SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES
CONTENTS
Thursday 20 November 1997
Services Improvement Act, 1997, Bill 152, Mrs Ecker / Loi de 1997 sur l'amélioration des services, projet de loi 152, Mme Ecker
STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT
Chair / Président
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Présidente
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood L)
Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough PC)
Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce PC)
Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock PC)
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East / -Est PC)
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York ND)
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York PC)
Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview L)
Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel PC)
Substitutions / Membres remplaçants
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent PC)
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford PC)
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale PC)
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South / -Sud PC)
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie PC)
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Mr Frank Nicholson, senior policy adviser, planning and building policy section, MOMAH
Ms Andrea Baston, senior counsel, legal branch, MOMAH
Clerk / Greffier
Mr Tom Prins
Staff /Personnel
Ms Sibylle Filion, legislative counsel
SERVICES IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES SERVICES
Consideration of Bill 152, An Act to improve Services, increase Efficiency and benefit Taxpayers by eliminating Duplication and reallocating Responsibilities between Provincial and Municipal Governments in various areas and to implement other aspects of the Government's "Who Does What" Agenda / Projet de loi 152, Loi visant à améliorer les services, à accroître l'efficience et à procurer des avantages aux contribuables en éliminant le double emploi et en redistribuant les responsabilités entre le gouvernement provincial et les municipalités dans divers secteurs et visant à mettre en oeuvre d'autres aspects du programme «Qui fait quoi» du gouvernement.
The Chair (Mr David Tilson): Ladies and gentlemen, good morning to you all. We are reviewing the Services Improvement Act, in clause-by-clause discussion. We finished off on page 64 of the amendments.
Before we commence, I'm going to read to you one of the clauses of the time allocation motion just to remind you all:
"At 5 pm on the second day," which is today, "of clause-by-clause deliberations, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved, and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put and taken in succession, with one 20-minute waiting period allowed pursuant to standing order 127(a)."
As I indicated, we are in the middle of an amendment which was put forward by the Liberal caucus, which is on page 64. Further debate?
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): Just to reiterate why we've put forth this amendment, as you know, one of the concerns expressed by the Association of Local Public Health Agencies was the reporting under this bill. Section 86.2 said the minister may request the board of health to provide such information. It's essentially voluntary and up to certain individuals whether or not they want to have these reports.
This amendment we're putting forward is essentially an attempt to contain a stronger regulatory framework to ensure municipalities are monitored and checked. As you know, there's much more independence given to the municipalities in these new health responsibilities. This would be again a much more foolproof way of ensuring they were keeping up to provincial standards. Ensuring that these reports were regular and that these reports were mandatory would help to ensure that the municipalities were working under provincial frameworks.
That's the intent of this motion. It's done, as I said, in follow-up to the Association of Local Public Health Agencies, who thought that this would be a good way of ensuring there would be some kind of standard across the province, that this would help towards that end.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.
Now we have a New Democratic motion, but we have a problem. The next two amendments are New Democratic motions, on pages 65 and 66. Ms Churley is present but is not substituted, so I'm afraid she can't move a motion. We have some choices. We can pass them by. We can, second, ask for unanimous consent that this section be deferred until presumably Mr Marchese --
Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): He got delayed. He's on his way, so I'd appreciate that.
The Chair: I understand. Unanimous consent that these next two motions and the voting on section 12 be deferred? Any opposition to that? Seeing none, section 12 and the two motions by the New Democratic caucus are deferred.
All those in favour of section 13? Opposed? Section 13 carries.
We are on to section 14. There is a proposed amendment by the government.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I move that subsection 14(1) of schedule D to the bill be amended by striking out "clause" in the second line and substituting "clauses" and by adding the following clause after clause 96(5)(i) of the act:
"(j) providing that section 72 does not apply to all or part of the expenses referred to in subsection 72(1) in respect of one or more boards of health and their medical officers of health, prescribing the expenses and the boards of health to which section 72 does not apply and the circumstances or time period in which section 72 does not apply, and providing in the place of section 72 a different scheme for the payment of such expenses."
Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): For the purpose of Hansard, joining me again today are Dr David Mowat, the chief medical officer of health, and Joanne Gottheil, from the legal services branch of the ministry.
To speak to the government motion, Bill 152 as it currently stands does not provide for the sharing of expenses among boards of health. This motion will allow for regulation-making power to permit such a thing as equalization of payments within the GTA, and therefore I recommend voting in favour of this motion.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.
We are on to page 68, which is a government motion.
Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 14(2) of schedule D to the bill be amended by striking out "subsection" in the second line and substituting "subsections" and adding the following subsection before subsection 96(6) of the act:
"Regulation under clause (5)(j)
"(5.1) A regulation under clause (5)(j) may,
"(a) require that all or part of the expenses referred to in subsection 72(1) of two or more boards of health and their medical officers of health be shared among all or some of the municipalities in the health units served by the boards of health and prescribe the methods of calculating or the bases for determining the proportion of such expenses to be paid by each municipality that is required to share the expenses;
"(b) require a municipality in one health unit to pay all or part of the expenses referred to in subsection 72(1)of a board of health and medical officer of health of another health unit;
"(c) provide that a municipality is not responsible for any or part of the expenses referred to in subsection 72(1) of one or more boards of health and their medical officers of health;
"(d) provide for payment of the expenses referred to in subsection 72(1) by residents of territory without municipal organization, provide for the collection by the province of the amount which is the responsibility of the territory without municipal organization (including collection under the Provincial Land Tax Act), and provide for remittance by the province of the amount so collected to specified boards of health;
"(e) govern the processes of obtaining and making payment, including prescribing notices that must be given to the entities responsible for payment and prescribing the times at which and the manner in which payments must be made; and
"(f) provide for any matter for which section 72 provided."
Mr Hudak: This is a companion motion to the one we just passed. It provides the ability to share funding for a board of health among various municipalities whether or not they're in the same health unit, and to permit equalization of payments in the GTA. Second, it will deal with payments by residents in unorganized territories. It's a companion piece to the previous motion, and I recommend supporting it.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.
Good morning, Mr Marchese.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Mr Chair, good morning, and my apologies.
The Chair: We have been waiting anxiously for you.
All those in favour of section 14, as amended? We're voting on section 14, as amended. We haven't returned to Mr Marchese yet. I just said good morning to him.
Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): Mr Chair, don't we have to do 14(2) before we --
Mr Carroll: We just did that.
Mrs Munro: Did we do both 14(1) and (2)? Okay. I'm sorry.
The Chair: All those in favour of section 14, as amended? Opposed? This motion carries.
Mr Marchese, the Liberal motion on page 64 failed. We have two motions, pages 65 and 66, which are New Democratic motions, and you are free to put those forward.
1020
Mr Marchese: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'd like to apologize for being late and to thank the members for standing our motions down until I arrived.
I move that section 86.3 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, as set out in section 12 of schedule D to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Report to minister
"(3) The chief medical officer of health shall report to the minister on matters relating to the provision of health programs and services and on any other matters relating to the powers and duties of the chief medical officer of health under this act."
I think that's self-explanatory.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.
Mr Marchese, page 66 is a New Democratic motion.
Mr Marchese: I move that section 12 of schedule D to the bill be amended by adding the following section to the act before section 86.4:
"Examination of records by chief MOH
"86.3.1(1) The chief medical officer of health has the right to examine all bylaws, minutes and records of a board of health.
"Copies
"(2) A board of health shall provide the chief medical officer of health with a copy of any bylaw, minute or record requested by the chief medical officer of health.
