Document 1
Document
2
A
Brief to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing
Executive
Summary - May 2004
Co-operative Housing Federation of
Canada Ontario Region
1. Introduction
This
brief is submitted by the Ontario Region of the Co-operative Housing Federation
of Canada. It calls on the Ontario
government to overhaul the Social Housing Reform Act to create a more
businesslike operating framework, get rid of oppressive rent-geared-to-income
(RGI) program rules, and put co-op members back in control of their housing.
The Ontario Region represents and serves 490 housing co-operatives
and 39,000 co-op households in Ontario. More than half of these co ops were developed
under Ontario programs since the late 1980s.
Co-ops are the only form of resident-managed social housing in
Ontario. They are governed by the Co-operative Corporations Act (not the Tenant
Protection Act) and residents are members of their co-ops, not tenants. Co-op
members elect the board of directors annually from the membership and
contribute to the operation and life of the community through a range of
volunteer activities.
Co-operative housing in Canada is a well-documented success story. The
latest evaluation of co-operative housing programs (including
federal/provincial and provincial programs in Ontario) by Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation (September 2003) finds that housing co-ops have lower costs
than non-profit rental housing and their residents have a greater sense of
community, more social supports and gain more skills than tenants in other
forms of non-profit rental housing.
The Social Housing Reform Act (SHRA), passed in December 2000, is
undermining all of the elements that have contributed to the success of the
co-op housing model. More broadly, the Act is undercutting the
community-based model that government
turned to more than 30 years ago as an alternative to large-scale, government-owned
and -run housing. It has damaged the
morale, confidence and commitment of co-op volunteers. Co-ops find the new
regime almost intolerable, despite the development of positive relationships in
a number of regions with municipal service managers.
CHF Canada’s Ontario members have made reform of the SHRA their top
priority.
Ontario co-ops are optimistic that the new Liberal government, whose
election campaign focussed on the importance of building strong communities,
will understand and respond to their concerns. We look forward to working with
a government committed to supporting communities to undo the damage caused by
the Social Housing Reform Act.
2. Social Housing Reform Gone Wrong
Since the early 1990s, the co-op
housing sector in Ontario has sought reform of the provincial co op program to
deal with problems in its original design. Our reform proposals have called for
a more businesslike relationship between co-ops and government with regulatory
oversight focussed on outcomes and assessing risk rather than on prescribing
rules and checking rule compliance. The reform process was sidetracked by the
Province’s decision to download social housing to municipalities and by Bill
128, the Social Housing Reform Act, which gutted community control and
introduced an old-style government-run housing program. Co-ops and non-profits
lost the rights they had under a two-party contract and had to live with a
program forced on them by legislation.
3. Regulation Changes Under Review
Almost as soon as the Social
Housing Reform Act and regulations were in place, the government started to
amend the regulations, mostly to correct mistakes or clarify intent. But in the
summer of 2002, in response to protests from co-ops, non-profits and service
managers about problems with the new rules, the Province agreed to do a more
systematic review of the regulations. In October 2002, and January 2004, CHF
Ontario Region, ONPHA and the Ontario Regions Group of Service Managers made
joint submissions to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on regulation
changes that should be made immediately. We urge the Province to follow through
on these recommended amendments to the regulations. They will make the program work better. But to make the program
work well, much more comprehensive changes to the legislation are needed.
4. Reform Goals
Co-ops continue to believe that the
funding and administration of co-op and non-profit housing programs belong at
the provincial level. Our members feel strongly that social programs of this
kind should not be paid for out of property taxes. However, at this point,
co-ops want to focus on what’s achievable in the near future. Our
recommendations call for major changes to the Social Housing Reform Act but
assume that the Act remains in place and service managers remain responsible
for program funding and administration. The following are the broad goals that
underlie our recommendations for amendments to the Act:
· renewed member
control and commitment
· a simplified
accountability framework
· adequate and
predictable funding
· a
rent-geared-to-income program that works for co-ops and members.
5. Getting Reform Right: Recommended Amendments to the Act and
Regulations
In making the recommendations, we
speak from the point of view of housing co ops. However, as the earlier joint submissions show, non-profits and
service managers share many of the concerns we raise.
5.1 Renewed member
control and commitment
The success of co-op housing is
rooted in the simple fact that co-op members have a direct stake in the
decisions they make about their housing and community. When members no longer
believe they have real control of their co-op, their commitment to making it
run well is eroded. We make a number of recommendations to give co-ops back the
authority they had previously to make important management and governance
decisions.
Investment of capital reserves
The SHRA takes away the authority
that co-ops had under their operating agreements to make decisions about
investing capital reserves. It dictates that these funds be invested to the
Social Housing Investment Funds. Co-op boards have a fiduciary duty to manage
co-op funds in the co-op’s best interest but the Act doesn’t let them do this.
This loss of control of how their capital reserves are invested is strongly
resented by co-op boards and has become emblematic of the loss of autonomy
under the Act. We recommend that the requirement for co-ops to invest their
capital reserves in the Social Housing Investment Funds be eliminated.
Charges and deposits
The Province, through the Co-operative Corporations Act, has
recognized housing co-op members’ unique role as both landlord and tenant. The
Co-op Act gives co op members the clear right collectively to set the rules
they will live by individually. It doesn’t include the kind of limits that the
Tenant Protection Act (TPA) sets, for example, on fines the landlord can charge
tenants, payment of interest on tenant deposits, or even the annual increase in
rent. The SHRA has eliminated co-op members’ rights to decide, through by-laws,
on additional charges that they will require of themselves. We recommend
that the SHRA be amended to permit co-op members to adopt by-laws that provide
for reasonable charges and deposits beyond these permitted in the TPA.
Admitting and refusing members
The SHRA regulations dealing with appeals of membership refusals set
rules that conflict with the rules in the Co-operative Corporations Act. The
Co-op Act says that no one can become a member of a co-op unless the co-op’s
board of directors has approved their application. The rules in the Co-op Act
take precedence over the regulation and must be followed by co-ops. The SHRA
regulations should be changed to recognize the legislated requirement for co-op
boards to admit members.
5.2 A simplified accountability
framework
Eliminate excessive regulation
The SHRA is burying co-ops in
paperwork. It takes the approach of
including a rule for every possible circumstance. The complex and cumbersome
accountability framework forces co-ops to shift resources from serving members
to complying with rules. The approach to accountability in the SHRA needs to
be fundamentally re-thought and amended.
Simplify reporting requirements
Under the SHRA, co-ops are spending
unprecedented amounts of time reporting to service managers. The Act reasonably
requires providers to submit to the service manager an annual report with
prescribed information on the co-op’s performance and a report on the
households living in the co-op. But the Act also gives service mangers an open-ended
right to ask for whatever additional reports and information they want. Much clearer limits, similar to those
found in the cancelled operating agreements, must be placed on a service
manager’s right to require additional reports and information. The overall
administrative burden should also be reduced, and reporting made more
effective, by simplifying and standardizing the formats of audited financial
statements and the subsidy request form.
