessary. Again, speaking
of the science, you can't plant a maple tree seedling from
southwestern Ontario in eastern Ontario; it doesn't have the same
genetic background and it wouldn't survive. We're having to
actually spend a lot of time this year harvesting seeds of the
various varieties so that those seeds can be planted and trees
grown so that over the next two to three years the municipalities
will have the sorts of trees that are necessary and that they
want and that will have the ability to survive in eastern
Ontario.
We're working very closely
in eastern Ontario with the municipalities, with our sister
ministry, the Ministry of Natural Resources, and of course with
the conservation authorities to make sure the money that we have
for this tree program-it will work out to about $8 million
provincially-will be able to be distributed where it's needed
most across eastern Ontario and in the municipalities that were
the hardest hit in eastern Ontario.
The
Vice-Chair: Thank you very much, Ms McLaren. I think the
time for the Conservative comments or questions is up. Mr
Colle.
Mr Colle:
Mr Minister, as you know, what is happening more and more
throughout the province is that we have development applications,
and the developers are going directly to the Ontario Municipal
Board. They are not, essentially, waiting for the decisions of
local council or regional council. They are going directly to the
Ontario Municipal Board, to that point that a lot of
municipalities are now forced to dip into their reserves to pay
for their legal representation at the OMB. Some municipalities
like Uxbridge and Durham region may have to pass a special tax
levy to pay for legal representation to the Ontario Municipal
Board.
I say to you, this is not
good planning. It's not the way to do planning, because what it
really does is basically nullify official regional plans or local
plans.
What is the ministry doing,
especially in the 905 area, to stop this queue-jumping that the
developers are doing and to recognize the integrity of local and
regional plans?
Hon Mr
Clement: Thank you for the question. I'm going to ask
Paula Dill to come forward, and in the meantime I do want to
share with you, Michael, that we do have the list of the
municipalities not known to have issued 1998 or 1999. I could
share that with the clerk. Perhaps that can be photocopied for
the committee.
1730
Mr Colle:
I appreciate that.
Ms Paula
Dill: I'm Paula Dill, the assistant deputy minister of
the provincial-municipal relations division.
In response to your
question, the Planning Act, as you know, was amended in 1996, and
the time frames for making application-one of the objectives was
to streamline the planning process.
Mr Colle:
The 90-day provision was put in.
Ms Dill:
Yes. You were referring to the fact that a municipality doesn't
make a decision within 90 days and then there is an application
that is referred to the Ontario Municipal Board, and you made
reference to queue-jumping.
About three years ago, the
average time frame to achieve a hearing at the Ontario Municipal
Board was quite lengthy, so it was considered efficient and
expeditious on the part of an applicant, if he felt he was going
to go to the Ontario Municipal Board, that it wasn't going to
receive a fair hearing or the right decision, in his opinion,
from the council, to get in line. That has changed, and the
hearing times that are available from the Ontario Municipal Board
are quite efficient, so that does not exist in terms of the myth
of lining up to get into the queue to the Ontario Municipal
Board.
The official plan of the
municipality is the document that is adopted and guides the
framework for development, and there is a process, the natural
justice process, where the Ontario Municipal Board is allowed to
adjudicate on matters between the parties-the municipality and
the developer-and obviously ratepayers are third parties.
That is the process that is
in place. It's one of the fundamental underpinnings of the
provincial planning system, and it seems to work well, so I don't
think queue-jumping will help.
Mr Colle:
I'm just wondering, how can it be good planning when the
municipalities are faced with the spectre of raising taxes when
the developer comes and says: "I've got this application. If you
deny the application, the municipality may have to raise taxes to
pay for legal representation to the OMB"? How can this be good
planning when the planning is basically based on the fact of
affordability? Developers know that. What they are doing is,
they've got deep pockets. They go to the OMB. They can hire the
best lawyers money can buy. The local municipality, on the other
hand, says, "If I fight this at the OMB, I may have to put on a
special levy." Therefore, where is the integrity of local or
regional planning if you can essentially go to the OMB and
supersede what has been worked on for years by the regional
government or local government?
Hon Mr
Clement: Let me just say this: The OMB is there to be an
unbiased, fair way for disputes between parties to be heard and
resolved. That's the essence of the OMB, so if the municipality
wants to defend its official plan, they have every right to be
there, and that's the way they do it. I'm not sure what you're
suggesting as an alternative.