"Delegation
"(3) The chief medical officer of health may delegate in writing his or her authority under subsections (1) or (2) to any person."
That too is self-explanatory.
The Chair: Yes. Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion fails.
All those in favour of section 12, as amended? Opposed? Section 12, as amended, is carried.
All those in favour of sections 15, 16, 17 and 18? Opposed? Sections 15, 16, 17 and 18 are carried.
Mr Marchese, on page 70 there is a proposed New Democratic motion. I am declaring that motion as an improper amendment and it is out of order, but you are free to debate section 19.
We are on to section 19. Is there debate on section 19?
All those in favour of section 19? Opposed? Section 19 is carried.
All those in favour of schedule D, as amended? Opposed? Schedule D, as amended, is carried.
We are now on to schedule E.
All those in favour of sections 1, 2 and 3? Opposed? Sections 1, 2 and 3 are carried.
Mr Marchese, there is a New Democratic motion on page 71 for section 4. I am declaring that motion out of order as well; it's an improper amendment.
Is there debate on section 4? All those in favour of section 4? All those opposed? Section 4 is carried.
All those in favour of schedule E? Opposed? Schedule E is carried.
We are now on to schedule F.
All those in favour of sections 1 and 2? Opposed? Sections 1 and 2 are carried.
Mr Marchese, there's a proposed amendment of the New Democratic Party on page 72.
Mr Marchese: I move that subsection 3(1) of the Social Housing Funding Act, 1997, as set out in schedule F of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Application of act
"3(1) This act applies in respect of provincial social housing costs incurred on and after the later of the following dates:
"1. January 1, 1998.
"2. The day the province of Ontario tables in the assembly the report of a study in respect of the current and future operating and capital costs of social housing conducted by a person or organization that is independent of the government of Ontario."
We believe the government should live up to Harris's promise to the large urban mayors that the government would commission an independent study of social housing costs. This they haven't done. We have asked for that repeatedly. We believe municipalities are entitled to that information. That is why we've proposed this amendment that would permit the government to do what it said it would do -- at least permit Harris to do what he said he would do -- and give municipalities the information they desperately need and have requested.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I'd just like to point out that the Who Does What or WDW process that the bill refers to is moving 50% of the education costs off the property tax starting January 1. The transfer of the social housing costs is part of that transfer. I think it would be inappropriate to not proceed with one part of the plan as it relates to the other part. The numbers and the processes have been relayed to municipalities and much discussion has been ongoing. When the plan is put in place, the transfers are realigned and the funds earlier referred to in this committee hearing are put in place, we think it will balance and allay the concerns of the municipalities.
I would also point out that the process of cost of social housing -- it's a movable cost. We are looking to find a more cost-effective way of administering that housing portfolio, and I think the transfer will be based on that cost as opposed to the cost that's being applied today.
I don't see a great advantage to having independent studies to look at those. I think our ministry and the government have quite capable staff to figure out the costs and to put them in proper proportions. I would recommend that we vote against this resolution.
The Chair: Mr Marchese, I thought you'd want to respond.
Mr Marchese: I wonder if I could ask a question before I make some remarks.
The Chair: You would disappoint me if you didn't respond.
Mr Marchese: Sure. Mr Hardeman talked about the costs of social housing being "movable" costs. Those are the direct words. What does that mean?
Mr Hardeman: I think the government and the municipalities jointly will be looking to find a more cost-effective way of delivering and administering the social housing costs and to make the operation of the social housing units in the province more efficient and cost-effective. It's not a flexible cost, but there are, I think, efficiencies to be found in how the programs are administered. I think that's part of the total transfers, to make sure we are finding the most cost-effective way of delivering the service.
Mr Marchese: I think I understand it now. He makes us feel so good, Mr Chair. They're working together with the municipalities; they have the figures. "We're going to make it more efficient. Everything's cool." I feel so good when the government members speak that way, because I get so really -- Mr Carroll speaks about how concerned I am and how worried I am, and these members make me feel so at ease with the information they provide. I know that everybody out there in those communities is going to feel so good because now Mr Hardeman and the gang are making things more efficient and they're going to be working together. Again, I can't tell you how relieved I am to hear that.
Now, remember that the municipalities were really worried. They wanted a figure. The large urban mayors said, "Please give us the figures," so maybe there is some tension there. Perhaps they are not working as closely as they would like. Maybe I'm wrong. But I think Mr Hardeman must have relieved the mayors too that everything is okay. If there are any problems, don't worry; he'll fix it. If that's the case, I have nothing more to add, Mr Chair, because everything's going to be just fine. Isn't that right, Mr Carroll, more or less, give or take?
Mr Colle: "Trust us."
Mr Carroll: It's nice to see that you're not worrying as much any more.
Mr Marchese: No, I feel so much better today than yesterday. Thank you, Mr Hardeman.
1030
The Chair: Any further debate? All those in favour of this motion?
Mr Marchese: A recorded vote, please.
Ayes
Colle, Marchese.
Nays
Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak, Munro.
The Chair: The motion fails.
Mr Marchese: What happened?
The Chair: All those in favour of section 3?
Mr Marchese: Record us as opposing the whole thing, Mr Chair.
The Chair: You want to record this vote as well?
Mr Marchese: No, no.
The Chair: All those in favour of section 3? All those opposed? Section 3 is carried.
There's a government motion on page 73, Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: Before I start this motion, I'd like to compliment Mr Marchese on his tie today.
Mr Marchese: It's green -- somewhat.
Mr Carroll: It's a different shade.
I move that paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of subsection 4(4) of the Social Housing Funding Act, 1997, as set out in schedule F to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"3. Every city, town, township or village that does not form part of a regional municipality, a district municipality, a county or the county of Oxford for municipal purposes."
Mr Hardeman: This amendment is needed in order to clarify that the provincial social housing costs can be allocated to individual municipalities in northern Ontario. The government's intention is that the provincial social housing costs will be allocated to district welfare administration boards as of January 1, 1998, where they exist. Later on, the costs would likely be allocated to district social services administration boards as they are established under the Social Assistance Reform Act or to area service boards under legislation being considered by the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. These boards would then recover the costs from participating municipalities through a cost-sharing process. Where no district welfare administrative boards exist on January 1, 1998, as is the case in some of the northern districts, the costs would be allocated directly to municipalities concerned. The proposed new paragraph 3 addresses this situation.
This amendment also removes specific reference in paragraph 5 of subsection (4) to the district social administrative boards as entities to which provincial social housing costs can be allocated. The provision is necessary because paragraph 6 authorizes the allocation of social housing costs to prescribed boards with social services responsibility. District social service administration boards would be prescribed as such boards.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.
Mr Colle, there's a proposed Liberal motion on page 74.
Mr Colle: This is a motion that changes schedule F, that it be struck out and the following substituted; in essence, part 4 of schedule F --
The Chair: Mr Colle, you have to read the motion, please.
Mr Colle: I move that subsection 4(4) of schedule F to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Entities to whom amounts allocated
"4(4) The following are the entities referred to in subsection (3):
"1. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
"2. The Ministry of Finance."
The Chair: Rationale, please.
Mr Colle: My rationale is that, as you know, Bill 152, as highlighted in this section, apportions costs for social housing to local municipalities as part of the government downloading exercise. This fundamentally goes against what property taxes are all about. Property taxes were never intended to be taxes collected to maintain social services. Social housing is a social service, and property taxes never had that intention.