More consistency in treatment of projects in difficulty
Co-ops are concerned that the rules in the Act about when a service
manager can intervene in a co-op’s operations are far too open-ended. Many co-ops feel that their service manager
is much too involved in their day-to-day business and they are frustrated that
there is no effective way under the Act to challenge the action of a service
manager that oversteps its authority.
We recommend that the Act be
reviewed and amended to:
· define more clearly and reasonably what constitutes a
breach of the Act by housing providers
· place
more appropriate and reasonable limits on the remedies that service managers
can exercise if they judge a breach has occurred
· give
co-ops the ability to challenge actions of the service manager through an
appeal to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
· define
more clearly when a project that has received notice from the service manager
that a triggering event has occurred is considered to be a “project in
difficulty” under the Act, requiring notification of the Minister.
5.3 Adequate and
predictable funding
The SHRA has failed to deliver the more businesslike and reliable
operating framework that co-ops have called for. In some respects, the funding arrangement is less secure than
ever. A number of amendments are needed to the Act and regulations to deal with
these problems.
Set and implement new funding benchmarks
Since the Act was passed almost four years ago, co-ops have been
operating in a state of suspended animation waiting for the new funding
benchmarks to be set and the new funding model to be applied. Co-ops are
operating under a mix of old and new program rules and good financial
management is impossible. The delay has
had serious financial consequences for many co-ops leaving a number insolvent.
The process of setting new benchmarks has been bogged down for years
as work groups have tried to take account of the different circumstances of
hundreds of providers. It is not
possible to design a flawless system for setting the new funding levels. The
Minster should proceed, without further delay, to put in place the new funding
benchmarks and allow individual anomalies and problems to be worked out by
co-ops and service managers through a review and appeal process.
Amend the funding formula
We have five recommendations for changes to the funding formula:
a. Mandatory
Payment formula
The Mandatory Payment formula, which reduces the annual subsidy to
the co-op, needs to be changed to simplify the calculation, ensure consistent
market rents for the same size units, and avoid sharp rent increases resulting
in vacancy problems.
b. Termination
of Mandatory Payment
The old co-op operating agreement treated the operating subsidy to
the co-op and the RGI assistance to low-income members as separate forms of
assistance. The formula for withdrawing
and repaying subsidy applied only to the operating subsidy.
Under the new funding model, repayment of subsidy has no termination
point. A provider’s total subsidy will continue to decrease even after the
operating subsidy has been repaid. This means that, over time, the provider
will be internally subsidizing its RGI households, and may even be required to
make a net subsidy payment to the service manager. Mandatory Payment
obligations should end when the operating subsidy is paid back. At no point should Mandatory Payment
requirements apply to RGI subsidy.
c. Surplus
Sharing
Co-ops have argued that the new requirement under the Act to share
up to half of any operating surplus with the service manager promotes a “use it
or lose it” approach to fiscal management.
They think it is unfair that a service manager will share a surplus but
won’t have to share a deficit. The surplus sharing requirement should be
eliminated or, alternatively, the requirement should only apply after the
provider has adequate operating and capital reserves.
d. Annual
contribution to capital reserve
The capital reserve contribution should be taken out of the
benchmark costs and treated as a pass-through amount, as it was in the former
program and the contribution should increase annually by a regional index.
Alternatively, the index used to inflate the annual contribution should be the
same one used to calculate the Mandatory Payment.
e. Basis
for RGI subsidy
The funding formula in the Act calls for RGI subsidy to be paid
based on the lesser of the actual rent charged or the indexed market rent. This limits a co-op’s ability to respond to
market conditions that may not be captured by the market index. The funding formula should be amended to
base the RGI subsidy on the actual housing charges set by co-op members.
Increase capital
reserve funding
A series of studies by individual service managers and the Province
have all found that the capital reserves of Ontario-program housing providers
are seriously underfunded. This is also
the conclusion of IBI Consultants in a report to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing on capital reserves.
Capital reserves of housing providers should be topped up to bring
them to the required level. We also strongly support the recommendations in the
IBI report to create a pooled emergency reserve fund that providers could apply
to, on an emergency basis, if their reserves are inadequate and capital repairs
are urgently needed.
5.4 A
rent-geared-to-income program that works for co-ops and members
We have a number of recommendations for changes to the SHRA and
regulations related to RGI assistance that will result in a fairer, more humane
program for RGI recipients, and a more manageable administrative role for
co-ops.
Return responsibility for RGI administration to co-ops and
non-profits
This transfer of responsibility for
the RGI program from co-ops to the service managers is a major example of how
the Act shifts control of a service and related decisions from the community
level to government. A last minute amendment to the Act allowed service
managers to delegate administrative responsibility back to housing providers
through service agreements. The great majority have chosen to do this but, even
when a service agreement is in place, the ultimate authority remains with
service managers.
Many of these service agreements include requirements that are
extraneous to the operation of housing co-ops but are necessary because, as an
agent of the service manger under the agreement, the co-op must meet municipal
accountability requirements. Because two parties share responsibility under the
agreement, in many areas there is an unclear division of responsibility,
authority, and liability. We believe that responsibility for administration
of RGI assistance should be returned to housing providers. The role of service
managers should be to monitor compliance with the legislation and to administer
the RGI funding.
Simplify procedures for appeals of RGI decisions
One area where the administrative
burden imposed by the Act has been greatest is in dealing with appeals by co-op
members and applicants of decisions related to RGI assistance. The Act has introduced the “opportunity to
comment” by applicants and members on third-party information used in making
decisions about RGI assistance and special needs households. The complicated
and inflexible rules related to this have dramatically increased the time spent
on RGI administration. There is no need for this additional layer of
requirements. The rights of applicants and members are well protected through
the appeal process. The opportunity to comment provisions in the Act and
regulations should be eliminated and the requirements concerning the
timeframes, notices, and hearings related to appeals should be made more
flexible.
Require occupancy standards to be no more restrictive than
the provincial standards
The occupancy standard set by the Province under the old program
struck a good balance between maximizing use of the housing stock and
respecting the right of residents to reasonable living space. Under the new program, service managers may
choose to use the provincial standards or may set standards that are more restrictive. Co-ops and non-profits developed under
Ontario programs provide modest accommodation. The SHRA should not allow
service managers to set tighter occupancy standards than those included in the
provincial standards.
Allow providers more discretion in administering the
occupancy standards
As a result of SHRA regulations, long-time residents who have a
change in household composition may be forced from their homes if the co-op
does not have a unit of appropriate size. This is a very serious and upsetting
one for co-ops, particularly in the case of seniors. Co-ops want a reasonable
balance between concern about the expenditure of public funds and concern about
the stability of co-op communities and fairness to members. We recommend
that providers be allowed some discretion to permit minimal overhousing, in
particular circumstances, to achieve the necessary balance of interests.
Amend centralized waiting list rules to allow the allocation of
units to a greater mix of households
Under the new program rules,
special priority households, and any other local priority households, are
always placed at the top of the waiting list.