Mr Colle:
They can't afford to defend their official plan because they
don't have the money and the resources to match the legal clout
that the developers have. I gave you a couple of cases in point.
I know the town of Richmond Hill has had to now set up a special
reserve fund of $1 million to fight for their rights at the OMB.
As I said, Uxbridge is contemplating a special tax levy. Durham
region may have to do the same thing. Good planning shouldn't be based on whether or
not you can afford it.
In some cases,
municipalities have decided not to go to the OMB and have settled
with the developer, not because they agreed with the development
application but because they thought they could save the
taxpayers money by not going to the OMB. So we're essentially
seeing the economics of planning supersede the good
community-based planning which, by the way, they've spent
millions of dollars doing. As you know, the official plan process
as it goes on in regions costs tons of money.
So the plans sit there, and
eventually the developers say, "I don't care what this plan is;
I'm going to go to the adjudicator, around the plan process, and
make them adjudicate it." So you take your chance with the
adjudicator, and I know that in some cases they have made some
good decisions. There was the recent one down at the bottom of
Toronto here, and I applaud them for doing that. I'm just saying,
what happens to a local municipality now that has this plan that
used to protect them, supposedly, that is no longer protection?
In fact, they are now intimidated by the cost factor of
protecting their planning process and they can't afford to do
it.
Ms Dill:
Generally speaking, OMB hearings that you are referring to are
not the norm. A normal hearing is not a huge million-dollar
hearing. So if you put that in perspective overall within the
system, the average hearing is not that large in terms of
dollars. However-
Mr Colle:
Wait a minute now. You have to hire traffic planners, sound,
water, hydrologists-it gets up into hundreds of thousands of
dollars, and you know that. It is a big cost to municipalities,
and it's not just the hearing per se. You have to have the
experts because you know the developer's going to have a whole
battery of experts defending their case, which they have the
right to do.
Ms Dill:
What I was going to say was that overall, on average, they're not
that kind. In those specific hearings that you're speaking about,
there are major urban expansions and significant growth-related
issues that are at stake, as well as technical issues, that are
going to be tested before the board. The issue in terms of
whether the municipality is prepared at this point in time may be
the watershed issue that would be tested. The official plan
document, over time, should provide the municipality the
up-to-date security or the policies within which they would guide
development.
What is happening in these
hearings is the municipalities' plans are being tested with
respect to new information. In other words, as development gets
more sophisticated, the official plan has to keep up with it. The
initial test at the outset for the major principle-of-development
issues is being tested there. After that happens, the
municipality has the strength and the security and in fact the
OMB behind it on its plan in terms of the test.
Mr Colle:
But they don't have the financial resources to match the
developers, especially in the significant ones you've talked
about. Those are the ones I'm worried about. The large,
significant developments are-no pun intended-very taxing on local
ratepayers. All of a sudden you've got them at a great
disadvantage. This is a trend I'm just alerting the minister to
that is very worrisome, because if this continues, it'll mean
essentially development based on one's ability to finance your
experts at the Ontario Municipal Board. I don't think that was
the original intention of the Ontario Municipal Board, but it's
becoming a very expensive proposition. It's costing
municipalities hundreds, if not millions, of dollars.
I just wondered how many of
these applications, since you changed the legislation, have gone
directly to the OMB. Do we have any idea of how many of those
there are?
Ms Dill: I
don't have the-
Mr Colle:
Could I get that at a future date?
Ms Dill:
Yes.
Mr Colle:
Just to see, as a result of the legislative change-
Ms Dill:
Are you talking about for all of Ontario?
Mr Colle:
Yes, I'd be interested in all of it. Most of it would be, I would
think, in the southern Ontario region. I would think most of the
major ones have been-
Hon Mr
Clement: Just so I get it right, because there are
thousands of applications that go before the OMB: You're asking
for the ones where the developer went directly to the OMB?
Mr Colle:
Yes, they went directly to the OMB. They didn't wait the 90
days.
Hon Mr
Clement: OK.
Ms Dill:
It will take some time to collect that information.
Mr Colle:
I would appreciate that. I'd like to have that just to see the
reaction to the legislative change, so I have that at my
disposal.
Hon Mr
Clement: And you understand why it's not our
information? It's usually the municipality and the developer, in
your scenario, going at it at the OMB-the ministry may be not be
represented there-and it's a quasi-judicial tribunal.