What subsection 4(4) does is reinforces intent of Bill 152, which downloads social housing across the province on to property taxpayers in every city, town and municipality in Ontario. As you know, the basic problem with that is that social housing is in greater need when the economy is in a downward spiral. That's when social housing demands increase dramatically, because when people are out of work, when the economy is in a downward spiral, there are more demands for assisted housing.
What happens with Bill 152 because of the downloading of this cost is that the very property taxpayers who may be out of work during a downward spiral in the economy are then going to be asked to have an increasing load on their property taxes for social housing. What happens is, you're punishing people who are probably least able to afford this because of the downturn in the economy: the property taxpayer. Then the person in need who has lost the job and has been forced to look for social housing, he or she or the family, won't be able to get proper housing, assisted housing, because you're going to have this confrontation between the property taxpayers and the unfortunate who are looking for social housing, so it's not tenable.
It may be a great way for the government to unload this massive cost to the property taxpayers and get it off their books, but it's not going to work. In cities like Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa and Hamilton, and in Windsor, where there is a significant amount of social housing, we know what it means to fund social housing. It's an enormous cost, not only the building but the maintenance, the infrastructure, the retrofitting that was supposed to be done and all the support services. To put this on property taxes is not tenable. It is fundamentally wrong in principle and in practice. David Crombie said it was fundamentally wrong in principle and in practice; even the Minister of Municipal Affairs said it shouldn't be done. But they're doing it out of some kind of physical convenience to I guess pay for the tax cut. It is fundamentally and in principle wrong.
There was no study ever produced by this ministry or this government that shows this is something that is sound from a housing perspective or from a financial perspective. It's not recommended by any of the experts in housing or any of the experts in social affairs and it's certainly not recommended by any of the property tax experts.
Paul Pagnuelo from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, who is an advocate of property tax reconstitution, said it is fundamentally wrong to put social housing on property taxpayers across Ontario. This is something coming, again, from the right of the spectrum, from a property taxpayers' alliance, who says it's wrong. All the social housing advocates say it's wrong. The municipalities don't want it. The question is, where did this idea of downloading these costs on to property taxpayers come from?
That is why the intention here is to put these costs back on to municipal affairs and housing and the Ministry of Finance, where they belong, on the provincial taxpayers. Housing does not belong on the local property taxpayers. Social housing belongs on an equitable, progressive income tax at the provincial and federal levels, not on the local. Therefore, that's the rationale of replacing section 4 with the two sections that allow the redirection of allocating amounts back to the upper tier or the provincial tier.
1040
Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): It's interesting to listen to Mr Colle's remarks, but it recalls a little past history regarding Mr Nixon's budget of 1989 and the introduction of what I considered, when I was in local government, a fundamentally flawed invasion of the local property tax base. That was the commercial concentration tax.
If I recall, there were no impact studies made, there was no consultation about it; it was simply a fait accompli. The context may be a bit different here with this particular piece of legislation, but the history and the context of that particular move in that budget of 1989 certainly applies. You could almost take Mr Colle's remarks, take out the section he's referring to, the specific item of social housing, and fill in the blanks with the commercial concentration tax. Your only difference would be the time line, the way in which it was carried out and a lot of other things, and also no consultation that I can recall, not one nanosecond of consultation. It was just in a budget.
The local governments had to deal with that situation and we dealt with it. We worked with the province. I expect what will happen here is that there is going to be a lot of hard work done by the municipalities in terms of how they ascertain what the benchmarks and best practices for cost-effectiveness are.
If you also reference back in the social context of social housing, a large amount of it, although financed by CMHC, or Central Mortgage and Housing, back during the war and afterwards, was in response to the folks coming home from the First World War, certainly the Second World War.
The social housing administrations of the day, if you go back and look at the social housing literature, clearly show that the local form of government was able to look after those types of, I guess it was victory housing built from 1945 through to 1952. They were able to do a very adequate job. The times have changed somewhat, the finances have changed somewhat but I have a lot of confidence that our local governments will be able to carry through and work on this particular challenge in concert with the Ontario government.
Mr Hardeman: I will not be supporting the motion. The title of the bill is to deal with the realignment of services with the provincial and municipal governments, and changing the form of paying for education obviously requires the transfer of other responsibilities and amenities to municipal government to make those transfers. I would point out that this is part of those transfers, and I think they should be implemented concurrently starting January 1. I would recommend not to support this motion.
Mr Marchese: Just some comments, because we have a lot of time and just a few pages left.
Mr Carroll: I'd hate to finish the bill.
Mr Marchese: No, we will. We could delay a little bit.
Mr Hastings: Were you watching the comedy channel last night or something?
Mr Marchese: I have to tell you, Mr Hastings, you guys are going to be remembered in history for this bill. There's no doubt about that. Bill 160 is another bill for which all of you will be remembered. There's no doubt about that. And the megacity too, but that's already gone. You've done it already.
Yes, we understand, Mr Hardeman, the reason you have to do this is because you're taking the education portion out of the property tax. We know that. But that's why you're going to be remembered. It is because of that this chaos is happening. If you had left the bloody thing alone, you wouldn't have to get involved in all this. If you had left education there, then you wouldn't have to transfer child care costs, welfare costs, housing costs, ambulance costs, public health costs, the $220 million -- you wouldn't have to do any of that. You could have just left the system alone. Why would you cause such a mess and be remembered for this chaos?
I know because you're taking education property taxes out, you've got to replace it. I understand that. Everybody knows that. What you didn't do was replace that portion with an income tax system. That's what you should have done. But you guys didn't have the courage to do that. You didn't have the courage because that would have been seen as an income tax increase. You couldn't allow that because Mikey said, "No more tax increases," right? I understand.
You're causing a whole lot of damage just to equalize the problems -- and not just to equalize the problems. The reason you guys are doing it is so you can take money out of the education system. You never say that. Mr Hardeman, we know that. You shake your head. I want to hear your reasoning so we can continue to debate.
If you centralize the education box, then you can take money out of the system. If you don't centralize control, you can't. If you leave the control to the boards of education, you can't touch it. But if you centralize it then you have full control through those boxes. You can do what you want.
When you say everybody's equal in this province -- because people in Toronto are so unequal; they're treated so disproportionately unfairly in the way they get more money than the rest, so, "We've got to equalize that. It's been wrong all along. We want to make sure everybody across Ontario gets the same amount of bucks," because everybody's equal, right?
But poor people are not equal. Poor people, in cities and everywhere they live, are not equal. Often you have to do unequal things to arrive at some equality. For you, Mikey and others to say it's not right to spend more in some places than others because everybody should be treated equally -- if poor people are treated equally as well as the rich, then hopefully those poor people would arrive at some level of equality at some point down the line, but we know they don't. Poor people tend to perpetuate their class over and over again.
If you genuinely want to treat them in an equal manner, you've got to do different things, because they come into the education system with unequal conditions. Because that is so, we spend some money from time to time in boards of education trying to introduce what we call compensatory educational programs, meaning there is what some people refer to as a deficit, which I dislike as a word, but I refer to it as coming into the educational system with academic differences that do not allow them to be equal performers to those who come to the system as children of professionals, who are much better prepared to deal with the education system.
If you take those moneys out of the Metropolitan Toronto system, or Ottawa, or any other place where they put those dollars, and you treat them equally all of a sudden, those kids who happen to come from poor backgrounds are going to suffer more problems as a result of your cutbacks.
You guys say you're going to take out $670 million. It's in the document. Mike Harris said, "That's true, we are taking it out." Mr Carroll, it's obvious, because you guys have admitted that. Mr Hardeman says that's not true.
Interjection.
Mr Marchese: I'm bringing it all back.