This results in a high number of extremely needy households being
referred from the central waiting lists, with no associated community supports.
The chances of a low- or moderate-income household, with no provincial or local
priority, getting housed is remote in some co-ops. The lack of supports puts a
lot of pressure on co-ops, which expect their members to make a contribution to
the community.
The rules governing priority on
centralized waiting lists should be amended to provide that every second or
third vacancy in a co-op would be allocated to a priority household.
Eliminate punitive eligibility rules and rigid reporting
deadlines
There has been significant consensus among co-ops, non-profits and
service managers about the harsh nature of the new RGI rules and the increased
potential for households to lose their subsidy for administrative reasons. Where
a household fails to report changes of income or household composition by the
required deadline, co-ops and non-profits should have the discretion to waive
termination of subsidy where, in their judgement, circumstances warrant and to
make retroactive changes to the housing charge calculation, where appropriate.
Many housing providers are particularly uncomfortable with the
pursuit of income requirements that say residents can lose their subsidy if
they fail to apply for certain types of government and support income for which
they may be eligible. The pursuit of income requirements should be removed
from the regulations.
Permit allocation of RGI subsidy to in-situ market households
experiencing a drop in income
Under the SHRA rules, co-ops can allocate RGI subsidy to households
paying market housing charges only under very limited circumstances. This has
led to serious hardship and economic evictions for a number of market
households. In many cases, these
households have lived in the co-op for a long time and made important
contributions to their community. Some service managers have given a local
priority to in-situ market households ranked by their move in date. But the
regulations do not require this, and indeed some service managers do not
believe that the regulations permit them to give any priority to in-situ
households. The regulations should be amended to provide a more appropriate
balance between the stability of the co-op community and the needs of
applicants on the waiting list.
6. Conclusion
The Social Housing Reform Act
abandons community-based housing. Desperate to get out of the affordable
housing business, the Conservative government tore up operating agreements
signed by co-ops and non-profits and the Province and put in place an old-style
program that gives effective control of the housing to government officials
rather than community owners. While in opposition, Liberal MPPs were highly
critical of the Social Housing Reform Act, predicting that it would undermine
the viability of co-ops and non-profits and strip them of control of their homes.
We ask the Minister to commit to carry out a comprehensive review of
the Act; ensuring explicit goals are set to guide the work on reform. The
election of a government that believes in “strong communities” and is promising
to “work with communities, not against them” gives our members new hope that,
guided by some common goals, we can work in partnership with government to fix
the Social Housing Reform Act.
Document
4
Towards an Improved Social Housing Reform Act
Recommended Regulation Changes
June 26, 2006
Prepared by
Service Manager
Housing Network
Introduction
This report is meant to reflect consensus
amongst members of the Service Manager Housing Network (SMHN) on the proposed
set of Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 (SHRA) regulatory changes sent to
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) on January 14, 2004,
as well as additional changes identified since the original document was
prepared. Those regulatory changes not addressed in the latest round of
regulatory amendments on November 16, 2005 are the focus of this document, as
well as additional changes identified through consultation with service
managers between November 2005 and May 2006.
The process used to prepare this document
included a survey of all service manager members on the proposed set of
regulatory changes previously identified in January 2004. Thirty-one service
managers responded to this survey. Items that received a significant amount of
support based on the survey responses are included in this document. A
teleconference of service managers was held to determine if consensus could be
achieved on additional items that received some support. Consensus was achieved
on six additional issues. These issues are also included in this document. A
small working group was struck to process
the non-consensus items, as well as new issues identified by service managers
in their survey responses. This report represents the working group
recommendations for proposed regulatory changes to the SHRA. The working group recommendations have been
circulated for consultation with all members of the Service Manager Housing
Network. Attached are the results and recommendations from this process.
This document does not duplicate the efforts of
other working groups and initiatives that have provided recommendations on a
number of specific areas that need further action from the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs and Housing. These include:
·
Funding Model and Benchmarking
·
Special Priorities Policy Working Group
·
Utilities Working Group Recommendations
·
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Initiative on Rent Scales for
Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program Recipients
·
Definition of Income Working Group Recommendations
·
Service Level Standards Working Group Recommendations
Listed below are a number of issues that
require broader policy work and issues that have been addressed by the proposed
Residential Tenancies Act.
A suggested order of prioritization of the
various initiatives and working group recommendations is also provided below.
Broader
Policy Issues
The following issues require broader policy
work. It is recommended that these issues
be addressed by the Ministry in consultation
with key stakeholders.
- Project Subsidy Termination (Program Sunset)
- Financial viability of housing providers when the service
manager’s duty to pay a subsidy ends
- Relationship to service level standards
- Long term preservation of assets for social housing purposes
- Review of the information required from service managers in their
annual reports to the Ministry to ensure all requested information is
required for the Federal Government
- The allowance of a single, consistent set of program requirements
for Local Housing Corporations that amalgamated with the upper tier
Municipal Non-Profit Housing Provider (MNP)
- Refinancing tools for capital shortfalls
- Ministerial consent requirements should be clarified and
streamlined
Issues
Addressed in Proposed Residential Tenancies Act
The following issues have been addressed by the
proposed Residential Tenancies Act.
The Service Manager Housing Network will monitor the passing of this Act
to ensure
these issues are addressed.
- Occasional Decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal in
Regards to RGI Tenancies
- Extension of Social Housing exemption from Tenant Protection Act
(TPA) provisions to New Non-Profit Housing
Prioritizing
Proposed Regulation Changes
MMAH has requested that service managers
prioritize the initiatives and working group
recommendations that need further action from
the Ministry. The following list reflects
the working group’s suggested order of
prioritization.
- Funding Model and Benchmarking
This should be the first priority due to the huge and immediate cost
implications that are inherent.
- Special Priorities Policy Working Group Recommendations
Enormous effort has already been extended in this area, and thus it
should continue to be a priority.
- a) Utilities Working Group Recommendations
b)
Association of Municipalities of Ontario Initiative on Rent Scales for Ontario
Works and Ontario Disability Support Program Recipients
These areas are interlinked because one cannot be adjusted without the
other. This is a pressing issue for housing providers because it affects the
rent-ability of social housing units.
- General recommendations provided within the attached document
- Definition of Income Working Group Recommendations
- Service Level Standards Working Group Recommendations
- Required changes arising from work on broader policy issues
Proposed
Changes to SHRA Regulations
We believe these suggestions will improve the
regulations of the Social Housing Reform
Act, 2000 to allow service managers to deliver social
housing more efficiently and effectively.
Recommendation 1
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.5 (8))
Applications
The regulations say any member of a household
who is at least 16 years old must sign the application and the consent. Since
16-year-olds can live independently and can sign contracts for ‘necessities’
(e.g. housing), it appears that the Province does not want to discriminate
between 16-year-olds who are independent and those who are still living with
and dependent on their parents or guardians.