Mr Colle:
No, but the OMB is an agency of the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs, so I hope you would have that information.
Hon Mr
Clement: We will undertake to request that information
from the OMB. That's the only source we have for that
information.
Mr Colle:
Yes. If you could get that from the Ontario Municipal Board for
me, I'd appreciate that.
I'll just pass it over to
my colleague.
Mr Caplan:
I understand, Mr Chair, that as a member of the Liberal caucus
you wanted to ask a question.
The
Vice-Chair: I have a quick question. Mr Colle, do you
want to take the chair?
The Acting Chair
(Mr Mike Colle): Mr Curling, you have the floor.
Mr Alvin Curling
(Scarborough-Rouge River): Minister, over the years
Frontiers Foundation usually gets some funds from the
ministry-sometimes from the Ministry of Housing and I think sometimes from
Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.
The Frontiers Foundation is
a non-profit organization that helps First Nations people
rehabilitate their homes. I know this might be pretty new, but
some of the wonderful and efficient staff you have behind you are
quite aware of this. I'm not putting you on the spot at all from
that point of view.
1740
I just wondered if you
could look into the matter of having some funding given to those
homes in order to rehabilitate them. They have not had those
funds, and some of the First Nations people are living in some
terrible conditions. It's not an extraordinary amount of money.
Can you tell us if the ministry has ever taken a look at that
kind of funding, and if not, would you assure me that you will do
so and that some funding could flow into the Frontiers Foundation
to assist them?
Mr Fenn:
Mr Chairman, maybe I can respond. The member is correct that in
the past through the Community Futures program there was funding
of a variety of organizations, including the one to which he
referred. As the member will be aware, the government felt it was
worthwhile to have municipalities in a position of
decision-making on these kinds of programs and to fund them where
they were seen to be of benefit to finding housing or dealing
with relocation issues, and the government has announced the
transfer of that program and the money associated with it to
municipalities.
As the minister indicated,
we have certainly taken a position that these kinds of local,
community, neighbourhood-based decisions about housing matters
and other issues of this kind are better handled by community
governments, because they are community issues. Perhaps the
appropriate direction for that request would be on the municipal
governments, which are now in a position to make those
determinations and to decide whether grants of that sort are well
placed with organizations such as that.
Mr
Curling: While I appreciate the deputy minister's
response, you know that it's kind of a nice shift to say it could
be handled by the community, but the fact is that it's not being
done. At this moment, as you go through this transitional time of
who should take responsibility, there are people living in very
appalling conditions. I would ask the minister if he could look
into the matter even in this transitional time to see that some
of this is being done.
The winter is coming again,
and people are living in very appalling conditions. They're a
voluntary organization and will assist so that the costs are not
extraordinary. Could you somehow give me some reassurance that
this project could be looked at for some funding? It's not an
enormous amount of money. I just wondered if the minister would
take the responsibility to look into the matter and see about
some funding.
Hon Mr
Clement: Certainly what I can suggest to you, Alvin, is
that if you've got some information you'd like me to see, I
encourage you to give me that information. It seems as if you've
got a pretty good handle on this particular project. So if you
would like to share some information with me, I'd very much like
to see it, and at that time, I can give you an appropriate
response.
Mr
Curling: Thank you very much. That's all I need.
Mr Caplan:
I still have a number of questions. I'll try to get them all in
under the time.
The Acting
Chair: It's about six minutes, I think.
Mr Caplan:
Currently Bill 11 is before the House. It changes the Ontario
Housing Corp to the Ontario Mortgage Corp. What is the intention
of the ministry in making that kind of a change? Is the ministry
indicating that they're getting out of housing entirely? Please,
could you explain what the rationale is behind that change in
designation?
Hon Mr
Clement: I think we are trying to signal that we are
continuing to change the way we see social housing being
delivered in this province. I wouldn't put it in quite the terms
that you put it, but as I say, I indicated earlier that we're
moving away from bricks and mortar, that we don't see it as
advisable that that is our long-term mandate. That apparently is
similar to what the federal government has decided as well,
although I guess we'll wait and see in the next budget.
We see our role as helping
the individual through a combination of rent-geared-to-income
supplements and a properly functioning private sector that can
help us create the housing stock that we all need here in
Ontario. That's the underlying philosophy of what we're doing,
and we are trying to disentangle ourselves from some failed
policies of the past.