Mr Hardeman: Oh, you're bringing it back?
Mr Marchese: Because it's context, right?
Mr Hardeman: Before lunch?
Mr Marchese: Of course.
The Chair: Ladies and gentlemen, Mr Hardeman opened up this can of worms and Mr Marchese is responding to that. But I will say that we are debating Bill 152.
Mr Marchese: Of course.
The Chair: I understand your response, because Mr Hardeman started this, but please try to stay with Bill 152.
Mr Marchese: That's what I'm doing. The context always takes a long time, because you explain it and then you come around to the issue. It takes time.
The Chair: Continue, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I want to get back to Mr Hastings's point on the concentration tax too at some point.
You see the problem. You're going to be taking more than $670 million. You nod your head to that, but I know. Let me tell you. I'll explain. You see, Mr Chair, the context takes time. There is $2.1 billion worth of education programs that are not funded by the provincial government; they're funded by local boards. You guys are going to take that money -- I know you don't know about this, so it's okay, I'll explain it -- the $2.1 billion that they spend, which you now control but you didn't fund before, but you're not going to give that money back. I suspect a portion of that $670 million is going to come out of that. Nobody has ever bothered to talk about that, because it's complicated.
You're going to take more than $700 million out of that pot. I suspect you're going to take $1.5 billion out of that pot. We're going to see, of course, because you guys have another year and a half or two, more or less, give or take a couple of months. That's where people have to focus their attention, because you guys need the money. The income tax cut you guys are giving -- Chair, please bear with me; the context is lengthy. The income tax cut has produced a big problem for you.
1050
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: The VLTs, that's Jim Bradley.
The Chair: Mr Marchese has the floor, although I am concerned again, Mr Marchese.
Mr Marchese: I'll bring it back shortly.
The Chair: Indeed.
Mr Marchese: The income tax cut has caused a problem for you. You should have managed our deficit, because the recession wasn't as deep as it had been in the last two years. First, money has come into the provincial coffers. Second, you've already cut $8 billion to $10 billion in program operational dollars. That's a lot of money. You should have reduced the deficit by a serious amount by now. Then you have the interest rates, which have been at their lowest in a couple of years. You know how much money you guys have saved as a result of interest rates being low? Lots. Between money coming in -- because you guys say you created all these thousands of jobs, so people are working and you guys have income tax money coming into the province, you're loaded with money -- and interest rates reduce the deficit. That's why you're paying it off.
But your deficit is still high. You've got to wonder why. I'll tell you why. The income tax cut is causing you folks serious headaches. It's causing Mike Harris more headaches than you can imagine. Some of you will admit that in frank discussions, but you can't ever admit that in public. I appreciate that. But it's costing you guys and women on the other side $2 billion to $3 billion a year to service that income tax cut. That's why you guys have to find the money somewhere. Where's it coming from? Education. Back to Mr Hardeman now. You see? I'm back.
Mr Hardeman says, "We're taking out the education portion of property tax, so we've got to dump" -- that's not your word, Mr Hardeman, but you've got to dump things down to the municipality. So what do you guys do? You dump housing. But remember, you've got hard services and soft services in the municipality? Mr Hastings, you were a municipal councillor, I think.
Mr Hastings: In another life.
Mr Marchese: In another life. Me too. I was a trustee in another life, and a teacher before that. We understand the language of hard and soft services, correct? Those of you who have been municipal councillors understand that. Everybody appreciates that property taxes genuinely should bear the burden of hard services -- more or less, Mr Hastings?
Mr Hastings: What about education?
Mr Marchese: That's fine. You guys were taking the education portion out. It was wonderful that you did that. But you dumped all these other things on to the municipality, to the property taxpayer. That's not right. I agree that you should take the education portion out of property tax. He's not listening now. I'll focus on Mr Carroll. I agree; that was a good thing.
In my government, I advocated for the removal of education from property taxes. I lost that fight. It's true. But I wasn't arguing we should take it out by shifting something else to the municipality. No. It costs money. Part of what I advocated in my own government was, let's remove education from property taxes, and let's phase it out 10% at a time --
Mrs Munro: Education?
Mr Marchese: Yes, education -- so that when you shifted that cost to income tax it wouldn't be an incredible hit on people when they saw their income tax going up, 10% at a time. We lost that fight. But you guys don't want to do that. You guys are shifting, dumping, these other things to the poor property taxpayer.
Mrs Munro: We're shifting it.
Mr Marchese: Not shifting, no; you call it "effective reallocation of responsibilities." I know what that means. That's called dumping -- dumping another problem on to the poor property taxpayers and poor tenants, because tenants pay a whole lot of property taxes. Some of you don't know this, but they do.
These poor people are now stuck with housing and all the other stuff I mentioned. It's a disgrace to burden the property taxpayer and the tenant with this soft service that is properly the responsibility of the provincial government. That's where you guys have made a complete blunder in this whole thing. For that you will be remembered.
I don't want to link the concentration tax to what the Liberals did.
The Chair: Now you are off topic.
Mr Marchese: No, no, no. How could he have been on topic and I am off topic? Just a moment here, because I want to make a point. I want to make the point that Mr Hastings -- I helped you guys out. Our government helped you guys out. Do you know how?
Mr Hudak: How? Tell us how.
Mr Marchese: We removed the concentration tax.
Mr Hastings: What a favour.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hastings, we did you a favour -- not you; your buddies. We did your big, powerful buddies a favour. We took it out. Do you know how much that was worth? Any guess?
Mr Hudak: It probably cost $250 million.
Mr Marchese: It was $250 million. You should ask yourselves why we would have done that. At a time when we were having a serious deficit problem, we removed the concentration tax. Then we had to replace that money by hitting somebody else. Don't you think it's sad? Mr Hastings has other answers for that, no doubt about that. I just wanted to point out that we helped him out in this regard.
Anyway, back to this issue, I support the motion because I think the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Finance, in essence the provincial government, should be the ones to hold the burden of housing and not leave it to these other poor entities out there: townships, towns, cities and all of that.
I can come back to this later, Mr Chair.
Mr Hastings: I just want to briefly state that it's a very historic moment, hearing from Mr Marchese at 10:55 this morning, November 20, 1997 -- it will go down in history -- that a New Democrat member finally acknowledged the existence of "our deficit."
Mr Marchese: Maybe I can go back to that afterwards. We have time.
The Chair: Dare I ask if there's any further debate? Is there further debate on this motion? All those in favour of this Liberal motion?
Mr Marchese: Is there a recorded vote, or what?
The Chair: A recorded vote.
Ayes
Colle, Marchese, Sergio.
Nays
Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak, Munro.
The Chair: The motion fails. We are on page 75, which is a government motion.
Mr Carroll: I move that subsections 4(5), (6) and (7) of the Social Housing Funding Act, 1997, as set out in schedule F to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Allocation formula
"(5) The prescribed allocation formula may, subject to subsection (6),
"(a) allocate the amount among any combination of the entities listed in subsection (4); and
"(b) provide that, despite subsection 4(3), a portion of the amount referred to in clause 4(1)(b) be allocated to all territory without municipal organization or to a part of such territory and may specify the parts of such territory to which specified amounts are allocated.
"Prescribed board or agency
"(6) If an amount is allocated to a prescribed board or agency, no amount shall be allocated for the same billing period to an entity listed in paragraph 1, 2 or 3 of subsection (4) whose geographic area lies within the area of the board's or agency's jurisdiction.
"Collection of amounts in unorganized territory
"(7) If the prescribed allocation formula allocates amounts to territory without municipal organization, the amounts so allocated may be recovered by the crown as taxes imposed on property taxable under the Provincial Land Tax Act."