The problem is that there are practical
differences between households led by an independent 16 or 17-year-old and
those with dependents of the same age, as well as legal complications should
the household break up. Forcing housing providers to treat them all the same
ignores these issues.
The regulations have been amended regarding the
signing of a lease or agreement to include every individual who is a member of
the household and at least 16 years of age, if the service manager so requires.
The intent of the proposed change is to allow
service managers the flexibility to not require dependents who are 16 or 17
years of age to sign the application.
It is recommended that the regulations regarding
applications be harmonized with the existing wording for the signing of a lease
or agreement, that applications are required to be signed by every individual
who is a member of the household and at least 16 years of age, if the service
manager so requires.
Recommendation 2
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.12 (1))
Consequences of
Non-Pursuit of Income
The regulations say that if the service manager
is not satisfied that a member of a household is making reasonable efforts to
obtain compensation or realize a financial resource or income that the person
may be entitled to or eligible for, then the service manager may determine that
the household is not eligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance.
The problem is that if the amount of financial
resource or income entitled to the member, or that the member is eligible for,
would not bring rent to market rates, a cessation of eligibility is
unnecessarily punitive to the household.
For example:
A tenant pays RGI of $300 for a unit with
market rent of $1,000. The tenant has a court order for support of $400 per
month which is not in pay because she refuses to register it for enforcement
with FRO. Under the current regulations, the service manager can either
determine that the tenant is completely ineligible for RGI and raise her rent
to market rent of $1000, or determine that reasonable efforts to pursue support
have been made and continue to pay out subsidy of $700 per month.
Under the proposed recommendation, the service
manager could continue RGI eligibility but increase RGI to the amount that
would be payable if the full amount of support under the court order were being
received by the tenant; i.e. $420 ($300 plus 30% of $400).
The same applies in circumstances where the FSW
has assessed a reasonable amount of support based on financial statements
provided by the payor and established Child Support Guidelines. Often, the
payor refuses to pay the increased amount, and the tenant refuses to go to
court to pursue income to which she is legally entitled.
The intent of the proposed revision is to give
the service manager greater flexibility and additional remedies in dealing with
non-compliance/failure to pursue income so that the tenant can maintain
eligibility without the service manager having to pay the additional subsidy.
We ask MMAH to reference similar provisions in
section 13(1) of O.Reg. 134/98 of the Ontario Works Act, and section 11
(1) of O.Reg. 222/98 of the ODSP Act.
It is recommended that a provision be included
in section 12 of O.Reg 298/01 to allow the service manager to determine
continued eligibility for rent-geared-to income assistance for households that
refuse to pursue income, and to allow an increase in the amount of
rent-geared-to-income payable by the household to an amount equivalent to what
would be paid if the income were pursued and obtained.
The regulation should make note in the case of
a special priority household, that if a member of the household pursuing
compensation believes that he or she will be at risk of being abused if he or
she attempts to pursue the compensation, the service manager, supportive
housing provider or lead agency shall not require the member to pursue the
income.
Recommendation 3
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.12 (1) and s.54 (1))
Cessation of
Eligibility/ Change in Rent Upon New Information Outside a Review
The regulations say that a household ceases to
be eligible for rent-geared-to-income assistance if the household fails to
notify the service manager of the change in a document or information within 10
business days after the change.
The problem is that if the only change is a
decrease in income, the resulting rent that would have been paid by the
household if the household had notified the service manager of the change would
have been a lower rent. Thus, a cessation of eligibility is an unduly harsh
consequence.
The intent of the proposed change is to
maintain tenancies.
It is recommended that if the only change that
the household failed to report in Section 10 (1) (a) is a decrease in household
income, the household continues to be eligible for rent-geared-to-income
assistance.
It is further recommended that if the household
failed to report a reduction in income in accordance with Section 10 (1) (a),
the rent decrease takes effect on the first day of the first month following
the month the household reported the change, or an earlier date at the
discretion of the service manager.
Recommendation 4
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.14 (1))
Retroactive
Ineligibility
The regulations say that if a service manager
determines that a household receiving rent-geared-to-income assistance has
ceased to be eligible for such assistance, the month as of which the provision
of rent-geared-to-income assistance must cease is the month immediately following
the 90th day after the date
the service manager gives the household written notice of cessation of
eligibility.
Notwithstanding section 14(3) of O.Reg 298/01,
the service manager should have the ability to cease payment of RGI subsidy and
increase rent payable to market on the first day of the month following notice,
in circumstances where the service manager reasonably believes that the
household misrepresented income or wilfully withheld information in order to
reduce the amount of RGI payable or otherwise qualify for RGI.
The service manager must also have the ability
to determine that a household was ineligible for RGI assistance for a past
period and to recoup the full subsidy paid during this period (e.g. tenant is
found to have had assets in excess of local asset limit for the previous nine
months).
The service manager must also have the ability
to recoup subsidies paid for a past period if the household refuses to provide
information to retroactively recalculate RGI.
This might occur if the service manager
verifies that there was an undisclosed household member but the tenant refuses
to provide verification of this person's income.
It is recommended that the lease or agreement
provides that if the service manager determines that the household income and
assets used to calculate rent were greater than those reported to the service
manager there shall be a retroactive increase in the amount payable effective
on the first day of the second month following the change in income or assets.
It is further recommended that the regulations
allow the service manager to determine that a household was ineligible for RGI
assistance for a past period and to recoup the full subsidy paid during this
period.
It is also recommended that the service manager
be given the ability to recoup subsidies paid for a past period if the
household refuses to provide information to retroactively recalculate RGI.
Recommendation 5
– (ref O.Reg. 339/01 s.21(1) 4)
Lease Requirements
The regulations say that the lease or agreement
must provide that the amount of the geared-to-income rent payable by the
household for the unit is subject to change if the household’s financial
circumstances change to such an extent that the service manager determines that
the amount of the geared-to-income rent payable by the household should change
or that the household is no longer eligible for rent-geared-to-income
assistance.
The problem is that the lease does not provide
for the retroactive calculation of geared to- income rent payable or retroactive
ineligibility for rent-geared-to-income assistance in the case of
misrepresentation of income or assets.
The intent of the proposed change is to give
service managers the ability to retroactively recalculate geared-to-income rent
payable by the household or make the household ineligible for
rent-geared-to-income assistance for a past time period in order to allow the
service manager to recoup excess subsidies.
It is recommended that the lease or agreement
provides that if the service manager determines that the households income and
assets used to calculate rent were greater than those reported to the service
manage there shall be a retroactive increase in rent payable effective on the
first day of the second month following the change in income or assets.
Recommendation 6
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.16 (1) and (2) and s.7
(1) (g) and (h))
Fraud
The regulations say that if a member of the
household has been convicted of fraud under the Criminal Code (Canada) or a
Court of Law or was found to have misrepresented income by the Ontario Rental
Housing Tribunal in relation to the receipt of rent-geared-to-income
assistance, the household may not reapply for rent-geared-to income assistance
for a period of two years from the first day of the month as of which the
provision of rent-geared-to-income assistance ceases.