Mr Caplan:
I'm going to save the debate for the House, but thank you for the
answer. In the estimates as well, and you did make reference to
it in your opening statement, there is $4 million for a
provincial sales tax rebate. My question to you, Minister, is,
how many of these funds have been spent to date and how many
requests have been made for this funding?
Hon Mr
Clement: It's part of the budget bill.
Mr Fenn:
Yes, as the minister indicates, it's part of the budget bill.
It's a program that is about to be announced or about to be
rolled out. The application process will be backdated to the date
to which the member referred.
Hon Mr
Clement: We do have to have the bill passed a little bit
before we-
Mr Fenn: I
would make the other observation, which is that the intent is
that it show good faith on the part of the province, because the
primary objective is, of course, to have a similar concession
from the federal government in connection with the GST, which
would be much more significant.
Mr Caplan:
So far you are saying you have to make legislative changes in
order to have access to these dollars.
Mr Fenn:
Mr Chairman, I misled the minister. It's not in the budget bill,
but the program announcement is coinciding with the budget
bill.
Mr Caplan: I thought the
program announcement was made last March.
Mr Fenn:
The program was announced, but the application forms, the
information about how to make the claims, that kind of thing
is-
Hon Mr
Clement: And then what we're doing is that we're
backdating it so it will be available retrospectively.
Mr Caplan:
So there have been no applications and no funds spent but people
can apply and it will backdate back to the March 23rd
announcement or back to the date of the budget?
Hon Mr
Clement: I'm presuming to the announcement.
Mr Fenn:
There's an effective date in the material. I'm not sure exactly
what it is, but it's in there.
Mr Caplan:
OK, so effective earlier. The $4-million fund will be over a
three-year period of time, according to your estimates, so this
will be $4 million for each of the next three years. What will
happen if the dollars are not claimed or nobody comes forward and
makes sufficient application? Where will the dollars go then?
Hon Mr
Clement: As a government, we're always evaluating our
programs, and if the programs are not providing the kind of
service that we had intended, if there's a problem with the
program, I think we have an obligation on behalf of the taxpayer
to always assess our programs, always look for new ways to do
things better. If we have a program that is somehow not being
part of the solution, then I think we have an obligation-I'll
state it quite clearly-to reassess that program and perhaps
reallocate those funds to programs that are going to help solve
the problem we are seeking to solve.
Mr Caplan:
Perhaps I can be a little bit more clear in my question. You're
going to have $12 million that you're going to put into this
program over the next three years. Let's say, for sake of
argument, $2 million is claimed or application is made to get a
PST rebate. What will happen to the $10 million that you have
reserved in this program? Will it go into general revenue? Will
it stay in housing for the purpose of providing affordable
housing? What will your ministry do?
Hon Mr
Clement: First of all, it is $1 million per year, David.
It's not $4 million per year; it's $1 million per year over the
life of the program.
Mr Caplan:
It's $1 million per year? That's it, really?
Hon Mr
Clement: On this particular announcement that you're
referring to, yes.
Mr Caplan:
OK. Great.
Hon Mr
Clement: You know, the only way this is going to work
absolutely perfectly is if the feds come on board in some way as
well. I think it is part of the solution. We're not saying it's
the entire solution; it's part of the solution, it will help, but
we do need to have some relief on the insurance issue for CMHC,
and we also need some relief from the GST. There's no question
about it. That will make the program more effective. But we're
putting our money where our mouth is, and then we're waiting for
the federal government to realize the importance of the
program.
Mr Caplan:
I know that's a constant theme, always waiting for either the
municipal or federal governments to do something before the
province.
Hon Mr
Clement: You know as well as I do that these programs
require coordination. It would be lovely if one ministry or one
government with a magic wand could solve the entire issue, but
the reality of our lives is that we need the municipalities at
the table, we need the federal government at the table, we need
individuals at the table as well. So we want to do our part, we
want to lead by example, and any assistance that you can provide
in these other levels of government would be most appreciated as
well.
The
Vice-Chair: It's unfortunate that our time has run out
today.
Mr Caplan:
Oh, darn. I'm sure I'll have plenty of other opportunities.
The
Vice-Chair: I know, I know. You will have quite a
lot.
Mr Caplan:
We still have time left.
The
Vice-Chair: We stand adjourned until Tuesday at 3:30.
We've got one more hour of estimates on housing and municipal
affairs after routine proceedings on Tuesday. We will stand
adjourned until then.