Mr Hardeman: This amendment has two reasons. One is to provide the ability to apportion social housing costs on unorganized territories in northern Ontario, and second, the amendment would delete the reference to district social service administrative boards no longer needed because an earlier reference elsewhere in the bill would be deleted under another government motion.
The Chair: Debate?
Mr Marchese: This motion would allow a bill -- a money thing -- to be sent to all residents of an unorganized territory, whether or not they have social housing. Is that what this more or less means?
Mr Hardeman: I would ask one of the staff members to identify themselves and answer that.
1100
Mr Frank Nicholson: My name is Frank Nicholson. I'm a senior policy adviser with the housing policy branch with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
Mr Marchese: You still have a job?
Mr Nicholson: I believe so. In answer, the general philosophy for all of the allocation of social housing is that the cost is being spread over broader catchment areas and not going by whether, for example, a municipality happens to have a project located within its boundary. By that philosophy, in the event that the province does decide to allocate social housing costs to unorganized territory, it would be across broader areas and not to specific communities in that territory.
Mr Marchese: Right. That's more or less what I said.
Mr Nicholson: Yes. The answer to your question --
Mr Marchese: You see how sad this is? Well, it's what I said; he's agreeing. It's pitiful. Someone doesn't have any social housing -- and I don't think these unorganized territories are wealthy. That's my understanding. Maybe they are; I don't know. But it means they would have to pick up the cost, spread it out. The philosophy seems reasonable: You spread out the burden, the problem. But that's why I say this whole thing is wrong. If the provincial government pays for it through an income tax system, it's fair. But if you have pass it down to the municipalities and then you have to do this through these kinds of amendments, a whole lot of people are going to have to be passed on that burden of social housing. This shouldn't be.
You, the provincial government, should have responsibility for this social service, not these other entities. That's what's wrong about your bill. You're going to cause a whole lot of pain to a whole lot of people, and once they begin to understand this -- because the problem with bills is that for most people they're abstractions until they finally get the bill in the mail, and then they're going to say, "What the hell happened?" Then they're going to say, "Oh, it was Mike who did this." Once they've discovered Mikey did this, they're going to have an angry problem on their hands, right? But at the moment, no one really understands this, so you're going to pretty well safe.
This is going to hit the property tax people this coming year and the next year. If you guys hold out long enough, I hope -- I think you should stay in power long enough for people to feel the effects of your bill. Don't leave before that, please, because otherwise the next government is going to have to accept the burden of your problem. Whatever you guys do, stay in long enough, okay? Don't leave before your fourth year has come up.
Mr Hastings: Is that a guarantee?
Mr Marchese: No, I want you guys to stay as long as you can. You'll have an extra year's salary anyway, so that's okay. Protect your own individual interests, but do us a favour, because you guys are proud of this, right? There's an esprit de corps among all of you around these issues. Please continue with that esprit de corps until the very end.
Hold out so that the residents have a good sense that you guys did this, and then you can go out triumphantly and say: "Yes, it was us. We did it and we're proud of it." Don't just be proud now. You've got to be proud until the moment those people start getting the bills at their homes, so they can lay blame on the appropriate body, and you can with a great deal of pride say: "Yes, it was us. We think this bill is good. We think it's good that housing is passed down to the municipalities and a whole lot of you people are paying a little more."
Then you go back and say, Mr Hastings: "It's the municipalities that have to deal with this problem. Go after them, because they're not dealing with it right. It wasn't us. We just passed it down to the municipalities. They are the spendthrifts; they do not know how to manage your bucks." You can present that kind of line as a way of defence.
This bill is bad. This bill is going to hit a whole lot of people. I want you guys to stay long enough in power so they know who the real culprits are. Don't leave it to us; that wouldn't be fair.
Mr Colle: I have a question to staff. What if there isn't any social housing in an unorganized territory?
Mr Nicholson: There is social housing in all the areas.
Mr Colle: In all the unorganized territories?
Mr Nicholson: Not in every community, but there is located in many communities. Of course, access to it is not restricted to the people who happen to live in that community. In answer to your question, there is social housing located in unorganized territory. In addition, of course, the people there as well have access to the social housing located in the incorporated municipalities.
I might just clarify one point, though. This provision is just permissive. No government decision has yet been made as to whether such costs are going to be attributed to unorganized territory. For example, as of January, this provision will not be used and in unorganized territory the residents will not be charged for this. It's strictly to permit the rationalization of services in northern Ontario based on the discussions and consultations that are ongoing with the residents and municipalities of northern Ontario.
In answer to your question, yes, there is social housing in unorganized territory.
Mr Colle: What if there is an unorganized territory without social housing? Could that unorganized territory without social housing be allocated an extra cost imposed on the property tax or a billing on the appropriate tax of that unorganized territory because maybe an organized territory or another unorganized territory has social housing?
Mr Nicholson: The answer is yes. If it happens to be physically located elsewhere, in a sense an unorganized community may not have social housing, but they do have access to it in the adjacent communities.
Mr Colle: How are you going to go to the property taxpayers in unorganized territory, who are all independent, living in small communities or individual homesteads, and justify to them that they're going to have to pay this extra bill for social housing? I could see it in education, where they all have had children who go through the system. But in this they say, "Where is the social housing in this part of northern Ontario?" How are you ever going to get them to accept that bill?
Mr Nicholson: It's really the same philosophy I mentioned before. There are many municipalities in Ontario that don't happen to have a project located within their boundaries. But the residents there do have the right, and many of them do exercise that right, to go down the road 10 miles or whatever and have access to the housing located there. The philosophy is to spread the cost across broader catchment areas.
Mr Colle: In other words, whether they like it or not, every property taxpayer in Ontario, no matter how remote you are from cities or social housing or if you live up in James Bay, you're going to be paying for social housing. Nobody escapes.
Ms Andrea Baston: I'm Andrea Baston, from the legal branch. It's a discretionary power. There's no rule that the government has to make a regulation in that way.
Mr Colle: But it basically gives you the power to hit every homesteader, every person living in the wilderness, every hermit living in some cabin -- everybody is subject to this new tax on social housing.
Ms Baston: If a regulation was made in that way.
Mr Colle: But this gives the government the power to do that. Nobody escapes.
Mr Nicholson: Correct.
Mr Marchese: For the purposes of clarity, this is enabling legislation, and by regulation, then, the province could make such a determination. It's the province that would do this, not an upper tier? Is that correct? Is that the way it works?
Mr Nicholson: Yes, that's correct.
Mr Marchese: The province leaves itself that power in the event that somehow there's some problem up there and they may have to do this, and then they would say, "You folks up there can pass this down to them if you need to or if you want to."
Would the province take responsibility for that, or would it be some other city up there in the north that would take responsibility for that?
Mr Nicholson: It's a provincial decision.
Mr Marchese: Right. On the request of a municipality or a city, or just the province deciding by its wisdom because they know they might do this if they want?
Mr Nicholson: Apparently, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines has a consultation under way with residents of northern Ontario about the rationalization of services in the north, including the people in unorganized territory. It's to permit the implementation of whatever decisions come out of that. But no decision has been made at this time, so I can't give a specific answer to your question.
Mr Marchese: I understand. Enabling legislation.
1110
Mr Hardeman: If I could just very quickly for the record speak to Mr Marchese's comment about "like the upper tier," I think the issue in southern Ontario, where we have two-tier government and these services will be provided by the upper tier, is that they will be paid for by the taxpayers in all the participating municipalities, some of which may not have social housing within their boundaries.