The problem is that the household may be
determined to be ineligible for rent-geared-to income assistance for other
reasons prior to the household being convicted. Thus, the period of ineligibility
to reapply should relate to the date of the conviction, not the cessation of
eligibility.
The intent of the proposed change is to clarify
that the household is subject to ineligibility for rent-geared-to-income
assistance for a period of two years after the date of a conviction/finding of
fraud. This is unclear in the current regulations because it is within two
different sections of the regulations – as an eligibility requirement and a
restriction on reapplication. It would be clearer to express it only as an
eligibility requirement.
Additionally, there is an interest in
clarifying that these provisions apply to rent supplement unit tenancies as
well.
It is recommended that Section 16 be revoked
and Sections 7 (1) (g) (ii) and 7 (1) (h) (ii) be amended from “the household
has previously been determined to be ineligible for rent-geared-to-income
assistance because of that conviction/finding” to state “the conviction/finding
occurred more than 24 months prior to the date that the household would otherwise
have been determined to be eligible.”
Recommendation 7
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.33 and s.37)
Moving Over-housed
Tenants
The Regulations do not distinguish between a
household that is on the centralized waiting list because it is over-housed and
an external applicant. Both types of households have the same right to make as
many or as few building selections as they wish. An over-housed household can
select their current building only, effectively frustrating the legislative
intent to accelerate a transfer to an appropriately-sized unit. The Regulations should allow some
flexibility to ensure that over-housed households are placed on appropriate
waiting lists.
The intent of this change is to allow service
managers to move over housed households more quickly to more suitable
accommodations.
It is recommended that the regulations require
the over-housed household to select a reasonable number of additional housing
preferences, as determined by the service manager. It is further recommended
that the household will cease to be eligible for geared-to-income rent if they
remove their name from a subsidiary waiting list that would limit the number of
additional housing preferences to less than the reasonable number, without the
consent of the service manager.
Recommendation 8
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.33)
Moving Over-housed
Special Needs Tenants
The regulations do not allow the service
manager to move over-housed households with rent-geared-to-income assistance to
an appropriately sized unit within the allowable occupancy standards if the
household is also eligible for special needs housing.
The problem is that households whose
composition has changed and now occupy a rent-geared-to-income unit that is
larger than the largest unit in respect of which the household is eligible to
receive rent-geared-to-income assistance can continue to occupy the unit
indefinitely. Since there are a limited number of modified units available,
larger households requiring a modified unit on the waiting list see limited
opportunity for housing.
This change would achieve more equitable access
to housing for households requiring a modified unit.
It is recommended that special needs households
in receipt of rent geared-to income assistance be subject to the special rule
for over-housed households, s. 33 of O. Reg. 298/01. It is further recommended
that a provision be included for over-housed households eligible for special
needs housing, that the household be required to select a reasonable number of
additional housing preferences that are appropriately modified, as determined
by the service manager. The requirement must have regard to the availability or
transferability of needed support services. In the event that there are no
appropriately modified units of a size of which the household is eligible to
receive rent-geared-to-income assistance, the household will remain in their
current unit.
Recommendation 9
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.36 (1.1))
Subsidiary Waiting
Lists and Web Site Access by Providers
The regulations say that a service manager
shall provide to the housing provider subsidiary waiting list information at
least once each month.
Service managers would like the regulations to
acknowledge that electronic web access to the centralized waiting list meets
the requirement to provide monthly lists.
It is recommended that the regulations state
that electronic web access to the centralized waiting list meets the
requirement to provide subsidiary list information on a monthly basis.
Recommendation 10
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.36 (2))
Removal From
Subsidiary List
The regulations say that the subsidiary waiting
list shall include all the households on the centralized waiting list that have
a preference for that housing project.
The problem is that service managers should be
allowed to remove a household from a subsidiary waiting list if the housing
provider has refused to offer a unit to the household s.18 of O.Reg, 339/01. It
should be noted that it is the expectation of the SMHN that these decisions
would be subject to the internal review process.
It is recommended that the regulations allow
service managers to remove a household from a subsidiary waiting list if the
housing provider has refused to offer a unit to the household.
Recommendation 11
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.50 (9.1))
Adjusted Family
Income
Section 50(9.1) of O.Reg 298/01 was introduced
in March 2004 and states:
Despite subsection
(9), in the case of a family unit with one or more non-interest bearing bank
accounts, the imputed income of a member of the family unit for a month from
his or her interest in the bank accounts shall be determined in the following
manner:
- For each bank account, determine the annual average minimum
monthly balance in the account or a typical recent minimum monthly
balance in the account.
- Add the amounts
determined under paragraph 1.
- Subtract
$1,000 from the amount determined under paragraph 2.
- Multiply the amount determined under paragraph 3 by “B”, as
defined in subsection (9).
3. Apportion the amount
determined under paragraph 4 among the members with the bank accounts, in
proportion to the amounts determined under paragraph 1 for each of the bank
accounts and the member’s interest in the bank accounts.
This provision was in response to requests from
service managers to exempt the first $1,000 of bank accounts from imputed
income. However, this provision is overly prescriptive and administratively
cumbersome. The cost savings to municipalities are negligible. For example,
imputed income on a $1,000 bank balance works out to an RGI increase of only $0.50
per month.
The intent of the proposed change is to allow
the service manager to establish the manner of determining the imputed income
of the first $1,000 of bank balances. The service manager may, for example,
wish to exempt the first $1,000 of bank balances from imputed income, because
the current calculation is too onerous for the amount of money involved.
It is recommend that section 50(9.1) be changed
to allow service managers to exempt up to the first $1000 of bank balances per
household member. Regulations do not need to specify how this is done.
Recommendation 12
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.52 (1))
Income
Verification for Tenants with fixed incomes
The regulations say that the service manager
shall review the geared-to-income-rent payable by the household once in every
12-month period.
The problem is that the incomes of households
on fixed incomes are not likely to fluctuate frequently. Thus, the requirement
for an annual review of geared-to-income-rent payable is administratively
burdensome.
It is recommended that the regulations allow
service managers the discretion to make a local rule around frequency of
reviews for tenants with fixed incomes. In the absence of a local rule, the
default would be an annual review.
Recommendation 13
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.52 (12))
Timing of an
Increase After Review
The regulations say that if one or more members
of a household request an internal review of a decision made by a service
manager under this section to increase the geared-to-income rent payable by the
household, and if the decision made on the internal review is to increase the
geared-to-income rent payable by the household, the rent increase takes effect
on the day that is the later of, the first day of the month following the month
in which the service manager gives the members who requested the internal
review written notice of the decision made on the internal review; and the
first day of the month following the month in which the service manager gives
the household written notice of the service manager’s decision to reduce the
geared-to-income rent payable.
The problem is that going through the appeal
process should not in and of itself delay the effective date of the change, and
thus garners preferential treatment for households who request an internal
review.
As service managers may increase the time to
request an internal review, complete an internal review and provide notice of
the outcome of an internal review, there is a greater possibility that the
original decision is made in one month and the internal review is made in the
following month – thus delaying the increase for technical reasons rather than
unnecessary administrative delays.
It is recommended that if one or more members
of a household request an internal review of a decision made by a service
manager to increase the geared-to-income-rent payable by the household, and if
the decision made on the internal review is to increase the geared-to-income
rent payable by the household, the rent increase takes effect on the same date
as the effective date specified in the original notice of decision.
Recommendation 14
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.54 (1))
Reimbursement of
Service Manager
The regulations say that if a household has
paid less geared-to-income rent for a period than it should have paid, the
amount to be reimbursed to the service manager is the difference between the
amount of geared-to-income rent paid by the household for the period and the
amount of geared-to-income rent that the household should have paid for the
period.
For clarification purposes, references to
‘paid’ geared to income rent by a household would be better referred to as
‘charged’ geared to income rent.
It is recommended that the references in
Section 54 (1) to ‘paid’ geared-to-income rent by a household should be changed
to ‘charged’ geared-to-income rent.
Recommendation 15
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.55 (1.1))
Opportunity to
Comment
The regulations require that all members of the
household over the age of 16 be given an opportunity to comment on information
that was submitted by any member of the household that causes the service
manager, supportive housing provider or lead agency to make a decision that is
adverse to a household.
The problem is that information is often
submitted by the head of the household (e.g. pay stubs, changes of income) on
behalf of their household. Under the current regulations, other members of the
household must be given an opportunity to comment before geared-to-income-rent
payable is changed.
The intent of the proposed change is to modify
section 55 of O.Reg. 298/01 to clarify that:
- an opportunity to comment is required only for information received
from a party outside of the household,
- any member of the household may provide information on behalf of
the whole household,
- a reduction in rent is not an adverse decision.
It is recommended that the service manager,
supportive housing provider or lead agency not be required to give a member of
a household an opportunity to comment on information that the member or any
other member of the same household provides to the service manager, supportive
housing provider or lead agency, as the case may be, within 30 days before the
service manager, supportive housing provider or lead agency, as the case may
be, makes a decision that is adverse to a household.
It is further recommended that the regulations
clarify that a decrease in the amount of geared-to-income rent payable is not
an adverse decision and the service manager, supportive housing provider or
lead agency is not required to provide the members of the household with an
opportunity to comment prior to making such a decision.
Note: This recommendation may conflict with the
current wording of s. 80 of the SHRA.
Recommendation 16
– (ref O.Reg. 339/01 s.21(1) 5)
Calculation of RGI
Using Income of all Occupants of the Household
The regulations require that if a person’s
income is included in rent-geared-to-income calculations, they must be on the
lease.
The problem is that housing providers should
not be forced to enter into a lease or housing agreement with someone that they
do not want to accept as a tenant or cooperative member. Where the household is
not a current tenant, this is provided for under the Refusal to Offer
provisions. However, when the housing provider has a tenant who brings other
members into the household, the housing provider should be allowed to determine
if they want to amend the lease or occupancy agreement, or in the case of
co-ops, if they want to accept this person as a member. The service manager, on
the other had, should not be expected to pay excess subsidies because the
income of long-term guests (who may not have another address) is not included
in the calculation of rent-geared-to-income.
The intent of the proposed change is to allow
the service manager to determine geared-to- income rent payable by a household
based on all occupants of the household without the housing provider being
forced to enter into a formal agreement with all members.
For example, this may occur in the case of a
special priority policy individual who reconciles with her partner but does not
want to give him tenancy rights. This would allow for more security in tenure
for the original occupant.
It is recommended that household members whose
income is taken into consideration in determining the amount of rent payable by
the household must sign the lease or agreement, if the service manager so
requires.
Recommendation 17
– (ref O.Reg. 339/01 s.24(1) and (3))
Capital Reserve
The regulations say that housing providers
shall establish and maintain a capital reserve for its housing projects in a
service area that includes amounts outlined in Section 24 (1) of O.Reg. 339/01
in the amounts determined under the rules of Section 24 (3) of O.Reg. 339/01.
The problem is the language is too restrictive.
Broader language is required to allow providers to contribute their share of
surpluses and any capital funds provided by the service manager to their
capital reserve fund.
It is recommended that the amounts of
contributions to the capital reserve described in Section 24 of O.Reg. 339/01
be considered the mandatory contributions, but contributions should not be
limited to those amounts. Non-mandatory contributions should be subject to
approval of the service manager.
Recommendation 18
– (ref O.Reg. 339/01 s.24(5))
Capital Reserve
Requirements
The regulations say that a housing provider may
make contributions to its capital reserve within five months after the end of a
fiscal year which may be considered to be contributions made during the fiscal
year.
The problem is that allowing capital reserve
contributions to be made as late as five months after the end of the fiscal
year causes unnecessary delays in the reconciliation process by the service
manager.
It is recommended that the provision that
allows housing providers to make contributions to its capital reserve within
five months after the end of a fiscal year (section 24(5) if O.Reg 339/01) be
revoked.
Recommendation 19
– (ref O.Reg. 339/01 s.25(4))
Investments:
Prescribed Housing Providers
The regulations say that in Section 25 of
O.Reg.339/01 eligible housing providers mean
Toronto Housing Company Inc., Peel Non-Profit
Housing Corporation or City of Ottawa
Non-Profit Housing Corporation.
The problem is the companies listed no longer
exist in the form they were when the Act was passed.
It is recommended that the regulations clarify
that that the above noted section refers to the eligible housing providers
listed, and their successors.
Recommendation 20
– (ref O.Reg. 339/01 s.26(1) 2)
Investments
The regulations say the housing provider shall
participate in a system for pooling capital reserves for investment purposes
and shall follow such investment policies referred to in that clause as may be
established by the Social Housing Services Corporation.
The problem is under Section 25 (3) eligible
housing providers may invest the funds in its capital reserve in accordance
with an approved proposal, but this exemption is not stated in this section.
The intent of the proposed change is to amend
Section 26 to make it consistent with the exemption under Section 25 (3).
It is recommended that the rules stated in
Section 26 apply if a housing provider is prescribed for the purposes of clause
142 (1) (c) of the Act, unless the housing provider is an eligible housing
provider per subsection 25 (4).
Recommendation 21
– (ref O.Reg. 339/01 s.29)
Operating Reserve
– Use of Shelter Surplus
The regulations do not restrict the use of
operating surpluses to the shelter component.
The problem is that these funds may be used for
non-shelter expenses or to reduce a non-shelter deficit.
The intent of the proposed change is to limit
the use of operating funds to parts of the housing projects allocated to
residential accommodation and parts of the housing projects allocated for use
by residents of the housing projects including meeting rooms, recreational
facilities, laundry facilities, parking areas, exterior grounds, external
building walls and roofs, unless approved by the service manager.
In some circumstances it may be difficult to
separate shelter and non-shelter expenditures (e.g. joint use of some of the
facilities). The service manager needs to have flexibility to allow for some
non-shelter expenditures in such cases.