This amendment deals with the areas in the north where we have no upper tier. In fact, in a lot of areas we have no organized local government to provide uniform service across the geographic areas and the ability to have them all pay a fair share of those services.
Mr Marchese: Pooling, in other words, where necessary.
The Chair: All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? The motion carries.
All those in favour of section 4, as amended?
Mr Marchese: I have a question on the whole section afterwards, on the whole schedule.
The Chair: This is the appropriate time. We're voting on section 4, as amended.
Mr Marchese: No, I have a question on the whole schedule.
The Chair: Okay, perhaps later.
All those in favour of section 4, as amended? All those opposed? Section 4, as amended, is carried.
The next motion is a government motion. I declare it out of order. It's not a proper motion. This is page 76. Excuse me, please.
Ladies and gentlemen, the clerk has pointed out to me, and I think he's right, that when you ask that an entire section be struck out, that is out of order, but it is in order to strike out a subsection. So the motion is in order.
Mr Marchese: Saved by the Chair. I was worried for you guys. I was about to defend the government.
Mr Carroll: We had confidence in the Chair.
I move that subsection 5(2) of the Social Housing Funding Act, 1997, as set out in schedule F to the bill, be struck out.
Mr Hardeman: This amendment removes the requirement for provincial social housing bills to be sent by registered mail. I think that's appropriate; that's been discussed.
Mr Marchese: So they do not have to send the notice by registered mail?
Mr Hardeman: Yes, presently the bill requires --
Mr Marchese: They do.
Mr Hardeman: -- it to be sent by registered mail.
Mr Marchese: This will say they don't.
Mr Hardeman: They still could, but this removes the obligation to send it by registered mail.
Mr Marchese: Because it's not necessary or why? What's the point? Is there a point to that?
Mr Hardeman: I think it is an onerous provision that requires it to be done in a certain manner. The bill could be sent other than registered mail.
Mr Marchese: Is it a cost thing, onerous by cost, onerous by what?
Mr Hardeman: I think it's both onerous by cost and by function, and there's not a problem. If one was not received, it could be paid again or sent again. I think it's an onerous cost on the system that is not required.
Mr Marchese: So we're doing it to be efficient, except if it doesn't get there, we'll do it again and that will cause inefficiency, or we don't have to worry about that?
Mr Hardeman: I would suggest that the majority of --
Mr Marchese: Will get it.
Mr Hardeman: -- mailing in the province is done based on sending the bill in the mail. I think to put a stipulation that for this purpose all bills must be sent by registered mail is an onerous suggestion that can be deleted.
Mr Marchese: I understand. Can I ask the staff person why we did this in the first place? Maybe there's a historical reason for it.
Mr Nicholson: I really don't know why the provision was put in originally beyond the concern that municipalities get the information they need, but on reviewing it I believe it was felt that normal business practice is not to require this and so indeed it was felt to be onerous and excessive in its costs.
Mr Marchese: What about Canada Post? They're going to fire more workers, it's going to become more inefficient, and if you don't do it by registered mail, this will become a problem. Chair, aren't you worried about this?
The Chair: The Chair is always worried about all kinds of things, Mr Marchese, like keeping on topic for starters.
Mr Marchese: No, no. I was on topic. Be fair now.
The Chair: All right. Please proceed. Are we finished? Any further debate?
Mr Colle: What is this specific notice? Is it the notice of allocation of cost to be borne by the property taxpayer? Is that what it is?
Ms Baston: Yes, it's the actual billing.
Mr Colle: Like a tax bill.
Ms Baston: That's right.
Mr Colle: Would the tax bill be sent by the municipality or the province?
Ms Baston: This will be sent by the province to the municipalities indicating how much they need to pay.
Mr Colle: So what's the big cost in terms of sending a registered letter to the municipality, not to the individual taxpayers?
Ms Baston: It was just seen to be a better business practice to send it by the ordinary mail, or electronically or whatever method is acceptable.
Mr Colle: So this was just an error, an oversight then. Is that what you're saying? Is that the rationale here?
Ms Baston: It was seen to be a better idea to do it this way.
Mr Colle: It was done to save money then. Making sure the thing is done properly, it's just basically to save money.
Ms Baston: I would say so.
Mr Nicholson: Yes, and to be in line with normal business practice and not to be seen to be wasting the taxpayers' money.
Mr Marchese: I love that.
Mr Colle: Okay.
Mr Hardeman: I just want to clarify that it's not a one-time billing process. It's not a notice that's going out and from then on the municipalities will pay on that. This is the normal process of billing the municipalities for the social housing cost. It isn't only the cost of the difference between regular mail and registered mail; it may be other means of delivering those bills. Presently the bill suggests the only way that bill could be delivered, either monthly, bimonthly or whatever the timing of the bills would be. The only way it could be done was by registered mail, and this makes the other alternatives a possibility.
The Chair: Further debate? All in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.
All those in favour of section 5, as amended? Opposed? Section 5, as amended, is carried.
All those in favour of sections 6 and 7? Opposed? Sections 6 and 7 are carried.
Now there's a government motion on page 77. My information is it's not a motion and it is out of order, but we will allow a debate on section 8.
Mr Marchese: Don't they have an argument to convince you?
The Chair: Any debate on section 8?
Mr Marchese: No, you ruled that motion of order.
The Chair: I did.
Mr Marchese: They don't want to defend or attack the ruling or what?
Mr Carroll: We agree with the ruling.
Mr Marchese: Oh, you agree with the ruling. Okay.
Mr Carroll: We're ready to vote on it.
The Chair: They allow me one error a day, I think, Mr Marchese.
Debate, Mr Hardeman?
Mr Hardeman: No, I was just going to agree with the Chair that the motion would be out of order, because it would be telling me how I should vote and I would tell the Chair I'm going to vote against the section.
The Chair: Debate on section 8? All those in favour of section 8? Opposed? Section 8 fails.
We are on to section 9, which is a government motion on page 78 of the package.
Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 9(2) of the Social Housing Funding Act, 1997, as set out in schedule F to the bill, be amended by striking out "and subsection 5(2)" in the third line.
Mr Hardeman: This is a similar motion as it relates to the registered mail issue. It's another type of mailing process, and I would support the amendment.
The Chair: Debate? All in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion carries.
1120
Mr Carroll: I move that subsection 9(3) of the Social Housing Funding Act, 1997, as set out in schedule F to the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:
"Refund or credit
"(3) If the recalculation shows that the estimates exceeded the costs actually incurred and that as a result the amount allocated to the entity exceeded what was properly due, the Minister of Finance shall,
"(a) pay the difference to the entity in accordance with the notice; or
"(b) subtract the difference from the amount allocated to the entity for the next billing period."
Mr Hardeman: This amendment clarifies that the variance between the estimated billings and the actual cost, where it varies, the amount of variance could be credited to the next bill as opposed to having to transfer money back and forth on a regular basis, and that's why I would support this amendment.
The Chair: Further debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.
All those in favour of section 9, as amended? Opposed? Section 9, as amended, is carried.
We're on to page 80, Mr Carroll.
Mr Carroll: I move that section 10 of the Social Housing Funding Act, 1997, as set out in schedule F to the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:
"Retroactive regulation under clause (1)(d)
"(3) A regulation made under clause (1)(d) is, if it so provides, effective with reference to a period before it is filed.