It is recommended that a housing provider’s
retained accumulated shelter surplus in respect of a service area at the
beginning of a fiscal year, after being reconciled by the Service Manager, may
only be used to benefit the parts of the housing projects allocated to
residential accommodation or parts of the housing projects allocated for use by
residents of the housing projects, unless the service manager approves
otherwise.
Recommendation 22
– (ref O.Reg. 339/01)
Deviations from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP)
Provincially funded social housing programs
have historically operated with significant deviations from the generally
accepted accounting principles in accordance with Ministry requirements. The
Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) guidelines allow non-profits to
deviate from GAAP if the funder allows for such deviations.
However, the regulations of the SHRA are silent
on this issue.
The problem is that GAAP reporting produces
financial statements that do not clearly reflect a housing provider’s surplus\deficit
position in terms of the funding model.
It is recommended that the regulations state
that in accordance with the areas of program funder flexibility established by
CICA, service managers be given the authority to establish deviations from GAAP
reporting as required to ensure former provincial reform projects’ financial
statements reflect program funding and accountability requirements.
Recommendation 23
– (ref O.Reg. 368/01 Table 1 and O.Reg.369/01,
Schedule 7 and O.Reg.456/01)
Housing Provider
and Supportive Housing Provider Lists
There are some errors in the lists that
identify the programs of housing providers and list of supportive housing
providers.
It is requested that MMAH confirm and make
corrections to lists that identify the programs of housing providers in Table 1
or O. Reg. 368/01, and in Schedule 7 of O. Reg. 369/01 and list of supportive
housing providers in O. Reg. 456/01.
Recommendation 24
– (ref O.Reg. O.Reg. 368/01 Table 4)
Household Income
Limits
The regulations say that the service manager
shall seek to ensure that the income of a household, at the time of its
selection to reside in a unit, does not exceed the applicable household income
limit.
The problem is that in many communities the
average market rents are higher than 30% of the household income limit;
households that would otherwise qualify for rent gearedto- income subsidy may
be denied access to public housing, rent supplement and federal non-profits
because their income is over the HIL.
It is recommended that the requirement in the
program rules for public housing, rent supplement and federal non-profits to
assist only households with income under the household income limit be
eliminated
.
Recommendation 25
– (ref SHRA s.64)
Modified Units
That Do Not Have Support
Currently, modified units that do not have
supports associated with them are excluded from the centralized waiting list.
To better serve households requiring modified units by providing a centralized
point of access to apply for all modified units in an area, it is proposed that
modified units without supports be included in the centralized waiting list.
If there are no supports provided, there is no
real rationale to exclude modified units from the centralized waiting list.
It is recommended that the default should be
for the centralized waiting list to cover all modified units without supports.
Recommendation 26
– (ref SHRA s.89 (1) and (3) and O.Reg. 339/01
s.16)
Referral
Agreements
The Act says that a referral agreement means an
agreement entered into by a housing provider before the date of the transfer of
responsibility for a housing project in which the housing provider gives a
right to another person to control access to special needs housing within the
housing project.
The problem is the regulations do not allow a
non-designated provider to enter into a referral agreement and also do not
require service manager agreement for a new referral agreement with designated
supportive housing provider.
The intent of the proposed change is to give
service managers discretion over and knowledge of referral agreements that
apply to units that were previously not special needs units, so they may ensure
the centralized waiting list is utilized where appropriate.
It is recommended that housing providers,
whether designated or non-designated, be allowed to enter into new referral
agreements with agencies, with the agreement of the service manager.
Recommendation 27
– (ref SHRA s.89 (1) and (3))
Capital Reserve
Expenditure
Service managers are required to provide
housing subsidies to housing providers.
As the housing providers have insufficient
funds in their capital reserves, they will be requesting additional funds from
service managers. For this reason service managers would like the flexibility to
be able to define what is and what is not an eligible capital reserve
expenditure and to require that the housing provider seek prior service manager
approval for capital expenditures.
It is recommended that service managers be
given the discretion to define what is and what is not an eligible capital
reserve expenditure and to determine when/if the housing provider is required
to seek prior service manager approval for capital expenditures.
Recommendation 28
– (ref O.Reg. 298/01 s.7 (1)(e)(iii) and (f)(iii))
Money Owed in
Respect of Damage
The proposed Residential Tenancies Act
describes money owed in respect of damage as money owed for damages caused by a
tenant or caused by the conduct of a person permitted in the residential
complex by the tenant, whereas, the regulations of the SHRA confine damages to
those caused by a member of the household.
The problem is that arrears owed for damages
caused by the conduct of a person permitted in the residential complex by a
member of the household are not considered grounds for a finding of
ineligibility for rent geared-to-income assistance under the regulations of the
SHRA, while arrears owed for damages caused by the conduct of a member of the
household are considered grounds for a finding of ineligibility.
The intent of the proposed change is to make
the regulations of the SHRA consistent with the proposed Residential Tenancies
Act and to treat damages caused by either a member of the household or by a
person permitted in the residential complex by a member of the household
equally.
It is recommended that the regulations of the
SHRA recognize as a cause for ineligibility the arrears from money owed in
respect of damages caused by a member of the household or caused by the conduct
of a person permitted in the residential complex by a member of the household.
SOCIAL HOUSING
REFORM ACT
LOI SUR LA RÉFORME DU LOGEMENT SOCIAL
ACS2006-CCS-HRS-0014 CITY WIDE / À
L'ÉCHELLE DE LA VILLE
At the outset,
clarification was requested on what specific changes to the Act the Chair was
hoping to achieve by petitioning the provincial government. Chair Holmes hoped the Committee would
approve a recommendation requesting staff to work with local housing providers
to jointly go to the Province with recommendations to change the Act. She indicated, however, that housing
providers who may speak today, might be more in favour of going forward
individually to the province, so she wanted to hear from those groups. It was suggested that the Chair put forward
a Motion to reflect this specific direction.
When asked to
comment on the report, Russell Mawby, Director of Housing indicated that the
Service Managers across the province have been working together to document
suggested changes (Document 4). They
have recently learned that the province is implementing a province-wide
consultation that will involve all stakeholders, i.e., housing providers and
service managers with regards to necessary changes to the legislation. He believed Document 4 reflects a fair and
balanced approach to the province, but recognized it is not the only
perspective. He confirmed he would be
willing to meet with housing providers to get a joint presentation organized.
Recognizing that
the interests of the stakeholders are not all the same, Councillor Cullen asked
whether staff would be consulting with groups such as the Poverty Issues
Advisory Committee and the Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, which has a
tenant consultation process. He
explained that some things in the legislation are punitive to residents in
social housing and felt it was important that the Committee hear from those
people who are living in that type of housing.
The Director indicated that the Motion being brought forward is to
recommend that a document be prepared that summarizes the perspective of
stakeholders in Ottawa and he reminded Committee members that because it is
provincial legislation, each sector would be communicating with the province
independently. He confirmed that a
document that reflects the position of all stakeholders in Ottawa, including a
tenant perspective, would be a valuable exercise. He committed to working with groups locally, including getting a
tenant perspective, to document all positions and bring it back to the Committee.
Chair Holmes
suggested that if a working group is established to present a joint picture, it
does not preclude groups from going forward with their own specific position as
well.
Harvey
Cooper, Manager of Government Relations, Co-operative Housing Federation of
Canada’s Ontario Region and Pam Cripps, President, Co-operative Housing
Association of Eastern Ontario spoke in support of
the need for a review of the Provincial Social Housing Reform Act
(SHRA). They touched on the following
high level reform goals they hoped would be kept in mind in a review of the
SHRA regulatory regime:
·
Civic engagement - support for the
community-based housing model
·
A simplified accountability framework
·
Adequate and predictable funding
·
A streamlined and fair
rent-geared-to-income program (RGI)
It was emphasized that the SHRA abandons community-based housing and
there is now an opportunity to revisit some of the contentious issues contained
in that Act. They encouraged the
Committee and Council to take full advantage of this prospect and that the
explicit goals set to guide the SHRA review are underpinned by support for a
community-based housing model. A copy
of their written submission, which provides further details on their
presentation, is held on file.
When asked to
comment on Document 4, Mr. Cooper explained that they had hoped the Service
Manager Network would have aimed a little higher in terms of some of their
recommendations; however, they supported most of them because they would help
massage the program somewhat. He
reminded Committee members that one of the social determinants of health is
good quality affordable housing. Mr.
Cooper added that his group would like to work with the Service Managers
because it is going to take a lot of work to push the province to make
substantive changes and he felt those changes would only be made if the
province understands that the key stakeholders are on side. As detailed in their submission, they have
recommended along those lines that gets back to the community-based model that
their members feel is worthy of support and that is where those discussions
need to focus.
Joseph
Zebrowski, member, Abiwin Co-operative also spoke
as Vice-President of the Co-operative Housing Association of Eastern Ontario
(CHASEO). He provided the following
comments in support of recommending changes to the SHRA:
- under the existing
regulations, members often feel they do not have control over the important
areas of the co-op, such as waiting lists and advertising of vacancies; these
practices are community-based, voluntary and self-managed and are core
strengths of co-ops that the “one size fits all” approach of the SHRA does not
support;
- many co-ops are
very concerned that there will not be adequate funds to meet the capital needs
of their buildings in the future; in the past, they were able to transfer
additional surplus to their capital reserves.
However, under the Act, 50% of any operating surplus must be shared with
the Service Manager, effectively preventing them from planning adequately for
the maintenance of their buildings;
- with regards to
rent-geared-to-income (RGI), when people move into a co-op it is because they
want to be involved in the operation of their building and in the past, they
were able to help tenants if their financial situation was affected. However, the too stringent rules of the Act
make it very difficult for a co-op to allocate a subsidy in this
circumstance. The result is a loss of
good tenants who have experience managing co-ops;
- the time required
to do the paperwork necessary takes away the time they would have spent doing
service for their members; the annual review of the RGI takes six months where
before it only took three months;
- the SHRA does not
support the efforts of the many dedicated volunteers and staff who are
committed to community-based housing; he asked the Committee to support their
request to the province to review the SHRA and its regulations that will result
in a more flexible, less prescriptive program, thereby allowing them to get
back to a community-based approach to the co-op.
A copy of his
written presentation, which provides additional details on his presentation is
held on file. Also received and held on
file is a the submission from the Co-operative Housing Association of Eastern
Ontario (CHASEO) dated 31 August 2006.
Nancy Ann
Patten, resident, Carpenter Co-op expressed concern
for co-op members who are on social assistance and ODSP (Ontario Disability
Support Program). She explained that
for many, their support payments are not enough to cover their monthly expenses
and unless they can really stretch those dollars, some end up in arrears
because they are unable to make their rental payment. This can be extremely stressful when they are already having to
struggle to make ends meet.
Debbie Barton
and Catherine Boucher, Ottawa Social Housing Network spoke on behalf of their network of social housing providers and
advocates representing over 20,000 social housing units. Ms. Barton stated that nearly all of the
social housing units in Ottawa are covered by the SHRA and private or municipal
non-profit providers own the great majority of those. They recognized that many of the issues about the SHRA have been
raised by the Service Managers through their housing network as well as by the
CHF Ontario and there is agreement on many of the points raised in these
documents, specifically:
§
The administrative burden is very
onerous, especially for small non-profit providers; they support a simplified
accountability framework, reducing the reporting requirements
§
The need for adequate and predictable
funding
§
The ability to move operational
surpluses to replacement reserve accounts
§
The
need for RGI administration to be streamlined
The following
comments were also highlighted:
- housing providers
are committed to a community based housing model and recognize the need for
affordable housing; however, the extremely prescriptive nature of the SHRA has
resulted in frustration for many of their volunteers as they see very little
ability for input in the operations of their housing;
- with respect to access
issues and RGI, there needs to be recognition that providers have a
responsibility to ensure their communities are providing safe and healthy
housing environments and that tenants are housed appropriately;
- the City has a
mandate to address housing needs, including those who are homeless, and/or have
mental health and/or addiction issues and local priorities must be more
effective when adequate supports (financial, professional and social) are in
place.
In response to
an earlier question posed by Councillor Bédard, Ms. Boucher indicated that
there was a consensus document on the SHRA changes produced in 2003 and put
forward by service managers, the CHF and the Ontario Non Profit Housing
Association. As a result, some
amendments to the regulations were made so there is a previous instance where
there was a consultation and a consensus.
She added that Document 4 had been provided to their provincial
association for comment before it was sent in and they supported almost all of
what is in there, with the exception of the claw back of the surplus. She believed there is more agreement than
disagreement to date between the sector organizations and the service managers. A copy of their written presentation is held
on file.
Chair Holmes
inquired about the status of the working committee made up of staff from the
Housing department and the Social Housing Network and Ms. Boucher indicated
that the Housing Stakeholders Advisory Group (HSAG) still exists and will be
meeting again shortly. The committee
has representation from providers, advocates and Housing branch staff, sector
organizations and housing advocacy groups.
As such, she agreed that because of its inclusive representation of the
various interest groups, this body would be the appropriate vehicle to work on
the summary of local stakeholders positions on changes to the SHRA. However, she clarified that it acts as an
advisory group to staff, and the Chair indicated therefore, that the committee
would have to ask for a report back before it goes to the province. She proposed a Motion to that effect and the
Director was optimistic that staff would be able to report back early in the
New Year, prior to submission to the province.
Moved by A.
Cullen
That the
Housing Branch and the housing providers work together to present a joint
presentation to the Provincial Government with a report back to the Health,
Recreation and Social Services Committee.
CARRIED
That the
Health, Recreation and Social Services Committee recommend that Council
petition the province to move forward with changes to the Social Housing
Reform Act (SHRA).
CARRIED,
as amended