"Same, refund or credit of amounts paid
"(4) If a regulation under clause (1)(d) is made effective with reference to a period before it is filed, the Minister of Finance may refund or credit to an entity referred to in subsection 4(4) any amounts paid by it with respect to costs incurred during the period and attributable to the prescribed housing project, part of a housing project or housing category.
"Same
"(5) The allocation formula prescribed under clause (1)(h) may,
"(a) provide for the determination of the total amount to be allocated to municipalities that are situated within a county but that do not form part of the county for municipal purposes and to the county and provide for the apportionment of that total amount among the municipalities and the county in accordance with an agreement between them or with an arbitration decision, subject to the prescribed conditions;
"(b) authorize agreements for the purposes of clause (a);
"(c) provide for an arbitration process for the purposes of clause (a);
"(d) set out any other method of determining the amounts to be allocated to municipalities that are situated within a county but do not form part of the county for municipal purposes and to the county.
"Apportionment
"(6) A regulation under clause (1)(1) may do one or more of the following:
"1. Authorize lower-tier municipalities situated in an upper-tier municipality to determine by agreement with the upper-tier municipality how the amounts allocated to the upper-tier municipality are to be apportioned among the lower-tier municipalities, subject to the prescribed conditions.
"2. Provide for an arbitration process for determining how the amounts allocated to the upper-tier municipality are to be apportioned among the lower-tier municipalities.
"3. Set out the manner in which an amount allocated to an upper-tier municipality is to be apportioned among its lower-tier municipalities.
"Same
"(7) A regulation under clause (5)(a) or under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection (6) may,
"(a) provide for the manner in which amounts are to be apportioned and for the time and manner in which they are to be paid, on an interim basis, until such time as an agreement is reached or as a determination is made by arbitration;
"(b) permit an agreement or the arbitration decision to apply to amounts paid or owing before the agreement or the arbitration decision is reached; and
"(c) provide for the reconciliation of amounts paid on an interim basis."
Mr Hardeman: This amendment does two things. First, the new subsections (3) and (4) would clarify that where the province decides to not charge municipalities for a particular category of social housing, the regulation reducing the bill can be made retroactive.
Second, the new subsections (5), (6) and (7) would provide greater flexibility to accommodate local wishes in the formula governing the sharing of social housing costs between counties and separated municipalities and within counties and regional municipalities. The regulation made under this provision could establish a standard sharing formula, authorize a locally agreed on formula and/or set up an arbitration process to settle the matter in the absence of local agreement.
Mr Marchese: This is an omnibus type of clause, an enabling kind of clause that will permit the flexibility Mr Hardeman talks about in terms of apportioning cost by agreement, arbitration or by any other means. It covers everything, right? It's six or seven weeks before January 1 when they have to start paying the bill. My comment is that this government still doesn't know what it's doing. With the great haste, it's got to come up with clauses like this because it has to cover all eventualities. Essentially, it's sad. The haste of this government is seen by the number of these types of clauses. It's protective, covering all kinds of clauses and it shows the problem this government is in when they move quickly to try to deal with the problem they've created.
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion? Opposed? This motion is carried.
All those in favour of section 10, as amended? Opposed?
Mr Marchese: I'm opposed.
The Chair: Indeed. Section 10, as amended, is carried.
Mr Marchese --
Mr Marchese: Are you ruling that out of order, Mr Chair?
The Chair: I regret, Mr Marchese, it is out of order, but the good news is you can debate section 11.
Mr Marchese: I have a question on this whole thing. Mr Hardeman, I've got a problem with the Metro housing authority in terms of what you folks are going to do to it. Are you passing it down to the new municipality, yes or no? If all housing is to be handed down to the municipality, what is happening to the Metro housing authority? Do you know?
The Chair: Mr Marchese, I am not going to preclude that question, but section 11 has to do with when this bill comes into force.
Mr Marchese: I can ask it afterwards if you want me to pose it at the end.
The Chair: We will be having a vote on schedule F, as amended, and it might be more appropriate to put that question at that time.
Mr Marchese: You're quite right.
The Chair: Is there further debate on section 11? All those in favour of section 11? Opposed?
Mr Marchese: I'm opposed.
The Chair: Section 11 is carried. We are on to section 12. All those in favour of section 12? Opposed? Section 12 is carried.
Now I believe we can debate schedule F, as amended.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hardeman, maybe you have had some time to think about that? No? Are you guys handing down all housing to the municipality, which includes the Metro housing authority, yes or no? If it's yes, I'll understand; if it's no, then I'd like to have an explanation of what's happening with that.
Mr Hardeman: The present provisions in the bill we are dealing with today deal with the proportion of the cost for social housing to be aligned to the lower-tier municipalities. There have been a number of stakeholder committees set up to look at the process or the implications of transfer of the actual housing portfolio, whether that should or shouldn't be done, or how that would devolve if it was to be done. The government is waiting for reports back on that in the future. The bill deals with only the social housing costs as they apply today.
Mr Marchese: What is section 2 of this schedule F? Is that just apportioning of costs? That just speaks to the apportionment of costs?
Mr Hardeman: To make sure we have the legal opinion on that, we'll ask the legal branch to speak to that.
Ms Baston: Section 2 of the bill describes how you calculate provincial social housing costs, what items go into it. It lists the cost of OHC and then various social housing programs.
Mr Marchese: With respect to MTHA, you have no clue; there are just talks and nothing more can be said about that. Is that more or less --
Mr Hardeman: What's presently in the bill, yes; you have costs --
Mr Marchese: I understand what's in the bill, but in terms of your knowledge of what's happening to MTHA, there are discussions. That was very clear. Thank you.
Mr Colle: In terms of costs, what are your anticipated costs that will be transferred, downloaded to the local municipalities? How much?
Mr Marchese: The whole amount of the whole download or just housing?
Mr Colle: Social housing.
Mr Hardeman: I'm sorry; maybe the ministry can answer.
1130
Mr Nicholson: The estimate that was given previously is $905 million, but then subsequently the minister indicated we are anticipating at least a 2% reduction off that through efficiencies prior to the transfer.
We have to be honest. This is an estimate and will evolve through the years. But both with respect to the total amount and to the breakdown for upper-tier areas, there have been extensive meetings with all the municipalities to give them the best figures we have at this time. The $905 million is the total figure.
Mr Colle: Does that $905 million include the anticipated retrofit costs? Ernst and Young did a study about a year and a half or two years ago anticipating certain retrofit costs in existing housing stock. Does that $905 million include -- I think they estimated some $360 million.
Mr Nicholson: It does not include that amount but it does include a major infusion of capital funds both for the public housing stock and also replenishing the capital reserves for the non-profit housing as well.
Mr Colle: So the $905 million includes that capital infusion needed. Is that part of the $905 million or is that just the ongoing costs of maintaining the units as is?
Mr Nicholson: It reflects, if you like, an increased annual amount that reflects what was taken away through constraint in previous years. No, it's not inflated. If you're asking, is it inflated by this one-time infusion? No, it is not. It reflects a kind of normal annual amount.
Mr Colle: Part of the $905 million therefore includes some of these moneys needed to retrofit that the province used put into social housing?
Mr Nicholson: But it doesn't include additional moneys which have been flowed this year to bring it up to this base, so it's not inflated by the additional $223 million that the government has infused to meet the municipal concern that the stock was not in good shape.
Mr Colle: What was that approximation from Ernst and Young of the number of millions needed to potentially bring housing stock up to standard?
Mr Nicholson: It was a significant amount. I don't recall the exact figure.
Mr Colle: So the money that was talked about in that study, that's going to be left up to the municipal governments to come up with the kind of money that may be needed to bring these units up to standard?
Mr Nicholson: That was one study. We believe we've made major investments in the capital stock to bring it up to standard. I should say in addition, the ministry has commissioned a study of the public housing stock, a 10% sample across all of Ontario, to confirm our assessment that the money that has been invested to this point is sufficient to ensure that what municipalities will be receiving is stock that is in pretty good shape compared to some of the stock in the private sector.
Mr Colle: You've increased your funding for maintenance and rehabilitation over the last couple of years? Has your budget for maintenance and upgrading for, let's say, MTHA housing, been increased?
Mr Nicholson: There is an increase this year, yes.
Mr Colle: Do you know how much that was?
Mr Nicholson: For MTHA I don't know the figure.
Mr Colle: Let's say for social housing. What was the increase in the budget, approximately? I know you may not have that.
Mr Nicholson: As I say, it was $223 million, which included a $173-million increase for non-profit housing plus an additional $42 million for the public housing stock, in addition to the $60 million that had been in the budget.
Mr Colle: So $60 million was already in the budget, and you said you put in -- I'm not talking about non-profit housing; I'm talking about subsidized or MTHA-type housing -- another $40 million in this year's budget.
Mr Nicholson: Yes.
Mr Colle: But wasn't the anticipated need about $300 million, to bring it up to standard?
Mr Nicholson: I'm not aware that that was the need, no.
Mr Colle: I think that's what Ernst and Young said, that you'd need about $300 million.
Mr Nicholson: As I say, that was one study. In recent years we have instituted in the ministry a system for projecting the capital needs of the public housing stock in allocating the moneys among the different local housing authorities. In addition, as I say, we have commissioned a consulting study to do an in-depth physical assessment of the public housing stock, but the assessment at this time is that moneys that have been provided are sufficient.
Mr Colle: You know who Don Richmond is? He's the former commissioner of social services in Metro. He was in charge of MTHA for a while and was also on the board of the Metro Toronto Housing Co. A couple of years ago, he stated that the biggest ticking time bomb financially for governments was social housing, in that the stock had reached a stage, especially in the cities in Ontario where the average age is about 30 years, where it is about to need a massive infusion of money. The infrastructure, everything from plumbing to heating, elevators, the whole thing, was just going to be a financial catastrophe that was looming on the horizon.
Is that the reason why the provincial government is getting rid of social housing? Because it knows it's going to be a financial disaster?
Mr Nicholson: The minister believes that the money that has been invested does address the need for the stock to be in good shape. We believe that this investment has been made.
Mr Colle: So you disagree with Don Richmond's principle that this is a ticking financial time bomb that you're getting rid of?
Mr Nicholson: I don't have Mr Richmond's entire quote in front of me, so I can't speak to that specifically.
Mr Colle: But the principle of the fact is that you feel this housing stock is in great shape, that you're doing the municipal government a favour by giving them this gift. It is up to standard and it's not a ticking financial time bomb.
Mr Nicholson: I don't think "ticking financial time bomb," in light of the additional infusion I referred to, is an accurate description of the situation.
Mr Colle: That infusion of whatever it was, $40 million extra, takes care of that concern that this housing stock, which has reached an age of maturity, like Regent Park, St James Town, Jane-Woolner in the city of York, that housing stock, which is now about 30 years old, is of no concern. It's adequately taken care of by that $40 million.
Mr Nicholson: Any stock can be improved, but compared to the private sector and the private stock, we feel that our public housing stock is in good condition overall, although there can be problem areas.
Mr Marchese: What about the money the private sector is getting?
Mr Colle: What kind of private sector housing are you comparing it to?
Mr Nicholson: I'm just talking generally, compared to stock of similar age and similar form of housing. We feel that there has been a major infusion and that the stock is in good shape. But again, as I say, there is a major study under way to make certain that this is the case.
Mr Colle: Who's doing that study, by the way?
Mr Nicholson: Unfortunately, I don't recall the name of the firm at this time.
Mr Colle: It's an outside consulting firm that has been brought on board like Ernst and Young to look at the cost needed to retrofit the existing housing stock?
Mr Nicholson: Yes, looking at cost and also the actual physical condition.
Mr Colle: Will that report be made public?
Mr Nicholson: Yes. It will be a ministry report and will become part of the public domain.
Mr Colle: Okay. Thank you.
Mr Marchese: I have a question. You talked about 2% that you hope to achieve in efficiencies. Maybe Mr Hardeman knows that, I'm not sure. Two per cent is a lot of money, I think, in the context of this big bill. What kind of efficiencies are we talking about?
Mr Nicholson: I think they're general operational efficiencies and I think the municipal government is in discussions with them. They've come forward and suggested that they can look at how they operate these facilities and that those efficiencies can be found. Some of them will come from efficiencies within the ministry and how they govern and administer the whole portfolio. I think they're operational efficiencies, and as you bring it to the local level to where they can deal with it closer to the people they will be able to find --
Mr Marchese: So in your discussions with the municipalities, they said: "Oh yes. That's not a problem. We can cut 2%." Is that more or less what they said?
Mr Nicholson: No, I wouldn't characterize it quite that way, that the municipalities came forward and said just turn the social housing portfolio over to municipalities and we can find savings. But I think the majority of municipalities that we've had discussions with on the social housing are prepared to suggest that they could operate them in a more cost-effective and efficient manner than the province is at present doing.
Mr Marchese: Mr Hastings, did you hear that? This is great. Municipalities are great. They're so cooperative. They're going to find efficiencies. There's no problem. They're going to work hard to arrive at that. This is great. Great cooperation. I feel better already, Mr Carroll. I'm ready to oppose this whole bill now.
The Chair: Well, we're not quite there yet. We're going to vote on schedule F, as amended. All those in favour? Opposed? Schedule F, as amended, is carried.
We have a New Democratic motion on page 83, which has to do with the long title.
Mr Marchese: For sure I want to change the title. Yes, I want to move this.
I move that the long title of this bill be struck out and the following substituted -- this is a more accurate, I would say, description of the bill:
"An Act to destroy the delivery of Social Services" --
Interjections.
Mr Marchese: I've heard your titles before.
The Chair: Mr Marchese is reading the motion, please.
Mr Marchese: I'll repeat that, Mr Chair. "An Act to destroy the delivery of Social Services at the Municipal level through Provincial downloading" -- we should have said "dumping" -- "of certain Public services to the Responsibility of the Local Taxpayer, specifically the Download of Health Protection and Promotion, Ambuance Services, Social Housing and other provincial responsibilities whose costs will increase over time."
I could speak on this for half an hour or so, but I think I made my point. As I said, this title describes more accurately what we think is going to happen to municipalities and to the poor taxpayers of homes and to the poor tenants who are going to have to bear the burden of these costs in spite of the fact that this government says to us: "Don't worry. If there are shortfalls, you provincial folks are there to pick up the tab." You're not going to be there and the next government's going to be there to worry about it and to fix your mess.
The Chair: Debate? All those in favour of this motion?
Mr Marchese: I'll have a recorded vote.
Ayes
Colle, Marchese.
Nays
Carroll, Hardeman, Hastings, Hudak, Munro.
The Chair: This motion fails.
Shall the long title carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The long title carries.
All those in favour of the bill, as amended? All those opposed? The bill, as amended, is carried.
Shall I report the bill to the House?
Mr Marchese: I think it should disappear.
The Chair: We'll have a vote as to whether I report the bill to the House. All those in favour? Opposed? I shall report the bill to the House.
Thank you very much. This meeting is adjourned to the call of the Chair.
The committee adjourned at 1145.